Cafe Hayek

« Tierney on "Availability Entrepreneurs" and "Availability Cascades" | Main | Exodus to the virtual world» Russell Roberts

January 07, 2008

I Still Don't Want My Son to Enter Politics

Don Boudreaux

I don't have time to respond to all of the comments on my letter in which I insist that I would be ashamed if my son became a successful politician.  But here are a few summary points.

(1) That letter was not written tongue-in-cheek.  I'm quite serious.

(2) In a world where government's power were much more limited, my opinion would likely be different.

(3) I have no recipe to get from our world of expanding and intrusive government to one in which government is more constrained -- but I emphatically do not believe that persons elected to "lead" a powerful government will ever do much to restrain the power of that government.  In a real sense, government reflects the expressive values and ideas of the populace.  (See Brennan's and Lomasky's Democracy and Decision, and Bryan Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter.)  Change these values and ideas for the better and you might rein in government.  But electing Mr. or Mrs. Leader to high office will not do the trick.

(4) I'm certainly not opposed to people expressing ideas, but my sense is that in political campaigns the ratio of genuine ideas to posturing-and-pandering is minuscule.  I dislike watching the likes of Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for the same reason that I dislike watching professional wrestling.  (Actually, if I had to choose, I sincerely would prefer to watch professional wrestling because the "victors" in those contests never get power to take my resources or to tell me how to live my life.)

(5) I challenge anyone to argue that the behavior of any of the major candidates (with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) is admirable.  Everyone knows that each serious candidate trims, waffles, is duplicitous, has his or her finger in the winds blown by polls, and wants to be President not because of any burning itch to help fellow human beings but because the job comes with all the trappings, and much of the power, of royalty.  Anyone who wants power (or, if you prefer, gilded office) so badly to work as hard as candidates must work to get such office -- anyone who wants power or office so desperately so that they will pander publicly as most candidates do -- is most certainly not to be trusted with power.

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e54fc3bb0c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I Still Don't Want My Son to Enter Politics:

Comments

Good stuff.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Jan 7, 2008 10:22:00 AM

Funny you should bring professional wrestling into this. Back in 1992, I was watching C-SPAN's coverage of a then-President Bush speech in Charlotte, North Carolina. On a wide shot, they showed other people sitting at the table flanking the dais where Bush was speaking.

Who was sitting there at the table in a three-piece, light blue suit? None other than professional wrestler Ric Flair, who was there lending his ("wooooo") support to Bush. Quite a sight.

But on a more serious note, former wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura seemingly tried to take on the political establishment in Minnesota when he was governor there. As I recall, his big push was to try to cut the number of people in power in half by switching to a unicameral state legislature...but he was never able to muster enough support to pass it.

Posted by: tw | Jan 7, 2008 10:58:35 AM

So, then, are Paul and Kucinich to be trusted with the power? It seems that they would be (both from a general, uninformed, gut level assessment, and from reading these two posts of yours, Professor).

If they are, what is it that would differentiate them? Simply a principled and continuous call for less government?

What if your son were a candidate who said "sorry...what you're asking for from me is neither my job nor my responsibility, and governmental meddling in the situation would almost certainly make the whole damn thing worse off for everyone, at least in the longer run"?

He probably wouldn't get elected...but...

Posted by: shawn | Jan 7, 2008 11:07:10 AM

sorry...end of that first paragraph should be:

'It seems that they [Paul/Kucinich]would be [blah, blah] trustworthy.'

Posted by: shawn | Jan 7, 2008 11:11:32 AM

Don,

Re; "In a real sense, government reflects the expressive values and ideas of the populace."

True, but important to remember also that government plays a significant role in forming the expressive values and ideas of the populace. Why, for example, do people believe in government? Because government rewards those who believe in it. Human nature being what it is, the rewarded seldom stop to consider that the reward is given at the expense of others. Easier to simply rationalize that the entire system is for the best. And the necessary rationalizations are, of course, provided via the government controlled mandatory education system.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 7, 2008 12:11:24 PM

I am validated. I thought I was the only one out there who could reconcile liking both Kucinich and Paul. Is there a difference between McCain and Clinton (or any of the rest of them?)? Methinks not.

