From Instapundit:

Part one: America Has Become Too European.

Part two: A Return to Traditional American Virtues.

In Der Spiegel.

A few days ago I articulated my political worldview and pledged to “throw my political advocacy and support behind Republican candidates whose limiting principles are consistent with the Constitution and freedom” in order to reform the Republican party’s limiting principles to being consistent with freedom. Enter Massachusetts congressional hopeful Sam Meas, an American of Cambodian ancestry. He doesn’t know how old he is, exactly, because after Pol Pot re-educated Meas’ father to death, he was separated from his mother during the mad scramble to get to refugee camps in Thailand, and never saw her again. Read the whole article for more info about his extraordinary personal story.

As far as Meas’ politics, he self-identifies as a Reagan Republican, because (in his words) “I owe my life to him; he allowed me to come here and he fought Communism.” Fair enough. He’s not a fan of government involvement in health care, appears to hate socialism only slightly less than communism, and thinks America is “heaven on Earth.” From his campaign page:

I am not a career politician or country club candidate. I believe that America is the greatest country on earth. I am Sam Meas and I am running for Congress. I ask for your vote on September 14th. I approve of this message and I approve of the American Dream.

Gosh, I like this guy (and typically I don’t care for Boston fans – I’m assuming he cheers for Red Sox / Patriots). Yet, the Reason article mentions – but doesn’t go into specifics about – Meas’ tendency towards standard Republican social conservatism (you know, legislating morals, mores, and traditions, that are inconsistent with individual liberty). Since Meas also self-describes as the new face of the GOP, I hope he realizes that social conservatism is inconsistent with the individual liberty we all cherish, himself perhaps most of all since he “lived under a totalitarian regime . . . [and] knows what it is like to have lost all of your freedom.” After looking Meas up on the Internet and reading his website, I don’t see any social issues discussed on his “home,” “values & pledge,” or “issue,” pages. In fact, he provides the motto “live and let live.” I’m down with that.

What I’m not down for is Newt Gingrich, whose definition of freedom of expression (particularly religious liberty) is inconsistent with individual liberty. Reason sums it up well:

Jews, Christians, or Hindus are free to build whatever they want at 51 Park Place. But not Muslims. Why? Because the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Muslims. Once you strip away the Orwellian rhetoric equating peaceful religious activity with violence, Gingrich’s position really is as simple, and appalling, as that.

But Gingrich doesn’t limit expression only for Muslims, Nazi’s too: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” Here’s the problem with Newt Gingrich and individual liberty: the very criticism I have for the Democrat Party is true about Gingrich. Consider what I wrote about Democrats:

“My issue with the Democratic Party is its lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Rewritten for Gingrich:

“My issue with the Democratic Party Newt Gingrich is its his lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party Gingrich’s values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They His values are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Basically, individual freedom serves as Newt Gingrich’s limiting principle only to the extent that he agrees with you. That’s not freedom, Newt, and I won’t vote for you.

By the way, I haven’t written about the NYC Mosque yet. I was busy studying for the bar, then taking it, then traveling, and I’ve been at the bar (Stout) basically ever since. Here’s my view. There is absolutely no room for the force of government to deprive any member of the American community of freedom of expression or religion, no matter how rude their expression may be. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the Mosque is or isn’t rude, in light of the people building the mosque, the money behind it, the selection of the location, the name Cordoba center, etc.. Personally, I think it’s pretty damn rude. I have my doubts as to the sincerity of the people building it, the intentions of the sources of money for it, and the symbolism of the name Cordoba. And if the intent truly is to build bridges with the American people, they should consider relocating since nearly 70% of the country (including Harry Reid) thinks it’s rude (inappropriate is the term the poll used), and building it there will likely prove counterproductive to their professed intentions.

The bottom line, however, is that this is America and we shouldn’t even be discussing using the immutable force of government to suppress anyone’s religion no matter how rude or inappropriate we may individually perceive it. Shit, Newt, even Palin gets that. If you profess to believe in individual freedom – economic, civil, and political liberty – then you must accept the consequences of freedom, one of which is that we often may be offended by one another. There is no right not to be offended. Your recourse to being offended is not suppression of another’s expression but exercise of your right to expression. Wtf is so hard about this?

