Welcome to Freedom Democrats

H/T to Radley Balko

Depressing. In an interview with USA Today, Barack Obama essentially promises not only to use the presidency as a bully pulpit to further promote the Drug War, but vows to pour more money into enforcement as well.

As president, I would use the bully pulpit of my office to warn Americans about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs, and I would put greater resources into enforcement of existing drug laws. I would also convene a summit of the commissioners of the professional sports leagues, as well as university presidents, to explore options for decreasing the use of these drugs.

The USA Today article posed the questions of Title IX and performance enhancement drugs(PEDs) to all 3 candidates and all 3 gave essentially the same answer. This is not "Change we can believe in" but "Same old, same old." I don't care about the Title IX aspect of the article, but Obama's promise to vigorously expand the Drug War into PEDs only promises to unleash the DEA on 15 million Americans who currently use PEDs of some sort. Over at The Art of The Possible, the conceptual theme is a a liberal-libertarian alliance. However, at some point, the liberals have to start living up to their side of the bargain. I'm willing to compromise on economic issues, but not on civil liberty issues. Libertarian principles of the right to self-medicate are beside the point here; there is all the evidence in the world to construct an "a posteriori" argument that any reform on the civil liberties front absolutely requires reform of our Drug Laws. Obama's capitulation on this issue (wasn't "The Wire" supposed be his favorite TV Show?) makes him nothing more than an empty suit on the civil liberties front.

In the latest feature article at Reason (not online yet), Gene Healy looks at the growth of the all powerful, all knowing, all affecting, all healing, all preaching, all nourishing president.

Under the headline on page 21 reads the following:

Who can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power? Look no further than you and me.

Indeed. No other political office has come to mean so much to so many people. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Nonetheless, says Healy:

The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise....is America's shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He's also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as a national guardian and a spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous that it virtually goes unnoticed.It's difficult for 21st century Americans to imagine things any other way....Americans appear deeply ambivalent about results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given a post that started out so humble.

After recalling some drab and tired quotes and ideas about separation of powers, humility and caution from yesteryear by the likes of Madison, Jefferson and even Hamilton and John Jay, Healy rightly traces the roots of this shift chief officer of the executive branch to larger-than-life omnipotent, omnipresent overlord to the Progressive era....the period of backlash after the massive societal shifts...good, bad and yet to be fully understood (at the time)...of the Industrial Revolution. The "Progressives" were, according to a 2003 book, The Presidency and Political Science, "the nearest to presidential absolutists of any theorists or practitioners of the presidency". A leading light of this era was Teddy Roosevelt. Progressive era journalist and founder of the The New Republic, Herbert Croly ominously described Teddy as "a sledgehammer in the cause national righteousness". His relative popularity with liberals and conservatives speaks volumes on how influential Teddy and this era was in our modern political thought.

Indeed, the traces of Obama's hope, hosanna and Yes we CAN! and McCain's push to serve a cause "greater than self-interest" and promises of national redemption, greatness and defeat to all enemies of the state, within and without, can trace their roots back to Teddy's original bully pulpit at the 1912 Progressive Party Convention when he cried:

"To you who strive in a spirit of brotherhood for the betterment of our Nation, to you who gird yourselves for this great new fight in the never-ending warfare for the good of mankind, I say in closing...WE STAND AT ARMAGEDDON AND WE BATTLE FOR THE LORD!".

Sheesh. Get a grip, Teddy.

Two world wars and a depression (Fed created in 1913) were more than enough to solidify the new found all-powerful office of President of the United States of America. And rather than gulp with pause and reflexion on the God-like figure we've created, Americans seem ever more insistent and impassioned in capturing the prize for themselves via their party leader in the hopes of having all their dreams for a better world, a brighter tomorrow and salvation and redemption for all mankind...and the children...come true.

Pardon my over-the-toppiness. I just caught up in the moment. ;)

Kevin reviews a book I confess I have not read, The Mind and the Market by Michael Shermer. See interviewed at Reason TV if you are so inclined.

