Must Catholics witness to Life?

As we prepared to execute the DC Sniper (which is a misnomer, since only one of the murders actually happened within the District), a debate about capital punishment and the Culture of Life. I addressed the issue of the sniper in my essay published Monday in the Examiner, so I will now address the larger question.

The question is this, must one always avoid taking the life of another if that other poses a mortal threat. This question touches on many moral questions, from whether an ectopic pregnancy may be actively aborted, to whether preventative sterilization may be used (either by surgery or chemical birth control) when the pregnancy will lead to either danger to the woman or economic danger for the family, to whether one may execute a criminal who presents a mortal danger to other inmates or to himself, to whether war is ever just, to whether one may shoot an armed assailant who is posing an immediate danger to a schoolyard full of children. Add to this the question of whether one may use deadly force to repel an assassination or attempted coup (especially if doing so could lead to a murderous tyranny) and the similar question of whether people can arm themselves to defend their own lives (or their property) or have armed agents to do so. Even the arming of the Swiss Guard which protects the Pope raises the identical question.

It seems that in most, if not all of these cases, the Pro-Life office in the United States and in the Vatican is consistently coming up with no as an answer, although it has not yet taken the step of disarming the Swiss Guard, which is telling.

How this question is answered depends upon both the ground rules one sets. If you use the witness of scripture and the early Church, clearly it is better not to resist. This does not end the argument, however. Under pure (meaning non-theistic) natural law reasoning, one need not insist on resistance, indeed, in some occasions one must use deadly force to protect innocent life.

One may martyr one’s self as a free and faith filled choice. One does not have the right to make this choice for others, whether one is in a pluralistic society or even an entirely Catholic one. Martyrdom is an individual decision. It cannot morally be imposed upon another. Catholic hospitals treat non-Catholics. The logic of my argument is that, if an abortion or sterilization is necessary to prevent physical harm to the mother, this cannot be imposed. While we can encourage the mother to witness to life, we cannot demand that she do so or rig the game so such witness is her only choice (regardless of whether she is Catholic or not).

We certainly cannot require such witness to be mandated by law. This is the worst type of coercion, yet tragically it seems that some in the Church are seeking just that. Those voices do not speak for me or the vast majority of Catholics. While they may validly encourage individual witness and seek a society where such witness is no longer necessary, they cannot make the enactment of what would be a moral tyranny part of the Church’s political agenda. This is not because of relativism or to become popular in society, but because mandating the witness of another is an inherently evil act. This is why many are comparing some in the Church (and the Evangelical right), quite justly, to the Taliban.

The Founders' Individualism

Tim Peck at the Asheville Tea Party calls Americans to put the individual "back in the driver's seat" and reclaim the ideals of the founding fathers. /KDR

"Uncivil Obedience, Disobedience, and Civil Initiative"

This quotation is the title of an essay in Jim Corbett’s book Goatwalking, in which he compares the political theory of Thomas Hobbes and Henry David Thoreau to the philosophy and practice of civil initiative that he developed over a decade of human rights struggle. I’ve just written a short article about civil initiative over on the Opus journal, and I wanted to mention it here because Corbett’s thinking seems distinctly free liberal.

To illustrate, take my grossly oversimplified summaries of Hobbes, Thoreau, and Corbett:

• Hobbes: Human life without states is nasty, brutish, and short. If we concede to protection by the Leviathan, we are it’s subjects, and must obey its commands. It’s kind of like Cthulhu. Sorry, but that’s the social contract. If you want to renegotiate, your only recourse is revolution.
• Thoreau: The individual’s sole duty is to conscience, not government commands. States are too often the agents of injustice, and their laws are an obstacle to justice. Questions of right can’t be resolved by democratic legislation, but only by conscientious individuals, who must choose between respect for law and respect for right. When conscience conflicts with law, your options are conscientious disengagement or revolutionary disobedience.
• Corbett: The common law is formed not by states, but by communities through the exercise of natural rights. Sometimes one must choose between obeying the law and obeying the government—not because the law is an obstacle to justice, but because the government is shattering the legal order by violating human rights. When communities must violate government statutes to protect human rights, their actions must be germane to victims needs and accountable to legal order.

For Hobbes, the fulcrum of social change and civil order is the benign, legitimate sovereign. Thoreau’s fulcrum is the individual conscience. For Corbett, liberty and community are interdependent primaries: masterless communities form the basis for accountability to legal order, which is defined by the protection of natural rights. Naturally ornery, I find Thoreau’s individualism appealing, but I agree with Corbett that only a community can integrate, outreach, and outlast individual acts of conscience.

What kinds of activism have you been involved in?

Different kinds of activism divulge their constituting principles. Lobbying recognizes the sovereignty of states in making law. Conscientious disengagement and revolutionary disobedience repudiate human law in favor of individual conscience. Civil initiative refuses either to forfeit legal order or to plead guilty for resisting government statutes that violate human rights.

I’d like to hear your thoughts and experiences. I welcome you to read about civil initiative, and leave your questions and comments.

John Stephens is a Quaker, artist, teacher, and designer in Virginia. You can find him at Design Opus where he works on media for social entrepreneurship and community peacebuilding.

Search Me?

CNN passes on a local story about two San Francisco 49 fans who are suing the NFL over pat down searches prior to entering the ball park. The NFL maintains that no one is forced to go to a Niners game (given there record of late, I would not be so sure), so that any requirement is legal. The season ticket holders disagree, claiming the searches are an unreasonable invasion. Note that the pat downs are conducted privately, which makes you wonder if it is the war on terror or the war on Jack Daniels and do it yourself concessions that is the real enemy.

Interesting dichotomy - a libertarian individual right vs. a libertarian commercial right.

