Monday, December 06, 2010

FCC's new attempt at censorship

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

Saturday, December 04, 2010

Wikileaks and the Espionage Act

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

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?

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

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

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

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Death Penalty in the U.S.

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

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."

Monday, November 15, 2010

San Francisco attempt to ban circumcision

Taking the banning of personal choices to the next level. 

Happy meal ban repealed

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

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Obama to Appoint Web Privacy Czar

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

Obamacare and the new Republican House

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

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?

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Banning Happy Meals

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?

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Societal Responsibilities

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

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?

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Halloween Regulation

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

"More Democracy, More Incarceration"

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?

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Monday, October 25, 2010

Should Libertarians Vote?

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.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

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

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

Article about currency war.  Very interesting concept.

ACLU Defends Government Regulation of Internet

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.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Child Abuse in a Stateless Society

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

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Firefighters Watch as House Burns

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.?

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Good and Evil

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?

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Rights and Entitlements

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.

Saturday, October 02, 2010

Why Taxing the Wealthy Doesn't Work

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?

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.

Friday, October 01, 2010

Something Fishy...

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?

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Creativity, open source, and patents

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

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Debating the Burke Society!

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!

Friday, September 17, 2010

Warrants for Cell-Site Information? Why Bother!

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

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.

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

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

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.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Lions on Grounds - a semi farce

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.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

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

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?

Monday, September 06, 2010

The Myth of the Rule of Law

"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?

Friday, September 03, 2010

Corboda House Controversy

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

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.


Thursday, September 02, 2010

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

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."

Sunday, April 25, 2010

New Arizona Immigration Law

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

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

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

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/

Monday, April 19, 2010

JMU Newspaper Raided

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.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Kevorkian and Assisted Suicide

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:

Prescription Drug Laws

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.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Privatizing Prisons in California

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

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

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.

Marijuana Wars in California

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.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

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

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

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?

Sunday, April 04, 2010

Journalists and the Government

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

Airplane Cell Phone Bans

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

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.)

Saturday, March 20, 2010

McCain and Lieberman Cosponsor Horrifying Anti-terrorism Bill

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.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

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

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.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

How to best be charitable?

Here's a little parable to consider.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Why People Are Irrational about Politics

People are irrational about politics.

Drawing the Line on Support for Terrorism

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

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.

Saturday, February 06, 2010

The Dangerous Failures of Checks and Balances

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




Friday, January 29, 2010

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

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

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


New Censorship Low: SoCal School District Bans the Dictionary

The town of Menifee, California, has banned the 10th episode of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, because of complaints of its "sexually graphic" definitions of such things as "oral sex - the oral stimulation of the genitals."

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Campaign Finance Reform and the Supreme Court

Is campaign financing by corporations essentially government corruption, or should companies be free to spend money on candidates they support?

42 Arrested in Guantanamo Bay Protest

"Washington, DC: In a dramatic protest, 42 activists with Witness Against Torture were arrested this afternoon at the U.S. Capitol. Most of the arrestees had been fasting since January 11th."

"The protest, which comes on the eve of the since-voided deadline President Obama had set for closing the prison camp at Guantanamo, was part of [a] nationwide set of actions today that included dozens of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans lobbying Congress; a campaign by human rights organizations - with the support of the rock superband, Coldplay - to flood Twitter with the "CloseGitmo" message; and, a press conference held by retired Generals at the National Press Club."

Press release from Witness Against Torture

"Secret" Pro-government Propaganda

Obama confidant Cass Sustein "has suggested "that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists."

What next? Will these spies start reporting on those who complain about the government? Will more Americans be misled by this "secret" propaganda?