January 7, 2008
On Prosperitarianism
The pursuit, defense, and propagation of liberty qua liberty is a superb endeavor. This blog is named for a Natan Sharansky quote that still gives me chills. Sharansky -- who faced evil -- said "During my long journey through the world of evil, I had discovered three sources of power: the power of an individual's inner freedom, the power of a free society, and the power of the solidarity of the free world."
I have long identified with "the libertarian wing" of the Republican Party -- more so after reading Ryan Sager's superb Elephant in the Room. That's me: a Mountain West fiscal conservative. I always stole Milton Friedman’s line "I'm a little-l libertarian and a big-R Republican." Hayek concludes his superb Constitution of Liberty with a chapter titled "Why I Am Not a Conservative." I agree with every word.
I’m comfortable calling myself a "classical liberal" but that means something to about eleven people.
Watching the Republican Candidate's Forum last night (poor man's group therapy), I finally realized what I am. I am a Prosperitarian. An innovation-slut. A growth whore. A political Paris Hilton who hopes the party never ends. Following "The Kudlow Creed" (I believe that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity), all my positions can be predicted by their effect on global economic growth.
I like law and order (it's good for business and property right protection), yet I argue on these pages for leniency for illegal immigrants. I'm the last guy to endorse a boycott. I support free trade with sometimes despotic regimes. I support the Iraq War and the war on terrorism because I believe in the importance of Deepak Lal's Liberal International Economic Orders (think Pax Americana).
Perhaps Rep. Ron Paul is correct that it is an abrogation of liberty to tax John Q. Citizen to fund the Iraqi liberation. In a strict view of American liberty (qua liberty again) it is a defensible position. I disagree because I see it as a gift to the region -- and a key component in the continuation of global growth.
Likewise, Paul has a point that the 100 year old man who has been putting 20s in an old sock for fifty years is hurt by Fed-induced inflation. Yet I think that supplying the liquidity to support growth and (less controversially) prevent deflationary shocks is more conducive to prosperity.
Being a Prosperitarian is less cool than being a libertarian (though I would consider us yet another faction of the already splintered nine per cent). It’s more fun to rail against The Patriot Act and FISA. This month’s Reason Magazine has a cartoon taking Walgreen's Drug Stores to task for its handling of the "morning after pill" called "The War on Reproduction." But I contend that growth, innovation, modernity and prosperity has brought more individual freedom to the world than a thousand ACLU suits.
Libertee, Prosperitee, Fraternitee.
Posted by: jk at January 7, 2008 12:29 PMNice elevator talk JK. It calls for complementary Ayn Rand quotes:
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so on the conviction that you will be able to exchange it for the products of the effort of others. It is neither the moochers nor the looters who give value to money. Neither an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should really be gold, are a token of honor - your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on the moral principle that is the root of money." -Ayn Rand
This is the philosophical basis for free market capitalism. It is the irreplaceable fuel for innovation and growth.
And another:
"Run for your life from anyone who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another - their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of the gun." -Ayn Rand
This is the philosophical basis for the liberation of Iraq by the US armed forces and the US taxpayer. We are liberating them from the muzzles of many guns that they may deal with us, and we with them, using money instead. Ron Paul and those further to the left call it "protecting oil" but I call it "protecting our right to BUY oil."
As for the 100 year-old man collecting Greenbacks, whose fault is it he wasn't smart enough to squirrel away Euros instead?
Posted by: johngalt at January 7, 2008 3:50 PMI was thinking that he could have shorted dollar denominated derivatives on margin and really raked it in. Or perhaps he could have simply invested his money in growing American businesses.
Other than that, thanks for the kind words
jg, it's his "fault" in the same way it would be my "fault" were I to be mugged while walking alone around, say, East New York at midnight. Yeah, it's not the smartest thing to do, and perhaps one should be more aware of the surroundings, but that still does not justify the crime.
Right now, the U.S. economy is just damned lucky that China (with Japan and South Korea to a lesser extent) wants to continue buying our Treasury securities. The dollar is losing value in the short-term, but Asians are betting on our long-term growth. By the time the Chinese will roll over one of our matured 30-years that they bought today, much of Europe will likely be deep into poor economic growth, stemming from its rapidly aging society. Japan has an even worse demographic problem, so it similarly puts its faith in American investments. But all that could change if the Fed makes things bad enough.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 7, 2008 4:29 PMWell said, Perry. A Greenback should not be like a Foley's gift card, depreciating 3 percent per year if you choose not to trade with it for a while.