I think the answer depends on who owns the stadium. If the event is being held at a public venue, then the NFL has no business searching citizens, since they are using the space at the sufferance of the community (especially the way they play). The community should put its foot down and direct its elected leaders to stop the searches. If the team paid for the stadium - and without the usual corporate welfare associated with such ventures - it can dictate terms, otherwise it must be made to respect the rights of the masses to smuggle in Evian,

First Black President Fights to Bring Back Slavery?

*See Update below...

From Change.gov(Screenshot of Google Webarchive), the official site of the Obama-Biden transition:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

Forced volunteerism? The prison schools will now become forced labor camps.

Yay! Change!

*** UPDATE - 11/08/08 *** (h/t John Stephens)

The Change.gov page has been updated to read:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

This is better.

/KDR

George Stephanopoulis on Racism

This Jan Helfeld interview raises the question of how we define racism. Is racism the practice of using race (as a factor or the only factor) to determine a person's worthiness for inclusion in a group or does it require something more? A friend of mine claims that racism can only flow from people with power (the privileged group) to the oppressed group. So, in my friend's formulation, white people in American can be racist, but black people cannot. What do you think?

/KDR

More Jan Helfeld videos here.

Sex, Birth Control and Gay Marriage

The 40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae has brought in its share of apologia, among them Russell Shaw's piece in the Arlington Catholic Herald. There are two main themes that most cite. One is the equation of blastocysts with fetuses and the implication that stem cell research and birth control constitute an act of murder. The other is the usual handwringing about the separation of the generative and unitive purposes of sex when artificial birth control is used.

Both are problematic.

Scientifically and morally, there is evidence to show that Paul VI and John Paul II were just plain wrong. Until gastrulation, which occurs after implantation, twinning can occur (a moral objection to the gestationalists) and hybrids continue to develop (proving that a blastocyst may not actually be a human in some cases if bestiality was involved in the conception). 40 years ago, the Pope's scientific and theological advisors told him as much and were disregarded. In ethics class, this is called vincible ignorance and does not excuse the evil it causes.

Married Catholics also provided advice to the Pope on this issue and were also ignored, as they supported artificial birth control. As a married Catholic myself, the idea of taking advice about sex from confirmed celebates strikes me as a bit odd. As one who is approaching middle age and whose wife is approaching menopause, I find the assertion that sex without the possibility of procreation to be less than worthy to be personally insulting. The argument ad aburdo arising from this position is that I should divorce my wife and find a twenty year old for more procreation. That may work in some fundamentalist Mormon sects, but it is hardly Catholic.

The increase in sexual permissiveness since Humanae Vitae, which Shaw notes, has nothing to do with Humanae Vitae, since the encyclical was directed at married Catholics, not singles or gays and lesbians. Some of it comes from the liberalization of divorce laws, which left a lot of formerly marrieds in search of casual sex. Casual sex among the young has more to do with their increased economic power and the rise in collegiate and coeducational education than any teaching about married sexuality. Gay liberation has nothing to do with separating marital sex from creation. There has not been any increase in the incidence of homosexuality. What has increased is the tolerance of it and this is a good thing. Studies show that even young conservatives are more sexually tolerant than their traditionalist parents, which is why the hierarchy is so afraid. Their prejudices are going to die off when they do.

A separate piece that I read recently and cannot seem to locate made the outlandish assumption that gay marriage is wrong because it cannot reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church, which is also compared to the marriage covenant. This argument is almost circular, as originally the comparison between Jesus and the Church with marriage was used as a teaching tool. Comparing marriage back again is to turn the entire exercise into a tautology. There is also a problem with considering marriage in this way, since it clearly puts the female in a subordinate position.

Wives are no longer considered the property of their husbands, so the analogy breaks down - as it should anyway. In the Last Discourse, which was written after the Pauline Epistles, Jesus states that he no longer considers the Apostles (and the Church) as servants but as friends and brothers. This is an entirely different covenant than the marriage covenant described by Paul or by pseudo-Paul in Ephesians and Collosians.

Gay marriage is headed toward legal and constitutional acceptance in the not too distant future and the unraveling of the Republican Party will prevent any constitutional amendment in reaction to an almost certain overturning of gay marriage bans under equal protection grounds.

This will be a hollow victory, however. True acceptance of gays will only come when the Church doors are opened to them for marriage. The condemnations of homosexuality found in Scriptures did not consider such relationships, as most homosexual men had wives as property as well, or practiced pederastry, which is detestable even among liberals (when Jesus taught about corrupting children and the preference for being thrown in the sea with a milstone around one's neck, this is what he was referring to). When Paul wrote his letters, he fully expected that the preaching of the gospel to the known world would result in the imminent return of Christ. We're still waiting. We now know more about human sexuality, including the formation of sexual preference and its innate nature. Very few are "turned gay" if any (although some may be initiated into cycles of pederastry, which is different). With this in mind, the kind of moral ideal Paul recommends would be served rather than harmed by the celebration of Gay Weddings. Doing so allows the preaching of that sexual ideal, rather than presuming that gays and lesbians are naturally promiscuous. We can't share that message, however, until we abandon the notion that homosexuality is somehow disordered. How are gays to trust us with the words of Eternal Life if we do not trust them when they tell us that they did not choose their homosexuality?

Finally, there is the key teaching about marriage itself. Marriages are made by the parties involved. The Priest is merely a witness for the community. God blesses all marriages entered into in a sacramental spirit, whether witnessed or not. The fruits of this have been demonstrated by gay couples modeling the love of Christ in care for their partners suffering with AIDS and other maladies. To deny this is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit, which according to Luke was said to be sin which is not forgiven.

Mark Twain: An Original Free Liberal

In case you haven't seen it, Time Magazine recently published a magazine with Mark Twain on the cover (read article here). Calling him "Our Original Superstar," the article does a reasonable job of outlining Twain's politics and how he might have viewed some current events.

Having read many of Twain's stories and articles each of which contain eloquent social commentary and criticism of corrupt politicians and the hypocrisy of the establishment, there is no doubt that Twain remains one of the most entertaining and timeless writers in American history. Articles like his powerful "The War Prayer," show me that Twain had the makings of a Free Liberal.

