Rolling Stone Loves Obama!It’s a new year, but one thing hasn’t changed: Rolling Stone still blows. In fact, they’ve always blown. From the day those commie bastards trashed Zeppelin’s first album in a spectacularly ill-conceived and shortsighted take down of a band that was so far beyond Rolling Stone‘s hippie-“man” scope of musical comprehension that only their trying-to-hard, hipper-than-thou-basis-of-all-Pitchfork-reviews-ever-written, review of Led Zeppelin II could make it seem reasonable.

Forty-five years later and little has changed. Their head political writer, Matt Taibbi is an asshole and former comrade of two of the worst “journalists” (if not people) on earth, Mark Ames and Yasha Levine. These three delightful human beings were part of the Russia’s number one expat newsletter, Exiled. Yet even while living in the shadow of a psycho like Putin, minutes from the gloried relics of the worst authoritarian regime in human history, somehow they came back even more convinced of the glories of big governments.

Taibbi has the annoying tendency of correctly identifying the problems plaguing America — corruption, corporate cronyism, the drug war — then blaming it all on lack of government oversight, instead of too much government power.

But at least Taibbi is a well-known author with years of journalistic grunt-work under his belt. He’s written for well-known publications like Men’s Journal, The Nation, New York Press and Playboy. He has enough journalistic bona fides that he has his own link on the Rolling Stone.com banner. His ideas may be rooted in far left territory, he’s done some pavement pounding at least.

Then there’s Jesse A. Myerson, a 2008 graduate of Bard College, (same as Taibbi) where he majored in Theatre and Human Rights. He’s a self described #fullcommunist and the author of “Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For”.

(And according to his LinkedIn page has quite the talent for theater, community outreach, performing arts, improvisation and stage.)

Jesse-Myerson-Linkedin

The article is the usual lefty garbage, written in the trying-desperately-to-be-hip, dumbed down, “hey buddy, doesn’t BLANK suck, you know what doesn’t suck? #fullcommunism” popularized by millenials trying to appeal to other millenials.

It’s a new year, but one thing hasn’t changed: The economy still blows. Five years after Wall Street crashed, America’s banker-gamblers have only gotten richer, while huge swaths of the country are still drowning in personal debt, tens of millions of Americans remain unemployed – and the new jobs being created are largely low-wage, sub-contracted, part-time grunt work.

Millennials have been especially hard-hit by the downturn, which is probably why so many people in this generation (like myself) regard capitalism with a level of suspicion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. But that egalitarian impulse isn’t often accompanied by concrete proposals about how to get out of this catastrophe. Here are a few things we might want to start fighting for, pronto, if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us.

It’s the usual. Blame Wall Street, ask for more government, and more free money. It’s a terribly written article, written by an idiot (and theater major). So why are we so worked up about it? Currently sitting at 39 thousand Facebook likes, 2,567 tweets, 287 Google+’s and 7354 comments, this story has consumed the internet so far as to have write-ups and put-downs in prestigious media havens like CNBC,The LA Times, Slate, Washington Post, Business Insider, and Forbes to name a few.

Unfortunately every time the story is mentioned, it only further inflates the numbers and prestige of an article more suited to a .blogspot than a website that gets 60,000,000 monthly page views.

Like Salon and Slate before them, Rolling Stone trots out some nobody with the sole intention of stirring up a bee’s nest of conservative and libertarian mockery, and it works like a charm.

Tremble in fear capitalist dogs! Jesse A. Myerson’s is going to blow you away with his observational communism. Behold his takes on:

  • Unemployment! – “Unemployment blows.”…
  • Jobs! – “Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs.” …
  • Landlords! – “Ever noticed how much landlords blow?” …
  • Hoarders! – “Hoarders blow.” …
  • Wall Street! – “You know what else really blows? Wall Street.

And what’s the deal with Republicans? Amiright?!

Congratulations Myerson, you’re the cliched parody of Jerry Seinfeld of communist thought.

Which is why no one in America should care about this article. It’s poorly written and on a subject this man is clearly not qualified to write about, in a magazine that hasn’t produced a relevant thought since the ’60s. It’s okay to ignore these obvious troll attempts, in fact it should be encouraged. Every time the conservative/libertarian outrage machine gets fired up it’s only going to lead to more of the same, namely, lots and lots of page views which begets more advertising revenue which begets more bad writing which begets making celebrity’s out of idiots like Jesse A. Myerson.

