A mesolibertarian voice.
What is a mesolibertarian? Not a paleo or a neo. The traditional principled kind. notanempire@aol.nospamcom (you know what to do with the "no spam")
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Thursday, December 22, 2005
What Are the Limits on Executive Power, Anyway?
This is a serious law school-type hypothetical.
A journalist in a foreign, but not officially hostile, Middle Eastern country (not Iraq, Syria, Iran), (e.g. Egypt, Jordan), writes an article vociferously attacking the President and US foreign policy. The President decides the journalist should be killed as it may harm alliances or the war on terror.
A) He authorizes private friends to make the hit.
B) He orders the military to do the hit.
Lawful or no? Write on only one side of page in your bluebook.
Assume no other persons or parties will be injured in the assassination strike by either of the above means.
This is a serious law school-type hypothetical.
A journalist in a foreign, but not officially hostile, Middle Eastern country (not Iraq, Syria, Iran), (e.g. Egypt, Jordan), writes an article vociferously attacking the President and US foreign policy. The President decides the journalist should be killed as it may harm alliances or the war on terror.
A) He authorizes private friends to make the hit.
B) He orders the military to do the hit.
Lawful or no? Write on only one side of page in your bluebook.
Assume no other persons or parties will be injured in the assassination strike by either of the above means.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Evolving Jurisprudence
This decision sort of blows. The one just handed down overturning the Dover, Pennsylvania school board requirement for teaching "intelligent design" (ID) as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
The decision focuses too much on the Establishment clause and on the motives and history of the ID movement (a dangerous area) as a fundamentalist movement. It is not, as it should be, centrally about the scientific merit of the theory.
Frankly, if the plaintiffs could have done it, they should have had the School Board's order litigated according to the science evidence standard of federal courts - the Daubert case. (Perhaps they could have challenged each ID expert's admissibility.) That would have required it to be shown that ID was a theory with widespread peer review support, acceptance in the scientific community, with demonstrated testing etc.
In a way, the judge did apply that reasoning in determining ID not to be science, but he did so without citing Daubert which he should have.
And he should have started and stopped with that.
The School Board would have lost in a slam-dunk with Daubert applied alone....
Instead the court is probing motives behind legislation and political movements, a very very dangerous area for a free and democratic society, but one that pleases the reflexive anti-fundamentalists.
Don't overturn this, but distinguish, narrow, and modify it.
This decision sort of blows. The one just handed down overturning the Dover, Pennsylvania school board requirement for teaching "intelligent design" (ID) as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
The decision focuses too much on the Establishment clause and on the motives and history of the ID movement (a dangerous area) as a fundamentalist movement. It is not, as it should be, centrally about the scientific merit of the theory.
Frankly, if the plaintiffs could have done it, they should have had the School Board's order litigated according to the science evidence standard of federal courts - the Daubert case. (Perhaps they could have challenged each ID expert's admissibility.) That would have required it to be shown that ID was a theory with widespread peer review support, acceptance in the scientific community, with demonstrated testing etc.
In a way, the judge did apply that reasoning in determining ID not to be science, but he did so without citing Daubert which he should have.
And he should have started and stopped with that.
The School Board would have lost in a slam-dunk with Daubert applied alone....
Instead the court is probing motives behind legislation and political movements, a very very dangerous area for a free and democratic society, but one that pleases the reflexive anti-fundamentalists.
Don't overturn this, but distinguish, narrow, and modify it.
Stumbling Democratization Efforts in Yemen
A nice commentary and original story link on the stumbling efforts of foreign aid democratization in Yemen.
A nice commentary and original story link on the stumbling efforts of foreign aid democratization in Yemen.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
What about the algebra teachers?
Alot of buzz about taking Christ out of Christmas, but I believe there are a few furious algebra teachers mad about the taking of the X out of Xmas.
Alot of buzz about taking Christ out of Christmas, but I believe there are a few furious algebra teachers mad about the taking of the X out of Xmas.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Give Provos A Chance: The 25-Year Dead John Lennon . . .
. . . imagines some of the world, not quite living as one.
Some less-remembered lyrics from Lennon's "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", recorded a year or so after "Imagine" and not too long after "Give Peace A Chance". (And no, he didn't mean these words ironically):
______
____________
-- John Lennon, "Sunday, Bloody Sunday"
Perhaps he and Yoko were undergoing tribal scream therapy.
Anyway, what else to expect from a guy who turned the Communist Manifesto into a piano sing-a-long ("Imagine")?
Nevertheless, he could still consistently manage some rather good tunes and memorable lyrics. So Rest in Peace, John Lennon, even if you were not quite the Man of Peace the fans like to celebrate.
. . . imagines some of the world, not quite living as one.
Some less-remembered lyrics from Lennon's "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", recorded a year or so after "Imagine" and not too long after "Give Peace A Chance". (And no, he didn't mean these words ironically):
______
They've got a lot to learn
Internment is no answer
It's those mother's turn
to burn!
Sunday bloody sunday
Bloody sunday's the day
You anglo pigs and scotties
Sent to colonize the north
You wave your bloody
Union Jacks
And you know what it's worth!
How dare you hold on to ransom
A people proud and free
Keep ireland for the irish
Put the english back to sea!
____________
-- John Lennon, "Sunday, Bloody Sunday"
Perhaps he and Yoko were undergoing tribal scream therapy.
Anyway, what else to expect from a guy who turned the Communist Manifesto into a piano sing-a-long ("Imagine")?
Nevertheless, he could still consistently manage some rather good tunes and memorable lyrics. So Rest in Peace, John Lennon, even if you were not quite the Man of Peace the fans like to celebrate.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Leviathan: FOUND!
Attention libertarians. It wasn't just Hobbes or the Bible. The Leviathan has been found. No word on its social programs or military policy, though.
Attention libertarians. It wasn't just Hobbes or the Bible. The Leviathan has been found. No word on its social programs or military policy, though.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Rosa Parks RIP
I may have personally elicited the last tribute to Rosa Parks before her death in the Washington Post. The online link there lacks the hardcopy version's large photo of Ms. Parks in jail.
I may have personally elicited the last tribute to Rosa Parks before her death in the Washington Post. The online link there lacks the hardcopy version's large photo of Ms. Parks in jail.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
March, My Words
It turns out I was wrong (see two posts down) in specifics but not wholly wrong in general about the anti-Iraq war march in Washington last Saturday. The noxious pro-Palestinian signs were not there, thank goodness. There was a hackneyed "X dies/Y lies" rhyme but that's to be expected. And the new "Make levees not war" is clever. And not too much pro-Chavez stuff. On the other hand, openly pro-Communist stuff (explicitly so) floated about; a non-ANSWER type organizer later bemoaned to me that every type had to show up.
I was a fellow-traveler (of the march not Communism). For a few minutes downtown I walked alongside the demonstrators, in agreement with their goals on Iraq but not their world view. I walked past the counterprotesters who were too busy baiting the marchers for a serious discussion. A person or two among the counterprotestors was painted and decked out in red white and blue in a way that would be as offensive as flag-burning when done by the other side.
