While watching the last Rachel Maddow show, and in particular her discussion about being contacted by the Koch brothers (or a representative of theirs), who apparently demanded that she read a script that they had prepared (as if she was a "bad" child who needed to be punished), I was reminded of a man who called himself a libertarian (on Bill Maher's "Real Time" HBO show). The reason is that Rachel mentioned that one of the Koch brothers had run as Vice Presidential candidate on a libertarian ticket at some point. The man on Bill Maher's show was adamantly against labeling food so that people would know if there were GM ingredients. What do the two have in common? Read on...
For whatever reason, this was a 2+2=4 moment for my mind, and things became clear. These kinds of "libertarians" think that there should basically be no regulations of any kind, but also that the nation should be like a store. You go in and you buy what you want if you have the money, and that could mean you buy a school board, a Senator, a judge, a referendum, etc. If you don't have any money, you should be happy that a wealthy person isn't crushing you, perhaps literally in some cases! This may seem more obvious in the case of the Koch brothers, but why would a self-described libertarian "nobody" not want to know what is in his food? Isn't this very different from the libertarians of a few decades ago, many of whom were quite irritated that their drinking water was fluoridated and they weren't told?
This is where the new totalitarianism comes into play, as we saw in the latest referendum on GM labeling, which was defeated in "liberal" Washington state. Why did it fail? Just look at the amounts spent by each side! This is what most of today's "libertarians" seem to view as ideal; it's not based upon "individual rights," but rather the often childish desires of a few individuals with a great deal of wealth and power. "Compassionate Conservatives" are not acceptable to them, because they want society to be based upon a formulation of money makes might and might makes right. That "libertarian" on Bill Maher's show probably didn't want to offend "Big Agro;" he certainly didn't seem to care at all about what GM foods might do to his body! So, if such people have their way, and you don't have any money, what you do is to "brown nose" the wealthy and powerful, even if that means saying things publicly that are the exact opposite of what libertarianism is supposed to be!
Note that I had a "crazy uncle" when I as a teenager, and he was of the old libertarian type. I still find quite a bit appealing about what I regard as "real libertarianism," but this new stuff is a joke to me, more or less a way to make the craven doings of the old "robber barons" appear patriotic, and of course some people in Maddow's position (or who want to be) seem to be wiling to sell their libertarian souls to achieve such ends. And while their "patron saint" may be Ayn Rand, what few seem to realize is that such a society would have strong totalitarian qualities. You would have to make sure you didn't offend those few rich and powerful people, just as you couldn't offend the ruling elite in the old Soviet Union. You would call yourself a libertarian while being sure to agree with everything they wanted, no matter how anti-libertarian those things were!
After writing the above but before publishing it, I turned on BookTV (C-SPAN2), and what was being broadcast? A panel discussion that included the authors of "Dollarocracy." I hadn't heard of this book before, and they were clearly ahead of me here, but one thing I think is worth pointing out that these authors didn't (to my knowledge) is there is a trend that is unique in American history (for perhaps seventy years, if not more). For quite a while now, the two major parties tried to win most independent voters, at least, but now there is an attitude (among the "far right") that most Americans are fools or want "government handouts," and so money has to be used to prevent the majority from winning elections (by essentially buying local/state elections and passing laws that restrict voting selectively and by gerrymandering). Remember, even in a totalitarian regime, there are more than a few people who really believe it is the best possible government, but here we have a lot of people who have deluded themselves into thinking this is acceptable because it is consistent with "libertarian principles."
Note that I also saw a Tea Party type person say that our government is a republic, not a democracy, on a different BookTV presentation, which is yet another way some of these folks seem to be justifying their attempt to prevent select portions of the population from voting.