Illya Somin makes some good observations about libertarianism:

Frank’s first fallacy is the assumption that libertarianism is about the “celebration” of the “profit motive.” In reality, libertarianism advocates the superiority of the private sector over government. Parts of that private sector are mainly driven by the profit motive, others are not (e.g. - families, many civil society organizations). There is nothing in libertarianism that is inconsistent with working in a “subsidized” organization so long as the subsidies don’t come from the state. On the other hand, many government programs are themselves driven by the profit motive: for example, government subsidies for large agribusinesses; protectionism for powerful domestic economic interests, and so on. Libertarians have no problem denouncing these programs despite the fact that they arise from the profit-seeking of their beneficiaries.

The second fallacy is the assumption that libertarians defend the interests of “business.” On some issues, that is indeed true. But it is not a general rule. There are many, many, businesses that lobby for and depend on government handouts of various sorts. Libertarians and libertarian organizations - including the “beltway libertarian” groups that Frank attacks in his piece - regularly criticize these businesses and the government programs that benefit them. Indeed, as I discussed in this post, libertarian groups have often had to distance themselves from business interests in order to be effective - precisely because the latter often have an interest in promoting big government.

We can only hope?

They predict that today’s individualist, consumer-driven culture will eventually produce a politics to match. “Much of this new activity will be explicitly libertarian, since the decentralization of control and individual empowerment is so deeply embedded in Internet technology and culture…. The Long Tail future of politics just as surely belongs to the president and party that figures out the secret to success is giving away power by letting the voter decide more of what matters.”

Darwin writes on one of my posts about gun control:

The liberal position trusts people to be smart enough to realize that’s it’s just not practical for every single individual independantly to protect themselves and their family, become an expert on the safety and nutrition of every food and and product and drug they buy, to be an expert in every field of medicine so they know that their doctors are competent, to monitor every factory in their state for dangerous emmisions and form boycott networks when a factory is poisoning their rivers or their air, to build roads and research charities and understand what scientific research should be funded and help hurricane survivors and etc and etc and etc. The liberal position believes that people are smart enough to relize that centralizing many of these functions is much more efficient and effective than leaving them to individuals, and it trusts those people to vote for a government that will give them those things that they want.

This argument has the unfortunate implication that those who do not concede that its more efficient for the state to manage safety, nutrition, health safety, industry pollution, roads, research, and releif efforts are not smart. I’m sure you don’t mean to imply I’m not smart enough to see the efficiency in centralizing these things and yet that ugliness is right there in the first sentence of that paragraph.

It simply is not the case that its more efficient to centralize all of these different things. Its alarming to see centralization push through to this century given it’s abysmal performance in the last century. On second thought, the desire to sign over so many responsibilities to a benevolent government has always appealed to certain kind of person.

The reason why the libertarian argument has the upper hand on your position is that you want to force your values on those that don’t share your values. The libertarian argument simply holds that citizens should have the freedom needed to protect themselves. This argument leaves it open to each individual to determine the extent they wish to exercise that freedom themselves. Some will be more willing to rely on state intervention while others will adopt a more independent attitude by arming themselves. The point is that the libertarian argument accommodates both choices. The libertarian position tolerates diversity in self defense and I mostly certainly chose those words intentionally.

Your liberal argument on gun control does not afford the same freedom. This liberal argument holds that citizens should not have the freedom to protect themselves with firearms. Your personal belief is that citizen protection by firearm should only by done by the state. On your say so, those that disagree with your personal belief regarding firearm protection when caught, will have their firearms confiscated and sent to prison. The liberal position is intolerant of firearm protection and reduces self defense diversity.

At the end of the day, you aim to jail those that dissent from your position. You aim to jail the libertarian.

This article talks about a study showing that many dyslexics become successful entrepreneurs.

Much has been written about the link between dyslexia and entrepreneurial success. Fortune Magazine, for example, ran a cover story five years ago about dyslexic business leaders, including Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic Airways; Charles R. Schwab, founder of the discount brokerage firm that bears his name; John T. Chambers, chief executive of Cisco; and Paul Orfalea, founder of the Kinko’s copy chain.

Get out of the way of people and they will accomplish great things. Coddle or regulate them and not so much.

Jeez I’ve been gone for only four years and Omaha is falling apart.

gunman killed eight people and wounded five others Wednesday at the popular Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, before apparently turning the gun on himself, police said.

I really hope that the media covers this extensively so as to encourage more of these tragedies.

Actually this give me an opportunity to make another point. While I think its bad for MSM to cover these tragedies extensively because its encourages this kind of behavior, I would not vote for legislation to control it. To enjoy freedom of the press I accept the noise of the press encouraging mass killings. There are other ways to constrain behavior other than through regulation. The most obvious is news editors recognizing the wisdom of not celebrating these killings through extensive coverage.

My prognostic skills tells me that some of you will respond that capitalism drives these editors to cover these events extensively. I think that is probably about right. However, markets are only an indicator of what people want so clearly there is a demand for this kind of coverage. In this regard, I would suggest one refrains from excessively indulging in this coverage so as to reduce the overall demand and in turn send the proper market signals that this kind of coverage is not desired. One can convey displeasure with a tragedy being transformed into a circus without using state coercion.

Speaking of wishing editors had wisdom, the way they played into the hands of terrorist in Iraq was despicable. Basic prudence suggested that the news editors realize they were being played like a fiddle and to find ways to cover the news in Iraq without so readily assisting our enemies. As such, they found way to magnify our enemies efforts while minimizing our own. A precedent that continues today with the surge being mostly ignored along with the improvements it has allowed.

Inevitably, this mass shooing will be covered through the gun control angle. Some of you will find yourselves sympathetic to passing gun control laws in an attempt to reduce mass shootings. However, I would argue that it might in fact be more effective to pass laws regulating how the press can cover these kind of killings. Setting up the argument this way pits one cherished right against another. Many of my readers would show disgust at the suggestion that the state should regulate press to save lives, but have no problem trampling all over the second amendment for the same purpose. As a libertarian, I favor neither. The government really needs to spend less time tinkering with my rights every time an unwise person thinks saving lives justifies diminishing my rights

A nice post on the influence of libertarians in American politics.

Card-carrying Libertarians are few and far between. Yet, seen as the guiding philosophy of a bloc of dissatisfied, independent-minded voters whose views align with Republicans on economics and Democrats on social issues, libertarianism is palpably gathering steam.

As Reason magazine Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie explains, the term “libertarian” is more useful as an adjective than a noun. “It’s an impulse; it’s pre-political or at least pre-partisan,” he says. “In any given situation, it asks, ‘Do you favor giving people more freedom or less?’

I think this is a pretty solid way to think about libertarians. Libertarianism can be best understood as a sentiment that is the disinclination to support legislation that expands the state’s ability to control the citizenry. Since its more of a sentiment, it lacks the full articulation of a platform found in other political parties, however, this also means that people of those other political parties will indulge in a libertarian sentiment when it suits their needs.

Say you oppose banning same sex marriage. The libertarian sentiment will be in full effect here. Why should the state forbid it’s citizens from being able to marry.

Say you oppose redistributing wealth to the poor. The libertarian sentiment will respond by questioning why the state should be able to forcibly take wealth from its citizens.

What I have always found amusing is that Republicans will use libertarian arguments to defend economic policy while ignore it in social policy while liberals will use libertarian arguments against social policy and ignore those arguments when proposing economic policy.

A Minnesota man accused of drunk driving has sued to see the source code of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN machine that busted him, and the state Supreme Court is allowing the request to go forward.

This strikes me as a very libertarian thing to do. Challenge the state in a very problem solving oriented way.