Climbing Mount Impossible

Khrushchev and Gromyko in New York.
Rothbard cheering on?

Which one is *the* most stupid political ideology? I say its libertarianism. Why do some Americans still believe in it? Probably because they think America is located on another planet. Or another galaxy altogether? America is the shining "Citty on the Hill", and apparently nobody else can climb it. The hill, I mean. It´s still within range of Russian nuclear missiles, however...

Americans seem to think that George Washington and the Patriots defeated the British Empire all by themselves. Maybe Washington did it personally? In reality, the Patriots would have been *eaten* by the British Empire had it not been for the French. And France at the time was ruled by the aristocracy. Lafayette wasn´t an American, for God´s sake. His real name was La Fayette. Or maybe that was his title. Never mind. He was a French aristo, working for king Louis. The French aristocracy made the 13 colonies independent. Fact!

Now, imagine if the 13 colonies had tried to defend themselves against the (budding) British Empire with a "citizens´ militia"? LOL.

If everyone had followed the ideals of Thomas Jefferson (or Jefferson Davies), and become a stout free farmer (or plantation-owner), the United States would *at best* be an economic colony to Britain. The United States secured its little hill-top only by industrializing, centralizing and regulating. During the 19th century, libertarianism would therefore be an ideology in the service of the British enemy. It would keep America weak. 

Isolationism would have been possible in World War I (if you can stomach a German victory over poor little Belgium and its Central African copper mines), but hardly during World War II or the Cold War. Imagine a night-watchman state (or no-state) facing Hitler, the Mikado or Uncle Joe. It would be *nuked* within 14 days, and 14 days after that, 10 million Chinese soldiers and 20 million ditto settlers would disembark and proceed to pillage the entire unfortunate Libertarian Non-Nation. Appeals to Ayn Rand´s rational Aristotelian principle of non-aggression would fall on deaf ears. (Of course, the ChiComs would presumably have to wage a bloody uncivil war against Gerries, Japs and Rooskees, not to mention the United States of Mexico reclaiming the territory lost in 1848.) After 9/11, the US would be easy prey to Muslim fundamentalists, and so on. This is why libertarianism is mostly a "meme ideology", and often descends into hilarity and frivolity. "Let´s legalize duels", "Brothels are libertarian", "trans-humanism", and so on. Or, more precisely put: libertarianism *could* have worked 200 years ago, provided you don´t mind becoming an agricultural backwater exporting peanuts and cotton to the ever-expanding British Empire (which then proceeds to establish its Raj over your god-forsaken ex-Indian territory anyway). Later, of course, it became even more utopian. 

So what´s the function of libertarianism in capitalist society, its real function? I think its obvious that its simply a free market ginger group on equally free market Republicans, the likes of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan. The libertarians are the people who want Reagan & Co to become more "consistently" free market, perhaps by slashing public school spending or food stamps for Black single mothers, rather than run budget deficits. That´s all it is. This also explains why the utopian space cadets become run-of-the-mill neo-liberals once they graduate from college, working for some basic bitch GOP think-tank in DC. It also explains why the Libertarian Party will never become a viable electoral force (it´s more of an electoral farce). That´s where all the freaks, who can´t be recruited to any union-busting think tank, go after they freaked out one time too many. 

In other words, libertarianism is either a hoax or a utopian meme. Perhaps it´s both.