Informed Tactical Voting v. Gut Identity Politics -- I think Rand Simberg wonkfully misses the hard nut of truth in Mr. Instant's point about the damage done to the Republicans by censorious prudes. Rand argues that it's better to go pachyderm than jackass, because, while true that there are those on the right who would strip from us our god-given rights to "get small" and bugger each other, this kind of violence to liberty is difficult to establish and maintain, and these folks at least sort of appreciate markets, while the damn Democrats are deviously expert at slowly implementing their creeping plan for total economic enslavement. (I paraphrase.)

For all I know, Rand may have the political calculus right: the net loss to liberty is smaller under Republicans. But this really just misses the point. If it's the case that the Republicans are on the whole better for liberty, then Rand should be very concerned that Republicans aren't associated in the popular imagination with obnoxious, unappealing, totalitarian lifestyle philosophies. Most people aren't as bright as Rand, and they aren't very interested in determining what political program is really in their best interests. What people are interested in is a sense of identity. If a party grates against our sense of the kind of person we'd like to be, then we don't want anything to do with it.

So, if the the alternative to being an uptight, sanctimonious, moralistic asshole is to be a Democrat, then we'll want to be Democrats -- even if we do end up getting shafted by Taxman. And I think that's the way a whole lot of folks in my demo (BoBo Gen-X) see it. To large swaths of the public mind, choosing to put a gargoyle like John Ashcroft in charge of norm enforcement is like choosing to put Michael Moore in charge of the Fed. It's bound to cause about half the population to recoil in repugnance and fear. That's not the face (or the hair) you want on your party. (Ashcroft can't even tolerate a marble tit, for chrissake). Until the Republicans get out from under Ashcroft-like fundie stiffs, the cool kids will continue to stay away in swarms. And if the fate of liberty truly rests in the hands of Republicans, then you'd better hope for the death of cool.

But Why Vote At All? -- I should mention that I don't vote. First, the state is a system of institutionalized violence and exploitation, and I don't care for the idea of endorsing it by directly participating in the political process. Second, my vote doesn't matter. Third, no candidate ever espouses my values to a degree that would merit casting a vote as an exercise in identity affirmation. So, why do you vote?

Nader Spotting -- Filled with renewed resolve to finish my grad studies, I jumped off the Metro at Farragut West after work to see if the Borders on 18th and L had Michael Bratman's Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. They didn't. But they did have... Nader, in the flesh, getting interviewed by some nebbish NPR-ish sounding chap about his new book, Crashing the Party.

Ralph started off badly. He was trying to make some kind of point about the populist appeal of his brand of leftist crankery, and came up with a trainwreck of an example in the form of (in Ralph's words) Dirty White Men, Michael Moore's new book. (I'm surprised he didn't call him 'Roger'.) According to Nader, Moore's book has had "no publicity," aside from a "brief appearance" on Politically Incorrect, yet somehow managed to rocket to the top of the NYT bestseller list. I laughed audibly, and the assembled alpaca-clad zealots riddled me with sally of annoyed gazes. I was astonished. Really! You don't need to watch much TV to have noticed Moore's relentless media whoring of his latest achievement in letters. He's been ubiquitous. At this point I would regard a Moore appearance in a John Basedow commercial with nonchalance. ("Tired of looking like a disheveled, hypocritical swine? Try Fitness Made Simple!") Anyway, bad start.

He went on to say some stupid things about AIDS drugs and "Big Pharma," and the meaning of freedom. However, I found myself ultimately disappointed by repeated agreement... about the two party system; about corporate welfare; about the grotesqueness of the "Patriot Act." And that was just no fun. And I was hungry. So I decamped and read my new Peter van Inwagen book over fogged glasses and a huge bowl of steaming curry lakhsa at the Malaysian place up the street. It's pretty hard to stay annoyed at a benighted busybody like Nader while enjoying the fruits of the land: huge chain bookstores, funny analytic philosophers, savory curried soups.

Action Between the Lines -- There's an interesting exchange between Dan of Nature Creek Farm and myself going on down in the comments box of the lifestyle entrepeneurship post below. What do you think?

The Meaning of Life -- Read this moving essay by David Schmidtz on the meanings of life, with a bit of autobiography. Find out how today's best libertarian political philosopher was saved at the last minute from a life as a mailman in Saskatchewan. Good philosophy and good reading.