You're Not That Smart

So, some lefty brought up the fact that libertarians are all victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect the other day on some website I shan't bother to name because I forgot which collection of deluded statists I was reading. This made me giggle.

A fundamental component of my distrust of the government and desire to limit the power of it comes from my intellectual arrogance. I have, according to J, a pretty severe case of smartest guy in the room syndrome. I'm fundamentally convinced, on an almost cellular level, that I am a lot brighter than most people.

Going along with my intelligence, I recognize the limits of my capabilities. I'm not smart enough nor do I know enough to make a global rule that should be universally applicable to everyone in this country about, say, what kind of health insurance they should buy. I also strongly believe the people doing their damndest to impose that rule on all of us aren't smart enough, either. Having met a wide selection of elected officials, bureaucrats, and government employees at all levels, I'm convinced the average person in government is about as qualified to tell me how to live my life as my dogs are.

So now you can understand why some asshat bringing up Dunning-Kruger makes me so amused. I may be intellectually arrogant, but I'm not so arrogant I think I, or anybody else, should be telling 307 million people how to manage their lives in exquisite, painful, and legally binding detail. Somehow, that makes me the one who can't recognize my own limitations. The irony is so thick you can melt it into ingots.

Step Right Up

I love the internet. I can now, in mere seconds, become aware of the whining of some wanker who's mad because other people don't think/act exactly likes he thinks they should. While you might think this would be a bad thing, I like because it lets me mock people.

Today's winner is one each Kevin McCullough. He writes books, and he got his panties in a wad about CPAC. In his mind, there's only one way to be a conservative. All these nasty unconservative people showed up at CPAC and made a mockery of what CPAC should be.

Instead, being a disrespectful libertarian, I'm just going to point and laugh at the silly man. Hell, disrespect of people that are unacquainted with the concept of liberty is pretty much what we're all about, and I've got buckets of disrespect handy to sling around. But, hell, what does he expect of "the worst form of political affiliation in the nation"? Manners?

I'd like to point out a few facts to Mr. McCullough. It isn't libertarians who shredded the Constitution to chase executive power and justify whatever crack-addled legislative scheme was briefly popular. It wasn't libertarians who kept expanding social welfare programs and the DOD budget. It wasn't libertarians who eviscerated federalism. I don't recall us agitating to sell out our grandkids for benefits now. Every major problem the country faces right now was brought about with the active complicity or passive collusion of the GOP he thinks, against all evidence, is conservative. Yet, somehow, libertarians are the problem.

I only have one question for Mr. McCullough: When the causes you champion and the politicians you support get crushed at the ballot box, will you blame all the disrespectful libertarians then?

Shock The Vote 2010

So, early voting in Montgomery County starts today. Get your vote on here, if you are inclined to vote early.

As always, I will try to convince you of the correct way to vote. Based on historical evidence and election results, most of you will ignore me. Whether or not that's good is subject to debate. I will point out things wouldn't be any worse had you followed my advice.

My rules of thumb this year: vote against the incumbent and against donks. Now, this may not leave you much to vote for, but many races in Montgomery County have alternate selections (read that as LP) on the ballot. Review and consider your choices.

I'm going to highlight a few notable races and leave you to exercise my rules on the rest. First off is US Representative for District 8. Kevin Brady is the incumbent. Kevin Brady voted for TARP, therefore he should get sent home to contemplate his sins. I'm reasonably sure Kent Hargett will be no better on the subject of fiscal restraint. I know a lot of hardcore efenants have problems with libertarians in general and the LP in specific. However, if you send back to Congress anybody who voted for TARP, next time push comes to shove they'll spend another couple hundred billion dollars of your money. I can guarantee any libertarian that manages to get into office ain't voting for half the stupid crap the efenants and donks have managed to pass off as necessary. Vote for Bruce West.

Next up: Governor of the State of Texas. Vote for Rick Perry again, and keep getting what you've been getting. Sweet. Vote for Bill White and get yet another donk with no concept of fiscal restraint and a penchant for interesting accounting. There's a great idea, on both counts. Again, I advise you all to try LP.

