You Libertarian Relativist, You

Jeffrey Rosen writes in The New Republic that Justice Scalia was concerned about the "relativism" which would occur after the Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. (h/t Ponnuru) Then Rosen says:

Watching the end of Spitzer's political career, however, I couldn't help feeling that Scalia had it entirely wrong. Despite the best efforts of some libertarians, the days of morals legislation are hardly over. Not only do the courts seem to be in no hurry to strike down these laws--the American public refuses to rush down the slippery slope that Scalia described.

One of these days, when I've finished everything else I have to do, I shall have to read Scalia's opinion. What I'm wondering right now is why we would look to the government to tell us -- through their laws -- what's right and wrong. I, for one, usually turn to other authorities when it comes to morality.

-MT

Is Taxation Voluntary?

Jan Helfeld interviews Senator Harry Reid about government coercion. Reid maintains that taxation is voluntary despite all evidence to the contrary.

Forget Iceland 1000 AD. How's About Switzerland Now?

Free Liberals might find John Fund's piece on Switzerland hopeful.

-RC

Mad Hatter Daze

Southwestern University School of Law professor Butler Shaffer offers some big-picture insight regarding the insane asylum's zeitgeist, circa 2008. Recommended.

The only quibble I can offer is that Shaffer seems to suggest that "collective insanity" is somehow a new thing. Of course, it's been with us a long, long time. There does, however, seem to be an ebb and flow to lunacy-as-conventional-wisdom, and even crests and crashes.

Hamlet told us that "Denmark's a prison," but -- hint, hint -- "Denmark" wasn't just Denmark.

MacBeth was more on point:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

The "idiots" keep telling us what to think whilst they strut and fret. At the end of the day, we can take a certain comfort knowing that it indeed does signify nothing. Nothing at all.

-RC

Vote for Freedom

in the Economist's online debate on whether the government is responsible for the housing crises. Paul Moore, senior Lecturer at the University of Ulser, attempts to defend government intervention in the economy while John Berlau, Director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, defends sound economics and freedom.

Also, be sure to check out John's piece on Eliot Spitzer's real crimes and how DC is giving even more power to the next generation of Spitzers.

Firefly is returning

Firefly, the best (and most libertarian) science-fiction show since The Prisoner is being resurrected as a special, three issue comic book, penned by none other than Joss Whedon, the mastermind behind the Firefly TV series and the show's cinematic follow-up Serenity.

Miss Bimbo isn't Shakespeare

Moral outrage of the week: Teenyboppers are playing virtual materialistic, body-obsessed bimbos at MissBimbo.com.

The site advertises a variety of fulfilling activities:

* Find your own cool place to live.
* Find a fun job to pay for your needs and all the clothes a Bimbo could possibly want.
* Shop for the latest fashions and become the trendsetting bimbo in town !
* Become a socialite and skyrocket to the top of fame and popularity.
* Date that famous hottie you've had your eye on and show the Bimbo world the social starlet you are !
* Even resort to meds or plastic surgery. Stop at nothing to become the reigning bimbo !
* Tackle your 104 tasks as quick as possible to become the rising star bimbo !!

Colleen McEdwards of CNN says, "it's vulgar." Apparently, several parents groups are also in a tizzy.

Meanwhile, according to Wired magazine's latest issue, Arden, an online Shakespearean world, has been a total dud. They are releasing a new version with fewer literary references and more killing.

/KDR

Taxing v. Killing Peasants

The notion of taxing carbon (or better still negative externalities) seems to be gaining traction among the thoughtful. Can't say I agree with all of the conclusions here, but here are some data points, FYI.

-RC

Free to be Fatty

Advocates of government control of our lives often find that they must first convince us that it is right and just that they should have such control. It is important to listen carefully to the arguments that they make, because they contain the deadly poison which kills liberty. On the matter of obesity, Tanya Wanchek wrote in the December 2007 issue of The Virginia News Letter:

Before addressing policy options it is worth considering whether government intervention is appropriate. The choice of what to eat and how much to exercise is usually considered a personal one. The personal choice view has influenced public policy. State government officials working with chronic disease have cited the difficulty in fighting perceptions that obesity is an individual choice as a major obstacle to the creation of effective policies. Advocates of personal choice and industry lobbyists have encouraged 24 states to pass laws limiting the ability of individuals to sue restaurants, manufacturers, and marketers for contributing to unhealthy eating.

So, individual choice and individual responsibility are hampering governmental efforts to slim down Virginia's fatties. The belief in personal choice is in the way.

Furthermore, personal choices are heavily influenced by cultural norms, lack of information, low education, or unhealthy physical and social environments. Focusing exclusively on personal choice also ignores some evidence that tastes evolved during prehistoric hunter-gatherer days may predispose us toward obesity in the modern era of relative caloric superabundance. These factors may bias people away from good choices.

