When "Jane Galt" first appeared in the wake of 9/11, I found her a refreshing and interesting libertarian voice. But, increasingly, I just don't "get" her. She's a libertarian. Alright. Who supported... Barack Obama? Huh? Because libertarians are classical fans of large government and coercive social programs? Or because McCain was such a stalwart social conservative that he was threatening to install surveillance cameras in her bedroom?

Here she is, agreeing with leftist Ezra Klein, bold added:

Like you, Ezra, I have been struggling with what the word "right" means. If it is simply "who I happen to like," then I concur with you: Obama is the right man for his party, and McCain is the wrong one. Obama is not only personally inspiring, but he also seems to have a deep understanding of the value of markets and transparency; he aims to fix outcomes, not tinker with the process. McCain, on the other hand, shows little respect for spontaneous free order or suspicion of expanded state power; he seems to think that the main problem with the government is that the wrong people are pulling the strings.

While I agree McCain was hardly excellent in comparison, which part of Obama's entire campaign did she miss? Won't tinker with the process? Huh? Transferring money from Joe the Plumber to give it to the next guy in line wasn't "tinkering with the process"? (And how could one "fix outcomes" without fundamentally affecting the process?)

(And never mind the bits about transparency nor understanding the value of markets.)

Quite the prophetess, there, Megan.

Yet it wasn't her support of Obama, but rather this post ("Rethinking the Kindle") which caused me to lose every last shred of respect for her. After complaining that Amazon's Kindle won't allow her unlimited downloads of books she's "purchased", she then notes (bold added, again):

We were thinking of becoming a two-Kindle family. Now I'm rethinking the one I've got. I'm a total supporter of hard DRM. But if I have to wipe my Kindle, or upgrade to a new one, I don't want to find out I have to buy all my books again.

What kind of bizarro libertarian is "a total supporter of hard DRM"? I mean, I could see supporting intellectual property laws, with fair use modifications. I could see agreeing companies should be able to encrypt any way they'd like — and hackers should be able try to decrypt anything they'd like, provided they don't pirate intellectual property. I can even understand those who say that IP laws have been more trouble than help, and should be dropped entirely.

But DRM? Where the government spends its time and effort making sure that people can't do whatever they'd like to hardware they've purchased? Where the government spends its time and effort trying to stop Joe Hacker from decrypting a block of data? (Hey, let's let people sell meth and heroin — but don't let a guy load De-CSS into his own Linux box to watch his own DVDs?)

Megan, the "libertarian" thinks that's consistent with minimal government?

And regarding the Kindle, I don't weep for her: she's shocked — shocked, I say! — to discover that companies would try to limit her use of controlled materials via DRM. That's been true of every single DRM system out there, so far. But for Megan, who has a column in the Atlantic where she advises so many others on how to understand the world, this is apparently some kind of huge revelation.

What is with people these days?

I increasingly feel I've slid into a parallel universe.