Libertarianism explained...again

While making my way through the intartoobz, I came across a comment--on a story in The Blaze, I think--which I found absolutely laughable.  My internet connection threw a temper tantrum before I could reply, and now I can't find it again, but this is it, more or less:

"Libertarians don't exist.  They're just conservatives who don't have the guts to be non-PC."

Oh, please.  While I'm trying to not be gratuitously offensive on this blog, I'm so non-PC I could make the late Sam Kinison do a spit-take.  Either this guy is trolling, or--like many so-called conservatives--just doesn't get the concept.  So, for new readers and/or slow learners, I present the difference between libertarianism and too many people's idea of conservatism.

When libertarians talk about liberty, we mean it. 

People on both the Left and the Right can talk both your ears off about freedom, but it's usually just talk.  We've seen clearly that what the Left knows about freedom could fit up a flea's butt with room for a motocross race and a Metallica concert.  But too many on the Right are simply mirror images of the same control freaks.  Anything they don't approve of should be illegal.  We have an 'obligation to society' to make it so.  It's for the chillldrun.  Does any of this sound familiar?  Out of context, could you tell whether they were said by a liberal or conservative?  Exactly.

Libertarians see no difference between a group of tyrants telling us we can't smoke tobacco, and a group of tyrants telling us we can't smoke marijuana.  It's the same principle.  You may or may not approve of tobacco.  You may or may not approve of marijuana.  That is completely immaterial.  Freedom and liberty, the guiding principles of America, do not rest upon your approval.  You have a right to your opinion, and if you disapprove of something, you don't have to support it, pay for it, or allow it in your house.  But if it's not causing direct, proveable harm to the person or property of another, you have no right to initiate force--and the law is force--against someone simply because you're offended.  That's the logic of shari'a law, of the Inquisition, of the tyrant.  And that mindset is simply incompatible with liberty.

So, in opposition to my unknown commenter, I maintain that libertarians are conservatives with real guts--the guts to practice what they preach, even if they might be uncomfortable, offended or disgusted.  A principle isn't something you make exceptions to, or sacrifice, out of convenience.  It's something you live by and uphold because it's right.  The main principle of this country is liberty.  If you find that whole liberty thing really doesn't work for you, perhaps China or Iran might be a more suitable place to hang your hat. 

Otherwise, there are times when you just have to take the bad with the good, or start down a path that eventually leads to nothing but bad.  Remember, for every thing someone else is doing that you want banned, there's something you're doing that others want banned.  A ban for a ban eventually enslaves the world.

Just a bit of faith here:  Ponder Matthew 6:14-15 in the context of this post.  You might find it relevant.


UPDATE:  Radley Balko debunks the "libertarians promise utopia" lie thus:

There would still be problems in a libertarian society. There would still be crime, income inequality, acne, nu metal, and reality TV. Most libertarians merely believe that in a libertarian society, most people would be better off than they are now—that being free to make more of your own choices is preferable to having politicians make them for you. Most conservatives and liberals also believe that most people would be better off if their own policy preferences were implemented. That isn’t in the same ballpark as promising utopia. People will still make bad decisions. They should be free to do so.

If anything is utopian, it’s the idea that the world would be much better off if only we put more of society in the hands of a few very smart people who somehow know all the answers. And that somehow the political process will ensure that those all-knowing people always end up in a position to make all the decisions.

Emphasis mine.