Republicans Love Libertarians

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS


Sources: www.globalsecurity.org
and CIA World Fact Book

I get my daily
dose of unhappiness and uneasiness by listening to various neo-conservative
talk shows. A local talk radio station in Tallahassee broadcasts
neocon propaganda from dawn to dusk. The two hosts that I listen
with a certain degree of regularity are Laura Ingraham and Neal
Boortz (the self-proclaimed high-priest of the Church of Truth that
hurts).

A few days
ago, Laura Ingraham had a guest whose name I do not remember really
well. The only reason I am still thinking of that segment is because
last week Mr. Rockwell wrote about the awful
Republicans
. Ingraham's guest who claimed to be a conservative
tried to convince Laura that Libertarians are actually Republicans'
best friends. He went on to say that Libertarians' pro-free-market
policies are good for the economy because it is a time-tested wealth
creation formula. Laura was not fully convinced by the gentleman's
argument. So, she countered by saying that Libertarians are weak
on national defense. I am no fortune-teller, but I knew what her
guest would say next. Ingraham's guest confirmed my long-held belief
by saying: "Libertarians' free-market policies create all this
wealth which helps us fight all these wars."

I was not shocked
or surprised. I have known it all along that "trigger-happy"
governments all over the world realize the fact that in order to
have all those guns they need all that green. If you look at the
chart given at the beginning of the article you will realize that
various countries' defense spending patterns roughly mimic their
GDP patterns. If it is to be believed that national defense spending
always reflects the national defense needs, then the chart shown
above would make us believe that national defense needs are also
directly related to national GDP.

The Libertarian
policy of supporting free-markets creates wealth for the entire
society while it promotes effective means of utilizing scarce resources,
If there is someone else out there besides the Libertarians who
have figured out this open secret, it is the neocon pundits who
as Cindy Sheehan (I am not endorsing her new-found views but
just quoting her) once said: "put on headphones and spew
hatred." The Global War on Terror (GWOT) needs resources. To
maintain the current scale of GWOT, the neocons need the cash. A
free-markets driven system where wealth that is created is redistributed
by the means of taxation is one way to fund the GWOT besides borrowing
from "communist China."

I use the term
Republicans and neocons interchangeably because the Republican Party
has been the neocon party at least since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
It took me a while to realize the difference between conservatism
and neo-conservatism. During my freshman year at college, I joined
the ICS (Institute of Conservative Studies). They once hosted Ann
Coulter. After she was done spewing hatred and leaving our school
poorer by approximately 10,000 dollars, I asked her a simple question:
Why does the US support an autocratic regime like the one in Islamabad
and like it once did in Baghdad, while we claim to be the cheerleaders
of Democracy all along? Her answer was such a BS that I didn't even
care to remember. But, it did affect me enough to realize that I
did not belong at ICS.

Over the next
few years I realized that conservatism has been hijacked by redistributionists
who under the garb of conservatism were robbing this society beyond
belief and were using the loot money to fund regime changes and
invasions in order to create a world that fits their view of global
hegemony. The real conservatives have been marginalized throughout
this period. The definition of conservatism has been re-written.
Any opinion that does not support the maniacal wars and invasions
is considered to be left-liberal. Anyone who does not support the
leaders in control of the maniacal wars and invasions is discounted
as an anti-national unpatriotic lifeless scum.

Of all people,
the ones who have been mostly spared from the neo-conservative wrath
are the Libertarians. Libertarians' strong support for free enterprise
is the last remaining weak-link between them and the neo-conservatives.
Without the support of Libertarians on this one last issue, the
neo-conservatives will be exposed as the redistributionist-Trotskyites
that they are.

Another issue
that the neoconservatives claim to champion is the one of illegal-immigration.
Who is an illegal immigrant? From my point of view, an illegal immigrant
is an individual who does not have the permission from the government
to claim employment and give up a portion of his income in taxes
at the point of a gun.

Why are the
neo-conservatives so mad about illegal immigrants? If you carefully
listen to neo-conservative talk radio over a period of time, you
will realize that the "hate-masters" have a common gripe
about Jose and Eduardo who sneak into the United States and do not
pay taxes on their wages while they use tax-funded services like
Medicare and free-public education/indoctrination for little Juan
and Lupe. Another gripe is that Jose and Eduardo remit most of their
savings back to Mexico. Since when did true conservatives start
bothering about what individuals' do with their wealth?

While it is
true that Jose and Eduardo do not pay taxes and are a burden on
tax-funded services, not one neo-conservative has come out and criticized
the existence of socialized services in the first place. The neo-conservatives/Trotskyites
want to have socialized services and do not want to share them with
Jose and Eduardo.

So, what is
the solution? From what I can see neo-conservatives are fine with
just anyone who has a piece of paper from the government saying
that this person is eligible to pay taxes in the United States.
All that the neo-conservatives are interested in is more resources
to turn their twisted view of the world into reality. When President
Bush announced his wishes to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants,
the cheerleaders for the program suggested the increase in tax revenues
if the illegals were legitimized. However, the hate-masters were
still not happy with the proposal because they realized that most
illegal immigrants were good only for minimum wage jobs which hardly
contribute to the tax-pool.

No matter how
much the neocons may try to connect to the Libertarians, the reality
is that we hardly have anything in common among us. The reason Libertarians
promote free-enterprise is because it coincides with the idea of
voluntarism which is one of the basic tenets of our guiding philosophy.
We do not support free-enterprise so that the wealth created by
the society is appropriated by the government in order to boost
its firepower and emboss its will on people even beyond its jurisdiction.

When I was
a little kid, my grandfather once told me that people judge you
by your heroes. If I were to judge the neo-conservatives by their
heroes then I would come up with the following names: Abraham Lincoln,
Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Nixon and Ronald Reagan etc. Even though these
individuals come from both sides of the aisle, neo-conservatives
fawn over them with hardly any varying degrees of ecstasy. But,
a Libertarian would respond to these names by saying: each of these
individuals contributed their best at destroying the dream that
America was, besides making this world a more dangerous place to
live in.

The problem
of neo-conservatism isn't restricted just to America anymore. I
see this global paranoia for doubling up national defense spending
to fight "islamo-facism." I see similar "support
the troops" and "lets lynch a Muslim terrorist" fanaticism
in India, where I am from. India's defense spending is growing with
its' GDP. I do believe that Muslim terrorists are just as twisted
as the neo-conservatives. But, they are nowhere close to being as
lethal as the neo-conservatives who control nuclear arsenals and
well-equipped Armed-Forces that can be deployed in any part of the
world within 24 hours.

So what can
Libertarians do to respond to this madness? I believe that our movement
is doing just fine. The spark that was set by Murray Rothbard has
turned into a wildfire that has engulfed the vast jungles of political
corruption. Everyday, committed individuals are joining our ranks.
Most of us are volunteering our time and resources to spread the
gospel of Liberty and social-emancipation. Others are applying the
message to their everyday decisions. We are creating awareness about
like-minded political potentials like Congressman Ron Paul. Every
day that goes by, we take a few baby-steps towards achieving our
goal of limiting the influence of government in our lives. The day
is not far when the twisted neo-conservative view of the world will
be replaced by the hope that Murray Rothbard had for our world.
In the mean time, neo-conservatives can continue having dreams about
being in bed with the Libertarians.

March
12, 2007

Sumit
Dahiya [send him mail]
is a student at Florida State University. See his
websit
e, which focuses on south-Asian affairs from a libertarian
point of view.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts