State's Rights

Kelsey Grammer's Libertarianism; Scott Dilbert's Federalism

|

Peace out

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.

Timely!

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:

Looks like the '90s

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.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Lobbyists Sink Their Teeth in the Deficit Panel, Pot Tops New White House Petition Site, Senate Republican Wants to Defund ATF Gun-Smuggling Operations

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.

  1. Freak and a geek: scary Halloween interviews day?

  2. Scott Adams is just pandering to the Chtullu voters.

    1. His political views are about as coherent as the lyrics from a Gucci Mane song.

      1. His political views are coherent, just stupid and full of fail, the Pointy-Haired Boss version of politics, ironically enough.

        “Let’s get a bunch of Top. Men. in a room and whatever the majority of them decides, they get to impose on everyone else.”

        1. Strong military, capital punishment, rule by experts.

          I mean do I even need to say it?

  3. Scott Adams is a hack. Dilbert has been running on the same, stale joke since its inception.

  4. Grammer looks like he might be interesting in Starz’s Boss, but nothing else like An American Carol, please.

  5. Anyone else like his new TV series on Starz? Not too bad of a start…

    1. That was a really great premiere, possibly surpassing Boardwalk Empire’s excellent premiere.

  6. Get 100 experts in a room and maybe 3 will actually know what’s up. The majority will for sure be wrong. That’s because most people are idiots including and sometimes especially the so called experts. Probably over 90% of the time the correct answer to “what to do” is “nothing”.

    1. Wait it out and pick up the pieces never seems to be a strategy endorsed by experts.

    2. who’s an expert? Elizabeth Warren is an “expert” on consumer finance without ever working a day in the field. Jamie Gorelick is apparently an “expert” at everything, meaning nothing, other than getting paid.

      1. I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion… If everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way…

    3. It’s worse than that — whoever gets to pick which “experts” to put in the room pretty much gets to decide the outcome of the debate. As a recipe for policy-making, it is a dictatorship masquerading as a technocracy.

      1. it is a dictatorship masquerading as a technocracy.

        Excellent point.

  7. 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.

    Ok, Scott, except that’s how businesses work. The main difference being that if you’re unsatisfied with the returns, you can take your investing elsewhere.

    “Investing” with the gov’t is a bit different, because you have no choice of whether to invest or not, regardless of the returns.

    Thanks For Playing, enjoy your consolation gifts.

    1. Also, as a fan of Adams’ books, I’m surprised to find his political ideology so retarded. Too much time in the cubicle I guess.

    2. And it’s easy to argue that the quality of government has an inverse relationship to it’s budget.

      1. “No Govt” can count as “High Quality Govt”, right?

  8. What Tea Party was Piers Morgan at where gay marriage was even discussed? I’ve been to two – never heard a thing about it. Yet he sounds so convinced he’s stating a fact based on nothing.

    I’m sure some Tea Party people oppose gay marriage, some support it, and most (like me) don’t give a damn.

    1. No kidding. Social issues are just not on the radar.

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

      Maybe some of them do, as do many Democrats, who unlike the Tea Partiers, actually stated so as their position.

      1. Ya.

        “Grammer does, however, fully support gay marriage, which many tea partiers President Obama opposes.”

    3. People can label the Tea Party movement as an anti-gay movement, as long as the label the Occupy movement as a Communist movement.

      1. I’ve personally seen more evidence of the latter than the former.

        1. Hey Mensan, what chapter are you in?

  9. Yes, the Tea Party is 100% officially AGAINST gay marriage, even if they don’t say they are, unlike President Obama who is 100% in FAVOR of gay marriage despite the fact that he says he’s not.

    1. See, SOFL, the Tea Party are all racists [Citation Needed] which automatically means they’re against gay marriage. Obama is a registered Democrat, so obviously he’s against the Drug War and for gay marriage.

      Duh.

      1. He IS against the war on drugs. Because he said so. A few years ago. In his campaign. To people who are also against the WOD.

        1. That was some world class snark!

        2. Ranger fans sure are gullible.

          It’s ok, buddy, this big free agent signing really is going to get you back to the promised land for the second time in 70 years.

          1. Ouch! You can say what you wish about my hero Barack Hussein Obama (greatest President, excuse me…human being ever) but leave my NY Rangers out of this!
            Last warning!

    2. There is a definite sense that the TP was colonized by socialcons after the 2010 successes. Some of this is liberal scaremongering, some of it is true. I do agree that the official spokespeople for various TP-affiliated movements have been quite careful to take no stand on the matter.

      1. Well if there is a “definite sense” it must be true.

      2. Exactly. The movement as a whole does not take a position on social issues. I’m sure there are individuals who support Tea Party principles, who also happen to oppose gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean that the greater movement shares that position.

  10. I would rather be ruled by Kelsey Grammar than the first 100 Scott Adamses in the phone book.

    Or something like that.

    1. I would gladly pay you tuesday for watching frasier today. I think THAT’S how it goes.

    2. At least you know hookers and blow will be served at state dinners.

  11. Even if you actually liked the “100 guys in a room” idea, who on earth are the “experts” on teen smoking anyway?

    1. who on earth are the “experts” on teen smoking anyway

      Perverts with clipboards who hang out in high school bathrooms.

      1. I’m still researching teen sex.

    2. I used to be, but I haven’t been a teen smoker in about a decade and a half.

    3. The experts on teen smoking are teens who smoke.

      But I’m guessing none of them would be included among the “experts” deciding how the teens should live their lives.