Tabarrok on Living Under Authoritarian Regimes

From Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution:

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime. I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had rifled through my baggage.

The best authority money can buy, eh?

/KDR

Obama is Right on Leviticus

If you haven't been paying attention (and I don't blame you if you haven't), there has been an ongoing controversy between James Dobson and Barack Obama over whether the Bible endorses slavery and prohibits shellfish. While I don't support everything this short video has to say, it does quote directly from the passage in Leviticus that endorses slavery and proscribes rules for buying and selling slaves. There has been a lot of discussion elsewhere about whether or not the Bible actually endorses slavery. I think the answer is "yes."

Making public policy based on the Bible or any religious document is a dangerous business.

Dancing and the Law

Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction. Sure, you probably remember the movie Footloose where a bunch of small-town kids got in trouble with the law for dancing. But recently, it seems that dancing is running afoul of the law on a regular basis.

Take this case from Detroit when heavily armed cops dressed in commando-style uniforms broke up a dance party being held by a nonprofit that, for 29 years, has promoted art and art education in Detroit. Certainly, dancing without a permit doesn't rise to a criminal offense and certainly not one necessitating such a harsh police response.

Then, there is the case of the "DC One" which resulted in a person being arrested by the Park Police for silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial.

Lastly (at least of the cases I'm aware of), there is the San Tan Flat bar in Arizona that had to take the County to court in order to allow dancing on the premises.

You would think that with Bin Laden still on the run and crime rates rising in many cities that police would have something better to do than to go after people for dancing. Then again, dancers are a lot less dangerous for the cops than real criminals...and certain kinds of dancers can even be fun to arrest.

Frank Talk About Irony

Bridging on Paul Gessing's take on Thomas Frank's WSJ piece, "The Tragic Irony of Beltway Libertarianism," I have a different perspective. I've done the Beltway libertarian thing, and the corporate thing, too.

For those who've never worked in Corporate America, an idealistic libertarian may think that they work all day with the "profit motive" front and center. It's false. Rather, depending on what one's function is within the corporation, one generally is in engaged in developing, selling or marketing products that customers hopefully want, and will buy at a specific price. Or one is involved in monitoring and controlling costs. Very few functions involved the big picture: generating long term shareholder value. CEOs and CFOs do that. Pretty much everyone else is a cog.

Those who work for the Washington offices of corporations are generally engaged in the small picture. They plead with official DC to expand their revenue potential (generally trade specialists) or cut their corporation's costs (deregulation, labor laws, etc.) Like all corporate work, it is highly specialized, non-heroic work. But it can get reasonably well paid if one learns the craft well. These are well paid cogs, doing their part in a fluid market.

This passage in Frank's piece caught my eye:

That was reality. the idea that "there's something special about nonprofits," scoffed one forthright fellow – "well, that's crap. Nonprofits are an artifice of the law, and what's special about them is not that they do different things or that they are organized in a special way, it's that they don't pay taxes."

Of course, working for a non-profit can also involve selling out. If your non-profit takes a position that you don't agree with, you have a choice: be a team player, go along, and sell out, or quit.

Ah, life. My only suggestion is do what you think is right, which helps yourself and with any luck humanity, and be prepared to deal with whatever the future throws at you. Don't expect everything to go your way...ain't gonna happen, no matter what path you take.

-RC

Beltway Libertarians a Sad Tale

I am a recovering "Beltway Libertarian." I now run a free market think tank in Albuquerque, NM. Thomas Frank, writing on the Wall Street Journal's website today writes of the "tragic" nature of Beltway Libertarianism. In essence, Frank argues that libertarians are inherently hamstrung by working for a non-profit in Washington, DC, an expensive to work in and the fact that in order to live and work in the city, these Beltway Libertarians need to "sell-out" and work for a for-profit company.

There is some truth to what Frank says, but I think the problem is not the fact that, libertarians, people who strongly believe in the profit motive, are forced to ply their trade in the non-profit world, rather it is that once libertarians do move into the private sector, they are forced to work for companies that often have their hands out for government favors. Trust me, I looked for corporate jobs in the DC-area and was frustrated that even many of the "good" companies to work for as a lobbyist were frequently on the side of bigger government at other times.

That is one big reason I left for New Mexico. The other is that there is so much more going on in the states. Washington is a frustrating place to work for anyone who believes in limited government and, while groups like Cato and my former employer, NTU do a lot of good, any victory won by these groups is hard to quantify among the thousands of special-interests in Washington.

So, my advice to Beltway Libertarians is this: "Get out of DC and come work in the states. Whether you get directly involved in policy or not, getting out of Washington is the first step to having a more rational, grounded outlook."

Undercutting Collectivist Thinking, One Award at a Time

FYI:

Michael Hirsh's “How the South Won (This) Civil War” was given the inaugural "WEeding Award" today, for its misuse of the first-person plural.

Since the misuse of words like "we" (as when one speaks in the first-person of some action in which one actually had no hand) supports a distorted sense of group identity -- including the reification of The Group as something over and above the individuals which comprise it, and the portrayal of The Group as something to which individuals must bow -- it is time that such mistakes be "weeded out."

The WEeding Awards will, in a light-hearted way, bring awareness to this critical issue. It's time to stop speaking "Collectivist."

For the inaugural announcement, and to find out "How the South Won (This) Civil War"'s WEediness Quotient, visit my personal blog.

And if you find any articles that need WEeding, just send 'em my way.

-MT

Is Your Doctor/Lawyer/Accountant Endangering Your Privacy?

Liberty Coalition's Aaron Titus on ABC 7 News:

Politicians Live by One Set of Rules, We Live by Another

I just love how politicians get to make their own rules. The latest case of this comes from Minnesota where bars that typically must close at 2am may be allowed to stay open until 4am to accomodate all those drunken Republicans. So, if you are a regular Joe who wants a drink at 2:30am in Minneapolis, you're out of luck, but if you happen to be in town for the Republican Party Convention, hey, no problem! Nothing like re-writing the rules to suit your own purposes. Maybe they'll legalize prostitution and marijuana for the week as well?

