December 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson

December 27, 2008

Snowzilla

Alaska is the last American frontier. It is also the stage for a showdown between a 25 foot tall snowman and the city government of Anchorage.

City officials this year deemed Snowzilla a public nuisance and safety hazard. A cease-and-desist order was issued. The city tacked a public notice on Powers' door.

City officials said the structure increased traffic to the point of endangerment and that the snowman itself was unsafe.

You know darn well that I'm not the type to go on a pseudo-libertarian rant about Garrett Hardin's famous paper and public roads or something like that. I mean, I think we can all agree that I have a right to make a gigantic snowman in my yard. And I think we can all agree that this guy's neighbors think he is an asshat and we would all hate to have that kind of traffic on our own street. And sure, it's an interesting dilemma when those two are at odds.

But that's not what I want to talk about.

No, I'm just here to note that I wish I had some snow here in Virginia, and to note that there is always somebody who is able to make a buck off of any bizarre news story or cultural, um, phenomenon. And God bless that person, who in this case can be found here.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 22, 2008

Slow and Steady

According to several news outlets, a new Code of Conduct will outlaw Happy Hour at pubs and clubs across Britain.

Happy hours, drinking games and all-you-can-drink deals in pubs and bars are to be banned, the British government will announce next month.

It is being reported that the Department for Health will go so far as to curb offers of free drinks for women. [If this were a crass website, sexist jokes would go right here. Just sayin'.]

Teetotalers suggest that this move is necessary to balance out the fact that as of three years ago, pubs are actually permitted to operate 24 hours a day if they'd like to. As usual, the busybodies and the proposed government action completely fail to address the real problems (lack of individual responsibility) by taking away personal liberties (and individual responsibility) in a ridiculous, Orwellian move that could drive one to drink. So long as there are no games or promotions around.

Slow, steady, serious, round-the-clock drinking. Apparently, that's the way the British government wants it.

Cheers.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 30, 2008

What Right to Privacy?

Via Wil Wheaton’s blog, Bruce Schneier writes a thought-provoking essay on privacy at Wired.

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

No, those “clever” answers will get you absolutely nowhere with those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining, etc. Right now, believe it or not, there are people around the nation doing things to endanger the lives of others. That’s not even debatable. And to the vast majority of people, it is reasonable to place some safeguards and restrictions on everybody in order to figure out who those bad guys are. The government would be negligent not to violate the absolute privacy of citizens in an effort to mitigate those dangers to the rest of us. If the government can violate your privacy without you even being aware of it, so much the better, some would say. Others would argue that no, it needs to be explicit and obvious or else it isn’t an effective deterrent. To anybody making either of those arguments, Mr. Schneier’s “clever” retorts are just silly. Privacy advocates need to step up the game well past that type of thing if they expect to make any headway.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Here Schneier is correct. The issue is all about who can be trusted to violate the privacy I construct for myself. The issue is about who would have the right to circumvent the privacy I take the time to build. It’s not a matter of an inherent right to privacy, because such a right does not actually exist.

Now let’s get this next part out on the table and out of the way: I am well aware of the fact that the Constitution does not specifically enshrine a right to privacy, but that’s definitely not what I am talking about. Please have the Ninth Amendment tattooed to your forearm.

Okay, what I do mean is that your right to privacy can only exist to the degree that you have bothered to create privacy. You do not have a right to have privacy out of thin air, if you haven’t taken the time and effort to create it. It’s like an intellectual property issue.

As Murray Rothbard said when discussing property rights in The Ethics of Liberty (emphasis original):

Is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be?

…as in the case of the “human right” to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right “to privacy” is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly “invasion of a ‘right to privacy’,” but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.

Wil Wheaton says, “We deserve privacy, and we don't have to give it up to have security.” We don’t indeed--in fact, we need each to make the other. If a man is stripped entirely of either of privacy or security, he can have none of the other. But it is important to keep straight the reasons why we ever have privacy. As one Wheaton commenter so wonderfully notes, “I find it comedically ironic that those that rail for nationalized healthcare, carbon credits/taxes, forced morality of affirmative action and other altruistic nightmares, et al., are often times the very same folks railing against ‘privacy’ violations.”

If you create privacy for yourself, then you can have it. But if you destroy it or give it away, you will have none.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2008

Fairness Doctrine and Blogs

Via Slashdot, Rasmussen reports that

31% [of Americans] believe the Internet sites should be forced to balance their commentary.

31%? Are you kidding me? How would that even work? By what mechanism could this possibly be enforced? [insert Gulag references here]

Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.

Only 48% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans oppose the application of the Fairness Doctrine to blogs and other websites?

O'RLY?

Well, then in the interest of fairness, here is a detailed and articulate rebuttal from an opposing point of view, you bastards.

What should be the truly key point from the Rasmussen article: "Voters in all categories agree by sizable margins that it is possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media."

