East Coast Libertarian

Announcement - Moving on...

2008-06-26T16:41:00.002-04:00

From here on out, I will no longer be blogging at East Coast Libertarian. My time committments are such that trying to maintain a blog, consistently post and bring readers to this site is not something I can do as well as I would like to.

That said, I'll still be in the blogging business. I will be co-blogging at Publius Endures. I was honored to have been asked by Mark to join him over there and decided that it would be for the best. I love his work so to be associated with him and his site is frankly an honor.

To my readers, please update your blogrolls and feel free to join us for discussions over there. Thank you all.

Chief Justice Obama?

2008-05-29T13:51:00.004-04:00

Not that anyone should ever take a politician at his word, but I found this statement rich in irony. From Senator Obama:

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama.

New boss...same as the old boss?

Executive orders may be one thing, but last I checked, I do not recall learning that it is the role of the Executive Branch to overturn laws the President deems to be unconstitutional. I guess anything's possible this day and age.

And no disrespect to Obsidian Wings, but that is not a statement that should put a smile on anyone's face. It's a politician's pandering at its worst.

Another reason why I will never vote for the man.

For what it's worth, let's just say I have some disagreement's with the Bush Administration's constitutional positions. Rather than explain in detail, this paper by The Cato Institute should suffice.

Hat tip: Publius Endures

Question of the Day

2008-05-21T16:00:00.005-04:00

Is the suggestion that one self-fornicate an appropriate response to this drivel? Maybe I should email Phillip Klein over at The American Spectator, only I don't like wasting time with idiots.

No doubt to the disappointment of some libertarians, all three candidates took a stand against kiddie porn.

Just asking.

Hat tip to The Agitator, whose comeback was rather enjoyable.

Now, it's time for my obligatory post on the judicial activism discussion...

2008-05-20T11:15:00.009-04:00

Mark at Publius Endures has written a series of posts (here, here, and here) that not only defend the California Supreme Court decision but the proper role of the judiciary in light of the sort of criticisms of "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" that are as predictable as they are dull and devoid of any real meaning. While I would call all of these posts "must reads", the second post, which explains in plain English what the judiciary does, should be mandatory reading for those before they put a foot in mouth with hopelessly weak arguments about the tyranny of the judiciary. Seriously.

Marc Moore ("MM") at Poligazette responds to Mark's assertions here. The third link above is Mark's response to Marc. It is a civil and interesting exchange. I have some comments and disagreements with Marc Moore's commentary.

I would have said that the judiciary’s primary function was to defend the Constitution against increasing irrelevancy in the face of excessive expansions by the other two branches. To define and defend the fundamental laws and values of the nation...

and later...

Assuming that we accept Mark’s assertion that the judiciary’s prime directive is to defend the legislatively defenseless there is still a question about how much leeway judges should have - or use, to put it a different way - to redefine societal norms.

MM is concerned about the judicial discretion afforded to judges based on Mark's view of the judiciary in the context of "redefining" societal norms, yet does not acknowledge the same problems in his own definition. I also wonder why his view of the role of the judiciary excludes state actions, but there is little need to press that issue for now.

By citing "increasing irrelevancy", as opposed to a strict enforcement of constitutional boundaries, he is placing in the hands of judges the discretion to determine what is relevant, what is not relevant and how it should be defined when applied to actual cases and controversies. Since we are already dealing with an irrelevant document, the argument goes, let us just do our best to enforce the outer boundaries and give judges the responsibility to enforce it. Depending on whether the fundamental value is respecting the doctrine of enumerated powers or deferring to democratic process in each specific case brings about a different set of inconsistent results. No wonder that the appointment of Supreme Court justices is such a political affair!!

To MM second point about judges redefining "societal norms", that is not the realm of judges per se and when they go beyond their vested powers to do so, as it can be argued they did with the busing case he cites, it is more than a little problemmatic. Fair point.

However, to quote KipEsquire, commenting in Mark's latest post:

"Federalism" -- like "democracy" -- is only noble to the extent that it respects individual rights. To the extent that it is invoked to infringe rights, it is evil -- and utterly subject to and deserving of negation by courts.

Setting aside the fact that "societal norms" becomes a "defined by who and by what standard?" problem that screams "Kip's Law" (the definition and numerous examples here), when "societal norms" are enforced into legal prohibitions restricting activities involving consenting individuals and violating the rights of no one, it is an arbitrary, irrational and illegitimate action on behalf of a democratic majority which saw fit to violate the rights of individuals under the rubric of "common good", "social order" or a "right to self govern". In these instances, it is absolutely the role of judges, when a case or controversy arises, to strike down these laws. If the question is individual liberty on one hand and striking down a "societal norm" that violates the rights of other individuals despite its status as a traditional practice, liberty should prevail. Always.

The Supreme Court, in overturning the same-sex sodomy law in Lawrence v Texas, did not recognize a "right to same-sex sodomy" as conservatives may have us believe, nor did it attempt to "redefine a social norm". Rather, the Court recognized, correctly, that there are clear limits on the ability of democratic majorities to put their personal preferences about how the rest of us should behave into law, especially when the law attempts to prohibit otherwise rightful conduct (rightful being not violating the rights of others). At times, reading conservative commentary on this case and others that provide a check on unbridled majoritarianism, I wonder whether conservatives confuse the concepts of "redefining social norms" and reminding the people that the "right to govern over others" has its limitations.

