Stupid Laws and Stupid Proposals
A zoning ordinance adopted this month by the city of Manassas redefines family, essentially restricting households to immediate relatives, even when the total is below the occupancy limit.[...]
Fairfax County is seeking authority from the state to impose criminal fines and jail time on landlords who rent houses to more than four unrelated people, typically immigrants.(That's Manassas, Virginia. And that's Fairfax County, Virginia. So tell me, what the hell is wrong with Virginia, exactly? From this day forth, I don't want to hear a peep about Texas. Not from any of you. Never again. Not one syllable.)
The emphasis, by the way, in both cases? Mine. And here is your
source.
My take?
Actually, I have two. First: A people who are not free to choose the number and description of their roommates are not actually free at all. No matter what the national anthem says.
Second: this is the kind of garbage legislation you get when your ideological focus is on the tax base, not on ethical principles.
Exactly Why I Seek Out Multiple Sources
Copley News Service syndicated columnist Doug Bandow admitted accepting money from [lobbyist Jack] Abramoff for writing as many as 24 op-ed articles favorable to some of Abramoff's clients. Copley suspended the column pending a review and Bandow resigned as a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.Source. Emphasis mine.
The
Cato Institute is a world class think tank and its credentials are impeccable. A blogger might even make a career of sampling Cato's work and re-presenting it to the general public. But he shouldn't, and this sad example underscores that point very well.
Locke and Load on Ice, No Monkeyshine on Center Stage?
It seems as if
The Man will answer
The Call. He is making noises about picking up his old solo routine
No Monkeyshine and making it the bestseller it always longed to be. Surely yours truly -- Immanuel Can't -- can be a frequent, moderating voice.
Stick a Fork In Us...
...we're done. Blogging just isn't our thing quite yet.
Thanks to those who stopped by, and thanks especially to those who left us a piece of your mind. We'll leave
Locke and Load around for a few days, in the off-chance that some of you want to download some content or chase down a hyperlink that you found here. But by the end of the week, we plan to send this dog to the great boneyard beyond. A bona fide web journal should present its readers with at least one complete essay per day per contributor, and we've not even been able to manage a quick, daily hand genade between the two of us. Once we realized this, the rest was obvious.
Anyway: speak your mind, listen with your eyes, vote with your feet, disregard the noise, and you'll do fine. Happy surfing....
White Christmas
My find this Christmas that will be a part of every Christmas from here on? Everyone knows that the definitive recording of "White Christmas" is by Bing Crosby. But while watching the TV show
Monk with my wife, they played a version at the end of the episode that I had never heard before. I knew I recognized the voice and style, but I couldn't place it. So I did a search on Rhapsody and found it.
Otis Redding.
If you haven't heard it, give it a listen. And have a soulful Christmas.
The Lockies
Welcome to The First Annual Lockies, where Immanuel Can't lists the top ten albums of the year. Will
The Man remember his login password and create a list of his own? Will he call it The Loadies, maybe? Time will tell.
So here goes:
1. The Decemberists -- PicaresqueI know, I know. Another damn love letter to The Decemberists. How predictable. How banal. We get it already, sir: you neo-gothics love the damn Decemberists. Now can we move this thing along?
2. Mars Volta -- Frances the MuteWhat a terrific year in music that
Frances the Mute sits in second place at all, to anything, for any reason. In many ways this prog-metal masterpiece is the antithesis to
Picaresque: loud, chaotic, indecipherable, and largely inaccessible. Of course a review such as this is supposed to christen the thirty-minute epic "Cassandra Gemini" as the centerpiece of the album, but my favorite cut is "The Widow," the only single short enough for heavy rotation and the only track recorded this year that can give me the soulsickness. Go ahead. Call me a sap. I'd agree with you.
3. System of a Down -- MezmerizeEasily the strangest multi-platinum act in the world, SoaD can follow up a thunderous rage-against-the-war-machine protest track with a Disneyland-on-LSD joint about jumping around on pogo sticks. Mix postmoderism with punk and metal and splash with I'm-going-native and you're half the way to describing this ensemble. Buy their entire collection on your way home tonight, and listen to it in the parking lot.
(With the exception of the #10 slot, I present the rest on a "no particular order" basis:)
LCD Soundsystem -- LCD SoundsystemFunky, witty, imperfect, and, yes, American. Sorry, U.K.
Bloc Party -- Silent AlarmStreetwise and hip, these blokes less resemble a musical act and more a Guy Ritchie film put to drums. Dare I say it? This is what music critics mean when they say "quintessentially English."
Tarentel -- Big Black Square and TarentelBay Area boy scouts Tarentel managed a grand total of three tracks on these two LPs combined, earning themselves a Lockie for that level of restraint alone. Musical purists will dispute my use of the term, but this is lowercase at its finest: silent, minimal, dissonant, and beautiful.
Explosions in the Sky -- Those Who Tell the Truth Shall Live ForeverOne part spaghetti western, one part tornado, one part lowercase music, I know nothing more about EitS than this: their 2005 release was groundbreaking and breathtaking.
Battles -- EP CA sort of league of crafty guitarists for the new generation. As is the way with the other post-rock upstarts on the list, when these guys find a groove, they keep it. Tracks are exquisitely long, impersonally digital, and utterly compelling.
10. Doves -- Some CitiesThese guys are on double secret probation, hence the last rank in the list. Wandering melodies and spectral vocals all but mask the fact that Doves positively refuse to take a risk. The sound never tells a joke and never loses control, not once in five LPs. Jeff Buckley's 1994 album
Grace took as many chances in ten cuts as Doves have taken in their entire career, as is evidenced by the fact that Buckley fans have inhaled not one, not two, not three, four, five, six but
seven (!) full-length outtake LPs after his early death. Seven. Effin' seven. Think about it.
The Tragedy of the Tamales
Earlier in the week the company president brought in a few dozen tamales and left them in the break room, for community consumption. One of our shop employees took a dozen of them home and his entire family ate them for dinner.
In spite of the fact that putting nourishment in front of his children is a father's primary reponsibility, this offends us on some hidden, nearly descriptionless basis. But why? Not because he stole them. The president left them in the kitchen for free. "Community consumption" includes "consumption by him." There was nothing to steal.
And not because he violated the terms of her gift. A gift is a gift, period. There are no terms to a gift.
And not because he deprived another employee of the tamales. The tamales were presented on a first-come, first-served basis, and no one had appeared for work based on the promise of free food. There is no substantive difference to the other employees between one man "legitimately" devouring twelve tamales on his own or "illegitimately" squirreling away twelve tamales for his kids. To those who missed out, they missed out just as much had he taken a baker's dozen or all of them. To those who secured some, the same.
It is difficult to pinpoint one's ideological revulsion to what this employee did since he did not do anything beyond acting in his own self-interest. The company president is the one who acted uneconomically. The president ignored the
tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons is, although
only recently minted, a universal and timeless concept that economics can apply to almost any good. Something not privately managed will be publicly mismanaged. Water given away for free (or worse: sold for flat monthly rates, regardless of usage) will be consumed indiscriminately. Roads given away for free will be cluttered to the point of disutility. Antibiotics given away for free will be overconsumed.
Had the president charged, say, a dollar per tamal,
those few who wanted to eat would have eaten. Instead, she proclaimed the tamales to be "common," and
a few who wanted to eat were able to eat. But instead of sacrificing something valuable for the tamales in an auction, those who found them first were able to exploit them. And this makes us uncomfortable because it values luck above effort, meaning that it violates the very definition of economics, whether we know the definition or not: "the study of how men satisfy unlimited wants using quite-limited resources."
