Monday, December 06, 2010
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Wikileaks and the Espionage Act
Stumped
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
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.
Four Loko Drink Ban
Monday, November 15, 2010
Happy meal ban repealed
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Obama to Appoint Web Privacy Czar
Obamacare and the new Republican House
Affirmative Action and Political Correctness on Campus
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Banning Happy Meals
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Societal Responsibilities
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
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
"More Democracy, More Incarceration"
Thursday, October 28, 2010
University of Virginia Eliminates All Speech Codes, Earning FIRE's 'Green Light' Rating
Monday, October 25, 2010
Should Libertarians Vote?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
"Who is Publius? or, Who's Afraid of Anonymous Political Speech?"
ACLU Defends Government Regulation of Internet
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Firefighters Watch as House Burns
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Good and Evil
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Rights and Entitlements
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Why Taxing the Wealthy Doesn't Work
"Drugs are bad, mmmkay" - so, weeds OK in CA, but other drugs?
Friday, October 01, 2010
Something Fishy...
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Creativity, open source, and patents
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!
Friday, September 17, 2010
Warrants for Cell-Site Information? Why Bother!
France Passes Burqa Ban
The Tea Party: Same Awful Republicans That Have Been Around For Years
ACLU Fights U.S. Government's Targeted Killing Policy
Friday, September 10, 2010
Lions on Grounds - a semi farce
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?
Monday, September 06, 2010
The Myth of the Rule of Law
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
Democracy Exposed
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Warrantless GPS tracking on your car? Government says it's ok!
"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 CSI Effect
Loosening Restrictions on Nurse Practitioners
ACTA Draft Finally Released
Another article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars/
Monday, April 19, 2010
JMU Newspaper Raided
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Kevorkian and Assisted Suicide
Prescription Drug Laws
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Privatizing Prisons in California
The Success of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal
Bias and Beffuddlement: Our Government's Approach to Marijuana Facts and Research
Marijuana Wars in California
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Wisconsin DA Threatens Criminal Charges Against Teachers Explaining Contraceptive Use in Sex Ed
FCC Net Neutrality Rule Defeated in Court
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Journalists and the Government
Airplane Cell Phone Bans
White House Likely to Renege on Pledge to Try Terrorist in Civilian Courts
Saturday, March 20, 2010
McCain and Lieberman Cosponsor Horrifying Anti-terrorism Bill
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Minority Report in America - the rise of Pre-Crime Policing
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Drawing the Line on Support for Terrorism
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
Saturday, February 06, 2010
The Dangerous Failures of Checks and Balances
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
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
New Censorship Low: SoCal School District Bans the Dictionary
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Campaign Finance Reform and the Supreme Court
42 Arrested in Guantanamo Bay Protest
"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
What next? Will these spies start reporting on those who complain about the government? Will more Americans be misled by this "secret" propaganda?