It is incredible to me that Huckabee, who seems like a very likable character, was able to win Iowa by saying absolutely nothing of substance. Only 11 more months of intense hot air . . .

Posted by: Chris Blanchard | Jan 7, 2008 12:20:24 PM

With regards to the problem that people who seek power are unfit to have power, I would refer you to the late Douglas Adams for a solution.

Posted by: Rolo | Jan 7, 2008 12:41:35 PM

Nothing to add.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 7, 2008 12:44:45 PM

Then I take it you believe that as a rule, anyone claiming to want to be elected to an office for the express purpose of circumscribing or reducing the power of that office is being disingenuous? That would seem to make the Libertarians into the worst sort of hypocrite... Do you actually believe this in as strong a form as you imply above?

Posted by: Randomscrub | Jan 7, 2008 1:23:15 PM

I'd like some clarification here. It seems like a lot of people in the comments are mentioning that there are people running for office that would want to reduce the size of government, and so that must either invalidate the hypothesis or make those people hypocrites. While I accept that they may be hypocrites, I read the post as saying anyone who could WIN as a politician has to be a duplicitous monster, not anyone who runs for political office.

Am I reading this right?

Also, I have to say that I am not a fan of anyone who has ever run for president that I know of, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich included. Even when people aren't playing the game, the debates I hear are just so full of fundamental flaws in reasoning that I can't in good conscience support those debating.

Posted by: Paul | Jan 7, 2008 1:32:19 PM

Prof. Boudreaux,

I think you hit it right on the mark. I feel the same way. Politics has always been a bloodsport, but it's been disheartening of late to see the kind of people who gleefully run toward the political arena, laced gloves and mouthpiece in check. We are told that those running for higher office are, ostensibly, imbued with a "call to service." They have a noble spirit that inspires them to govern.

Listening to their policy proposals, however, I get the feeling that this "call to service" is rife with disingenuous intentions. And their noble intentions requires very little of them. They seem to me, on a whole range of issues, either not get it, or worse yet, they do get it, but choose to lead us down a different path.

Moreover, public service requires at least a modicum of sacrifice, no? Why don't the candidates speak more on this sacrifice? What is sacrifice to these people? I understand that they have to make difficult decisions with respect to their careers. Their opportunity costs for them and their families must undoubtedly be high. But doesn't the notion of sacrifice entail an inevitable loss, however you measure it? If somehow they do sacrifice, I admit, I've been blind to their plight and must pay better attention.

I also find it puzzling to hear from both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates this talk--from the vacuous to the just plain philistine--about what sorts of policy they would enact that would benefit "the world." Talk about megalomania. After watching the debates, I find myself constantly re-reading my pocket US Constitution to find the passages that speak directly to the president of the US setting "world policy." These research findings always end the same: in vain.

But more to your point, we have to ask again what kind of person is attracted to the vile industry that is American politics? The way politics is practiced now (perhaps it's always been this way, though I doubt it's ever been this extreme), I ask, what kind of person can withstand the scrutiny, the meanness and the pettiness? In the benefit-cost analysis, what kind of reward does higher office offer that outweighs these costs? What motivates these people?

You recently posted a YouTube video of Milton Friedman speaking with Phil Donahue on the notion of greed and virtue (elegantly, I may add, it's amazing how he would tackle enormous subjects and offer solutions so pithily). One of the more memorable lines that I took away from that short clip which concerns this topic is the last paragraph in the transcript below:

“And what does reward virtue? You think the Communist Commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think—excuse me, if you’ll pardon me—do you think American presidents rewards virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?

“Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me, where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.”

I have a couple of my own answers to this problem of virtue in elected officials. On my most cynical days I find that these angels who aspire for higher office often have a voracious appetite for fame/notoriety/power, a keen ambition and a exceedingly big ego.On my most charitable days, they're just misguided and ill-informed.

Posted by: Tony M. | Jan 7, 2008 2:22:21 PM

I'm confused as to how Kucinich keeps being mentioned in the same sentence as Ron Paul when discussing candidates who are 'admirable' or want to reduce the power of government. Kucinich wants to restrict government power with regard only to war-making and civil liberties. In every other area (health care, environment, education, gun laws, taxes, campaign finance, trade, wage controls, economic regulation, etc), he wants to usher in a virtually totalitarian state.