Religion is a collective group of people’s conception of the natural order of things. Collectively religions accurately depict the natural order of things. Not because they are trying, however.  In fact, most religions tell believers it will elevate them above the natural order of things, or remake the others in its image in order to restore the rightful state of order.

Consider Judaism. It told a group of people they were more special than the natural order, and proved it by enslaving them in Egypt, bringing them out of Egypt, insulating them from the natural order for forty years, and then reintroduced them to the natural order of things, which is fighting to sustain their collective conception of natural order, which, like many other religions, offer interesting possibilities at what the natural order could be if it were the natural order, which it could be if it implemented its conception of natural order on everyone else.

Rather, religions together accurately depict natural order because the global concert of each religion’s actors all acting simultaneously and at once is precisely nature’s order. This is true even of Atheists who collectively function as a single religion. As do Voluntaryists, however non-coercively. And wouldn’t natural order be interesting if people, whom for so long have done nothing but coerce each other, just stopped it already? Then people could get on with figuring out whom they are, and being that person. What I’m saying is the great Greek aphorism – know thyself – is potentially unfulfilled.

Perhaps it requires a moment to understand that natural order is as natural order does. Whatever natural order may be, it always abides by the laws of physics, markets, and providence. So what all religions – and cultures, which like any collective group of people trying to achieve their conception of the natural order play a substantial role in shaping the natural order – have in common is a good indicator of what’s true about the human experience. For instance, no religion I’m aware of promises that the rain will fall only on the righteous, because clearly that’s not true. All religions that promise the return of its particular prophet or deity disclaim that the precise date or time is unknown. The exceptions to this all prove the rule, such as the Seventh Day Adventists who were so sure Jesus was returning in 1844 they didn’t bother to bring in the crops that year.

That’s why it’s important to consider how accurately a particular religion depicts the immutable laws by which all actors in the concert of natural order must obey, such as gravity and probability. Consequently, I’m particularly tolerant of religions that articulate and are consistent with the natural rights (see Locke, John; Hobbes, Thomas) that shape my conception of the natural order, which is freedom. I suppose that explains a lot about why some people think man made God in man’s image.

For instance, if God was made in my image he’d love freedom, hate coercion, but be a bit of a fatalist, being a big believer in providence and that the best we can do is to do the best we can. Of course, you can say the same of gazelles on African savannah.

Nature, then, provides the natural order with which the human experience is ultimately consistent. The obvious implication is that humans evolved directly from nature, which is scientifically true. Yet common to almost every human is belief in God or religion, befuddling Atheists. Perhaps gazelles marvel at the stars, thanking providence for sparing them from the day’s lions. That doesn’t account beyond nature’s order, however, for the gazelles the lions ate.

The fact is that natural life is short and brutal. Since humans are uniquely capable of attempting to recreate natural order in their conception of what natural order should be it should be no surprise that humans endeavor precisely that. Perhaps left to our own devices in a world devoid of government or religion – like in The Book of Eli, where the natural order of humankind was truly short and brutal – religion would be a most logical conclusion, as a preferable alternative to nature’s brute order. The logical end of that, though, is the same concert of religions, cultures, and individuals, as exist now, all fighting, one way or another, to assert their conception of natural order upon others. The common human experience, then, may be cyclical and never learns from its mistakes, something to which most religions stipulate. As does Cosmology (universe expanding, contracting, and over again).

If in a world devoid of government or religion life is short and brutal, rather than libertopia, one wonders how voluntaryism might take hold if not by force. Consider Ghengis Khan, the original neocon, who sincerely believed the only way to live at peace was to conquer potentially (and often actually) quarrelsome neighbors, and enforce a culture of peace with the hardest of iron fists – which he did. His only mandate to all within his ever-expanding territory was be peaceful. But it took many millions of lives to achieve that peace, and it lasted only as long as he could enforce it. George Bush might say that Khan violated his peaceful principles to implement his peaceful principles. Successfully, too, for a time.

