Earth to the New York Times Book Review

Here's a, how shall we put it ... interesting review of Brian Anderson's South Park Conservatives by Liesl Schillinger at the
New York Times Book Review. Of course it has become a bit cliche to point out the ways in which the Times has lost touch, but here is yet another one.

To him (Anderson), the popularity of the stingingly anti-P.C. cartoon series ''South Park'' signals the advent of a new generation of Americans who refuse to accept public censure for their scornful attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, Native Americans, environmentalism and abortion rights.

For one thing, the lonely libertarian isn't even sure what this comment is supposed to mean. The lonely libertarian also wonders when being critical of the current state of the environmental movement or being pro life became the equivalent of being an anti-Native American racist.

You can find the lonely libertarian's review of South Park Conservatives below. To Schillinger, this book is first and foremost about attacking liberals, under the guise of engaging in debate. Actually the book is about who is attacking liberals (younger conservatives and "anti-liberals), how they are attacking liberals (through the blogosphere, FOX News, talk radio, and television shows like South Park), and why they are attacking liberals (anger over an overly PC culture for starters).

Schillinger ends the review with a Monty Python bit:

First speaker: ''Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.'' Second speaker: ''No it isn't.''

Actually, what Schillinger is attempting to describe is a bit more along these lines:

Conservative: I'm opposed to affirmative action.
Liberal: Racist!
Conservative (in book called South Park Conservatives): I don't appreciate being called a racist, is it possible we could debate this issue?
Liberal (in the New York Times Book Review): Racist!

A flag burning amendment is not needed because ...

Just a brief, all too obvious opinion piece over at the American Spectator. Nothing too exciting and no new ground being broken. The lonely libertarian just really enjoyed the end of the piece.

The effort to protect the flag by constitutional amendment ought to be ended. Not because our federal courts have better things to do than prosecute flag-burners. Not because our cherished liberties ought to be kept as absolute as possible. Not even because constitutional amendments ought to restrict the power of Congress rather than expand it. Rather, the flag-protection effort ought to be scotched for the simple reason that America doesn't get rattled by some stupid little punk with a Che Guevara T-shirt and a Zippo.

More on Kelo

I was going to write briefly about the biggest problem with Kelo, but the more I think about it, and the more I read about it(Really good coverage over at SCOTUS Blog), the more I realize that my reasoning may be a bit flawed, and I may be slipping toward unproductive emotional analysis

The most disturbing aspect of Kelo is who the victims in New London are, and just who the victims will be in the future. Justice Thomas indicates this problem in his solo dissent. Of course it is not going to be the rich who have their land taken. Rather, it will be the poor, minorities, and those who lack political power.

However, this is the case in any government taking, including those which undeniably serve a public purpose. The Kennedy compound on Martha’s Vineyard is not going to be taken to build a shopping mall, airport, park, or highway. It is not going to be taken period, as the Kennedy’s are wealthy and have political clout. Sure it’s distasteful that it will be the poor who have their property taken. But aren’t we creating a false distinction when we accept the taking of a poor person’s home to build a highway, but reject the notion of taking a poor person’s home to build a hopping mall. Either way, they’re still losing their property.

This is not to say that there are not problems with Kelo, but in a legal framework, you have to remember to always examine process, and not look to judge a legal decision only based upon results.

Abstinence: The Anti-Drug

The lonely libertarian was motivated to do a bit of research about the group responsible for the horrible piece of propaganda mentioned below. Check out
The truth about marijuana.

Just scroll down a bit to read how teens who use drugs are 5 times more likely to have sex than teens who don't use drugs. Hmmmmmmm. So kids, don't use drugs, and you have a much better chance of remaining abstinent until your twenties.

The war on common sense

The lonely libertarian opened his Time magazine last week to find this advertisement:

"Introducing a Really High-Tar Cigarette.

Quite a few people think that smoking pot is less likely to cause cancer than a regular cigarette. You may have even heard some parents say they'd rather their kids smoked a little pot than get hooked on cigarettes.

Wrong, and wrong again.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, one joint can deliver four times as much cancer causing tar as one cigarette. So if your kids smoke a joint, their lungs are being filled by far more carcinogens than if they smoked one cigarette.

That's just one of the many problems with pot. But kids whose parents get involved are far less likely to do drugs. To learn more call 1-800-788-2800 or come to the website."

This is the information coming from our government that is supposed to be in our best interest. Technically, the facts may be correct. Maybe a joint does contain four times as much tar as a cigarette. Of course, I don’t really care, because the real point of this advertisement is to manipulate the public into thinking that marijuana is dangerous. The problem is, no one gets cancer from one cigarette, or one joint. Cancer is a disease that afflicts those who have spent a lifetime smoking.

This doesn’t even require any scientific research. We all know people who smoke cigarettes. Most of them are addicted, and smoke anywhere from half a pack a day, to a full pack a day, or more. And we all know people who smoke pot. The majority of pot smokers do so socially, maybe once or twice a week. The people we call potheads may smoke once or twice a day. No one smokes the equivalent of a pack or even half a pack of joints per day.

In addition, we all know a great deal of pot smokers in college. We may know more pot smokers in college than cigarette smokers. Now think about the 40 year olds you know. The number of cigarette smokers is probably very similar to the numbers in the college age range. But what about pot? Few of us can think of 40 year olds who still smoke pot, especially not in nearly the same numbers as those who did in college.

It doesn’t take any sociological or scientific research to tell us this, we all know this from our own lives. Back to the advertisement, it implicitly implies that you’re kids would be better off being hooked on cigarettes than smoking “a little pot.” Somehow, the government wants you to believe that children would be better off becoming addicted to nicotine, perhaps the most physically addictive drug there is, than they would be if they smoked a little of a drug that has no physically addictive properties whatsoever.

Understanding Kelo

The lonely libertarian has been a bit surprised as to the lack of understanding about the Kelo decision. To recap just what it means: Higher property taxes is justification enough for the government to seize the land of one homeowner and give it to another private individual, provided that such a taking occurs as part of an economic development plan. The courts will treat any supposed economic development plan with deference. Remember, the real issue the court was deciding was only that of “public use.”

The problem with this decision is that it essentially eliminates all judicial safeguards in cases of government takings of private property, and leaves such matters to the democratic system. This is much like leaving determinations about speech in the hands of a democratic majority, and really co-opts the rational behind having a bill of rights to begin with. Just as we need the first amendment to protect unpopular speech, we need the fifth amendment to protect powerless of unpopular landowners.

It’s not going to be corporations or the wealthy who lose their property. It’s going to be the poor, and the lower middle class. The poor farmer whose family has lived in that house for 200 years? A Walmart could definitely provide more tax revenue. And who do you think has more political clout?

In a controversial Supreme Court decision, the question of “judicial activism” always arises. One could argue that O’Conner and the dissenters in Kelo were the ones looking to be activist. However, judicial activism is not a problem on its own merits, it is a problem when judges make decisions that clearly interfere with the political process. Deciding on “public use,” a term explicitly found in the Constitution, is no more activist than deciding cases on “speech.”

More Thoughts on Kelo: Takings and Privitization

Eugene Volokh addresses some inherent contradictions in the libertarian view of the Kelo decision, i.e. the libertarian support of private property rights versus the libertarian desire to provide for private solutions to public policy issues.

The lonely libertarian thinks that this is much ado about nothing. One of the problems of the majority view is that it encourages the perception that government is the best source of solutions to economic problems. What ever happened to the private marketplace? It seems sort of odd for libertarians to be debating what would be the best way for government to go about solving problems.

The truth is, as a general matter, most of the American public is not overly concerned with government economic development plans of the sort in Kelo, which is why we would have been much better off with a ruling based on the O’Conner dissent. If there had been one vote the other way, and the O’Conner point of view had prevailed, we would be left with a legal framework in which privately owned developments would not be an option. However, as accepting as the public may be of government exercise of power, the lonely libertarian thinks that government owned shopping malls and other “non-essential” businesses would draw public outcry.

You Are Not Your House (because the government can take it)

Brief thoughts on Kelo v. City of New London,
finally decided yesterday:

(Full opinion here)

The reason the case went before the Supreme Court was the debate over the limitations of the public use doctrine. Remember, exercise of eminent domain power under the takings clause requires both 1) just compensation and 2) that the property is taken for a public use. The issue of just compensation is a dicey one, as calculation of fair market value is by no means an exact science. But the courts have always left those decisions to the legislature in order to prevent the judiciary from becoming a group of property appraisers.