On the matter of judicial activism, MM believes that the California case is small potatoes by comparison in terms of "activism from the bench" but provides neither a defintion of activism (unless we look to his example of the busing case as guidance) or any support to the claim of rampant activism he believes exist.

In the context of a blawgosphere debate between Randy Barnett, Stephen Bainbridge and others approximately four years ago, Randy Barnett blogged on the subject of "judicial activism". The whole post is a fascinating read, but I will only cite this portion:

...what exactly IS judicial activism? Unfortunately, apart from his reference to "democratic values," Professor Bainbridge does not tell us, but given that he has chosen to single me out let me ask:

-Is discovering and enforcing the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment activism? Or is it activism to characterize this inconvenient piece of text as an "ink blot" on the Constitution, as Robert Bork did in his infamous confirmation testimony?

-Is discovering and enforcing the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment activist? Or is it activist to characterize this inconvenient piece of text as an "ink blot" on the Constitution, as Robert Bork did in the Tempting of America?

-Is insisting on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause activism? Or is it activist to ignore the limitations imposed on Congress by these provisions, as Robert Bork all but did in The Tempting of America?

-Is it activism to construct a doctrine to define the wholly unenumerated "police power" of states in a manner that is consistent with the limits on state power enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment? Or is it activism to give states unchecked power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment?

-Surely Professor Bainbridge would not encourage conservatives to remain as uninformed of the meaning of all these crucial provisions as Robert Bork proved to be in the last book in which he opined on the Constitution. Or do they all just happen to have no discernable meaning, and no constitutional purpose, despite what they apparently say?

-Judicial "activism," as usually used, is entirely empty of meaning. Typically, it refers to judicial nullification of statutes with which the speaker disagrees, without telling us why the judges were in error. Without a conception of "activism," we just do not know exactly why Professor Bainbridge is offended.

If MM wishes to elaborate on his theories of "judicial activism" and what he believes the proper role of the judiciary should be and defend the legitimacy of his theories (or his overall definition of legitimacy), he'll have to provide more detail. In Marc's defense, his focus seemed be on other points put forth by (the other) Mark regarding conservative disdain for the Constitution. I have little to say there, as the points Mark make are pretty much similar to my own.

Bingo...

2008-05-14T09:04:00.003-04:00

Via Tim Lee, discussing school choice and voucher programs:

What we have, then, is a program that offers more choices to low-income parents, is extremely popular with those parents (the Milwaukee program has been repeatedly expanded to make room for rising demand), saves the state money (because the voucher is almost always for a significantly smaller amount than the average per-pupil cost of public schools), and seems to perform no worse than the more expensive public school option. In a rational world, a program that performs no worse than the program it replaced, is popular with its target audience, and saves taxpayers money would be regarded as a modest success that ought to be replicated elsewhere. Yet in the bizarro world of education policy, such the fact that voucher and public schools seem to perform similarly is taken as evidence that vouchers are fatally flawed and ought to be abandoned. It’s really odd.

I could not have said it better myself. I have noticed that when given a situation where you have on one hand a government-run program or law (i.e. minimum wage law) and choice on the other (school choice or freedom of contract) and little or negative net difference between the two as far as impact, even if freedom gets us to the same place at the end of the day, the burden is on us to explain why we should have the ability to choose and not have the government do it for us.

Bluntly put, Tim's comment exemplifies the Left's aversion to the freedom of choice. It isn't limited to education policy either.

So what happened?

2008-05-12T16:19:00.002-04:00

Lots of things really.

Before I go on, I want to extend my gratitude to Donald Douglas at American Power, Gayle at the Dragon Lady's Den, Mark at Publius Endures, and Patrick at Driving Out the Snakes for their kind words of encouragement. It meant a lot. Thank you.

Things have turned out just fine, as I thought they would; however, I did not expect things to turn around as quickly as they did. Some background:

I work in the commercial real estate business on the capital markets side. I spent the last three years at one of the major Wall Street banks working in the capacity of advising on major institutional real estate transactions (I was more of a junior level person at that firm). I had a front row seat to the sorts of major transactions that were getting executed whether in the capacity of single asset sales ($1 billion plus transactions in New York City at very high per square foot prices), major securitizations of commercial real estate mortgages, bank loans, residential mortgages, etc. etc. and some of the largest mergers and acquisitions transactions that have ever taken place, driven largely in part by Wall Street's ability to finance these transactions which was driven in part by the demand for securitized paper. I learned more in those three years than I did in my first nine, by several multiples.

I also watched the whole thing hit the skids (I am hesitant to declare that the whole operation has fallen apart because there will always be markets for securitized fixed income products in my opinion (even with those markets in the shape they are in now, investors in that sector are looking to buy existing paper and take advantage of perceived dislocations in those markets). I was caught up in the layoffs. I had friends who got laid off and I have friends who are constantly worrying about whether or not they are going to be next. A significantly slower deal flow adds to the anxiety.

