Religion is a collective group of people’s conception of the natural order of things. Collectively religions accurately depict the natural order of things. Not because they are trying, however.  In fact, most religions tell believers it will elevate them above the natural order of things, or remake the others in its image in order to restore the rightful state of order.

Consider Judaism. It told a group of people they were more special than the natural order, and proved it by enslaving them in Egypt, bringing them out of Egypt, insulating them from the natural order for forty years, and then reintroduced them to the natural order of things, which is fighting to sustain their collective conception of natural order, which, like many other religions, offer interesting possibilities at what the natural order could be if it were the natural order, which it could be if it implemented its conception of natural order on everyone else.

Rather, religions together accurately depict natural order because the global concert of each religion’s actors all acting simultaneously and at once is precisely nature’s order. This is true even of Atheists who collectively function as a single religion. As do Voluntaryists, however non-coercively. And wouldn’t natural order be interesting if people, whom for so long have done nothing but coerce each other, just stopped it already? Then people could get on with figuring out whom they are, and being that person. What I’m saying is the great Greek aphorism – know thyself – is potentially unfulfilled.

Perhaps it requires a moment to understand that natural order is as natural order does. Whatever natural order may be, it always abides by the laws of physics, markets, and providence. So what all religions – and cultures, which like any collective group of people trying to achieve their conception of the natural order play a substantial role in shaping the natural order – have in common is a good indicator of what’s true about the human experience. For instance, no religion I’m aware of promises that the rain will fall only on the righteous, because clearly that’s not true. All religions that promise the return of its particular prophet or deity disclaim that the precise date or time is unknown. The exceptions to this all prove the rule, such as the Seventh Day Adventists who were so sure Jesus was returning in 1844 they didn’t bother to bring in the crops that year.

That’s why it’s important to consider how accurately a particular religion depicts the immutable laws by which all actors in the concert of natural order must obey, such as gravity and probability. Consequently, I’m particularly tolerant of religions that articulate and are consistent with the natural rights (see Locke, John; Hobbes, Thomas) that shape my conception of the natural order, which is freedom. I suppose that explains a lot about why some people think man made God in man’s image.

For instance, if God was made in my image he’d love freedom, hate coercion, but be a bit of a fatalist, being a big believer in providence and that the best we can do is to do the best we can. Of course, you can say the same of gazelles on African savannah.

Nature, then, provides the natural order with which the human experience is ultimately consistent. The obvious implication is that humans evolved directly from nature, which is scientifically true. Yet common to almost every human is belief in God or religion, befuddling Atheists. Perhaps gazelles marvel at the stars, thanking providence for sparing them from the day’s lions. That doesn’t account beyond nature’s order, however, for the gazelles the lions ate.

The fact is that natural life is short and brutal. Since humans are uniquely capable of attempting to recreate natural order in their conception of what natural order should be it should be no surprise that humans endeavor precisely that. Perhaps left to our own devices in a world devoid of government or religion – like in The Book of Eli, where the natural order of humankind was truly short and brutal – religion would be a most logical conclusion, as a preferable alternative to nature’s brute order. The logical end of that, though, is the same concert of religions, cultures, and individuals, as exist now, all fighting, one way or another, to assert their conception of natural order upon others. The common human experience, then, may be cyclical and never learns from its mistakes, something to which most religions stipulate. As does Cosmology (universe expanding, contracting, and over again).

If in a world devoid of government or religion life is short and brutal, rather than libertopia, one wonders how voluntaryism might take hold if not by force. Consider Ghengis Khan, the original neocon, who sincerely believed the only way to live at peace was to conquer potentially (and often actually) quarrelsome neighbors, and enforce a culture of peace with the hardest of iron fists – which he did. His only mandate to all within his ever-expanding territory was be peaceful. But it took many millions of lives to achieve that peace, and it lasted only as long as he could enforce it. George Bush might say that Khan violated his peaceful principles to implement his peaceful principles. Successfully, too, for a time.

Then again, hundreds of millions of lives have been wasted throughout history for reasons much less noble than creating a culture of relative peace. As a result I’m often convinced that neoconism is the lesser of the evils. The obvious counterargument to neoconism is that Alfred Nobel thought dynamite – his invention and at that time the world’s greatest weapon – would end large-scale warfare. And look how well that turned out. But as a friend pointed out the other day, Nobel may have actually been correct in principle, and his flaw one of scale. Perhaps hydrogen bombs are weapons great enough in global scale to end large-scale warfare, making irritating regional conflicts the norm rather than greater global upheaval.

