Classical Liberal Roundtable

The Public Market

2011-04-23T22:44:00.004-04:00

I often think about government operations by comparing them to market operations and I have come to the conclusion that they are the same thing, with only a single differing quality. The way I see it, the government, and especially representative democracies, look an awful lot like the free-market, except that private property and freedom of association is not protected in the former.

The government representatives seem to act as "businesses" or "suppliers" that sell bundles of goods to their "customers", government service beneficiaries, in return for payment in votes. Productive taxpayers act as "employees" of the government. And the other states, both foreign and domestic, act as business partners to the federal government. The only difference that I can clearly see is that all of these people often lack the freedom of association and private property that is protected in the free market. The "customers" can some times exercise (1 day out of every 700 or so) their freedom of association by choosing a different supplier (representative) of goods, though realistically in the US this only means they have 1 one option to choose from and often not even that. The employees never get the freedom to not work for that "supplier" (And they can't truly choose their employer through their voting powers because the nature of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs gives rational voters no choice but to use their single vote for the sake of maximizing their benefits not minimizing their costs), and their property rights certainly aren't being protected when they are coerced into giving away large portions of their income in taxes. Even the business partners of the federal government are often abused due to their inability to exercise any from of freedom of association.

But the whole reason why the private market benefits society is that it allows people to interact in only mutually beneficial forms by preventing people from interacting with others in net-negative ways by securing private property rights and freedom of association.

For this reason, I assert that the highest priority of government reform should be to implement a democratic reform that will work to protect private property and freedom of association to the greatest extent possible without denying the government the necessary power it requires to provide for the services that only a publicly accountable institution can be entrusted with.

I'd like to hear what people have to think about my comparison between the government and the market, as well as my conclusion on what should be the highest priority for government reform.

Funded Mandates

2011-04-23T21:54:00.002-04:00

Most of you have undoubtedly heard complaints about unfunded mandates by the federal government to the states. But I would pose to you that funded mandates are at least as bad, if not worse then their less popular brethren.

This is because, when the federal government offers money to the states, it can much more thoroughly, even if not directly, leech away the independence of the states. In order to offer these states funds the federal government must first tax the citizens of those states to collect the revenue that it plans on doling out to the states. The federal government then "offers" this money, that the states could have collected on their own if they wished to, back to the states on the condition that they spend it as the federal government wishes, and so long as they do whatever else the federal government wants them to do as well. For example, the federal government did exactly this with road construction and maintenance funds and speed limits. If states refused to post speed limits (which is understood in Constitutional law to be well within the sole jurisdiction of the states) in accordance to the "request" of the federal government they would not be given the funding that all the rest of the states were given. This would, in effect, would force that state to subsidize the road construction of the rest of the sates if they refused to give up their independence, and this would be very likely to greatly rile the voting populace of this state who don't appreciate having to bear that burden. This makes preserving state independence political suicide and pragmatically, impossible to go though with.

Further, if the states were left on their own, they very well might decide that they don't NEED so many roads, or to spend so much on any other particular program that the federal government funds for them. States, without federal government funding programs, would compete to give their constituents the most efficient amount of services for the cost. They wouldn't want to waste money building too many unnecessary roads or performing too much maintenance on them, but they also wouldn't want to spend too little, doing either would be likely to cost them precious votes. But when the federal government is doing out the cash the states have no incentive to limit their spending. They will always spend as much of those federal tax dollars as possible in order to maximize the amount of money flowing into their state and then they'll cry out for their state to get more afterwards.

For these reasons, it seems to me that it is funded federal programs that are pushed on the states, rather then the unfunded mandates, that pose the larger of the two problems to American society.

Special Economic Zones

2011-04-23T21:25:00.002-04:00

Last Wednesday Mark Frazier gave us a very interesting talk and part of it was about special economic zones in which taxes and regulations are greatly reduced and where the increase in the land values of the area, which inevitably follow from the decrease in taxes and regulations, could be used in order to build up what the area needs to help it prosper. This would occur through community ownership of the land which they would lease out to businesses, and which they would lease out for higher amounts as business flourished further and demand for land rises. This is a very intriguing and unique idea, one which I, for one, had never heard until then. Now that at least some of us have had a chance to digest it a bit more I'd like to hear what people have to say on the subject.

The above link sends you to a website that describes the concept and how it might work.

I would especially like to hear thoughts on how this might work in first world nations such as the United States.

Tendency Towards Forms of Authority

2011-04-23T20:48:00.002-04:00

Stefan Molyneux recently pointed out a recent observation of his that most people tend to gravitate towards one of two types of supreme authority. These are the State and Religion.

This curious observation looks particularly distinct when looking at world wide national cultures. It often seems that the less religious a nation tends to be, the more socialist it tends to be, as how the communist nations were some of the most atheistic nations that have ever been, and how mostly secular Europe is much more socialist then the United States. But the United States tends to be a much more religious nation then the rest of the western world.

What I would like to discuss is actually two things. First, is this a true tendency. Do people largely tend towards following one of these two very powerful, very inhuman sources of authority. And second, I would like to ask why this might be. Why, if they do this, do people seem to need these very high and out of reach authoritarian regime to give them commands from above?

As a final note, this also reminds me of how Ayn Rand often mentions the warlords and the witch doctors who often rule, and work together to rule over the people.

Public Parks and Government Owning the Land

2011-04-16T17:57:00.002-04:00

A lot of libertarians, at least as far as I've encountered, seem to think the government should have public parks or forests, or that these public parks and forests are outside the realm of what government should be involved in. However, as Sam points out with his idea of how government should possibly run - the government owns all the land and people sort of rent/buy the rights to its use - and as Ian points out with his idea - the government's job is to protect natural resources and perpetrate people who violate other people's property and who pollute, and thus in order to be able to distribute rights to these natural resources, the government must, in some sense, own them. So it seems to me that most people agree that government owns the land and it is the government's job to protect the land. So then why shouldn't the government have public parks and forests? I'm talking National Parks here - like Yosemite, Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone, the Sierra Nevada, etc - are important National Resources, ecologically, aesthetically, etc. While National Forests, the government keeps in the public domain but won't sell or lease the land to the public, but will sell rights to companies to log, ranch, mine the land, etc. Should the government create National Parks? Do they have a right to? Or should this be part of the private sector? And if it should be part of the private sector, should this be because the private sector would be more efficient, or the government just really shouldn't be in this business at all.

Compassion and the Market

2011-04-16T17:39:00.002-04:00

I thought this was a really interesting TED talk because the talk showed how being compassionate can be somewhat self-serving (selfish?) but it's still a good thing generally overall. This reminded me a lot of the points Ayn Rand made about selfishness and some of the arguments many Free-Marketeers make. Also, many academics seem to make the argument that markets are unnatural and even antagonistic to human nature. One professor even has a class which "such arguments as those which theorize on the "rationality" of the market and the "naturalness" of competition will be debunked". So if compassion has evolved selfishly, would this maybe change the discourse about Markets?

Balanced Budget Amendment +

2011-04-15T09:23:00.002-04:00

Freshman Senator Mike lee of Utah has introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would, if passed, ban federal deficit spending unless 2/3 of both the Senate and the House voted to over rule. This amendment is even more ambitious then previous balanced budget amendments because it also limits federal spending to 20% of GDP. Senator lee claims to be a tea partier and he was one of 3 US Senators to vote against extending the Patriot Act.

To be ratified this bill would have to be supported by 2/3 of the House and Senate, and then 3/4 of the states. Does it stand any chance? If not, then is this just a political stunt to make Senator lee look fiscally responsible, when he knows that this wan't happen?

Ending the Death Penalty Saves Money

2011-04-09T21:34:00.002-04:00

While it might not be the most important reason to end the death penalty, one good reason is money. Since ending the death penalty last month, Illinois has already saved millions.

SFL, Stossel, and UVa!

2011-04-09T21:31:00.001-04:00

If you haven't already watched this, you definitely should! You know why? Because it's all about Liberty, has the Stossel 'stache, and most importantly, people from SIL/CLR/YAL from UVa are in it!

"The Nation's Wealth"

2011-04-09T21:25:00.002-04:00

A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch explains that there's no such thing as "the nation's wealth." Many of the points he makes in the article are probably obvious to most libertarians, but I'm more interested in the best way to explain to someone why redistribution of wealth is so fundamentally unjust.

Money and voting

2011-04-02T21:31:00.001-04:00

What role should the government play in campaign contributions, if any? A law which Arizona just tried to enact would have chilling consequences for free speech because government aid in campaign contributions.

Pregnant Woman who Attempted to Take Her Own Life Charged with Murder after Fetus Dies

2011-04-02T21:13:00.002-04:00

In a strange a disturbing story, a pregnant woman in Indiana is being charged with murder after her fetus days six days after a suicide attempt. What exactly is the state hoping to accomplish with such a charge, and what implications does this have for the rights of pregnant women?

Scientific Rigor

2011-04-02T21:11:00.001-04:00

How would scientific rigor be handled in a civil society, free market, or privately?

The Drug War and Black America

2011-03-26T21:16:00.002-04:00

How can we solve some of the biggest race issues in America? According to John McWhorter, a former Berkeley linguistics professor and now senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, we must end the war on drugs.

"Legalize Methamphetamine!"

2011-03-26T21:09:00.002-04:00

This is one of the first articles I read about legalizing all drugs. This article is also one of the first articles which seemed to actually begin to convince me about the idea of legalizing all drugs. I think the author does a really good job of laying out both the economic and moral arguments for legalizing not just marijuana, but all drugs. The article is also written fairly simply. The author does not get caught up in semantics or trying to sound so smart that everyone should just agree with him, but these are the kind of simple, basic arguments which one could use with anyone or everyone because of the two arguments the author makes.

"5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results"

2011-03-26T21:05:00.002-04:00

This is a brief article about how in Portugal decriminalization has worked really well. The article discusses how Lisbon - the capital of Portugal - has not become a "drug mecca" and how all of Portugal hasn't turned into a bunch of raving drug addicts. Glenn Greenwald also wrote a good article at Cato about this same topic, but this one is a bit briefer if you don't have the time to read Greenwald's article.

"The Drug War's Collateral Damage"

2011-03-26T21:01:00.002-04:00

Here's another article by Radley Balko. I think this article does a particularly good job of covering all the collateral damages of the U.S.'s War on Drugs, so even if someone won't accept the moral argument, surely the massive list of all the collateral damages should convince people. Here are the things discussed in the article: Police militarization, foreign policy, rule of law, crime, violence and prison, and medical treatments. The only thing I wish this article did is to go more in depth about each subject, but as an overview of all the collateral damage, I think this article does a fantastic job.

What you can and can't buy

2011-03-19T23:09:00.002-04:00

I hadn't heard about this issue in a while, so when it came up again, I thought it would be interesting to discuss. In 2007, Bush signed a bill which pretty much mandates beginning next January you can't buy incandescent light bulbs anymore, so people will be pushed to either CFLs (which may not be as efficient as people believe?) or LEDs. I always find it interesting, albeit a little disturbing, when the government mandates you can not buy or do something for the, supposed, greater good. Is this something the government should be involved in? Is it even right for the government to be involved in this? Who decides the greater good? What if one just doesn't want to care? And these sorts of "greater good" issues spawn a whole slew of other questions and issues.

Internet Piracy and Copyright Law

2011-03-19T22:42:00.003-04:00

I saw two articles on Arstechnica.com this week that caught my eye. One said that Obama administration wants to make unauthorized internet streaming of copyrighted material a felony, and the other was about a report saying that internet piracy is really just a pricing problem. So, who's right? Is more regulation or lower prices the answer to internet piracy?

Declaring War

2011-03-19T22:36:00.002-04:00

When does the president have the right to declare war without Congressional approval? Glenn Greenwald explores this issue in the context of the escalating situation in Libya.

"But the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"

2011-02-26T17:23:00.002-05:00

Economics Professor Steve Horwitz explains why this isn't necessarily true. A short video with some good information for a topic which seems to come up often.

This Internet can be a scary place.

2011-02-26T17:05:00.002-05:00

I'm sure some of you have seen this link before, but, like the comments section of yahoo or youtube do as well, this sort of ranting, and then commenting below, on the internet mildly terrifies me. These sorts of postings make me worry about the level of political discussion going on not only on the internet, but everywhere. Should libertarians be making a stronger effort to engage in general political conversation then? What is the appropriate response to massive amounts of belligerent misinformation. In the challenges I believe libertarians face more often than other parties, Prof. Lark gives a particularly good example. When a friend was listening to a visiting speaker give a speech, he calculated that the speaker gave about 2 factual or observational errors per minute, and each error would take about 15 minutes to explain. How does one then explain all the errors without taking 30 hours, or rather, so long that you lose someone's interest? Regardless, interesting post to look at, albeit possibly intellectually painful (too much caps lock and misspelling for my comfort level).

I didn't really ever envision myself saying this, but...