(And before you call me out on my own inability to not write about this article, please note that I wouldn’t have written about it if people more powerful than I hadn’t first. Also, we need all the linkbait we can get. Also, I have no convictions.)

potI could have written a serious response to Miller, but she didn’t deserve one. All that needs to be said is, if you write a column like Miller did, you either know nothing about the criminal justice system — literally nothing — or you just don’t give a shit how many people suffer as long as your desires for society are prioritized,  I am not sure which is worse. All I know is, Miller should never be taken seriously as an advocate for small government ever again.

Obama.

Obama’s America.

Can you believe what’s happening in Obama’s America? He thinks Americans aren’t adults, can’t even pick their own light bulbs in fact. And DC is no better, it’s dangerous and it takes months and months for a good, upstanding citizen to get a legal firearm to protect herself against crime.

Obama and the rest of the Democrats think you and I are children. It’s disgusting.

It’s almost as disgusting as the fact that recreational marijuana for adults 21 and over went on sale last week in Colorado. Adults will be able to consume pot. Marijuana. Mary Jane. “Weed.”

Marijuana is a child, not a choice. Wait, no. Marijuana is something adults can now use to “to get stoned for kicks” in Colorado. And Washington state soon. My God.

And 21 other states allow “supposedly ‘medical'” pot, with DC to follow. DC that is already so crime-ridden will now let sick people make a healthcare choice for themselves. A wicked, wicked healthcare choice.

Pot, you see, is like heroin or cocaine. Not like alcohol. Which is why less than zero people have ever overdosed on weed. I know that 25,000 people die from alcohol overdoses in a given year, but that’s different. The difference is that I like alcohol. And guns. And light bulbs. And that’s what’s important. Things I like.

What isn’t important is that 750,000 people are arrested in a given year for marijuana — 87 percent for simple possession. Nor is it important that black people are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. I’m totally against a dependent society, but prison doesn’t count. I mean, prison beats welfare! Prison is a great motivational tool. And I am worried about violent crime and people’s ability to protect themselves, but not enough to suggest that police stop going after nonviolent drug users. That would be raising the white flag and embracing the far left and Hollywood (and 38 percent of the US) and their propaganda that to use marijuana is not to doom society. Marijuana ruins lives. It’s that simple.

And fiscal conservatism is nice, but not when we’re talking about fighting a plant.

Sure, life in prison for selling marijuana is a lot (especially for a white guy) but that’s the price I am willing to pay for a free society. I am also willing to sacrifice the Fourth Amendment, because that’s for terrorists.

The point is, it doesn’t matter if prohibition works, the important thing is not to learn anything or try anything new from decades of bad policy. Just keep on arresting people so they stop consuming and selling a substance. Giving up is for liberals and dependent societies!

Obamaaaaaaa!

  • 6-8-07-segway-policeI love(d) my grandparents. I might love them slightly more if they turned out to have broken into an FBI office and stolen documents about COINTELPRO. Damn.
  • Thaddeus Russell on “The Paternalists’ Bible”
  • Two more victims of the Satanic sexual abuse hysteria are free from prison. Only took 20 years!
  • Radley Balko has made his move to The Washington Post, thereby raising the credibility of their editorial pages/blog, uh, pages by an astronomical degree. He writes in his introduction this libertarian poetry: “People move to Washington because they see themselves becoming president someday. People move to Nashville because they see themselves opening for Willie Nelson someday. I find the latter to be a much nobler ambition.” Amen, Balko. Amen.
  • Pennsylvania considering the use of civil asset forfeiture in human trafficking cases. Look at this heartening phrase: “Under the proposal, if a suspect is accused of trafficking in people, any property used in that crime could  be seized by law enforcement.” Accused! I am sure no voluntary prostitution will get lazily lumped in with trafficking. And why wait until someone has been convicted of a crime before you take their property, civil asset forfeiture needs only that you be “accused.”
  • Cathy Reisenwitz and Jeffrey Tucker on the surprising feminism of Ludwig von Mises! (I was surprised, hence the punctuation.)
  • Aeon magazine on “creepypasta” and its status as the urban legends/folktales for an internet age. 
  • Dom Flemons from the Carolina Chocolate Drops wrote a fascinating essay in The Oxford American. It covers Gus Cannon (of the excellent old timey Cannon’s Jug Stompers), Booker T. Washington, and the general complexity behind some of the more now-cringeworthy minstrel-ish songs from back in the day.
  • I adore io9 most of the time, but they still put out this lazy, lazy post on Bitcoins. 
  • Buzzfeed — an outlet I defend on occasion, if only for its reporting and longreads — is shockingly inane on The Simpsons here. The writer watched some of the most classic episodes of one of the best shows of all time and wrote a post that suggested she had never seen a cartoon before. I realize being annoyed by a Buzzfeed entertainment post is also inane, but damn. What is this?
  • Bettie Page, once known by men who needed a little staggish excitement is now mostly loved and copied by ladies. Rockabilly cliche or not, I also love Page’s attitude. Nobody else could look quite so happy to be naked as she. (Though all of us ladies who sometimes suffer a misguided urge to cut their hair into bangs should blame her for that a little. )

