Those damn individuals -- they ruin everything!

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/30/left-wing-pundit-ej-dionne-untempered

Damon Root at Reason Online examines E.J. Dionne's sadness over conservative decline into individualism. Whenever someone in the political class talks about community over the individual, you can be assured that an agenda of domination is at play. What is a community but a collection of individuals? This silly idea of shedding, or tempering, individuality in order to meld into the community is nothing but mishmash mumbo-jumbo to justify some attempt by the elite few to make the controlled many feel good about conformity and the loss of freedom.

We need way more free-thinking individuals who refuse to conform to status quo control. Diversity is the spice of life and innovation is the lifeblood of industry. Creative, free individuals are to be honored, not shamed into lowering their heads and zoning out in group-think.

Everyone has advice for libertarians

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/30/author-david-brin-on-dogmatic-libertaria

David Brin is interviewed by Tim Cavanuagh of Reason, and Brin, who says he's a libertarian but talks like a common liberal know-it-all, has advice for those libertarians who are too libertarian. Brin says that what libertarians must understand -- must understand -- is that our greatest societal problem is oligarchy, as if libertarians of any stripe promote oligarchs. Brin says we need fair competition. Wow. I've been so blind. Seriously, though, I suppose what makes Brin's ideas a little different than basic libertarianism is that he believes everyone should have a fair beginning in life, say, as they turn 25, so government must ensure that all kids grow up with proper nourishment, and that they have the ability to go to college, etc. -- in other words, a strong and powerful welfare state. Cutting edge stuff.

I suspect Brin is simply a modern liberal who cares about civil liberties. He says libertarians are too hung up on property rights, which probably means he's for wealth distribution, especially as it has to do with inheritance tax. To me, what makes a libertarian a libertarian is the belief that social problems can be handled in the private sector -- otherwise, a person is a conservative or a modern liberal. Perhaps it can be boiled down to statist or anti-statist, but, whatever, Brin doesn't seem like much of a libertarian. He sure is confident that he knows what's wrong with libertarians, though.

Dear Glenn Beck, do you know who you're supporting?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/12/rick-santorum-said-it-i-believe-it-that

It's one thing after another -- Santorum reveals himseld as an intolerant statist who's posing as a "small" government conservative. Santorum doesn't understand "small" as limited. Santorum would surely work for efficiency, except in the military which he'd make bigger and more costly with no more oversight than there is now. Santorum is definitely not conservative in the historical meaning of the term -- Santorum is a religious blowhard, as opposed to a person of humble spirituality, and he's a statist. How Beck can fall this political charlatan, I don't know.

Lukewarm, I spit you out.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/14/nick-gillespie-on-why-independents-will

This is the type of lukewarm analysis that Reason and Cato have fallen into, pretending an objectivity that doesn't exist. If writers like Gillespie were really objective, they'd look at an Obama second term as a total failure for the nation.

Gillespie looks at independents and states how they will determine the election, then he "even-handedly" assesses Obama's and Romney's flaws and what they're missing, then says at the end that if they do three things, even a little, they will get the independent vote.

What damn good will it do anyone but Obama and the misguided Left for him to fool the nation into thinking he's focusing on the three things Gillespie lists and get re-elected? If Gillespie abided by objectivity, he'd realize that an Obama second term will be characterized by a double-down on statist intervention. Gillespie states it will be easier for Obama to stand against his base and get re-elected. Isn't this convenient? What Gillespie doesn't make clear is that Obama's posturing to get re-elected will be temporary. Obama didn't create the monster Healthcare plan and support the economy-killing Dodd-Frank because he was pressured by the Left, and he didn't pay off the union in mad rush of cronyism because his kneecaps were threatened. Obama is a progressive, and his policies are antithetical to limits on government power and a free market. Gillespie can claim he's merely looking at the politics of the situation, and what it will take to get elected for either Romney or Obama, but who cares what dishonest tactics will work to get elected? If Reason and Cato can't objectively wave the warning flag and committ to liberty and anti-statism, or at least reject illiberal policies and regulations and all forms of statist inteventions with terrible consequences, then they're just a bunch of pundits piled on top of the idiots already blathering about politics on cable news.

Maybe Romney will be bad too, but I don't see any way he can be as bad for the nation as Obama -- and, man, that's as objective as it gets.

Seriously, conservatives, is this what you want?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/15/president-santorum-would-talk-about-the

As Gillespie says, I have no problem if an individual believes sex should only happen on clean sheets in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation, but when that person is running for President and says it's the business of government to legislate on this issue -- how and why we have sex -- then, holy mother of catfish and broccoli, people, this is not what the Republican Party should support. Santorum is a moralistic freak who has no business possessing the power of the Presidency. I don't need President Santorum telling me why and when and how I should be having sex, and whether contraceptions are good or bad. Seriously, this freak is going to destroy the Republican Party. And Glenn Beck is still supporting him -- Beck has suggested it's an act of God that Santorum is leading right now. Beck has lost his mind. That's a shame. Perhaps he just doesn't know enough about Santorum.

Update on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:18AM by M. Farmer

I have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party is too important as an oppositional force to progressivism and a transformational, dynamic force for economic growth to be left to social conservatives and Centrist wimps. Independents, classical liberals, limited government conservatives and libertarians will have to pull the Party together and force representatives to roll back the interventions.