Jon Benjamin for Pope

is a title which has nothing to do with anything, but there's a huge helping of pain to come, so why not start with a happy thought.
Megan wrote a loooooooooong post extending points about a book. Having not read the book, I won't venture an opinion, or finish reading her post, not when there's worse to come.
Real libertarians didn't:

. . . support the war. This is the emerging meme, mostly, interestingly, among people who are not themselves libertarians. Stand by for my post tomorrow: real progressives won't vote for Hilary Clinton.

Megan would never try to explain why progressives seem to support resigned to Hillary. Or link to an example of what she's on about.

The central problem that libertarians sort of tried to grapple with, and then gave up in favor of shouting with each other, is how to reconcile respect for sovereignty with libertarian contempt for the state--particularly in states like Iraq, where respect for human liberty was nonexistant. The libertarian literature on non-intervention as a principle in the face of vicious states has always struck me as inherently unsatisfying, and particularly, far to [sic] heavily reliant on positing previous US interventions as the primary cause of, well, everything bad in the world.

I'll leave it to my cobloggers, if either feels any need, to see why Megan was cheerleading for war back in the innocent days of 2002, the safe money is on WMD, 9/11, and NYC all being mentioned quite frequently. Megan claiming humanitarian concerns is to laugh, in a sad, pitying way.

A real non-interventionist has to accept that the United States should not have entered into World War II. Yes, Japan attacked us, but they did so because we were encroaching on their sphere of influence. Had we actually kept the navy within our territory, Japan would never have attacked, and we would never have entered World War II. And no, I'm not convinced by arguments that our intervention in WWI brought about WWII; our role, other than urging France and Britain to mitigate their vengeance, was fairly minor. Moreover, since we're not starting from some blank, non-interventionist slate now, this is not a compelling argument against entering into World War II at the time of World War II.[Emphasis in original]

That's one of those bits I just can't add to. Let's back up a little and admire the mess.

If you are not willing to posit that Americans should stay home even when millions are being senselessly slaughtered, then you end up in sticky pragmatic arguments about the possibilities of inherently untrustworthy state power to counteract even more noxious state power, and how much in the way of cost we can reasonably be expected to bear in order to advance liberty. I don't think there's an inherently libertarian answer to those questions. Libertarians should be inherently more suspicious of the American government's ability to make things better than other groups--but by the same token, it seems to me that they should be inherently more suspicious of repulsive states such as the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

I just don't understand where she gets the "left" part of left libertarian. Maybe she thinks pot should be legal, if only so hippies and Mexicans will stop getting so much of the profit it generates. In any case, I'm too not quite sober and definitely not a libertarian to respond to this poopy, so here's a random Binkley shot as an ending.