I’ll be the first to admit it, sometimes I can be a bit of an elitist. I read the elite hipster press and scholarly journals, I like fancy cheeses, and I look down my nose at people who like to go four-wheelin’ and huntin’ on the weekend. And yet, I’d like to think of myself as a man of the people.
So, you can’t blame me that my daily ritual includes a stop on the Yahoo! front page to see what the hoi polloi are reading about. (I’m not alone apparently; according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, Yahoo! News is the most visited online news provider.)
One of this morning’s top headlines, pulled from Yahoo! News’ blogger corps, “Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands,” stuck out to me. Libertarians, and ideologues of all stripes, have been complaining for years that if only they had their own country to run, they’d do it their way. Their ideal libertarian homeland would be free of taxation and regulation, and ruled by the guiding hand of the market. Some libertarian groups have even floated the idea of moving collectively to one state, taking over state government, and implementing libertarian policies.
I say, go for it! But, really, shit or get off the pot. People have been threatening to do this for years; it's time to ante up or go home.
I mean, there are other billionaires out there who sympathize with your cause. Why doesn’t an enterprising libertarian round up some capital from his co-ideologues, both rich and super-rich, and buy a country? Let’s say, Kyrgyzstan.
The Kyrgyz Libertarian Confederation, that has a good ring to it, right? They could establish a libertarian homeland for the world’s free market devotees and end their suffering once and for all.
What’s that, you say? Libertarians don’t want to go to Kyrgyzstan? They quietly reap the benefits from a system with an interventionist federal government and a mixed economy? They would rather complain from their comfortable, entrenched positions in our current system than start something new?
Probably.
And why do I want to see this happen so bad? Surely, I must want reason to triumph over ideology? Well, for one, I want to see what a mess they make. Sometimes I just enjoy observing a spectacle. And two, it would make for some really exciting social science research. (That is if they don’t ban social science research in Kyrgyzstan. On the other hand, libertarians LOVE numbers, just look at the Cato Institute.)
That way, when the Kyrgyz Libertarian Confederation finally gets off the ground, I can read about it in the latest editions of my favorite elitist academic journals.
So, you can’t blame me that my daily ritual includes a stop on the Yahoo! front page to see what the hoi polloi are reading about. (I’m not alone apparently; according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, Yahoo! News is the most visited online news provider.)
One of this morning’s top headlines, pulled from Yahoo! News’ blogger corps, “Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands,” stuck out to me. Libertarians, and ideologues of all stripes, have been complaining for years that if only they had their own country to run, they’d do it their way. Their ideal libertarian homeland would be free of taxation and regulation, and ruled by the guiding hand of the market. Some libertarian groups have even floated the idea of moving collectively to one state, taking over state government, and implementing libertarian policies.
I say, go for it! But, really, shit or get off the pot. People have been threatening to do this for years; it's time to ante up or go home.
I mean, there are other billionaires out there who sympathize with your cause. Why doesn’t an enterprising libertarian round up some capital from his co-ideologues, both rich and super-rich, and buy a country? Let’s say, Kyrgyzstan.
The Kyrgyz Libertarian Confederation, that has a good ring to it, right? They could establish a libertarian homeland for the world’s free market devotees and end their suffering once and for all.
What’s that, you say? Libertarians don’t want to go to Kyrgyzstan? They quietly reap the benefits from a system with an interventionist federal government and a mixed economy? They would rather complain from their comfortable, entrenched positions in our current system than start something new?
Probably.
And why do I want to see this happen so bad? Surely, I must want reason to triumph over ideology? Well, for one, I want to see what a mess they make. Sometimes I just enjoy observing a spectacle. And two, it would make for some really exciting social science research. (That is if they don’t ban social science research in Kyrgyzstan. On the other hand, libertarians LOVE numbers, just look at the Cato Institute.)
That way, when the Kyrgyz Libertarian Confederation finally gets off the ground, I can read about it in the latest editions of my favorite elitist academic journals.
No comments:
Post a Comment