DISQUS

I agree, and I enjoyed the conversation too. I just want to make one comment on the following at the risk of looking like I just want to get the last word in...

"What does that sound like to you, Shane? Does that sound libertarian? No. That sounds liberal. It sounds like a program designed to bolster the bottom for the greater good of the country."

I am not against "redistribution of wealth". I am against forced redistribution of wealth. And not because it is "unfair" or "unconstitutional". But because of the detrimental effects and hidden consequences to the economy. I am all for charities (even federal charities like the Combined Federal Campaign) and churches that find a worthy cause and put together a program of volunteers to raise funds. It is libertarian when some other organization besides the federal gov doing it.

I agree, and I enjoyed the conversation too. I just want to make one comment on the following at the risk of looking like I just want to get the last word in...

"What does that sound like to you, Shane? Does that sound libertarian? No. That sounds liberal. It sounds like a program designed to bolster the bottom for the greater good of the country."

I am not against "redistribution of wealth". I am against forced redistribution of wealth. And not because it is "unfair" or "unconstitutional". But because of the detrimental effects and hidden consequences to the economy. I am all for charities (even federal charities like the Combined Federal Campaign) and churches that find a worthy cause and put together a program of volunteers to raise funds. It is libertarian when some other organization besides the federal gov doing it.

Ok, one more and I swear I'll quit. I mentioned new plans for education besides more money for public schools. What about this? If you didn't know who wrote it, wouldn't you think it would be pretty good idea? http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/cont... (Oh, and skip the first two meaningless paragraphs.)

Ok, one more and I swear I'll quit. I mentioned new plans for education besides more money for public schools. What about this? If you didn't know who wrote it, wouldn't you think it would be pretty good idea? http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/cont... (Oh, and skip the first two meaningless paragraphs.)

I forgot about my one of main points: Just to underscore the futility of intervention in economics, what is Obama's very first push to fix the economy? How is the democratic party setting the course to fix our fiscal crisis? A $100 billion dollar economic stimulus package program. Giving us our own money back evenly distributed (with a little bit off the top to cover some expenses). Thanks guys, I was wondering where my money went, how grateful I am that you plan on returning it! And we know how well it will kick-start the economy as the populace continues to spend it paying off loans and buying crap made in foreign countries right before Christmas. All things that have shown to be completely useless in creating new jobs and putting more money into the American economy. But people will be happy and politicians will be satisfied.

(Oh, and the other push is to bail out US automakers. Because God forbid companies that make crappy, un-innovative cars should have to be forced to drastically rethink their business plans. Who knew that all of that money spent on marketing instead of R&D and efficiency wouldn't pay off. Of course, it's not like they could have made too many changes, the Auto unions prevent them from shutting down plants, cutting projects, taking risks and any other things companies need to do to remain flexible in a volatile economy.)

I forgot about my one of main points: Just to underscore the futility of intervention in economics, what is Obama's very first push to fix the economy? How is the democratic party setting the course to fix our fiscal crisis? A $100 billion dollar economic stimulus package program. Giving us our own money back evenly distributed (with a little bit off the top to cover some expenses). Thanks guys, I was wondering where my money went, how grateful I am that you plan on returning it! And we know how well it will kick-start the economy as the populace continues to spend it paying off loans and buying crap made in foreign countries right before Christmas. All things that have shown to be completely useless in creating new jobs and putting more money into the American economy. But people will be happy and politicians will be satisfied.

(Oh, and the other push is to bail out US automakers. Because God forbid companies that make crappy, un-innovative cars should have to be forced to drastically rethink their business plans. Who knew that all of that money spent on marketing instead of R&D and efficiency wouldn't pay off. Of course, it's not like they could have made too many changes, the Auto unions prevent them from shutting down plants, cutting projects, taking risks and any other things companies need to do to remain flexible in a volatile economy.)

