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, 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.