Here we are offered a rationale for why people systematically make bad decisions about our eating. I agree that there are reasons individuals make poor choices. People might be healthier under a strict government regimen. But, what about liberty? The control of our own personal decisions about how to live is inestimable. And if the argument wins that we should cede all decisions we might make badly to the government planners, how much liberty disappears in one fell swoop?

A second line of attack for the fat police is claiming that individual decisions cause externalities upon the public. Wanchek writes:

The problem with viewing obesity purely as a personal choice rather than a public health issue is that obesity imposes large costs on society....In situations where individual choices have a cost to society, it is not uncommon
for governments to step in and influence those choices, as is the case with laws requiring motorcycle helmets, high “sin taxes” on cigarettes
and alcohol, and public health campaigns to discourage smoking.

To sum up the above; we are told that personal choices are opposed to good health, there is reason to believe that government can do better that individuals, and in fact that the personal choices are not personal after all, that they are akin to other matters we already regulate for the public good.

Try this line of reasoning instead:

1. Unhealthy living is only an externality in the context of a social welfare state, not if people are personally liable for their decisions (being a fatty is a personal happiness liability, as is paying for higher health premiums, etc.).
2. Personal choices are valuable even if we choose incorrectly.
3. There are plenty of methods for people to lose weight and be healthier if they so choose.

Hat Tip: Jim Turbett for the Virginia News Letter quote.

/KDR

US, Britian Ethnically Cleanse Diego Garcia

The British island territory of Diego Garcia, an island located in the Indian Ocean, recently got pushed into the headlines because it was used by the United States as a destination for "rendition" flights after 9/11. While this is controversial enough, the rendition story has focused attention on the way in which 2,000 native Diego Garcians were ethnically-cleansed by the British and Americans to make way for the US military base.

More of the story is available here. While the practice of rendition is deplorable, it is the subject of a separate posting. The fact is that the British High Court has ruled twice in 2003 and 2006 that the Diego Garcians have a right of return from their forced exile to the British colony of Mauritius and yet they remain ethnically-cleansed and absent a homeland.

Ethnic cleansing seems like a bad idea when others do it, but when Uncle Sam decides to take your land, nothing will stand in his way.

Paying for It

Everybody loves to hate a sanctimonious hypocrite. Enter, stage left, Eliot Spitzer. Like Jimmy Swaggart in a different arena, Spitzer built his reputation as a "tough" -- I'd say "overzealous" -- prosecutor. Some would say a power-drunk prosecutor, whose prosecution's became all about Eliot and his manly will. He gave new meaning to prosecutorial sword fighting.

Whatever Sir Spitzer was working out when he was a prosecutor, he is now acting out the truism: What goes around, comes around. Tragically, his family is caught in the crossfire.

Yes, of course, prostitution and playing the John should not be a crime. It's merely a capitalist act among consenting adults.

That's the thing with hypocrites: They never know when and how the bad-karma boomerang's going to hit them upside the head.

Try as we might to look away from this roadside wreck, it's hard, isn't it? On some level, something deep inside of us recognizes the hypocrite in us. We hate it. Yet, we look.

So, the only appropriate response is compassion. Yes, Governor Spitzer should sort this one out in private as a private citizen. Casting stones at him will not allay our own guilt.

But you knew that.

-RC

Obama: The Best Antiwar Option Left

I remain part of the Ron Paul revolution. That said, of the three candidates left, I think Obama is the least evil. Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com expressed that sentiment in a new article.

Why should Free Liberals choose Obama? First and foremost, unlike Hillary he opposed the Iraq War from the outset and at least represents a somewhat different perspective on foreign policy that is not so doctrinaire and beholden to the War Party. Also, his health care proposal is not quite as repressive as Clinton's. Lastly, even though many of his supporters may be ignorant of the matter, Obama does have a major legislative accomplishment to his name (pro-freedom transparency legislation that he co-sponsored with Sen. Coburn). What has Hillary done?

Will the establishment strangle Obama's candidacy as it did Dean's candidacy 4 years ago? Only time will tell. But in my opinion, Obama is the best choice of Free Liberals at this point. That said, if former Congressman Bob Barr jumps into the race, his candidacy would be catnip to Ron Paul revolutionaries.

Not So Fast

Just when it looked like the race for the White House looked like McCain v. Obama, Hillary Clinton surges back in the last round of primaries, making the D outcome murky. Like Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction, this race refuses to die.

Yet, the D race generates much heat and no light. Instead, they position themselves over the tiniest of differences, mostly vague notions of style and years of experience. The differences have already been established, with Obama being slightly more anti-war and Clinton being more willing to use government force. Obama's health plan was oh so slightly less coercive, yet Clinton tries to paint this as a weakness!