BTW, it is not my intention to defend Shermer here and I don't want to. Shermer's book is actually irrelevant here. I actually agree with many of Carson's criticisms...but not all. And therein lies the basis for this post.

Anyway, as a periodic reader of Kevin's stuff, I have always found his views insightful, interesting and worth pondering. In general, I'm usually in agreement with much of what he says and most certainly with the spirit of what he says. And I probably agree a lot more than with him than may lead on in the rest of this post.

Without getting in too deep, there are some fundamental tenets to his views that I simply find puzzling and almost "incongruent" with libertarianism...not vulgar libertarianism or right libertarianism (his pet peeve...which I also think he defines to widely at times)...but just basic general libertarianism 101 and free markets in realistic and practical setting that takes everyday human action into account.

First of all, he once again shows his contempt for "the corporation" as legal structure...I assume because it's a creation of the state and therefore a validation of the state's unfounded legitimacy in a true free market? If so, fair enough. Personally, I'm indifferent to the legal structure of a corporation. Perhaps the implications of even saying this shows a fundamental rift in our views because my view accepts (or at least tolerates as acceptable) the legitimacy of the state as an enforcer/arbiter of law and property issues. I'm not sure on this for Carson.

Beyond that, what I find puzzling is how any defense of capitalism that has corporations is instantly "vulgar" or necessarily a defense of crony capitalism.

Having said that, I agree whole-heartedly with his critiques of privilege, entrenched interests, subsidies and all that state coddling and interference that drives most any libertarian mad...whether right, left, "vulgar" or what have you.

I'll stop there for now. Any thoughts?

But it would seem that in Carson's view, such views are mutually exclusive.

Republicans are jumping on board the "gas tax holiday" train, and I really hope that Democrats will clobber them on this issue before the summer passes and it becomes irrelevant.

On Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he's supporting a bill by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., to suspend the gasoline tax this summer.

"The common sense plan unveiled today by Rep. Ryan helps bring down gas prices by eliminating the federal gas tax during the summer months so American families can take their summer vacations with less strain on their budgets," Boehner said in a statement Thursday.

Boehner's probably heard that economists don't think it'll amount to much, and he may not put much stock in their pronouncements.

 I can think of two motivations behind this temporary suspection of the gasoline tax: either to bring down prices at the pump, or to hand billions of dollars to the gasoline industry.

Economists have bashed this idea, in large part because its duration is too short for it to stimulate an increase in gasoline supply, meaning that consumer prices will not come down as a result of the tax holiday. This would lead us to believe that this proposal is intended as a give-away to the gasoline industry, but Hillary provides an alternative. She insists that is the President were willing to use all of the powers at his disposal, then he/she could force prices to come down over the summer. Is she referring to price controls?

If a politician is proposing that they can lower gasoline prices in a time-frame as near as this summer, then we basically have to conclude that they are proposing price controls. Since the Republicans are championing these price controls, we have to assume that they expect Americans to behave like Iranians, Nigerians, or the French -- who protest/riot whenever the prices of basic commodities rise.

I had always felt comfortable that Americans were exceptional in having a slightly more sophisticated view of economics, where we allowed the markets to handle economic details (like setting commodity prices) while politics focused on the big picture issues (like poverty). This is part of why I consider Obama's emphasis on a middle-class tax cut to be far superior to Clinton's and the Republican's emphasis on the price of gasoline.

As much as the Republicans thrive on national chauvinism,  they really go out of their way to undermine America's unique heritage and turn us into just another old-world nation (with a national language, a national religion, and government-controlled commodity prices).

And I thank the Austrian Economists website for the tip. I had no idea.

