Obama Girl Gives Mike Gravel a Heart Attack

If I had to choose (and I soon will be) between Mike Gravel or Bob Barr for the Libertarian Presidential nomination I would definitely vote for the latter. But I have to give Gravel props (are the kids still saying that?) for this video.

Bob Barr Announces LP Presidential Bid

Dave Weigal is all over the announcement at Hit&Run. Good luck Bob. If you campaign hard enough, and say all the right things, you might - just might - garner a TtP endorsement.

Previous Bob Barr blogging here and here.

A New Newspaper Shows Up in DC: The Rock Creek Free Press

On Connecticut Avenue today I noticed a bastard news dispenser and picked up its paper: Rock Creek Free Press. The paper bills itself as "A fiecely independent newspaper."

Its front page echoes libertarian themes. Here are some headlines:

Liberty Dollar Company Raided by Feds

CIA Hides Torture Tapes

International Regulation of Dietary Supplements Looms

US Claims Right to Kidnap British Citizens

NIE Exposes War Party

Sounds good, but then the paper goes off the rails by running a page one article featuring former Italian president Francesco Cossiga alleging that 9/11 was "an inside job." Does anyone really think that the CIA would take down both towers of the WTC, bomb the Pentagon and try to hit the Capitol? No.

But Rock Creek Free Press is a fun read otherwise.

Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul

It is great to see someone who is gay abandon the Dems and endorse a libertarian. The Dems, with their traditional embrace of government power over the individual and their main candidates' scary declarations of Christianity and "faith" based values, are just as much a threat to freedom as are the Huckabees of this world. Here are Sullivan's reasons why he went for Ron Paul:

The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.

Hey, I'm Drunk

That may be the case, but this is still a disgustingly simple review to be in the U.S. "Paper of Record." I don't even have any funny lines--this is just a poorly done review.

He skates over other questionable matters, too: for instance, that Friedman advised the murderous Pinochet regime in Chile; that Merwin Hart “infected his free-market thought with anti-Semitism”; and that Rothbard supported Strom Thurmond’s segregationist campaign for president in 1948 (because, Doherty casually observes, “he admired Thurmond’s states’ rights position”). The book fails to ask why people who claim to love freedom have so often had a soft spot for those who would deny it to others. Libertarianism has now arrived at an interesting juncture. The moment for its grandest ambitions seems to have passed. President Bush is no longer talking about privatizing Social Security, and his free-market approach to rebuilding Iraq has proven disastrous

Free market approach to Iraq? I'm laughing at that. Do any readers even know what that means? And how is Chile doing as of today? Oh what's that? It's a jewel in a cesspool of Latin American shittiness....And that's overlooking the facts of Milton Friedman's actual involvement with the Chilean government. Like that the University of Chicago had an on-going relationship with the Catholic University of Chile and Friedman never actually was an adviser to Pinochet. My bad for just accepting those as common facts.

I'm about 200 pages in, and I'm enjoying Radicals for Capitalism. Leonhardt's objections are what I would expect from the New York Times.

Full review here.

The Problem With SF Flings

I love to have travel flings. In San Francisco they are especially sweet, as the gals there are super fun and hot and they are plenty. And I have adored my SF flings. But every now and then I have to deal with the fact that they have politics that envy Cuba. Tonight, my current hot SF fling said, "Happy Chavez Day."

I almost passed out and asked, "Not, Hugo, right,?!!" No, she said, Cesar. I said this fling is over.

As much as I like sex, my libertarian ideals do triumph.

Reason(s) to Never Invite Me to a Party Again

Like many DC libertarians I was invited to a celebration last Friday of Brian Doherty's new book "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement" (Wall War Street Journal review here) at Reason's lovely new DC office. At first I thought their office was a new gay club. Elegant with a rustic feel. Showers in the bathrooms. I expected a disco ball to drop at any moment. It's everything I thought a Reason office would be. And should be. I could have taken pictures of it. Or the people there. Or that Heritage Foundation guy sucking George Bush's dick in the bathroom (totally inappropriate at a Reason event if you ask me). But I'd rather post this picture of the labor and other regulatory notices that DC and federal law require businesses to put up. Reason hasn't fully moved in yet. No art on the wall. No framed Constitution. No bust of Hayek or Rothbard. No pictures showing Virginia Postrel's bust. Just a lone, government-mandated list of regulations on one of their walls. Sell outs. But at least they had free beer and wine. And free (I assume) copies of "Choice". I also took a lap top. Hey, Nick said feel free to take stuff.

I'm about 200 pages into Doherty's 600-page book. Some really good stuff in it. Not enough gossip for me though. Unless he's saving that for the history of Cato and the LP. I mean he mentions in the section on Leonard Read that Read's sexual exploits are legendary. Like Wilt Chamberlain legendary. But he doesn't elaborate. Why not? If Ayn Rand swallowed Read's cum and said "I did that for me" I want to know about it. Oh, don't pretend like you don't. You're not better than me.

Libertarian Black Wednesday: The Day's News Recap

After reading today's posts I have concluded that this day has been a dark day for liberty, our own libertarian Black Wednesday. Jeezooks, the cumulative effect is astounding.

A recap of today's news: England is fulfilling Orwell's dystopian prophecy, a dying woman who has a brain tumor and chronic nausea has to stop consuming the marijuana that eases her symptoms or be prosecuted, while fear of mass public urination means that we can no longer drink beer singles in our soon-to-be fluorescently-lit homes.

I hereby submit an observation: every day, we become less free. That is because each day legislators and regulators submit and pass new rules that control us more. Call this Leo's Law. I also hereby submit a libertarian proposal: that we demand that for each new law, one on the books be eliminated. That would make the government look much harder at what they impose and would keep us from becoming automatons innoculated at birth against "anti-social" behavior who wear helmets as we walk down the street.

We also need to address the current opinion vogue of "I like/don't like it, so let's ban it." One of the commenters on my bulb post noted that he likes fluorescent lights so he looks forward the banning of incandescents. Maybe that comment was in jest, but concept of favoring laws that mirror one's preference and also reduce individual choice and liberty ought to be screamed about. This is the sentiment that has led to so many smoking bans, as most people don't smoke and don't like it.

When Libertarian Bloggers (Sort of) Attack (One Another)

Jim Henley seems like a nice guy, but I find myself unquestionably on the side of Rogier van Bakel in their tiff.

You?

[Full disclosure: I sent Rogier the link that started the snarkument.]

Levmore: Libertarians Love Lottery

Check out the rubbish flying under the banner, Don't privatize future by selling state lottery, an op-ed in today's Chicago Tribune.

There are some good arguments for a state-sponsored lottery, and indeed for one that does not have a thin profit margin. Even a good libertarian could say that inasmuch as the government is not coercing people to play the lottery, and there are many private alternatives for gamblers, a state lottery is not the worst of all evils. Some people might actually like playing it, and that must count for something. [Ed.: Emphasis mine.]

[Ellipsis]

Even if we have no single rule to go by in order to know when the government should own something, create a monopoly or compete in an industry, it seems unlikely that we want a government to lock in future governments. Strange as it may sound, privatization should probably be reversible, especially when there is grave doubt as to whether the government should have been in the business in the first place.

We the people, in order to form a more public future. Right on. I think this is the same rationale Hugo Chavez uses to nationalize oil. Good one.

What's more, here in DC, my alternatives to gambling via something other than the state-run lottery are... um... uh... Yeah. Exactly. Even more irritating than the piece itself is from whence the author, Saul Levmore, hails: He's the dean of the University of Chicago law school. More here.