Then again, hundreds of millions of lives have been wasted throughout history for reasons much less noble than creating a culture of relative peace. As a result I’m often convinced that neoconism is the lesser of the evils. The obvious counterargument to neoconism is that Alfred Nobel thought dynamite – his invention and at that time the world’s greatest weapon – would end large-scale warfare. And look how well that turned out. But as a friend pointed out the other day, Nobel may have actually been correct in principle, and his flaw one of scale. Perhaps hydrogen bombs are weapons great enough in global scale to end large-scale warfare, making irritating regional conflicts the norm rather than greater global upheaval.

Of course, regional conflicts involving nuclear weapons may quickly progress to global upheaval, which makes the neoconservative point about the importance of stopping unstable regimes such as Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. By contrast, neoconservatives tolerate Israel’s nuclear arsenal because they don’t think it’d be used for anything but self-preservation. Self-preservation is a natural right, and one superior to the right of coercion asserted by every invader – even those who claim the right of invasion to create a peaceful order. Human’s collective appreciation for the right of self-preservation may be precisely why implementing an aggressive neoconservative strategy effectively frightens the majority of us into inaction on the matter, leading then to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in unstable regions (e.g. Pakistan), the presence of which makes more likely the prospect of global warfare, which is ultimately much worse than irritating regional conflicts.

Worse, not only are we collectively unwilling to preclude the possibility of global warfare by forcibly stopping unstable regimes from obtaining nuclear weapons, we are unwilling even to destabilize those regimes by tearing down the restrictions on nuclear energy in the United States – ironically, the form of energy powering the Navy, our greatest projection of power – and instantly bankrupt unstable and unwanted regimes the world over. The mass proliferation of nuclear energy in America would reduce regional conflicts into simply national conflicts. Or at least nations in a given region couldn’t project their regional conflicts onto us, which would be outstanding.

So do we agree, then, on supporting nuclear energy? And did I mention Gov. Gary Johnson supports bustin’ down the door to nuclear energy in America? I’m on board.

Watch this fascinating, five part mini-documentary about Gov. Gary Johnson’s adventure to the top of Mount Everest. (Unfortunately I’m not able to embed it here. But do click on the link, watch the videos, and subscribe to OUR America Initiative’s YouTube channel.) Evidently Gov. Gary Johnson is too tough for Everest’s frostbite. I predict the mainstream media is going to break their collective teeth on his thick skin.

The Gary Johnson’s train is leaving the station. All aboard for a common sense, business approach to Constitutionally limited, fiscally responsible government. I’m driving the train, and informing the world.

As an aside, According to J.C. (a human friend, not Jesus Christ), I’m effectively Gary Johnson’s frontman. Although, come to think of it, I’d accept Christ’s endorsement on the matter. Yo Gary, I’m your Flavor Flav.

This video reminds me of what a friend said to me at Stout: “I long thought the Second Amendment was, at least, ambiguous. Then I read it.”

Or, just think about Cartman shouting at his mother “Mah! More Pie!”

The newest member of DuelingBarstools’ illustrious Magna Cum Blogroll is . . . drumroll . . . Jack Hunter a.k.a. the Southern Avenger, a columnist and radio show host in Charleston, South Carolina. He blogs here, as well as at the American Conservative Magazine. Here’s a snippet from a recent blog post titled Iraq and the Big Picture:

Those who advocate a reduced global American military presence are often accused by defenders of the status quo of somehow being naïve or unable to see the big picture. But the exact opposite is true — it is those who insist America must be everywhere at all times who are also all over the place in their logic, as their advocating for perpetual war continues to lead to permanent disaster.

Not to mention, as Gov. Gary Johnson would surely remind you, that 43% of every dollar the US spends is borrowed.

Take Iraq. Now that Obama has announced his own “Mission Accomplished” and is reducing troop levels, Democrats are praising the president’s leadership and Republicans are touting the Bush surge that made it all possible. But however stable or unstable Iraq becomes in the years ahead, what, exactly, did the United States get out of this war?

