If you only buy one book by a Presidential candidate this year

make it A Foreign Policy of Peace and Freedom a collection of the best of Ron Paul's anti-war speeches and articles. The collection spans his entire career and includes an introduction by Lew Rockwell, who served as Ron Paul's Chief of Staff before founding the Mises Institute.

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

If the Dear Leader revives the draft, then the friends of liberty will have to revive the Alice's Restaurant anti-massacre movement.

Brave New World Update

Paralleling the US Government's scheme to subject all children to mental health screening Britain plans to began monitoring children to determine which ones are at risk of becoming criminals. Can a full-fledged Department of "Pre-Crime" be far behind?

The Right Kind of Flip-Flopping

Bob Barr was a Congressman from Georgia for 8 years during what might be called the "golden era" of the Republican Revolution. He was one of the impeachment managers during the Clinton Administration and he was an ardent drug warrior. He was also one of the staunchest advocates of privacy protection in Congress. Then, the Democrats redistricted Georgia and forced Barr to run against another incumbent Republican and he lost. The Libertarian Party ran ads opposing Barr and were gleeful when he lost.

My how the times have changed. Not only is Barr now a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party, but he recently joined the Marijuana Policy Project, an organization with the stated goal of legalizing marijuana.

Unlike the jokers running for President, I think it is pretty safe to say that Barr has changed his mind due to real introspection and thought rather than political calculations. Congrats Congressman Barr for willingness to change!

Cowen’s “Package Deal”

Excellent, provocative piece by Professor Tyler Cowen over at Cato Unbound. He writes:

“Those developments have brought us much greater wealth and much greater liberty, at least in the positive sense of greater life opportunities. They’ve also brought much bigger government. The more wealth we have, the more government we can afford. Furthermore, the better government operates, the more government people will demand. That is the fundamental paradox of libertarianism. Many initial victories bring later defeats.”

He calls this tendency for more wealth leading to more government a “package deal.” That’s a most excellent insight. With more wealth, the relative cost of government is reduced. And, with a bottomless pit of human wants and needs, the tendency is for government to grow along with national wealth.

I do believe it is possible, though unlikely, to decouple economic and government growth. It would involve cutting taxes from the bottom up, where the need for tax relief is highest. And, at the same time, cutting spending on domestic, discretionary spending, where the benefits are least concentrated and least numerous. Can you envision a march on Washington over a 5% cut in the Department of Commerce?

Still, Cowen’s point about focusing on liberty and not as much on regulation inserts a dynamic into the calculation that is long overdue.

-Robert Capozzi

New Mexico Becomes 11th State to Adopt Medical Marijuana

The popularity of medical marijuana among state policymakers continues to become more widespread with time as New Mexico recently adopted reforms allowing sick people to use marijuana.

Considering Richardson's aspirations for higher office, I think his strong push for the law is an interesting play. I can't recall another politician making a run for the White House having taken such a leadership role on behalf of any liberalization of our drug laws....

Bush and Chavez: A Marriage Made in Hell

This excellent article points out the almost symbiotic relationship between George W. Bush and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Although he's pretty tied up in the Middle East, Bush loves to scare the American people with boogeymen like Chavez and Chavez loves nothing more than to show himself as the "independent" Latin American leader who stands up to Washington.

As three of the five writers explain in this article, engaging with Latin America by lowering trade barriers would be a good way to reduce hostilities. Relaxed immigration and streamlined visa laws might be another way to win friends in "America's Backyard."

Big Government Conservatives

The folks at the Heritage Foundation generally do not like "big-government." In fact, their mission statement includes the statement that they are "committed to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish." All of these are laudable goals.

Unfortunately, like most "conservatives," some at the Heritage Foundation have a massive foreign policy and military blind spot. Nowhere has that blind spot been more vivid than this recent article by the organization's President Ed Feulner. Feulner claims that the US simply is not spending enough to take care of all its "responsibilities" worldwide.

Without quibbling about that point, it is hard to believe that the US is not spending enough on its military. As this chart shows, the US spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military. Even with China having announced that it will increase spending on its military by 17.8 percent this year, American dominance worldwide is not threatened.

I wish that more conservatives understood that nothing typifies "big government" more than the US military and, while it is essential to defend our country, we have allowed our military to spread itself to the point that we need both a Department of Defense and a separate Department of Homeland Security to fill in the gaps when the military is out patrolling the rest of the globe.

Civil Discourse

A must-read piece by Peggy Noonan...

Ending Poverty: What Works?

It has long been the conventional wisdom that one's level of care for the poor can best be measured by how much government spending you support on their behalf. Argument being, government programs are the best way to help poor people get on their feet.

A new study by the Rio Grande Foundation gives support to the limited government viewpoint finding that during the 1990s, states that spent and taxed less actually experienced far greater reductions in poverty than did those states that spent and taxed more.

