Ron Paul, Libertarians, and the Rest of America, Reprise

A much better articulation of my hopes, fears, and misgivings about Ron Paul's candidacy on reason's Hit & Run today.

Ron Paul, Libertarians, and the Rest of America

Right now, Ron Paul is the face for libertarianism in this country (which is ironic if you think about the nature of libertarianism). But nevertheless, when Americans think about libertarianism and libertarians, Ron Paul is who they picture. So I'll admit I'm conflicted over his candidacy.

One the one hand, I think he's weak/naive on foreign policy, a little laissez-faire even for me, and more than a little crazy. And his followers definitely worry me.

One the other hand, there's just something about him. I think I have to agree with Eric N., commenting on Matthew Yglesias' recent Ron Paul posting.

Laugh or Cry?

Radley Balko's "Predictions for 2008" online at reason.

State Experimentation and the EPA

This article in the LA Times amused me.

Favorite quote: Environmental Protection Agency administrator Stephen L. Johnson's "a confusing patchwork of state rules". It's called federalism, people, and it's the point! States are SUPPOSED to experiment with policies in order to find what works best for them (keeping the national minimums/maximums in mind). California has a lot more cars and pollution than most of the rest of the county (LA tops the American Lung Association's lists for both short- and long-term particle pollution), so thats why they feel they need stricter emissions standards. Moreover, state experimentation allows the rest of the country to get a sense of which policies work and which don't, so that citizens can then push to adopt or adapt them for legislation at the state or the national level. Having done no research on this, I'm pretty sure California has long led the way on pollution standards, and is part of the reason why we have the standards in place that we do now.

Besides, as Dean Baker points out at the American Prospect, you can keep track of it with an Excel spreadsheet.

For further reading on the subject, Publius: The Journal of Federalism (we're an original lot aren't we?) is offering free access to "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation", an article from their special edition, US Federalism and the Bush Administration.

But How Can We Remember You If You Won't Let Us Forget?

So it seems that Guy Fawkes is not going away any time soon. As most everyone knows by now, on Nov. 5, libertarian GOP candidate Ron Paul's supporters launched a money-bomb fundraising campaign, inspired by the image of Fawkes from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta. As Jacob T. Levy (who I just discovered) explains here, this is more than a little weird, and heavily ironic.

I was never a fan of V, mostly because I don't accept that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter: the definition of terrorism as use of force/violence either against or to cause terror in a civilian/non-combatant population in order to influence state policies is well established, and condemned as a crime by most major moral traditions. Like murder, terrorism is by definition wrong.

Ironically, the premise of the comic makes sense, and, in spite* of the torture, it raises excellent questions about the role of governments, the meaning of patriotism, and the protection of liberty. But all of that is lost on an American audience, and so we end up with a libertarian using a terrorist as a campaign gimmick.

And in light of all of this, I'm doubly glad Washington banned Guy Fawkes Day celebrations- both in protest to the actions of the British monarchy, and also because the alternative seems to be honoring a terrorist.


(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

*There can never truthfully be an 'in spite of' with regards to terrorism- once it enters the picture, all moral legitimacy is lost