The Comeback That Wasn't

As Reason reported earlier, former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld won the Libertarian nomination for governor of New York and was headed to win the Republican nomination. The second part of that plan hasn't exactly worked out.

Instead, delegates in the deeply divided party chose John Faso, a former assemblyman from Columbia County, by a ratio of more than three to two in balloting at their state convention here.

Mr. Weld had the tacit support of Gov. George E. Pataki and other party leaders, who encouraged him to run and pressured delegates to embrace him as their best hope against Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the likely Democratic nominee.

In a roll call of the delegates, however, Mr. Faso won 61.2 percent to Mr. Weld's 38.8 percent, with 25 percent required for a place on the primary ballot. Mr. Weld said that despite the outcome, he would stay in the race.

The primary is still wide open, but with the more textbook conservative Faso slugging it out with Weld until the September primary, and with both men appearing on the ballot as third-party candidates even if they lose the GOP nod (Faso has the Conservative Party nomination), two things are assured. One, Eliot Spitzer will be New York's next governor. Two, William Weld's comeback is over.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    As a resident of Rochester, I have one word in response to this: Fuck.

    And, thank God I'm not a smoker.

  • ||

    Ah, Spitzer. Wonderful guy. Makes up laws, tries to assert jurisdiction over federal matters, and has been using the AG's office nonstop to run for governor. Yes, a wonderful fellow.

  • Dave W.||

    There is a slight chance I may be moving back to Upstate NY, where I grew up. An antitrust fan's dream. I hope he cuts state spending. I think I will prefer him to Cuomo (the guv when I left). I wonder if the stock exchange will move to Nevada.

  • Dave W.||

    tries to assert jurisdiction over federal matters

    Well, at least this part won't be a problem after he enters national politics.

  • ||

    Just to invite flaming on a Friday, it needs to be asked when liberty minded people will realize that the LP is the worst branding imaginable for important issues? You could convince more people to drink thalidomide than you could convince to vote for a guy who had LP stink on him.

    It is a chest thumping organization whose primary purpose is to exclude the average voter. I have a standard disclaimer when I meet new people about being a little 'l' libertarian and explaining how that might be different from screaming idiots like Badnarik. No, I don't hoard gold. No, I don't think the utter elimination of all forms of taxation would be especially helpful. Yes, I can see how some government programs are popular even if they aren't efficient. No, I don't expect to be able to have VX dispensers in my lawn sprinklers. And so on.

    They make human liberty look adolescent and like it is something only a kook could love. The brand is beyond reform. The LP needs to be gone.

  • ||

    MP,

    Hey, the stagnant economy helps keep cost of living down. ;-)

  • ||

    In 1990, the Massachusetts Republican convention endorsed conservative Stephen Pierce, but Weld won the primary. Will history repeat itself?

  • ||

    Re Jason's comments - took part in a test once.
    Class #1 was shown three bios of candidates running for some local office without seeing party labels. The candidate who happened to be running as a Libertarian was imminently qualified and the class easily picked him. In Class #2,
    the same bios were shown with party labels. The class voted overwhelmingly for the Republican, mirroring the voter registration margin in that town. So the label was the killer, not the qualifications. The problem is - how would a small "l" libertarian be able to advance him/herself in one of the major parties without
    compromising principles (even if accepting a certain amount of pragmatism) and having to support a bunch of really awful candidates? In my experience, one has to work really hard for
    other candidates before the committeepeople will even consider you for elected office.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    What's amazing is not that Eliot Spitzer is one of the most evil people on this planet. It's that so many people know he's one of the most evil people on this planet, and yet his rise to the stratosphere continues at full speed.

  • Warren||

    crimethink,
    I spent many years in Rochester. I come to town once a year to juggle. What part of town do you live, and who do you work for? If you don't mind me asking.

  • ||

    yet his rise to the stratosphere continues at full speed

    He's been airing commercials saying that taxes are too high and "it's time to bring businesses back upstate". What they don't say is that if you do start a business, he'll sue the shit out of you until you're broken, and in the meantime he'll be ordering the post office to conficate your mail.

  • Dave W.||

    Evil like Hitler or evil like Jimmy Carter?

    We may be dealing with a constructive invocation of Godwin's law here.