How is the tragedy of the tamales any different than the tragedy of free water? Or the tragedy of free education? Or the tragedy of free health care? Or the tragedy of free roads? I suspect that a great many people who think the tamal taker acted selfishly would disagree that a homeowner acts selfishly when drinking free water. But the premise is exactly the same. A man acting in his own self-interest, or in the interest of his family, is given no incentive to conserve the common good, or to produce more of it.
Star (on top of the Christmas Tree) Wars
I'm feeling better. Not yet feisty. Just better. Sunday was a bit muddy from all the drink Saturday night. Monday and Tuesday, I felt like I was coming down with the flu. Yesterday my back hurt, of all things. What a week. But, to say it again, I'm on the uptick. So I'll put my big toe back in the water with...
...
this Y Files post. Apparently the Save Christmas (from whom?) Coalition has fixed their scope on born-again Christian and leader of the free world, President George W. Bush, of Texas:
This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy “holiday season.”
Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.
“This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture,” said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.Two Decembers ago, I fled permanently from the Glenn Beck radio show for this very thing, his non-stop anti-anti-Christmas whining. A few points on the subject:
1. While movements to forbid nativity scenes from public places are excessive and misguided, we must remember that public squares are the public's business. A successful ACLU suit of this nature is not a violation of individual rights. A successful ACLU suit against nativity scenes on
private property would be a violation of individual rights.
2. One more point about public-sector nativity scenes. What footnote to "reduce government spending" are the conservatives reading from, anyway? Civic displays cost money to procure, assemble, maintain, disassemble, store, and reassemble next year. That money comes from tax revenue. The taxes come from the people. On any other matter, conservatives would have cut me off at the word "procure" and started howling about the redistribution of wealth.
3. It was always weird to me hearing store greeters wishing "Merry Christmas" on any day but December 25. Here's a thought: wish "Happy Holidays" on every day between Thanksgiving and New Years Day, and wish "Merry Christmas" on Christmas. Or here's another: greet customers with "Welcome to Wal-Mart" when they show up and with "Thank you" when they leave. Pure genius!
4. No matter what you think of my solution #3 above, retail greeting policies are matters of private consideration, meant to make the store more universally appealing to shoppers and, therein, meant to look after their shareholders' investment. And yes, whether you boycott these retail outlets for their private considerations is also a private consideration. To the present author, an organized boycott on this basis alone seems excessive and misguided (a common motif in holiday/Christmas matters anymore).
5. Please. The sitting president of the United States is not "capitulating to the worst elements in our culture," period. Violence, nihilism, thievery, power-lust, racism, xenophobia, intolerance of other religions? These are the worst elements of our culture (and of all cultures). Protection of minorities (albeit excessive and misguided protection of minorities in this case) is the most democratic thing I can think of.
6. As to the "loss of will" remark, no. Get some perspective. G.W. Bush proposing that the U.S. Army militarize the national response to the avian flu? Yeah.
That represents a loss of will.
(this post deleted)
Yeah, yeah, that was a bit much. Sorry.
Quote of the Day
Actually, two:
--
On Tuesday [November 29], the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation took time out of its busy schedule screwing up commerce, science and transportation to host an "open forum on decency."...and...
--
Rugged individualists in Alaska get a whopping $1.89 back from the feds for every tax dollar they send to Washington.Source: Nick Gillespie's article
here on congressional deliberations toward cable TV decency legislation.
Liberal Wanted
(
UPDATE What follows is an earnest offer, even if it doesn't read like one.)
To post on
Locke and Load with The Man and me.
Strict deadlines, no pay, hostile work environment, little outside recognition. Posting in anonymity is its own reward. Excellent written and verbal communication skills required. Open contempt for the First, Second, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments helpful. Ability to explain Marxism, Stalism, Maoism, statism, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and anything that happens in San Francisco a big plus.
Inquire within.
EEOIEO.
