I received a couple of emails from libertarianish readers which not only fit the general theme of this blog, but which might shed some light on the state of libertarianism today.

I'll start with one from Bill Goodwin (Editor of FreedomPolitics.com), who links
"What it feels like to be a libertarian":

I'll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.

If only libertarians could take a cue from the Obama administration mantra, and "never waste a good crisis."

Seriously, if the current metastasization of big government doesn't constitute a crisis from a libertarian standpoint, then what will?

Bear in mind that big government does not necessarily mean federal government so much as it means intrusive government. In that sense, big government means thinking globally and acting locally.

An example comes from reader Michael Thomas, who sent a link about asset seizures run amok and opines,

I have always felt that federal and state, asset siezure laws were unconstitutional on due process grounds but this is ridiculous

Towns like Tenaha, Texas are using the asset forfeiture statutes to commit legal theft:

TENAHA -- A two-decade-old state law that grants authorities the power to seize property used in crimes is wielded by some agencies against people who never are charged with -- much less convicted of -- criminal activity.

Law enforcement authorities in this East Texas town of 1,000 people seized property from at least 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008, and, to date, filed criminal charges against fewer than half, according to a review of court documents by the San Antonio Express-News.

Virtually anything of value was up for grabs: cash, cell phones, personal jewelry, a pair of sneakers, and often, the very car that was being driven through town.

Some affidavits filed by officers relied on the presence of seemingly innocuous property as the only evidence that a crime had occurred.

Linda Dorman, an Akron, Ohio, great-grandmother had $4,000 in cash taken from her by local authorities when she was stopped while driving through town after visiting Houston in April 2007. Court records make no mention that anything illegal was found in her van. She's still hoping for the return of what she calls "her life savings."

Dorman's attorney, David Guillory, calls the roadside stops and seizures in Tenaha "highway piracy," undertaken by a couple of law enforcement officers whose agencies get to keep most of what was seized.

Guillory is suing officials in Tenaha and Shelby County on behalf of Dorman and nine other clients whose property was confiscated. All were African-Americans driving either rentals or vehicles with out-of-state plates.

Guillory alleges in the lawsuit that while his clients were detained, they were presented with an ultimatum: waive your rights to your property in exchange for a promise to be released and not be criminally charged.

He said most did as Dorman did, signing the waiver to avoid jail.

The state's asset seizure law doesn't require that law enforcement agencies file criminal charges in civil forfeiture cases. It requires only a preponderance of evidence that the property was used in the commission of certain crimes, such as drug crimes, or bought with proceeds of those crimes.

That's a lesser burden than is required in a criminal case. And it allows police departments and prosecutors to divvy up what they get from such seizures -- what critics say is a built-in incentive for unscrupulous, underfinanced law enforcement agencies to illegally strip motorists of their property.

Some lawmakers, fed up with calls from irate constituents, say enough is enough. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said the state's asset forfeiture law is being abused by enough jurisdictions across the state that he wants to rewrite major sections of it this year.

"The idea that people lose their property but are never charged and never get it back, that's theft as far as I'm concerned," he said.

Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, believes some law enforcement agencies in his cash-strapped district in the Rio Grande Valley have become so dependent on the profitable seizures that they routinely misapply the state's civil forfeiture law.

"In a lot of cases, they're more focused on trying to find the money than in trying to find the drugs," he said.

That means law enforcement agencies in the Valley tend to target vehicles heading south into Mexico rather than northbound cars, Hinojosa said, because the southbound vehicles are more likely to be transporting cash -- the profits from the drug trade -- as opposed to just the drugs.

In 2008, three years after stripping a man of $10,032 in cash as he drove south along U.S. 281 to buy a headstone for his dying aunt, Jim Wells County officials returned the man's money -- and the county then paid him $110,000 in damages as part of a settlement. Attorney Malcolm Greenstein said criminal charges never were filed against his client, Javier Gonzalez, nor any of the dozens of people whose records he reviewed. People were given the option of going to jail or signing a waiver, Greenstein said. Like Gonzalez, most signed the waiver.

Where's the outrage?

Libertarians are of course always outraged. And always exhausted. (And I think they've been exhausted a lot longer than Barack Obama....)

But how outraged is outraged? And how outraged can you get? (Like the old "this time, we're really outraged!" joke...)

However, isn't there a bright side in all of this? It strikes me that if libertarians can live with "a level of frustration that is nearly beyond human endurance," and if Nietzsche was right in his assessment that "what does not kill me makes me stronger," then maybe libertarians will develop superhuman abilities. And maybe also along Nietzchean lines, they'll, you know, become ubermensch.

Is that asking too much?

If someone has to rule the world, why not those who have the greatest disdain for rulers?

And if libertarians don't want to rule (which most of them don't), then they can rule by preventing rule. Implement the government that governs best by governing least.