I was hoping my praise for the Euro would be enough to convince readers it was a joke. Maybe I need to take a more active approach to Euro-bashing first.
Posted by: johngalt at January 8, 2008 4:45 PMOur European friends have their flaws in politics and personal hygiene, but their prowess at central-banking is pretty well established.
Now if you had said Canadian Loonies, I would have laughed (then cried).
November 8, 2007
All The Things He Never Said About AG Spitzer
CNBC's Jim Cramer is sui generis. I highly recommend his book, I fondly remember the days when Kudlow & Company was Kudlow & Cramer, and I was glad to witness his success as his own show, "Mad Money" took off.
He's a heavy hitting fundraiser in the Democratic Party and was college buddies with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Kudlow & Cramer respected each other greatly, that was one of the best aspects of their show but the one thing that was beyond discussion was serious criticism of Spitzer.
In this video Cramer has some less than kind words for the current NYAG, Andrew Cuomo:
Hat-tip: Don Luskin, who says It's About Time
July 29, 2007
Cocktail Party Question
A progressive brother-in-law encountered a conservative brother-in-law at a party (they are not related except through me). Prog asks Conz "If you could change one thing, enact one law to make things the way you wish they would be, what would you do?"
Conz answers Prog with a call for consumption based taxation. "That's a good one," thinks I. When the question is asked back, Prog tells Conz "I would investigate every provider of insurance: health, car, fire -- all of them are cheating us."
It's pretty easy for me to choose sides on that one, but it got me thinking of my response. Consumption tax may be the best answer. Education money following students and/or dismantling the teacher's unions would be up there (Prog is a teacher and proud union member, the time would have to be right for me to float that).
After all my bellyaching on Berkeley Square Blog and ThreeSources, I guess I'll have to choose the replacement of the FDA with private counterparts, based on the model of Underwriter's Laboratories, CSA, and VDE. Like the whiners at town hall meetings, that would affect me directly; that would be the difference between MS being cured in my lifetime or not.
It's Sunday, you're granted one legislative wish from jk's brother-in-law. What's your pleasure?
First, I would grant myself unlimited legislative wishes.
Then I'd enact the FairTax, a plan for a consumption based tax. Your bro-in-law was right to suggest it.
Then I'd revoke my unlimited wishes.
It's a burden, all those abilities.
Posted by: AlexC at July 29, 2007 4:22 PMIndeed. Plus then there'd be nothing to blog about.
Posted by: jk at July 29, 2007 5:25 PMNegative. We would need to document the mountain of successes.
The blogosphere would be a busy place.
Posted by: AlexC at July 29, 2007 11:47 PMI must defer to Hayek on this answer:
"I would enact a law that if Congress does anything for one American, it must do it for all Americans."
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 30, 2007 9:49 AMNovember 11, 2006
How Do You Sound?
| AlexC: | jk: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(tip to PhillyFuture)
UPDATE: Sorry to bust in on another's post but this is a particular interest of mine. Pretty impressive that the quiz seems to nail us both. Reckon it's my western accent, but I'd think "The Midlands" is somewhere in England.
I wonder if it would pick up the "Yinzer" Pittsburghese accent.
Posted by: AlexC at November 12, 2006 4:50 PMI was born and raised in NYC, and moved to PA some 12 years ago.
In my career, I've spoken in front of hundreds of people from all parts of the country and world.
Whenever they asked if I had a 'New Yawk' accent, I simply replied 'People from New York City do not have an accent; EVERYONE else does!'
Posted by: Charlie on the PA Turnpike at November 13, 2006 9:12 AMSeen at the Wawa, advertising their bastardization of a Philly Cheesesteak:
"Jeet yet?"
THAT'S Philly for ya!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 13, 2006 9:09 PMI haven't seen that yet, but the proper answer for "Jeet yet? is "No, Jew?"
Posted by: AlexC at November 16, 2006 1:48 AMOur Brooklyn-raised Physics teacher taught us:
"Jeet?"
