Comments got turned off in a marginal revolution thread just as I was about to post mine. It’s not that significant a comment, but it seemed a waste to type it up and then throw it down the electronic memory hole just because some people got freaked that Tyler mentioned Steve Sailer. So here it is:
I came out in favor of legalized full-blown infanticide here.
McCain is like a worse version of Bush. He was the neocons’ favorite in 2000. He has no conservative credentials when it comes to small-government, pro-market stuff (Dave Weigel Matt Welch’s Myth of the Maverick has a lot on that) and pissed off the base of the party with his idiotic campaign finance bill. So he kept trumpeting his support of the President on Iraq. For most of us, Iraq is the worst thing about Bush. His chief foreign policy advisor is a former paid lobbyist for Georgia. So how in the world is McCain an improvement?
Hitler did have intelligent things to say on the manipulation of the masses (though much of that may have been from Goebbels) and he is frequently quoted on it. Of course, most people take his “Big Lie” notion to refer to his own lies rather than those of his opponents, as he intended it.
September 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm
That’s Matt Welch, not David Weigel.
I’d have to look up just who McCain’s economic advisor is, but I flipped through an article today in Technology (Review?) magazine on Obama’s “geek economist” Austin Goolsbee. Essentially a free trader with hip insights into behavioral econ, better with which to implement the “libertarian paternalism” of Cass Sunstein and the like. Obama’s milieu is so creative class it hurts.
September 4, 2008 at 9:39 pm
What economist isn’t an geek?
Also, see:
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/01/obama-and-the-creative-class/
September 4, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“Libertarian paternalism” is a shiny new name for dirigiste statism. Yes, Virginia, it is Orwellian.
The only really compelling reasons I have come up with to vote for McCain are:
1) Divided government. Democratic congress + charismatic Democratic president = serious potential for harm.
2)Five SCOTUS justices over 70 on inauguration day. I don’t necessarily trust McCain to pick justices who will respect the constitution, but I fear Obama’s appointments.
September 5, 2008 at 8:31 am
The problem with decentralization is that it won’t work. There’s always incentive to band together against the Other in order to plunder them, or at least prevent them from plundering you. The best possible alternative is MM’s formalism…or if that doesn’t work and the Singularity hypothesis is true, possibly even (I hate to say it) Islam.
September 5, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The Swiss have managed for centuries. Most first world countries (closest to an exception is Israel, which is small enough that decentralization is pointless) now aren’t in any real danger and the U.S could easily break up into fifty states. If centralization was really inevitable there’d be world government, but even though some empires have grown large that has never come about.
September 5, 2008 at 11:57 pm
That’s a pretty weak argument. (a) For thousands of years there’s been a push for nationhood throughout the world, usually defined by religion, ethnic, cultural and language barriers; centralization up to a point is a common denominator, again, as I said, banding together “us” versus “them”; (b) for five hundred years, if not longer, the Progressivist strain has been gaining power and momentum, and it’s goal is the unification of the world under the tower of Babel (the U.N.). If you’re going to point to Switzerland as an example I’m going to point to two things: (a) historically they’ve been ethnically, culturally and religiously homogeneous (less so now though); (b) their status as a neutral state, and hence a safe haven, hasn’t been in question for centuries as well. And so because of these things they might be afford a decentralized society (I don’t much about Switzerland, to be honest, except their tax rate is atrocious and they are one of the most socialized countries on the planet. So I don’t think by decentralized you mean small government, or am I wrong?)
September 6, 2008 at 12:44 am
For thousands of years there’s been a push for nationhood throughout the world
Nation-states only came in vogue recently. Much less than thousands of years ago. Recently since the creation of the U.N I think more countries have broken up than come together.
their status as a neutral state, and hence a safe haven, hasn’t been in question for centuries as well
As I advocate neutralism that works out pretty well.
historically they’ve been ethnically, culturally and religiously homogeneous
You’re an idiot.
I don’t much about Switzerland, to be honest, except their tax rate is atrocious and they are one of the most socialized countries on the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World#Economic_Freedom_of_the_World
They are fourth most free economically on that list.
September 6, 2008 at 1:15 am
m is confusing Switzerland with Sweden.
September 6, 2008 at 8:24 am
If people begin talking about a synthesis between two political systems, one of which is quite unpopular (libertarianism) and one of which is very popular (paternalism), I think you will inevitably find that the popular aspects completely dominate to the point that the less-popular is present only as a misnomer.
‘Libertarian paternalism’ is just a way for the government to run things without people having to acknowledge that the government is running things. Sort of the same way the Romans eschewed kings but embraced emperors – people are taught to reject something, but they degenerate into rejecting the label of that thing alone, so the name is changed to induce them to accept what they would once have rejected.