In a lot of ways, I can really relate to what this guy says. I myself also have a very low tolerance for most conspiracy theories (Operation Northwoods is really the only one that has any shred of credibility, primarily because it actually has official documentation to back it up), and I also share his abhorrence of the Tea Party (which, as far as I can tell, has an ideology virtually identical to that of the Ku Klux Klan). Yet in spite of that, I personally still consider myself a Libertarian, but it's probably my own unique, left-leaning brand of Libertarianism; very different from the radical, far-right fundamentalist extremism that the Teabaggers believe in.

It kind of makes me wonder... how many different “sub-parties” are there within the greater Libertarian party? The Libertarian party seems to be the go-to party for anyone who dislikes both Democrats and Republicans, which is actually a rather large percentage of the American people – they can't possibly all agree with each other. I suppose there is also the Constitution Party, which basically competes with Libertarianism, though it's not nearly as large.

Anyway, a big problem I noticed with this guy's argument is his claim that the lesson of the Great Depression was supposedly that government is supposed to help out during a catastrophic recession. But what he fails to realize is that the Great Depression would never have happened in the first place if the Federal Reserve didn't exist. I think G. Edward Griffin's book “The Creature from Jekyll Island” proves this point fairly well.

"The Creature from Jekyll Island," by G. Edward Griffin:
http://amzn.to/19mr04L

Like the author of the article, I also care about helping the poor and providing assistance for impoverished children, but I do have to question his assumption that government welfare is the only way to accomplish that. According to Ludwig von Mises, the best way to provide for the poor is through the free, unfettered capitalism that was advocated by Classical Liberalism, an ideology which is now unfortunately dead, having been replaced by Socialist Progressivism.

"Socialism - An Economic and Sociological Analysis," by Ludwig von Mises:
http://amzn.to/1hxz16B

The problem is not that the government is incompetent. Quite the contrary, the government is extremely competent. Rather, the problem is that the government simply doesn't care about its citizens. If it did, things might be very different. The simple fact of the matter is that a vast majority of politicians and bureaucrats – Democrats and Republicans alike – are only concerned with grabbing as much money for themselves and their friends as they possibly can. Serving the needs of the people is an auxiliary priority, if it is a priority at all. They are absolutely selfish, and I mean that according the traditional definition of the word, which means concern for yourself to the detriment of others, not Ayn Rand's custom definition which eliminates the “to the detriment of others” aspect (honestly, Ayn Rand should have just used the word “desire” instead – no unshakable negative connotations attached).

Now of course we need government, but its purpose should always be to protect us, never to provide for us (except for government employees). The task of providing for the entire population is simply too big to be handled by the government, and trying to do so cripples the economy, stripping people of their ability to provide for themselves, thus creating more poor people and increasing the size and cost of welfare programs. It's a destructive cycle that feeds into itself, and can only end in disaster. The correct solution is for the needs of the poor to be catered to through private charities, not government welfare.

Nevertheless, the author of the article does provide some good points to think about, even if he is only half-right.