"Squeet!"
April 9, 2006
Elevator Talk, Redux
You know the rules. You have a brief elevator ride to explain your politics to a total stranger. (A Denver elevator, Boulder's aren’t big enough and Philadelphia’s are too big.) The door is closing, go!
I believe in personal freedom and individual empowerment. Both of these flourish in a bottom-up structure rather than top-down, command-and-control.
Right wing economists have long embraced this, calling it free markets, Adam Smith's invisible hand, or Hayek's distributed decision-making. But I am now seeing heightened interest on the left. Craig's list founder Craig Newark calls it "community," and New Yorker Magazine writer James Surowecki has written "The Wisdom of Crowds." Little-l libertarian blogger and UT law school professor Glenn Reynolds has highlighted the underlying technological advances in his "An Army of Davids." All these converge to expose the benefits of empowering individuals to make decisions with the facts they know.
I understand the temptation of the left to seek government solutions. The Federal government especially has massive resources and could wire every home for Internet or make us all buy hybrids or buy us all health care. All these solutions create and require centralized command-and-control, managed by some government bureaucrat who may or may not be competent, may or may not think like I do, and may or may not have my best interests at heart. I'd rather trust the 300 million consumers to try, find, and select the best programs than to have bright, educated people in Denver, Washington DC, or Turtle Bay dictate the answer.
The world laboratory of history has proven we Hayekians right. What I call "Classical Liberalism" after Ludwig von Mises's 1927 book, Liberalism, has raised nations out of poverty, empowered their citizens, and created massive wealth and innovation. Command and control societies, based on Marxism have sent affluent nations into poverty; stripped their people of rights, empowerment and personal freedom; and killed more than 100 million in the brutal police states that these societies require.
To achieve these goals, I vote Republican. While GOP politicians have disappointed me many times, they have consistently shown themselves to be better stewards of classical liberalism than the Democrats. I remain devoted to ideas and not party. Should some realignment or new movement create a Democrat party that espouses my ideals, I will join them. In my adult life, however, I have seen few examples of Democratic superiority on personal freedom. I tell my friends that "Republicans promise more freedom and frequently disappoint; Democrats promise less freedom and frequently succeed.”
Ding!
March 23, 2006
Elevator Talk II
While we debate and massage the particulars of JK's elevator talk elsewhere, I'll drop mine right here.
Eventually I'll commit to memory the last paragraph from my bio on this blog. Until then, the elevator talk that expresses my legal, political and economic philosophy is simply,
"What part of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' don't you understand?"
Sustainability
In comments, I pointed out that while I tend to think of European economies as basket cases, the reality is that a Norwegian business person with a good position leads a good life. Social services are high, job security is guaranteed, the coffee is very good, the fjords look beautiful in the late spring... I look at demographic and economic trends and say "Yo, Jan, this is not gonna last!"
Yet another advantage of classic liberalism is sustainability. Ludwig von Mises noted this in his 1927 masterpiece, Liberalism, from which I proudly call my beliefs classical liberalism. Mises predicted the Second World War, fascism, communism AND their eventual defeat by free people. One wonders if he did as well on stock picks or the final four office pool.
Free markets are self correcting and the mechanisms for sustainability are all built in. Marxism has shown it can survive in limited amounts for a limited time, but it is not sustainable. Great Britain and the United States seem to be doing pretty well with classical liberalism, provided they can stay the course.
Discussing Britain's National Health Service (NHS) with a friend who was employed in the UK for three years, he blew my mind with a great line. He said "Americans would never tolerate the poor health care in the UK for a second; Britons would never tolerate our broken payment system."
I've thought about that for months (the sagacious friend surely forgot it in minutes). Was there some equivalence? Both systems are broken in a way. Yet it was clear to me that my wife's stroke would have killed her anywhere else but the US and that my MS treatment and diagnosis options would have been reduced under socialist health care.
The answer ("Mike, I've got a response to that thing you said five months ago!") is that in five years, the NHS will still, if I may use a medical term, suck. They will throw more money at it and technology will help a little, and they will reform it, but it will not be world class, befitting the stature of Great Britain.