The kicker is that for the privilege of serving those GOP-ers, bars will have to pay a $2,500 fee, ostensibly for the extra police. Am I mistaken in believing that tourism and these conventions are big money-makers for cities. I'd think that would especially be the case if the convention-goers are out drinking and spending money. Sounds like another tax to me.

Early Retirement = Unpatriotic?

Andrew L. Yarrow of the Baltimore Sun argued recently that Americans who retire early from the work force are both "selfish and unpatriotic."

Why is that? For starters, Yarrow argues, people who retire at 55, 62 or even 65 have many good, productive years of work yet and those people should be contributing to the nation's economy and paying taxes. He goes on to make a few somewhat more valid points about our overburdened Social Security and Medicare systems and even discusses some incentives that could get older people to work longer.

While Yarrow makes some valid arguments about the problems with Social Security and Medicare, these are not really the fault of people who retire early. These programs are flawed in their very design and, if policymakers wish to alter their incentives, they must change them. The only way in which these people are being "greedy" is if they vote for and support policies that preserve the broken Social Security and Medicare programs rather than supporting market-based reforms that will benefit their children and grandchildren. Yarrow doesn't even touch on real reforms to either of these programs.

Ultimately, Yarrow's mistake is in approaching the entire issue from the collectivist perspective. In other words, he believes that Americans must work harder to strengthen the nation and preserve these government programs. He should be encouraging policymakers to find ways to alter these programs in ways that allow individuals to make the decisions that are best for themselves, without unfairly burdening others. That is the best way to ensure America's future strength and make sure that Americans live long, productive, and fulfilled lives.

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.

Lost

TFL publisher and founder Kevin Rollins recommended the TV show LOST to me a year or two ago. I’m not much for network programming, but I thought I’d give it a whirl. It’s easy enough to get on Netflix.

The show’s fantastic. For TFL readers, you’ll find the bonus is that many of the characters are named after philosophers and thinkers. Names like: John Locke, Edmund Burke, Rousseau, Hawking, Bakunin, and Hume are peppered throughout the show, to our delight. In Season 3, Sawyer – clearly the most selfish character in the ensemble – is intently reading Ayn Rand’s THE FOUNTAINHEAD on the beach.

Although the show has a nighttime soap structure, viewers will find a number of thought-provoking themes presented.

And, of course, LOST introduced the world to Evangeline Lilly.

-RC

Libertarianism at Watership Down

See this hysterical video of Libertarian Party chairman Bill Redpath being interviewed by talking rabbits.

My favorite rabbit line: “Libertarians are for hookers, duly noted.”

And more seriously...Too bad Redpath didn't use the opportunity to point out how living in rabbit socialism (no worries about food) is correlated with the ability of the state to kill any rabbit at will.

For those of you who haven't read Watership Down (you should!), there is a powerful tale of the rabbit warren which becomes beholden to a local farmer who keeps them semi-wild, but tends and harvests them like any other crop. The cultural and psychological bentness (edging on nihilism) which develops among these "moochers" is frightening and should serve as a warning to all who ask for a free lunch.

/KDR

McCain Should Have Been at Woodstock

I love this article because it shows one of the very tangible ways in which true libertarians and lefties share values in common that national greatness conservatives will never understand. Sometimes, being a nihilist or counter-culturalist is both more moral and more enjoyable than doing what society says we should be doing.

Libertarian Paternalism?

In a recent article, Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger whom I respect a great deal, argued that a wide variety of reforms offered by libertarian and conservative think tanks and policy organizations represent nothing more than "libertarian paternalism."

Reform efforts he attacks in his article include school vouchers, Social Security, and health care. What it all boils down to is that Hornberger is not an incrementalist and, he argues, those who are incrementalist shouldn't label these reforms "libertarian." That's fine as far as it goes, but I think Hornberger oversteps in calling these reforms "libertarian paternalism."

Some libertarians, like Hornberger, believe that any and all government intrusions are unacceptable and the only solution is to dismantle them immediately and completely. Government-run schooling, federally-managed transfer systems, and welfare are three biggies. I can see why Hornberger doesn't want incremental reforms labeled "libertarian" because they're not necessarily, but that doesn't make these reforms any less important or valid.

School vouchers may not be the best public school reform, but Hornberger had nothing but praise for Dr. Milton Friedman upon his passing...well, who came up with vouchers besides Friedman?

Social Security and health care reform follow the same basic lines. The ideas being proposed by Cato and others are not designed to completely eliminate government programs, but to maximize individual freedom and personal control. That's not a bad idea in a political environment in which political leaders and even the public are hostile to even modest reform, not to mention the radical reforms Hornberger prefers.

Do we serve the state or does the state serve us?

Before I was even a libertarian I understood that the state was a creation of man and, at least in theory, it should benefit us. Since the concept of "state" is an abstraction, the idea of serving it seemed downright silly.

That is why I always felt John F. Kennedy's famous quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country," was a bit ridiculous. Why exactly should I be serving this nameless, faceless, unfeeling entity called the state? Sure, it may benefit politicians if I were to do so because they ultimately control the state, but do I really need to go out of the way to pitch in?

Sheldon Richman expounds on that theme far more thoroughly in response to the latest calls by the political elite for "national service." Of course, like the ridiculous Americorps program, it would be the involuntary payments of taxpayers who would foot the bill for these "volunteer efforts."

The Love of Power vs. Power of Love

You can always count on Larry Reed of the Mackinac Center to put libertarian ideas into the simplest, most people-friendly terms. This column does not disappoint.

As Reed explains:

When real love is the motivator, people deal with each other peacefully. We use force only in self-defense. We respect one another's rights and differences. Tolerance and cooperation govern our interactions.

