> I implore you not as one who knows it all but instead as one who has made colossal mistakes, such as supporting both the Iraq War and an accelerated mRNA vaccine rollout.
I used to be a statist, too, so I was on the pro-war side back then (Iraq). Admitting it was cathartic, especially admitting it in writing.
Your “Politics selects for sociopaths” comment reminds me of an experience I had four decades ago when I was a politically naive newly registered Libertarian. A Libertarian candidate recruiter asked me to run for a state assembly office. I resisted. He finally convinced me by saying I was the only Libertarian in my assembly district so that if I refused to run, my district would offer no alternative to the Republican and Democratic candidates who were both corrupt. After I filed for the office, the major local newspaper effectively endorsed me by attacking both of my opponents as corrupt. At one point I was ahead of the Republican in the race, but the Democrat won by a landslide. During the race I received a lot of mail which I was able to classify into three groups: (1) letters from people offering to help with my campaign as by providing consulting services, campaign fliers, yard signs, and bumper stickers; (2) letters from “good government” types inviting me to attend such events as candidate nights; (3) letters from special interest groups. The latter group of letters was much larger than the other two combined. All but one special interest group, in effect, asked me essentially this question: If we support you, what will you do for us at the expense of everyone else? (The only exception was a group merely asking to be left alone.) Candidates who answer “Nothing!” (e.g., Libertarians) can expect to be disadvantaged by having to face better-financed opponents having more endorsements. It seemed to me that the candidates who had the best chance of winning were those willing to do whatever it took to get elected provided they could hide that information from the voters--and that winning candidates tend to be the least ethical of those selected from a pool of otherwise qualified people. One big problem with government is that politicians have the power to grant favors to special interest groups in exchange for endorsements and campaign contributions.
> I implore you not as one who knows it all but instead as one who has made colossal mistakes, such as supporting both the Iraq War and an accelerated mRNA vaccine rollout.
I used to be a statist, too, so I was on the pro-war side back then (Iraq). Admitting it was cathartic, especially admitting it in writing.
Your “Politics selects for sociopaths” comment reminds me of an experience I had four decades ago when I was a politically naive newly registered Libertarian. A Libertarian candidate recruiter asked me to run for a state assembly office. I resisted. He finally convinced me by saying I was the only Libertarian in my assembly district so that if I refused to run, my district would offer no alternative to the Republican and Democratic candidates who were both corrupt. After I filed for the office, the major local newspaper effectively endorsed me by attacking both of my opponents as corrupt. At one point I was ahead of the Republican in the race, but the Democrat won by a landslide. During the race I received a lot of mail which I was able to classify into three groups: (1) letters from people offering to help with my campaign as by providing consulting services, campaign fliers, yard signs, and bumper stickers; (2) letters from “good government” types inviting me to attend such events as candidate nights; (3) letters from special interest groups. The latter group of letters was much larger than the other two combined. All but one special interest group, in effect, asked me essentially this question: If we support you, what will you do for us at the expense of everyone else? (The only exception was a group merely asking to be left alone.) Candidates who answer “Nothing!” (e.g., Libertarians) can expect to be disadvantaged by having to face better-financed opponents having more endorsements. It seemed to me that the candidates who had the best chance of winning were those willing to do whatever it took to get elected provided they could hide that information from the voters--and that winning candidates tend to be the least ethical of those selected from a pool of otherwise qualified people. One big problem with government is that politicians have the power to grant favors to special interest groups in exchange for endorsements and campaign contributions.
"So, arm yourself with skepticism, vigilance, and guarded optimism."
A worthy motto.