Do people consider him 'admirable' simply because he's up front about that whereas most candidates try to obfuscate it? Isn't that sort of like saying Hitler was admirable because he was very open about his desire to wipe out the Jews and conquer Europe?

Posted by: Darren | Jan 7, 2008 2:23:00 PM

Kucinich? Where was I when Kucinich called for smaller government? Everything I've heard him say sounds a lot like a call for the exact opposite. I've yet to hear anything he thinks we should regulate less (except abortion of course).....

Posted by: Nick | Jan 7, 2008 2:54:30 PM

"Everyone knows that each serious candidate trims, waffles, is duplicitous, has his or her finger in the winds blown by polls,..."

Oh, you mean they're like, well, human!

I suppose we could allow only polywogs to run for office. Then we could be assured that they would be none of those things.

I don't think things are quite so black and white.

Posted by: Bret | Jan 7, 2008 5:10:50 PM

Quick note: I never claimed that Kucinich advocates small government; clearly he does not. Except on the war, I scarcely agree with the man. My only point is that, while on the campaign trail, he seems to say what he believes and doesn't pander to increase his electability. (Whether or not he, or Ron Paul, would continue to be so forthright if either man suddenly found himself in a position to seriously get his party's nomination is an open question.)

Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Jan 7, 2008 7:57:24 PM

I have no recipe to get from our world of expanding and intrusive government to one in which government is more constrained

With the assumption that the best way to take down a structure is from the inside, I began working with my neighborhood council. After several years of learning how the sausage is made, I'm now contemplating a run for elected office. Also relevant is a second assumption, that the government which has the most impact on every-day choices is local government.

One need not become President to constrain government. If I can just keep the Council from enacting ludicrous local conservation ordinances, for example, I will have put a chip in the foundation of tyranny. That's enough for one person. If we follow "each one, teach one" along this line, maybe the government will eventually shrink.

Posted by: foxmarks | Jan 7, 2008 10:28:27 PM

Change these values and ideas for the better and you might rein in government. But electing Mr. or Mrs. Leader to high office will not do the trick.

But if you change the values and ideas, won't that make it possible for more honest and liberty loving candidates to win office? Who do you think is going to change the laws, if you don't, at some point, elect liberty-minded individuals to office?

Posted by: Christopher Rasch | Jan 8, 2008 12:40:42 AM

"You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don’t want to see us fall backwards." Hillary Clinton

Yes, of course she's had opportunities. She's a charter member of the political class. And she's afraid that if she doesn't get to be President she won't get all the opportunities she feels entitled to. So does she really care about "the people"? Maybe. But she's been pretending to care for so long that its hard to distinguish between the reality and the illusion.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 11:22:33 AM

"Anyone who wants power (or, if you prefer, gilded office) so badly to work as hard as candidates must work to get such office -- anyone who wants power or office so desperately so that they will pander publicly as most candidates do -- is most certainly not to be trusted with power."

"Change these values and ideas for the better and you might rein in government. But electing Mr. or Mrs. Leader to high office will not do the trick."

If going to great lengths to attain power is proof of corrupt motives, then the founders of our country are the most corrupt bunch of them all, aren't they Don? After all, they were willing to SHED BLOOD to gain power. Suffering through the cold in Valley Forge is a bit more effort than appearing on television in endless "debates", isn't it? If so, then those darn founders were less trustworthy than anyone who has followed them.

Your point that politicians aren't downy-pure saviors is true. Your insinuation that they are by definition 100% untrustworthy is an indication that you've been imbibing a bit too much or your own kool-aid.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 12:04:29 PM

Mark,

Re; "If so, then those darn founders were less trustworthy than anyone who has followed them."

True. Good point. The American revolution resulted in thousands of deaths, injuries, and displacements, and for what? Would you like to try to make the case that we are today any freer than the residents of Canada, Australia, or Great Britain? The American revolution was just one more case of the members of the political class battling each other for dominance at the expense of ordinary people.