These findings are not entirely surprising given the findings of various studies of economic freedom around the world that have repeatedly found freer nations to have greater economic success than non-free nations, but limiting the study to only the 50 states shows that even within a similar culture and government umbrella, limited government beats big government -- even for the poor.

Corporate Funnies

Thought I'd share this hoot of a story from Fortune.

Turns out there are Speakers Bureaus, agents who book speakers for events, that have raised chutzpah to a whole new level. Two firms advertise that they have big-name corporate CEOs in their stable of speakers. Only problem is: The agencies have no relationship with the CEOs, and never have.

OK, that's not so funny. But, when Fortune asked Angela Schelp, the president of Nashville-based Executive Speakers, about all this, Schelp replied:

"A lot of speakers are not necessarily exclusively with a bureau, but we'll list them because we can contact them," she says.

Hmm, lemme get this straight: You can contact them. Wow. True statement. Anyone can contact anyone, so the mendacity of Ms. Schelp seems to know no bounds.

Ahh, it really does take all kinds.

-Robert Capozzi

The Movement

Brian Doherty has a great article on Cato Unbound about the history of the libertarian movement and where it is going.

I could not agree more with his suggestion that we take a libertarian approach to the movement and not think that "our way" is the only way. I believe that being a "free liberal" means respecting the rights of others to pursue liberty as they see fit, even while I have my own preferred vision. Moreover, there is a tremendous amount we can learn from others' approaches, as well as succesful and failed programs from the past.

Doherty paints a picture of a rich libertarian movement, of which anyone should be proud to be a member. This reminds us that as thinkers and actors in the policy arena, we are not separate from our cause, and the strange and beautiful situations and people we encouter make our lives what they are. Free liberals and libertarians should appreciate the quality of people in our movement, even when we disagree.

When my reading stack gets a little lighter, I will be picking up a copy of his book. Also, I've added a category for this sort of discussion on Free for All, "The Freedomnista Movment."

~KDR

State Secrets and National Security

Below is a petition which is being submitted to Congress on behalf of Liberty Coalition (of which I serve as communications director) and other organizations. The petition points to the real problem that we have been facing where the executive branch has been repeatedly making tactical moves to prevent Congress from providing meaningful oversight of the activities of the federal government.

In the case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, it sounds as though she may have damning evidence of criminal behavior within the US goverment, as well as information which could shed more light on the 9/11 attacks. While her own travails as a whisltleblower provide a reason for concern, the out-of-control behavior by federal public servants is especially troubling.

Please read below and see what you think.

-- KDR

***

To: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

A Petition to require public hearings by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform into confirmed reports by FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds of wrongdoing, criminal activities, cover-ups against the security and interests of the United States and its citizenry, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case.

In March 2002 the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-IG) began its investigation of Ms. Edmonds’ reports.

In June 2002, in at least two unclassified Senate briefings, FBI officials confirmed the validity of Ms. Edmonds reports; however, in May 2004 Attorney General Ashcroft retroactively classified information from these briefings and gagged the Congress, preventing further investigation.
In October 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft invoked the ‘State Secrets Privilege’ to block all court proceedings in Edmonds’ case.
In July 2004 the DOJ-IG investigation into Edmonds' dismissal was completed but was entirely classified.
In January 2005 the DOJ-IG released an unclassified summary report on Edmonds’ case which concluded that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported by other witnesses and documents.
The issues that were reported by Ms. Edmonds include:
• Cases of espionage activities within the FBI, DOD, and the Department of State
• Cases of cover-up of information and leads pre and post 9/11, under the excuse of protecting certain diplomatic relations
• Cases of intentional blocking and mistranslation of crucial intelligence by FBI translators and management
• Cases of foreign entities bribing certain government officials and elected representatives

Edmonds filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the Department of Justice, but the government successfully argued that the state secrets privilege was an absolute bar to her suit going forward. She was even barred from the courtroom during the argument of her appeal! The Supreme Court declined to review the case. The government's invocation of the state secrets privilege in a motion to dismiss her case contradicts the core idea of judicial review and essentially allows the Executive Branch to dictate to the federal courts what cases they can and can’t hear.
Invoking the State Secrets Privilege is a tactic frequently used by the Executive Branch to stop potentially embarrassing lawsuits against the government. Many of these suits are brought by government employees, such as Ms. Edmonds, who allege fraud, mismanagement, or other unlawful conduct, and the state secrets privilege has successfully been invoked by the government to silence them. The state secrets provision has been used too frequently and with too little public protection.
Given the seriousness of Ms. Edmonds’ reports and in the best interests of the security of the country, it is incumbent upon the Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities and authority as representatives of the people of the United States, therefore:
We, the undersigned, now call upon the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Congress to hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case.