  • Timothy||

    I have a standard disclaimer when I meet new people about being a little 'l' libertarian and explaining how that might be different from screaming idiots like Badnarik. No, I don't hoard gold. No, I don't think the utter elimination of all forms of taxation would be especially helpful. Yes, I can see how some government programs are popular even if they aren't efficient. No, I don't expect to be able to have VX dispensers in my lawn sprinklers.

    Jason: I have exactly the same sort of disclaimer. Especially the bit about the gold, jeebus. I try to stick with the more free = more better talking points, and to explain that it includes the freedom to screw up and fail.

    The weirdest thing recently was moving from Oregon to Texas about a year and a half ago. Up there I was percieved as a conservative with some party-loving tendencies, here I'm some sort of crazy liberal who likes guns. Strange juxtaposition, that's for sure.

  • ||

    Tim, it's a great illustration of why we can't simply trust "the people" to protect our interests. We're idiots, on a collective level. That's why I favor every possible limit on government power and on individual politicians. Federal recognition of term limits, my personal obsession for an easier ejection methodology for federal officials (the infamous "Censor" proposal), re-recognition of the limited government provisions of the Constitution. . .well, you know the drill. Oh, yeah, I also decided yesterday that we should get rid of the political parties (official recognition thereof, not a ban on the right of association), but that's another thread :)

    Spitzer's going to be governor, and there's absolutely nothing than can be done about it. Even though he's a brazen scumbag, using and misusing "consumer protection" and similar emotion-laden outcries to keep his name in the press almost constantly, he's going to win, anyway.

    Honestly, what can we do to stop this madness? Most of us here agree that limiting government is a great idea, the very foundation of our political system is in total agreement, yet we sit here and watch the train driving ever closer to the cliff. I agree that the LP won't work without a major overhaul. What's the alternative? I've tried to work within the GOP with similar-minded folk (the Republican Liberty Caucus), thinking that trying to work within one of the major parties might be more effective, but the RLC isn't a whole lot more influential than the LP.

    What can we do? Are we doomed to a country full of Spitzers? Maybe there's some way for people who just agree that government needs to be reined in and made more accountable to unite across party lines. Instead of agreeing on all of the appropriate functions of government, we can just agree that limited power is simply a good idea. I know leftwingers want that great equalizer and counter-poise to big business that is government, but even they must be scared silly over what the government can do in the "wrong" hands.

    I'm turning red in the face with frustration.

  • Dave W.||

    PL,

    If Spitzer is so bad, then won't New York's economy tank, redounding to the benefit of oter comparable cities like LA, Chicago, Seattle, Dallas, Toronto and Mexico City? Don't you have faith that the disaster of Spitzer's term will vindicate your view in the eyes of everybody?

    The only bad thing for you would be if Spitzer's consumer egalitarianism lead to a healthy economy (albeit one where the rich were a bit less so). That is the only outcome that will allow Spitzer to spread his influence, such as it is, beyond The Empire State. Is ths the outcome that so worries you?

  • ||

    Dave, the governor can only do so much. Besides, the only way he could keep his name in the paper as AG was to engage in high-profile suits and PR opportunities. I, for one, do not believe at all that he cares one whit about consumer protection. Nor am I opposed to consumer protection laws just 'cause I'm a libertarian. I recognize a political jerk when I see one, that's all. We've got a similar ass in the AG's office here who is likely to become governor. Yippee.

  • ||

    We could always form the NLP. ;-)

  • Timothy||

    The problem, PL, is that most people just don't care. My girlfriend doesn't really give a shit about the NSA datamining, most people don't. This is how freedom dies, slowly in a corner from neglect. People get complacent, they take things for granted, and then one day you wake up in the middle of the night to be dragged outside by a SWAT team with the wrong address. They may go on to shoot your dog. Or the cops decide they don't need a warrant to come into your house. Or you get held without charges because you're kind of a nasty guy.

    People are too willing to let the extreme cases go, and that just sets the stage for the next most extreme case, &c. Sure, Jose Padilla might be a nasty character, but if freedom and liberty are valuable his must be valued. I believe it was Mill who approached the problem this way.

    Everyone is willing to go along to get along, and folks like us who are actually concerned with our eroding freedoms look like insane wackos. Worse, the US is still arguably the most free first-world nation. Huzzah.

