New at Reason
Dave Weigel takes a critical look at would-be President Bloomberg.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Grünfeld Defence | June 26, 2007, 3:24pm | #
It is pretty awful that Bloomberg ran New York City the way his consitutients wished instead of how California-based Reason Magazine would have liked.highnumber | June 26, 2007, 3:29pm | #
Put down that newspaper. Why you should you care that that guy killed his family (allegedly).Do not watch the ball game. You aren't on the team. Why should you care if they win or lose?
Don't vote in the election. Why should you help choose the President for the rest of us?
Just go to sleep. Don't wake up.
Tim | June 26, 2007, 3:42pm | #
Funny how reason gets all pissed off about a ban on transfats but fails to mention Bloomberg's habit of arresting protesters.Jake Boone | June 26, 2007, 3:57pm | #
Did Dan T. change his name to "Grünfeld Defence" while I wasn't looking?highnumber | June 26, 2007, 3:59pm | #
Ja, I think so.dhex | June 26, 2007, 3:59pm | #
how in the living hell could anyone connect bloomberg to a reason (or even reasonoid) position?the whole RNC debacle aside (for but a moment) even.
I hpoe he runs and spends a ton of money. We'll probably be grateful for the comic relief by November 2008.
Tim | June 26, 2007, 4:47pm | #
how in the living hell could anyone connect bloomberg to a reason (or even reasonoid) position?My point is that reason does, in fact, tend to get more upset by trivial matters, such as transfats. And the RNC convention was not an isolated incident, it just happened to be the largest offense.
Art | June 26, 2007, 5:13pm | #
Tim:It is these "trivial" matters show a direct effect of social engineering.
Not to mention their lasting unintended effects.
When a pattern of them emerges, as it has with Bloomberg, it clearly shows the overall policy.
But, Dave... think of all the greenskeepers we'd have! Two greenskeepers on every course!
black_box | June 26, 2007, 5:28pm | #
Bloomberg's appeal is that he is not beholden to special interests unlike just about every other politician. He's actually proved this to be the case during his tenure as Mayor of NYC, it's not just something he says. The smoking ban is a great example of this. Any other politician wouldn't have had the balls to upset the vocal minority (smokers) for the benefit of the silent majority (non-smokers). The smoking ban has been a complete success and people are happy with it, deal with it.[Bloomberg's follies and obsessions are] the priorities and solutions of a leader who believes that governmental micromanaging can change peoples' behavior and understands that the same micromanaging looks like incredible competence, even as bigger issues like affordability and congestion slip out of his control.Are you kidding me? Maybe affordability and congestion are only a problem because the city is being run so well right now. Are you suggesting the mayor needs to intervene in the market to prevent people from moving to NYC and paying up for their apartments?
brookyln | June 26, 2007, 5:29pm | #
Luckily Libertarians aren't burdened with actually governing office or making policy. It would make the self-rightous criticism much more difficult. I think the most articulated policy is "end the drug war" which is pretty well sounded. After that its a little vague.Also, if you think micro managing is so bad I hope you're happy with the macro managing that every other politician engages in. A good macro manager will try to legislate something as broadly and vaguely worded as possible thereby ensuring the greatest number of unintended consequences down the road. But who has time to actually study the issues when you're supposed to be out pandering to your constituents and working on getting re-elected?
Dave | June 26, 2007, 10:22pm | #
So I guess this makes me a humorless prick, but I didn't think the video was funny at all, in light of the fact that Bloomberg apparently does actually view the rest of us as peasants in need of his kingship. Kind of takes the joke out of it when it's not a joke.As to the knight who feels more secure: You're going to have to hand over that sword right now. Somebody could get hurt.
Original Replica | June 26, 2007, 10:23pm | #
One smoker in a restraunt, one boom car parked down the block, and one more person with bad health choices weighind down the health care system are all example of selfish individuals ruining the quality of life for the rest of us. Each of these "crimes" of Bloomberg's you list is actually something that improves life here in NYC.juris imprudent | June 26, 2007, 10:34pm | #
Government makes them better people.Shades of Serenity...
..."They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."
jb | June 26, 2007, 11:17pm | #
As much as I love my home city, I really question whether running it, even running it well (and Bloomberg has done a decent job economically), is a sufficient credential for running the whole country.That said, if the Presidential election is Rudy vs Hillary vs Michael, I will be very amused.
Back in my liberal days (summer 2001), I worked for Fernando Ferrer's campaign for Mayor. Bloomberg didn't come to any of the debates, his campaign literature and press announcements were devoid of any real substance, and he seemed to be running on a platform of "I'm a businessman, I do efficiency." That only worked because the incompetence of Mark Green's campaign was only matched by that of Ferrer's (seriously, my time could not have been more poorly spent if I'd stood on a street corner with an "Elect Ferrer or the space aliens take over" sign).
Which is to say, if he wins it will be because he manages somehow to say even less about his political views than Obama has, and if he loses it will be because he has even less to say about his political views than John Edwards has.
MattXIV | June 26, 2007, 11:47pm | #
On the other hand, while Bloomberg is pretty noxious from a libertarian perspective, in many potential presidential match-ups he may be a better choice than either of the major party candidates. If he somehow becomes a viable contender for the presidency, he may be the most libertarian option in many potential match-ups - between Guiliani, Edwards, or "Nurse Bloomberg", I prefer the third.Edward | June 27, 2007, 12:54am | #
MattxiaWhen you're a purist libertarian, the only choice ever you have (in the real world, at least) is a lesser evil.
herodotus | June 27, 2007, 6:34am | #
'One smoker in a restaurant, one boom car parked down the block, and one more person with bad health choices weighing down the health care system are all example of selfish individuals ruining the quality of life for the rest of us. Each of these "crimes" of Bloomberg's you list is actually something that improves the life of busybodies with sticks up their asses here in NYC.'There, I fixed it for you.
Pro Libertate | June 27, 2007, 10:25am | #
juris imprudent,Yep, Mal don't countenance much liking for bibertarians and their ilk.
LarryA | June 27, 2007, 1:14pm | #
"From a reason magazine perspective, it seems to me that a Bloomberg Administration is likely to be substantially more libertarian than either a Democratic or a Republican one would be."How can so many pundits, so much of the time, have no clue what libertarians stand for?
OTOH, he's comparing to Rs and Ds. Not a high bar to hurdle.
I think the most articulated (libertarian) policy is "end the drug war" which is pretty well sounded. After that its a little vague.
Liberalize gun laws.
Rescind anti-gay policies.
Privatize education.
Get our armies out of other people’s countries.
Do away with anti-smoking/transfat/fast food/etc. laws.
Rescind laws against victimless crimes, including gambling, pornography, prostitution, etc.
Reduce federal intervention in matters that could be handled at more local levels.
I.e. any policies that enhance individual liberty.
Leftist kooks actually respect this guy, I think they like the abuse.
M. A. George | July 8, 2007, 1:50pm | #
Why has the comments section for the King Mike video been removed from YouTube? Why? Does anybody know?