Libertarian; A Picture of Perfection?

Preface: I have had it out with libertarian bloggers before, and came away frustrated by their false sense of superiority, know-it-all arrogance and disdain for everyone not buying into their world view. At "War on Socialism," Rob Waterson goes after the affable Jim Wallis, who's only crime is that he wishes we all could just get along. With just a few of my own personal warnings thrown in, here's Waterson demonstrating the typical libertarian condescension to non-believing American citizens:

Jim Wallis is a hard core leftist who attempts to wrap up his immoral philosophy in religion in order to legitimize it. Wallis’ Wikipedia entry states that he “actively eschews political labels”, but that is typical of those who work towards more big government control of our lives. They most certainly do not like being properly labeled as freedom-loathing statists.

Writing an article in the Huffington Post , Wallis demonstrates his mastery of dishonest sleight of hand. Wallis first equates the Tea Party Movement with libertarianism and then immediately makes the jump to Rand Paul … He must have received the email from the Democrats on that one; it is a consistent talking point approach lately … an attempt to make the case that because he is an alleged reverend he is therefore qualified to pass judgment on “how Christian” the Tea Party movement is.

This is where we get to hear how elitist, moral and intellectually superior liberatarians are, and how misguided, Marxist, socialist and "spread the wealth" losers everyone one else is. This weak presumptive rhetoric is all you see in the comments section of conservative blog's and websites.

In fact, his incredibly weak arguments fall well short of convincing any intelligent person of the merits of his position and simply made me want to find out who this clown was. It seemed clear that this guy was an Alinksy type, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Wallis is not intellectually honest enough to understand the difference between individuals helping their fellow man when he truly needs it and the government seizing vast amounts of wealth to redistribute to those who have learned to game the system ... it is never compassion when you are spending someone else’s money and that one can love one’s neighbor without feeling any requirement to pay his bills.

Notice the unintended but revealing use of "projection" by the author in the following statement. Keep in mind, short sighted deregulation, tax cuts and wedge issues for political gain led to a global economic crash and the ecological disaster in the Gulf:

In fact, libertarians know that most poor people are poor not because they have encountered some misfortune in life but simply because they have made a series of stupid, short-sighted decisions … Libertarians believe – with good reason – that people who do not suffer from the stupidity of their actions will continue to do stupid things. Clearly Mr. Wallis thinks that one of the appropriate roles of government is to protect people from the consequences of their actions, but only if they are societal parasites. That plants him firmly in the camp of the Nanny State Left.

The truth is that the left’s supreme confidence in big government is not consistent with the reality of human nature and corruption. Their exclusive focus on wealth redistribution as the central goal ignores the real problem, which is that these people would not need to live off of the rest of us if the government had not created the lifestyle-subsidy welfare programs. Like our parasitic class in America, they will even get angry if the free food stops. That entitlement mentality is at the core of those 47% of Americans who pay no taxes and are therefore living off of the rest of us. Shockingly, liberals seem to believe in the myth of the blameless societal parasite and that giving someone else’s property to them will actually help rather than harm them.

…if Mr. Wallis actually took a clear look at the biblical view of human nature and sin he would realize that it in fact makes the best argument possible for limited government. We simply cannot trust human beings with that level of control over their fellows. it’s getting easy to understand how this clown is a democrat. But to be fair, being a leftist Mr. Wallis is unaccustomed to dealing with people who possess a command of logical thought, so we cannot blame him for attempting to foist tripe on us that works consistently with his normal bevy of parasitic myrmidons.

Cliché alert (created by the right to cloak actual racism):

Claims of racism are the last refuge of the scoundrel, the trump card played by someone who is losing the debate.

Name calling alert:

Mr. Wallis proves that he is a full-fledged race-hustling poverty pimp with this clumsy attempt to play the race card … it has nothing to do with his (Obama's) brown skin and everything to do with his red politics.

Projection and irony alert:

Wallis has the typically weak leftist knowledge of history and his world view clearly demonstrates that. Mr. Wallis is simply dishonestly attempting to use religion to sell tyranny. As always, that tyranny is disguised as false compassion and false security. His basic shtick is to attempt to use his status as an alleged religious leader to bash conservatives and push his own agenda.

The libertarian illusion of the U.S. is this: Our founding fathers were single minded in their desire for a free market system of autocrats, who earn and keep what they have, and dispensed what charity they could to the human rabble around them. If during the current Great Recession, where we saw 8 million jobs disappear, you couldn't find work; you weren't trying hard enough. Take your ill health, starving family and go away.