2011-02-26T17:00:00.002-05:00

go Connecticut! Connecticut State Sen. Martin Looney (D-New Haven) has introduced a bill which acknowledges the right of citizens to record on-duty police officers and also provides for civil action against police officers who violate that right.

Protecting Civil Liberties Has Nothing to Do with a Party's Principles

2011-02-12T14:22:00.003-05:00

In the context of the failed extension of certain Patriot Act provisions in the House, Glenn Greenwald argues that politicians only care about the government's violation of civil liberties when the opposing party is in power.

Alcohol + Caffeine Ban

2011-02-12T14:11:00.002-05:00

I know this issue is a little old hat, but I thought Reason.tv did a pretty funny job of covering the Four Loko/Joose issue. People already combine caffeine and alcohol - Irish Coffee, Mexican Coffee, Redbull and Vodka - so wouldn't having a beverage which is already regulated and made by a company - who probably has an interest in not getting terrible publicity or killing people - actually make the consumption of caffeine and alcohol safer? Regardless, watch the video, it's only a minute and a half long, and I enjoyed it.

Black Mail

2011-02-05T17:12:00.002-05:00

I was arguing with one of my more liberal professor's a bit after a class concerning Ayn Rand. I was trying to make the argument that force fraud and theft are the only true types of coercion that the government should be concerned with preventing. He, on the other hand was arguing that other types of coercion are just as bad (or at least that socialists have a strong case in saying so), such as the kind of "coercion" that occurs when someone is given the choice between some bad natural result, such as starvation, and employment under harsh conditions. I was on pretty solid ground for most of the conversation, but he stumped me rather well when he brought up the subject of black mail as a form of coercion. The practice is widely regarded as being equivalent to theft or assault, or any of the commonly held acts of aggression that libertarians et al. are typically set against, but it really has nothing to do with the use of force, fraud, or theft. It doesn't use any physical force against anyone, it doesn't use fraud (In fact, the whole point is that it typically threatens to declare the truth), and it doesn't steal anything from anyone. All it does is give people an opportunity, just like an employment opportunity does, that people can take up if they wish to avoid some negative situation such as not having enough to eat, or not being found out.

I have to admit, it was a pretty good argument (To be expected from the high-quality faculty we have here at UVA I suppose), and I am left to conclude that libertarians really can't consistently claim that black mail is coercive in the way that we declare should never be allowed. And if we don't declare black mail to be one of the few things that it would be OK for the government to ban, then are we doomed to be made to look ridiculous? Or does anyone have an explanation of just exactly why black mail is more coercive than employment opportunities?

U.S. Betrays Britain to Sign Arms Control Deal with Russia

2011-02-05T13:56:00.002-05:00

A Wikileaks cable revealed that the U.S. offered Russia information about Britain's confidential nuclear stockpile in order to sign a treaty. This information will likely damage its relationship to one of its closest allies (thanks Dylan for the article).

Government Officials Telling Lies to Support Internet Kill Switch

2011-02-05T13:48:00.002-05:00

Aides in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee tried to argue that an internet kill switch was necessary because hackers could open the floodgates of the Hoover Dam and kill thousands. However, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the dam, claims that such an attack would be impossible because the dam is not even connected to the internet.

ICE Seizure of Domain Names without Due Process

2011-02-05T13:39:00.002-05:00

The Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), of all departments, is shutting down domain names because of alleged copyright infringement. However, the affected parties are not offered any opportunity to defend themselves.

More Evidence Why Government Enforced Anti-discrimination Laws are Unnecessary in the Private Sector

2011-01-29T21:32:00.003-05:00

Citizens pressure a Christian college in Nashville to revise its anti-discrimination policies after the firing of a homosexual soccer coach. Sexual orientation is not covered by Tennessee's anti-discrimination laws.

Mobile Vendors in El Paso Can't Operate Within 1,000 Feet of Competitors

2011-01-29T21:09:00.001-05:00

I've heard the State offer heath concerns as a reason to try and shut down these vendors - albeit I think these trucks can run sanitary operations so this worry I don't find founded - but El Paso doesn't even really seem to offer a reason besides blatant protectionism. Thoughts?

Very interesting thing to think about.

2011-01-28T15:28:00.000-05:00

Nation-state level competition.

Jared Loughner and Gun Control

2011-01-22T18:36:00.002-05:00

The shooting in Tuscon, Arizona has sparked a great deal of discussion about gun control. Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine explains why more regulation is not the answer.

FCC's new attempt at censorship

2010-12-06T19:01:00.002-05:00

This time it's censorship in the name of diversity. Really?

Wikileaks and the Espionage Act

2010-12-04T18:11:00.002-05:00

There are so many articles I could choose from about the whole Wikileaks situation. Here's one from Gawker. They argue that if Julian Assange violated the Espionage Act, then so did the New York Times and a whole host of other news organizations.

Stumped

2010-12-04T13:26:00.002-05:00

I've been working on a rather large philosophy project concerning government enforced occupational licensure. In writing the paper I was thinking up all the arguments that could be made in support of these licenses and then shooting them each down, but one of the arguments I've come up with has been a bit too tough for me to answer to my satisfaction. I am hoping someone tomorrow might be able to take a better shot at it then I've been capable of thus far. The argument I'm trying to shoot down goes something like this:

While libertarians often argue against the paternalism, not even they would commonly take a stance against actions made in self defense. If individuals can ethically use violence in self defense, including against the non-aggressive in particular instances where their situation is such that the continuation of their lives is dependent on the initiation of force against those innocents, then this seems to leave room for a justified system of occupational licensure. For example, if two people who cannot swim have just escaped a sinking ship and are grasping a piece of timber that is only able to support one of them above the water, even a libertarian would have difficulty in condemning either person for fighting for the exclusive use of that timber. Since this is the case it could be argued that if a person knows that if he gets very sick in the future, the continuation of his life will depend on the guarantee that his doctor is skilled enough to save his life. Since he has the right to defend his life, even if it means using violence against non-aggressive persons to do so, wouldn't this give that person an ethical basis to use the government to guarantee the quality of doctors by requiring doctors to acquire licenses to perform their jobs? Even the most stalwart libertarian would likely have difficulty justifying opposition to this self-defense argument.

I can come up with some practical arguments against this, like an argument that voluntary certification processes would likely resolve the vast majority of the potential problems that the above argument is concerned with, but I'm struggling to find a solid argument based on principle that would conclusively shut that argument down. Anyone have any ideas?