Today’s video is Willie Watson, formerly of Old Crow Medicine Show.

He’s working on a solo album produced by Dave Rawlings. I am very excited about this.

policeOn December 19, eight members of Texas’s Burleson County Sheriff’s Department banged open the door of the double-wide trailer rented by 28-year-old Henry Magee and his girlfriend. It was between five and six AM and the deputies, who were there to search for marijuana and stolen weapons, set off at least two flashbang grenades in an attempt to surprise and disorient Magee, their suspect. The leader of the team, Sergeant Adam Sowders, a seven-year veteran of the department, had requested the warrant be “no-knock,” meaning the police could enter the residence without announcing themselves. But it was possibly do to the confusion caused by the sudden entrance of the cops that led to Magee opening fire with a semi-automatic weapon and hitting Sowders. The cop later died, and Magee has been charged with capital murder, which can bring the death penalty in Texas.

The majority of SWAT-style raids on homes in the US—there are more than 100 a day—are over narcotics. It’s unclear how many are no-knock, but the line between and no-knock and announce warrants can be blurry, especially for sleeping residents who may not hear shouts of “police!”According to Dick DeGuerin, the high-profile defense lawyer representing Magee, no-knock warrants are uncommon in Texas because they are dangerous for officers who serve them.

DeGuerin told me that Magee’s girlfriend, who was five months pregnant and “hysterical, screaming, and crying” after the shooting, was forced to lie on her stomach until a female deputy let her turn over. DeGuerin is certain that Magee, whose parents asked him to take their son’s case, “had no idea” who was outside of his door that morning, and Magee thought he was being robbed. According to DeGuerin, Magee yelled “Who is it?” but go no response, then as “the door burst open,” he fired. After the shooting, Magee came out and quickly surrendered.

On Friday, DeGuerin said he hadn’t yet spoken to county District Attorney Julie Renken who filed the charges against his client. (My calls to the Burleson County Sheriff’s Department, the DA, and the county courthouse went unreturned.) He didn’t want to speak to the prospect of Magee’s chances of pleading out or having the charges dropped, but he said that the raid was initiated by a former coworker of Magee’s who had gotten himself into “some deep trouble” with the law and was trying to lessen it by informing.

The rest here.

In what’s left of Newsweek my good pal David Cay Johnston does a fine job of pointing out what Cato and all libertarians and free-market gurus like Milton Friedman have been pointing out for half a century — we don’t have a free market in health care (The Myth of Health Care’s Free Market).

It’s rigged in many many ways. Let’s do some more ‘splaining about why it’s rigged — and why eye care and dentistry don’t have the same crazy price differences and have seen real prices go down over the last 30 years, not up.

Only governments can kill free markets. The current mess we have is largely a result of government intervention, subsidies, excessive regulations, things like the prohibition of midwifery and transplant markets and protections granted to cartels like the doctors, who, unlike the average widget maker or investment counselor, can keep their numbers down and prices up because they are given the power and cover to do so by state licensing boards.

Price competition exists in health care — across national boarders, which is why medical tourism flourishes in India (or in the USA, when Canadians come to get their new knees and hips at the Cleveland Clinic instead of having to wait 14 months for the “free” Canadian system to get around to providing them).