Of course, regional conflicts involving nuclear weapons may quickly progress to global upheaval, which makes the neoconservative point about the importance of stopping unstable regimes such as Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. By contrast, neoconservatives tolerate Israel’s nuclear arsenal because they don’t think it’d be used for anything but self-preservation. Self-preservation is a natural right, and one superior to the right of coercion asserted by every invader – even those who claim the right of invasion to create a peaceful order. Human’s collective appreciation for the right of self-preservation may be precisely why implementing an aggressive neoconservative strategy effectively frightens the majority of us into inaction on the matter, leading then to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in unstable regions (e.g. Pakistan), the presence of which makes more likely the prospect of global warfare, which is ultimately much worse than irritating regional conflicts.

Worse, not only are we collectively unwilling to preclude the possibility of global warfare by forcibly stopping unstable regimes from obtaining nuclear weapons, we are unwilling even to destabilize those regimes by tearing down the restrictions on nuclear energy in the United States – ironically, the form of energy powering the Navy, our greatest projection of power – and instantly bankrupt unstable and unwanted regimes the world over. The mass proliferation of nuclear energy in America would reduce regional conflicts into simply national conflicts. Or at least nations in a given region couldn’t project their regional conflicts onto us, which would be outstanding.

So do we agree, then, on supporting nuclear energy? And did I mention Gov. Gary Johnson supports bustin’ down the door to nuclear energy in America? I’m on board.

Via Gov. Johnson’s twitter feed.
Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Here’s a link and video from Gov. Johnson’s twitter feed. First, a Salon article about Gov. Johnson titled “The Most Interesting Republican You’ve Never Heard Of,” which is as curious as it is an understated title for an article essentially showing that Gov. Johnson shatters the left’s narrative of eeevil Republican politicians. It’s worth the read anyhow though, and I liked this bit too:

Johnson is betting that the country is in the mood for some more tough love, albeit wrapped in flamboyantly libertarian garb. It’ s a risky wager at best. But one thing is guaranteed: If Gary Johnson runs for president, he’ s sure to freshen up the national conversation. And those debates with Mitt Romney should be fun to watch.

A Gov. Johnson v. Gov. Romney debate would be epic. Common sense, plain-expression versus expert legal wordsmithing. Legal wordsmithing might carry the day in court, and in Andrew Sullivan’s portion of the blogosphere, but common sense, but in the voting booth Gov. Johnson’s message will carry the day. As the article correctly points out, however, the challenge will be getting enough voters to hear Gov. Johnson’s message.

Now, a video:

When I retire to my library (har har, I live in a shoebox) for a nightcap tonight I’ll be reading these articles:

The Paranoid Center: How the panic over right-wing violence is being used to marginalize peaceful dissent. (Reason)

‘Chiefs, Thieves, and Priests’: Science writer Matt Ridley on the causes of poverty and prosperity. (Reason)

My Inflation Nightmare. (The Atlantic)

Supersonic Jump, from 23 miles in the air. (Old Gray Mare)

And because I can’t get enough Gary Johnson, You cut spending . . . (Reason)

Weekend TV that is good for you. Gary Johnson.

Ilya Somin at Volokh commenting on a recent article by Matt Yglesias, which complained that there should be less elected positions in State government and more appointed positions because it’s impossible to be an informed voter these days. In his words:

No real people are paying attention to what these different offices are, what the incumbents are doing, how they interact, who’s doing a good job, etc. Special interests who are able to hire professionals to monitor elected officials for them, by contrast, are able to make out like bandits.

I principally disagree for two reasons. First, the Internet makes it easier than ever before in world history to be an informed voter. I don’t buy the argument that it’s impossible to be an informed voter. To the extent a voter cares to be reasonably informed he/she can certainly inform him/herself as to the candidates and broad issues. With respect to Yglesias’ point that “[n]o real people are paying attention . . .” he may be correct. It does seem that the majority of citizens don’t pay enough attention, or simply don’t care, preferring to whine about the results of their apathy rather than cure it by taking an active interest in the institutions and people that govern them. Yglesias appears to prefer, as a matter of practicality, relieving the electorate of the political burden (voting) they clearly shirk by giving fewer elected candidates more authority to appoint more bureaucrats. My second objection is that if our collective apathy towards voting results in ineffective, corrupt, and grossly inefficient government then tough shit for us. Democracy (and civil liberty) is not without consequence. We suffer for our apathy. We should willingly bear those consequences, especially when we have at our fingertips the means to improve our democracy.