The State of Protectionism
For those who think interstate trade protectionism is not a natural progression from international trade protectionism, read the following excerpt from a
San Jose Mercury News piece:
Southwest Airlines Co. wasted no time in announcing Thursday that it will launch service from Dallas to St. Louis and Kansas City on Dec. 13 ... after President Bush signed a transportation bill that included a provision to make Missouri the ninth state that airlines can serve directly from Dallas Love Field.This is the year 2005, and we actually need to pass a federal law so that an airline can serve nine states?
And the new law only allows nine?
What is that thing called that the Supreme Court uses to regulate home-grown marijuana that doesn't cross state lines? The Commerce clause? Can't Congress just invoke
that?
Links
It's a fairly slow news day, so I thought a review of my links would be fitting:
At
Happiness and Public Policy, Will Wilkinson has posted a BBC article on the
therapeutic powers of dolphins. I would be delinquent in duty if I failed to mention the fact that dolphins are creepy.
Over at
The Y Files, Cathy Young weighs in on R. J. Rummel, who has admitted "that his earlier estimates of Chairman Mao's
democide was too low."
Next door,
The Agitator, Radley Balko draws an eerie
comparison between a Reason Hit & Run
post and an Onion
piece. Not as creepy as dolphins, but if you reflect that Onion is made up and that Reason Magazine is not, you'll agree that it is certainly, say, monkey creepy.
Marginal Revolution: Tyler Cowen
links yet another essay written in an indecipherable tongue.
At
Gateway Pundit, GP
presents various news pieces on World AIDS Day.
Division of Labour looks back 100 years to consider contemporary intercollegiate sports and gambling.
As to the rest of the links (and you know the ones I mean), your conclusions are your own. Happy reading!
No Comment
"If abortion is not allowed [at the state level], at that point the state and nation should be required to pay at least $10,000 to $15,000 a year to the mother of the unborn child, to take care of all medical, day care, clothing, every service (food) for the child, until the child is 12 years old."
-- 8:01AM EST call from Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire to C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," Wednesday, November 30, 2005
The Malkin Wars
Offline yesterday, arch-conservative
The Man sniffed at my use of the term "arch-conservative Michelle Malkin" in
this post here. He furthermore took issue that my single-issue gripe of Malkin's work was
a book of hers that I haven't read,
In Defense of Internment. In my own (ahem) defense:
1. I began my description of Michelle Malkin with "serious looker." Not "arch-conservative." Priorities.
2. Clearly I meant the thing to be a silly post about a silly subject. Either someone at CNN meant to position the X over Vice President Cheney's face, and we learn nothing new about CNN, or someone didn't, and we will all take to our graves our unquenched thirst for justice. The Man knows about me something most of you do not: I do not believe the expression "arch-conservative" actually represents anything real. The term "conservative" describes a belief in a certain set of negative rights and positive obligations, and posits what we should do together to preserve those rights and obligations. Even if you could describe precisely what "conservatism is" (you couldn't, nor could you describe precisely what "libertarianism is," or what "centrism is," because the only internally complete "-ism" is totalitarianism) you could never indicate graphically its relative positions to other ideologies. I've
made this point before.
But forget all that for a moment, and imagine a graphical point named "conservative." Moving too far from that point in one direction (call it "maverick") or in the other direction (call it "arch") does not make you a "maverick conservative" or an "arch conservative," it simply makes you not-conservative, since you now maintain a different set of rights and obligations, and submit different solutions for each. This takes us nicely back to:
3. The big one: Malkin's book,
In Defense of Internment, which is titled perfectly: a defense of American internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. To wit:
On May 3, 1942, General DeWitt issued Civilian Exclusion Order No. 346, ordering all people of Japanese ancestry, whether citizens or non-citizens, to report to assembly centers, where they would live until being moved to permanent "Relocation Centers."