But here's what struck me. The counterprotestors, the mostly normal-looking ones (which were most of them), had American flags, while precious few American flags were in the anti-war march. For those of us who may have non-conformist opinions but conventional political esthetics, and even an old-fashioned patriotism, stuff like that is very noticeable.
More important was the fact that ultimately this was not an anti-Iraq rally or even an anti-war rally. It was just an anti-Bush rally, with Iraq as the accusation du jour. One cannot help but think that for many demonstrators their real problem with the war is not the American life, limb or resources lost, or the Iraqi lives destroyed and disrupted, or the falsehoods advanced to justify it, but simply that all that carnage was initiated by the loathed personage of George W Bush. And looking at the demonstrators one could feel that, for at least a great many, they hate Bush primarily because he simply reminds them of some jock/religious-devotee/fratboy/whiteguy/rich-kid who made them feel like rejects for being a hippie/woman/gay/minority/nerd/working-class-person, etc. And that's a dumb reason and way to fight a dumb war.
UPDATE, SORT OF:
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in a column I have only in hard copy, shows what I mean in a way. He harangues the White House for not taking note of the import of the antiwar movement, and compares the current administration to the White House of Johnson failing in Vietnam to notice the protest songs. Then Robinson adds "did everybody in this administration spend the whole Vietnam era listening to Pat Boone or whatever it was they grooved to in the frat houses?"
And did Mr. Robinson spend the '60s in an Afro listening to James Brown in the 'hood?
Maybe there could be a stereotype competition. Sheesh.
It turns out I was wrong (see two posts down) in specifics but not wholly wrong in general about the anti-Iraq war march in Washington last Saturday. The noxious pro-Palestinian signs were not there, thank goodness. There was a hackneyed "X dies/Y lies" rhyme but that's to be expected. And the new "Make levees not war" is clever. And not too much pro-Chavez stuff. On the other hand, openly pro-Communist stuff (explicitly so) floated about; a non-ANSWER type organizer later bemoaned to me that every type had to show up.
I was a fellow-traveler (of the march not Communism). For a few minutes downtown I walked alongside the demonstrators, in agreement with their goals on Iraq but not their world view. I walked past the counterprotesters who were too busy baiting the marchers for a serious discussion. A person or two among the counterprotestors was painted and decked out in red white and blue in a way that would be as offensive as flag-burning when done by the other side.
But here's what struck me. The counterprotestors, the mostly normal-looking ones (which were most of them), had American flags, while precious few American flags were in the anti-war march. For those of us who may have non-conformist opinions but conventional political esthetics, and even an old-fashioned patriotism, stuff like that is very noticeable.
More important was the fact that ultimately this was not an anti-Iraq rally or even an anti-war rally. It was just an anti-Bush rally, with Iraq as the accusation du jour. One cannot help but think that for many demonstrators their real problem with the war is not the American life, limb or resources lost, or the Iraqi lives destroyed and disrupted, or the falsehoods advanced to justify it, but simply that all that carnage was initiated by the loathed personage of George W Bush. And looking at the demonstrators one could feel that, for at least a great many, they hate Bush primarily because he simply reminds them of some jock/religious-devotee/fratboy/whiteguy/rich-kid who made them feel like rejects for being a hippie/woman/gay/minority/nerd/working-class-person, etc. And that's a dumb reason and way to fight a dumb war.
UPDATE, SORT OF:
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, in a column I have only in hard copy, shows what I mean in a way. He harangues the White House for not taking note of the import of the antiwar movement, and compares the current administration to the White House of Johnson failing in Vietnam to notice the protest songs. Then Robinson adds "did everybody in this administration spend the whole Vietnam era listening to Pat Boone or whatever it was they grooved to in the frat houses?"
And did Mr. Robinson spend the '60s in an Afro listening to James Brown in the 'hood?
Maybe there could be a stereotype competition. Sheesh.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Slogan Zeros: Predicted Silly Antiwar Demonstration Themes
On Saturday, large numbers of protestors will show up in D.C. and around the country to protest the Iraq War. (A few among them will throw in other wars to protest as well.) As to Iraq, my sympathies are there to the extent that I consider the Iraq Attack one our Greatest National Boo-Boos Ever. And some of the folks involved and participating in Saturday's events are those I know, respect, like, or love.
Still, with groups like ANSWER involved you know it’s going to get really silly. And fast. It’ll quickly devolve into an assemblage of largely militant secular leftists convinced with all their hearts that while there is no God, George W. Bush is nevertheless the Antichrist.
The way to tell the silliness is the slogans. I predict the need-to-be-retired-yesterday themes laid out below will be out and about. They will appear and be notable as chants, signs, and speech themes. (Can anyone suggest others to add? But I don’t want to hear from the pro-war folks for whom everything about the demonstration is bad.)
Silly slogans and themes:
No blood for oil. Retire this one please. Sure oil’s a central consideration in Mideast geopolitics (as it should be) but the stale Leninist/degraded Marxist view – rich people start wars to steal foreign wealth -- is sooooooooo early 20th Century. Discretionary wars actually serve to satiate popular revenge sentiment, economically serve to meet more immediate needs of a military-industrial complex and mass news media, and also help implement ideological visions of superiority. Greed is often central but the greed will be for the gainful employment of the glib political class and professional military suppliers, and may not be for local resources primarily. To assume so is actually bad Marxism, even. (As if it mattered.)
And sometimes a war can be necessary and forced upon one too, even if profitable to some. (Iraq isn’t necessary or forced on us, however).
X lied, Y died. Ok they rhyme. On aesthetic grounds this has to go.
Hey hey, ho ho, occupation’s got to go. Same thing: aesthetic grounds.
Anything with “corporate” in it. “Corporate” has become the softer progressive left’s euphemized garble for the old socialist-Communist epithet “capitalist” (which, folks, is actually kind of a good thing, capitalism). Yes evil “corporate” interests help drive wars, but guess what? Evil doesn’t become better if done by a limited liability partnership, or a sole proprietorship. Most important, it takes a government, not a capitalist, to make wars happen. And a thought: what or who is it that people bring up when they rave about “corporate” pro-war media? Well, Rupert Murdoch, mainly. But he as far as I can tell, is not a corporation but an individual. And who often brings up this corporate evil? Well, groups like Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, to which ANSWER is associated, and which is apparently funded by a … corporation (and a tax deductible one too!)
Sharon = Hitler OR [Star of David] = [Swastika]. From the pro-Palestinian crowd. I recall an earlier antiwar demonstration in DC in 2003 where there were chants of “death to Sharon” in the middle of this antiwar(!) rally, not to mention Arabic chants about bombing Tel Aviv (few knew this if they weren't Arabic speakers or, in my case, around an Arabic speaker). Now, while I think the Israeli record is far worse than Israel’s knee-jerk fan club will concede, and worse than conventional wisdom appreciates, such noxious and counterproductive sloganeering is basically pro-Palestinians just getting their rhetorical rocks off by offensively and inarticulately trying to say “F.U. Jews and pro-Israelis for bringing up the Holocaust when we state our case.”