Title II and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2010-11-30T20:15:00.000-05:00

I'm having a hard time with these two large sections of the Civil Rights Act. I will explain why in person.

Text of act: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript
Wikipedia for simple explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Death Penalty in the U.S.

2010-11-20T23:52:00.002-05:00

In a "Universal Periodic Review" of the U. S., the United Nations emphasized the death penalty as a major human rights violation in the U.S. Why does the U.S. continue to support this practice, which has been banned in most developed countries?

Four Loko Drink Ban

2010-11-20T23:35:00.002-05:00

The FDA has threatened to ban the popular canned beverage that contains large amounts of caffeine and alcohol. Robin Hanson of Overcoming Bias claims that the ban comes out of "naked classicism."

San Francisco attempt to ban circumcision

2010-11-15T20:09:00.002-05:00

Taking the banning of personal choices to the next level.

Happy meal ban repealed

2010-11-15T20:07:00.002-05:00

So the mayor of San Francisco has vetoed the "happy meal ban." Good or bad? Methinks good.

Information supporting faith based organizations

2010-11-14T15:47:00.002-05:00

Just the info I was bringing up today.

Obama to Appoint Web Privacy Czar

2010-11-13T21:47:00.001-05:00

How big of a problem is internet privacy, and why should the government care?

Obamacare and the new Republican House

2010-11-13T21:41:00.002-05:00

Republicans in the House of Representatives will likely try to repeal the new health care bill. I just wanted to use this to talk about the health care bill in general. Exactly what problems does the health care bill present? Is there a better alternative to fix a seemingly broken system?

Affirmative Action and Political Correctness on Campus

2010-11-13T21:33:00.003-05:00

John Stossel of Reason Magazine holds his own affirmative action bake sale after one run by students at Bucknell University gets shut down by the school's administration. Why would a school oppose a bake sale that implements a system similar to the one used in its own admissions process?

Banning Happy Meals

2010-11-07T00:57:00.002-04:00

San Francisco has passed an ordinance that prevents restaurants from including toys with meals that contain a certain amount of calories and fat. McDonald's famous Happy Meal is no more. What role should the government have in curbing childhood obesity? Does childhood obesity constitute abuse? If so, who is to blame?

Societal Responsibilities

2010-11-06T14:25:00.003-04:00

Does society have responsibilities for some people, or not? Surely we would agree that for healthy adults society has no such responsibility and that those people are responsible for their own well-being. But what of children and those who physically or mentally disabled through no fault of their own?

My own, personal, thought on the matter is based on the idea that "the cost of freedom is self-responsibility" and that if someone in society is denied complete liberty (outside of aggressing against others) then in return society must care for them. Thus, I think it only right that those whom society denies complete liberty, minors, the mentally ill, ect., should be provided a minimum standard of care by society. Furthermore, I don't believe there is certain age where all minors turn into mature, self-responsible adults. In fact I have no doubt that there are some individuals mature earlier then 18, while many others don't mature enough to be self-responsible until years later. Therefore I suggest that society should provide for a minimum standard of care for all minors (and others who are not fit to care for themselves), and that the entry into mature adulthood should be voluntarily accepted by every individual. But, unlike how the current system of welfare is run, society should also collect the cost of the care it supplies from those who receive it, namely, their liberty. In this way everyone who accepts care from society also accepts to abide by its rules. They would be treated as minors by the state, not being given the vote, not being given the liberty to drink or smoke or do drugs, will be susceptible to curfew laws, and may required to attend mandatory schooling or employment.

Those who have voluntarily accepted adulthood in the eyes of society would be given full Liberty (limited only by the non-aggression principle) but would also be ineligible for any type of government assistance. Those who value freedom would get exactly what they want, as would those who want the government to be their responsible care taker. But, unlike as how today's system works, people would not be able to have their cake and eat it too. Today adult welfare recipients hand over the responsibility for their maintenance over to the rest of society but largely retain their freedoms to live however they want. This comes at the expense of those who want to be free and self-responsible who are forced to abide by paternalistic and moralistic laws, but also are forced to pay for the care of irresponsible smokers, drinkers, the obese, and many others besides.

The cost of freedom is always responsibility. But, today the cost of that freedom is not being born by those who exercise that freedom. This is an artificial government-created externality. I guess the cure for this gets back to our old question of how it is best fixed, by fixing the problem in the government, or by getting rid of the government altogether.

Happiness VS Freewill

2010-11-06T14:13:00.002-04:00

Many philosophically minded people throughout the ages have come to the conclusion that Happiness is the ultimate human intrinsic good because everything humans do ultimately seems to come down to attaining happiness or avoiding the things that make us unhappy.

But, are there no competing intrinsic goods that can be identified? For example, what of human free-will? If you could live a happy life, but while being controlled both physically and mentally by others, would that be acceptable to you? If the only way you could gain your freedom was at the cost of a significant amount of happiness would this be a rational decision to make?

If you were plugged into the Matrix and living a happy life, would you choose to sacrifice that happiness to live in a much more harsh, perhaps even miserable, world in order to attain freedom and truth?

Halloween Regulation

2010-10-30T17:55:00.003-04:00

What is scarier than witches and vampires roaming the streets tomorrow night? Ridiculous laws regulating this holiday.

"More Democracy, More Incarceration"

2010-10-30T17:32:00.002-04:00

Radley Balko of Reason Magazine explores the startling incarceration rate in the U.S. Why is the U.S. home to 5% of world's population and one fourth of its prisoners?

University of Virginia Eliminates All Speech Codes, Earning FIRE's 'Green Light' Rating

2010-10-28T21:01:00.000-04:00

Article about UVA and Liberty Coalition, interestingly.

Should Libertarians Vote?

2010-10-25T01:46:00.000-04:00

I was away this weekend, so I did not make CLR today, but next week I thought with the election coming up it would be pertinent to talk about a topic that I think will make for an interesting discussion: should we vote? One argument is that voting legitimizes the State. I think it will be an interesting topic to discuss.

"Who is Publius? or, Who's Afraid of Anonymous Political Speech?"

2010-10-24T12:46:00.005-04:00

This is an article about anonymous free speech, is it a good thing or a bad thing? Should governments be able to regulate how people donate to political campaigns or how people make political advertisements? Isn't that just another form of speech?

America's 'Plan' to Destabilize China

2010-10-24T12:46:00.002-04:00

Article about currency war. Very interesting concept.

ACLU Defends Government Regulation of Internet

2010-10-24T12:42:00.002-04:00

The ACLU likens internet providers like Comcast to wolves that need to be kept at bay by the government in a recent publication on net neutrality.