Simply put, allowing others to live their own lives is far more loving than is forcing them to behave you wish them to even if it is theoretically for their own good. That is an uncommon sentiment in today's world.

Hey Hillary (and the rest of the nicotine Nazis)

before you launch another attack on smoking talk to Winnie Langley, who just turned 100 years old and celebrated by smoking her 170,000TH cigarette. Mrs. Langley, who began smoking at the age of seven shortly after World War I broke out, says tobacco never made her ill. Mrs. Langley also points out that many people smoked during the World Wars because smoking "...helped steady the nerves."

A bad argument for ending prohibition

is that the state can profit by taxing it. A group in California, calling itself Let us pay taxes, is petitioning the Govenator to support legalizing marijuana so they can help reduce California's budget deficit by getting high and paying taxes. People begging to be taxed, what are they...oh never mind.

Hit tip: Nick Gillespie Here's Walter Block on the folly of auguring for an end to drug prohibition to enrich the state.

Another great Libertarian song

Long Haired Country Boy by the Charlie Daniels Band:

"Cus I ain't asking nobody for nothing,
it I can't get it on my own,
if you don't like the way I'm living,
you just leave this Long Haired Country Boy alone."

Latest Bush Concept: Loyalty Day!

Leave it up to the Bush Administration which has done more to overstep the Constitution and drive average Americans to a deep and abiding suspicion of government than any in memory (even Nixon) to come up with a concept like "Loyalty Day."

Setting aside the specifics of such a day, I find it quite appropriate that the day we are to have expressed our loyalty to the state is May 1 or Mayday in the rest of the world is the most important day of the year for socialists and a day that for decades was a favorite of the Soviet Union. Stalin would have loved "Loyalty Day."

Hopefully future "Loyalty Days" will not have to be celebrated with any loyalty oaths or salutes.

Workers of the world unite and smash the state!

Sheldon Richman points out how workers, as well as employers, are harmed by federal labor laws. Among other things, federal laws limit the right of workers to withhold their labor (strike) and actually limits an individual worker's ability to chose the type of representation that best suits his individual needs and preferences.

Richman speculates that the Wager Act, which forces employers to cede control of their workforce to union bosses, was a Bismarkan attempt to deflate radial labor movements, such as syndicalism, by offering unions willing to play ball with the government a role in managing the corporate state. The Wagner Act also give big businesses another set of laws that disadvantage their smaller competitors who can not as easily afford the costs associated with compulsory unionism.

The Wagner Act was one of the most egregious assaults on private property and contract in American history, and the way the system of forced unionism harms workers offers us more proof that the state is the true enemy of the working class.

Reps. Rangel and Flake agree???

I can't think of many issues on which left-wing Charlie Rangel and conservative/libertarian Jeff Flake agree, but that the United States should engage with Cuba, especially in the post-Fidel era, is one.

Not only are the embargo and travel ban bad for the economy, but they hurt our freedom and make it more, not less likely that the communists will retain their grip on power in Cuba. I've pretty much given up on Bush, but might a President Richardson engage?

-- Paul J. Gessing

Libertarian horror

Make sure you catch The Host, a great South Korean monster film. Not only is this a really fun monster movie, it is also anti-state and anti-imperialist. The "host" of the title is a monster created when a thoughtless representative of the US military orders his Korean assistant to dump a bunch of chemicals into a river. Most of the film concerns the efforts of a family to rescue their daughter from the monster. The families' efforts are continuously frustrated by government officials who refuse to listen to anyone not connected with the state. Without exception, every government agent in the film expects all civilians to mindless obey the government's orders, questioning the state's edits in any way is treated as evidence of either criminal intent or mental illness. Periodic news bulletins reveal the Korean government is more concerned with pleasing their immperial masters in the US government than protecting the people--if Chalmers Johnson made a monster movie, he would make The Host.

Catch it on the big screen if you can, rent it on DVD if you must, but see this film. It may be the most fun libertarians will have at the movies this year!

New Mexico Property Owners Finally Protecte

Having vetoed eminent domain protections for New Mexico property owners last year, it was anyone's guess what would happen regarding the need to protect property owners from Kelo-style abuse this year.

Despite a rocky road to success, Governor Richardson has signed legislation providing protections for New Mexico property owners.

Considering the importance of the issue and the controversy that ensued after Richardson the last year (not to mention the fact that he is running for President, it is hard to believe the Governor is not making more hay out of his successful effort to pass protections for property owners. He didn't even send out a press release.

No matter what, it is a good day for private property in New Mexico.

Text of the legislation can be found here.

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....

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.

Dixie Chicks Among Esteemed Outlaws

I've never been a die hard fan of "The Chicks," but I grew to respect them after they spoke their minds about Bush and -- instead of apologizing and groveling -- stood by their opinions and took the subsequent hit with their fans. According to this interesting article "The Chicks" are actually part of a long tradition of open-minded or even "progressive" country performers.

I loved "Walk the Line" and had no idea Johnny Cash sang antiwar songs and I had no clue at all that Willie Nelson sang about gay cowboys...Kudos to the Dixie Chicks and others who are willing to put their careers on the line by bucking popular opinion.

How to Disable RFID Chips in Your New Passport

The thing about new technologies and new government programs is that as soon as some bureaucrat comes up with a new way to limit our freedoms, thousands of smarter and more innovative people -- the kind that would never want to work for government -- start thinking of ways around it. In the case of the government's new RFID chip-implanted passports, the solution is blunt force rather than brilliant thought. Good to know nonetheless.

Muhammad Ali's Mixed Legacy

I've always had a mixed view of Muhammad Ali's legacy, but a recently-released video by ESPN called "Ali Rap" has renewed interest in the fighter who has never strayed far from the spotlight by arguing that Ali's rhetorical skills had a hand in the invention of rap.