"War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." Carl von Clausewitz

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 12:35:32 PM

Prof. Boudreaux, Your post echoes Hayek's "Why the worst get on top" (chap. 10 of the Road to Serfdom) and also a recent article of yours ("Dirty Job"). I also remember an Econtalk podcast in which you declare that Hayek's three-volume "Law, Legislation and Liberty" was perhaps the most influential text of your intellectual education. In it, Hayek tries to solve the dirty politician dilemma by proposing an alternative to democracy, which he calls "demarchy" (he declared this to be one of the two original ideas he ever had). Do you believe such a system could be at least a partial reconciliation of the inherent contradictions within democratic systems? It would be very instructive if you expounded your views on this.

Posted by: Fabio Franco | Jan 8, 2008 12:37:04 PM

So, Randy, the founders must make you pretty sick, huh? All that killing, just so those rascals could subjugate others?

Also, you're making a mistake when you compare our freedoms today to those of other countries today. The founders, as selfish, elitist ruling-class subjugators, were only interested in their own contemporary benefits. How would you compare the freedom of a citizen of the newly minted USA under Washington's first term compared the that of the average citizen of the British crown? Was our constitution an equally bad tyranny as that of the monarchy?

Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 1:25:02 PM

"Anyone who wants power (or, if you prefer, gilded office) so badly to work as hard as candidates must work to get such office -- anyone who wants power or office so desperately so that they will pander publicly as most candidates do -- is most certainly not to be trusted with power."

Don, your reasoning applies to you as a parent. You wanted the office of parent so badly that you and your wife were willing to go thru nine months of pregnancy, a difficult and expensive visit to the hospital, followed by the difficulties of caring for an infant, a toddler, and beyond, for the next 18-30 years. Surely you must be some sick and twisted individual, because all of this effort proves that you wanted to subjugate another human being. Surely you must expect quite a high price in return for all of this time, money and effort you're expending on your duped offspring.

How dare you. Sicko.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 1:42:22 PM

Mark,

Re; "Was our constitution an equally bad tyranny as that of the monarchy?"

It was far worse for a great many. Specifically, for the approximately five percent of the population known as Loyalists who were forcibly expelled after the war. And was it any great improvement for the rest of the population? The participants in Shay's Rebellion certainly didn't think so.

From the Wik;

"Shays' rebellion was an armed uprising in Western Massachusetts from 1786 to 1787. The rebels, led by Daniel Shays and known as Shaysites (Regulators), were mostly small farmers angered by crushing debt and taxes. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtor's prisons or the claiming of property by the state."

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 2:07:33 PM

P.S. Yes, I know that both of these took place prior to the Constitution, but they are nonetheless examples of tyranny on the part of those in question. And after the Constitution? Indian wars, a war with Mexico, an occupation of the southern states by federal troops, more Indian wars, a war with Spain, a war in Europe, the steady expansion of the Progressive state, another war in Europe and one in Asia, still greater expansion of the Progressive state... need I go on? Do you really believe this to be a lesser tyranny than that imposed by George III? Read the full text of the Declaration of Independance. See how many of the articles are at least as applicable today as then.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 2:41:38 PM

Randy: the guilt you must feel for being part of such a heinous society must be overwhelming. My condolences. It's too bad you couldn't have been born into one of the hundreds and hundreds of other countries which are so much more just and fair than ours. I wish that a USA-shaped asteroid would come down from space and destroy us all. It would be that much sweeter if folks like yourself could be given a warning so you could flee someplace else and so confirm your belief that your former life in the USA was as bad as you thought it was. You deserve to be spared because you had the insight and courage to stare into the eyeball of the enormity of our desecrated constitutional republic and name its evil for what it is. Bless you.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 3:15:50 PM

"And after the Constitution? Indian wars, a war with Mexico, an occupation of the southern states by federal troops, more Indian wars, a war with Spain, a war in Europe, the steady expansion of the Progressive state, another war in Europe and one in Asia"

You're right, Randy. War is unconstitutional. Are we even allowed to have an army? I can't remember. If we are, I'm sure we're not supposed to use it. Nothing oppresses the American citizen more than to have the government wield military force. Shame on us.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 3:19:40 PM

"Everyone knows that each serious candidate trims, waffles, is duplicitous, has his or her finger in the winds blown by polls, and wants to be President not because of any burning itch to help fellow human beings but because the job comes with all the trappings, and much of the power, of royalty."