Child Abuse in a Stateless Society

2010-10-17T20:46:00.000-04:00

Here's the article I mentioned at the meeting today.

Firefighters Watch as House Burns

2010-10-16T21:12:00.002-04:00

Firefighters watched as a family's home in rural Tennessee burned to the ground after they failed to pay an annual $75 fee for fire protection. Is this a problem? Can a laissez-faire approach to firefighting work in the U.S.?

Ridiculous FBI Tracking

2010-10-12T12:33:00.000-04:00

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/

Good and Evil

2010-10-07T15:15:00.002-04:00

Here is a link to a 1971 study researching the psychological effects of having authoritative power over others and having that power placed on you. The experiment was conducted at Yale by simulating a very realistic prison experience putting physiologically normal males of college age in the roles of both prisoners and prison guards for a period of 14 days.

The experiment was ended prematurely, after only 6 days, when it became apparent that the experiment had gone out of control as some of the guards had become habitual sadists and several of the prisoners had psychologically broken down.

Here is another link leading to a TED video on the subject of how ordinary people unintentionally succumb to abusing power that they are given over others. The video is of the Psychologist, Dr. Zimbardo, who conducted the 1971 prison simulation experiment.

The experiment and Dr. Zimbardo's claim that even good people succumb to the corrupting force of power is reminiscent of Glaucon's tale of the Ring of Gyges in Plato's Republic. For those who have not yet come across that particular gem of wisdom, it concerns a magic ring that is discovered in a mysterious crevice that has opened up in the earth and ends up in the hands of a an ordinary Shepard boy. The ring allows the Shepard boy to become invisible and he uses it to take anything and everything he wants while being completely unaccountable for his actions and he eventually seduces the queen of the land and kills her husband and takes his place as King. The Moral of the story is basically that the corruption the comes with power is irresistible, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Ring of Gyges Story was obviously borrowed by Tolkien and turned into the One Ring which also could corrupt even the most noble of benefactors or the most ordinary of Hobbits.

This makes a strong case against the overwhelming violent power of the state, but it also brings up the question of how we are to resist against that power. If we accept that power corrupts even good people then we are well armed to fight the state, but it also cuts our own legs from underneath us if we attempt to advocate the election of Liberty minded individuals. How are we to trust a Ron or Rand Paul, or even our selves, with culling the state's power when that power is so irresistibly corrupting?

Rights and Entitlements

2010-10-05T11:52:00.004-04:00

I'd like to know what other Libertarians think about the institution of Human Rights. Where exactly they come from, to whom do they apply, and just what are our rights?

So called "natural rights" are intended to be universal, applying in all times and places. But how would such rights be determined? We surely can't rely on subjective opinions on their source being from any God or another. Is it possible to use reason and logic to determine what they should be, and by what criteria should the attempt to do so be made by?

Or are there no natural rights at all, but merely legal human rights that are neither universal nor unalienable? Would "rights" that lack universality and unalienability even be worthy of being called rights, or would they merely be allowances granted to us by our 'benevolent' masters?

I bring up these questions for two reasons. One, is that the UN's Universal Declaration of Rights does a wonderful job and mucking up the difference between natural and legal rights and has thoroughly confused matters. And secondly, because it seems that more and more often so called "rights" are being pushed on the people by the governments, such as Finland's "right" to high speed internet access. The difference often pointed out between the type of natural rights that were named in America's Declaration of Independence or Virginia's own Declaration of Rights (of which I'm a fan) and some of the rights listed in the UN's UDR and Finland's right to high speed internet is that the former are "negative rights" and the latter are "positive rights".

Negative rights are those things that a sentient being cannot be justly deprived of and are often most simply put as being the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. Positive rights are what I prefer to call entitlements. Things that people claim that every human deserves to be provided by other humans, such as social security, a job, periodic holidays with pay, and "food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" (All of which are declared in the UN's UDR).

It is my thinking that the obfuscation of these two types or "rights" is a threat to human liberty because it both 1) Raises entitlements and government programs up to the level of sanctity that the public views human rights as possessing and 2) By watering down the importance of true human rights, no one can take a human's right to liberty seriously when it is set on the same level as a right to high speed internet access.

Therefore, it is of utmost importance to draw distinct definitions of what should be held as true universal and inviolable rights are, and by what standard we determine them to be such.

I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts on the matter this Sunday.

Why Taxing the Wealthy Doesn't Work

2010-10-02T21:59:00.002-04:00

John Stassel of Reason wrote a nice article on why taxing the wealthy is not only unjustified but ends up costing the state more in the long run.

"Drugs are bad, mmmkay" - so, weeds OK in CA, but other drugs?

2010-10-02T21:48:00.002-04:00

Just read the article. The governator more or less said 'pot is OK' but other drugs aren't. Thoughts on what drugs government should allow for in civil society.

Something Fishy...

2010-10-01T21:45:00.005-04:00

This has been bothering me for quite a while now and I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me a bit on the subject. No matter how I do the math I just can't figure out why education costs so darn much. I'm going to take a look at Harvard's tuition and its costs since their tuition is not much higher then UVA's out of state tuition, because the relevant information was easier for me to attain about Harvard, and because its professors are paid much higher then ours here at UVA. Their tuition for 2 full time semesters is ~$35,500 (UVA's out of state tuition is ~$33,700). So for 1 semester that's $17,750. Assuming 5 classes taken on average(Actually it looks like at Harvard its normal to take only 4 courses a semester but I'll give it the advantage of an additional course per semester) would mean an average cost of 3,550 per class, and since the average class size in Harvard is 37 students this means the school collects $131,350 per class taught. The average salary at Harvard is an incredible $168,700 (Harvard pays higher salaries to professors then anywhere else). I'm going to assume that Harvard professors teach an average of 2 courses a semester. That would be about 3 hours in the class room per week per class, perhaps another 3 hours per week in class preparation per week, and 3 hours more per week in grading student work. I pretty much just made up the time for a professor's work load outside of class but I figured it can't be too different then the 2 hours of work we students are expected to do per hour of class work we do. If this is accurate it would mean professors are doing roughly 18 hours of week (full-time employment is 35-40 hours a week) for about 9 months of the year in order to teach 4 courses. That by itself seems to be a rather silly waste of resources but when we look at the numbers involved things get truly obscene.

