Friday, November 09, 2012
I do wish to recognize four good outcomes: the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maine and Maryland. Of course, these are not pure libertarian solutions--none of these things should require the voters' approval--but some people in those states will be freer as a result of the election.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Only a super low turnout at the polls would send a message that we are fed up. So stop agonizing over whom to vote for, and resolve not to vote. (Your vote certainly will not decide the election under any circumstances.)
Stop playing their game. Send a real message.
Don’t Vote on Nov. 6!
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Discretionary spending constitutes just one-third of the federal budget, so the Republican sights are fixed on only that much spending ... except that the party vows not to touch military and "homeland security" spending.
With so much spending off limits, the potential for cuts is not great.
Therefore I ask: Except for those expecting new patronage and consulting jobs, why is anyone excited about last night's election results?
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
By nearly all accounts, Republicans are poised for a big win, even by historical midterm standards, in the November 2 congressional elections. Many candidates backed by the Tea Party should have a big day.
But what will these victories mean for people who are alarmed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state? Not much, I’m sorry to say.
Read the rest of my op-ed here.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Anyone who points out that this process is based on fraud and coercion would be dismissed as a cynic or a nihilist. But no need to worry. No one who would point this out will be invited to comment in the first place. Can't have the purity of the moment sullied by the truth. The media are safe for Peggy Noonan, David Gergen, and the rest of the state's cheerleaders. No one will say what should already be obvious to any thinking person: the electoral process is a distraction, a massive effort in misdirection to keep our minds off what is really going on. The illusion of popular power hides the fact that real power is securely beyond the people's reach.
"If voting could change things, it would be against the law." No wiser words ever graced a wall.
Friday, February 08, 2008
The hoopla over Super Tuesday reminded me of an essay I read long ago by Bruno Leoni (1913-1967), an Italian legal scholar and great champion of liberty. I've been meaning to discuss the many important themes in his book, Freedom and the Law (expanded third edition), and will surely return to it in the near future. But for now I'll focus on the final chapter, "Voting Versus the Market."The rest of this week's TGIF, "The Crazy Arithmetic of Voting," is at the Foundation for Economic Education website.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
So it may come down to more ethereal things. Unlike Obama, Clinton acts like a woman driven by power lust. (Obama may lust for power too, but he doesn't come across that way.) Clinton displayed this the day after she humiliatingly lost Iowa. "I am ready to lead!" she shouted to her supporters.
Yes, that is the problem.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Moreover, with ten candidates on the stage, we knew going in there would be no time for any positions to be developed. The whole thing was a joke, more precisely, a media event that MSNBC could milk for ratings.
If that network (and the others) were serious about informing people about who was running for these nominations, they would do, let's say, one-hour interviews with each candidate -- one on one. But no, for a couple of reasons they won't do that. First, they know the ratings would be too small to justify the time. How many people will tune it for ten long interviews?
Second, that format would require that "minor" candidates -- such as Ron Paul, an antiwar Republican who thereby doesn't fit most people's worldview -- would have to be given equal time.
So that's why we were stuck with the joke we saw the other night. I despise what most people call "democracy." And so do the television news people. But at least I admit it. I don't play Chris Matthews's game and pretend to be gaga about the process.
Speaking of Chris Matthews, who says he was against the Iraq was from the start: why does he say the troops are serving "their country." If the war is against the interests of most Americans, which Matthews says he believes, they can't be serving the country. At most they are serving the president. (I e-mailed this to Matthews. So far no answer.)