I really feel lucky. I was laid off on March 31. I was going to be alright for a while, as I received a rather generous severance package, but as luck would have it, on April 3, I received a job offer with another commercial real estate company. In hindsight, the second I walked out of the interview the Thursday before, the second I knew that I would receive an offer from the company, only I wasn't sure whether it would be a good one. I did accept the offer but because of my severance agreement, I was precluded from starting another job until May 1st. Basically, within 3 days of being laid off, I had accepted a job and got to take a month off of work. I can't complain about that, although it got old being off of work for so long.

I hope no one takes this as anecdotal evidence that things are good. I just happened to find a situation that matched my skillset to a "T" with a company that has a mandate to grow, selectively increase headcount and ride out this market downturn. The fact that I have a real estate-based skillset as opposed to a loan underwriting skillset allowed me to stand out against others whom I was competing with in a job market that is, at least in my end of the business, incredibly soft. While I am not going to paint a gloom-and-doom picture for anyone, there are a lot of things that concern me right now.

I've spent the last month more or less off the reservation. I haven't had time to blog. My days have been very busy and, as an avid gamer and flight simmer, I tend to spend my evenings in the skies engaging in combat in WWII-era fighter planes (and eagerly awaiting the release of the next generation combat flight sim that will recreate the Battle of Britain). I'll try to emerge from my slumber and increase my presence a bit, but for now, all is well and thanks again for the concern.

About that other thing, there's that old saying "if at first you don't succeed..."

:)

Update

2008-03-19T11:37:00.002-04:00

March has not been a good month for me for many reasons.

First, as expected (at least for the most part), I was not able to avoid the axe on Wall Street. Anyone with half a clue who has been following the capital markets since last summer understands the situation, understands that things have only gotten worse, especially over the last 45-60 days. I worked in the commercial real estate space (private market dispositions) so I have had a front row seat to the mess that has become of attempting to finance real estate transactions, especially via Wall Street, where spreads for loans that will be pooled into commercial mortgage backed securities are probably 1% to 2% higher than what life companies can lend at (i.e. a 9% mortgage vs. a 7% mortgage).

I am not too worried, as the package I'm receiving on my way out will hold me over for a while. In addition, as I come from a commercial real estate background, as opposed to an investment banking or financing background, I am starting to look for opportunities on the investing side of the business and my skill set fits in very well there. The job market's a bit soft but I'm seeing potential opportunities.

Second, my wife and I were expecting and she miscarried. Even if she was in the very early stages (7 weeks or so), it never makes the news easy to handle, especially after people have been told the good news. Going back and giving people the bad news is akin to rubbing salt in a wound (not as much to me but certainly my wife). Shit happens.

My overall mood has been good, but my motivation to write has been a bit tempered. My energies have been focused elsewhere and my mind is not on the plethora of topics I have started to write about but never found the will to finish (i.e. FISA/PAA idiocy, Spitzer and prostitution, foreign policy, law, etc. etc.). I do intend to keep this going but for now I have some matters to tend to.

I'll keep my one and a half readers updated. :)

I should thank NASA for my guitars?

2008-02-28T11:49:00.005-05:00

That's odd. To think that for all of these years, I have wasted time thanking, among others, people like Les Paul, Leo Fender, Jim Marshall, Ted McCarty and Seymour Duncan (there are many others as well) for their contributions towards guitars, especially with the contributions over the last 50 to 60 years which are too numerous to list.

I read about this over at Kip's blog. Because I am a bit of a guitar aficionado (and an admitted snob), so I went on over to the NASA site to check things out.

I guess the good news is that I do learn something new every day. I was not aware that guitars manufactured under the Ovation brand did have a link to NASA. How interesting. However, all the aeronautical engineering, fiberglass bodies and broken windows* that may have went into this so-called NASA contribution does not change the fact that the best tones come from quality woods (mahogany, koa, rosewood).

Despite my tone snobbery, let us not lose sight of the big picture that Kip explains so well:

- NASA is not a public good, nor will it ever be...

- Because NASA is funded via taxation, every dollar that is used to fund NASA is a dollar forcibly removed from private individuals, making it more difficult for the Leo Fenders, Les Pauls and Jim Marshalls of the world to create/invent/modify something that a market for that product may call "neat-o".

* if you do not understand the meaning of the title used in Kip's post, it is worth following the link he provides.

Not about the truth, huh?

2008-02-21T14:47:00.003-05:00

I was in a bit of an evolution-creationism discussion earlier today, which is somewhat funny since my scientific knowledge on these matters is not close to what it should be. In the context of that discussion, here is a comment that was in a response to me:

Us Christians are ONLY told to SHARE the Gospel NOT CONVINCE anyone that it is true.

While people can hold whatever religious views they wish to hold so long as they are not violating the rights of other individuals, in the context of the discussion at hand, I responded:

Yet, you seek to "disprove" science by pointing out its gaps, which, if such a futile tactic actually worked, would leave only one default explanation for the origins of the world. You're right though. You are not out to convince that your version of things is true, only every other possible explanation is false. Gee, sleazy telemarketers are more subtle than that.

I thought God hated liars and hypocrites, or is your kind of hypocrite somehow exempt from His wrath?