Did any of the reasons Americans were given for invading Iraq — that Saddam Hussein was a “threat,” that he possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he aided terrorists and was somehow connected to 9/11 — turn out to be true? When asked whether it would have been wise to oust Hussein during Operation Desert Storm, former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said in 1994 that invading Baghdad would have created a “quagmire,” destabilized the region, caused civil war, empowered Iran, and led to U.S. casualties that would have been too high. “How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?” Cheney asked in ‘94.s

Did not everything Cheney once feared about invading Iraq come to fruition after 2003, and are these not the reasons Bush even had to surge or Obama still has to stay? Cheney was right the first time — how many dead Americans was Saddam worth? With nearly 5,000 soldiers lost, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, a more brazen Iran, and a $3 trillion price tag, what have we accomplished in Iraq that, in retrospect, was even remotely worth the cost? Those who still believe that it was necessary to invade Iraq would likely consider this critique the ramblings of a naïve fool who does not understand the big picture when it comes to fighting the War on Terror — but what has the Iraq War ever had to do in any conceivable way with actually fighting al-Qaeda, a group that did not even exist in that country until the U.S. invaded? It is not the Iraq War’s critics who have failed to see the big picture.

American foreign interventionism is like an abusive marriage — no matter how illogical or tragic it becomes, we always rationalize why we must stay. We went to Iraq to take care of the “threat” that Saddam had allegedly become — something, even if true, we created through years of aid and ammo to the Iraqi dictator in the 1980s. If Saddam ever had WMDs, we gave them to him. Why would we aid Hussein? As a bulwark against Iran, whom we perceived as a threat, and why? Because Iran took American hostages following their 1979 revolution in which they overthrew the Shah — a leader we installed and Iranians despised, engendering anti-American sentiment and sowing the seeds for revolution for decades. Today, the same people who thought the Iraq War was a good idea are clamoring for war with Iran. Why? Because with the overthrow of Saddam, Iran’s power and influence in the region has risen, making that country now also a “threat,” just as Dick Cheney once warned it might become.

And then there’s Afghanistan, where we fought the Taliban after 9/11, whose training and weapons came from the United States in the ’80s during the Cold War. The 1988 action movie “Rambo III,” in which Sylvester Stallone made new friends in Osama bin Laden’s social circle, ended with the following dedication: “This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan.” Those gallant Afghans now make up the insurgency that persists in that country, where our current president is escalating troops for some vague reason, while simultaneously carrying out drone strikes in neighboring Pakistan, our supposed ally. Former Reagan official and foreign-policy critic Bruce Fein estimates that for every U.S. drone strike, 10 new insurgents are created — making the so-called War on Terror more a war for it.

That our interventionism only begets more interventionism, that our wars on terror only create more terrorists, and that virtually every military action we take in the Middle East results in further military action is the big picture that defenders of the foreign-policy status quo either cannot see or do not want us to. What do we ever “win” in the Middle East? What have we ever “won?”

Emphasis added.

Here’s an excellent op-ed in Huffpo by Gov. Gary Johnson regarding ending the war on drugs.

There were 72 bodies found on a ranch ninety miles south of the Texas border — obvious victims of a drug cartel massacre. Bullets have been hitting public buildings in El Paso, and the Washington Post is reporting that at least $20 billion a year in cash is being smuggled across the U. S. border each year. What is it going to take to convince the federal government that current drug policies are not working? The fact is that the current drug laws are contributing to an all-out war on our southern border — all in the name of a modern-day prohibition that is no more logical or realistic than the one we abandoned 75 years ago.

. . .

How are [illegal drug cartels] able to do this? Because America’s policy for nearly 70 years has been to keep marijuana — arguably no more harmful than alcohol and used by 15 million Americans every month — confined to the illicit market, meaning we’ve given criminals a virtual monopoly on something that U.S. researcher Jon Gettman estimates is a $36 billion a year industry, greater than corn and wheat combined. We have implemented laws that are not enforceable, which has thereby created a thriving black market. By denying reality and not regulating and taxing marijuana, we are fueling not only this massive illicit economy, but a war that we are clearly losing.

In short, let’s end the war on drugs because it’s stupid. I wrote about the interplay between marijuana and liberty – and championed Gov. Johnson’s common sense, liberty-first views on the mattter – a little while back.