He would be 109 today. Wiki entry here. An influential economist, he was a contemporary, intellectual adversary and friend of Keynes and gained notoriety for his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, which warned of the gradual decent toward fascism via idealistic and flawed socialism. In his later years, he turned more to social philosophy and received a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Few people have had as profound an effect on my thinking as Hayek. I suppose I could say that the single biggest effect is the frame of mind he puts the reader in the The Fatal Conceit, one of my favorite books...the theme of the "Fatal Conceit" is a more in depth version, IMO, of his famous paper The Use of Knowledge in Society, the basis for his Nobel Prize. The influence on one's thinking upon internalizing the message is one of humility and caution when faced with the complexity of society and possible "solutions". Ironic, when one considers the distorted assumption of arrogance that is placed at the feet of many of people of a Hayekian/libertarian persuasion.

I suppose the best and briefest way to convey the Fatal Conceit is a choice quote used Horwitz in the above link:

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." (The Fatal Conceit, p. 76)

and here is another along the same lines:

"The problem [of the economy] is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind; and therefore, how to dispense with the need of conscious control, and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do."

The effect is similar to change in perspective one gets when they realize the earth's true place in the universe as opposed to the flawed idea that it lies at the center.

This is all based on the nature of knowledge and customs according to Hayek, which are developed spontaneously from experience, customs and evolution and not rational or deliberate design. The implications of this, and they are many, are huge and form the bedrock of Hayek's contribution to social science as well as many of the obstacles economists have tried to grapple with since (whether they realize it or not). Indeed, last year's Nobel Prize winner received it for ground breaking work in trying to show it was possible to do or know something that Hayek claimed was impossible. Many Hayekians dispute the true value of the research and say it's so rudimentary as to be almost useless. Nevertheless, and ironically, if anyone ever does definitely prove Hayek wrong on these matters, it will be a great day because man will have truly leaped forward...not just in his mind but in reality. But I'm not holding my breath. :)

And Horwitz shares a wish for the approach and conduct of future debate...an approach which Hayek lived by:

We need more people willing to start with the assumption that those who disagree with them are only guilty of intellectual error rather than maliciousness or stupidity.

Indeed and Amen. Seeing thinkers harshly criticized and having their general view scorned to the core is something we see everyday. I take exception to seeing it done to Hayek more than almost any other because to negatively question his intent, where he was coming from and why is to totally miss the spirit of his life's work, what he thought and what drove him. He was a true liberal in the purest and truest sense of the word.

A wonderfully in depth video on the Cory Maye saga in Mississippi. Thank you Reason.tv and Drew Carey.

I am going to be blogging at the Art of the Possible off and on for the next few weeks--don't worry, I'll be blogging here too. My first introductory post just went up, check it out.

Apparently last night's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana put Ron Paul over the million mark. Congratulations to Congressman Paul, he's shown that running in a primary enables a libertarian candidate to attract far more votes and attention than the general election.

I haven't been reading the blog at LewRockwell.com recently, but I just glanced through the stories trying to find information on the victories of Ron Paul Republicans BJ Lawson and Congressman Walter Jones and I saw this story.

If Obama loses North Carolina tomorrow--and becomes likely to be the next Resident of the United States--blame his elitist's opposition to gas tax relief.

The Obama's are millionaires who made $900,000 in 2006 so they do not feel your pain at the pump.

Not that Tom Hanks' endorsement isn’t another kiss of death.

By the way, if you are anywhere near downtown Buffalo tomorrow, my group Free NY will be proposing the permanent elimination of the state gas tax of 32 cents a gallon.

How in the world can James Ostrowski actually argue that elimination of the federal gas tax would help consumers at all?

First off, to Barack Obama, for pulling off a landslide level victory in North Carolina and narrowing the gap in Indiana to a slight one and a half percent. I'm fine with Hillary Clinton straggling on until May 20th, with Kentucky and Oregon, but I think the writing is on the wall now.

Second, congratulations to the two Ron Paul Republicans in North Carolina on their primary victories: BJ Lawson and Congressman Walter Jones.

And congratulations also to John McGoff in the Indiana Fifth. If we can comment on Walter Jones having "a primary fight", we can also mention John McGoff's challenge to Congressman Dan Burton, which he lost 56% to 40%.