At least the character says he's a libertarian.
Don't get me wrong. I like the character. He has some libertarian characteristics. He also has some anti-social characteristics and some quasi-conservative characteristics. But he is much too eager to accept the government's say on things, and its limits on natural rights, to be a libertarian. Plus, you know, he works for the government. (OK, I accept that it does happen.)
For example: He gave another character a handgun as a 21st birthday gift, and then went on to talk about holding it for her until she got her "license". If you're going to give someone a gun, why wait until the "law" says it is OK, and why make a big deal about licensing and other such nonsense. I suppose you could make the argument that he just wanted an excuse to hang on to the .22 caliber mouse gun a little longer, but that isn't believable. No, I think it showed he is a statist.
Even more telling; he seems to know nothing of the Zero Aggression Principle, or anything else that defines libertarianism.
It bothers me that this may be the only reference to libertarianism that some people will ever see, and it is just plain wrong. They will come away with the notion that "libertarian" means selfish, aimlessly anti-government, and slightly misanthropic, without any guiding principle. But, then, that's what "The Powers That Be" and the mainstream media believe... or want everyone else to believe. It's like having a show about a horse, but using a camel in the starring role.
Still, if you want an amusing way to waste some time, it's a funny show. I can even watch it, in spite of it being about government, and get a laugh.
.
I think the point here Kent is to make libs seem hypocritical, silly, and weird. Ridicule is the worst form of psychological attack because it works so well. If a person committed to liberty can refute a statist's belief system with words, facts, and logic, what then is a statist to do? Tell them that they're fat, ugly, stoopid and have bad breathe. This systema works so well that someone codified it.
ReplyDelete