Price competition doesn’t exist within the USA borders because there is no price information shared with consumers (it’s essentially “illegal”), as David pointed out, and because doctors and hospitals collude and pass along the costs (often arbitrary and bloated).

You don’t need to know how to make a car to pick a good one to own; you don’t need to know how to take out your appendix to hire a doctor who can.

But you wouldn’t go into a BMW dealer, order a car without looking at the price tag and tell them to send the bill to your employer or favorite government health care bureaucracy.

Free markets work wonderfully for everything from cars to shoes. Consumers of each have virtually infinite choices in price and quality of both goods.

There is nothing preventing the health care sector from achieving the same efficiencies except the heavy hands and feet of government and the politicians who pretend everyone can get free health care for nothing.

Arguably part of that mighty stream of anti-libertarian pieces coming out of Salon, Alternet, and other left-leaning publications these last few months, Tyler Lopez’s “Libertarian  and gay rights: the party failed to take a stand” article (published at Slate) is a bullshit generalization that leads, inadvertently, to larger questions of the definition of rights and oppression. But it falls wildly short of an honest critique of libertarianism.

Reason’s Brian Doherty has already addressed the piece’s simplicity, noting that the official Libertarian Party was anachronistically gay-friendly at its inception, including their nomination of the gay John Hospers as their first presidential candidate.

In the barely-post-Stonewall era, with homosexuality newly not an official mental illness, the Libertarian Party platform started out advocating for a repeal of all laws that restricted consensual, adult sexual activities. A few years later, as I noted in an October PolicyMic piece, and Doherty also notes, Ralph Reico wrote a long essay that said “the Libertarian Party was born believing in gay rights.” He later noted that the stance for libertarians candidates in 1976 was as follows on gay marriage:

  • Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual marriages.

Not too shady for the ’70s, no? Apparently no.

With that bold beginning, why then, according to Lopez, has the Libertarian Party “failed” on what is arguably the biggest civil rights fight of modern times?  His piece trolls all good libertarians by using a photo of 2008 Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, but it doesn’t actually mention him. Which is strange, because the ill-advised selection of would-be President Barr, the author of, if eventual disavow-er of, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), would be a way for Lopez to score points (or, to put it more nicely, to cement his thesis). Lopez, though, begins with the very tenuous critique that the official LP website doesn’t have a whole tab devoted to Gay and Lesbian issues. Never mind that acceptance of gay people is a tenet of the platform, now and forever, the party dropped the ball by not giving the gays a tab.

Lopez goes on to scorn the lack of press releases the party has put out about LGBT, then sarcastically scorns them for trying to portray Democrats as being bad for gays. Well, they’re trying to get voters, just like any party. And is it illegitimate for the LP circa-2010 to have been pragmatically going after Obama for not repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or  DOMA? What’s so sinful about them trying to win gay supporters? Isn’t that a good thing?

Having admitted that yes, maybe, a little bit,  the early 70s LP was more pro-gay than was in fashion at the time, Lopez is as plodding as possible in his praise:

Libertarians like to tout the fact that the party supported marriage equality in 1971, when it was founded. Sort of.  In fact, two years after Stonewall, the party’s platform called for the abolishment of “victimless crimes,” which lumped homosexuality with prostitution, polygamy, recreational drugs, abortion, and gambling. While certainly not a ringing endorsement of the LGBTQ community, the mere acknowledgement of gay people’s existence was an important step forward for an American political party. It’s also true that in the 1990s, the Libertarian Party (having no elected representatives) did join a small handful of Democrats in opposing DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, despite overwhelming public support for both measures. This might seem like a case of talk being cheap, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Plenty of Libertarian candidates take strong positions on gay rights.

Note the subtle implication that to include gay issues with “vices” was to equate them with immorality in the libertarian world. Never mind that many libertarians do not see any of those other “moral failings” as objectively wrong either (some do, but would never presume to do anything but bother you about it). And never mind that 42 percent of people thought gay sex should be illegal in 1977 (dipping much lower into the conservative 1980s). Definitely never mind that gays have been a part of the libertarian movement since forever and particularly at the dawn of the official party.