I have faith in people I know, and I keep a critical eye on people I don't know. My distrust for politicians is different, I guess. I would trust them with my car, my baby girl, and usually my life. I know they (Obama's forthcoming administration, Progressive PACs) have good intentions; I believe they are doing what all politicians are paid to do: look at historical data, listen to the people's wishes, listen to the advisers and write the best possible legislation to fix the problem. That sounds pretty flawless. But I haven't been convinced there is a problem. I don't see the crisis. I think the best insult to a libertarian is to accuse them of burying their head in ground like an ostrich as the world crumbles around them. We advocate letting the market do its thing like some invisible hand with spontaneous order creating powers. I acknowledge that the economy is taking a downward turn but economics tell me that is normal. People will lose jobs and they will find new ones. People lose their homes and they will find new ones. Barring a great plague or nuclear attack, I feel pretty comfortable. As long as the market remains mostly free, economics tells me it will find its own equilibrium. A politician didn't tell me that, charts, studies and historical analysis told me that.

Getting back to the point, though; I think politicians are only their to make us feel better. Don't worry we have the solution, it will work shortly. Like religious figures, we give them money and power and in return they give us hope that our problems will go away. And maybe people really do need those delusions, but every time some ambitious politician comes around with a grand plan to fix our country I just sigh. These plans aren't going to steal all of our money or bankrupt our economy. They are going to let worriers stop worrying and get back to work where the real efforts are being made to improve society.

I have faith in people I know, and I keep a critical eye on people I don't know. My distrust for politicians is different, I guess. I would trust them with my car, my baby girl, and usually my life. I know they (Obama's forthcoming administration, Progressive PACs) have good intentions; I believe they are doing what all politicians are paid to do: look at historical data, listen to the people's wishes, listen to the advisers and write the best possible legislation to fix the problem. That sounds pretty flawless. But I haven't been convinced there is a problem. I don't see the crisis. I think the best insult to a libertarian is to accuse them of burying their head in ground like an ostrich as the world crumbles around them. We advocate letting the market do its thing like some invisible hand with spontaneous order creating powers. I acknowledge that the economy is taking a downward turn but economics tell me that is normal. People will lose jobs and they will find new ones. People lose their homes and they will find new ones. Barring a great plague or nuclear attack, I feel pretty comfortable. As long as the market remains mostly free, economics tells me it will find its own equilibrium. A politician didn't tell me that, charts, studies and historical analysis told me that.

Getting back to the point, though; I think politicians are only their to make us feel better. Don't worry we have the solution, it will work shortly. Like religious figures, we give them money and power and in return they give us hope that our problems will go away. And maybe people really do need those delusions, but every time some ambitious politician comes around with a grand plan to fix our country I just sigh. These plans aren't going to steal all of our money or bankrupt our economy. They are going to let worriers stop worrying and get back to work where the real efforts are being made to improve society.

You mentioned that you don't think this is socialism or at least socialism is the wrong word for it. Maybe you are right. I feel like I should stop using the word socialism because it is an accusation with too much emotion attached. Calling some one a socialist just begs the accused to refute the name, not the policy that provoked the name calling. But I suppose that is the problem with any name calling.

I like the idea of new President with powerful reforming ideas, remove old outdated laws and enact new leaner ones that better represent the 21st century. And I think Obama and Rahm and their congress majority are definitely going to have the muscle to do that. And maybe America does need a quick injection of progressive policies in order to revitalize it. I think Rahm is going to be the puppet master for this presidency as Karl Rove is for the current. Democrats will love him and Republicans and Libertarians will hate him.

Universal Citizen Service - Encouraging these young people to participate in their community is great but mandates are way too far. I suppose it is better than a military draft where lives are risked but the philosophy is still questionable. The federal government should have the power to force all 18-25 year olds (legal adults) to ... do... anything is something that totalitarian governments do, not free countries. "A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs." I really can not wait for more bureaucrats telling us how to live our lives and how we can sacrifice more for them. No chance of corruption here.

Universal College Access - Great, lets make our colleges as uniform, drab, and unproductive as public schools. I am all for giving poor but ambitious people a chance to get a degree when they couldn't previously afford it. I am all for public schools to become more specialized like colleges where your education helps you to dive into a field you are passionate about. But if everyone had a college degree (especially if everyone had the same college degree) then how horribly easy, meaningless and useless will it be? Why do janitors, construction workers need college degrees? Wouldn't this be a complete waste of time if they didn't really want one? In the IT world I know, there are plenty of intelligent workers (young and old) without degrees that accomplish great things and are promoted based on productivity and merit. Did they need degrees to be successful? How many successful entrepreneurs make the news without degrees? What's wrong with scholarships, grants, and student loans? Or even a quick 4 years in the military to set you up for nearly a lifetime of free schooling?