Gov. Johnson also favors legalizing marijuana. Why? Because [] legalization of marijuana will eliminate a substantial portion of the criminal element of drug distribution, conserve human and law enforcement resources, and permit society to deal with drug abuse as a medical, not criminal, issue. More importantly, legalization of marijuana – unlike outright prohibition – is consistent with traditional American notions of liberty, the idea that we are born free to pursue happiness in the manner we see fit but may not infringe on the freedom of others. The principle that we should be free to choose – savor that phrase, Free to Choose – extends to choices that may be harmful, wasteful, or unnecessary. Motorcycles, for instance.

Legalization and common sense regulation of marijuana (e.g. no impairment and driving) is a better public policy than prohibition, and it is consistent with liberty.  Insofar as we disagree with our fellow citizens’ choices we may advocate against them. But we should not resort to government prohibition to prevent others from choosing, while establishing our choice as law. That is not limited government, and it is not freedom. Good government preserves our freedom to choose and holds us liable when the consequences of our choices adversely impact others.

For more information on Gov. Gary Johnson I heartily recommend his official facebook page, unofficial facebook page, official twitter feed, the OUR America Initiative homepage, and assorted grassroots organizations championing Gov. Gary Johnson for president.

Here’s a post I started on July 26 (the day before the California bar exam) but didn’t finish, for obvious reasons.

I’m taking the California bar exam tomorrow. And Wednesday. And Thursday. Reflecting on my experience with “higher education” I think that the fundamental problem with higher education is that rather than serving as a shortcut to gaining the skills and knowledge necessary to being productive in a particular industry it has become a prerequisite in too many industries, law included. Higher education’s economic and societal inefficiencies flow from that basic flaw.

I think short posts like this will become my norm. Rather than trying to comment on the news of the day I’ve become primarily interested in distilling key issues down to their core. I took a stab at this in July, when I wrote:

I can’t spot a difference between the legal argument against gay marriage and the now discredited argument against female suffrage. And from my view, the rationale driving the war on drugs is essentially the same rationale behind gun control. Take note, Republicans.

I’m in the process of articulating my political world view in a similar fashion to my ever-evolving manifesto on equal treatment. That should be up shortly. Until then, the Dialectical Playa has been busy. Check him out.

After nearly a year in the works, my law review article Who is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters, has been published by the Asia-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. Go here to read it (caution, nearly 40,000 words inclusive of footnotes). Article abstract is below:

The Akaka bill proposes to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity similar to those of federally recognized Indian tribes. As the Akaka bill will institutionalize a political difference between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, who is Hawaiian is a timely, and controversial, issue. Also controversial is whether Congress possesses the authority to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity. This article addresses three questions that probe the heart of the controversy surrounding the Akaka bill: who is Hawaiian, what begets federal recognition, and how much blood matters. After analyzing relevant Indian jurisprudence, this article demonstrates that political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As such, it is the political-historical, not racial, definition of Hawaiian that is legally significant to the Akaka bill. Since, however, the Akaka bill utilizes an ethnic Hawaiian blood eligibility criterion, another important question – and one Justice Breyer raised in Rice v. Cayetano – is how much blood is necessary to distinguish ideological self-identification from legitimate racial identity. To the extent racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, this article contends that a preponderance of preferred blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.

I’m back on the barstool. Here’s Gov. Gary Johnson for the uninitiated:

Gary Johnson is a father, entrepreneur, and former two-term governor of New Mexico.  As governor his common-sense business approach reduced taxes, cut spending, and consistently delivered the best government product at the lowest price to taxpayers.  He vetoed over 1000 new spending items, slashed government waste, enacted major welfare reform, and left office with a balanced budget and treasury surplus.  A staunch believer in individual liberty and limited government Gov. Johnson championed free choice initiatives such as school vouchers to foster entrepreneurship in education and provide parents of all income levels with options for their children.  Now the chairman of the OUR America Initiative Gov. Johnson travels the country advocating for a common sense business approach to federal governance premised upon significant spending cuts, a return to Constitutionally limited government, and loosening the bounds that restrain free enterprise.  This is necessary to preserve OUR America, and increase liberty and prosperity for every American.