Ilya Somin makes a couple of different points:

I completely agree with Yglesias that most voters know little or nothing about these offices, and that this creates an opening for interest group influence. I have made similar arguments myself. The problem is exacerbated by the reality that for most voters, it is actually rational to devote little or no time to acquiring political information. It’s also rational for them to do a poor job of analyzing the political information they do know.

At the same time, I am skeptical of the solution that Yglesias implicitly seems to advocate: making these positions nonelected offices. If the Commissioner of the General Land Office becomes a bureaucratic position appointed by the governor, that doesn’t eliminate the problem of voter ignorance. It merely shifts it to a different election. Now, the question of who the governor is likely to choose as the next Commissioner is added to the long list of issues at stake in the gubernatorial election.

Next, Know Your Rights.  If you don’t think that’s important, I invite you to sit in on a criminal procedure class at my law school sometime and witness how federal courts have emasculated the Fourth Amendment.

[UPDATED 3/5/2010 @ 10:50 pm].  More here from Reason on the current administration’s frightening defenestration of civil liberty via the obliteration of the Fourth Amendment.

Re-read that last sentence again, and it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that any protestations on the Obama administration’s part that they have any respect for the 4th Amendment or privacy is utter bilge. I wrote on the government’s growing snooping powers in ye Moderne Age at theAmerican Conservative back in February.

Here’s a dated, but good read re: Paul Krugman.

Time after time, Krugman leaves me wide-eyed with wonder at how much economics he has to forget to write those [NY Times] columns.

Interview with an Austrian-school, Soviet economist who defected to the United States.

Yuri N. Maltsev received his MA in history and social sciences at Moscow State University and his PhD in economics at the Institute for Labor Research in Moscow. Some of his major achievements include consulting on Central and Eastern European economic, trade and political issues, as well as appearing on national television and radio programs. He currently is a professor of economics at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

What convinced you of the merits of the Austrian School of Economics over other schools of thought?
The Austrian School of Economics is economics of freedom, economics for free people, economics of human action, not of government design. It is the only school which accurately predicted the fate of the socialist experiment, which cost over 150 million lives last century. Ludwig von Mises showed with precise and irrefutable logic why socialism could never work.

Related: The confluence of classic liberalism and Austrian economics.

Classical liberalism — which we shall call here simply liberalism — is based on the conception of civil society as, by and large, self-regulating when its members are free to act within very wide bounds of their individual rights. Among these the right to private property, including freedom of contract and free disposition of one’s own labor, is given a very high priority. Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum (Raico 1992, 1994).

Austrian economics is the name given to the school, or strand, of economic theory that began with Carl Menger (Kirzner 1987; Hayek 1968), and it has often been linked — both by adherents and opponents — to the liberal doctrine. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the connections that exist, or have been held to exist, between Austrian economics and liberalism.

Change Status Quo: KSM trial probably occurring in Gitmo. I guess that means the White House thinks terror is more akin to war than crime, Terrorists are more akin to war-actors than criminals, and military tribunals are a more appropriate forum than civil courts in which to try them. Where’d they get that idea? I wonder what Neal Katyal, current Deputy Solicitor General, thinks about it, having made his name by arguing (successfully) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which held that the Bush administration’s first iteration of military commissions to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions. I’m interested to hear Katyal explain what substantive changes the Obama administration has made to the Tribunals and why those changes now satisfy the arguments Kaytal ably posed against the prior version of military tribunals. More here.

Interesting read here by Timothy Garton Ash, whom I linked to in On Armenia and Genocide, about the challenges facing the EU’s monetary policies. Excerpt below is the end of Ash’s article:

Behind the monetary lurks the fiscal; behind the fiscal, the economic; behind the economic, the political; and behind the political, the historical. The deepest reality underlying this crisis is that the personal experiences and memories that have pushed European integration ahead for 65 years, since 1945, are losing their force. The personal memory of war, occupation, humiliation, European barbarism; fear of Germany, including Germany’s fear of itself; the Soviet threat, the cold war, the “return to Europe” as a guarantee of hard-won freedom; the hope of restored European greatness.

These were massive biographical motivators, which drove people like Mitterrand and Kohl even unto the euro. Can Europeans go on building Europe without such profound motivators? Are there new ones in sight?