In other words, as much as the Fairness Doctrine is a heap of bullshit, it's especially so with regard to the internet. But just because something is blatantly unConstitutional, unworkable, and unnecessary, don't expect it to go away without a lot of "discussion".

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 11, 2008

Does Hollywood support violent cartels of illegal immigrants defiling US national forests?

Yes, according to US Drug Czar John Walters:

“Illegal immigrants connected to Mexico's drug cartels are growing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of marijuana in the heart of one of America's national treasures, authorities say. It's a booming business that, federal officials say, feeds Mexico's most violent drug traffickers."

"People who farm now are not doing this for laughs, despite the fact Hollywood still thinks that.”

Hollywood still thinks that? Mr. Walters, the Corsican Brothers was a quarter century ago. Rumors of a Cheech and Chong reunion notwithstanding, I think the Drug Czar sounds very, very out of touch. Hollywood (like most of America) may not think it’s a big deal to grow a little bit of recreational marijuana and get high occasionally, but Hollywood is also known for being very environmentalist. While I haven’t heard any official Hollywood spokespersons discussing the issue, I suspect that the entertainers Mr. Walters is talking about are as a group fairly protective of national forests, and wouldn’t like international cartels using them for anything (including commercial cannabis farms). This is a bit different from this (NSFW language warning). Equating the two seems about as silly as, well, that second clip I just linked.

A quick aside on my comment that most of America doesn’t think that recreational use is a big deal: A CNN poll a few years back showed that 80% of Americans support decriminalizing medicinal marijuana. I couldn’t find a poll stating what percentage of Americans favor decriminalization for recreational use, but reports indicate that 25% of Americans admit to having used marijuana before, and that same CNN poll showed that only 19% of Americans support jailing recreational pot smokers. 72% favored fines over jail. And given that the difference between a fine and a tax is largely a matter of the participation rate, I find it hard to believe that most Americans would be upset to see recreational marijuana legalized, regulated, and taxed.

But all of this is beside my main point, which is that I think Mr. Walters was off base to invoke Hollywood as somehow feeding the problem. Am I wrong?

If Hollywood and Washington were ever to cooperate on these issues as Mr Walters implores them to do, I would hope that the goal might be decriminalization. To quote Robert Guest of the NORML legal committee,

Last time I checked Mexican drug cartels were not using illegal immigrants to growing tobacco, or run moonshine stills. If you are really want to end these drug cartel pot farms in national parks, legalize pot.

And I hope you know this old tune, and can join me in the chorus:

Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University.

The report has been endorsed by more than 530 distinguished economists, who have signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition," adding, "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods."

Chief among the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University.

You don’t need to be a Nobel Laureate in economics to realize that the War on (some) Drugs is a failure. It is not only based on an immoral premise that what I inhale, inject, or ingest is the legitimate business of the government. It is also grossly impractical. It doesn’t work, and that’s not some piece of Hollywood fiction.

Costly and ineffective. That's a poor track record compared to Cheech and Chong's body of work. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Walters.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 4, 2008

Olympic reporters in China

Some things speak for themselves:

In 2001, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2008 games to China, Wang Wei, the leader of China's bid told reporters: "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China."

But for many reporters there now, it’s still unclear how free they will be able to report or not, as the restrictions and red tape seem almost endless, and they never know whether they've covered all their bases. "We already have to tell the Chinese everywhere we want to be in August, and what time," one TV broadcaster, who preferred to remain anonymous, recently told the Associated Press. "We have to provide a list of the guests who will be interviewed and the content of the interview."

That is, some things speak for themselves where permitted. Which is to say, if you are reading the article I linked, you are probably not doing so in China.

That the Chinese government will frustrate and limit the international press during the Beijing Olympics is a given. What remains to be seen is whether the international press will show itself to be a greater force than the Chinese government in the long run.

It is possible that the Chinese government will make the situation so untenable and intolerable that reporters will never forgive the transgressions, and will draw ever greater worldwide attention to the oppression that the Chinese people have undergone for years.

Or it is possible that the international press will complain a lot during the games and immediately afterward, but then fail to provide any sustained or cohesive effort to bring freedom to the Chinese people, who--unlike the international athletes and press--will still be living in China after the games.

A.J. Liebling once said "People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." That's still true today, though television news has dethroned the newspaper. Blogs are still reactionary, focusing mostly on the "news" that is published by papers or broadcast on TV... by reporters. While they do not decide what is news and what is not to the extent that they once did, the traditional media still has the power to shape narratives and focus the world's attention. I can't think of a cause that should be a greater motivation to them than worldwide freedom of the press.

Let the games begin...

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 31, 2008

Hold my calls...

You make the call… is this actual news, or is it a piece of satire?

By a voice vote, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed the Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace--or HANG UP--Act, which was introduced earlier this year by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.).