OK, the more I read this the stupider it gets. "Everyone knows"? What you're really saying is, "I really feel strongly..." You're being as emotional and irrational as those who fawn over political candidates. You can't allow for any mixed motives on the part of a politician? Or is it only presidential candidates who are purely evil? Do you have any mixed motives in what you do? Or are you purely altruistic?

Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 3:28:11 PM

I have no guilt whatsoever, Mark. They want my rent payments and I always pay on time. I just don't see any reason to think of the enterprise of government as anything glorious, nor of the political class as anything but self interested. Maybe you think I've had too much of the Kool-aid. The way I see it, I've been force fed so much Kool-aid by the political class that it no longer has any effect. I now see the politicians as they are - and it ain't pretty. So I smile, nod, and pay the rent when I have to, and otherwise generally avoid contact with them if at all possible.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 3:45:06 PM

...except to take potshots at them on blogs, of course. Just a little good clean fun :)

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 3:48:11 PM

...and now that you mention it...

"Nothing oppresses the American citizen more than to have the government wield military force."

That is how it starts isn't it? They tell me that I'm in danger. How do I know? Why should I trust people who make a living by sticking their noses into other people's business? Seems more likely to me that the enemy is just an enemy of the political class, and that they just want me along to do the dirty work.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 4:00:25 PM

"need I go on? Do you really believe this to be a lesser tyranny than that imposed by George III? Read the full text of the Declaration of Independance. See how many of the articles are at least as applicable today as then.
Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 2:41:38 PM

Randy,
I am basically on your side of things in your discussions here. But,

Have you stopped to contemplate what a major loss it was to British world position, morale, and self assurance to have the colonies break off, defeat their troops, and declare themselves a nation? Does it not suggest a British Empire of an entirely different nature had this not happened? Then to confront the new USA again in 1812 and still no victory?

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 8, 2008 4:32:22 PM

Speaking of Shay's Rebellion under the Articles of Confederation, and the Whiskey Rebellion under the brand new Constitution; is it not ironic that the first two times the President had to use troops to suppress rebellion and restore order in our new nation was to suppress rebellions over taxes?

The very thing that was the strongest impetus for our own rebellion against Britan.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 8, 2008 4:37:19 PM

Vidyohs,

Re; the British Empire.

True, things could have been way different if the Brits had won. Guess we'll never know. But about a third of the colonists supported the British and another third wanted nothing to do with a revolution. So just how bad could the situation really have been? I think a bunch of hotheads seizing on an opportunity to fill a power vacuum makes a lot more sense than the stories of a glorious revolution to make men free - especially in light of the events that followed.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 4:48:55 PM

"I just don't see any reason to think of the enterprise of government as anything glorious, nor of the political class as anything but self interested. "

We all agree on that. But Don's specious point was that anyone who puts a great deal of energy into getting power must surely not be trustworthy to have it. This kind of categorical statement sounds like something a high school student would say. It implies that he thinks that they should e something less than self interested. It also implies that he is above any of the pandering that politicians are guilty of. I doubt Don would want us all to go back in a time machine to look at his job resumes or listen to his job interviews. He might not want us to see a little finger-moistening or pandering. Or is Don too honest to puff up his accomplishments? Or would he be sure to remind a potential employer of all his quirks, sins and shortcomings during a job interview?

Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 5:16:54 PM

Mark,

Like something a high school student would say? Okay. But it just seems plain obvious to me. We're talking about people who seek, not just power, but political power. That is, people who spend considerable amounts of energy to obtain the ability to control the lives of others. Would you trust such a person in your personal life? - 'cause I wouldn't. So why trust such a person for public life?

On that thought, it has occurred to me that the type of behavior we practice and tolerate in our public persona is completely different than what we practice or tolerate in our private persona. In private, we know that our primary responsibility is to live and let live. In public, we somehow believe we have a responsibility to stick our nose into other people's business. Can anyone tell me why this is? Nature or nurture? Propaganda? What is it?