Nope, Lopez cannot damn with enough faint praise, because, you see, the LP “never left the 1990s.” They care only for the the right to be free from state oppression, not the right to be free from individual discrimination. Lopez also notes that libertarians — some libertarians — would prefer that marriage become a private contract, thereby removing the should government endorse this question all together. This is true for some small government folks, but not all. But even conservatives including Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck have come around on the minarchist compromise that, namely, if someone is receiving the government perks of marriage, there is no legitimate reason to bar homosexuals from that privilege.

Lopez goes on, into questions of employment discrimination, and he ends on a dishonest note:

Rather than boldly argue for equal rights for everyone, Libertarians have merely argued for the dismantling of everyone’s rights—the right to legal marriage, the right against workplace discrimination, and so on. That’s not liberty; it’s giving the green light to entrenched systemic discrimination. Libertarians could have led on this issue. Instead, they’ve fallen unforgivably far behind.

Again, Lopez could have written, “for a party with a long, impressive history of being accepting towards gays, the choice of Bob Barr in 2008, was regressive and bizarrely socially conservative.” He could have admitted that there was nothing wrong with needling Barack Obama’s spending 16 years pretending to be unsure about gay marriage for political reasons. And Lopez certainly could have used a column inch or two to give props to Gov. Gary Johnson, the 2012 LP presidential candidate who came out for gay marriage while still trying to run as a Republican. But Lopez does none of this.

It’s fine that he believes in a world of positive liberties, where employers cannot discriminate, and where rights are more than just equal protection under the law. But the difference between positive liberties (the right to, say, healthcare, education, anything that requires the labor, time, or money of someone else) and negatives ones (freedom from government restriction on speech, trade, etc.) should be clear even to someone who believes in positive rights, as modern liberals do. You may agree that we, as a society, should all get together and pool our money and give everyone medical care, but you must admit that that mandates a great deal more planning than the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law…”

To muddy these warring definitions of rights like is dishonest, because it masks the general definition of a libertarian. Lopez might as well have written “libertarians could have lead the way on gay rights if they became liberals.” He may be disappointed that libertarianism isn’t something else than what it is, but there’s no reason to not give the Party props for solving the first part of his equation — that gays should have the same rights and freedoms as heterosexuals — long before the majority of the political world did. Libertarians didn’t “fall behind” on gay rights, they went down a different path.

Though it sadly didn’t end in Nashville, 2013 at least began there. And other non-chronological highlights of that somewhat rocky year were as follows:

by Jayel Aheram

by Jayel Aheram

  • Visited LA, my glorious city of birth. There I met, then ran amok with, Jayel Aheram. This culminated in the most bad-ass photo of me ever taken, seen at right.
  • Took an Amtrak journey (one way with my Ma, one way by myself) and loved it because A) Trains are a lot of fun, dang it. If only they were economically sensible. And B) Because every kind of cross-country travel feels luxurious when you have taken a Greyhound from Pennsylvania to Montana to California, then back again.
  • Visited a (lefty) Anarchist Book-Fair with anarcho-capitalist Anthony Gregory in San Francisco. Should have written about the contrasts and clashes that resulted.
  • Went to New York City, met Pamela Stubbart who recently wrote this piece for the Daily Caller. She’s pretty neat, that Pam.
  • I also met Andrew Kirell, who is good people and writes good, snarky things for Mediaite. He’s good people, that Andrew, even though I still can’t remember how many ls and rs his name contains without checking.
  • Wrote for VICE, eventually became columnist for VICE
  • Became contributing editor for Antiwar.com, blogged there frustratingly infrequently became I am the worst.
  • Spent summer as D.J. Stagger Lee (it works on so many levels — for once!) with my Old Time (More Or Less) radio show. Loved it. Loved it. Hire me for your radio show.
  • Had Antiwar.com blog post quoted by John Stossel twice, which in context suggested he might just agree with me on the NSA. At least a little.

Stossel argued with me a little.

  • Saw Ralph Stanley and reacted like a 12-year-old meeting Harry Styles, or whomever is now most important in the lives of 12-year-olds.
  • Saw Old Crow Medicine Show be on the radio in Nashville. Ate Prince’s Hot Chicken and shrimp po-boys and again mused on living in that city. Was told, “you look familar” by Critter Fuqua, and responded with far too many exclamation points.