We only wish it were satire, friends. CNET’s blog notes that the FCC and FAA already coordinate a ban on in-flight cell phone use, but apparently the House doesn’t have anything more important to do than to move the prohibition from federal policy to federal law. Representative DeFazio justified the legislation by noting that without it, airlines might offer customers choices!!!!

"Polls show the public overwhelmingly doesn't want to be subjected to people talking on their cell phones on increasingly over-packed airplanes. However, with Internet access just around the corner on U.S. flights, it won't be long before the ban on voice communications on in-flight planes is lifted," DeFazio said in a statement. Cash-strapped airlines could end up charging some passengers to use their phones while charging others to sit in a phone-free section of the plane, he said.

And that’s un-American.

The cake is taken by a House member who the AP declines to name:

A third House member raised the specter of national security, saying she'd witnessed one man use his cell phone camera to take pictures of sensitive parts of the airplane.

So let’s look at this realistically. Will it still be legal for passengers to talk to one another? Will it still be legal for passengers to talk to themselves? Is it legitimate to make my speech illegal based solely on who I am talking to? I am trying to figure out any situation in which that makes sense.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 24, 2008

Anarchy

I find anarchists to be fascinating, compelling, and completely impenetrable. Jokes aside, the lack of dogma and structure makes them a little hard to learn about. And let's be honest, some of them are full-on crazy and full of crap. So that also makes it difficult.

But I really need to post a link to Anarchopedia, both as a bookmark and as a conversation piece.

I'm mostly interested in anarcho-capitalists, but I do get exposure to some of them in my regular rounds of the blogosphere. If you fancy yourself any level of anarchist, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Anarchopedia and other web resources. I'd especially love to hear from anticapitalism anarchists, because I have no idea where you are coming from.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

May 8, 2008

Random Ruminations on Reforming the Right (and Other 'R' Words)

Excellent. I hope this works out: The Next Right.

This is somewhat related to an idea that's been on my mind a lot lately. There are certain Righty pundits, namely Mark Levin, who get extremely agitated by Republicans who talk about jumping ship. Levin sees it as a loyalty obligation to stick with the Republican Party and reform her from the inside, instead of casting Libertarian or other opposition votes. For my part, I've had somewhat of a realization over the last few days, spurred-on by a biography on Confederate Partisan Ranger John S. Mosby that I’m currently reading. It occurred to me that it is unhealthy and antithetical to historical precedent to perceive political parties as rigid, non-vacillating, and never-ending institutions. Quite the opposite, we've had not only a handful of varying political parties, but the political parties themselves have evolved over time to become wholly unrecognizable versions of their former selves.

For example, from the aforementioned James A. Ramage book on Mosby, the passage below seems almost surreal by today’s stereotypes (particularly in the modern context of Katrina and the Democrats’ desire for massive Federal reconstruction of New Orleans):

For the first four years after the [Civil] war [Mosby] refrained from politics and then in the summer of 1869, when military rule under Congressional Reconstruction was about to end in Virginia, he came out exactly in the center of the political stand of the majority of white Virginians. The state Conservative Party (later the Democratic Party) that opposed Radical Republican Reconstruction nominated Gilbert C. Walker for governor. When he came to speak in Warrenton, Mosby met him at the train station and hosted and introduced him at the local rally. In his remarks Mosby said that Walker stood for civilization while the Republican Party represented "barbarism." Mosby actively campaigned for Walker and for his friend James Keith, a fellow Warrenton attorney, running for the state legislature. Both won, and the Conservative state legislature ratified the 14th and 15th Amendments, bringing an end to Reconstruction in Virginia. [...] Mosby became an aggressive Conservative Party [meaning Democrat] member, personally taking the offensive against carpetbaggers, Northern men who came into the South and worked from Radical Republican governments.

Does there come a point where enough opposition-party mud has been flung at a political party and subsequently stuck to render the party unsalvageable? The first example that comes to mind is the Whigs, who experienced mass defection because of their stance on slavery. Practically overnight the Whig Party of the mid-Nineteenth century utterly vanished in favor of the Democratic and Republican parties. A few months ago a commenter on the Atlantico remarked that the Republican Party was the party of racism, whereas the Democrats were the "Civil Rights" party. Can you imagine this being heard 140 years ago, when the North, New England, the Abolitionists, and Lincoln's Administration were overwhelmingly Republican and the Democratic Party was prevalent among Southerners, Secessionists, and anti-Abolitionists? We don't even have to go back as far as the Civil War. In 1964, the Democrats had three times the number of dissenters for the Civil Right's Act than the Republicans. And yet, enough mud has been thrown - and stuck - at the GOP that they are the party of racism. They are the party of greed. They are the party for rich, white men. The party of evangelical fanaticism and evolutionists. In general, the forest of concepts upon which the Republican Party was built has been lost for the mud-laden trees.

