I don't know whether this remarkable piece of Megan McArdle bashing deserves some sort of serious response by some sort of serious thinker, but this post is not the former, nor am I the latter. (For her part, McArdle has cleared up at least one misunderstanding -- something about a Watermelon Martini, which I know nothing about, but I'd probably enjoy, because I have diverse tastes.)

As for serious thinking, don't look at me; my libertarianism boils down to opposing socialism and opposing the metastasized class of adults who want to treat other adults like children. These days, libertarianism simply comes down to telling unelected, government-loving bureaucrats to just fvck off and leave me alone. Stop trying to take away my guns, my money, my sexual privacy, my dog's ovaries, my right to defend myself, eat what I want, drive my car, the stuff I used to take more or less for granted as a birthright... Just, you know, generally stop telling me what to think and how to live. It is serious, but not in the sense that it requires much explanation or thought.

I'm pretty sure that McArdle's critics at Sadly No! don't believe there is such a thing as serious libertarian thinking anyway, for the simple reason that they consider libertarianism a dirty word.

I'm skipping over the post's complaint about Glenn Reynolds skipping over the "arrogant gang of torture criminals," not because I'm into skipping over torture or because I'm too shallow to understand that torture hurts people and stuff, but because I wanted to focus on the post's primary purpose, which is to vent some righteous leftie anger over something worse than real torture -- the fact that Megan McArdle was invited to a liberal event. (A crime almost as bad as inviting a homo to a conservative event, which would draw fire from the angry gay loons and the angry anti-gay loons.)

That people need to vent is undeniable. That's why there's talk radio, and blogs, and blog comments. I vent too, although I like to think I make an effort not to hyperventilate myself into a state of hyperoxia.

So I'll start (as breathlessly as I can) with Sadly No!'s characterization of the "Shorter Megan "Jane Galt" McArdle"

* Whee! I am like a giant elf who loves discussing things!

All that's really missing is the links from Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and other serious thinkers.

As I said, the purpose seems to have been mainly to open up comments for venting -- in this case self-congratulatory venom directed not against conservatives, but libertarians (or "glibertarians"). The central argument is that they, the "glibertarians" (especially Megan McArdle and Glenn the torture skipper) are not "serious thinkers."

At no point is "serious thinker" defined (and the fact that I'm even posing the question means I wouldn't know one if I saw one). But I suspect that in the context of this post serious thinkers are, simply, those who agree with Sadly No! and its commenters.

A sampling (this one's from a blogger):

I don't think most libertarians had a very good preschool education. You know, the part where you are taught compassion and sharing...

Hey, speaking of education, here's a serious spelling revelation for those who hate Glenn:

Instapundit...instapundit...hmmmm...rearranged doesn't it spell: in'nat stupid?

Here's one that'll stop the glibbies dead in their tracks:

Libertarian = arrested development.

If these were all just anonymous commenters, it wouldn't be fair to say that the represent the liberal champions of "serious thinking." But many of the commenters appear to be bloggers. Well-established bloggers. Serious thinkers all.

Like "HTML Mencken" (BTW, a Sadly No! writer with cool-name-to-better-attack-libertarians), who thinks McArdle should never have been invited because she's an "awful person":

Ok, Andrew. So you're giving free airtime, as it were, to the glibertarian viewpoint (as if it deserves the gift, and as if that position could not be well-imagined by your readers if left unstated), nevermind that you're pretty misguided in thinking that your readers benefit from its ventilation. But did it have to be represented by her?

Couldn't you get someone from Cato? Or some Randroid from the Peikoff Group? Couldn't you get someone who did not advocate beating anti-war protestors with 2 x 4s? You know, there are several glibertarians who aren't quite *that bad*...

Look. You could have asked Jim Henley or someone from his blog, and that would have been respectable. But, no: you asked this awful person McArdle instead. Because she's of the clique and apparently Julian Sanchez (the other glibertarian in the club) wasn't available.

Steve Gilliard and Jim Capozzolla -- liberals who happened to be right about Iraq & etc. -- died from lack of funds but the clique of liberals who weren't right is alive and well-paid and enabling wingnuts. It's a big steaming pile of shit on any sense of justice and it's right here in our back yard, so to speak.

Blogger Marita takes umbrage at the idea that someone might consider her a libertarian:

What does this have to do with me? I'm all for mandatory seminars on sharing and compassion for libertarians. I'm just not sure they'd do any good.

But wait! Marita holds out hope that serious thinking might be a possibility. But only under certain conditions:

"Perhaps when Ms. McCardle writes something that isn't completely ridiculous we'll focus on more substantive criticisms of her work."

It boggles my mind how anyone can enjoy the filth she writes. Sure, it's wrapped up in shiny bows but it's still filth.

Megan is a self absorbed twit who doesn't know even the first thing about economics. What she does know is how to translate her sociopathy into econ-speak but she isn't bright enough to hide it. Like her position on torture, or her lifeboat ethics in regards to health care or just about any other topic that she comments on. What you get with Megan is a box with nice foil wrapping and pretty bows and happy faces. When you open it and look inside all you see are dead bodies.

Mr. Golis, if reading McArdle's blog-writing has led you to believe she's a "very smart" person, your taste sucks tiny green harbles. And if you've awarded McArdle that status based on some other attribute -- such as her engaging real-world personality, or the fact that a once reputable magazine gives her money, or the faint hope that if you put out for her she'll introduce you to her (a)cuter friends -- then you've verified HTML Mencken's theory that McArdle's blogging success is based on the lowest forms of "networking".

I really should read the leftie blogs more often. They remind me that the disease of taking things too seriously is a universal human condition and not limited to the left or the right. They also remind me that adults who want to treat other adults like children can be downright childish.

(Me, I gave up taking my inner child seriously, but that's probably why I'm not a serious thinker.)