I have always respected Ali's opposition to the Vietnam War, but as this article points out Ali was at times a racist, anti-Christian, anti-intermarriage of the races, and knee-jerk anti-American. There is no debate that Ali still looms large nearly 30 years after his retirement. As someone who is too young to remember him in his fighting days, perspectives that are at odds with the media's fawning is quite relevant.

Pro-peace, Pro-slavery?

Thanks to Wally Conger,in his post on Selective Service's test of their ability to administer a draft, for this great quote from Jerome Tuccille's 1970 book Radical Libertarianism:

“The military draft must be regarded as the most brutal and unjust government institution in existence today. For here it is not a question of men’s pocketbooks and property being plundered by government; life itself — existence, the most valuable gift man possesses, without which all other freedoms are impossible — is under direct attack. Libertarians should align themselves with draft resisters throughout the country. They should set up picket lines around the draft boards; lend encouragement and moral and physical support to all young men who decide not to be inducted.”

I second Conger's call for friends of liberty to began organizing now against a return of the draft. A good place to start is by supporting the heroic work of the Center on Conscience and War.

Sadly, some in the anti-war community, including some libertarians, have joined the calls to return a draft on the grounds like that our politicians are less likely to engage in war-making if their children are likely to be sent to the front lines. There are serveral flaws in this argument.

First, conscription does not stop the warfare state. The draft did not stop Wilson from involving the US in World War I, Roosevelt from maneuvering to get the US involved in World War II, Truman from intervening in Korea, and LBJ from intervening in Vietnam. In fact, by lowering the cost of raising an army, a draft could lead to more wars.

A draft does not guarantee that the children of politicians will ever see combat. More likely the sons and daughters of Congressmen, Senators,and Presidents will get to play soldier in some comfy base far from any actual combat.

Unless we are going to extend the draft age to 100 and make Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen eligible, a draft does not directly punish those who started the war. Instead, it punishes their children. I would think that most libertarians would agree that children should not be punished for their father's sins. (Thanks to Matt Barganier for first pointing this out.)

Most importantly, advocacy of a draft, for whatever reason, is immoral. It is tough to think of a more unlibertarian policy than the draft. Libertarians who advocate a draft in the name of peace are doing long-term damage to the cause of peace and freedom by abandoning the principled defense of liberty in favor of advancing the taken of someone else liberty in order to achieve our goals. The alleged friends of peace who support conscription are no better than the neocons.

I wonder why pro-draft anti-war advocates don't agitate for other "anti-war" restrictions on liberty. For example, how about an automatic increase in tax rates any time the US launches a military action against a country who has not attacked the US. This could cause the US public to look much more skeptically on politicians who aggregate for war, since they would now be agitating for an automatic tax increase. Could it the reason most "pro-draft/anti-war" advocates don't support war taxes because they are above draft age but still pay taxes?

Sexy Nurses Illegal?

First, Texas tried to ban "sexy cheerleading," now the busybodies are going after "sexy nurses." What is this world coming to? Can we get Dr. Paul to introduce a "Sexy Nurse Protection Act" for 2007?

On a serious note, efforts to restrict free speech may seem amusing when they pertain to sexy nurses, but when it comes to negative political ads, they are no joking matter.

Important new book

Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health by John Berlau. Berlau, one of the best investigative journalists in the libertarian movement, details how increases in state power done in the name of "protecting the environment" actually harms "trees, wildlife, and people."

Buy a copy today before it is banned by Senate.

Bipartisan thuggery

Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Senator Olympia Snowe write to ExxonMobil's new CEO urging him to stop supporting organizations, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who challenge the accepted wisdom on global warming . According to these distinguished public servants, ExxonMobil's support of these global warming "skeptics" is damaging America's international image by making it seem America is "insensitive" to concerns about climate change.

If those who doubt the official position on climate change are harming America's international image why not declare them enemy combatants and subject them to indefinite detention? Of course, I am joking, I am sure Senators Rockefeller and Snowe don't want to use state power to punish ExxonMobil or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They just want to remind ExxonMobil that the US Government is like a family and you know what happens when you go against the family...

Re: Bad idea dead

Bob, I did not see your post on the Democrats renouncing Rangel's support for the draft before I posted my comments on Milton Friedman's leading role in ending the draft. While I am pleased to see Rangel shot down I am skeptical that we have seen the last of this issue given the support for the perpetual war among the leaders of both parties.

Milton Friedman's greatest accomplishment

Paul of all of his contributions to liberty, Milton Friedman considered his instrumental role in ending the draft his greatest accomplishment. Starting in the sixties, Friedman lead the effort to eliminate the draft, which he considered a form of slavery. Friedman severed on the President's Commission on the Voluntary Army and was a major force in convincing President Nixon to end conscription-- the only pro-liberty thing Nixon did in office!

Unfortunately,if Charlie Rangel gets his way, we may need to refight this battle. Libertarians looking for ammunition to make the economic and mortal case against conscription could do worse than starting with the works of Milton Friedman:

"When a young man is forced to serve at $45 a week, including the cost of his keep, of his uniforms, and his dependency allowances, and there are many civilian opportunities available to him at something like $100 a week, he is paying $55 a week in an implicit tax. … And if you were to add to those taxes in kind, the costs imposed on universities and colleges; of seating, housing, and entertaining young men who would otherwise be doing productive work; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on industry by the fact that they can only offer young men who are in danger of being drafted stopgap jobs, and cannot effectively invest money in training them; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on individuals of a financial kind by their marrying earlier or having children at an earlier stage, and so on; if you were to add all these up, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the cost of a volunteer force, correctly calculated, would be very much smaller than the amount we are now spending in manning our Armed Forces."
from "Why Not a Volunteer Army?"

"In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.' But I went on to say, 'If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.' That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries."
from Milton and Rose Friedman's 1998 autobiography "Two Lucky People"

Remember, Remember

Stewart Rhodes at More Liberty follows up his first poem with John Yoo: Neocon Treason and Plot an ode to the chief theoretician of the doctrine that the President's power as "commander-and-chief" extend to allowing him to indefinitely detain and torture anyone he declares an "enemy combatant."