If we recall the cost of a single course, $131,350, and we multiply that by the number of classes a professor is expected to teach, 4, we come up with $525,400. We can subtract from this the average faculty member's salary of $168,700 a year leaving $356,700. Can this be justified? Even after subtracting out the seemingly ridiculous cost of the salary of the people who actually teach us (who are effectively working part time for 9 months a year) we are still left with more then 2/3 of the tuition to account for. That means that even if we were to assume that the school some how needed enough people to support the professors on a 1 to 1 ratio with the professors, which should be considered ludicrous since they are little more then paper shufflers, that would still leave $188,000 left over. That number only represents 4 courses so if we divide it by 4 and then we multiply it by 5 we can see how much from each of our normal load of 5 courses is left over after over paying the professors and faculty: $235,000 per semester.

To make this as simple as possible we should imagine that the school is as small as possible. Let's say that hypothetically this Harvard is only a single building with 1 class room with 2.5 professors and 1 room for the other 2.5 faculty members that it apparently takes to teach 5 courses in a semester(This also gives Harvard the benefit of the doubt when it comes to expense because it makes sense that efficiency should grow with size, and if it didn't then there is no reason to have schools larger then this in the first place). After subtracting the pay of the faculty this still leaves $235,000 to pay for the facilities... Of a 2 room building which his occupied by 42 people... For one semester... For comparison 3 of my apartments, utilities and all, would put me back less then $4,500 for a semester... Where the hell is all of our money going?

Its true that I leave out stuff like the cost of research, sports activities, ect but I also leave out revenues from book store sales, research fees, ticket sales for sports events, alumni donations, ect. I can't make any sense of this. Even with ridiculously over paying professors, hiring a ridiculous amount of over paid faculty, and reducing the school to the most inefficient size possible, the numbers still don't add up. A nauseating amount of waste is happening here with our money and, since we are in a public university, with the money of tax payers.

What exactly is causing this? Is it some weird market effect where competition doesn't push prices down because people are more willing to go to Universities that cost a lot because degrees from such places are seen as being much more valuable? Why hasn't some entrepreneur gotten a wiff of this situation and offered to pay the best professors in the country $200,000 a year to teach at half the cost of Harvard's tuition while still allowing for a healthy profit by minimizing other incredibly unnecessary costs? Wouldn't students go for that, or is there something I'm missing here that students are getting out of these incredibly expensive schools? Would a degree from a efficient school with the best professors in the nation, but perhaps not much else, be worth less then a degree from Harvard which costs twice as much?

This seems like a situation where the only likely reason for why this is happening is some sort of hidden government involvement which is preventing such competition from being created. is there something about school accreditation or some similar thing that is preventing competition?

Creativity, open source, and patents

2010-09-25T20:15:00.002-04:00

Hey all, I just thought this was an interesting, albeit maybe a little long, video which addresses creativity, open source and copyright laws and how technology interplays and is innovating these things. I was wondering what y'all's thoughts are on this video and on copyright and intellectual property in general. Enjoy the video!

Here's the link again: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html

Debating the Burke Society!

2010-09-23T13:47:00.002-04:00

As some of you may already have heard, a few of our brave number have taken up the task of initiating a battle of reason and ideas against the UVA's Conservative debating organization, Burke Society. Although we, of course, have the advantage when it comes to having a consistent and well thought out philosophy, we can't afford to underestimate the rhetorical skills and debating experience of the Burke Society. Therefore at this week's Classical Liberal Roundtable I invite you all to proffer the very best arguments you can summon up in defense of Liberty.

The issue to debate are the "Moral and Ethical Basis of Government Involvement in Social Issues". This gives us a wide field to play in and I expect us to be able to gather quite a few great arguments and real world examples in support of those arguments.

We should also keep in mind who we will be debating when collecting our most potent arguments. Keeping in mind that the Burke Society, like any modern conservative group, will be used to debating modern Liberal ideas which are, at best, based on a subjective utilitarian calculus instead of truly solid principles like the ones Libertarians can bring forth. Therefore I suggest we stress our principles and ethics rather then simply trying to argue for why Liberty is better for pragmatic reasons. Hopefully in this way we can use the Burke Society's debate experience against them to catch them off guard by using arguments they've never had to face before.

Another strategy we might want to keep in mind is that there are some issues that the conservatives demand liberty in, and we can use those cases to show them how their arguments are inconsistent and which actually aid the cause of the Statist Democrats. For example since we are talking about the role of government in social issues we can again catch the Burke Society off guard by arguing for stronger gun rights. We should keep in mind that our goal is not merely to defeat them, but to convince them.

Even if you, yourself, are not one of those lucky few who volunteered to participate in this debate, this will be your chance to indirectly help us fight for the cause of human Liberty. I look forward to that this weekend!

Warrants for Cell-Site Information? Why Bother!

2010-09-17T23:02:00.003-04:00

So cell phone towers record a modest amount of information about our daily lives, such as who we speak to on the phone and where we are located every minute (really, though, next time your iPhone loses reception, perhaps you should celebrate). With such an immense amount of tantalizing personal information being recorded in the digital age, the government would prefer if it didn't have to deal with pesky and old-fashioned warrants.

France Passes Burqa Ban

2010-09-17T22:39:00.003-04:00

The French Government has long been critical of this Muslim form of dress and has finally banned it completely from public, claiming it to be a security concern and an affront to French values. Is this legitimate? Could this happen in the U.S.?

In a vaguely similar story, a North Carolina high school banned a teen from wearing a nose piercing. The student, however, claims the piercing is part of her religion.

N.C. School Bans Nose Piercing

The Tea Party: Same Awful Republicans That Have Been Around For Years

2010-09-17T22:27:00.002-04:00

Glenn Greenwald (probably my favorite political blogger) gives a scathing criticism of the Tea Party as well as the oligarchic nature of our political system. Definitely worth a read.

ACLU Fights U.S. Government's Targeted Killing Policy

2010-09-17T22:20:00.004-04:00

Unsurprisingly, the ACLU as well as the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) believe the federal government's claimed authority to kill U.S. citizens outside of conflict zones without trial and without oversight is a frightening and spectacular abuse of power.

Lions on Grounds - a semi farce

2010-09-10T16:29:00.002-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

Watch that first. Lions should be allowed on Grounds. Well no, probably not, but now that you have some context as to my poorly contrived joke, what I really wanted to bring up is self-defense on grounds, most notably concealed carry. I was curious as to what people's thoughts and feelings are on the issue. There used to be a Students for Concealed Carry on Grounds, although the group is now defunct. If you don't really know much about Concealed Carry on Campus check out Students for Concealed Carry's site: http://www.concealedcampus.org/ . Also, another thing to think about is University of Virginia is a Public school and thus should be bound by the Second Amendment - like it is the First Amendment. So while Private Schools could, rightly in my opinion, ban guns on grounds, the argument that UVA can is somewhat more tenuous.