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 5:53:46 PM

You say "I insist that I would be ashamed if my son became a successful politician... not written tongue-in-cheek. I'm quite serious."

And then I must insist that this sounds utterly incompatible with an educator that no matter what the difficulties should always believe and strive for betterment… and by the way, coming down this hard on what could be your son’s plans, does not sound very libertarian either. Let him be a successful politician if he wants why should you impose on him any guilt feelings…has he been complaining about you being a professor? Is he not proud of you?

Cheers

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jan 8, 2008 6:13:24 PM

Randy,

Yes the ones that were Tory were probably closer to 40%, those that were ambivalant more like 10-15%, and the rest either were active in revolution or supported it through goods and services to active fighters. However, again Randy, a little deeper thinking on the subject may change your mind about how bad it was and using the 50-55% either Tory or ambivalent as evidence of that is weak at best.

Look around you at Joe Sixpack (leftwing or rightwing), if the thugs don't kick his door down and injure him or his loved ones, he isn't going to want change or embrace change. The colonials were no different.

I disagree with your assessment that there was a power vacumm. Definitely not. British rule was definitely in evidence and had on the ground force to back it up until hostilities broke out.

I disagree with your assessment of the founding fathers as hotheads seizing a moment. The evidence is clear that there was a very long path to active revolution, which may not have happened at all if the Brits had not forced the issue at Lexington and Concord. The break did not happen over night, it happened through years and years of oppression, talk, pleading, and more oppression. At any point the King could have bent just a little and saved his colonies. You know that is true. It is even written in the Declaration of Independence, stated precisely and concisely.

I agree that the Indians got stuffed pretty damn bad, but not so much because of what the founding fathers created and left to their decendants, but because of the total incompatibility of the Indian way of life and that of the colonials. I wouldn't even pretend to defend our nation's actions in regards to the Indians.

As to the rest of your assertions most of them I agree with. For the USA to point fingers is the kettle calling the pot black.

It still goes on today, internally and externally. But Joe Sixpack (leftwing or rightwing) can't be bothered by that....hells bells......gotta get the kids tickets to Hannah Montanna at the Houston Livestock show and Rodeo....priorities you know. Of course yesterday it was, after the game we will talk about it.

Etc. Etc.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 8, 2008 6:36:36 PM

"(Whether or not he, or Ron Paul, would continue to be so forthright if either man suddenly found himself in a position to seriously get his party's nomination is an open question.)

Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Jan 7, 2008 7:57:24 PM"

Don,
You speak true here.

In Houston for a long time we had a group of 15 to 40 people that met regularly under the name of Jefferson Forum. The people in this group are no novices to government misdeeds and corruption. Most are legal researchers of one stripe or another and most are in conflict with government ideaologically or actual. We have a mountain of information concerning taxes, legal restrictions, court case cites, history and documentation that most people never have a clue about.

Ron Paul came with his wife one night to speak to us, approximately 3-4 years ago. We know he knows where the bodies are buried and where the money goes, but he ain't talking. Whatever else he may be he is a politician and he knows that none of his beliefs or ideas will ever be implemented into law. His only purpose in this campaign is to teach and expose Americans to knowledge that they lack. He has no hope of winning and knows with certainty that a Libertarian in the Oval Office has no chance in hell of getting any legislation passed by a congress in either Republican hands or Democrat hands. At most such a President could use the veto with the wise expectation of it being overridden. The press (MSM) would ignore him, pillory him if they did deign to acknowledge him, and his term of office would be a 'non', whatever non you choose to attach it to.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 8, 2008 7:19:27 PM

Okay, I'll bite :)

Question; If there was no power vacuum, why should the King have had to bend even a little? Remember also that the British were primarily a naval power and had the habit of staying out of ground conflicts with the major powers, choosing instead to take advantage of wars as an opportunity to sail the globe and pick off colonies. They also hired Hessian mercenaries and employed loyalists extensively during the war. The British were powerful, no doubt, but even they were not really up to the task of controlling an area the size of the eastern seaboard. Washington's strategy was basically to outlast them - and he did.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 7:22:33 PM

Randy,

Again we see why debating via posting on blogs is fruitless. It is an endless chase around the mulberry bush.