Throughout the twentieth century the judiciary has also deferred to legislative views of public use. The two most major instances of this were the Midkiff and Berman decisions. Midkiff upheld a legislative plan by the state of Hawaii to break up the large feudal landholdings that dominated the state in order to revive the housing market. Berman involved a Washington D.C. taking of a blighted neighborhood in which over half the residential units had been abandoned. The question in Kelo was whether or not the public use doctrine would extend to the city of New London’s plan to take homes in a residential neighborhood and transfer the property to businesses for a development that would bring in greater tax revenues.

In the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court ruled that the public use doctrine could be so extended, provided that the transfers of property taking place were part of an economic development plane. In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy opined that such an economic development plan would be subject to rational basis review. That is, so long as such a plan could be rationally conceived as an economic development plan, the judiciary should be deferential to such a legislative determination.

What’s interesting to note is just how different the majority and minority conceptions of the public use doctrine actually are. As my esteemed Con Law professor, Marty Margulies used to say, a rational basis test is essentially a “freak out test.” So according to the majority, unless a legislature has gone over the edge, the courts should defer to the legislative view of public use. And as the dissent argued, this just about makes the public use doctrine useless.

On the dissenting side, O’Conner looks to distinguish Midkiff and Berman, by noting that “the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society--in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth.”

Justice Thomas on the other hand, would look to overrule both Berman and Midkiff outright. His dissent outlined the history of government takings in the United States, making it clear that the founders never intended the transfer of property from one private individual to another to be considered a public use.

What’s amazing is how far apart Thomas is from the majority, and how O’Conner’s dissent forges what could have been a very reasonable middle ground, per her usual style. Neither Thomas, nor the majority would consider the property as it exists before the transfer in determining whether or not the public use doctrine was satisfied. But this is seemingly an important part of the equation.

Whatever the case, the lonely libertarian fears this is a dangerous precedent. More thoughts on this later.

Today's Edition of Stupid Drug Warriors

Taking on the Drug Problem

This George Will piece is hilarious just for how stupid it is. The lonely libertarian doesn't always agree with Will, but at least he usually comes across as intelligent.

From the end of the article:

"Fighting terrorists, he says, is necessary even though it is like seeking a needle in a haystack. Illicit drugs -- millions of tons marketed to millions of Americans -- are at least not a needle-in-a-haystack problem."

The difference between terrorism and drugs, in case anyone forgot to tell Mr. Will, is that millions of otherwise law abiding Americans actually want drugs, whereas virtually no one wants terrorists. Additionally, there is probably some sort of moral distinction between shooting up heroin and destroying the World Trade Center. Maybe this is why it's often said that conservatives see things in black and white.

Today's DU Visit: Overlooking torture of Iraqis by insurgents

Iraqis Found In Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents (New York Times Registration Required)

There's not a whole lot to say here, other than this is why we are in Iraq. Even those of us who may disagree with war, are quite rightly disturbed by the thought of insurgents torturing innocent Iraqis. All of us that is, except the far leftists at Democratic Underground. Just take a look to see what they had to say about this bit of news here

There is not one posting here showing any compassion for the torture victims nor any criticism of the insurgency. Rather, all the postings either question the story on its face, or else look to compare these heinous acts of torture to Gitmo, Guantanamo, or Abu Grahib. Is this the face of the modern left?

The lonely libertarian will continue to link to post of interests on Democratic Underground. I understand that these postings only reflect the views of the few members who post. However, when ridiculous statements are not challenged by other members, and when ridiculous statements by the far left are not challenged by other leftists, these statements reflect upon the entire group. (As a matter of comparison, the right is very good about distancing itself from statements and individuals they find philosophically indefensible. On a large scale, just remember the Trent Lott debacle, in which after praising the segregationist efforts of Senator Strom Thurmond, the first voices of criticism came from right-wing talk radio.) So the lonely libertarian will look to challenge ridiculous statements on Democratic Underground that go unchallenged as reflections of the general views of the far left.

Going back to this piece of news, the response on DU just disturbs the lonely libertarian to no end. Obviously, much of the reaction comes from unconditional anti-war and anti-Bush viewpoints. But to allow yourself to be so blinded by these views that you are unwilling to see the horrors perpetuated by the terrorists in Iraq is not liberal and is not progressive in any sense of the true meanings of those words.