Over 112,000 residents of Japanese ancestry were subject to this mass exclusion program. Of those, approximately two-thirds were U.S. citizens by birth.It was the "single largest forced relocation in U.S. history." Michelle Malkin herself wrote that, "
There is no denying that what happened to Japanese-American internees was abhorrent and wrong." But, by her own pen:
I was compelled to write [In Defense of Internment]
after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks.
[...]
If you want to read a book decrying the loss of personal freedom in wartime America, this is the wrong book. If you want to read a book about the history of institutional discrimination against minorities in America, you’re out of luck again. Bookstores, library shelves, and classrooms are already filled with pedantic tomes, legal analyses, and educational propaganda along these conventional lines.
[...]
The Bush Administration’s critics have equated every reasonable measure to interrogate, track, detain, and deport potential terrorists with the “racist” and “unjustified” World War II internment policies of President Roosevelt. To make amends for this “shameful blot” on our history, both Japanese-American and Arab/Muslim-American activists argue against any and all uses of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in shaping current homeland security policies. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks. Emphasis mine.
With executive summaries such as these, and written by the author herself, I don't need to read any further. Simply perusing the dust jacket is enough. Do you need to read
Mein Kampf for yourself to conclude that the text of the book is abhorrent?
Malkin intends to defend Bush administration policy by defending Roosevelt administration policy (and a national shame for which the government has apologized and paid reparations). Hers is a logical misstep and it is a quite un-conservative position: that of detaining sovereign men strictly on the basis of ethnicity.
Critique of the Critique, Part Two (Immanuel Can Version)
(My
cohort tore into
Michael Huben's essay ahead of me, so I have edited my post a bit to spare you any redundant redundancy.)
Huben: [A libertarian's] isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most of us have time for.This is itself an unusual, isolated claim. It is unclear why a discussion of the function of government would require any research at all. Certainly most thinking men should be able to enunciate their own beliefs on this subject without prior research.
Huben: [Libertarianism is] a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more.I disagree, although some libertarians might not. I would define libertarianism as the system of the ethics of governing that most emphasizes the sovereignty of the individual man.
Huben: Libertarians are ... utopian.This is a compelling -- but ultimately inaccurate -- claim. Utopians strive for a perfect society. Libertarians strive for a perfectly free society, which the libertarian Cato Institute famously reminded us
is inevitably a messy place.
Huben: Property is theft.How so? From where I sit, this wealth-guilt, strength-guilt and possessions-guilt appears far more dangerous than any housing bubble. To say "property is theft" is not to stop at land ownership. That toaster oven you love so much? Property? The dog asleep at your feet? Property. Governments that preserve our right to private property preserve our sovereignty as individual men. And in that, protect our homes, our toaster ovens, our dogs, and, yes, our land.
Huben: Taxation is part of a social contract.The "social contract" is nothing more than our current network of federal, state, and local laws, and laws -- as we all know -- can change.
It bears mention that -- for government to preserve rights -- a government of some description must exist and fund itself. In shorthand: taxes are necessary. Liberals often unfairly paint libertarians and free market conservatives with too broad a brush stroke. It is not taxation itself that is misguided. It is -- first and primarily -- the funding of unnecessary services with taxes in lieu of user fees that is unconscionable.
It is, second, the forceful nature of tax collection, which violates the sovereign nature of individual men. A voluntary system, or a lottery, would encourage nearly as much participation with a fraction of the bureaucracy.
And it is, third, the net negative effect of wealth redistribution. We have seen after decades of wasteful spending on wars against poverty, wars against drugs, wars against famine in Africa, and wars for the shoreline that poverty, drugs, famine and the ocean are still winning. It is not that one extra dollar that will lead us to victory against poverty. It is something more fundamental. And libertarians believe that this "something more fundamental" is the improved preservation of rights.
Lastly, it is the progressive nature of federal taxation. Earned income tax credits notwithstanding, no man should pay a higher percentage of his taxes than another man.