I will now take a moment to advise you on the tactical issue of voting LP. If you efenants in the audience really do feel like a donk may win in a close race, feel free to vote GOP yet again. I only want you to do so in the full and certain knowledge the GOP will not change if you do. If you continue to vote for the GOP when they misbehave, they'll continue to misbehave. A sharp uptick in the LP numbers will send a signal to the GOP that something is wrong, and they need to recalibrate. Incentives matter, and the GOP needs to learn they can get unelected right quick if they continue to be the party of less big government.

Moving slightly further down ballot, David Dewhurst can choke on a bucket of fail. I'd like to say I don't care who is the Lt. Governor as long as ain't him, but I'd be lying. There's a Green Party candidate in this race. A dead weasel is a better choice for elected office than anyone who runs as a Green.

Most of the other down ballot races I'm not incensed enough to berate you over. I note CISD has several positions open, and they are contested. Here's the relevant summaries if you live in CISD.

As always, be kind to your poll workers and if you don't bother to educate yourself, stay home.

Compassion

Penn Jillette points out what some of us have known all along and been saying for years.

Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

Remember, everybody: forced charity is not charity.

Cassandra Politics

So, one of the fun benefits of being a libertarian is the almost universal dislike in which the majority of the political classes hold your ideas. Right now, a whole bunch of us are looking at the stimulus and saying "This won't do what you want, and has a whole host of bad effects you don't want." Is anyone paying attention? Not so much. The ignuts are fixing to screw us all, and when it all fails spectacularly, some of us can say "Told ya! Sure did." Whee! It's a very small consolation prize in lieu of a limited government and an unfucked economy.

What's even more dispiriting is the current rush to worship at the altar of government intervention. Oh, noes! Something bad happened! The gummint must fix it! Never mind that in many people's opinions (mine included) the ham-handed attempts to micromanage bits of the economy caused the problem in the first place. So, a crisis caused in large part by government intervention will be solved by government intervention? Hmm. New crisis in 3... 2... 1...

Finally, I'll also point out the two most important words in Latin: caveat emptor. A whole bunch of people bought a whole bunch of weird derivatives and mortgage backed securities without understanding what they were buying or how the whole thing worked. Quite bluntly, I should not (nor should the rest of you taxpayers) subsidize someone's incompetence. If you bought a bunch of dodgy financial instruments and are now going bankrupt, so sorry, sucks to be you, make better choices next time. Similarly, if you signed up for a mortgage you didn't understand and can't afford, so sorry, sucks to be you, rent an apartment and move on with your life. Learn from the experience and grow into a financially responsible young butterfly, caterpillar.

Anyhow, mark me down for one "not gonna work" prediction entree with a side dish of "horrible unintended consequences". If my orders fail to materialize, I'll roast up the crow and get to eatin'. But I'm confident my dishes will arrive.

The Government Is Killing You, And For What?

The astute long-time reader of YPS, if such a beast is not mythical, may have figured out by now we view the War on [Some] Drugs with a hearty helping of loathing and disdain. Radley Balko points out many of the problems our decades long campaign against incorrect substances has caused. All of his points are valid, and he repeatedly brings up a point that I’m going to focus on today.

The government is killing innocent people so somebody else won’t get high. This is the alpha and omega of the war on drugs. In the minds of the people tasked with protecting your welfare, killing some of you so someone doesn’t smoke a joint is a perfectly acceptable trade-off. Because little Billy down the street might get high, the government is going to blow missionaries out of the sky and shoot little old ladies.

I feel so much safer because of this, don’t you?

I really don’t know what kind of bankrupt morality someone must have to think this is acceptable. I have a sneaking suspicion I’ll find out in the coming months because I intend to ask. I would like, if you are inclined to agree with us about the futility of the great crusade, you to bring this up with people when the topic arises. Ask folks if drugs are such a threat to our society that killing innocent people to stop drug use is justified. The answers may be illuminating. Plus, if it causes one person to think about the issue differently, it might be worth it.