And the lonely libertarian can understand that a bit of skepticism is healthy, however, when you allow yourself to be skeptical of stories that don't lend support to your positions, and are completely accepting of every story that does lend support to your position, you're being intellectually dishonest. Unfounded claims of manufactured stories do your cause no good.

As the lonely libertarian has noted numerous times before, you cannot view the war in Iraq through a Cold War or a colonial prism. There are plenty of reasons to argue for a U.S. withdrawal. The effectiveness of the Iraq policy in terms of American security, the cost of the war, and the American loss of life are all debatable issues. However, it is ludicrous to suggest that the United States presence is somehow doing more harm than good. The terrorists in Iraq will not just be happy if U.S. troops leave, they will not be happy until an Islamic theocracy is in power. One wonders if these four torture victims who were rescued would be happier with all American troops out of their country.

Summer Reading Update

Just finished the first “new” book of the summer, Brian C. Anderson’s “South Park Conservatives” (Available on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260190/qid=1119134705/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-1465692-9531024?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) It’s a good read, but it’s nothing earth shattering.

Obviously, the growth of alternative sources of media has changed the nature of political debate in this country. Today on the left, right, and in other places, people have a wider selection than ever before of sources of information and commentary. But most of this has been covered already, and very little of the book breaks new ground. There has been a great deal written about the growth of conservative talk radio and the liberal trend toward speech codes and group think.

Three chapters in the book really demand more attention than they get, the South Park Chapter, the chapter on the blogosphere, and the chapter on the rise of on-campus conservatism.

In particular, the growth of the blogsphere is a subject that requires a book in and of itself. The nature of journalism is being changed before our eyes. No longer do you need money or have certain acceptable viewpoints to get your voice out there. Not only that, but the blogosphere is revolutionizing the way in which we get our news.

The rise of conservatism among college students and other youth is another fascinating topic that has not been thoroughly examined. Anderson makes some attempt to relate this growth to 9-11, but South Park’s anti-liberal tone was flourishing well before 9-11. And Anderson never really answers the question of whether or not the growth of alternative media was in fact responsible for the growth in numbers of conservative youth, or whether they were merely two related events of an as-yet undiscovered political and sociological shift. Anderson’s writing seems to indicate that he feels that one did cause the other, but he never comes right out and says it.

I think the book struggles a bit with just what its thesis actually is. Is it supposed to be about the proliferation of alternative media, or the rise of a conservative youth subculture? All in all, “South Park Conservatives” makes for a quick, decent read, but it does leave you wondering as to just what Brian Anderson thinks all these changes are indicative of.

Final random note: Some who have heard about this book have criticized it without reading it. These are many of the same people who object to conservative’s claiming South Park as their own. To be fair, much of South Park is more libertarian than it is conservative. But really, the lonely libertarian has found South Park targets three groups, 1) the PC, holier than thou left, 2) monolithic religious institutions, and 3) Hollywood and celebrities (of course).

The paradox of toothpaste and antibiotics

Check out this excellent article by Virginia Postrel, former editor of Reason. http://www.reason.com/0506/cr.vp.consumer.shtml . It’s basically a rebuttal to much of the anti-choice rhetoric that has emerged in recent years. Barry Schwartz’s The Paradox of Choice, published in January 2004, received a great deal of mainstream media attention for it’s thesis that all the choices in our modern market economy were making people miserable. His thoughts have been echoed and expanded by a number of scholars.

Postrell does a wonderful job of taking on the ridiculous arguments of the anti-choice crowd; however the lonely libertarian thinks that the obvious is being ignored. And that is that choice is a natural progression in any progressive society. Our choices grow with technological progress and our understanding of the world around us. Any artificial limitation of choice would be an artificial limitation of progress.

In a way, the anti-choice crowd is really taking on the paradox that is progress. It’s the old question, why have computers created more paperwork? This is a difficult question for some, mainly those for who romantically look back at a picturesque world lacking in antibiotics. Maybe it’s just me, but I like the fact that doctors can chose what antibiotics to use when treating me. Sure, maybe it was nice when your only choice was death by bubonic plague, but I’ll take the modern world, thanks.

And for those who decry a whole wall of toothpaste selections, the lonely libertarian has a simple solution. Go pick your toothpaste at random. No one is forcing you to make any sort of a choice. For those who do make a choice, some will make their choice based upon cost alone, others upon brand name. Others still will make their choice upon ingredients, other aspects of toothpaste, or some sort of combination. And while how we make our choices may actually be choices in and of themselves, these choices of just what is important in our lives, and how we want to deal with the world around us are basic choices of existence. Some of us will chose to make choices about how we will select our toothpaste, while others of us will live in cabins in the wood in Montana, sending bombs in the mail.