  • ||

    Clearly then, Timothy, our solution is maximize oppression. Let us all go out and gather excuses for government excess and spread them throughout the land. Let us encourage extra-Constitutional behavior. Let us scoff at the idea of limited power. Let us beg for a paternalistic, nay, a maternalistic state. Then maybe, finally, we'll see some appropriate action.

  • dhex||

    "The brand is beyond reform. The LP needs to be gone."

    amen.

    the only thing spitzer's commercials are missing is him waving an american flag while standing on the neck of a wall st. fat cat.

  • Timothy||

    PL: That's one possible solution, although I think that given the technological superiority of the nation-state's military, that'd only be worse than trying stem the flow against the onslaught. Power, once given, is hard to take back. This is why I'm hoping for either a dem taking of congress in 2006 or the whitehouse in 2008.

    I think the best option we have is to 1) vote for partisan gridlock and 2) always vote against the incumbent except where it undermines (1).

  • ||

    Have any of you guys actually seen Spitzer's commercials? They're a trip. There are a couple that just showcase him talking to the camera, and then there are some that make it look like he's running for a third term as Supreme Leader. I particularly enjoy "Portraits," wherein a gallery of John Steinbeck characters wait for Eliot to save them from a life of drudgery.

  • ||

    I pray to the twin gods of Giuliani and Spitzer. Long may they stand, like the Twin Towers. Blessings be on New York for inflicting these powers upon the national scene.

  • Timothy||

    I'd rather be saved from John Steinbeck.

  • Dave W.||

    I, for one, do not believe at all that he cares one whit about consumer protection. . . . I recognize a political jerk when I see one, that's all.

    Sadly, sometimes you have to go to war with the skeptics of big business that you got. U are probably right tho. Like Quasibill, u r one of the people with good cred round here, I think.

  • ||

    Is that street cred? I always wanted that. Maybe I have a future in gangsta rap :)

    I'm not sure where I am on the business-can-be-oppressive-too argument. I agree that anyone can get too much power over others, and I don't think people in power respect limits (legal or otherwise) without some sort of counterpoise, but I'm not sure whether strong government regulation is the answer. In the end, I distrust government authority and the politicization of the regulatory process more than I distrust big business. The short answer is that there is no perfect system, I guess.

  • Dave W.||

    The short answer is that there is no perfect system, I guess.

    Maybe we just give the Censor the additional power to fire board members and CEOs of private corps, too.

  • ||

    What part of town do you live ... If you don't mind me asking.

    I'm curious too :)
    I grew up in the city but the place kind of scares me now. NYC is much safer.

  • ||

    Sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. The Censor will be waaaay too busy removing corruption in D.C. to worry about corporations :)

    There's always the shareholder revolt for your needs. Professor Bainbridge objects to such things, I seem to recall, but I don't. I have a little bit of an issue with shareholder derivative suits, but I think it's perfectly okay for shareholders to assert their ownership interests.

  • Dave W.||

    There's always the shareholder revolt for your needs.

    My needs are needs for consumer information, consumer choice and maximum competition. Shareholders do not give a fig about these things. Maybe your Censor can give up his judicial branch duties (they seem to do a good job policing themselves against the type of people you find removable anyway) and reallocate that time for oversight of business leaders.

  • ||

    Get your own censor, Dave. Mine's taken. In all of his toga-girded glory!

  • ||

    Rhywun, warren, crimethink, I'm in Rochester too. I had no idea there were any other libertarians there. I live in Brighton. Did you hear they're making a youth curfew now, in Rochester? Things are really going badly there. It's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of. I wrote an article about how much it sucked for my school newspaper (umm... I'm still in high school. Once I get out, I'm leaving Rochester for ever, if possible.)

  • ||

    By the way, our murder rate is about five times as high as NYC's.

  • ||

    Did you hear they're making a youth curfew now, in Rochester?

    Wow - no. I haven't lived there in 20 years. I left to go to college and never returned because the city has gone to shit and I don't like the suburbs. This curfew just sounds like the usual reactionary attempt to treat the symptom while ignoring the underlying problems. I suppose it will keep a few thugs off the streets - someone's gotta do it if their parents won't.

  • ||

    Jason Ligon has it right. Watching or listening to Badnarik answer every question with "we believe in personal freedom" is sickening. Not because he's wrong, but because he has no fucking clue how to communicate to real people.
    Nick Gillespie for mayor of somewhere so we can finally have a political spokesperson who can identify the libertarian approach in coherent, reasonable terms. Bednarik comes across an absolutist without a clue.

