Kelsey Grammer's Libertarianism; Scott Dilbert's Federalism


On CNN, Frasier talks to Piers Morgan about his political beliefs:

The actor pointed out that, like the tea party, he believes "smaller government's a good idea. Always have. I think lower taxes are a good idea. Always have."

Grammer does, however, fully support gay marriage, which many tea partiers oppose.

"I guess I'm more libertarian in that way," Grammer said. "I think marriage is up to two people that love each other, and if you find a church that you want to get married in, you go right ahead." Grammer added that he doesn't believe the government should be involved in marriage.

Whole thing, including video (and four marriages, and laments about greed) here.

Meanwhile, on his blog, Dilbert creator Scott Adams is talking constitutional reboot:

I like the idea of states operating as test sites for social and economic programs. In some ways, that's the opposite of how things are operating now. For example, the federal government is clamping down on California's state-legalized medical marijuana industry. Does that look like a government system that is worth keeping?

If you want the rich to pay more taxes, there are two ways to do it. One way is to use force, but that path leads to ruin or gridlock because the rich have plenty of force of their own. The other way is to change the system to make it worth the extra taxes. I'll gladly pay 5% more in taxes in exchange for a better system of government, under the theory that a better government will create a better economy and give me a return on my investment.

Whole thing, including creepy capitalization of titles like "Transitional Leader," here.

Previously at Reason, Kelsey Grammer slammed the stimulus as benefiting "evildoers," and former editor Virginia Postrel interviewed Scott Adams in a memorable, if not quite ideologically coherent, February 1999 Q&A. Excerpt from that:

Reason: How do you define yourself politically?

Adams: I find that I do not align with any well-established political viewpoint that has a name associated with it. So I've called myself pro-death. I looked for what commonality there is in all of my work and in all of my political views and realized that I support abortion, capital punishment, and a strong military. When I put together the things I'm in favor of, the only thing they had in common was that they all ended up killing someone, whether it was a fetus or a terrorist.

Reason: What's your idea of how government should work?

Adams: I've always thought that, if I led the world–and God help us all if that ever happened–that the first thing I would do is make a list of what I considered the top priorities. And I'd have a criterion for why they were the worst problems. Probably on the top of my list would be something like tobacco and cigarette smoking, because it kills people.

Reason: Smoking is at the top of your list of the world's priorities?

Adams: Well, of the United States'. Maybe a strong military is at the top of the list–but it seems to be under control and nobody is attacking us. Anyway, I would have my top 10 problems and then I would bring together the experts. Let's say the problem was what to do about teen smoking. I'd get 100 of them in a room. Sixty of them say we should do this one thing, 40 of them say to do this other thing. By and large, not knowing anything more than these experts know, I'd go with the 60. I'd say, here's the experts, here are their credentials, so this is my policy. You'd never see that because it would never be politically viable to do that. But I've always imagined that it was the most sensible form of government.

First Dilbert link courtesy of Scott Ross.