Follow up to Raich: Drugs & Condoms

This is just a brief follow up to the Raich discussion, really an amalgamation of thoughts I’ve had this past semester as I was taking Constitutional Law. For those of you who may not know, the lonely libertarian was one of only four students out of seventy-plus to receive an “A” this past semester in Professor Marty Margoleise’s 1L Constitutional Law class.

Follow this train of thought if you will. Under Griswald v. Connecticut, states can not ban the sale of birth control to married couples, as such ban would be a violation of marital privacy in the home. Now, if such a ban is beyond the pale of the states, then it would also be beyond the pale of Congress. Therefore, under its commerce power, Congress would have no authority to ban the sale of contraception nationwide.

This is the same commerce clause authority that Congress uses to enact Federal Drug laws. Drugs apparently, can be banned under the commerce clause. This raises the question of just what else could be banned under the commerce clause. Given that drug laws are enacted based upon moral rational and health and safety rational, this would mean that just about any product could be banned for moral and/or health and safety reasons.

Of course, no products can be banned if the ban would restrict the exercise of a fundamental right. For instance, because the fundamental right to privacy has been found by the courts to reflect only sexual privacy in the bedroom and abortion, Congress would have no authority to ban goods in commerce that would restrict the exercise of these fundamental rights. Similar logic would apply to any goods that would restrict the exercise of first amendment freedoms.

This leaves us in the odd position where Congress may not ban the sale of books, condoms, and abortion related equipment, but may ban the sale of drugs, junk food, or any other product not directly related to the exercise of a fundamental right.

To the lonely libertarian, this just doesn’t make any sense. It reflects both the inadequacies of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and as many Americans have little trouble with this logic, it reflects the double standard by which citizens judge morals, health, and safety legislation.

Drug legalization remark of the day

The lonely libertarian heard a great debate today on the radio about both medicinal marijuana and drug legalization. On one side was someone from a drug legalization group whose name I can't remember, and whose idea's sounded very libertarian. On the other side was a representative for Drug Free America. At the end of the program, the drug legalization individual made a point about how drug prohibition funds terrorism (and he didn't mention it, but prohibition also helps to fund other criminal enterprises.) When given a chance to rebut this point, the Drug Free America rep didn't do so. Instead he responded with a comment about how if drugs were legal, then advertising agencies and corporations would be making money instead, and drugs would still be hurting people.

He didn't rebut the point because he knew it was true. If drugs were legal, there would be no black market, and with no black market there would be less profit, and you'd have legitimate businesses involved in the drug market. And drugs wouldn't be funding terrorism, and other crime.

This is just great ... Given the chance to rebut this point, the rep for Drug Free America equates advertising agencies with terrorists.

Raich v. Gonzalez and the media reaction

In the wake of the Raich decision, here at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1454, it once again became blatantly obvious to the lonely libertarian that the public at large (and the mainstream media) has little understanding of Constitutional Law and the role of the Supreme Court

For those of you living in a cave, the case dealt with a conflict between stringent federal drug laws, and a medicinal marijuana initiative that had been passed in California. Ten other states had passed similar laws that were likewise on the hook with this decision. The Court ruled by a 6-3 margin that the federal law was applicable, and medicinal marijuana smokers could be prosecuted under federal law, despite the protection of their state laws. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, and was joined by Justices Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Justice Scalia who filed a separate concurrence. Justices Thomas, O’Connor, and Rehnquist dissented.

I have not followed Constitutional Law long enough to be able to judge the reaction to Raich as opposed to other major decisions. However, from the vast amount of reading I’ve done on the subject of Constitutional law, it seems as though the public at large judges Constitutional decisions based on the political and factual implications of the decisions, and not on the legal implications of the decisions.

The real issue at stake in Raich was not medicinal marijuana, but you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. The CBS Evening News presented the story by showing interviews of medicinal marijuana smokers and doctors. Not one Constitutional Law expert was interviewed. Rather than focusing on the all important legal question of “why?” the mainstream media instead focused solely on the effects this decision would have. Not that the effects aren’t important, but it is difficult to criticize the effects or to argue for change if you don’t understand what it is that needs to be changed in the first place.