Even in the broader context, I do not believe this statement to be true. I spent fourteen years living in the Midwest and my dealings with fundamentalist Christians were such that everything about religion was about seeing the truth as they see it. My experiences were more inline with what Andrew Sullivan discussed in The Conservative Soul and the fundamentalist mindset than a friendly, cordial exchange of ideas.* As I said, sleazy telemarketers are more subtle.

I was also smeared (at least I believe I was) as an anti-Christian bigot, which is funny because I always thought that the difference between people like the person I was having the discussion with and myself is that I am more than capable of leaving well enough alone and not using the force of government to soothe my aching feelings. I'm sure my gay friends will know exactly what I'm referring to, although I wish they didn't have to.

* For what it's worth, I recognize that there exceptions.

Be Back to Blogging Soon...

2008-02-20T14:58:00.002-05:00

I have a million things going on so my blogging will be a bit sporadic for the near-term. Hope all is well.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Deranged Indeed...

2008-02-12T10:29:00.004-05:00

Americaneocon over at American Power attempts to pillory Andrew McCarthy's recent article "McCain Estrangement Syndrome". He never addresses any of the substantive points of McCarthy's legal arguments, criticizes McCarthy for "having an easy out" and, in general, proves McCarthy's point in the third paragraph about not only the pot calling the kettle deranged, but the fact that such attempts in doing so are futile.

Rather than fisk the McCarthy article, I will summarize his three main points below:

First, McCarthy explains his discomfort towards McCain as being capable of appointing conservative judges. McCarthy correctly notes that McCain has been at odds with judicial conservatives on a number of different issues (the First Amendment and the Geneva Conventions being two of them - as one can gather by reviewing the relevant case law). On the second page of McCarthy's article, there is a whole litany of other items that are addressed.

Second, McCarthy suggests that there is a valid conservative case to rejecting John McCain as a presidential nominee by suggesting a Republican-controlled Congress would fare better if set against a Democrat president. That issue, however is moot since McCarthy himself rejects this argument on the grounds that McCain would serve far better as commander-in-chief than a President Obama or a President Clinton could. Given that this carries more weight (barely) than his other concerns, it is obvious to me that he would support McCain in November.

His last point is a point that some of the more rational and reasonable McCain supporters have made: without the so-called "irrational right", it is uncertain that McCain can win a general election. I am not going to predict whether or not McCarthy is correct here, but it seems like winning elections does require a bit of coalition building.

What does McCarthy get for his troubles? Well, let us start with the subject of McCain's deviations from the principles held by judicial conservatives as a matter of constitutional law:

But who does this help? Certainly not Mike Huckebee, who was the target of the irrational right around the time of his big win in the Iowa caucuses. Remember, Huck's the governor who wanted illegal aliens to attend college. Aghast, an open-borders recidivist!!

So what's McCarthy doing? He's turning the psychological tables.

Obviously, the arguments elucidating McCain Derangement Syndrome have been compelling, so the Malkin-tents and the Rush-bots need to fight fire with fire.

McCarthy all but states in the article that he would support McCain in an election against Obama or Clinton so he is not trying to help Huckabee (in fact, he criticizes Huckabee). Turning the psychological tables? How? Dr. Sanity's link, while interesting, certainly would not apply to arguments like the ones made by McCarthy because McCarthy has not, anywhere (and I dare anyone to show me otherwise), taken anything close to the more absurd positions taken by conservative pundits like Hannity, Levin, Malkin, Limbaugh, etc.

All of the ranting and raving about psychological ploys does not change the fact that this is a major issue amongst legal conservatives, who for decades have building a sizable legal establishment and wish not to see their efforts tossed aside as easily as McCain tossed aside the First Amendment. (Slate's Dahlia Lithwich has more here) It strains any and all credibility to suggest that the arguments made by legal conservatives, who understand the stakes if more moderate or liberal nominees are appointed to the Court, are a defense against the highly persuasive arguments for "McCain Derangement Syndrome". There are consequences here that will outlast a McCain presidency, in the event there is one. Of course, if I was a legal conservative (I'm not), I don't think that response would have done anything to placate my own concerns.

Going on to the next part, McCarthy suggests that he would vote for McCain for reasons explained above. Americaneocon's response?

So, that it? It's a no brainer that conservatives have a rational, principled position to take in continued oppostion of McCain? But in the next breath they have the easy out in backing the Arizona Senator because of the war.

Aha!! There it is, the Holy Grail!!

Base conservatives can continue to rail away at McCain's apostasies, while simultaneously they can concede that things must be resolved in favor of the war!

This is not estrangement, but further derangement. There's no such thing as the perfect Republican presidential candidate.

Reagan certainly wasn't.

Aha!!! There it is, the Holy Strawman...

McCarthy never once speaks of the perfect candidate (Reagan is neither mentioned nor implied), never claims that he would take his ball and go home if John McCain was the nominee for the GOP (as others have) and appears to do what many people have, in perhaps their own peculiar ways, have wanted conservatives critical of McCain to do: support him.