Free Mumia. Mumia Abu-Jamal, the apparent cop-killer who got convicted on possibly less-than-reasonable doubt evidence will be lionized. Good Lord, why?
NEW! A Chavez slogan. Something obscenely nice may be said about the Venezuelan generalissimo and Castro-to-be Hugo Chavez.
NEW! Something about Katrina being a sign of racism. I’m kind of sympathetic to the charge of government and Administration serious blundering in regard to the Katrina plans and even to how Iraq detracted from the resources of responsible protection. But the spirit of Kayne West will probably prevail and the whole mess will be blamed on a fantasy regarding George W. Bush’s alleged racism.
On Saturday, large numbers of protestors will show up in D.C. and around the country to protest the Iraq War. (A few among them will throw in other wars to protest as well.) As to Iraq, my sympathies are there to the extent that I consider the Iraq Attack one our Greatest National Boo-Boos Ever. And some of the folks involved and participating in Saturday's events are those I know, respect, like, or love.
Still, with groups like ANSWER involved you know it’s going to get really silly. And fast. It’ll quickly devolve into an assemblage of largely militant secular leftists convinced with all their hearts that while there is no God, George W. Bush is nevertheless the Antichrist.
The way to tell the silliness is the slogans. I predict the need-to-be-retired-yesterday themes laid out below will be out and about. They will appear and be notable as chants, signs, and speech themes. (Can anyone suggest others to add? But I don’t want to hear from the pro-war folks for whom everything about the demonstration is bad.)
Silly slogans and themes:
No blood for oil. Retire this one please. Sure oil’s a central consideration in Mideast geopolitics (as it should be) but the stale Leninist/degraded Marxist view – rich people start wars to steal foreign wealth -- is sooooooooo early 20th Century. Discretionary wars actually serve to satiate popular revenge sentiment, economically serve to meet more immediate needs of a military-industrial complex and mass news media, and also help implement ideological visions of superiority. Greed is often central but the greed will be for the gainful employment of the glib political class and professional military suppliers, and may not be for local resources primarily. To assume so is actually bad Marxism, even. (As if it mattered.)
And sometimes a war can be necessary and forced upon one too, even if profitable to some. (Iraq isn’t necessary or forced on us, however).
X lied, Y died. Ok they rhyme. On aesthetic grounds this has to go.
Hey hey, ho ho, occupation’s got to go. Same thing: aesthetic grounds.
Anything with “corporate” in it. “Corporate” has become the softer progressive left’s euphemized garble for the old socialist-Communist epithet “capitalist” (which, folks, is actually kind of a good thing, capitalism). Yes evil “corporate” interests help drive wars, but guess what? Evil doesn’t become better if done by a limited liability partnership, or a sole proprietorship. Most important, it takes a government, not a capitalist, to make wars happen. And a thought: what or who is it that people bring up when they rave about “corporate” pro-war media? Well, Rupert Murdoch, mainly. But he as far as I can tell, is not a corporation but an individual. And who often brings up this corporate evil? Well, groups like Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, to which ANSWER is associated, and which is apparently funded by a … corporation (and a tax deductible one too!)
Sharon = Hitler OR [Star of David] = [Swastika]. From the pro-Palestinian crowd. I recall an earlier antiwar demonstration in DC in 2003 where there were chants of “death to Sharon” in the middle of this antiwar(!) rally, not to mention Arabic chants about bombing Tel Aviv (few knew this if they weren't Arabic speakers or, in my case, around an Arabic speaker). Now, while I think the Israeli record is far worse than Israel’s knee-jerk fan club will concede, and worse than conventional wisdom appreciates, such noxious and counterproductive sloganeering is basically pro-Palestinians just getting their rhetorical rocks off by offensively and inarticulately trying to say “F.U. Jews and pro-Israelis for bringing up the Holocaust when we state our case.”
Free Mumia. Mumia Abu-Jamal, the apparent cop-killer who got convicted on possibly less-than-reasonable doubt evidence will be lionized. Good Lord, why?
NEW! A Chavez slogan. Something obscenely nice may be said about the Venezuelan generalissimo and Castro-to-be Hugo Chavez.
NEW! Something about Katrina being a sign of racism. I’m kind of sympathetic to the charge of government and Administration serious blundering in regard to the Katrina plans and even to how Iraq detracted from the resources of responsible protection. But the spirit of Kayne West will probably prevail and the whole mess will be blamed on a fantasy regarding George W. Bush’s alleged racism.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Ways Government Can Suck
Please get it, non-libertarian people.
The reason we libertarians don't want uninhibited government is that we fear unshackled power. Being a government agent is no immunity to human nature, it just allows the worst aspects to be practiced with impunity. It doesn't matter if it's George Bush or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.
From Yahoo news (via Radley Balko):
(Second Amendment sidelight: That's the dis-armers talking to the dis-armees, by the way.)
OTOH, the reports of volunteer rescue workers being given sexual harrassment training at FEMA look less looney now.
Please get it, non-libertarian people.
The reason we libertarians don't want uninhibited government is that we fear unshackled power. Being a government agent is no immunity to human nature, it just allows the worst aspects to be practiced with impunity. It doesn't matter if it's George Bush or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton.
From Yahoo news (via Radley Balko):
A group of female hurricane survivors were told to show their breasts if they wanted to be rescued, a British holidaymaker has revealed.Ged Scott watched as American rescuers turned their boat around and sped off when the the women refused.
(Second Amendment sidelight: That's the dis-armers talking to the dis-armees, by the way.)
OTOH, the reports of volunteer rescue workers being given sexual harrassment training at FEMA look less looney now.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Dept. of Closing the Barn Door After....
Good news, two weeks too late; and bad news, never timely . . . .
Good news, two weeks too late; and bad news, never timely . . . .
"Repairs on New Orleans Levee Completed
By DOUG SIMPSON, AP
NEW ORLEANS (Sept. 5) - A week after Hurricane Katrina, engineers plugged the levee break that swamped much of the city and floodwaters began to recede, but along with the good news came the mayor's direst prediction yet: As many as 10,000 dead."
Friday, September 02, 2005
Lileks explains the wrong error
James Lileks writes to explain why he wrongly slammed the French for not doing anything in regard to the Katrina hurricane damage in New Orleans. Lileks reports that he had acted . . .
"without doing any research, since I was in a black mood and disinclined to back anything up."
Wait a minute, isn't that more likely a superb explanation of the politics of the entire recent invasion of Iraq?
James Lileks writes to explain why he wrongly slammed the French for not doing anything in regard to the Katrina hurricane damage in New Orleans. Lileks reports that he had acted . . .
"without doing any research, since I was in a black mood and disinclined to back anything up."
Wait a minute, isn't that more likely a superb explanation of the politics of the entire recent invasion of Iraq?
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Talking New Orleans and Hurricanes in 2002
Check this out, the full text is even more detailed and prescient --
From Bill Moyers show in 2002
DANIEL ZWERDLING: We've tried to find scientists who'd say that these predictions of doom could never really come true and we haven't been able to find them. The main debate seems to be, when the country is facing different kinds of threats, which ones should get the most attention? The federal government has been cutting money from hurricane protection projects. Partly to pay for the war against terrorists.
DANIEL ZWERDLING:Do you think that the President of the United States and Congress understand that people like you and the scientists studying this think the city of New Orleans could very possibly disappear?
WALTER MAESTRI:I think they know that, I think that they've been told that. I don't know that anybody, though, psychologically, you know has come to grips with that as-- as a-- a potential real situation. Just like none of us could possibly come to grips with the loss of the World Trade Center. And it's still hard for me to envision that it's gone. You know and it's impossible for someone like me to think that the French Quarter of New Orleans could be gone.
. . .
JAY COMBE: I think of a terrible disaster. I think of 100,000, and that's just my guess. I think that there's a terrible lack of perception. The last serious hurricane we had here was in 1965. That's close to 40 years ago.
So, we've dodged bullets three times since Betsy and I'm not sure we can keep counting on the hurricane changing its mind and going someplace else.
DANIEL ZWERDLING: Stories about disasters in America usually end on an optimistic note. People rebound. The nation rebuilds. Life gradually gets back to normal. But officials in Louisiana are facing another possibility: If a monster storm strikes New Orleans, this city might never come back.
Check this out, the full text is even more detailed and prescient --
From Bill Moyers show in 2002
DANIEL ZWERDLING: We've tried to find scientists who'd say that these predictions of doom could never really come true and we haven't been able to find them. The main debate seems to be, when the country is facing different kinds of threats, which ones should get the most attention? The federal government has been cutting money from hurricane protection projects. Partly to pay for the war against terrorists.
DANIEL ZWERDLING:Do you think that the President of the United States and Congress understand that people like you and the scientists studying this think the city of New Orleans could very possibly disappear?
WALTER MAESTRI:I think they know that, I think that they've been told that. I don't know that anybody, though, psychologically, you know has come to grips with that as-- as a-- a potential real situation. Just like none of us could possibly come to grips with the loss of the World Trade Center. And it's still hard for me to envision that it's gone. You know and it's impossible for someone like me to think that the French Quarter of New Orleans could be gone.
. . .
JAY COMBE: I think of a terrible disaster. I think of 100,000, and that's just my guess. I think that there's a terrible lack of perception. The last serious hurricane we had here was in 1965. That's close to 40 years ago.
So, we've dodged bullets three times since Betsy and I'm not sure we can keep counting on the hurricane changing its mind and going someplace else.
DANIEL ZWERDLING: Stories about disasters in America usually end on an optimistic note. People rebound. The nation rebuilds. Life gradually gets back to normal. But officials in Louisiana are facing another possibility: If a monster storm strikes New Orleans, this city might never come back.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Turn the other cheek, then crouch, aim, fire
Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition (CC) seems to be calling for the assassination of Venezuela's lefty-strong man Hugo Chavez. But could this be a desperate bid for publicity in response to other problems, i.e. financial, evidenced by the CC organization's slipping in its bill payments, at least according to a deadwood note in today's Washington Post about a lawsuit by Pitney Bowes against the CC for non-payment?
UPDATE: Thanks to a correspondent the lawsuit story is here. And another here.
Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition (CC) seems to be calling for the assassination of Venezuela's lefty-strong man Hugo Chavez. But could this be a desperate bid for publicity in response to other problems, i.e. financial, evidenced by the CC organization's slipping in its bill payments, at least according to a deadwood note in today's Washington Post about a lawsuit by Pitney Bowes against the CC for non-payment?
UPDATE: Thanks to a correspondent the lawsuit story is here. And another here.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
What's in a Name?
I have always felt that insurgent terrorists were merely statists in the audition phase. For those who like poetic arguments, and strange connections, there is an interesting illustration of this.
What mystical terrorism do we fear? The lone walking explosive with a religious sense of virtue ready to murder his chosen enemy. He carries his explosive in a backpack or knapsack.
What was the most occult fearsome state terror squad? Perhaps it was Haitian dictator "Papa Doc" Duvalier's special police force that went by the infamous voodoo-derived name the "Tonton Macoutes".
That terror force had a curiously unthreatening name, when considered literally, despite its origin in a Christmas voodoo folk-villain, a Santa Claus from hell who who punished evil children. The unthreatening name, however, has become an even more apt name of political terror and murder than its founder might have dreamed:
"Uncle Knapsack"
Not logical, but ironically poetic, doncha think?
I have always felt that insurgent terrorists were merely statists in the audition phase. For those who like poetic arguments, and strange connections, there is an interesting illustration of this.
What mystical terrorism do we fear? The lone walking explosive with a religious sense of virtue ready to murder his chosen enemy. He carries his explosive in a backpack or knapsack.
What was the most occult fearsome state terror squad? Perhaps it was Haitian dictator "Papa Doc" Duvalier's special police force that went by the infamous voodoo-derived name the "Tonton Macoutes".
That terror force had a curiously unthreatening name, when considered literally, despite its origin in a Christmas voodoo folk-villain, a Santa Claus from hell who who punished evil children. The unthreatening name, however, has become an even more apt name of political terror and murder than its founder might have dreamed:
"Uncle Knapsack"
Not logical, but ironically poetic, doncha think?
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Hypocrisy in defense of liberty is no vice
Hypocrisy, the adage goes, is the tribute vice pays to virtue. But are we even losing that miniscule sense of decency?
In a deadwood Washington Post article (July 14, A16), District of Columbia Metro (i.e. subway) Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson -- clearly no pollyanna -- speaks of doing random searches of passenger handbags:
As a rider of said system, I am not sure I find random searches wholly unreasonable. But whatever happened to the decency of a police official in a free Bill of Rights-bred society at least pretending that this is a regrettable necessity reluctantly sought and temperately argued.
Please, tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies. As in "it may unfortunately be essential to basic security to implement such steps though we had earnestly hoped to avoid them, and it is terrible to discuss this at this awful time."
That a public official feels no need to even grudgingly defer to a pretense of caring about freedom and privacy is truly sad but hey....
"9/11 changed everything."
Indeed: vice does not even owe virtue courtesy, much less tribute.
Hypocrisy, the adage goes, is the tribute vice pays to virtue. But are we even losing that miniscule sense of decency?
In a deadwood Washington Post article (July 14, A16), District of Columbia Metro (i.e. subway) Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson -- clearly no pollyanna -- speaks of doing random searches of passenger handbags:
It's something I very much want to do. The timing is important on something like that, and I feel that this is a time when it would be well received."
As a rider of said system, I am not sure I find random searches wholly unreasonable. But whatever happened to the decency of a police official in a free Bill of Rights-bred society at least pretending that this is a regrettable necessity reluctantly sought and temperately argued.
