So Bill Maher sends Alexandra Pelosi down to the poorest state in the union to interview poor people. We watch the video. What do we get in the panel commentary? Very little of substance. The once self-described "libertarian' Bill Maher would do well to invite more libertarians onto his show. Break the bubble a little. Here's what he might have gotten out of a decent panelist:
In the U.S., it's Memorial Day. Americans use this day to honor U.S. military men and women who have made sacrifices for freedom and country. It's meant to honor the fallen, but people use it to thank the living too.
I'd like to use the day for something a little different. There are those who prevent war and seek peace. Maybe it would not be inappropriate to thank those working -- in light and shadow -- to see to it wars never happen in the first place.
Why are people still drawn to Marxism? Did you know it's still hot among the professoriate? I know, I know. Thoroughly discredited. But they eat that stuff up in the ivory tower. Brad Thompson's thesis is essentially that Marx was a great sloganeer. And he was. (I'd also argue that people have inherent dispositions to socialism.) My friend Michael Strong argues quite powerfully that -- due to academia's continuing fixation with Marx -- higher ed may be the "world's leading social problem."
I once heard Sec. George Shultz say "people liked to argue with Milton Friedman when he's not around." In this video you can see why. Unfortunately, you have a guy who wants to ask a "three-part" question. Fortunately, you have a man who can answer each part -- masterfully. Allow me to riff on a couple of Friedman's points that are particularly brilliant.
All it takes is one mad (evil or crazy) scientist to destroy the human race, according to Michio Kaku. So does government have a role in ensuring these technologies are not used for nefarious -- even catastrophic ends?
Okay, now that you've watched this video, ask yourself: what if you apply the economic way of thinking to political action? In other words, even though we don't need politicians to get the "good orders" we see around us, we nevertheless have to live with these characters. So what do actions, interactions and consequences have to do with the results we see in the public sphere (that we're so often troubled by)?
My story starts so predictably I'm almost embarrassed to admit it: my creative writing teacher in high school gave me Atlas Shrugged. And while I don't consider myself a Randian or an Objectivist, I would not be here were it not for Ayn Rand.
So what is your story? Did you read Ayn Rand? Milton Friedman? Friedrich Hayek? Robert Heinlein? Who? Leave a quick response in the comments below!
This video is not just an outline for aspiring politicians. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita actually describes, however indirectly, the architecture of power. I can't wait to read his book. It sounds to me like what you get when you marry Machiavelli with Buchanan and Tullock (public choice theory). So what do we mean by the architecture of power?