  • Robert||

    Creech wrote: The problem is - how would a small "l" libertarian be able to advance him/herself in one of the major parties without
    compromising principles (even if accepting a certain amount of pragmatism) and having to support a bunch of really awful candidates? In my experience, one has to work really hard for
    other candidates before the committeepeople will even consider you for elected office.


    This is nowhere near as hard nor compromising as you might think. The overwhelming majority of politics is very local, and at that very local level ideology is almost always irrelevant. On the issues involving the offices in question, you're virtually certain to find candidates you can work for who are inoffensive to you. So what if you disagree with them on general orientation? That's never going to come up anyway. You can agree with them that the stop sign should be facing Bluto St., not Wimpy St., and of course that taxes should be held to the minimum necessary. So that's how you build their trust.

  • ||

    Daniel Ehrenberg,

    Unless you have more up to date stats then this link, then it appears Rochester's murder rate is only 2.5 times as high as NYC's. Which is still pathetic, especially since one would think that upstate New York would have heard about how NYC radically reduced their crime rate.

    One hint: they didn't use curfews in the City That Never Sleeps.

  • ||

    Timothy -

    People are too willing to let the extreme cases go, and that just sets the stage for the next most extreme case

    I agree with most of your basic thoughts that lots of people (majority) are probably apathetic to an absurd point, but I don't necessarily agree this means a slippery slope is inveitable.

    Take for instance the non-caring stance on the NSA program, yet the outrage against the bipartisan effort to stop crimminal investigations of congressmembers.

    Having said that - I do think an apathetic mindset allows for lots of stupid regulations (smoking bans, seatbelts, etc), but don't believe that from this flows people slowly believing innocent until proven guilty is antiquated.

  • ||

    One hint: they didn't use curfews in the City That Never Sleeps.

    No one's really sure "how NYC radically reduced their crime rate". Yes, NYC officials like to tout their comp-stat or whatever that's called, but I think it's unlikely that any overt action they took can account for more than a fraction of NYC's drop in crime - especially since crime dropped almost everywhere during the 90s. Everywhere except depressing places like Rochester with cold winters, shrinking populations and declining tax bases.

  • ||

    Rochester exiles,

    I live in the southeast part of the city (the only decent neighborhood left) and run an auto service complex in one of the suburbs. I used to live near Kodak's headquarters but that place has gone to shit, like Kodak itself.

    As for the murder rate, the city's working on it in all the ordinary ways. A couple of years ago they passed DC-like gun control laws, and installed a supersensitive microphone system that purports to be able to detect gunfire and pinpoint its location to within ten feet.

    Doesn't seem to have helped at all...

  • ||

    Once I get out, I'm leaving Rochester for ever, if possible.

    Good idea, but keep in mind that nice areas are expensive. My brother, who lives in Chicago, makes nearly twice as much as I do, yet he struggles to make ends meet.

    If you hate Rochester that much, by all means try for something better, but keep in mind that there are always trade-offs, no matter what you do. That's my Cathy Young impersionation for today. ;-)

  • ||

    Daniel E.,

    Also, I have to ask -- since you don't live in Rochester itself, why the heck would you care about a curfew here? Aside from a few bars, there's really not much to do in the city at night. They're not even bothering with the laser waterfall shows anymore, are they?

  • ||

    Rhywun,

    I'll confess to having read William Bratton's book and being very impressed with it when it came out. Even accounting for the fact that an awful lot of books like this paint the subject as being responsible for every good thing that happened around them, it rings true.

    But what really sold me was when a former NYC Captain under NYC's CompStat regime became police chief of Newton MA and seriously lowered crime in this suburb of Massachusetts, out of step with the surrounding suburbs. He also significantly cut car accident rates in Newton. See here, first paragraph, and here. He says he did all this with the methodology he learned and used in NYC, inculding CompStat, which is more than a mere computer program but a whole methodology and philosophy of policing.

    I simply have a really hard time with people, including the new sensation economist Steven Levitt, who argue that this new methodology wasn't the driving force, while at the same time there were other many other cities and towns that didn't experience similar huge reductions in crime in the US.