Steve and Critter Fuqua from Old Crow Medicine Show talking history nerd stuff

  • Saw other excellent bands and artists including La Plebe, Pokey LaFarge, Jason Isbell, and the best thing to ever come out of Johnstown, PA, as well as the makers of one of my favorite albums of all time, Endless Mike the and the Beagle Club.
  • Brother began blogging for the Stag Blog, culminating in his under-appreciated classic pretend parable, which can be read here.
  • Did not go to a baseball game for the second year in a row in which I intended to do so. (Yes, 2012 had “go on TV” and “go to a baseball game” on the to-do list, and the former happened, but the latter did not!) However, I did watch at least two entire baseball games on television. New record! Plus I watched Catching Hell, so I have a lot of feelings and opinions about Steve Bartman and that one catcher dude for I think the Red Sox? I forget.
  • Had to reject several invitations to go on an RT show, which was not a good thing, but it still made me feel slightly important.
  • Visited questionable North Carolina military surplus store and fired questionable guns with former Reason intern not named here. (Damn gov’mint.)
  • Read some killer books by Jesse Walker and Radley Balko, then wrote some things about that. I briefly browsed a record store in Pittsburgh with Jesse Walker as well, so that makes me feel pretty cool.
  • Decided to elect J. D. Tuccille king of anarchy.
  • Thought a lot about nuclear war.
  • Saw a very big duck.
  • 10351880233_2e9b255dd0_oI mean, that’s a great duck.

 

roadzThe headline: “Why I fled libertarianism — and became a liberal”.

The subhead: “I was a Ron Paul delegate back in 2008 — now I’m a Democrat. Here’s my personal tale of disgust and self-discovery”.

Edwin Lyngar was a Ron Paul delegate in 2008. Once he got to the GOP convention,  he was baffled by the number of Birthers, Truthers, MoonTruthers and Chemtrailers who apparently made up his fellow Paulbots. (Lyngar also casually equates interest in gold, the Fed, and the JFK assassination with such conspiracy theories. He is not alone in this attitude — the highly-touted conspiracy theory  poll from last spring was similarly sloppy. An enthusiasm for monetary policy is dry, so why not spice it up by implying that to believe in the gold standard is to be sure that the president is from Kenya?)

Lyngar had no libertarian moment of aha!, thanks to a Hayek book, or a Ron Paul speech. He doesn’t really explain why he cared enough to be a delegate for Paul in 2008. He was just vaguely born libertarian, in that he comes from a small town in Nevada where, he writes, “we burned our own garbage and fired guns in the back yard.” He even admits that libertarians are pro-pot, mostly pro-gay, and mostly anti-war, so they have their bright spots still. But also, when he left his small town, his eyes were opened:

I learned that libertarians are made for lots of reasons, like reading the bad fiction of Ayn Rand or perhaps the passable writing of Robert Heinlein. In my experience, most seemed to be poor, white and undereducated. They were contortionists, justifying the excesses of the capitalist elite, despite being victims if libertarian politics succeed.

If you think that selfishness and cruelty are fantastic personal traits, you might be a libertarian. In the movement no one will ever call you an asshole, but rather, say you believe in radical individualism.

Heinlein is only “passable”? Buddy, you read the wrong Heinlein. And if you’re in the libertarian movement, someone will call you an asshole at some point. Or they will call you a statist. Though there are generally agreed upon tenets in libertarianism, there is also tedious in-fighting and minute-to-vital points of disagreement on issues, interpretations, and conclusions. We are not your cheap Dagney Taggart or Randy Weaver jokes, as much as you try to cram us into that convenient mold. We are diverse, and by God, we will shoot ourselves in the foot whenever possible. (Lyngar does acknowledge this incompetence later in the piece, so at least he’s not one of those “dear God, the libertarians have taken over!” folks.)

Lyngar is mostly done with specifics after his live from the GOP Convention ’08 beginning. He changed slowly after his realization that libertarianism indeed attracts weirdos. Soon he was crying for unspecified, but positive reasons when Obama was elected president. And then the financial crisis:

Libertarians were (rightly) furious when our government bailed out the banks, but they fought hardest against help for ordinary Americans. They hated unemployment insurance and reduced school lunches. I used to say similar things, but in such a catastrophic recession isn’t the government supposed to help? Isn’t that the lesson of the Great Depression?