Obviously, that's not good enough. One must not only be committed to voting for him, but also committed to his form of conservatism and view it as a "great" form of conservatism:

But maybe there's hope here, as McCarthy perhaps reveals the seeds of clarity in his argument. Perchance, with this prompt, anti-McCainiacs can start pumping up the benefits of a McCain presidency, while realizing that his conservative bona fides are just a strong as many of his great Republican predecessors.

McCarthy's argument is as clear as day: 1) there are reasons to believe McCain is faithful to the legal principles of judicial conservatism; 2) there are principled and rational reasons to oppose voting for McCain in a general election; 3) it would be unwise to engage in (2) because McCain is arguably the best suited candidate to address the national security concerns with respect to the war on terror.

Has Americaneocon addressed McCarthy's arguments? Not at all. He dismisses him as deranged. He sets up strawman to refute arguments McCarthy does not make. He goes on to rant and rave about Anthony Kennedy, movement conservatives who are completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic of constitutional law and judicial appointments, which centered on conservative interpretations of law as opposed to movement conservatism (and succeeding to lump McCarthy in with that group).

Get over yourself. Millions of voters, many of whom will have a wide range of disagreements with the man on the issues and on whether or not he represents the sort of bonafides that voters want to see in a conservative candidate, will vote for him. They will not now, if ever, view McCain in the same mold as Reagan (who is not held as perfect - another strawman). The best you can possibly do is get those people to vote for McCain and hash out the disagreements later. If you don't like McCarthy's legal arguments, try a substantive response. Simple as that.

Of course, going Lew Rockwell on people and attacking them for not seeing the ideological greatness of your own preferred candidate (a page out of the paleolibertarian playbook when dealing with us Ron Paul critics - I will not provide links) proves McCarthy right.

It is almost ironic that this neoconservative, who has skewered Paul for months and taken a couple of less-than-impressive cheap shots towards libertarians, has taken a page out of the paleolibertarian playbook and attempts to excorciate someone who all but said he would support McCain for not being supportive enough. It's enough to make Justin Raimondo proud.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. If you'll excuse me, I must go and get fitted for a straightjacket. I hope they have them in black.

Michael Medved on McCain and Free Speech

2008-02-04T10:12:00.001-05:00

Oh boy. McCain Derangement Syndrome may be a bug irritating the backside of some of McCain's supporters, but it hardly is a worthwhile excuse to explain unbridled stupidity.

Micheal Medved does not disappoint (via Sparks from the Anvil). Here's an excerpt. The whole thing is in his post.

TRUTH: McCain-Feingold was a piece of useless, misguided legislation but it’s done no serious damage to the country, the constitution or the conservative pro-life cause. After nearly seven years on the books, robust and impassioned discussion of political issues and candidates is more vibrant and free-wheeling than ever. The pro-life movement (with McCain’s enthusiastic support) has made substantial progress in the last seven years, changing minds and hearts and driving abortion rates to their lowest point in 29 years—unimpeded by McCain-Feingold.

I can boil Medved's analysis down to the following theme using a crude utiltarianism: McCain-Feingold - stupid but not so bad. Broadcaster Freedom Act - Great because the Fairness Doctrine is bad. Net-net, he is a protector of free speech.

From a political point of view, the world is full of idiots who can rationalize their to whatever policy position they prefer. Perhaps I have been guilty of that from time to time.

That said, "no law" means "no law". That is how the law works. It is no less illegal for some illegal alien to cross over the Rio Grande in our country in violation of the laws of our country than it is for Congress to pass a law that clearly abridges political speech. McCain (and a whole lot of others including the idiot President who signed it) crossed that line. All the excuse making and rationalization will not change the fact that it disrespects the Constitution. If that does not bother you, then so be it. I will strongly disagree with that position but at least be honest about it.

Furthermore, Medved's shameless shilling really got awful:

It’s important to me as a talk show host and as an American that John McCain has already stood up to defend conservative talk radio even while its most prominent practitioners used their microphones to defame the man every day. A lesser politician might easily succumb to the temptation to deploy government power – or even the threat of government power – to silence the chorus of hysterically strident voices raised against him. McCain’s refusal to do so says something powerful about his character.

Defamation is a crime. You want to clear that hurdle by criticizing a politican? Good luck. (see NY Times v Sullivan). Furthermore, am I to believe that is a testament to a morally defective politician's character that, despite criticism that "defames him" that he is strong enough to turn away the urge to use the power of government against those critics? Please. First and foremost, it would be political suicide to do so and even a half-wit can figure that out. Second, such an act would certainly run into a brick wall with the First Amendment, that is, if the political process did not derail it first. Who is he kidding?

If conservative supporters of John McCain find this so-called McCain Derangement Syndrome a bit of a pain in the ass, so be it. I'm no fan of the Coulters, Malkins, Levins and Limbaughs of the world so their histrionics will not have a sympathetic ear on this end. However, I would urge a bit of caution. Putting lipstick on a pig won't turn that pig into the supermodel of your dreams or some other creation in your own image. All you have is the same nasty, smelly pig with lipstick on it.

Medved's analysis lacks substance. The merits of his arguments are weak and resemble the sort of excuse making and crude consequentialism relativists use to justify their own preferred positions on issues. Call me unconvinced.

Any Call of Duty 4 Players?

2008-02-03T17:08:00.001-05:00

Any of my readers?

PC or XBox?