Yesterday’s Pentagon attacker was a left-wing truther. Here’s some reasons why non-left wing, non-truthers shouldn’t try to make political hay out of it.

So, instead of playing the blame game so unapologetically employed by the Left when they feel they can spin things to their political advantage, I’m not going to say that Bedell’s actions at the Pentagon epitomize the leftist worldview. Rather, he was just crazy, as clearly indicated by his belief in the craziest of modern crazy conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truthism.

Are most Truthers leftists? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that all left-leaning Americans are thereby just as crazy as the most extreme among them; it simply indicates that when a leftist goes crazy in the post-9/11 era, he often gloms onto Truthism as his paranoia of choice.

Put it this way: Leftism fails as a coherent philosophy on its own terms. We shouldn’t try to wring significance from the delusional outburst of someone who just happened to be leftist. There are plenty of ways to logically disembowel Marxism and its numerous noxious contemporary offspring without having to resort to an unnecessary round of political “gotcha!”

Did you know that Willie Nelson smoked weed on the roof of the white house? Plus this on Nelson, from Reason’s 35 Heroes of Freedom.

One of the great crossover artists in popular music, the Texas legend pulled off a Martin Luther King Jr.-like achievement by uniting hippies and rednecks in a single audience.

The most plausible Republican fix to the fiscal mess . . . I’m still in the tank for Gary Johnson.

Finally, Reason’s Peter Suderman on the ‘jobs created or saved’ canard:

In selling the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—otherwise known as the economic stimulus—to the American public last year, the Obama administration promised that the massive spending package would serve as a sort of Keynesian Red Bull, allowing the tired economy to keep partying hard by pumping up GDP and trapping unemployment in single digits. Or, as the administration put it in January 2009, the bill was to create or save three to four million jobs over the next two years, with over 90 percent of those jobs in the private sector.

Instead, the economy reacted like it just downed a glass of whiskey and warm milk: Private sector output fell sharply, and last fall, the unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent. * * *

That still leaves us with a question: How many jobs did the stimulus actually create? The best answer to that question is not 1 million or 2.1 million or any of the other figures that have been batted around in recent months by the administration and its defenders. It’s not even a figure at all; instead it’s another question: Who knows?

But don’t take my word for it; take the CBO’s. Unlike the administration, the CBO is a nonpartisan entity without a particular interest in strengthening its claims further than they should. All the numbers it produces are estimates, and the agency devotes plenty of ink to explaining its methodology and the uncertainties it entails. Last month’s report cautioned that “considerable uncertainty exists about many of these economic relationships that are important in the modeling,” which is why many of its estimates come in rather wide ranges. And its December report noted that “it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.”

In other words, don’t blame the CBO, which is merely doing its lawful duty to produce compliant estimates (a fact which it dryly makes clear in the introduction). Instead, blame the administration, the government-spending enthusiasts, the liberal pundits, and anyone else who treats these pre-cooked estimates as settled fact.

I don’t know a lot about Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, but Ross Douthat calls him the best governor in America, and recently analyzed Gov. Daniels’ prospects for the 2012/2016 presidency. Long excerpt below:

Since then, though, he’s become America’s best governor. In a just world, Daniels’s record would make him the Tea Party movement’s favorite politician. During the fat years of the mid-2000s, while most governors went on spending sprees, he was trimming Indiana’s payroll, slowing the state government’s growth, and turning a $800 million deficit into a consistent surplus. Now that times are hard, his fiscal rigor is paying off: the state’s projected budget shortfall for 2011, as a percentage of the budget, is the third-lowest in the country.

But Daniels hasn’t just been a Dr. No on policy. His “Healthy Indiana” plan, which offers catastrophic coverage to low-income residents, aspires to eventually cover 130,000 people, about a third of the state’s long-term uninsured. He’s pushed targeted investments in kindergarten programs, the police force and the child welfare office. And he’s been a pragmatic free-marketeer, rather than a strict ideologue. His controversial decision to lease the Indiana toll road reaped $3.8 billion for the state. But when an attempt to outsource welfare enrollment went awry, Daniels yanked the system back into the public sector.

If this portrait sounds suspiciously glowing, keep in mind that I saw the governor last Monday, in between the CPAC gathering of movement conservatives and the White House health care forum. In both cases, the contrast made Daniels seem particularly appealing.