OMB Watch
Sean Moulton, Director, Federal Information Policy

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Anthony Romero, National Director

National Coalition against Censorship
Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director

Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC)
Nancy Talanian, Director

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Bill Weaver, Board Member

Liberty Coalition
Michael Ostrolenk, Co-founder & Director

National Whistleblower Center
Steve Kohn, Chair

Open the Government .Org
Patrice McDermott, Executive Director

U.S.-Armenian Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC)
Ross Vartian, Executive Director

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Melanie Sloan, Director

Citizen Outreach
Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy

Concerned Foreign Service Officers
Daniel Hirsch, Board Member

Fairfax County Privacy Council
Mike Stollenwerk, Director

Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association
Sandalio Gonzalez, Director

Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Tom Devine, Legal Director

National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation
Gail Dunham, President

Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation
Scott Pullins, Chairman & CEO

Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Danielle Brian, Executive Director

September 11th Advocates
Mindy Kleinberg, Director

Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition (VAWBC)
Dr. Jeffrey Fudin, President

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation (USBOR)
Dane Von Breichenruchardt, President

Privacy Activism
Linda Ackerman, Staff Counsel

The Multiracial Activists,
James Landrith, Founder

The New Grady Coalition
Ron Marshall, Director

Bubba's Backwater BBQ

Thanks to Eric Sundwall for his comment on my blog Obama and the Lunch Counter.

I agree with Sundwall that, unfortunately, our politics tend to be dualistic and polarized. Oppose specific "civil rights" measures, and one is a racist. Advocate civil rights, and you're a statist.

The limitation of reducing all analysis of any political matter to the question of "initiation of force" is that, at any given time, force is being initiated all over the place. Force was initiated against Africans who were enslaved and brought to America. Force was initiated by Jim Crow laws, reducing the descendants of slaves to second class citizens. Hundreds of years of this, and patterns emerge, and become part of the culture, in this case, for ill, IMO.

The segregated lunch counter is, in my view, a symbol AND A BY-PRODUCT of centuries of particularly heinous force initiation. This is exacerbated by the fact that African Americans look distinctly different than whites. So, while the Irish had to deal with "Irish need not apply," they stood a chance to -- and have -- assimilated. That has proven to be far more challenging for African Americans. The laws targeting them made their lot especially difficult.

In my view, one should be able to oppose specific actions -- busing, for example -- and not be pilloried as a racist. Looking back on it, my view is that it was largely a mistake, though one that is generally properly motivated. Affirmative action, too, was IMO a poor way to redress centuries of state force and violence.

Unfortunately, we don't have a wayback machine to right past wrongs, or to tweak the civil rights steps that were taken. As the wrongs were complex, insidious, and sometimes abstract, they were, nevertheless wrongs. That -- I suggest -- must be acknowledged.

The 'right" to practice of racism at, say, Bubba's Backwater BBQ (a made up name, I hope!), is not a particularly relevant question, I suggest. It's the bigger picture -- institutionalized racism -- that is where the important questions were.

Near as I can tell, Goldwater wasn't a "racist." But he may well have been in denial if he didn't offer constructive remedies to centuries of injustice.

-Robert Capozzi

Obama and the Lunch Counter

This weekend, Barack Obama evoked the pre-civil rights reality that in large parts of the US, some people were by law not allowed to sit at lunch counters with other people because of their skin color. This got me thinking...always a dangerous thing!

The orthodox libertarian view seems to be: It's OK to be racist, to exclude people from a business because of their skin color. That's completely a function of property rights in the Lockean tradition.

But, I wonder: Were Jim Crow laws and segregation that at all? The institutionalized, state-enforced segregation were -- as I see it -- GOVERNMENT policy. While there may be a case that a lone tavern owner having a whites-only policy might have a "right" to do that, does that not miss the forest for the trees? And was this not all an aftermath of slavery, and some states contention that it was the "right" to have slavery and, later, Jim Crow laws?

I doubt that the nation would have much cared about the lone racist tavern owner. But, when there are hundreds of tavern owners, backed up by all-white police, backed up by voting laws that excluded Blacks, is there not a larger problem here, beyond a narrow, methodological individualist analysis?

My answer is Yes. In retrospect, it seems quite reasonable to oppose some of the specific measures that were used to end state-sponsored segregation. Perhaps affirmative action, bussing, and some voting law changes made things worse, not better.

While I don't endorse Obama and would likely not vote for him, I applaud his reminder that, not that long ago, segregation was the law in many states. And let's all take a bow that we've come so far as a nation that Sen. Obama can be considered a serious contender for the office of the president. The color of his skin doesn't seem to exclude him from the job, which it well may have -- in effect -- perhaps as recently as 10 years ago.

-Robert Capozzi