The Supreme Court, despite popular belief, does not make political decisions. It merely decides legal questions of Constitutional Law that come before it. Over at my favorite “laugh-at-what-crazy-things-the-left-is-saying” website, Democraticunderground.com, there was much confusion as the so-called conservative Justices had dissented in favor of California’s medicinal marijuana laws, and all the so-called liberal justices had ruled against California’s medicinal marijuana laws. There’s sure to be a great deal more posting in defense of the Supreme Court on this blog, but for now, just keep in mind that the Justices make decisions not based on their policy views, but based upon their view of the law. This was not a forum on the merits of medicinal marijuana, but rather a debate as to the ability of federal law to reach medicinal marijuana smokers. If one knows the jurisprudence of the Justices, none of their conclusions are all that surprising, with the possible exception of Justice Kennedy siding with the opinion.
Several years ago, in the Lawrence v. Texas decision that found state sodomy laws to be an unconstitutional violation of privacy, Justice Thomas submitted a brief solo dissent that epitomizes the nature of Constitutional law. While he found state sodomy laws to be “uncommonly silly,” and while he would vote to repeal such a law if he had the opportunity, he could not find any authority in the Constitution to strike down such laws. You can agree or disagree with his legal conclusion, but the point is, his decision was only a legal conclusion, not a conclusion about the merits of such a law.

Just who is the lonely libertarian?

Just who is the lonely libertarian?

The lonely libertarian is a student at Quinnipiac University School of Law in Hamden Connecticut where he has just completed his first year. He has lived his entire life in the great state of Connecticut, graduating from the University of Connecticut Magna Cum Laude with a double major in history and political science.

Why is the lonely libertarian not a big “L” Libertarian?

A big L would apply some sort of affiliation with the Libertarian Party. While the lonely libertarian does appreciate the Libertarian party, he has far too many substantial disagreements to consider joining the party.
(In the interests of full disclosure, the lonely libertarian would like it to be known that he has voted libertarian in the last two presidential elections- Harry Browne in 2000 and Michael Badnarik in 2004. These were protest votes, as the lonely libertarian recognizes that a Badnarik presidency may well have been the death of us all.)

Why is the lonely libertarian so lonely?

The lonely libertarian has trouble finding anyone who agrees with both his domestic radicalism and foreign policy realism. The lonely libertarian also has a bit of trouble existing in a blue state youth culture that is very anti-Bush. This is the reason for this blog’s existence.

What are some of the key political positions and other concerns of the lonely libertarian?

* Drug legalization & The elimination of the War on Drugs
* A more open immigration policy
* More free trade (Free trade makes people, well, free)
* Support of the war on terror & the war in Iraq (they’re really part of the same policy)
* Preservation of civil liberties at home (some Patriot Act concerns are justified in theory, and should be opposed on such grounds- but that doesn’t mean the entire Act is worthless)
* Politicians are politicians regardless of party affiliation, and they are concerned with acquiring and maintaining political power. As such, neither political parties nor political ideologies should be judged on the basic of this characteristic. And in turn, individuals should not be judged according to the beliefs held by or imparted upon their parties or ideologies of identification- rather, they should be judged by the views they hold, the statements they make, and the positions that they take.
* Elimination of government bureaucracy on all levels (more on this later)
* Desire for a government dedicated to maintaining safety and security that otherwise does not interfere into lives of the people.
* Opposition to liberals and leftists on both policy and philosophical bases. This includes rejection of the reactionary opposition to George Bush and the war in Iraq, and rejection of many of the ideological premises that liberals use to support issues like gay marriage, which the lonely libertarian also supports.
* And much, much more …

Welcome to the Blogosphere

Starting this blog has been an idea kicking around my head for months. As much as I enjoy reading blogs, I've never quite been an active participant in the blogosphere. And it seems like such a shame. After all, I do have a lot to say.

I was worried at first about posting anything. Somehow I felt that I had to live up to the standards set by some of my favorite bloggers. I worked in secret on several posts that became so massive and complex that they resembled research proposals and books more than they resembled blog postings. And it's silly. I've never written professionally. I didn't even write for my high school newspaper. There's no reason that this blog can't just exist to share (and more importantly record) my political thoughts and theories with the rest of the world.

Welcome to the blogosphere.