This essay is brand new. For now, bear in mind that, unbeknownst to most radio listeners, the basic perspective of Rush Limbaugh is that of Libertarianism; he is a Libertarian. Congressmen Ron Paul and his son Rand, are, as well. This is the philosophy associated with philosopher Ayn Rand, that calls for a minimalist government possessing only three functions, the adjudication of legal disputes among them.

Mr. Limbaugh has stated that the reason he works within the framework of the U.S. Republican Party is that he wants "to win elections."

A genuinely "Libertarian" society would have a government with no EPA, FDA, OSHA, DEP, FTC, or indeed any other government agency. You'd have no social security, unemployment benefits, or any similar benefits. Capitalism would be completely unrestricted and unregulated--we' be back to the complete and utter law of the economic jungle that characterized the United States for most of it's early history, and that we still see today in some measure in countries like China and Russia. Six-year-old children working twelve hour days in the factory could well become a reality again; there'd be no law against it if the Libertarians had their way.

The other defining element of Libertarianism is their advocacy of full, free, and unrestricted civil liberties. Thus, prostitution would be legal, as would be drugs. If the taxi driver transporting your daughter to her dance recital was stoned on marijuana or high on heroin and accidentally killed her in a car crash, your only recourse would be to sue him (or take justice into your own hands, of course). His drug use, itself, even while working, would have been perfectly legal in a Libertarian society.

I think that most of us would agree that the Libertarian paradigm, whether in its categorical advocacy of unrestricted, laissez-faire capitalism, or equally categorical advocacy of unrestricted civil liberties, would represent one or more steps backward, not forward, for society.