Bruce Bartlett writes in the Washington Times:

Of course, people are free to do what they want to do. And if they want to join the LP, that’s their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The LP is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the LP to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.
The basic problem with the LP is the same problem faced by all third parties: They cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution, a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won’t do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.

Walter Williams writes:

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I’d be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” I’m sure He didn’t mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.

Here’s more bashing of Jim Webb. One of my biggest problems about Jim Webb is that he lies about economic information. Okay, maybe he doesn’t lie, but he doesn’t care to find out the truth, and why should he? He needed to show his Democratic bona fides, and what better way to do that than by misrepresenting economic information?

Anyway, Webb recently complained about an “ever-widening divide” in America claiming that “the top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980.” The problem is that it isn’t true. Alan Reynolds explains why here. He writes:

In a forthcoming Cato Institute paper I survey a wide range of official and academic statistics, finding no clear trend toward increased inequality after 1988 in the distribution of disposable income, consumption, wages or wealth. The incessantly repeated claim that income inequality has widened dramatically over the past 20 years is founded entirely on these seriously flawed and greatly misunderstood estimates of the top 1%’s alleged share of something-or-other.

The politically correct yet factually incorrect claim that the top 1% earns 16% of personal income appears to fill a psychological rather than logical need. Some economists seem ready and willing to supply whatever is demanded. And there is an endless political demand for those able to fabricate problems for which higher taxes are, of course, the preferred solution. In Washington higher taxes are always the solution; only the problems change.

On the drive home tonight I heard Charles Fried talk about his new book “Modern Liberty: And The Limits of Government.” In the book he argues that equality is the most potent rival of liberty. This argument is my biggest problem with Democrats and progressives–they give liberty short shrift in pursuit of equality. The problem is that people aren’t equal. There a lot of people who are smarter, luckier, and work harder than me. I am smarter, luckier, and I work harder than other people. Life is like that. Government can provide equal rights, but government can’t make people equal. And when government tries, they have to take from the more well off and give to others. Taxing people does not make them free.

I got worked up about this because I watched Sen. Jim Webb on Lou Dobbs.

One good example is the populism spouted by the likes of Lou Dobbs and Sen. Jim Webb. Here’s a video. Webb and Dobbs blather on about how bad economic inequality is. If they mean to fix economic inequality by getting rid of tax loopholes and moving to a flat tax, I can agree with them, but I suspect that they are more concerned about redistribution of wealth rather than true equality. True equality is where the law treats everyone equal.

By the way, there’s a delicious irony in the video–Jim Webb says that he cares about veterans and he wants to be on the Veterans Affairs Committee. The day after this interview was filmed, Webb didn’t go to a meeting with a veterans’ group in his home state. If Webb can’t be bothered by veterans in his home state, then how much does he care about them?

Did you know that the United States of America is the world’s largest energy producer, consumer, and net importer. It also ranks eleventh worldwide in reserves of oil, sixth in natural gas, and first in coal. Source: Energy Information Administration.

I read most of Peter Singer’s article in the NY Times Magazine, “What Should a Billionaire Give — and What Should You? (A philosopher’s case for donating more than you’re comfortable with.)” and I ended up unconvinced that ethics demand that people should give more money. As economist Peter Gordon explains:

It’s a worthy topic and an interesting read. But, just as with foreign aid, there are huge agency problems that are never even mentioned. Poor countries are poor because of lousy institutions, including staggering corruption. Pouring extra billions into these settings is likely to incite extra thievery.

This is not to argue against generous giving but, rather, to raise the question that Singer misses. I expect that people at the Gates Foundation and many others grapple with this problem constantly.

Singer’s tone is one-sided. He wants us all to be more generous but many would gladly be if they had reason to be optimistic about what happens after the check is put in the mail. Lord Bauer had plenty to say about all of this.

Unlike Gordon, I’m not convinced that generous with foreign aid is a good thing. It is ethical or moral to indirectly support dictators and circumstances that prop up oppressive regimes? Do we not have a moral obligation to work on fixing the root problems and not merely throwing money at problems hoping to assuage our guilty consciences?

My main problem with Singer’s argument is that he doesn’t have an appreciation for the requirements of wealth creation. Here’s a story from the article:

A few years ago, an African-American cabdriver taking me to the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington asked me if I worked at the bank. I told him I did not but was speaking at a conference on development and aid. He then assumed that I was an economist, but when I said no, my training was in philosophy, he asked me if I thought the U.S. should give foreign aid. When I answered affirmatively, he replied that the government shouldn

A couple months ago, I heard a debate between Jim Webb and George Allen and I was left unimpressed. A year ago I heard George Allen speak and I thought he was pretty good, but the debate left me underwhelmed. He wasn’t a good candidate, even without the macaca comments. But Virginians were insane for voting for Jim Webb. I don’t know why people voted for him. People must have thought things like, “he’s a misogynist, but he’s our misogynist” and “he may be a jerk, but he isn’t George Allen.”

It turns out that Jim Webb is not a class act. First he turns a meeting with the President into confrontation and then he stiffs veterans in Virginia Beach. Why did Webb agree to a meeting with Veterans in Virginia Beach and then back out, with only 40 hours notice–because it would have cut into “transition week.” When excuse me, Jim. How did you not know that when you get elected to the United States Senate, you might need to learn something before the new Congress starts in January? Give me a break.

Ms Dewey

Originally uploaded by dannysullivan.

Ms Dewey is a new search engine from Microsoft. It features a good looking woman in flash animation that comments on your searches. For example, check out, ray gun, machine gun, new york, baseball, Janina Gavankar (her name), fishing, and last but not least, blockbuster video.

From the Washington Post:

It’s hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile’s economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It’s leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle — and that not even Allende’s socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro — Mr. Pinochet’s nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond — will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.