Quran burning controversy. Is Gainesville, Florida trying to suppress free speech and should we be angry?

2010-09-08T16:26:00.003-04:00

So a pastor in Gainesville, Florida named Terry Jones has plans to burn several hundred copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks.

The Gainesville Fire Department has already denied Jones a permit to carry out this event.

Is this action by the city of Gainesville really about fire safety? Or is it about trying to keep controversial speech quiet?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100908/pl_yblog_upshot/even-pastors-old-church-condemns-quran-burning

The Myth of the Rule of Law

2010-09-06T02:30:00.002-04:00

"I refer to the myth of the rule of law because, to the extent this phrase suggests a society in which all are governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges, there is no such thing. As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan "America is a government of laws and not people" is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth's danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom.

In this Article, I will argue that this is a false dichotomy. Specifically, I intend to establish three points: 1) there is no such thing as a government of law and not people, 2) the belief that there is serves to maintain public support for society's power structure, and 3) the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law."

I posted this because I felt as if we began to vaguely discuss the edges of this topic at the most recent CLR. The article is a little long, but really worth the read. I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this, and if you do agree with John Hasnas's argument, any thoughts on what should be done? Or what implications this has?

Corboda House Controversy

2010-09-03T11:21:00.002-04:00

For those of you who don't pay attention to the ever changing fashions of popular political controversy, here is what you're currently missing out on:

In downtown Manhattan a very large, very expensive building is under construction. No, It's not quite at ground zero, it will most likely still be years before any plans for the replacement of the Twin Towers are decided on. This building is two blocks North of the World Trade center's previous location. What makes this particular building of note is that it is an Islamic Cultural Center, and will include a Mosque on its top two floors. Dubbed by some as the "Ground Zero Mosque" by some, the plans have become a lightning rod for controversy and has seemed to split all political parties, and religious groups into opposing camps. One side sees the building as being and obscene celebration of 9-11, a "victory mosque", similar to the Corboda Mosque built in the Caliphate's Capital in Islamic Spain in the past. Others argue that the Imam representing the Corboda House has had nothing but a positive reputation for tolerant and peace loving Muslim Americans and that this Islamic center, open to all, is an Islamic project for tolerance and mutual understanding. Both sides of the issue have fiery opinions and have unleashed many arguments and information or various qualities and levels of honesty, but both sides of the issue do seem to agree that it is sizing up to be a significant influence on the upcoming elections.

It would be an interesting experience to see how a variety of Liberty minded people have to say on the subject who might otherwise agree with each other on many issues.

Democracy Exposed

2010-09-03T08:53:00.004-04:00

Democracy is often heralded as one of the most essential aspects of modern free societies. But is democracy itself an intrinsic good for society or does it serve to further a different, more fundamental and truly intrinsic, value?

If democracy is indeed highly essential for Just modern societies can the current centuries old US system, which seems to have permanently relegated its citizens to picking amongst only two choices, which ignores up to 49% of all voters, and which has been plagued with concerns over such things as gerrymandering, truly provide the nation with fullest benefits that democracy can provide?

The US Republic was the fist modern democratic system and more closely resembles an exotic prototype then a rigorously tested and perfected piece of machinery. After two centuries of experience, as well as witnessing the democratic revolution of much of the world, it should be well past time to re-examine our democratic Republic and suggest ways in which it can be improved.

Warrantless GPS tracking on your car? Government says it's ok!

2010-09-02T08:36:00.002-04:00

Pineda-Moreno's constitutional rights were, clearly I believe, violated by a warrantless GPS tracker attached to his car in an attempt to bust a marijuana growing operation.

"In the 10-page ruling, two of the Ninth Circuit judges held that the DEA agents did not violate Pineda-Moreno's constitutional rights. The judges ruled that because Pineda-Moreno's had not taken specific steps to exclude passersby from his driveway -- by installing a gate or posting no trespassing signs, for instance -- he could not claim reasonable privacy expectations.

The Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the actions by the agents were comparable to the delivery of newspapers to the house, or the retrieval of a ball accidentally thrown under the vehicle by a neighbor."

New Arizona Immigration Law

2010-04-25T12:02:00.002-04:00

The ACLU investigates the new immigration bill signed in Arizona. Among other things, the bill requires that police demand documentation from anyone they come across that they have "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant. So, if you look like an illegal immigrant and don't want to be arrested, you will need to keep the necessary documentation on you at all times.

The CSI Effect

2010-04-25T11:53:00.003-04:00

The Economist has an interesting article about how jurors today have unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and demand it in unnecessary situations. Evidence is not nearly as certain (or sexy) as television shows suggest.

Loosening Restrictions on Nurse Practitioners

2010-04-25T11:43:00.002-04:00

Current law restricts what nurses, physician assistants, and technicians can treat, demanding that doctors be present and responsible for treating patients with the most benign of ailments. Is this not extremely inefficient?

ACTA Draft Finally Released

2010-04-25T11:18:00.003-04:00

After years of secrecy, the countries involved have released a draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which would impose new criminal penalties for copyright infringement.

Another article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars/

JMU Newspaper Raided

2010-04-19T12:22:00.002-04:00

Two weeks ago we talked about riots that occurred at JMU. Police have just raided the university's newspaper (with warrant in tow), demanding that all pictures taken during the riot be turned over.

Kevorkian and Assisted Suicide

2010-04-18T16:58:00.005-04:00

Today during CLR I said that Jack Kevorkian was not a medical doctor. This was false (my philosophy professor lied to me!), so I'm sorry about that. However, what he did was still problematic for a number of reasons. He was not a long-time doctor of these patients, and many of the people he killed had treatable diseases. Some may even have been mentally ill.

I encourage you all to read up on this, because current laws force people who are terminally ill to live out excruciating pain until death. The question should not be whether a doctor should be allowed to actively kill or passively let a patient die but whether or not the patient is suffering. Unfortunately, when people in the U.S. think about euthanasia today, they usually think about Kevorkian, who actually was doing something insidious.

Here's some literature about the topic:

Active and Passive Euthanasia

Killing and Letting Die

Prescription Drug Laws

2010-04-18T16:33:00.004-04:00

I was actually having a pretty tough time finding articles about the rationale behind prescription drug laws. Fortunately, our friend Glenn Greenwald has written an article about it. He argues that the doctor-patient relationship should be like a attorney-client relationship, wherein the attorney recommends buts does not make the client's decision for her.

