Amazon

Millenial Libertarians Are Completely Insufferable

One of my musical heroes, John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten), lead singer of the Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd., has said on numerous occasions, when pressed about his political views, that he doesn't lean right, left or center; he's above all of it, not willing to dedicate himself to one political party or viewpoint.  He voted for Obama twice.  It's a big monkey off your back when you grow up and realize that some of your favorite musicians are full of shit.  But, aside from making the general point that you shouldn't ascribe to your artistic heroes' political views, the bigger and more important point I want to make is that you should be EXTREMELY cautious of any person who claims that he or she doesn't go by the "left/right paradigm."

There is no politics outside of the "left/right paradigm" and, if you think there is, you're fooling yourself.  The whole struggle for a better world is contingent upon how much freedom you're willing to sacrifice for how much safety.  You can believe in 100% freedom and zero safety, resulting in a Mad Max, Social Darwinist world.  You can believe in zero freedom and 100% safety, resulting in an Orwellian style world where you live for the the state.  That's it; you can use all of the mental gymnastics you want to try to get out of the "left/right paradigm", but you'll only be talking in circles and coming back right to where you began.

Take, for instance, the least controversial topic I can think of; driving safety.  Unless you're a sociopath, you probably believe that driving rules exist because how you drive effects everyone else.  Therefore, most agree that strict, draconian measures should be taken against drunk drivers and that certain infractions should be policed and penalized.  Therefore, if driving safety was a parallel for society, you would say that views towards driving safety are very left wing and heavily policed.

Unfortunately, millennial Libertarians don't think in those terms.  Like John Lydon, they see themselves as rebels and mavericks, combining a mish-mash of views into a weird stew that indicates a complete lack of political understanding or reading of the facts.

This is the world as I see it; the lunatics currently run the asylum.  We're heading out of control into an abyss that threatens to irreversibly turn the country leftward to the point where, in a few short years, the United States will begin to resemble Europe.  Taxes will be incredibly high, affirmative action will make sure unqualified people get into higher echelons of business, speech codes will be enforced, the country will be balkanized into little nation states of non-English speaking foreigners with curiously different cultures that highly contradict our own and the government will regulate EVERYTHING.

However, we are also at a point where we can SAVE the U.S. from such a fate.  In fact, we're one or two terrorist acts away from convincing the public that their only safe bet is to elect a Republican, someone who actually CARES about national security, will close off the border from illegal immigrants while shipping many of them back and will not under any circumstances allow 10,000 Syrian "refugees" into the country because they know that they cannot be vetted properly.  Not to mention will multiply and create dangerous all Muslim no-go zones like they have in Europe.

There's only one problem; Gary Johnson.

I'm already furious with pussy-ass cuckservative wannabes like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for not dropping out of the Presidential race.  I think a Trump/Cruz ticket would be the best thing for the country right now and this asshole Gary Johnson decides to run as a third party candidate.  That wouldn't matter to me anyway because I don't think the angry, white, middle aged demographic, the demographic the Republicans should have been aiming for in the first place, really gives a hoot who this Gary Johnson fellow is, but I do have a problem with how he callously ignores the big picture.

For instance, the highly overrated Libertarian personality Julie Borrowski said in one of her Facebook updates that she didn't vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 because he didn't "earn it."  How didn't he "earn it"?  Isn't not being Barack Obama enough to "earn it"?  How will a GOP candidate "earn it" this time?  I was so beside myself with annoyance that I tweeted something like "How do we get horny Libertarians to not listen to @JulieBorrowski when she tells them to not vote GOP because they didn't "earn" it."  Borrowski didn't challenge that her horny, blind followers will do what she says; instead she asked, "When will the GOP listen?"

That's why Libertarians annoy the living crap out of me.  Listen to what, exactly, Julie?  Borrowski has some sound views; she's against radical feminists (what sane person isn't these days?), pro gun rights, for low taxes and against corporatism, but some of her comments leave one to pause.  She said one time that some of the things Republicans say about immigrants are disgusting (like what? they should be legal?), another time she complained about conservative women using their sex appeal to sell their views - if you're an attractive woman, your sex appeal will always sell your views - and another time talks about Syrian "refugees" as if it's a problem only with the so called "extremists", rather than seeing the entire thing as a problem unto itself.

And her viewers... my god... some of them ARE feminists, some believe in open borders, some complain that the GOP is too concerned with social issues as if anyone in the GOP has ANY power to make gay marriage illegal or reverse Roe vs. Wade, some feel "institutional racism" is a big problem and that cops unfairly harass black people, some feel that the most pressing issuetoday is abortion "rights" or legalizing marijuana (as if only the dumbest people don't get caught doing it), some feel we should legalize ALL drugs, some are hardcore Chomsky supporters who feel that government should be out of everything EXCEPT healthcare and environmental issues.  Even Borrowski posted this article about how blacks are using guns to fight back against "police brutality", as if they didn't already do that on the streets of Chicago or Detroit (albeit with less than legal firearms).

DO THESE SOUND LIKE LIBERTARIANS?!

My view of these people is this; they're essentially weirdos, freaks, geeks, subculture folk that aren't content with rebelling against the mainstream crapola of shitty pop music and romantic comedies and also feel the juvenile need to find a political identity outside of the mainstream.  They don't want to be labeled as left wing or politically correct, they claim they "hate" the government, so they call themselves "Libertarians."  These clowns claim they love Ron Paul, but hate Pat Buchanan.  They like Paul because he's against corporatism, but then support Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders because they TOO are against corporatism in spite being socialists.  They support open borders because they feel everyone should be able to experience low taxes and the American dream.  In fact, they feel borders are a form of government oppression.

And arguing with them is impossible.

That is why, henceforth, if someone asks what my label is politically, I'll call myself conservative - no caveats like "but I'm socially liberal", no "but I have gay and female friends", no "but I support drug and marijuana rights and hate the war on drugs", none of that pandering, cuckservative nonsense.  It's a given that I treat everyone with respect and as an individual and I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law.  If that doesn't equate to Libertarian views, then a conservative I shall be.