Learn about Gov. Gary Johnson here (interview with the Reason.tv) (more Reason interview here), here (Salon article), here(three-part video of radio show interview), here (love from Kos), here (Liberty Point), here (Gov. Gary Johnson’s guide to good government), here (Gulf Coast Business Review), here (Wall Street Journal blog), here (Gov. Gary Johnson on States’ rights), here (Gov. Gary Johnson on immigration), here (Washington Examiner), here (Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish), here (Daily Caller), andhere (Gov. Gary Johnson on the war on drugs).

Finally, read about why and how to donate to the OUR America Initiative here. And if you don’t have money (or even if you do) contact me (I volunteer for Gov. Gary Johnson) to discuss setting up an event in your hometown for Gov. Gary Johnson to speak at. The dude is burning shoe leather (and bicycle tires) countrywide spreading the ideas dear to independents, moderates of both parties, and libertarian-leaning individuals. Put your time and/or money where your mouth/keyboard is and contribute to the OUR America Initiative.

I can’t spot a difference between the legal argument against gay marriage and the now discredited argument against female suffrage. And from my view, the rationale driving the war on drugs is essentially the same rational behind gun control. Take note, Republicans.

I leave you with this gem. Three cheers, respectively, to economic, civil, and political freedom.

Via the OUR America Initiative:

Dear Friend,

I know you are a busy person, but I sincerely hope you can find the time to read this short personal letter from me about how we—together—can help America.

Sean Hannity, Bill Maher, Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano, John Stossel, Cavuto—even the Colbert Report. Those are a few of the national television programs I have appeared on recently. I’ve also been doing interviews on Talk Radio all across the nation almost every day, and sometimes many times a day.

California, New York, New Hampshire, Missouri, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Texas, Colorado, South Carolina. Those are just a few of the States I have visited in the last six months to give speeches and meet with like-minded activists. I believe the total number of states I have visited is now 20.

I’m doing all this because I’m angry—angry that the Federal Government is spending all of us into bankruptcy. I’m angry that Congress is planning to spend $3Billion for an extra engine for all the F-35 fighter planes. Out of control spending like that must stop.

I’m angry that we are borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar the government is spending—with no end in sight. And angry that the politicians in Washington simply refuse to tell the truth, face facts and get the government and spending under control.

A year ago, I was living in New Mexico. After serving two terms as Governor of New Mexico, I had stepped off the political stage. What I saw in Washington was our government engaged in serial bailouts with money we don’t have, a take-over of health care and a futile attempt to “fix” the economy by throwing money around at levels that are almost unfathomable.

As I watched, I became more and more frustrated because, having been a Governor for eight years, I know that government can be reduced, spending can be cut, and problems really can be dealt with. I know because that’s what I did in New Mexico.

I knew that I had two choices: Sit on the couch and just get angrier, or try to give voice to basic, common-sense ideas like slashing government spending instead of increasing it, getting the government out of health care instead of taking it over, and declaring the War on Drugs the failure it is and trying some new approaches.

As any of you that know me can attest, I’ve never been one to sit on the couch and watch, so I created the Our America Initiative, a not-for-profit issue advocacy organization. I began to travel the country and take to the airwaves to try to provide that common sense voice.

Frankly, when we started Our America, I didn’t know if people would listen—but I had to try.

Today, a few short months after kicking off the Our America Initiative, I am here to tell you that people ARE listening. I have been asked to speak to tens of thousands of people all across the country—from coffee shops to baseball stadiums. I’ve addressed Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians. No matter what label people go by, our message of truth, common sense and individual freedom is hitting a chord.

As our message has gained momentum, I have learned that I cannot keep up with the demand for interviews, speeches and television appearances by myself. I can’t do it alone. I need your help!

The Our America Initiative was never intended to be about me. I am just the voice for what millions of Americans are thinking and believing. I’m the spokesman for the OUR America team. That’s my job. It’s what I have to offer. And it’s working.

I’ve learned that people are genuinely amazed to discover that government spending can be controlled. While I was the Governor of New Mexico, I vetoed 750 bills, more than all the other 49 state governors combined, and I lived to tell about it.

People are excited when they learn that my administration actually reduced New Mexico’s state payroll by 1,000 employees—without firing anybody or cutting services.