Huben spends the next six questions of his FAQ lingering on this "social contract" point, to which I can only answer: social contracts change. I know of no libertarian whomsoever who takes legitimate, substantive issue with the social contract. Without one, how else will government preserve rights?
Huben: [Libertarians complain that they] can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.Again, did a libertarian actually write this? I must confess I agree with bits and parts of his answer until he arrives at his conclusion: "The free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not competitive." This is a silly and misplaced metaphor that earns a comment all its own.
Comparing nations for possible emigration is nothing like comparing products for sale in a free market. Graphs like
this one and
this one clearly demonstrate this point. Most of the nations of the world have, in general terms, a No Vacancy policy. Living in the United States distorts that world view somewhat, since (at least on the bureaucratic level) we are generally welcoming toward tourists and visa applicants, and generally tolerant of illegal immigrants. Imagine a "free market" in computers wherein the
bestselling laptop only allowed 73.5 percent of able buyers to actually buy.
And on the "free lunch" remark, it is impossible to reconcile this outlook with the reality of libertarian thought. A self-governing advocate wants to opt-out of social security, opt-out of the government school program, opt-out of the public health system, and -- in the hypothetical event that we find ourselves there one day -- opt out of nationalized food programs, housing programs, and medicine programs. I am unclear on how this represents "free lunch."
Questions #15 and #16 again pertain to the social contract nature of governing, which we have already addressed. Huben's answer for #17 and reads:
Absolute ownership of property is fundamental to most flavors of libertarianism.Guilty as charged. The only alternatives to "absolute ownership rights" seem to be "relative ownership rights" and "no ownership rights." The expression "relative ownership" reads like an inherent contradiction in terms, and summons memory of the recent
Kelo decision. The term "no ownership rights" summons thoughts of Haiti. The subject author -- or any self-identifying liberal who stumbles upon this question -- is invited to correct me.
Huben: It is wrong to deny the validity of the current system of limited ownership of property. For example, a clear statement of such an "easement" is in the Fourth Amendment, which essentially says that the government can enter your property with a valid search warrant and not be trespassing. There are many existing limitations such as government rights to tax and to zone property, limitations to ownership of navigable waters, how far property extends to the water, etc. And sometimes new limitations are specified, such as non-ownership of airspace above property.This paragraph simply confuses "what is current" with "what is right." Again, the bigger, more pertinent question is this: how is "relative ownership" not a contradiction in terms? And how can any erosion of "absolute ownership" not gradually, inevitably lead to
Kelo-styled decisions on behalf of the Supreme Court and the lower courts?
To question #20, which is
Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes, Huben responds:
This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government. (2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and wages will change as well.Frankly I agree with both the question and the answer. If taxes and protectionism were eliminated, men at the individual level we would be only a little wealthier. This incremental amount represents efficiencies in competition not present in government monopoly, which are, in turn, slightly mitigated themselves by their own diseconomies of smaller scale. If -- where there was formerly one public school that served my area -- there are now two private schools, competition between the private schools would keep costs a bit lower. Liberals will immediately race toward the most extreme example and write, "Public schools charged based on the value of your property, not by the number of kids you have in school. Imagine a family with ten kids: through the public system, they would pay only once. Through the private system they would pay
ten times." I have to concede that point. Yes, having ten kids is expensive. That is what home schooling is for. And home schooling, my friends, is
free.
At the national level, though, we would be much wealthier without taxes and protectionism. Products, individual corporations and entire industries would sell or not-sell based on utility, not political favor or disfavor. Innovation would would be fierce because competition would be fierce.
Part Three to come.
Two of My Posts Removed...
...possibly permanently, pending further research into something I read on
Division of Labour.
The first post, "Brain Teaser of the Week," dated 10/5/2005, posed the question, "Why is counterfeiting a federal crime while Treasury seigniorage is not?" The second post, "Money vs. Wealth," dated 10/16/2005, relied heavily on the first.
