Responding to Alfonzo Rachel’s comments on libertarians

For those of you who have never heard of Alfonzo Rachel, he is a conservative commentator who recently joined PJTV team after becoming a viral success on YouTube:

AlfonZo Rachel is a musican and martial arts instructor who founded Macho Sauce Productions to create right-minded entertainment.  His popular rapid-fire rants, originally self-produced on YouTube,  have now found a home on PJTV.

His videos are a bit unorthodox among conservative pundits, which may have much to do with its appeal to younger conservatives and even some libertarians. Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw this:

‘Zo’ begins the video quite oddly by equating independents with libertarians. He then defines a libertarians as “just liberals that don’t have a love-hate relationship with capitalism.”

Then comes a key comment: “The Constitution does not say that the government can tax the fruits of our labor, or impose an income tax. Which makes total sense because the government would bleed the people dry like they’re doing now as they defy the Constitution.”

Of course, the Constitution does allow for the imposition of an income tax via the evil Sixteenth Amendment, something libertarians (not liberals, not conservatives) oppose. And the government has been bleeding the people dry, under both liberal and conservative administrations. No one can deny the massive growth of government under Bush 43. After all, it was Dubya that kicked off the government bailouts prior to Obama’s election. But Zo makes this point himself:

Democrats are typically associated with being liberals and they suck for being liberals. Republicans are typically associated with being conservative, but they suck because they haven’t been being conservative.

Indeed, the discontent with the Republican Party that led to the rise of the tea party movement is due almost entirely to Republicans’ lack of adherence to strict conservatism. Several moderate and “establishment” Republicans have been challenged and/or defeated by more conservative candidates driven by the grassroots. Zo is exactly right that many conservatives are malcontent with the party over its moderation.

But then comes the attacks on libertarianism:

Pretty much only on the fiscal aspects do libertarians identify themselves with conservatives. Other than that, they blow their nose with the Constitution. Whether they’re blowing snot into it, or rolling it up to snort the cocaine they think should be legal. They want drugs legal, prostitution legal, they want defense spending cuts – things they have more in common with liberals than they do conservatives. Things that also make for bigger government as more bureaucracies would sprout up, more regulations, and more taxes.

Perhaps Zo should think a bit more about the above statement. Libertarians “blow their nose with the Constitution?” Libertarians aren’t the one’s calling for an amendment to the Constitution to tell other people who they can and cannot marry (perhaps the Founding Fathers left the word “marriage” out of the document on purpose). Libertarians support the freedom to live your life as you please, opposing efforts to make any sort of gambling illegal; we don’t want to tell you how to live your life as long as it doesn’t impede anyone else’s rights. Conservatives, on the other hand, are indeed ‘socially’ conservative, which means they fully desire to force their ethics and their vision of decency onto all people. That’s not freedom. It wasn’t a libertarian president that took the United States to war based on false information that had nothing to do with the constitutionally delegated power to defend the citizens. Libertarians haven’t advocated the continuing US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade costing trillion of dollars. If any political philosophy adheres strictly to the US Constitution, it’s libertarianism.

Zo then asserts that ending the drug war would create more government, cutting the military budget and forcing the government to only venture into wars that are strictly in defense of America would create more government, and allowing people to be more free makes for “more bureaucracies.” I just don’t get it.

I also told y’all that the black market would thrive if you made drugs legal because they would target minors. Libertarians say that’s ridiculous because there isn’t a lot of illegal alcohol sales to minors. That’s because it’s not quite as easy to sell alcohol to minors. I reckon it’d be kinda hard to sneak around a cooler selling beers to kids or trying to smuggle tall cans in your trench coat.

Another ridiculous statement. If the sale of marijuana were legalized and regulated just like alcohol and tobacco, minors would find it much more difficult to obtain the drug as several growers would give up the trade now that it can be bought at the local 7-Eleven. There would still be those individuals who continue the practice in an effort to capitalize on the underage market as it is far easier to grow marijuana than to brew beer, but anyone of age (be it 18 or 21) will be able to simply walk into their nearest convenience store and purchase marijuana just as they do tobacco or alcohol products. This would eliminate the subsidy to drug cartels that are due entirely to the illegality of the substances – government criminalization of marijuana is what makes the black market “thrive.” Therefore, we could eliminate all or nearly all government departments and programs used to fight the drug war. This would save billions of dollars and thousands of innocent lives and leave the United States freer than before. After all, conservatives espouse individual freedom and personal responsibility, right?

Rachel then derides the media for having a negative influence on society. This is just more of his social conservatism, seeking to force others to adhere to his lifestyle. Again, this is not free. Controlling a populace, the media, and/or the culture is akin to a totalitarian government.

He ends the video by claiming that Reason’s Nick Gillespie somehow insinuated that Rachel, a black man, married a white woman as “an experiment.” What Gillespie was actually discussing was the diversification of ethnicity in America and the subsequent growth in new forms of identity expression.

Zo’s final sentence of the video “I’m sorry man, I just really don’t like the way libertarians think” summarizes his real problem with libertarianism: He just doesn’t understand it one bit.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.