I’m going to give our friend the benefit of the doubt and say, sure, okay, you met three libertarians who were most passionately opposed to school lunches. That was their number one issue, closely followed by the horrors of unemployment insurance. But there are a lot of libertarians who would prefer to tackle the bigger issues first: war, prisons, police, the drug war, financial ruin for the country, occupational licensing, zoning laws, lack of school choice, the death penalty, transportation, whatever you like. And you would know that if you spoke to more than three libertarians — that no, most of them wouldn’t start with cutting the lunches for shoeless Appalachian children program. They’d probably start with trimming the military, the Department of Homeland Security, or that sentimental favorite, the Drug Enforcement Administration.

(And no, that is not the lesson of the Great Depression. That is not even close to being the lesson of the Great Depression. Suggesting that means you paid no attention to economics even while you were a libertarian, dude.)

Lyngar goes on to marry a Canadian liberal, then be disgusted by the racist Birthers in the Tea Party movement. He lurches towards nuance by implying that libertarians who work with the Tea Party are not necessarily the same thing as those religious freaks, etc. But then he notes that at last he has learned to “care about children — even poor ones.” Thereby separating himself from monstrous libertarians, he writes:

I love the National Park system. The best parts of the America I love are our communities. My libertarian friends might call me a fucking commie (they have) or a pussy, but extreme selfishness is just so isolating and cruel. Libertarianism is unnatural, and the size of the federal government is almost irrelevant. The real question is: what does society need and how do we pay for it?

To paraphrase the best French guy ever, Frederic Bastiat, man, liberals really seem to think that if you’re not for government funded, or government-run institutions, you must be against them entirely. Parks are awesome. Some parks also have a long history of hilariously-arrogant mismanagement by government. And it’s cool that you love communities. That means literally nothing in general, and nothing specific to libertarianism. Most of us do not wish to live alone, Unibomber-style. But we’re very keen on anyone’s right to do the best they can at achieving that sort of lifestyle.

The best part of the piece — the part that elevates it to an artful act of trolling — might be the very end. Old Ed says of libertarians: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” That quote, and its accompanying viewpoint, is common in libertarianism. It sounds arrogant, but it’s the evangelizing of a fringe belief that is forever trying to gain converts. How else do you change minds except by convincing someone they are mistaken? And it is no different than liberals who shake their heads at all those folks who “vote against their own interests” — meaning, not for Democrats. To them, libertarians, if they’re not cold, rich, Randian cutouts, they are stupidly opposed to the communitarian pleasures of the left that could benefit them so much.

We’re all snobs when we’re in our own Google Groups, bars, or political rallies. There’s nothing wrong with reveling in “yes, totally! That!” for an evening. But the folks at Salon have the ideological privilege of not ever needing to convert libertarians to their viewpoints. Liberals often treat every conservative victory (one which with libertarians may or may not agree) as an assurance that the barbarians are at the gates. Mentions cuts, and there is nothing between that and Somalia. Liberals refuse to believe that their view of the proper role of government has been a dominant one for decades. They suffer from being The Man denial.

So then, what is the the point of this piece? Optimistically, we could say it could help prove to Salon readers that all libertarians aren’t monsters. Why, there’s always the hope that they will change their evil ways! But it’s more banal than that. This intensely shallow piece is solely an exercise in back-patting. It’s one man’s courageous story of being saved from the darkness of everything Not Liberal, without even the drama of a road to Damascus moment. It’s just that the election of Obama, and the worst of the Tea Party eventually took him on a self-satisfied journey away from conspiratorial meanies to the safe ” bosom of conventional liberalism.” He finally “developed [his] own values.” But a vague sense that libertarianism by nature is cold, cruel, and crazy is not an analysis of an ideology.

Some libertarians choose to interpret the recent cascade of anti-libertarian pieces on Alternet, Salon, and NSFWCorp the last few months as proof that the philosophy is getting somewhere — it can no longer be ignored by the mainstream. But Lyndar’s piece confirms lazy liberal dominance, because why try? Why fight libertarian beliefs, when you can simply revel in having beaten their imaged end-game, as Alternet did recently, — Libertopia apparently outlaws feeding or clothing the homeless! — or simply rejoice in having banished its evil from your own mind, as Lyndar does here.