And yes, people are ready to listen to someone who will tell the truth about the War on Drugs, immigration, health care and the other pressing issues Washington just can’t seem to cope with.

My job as Honorary Chairman of Our America is to tell the truth, advocate common sense, and demonstrate that good government really isn’t that hard.

But I am not the only one with a job to do here.

We have made fantastic progress in a remarkably short time, but to take the Our America Initiative to the next level I need your help.

Traveling across the country every week, doing the research on issues we must do, dealing with media requests, and spreading our message across the airwaves and Internet all cost money. OUR America has gotten this far with the help of a few generous and committed supporters who share our vision—but to keep the momentum going we have to do more.

Our plans are to open additional offices, to add top-notch people to our team, and to make even better use of technology to communicate with the millions of like-minded Americans who are looking for a way to act on their frustrations and ideas.

For us to do those things, I humbly ask you to go tohttp://www.ouramericainitiative.com/ and make a contribution that will help us make our voice even louder and broader.

Your support will make the difference, and insure that we are heard as critical decisions are made in the months and years ahead about the size and scope of government.

As a businessman and a Governor who actually “walked the talk” on taxes and spending, I assure you that whatever amount you donate, your dollars will be well spent. I’m a very careful guy with money—some may even say I am stingy. But we can’t operate or grow Our America on good wishes and enthusiasm alone. This effort requires funding—from you and others like you who are willing to join this important cause.

As I often say, if you want a revolution, get on board—today. No one is going to come to our rescue in these difficult times. It is up to you and to me. Someone has to say and advocate the things we are saying and advocating, and no one else is.

Your contribution to Our America will let us say it louder and farther.

Thanks for your help, and I hope to see you soon.

Gary E. Johnson
Honorary Chairman
Our America Initiative

Please click this link to make your donation today: https://ouramericainitiative.com/donate

As you know studying for the California bar exam has taken up much of my mental energy. Trust me when I say I’d rather be working on making Gary Johnson the next president of the United States. For the uninitiated, here’s some background about Gov. Johnson:

Gary Johnson is a father, entrepreneur, and former two-term governor of New Mexico.  As governor his common-sense business approach reduced taxes, cut spending, and consistently delivered the best government product at the lowest price to taxpayers.  He vetoed over 1000 new spending items, slashed government waste, enacted major welfare reform, and left office with a balanced budget and treasury surplus.  A staunch believer in individual liberty and limited government Gov. Johnson championed free choice initiatives such as school vouchers to foster entrepreneurship in education and provide parents of all income levels with options for their children.  Now the chairman of the OUR America Initiative Gov. Johnson travels the country advocating for a common sense business approach to federal governance premised upon significant spending cuts, a return to limited government, and loosening the bounds that restrain free enterprise.  This is necessary to preserve OUR America, and increase liberty and prosperity for every American.

Gov. Johnson also favors legalizing marijuana. Why? Because the war on drugs is stupid legalization of marijuana will eliminate a substantial portion of the criminal element of drug distribution, conserve human and law enforcement resources, and permit society to deal with drug abuse as a medical, not criminal, issue. More importantly, legalization of marijuana – unlike outright prohibition – is consistent with traditional American notions of liberty, the idea that we are born free to pursue happiness in the manner we see fit but may not infringe on the freedom of others. The principle that we should be free to choose – savor that phrase, Free to Choose – extends to choices that may be harmful, wasteful, or unnecessary. Motorcycles, for instance.

Legalization and common sense regulation of marijuana (e.g. no impairment and driving) is a better public policy than prohibition, and it is consistent with liberty.  Insofar as we disagree with our fellow citizens’ choices we may advocate against them. But we should not resort to government prohibition to prevent others from choosing, while establishing our choice as law. That is not limited government, and it is not freedom. Good government preserves our freedom to choose and holds us liable when the consequences of our choices adversely impact others.

For more information on Gov. Gary Johnson I heartily recommend his official facebook page, unofficial facebook page, official twitter feed, the OUR America Initiative homepage, and assorted grassroots organizations championing Gov. Gary Johnson for president.

Last but not least, here’s a gem from RodRadley Balko to brighten your day:

In a display of unified, bipartisan dimwittery, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) are joining together to ban prepaid cell phones. Because an inept terrorist once used one in a failed plot.