It's possible that
both are a crime. From the DOL post:
The atheist who is fighting to take the phrase "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance filed a lawsuit late Thursday seeking to prevent the U.S. government from printing the national motto -- "In God We Trust" -- on any future coins or paper money.
In the suit filed with the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Calif., Michael Newdow claims that the present use of the phrase "violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution," and he seeks to stop the government from using it on mint coins and print currency, as well as in "any act or law."
Newdow’s suit fails to challenge what’s really unconstitutional about our present currency notes and coins, namely that the US government is not empowered to issue fiat money. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to “coin money”, but not to print money. Article I, Section 10 forbids any state to "coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". No section empowers the Congress to emit bills of credit (paper money) or to declare anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender.Read the whole thing, and follow the links
here. The Cato Institute makes an excellent case that all fiat currency is unconstitutional
here.
Critique Of The Critique
I have checked out Mr. Huben's
Critiques of Libertarianism previously
referenced by
Mr. Can't and feel I must comment. So here goes.
It is quite an easy thing to critique a political philosophy. These philosophies are developed over centuries, with many writers and thinkers adding their perspectives, refining meanings, applying principles. To take any one of these, or worse, parts of any one of these, and critique it as a stand-alone representation of an entire philosophical point of view is ridiculous. But quite easy.
Mr. Huben is, obviously, a liberal. Though I'm sure he would never admit to it
(My philosophical ideas spring from skepticism, relativism, positivism, pragmatism, and humanism. When evaluating ideas, I work with the assumption that theories ought to match reality -- it is surprising how much theory matches reality badly. This tends to produce a preference for ideas that are valid (ie. work well) rather than theoretically correct (without working well.)). Because calling yourself a liberal means having to defend the Liberal philosophy. And if I were to take a look at the liberal philosophy as it has evolved, who would I go to as my representatives? Stalin? Mao? Castro? And, of course, Mr. Huben would indignantly deny that these people represent his philosophy, even if he did have the guts to admit what he is. And I would then pull out volume after volume of quotes and writings that concur completely with modern liberalism.
Political philosophies are nothing but a set of guiding principles by which people solve difficult problems. Modern liberals don't have this particular difficulty as their philosophy is purely pragmatic and follows no doctrine. They can ebb and flow as necessary and approach any issue as if it has never occurred before in the history of the world. They don't worry about contradictions. They know what is best.
However, most of us live by a set of broad principles that we believe explain the world around us and thereby guide our decisions. It is in the application of those principles that we encounter gray areas that must be worked out - through compromise, debate, and working solutions. Because the solution or compromise is not philosophically pure, does that mean the philosophy is invalid? Obviously not.
Having discussed Huben's main point, I would like to now take a few shots at some specifics. These are some of the most ridiculous statements I have read in some time.
The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them.
So, what he is saying is that since every vote on every article was not unanimous, we cannot ascertain the founders' original intent and should not even try? So I guess he would agree with the other extreme of the argument and that is that the written words mean exactly what they say, no more and no less, and any question that comes before the court that is not exactly answered by these words is kicked back to the states or lower court? No. Huben thinks the courts should be able to interpret the words in any way they please, based on anything they please.
The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.
Let me tell you what was a deliberate decision of the founders. Not to live in tyranny, and to pay for that decision with their own lives if necessary. To put the Declaration into a context of what it meant to the founding of a nation that had not, and indeed likely would not, come to be is idiocy. You're right, Mr. Huben, The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of this nation. It is
the founding document.
The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments.
Well, there's always
that irrefutable argument.
I Learn Something New Every Day (Fellini Edition)
The Italian word
paparazzo (known here in its much more familiar plural form "paparazzi"), meaning "A freelance photographer who doggedly pursues celebrities to take candid pictures for sale to magazines and newspapers," is taken from a character in Federico Fellini's
La Dolce Vita named Signor Paparazzo, who engages in same.
Sources:
the 1960 film itself and
dictionary.com.
