I find international politics more compelling than its domestic counterpart. The stakes are so much higher, and things operate so much more rationally, for the most part unencumbered by the whims of electorates. World leaders' egos operate too, of course, but so blatantly that the ego aspects of events can be factored into one's analysis. I majored in international political science as an undergrad and wrote my senior thesis on Soviet-American arms control negotiations (hey, it was 1979). I had fantasies of working at the U.N. My parents are European-born and I have traveled extensively around the world (see "Travel" page for details). My international perspective is sometimes referred to as "realpolitik": that states act to advance their interests, and if they join collective bodies, comply with international law, honor treaties or make moral arguments, it is because they judge that doing so will advance such interests.
Domestically, I distrust government. (I suppose that basically, I distrust all authority.) Government should do only what people empower it to do, and people should empower government to do only that which by its nature cannot be done by individuals or voluntary groups. If one must choose among empowering local, state or central government, I say empower the smallest unit that can accomplish the task. Government, however, should not be empowered to prohibit an act solely because the act is stupid or can ruin one's life. It is one's own life to ruin. For starters, I would legalize gambling, drugs, prostitution, pornography, assisted suicide and helmetless motorcycle riding. I would distinguish between these private acts, however, and the public consequences they entail by indulging the former and regulating only the latter. Take, for example, uninsured health care costs: No one should be arrested for gambling, but no one should be given public funds for gambling addiction therapy. Government could perhaps fund emergency medical treatment (e.g., drug overdose hospitalization), but with public liens for collection of payment. I would treat cigarettes and alcohol similarly, with no public funding for treatment of lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver. Public assistance should go only to those who did not, by their voluntary choice, receive a private benefit that later led to their demand for a public payment. If people wish to engage in a pleasurable but risky activity, they should be free to do so, but they alone must bear responsibility for any financial or other consequences. They may purchase insurance, but at premiums unsubsidized by mandated pooling of statistical risks. I can justify only two exceptions to all these rules: minors should be held somewhat less responsible for their decisions (varying with age), and regulations should exist where the technical nature of a matter precludes a lay person's making an informed choice. Some argue for public benefits to children harmed by the choices of their parents, but children suffer the consequences of the choices of their parents all the time, and I do not see why the result should be different in the areas of finance and public assistance. Public assistance programs are, in essence, government selecting a charity and imprisoning (through tax evasion laws) all who do not contribute to it. Please do not think me harsh. I contribute a good deal of money to a number of charities. I just do not imprison all who contribute to different charities or who contribute to no charities at all.
I suppose my views would make me a libertarian. I am loath to support the American Libertarian Party, however, because its foreign policy is naively isolationist and because its internal debates grant an undue level of legitimacy to a vocal wing of fanatics.
Can my view of government ever be implemented? I have no idea. I am not an activist, just the author of a humble Web page. I see two obstacles: people's affinity for shouting abstract slogans while avoiding the difficult concrete choices their theories entail, and people's desire for a Big Daddy to take care of them. In a world in which the term "rationality" is taboo in political discussions, a distribution of resources and incentives that maximizes overall good does, alas, seem far off.
I do not blame politicians for the idiocy of governments. Politicians are mere vehicles for the expression of the idiocy of people. Folks regularly ignore serious political events, and at election time they declare their support for a candidate because he has what appears to be a good marriage or because the local TV news reader says he made a clever quip at what passes for a debate. One study indicated that the factors most highly correlated with U.S. presidential electoral success are hair thickness and height. The next time a politician says something stupid, self-contradictory, hypocritical or dishonest, just respond, "Hey, that's stupid. You've contradicted yourself. You are either a hypocrite or a liar and, either way, I will not vote for you." If we all did that, and kept informed enough to know when it was appropriate, our politicians and laws would change profoundly. I wonder if it will ever happen....
Featured link:
Smoking Gun (political documents)
The body politic....
-- Body of government:
U.S. White House
U.S.
Senate
U.S.
House of Representatives
Fedworld
(U.S. government site index)
-- Foreign bodies:
NATO
EmbassyWeb
United
Nations
European Union
Doomsday Clock
BBC News - World
CIA World Factbook
Foreign Affairs magazine
U.S.
Department of State
U.S. National Security Council
U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency
EurasiaNet (Central Asia & Caucasus)
-- Body of Webzines:
--
Electoral body:
U.S.
Libertarian Party
U.S.
Republican Party
U.S.
Democratic Party
-- Body of
sundries:
C-SPAN
Spinsanity
Drudge
Report
Free-Market.Net
Objectivist Center
Ayn Rand Institute
Libertarianism.com
U.S.
Library of Congress
