Brown's Election Is No Victory for Liberty by Jacob G. Hornberger http://bit.ly/971D0O

Jacob Hornberger is correct.

However there are other reasons to celebrate Scott Brown's win besides his stance on Federalism (I hope to see more on this as he gets settled in).

First, One has to remember that in Massachusetts, there are two forces to combat when running for office. Besides the want for a more compassionate government, there is also the hatred for all things R. Scott Brown changed that dynamic for a lot of people. He may have cured some neurosis'. Perhaps more healing can begin!

Second, Scott Brown's very simple message (a good thing for a campaign) about health care is one of state competition. Massachusetts has done something better (not that I agree, but this does not detract from the point), and by federalizing that program, you drag the leader down. You remove incentives for excellence. You remove one of the places where competition can occur.

By emphasizing the 'cost' that the federal program would force Massachusetts to bear, he is showing people what a lack of competition does.  By Emphasizing how much better Massachusetts' program is, he is showing what *competition* does. 

I know, I'm reaching. But it really is the responsibility of positive people to spin a victory of the lesser evil in a rational way. Why is it a lesser evil? How can it be improved? What are the principles involved.

While Scott Brown is no Ron Paul, he hasn't actually 'done' anything yet. He may be teachable. His followers may be teachable.  And I suspect he'll be on the right side (pun intended) more often than not.

Students of Liberty, here is your chance to become Hierophants of Liberty!

Ger.