Universal Retirement Savings - Better than Social Security I guess. But horrible for small businesses. If I want to work for neighbor's lawn mowing business, he has to offer me a 401k plan? Okay, but I am pretty sure that money is coming straight out of my own pay check. Hopefully I was making well over minimum wage, otherwise my neighbor may not be able to afford to hire me at all.

A return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare as we know it . . .

Tax reform to help those who aren’t wealthy build wealth . . .

A new strategy to win the war on terror . . . Excellent, can't argue with those.

I would like to see how they are able to innovate this alternative energy economy where the market place hasn't been able to. I foresee tons of subsidies for corn farmers soon.

It’s about promoting intelligent decisions when it comes to reproduction, i.e. not having a bunch of kids that you can’t afford and will annoy you as you try to live your adolescent life. This leads to broken families and grandparents raising their grandchildren.

So, I don't get this. I don't see the epidemic. I acknowledge that it is bad when stupid people reproduce like crazy and smart people have one or two kids if any. But it seems like the exact situation you imply (young pregnant mother, father who skips out, child ends up raised by the grandparents) just produced the next President of the United States. He is obviously only one case, but I don't think broken marriages and young couples are the epidemic in themselves. Stupid parents, abusive fathers, shallow mothers are to blame.

But all of the above pretty much misses the point. This is the crux of your argument, I think:

This touches on the heart of my disagreement with some libertarians. The [policiy] I’m advocating [...] is not about transferring responsibility from the individual to the government. It’s about nurturing responsibility, and compassion, and self-sufficiency within individuals through liberal education and social policy. [...] This country needs to re-intellectualize. It needs to be cool to read. It needs to be cool to study and learn. [...] Call it what you will, but it’s our only way out of this void of intellectual interest, education and personal responsibility. And only once we’re dealing with an educated population can we get where we need to be, which is more libertarian.:

One of the few places I dare to break from my libertarian POV is education. Because I agree, everybody benefits when everybody is smarter. But "public school" type thinking is NOT working. Use vouchers, home schooling, private schools, technical schools and a copyright/patent policy where knowledge is more free so kids can tinker and learn.

If you want real improvement in society don't look for President to do it for you. He may inspire you, but it is you that changes society. It is you that makes your life better. You want a political agenda that creates personal responsibility, progressive politics is not the answer. Again, I like Obama the man, and I do believe that he may inspire America and the world to do great things, but don't have so much faith in Rahm and the Progressive PACs, I beg you as an atheist to have has just as much faith in politicians as you do in God.

You mentioned that you don't think this is socialism or at least socialism is the wrong word for it. Maybe you are right. I feel like I should stop using the word socialism because it is an accusation with too much emotion attached. Calling some one a socialist just begs the accused to refute the name, not the policy that provoked the name calling. But I suppose that is the problem with any name calling.

I like the idea of new President with powerful reforming ideas, remove old outdated laws and enact new leaner ones that better represent the 21st century. And I think Obama and Rahm and their congress majority are definitely going to have the muscle to do that. And maybe America does need a quick injection of progressive policies in order to revitalize it. I think Rahm is going to be the puppet master for this presidency as Karl Rove is for the current. Democrats will love him and Republicans and Libertarians will hate him.

Universal Citizen Service - Encouraging these young people to participate in their community is great but mandates are way too far. I suppose it is better than a military draft where lives are risked but the philosophy is still questionable. The federal government should have the power to force all 18-25 year olds (legal adults) to ... do... anything is something that totalitarian governments do, not free countries. "A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs." I really can not wait for more bureaucrats telling us how to live our lives and how we can sacrifice more for them. No chance of corruption here.

Universal College Access - Great, lets make our colleges as uniform, drab, and unproductive as public schools. I am all for giving poor but ambitious people a chance to get a degree when they couldn't previously afford it. I am all for public schools to become more specialized like colleges where your education helps you to dive into a field you are passionate about. But if everyone had a college degree (especially if everyone had the same college degree) then how horribly easy, meaningless and useless will it be? Why do janitors, construction workers need college degrees? Wouldn't this be a complete waste of time if they didn't really want one? In the IT world I know, there are plenty of intelligent workers (young and old) without degrees that accomplish great things and are promoted based on productivity and merit. Did they need degrees to be successful? How many successful entrepreneurs make the news without degrees? What's wrong with scholarships, grants, and student loans? Or even a quick 4 years in the military to set you up for nearly a lifetime of free schooling?

Universal Retirement Savings - Better than Social Security I guess. But horrible for small businesses. If I want to work for neighbor's lawn mowing business, he has to offer me a 401k plan? Okay, but I am pretty sure that money is coming straight out of my own pay check. Hopefully I was making well over minimum wage, otherwise my neighbor may not be able to afford to hire me at all.

A return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare as we know it . . .

Tax reform to help those who aren’t wealthy build wealth . . .

A new strategy to win the war on terror . . . Excellent, can't argue with those.

I would like to see how they are able to innovate this alternative energy economy where the market place hasn't been able to. I foresee tons of subsidies for corn farmers soon.

It’s about promoting intelligent decisions when it comes to reproduction, i.e. not having a bunch of kids that you can’t afford and will annoy you as you try to live your adolescent life. This leads to broken families and grandparents raising their grandchildren.

So, I don't get this. I don't see the epidemic. I acknowledge that it is bad when stupid people reproduce like crazy and smart people have one or two kids if any. But it seems like the exact situation you imply (young pregnant mother, father who skips out, child ends up raised by the grandparents) just produced the next President of the United States. He is obviously only one case, but I don't think broken marriages and young couples are the epidemic in themselves. Stupid parents, abusive fathers, shallow mothers are to blame.

But all of the above pretty much misses the point. This is the crux of your argument, I think:

This touches on the heart of my disagreement with some libertarians. The [policiy] I’m advocating [...] is not about transferring responsibility from the individual to the government. It’s about nurturing responsibility, and compassion, and self-sufficiency within individuals through liberal education and social policy. [...] This country needs to re-intellectualize. It needs to be cool to read. It needs to be cool to study and learn. [...] Call it what you will, but it’s our only way out of this void of intellectual interest, education and personal responsibility. And only once we’re dealing with an educated population can we get where we need to be, which is more libertarian.:

One of the few places I dare to break from my libertarian POV is education. Because I agree, everybody benefits when everybody is smarter. But "public school" type thinking is NOT working. Use vouchers, home schooling, private schools, technical schools and a copyright/patent policy where knowledge is more free so kids can tinker and learn.

If you want real improvement in society don't look for President to do it for you. He may inspire you, but it is you that changes society. It is you that makes your life better. You want a political agenda that creates personal responsibility, progressive politics is not the answer. Again, I like Obama the man, and I do believe that he may inspire America and the world to do great things, but don't have so much faith in Rahm and the Progressive PACs, I beg you as an atheist to have has just as much faith in politicians as you do in God.

@Jamie, That is an interesting thought I hadn't heard before. Blacks (and now more recently Mormons) are being blamed for Prop 8 passing. I suppose the Mormon church really did fund a big campaign for it, but they do have the right to do so.

But what I would like to hear is why you (or anybody) defines Marriage as a right. And I mean the type of gov't recognized marriage. Same sex couples can live together, share funds, have a big ceremony. Why (besides tax status) do they need to be recognized by the State?

@Jamie, That is an interesting thought I hadn't heard before. Blacks (and now more recently Mormons) are being blamed for Prop 8 passing. I suppose the Mormon church really did fund a big campaign for it, but they do have the right to do so.

But what I would like to hear is why you (or anybody) defines Marriage as a right. And I mean the type of gov't recognized marriage. Same sex couples can live together, share funds, have a big ceremony. Why (besides tax status) do they need to be recognized by the State?

So I have been reading their blog for a while now too: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/</p>

They really have excellent statistics. So does http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/</p>

So I have been reading their blog for a while now too: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/</p>

They really have excellent statistics. So does http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/</p>

Not only does he not have long, but look at what is expected of him. The next president it going to be expected to fix the economy. The recession needs to be stopped and maybe turned around. Poor people need to be raised up a notch. He can't be caught up in the usual old-white-man corruptions. He is expected to fix the Iraq situation, and at least make progress in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, for him he is also setting a precedent for future "minority" candidates and if he doesn't live up to the expectations, future minorities and women will have a much harder time being taken seriously. I would love for Obama to come in and shake up Washington, revamp processes from the ground up. But how practical is that?

