While I am not above "sounding pretentious, obtuse, doltish, obsessive, or just dull", I tend to do so unintentionally, so I'll skip the awkward mucking about over how to introduce myself and simply point out that I am, to quote Douglas Adams, "just this guy, you know?"
I was honored that Megan would ask me to guest post in her absence - she's long been one of my favorite bloggers and thinkers - so I've promised her that I won't be needlessly antagonistic ("Ron Paul isn't good for libertarians, and your gold standard sucks, too") or otherwise leave the place a mess. For now, let's just get the narcissistic stuff out of the way...
- Like Daniel Drezner, I'm also returning from a conference. Unlike Daniel Drezner, however, my conference was with bloggers. I cannot imagine a country governed by bloggers, which is probably for the best.
- I attended the opening night at the Washington Nationals' new stadium this evening. But I'm not even a baseball fan. In fact, I didn't realize it was opening night until around the 5th inning or so. I used to be a pro sports fan - Atlanta Braves and Atlanta Hawks - but in 1994, (a) Dominique Wilkins was traded away from the Hawks and I discovered I had simply been a Dominique Wilkins fan, and (b) baseball players went on strike and I discovered I wasn't really all that interested in the exploits of petulant millionaires in tights. Still, tonight was quite enjoyable. The new Nationals Park is very well done.
- I'm also not a fan of music. I enjoy pointing this out, because it invariably confuses people. "What kind of music", they'll ask. "Any", I'll respond. It just doesn't seem very interesting to me. I'm not sure why this confuses people, though. They're not surprised when somebody says "I don't like modern art", so why should it be unusual that some people just aren't touched by music?
- In 2000, I voted for Harry Browne. In 2004, I wrote in None of The Above. Both lost.
- I tend to be a right-of-center libertarian because I'm more concerned about the loss of economic freedom than social freedom - in part, because I think the former will lead to the latter. Decades ago, we were talking about lobotomizing gay people, now we're talking about marrying them. We're not in danger of theocracy. We should be more concerned about what Brandeis called "insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." The "do-goodism" to which James Buchanan referred is the greater threat. After all, "the licentious sinners we can control; the saintly ascetics may destroy us."
- Limited government is a fine idea. I wish we had a Party that believed in it.