In the US in five years, health care will still be expensive, but the procedures that are expensive today will be cheap. If Health Savings Accounts (A Hayekian-not-Marxist idea) are allowed and take hold, most health care will be cheaper. The classic liberal solution is self sustaining, the Marxist solution will require constant tinkering and additional resources to continue.
JK: As a fellow traveller along the MS path (doing the walk?), I am currently aware of only 2 countries where an individual with said curse has a snow-ball's chance: Israel and the US. Is it any wonder that both of these are also the top hated states in the world today? Socialism/Marxism where the welfare of the individual plays second fiddle to the welfare of state/society would never bother looking into the programs to treat myoptic issues regarding the brain. Why repair a broken cog when you can always harvest a new one from amongst the teeming throngs?
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 23, 2006 10:57 AMGreat stuff JK. And it's a perfect opportunity to explain a natural analog that I've pondered during countless hours driving a tractor to harvest horse hay.
The great scourge of hay farmers is noxious weeds. Some weeds are not a problem, since they are somewhat palatable to horses and don't degrade the feed quality of the finished product, but others are truly undesirable. The most obnoxious weed I've dealt with in the past couple years is kosha. Kosha is not harmful, it's just a much lower quality feed plant than grasses are, and it doesn't bale well. (City slickers know kosha as "tumbleweed.")
Anyway, back to the point. There are two methods I've tried to keep kosha from growing in my fields - spraying and crowding out. Spraying has an immediate effect but there's so much of the weed that it takes a huge amount of herbicide to kill it completely. And even then, there will always be more seeds in the soil to start new plants that will have to be sprayed again. Sustaining this process is expensive in time and materials. The other approach involves planting grass seeds and irrigating the field to provide favorable conditions for the grass to grow in. Irrigated soil is a less favorable condition for the weeds than dry soil but more importantly, once the grass plants reach a few inches in height they block the sunlight from reaching the soil and simply out-COMPETE the weeds. Once the grass is established this NATURAL process SUSTAINS itself season after season.
To me, this is a perfect analogy for the competition between liberty and tyranny in human civilization. It takes hard work and foreknowledge of how things work to establish liberty in a world of tyranny but once you do it will naturally flourish and out-compete tyranny, as long as you continuously monitor the conditions and nurture it a little bit. Just as individual grass plants will thrive and prosper on their own to create a better pasture, individual humans who thrive and prosper make society better too.
Of course, humans are not plants. Humans have free will, and without a philosophy of individual rights and using force against others only in self-defense, some people choose to become human weeds. In those cases, rational free men are forced to resort to human weed control measures. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants."
Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2006 10:59 AMjg, excellent analogy. Even this citified guy likes it.
mdmh, I had seen the MS stuff on your blog but didn’t know if it was you or a family member who had it. I am less likely than some peers to run down our crazy health care system and I have calmed down a bit these days, but my predilection toward the big pharma firms is so strong, people think I must be on the take. It is Arnold Kling’s “Folk Marxism” that makes people hate the societies wealthy enough to value individual life, as you say.
No walk for me, but I rode in the MS150 pledge bike rides for a few years before I was diagnosed, so I feel I have some Karma in the bank.
Heads up my friend. I know from your blog that you, like me, have found a lot of joy in important things like friends and family. This is still a wonderful world, as Pops told us many years ago.
March 21, 2006
French Democracy
In my elevator talk, I purposely avoided the "mixed economies" of Europe. These economies, and increasingly Canada and the United States, do not disprove my claims about the efficacy of classical liberalism.
Michael Barone points out in "Hard America, Soft America" that the softer (more Marxlike) side of the US economy relies on the prosperity of Hard America to keep it afloat. Western Europe built prosperity through freedom, innovation, and a work ethic that valued achievement. The mixed economies are consuming those gains at different rates in different countries.
France makes the news today with riots as a response to allow more liberalism in hiring and firing of young workers. Three points can be taken away:
1) The ability of an entitled class to politically protect itself should never be underestimated;
2) The US with a more liberal economy, has the best job market for college grads in five years, while the French have double-digit unemployment;
3) The Wall Street Journal points out the lack of enlightenment in the cradle of enlightenment. There is no voter recourse there as we know it. Politics is settled in the street (Robespierre would be proud). With strikes and marches instead of ballots and campaigns. I now read that there is a counter-protest. I agree with the counter, but question the tactics. I also think about Jose Bove, the folk hero who trashes the French McDonalds franchises. Nobody elected him, yet he tells his countrymen what to eat.