Please, tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies. As in "it may unfortunately be essential to basic security to implement such steps though we had earnestly hoped to avoid them, and it is terrible to discuss this at this awful time."
That a public official feels no need to even grudgingly defer to a pretense of caring about freedom and privacy is truly sad but hey....
"9/11 changed everything."
Indeed: vice does not even owe virtue courtesy, much less tribute.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Constitutionalism by the Kelo
Jim Henley comments on my offer you can refuse, in a full post further below, of $50 if one can convince me that the Fifth Amendment takings clause textually restricts public takings to "public use".
Here's Jim:
Although that had not been my original intent, if you'll pardon the expression, or my main one, a later discovery indicates it indeed may be the case. See my broader comment below.
Back to Jim:
Yes, I do mean that, sadly. (Though not exactly: takings of property when done by government are not always, or typically, for public use or even a general discretionary purpose. More later on this. The "takings for public use" phrase probably simply means "exercise of eminent domain".) What the clause does nobly is attempt to hobble those eminent domain exercises quantitatively, i.e. by requiring payouts of compensation, and not qualitatively, i.e. by specifying what is or is not the proper extent of eminent domain. That is left blank, or left for other clauses.
But the seemingly "absurd" part Jim mentioned turns out to be true as well, as I feared before looking at it in detail. (BTW, a taking for "private purposes" might include freeing slaves, in that case the government doesnt "use" them, but an expansive reading would have permitted that though the freeing would be a taking NOT for public "use" but a private benefit flowing from an asbtractly broad (beyond even tax revenue increase or economic development) "public purpose" (liberation). Madison did indeed have that issue very much in mind, see article cited below, when he explained the takings clause, and he felt that the *compensation* part would inhibit it, he did not specify the "public use" part, even though freeing the slaves is the direct opposite of a literal narrow public "use" taking.)
Let me add to this via a reply to Jim's site that bounced back due to some technical reason from his site (further below). I probably should emphasize here that there are and were "takings" by government that are also normally uncompensated, which is why one should assume that "takings for public use" is simply descriptive of the type of taking and not a limitation to it: punishments for crimes, collections of debts. Additionally in colonial times as well, and NOT done by the crown but by fellow colonial legislators, there were takings for private use -- undeveloped property could be taken by law and given to developers. More on that further down.
Since I want, like most libertarians, an expansive protection of property from the Fifth Amendment clause, and it does not use restrictive language on "public use", I WANT it to read that "public use" is an expansive concept, so that it will embrace ANY government taking of property under, or purportedly under, eminent domain. So that a government would at least have to pay for doing the damage, a big incentive for hesitancy.
One could even envision an interpretation that would include the original owners of taken land receiving all increased tax revenue from a seizure. (Just 'cause it's libertarian, doesn't mean it's constitutional and vice-versa.)
My more detailed reply to Jim (with some minor corrections):
Jim Henley comments on my offer you can refuse, in a full post further below, of $50 if one can convince me that the Fifth Amendment takings clause textually restricts public takings to "public use".
Here's Jim:
"Near as I can tell, Matthew is not making the too-clever-by-half argument that the literal meaning of the Constitution requires compensation for “public use” takings but permits “private use” takings without compensation."
Although that had not been my original intent, if you'll pardon the expression, or my main one, a later discovery indicates it indeed may be the case. See my broader comment below.
Back to Jim:
(Refuting this is simple enough. Ask yourself, “Why would the framers have wanted to restrict public use takings more than private use ones?” Answer: the very thought is absurd. Therefore it cannot mean that.) He’s saying instead that the clause makes no effort to define a restrictive meaning of “public use,” and therefore Kelo’s circular interpretation - public use is any purpose for which a government siezes property - is constitutionally correct.
Yes, I do mean that, sadly. (Though not exactly: takings of property when done by government are not always, or typically, for public use or even a general discretionary purpose. More later on this. The "takings for public use" phrase probably simply means "exercise of eminent domain".) What the clause does nobly is attempt to hobble those eminent domain exercises quantitatively, i.e. by requiring payouts of compensation, and not qualitatively, i.e. by specifying what is or is not the proper extent of eminent domain. That is left blank, or left for other clauses.
But the seemingly "absurd" part Jim mentioned turns out to be true as well, as I feared before looking at it in detail. (BTW, a taking for "private purposes" might include freeing slaves, in that case the government doesnt "use" them, but an expansive reading would have permitted that though the freeing would be a taking NOT for public "use" but a private benefit flowing from an asbtractly broad (beyond even tax revenue increase or economic development) "public purpose" (liberation). Madison did indeed have that issue very much in mind, see article cited below, when he explained the takings clause, and he felt that the *compensation* part would inhibit it, he did not specify the "public use" part, even though freeing the slaves is the direct opposite of a literal narrow public "use" taking.)
Let me add to this via a reply to Jim's site that bounced back due to some technical reason from his site (further below). I probably should emphasize here that there are and were "takings" by government that are also normally uncompensated, which is why one should assume that "takings for public use" is simply descriptive of the type of taking and not a limitation to it: punishments for crimes, collections of debts. Additionally in colonial times as well, and NOT done by the crown but by fellow colonial legislators, there were takings for private use -- undeveloped property could be taken by law and given to developers. More on that further down.
Since I want, like most libertarians, an expansive protection of property from the Fifth Amendment clause, and it does not use restrictive language on "public use", I WANT it to read that "public use" is an expansive concept, so that it will embrace ANY government taking of property under, or purportedly under, eminent domain. So that a government would at least have to pay for doing the damage, a big incentive for hesitancy.
One could even envision an interpretation that would include the original owners of taken land receiving all increased tax revenue from a seizure. (Just 'cause it's libertarian, doesn't mean it's constitutional and vice-versa.)
My more detailed reply to Jim (with some minor corrections):
“Why would the framers have wanted to restrict public use takings more than private use ones?” Answer: the very thought is absurd. Therefore it cannot mean that."
Jim -- Further looks at the subject, by grace of thoughtful H&R commenter Baylen, found this evil pro-takings article (but whose facts seem ok and almost certainly true) http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/papers/ptreanr.htm
which does indicate that the above "absurdity" you identify may indeed be exactly what they were thinking.
The Founders did not especially fear a) government takings for private use, they were colonial legislators and State legislators using traditional English law and colonial local powers (see below) who did such takings regularly, nor did they fear b) takings for other public purposes (as opposed to merely literal "public use" purpose), as eg, tax seizures, punishment for crime, health, safety, and morals condemnations etc.
The Framers feared specifically *public*, ie government and probably a central one at that, takings without compensation (one implication of bills of attainder, btw); they were freaked by the Crown, by the central Congress's Continental Army's arbitrary seizures in the Revolution; Madison also thought the anti-Tory confiscation measures went too far --imagine a permanent central government doing such things. The compensation clause was seen as the proper limiting step, there isn't even a hint of limiting, or defining, language for "public use" in the clause where "public use" is used.