Stewart also offers an ode to Election Day:

Remember, remember, this 7th of November,
Why of our freedom they cared not;
In this political season, we know the reason
Their souls by power were bought

Remember, Remember,

Over at More Liberty, Stewart Rhodes urges us to remember the Treason of September. Here's a taste, but the whole thing is a must read:

Remember, Remember the 29th of September
The Military Commissions Act, assault on the Bill of Rights by a vile lot;
I see no reason why that day of high treason
Should ever be forgot.

Remember, Remember the 11th of September
The American Reichstag Fire burned hot;
I see no reason why the lessons of history
Should ever be forgot.

Remember, Remember this is land of the free, home of the brave
Land of the scared, home of the slaves it is not;
I see no reason why Liberty or Death, Spirit of 1776
Should ever be forgot.

re: Rendering unto Caesar

Joseph Farah reminds us that, as one of the leading advocates of the Bush-Theocon attempt to turn private religious charities into wards of the welfare state, David Kuo has much to atone for.

I heard Mr. Kuo speak at a debate on whether libertarians should remain in the conservative movement several years ago. Kuo, along with Jonah Goldberg, were arguing that libertarians where not true conservatives and should be kicked out of the conservative movement. I told Kuo that no true libertarian would want to be in a movement with state-worshipers like him. I am glad to see Kuo has apparently learned something about trying to advance Christ's goals by using Caesar's means.

Rendering unto Caesar

Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute takes Jim Wallis to task for claiming a hike in cigarette taxes is the "moral thing to do." Father Sirico makes several good moral and economic arguments against "sin" taxes, including citing Thomas Aquinas' warnings against making all immoral behavior illegal. However, Father Sirico's arguments are unlikely to convince a post-millennialist like Wallis, who believes the state has a scared duty to improve our behavior to create heaven on earth. Wallis' post-millennial crusade to create an earthly paradise also explains his support for US military action in the name of "human rights."

Post-millennialism does not just exist on the Christan left. One can detect traces of it among certain segments of the Christian right. For instance, there is definitely a post-millennial ring to some of the rhetoric used by the leaders of "Jesus Camp." I have mixed feelings about the people and activities presented in the movie. On the one hand, many of the children are remarkably well-spoken and seem genuinely devoted to spreading the word of Christ. As I pro-life libertarian, I also share their goal of ending abortion, which is the political issue emphasized in the film. I was also favorably disposed to think well of the subjects of the film because I saw the movie in DC with a liberal crowd who snorted with derision or gasped in shock whenever the children, their parents, or the camp leaders, expressed opposition to abortion, or skepticism about global warming or evolution.

However, I was disturbed, to put it mildly, by the mixture of religion and nationalism. Christian libertarians will be put off by the constant waving of the American flag, and the "blessing"" of George Bush for putting "holy men" in charge of the US state.

I wonder what the owners and operators of Jesus Camp make of the revelation that the godly men George Bush brought to Washington think that many conservative Christians are "nuts." Hopefully, both the Jesus Campers and the followers of Jim Wallis will learn from David Kuo's bad example of the dangers of Christians become caught up in politics:

"In some ways White House power is like [J.R.R.] Tolkien’s ring of power. When you put it on, it feels good and it’s dazzling. But after a while it begins to consume you in ways you don’t realize. That’s the nature of White House power. I have no doubt that Christian political leaders have gotten involved for all the right reasons. I just think over time it becomes harder and harder to stand up against that ring of power and the White House, to say no and walk away.

The Christian political leaders have been seduced. If you look at their comments that they know what they’re doing, I’m not quite sure how to read that—is it wonderful or a little troubling? That’s one of the reasons I call for this fast from politics."

Enough to make any libertarian (or red-blooded Ayn Rand fan) drool.

In what will undoubtedly be an interesting screenplay interpretation of a significant American novel, Angelina Jolie will play Dagny Taggart in the film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. The only question to be asked now is "Who Plays John Galt?"

Gangster Politicians

Check this video on eminent domain out. The sad thing is that gangsters' views of our property rights are little different from those of our political leaders.

Re: Reform the LP

Paul Gessing's comments on Lew Rockwell dismisses my friend, mentor, and all-round hero as a "libertopian" who takes an "all or nothing" approach. This is a misstatement of Lew's beliefs. In fact, Lew, who served as Ron Paul's chief of staff before founding the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, favors small steps as long as they move us toward the goal of liberty. Lew's objection to the Libertarian Reform Caucus is based on concerns that the LRC is watering down the libertarian message, making unacceptable compromises with statism for short-term political gains, and thus harming the chances of us achieving our long-term goals. If the Libertarian Reform Caucus where pursing a Ron Paul approach of being radical in message while mainstream in presentation Lew would cheer the LRC. One big difference between Ron Paul's approach and the LRC is that Congressman Paul has put monetary policy and the gold standard at the center of his agenda, whereas the LRC seems to want to downplay the gold standard in order to appear "mainstream."

Click here for Murray Rothbard's approach to strategy.

Is Liberty on the March, Backwards???

In an August 17, 2006 article written for the Financial Times, Michael Lind argued that the last decade has seen "the utter and final defeat of the libertarian movement." Citing examples such as the failure to reform Social Security through the adoption of private accounts, healthcare through widespread use of individual "health savings accounts," public education, through vouchers, and the continued existence of a minimum wage, Lind argues that "The libertarian moment has passed. It will not come again, and its defeat as a force in US politics will change the definitions of right, left and centre not just in the US but also, the world."

That is quite a sweeping statement and indeed there have been several failures of liberty in recent years, but history is a cyclical thing and I think Lind's arguments are simply off the mark. First and foremost, for the 12 years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11, liberty was really on the march. The size of the federal government was shrinking relative to the rest of the economy, welfare was reformed, speed limits were raised (name another bogus federal law that affected people more on a daily basis), and government was steadily becoming less important as a part of people's lives.