I just got hooked on the PC version and have played the multiplayer rather extensively over the past two nights. Lots of fun!

Just saying...

Evil Economists and Moral Repugnance...

2008-01-31T13:16:00.000-05:00

Wow. From a NYTimes article:

“The problem is not that economists are unreasonable people, it’s that they’re evil people,” he said. “They work in a different moral universe. The burden of proof is on someone who wants to include” a transaction in the marketplace... - Paul Bloom, Professor of Psychology, Yale University

I ought to send this to the Weekly Standard so they can add another talking point against the evil Milton "Freedman".

Going beyond evil economists...

I suppose I operate in a different moral universe also. I do not believe that the burden of proof is on someone who wants to include a transaction in the marketplace. We're in Kip's Law territory now. By whose standard is the transaction beneficial? What burden has to be met? Who gets to decide what that burden is? In practice, this is the realm of unbridled democratic majoritarianism and the belief that judicial review should simply defer to these decisions. Not surprisingly, my moral repugnance alarm bells are ringing.

If people want to predict what's repugnant or not, then so be it. However, it is a non-sequitir. Bloom's hubris notwithstanding, moral repugnance is not a negative externality, as defined as having one's rights violated through the actions of another. The fact Person A engages in Activity B that Person C finds offensive but in no way violates his or rights does not give C the right to go to Legislator D, who, along with other like-minded legislators, passes Law E that prohibits A from engaging in B and placates C's sensibilities.

It does not logically follow that because Activity B can not be prohibited by law on the basis that such actions do not violate the rights of others, that is morally acceptable. The decision to choose to engage in Activity B or find Activity B morally taboo belongs with the individual. It is not up to us to "prove" our worth. It is up to government to prove necessity and propriety.

H/T: Greg Mankiw

Will Wilkinson on "National Greatness Conservatism"

2008-01-28T14:36:00.000-05:00

Even if the tone has rubbed some people the wrong way, I did take some pleasure in this:

I am more and more coming to the conclusion that National Greatness Conservatism, like all quasi-fascist movements, is based on a weird romantic teenager’s fantasies about what it means to be a grown up. The fundamental moral decency of liberal individualism seems, to the unserious mind that thinks itself serious, completely insipid next to very exciting big boy ideas about shared struggle, sacrifice, duty, glory, virtue, and (most of all) power. And reading Aristotle in Greek.

and this:

National Greatness Conservatism is like a grotesque wood-paneled den stuffed with animal heads, mounted swords, garish carpets, and a giant roaring fire. Only the most vulgar tuck in next to that fire, light a fat cigar, and think they’ve really got it all figured out. But I’m afraid that’s pretty much the kind of thing you get at the Committee on Social Thought. If you declaim the importance of virtue loudly enough, you don’t have to actually think.

This is was in response to another absurd contribution to the "libertarian-bashing on things libertarians have nothing to do with" mantra by the esteemed idiots at the Weekly Standard who were too f---ing stupid to notice that Milton "Freedman" was mispelled. You'd think someone would have caught that.

It's not without its criticism but I found it amusing nonetheless, and its fairly representative of my disdain toward big-government conservatism and its contempt towards individualism.

Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, it is not virtue, honor, duty or sacrifice I have a problem with. It is nationalism and collectivism and the perversions that can result from both. That should be evident but people can take what I say the wrong way.

A Special Thanks to Publius Endures...

2008-01-25T10:55:00.000-05:00

for the Carol Moore links that describes some of the history of movement libertarianism and how it all relates to the situation with Ron Paul, etc.

As someone who was rather oblivious to movement libertarianism up until about six months ago (although the deep divides were made much clearer recently), I found her perspective valuable.

Mark's blog post with the Carol Moore articles is here. If you've never read Publius Endures, you should. Therefore, I am not posting direct links to Carol's articles. How coercive ;)

As a sidenote, does anyone know where I can find Lew Rockwell's article on paleolibertarianism (From 1990)? Liberty's online archives date back to 2002. Maybe I'll actually have to go to a library. Eek. :)

With all due respect to Justin Logan...

2008-01-24T12:55:00.000-05:00

he's being far too nice when he says...

I’m loath to predict political outcomes. Maybe as a political matter this sort of thing will sell. But abandoning conservative economic principles in the pursuit of political success and simultaneously indulging the worst jingoist excesses of neoconservatism is a positively revolting platform. Looking at the slate of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, maybe this new welfare-warfare fusionism has legs. But it certainly doesn’t offer very much to libertarians.

It offers nothing. Nothing at all.

If I vote for the GOP candidate in November, it would be to keep the Clintons out of the White House. It would have nothing to do with unity towards a GOP I find so repugnant that if the whole movement flushed itself down the toilet, I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it.

I don't know what a Quantum of Solace is supposed to be...

2008-01-24T10:36:00.000-05:00

...other than the new title of the next James Bond movie. That's good enough for me. Unfortuneately, November is a ways away, but there's a Batman movie waiting in the wings as well (no pun intended).

I thought Casino Royale kicked ass, probably a top-five movie out of all the Bond films. The "allow me..." line pretty much did it for me, although I liked watching a Bond that seemed to be a bit mentally unstable at times. Daniel Craig did a great job with the role and I hope he makes more of them (FWIW, I also liked his character best in Munich).

