Ooooh, great question! I'll have to think about this one (I lived in SF since the Bush years, so the idiocy just becomes a blur).

But back in college I was debating an econ professor about anti-trust laws. I had been a libertarian for only a few months, but had her completely flustered. Her argument that free markets (as opposed to government meddling) lead to problematic monopolies was based on what happens in the board game Monopoly. "The whole point is to buy up all the squares!!!" She just kept on repeating that as if it had any relevance to the real world.

Finally, I ended the argument and told her: "Sorry, but I think Milton Friedman is a more credible economist than Milton Bradley."

You may have missed the preface to my remarks:

"Regardless of the aptness of Mr. Beckett's comparisons, there are some ideas here to consider."

I'm not particularly interested in internal squabbles between libertarians and conservatives. I'm more interested in understanding our common antagonists on the left.

As far as I can tell, the author of this post is is trying to warn us of the threat posed by deceptive terms like "libertarian paternalism" (a term promoted by Sunstein, not the author).

I believe Louis implied that, in addition to principled arguments, many libertarians counter leftism with practical arguments based in the social sciences. Now, however, leftists like Sunstein have developed their own social science based arguments and they are adept at selling such arguments to a non-principled public.

Also striking is that for 40 years Republicans - including Reagan - have been unable to roll back the War on Poverty, and the governmental principles behind it, despite it being completely ineffective and making up more than half of our national debt. Meanwhile, Democrats are able to effectively blame a recession on "tax cuts for the rich!," defense spending and non-existant "deregulation."

I hate to say it, but Republicans could use an LBJ.

Regardless of the aptness of Mr. Beckett's comparisons, there are some ideas here to consider.

The social engineers are more difficult to defeat when they aim low. Here in NorCal they are on a mission to compel us to use "green" cloth shopping bags. So, they ban plastic bags and force retailers to charge 10cents per paper bag (then, in a year this rises it to 25cents). Shops are forced to put up Mao-worthy slogans like "Look Forward to Green Shopping."

I'm livid over this nonsense - the plastic ban is one thing, but the arrogance of the social engineering campaign sends me over the edge.

Reading articles I see quotes from people who just shrug and say, "it's annoying, but I'll just have to remember to bring my own bags." 

Thing is, people will adapt. We already have surcharges on all sorts of things - from phone bills to tires - so to get worked up over 20cents here or $1 there does seem crazy to most people.

How do you protest this? Shop elsewhere and spend $3 in gas to save 30cents? Again, a non-ideologue will just give in and move on.

Do you wave at the guy from your window as he comes to pick up your mail, take it to a warehouse, give it to an assembly line of workers to open it, scan it and email it to you and then drop it off days later? Why don't they just mail it back to you?

How much does this service cost just to save you the few seconds it takes to toss something in the trash? Do they at least somehow get your name off of junk mail lists? 

This sounds like a punchline from a tech boom era sitcom.

Jerry: I dunno know, Kramer. How hard is it to just throw the stuff away? And what about personal information? Can your employees be trusted?

Kramer: They're princes Jerry - Nigerian princes! Of course you can trust them - they're royalty!

Elaine: Since when do princes work for minimum wage?

George: Uh, what's Newman going to think about all this?

Obviously they can't prove intent, unless business owners speak out. 

The real purpose of this law is to silence business owners who dare to speak out against the law by informing the public of its effects.

I'd be curious to hear from our resident legal scholars on this. Is there a First Amendment case to be made here? 

I wholeheartedly agree. It frustrates me whenever Republicans say things like, "Lincoln was a Republican  So there!" 

So what? While I believe Lincoln was genuinely sympathetic to the plight of the slaves his Emancipation Proclamation was primarily a strategic move.

This focus on motives over merits just plays into the emotion based worldview of Democrats.

You've got a point. It's pretty easy to come up with wacky and absurd exaggerations of "so fat," otherwise you'd be stuck with "Yo Mama so fat she died of a heart attack at age 43!" 

Exaggerations of government overreach are either too realistic or too dark to be funny.

"Yo mama so statist she was shocked when they came to take her to the gulag!" isn't exactly a knee slapper. 

Yo Mama so statist when she sits around the house she gets paid to sit around the house.

Yo Mama so statist Michael Bloomberg called her "so fat" and she still voted for him - four times!

One of my favorites has to be the Denver Airport conspiracy (just Google "Denver airport" - if you dare!).  Apparently Denver International Airport is some sort of base or compound or whathaveyou for The Reptilians. Something about the runways looking like a swastika (Hitler was a Reptilian, as was Stalin, Churchill, George Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Freemasons, Oprah, Bigfoot, Alf, Frank Zappa and any other important person/creature/entity you can think of).*

Also, there are also secret messages "hidden" in the airport's murals and much, much more evidence than I can recall. 

Naturally secret overlords would build their HQ under an international airport frequented by millions of people AND leave barely hidden clues to their presence in plain sight.

*How do we know who's a Reptilian? Just search Youtube for videos of politicians flashing "Reptile eyes."

Funny stuff; although frightening that people actually believe it.

Unfortunately it looks like this poor - probably dead - kid was slandered by people jumping to conclusions on Reddit.

Looking more and more like some kind of sleeper cell - presumably made up of "Asian Youths." 

Occam's razor.

Huh? The naked dude? Shot by whom?

Man, the internet is just not cutting it tonight for breaking news. 

And I can't get on the chat - is it because of the Flash nonsense? I feel like I have to download a new *@# version of Flash every day just to get anything to function.

Yep. Thanks Mollie. A hour later and Drudge is still asleep at the switch - . Had I not glanced at Ricochet I'd have had no idea anything was happening.

The contrast between Orwell's insights on totalitarian and own political beliefs ironically demonstrates exactly why his pessimism regarding the former is justified.

Here's a brilliant man who spent a lifetime pondering human nature and writing astutely about the perils of unchecked power and propaganda, yet he himself clung to the fantasies of socialism.

Granted, Orwell was a thoughtful man who died relatively young. Had he lived to see upwards of 100 million slaughtered under leftist tyranny across the world perhaps his views would have changed.

However, the fact that - like many, many intelligent and otherwise insightful people - he just as easily could have continued to rationalize his leftism is exactly why liberty will always be fragile.