I’m not trying to “seriously” miss the point. I just find it odd that the libertarians who supported him wouldn’t have been any happier in 2008 had Ron Paul been elected rather than Obama or McCain. (Ron Paul is, I realize, not an ideal example, given some of his political positions.)

Democrats immediately began supporting a massive government expansion as a result of Obama? Or Democrats had always supported a massive government in particular areas?

Democrats under Bush:
“The President is tapping our phones! This tyranny must stop!”

Democrats under Obama:
“If the President wants to kill US citizens without due process or judicial review, who are we to argue?”

Republicans began to fear a massive government? Or Republicans began to fear a massive government in certain areas?

Republicans under Bush:
“Yay, medicare prescription drug benefit!”

Republicans under Obama:
“No socialized medicine!”

It’s not really clear to me that if libertarians got in charge of the government, it would move in directions libertarians prefer. Just as actual Republican rulers pretty much do what actual Democrat rulers would have done, and vice versa, libertarian rulers would very likely just end up doing what was politically profitable for them to do. Of course, I’m sure lots of libertarians would lap up the propaganda and be happier with the government.

N.B. As a libertarian, I’m not particularly interested in “smaller” government; I’m more interested in “less powerful, less effective” government. So I wouldn’t be particularly happy with a libertarian or libertarian-ish government that got leaner, meaner, and more efficient and effective. And if making government bigger can make it more bloated and inefficient and thus less harmful, I’m all for it.

Democrats immediately began supporting a massive government expansion as a result of Obama? Or Democrats had always supported a massive government in particular areas? Republicans began to fear a massive government? Or Republicans began to fear a massive government in certain areas? You’re comparing false things. Republicans and Democrats have always supported powerful governments, just so long as they’re powerful in the areas they prefer. Libertarians support weak governments in the areas they prefer, so I imagine they’d be supportive of a candidate who went to office and worked toward/appeared to follow through.

Libertarian thought, meanwhile, isn’t any more independent than anything else; it just adheres to a different set of rules, depending upon the individual doing the thought. (Just as, obviously, there are different strains of conservatives and liberals.)

Why does switching teams so often involve turning off critical thought?

I’ve ofter said that the most insufferably self righteous people are ex-smokers, married whores and converted Catholics. I may have to change converted Catholics to converted political partisans.

#49 | Sam | October 28th, 2010 at 9:05 am

…

2. Are you really claiming that libertarians wouldn’t be happier with a government that was comprised more of the people they support?

I think libertarians would be happier with a government that was comprised of less people overall.

I’m honestly not sure any of those issues save ending the war would have cracked the Top 10 by the time of the election in 2008. Meanwhile, your claim only lends credibility to my own: if libertarians saw libertarians in charge and the scope of government diminishing, suddenly they’d be the ones happier with government. When the people you like are the people in charge, you get happier. That’s true regardless of ideology.

Your description fits the Hit n Run portion of the website, which is, I think, justifiably ridiculed as the “glibertarian” segment of the right. Several contributors are pretty predictable, and have been for years, as to which side they fall on, regardless who’s in power, with a small veneer of outsider impartiality. And where commenters are just as, if not more, obnoxious and unhinged as those found anywhere. A little more thought is put into the actual publication, however.

Maybe. But they spent the aughts paying Cathy Young to defend war in her backhanded way. “I’m not saying the war was right, but it wasn’t NOT right, ya get me?”

And that’s my problem with them in general. Authoritarian policies that Democrats like are always wrong, all the time. Authoritarian policies that Republicans like, well, let’s be evenhanded about this.

Using your Department of Education example:

1. Are you saying the people who oppose it wouldn’t be happier to see a government that de-emphasized its budget, authority, staffing, etc, even if the department itself still existed?

2. Are you really claiming that libertarians wouldn’t be happier with a government that was comprised more of the people they support?

The top issues for “team blue” supporters in 2008 (in no particular order) were

1. End the war
2. Close guantanamo
3. End rendition and torture
4. End the wiretapping
5. End the patriot act
6. End the expansion of the executive power

There’s lots of others, but this is a good start. Anyway, exactly none of this has happened. In fact, patriot act, wiretapping, expansion of the executive power have all accelerated under team blue. There’s nice articles over at reason.com about it where you can get a documented version instead of the “off the top of my head” commenter version.

The point being, if team blue supporters actually gave a rats ass about their principles they’d be up in arms. Instead they firmly support their team leaders. Why? Because it is their team, not because it is their ideology.

Team red and team blue are more about team identity than about ideology.

1.
a. Humboldt is a large, aggressive squid.
b. Blue is the color of painful, unrelieved balls
Humboldtblue is a sea monster who wants your body…. badly!

2.
a. Humboldt is a cold ocean current that corrals garbage into the middle of the Pacific.
b. Blue is green without the yellow.

Humboldtblue is a Greenpeace activist worried about the “sea of plastic”, who was invited join the crew of the “garbage explorer”. He was afraid of the open water, so they called him yellow. His witty rejoinder was to christen himself “blue”.

OK, that was a little weak…. how about just a movie quote then?

Your name wouldn’t be “Dick”, would it?

I really doubt people who are sincerely advocating for the disbanding of something like the Department of Education would change their mind and support the continued existence of that Department of Education if they were in charge of it.

This isn’t a problem that infects two particular political ideologies; it’s a problem that infects human beings, who generally believe that when they’re getting the things they want, things must be pretty okay.

Probable cause/reasonable suspicion aroused by:

1. Name:
a. Humboldt – CA’s marijuana growing capital county.
b. Blue – no need to explain.

2. Hypersensitivity to criticism of “authority” in the WOD.

3. Refers to marijuana as “dope” – who else but cops call pot or drugs “dope.”

Hope this person isn’t working UNDERCOVER!

Funny, I thought libertarians were liberals who don’t like to pay taxes.

Your denouncements of libertarianism would have some substance if you were a genuine leftist, but no, you’re obviously just another Obama-worshiping fauxgressive who doesn’t seem to mind that the current administration still authorizes extrajudicial killings. Nearly every single one of you twits who blame libertarianism for all that’s wrong with this country (despite libertarians being lucky if they get elected to the local water board) fit that description.