Denver Drama

So, the Libertarian Party held their nominating convention in Denver over the weekend. Did you know? Did you care? Did you watch any of the coverage on C-SPAN? I’m guessing for most of you the answers are no, no, and no. Being in the 0.5% of the voting public who regularly votes for the LP, my answers are different. I not only knew and cared, I watched the coverage on C-SPAN until I had to leave and get some stuff done on Sunday. Then we used my Blackjack II to keep track of the voting until it was over.

Let me first get this out of the way:

Okay, now I’ve dispensed with at least one obligatory joke.

The voting went almost how I expected. I didn’t expect the voting to be tied for two rounds between Ruwart and Barr. Generally speaking, this convention was a battle between principle and pragmatism. The long-term hardline radical LP members voted Ruwart. The people who thought it might be nice to get more than 300,000 votes nationally voted for Barr. I have no idea which answer is best for the long-term health of the party. Only time can answer that question, so get back to me in a few years and we’ll talk then.

Barr has a track record to deal with in his attempt to convince libertarians he’s worth a vote. A lot of his track record, especially his support for the War on Drugs, makes many of us twitch uncontrollably and start to foam at the mouth and swear. Since he left office, he has been lobbying for the Marijuana Policy Project. He also joined the LP in 2006, so he’s not a naked opportunist trying to jump on the bandwagon at the last minute because his major party presidential bid tanked. He is still less libertarian than many would like.

The only response I can offer is that it is, for some in the party and elsewhere, apparently impossible for a politician to admit he was wrong and try to do better. Some would argue his actions were so reprehensible that no future actions will suffice to make him acceptable. Any one who would argue that is frankly a cultist who is more worried about sin and redemption and the purity of the religion of Libertarianism. The party is not a church, it’s a political organization and exists to achieve libertarian ends through the electoral process. Bob Barr has a chance to influence the debate in a way no other candidate available would.

Other people would argue that it’s some kind of nefarious plot to either jumpstart his political career or engage in skullduggery for one of the big 2. I can dismiss the first with no thought whatsoever, but for anybody who’s slow in the audience: nobody in their right mind leaves the GOP for the Libertarian Party in an attempt to attain greater personal relevance. That’s like trading in your NFL career to go coach Pop Warner in the hopes of becoming rich. As far as skullduggery and nefarious conspiracies go, what could possibly be the upside for efenants? McCain loses? If Barr is a bad actor, he must be on the donk side. He could possibly pull enough votes from McCain to hand the election to Obama. There’s no scenario I can imagine where an Obama win benefits the GOP. Unless, of course, Barr is just bitter and wants to tank the GOP for hanging him out to dry after the impeachment. Hmm. I may have something there. Of course, he’s awfully prescient if he planned this out back before 2006. I may want to ask the campaign for some stock picks.

The upside for the LP? They finally have a candidate the mainstream media will take seriously and who isn’t obviously insane. Surely that’s worth something. If he will go out and make the case for libertarian ideals, he might get more traction than Cato and Reason and the rest of us combined. If the LP is ever going to succeed at changing anything, the first step is to get people paying attention. Barr has a better chance than anybody had in past elections, especially given the current political climate.

In any event, he’s the candidate. The libertarian faithful have three choices. Vote for lesser evil of the two majors and continue getting what we’ve always gotten: bigger government and more erosion of your rights. You could always stay home, because that’s guaranteed to make a change, right? At least you can feel good about your ideological purity then. Or you could suck it up and vote for Barr despite any differences you might have with the guy. Any attempt to get people in this country thinking seriously about government overreach and the rest of the hot-button issues ought to be worth a try.

Me, I know what I’m doing in November when it comes time to vote. My post-election plans remain unchanged.

The Failure of Libertarian Politics

Every so often a simple phrase encapsulates an issue so neatly that no more needs to be said. One of my personal favorites is the reason the war on drugs will always be a failure. Jim Henley has neatly knocked one out of the park about why libertarians, in general, fail at politics:

there are slightly more versions of libertarianism than there are libertarians

There you have it. Forging a practical political movement out of that mess is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than herding cats.