I also hope Judy Dench gets a lot of material to work with as M.

Going for term number three...

2008-01-23T21:26:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan writes (referring to Bill Clinton):

It really is time to acknowledge that Clinton is running for a third term - in flagrant violation of the 22d Amendment. He's fighting for unelected power by proxy - just as his wife fought for hers in 1992 and 1996. Their deal is now explicit. And their goal - four terms between them - is in their grasp.

Even I think the first sentence is a bit of an exaggeration, perhaps it's not too unreasonable to discuss the Clintons with respect to the 22nd Amendment. David Boaz did have this to say over at Cato-at-Liberty:

Legally, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton has not previously served as president. She is no less eligible for election to the presidency than was George W. Bush, the son of a president. But the intent of the 22nd Amendment, the spirit of a presidential term limit, is to ensure that no one person holds that vast power for so long. When the federal government and the presidency were vastly less powerful than today, George Washington thought that a republic should not be led by one man for more than eight years. His example set a standard for the American republic until that republic encountered the powerlust of Franklin D. Roosevelt, after which we made George Washington’s example a legal rule.

Even if I may slightly disagree with Andrew's constitutional interpretation, I share his concern towards a third Clinton term (yes, I think that is a very appropriate way to put it) as well as his contempt towards Bill Clinton. David's comments are also a bit alarming to me considering we have a similar (if not greater) sort of powerlust and a federal government that is exponentially more powerful than it was in 1932.

If there's anyone that could force me to vote for a Republican in November, it would be a Clinton. Trust me, that says a lot.

Wrestling with pigs...

2008-01-21T17:27:00.000-05:00

Apparently, a blogger over at Lew Rockwell decided that to criticize libertarians by digging up from the dead two of the most debunked and, in my opinion, brain-dead criticisms of libertarians: 1) atomistic individualism and 2) libertinism. Going further, he blames the libertines for equating libertarianism to "heroin addict, prostitute and private military contractor, not peace, free markets and local communities."

There's little to say on the libertine/atomistic individual nonsense , as I think Murray Rothbard covered that ground quite well (and you'd think the bloggers at Rockwell's site would know this, especially since this article was on the main page of the Mises Institute site about a week ago or so). Furthermore, in one of my favorite contributions to the fantastic collection of essays in George Carey's Freedom and Virtue, Murray Rothbard writes:

If the fusionist position is simply the libertarian position on freedom-and-virtue, then what of the fusionist critique of libertarianism: that it ignores virtue altogether in the pursuit of freedom (or, at least, ignores virtue insofar as it goes beyond freedom itself)? Much of this critique rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what libertarianism is all about. Thus, Professor John P. East speaks of the traditionalist concern about contemporary libertarianism (which he, as a fusionist, seems to share): "of taking a valid point, in this case the importance of the individual and his rights, and elevating it to the first principle of life with all other considerations excluded".* Even Frank Meyer, uncharacteristically and in the heat of the ideological fray, identified libertarianism as a "libertine impulse [which] . . . raises the freedom of the individual . . . to the status of an absolute end." But this is an absurd straw-man. Only an imbecile could ever hold that freedom is the highest or indeed the only principle or end of life. Freedom is necessary to, and integral with, the achievement of any of man's ends. The libertarian agrees completely with Acton and with Meyer himself that freedom is the highest political end, not the highest end of man per se; indeed, it would be difficult to render such a position in any sense meaningful or coherent.

Maybe the libertine criticism, as weak as it is, is not directed specifically towards people like me because the first thing I think of when I think of libertarian is individual liberty. Freedom, peace and free markets flow from that, but "local communities"? Like Mark, at Publius Endures, I see the sort of majoritarian difficulty that James Madison so eloquently addressed in Federalist 10, as opposed to a healthy respect for both federalism and the proper role of the state police power, especially when I read complaints about a community's right "to teach intelligent design in their schools". Of course, when "their" schools are government schools (and not "their" schools in the private property sense), it is the state that is teaching religion masked as science, and yes, that is not a valid role of the police power.** If "their" schools were privately funded institutions, I do not know of a single libertarian that would support using the state to prohibit the teaching of intelligent design.

I should also mention, as if it needs to be said, that individuals have rights. "Community rights" should be viewed simply as the collective sum of individual rights and nothing more. To suggest otherwise is collectivism. Libertarianism and collectivism mix about as well as drinking and driving.

More thoughts from Tim Sandefur.

For some background on my choice of a title, please read David Boaz.

** Some would make that argument for public education. I'm avoiding that discussion for the time being.

Random thoughts on a Friday Morning...

2008-01-18T10:09:00.000-05:00

Julian Sanchez writes a follow-up blog post regarding some of the comments and criticisms he received by way of the article at Reason co-authored with David Weigel. Sanchez does a good job debunking some of those criticism, and shares many of my sentiments. There's little reason to fisk it since we're pretty much in agreement (although he's far too kind to FormerBeltwayWonk, whose cheap shots at "cosmo-orange-tarians" or whatever the hell term he/she/it's using are absurd (see here)). Julian addresses the "cosmotarian cabal" conspiracy schtick nicely so there's no point in me doing it.