I think the Republican Party has served a nice, long run, and its time has come. I understand that the Next Right is looking to redefine the Republican Party, to get back to some of its grassroots. And that's great. But I also think that the time has come when we should not shy away from a complete make-over. And not just change for the change's sake, but understanding that the political party system is a fluid and evolving concept. As long as we remain grounded in our principles, then the name and history and baggage of a political party should be irrelevant. Why should I, someone who's trying to promote small-government, pro-capitalism, and traditional liberalism, be encumbered with a century and a half of GOP closeted skeletons? Likewise, I don't feel like today's socialists should be encumbered with the war-mongering likes of John F. Kennedy and FDR. Are we stuck in this rut because Fox News or CNN tells us so, or because of the deep pocketbooks and far-reaching influence of the D/RNC? Today's Democrats should form the New Socialist Party and we GOP train-hoppers should form the New Democratic-Republican Party and we should be going after each other in terms of our ideological differences instead of our historical mud-slinging and baggage pointing.

At the very least, making a serious effort towards a new Conservative Party would hopefully elicit wide-sweeping changes and reform within the current Republican Party: A "Next Right" upon which we can all agree.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 9, 2008

If only there was a word for this type of behavior…

If you had $75,000 of my money, what would you spend it on?

If you are the Virginia Senate, you would spend that taxpayer money on adjusting signs, letterhead, business cards and other literature to replace the phrase "mentally retarded" with "intellectually disabled."

At least there was an effort by the party of smaller government... oh wait, nevermind... that bill was passed unanimously

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 31, 2007

Socialism: So Pretty!

The Daily Texan is the student newspaper of UT Austin. It’s one of the largest student newspapers in the country. And yesterday, it ran an opinion piece advocating that Westerners re-evaluate the wonders of socialism. Under normal circumstances, I don’t pay much attention to student newspapers and their opinion pieces, as they just aren’t that well written. But this piece is an exception, and it therefore deserves to be highlighted.

The author is history student Colin Pace, who writes:

Socialism is not a monolithic ideology and it is not a terrible, fear-driven beast that threatens the U.S. masses. In fact, it is quite the opposite. To understand this, one need not look further than Michael Moore's recent movie, "Sicko." Though gimmicky and biased, like his other movies, the film raises an important question about why universal health care systems rank so high above the United States' privatized system in a global comparison.

But Wulf! Michael Moore is a dirty propagandist and his movie is full of lies! We’ve debunked “Sicko”!

But Wulf! The US health care system isn’t actually private, it’s half government funded already!

Come on, Wulf! We have the best health care in the world! People come here from Canada for our health care! The metrics are not fair!

Oh, Wulf! It’s just an undergrad in social sciences, spouting off his dirty collectivist delusions!

Yes, yes, I know all of that. And I also know that every year there a few million kids turning 18 and getting the right to vote. And they don’t read your blog. And most of them don’t know what is inherently unjust about socialism. Rolling your eyes and dismissing them may make you feel better about yourself, but it doesn’t actually advance the cause of liberty. So let’s take a closer look.

Colin Pace represents an articulate voice pointing out that “[i]nstitutions ranging from news stations to school systems teach that socialist and nationalized programs are doomed to collapse under the weight of bureaucracy and corruption.” I would love for this to be the case, but I simply don’t agree that the prevailing theme taught to our youth is that nationalized programs are too big to succeed. Privatized education, health care, public transit, and other government services? No, that’s certainly not the predominant agenda being pushed to our youth by the sources I know of. But to an audience lacking an articulate source to the contrary, Mr. Pace can play the role of the guy who questions authority, and that gives his point the ironic advantage of being anti-authority. “Rebel against convention and think for yourself about the benefits of letting bureaucrats make more decisions for you!”

Pace then makes another appeal guaranteed to garner attention on any college campus: class warfare and rich white guilt. “Factory workers thousands of miles away are harshly exploited so consumer goods such as clothing and TVs can be sold at low prices to American consumers.” For Pace, it’s not a matter of comparing the standard of living for the workers today vs. 40 years ago. It’s a matter of comparing their standard of living to mine, or better yet to Dick Cheney’s. And again, rolling your eyes and dismissing him is not the same as refuting him - or socialism.

But the real reason I chose to highlight this article is not because it’s easy to cherry pick a couple of weak points and mock him. It’s because Mr. Pace really does make an excellent point that we should all consider:

People should not judge the word "socialism" solely by what they know of "socialist" leaders. Leaders like Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro may have upheld socialist aspects of their administrations, but they were not actually "socialists"…

Spot on. The more distant Stalin and Castro become, the easier it will be to note that they did not actually uphold socialist ideals… and therefore they do not provide an honest example of what is wrong about socialism. Those who wish to refute socialism should beware not to let their argument stop with Stalin and Castro, because it (rightly) won’t sway a collectivist who recognizes that these men were not socialists. There is a difference between oppression by a tyrant and oppression by a democracy. One is appealing to the tyrant and his cult of personality, while the other is appealing to 51% of the population. If we only know how to refute the ills of the former, we will eventually suffer the latter.

In other words, Colin Pace’s final paragraph is one that should be considered by every thinking person the world over:

Even those who are staunchly opposed to the nationalization of industry, believing that the free market is the only means for progress, should question the objectivity of the Western view of socialism. The word is loaded with connotations, but that should not stop people from asking what the system is really about.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 26, 2007

The Basics

I love it when somebody lays things out in the most basic terms. So, here's three cheers for Kip, Esquire!

To review: The government has no business providing any goods other than public goods. A public good is one that is neither excludable (I can withhold a cheeseburger from you if you do not pay for it) nor rivalrous (a cheeseburger cannot be consumed simultaneously by more than one person).

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2007

For Future Reference

WaPo:

President Bush this month is giving an obscure White House office new powers over regulations affecting health, worker safety and the environment. Calling it a power grab, Democrats running Congress are intent on stopping him.

This is great news. First, it’s an attempt to block the executive branch from acting without oversight, and instead gives the power to act without oversight to legislators and their aides, which is where that power ought to be, dammit. Secondly, and more seriously, I’ll be able to refer to this post the next time a Democrat is in the White House (cough-544 days-cough) and the shoe is on the other foot. That’s always fun.

As to the details, WaPo reports that the House voted to prohibit the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) from spending federal money on Executive Order 13422. Cutting federal spending, I suppose – so far, so good. But what is Executive Order 13422? It amends an executive order from 1993… let’s check the text:

Each agency shall identify in writing the specific market failure (such as externalities, market power, lack of information) or other specific problem that it intends to address (including, where applicable, the failures of public institutions) that warrant new agency action, as well as assess the significance of that problem, to enable assessment of whether any new regulation is warranted.

That gives me the creeps just reading it. But… I can imagine the argument that it is a damn good thing that each federal agency should have to identify in writing the specific problem it intends to address. So far, I don’t see what the Dems object to.

Unless specifically authorized by the head of the agency, no rulemaking shall commence nor be included on the Plan without the approval of the agency's Regulatory Policy Office…

The Post summarizes this as “No rulemaking can go forward without the approval of an agency's Regulatory Policy Office, to be headed by a presidential appointee.” Is it a big deal to drop the first clause? But the point about the presidential appointee is a good one. Please read “presidential appointee” as “partisan political hack”. The Right Wing would do well to imagine what their reaction to this would have been under Bill Clinton… or what it will be someday under Hillary. Why do we continually have to point this out? In fact, that’s really the bottom line regarding each and every action the Bush administration has taken to gather and centralize power. While it may be fun for some of you to cheer as Bush, Cheney, et alii thumb their noses at the Democrats, it’s going to come back to bite you in the ass.

PS - I am not sympathetic to the desire that some federally employed scientists have for everybody to shut up and let them do what they feel they need to do. When you fund your own research initiative, I’ll support your desire for the government to back off.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 26, 2007

What if Thomas Jefferson Were Alive Today?

A blog after my own heart:

What if Thomas Jefferson were alive today? What if the founding fathers were still around? What would they say about the way we live? Some of these questions are explored when writer of the Declaration of Independence and philosopher behind the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, is transported to the year 2003 through a freak time [traveling] accident, and starts up an [Internet] weblog to record his thoughts and adventures in today's time with Daniel, his all-too-American roommate.

Antics and zaniness ensue. But, a quick perusal through the pages of this site shows the author's done his homework on the third President, or "Teej" as they call him. Be sure to browse the entries chronologically starting here.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

May 9, 2007

One Day at a Time

Nancy Pelosi might be on to something with this idea of funding the war a couple of months at a time.

In fact, I propose we move to this kind of funding plan for other government policies whose “success” is in doubt or ill-defined. We can pony up a couple months of funding, attach some strings, and put it all under the microscope this summer with a budget axe at the ready. Not just the Iraq war. The War on Drugs, too. Health and Human Services. Campaign money, salaries and amenities for elected officials. Anything you consider pork.

Finally, a Democratic proposal I can really get behind. I’m even willing to suggest that federal education money comes up near the top of the list. It's friggin genius.

But why stop at two months? How about one month at a time, like most of my household expenses? Or even more frequently? We can go daily, like my junk food budget. Hey, I’ve studied Riemann sums. I’ve learned about compound interest. You let the time intervals shrink and the whole thing goes a lot smoother. And isn't that what we want in Iraq? Smoother! Again, it's friggin genius.

I’m on board, Ms. Speaker.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 8, 2007

What Limited Government?

Allow me to link BK Marcus on a point worth repeating... libertarians just might not be justified in their fond memories of that "small government conservative" Ronald Reagan. Was he better than the guys who have followed him? Sure. And is that really the point? I'm not sure. Markus links a Jeffrey Tucker article at Mises.Org that makes some points you really should remember when the 2008 GOP candidates embrace Reagan's legacy in their ads and debates.

Saul Friedman quotes Reagan himself, speaking at Oxford in 1992:

Let me tell you of another dream I have…a dream I have long had…Just as the world’s democracies banded together to advance the cause of freedom in the face of totalitarianism, might we not now unite to impose civilized standards of behavior on those who flout every measure of human decency? Are we not nearing a point in world history where civilized nations can in unison stand up to the most immoral and deadly excesses against humanity, such as those now defacing Somalia and Bosnia?

And later in that speech,

As long as military power remains a necessary fact of modern existence, then we should use it as a humanitarian tool…

What exactly did Reagan stand for, again?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 28, 2007

Hippocrates Shrugged

I don’t read the Volokh Conspiracy, mostly because I find his format unwieldy and distasteful. And that’s a shame, because my understanding is that Mr Volokh puts out some good content. But I sometimes run across his work by proxy, as was the case today. Inspired by one of Mr Volokh’s posts, Coyote Blog ponders, Does the Hippocratic Oath Make Doctors Our Slaves?

(The text of the Hippocratic Oath can be found here, if you’re the type to do research from the primary source.)

Coyote’s post is one that explains well the general libertarian philosophy as it applies to a specific situation. Libertarians (as he notes) are often written off in policy debates, because our positions come across to the average person as extreme and unworkable. And in our society, in the short term, maybe they are. But these aren’t knee-jerk, anti-social obstructionist positions. They are principled positions, stemming directly from classical liberalism. Most of our opponents are not willfully authoritarian, e.g. monarchists or the like. They are simply ignorant of how to draw political conclusions from philosophical values. They don’t recognize their own inconsistencies. And occasionally, when confronted with the issue in the simplest of terms and with the underlying philosophies and values, they recognize what’s going on.

So here it is: Just because a person has something that you want, or even something that you legitimately need, does not mean that you have a right to it. The only way to deny this fact is to reject egalitarianism* at its core – and who is willing to do that, explicitly? Most people – even those who support government medicine – will not. The failure of the collectivist philosophy that is so popular among intellectuals is not a failure to recognize that all men are created equal, but a failure to understand that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that your right to life is not to come at the expense of my right to liberty.

Often, I feel like I am preaching to the choir here at AtlasBlogged. Occasionally, I figure there is little value in doing so. But sometimes people are able to break down an issue so clearly that it is of great value to share it. Does the Hippocratic Oath make doctors our slaves? I know people who have taken that oath and believe in government health care – a “right” to medical treatment. They would never advocate their own slavery, if they recognized it for what it was. But they don’t see the issue in those terms, and they don’t fear for their own liberty. They just feel overwhelmed by hospital administrators and insurance companies. They feel badly for sick people. They know there is a better way than the current way, and they want to bulldoze everything that impedes their ability to give the absolute best treatment to everyone. What better bulldozer than the federal government?

My father would never count himself a libertarian. But he understands this issue very clearly. He took the Hippocratic Oath, and he took it seriously. And when the hospital administration asked too much of him, and he felt that the insurance companies limited him, he faced a serious clash of values. He is a man who gives of himself relentlessly. He has literally given the shirt off his back – to strangers. But he will not be enslaved, and he knew his slaver when he saw him. He quit medicine several years ago. He wasn’t eligible for retirement, but he stood by his principles and shrugged the expectations (and chains) right off. I’ve been proud of him my entire life, but never more than on this issue.

* I use the term “egalitarianism” to mean a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges, definition 1 at Merriam Webster. The term is sometimes ignorantly hijacked to mean equality in results – redistribution of wealth or something even more reminiscent of the short story Harrison Bergeron. People who do so are jackasses.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 13, 2007

The Official PC Radio Hit List

Who is next, now that Don Imus has been fired?

Keith Olbermann has made a partial list:

Where's the other outrage? Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama 'Halfrican-American.' Michael Savage says the Voting Rights Act means 'a chad in every crack house.' Neal Boortz says Cynthia McKinney looks like a 'ghetto-slut.' Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?

Please note that I do not listen to any of these shows. But how disturbing is it that Olbermann would start calling for his ideological opponents to be taken off the air? How offensive is that mentality? (Offensive enough to call for Olbermann’s dismissal? I’m sure some on the right would miss the irony and do exactly that.) As Glenn Beck noted on air yesterday, Olbermann appears to be unaware that an atmosphere so charged would jeopardize Olbermann’s career, too. Remember: The Frankenstein monster sought to destroy its creator. This is no different, Keith.

As a side note, I do want to point out that the word “ho” clearly isn’t very offensive, as it has been casually repeated and batted around the airwaves, blogosphere, and print media nonstop for over a week. If it were truly offensive, it would be elevated to the level of those special words that go by their first initial – the “N” word, the “B” word, etc. If “ho” is so hurtful, maybe it should be called the “H” word from now on. The furor over this word is reminiscent of the Macaca flap, where commentators, bloggers, and jackasses around the world said over and over, “the use of the word ‘macaca’ is highly offensive! ‘Macaca’ compares ~~blacks~~ Indians to monkeys! The use of the word 'macaca' is enough to bar one from public office! Don’t ever say ‘Macaca’! Macaca, Macaca, Macaca!”

(Actually, this point was also made by the Jon Henke at QandO last December.)

For our amusement, let's imagine the following conversation:

Pundit: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "ho".

Al Sharpton: You're only making it worse for yourself!

Pundit: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Ho! Ho! Nappy-headed hos!

Al Sharpton: I'm warning you! If you say "ho" one more time…

(Sharpton gets suspended from radio show)

Al Sharpton Hey! Who did that?

Media Gaggle: She did! She did! He! He did! He!

Al Sharpton: Was it you?

Media Exec: Yes. Well you did say "ho".

(Media Exec gets barraged with criticism and is fired)

Al Sharpton: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! All right, no one is to fire until Jesse Jackson or I blow this whistle. Even if... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "ho"

(Sharpton gets permanently fired from radio show)

So, is there an official “PC Radio Hit List”? Yes, I believe there is. Media Matters has published it. After our airwaves have been ~~purged~~ ~~cleansed~~ (sound too genocidal?) tidied up, we can next focus on the filthy internet.

I can only hope this site doesn’t attract too much attention with its snappy, threaded prose. Think we will be safe?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 11, 2007

Rabid, Rabid!

No surprise here… Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is upset with her neighbor – some guy by the name of Monty Johnson. She refers to him as a “rabid, rabid Republican”. She once saw him brandishing a gun. She says he keeps his property “slummy” just to spite her. She wouldn’t be nice to him if she ever met him, according to the Charlotte Observer and a host of other news agencies who are pouncing on her hurtful remarks. See also the Raleigh • Durham • Cary • Chapel Hill • Podunk News & Observer, which reports:

Monty Johnson was heading home Monday with a cooler full of catfish when he learned his new neighbor had turned him into a minor celebrity.

I love the imagery.

Nothing about this situation is especially surprising (except that it was carelessly spoken aloud and giving the Edwardses bad press). Nor is it unique to Podunk, NC where these people live. But since it’s been thrown out there into the news, I’d like to highlight the parts of the story that really frame my view of the situation:

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression.

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

It’s a pretty familiar story. It really highlights the difference between the haves and the have-nots. It’s almost like there are two Americas or something.

I don’t say that as somebody who hates Jon Edwards or his family. I don’t hate him for his wealth or his politics – in fact, I don’t hate him at all. I’m just somebody who can’t stand it when people expect their neighbors to “keep up” – especially since Mr. Johnson has lived there for more than half a century longer than the Edwards family. If they wanted to live in an exclusive Democratic haven with covenants against Guliani signs, they should have purchased land in that kind of community. If they wanted to live someplace where you could have your neighbor’s run-down childhood home destroyed, they should have picked New London, CT. If they wanted to live someplace where their neighbors would never be brandishing firearms, they should have purchased in Washington, DC (hahahahahahahaha! Come on, that was funny!)

As Rammage notes via email: “I'm instantly reminded of:

“Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” ~ Heinlein

Which would you rather have as a neighbor?”

Indeed. Good call, Rammage.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 8, 2007

The Enemy of my Enemy is not my Friend

A Reminder to libertarians that the Democrats are not pro-liberty:

As unlibertarian as Republicans can be, the case for the libertarian Democrat is far from well-made, despite what Markos Moulitsas says.

You lovers of liberty who feel betrayed by the Republican Party and conservatives in general: How do you feel about those Democrats? Did you vote for this? The next time you find yourself thinking that the Democrats may be a libertarian option, remember these words by John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee (and Pelosi’s choice for House Majority Leader): "I think everybody ought to be obligated to serve."

Let that ring in your ears.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Personalized Pork

How can I not bring attention to an article titled, “Congress should terminate its Edifice Complex”?

…ego-driven pork-barrel projects protect incumbents, fuel their vanity and cost taxpayers real money. And they should stop.

This problem is bicameral and bipartisan.

The fact that it is bicameral and bipartisan should be disheartening to all citizens, but it also means that the practice is firmly entrenched and loved by politicians. It’s a great op-ed that Deroy Murdock has written on the topic. I would love to see this problem taken seriously by legislators.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 19, 2007

Truancy Equals Freedom

SCOTUS begins hearing Morse v. Frederick (a/k/a the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case), about which our friend and fellow libertarian Kip asks, “Why is this even a case?” Being both a libertarian and a public school teacher, I’ve paid some attention to this case. I am very concerned about the outcome – which I suspect will go poorly for young Mr. Frederick.

Okay, if you have no idea what case I am talking about, let me bring you up to speed – with some heavy quoting from SCOTUSblog, to which Kip also links.

The core facts that the two sides can agree upon are these: when the Olympic torch was being carried along Glacier Avenue in Juneau, Alaska, on January 24, 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot banner with the message, “BONG HITS 4 JESUS.” (“Bong hits” is slang for smoking marijuana.) Glacier Avenue runs in front of Juneau-Douglas High School, where Frederick was enrolled as a senior. School Principal Morse crossed the Avenue, and demanded that the sign be taken down; Frederick refused, and the principal grabbed the sign and crumpled it. Later, Morse suspended Frederick for ten days, citing a variety of infractions of school rules. The Ninth Circuit found a violation of Frederick’s First Amendment rights, and found that the law was so clear on this issue in January 2002 that the principal was not entitled to legal immunity to money damages.

But the agreement on the facts largely ends there. The principal and the Juneau School Board insist that Frederick was taking part in a school-sponsored event – the students were let out of school to attend the torch-passing rally, and school cheerleaders and pep band took part; the students were closely supervised; school system money was spent to bus students in from other schools; the event occurred during school hours, and four students were torch-bearers. Frederick with equal fervor insists that this was a public event in a public forum (a sidewalk next to a public street), he was not on school property at the time, he was an 18-year-old adult, and he had not even gone to class that morning so was not among students released to go to the rally.

Now, I’d have to say it’s pretty clear that citizens have the right to unfurl banners with ambiguous religion/drug messages. It’s also pretty clear that the student would not have been allowed to do this in his school cafetorium – his suspension would have stood, and he never would have made it anywhere near the Supreme Court. But he wasn’t on school property, so he’s golden.

Except that the defense will argue convincingly that the torch rally was a school-sponsored event, much like a field trip. I am (annually) a field trip sponsor, and it has been made very clear to me (every damn year) that (to turn a phrase) school officials do not shed their in loco parentis responsibilities at the schoolhouse gate. I am not even allowed to change the rules of dress code or conduct just because I’ve taken the students to an amusement park to study the physics of the rides (not at taxpayer expense, settle down). And incidentally, this does not magically change when the student hits 18, so Joseph Frederick’s being that age at the time of this incident is probably completely irrelevant. The fact that Juneau-Douglas High School brought students to participate in this Olympic rally is enough to sink his case.

Except that Joseph Frederick had not gone to school that day. (dum-dum-dum!)

That was the one fact of the case that I picked up from SCOTUSblog that I had not known this morning, when I emailed the Atlantico list about this case. This morning, I said:

The case is interesting to me because I have seen groups from the right and the left supporting this kid. The ACLU and gay rights groups in particular seem concerned about potential abridging of free speech, no surprise, but several religious groups recognize how a ruling in support of the school could be used against religious expressions at school. But he's so going to lose.

Ah, not so after all. In light of the fact that Joseph Frederick was absent from school, he can’t reasonably be considered to have been participating in the torch rally as a student subject to the school rules. Suddenly, it’s much more like the time that I ran into students at the amusement park who were not on the physics field trip, and in fact weren’t enrolled in a physics class. They were not my problem, from a legal point of view.

Well played, Mr. Frederick. Well played. Bong hits 4 Jesus, indeed.

ps - I personally think the defense is further hurt by the arguments that are being made about schools needing to enforce anti-drug policies. I just can’t see the justices nodding along with that argument. At least, I hope not.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 13, 2007

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is formally seeking the Republican presidential nomination – something that we’ve known, but that was just made formal this week. I didn’t think the official announcement would cause me any confusion, but then I read this in the NYT:

A statement released by campaign chairman Kent Snyder described Paul as “a real conservative in the race for president” who Republican primary voters can support.

A real… conservative? Wait… Ron Paul is known for being libertarian – in fact, he played the part of the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988. So which is it? Libertarian, or conservative?

Or are libertarians and conservatives really very similar after all?

Oh, sorry. Ron Paul is running for the Republican presidential nomination, which means he needs to get GOP voters to identify him as a reasonable option. Thus the word “conservative” being so attractive. I get it. Just for a second, I thought we were going to have to identify the issue that separates libertarians from conservatives. (hint)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 27, 2007

Playing Politics with the Iraq Troop Surge

I really like it when the media frames a debate the way I would do. NPR’s Ron Elving was apparently willing to accommodate me for this piece on the Iraq troop surge.

I, unlike most self-described libertarians, recognize that it would be foolish for the Bush administration or military commanders to announce a pull-out date. But that doesn’t mean I am not looking forward to seeing the troops exit Baghdad. And that’s exactly what the troop surge would lead to if all goes well. As Elving notes:

The question now is not whether more U.S. troops will be committed but whether they will accomplish what most Americans want: an expedited disengagement.

While Democrats jockey