The mixed economies assume that the healthy, Mises-Hayekian economies can tolerate a little Marxism. For a time they can. I grew up hearing how swell Sweden was. Then France. And, for a generation or two, they are pretty swell places to call home -- not that either has the economy to welcome a skilled immigrant. But a friend who sold into those markets reminds me that life is pretty good for the ones who are there and have a position.
I prove my point by claiming that the more Marxism shown by a mixed economy, the worse shape it is in; the more Hayek, the better the economy. A trend here?
I suppose, if you go all the way to Marxism where everyone has a distasetful job ... it's not too bad. Of course spending my days scrubbing out a nuclear reactor chamber would certainly suck, but I would have a job, yes? Support that with a touch of Commercialism (selling nuclear fuel rods to other countries), then you have the cash flow to keep everyone happy with a loaf of bread every week.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 22, 2006 10:15 AMHistory seems to have proven the opposite. Even in your scenario, you include some free-market exchange of arms and fissile material to prop it up.
My friend's point is that Norway, Sweden, or France has enough wealth from its old days and current economic activity to provide a very good lifestyle to those who already have a good job.
I decry sclerotic European socialism and, though he is sympathetic to my ideas, he reminds me that these countries have millions of happy people who are les productive than their American counterparts but don't mind a bit.
My next elevator talk will address sustainability; this is where these economies fail.
I'm going to have to work on my sarcasm. There has yet to be a (pure) socialst government that has actually stood the test of time. Once Castro dies and the borders open up, many of the intellecual/academia supporters here will have to remove that massive splinter from their eye.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 23, 2006 11:04 AMSarcasm noted mdmh, but it's critical to remember that in a Marxist system not EVERYONE has a distasteful job. Somebody gets to be the beer taster, or the movie director, or the president of the bank. And someone else gets to be the person who decides who gets these other jobs.
Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2006 3:40 PMLook to the 24th Century.
There's no money in the world of Star Trek (see Movie #4), yet someone is the Captain, someone is the red shirt. Someone has to mine dilithium. Toilets probably still break. How do they decide?
It's obviously by potential. Not ability. But yes, you're right JK, "someone else" gets to decide who has potential.
Posted by: AlexC at March 23, 2006 10:16 PMElevator Talk
I am creating a new category for this and invite everybody to participate.
The phrase is a business cliche`. Your elevator talk is your answer to the question ":What does your company do?" It must be short and understandable enough to be shared on an elevator. I think our last company failed because we could never come up with the elevator talk, but that's another tale.
I have complained that my beliefs take long explanations and counter-intuitive understanding. But it is time for me to stop complaining and start writing. I want to craft an elevator speech for free market liberalism. When somebody gives me 2 minutes to explain where I stand, I am going to have a good pitch.
Here is my start. I am going to borrow heavily from Michael Strong and from the funny T-shirts at protestwarrior.com.
The classical liberal ideas of Ludwig von Mises and FA Hayek have been tried several times in the last couple of centuries. These ideas have led whole continents out of poverty and created powerful economic engines of free, happy, and prosperous people. The nations created on these ideas have not attacked or subjugated their neighbors and have generally been good members of the world community.
The economic ideas of Karl Marx have been tried several times in the 20th Century as well. It is estimated that no fewer than 100 million people have died at the hands of these brutal regimes. Rich lands have been sent to poverty and good people have been given up to misery. These nations have made war with neighbors and the amount of state control required to enforce what is clearly not human nature has bred incredibly cruel police states.
In short, I believe in the empowerment of the individual to direct his or her life, and a society structured to allow personal freedom. Even though these societies have a clearly better record, our political leaders face every new problem with the first question being: "Should we employ a Marxist solution here or a Hayekian one?" Though there is a clear winner, we seem to have to have the argument every time.
Is this your floor? Take it easy.
No JK, we can't make society's good ANY kind of goal. You see such an outcome as endorsement of individual liberty, but your friends in Boulder's elevators see it as something they could do "better" through central planning. That's dagny's point - as soon as you stipulate that "society" has values you've lost your footing to them epistemologically.