Unlike the politicians who spoke at CPAC, Daniels eschewed triumphalism about conservatism’s prospects. “I think a lot of Republicans are over-reading all of this,” he said. “They’re a little ahead of themselves, a little too giddy.” What his party still needs, and doesn’t have he said, are the answers to “the ‘what’ question — what are we about, what are our answers to the obvious problems the nation has?”

Unlike the Republicans at the health care summit, he balanced criticisms of Obamacare with candor about the problem of the uninsured. “This is a very real issue, and we were determined to have a constructive approach to it — but one that would be affordable.” Healthy Indiana, he went on, is “incredibly popular with the people who are a part of it. I get tearful hugs from people who just want to tell me that it’s brought them peace of mind.”

And unlike both CPAC-goers and his party’s leadership, Daniels was blunt about the challenges of deficit reduction. “There’s been some very healthy hell-raising going on in the country,” he said of the Tea Parties. “But to my knowledge, nobody’s gotten up in front of those rallies and explained what’s going to have to happen.” His ideal approach to the deficit would look like Paul Ryan’s fiscal roadmap, all spending restraint and no new taxes. But one way or another, deficit reduction “has to be done” — even if “you have to take the second- or third-best method.”

All this honesty might evaporate on the campaign trail. And if it didn’t, would Daniels have a prayer? He’s admired by elites, but unknown at the grass-roots level. He’s a social conservative, and his gubernatorial campaigns have played the populist card successfully — but he lacks the built-in constituencies of other candidates. And his years’ carrying water for the Bush administration’s budgets would doubtless be used against him in the battle for the Tea Partiers’ affections.

For a Daniels candidacy to catch fire, what’s left of the Republican establishment, currently (if reluctantly) coalescing around Mitt Romney, would have to decide that he’s the better pick. That would mean gambling that the best way to defeat the most charismatic president of modern times is to nominate a balding, wonky Midwesterner who reminds voters of their accountant.

No offense Gov. Daniels, but I’ll stick endorsing Gary Johnson for President.

Via the Humble Libertarian:

Last night Gov. Johnson released the beginnings of his economic plan at a Reason Foundation event. Me likes. Arnold Kling summarizes the plan as:

Not down to specifics, but states right at the top “Scale back entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation’s future” and later “Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana; emphasize harm reduction for other drugs…Expand free trade and legal immigration. “

But Kling is doubtful of Gov. Johnson’s chances in 2012:

As he describes how he governed New Mexico, Johnson is quick to mention his hundreds of vetoes. He does not come across as a coalition builder. Instead, he seems to be one who tries to rally people around his ideas. Johnson wears his ideology on his sleeve–not up his sleeve, which is what I think that Obama did with his vague, gauzy campaign rhetoric. (I think the true source of anger among independents is not over the state of the economy. It is over the fact that as a candidate Obama did not warn people of the statist onslaught that he was going to unleash as President.)

I see very little chance that Johnson could capture the Presidency, or that he could accomplish much if somehow he were elected. However, his potential to help the libertarian cause is very high. He could raise the profile of libertarian thinking, so that more people start to listen for something other than the mainstream progressive and conservative slogans.

Keep in mind the Masonomic view that politics is not about policy. It is about the relative status of various groups. Johnson does not represent a coalition of groups. The Democrats represent a coalition of minorities and people who identify themselves as the educated elite (note that Obama gets to qualify on both counts). Republicans represent a coalition of non-urban whites and people who identify themselves as sticking up for traditional American values. Libertarians represent…what…a cult of oddballs and misfits?

Personally, I don’t think that Libertarianism and true conservatism – at least as I understand them – are so far apart that both groups couldn’t rally around a Libertarian-ish candidate like Gary Johnson. Isn’t that why Ayn Rand hated the idea of a Libertarian party? Because it could create a brain-drain from the conservative party and allow the social conservative, evangelical wing of the Republican party  to take over? I read that she also detested Libertarians for stealing her ideas.

I think the problem may be that there aren’t that enough Libertarians and Republicans on the conservative end of the red spectrum (note to self – must find better shorthand to differentiate between socially conservative, big government Republicans and conservatives – perhaps “Huckabees” for the former and “Buckleys” for the later?) to vote Gary Johnson into office. (Note to you: I’ve decided to run with the “Huckabees” and “Buckleys” terminology, until someone comes up with something better in the comments, hint hint.) Unless, of course, the GOP takes a lesson or gets better at challenging democrats.

