Michael Tanner on paternalism

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279178/paternalism-and-principle-michael-tanner

Paternalism is practiced with good intentions, yet the longer paternalism is allowed free reign the more it grows into something more dangerous and autocratic. First it's light bulbs to force people to not waste energy, then it's the cars we drive which might soon cover transportation in general.

Paternalism is not totalitarianism by any stretch of the imagination, but paternalism started in the USSR as something far less than totalitarianism. The danger arises when paternalism is institutionalized and government officials gain the power to direct our choices. The larger the bureaucracy becomes, more and more ideas develope which will be good for the collective, until thinking in collective terms is the only way government officials can think about the public. Individualism and individual rights become  hindrances to the collective's best interest, and resistance to control is seen as a threat to the collective. Iconoclastic individuals are enemies of the collective.

Paternalism in America should be stopped before it goes any further, but the changes happen so gradually that the public accepts small implementations until the public is either trained to obey the paternalistic State, or it's too late to easily make changes.

The Power of Cool: Libertarian Image and the 2.0 Candidate

One thing we know about modern society is that we like cool. Obama won the cool factor in the election, but look who's in the Democrat Party -- Frank, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd -- uncool.

Sarah Palin had a little of the cool factor, yet the media immediately took care of that and made her a fanatical, moose-hunting, mental lightweight with a clothes fetish. McCain was not cool and everytime he said "maverick" subtracted five cool points.

The libertarians had the most uncool person on the planet -- Bob Barr. Even the name, Bob Barr, says "bleh!". Ron Paul was cool in his ideas but his delivery and personality are uncool. A candidate has to spur the imagination and inspire an emotional response, either by personality and appearance or by an overpowering gift for speaking and making words come alive. MLK wasn't a model or a funky character but when he spoke he became beautiful in presence and soul -- MLK had the cool factor and spine-tingle factor -- he spurred the imagination and inspired an emotional response.

The libertarians need a "cool" figurehead. I suggested at Reason that libertarians need a cross between Kevin Rose and Ron Paul, someone who can bridge generations and bring unity to libertarian-spirited people across the country, from the old libertarians who've read Murray Rothbard to the new libertarians who don't know they're libertarians but are searching for something cool, free and techno-centered. The perfect 2.0 candidate. 

Technology and 2.0, going into 3.0, isn't about spending a lot of time wonking (I realize "wonking" can be taken two ways -- take your pick) politics and spinning a party line -- all its adherents are rushing to the future and don't like roadblocks. Yet, what's not realized is that while they're busy social networking and dreaming in 3.0 clouds, the state is busy networking politically to control this new wave of freedom. The new generation needs representation that understands the value of freedom, honesty, true community and transparency. The Internet Age needs a spokesperson, a new-style politician, a limited government which protects its freedoms and values its ambition and vision. 

The Internet Age and The State are like oil and water, but this new generation had better understand reality and know that The State will clamp down on too much freedom -- a new Jefferson (male or female) with a tat and attitude is sorely needed.