As Micah Tillman notes, some conservatives like that Obama v. Clinton continues into extra innings. Yes, McCain can lay low for months, which in his case is probably a good thing. The counter is that if Obama and Clinton continue to generate all the coverage, they could transform that into strength, come November. This is especially so if they can heal this rift between them. Offering the other the VP is the easy answer.

Paraphrasing Shakespeare, this brief candle continues to burn to its base. But the D candidate will get a new candle when nominated. McCain's second candle has already started to burn, and few are drawn to the light, and even fewer enthusiastically so. He never found his base. Clinton and Obama have.

Oh, yes, then there's the little matter of the D's FL and MI delegates. Again paraphrasing Shakespeare, we can't kill all the lawyers just yet. Solving what to do with those two high-population states's delegates should prove to be high drama. Odds are high, however, that it will signify nothing.

-RC

Do Muslims Really Hate Us?

Ever since 9/11, Americans have been highly suspicious of Muslims. While there a certain amount of healthy skepticism of a religion that many believe to be at the root of much of the unrest in today's world may be warranted, a new survey from Gallup sheds some light on what Muslims really think. The truth is, the vast majority of them have positive feelings about America.

Among the study's findings:

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical;
Only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001;

In only a few countries did a majority say that Sharia should have no role in society; yet in most countries, only a minority want Sharia as "the only source" of law. In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, majorities want Sharia as the "only source" of legislation;

Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation;

Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran;

Perhaps most important is the fact that radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks of 9/11. This is an indicator that it is our actions and our government's policies, not our culture that offends radical Muslims. Perhaps our leaders should take a close look at this survey?

Happy Birthday Paul Jacob!

Our friend Paul Jacob is celebrating his birthday today. Sadly, Paul is being prosecuted (and threatened with prison time) by the state of Oklahoma for challenging the status quo politics.

Read about Paul's fight at:

http://www.freepauljacob.com

/KDR

Change in DC without "Debaathification?"

Re: Kevin's post below in which he quotes an FT piece on whether Obama's stance on free trade won't end up hurting the very international relations he's supposed to repair --

Evidently it's been reported that "Obama's senior economic policy adviser" told the Canadians that Obama's free trade talk was just posturing. (Hat tip: York)

If it's true, that sounds a lot like "politics-as-usual" to me.

And it reminds me that David Axelrod, by no means a new name in Washington politics, is Obama's campaign manager.

Not that I have anything against Axelrod (he's got a cool name), but wouldn't you need to "debaathify" DC (or at least your own campaign/administration) to really have the change Obama says he represents? Or is George Bush the only politician who's tone/policies/tactics are determined by his "architects" and "advisers" and "operatives" and "vice" presidents?

-MDT

09: Cause for Optimism?

Normally, the prospect of a President McCain or President Obama might be depressing for a Free Liberal.

McCain gets points for a pretty good fiscal track record. Bonus points for his take on torture, and probably demerits for McCain-Feingold, despite some fairly positive motivation. But we are looking at a man who seems devoted first and foremost to fighting "them" over there and apparently in perpetuity.

On balance, a fairly grim prospect, with the wild card that this is a man who would appear deeply wounded by his time as a prisoner of war. Still, the Ds are likely to hold Congress by comfortable margins, so McCain is likely to be checked-and-balanced by them. Yes, he may well participate in logrolling – perhaps war with Iran for socialized medicine – but we can at least hope that such neat "deals" won't come to the fore.

And, McCain will not be saddled with rationalizing the Bush Administration's policies. The slate won't be clean by any means, but at least he has the option to disown a series of anti-civil-liberties initiatives by Team W.

I'm persuaded that President Obama would take office with the intention of withdrawing from Iraq. That's a big plus in my book. Odds are high that it will take longer than I'd prefer, but then I don't pretend to be expert in such tactical questions. On the major issue of the day, I'm pulling for Obama to follow through on this move in the direction of more liberty.

Obama is the most rhetorically transpartisan politician in my memory, perhaps ever. He does not seem to ascribe to us-and-them thinking, perhaps because he really believes (perhaps vaguely) that them is us and us is them. A good sign, from where I sit.

Sure, his lean is for more government and less liberty domestically, but here we need a bit of faith in the remaining Rs in the Senate. Perhaps these senators will reacquaint themselves with their backbones. It's a theory.

Undoing the damage that W has wrought won't be easy and probably will be incomplete. Politics is like watching football before the invention of the forward pass – progress and setbacks happen at a glacial pace.

Chicken Little might be right, but the case is strong that the sky will be in place in 2012.

-RC