I wrote about Gary Johnson a little while back in an open letter to the GOP:

By the way, do you know Gary Johnson? Former two term governor of New Mexico?  Take a look at what he did when was Governor (in no particular order):

• He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once.
• He vetoed over 1,000 spending items.
• He cut taxes 14 times.
• In a state dominated 2 to 1 by Democrats he served two terms.
• He left New Mexico with a balanced budget.

He’s a pretty tough dude too, which resonates with the American spirit. For instance:

• He competed in the Bataan Death March, a 25 mile desert run in combat boots wearing a 35-pound backpack.
• He climbed to the top of Mount Everest, despite a broken leg.

Far more compelling, however, than Gov. Johnson’s mountaineering, low-tax, lower-spending, and balanced budget bonafides are his views on the socio-economic issues that really matter to non-evangelical Republicans.  PLEASE. Have a look at Gov. Johnson’s forum.

It appears he’s a “States’ rights” guy on abortion. And presumably every other issue not enumerated in the federal Constitution.

On civil liberty, Gov. Johnson has this to say:

“The government should not intervene in the private lives of individual citizens unnecessarily. Personal liberty and freedom from unwarranted governmental control or regulation should allow law abiding individuals to pursue their own desires as long as they are not causing harm to other people.”

In other words, Gov. Johnson generally favors punishing, where necessary, the consequences of one’s actionsrather than proscribing one’s conduct.

Although Gov. Johnson, does not advocate drug use, he would end the war on drugs, especially marijuana because continuing the war on drugs is “simply a waste of money and human resources and fails to deal with the real problems of abuse.” Makes sense, no?

Go ahead, check out out Gov. Johnson’s views on national defense, terrorism, the federal reserve, health care reform, and immigration. Huckabee may not like them, but Scott Brown voters in blue, purple, and red states will like them.

Remember how Bill Clinton’s welfare reform message resonated with voters of every stripe? Many of Gov. Johnson’s messages will too.

Look, GOP, Sen. Brown’s big win in Massachusetts last night has given you a very short lifeline. Use it wisely.

One last thing. You know how in your eyes Hollywood’s smug, ignorant “elite” symbolizes the Democrat party? And you find Democrats generally repugnant for it? Well, a good portion of the people in Massachusetts who voted for Sen. Brown are emblematic of the voters you absolutely need to win a majority in Congress and elect a Republican president. And – listen – a lot of those voters (I’ll call them “Scott Brown conservatives”) considerPat Buchannan or Mike Huckabee emblematic of the GOP.

Now, I’m a Gary Johnson conservative. But no one knows what that is, yet. So, for the purposes of this letter, consider me a Scott Brown conservative. And when people lump Huckabee, Buchannan, and me into the same category, I hate that. It’s not cool. As in “shooting guys in the dick is not cool” not cool. And that’s what it feels like, GOP. Serially.

I apologize for my long note, I lacked the time to write a shorter letter.

Newly Resurrected GOP,

In the wake of Scott Brown’s stunning win in Massachussets, I congratulate Brown’s grassroot initiative for saving you from the political wilderness for a generation and generating a bullet trains’ momentum for a center-right political resurgence.

Now, what are you going to do with that momentum?

I’m sure you’re aware of some of the factors contributing to Brown’s win. For instance, you’ve gloated crowed about noticed the widespread opposition to Democrat-proposed healthcare legislation.

But have you noticed the fact that the following issues – your signature issues – played no significant role in Sen. Brown’s win.

• Abortion
• Same-Sex Marriage (DOMA)
• Increasing Military Spending
• War on Drugs Marijuana
• War on Terror
• Immigration
• Afghanistan
• Iran
• UN
• Loving Sarah Palin

Next question: have you noticed that Sen. Brown, described by some as the “new face“of the GOP, is relatively liberal?

What I’m trying to tell you is that Brown’s win was, unsurprisingly, about the economy. Let me be clear, Brown’s win was not a referendum on your social policies. But Brown’s win does open an opportunity for you to change your social policies.

Regarding same-sex marriage, why not go way out on a Constitutional – federalist – limb and get State and Federal government entirely out of the marriage business. After all, people of every faith (and the lack thereof) formed satisfactory unions and reared children long before governments handed out licenses and tax incentives for doing so.

What you say? Too Libertarian? Even though we’re in a Libertarian moment? How about just getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act? Doing so would give significant credence to your argument that “abortion is a states’ rights issue.” After all, you thought the Supreme Court was dead wrong to find within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution a right to abortion. As a reminder, the Constitution doesn’t speak of federal authority to legislate on marriage either. (To be fair, some within the your ranks aren’t thrilled with the States’ rights argument, preferring instead a Lincolnian stance on abortion.)

