BLOOMBERG AND LIBERTARIANISM. Matt notes that libertarians may be irrationally unsympathetic to Michael Bloomberg because of his support for relatively trivial nanny-state regulations like public smoking and trans-fat bans. (As an aside, it's worth pointing out that public smoking bans actually have a serious non nanny-state, if not quite libertarian, justification: even I'm libertarian enough to oppose smoking bans to protect the health of smokers or patrons, but they're defensible insofar as they protect the health of workers.) However, there is a serious reason libertarians should be skeptical of Bloomberg: the appalling string of arbitrary detentions with no serious justification during the 2004 GOP convention. With Giuliani (in my view) effectively out of the race, it's conceivable that Bloomberg's stance on the crucial issue of lawful constraints on executive power could be worse than even the GOP nominee. --Scott Lemieux
