Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Election encouragement for the disheartened | Main | Fraser Institute: Harper government faces hurdles with a Barack Obama administration »

Thursday, November 06, 2008

What if Bob Barr had won? A timeline

Picture_2 A touch of humour from the National Post. What would happen if the Western Standard contributors' favoured presidential candidate, the US Libertarian Party's Bob Barr, somehow managed to become president?

It begins with Drew Carey, moves on to the obligatory moustache joke, a little big-government slash-and-burn, and climaxes with a "radical Vermont anti-anti-government militia [which] holes itself up inside its compound after the IRS refuses to accept its tax cheque." And that's when things get a little out of hand.

JULY 4, 2009

Standing outside of Faneuil Hall in Boston, Barr delivers an Independence Day speech denouncing "tyranny in all its forms," citing especially Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and cookbooks. "Who is Irma Rombauer to tell you how to braise that coq au vin?" he tells a confused crowd. Gourmet magazine achieves political awareness.

DEC. 17, 2009

Prostitution is officially decriminalized. Eliot Spitzer high-fives an imaginary friend and returns to begging for change. 

MAY 22, 2010

Barr vetoes a copyright protection bill, citing concerns about its capacity to limit individual freedom. He then vetoes his veto, citing concerns about its capacity to limit corporate freedom. He then vetoes his veto of his veto, citing concerns about its capacity to limit the personal freedom of the president. He then vetoes his veto of the veto he vetoed, citing personal confusion. He then has an egg-salad sandwich and takes a nap.

Read the rest.

What did you expect? I told you guys not to vote.

Posted by Kalim Kassam on November 6, 2008 in Humour | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What if Bob Barr had won? A timeline:


No one cares about this Barr asshole.

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-11-06 8:29:19 AM

The author of this article shows how little he actually knows about freedom and libertarian ideas. He took more care to sound cute and smug than anything else. What an idiot.

Posted by: TM | 2008-11-06 9:45:12 AM

I agree, TM. It could have been thoroughly amusing--like the first part--but then it gets dumb. Hundreds of thousands die on "do what you want day"? Is the author aware of what libertarians think the proper role of government is?

I'm not that big a stickler for these things, and I had a bit of a laugh. My only concern is that some people will get their political philosophy insight from the Post story, and get it all wrong.

And then I have to correct commenters on this blog who write woefully uninformed comments like "libertarianism is a left-wing philosophy."...

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-11-06 10:23:28 AM

I'm glad you both feel this way. (Epsilon – why do got to be that way? The National Post obviously cares enough about Barr to parody him.)

I hate the column, and not because I don't have a self-deprecating sense of humour, but because the author doesn't understand the libertarian non-aggression principle, doesn't understand that libertarians -- even radical libertarians -- accept many legitimate authorities from parents to employers to landlords – and most, including Barr, accept the authority of state in the enforcement of just laws and national defence. (Barr, in fact, accepts state authority over a much broader area than I would.)

Parody is funny when the satirist knows his subject.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-06 10:58:39 AM

Peter and Matthew,

I could just as easily have asked:

"What did you expect? Its the Arts section."

And I very nearly did.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-11-06 11:20:04 AM

"JAN. 21, 2009 - Libertarian accolades pour in after Barr spends the day doing nothing."


Posted by: K Stricker | 2008-11-06 11:40:20 AM

Barr needed someone in the media to shill for him like Matthews did and is doing for Obama.


Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-06 1:07:00 PM

Here's the thing. The article indeed shows us how ignorant people are about libertarianism. So is that their fault, or ours?

Posted by: Charles | 2008-11-06 3:08:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.