To libertarian Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi, whose book, Nanny State, is out today.
I had an opportunity to read the manuscript in its embryonic form and was both fascinated and appalled by the lengths to which nanny statists will go to micromanage the behaviors of supposedly free peoples.
For those of you interested in exploring nannystate excesses, I highly recommend it.
It’s like reading Reason without having to sift through the smarmy anti-war / anti-“conservative” neohipster boilerplate so many of today’s establishment libertarians wear like one of Bill Maher’s sloughed skins.
Off topic, but one of Tarantino’s Grindhouse films comes out today. And that, coupled with still being a bit sick (and having a son in same straits), means I’ll probably take it easy, watch some baseball, and nap.
Guestposters who’d like to post after, say, 1:00 MT are welcome to do so. Just don’t go completely overboard.
Also, some site changes coming, too. I’ve joined up with a libertarian outlet who has agreed to host the site. This should help defray some of my monthly costs, and will hopefully keep me solvent for a bit.
I had lunch recently with a friend from Colombia who had migrated to the US a couple years ago. I asked her what she finds hard getting used to. She said, “They call this the land of liberty, but drop so much as a little piece of paper on the ground and you get a fine.”
Well, actually, she said “Dicen que es la tierra de la libertad, pero si se deja caer un papelito siquiera… te dan una multa.”
But you get the gist.
I told her that that’s the cost of prosperity: once you have the means to enforce itty bitty laws, you do so, all in the name of improving society. And I can honestly say that I’d rather live in a country where people don’t litter than in one where they do (like Colombia).
But then, I’m reminded that the Borg got their start in a quest for perfection…
We have more freedoms, fewer liberties. Same in Mexico.
This might have something to do with it, and the different demographics:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/17/quote-of-the-day-110/
Those who cheer on the nanny-state are required to believe that there is an infinite number of good nannies to mind us, and an infinite amount of money to pay them.
Here’s hoping David’s books sells extremely well…
starting on the same day we hear of Hillary Care Part Deux (slouching towards nationalized healthcare, this time with more nuance) and Sean Penn’s friend, Hugo Chavez, is poised to nationalize all education in Venezula.
Jeff G – I continue to look forward to the day when you publish a compilation of your posts, comments, etc … That would be good reading.
Nannystatism is the actualization of an aesthetic more than an attempt to realize the aims of policy goals I think. For me if you think about it that way you get a better idea of its pervasiveness and its allure. “Libertarianism” is a way inadequate conceptualization of what a counterweight to nannystatism would be. That’s what it looks like from here anyway, and if I could figure out a way to write that without it sounding so pompous I would.
Jeff,
David is on Mike Rosen’s show right now on KOA (until 11:45 am). I caught a bit of it during my lunch break and it was excellent.
Rosen’s got replays of all his shows online @ the KOA website.
happyfeet:
I’m just waiting for some bright young marketing spark to come up with the idea of selling Coke-free caffeine and sugar.
I give you JAVA MONSTER. Funny also – the “Mean Bean” flies off the shelf. “Big Black,” not so much, and they taste virtually the same.
Also this is a fun site if you’ve never been.
That’s nice of you to say, JD. But alas, that just makes you a fanboy.
Come. Join the PURGE!
This is what happens when people start to feel guilty cause the media keeps telling them they are bad. It’s an identity crisis. I am this but not that and some of this but never that cause that’s stupid.
Clicking can be so fraught.
I like the part about how it’s all about beating up on Democrats. Because they’ve been so civil all along, dontcha know.
“I told her that that’s the cost of prosperity: once you have the means to enforce itty bitty laws, you do so, all in the name of improving society. And I can honestly say that I’d rather live in a country where people don’t litter than in one where they do (like Colombia).”
Reminds me of Stallone’s “Demolition Man” movie. The movie wasn’t that great, but it showed a future where everybody got fined just for cussing, and men and women didn’t actually touch when they had sex, they just shared a virtual reality experience together. Kinda like what Nanny-Staters wish to do with whatever they decide this week to deem “hate language”, or what some man-hating fems wish their relationships to be like with the opposite sex. Without the, you know…relationship part. Of course this is only cause it’s good for us, and the government knows best.
Also I just ordered Nanny State. Hope to see you out there flogging it, David.
Isn’t that what Mountain Dew is?
The Fundamental Contradiction of the Democratic Nanny State (“Democratic” as in “democracy”, not specifically pertaining to a party)…
If I am not competent to decide [Fill in whatever the Nannies want to make you do their way, e.g. who should treat my medical conditions, who should insure me against those conditions, to what extent….] then how does stepping into a polling place magically confer upon me the ability to make rules to decide those things for everyone?
There are two kinds of people who support the Nanny State:
1. Those who confess that they are in fact not competent to make decisions for themselves, and therefore need the Nannies to do the deciding
2. Those who think they should be the Nannies.
I consider it an accomplishment as a father that one of Monsterette Two’s favorite songs is Jonathan Edwards’ “Sunshine”, which should be the anthem of anti-Nannyism:
What happyfeet @ 10:44 said, and for similar reasons (and some that aren’t).
What calls itself libertarianism is merely our limit of socially allowed opinion, all of which is statist, “nanny” or otherwise. Limit cases have to call themselves something. That limit is being constantly withdrawn and redrawn, especially effectively recently by the likes of Cato and Reason, who’ve put their sometimes libertarian-sounding argument to work for a crowd-pleasing “smart” statism that rightfully has no name of its own. Libertarians used to sound like Henry George and Murray Rothbard. Now they sound like George Will at best, and a Tina Fey guest editorial at The Economist…at best.
Worth noticing: The founding principles of this country are beyond its bounds of respectable opinion. And they’re not even libertarian ideas. They just sound like them. It’s too late.
And it always was, because where libertarianism stands athwart the state shouting “Stop!” is far past the point of no return. That point is not a point of law.
(Stops ignoring pomposity alarm, ends comment.)
Jeff G – Fuck ’em. If that makes me a fanboy, so be it. You have approximately 8,077,000 more hits than that jagoff, and I suspect that a good 25% of those were a result of your link.
For those of you interested in exploring nannystate excesses, I highly recommend it.
There is also a great post on this topic over at Q and O by Bryan Pick.
[…] like reading Reason without having to sift through the smarmy anti-war / anti-â€Âconservative†neohipster boilerplate so many of today’s establishment libertarians wear like one of Bill Maher’s […]
Modern (post-2001) Libertarianism is anthropologically fascinating. Where else has a community driven out members because of an immunity to a disease (BDS)? :)
I’m not sure whether the “Party” had an influx after 2001 and adapted or the core really just went nuts. Obviously the “core cadre” like the Rockwell Troupe and El Niel have hopped on that particular bandwagon, probably fatally (philosophically speaking).
Obviously there’s the “against whoever is in power” thing, but it seems more comprehensive than the 1992 swing.