    I believe we finally got ahead of the crime fighting curve in the 90's in the US by finally having enough police and prison space to attack the crime problem, and got increasing returns as a result. The number of cops didn't go down, but with fewer criminals on the street, there was a greater ratio of cops to criminals, so the crime rate kept going down.

    Before the 90's though crime kept going up. This despite the fact that we increased police and prison space. But the numbers of those is sort of irrelevant, what matters is the police/criminal ratio. We stayed behind the curve and never reached critical mass until the 90's.

    Each city applied its own methodology to fighting crime. Some of those methods worked better than others. But it is simply dense in my humble opinion to say that a more logical, efficient, results oriented method of policing would not yield more results than methods less rigorous. Hard to wrap up in one neat economic or criminal justice theory, which is perhaps why "no one" can agree on why some places (NYC) got radically better while others (Rochester it seems) didn't. Getting ahead of the curve doesn't seem sexy enough I guess. I could also be wrong about my getting ahead of the curve theory.

    But Newton MA's experience very strongly suggests that method matters, just as method matters in playing football, or playing the violin, or any other human endeavor.

  • ||

    happyjuggler,

    Isn't Newton one of those tony suburbs that gets like 1 or 2 murders a year, tops? Kind of like Amherst, NY (suburb of Buffalo, and nations 3rd safest "city" according to your link)? I haven't seen any detailed statistics but couldn't any large changes in the crime rate there just be a matter of statistical anomaly given the already low crime rate? (There's probably a term for what I'm trying to get at but I don't know what it is.)

  • ||

    I used to live near Kodak's headquarters but that place has gone to shit, like Kodak itself.

    Eek - that area was shit 20 years ago. I would have thought it would improve with the new baseball & soccer stadiums... ha ha ha. I grew up around Kodak Park - Ridge Road, Ridgeway Avenue, Dewey Avenue. Not as nice as Park Ave or Monroe Ave (except for Seneca Parkway - holy crap, I had a rich friend on that street - some of the mansions are amazing), but nice enough at the time. Anyway when I was kid I would ride my bike from Ridgeway Ave to the library downtown, or up Lake Ave to Charlotte - hell, all over the place. I don't imagine today's parents allow that.

  • ||

    Yes, Newton is a suburb and if it were to get a single murder it would royally screw up their stats.

    But this is kind of my point. Some people said the crime drop was due to the crack epidemic petering out. Others said it was due to unwanted babies being aborted decades ago just when living young punks their age were commiting crimes at their "criminal peak". But Newton MA dropped in crime out of lockstep with the other Boston suburbs, and also had its car accident rate drop significantly too using the same methods. All just after they hired as police chief the former NYC police captain.

    Basically they use stats to determine crime patterns, and they did the same thing with car accidents. They then redirect resources there instead of the more or less random cop patrols you'd normally see in suburbs. They then get results in those locations. An economist or criminologist who doesn't dig deep enough and only looks at city-wide (or town-wide is perhaps more appropriate in Newton's case) will miss the undisputed success of their method and will compare their citywide stats to other cities stats. They will then apply their own pet theories as to what is going on.

    The short of it is that if this method works in a pretty nice suburb of Boston, it is silly to say it isn't working in NYC where the method came from.

  • ||

    Why is Spitzer supposed to be such a bad guy? Capitalism does not work if folks don't follow certain rules (remember the grand capitalistic days of the Great Depression? Or shock therapy Russia?), and Spitzer is one of the few AG's who actually, you know, makes big companies follow said rules. Bully for him.
    When it comes to my libterties, I care about my liberty to have my pension or mutual fund or stock interests (agreed on by contract) protected. And my that my prices are created by a market and not fixing. And that the government is following its laws. And he does that. And on the way he is not involved in the stuff of usual AG's: expanding law enforcments power to go after 'pedophiles' (which I don't think are much a threat or effect my life much).

  • Robert||

    It'll be interesting to see how Weld does vs. Faso campaigning among the Republican grass roots, versus how they did with the party's leadership, which was elected last September.