Privatizing Prisons in California

2010-04-17T10:19:00.002-04:00

California is facing extremely overcrowded and inefficient prisons. It has become such a problem that federal judges have ordered CA to release 40,000 inmates. While privatizing prisons is a good move forward, the government could also do something that relates to this week's theme to alleviate the problem.

The Success of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal

2010-04-17T10:16:00.002-04:00

This topic came up in our discussion a couple of weeks ago, but I don't think an article was posted. The facts speak for themselves, and I strongly recommend checking them out.

Bias and Beffuddlement: Our Government's Approach to Marijuana Facts and Research

2010-04-17T09:57:00.003-04:00

So I was trying to find out our government's exact justification for making marijuana illegal. The first website I went to was the The Office of National Drug Control Policy. Unsurprisingly, the section on health effects is completely biased. There is a part where it claims that marijuana can cause lung cancer, citing the National Institute of Drug Abuse. I went over to their website, and they describe a recent study that claims that there is no connection between marijuana use and lung cancer! This is just one example of how the federal government is deliberately dishonest about marijuana and its effects.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/marijuana_ff.html#go12

http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html#anchor

Marijuana Wars in California

2010-04-17T09:48:00.002-04:00

Reason has posted a video about the status of marijuana in CA. Back in 2007, legislation passed meant to limit the number of marijuana dispensaries in the state, and despite enormous costs, state officials intend to enforce this law. Meanwhile, Obama has broken promises to stop DEA raids on these dispensaries. Just when legalization seems to be gaining ground, our government is fighting back.

Wisconsin DA Threatens Criminal Charges Against Teachers Explaining Contraceptive Use in Sex Ed

2010-04-11T10:49:00.002-04:00

Legislators in Wisconsin just approved a law that would require that both the benefits of abstinence and the proper use of contraceptives be taught in public schools. A District Attorney, Scott Southworth, also a Republican and Christian evangelical, wants that law appealed. And before it becomes implemented, he wants to press charges against teachers explaining how to use contraceptives because it contributes to "the delinquency of a minor," a crime punishable by up to nine months behind bars and a $10,000 fine.

FCC Net Neutrality Rule Defeated in Court

2010-04-11T10:35:00.003-04:00

A major portion of Net Neutrality policy was defeated by the US Court of Appeals in the DC circuit. The FCC can no longer sanction Comcast for blocking peer-to-peer file sharing. This appears to be a major defeat for the growing techno-populist community. Ultimately, who gets to control the internet?

Journalists and the Government

2010-04-04T00:55:00.002-04:00

How the traditional corporate media is is neglecting to criticize the government and even to support free speech.

Airplane Cell Phone Bans

2010-04-04T00:51:00.001-04:00

Now the only reason left is, apparently, to protect other passengers from being annoyed.

White House Likely to Renege on Pledge to Try Terrorist in Civilian Courts

2010-04-04T00:16:00.004-04:00

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has endorsed denying civilian trials to terrorists, indicating Obama is likely to renege on yet another of his promises (and not a campaign promise either, but one from during his presidency.)

McCain and Lieberman Cosponsor Horrifying Anti-terrorism Bill

2010-03-20T00:07:00.002-04:00

McCain and Lieberman are cosponsoring a piece of legislature that would essentially legalize everything we protested that Bush was doing illegally. So called "unpriviliged enemy belligerants" which encompasses anyone even suspected of terrorism, would be remanded into military custody, including US citizens arrested on American soil, and the belligerants would specifically have their Mirranda rights waived. Once incarcerated, an interrogation would be held to determine if the suspect was indeed an "unprivileged enemy belligerant," in which case he could be held indefinitely until the end of hostilities against the US - which to me sounds like it could easily be a life sentence. The president also has discretion to declare any suspect an "unprivileged enemy belligerant." The implications of this - essentially formally legitimizing all the crimes Bush and Obama have committed - are horrifying.

Minority Report in America - the rise of Pre-Crime Policing

2010-03-18T12:47:00.003-04:00

A gun enthusiast in Oregon was arrested by SWAT teams, without arrest or search warrants, had his weapons confiscated, and was forced to undergo a mental evaluation. He had committed no crime, nor was he suspected of having committed one, and he had no criminal record. However, he had recently been placed on administrative leave and had used his tax refund check to purchase 5 guns. Authorities believed he might be unbalanced and could retaliate against his employer. Turns out, he was just a collector who was in perfect mental health and seems to have had no intentions of committing a shooting spree.

How to best be charitable?

2010-03-14T22:52:00.000-04:00

Here's a little parable to consider.

Why People Are Irrational about Politics

2010-02-27T23:55:00.000-05:00

People are irrational about politics.

Drawing the Line on Support for Terrorism

2010-02-27T23:44:00.003-05:00

Laws defining material support for terrorism are impossibly broad. Just ask the Humanitarian Law Project, a nonprofit accused of material support for terrorism because it gave legal advice to the PKK on how to present its human rights grievances against Turkey. The PKK is a Kurdish separatist group listed as a terrorist organization.

The Humanitarian Law Project is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "protecting human rights and promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict by using established international human rights laws and humanitarian law."

Perhaps this is taking the definition of terrorism a bit too far.

Capital Punishment

2010-02-27T23:36:00.002-05:00

Texas may be about to execute another possibly innocent man, yet refuses to do the DNA tests that might exonerate him. Looking at this case, I can't see how it can be legal to not go through with the DNA tests.

The Dangerous Failures of Checks and Balances

2010-02-06T14:38:00.002-05:00

Obama's and Bush have ushered in a new era of unrestricted presidential power, unchecked by the traditional American institutions. When it comes to terrorism, it seems that Americans are fine with a new rule of guilty until proven innocent.

The so called "war" exception

The new law of America for terrorists: guilty until proven innocent

Obama (Like Bush Before Him) has US Citizen Hit List of Suspected Terrorists

2010-01-29T16:07:00.003-05:00

Most of this article is about Yemen, but it has a troubling undercurrent involving covert US attacks there.

Obama has continued Bush's stance that the US has the right to assassinate US Citizens accused of collaborating with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, and there is a hit list of US Citizens targeted for future assassination.

What are the legal and ethical ramifications of this policy? This would seem to be summary execution, and thus total violation of the 5th and 6th amendments. Could the next step be assassination of suspected terrorists in the US itself?

Larry Lessig Explains Why the Citizens United Decision is Flawed

2010-01-29T16:03:00.003-05:00

An interesting response to the Glenn Greenwald post I linked to last week.