I’m not much for labels, and I refuse to say I’m a Democrat, or a Libertarian, and I assume it goes without saying I reject the notion that I am a Republican.
But if you had to pigeon hole me, I’m something of a little “l” libertarian, at least as far as that means I’m socially “liberal” and economically “conservative”. I don’t like government waste any more than the next guy. Waste, that is, government waste.
But the big “L” libertarians often use a certain phrase that I just don’t understand. For example, my friend and Dallas criminal defense lawyer Robert Guest uses it in a post about tea parties:
As a libertarian I’m for anything that reduces the size and scope of government.
You’re for anything that reduces the size and scope of government? How about…
- Closing down all the public schools?
- Doing away with the fire stations?
- Reneging on our promises and cutting off Medicare for the elderly?
- Shutting down all the prisons (not just the 50% filled with drug war victims)?
I’m for funding science and technology research, including arguably unnecessary programs like NASA. Financial aid for undergraduates seems like a good idea, but I suppose a strict economic conservative could make a reasoned argument against it. Maybe the private sector could do a better job delivering mail than the U.S. Postal Service seems to. I doubt it would, but I’d be willing to listen.
But anything that reduces government? Isn’t that going too far?
[Update: Windy Pundit answers back. He points out not only the obvious – that the "anything" part is an exageration, but defends the big "L" libertarian position well.]