Perhaps getting the State and Federal government out of the marriage business would be, in the short term, impractical, given the tax and legal issues such a fundamental change would spawn. And yes, Huckabee would be pissed.

But is it too much to ask that in every manner government affects citizens you sponsor State and Federal measures supporting “equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability”? Marriage included? (If that bit sounds familiar, GOP, that’s number three on your list of core values . . . from November, 2008. Yeah, I know you took it down, or at least I can’t find it online anymore, but some dude I never heard of archived it so there it is.) Take a deep breath. Utter equality is actually quite logical.

I digress. After all, it’s about the economy. Fortunately, Sen. Brown’s win indicates that a majority of Republican, Independent, and center-left Democrats consider you, GOP, the better alternative on the economy – notwithstanding the previous eight years of massive government expansion, fiscal irresponsibility, support of disastrous home-lending policies, stimulus packages, and bailouts.

I kid you not.  Yes, I know. It’s incredible that you remain a viable political alternative, especially considering numbers four and five on your 2008 “I am a republican list.” (Respectively: (4) “I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn”); (5)(“I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.”)

You’re lucky. Voters have a short memory, and they’ve apparently found this graph persuasive:

And voters sincerely desire small government.

Me? What do I desire? Nice of you to ask. I sincerely desire that you start taking a hard look at what Reason and Cato have to say, and amend your policies accordingly.

By the way, do you know Gary Johnson? Former two term governor of New Mexico?  Take a look at what he did when was Governor (in no particular order):

• He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once.
• He vetoed over 1,000 spending items.
• He cut taxes 14 times.
• In a state dominated 2 to 1 by Democrats he served two terms.
• He left New Mexico with a balanced budget.

He’s a pretty tough dude too, which resonates with the American spirit. For instance:

• He competed in the Bataan Death March, a 25 mile desert run in combat boots wearing a 35-pound backpack.
• He climbed to the top of Mount Everest, despite a broken leg.

Far more compelling, however, than Gov. Johnson’s mountaineering, low-tax, lower-spending, and balanced budget bonafides are his views on the socio-economic issues that really matter to non-evangelical Republicans.  PLEASE. Have a look at Gov. Johnson’s forum.

It appears he’s a “States’ rights” guy on abortion. And presumably every other issue not enumerated in the federal Constitution.

On civil liberty, Gov. Johnson has this to say:

“The government should not intervene in the private lives of individual citizens unnecessarily. Personal liberty and freedom from unwarranted governmental control or regulation should allow law abiding individuals to pursue their own desires as long as they are not causing harm to other people.”

In other words, Gov. Johnson generally favors punishing, where necessary, the consequences of one’s actions rather than proscribing one’s conduct.

Although Gov. Johnson, does not advocate drug use, he would end the war on drugs, especially marijuana because continuing the war on drugs is “simply a waste of money and human resources and fails to deal with the real problems of abuse.” Makes sense, no?

Go ahead, check out out Gov. Johnson’s views on national defense, terrorism, the federal reserve, health care reform, and immigration. Huckabee may not like them, but Scott Brown voters in blue, purple, and red states will like them.

Remember how Bill Clinton’s welfare reform message resonated with voters of every stripe? Many of Gov. Johnson’s messages will too.

Look, GOP, Sen. Brown’s big win in Massachusetts last night has given you a very short lifeline. Use it wisely.

One last thing. You know how in your eyes Hollywood’s smug, ignorant “elite” symbolizes the Democrat party? And you find Democrats generally repugnant for it? Well, a good portion of the people in Massachusetts who voted for Sen. Brown are emblematic of the voters you absolutely need to win a majority in Congress and elect a Republican president. And – listen – a lot of those voters (I’ll call them “Scott Brown conservatives”) consider Pat Buchannan or Mike Huckabee emblematic of the GOP.

Now, I’m a Gary Johnson conservative. But no one knows what that is, yet. So, for the purposes of this letter, consider me a Scott Brown conservative. And when people lump Huckabee, Buchannan, and me into the same category, I hate that. It’s not cool. As in “shooting guys in the dick is not cool” not cool. And that’s what it feels like, GOP. Serially.

I apologize for my long note, I lacked the time to write a shorter letter.