      1. Well yeah exactly, I was really asking who Adams thought were the experts so… the second part.

  12. So Scott Adams’ position is basically Top Men?

    1. Top. Men.

      As opposed to idiot management consultants, savior CEOs, etc.

    2. So Scott Adams’ position is basically Top Men?

      That’s basically the entire message of his comic strip; Engineers are smarter than everyone else, but aren’t in charge due to lack of social skills. This is to our detriment as they would lead us to technocratic paradise.

      1. As an engineer, that particular part of Dilbert’s message frightens me. Smart != good at ruling, even with – or especially with – good social skills.

        1. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter were both engineers. Nuff said.

          1. jimmy carter was actually probably one of the better presidents. Deregulated airlines, installed volcker, and botched an invasion of Iran.

            1. Don’t forget deregulating interstate trucking.

            2. Deregulated BEER!

    3. This. Similar to Herman Cain’s position.

  13. Adams is a shrewd observer of business miasma, and in particular, the sorts of pathologies that occur in large bureaucracies in quasi-private enterprise (such as the banks and telephone company he used to work at early in his career). Unfortunately, he is a facile and superficial observer of government, the entity that made so much of that illness possible.

  14. So what fake name will Adams use to post to this thread?

    1. So what fake name will Adams use to post to this thread?
      White Indian?

    2. Scott Dilbert?

  15. “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.

    Nonsense! Balderdash! We need government to make churches marry gay people because we all know (wink, wink!) that churches are populated by congregations of bigots! All of them!

    Only government is populated by true and veritable angels that know better than the rest of the ignorant rabble that voted for them!

    Oh, sorry…. For a while, I think I was channeling Tony!

    1. Angels. That’s what I’ve been telling my liberal friends. People don’t become angels when they work for the government. It’s a sound bite that seems to work. Some of them are starting to realize that their view that government should fix a problem runs into the problem that government is people too.

      1. You might want to point out that not only do they not become angels when they work for the government, but that power in fact disproportionately attracts power-mad sociopaths, regardless of whether they append an R or a D after their name.

      2. soylent government is people!

        1. Goddamn you beat me to it.

          1. <takes a bow>

        2. like a good straight man I teed it up for you.

          Also, I do point out that government will tend to attract the wrong kind of people, that want power for it’s own sake. I try to avoid terms like “power mad sociopath”…gentle persuasion, you know.

          1. That at least explains the politicians. The bureaucracy side doesn’t tend to attract those who crave power so much as those who are too incompetent to obtain or retain employment in the private sector.

  16. 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.

    MNG came.

  17. Scott Adams sounds like a real ass munch. And his comic strip is not funny either.

  18. Oh, man!

    Adams’ strong stance FOR the military and the death penalty has gotten all your True Libertarian panities in a bunch I see.

    Good times. Good times.

    See, we’re all for the second amendment (this cow is in favor of less restrictive gun laws!).

    And sure, if a man, woman or OWS protestor enters onto your property, force may be initiated. Which of course is your right.

    And if that force should result in a fatality, I don’t think a murder charge should be handed down. Do you? Of course not. You were (rightly) protecting your property.

    But if the State should catch a killer, who confesses during a trial, the State has no right to put that person to death?

    The Military and the Police are actually 2 of the govt.’s legitimate duties. Merely resisting all authority don’t make you a Libertarian.

    (This is why Ron Paul has no chance of winning, despite stacked straw polls. Most Americans don’t hate the military. Thought I don’t know anyone who’s really all that fond of Dilbert either.)

    1. Did you actually read the other comments before posting your drivel?

    2. Sure, Adams is just a good ol’ libertarian! If you ignore the rest of his “philosophy” and only focus on the words “Military” and “Death Penalty.” When you finish sounding out the rest of his answers, or have someone read them to you, maybe you’ll want to rethink this whole we’re-not-real-libertarians-based-on-two-words thing.

    3. Hey moron,

      No one in the thread mentioned the military or the death penalty. We’re making fun of Scott Adam’s idiotic technocracy fantasy. Nice reading comprehension, asshole.

  19. Scott Adams’ political “Philosophy” sounds like what I would’ve said in 5th grade. We just need to communicate! If I ruled the world, I would just get some smart people in a room together and just talk about all our problems, and together we would figure out how to solve them! For everyone! Then everyone would be happy and get along! Or else!

  20. So, Grammer/Adams 2012?
    It can’t be any worse than Obama/Biden…

  21. Yeah, clowns, I read all the previous comments.

    So if Adams put his anti-war (both Iraq and war on weed!) views front and center, you sure you wouldn’t forgive his other gibberish?

    As for most of the clowns here being real libertarians. Well, the central tenet of libertarianism is personal property rights.

    Since most of the ‘real libertarians’ here poop on much of society’s mechanisms for protecting personal property (police, military etc.), I’m gonna have to assume you really don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

    Being anti-authority is not libertarian.

    When you ask 90% of the anti-war and/or pro-drug legalization crowd anything about economics (or really anything outside their, ahem, expertise), you get gibberish that makes Scott Adams’ gibberish look good.

    1. Threaded comments, how do they work?

      Being anti-authority is not libertarian.

      Yeah, actually it pretty much is. Authoritarianism and Libertarianism are polar opposites. Libertarianism, at its extreme, is anarchism, though most libertarians stop short of that and often describe themselves as minarchists (IOW they believe there needs to be, at the very least, a government to run a court system to enforce contracts and a military to protect against invasion).

      Authoritarianism, at ITS extreme, is indistinguishable from totalitarianism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.