Post-9/11, there can be no doubt that liberty is on the retreat here in America. Abolishing public schools in favor of vouchers was a tough sell at best and may not be the answer anyway. States are experimenting with school choice, but change is slow. Social Security is not going to be reformed overnight and Bush was probably the wrong guy to do it. After all, how is Bush to talk seriously about heading off a massive, unfunded liability when he is expanding Medicare?

To the author's other points, Health Savings Accounts are now in place and are growing more popular. In the two years that HSAs have been available for purchase, more than 3.2 million individuals have signed on. True, it took Bush's aforementioned Medicare expansion to get them, but we do have them. Lastly, yes, we have a minimum wage and it probably will never be abolished, but one thing both the left and right can agree on is that the minimum wage is becoming less of a factor economically-speaking.

So, while the "War on Terror" and the Bush Administration have been tough on liberty (both our civil liberties and to a lesser extent our economic liberties) I wouldn't bury the libertarian movement just yet. Hopefully, the next President will rely less on fear as a governing tool and will at least take a quick read through the Constitution before acting. Regardless, if the Estonia can spend 50 years under communist rule and emerge with a Steve Forbes-designed flat tax, surely libertarian ideas must be pretty resilient.

Rockin in the Free World

Saturday I, along with none other than the Free Liberal's very own Robert Capozzi, was able to catch Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young in Northern Virgina. The show was an awesome combination of one of the finest rock concerts I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot) and an anti-war rally. In addition to performing most of Neil Young's "Living With War," CSNY performed almost all of the anti-war, anti-state classics the four have produced either individually, with each other, or as part of another group.

Included among the set list was Ohio (written and recorded in a few hours after the group learned of the Kent State massacre, before performing it Neil Young said "Thank God there is no more draft because I would hate to have to write a song like this again"), Almost Cut My Hair, Long Time Gone, Military Madness, and For What It's Worth. For me, the highlight was a beautiful rendition of Find the Cost of Freedom, accompanied by a video tribute to the young Americans who have lost their lives in Iraq.

Another highlight was the performance of Graham Nash's Chicago, written to protest the treatment of the protesters at the 1968 Democratic convention. It deserves to be listed as one of the great libertarian rock songs:

So your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to Chicago
Just to sing

In a land that's known as freedom
How can such a thing be fair
Won't you please come to Chicago
For the help that we can bring

We can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... to get better

Politicians sit yourselves down
There's nothing for you here
Won't you please come to Chicago
For a ride

Don't ask Jack to help you
'Cause he'll turn the other ear
Won't you please come to Chicago
Or else join the other side

We can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... if you believe in justice
It's dying ... and if you believe in freedom
It's dying ... let a man live his own life
It's dying ... rules and regulations, who needs them
Throw them out the door

Somehow people must be free
I hope the day comes soon
Won't you please come to Chicago
Show your face

From the bottom of the ocean
To the mountains on the moon
Won't you please come to Chicago
No one else can take your place

Yes, we can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... if you believe in justice
It's dying ... and if you believe in freedom
It's dying ... let a man live his own life
It's dying ... rules and regulations, who needs them
Throw them out the door

Snakes on a Plane

is not the latest excuse for the federal government to harass us at the airport but a Samuel (Star Wars, Pulp Fiction) Jackson movie that is a shoe-in to sweep next year's academy awards. Okay, it might not sweep the Oscars, but this film does demonstrate how the Internet can empower audiences to effect the production and marketing of movies.

Thanks to the blogs, this B-movie is already one of, if not the, most anticipated films of the year. It is also the first time scenes have been added to a film based on the suggestions of bloggers, who wrote they would only see the movie if Samuel Jackson says "I've had with these (expletive deleted) snakes on this (expletive deleted) plane." Summer action movies may never be the same.

"Libertarians" for the draft?

Lew Rockwell highlights the bizarre argument against the draft made by Thomas Sowell. Sowell argues that today's American youth are spoiled, selfish brats who have been brainwashed by anti-American propaganda that was force fed them in public schools so they don't deserve to be drafted! The clear implication of Sowell's argument is that if kids where raised properly then a draft would be just fine. As one of the many libertarians who was influenced by his writings I am sad to see Sowell argue that the we have a moral duty to give our lives for the warfare state.

Killing the Death Tax: A Liberal's View

An Albuquerque resident and victim of the death tax wrote a very insightful column in the Albuquerque Journal on Monday. My favorite line is, "I'm sure my family could have come up with better uses for it (my grandmother's money) than Donald Rumsfeld does." Here's to doing what you want with your own money, no matter where you fall in the political spectrum.

Re: the Pesky Section 8

Bob, Section 8 only grants Congress those powers "necessary and proper" for "carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States," so only those Congressional actions related to one of the powers explicitly granted the government are justified under Section 8's "necessary and proper" clause. Libertarians who uphold this interpretation are not relying on a flimsy catch-all argument but on a logical interpretation of the text.

More than loyalty to the Founder's intent is at stake in this debate. To say that the "necessary and proper" or "general welfare" clause of the Constitution allows the government to assume powers beyond those explicitly granted by the Constitution is to deny that the Constitution in any way limits the federal government's power beyond the specific prohibitions of the Bill of Rights.

Destroying Individual Virtue

Dick Cheatham's "Making Virtue Obsolete" reminded me of a great quote from The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek:

It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now—independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors—are essentially those on which the working of an individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far, as it has destroyed them it has left a void filled by nothing but demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to do what is collectively decided to be good. The periodical election of representatives, to which the moral choice of the individual tends to be more and more reduced, is not an occasion on which his moral values are tested or where he has constantly to reassert and prove the order of his values and to testify to the sincerity of his profession by the sacrifice of those of his values he rates lower to those he puts higher.