As for the red Porsche: good NED man, you DO buy it because it's sexy! Certainly not for its fuel economy or ability to carry groceries. Your willingness to deny the real motives for such a car reveals something. Remember this... Red Porsche = badonkadonk.
http://www.threesources.com/archives/002275.html
Posted by: johngalt at March 24, 2006 11:05 AMWow. I knew we would hit disagreement but the impasse is overwhelming. I flat out reject your (and Dagny's) assertion that societal good is not a selling point -- nor even a valid goal.
First, it hits me as a pragmatist. There is a political resistance to classical liberalism. People think that I vote Republican because I believe "screw everybody else, as long as I've got mine." There are benefits to that philosophy, but it is a hard sell. Pointing out that allowing us to prosper as individuals allows us to prosper best as a society is a powerful point.
Secondly, you espouse a position not even I can join. Sorry, but when jk is too left-wing and collectivist for you, you perhaps have a problem.
There are a lot of people who will have a tougher time prospering in hard america than soft america or France. I don't yearn for a society that has nothing more to offer them than "you should have been stronger or smarter." The fact that I think freedom and individual empowerment best serves them in the end is not just a seals pitch, it is also something I require to fight the fight. If it's all for me, I am less interested. If that makes me an altruist, I'll burn my Ayn Rand books and accept my lot in life.
Nobody ever said it wasn't a valid goal, JK. But "societal" good is only an abstraction of widespread individual good. I really feel like a broken record here, but I think you're glossing over this important distinction.
For a change of pace, let's look at your example of the criticism of GOP voters supposed motivation of "screw everybody else, as long as I've got mine."
This missive is meant to impose guilt upon those to whom it's directed. Unless the gains you've made were the result of thievery you've got no cause to feel guilt. And yet you do, because "everybody else" has not made gains equal or greater than your own. Or at least, if you don't, your Boulder elevator friends do.
And why does a man feel this guilt? Because for all of his life and from virtually every source of influence on him, he was taught one absolute - selfishness is evil. I can absolutely understand your enthusiasm about this new-found argument in defense of liberty and capitalism, but I'm afraid it's destined to the same end as George H.W. Bush and Dagny Taggart's well-intentioned plans. "A million points of light" is just not that different philosophically from the "great society," and you can't persuade another by rational argument unless that person acknowledges the existence of reason.
Each of us has volunteered for a difficult assignment - to reform society into a halcyon of classical liberalism - albeit by different paths. I contend that my approach, if successful, will have the added quality of being sustainable. For once man accepts the premise that he is entitled to no claim upon the life of another, nor another upon his, he is forever released from the bonds of servitude to "society."
Until then we always have to have the argument: Marxist solution or Hayekian?
Broken records, indeed. This post will fall off the page soon, and be swallowed in my SQL close-comments script in a couple days.
My record is stuck on the grove that you have to sell your beliefs to people. I don't bring up "screw everybody else" to shame anybody. I raise it as an example of a political pitch that won't sell. My elevator talk seeks a sales pitch.
If the only (or the best) sales pitch for classical liberalism is a description of how good it is for, "society," our nation, formed on the concept of individual rights, is in worse shape than I had hoped.
Additionally if you think that,
"a society that has nothing more to offer them than "you should have been stronger or smarter."
is in keeping with our philosophy, you have seriously misunderstood us.
Posted by: dagny at March 27, 2006 8:01 PMI dysphemise your philosophy on purpose, Dagny. I know that's not how you feel but I worry that that is exactly how it is sometimes perceived by those who don't understand. I use sales and marketing analogies because that's who I am and that's what I am trying to accomplish. I'm trying to sell classical liberalism to people who don't know they want it yet.
Hope I didn't step on any toes, but I will confess that the Philosophy vs. Politics argument gets me down. I look back on a big week since this was posted. We had French rioters demanding socialism, a stunning new immigration bill came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee last night, I'm discussing FISA warrants with a couple intelligent people who dislike this administration, and we didn't even get to the man in Afghanistan who was prosecuted for religious beliefs.
At the same time, we've been discussing why I want the right things for the wrong reason. I know it's important to you but it seems so academic to me. If I could sell people on classical liberalism because it ended global warming and removed stubborn soap scum from shower doors (both of which it would), I would do it.