To have a proper debate both of us would have to agree on certain terms and their definitions. It is obvious that we aren't operating from the same base of knowledge.

For instance power vacumm. I don't know how you define that, but I have studied history also and I see no evidence of a power vacumm in colonial america in the years leading up to the revolutionary war. Taxes were collected for the king, post was delivered, crime was punished, civil administration was carried on in a normal fashion, and the roads were as safe to travel as those of England itself. The only riot of note was promptly put down and not repeated. Troops were quartered and trained. What power vacumm was there?

This question makes no sense to me. "Question; If there was no power vacuum, why should the King have had to bend even a little?"

I have to assume from it that you believe that bending is only something that is done as a result of applied force and completely ignores the rational fact that bending can also be done as an act of wisdom, compassion, or for benefit.

That question indicates to me that your thinking process is flawed.

To further that indication, why would the hiring of mercenaries indicate a weakness in the British position? It indicates the opposite to me.

Yes England was a naval power, but it is incorrect to state that they could not and did not muster large land armies in support of their operations. The British East India Trading Co. was a defacto official government operation and therefore British troops were scattered all over the Globe to protect and further those interests of trade. Which meant seizing and controlling not only trade routes and ports but of the politics of the areas as well. Finally in support of my argument, see the battle of Waterloo history. Nappy found out that the Brits could do very well on land.

Please don't tell me that Washington sat at Valley Forge with a freezing and dwindling army that was hard to keep adequately fed or near so; and he formulated a strategy of war of attrition. You can't seriously believe that. Washington hit when he could and ran when he had to. Our revolutionary war was as much a guerrilla war as it was a war of major battles. Washington was perfectly willing to meet the Brits on the field of battle when he thought he had a chance of victory.

But, back to my point, debating this way just leaves an ashey taste in my mouth. So frequently it is just round round round and round we go and the moneky never catches the weasel who never really gets away.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 9, 2008 7:25:15 AM

BTW. last sentence....that should read monkey not moneky.....we would never agree on what a moneky is.....:-)

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 9, 2008 7:28:28 AM

Copy on the monekys :)

But you're right that vacuum is a poor choice of words. Deficiency is more what I have in mind, and I would say that a working definition for a power deficiency is a situation in which an overthrow of the regime is possible. How do we know that the crown had a power deficiency? Because the revolution succeeded. What was the deficiency? One of three areas; the power of legitimacy, the power of the police and military, the power of the will to use them. I'd say that the greatest weakness of the crown was legitimacy, but I suspect that there were less obvious deficiencies in the other areas as well.

There are always power seekers, men of ambition waiting in the wings searching for a weakness to exploit. The founding fathers were such men. They found ideas that exploited the weakness of the crown. Were they good ideas? Perhaps. But it is, I think, a mistake to assume that it was the ideas themselves that mattered most. It was the fact that ambitious power seekers found a weakness and exploited it that mattered most. That's why the lives of ordinary men changed very little in the aftermath of the revolution. Because the ideas were, in the end, just the tools most available to ambitious power seekers.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 9, 2008 10:53:14 AM

"the lives of ordinary men changed very little in the aftermath of the revolution"

Before: monarchy - king for life
After: representative government -- elected officials

Yeah, no change at all. If only we could have anarchy, then nobody would be exploited by those meanies in government. They're all the same!! Just want to subjugate everyone in their mad rush to power. Stalin = President of USA = Governor of State = Mayor = City Councilman = Justice of the Peace = Hitler. Right on, guys!!! Put an extra layer of tinfoil on your hats for me!!!

Posted by: Mark | Jan 9, 2008 1:00:10 PM

Mark,

Re; Before: monarchy - king for life
After: representative government -- elected officials

What difference does that make to a guy like me? With a king, I pay rent. With a representative government, I pay rent. Under either I'm still subject to conscription. Only the political class gives a rat's ass who in particular is collecting the rent. All I care about is the amount of rent that I have to pay, and that will rise to the top of the laffer curve regardless of the form of government.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 9, 2008 2:16:41 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.