  • ||

    I just thought Crime "decreased" because maybe the cops stopped Creating or "making up" as much of it.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Quit trashing the LP and do something to make it respectable. If you don't like Badnarik, then focus on races with candidates you like better. They exist. Why, for instance, do people go on and on about Badnarik or other candidates they want to criticize, but say nothing of Art Olivier, running for Governor in CA -- or for that matter, Norm Vroman, the elected DA in Humboldt County or Tom Tryon, the many-times re-elected County Supervisor in Calevaras County, also in CA? Why say nothing about Ben Brandon, elected county executive in Dade County GA? These are just names that I had at the tip of my tongue. A little digging would turn up more in various regions of the country. (Just remembered John Buttrick and Jim Gray, superior court judges in AZ and CA, respectively, for instance.)

    Talk about the LP making "human liberty look adolescent": You jokers in here remind me of teen-agers angsting over zits and picking at the scabs after popping them. JFK said, "ask not what your country can do for you ... ask what you can do for your country." You guys sound like you expect the LP to confer some prestige or confidence on its members and candidates. But it is you who, by lending your own prestige and confidence to it -- not to mention your talents, effort, and dollars -- will make the LP an attractive and effective organization. That has ALWAYS been true.

    A third party with ballot access is a valuable asset. Develop it. Use it. Don't waste it. Remember that the LP Presidential campaign is necessary to pursue and achieve that valuable ballot access in some areas of the country, and that it can be used to draw press to events that feature regional and local LP candidates who might not get coverage otherwise. So, concentrate on getting people elected from the bottom up, but use the Presidential and statewide campaigns for what good they can deliver.

    Or, you can just bitch in online fora. If you want freedom, take responsibility for achieving it. Concessions that the Spitzer election is a done deal, this early in the season, are not the words of anyone who is ready to take that responsibility, it seems to me.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    By the way, speaking of Badnarik, are the bashers in this thread talking about the Presidential campaign, or his current TX campaign for the US House? I hadn't checked out Badnarik's circumstances in a while, and I was surprised at what I found recently at his website.

    Did you know he has raised nearly $300,000 for his campaign so far? That he has several big billboards around the Austin area? That he is throwing a real PARTY (actually, a music concert during a weekend when thousands of bikers will visit the Austin area) as a fundraiser? Can you imagine? A Party that actually Parties? Sounds like someone may be doing something right. I guess we'll see in November. But you can keep tabs on what's happening by going to www.badnarik.org.

  • ||

    happyjuggler0:Unless you have more up to date stats then this link, then it appears Rochester's murder rate is only 2.5 times as high as NYC's. Which is still pathetic, especially since one would think that upstate New York would have heard about how NYC radically reduced their crime rate.

    Funny that you mention it, I do have statistics that are more recent than that: in 2005, Rochester had 56 murders, which comes out to 25 per hundred thousand people (our population is shrinking quickly) and I think (but I'm not sure) NYC had around 6 murders per 100,000, making a ratio of a little more than four, sorry.


    But it's ridiculous what our government is doing in response. Not only do we have those aformentioned tyrranical measures, we're also fighting the root cause of poverty through a series of boondogles: first, there was the fast ferry. The city, county, state and federal goverment gave tens of millions in subsdies to a private company to make a fast luxury ferry from Rochester to Toronto. The theory was that Torontonians, jealous of our high crime rate and fleeing industry, would flock to Rochester, stimulating our economy. After less than a year, the ferry went bust, so the obvious solution is to have the city buy the ferry for at a huge cost. Then, it cost so much that the city had to sell it. But due to a federal law, the ship could not go between two US ports, since it flew under the Carribean flag. So it didn't sell for much, and the city lost millions.


    We also got Paetec Park, a soccer stadium built in the suburbs with public money for the Rochester Rhinos due to a revenue-sharing dispute with the Red Wings' baseball stadium. And our Republican county executive, elected on a read-my-lips-no-new-taxes/black-people-are-scary platform is in the process of raising taxes while subsidizing our business champions, Kodak, Xerox and Bauch and Lomb, for continuing to exist.


    Rochester is, in a word, fucked.

  • ||

    crimethink:Also, I have to ask -- since you don't live in Rochester itself, why the heck would you care about a curfew here? Aside from a few bars, there's really not much to do in the city at night. They're not even bothering with the laser waterfall shows anymore, are they?


    I guess it doesn't really affect me at all. The last (probably only) time I was in the city without my parents or school was when I was watching a court trial with a judge I knew. But it's just a libertarian issue I have an excuse to latch on to and argue with adults about.


    As for tradeoffs, I'd rather starve in NYC than be rich in Rochester. Really, our only asset is the university.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement