DISQUS

Don't kid yourself. The so-called "loss" of freedom in the United States of which you speak is actually variance in the normal curve of the "freedom phenomena". The United States has the most solidly enshrined freedom-protecting law enshrined as an integral part to its constitution in the whole world. The populace in the countries that you mention have neither the will nor the means to prevent their own government from seriously encroaching on their "liberties(temporary)", unlike the populace of the United States.

If you truly believe that those countries are more free, your purported status as a serious libertarian would compel you to move to one or the other in short order. Since you have not backed up those claims with action, you have revealed your assertions to be merely tropes, trinkets to be brought out in your cocktail party(or whatever social events you favor) dalliances.

Take that, USA! And that, and that, and that...

If Calpers and other pension plans are significantly invested in Fannie, Freddy, Lehman, B of A, and/or etc., eliminating safety nets for "billionaires" constitutes eliminating safety nets for everyone else. D'oh!

"The Future of the Internet - And How To Stop It" by Jonathon Zittrain.

You said it.

Yeah, but the fact that the guy with the buzz-cut can pulp you when nobody is looking and people will consider him justified because you resisted his authority in a disrespectful way("Screw you!") should give a man pause. Obviously you've never had an adverse run in with such folk. Elephant in the room or no, the 400 lb gorilla sits wherever he wants. Palin doesn't exude that kind of energy, but I'm willing to bet that she will send a buzz-cut to pulp you when no one is looking, if it is necessary.

Talking about Palin's appeal in terms of sexiness is tantamount to talking about Obama's appeal in the same terms. Does speculation on the length and girth of Obama's dong now become legitimate political discourse? I know this is just a blog, but I would have expected better from someone associated with the Cato Institute. You just keep leaving the barn door open.

The only way we are coming off of fossil fuels anytime soon is if an autocratic, top-down system controlling the way in which we choose energy. We have had enough growth, anyway. Time to make due with what we have got.

I know it is a bit of a cliche, but invoking "Devil's advocate" before you present something half-baked is an excellent way to avoid getting pummeled when someone launches a full scale assault on your proposition(s). Just a thought.

I will tackle (b). The meaning of the phrase "a well functioning price system" is subject to debate. "Cleaner" is a relative term, and its inclusion in a formula does not make for anything approaching the solidity of a mathematical identity. Example, does a "cleaner" power grid mean pushing the development of an HIV or Cancer vaccine back 15-20 years or more? How clean will such a power seem to your average Prius driving yet AIDS ribbon wearing celebrity? Which technological advances in the short term should we sacrifice in order to reach this "clean" energy? Keep in mind that the power structures necessary to "ration" technological advances in the furtherance of a switch to "clean" energy will be top-down and bureacratic in nature, and will hence further decrease the efficiency of our capital allocation mechanisms, an you have got a reduction of our ability to progress towards technological advance, again.

I beg to differ. Caffeine assists me in organizing my life, and hence increases my ability to record and expand upon the insights I do have. Essentially, I am willing to concede that there is some decrease in insight, but I propose that the increased organization factor provided by stimulants enables a greater total capitalization on generated insights.

The upside is that the uptick in the minimum wage increases wage pressure, and as a result capital investment becomes more attractive to industry, thereby counteracting the effects of cheap illegal immigrant labor which increases the decreases wage pressure & reduces incentives for capital investment.

Sorry, but the "right" to travel is not a right at all. It is a privilege. A nation must have an overriding reason to allow foreigners within its borders. The situation is analogous to my "right" to travel within your home. You have to invite me first. Open borders is tantamount to the abolishment of private property. It is a purely socialist sentiment, and one that is unbecoming for any man of voting age to profess.

It is too bad every other society besides Denmark is heterogeneous. If they were all homogeneous, like Denmark, we might be able to deduce some general principles that would apply to them.

Will said: "...it is apparently morally outrageous to address inequality by actually addressing the mechanisms that cause it — the relation between the supply and demand of skill — if that involves making some foreigners a lot wealthier."

Yep. Downright taboo. 'Us versus them' is one of the human animal's most favorite games, and one its most dangerous ones.

I agree with Pithlord. The phrase "supply side economics" has become taboo, and its use distracts otherwise reasonable people from giving your arguments a fair shake. We should abandon the term, but continue to honor the credible ideas associated with it.

Disassembling Social Security in any manner will tarnish the legacy of FDR's New Deal I & New Deal II. It will be difficult for Democrats to admit that he instituted any system which is incapable of maintaining itself in perpetuity, and Republicans will tear it apart so gleefully that they could easily screw things up worse than they were before. So, in a way, I agree with Yglesias. It is an either/or.

I agree with the definition of patriotism as defined by Tim Lee. However, I would like to add this caveat. The degree and manner in which to which a person manifests patriotism is directly proportionate to the alignment between the individual's political philosophy, and the country's. I propose that the closer the alignment is, the more likely the actor is to make overt expressions of his patriotism. For example, say the country's political philosophy is, by virtue of a majority view among its citizens, that the country should regularly intervene in the affairs of other nations with military action. The more closely an actor's views align with the country's, the more likely he is to express his patriotism, by making a gesture like joining the military. Likewise, the further the actor's political philosophy is from the nations, say pacifism, for example, the less likely the actor is to join the military as an expression of his patriotism. The actor with lower affinity to the country's political philosophy may be more likely to show his patriotism by protesting against the war.
How is this relevant? If "classic" patriotism is defined as doing things like joining up with the military, then the person who loves their country but believes that protest against war is the most patriotic action may not be considered to be patriotic, when he is just as patriotic as the one who joins the military.
In response to joleson's comment, about defining oneself as a citizen of the world as opposed to a citizen of a particular nation, the static analysis of considering all lives equally valuable except an opposing army fails to take into account that such considerations may lead to a strengthening of a future opposing army's prospect of defeating us and inflicting casualties on us. If one considers the big picture, the fact that in world affairs, we are playing chess and not checkers, the ultimate calculus sometimes involves deciding who is going to die, us or them, without middle ground. Personally, I value the life of my child over that of someone I have never met. Part of humanity is valuing the lives of our own loved ones over that of strangers. Doing otherwise is widely considered to be cold and inhuman.

Three words: Taxation without representation. When you aren't getting representation, revolution is legitimate. When you are, revolution is illegitimate. We are getting it, so revolution tomorrow would be illegitimate.