We ought not to back-inject the Framers with Lockean and Smithian purism. They were first and foremost State legislators. It was the much later more pro-property courts of the 19th century and beyond which began reading into the language some wholly (and in my opinion nobly) newly constructed out-of-the-blue limits, such as saying you can use eminent domain ONLY for "public use" despite the clear absence of any such limitation in the plain language of the Amendment.
Now, consider these colonial era malignant normalcies from the cited article:
"Many colonial laws imposed affirmative obligations on residents to use their property for some specific purpose to advance the overall interests of the community. A Plymouth colony ordinance required those with rights in valuable minerals to exploit their rights or forfeit them. A Maryland law required owners of good mill sites to develop the sites or run the risk of losing their property to someone else who would develop the site. Similarly, when [private] land was not developed or bridges fell into disuse, colonial governments took these properties from their owners and transferred them to someone else."
I agree that the Kelo outcome is truly evil, but there is no reason for anyone to get literalist and historicalist. It is the nonliteralism and non-originalism which saves the day.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
A $50.00 Offer to the Blogosphere, Re: Kelo
It's official. You get $50, O blogosphere member. Especially one of y'all who felt understandable anguish over the hideous meaning of Kelo v. New London.
Just be first to convince me: at my email notanempire- at - aol.com (you know how to fix that) that the textual language of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and its Takings Clause RESTRICTS government takings only to situations of "public use."
It doesn't say that. It says ONLY that WHEN public use takings occur, there must be just compensation paid. That's it. No restrictions are made in that amendment on takings, except that due process must be applied in doing it. That's fair. Due process usually means notice, hearing and appeal.
I am sole and final judge of whether I am convinced. (Offer closes July 12, or otherwise at my discretion.) Convincing answer posted here as well as good ones, if I feel it. (Haven't been able to activate comments.)
I bring this up in part to rebuke all those tantrum-throwers who are stamping their feet in literalist fury saying "but the constitution says 'public use', not 'public purposes'. 'Use' means use!" Well perhaps, but if literal meanings matter, then "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" simply literally means what it says -- that when a "public use" taking (as opposed to other takings like as punishment for a crime) occurs, there will be a fair price paid. It does NOT say anything about public takings being restricted to public use. One ought not hang one's hat on textual literalism when the whole power of the clause relies on going beyond textual literalism.
Actually, it appears that "public use" is simply a synonym for "where there is an exercise of eminent domain." Without saying what the limits are of that.
The ugly fact about this decision with its ugly implcation -- private property-wise and liberty-wise -- is that it was a good politically conservative decision. If one were to be a good textualist and rely on the language of the 5th Amendment, there is no restriction. Further, it is a good conservative decision in that it defers to local government on local issues.
Literalists: beware of what you want......
Kelo is a horrible rule, but alas, it makes literal constitutional sense, although that was not argued to my knowledge. One needs to construct a better historical argument as stare decisis is the only basis for resisting this expansion of government powers and not literalism of language.
Here, don't totally blame the Left or the corporate Right, alone or together. It's the Framers that done it.
It's official. You get $50, O blogosphere member. Especially one of y'all who felt understandable anguish over the hideous meaning of Kelo v. New London.
Just be first to convince me: at my email notanempire- at - aol.com (you know how to fix that) that the textual language of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and its Takings Clause RESTRICTS government takings only to situations of "public use."
It doesn't say that. It says ONLY that WHEN public use takings occur, there must be just compensation paid. That's it. No restrictions are made in that amendment on takings, except that due process must be applied in doing it. That's fair. Due process usually means notice, hearing and appeal.
I am sole and final judge of whether I am convinced. (Offer closes July 12, or otherwise at my discretion.) Convincing answer posted here as well as good ones, if I feel it. (Haven't been able to activate comments.)
I bring this up in part to rebuke all those tantrum-throwers who are stamping their feet in literalist fury saying "but the constitution says 'public use', not 'public purposes'. 'Use' means use!" Well perhaps, but if literal meanings matter, then "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" simply literally means what it says -- that when a "public use" taking (as opposed to other takings like as punishment for a crime) occurs, there will be a fair price paid. It does NOT say anything about public takings being restricted to public use. One ought not hang one's hat on textual literalism when the whole power of the clause relies on going beyond textual literalism.
Actually, it appears that "public use" is simply a synonym for "where there is an exercise of eminent domain." Without saying what the limits are of that.
The ugly fact about this decision with its ugly implcation -- private property-wise and liberty-wise -- is that it was a good politically conservative decision. If one were to be a good textualist and rely on the language of the 5th Amendment, there is no restriction. Further, it is a good conservative decision in that it defers to local government on local issues.
Literalists: beware of what you want......
Kelo is a horrible rule, but alas, it makes literal constitutional sense, although that was not argued to my knowledge. One needs to construct a better historical argument as stare decisis is the only basis for resisting this expansion of government powers and not literalism of language.
Here, don't totally blame the Left or the corporate Right, alone or together. It's the Framers that done it.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Mourning Becomes Electrode, or
Where is Lynddie England when you need her?
Bloggers heavy on the morals and immorals of torture are missing a great issue. I refer to the ongoing story of the young lady missing in Aruba. Some known individuals may know the missing gal's whereabouts. Shouldn't they get the full electrode treatment to help find her?
Sad to say, I don't have nearly as strong opinion an opinion on the absolute evil of torture as a libertarian should, though I do have a general "I'm again' it". (I do think, however, that certain kinds of post-judicial due process corporal punishment ought not be ruled out). Nevertheless, equivocating further, I am also sure that the bulk of purported actions of torture by "our side" and the justifications for them are actually rooted in frustration, sadism, and an ill-focused and even racist sense of revenge. Additionally, levels of acceptance of torture are a good barometer of the level of standards of civlized due process.
But the Aruba case presents a true "ticking-bomb" analgoue scenario. (The "ticking bomb" refers to a common justification for torture of terrorists, based on the assumption that the torturee has some necessary knowledge to offset an active deadly operation, like a ticking bomb, where normal crime investigation has insufficient time to act.) In this case, some arrestees may have knowlege of the location of a person who may be alive but in captivity or injured -- it is not unknown for kidnappers to leave victims to die, or who are thought to be dead, in some hellhole, as recently happened with a little girl in a dumpster.
I also caution that in reality the ticking-bomb justification is far more a rationalization, as torture is often systematically practiced where it is done, and are not ad hoc measures for urgent information.
So, is torture ok in cases like the lost girl in Aruba? Should they take the suspects with the story that doesn't add up about her whereabouts and turn them over to Lynddie England?
Where is Lynddie England when you need her?
Bloggers heavy on the morals and immorals of torture are missing a great issue. I refer to the ongoing story of the young lady missing in Aruba. Some known individuals may know the missing gal's whereabouts. Shouldn't they get the full electrode treatment to help find her?
Sad to say, I don't have nearly as strong opinion an opinion on the absolute evil of torture as a libertarian should, though I do have a general "I'm again' it". (I do think, however, that certain kinds of post-judicial due process corporal punishment ought not be ruled out). Nevertheless, equivocating further, I am also sure that the bulk of purported actions of torture by "our side" and the justifications for them are actually rooted in frustration, sadism, and an ill-focused and even racist sense of revenge. Additionally, levels of acceptance of torture are a good barometer of the level of standards of civlized due process.
But the Aruba case presents a true "ticking-bomb" analgoue scenario. (The "ticking bomb" refers to a common justification for torture of terrorists, based on the assumption that the torturee has some necessary knowledge to offset an active deadly operation, like a ticking bomb, where normal crime investigation has insufficient time to act.) In this case, some arrestees may have knowlege of the location of a person who may be alive but in captivity or injured -- it is not unknown for kidnappers to leave victims to die, or who are thought to be dead, in some hellhole, as recently happened with a little girl in a dumpster.
I also caution that in reality the ticking-bomb justification is far more a rationalization, as torture is often systematically practiced where it is done, and are not ad hoc measures for urgent information.
So, is torture ok in cases like the lost girl in Aruba? Should they take the suspects with the story that doesn't add up about her whereabouts and turn them over to Lynddie England?
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Reefer Madness
I admit I am having policy logic problems with the recent medical marijuana/Commerce Clause Supreme Court decision. Others may have brought this up and I may have missed it. But I have to ask: if federally putting an end to the production of marijuana that is grown legally (under local laws) at home for home medical use is done for the ostensible reason of regulating interstate commerce, doesn't that logically mean that the federal government is intervening to protect the interstate illegal nationwide commerce in the noxious weed?
Forget the Constitution text, does this pass the "rational relationship" test?
I admit I am having policy logic problems with the recent medical marijuana/Commerce Clause Supreme Court decision. Others may have brought this up and I may have missed it. But I have to ask: if federally putting an end to the production of marijuana that is grown legally (under local laws) at home for home medical use is done for the ostensible reason of regulating interstate commerce, doesn't that logically mean that the federal government is intervening to protect the interstate illegal nationwide commerce in the noxious weed?
Forget the Constitution text, does this pass the "rational relationship" test?
If true, this is getting a bit out of hand, doncha think?
US troops accused of abusing American contractors.
Let's hope this is bull:
Update: The Other Side of the Story
If only ONE of these two accounts are true, this is not a good sign.
US troops accused of abusing American contractors.
Let's hope this is bull:
He said his clients told him that Marines had "slammed around" several contractors, stripped them to their underwear and placed a loaded weapon near their heads.
"How does it feel to be a big, rich contractor now?" the Marines shouted at the men, Schopper said, in an apparent reference to the large salaries security contractors can make in Iraq.
He also said that during their detention, the workers' relatives in the United States received phone calls from people with American accents threatening to kill their loved ones if they talked about the incident.
Update: The Other Side of the Story
If only ONE of these two accounts are true, this is not a good sign.
Military investigates American guards in Iraq
Contractors allegedly went on shooting spree in Fallujah
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:57 a.m. ET June 9, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sixteen private American security guards are under investigation for shooting at U.S. Marines and Iraqi civilians during a three-hour spree west of Baghdad, the military said Thursday.
The Marines said the 16 Americans and three Iraqi contractors were arrested and held in a military jail for three days after spraying small arms fire at Iraqi civilians and U.S. forces from their cars in Fallujah late last month.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Thus June 9, DC fan: Plan to ban the ban
For DC area pro-choice people: that is those who favor choice by a free people i.e. by businesses and consenting customers and employees, in their ability to choose the nature of their environment and entertainment. Go to the below. Info, text, and argument via Gene Healy:
For DC area pro-choice people: that is those who favor choice by a free people i.e. by businesses and consenting customers and employees, in their ability to choose the nature of their environment and entertainment. Go to the below. Info, text, and argument via Gene Healy:
On Thursday, June 9, Ward One Concilmemeber Jim Graham will host a Townhall Meeting on the various smoking ban proposals before the city council. Take a look at some of the event sponsors on Graham’s website. It doesn’t look like it will be a good day for people who prefer choice to force.
But you can help, just by showing up. Tell your friends, tell your favorite bartenders, tell your neighbors: tell anyone who might be interested to show up and make their preference for a choice between smoking and non-smoking bars known.
WHAT: Jim Graham’s Townhall Meeting
WHEN: Thursday, June 9 at 7pm
WHERE: The Lincoln Theater, 1215 U St, NW
WHY: To help stop the DC Smoking Ban
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Henley the Aid, I Am, I Am
Many thanks to the inimitable Jim Henley (say that five times fast) for a mention of this blog, and my old mesolibertarian essay that even I lost track of. Thank you spyware, and my own failure to back it up. The essay was written in the heat of entering the blogworld and webdebate world in 2002 and seeing the entire war issue fought between the neos (Instapundit types) and the paleos (Justin Raimondo types). With the great Jacob Sullum seemingly whining about the sufferings of Israeli soldier relatives on the West Bank, even I lost momentary faith there but should not have.
I am also occasionally in the red column here.
Many thanks to the inimitable Jim Henley (say that five times fast) for a mention of this blog, and my old mesolibertarian essay that even I lost track of. Thank you spyware, and my own failure to back it up. The essay was written in the heat of entering the blogworld and webdebate world in 2002 and seeing the entire war issue fought between the neos (Instapundit types) and the paleos (Justin Raimondo types). With the great Jacob Sullum seemingly whining about the sufferings of Israeli soldier relatives on the West Bank, even I lost momentary faith there but should not have.
I am also occasionally in the red column here.
I have followed Jim's loaded and goaded suggestion on the atom. thing. ("Maybe he’ll even go into his Blogger setup options and add an Atom feed like the modern Blogspot bloggers do."). Whatever that means (blogger.com help didn't help) but I did something, I think, with an atom.html link, or something. I assume something happened. Someone let me know if whatever was supposed to happen, did indeed happen.
Deep Thoughts About Deep Throat
{I should and probably will extend and revise these remarks in the near future.}
"I say, if you can't find a man with integrity, find a man with ambition." Such was the advice of the evil young future emperor Caligula to the evil old current emperor Tiberius in the old British TV-miniseries I Claudius. He was telling the old ruler how to find someone to overthrow the emperor's politically entrenched evil and now-renegade henchman, Aelius Sejanus, the de facto head of Rome's government.
I am reminded of this upon the revelation that the identity of Watergate's Deep Throat was W. Mark Felt, and that he was, to some extent, a disgruntled employee of frustrated ambition (to be FBI chief).
This recognition of the decisive motivating role of one's sense of place in life leads to a deep thought on why I am of libertarian outlook. In the end -- or perhaps at the start -- we humans are out to secure our own individual place, and we guard and revenge it selfishly, violently, and with ruthless indifference to others, if not outright predatoriness. Even genuine heroic charitable nobility requires pursuing determinedly, sometimes to the exclusion of other worthy pursuits in life, one's place as a self-sacrificing, even loving, individual. (This is a good thing overall to pursue; I am not diminishing its worth by pointing out its self-actualizing psychological prerequisite and economic cost of forgoing other things.)
The Bible and Nietzsche agree on this point, with the former advising that we love our neighbor as ourself, thereby assuming as a given that we love ourselves. (But assuming we need a divine push to make that love turn extroverted.)
The pursuit of happiness would otherwise trample boatloads of corpses. And often does.
Now, amplify that unavoidable self-orientation in our nature with the violent power and communal legitimation given by government and all things of evil become possible: gulags, Jim Crow, Auschwitz (implicit Godwin's law violation, sorry), etc.
This is why government ultimately needs to exist at a middle, and limited, level. Not strong enough to dominate, but procedurally hindered by checks and balances; yet not weak enough to fail to check miscreants and/or outsiders who abuse others in their pursuit of happiness.
Such is done by maximizing the function of government as protector of a non-predatory pursuit of happiness. It does this through securing the liberty of all who are under its rule while not messing with others who do not mess with those it is called on to protect.
{I should and probably will extend and revise these remarks in the near future.}
"I say, if you can't find a man with integrity, find a man with ambition." Such was the advice of the evil young future emperor Caligula to the evil old current emperor Tiberius in the old British TV-miniseries I Claudius. He was telling the old ruler how to find someone to overthrow the emperor's politically entrenched evil and now-renegade henchman, Aelius Sejanus, the de facto head of Rome's government.
I am reminded of this upon the revelation that the identity of Watergate's Deep Throat was W. Mark Felt, and that he was, to some extent, a disgruntled employee of frustrated ambition (to be FBI chief).
This recognition of the decisive motivating role of one's sense of place in life leads to a deep thought on why I am of libertarian outlook. In the end -- or perhaps at the start -- we humans are out to secure our own individual place, and we guard and revenge it selfishly, violently, and with ruthless indifference to others, if not outright predatoriness. Even genuine heroic charitable nobility requires pursuing determinedly, sometimes to the exclusion of other worthy pursuits in life, one's place as a self-sacrificing, even loving, individual. (This is a good thing overall to pursue; I am not diminishing its worth by pointing out its self-actualizing psychological prerequisite and economic cost of forgoing other things.)
The Bible and Nietzsche agree on this point, with the former advising that we love our neighbor as ourself, thereby assuming as a given that we love ourselves. (But assuming we need a divine push to make that love turn extroverted.)
The pursuit of happiness would otherwise trample boatloads of corpses. And often does.
Now, amplify that unavoidable self-orientation in our nature with the violent power and communal legitimation given by government and all things of evil become possible: gulags, Jim Crow, Auschwitz (implicit Godwin's law violation, sorry), etc.
This is why government ultimately needs to exist at a middle, and limited, level. Not strong enough to dominate, but procedurally hindered by checks and balances; yet not weak enough to fail to check miscreants and/or outsiders who abuse others in their pursuit of happiness.
Such is done by maximizing the function of government as protector of a non-predatory pursuit of happiness. It does this through securing the liberty of all who are under its rule while not messing with others who do not mess with those it is called on to protect.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Peer amid the Pyramids: Your tax dollars at work
Egypt receives something like $2 billion/year, is it, from USA.
"CAIRO -- Crowds of pro-government demonstrators attacked opponents of President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday while police looked on, staining a day of national voting that government leaders had touted as a major step toward democracy."
Or this:
Hossam al-Hamalawy, a news assistant with the LA Times . . . said to him, “Hey what is going on? They are going to slaughter them.” The officer coldly replied, “We have our orders.” Amazed and confused Hossam asked, “Do your orders include having people kill each other in the streets?” The officer smirked and said “Yes”.
Libertarian liberation in Iraq?
I understand conservative interventionists may not mind, but how can allegedly libertarian ones square this stuff as liberation, except maybe to say that it is happening democratically?
"Iraq's interim government revived the death penalty last August for . . . drug trafficking."
But if sharia law were imposed democratically, and it is quite possible in Iraq, would that be liberation too? Under the standard of democratic process = liberation, it would be. Which is why libertarian interventionism is a dangerous crock or near-crock.
Rhymes with Bitch
This court order has not become a great public issue at least yet. "An Indianapolis father," the story runs about divorced Wiccan (whence comes witchcraft) parents, "is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to 'non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.'" Anyone seeing a gray area? Not me. (Via Radley Balko.)
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Full of Gas
The Maryland Comptroller in a May 17 letter protests an earlier article in the Washington Post of May 1.
The Comptroller defends
On the contrary, the law was passed to prevent any retailer from unfairly eliminating competition by selling gas for less than it costs.
Selling below cost is a classic move of strategic business competition and promotion; prohibiting this is certainly NOT facilitating competition.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Empiromania
Is the ideological cat out of the bag at Neocon Central?
Darth Vader is giving the invocation. Lunch is Caesar salad.
BOOK FORUM --- In Praise of Empires: Globalization and Order
Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 10:00 a.m.–noon
American Enterprise Institute
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor,
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Civil War in Iraq
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK623643.htm
Well, maybe it will be a democratic civil war.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK623643.htm
Whereas once politicians were not willing to utter the term for fear of dignifying it, it is no longer taboo. "I do not want to say civil war, but we are going the Lebanese route, and we know where that led," says Sabah Kadhim, an adviser to the Interior Ministry who spent years in exile before returning to Iraq after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. "We are going to end up with certain areas that are controlled by certain warlords ... It's Sunni versus Shi'ite, that is the issue...
Well, maybe it will be a democratic civil war.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Every spam is sacred
There was much speculation about the possible election of Nigerian Cardinal Franics Arinze as Pope, making him the first black Pope. Instead, however, European German Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected, rather than the Nigerian prelate.
Could that explain the email I got today?
There was much speculation about the possible election of Nigerian Cardinal Franics Arinze as Pope, making him the first black Pope. Instead, however, European German Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected, rather than the Nigerian prelate.
Could that explain the email I got today?
"DEAR BLESSED CHILD OF GOD, I KNOW YOU CAN HELP!
HELLO, I AM FRANCIS CARDINAL ARINZE FROM NIGERIA, PREFECT OF THE DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS.PLEASE HELP ME. I HAVE A DEPOSIT OF $10 MILLIONs IN THE VATICAN BANK, AND NOW I CAN'T GET IT BACK WITHOUT YOUR HELP. I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ELECTED POPE IN THE ROME CONCLAVE BUT DUE TO A RACIST CONSPIRACY, I WAS DENIED IT.
IF YOU EMAIL ME AT THIS ADDRESS, YOU CAN HELP ME CORRECT THIS SIN AND RECOVER THE MONEY AND SHARE IN SOME OF ITS BLESSINGS. GOD BLESS YOU, AMEN.
Shouldn't there be some kind of investigation about this?
Well, at least the new Pope's got email. Really, if it had been the Nigerian cardinal instead, would he have been able to get any recipients to take them seriously?
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Trying to be up and running shortly.