Julian makes a point that I'll reiterate because it's one I've had about all of this. In 1981, I was a third-grader who was the shortest kid in his class and spent my recesses being chased by all the evil little schoolgirls. The Rothbard-Crane split and the squabbling between the Cato and Mises/Rockwell factions never crossed my mind. Hell, when I first discovered libertarian political theory and began to embrace it as my own, I wasn't even aware of these squabbles. Granted, I spent a lot more time perusing the Cato blogs and Reason online than I did Mises or Rockwell although I did and still do visit both of those sites.

I have little use for petty squabbles and less patience for some of the neocon-conspiracy theory mongering that come from certain people. The big picture for me is spreading the belief that liberty matters. What perhaps upset me most about the Reason article was learning that hatred for the state (more specifically, the central government) became more important than the idea of liberty. Like it or not, I find it unacceptable, and it shouldn't take a Beltway-Libertarian-Neocon-Warmonger conspiracy to have to come to that conclusion.

I enjoyed this as much as it pissed me off...

2008-01-17T11:53:00.000-05:00

I am way late to the game in getting a post up about Ezra Levant. I was inspired by Levant's closing statements most and it strong enough to cut through the sheer outrage I was feeling towards the Canadian government and anyone who believes this is how governments should monitor their citizens. I'm still outraged for that matter.

A system of law that protects our rights is legitimate. A system of law that panders to the warm and fuzzy in the name of socially engineering a society where no one ever gets mad at each other is both illegitimate and complete B.S.

Hat tip to Fusionist Libertarian for reminding me to put something up about this and every other blogger who covered this no matter what your political affiliation.

This will certainly make some friends...

2008-01-16T15:06:00.001-05:00

An article written by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel discussing who wrote the newletters going out under Ron Paul's name is available at Reason.

I won't spoil the surprise, although I doubt anyone will be surprised.

Cue hysterical, conspiracy theory-based reactions against the cosmotarians and Tom Palmer in 3...2...1...

Ok, I'm amused...

2008-01-16T14:40:00.000-05:00

Fusionist Libertarian points out Lew Rockwell's appreciation for libertarians who do not support Ron Paul.

Rockwell cites a Dennis Perrin HuffPo post to support his "Eek a mouse!" comment. Of course, Perrin addresses the racism comments, the Kirchik hit piece of the smear job, surveillance state issues, etc. in terms of how liberals should address this problem and does not attempt to address the core concerns of libertarians. Of course, that doesn't stop Rockwell from exaggerating its significance. No surprise.

However, I do appreciate the link to the HuffPo article. There's a relevant passage:

To quote James Ridgeway, liberals can be and often are the meanest motherfuckers around. Criticize any of their scared[sic] beliefs, then watch out. They'll come at you with anything they've got, doesn't matter if it's truthful, accurate, or even sane. American liberals truly feel that they are humanity's Final Word. If you dispute that, you're a bigot, a hater, a piece of slime that deserves only the nastiest treatment. And baby, you'll get it.

Sounds a bit too familiar.

A Michael Moore Award Nominee Speaks...

2008-01-15T22:10:00.000-05:00

An Andrew Sullivan Michael Moore Award Nominee, liberal blogger Amanda Marcotte, writes:

For the slower (willfully and not) people out there, the rhetoric about protecting the innocent states from the all-powerful federal government—rhetoric that would have basically every stalwart Republican and Libertarian out there pumping his fist in solidarity—is referencing Alabama’s “right” to prevent black people from voting, with violence if necessary.

It’s important to have long memories, because the language about “small government” and “states rights” is with us today, and there’s no reason to think the basic meaning has changed significantly from the days when it was about stopping black people from voting. “States rights” dresses itself up as anti-tyrannical language, but it’s actually pro-tyranny.

It’s about crafting a nation that makes it the easiest to use government power to override individual rights. Remember this picture every time you hear someone waxing on about the inherent nobility of “leaving it to the states”, because odds are they’re beating the same drum they have since the South lost their war to preserve slavery. (emphasis added)

Criticisms of states rights don't bother me, but the fact it comes from a liberal blogger who makes a couple of points that rub me the wrong way, I thought I'd comment:

The image of libertarians (perhaps the paleos notwithstanding) marching in unison with Republicans celebrating the "right of the state" to initiate force to oppress the rights of it citizens is patently absurd to the point of sheer ignorance. Of course, the recent association of libertarianism with many of these elements may have crossed her mind when she wrote this. Perhaps I did not concern myself with this issue as much as others did. Last night, I was not willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this point, but I think I will. That said, it's still horrifically wrong and I think some people in the comments section at Pandagon have pointed that out.

Of course, I am more than a bit tickled by the underlined sentence because you know, only people that believe in states rights and people that are far-right wing religious wingnuts are the only ones who would ever consider using government to "override" individual rights. Progressives were more than complicit in using the power of state governments to infringe upon an individual's liberty to contract*.

Furthermore, let us not allow Marcotte's criticisms of the doctrine of states rights to mask the Progressive disdain for federalism. Let's remember that the next time someone waxes poetic about those waxing poetic about "leaving it to the states".