Fortunately for him he has the congress with so they can pass some pretty powerful legislation. That's good for him, but bad for libertarians.

I don't think Sarah Palin is going to be making an appearance beyond maybe a role as a congresswoman. I don't even think the McCain campaign thought they had a serious shot this time around and got someone who would at least excite the GOP to vote in conservative congressmen.

Not only does he not have long, but look at what is expected of him. The next president it going to be expected to fix the economy. The recession needs to be stopped and maybe turned around. Poor people need to be raised up a notch. He can't be caught up in the usual old-white-man corruptions. He is expected to fix the Iraq situation, and at least make progress in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, for him he is also setting a precedent for future "minority" candidates and if he doesn't live up to the expectations, future minorities and women will have a much harder time being taken seriously. I would love for Obama to come in and shake up Washington, revamp processes from the ground up. But how practical is that?

Fortunately for him he has the congress with so they can pass some pretty powerful legislation. That's good for him, but bad for libertarians.

I don't think Sarah Palin is going to be making an appearance beyond maybe a role as a congresswoman. I don't even think the McCain campaign thought they had a serious shot this time around and got someone who would at least excite the GOP to vote in conservative congressmen.

Actually, I am pretty sure it was only in Europe and America and in the last few hundred years that the majority of slaves were of African descent. In "biblical times" slaves were Jewish, Indians, and even just atheists.

It comes up in every thread about Christianity, but most Christians do not take the word of the (entire) bible to literal. The Christians (white or black or brown) who are against Same-sex marriage, don't do it because the bible tells them to. They do it because they believe it degrades the sanctity of their own religious marriages. That means it comes from themselves, not strictly their religion.

Also, this is only ever brought up as a defense for Obama, but isn't he a Christian? Someone should ask him if he thinks the bible is literal or not and watch him dodge the question.

Okay, I can think of one other thing: Marriage is a privilege/incentive, not a right which makes it different than the current laws against slavery. And nobody is suggesting homosexuals be slaves.

Actually, I am pretty sure it was only in Europe and America and in the last few hundred years that the majority of slaves were of African descent. In "biblical times" slaves were Jewish, Indians, and even just atheists.

It comes up in every thread about Christianity, but most Christians do not take the word of the (entire) bible to literal. The Christians (white or black or brown) who are against Same-sex marriage, don't do it because the bible tells them to. They do it because they believe it degrades the sanctity of their own religious marriages. That means it comes from themselves, not strictly their religion.

Also, this is only ever brought up as a defense for Obama, but isn't he a Christian? Someone should ask him if he thinks the bible is literal or not and watch him dodge the question.

Okay, I can think of one other thing: Marriage is a privilege/incentive, not a right which makes it different than the current laws against slavery. And nobody is suggesting homosexuals be slaves.

I am interested to hear what Obama supporters think about his future Chief of Staff's "New contract for America" : http://volokh.com/posts/1225908208.shtml</p>

I am interested to hear what Obama supporters think about his future Chief of Staff's "New contract for America" : http://volokh.com/posts/1225908208.shtml</p>

So, I get why you would want to use bit.ly and tinyurl for twitter, but isn't it a bit odd considering your knowledge of XSS?

So, I get why you would want to use bit.ly and tinyurl for twitter, but isn't it a bit odd considering your knowledge of XSS?

I hate to be Debbie-Downer, but if this was a McCain sign, no one would question me when I say, "Staged photo op!"

I hate to be Debbie-Downer, but if this was a McCain sign, no one would question me when I say, "Staged photo op!"

@Daniel, I have been reading Lessig and Schneier for years as well. I like them both but Lessig doesn't get in to security at all, more legality of technologies. Still, he would be a great adviser to Obama if he isn't already. He may never be an official adviser, but I'm sure he'd be up there.

@Rob, was that sarcasm? Lessig: Creative Commons? Yeah that went no where /s. Do know how many books Schneier has written on cryptography? Schneier (and company) writes his own crypto algorithms that are used by other people. I know only little about Ranum but Bejitch has had a huge influence on the security as well.

Though I have always been critical of Obama, I do recognize the potential for a leader to finally understand technology and the issues/threats with it. I imagine that the technology world will improve greatly under his watch.