If only we could get a terrorist to use a reactionary, grandstanding politician in some future plot. Maybe the government would finally ban those, too. [Ed. note: +1, ftw] Or at least no longer allow them on airplanes.

Agreed.

Tremendous read here:

At the end of March, Harold Koh, top lawyer at the State Department, used his keynote address at the annual confab of the American Society for International Law to make an announcement: the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to kill suspected terrorists is legal. The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan are lawful because, Koh delineated, they are done only in national self-defense, their proportionality is always precisely calibrated, and they carefully discriminate civilians from combatants.

There’s both more and less to it than that, but the legal argument itself is of minor importance. What matters is that Koh said it. Harold Hongju Koh: renowned human rights advocate; leading theorist of international law (which, the ASIL conventioneers would happily have told you, is much more civilized than mere national law); until last year dean of Yale Law School and therefore unofficial pope of the American legal system, and former director of the school’s Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights; Obama appointee accused by Glenn Beck and likeminded screamers of wanting to smuggle Sharia law into U.S. courts. All of which is to say, if a liberal lion like Harold Koh says drone strikes are lawful, what more do you need to know?

Koh’s lecture—warmly applauded by the conventioneers—demonstrates once again the amazing elasticity of international law when it comes to the prerogatives of great powers. Koh’s lecture also demonstrates the accommodating suppleness of several international lawyers who, once strong critics of George W. Bush’s anti-terror policies, now see things differently from inside the Obama administration.

* * *

There are in fact alternatives to the drone strikes, the main one being to end them. Not two years ago, John McCain was blasting Obama’s pledge to launch attacks into Pakistan as foolhardy nonsense. (Where Republican hawks once feared to tread, humanitarian angels now rush in.) Though most hawks have quickly grown to love the drone strikes, it is still not at all difficult to find prominent military intellectuals who favor the alternative of halting the policy full stop. David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum, respectively a former adviser to General Petraeus and a former Army captain who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, are both leading theorists of counterinsurgency warfare at the Center for a New American Security. They have testified before Congress that drone strikes are perceived to be wildly inaccurate—killing, they say, 700 people in attacks on 14 targets—and are undermining the “hearts and minds” offensive that is central to the campaign. They recommend scrapping drone attacks. And then there is the American Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who happens to be a retired Army general. In leaked cables to the president, Eikenberry severely questioned the wisdom of the counterinsurgency campaign and the escalation in a long telegram commonly compared to the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. Is anyone listening to these well-informed skeptics?

Don’t wait for the international legal profession to prick up its collective ears. Leaked videos of bantering gunship crews fatally strafing civilians may trouble the mind, but drone strikes have been absolved by the great humanitarian authority Harold Koh. His keynote address got a few not-buying-it questions from a couple of academics—long may you live, Benjamin Davis and Mary Ellen O’Connell—but this dissonance was washed away by the warm roar of applause at session’s end. A Russian corporate lawyer chum of mine was taken aback by this mellow response to a legal justification for Bush-Cheney policies. “And they say we Russians are brainwashed by our media! No, I did not clap.”

As they say, read the whole thing.

Via Gov. Johnson’s twitter feed.
Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Dear Readers, It’s been a long time since the lab cab speculation-info dump. Too long. Without further ado, let’s speculate.

Here’s a two-for-one Cab photo special, and both cab names have a decent alcohol connotation. First, Absolute Cab, which presumably is the third cab in the telephone book (right after Aardvark Cab (great name, too) and ABC Cab). Absolute is a very strong word, evoking the idea that you’re absolutely going to get where you want to. And Absolute Cab might make you chuckle if you’re inebriated (“heh, I was just drinking Absolut, bro”). But Captain Cab is better. In addition to referencing the Captain Morgan Rum spokesperson, Captains are leaders – they’re at the helm – and stand firm against torrential seas. Perhaps the same individual who who owns Sea Cab owns Captain Cab. If so, he’s a sailor. And a good one. Mark my words.

Frequent Vegas visitor M-wife snapped a picture of Desert Cab in, fittingly, Las Vegas. Me? I love Las Vegas, partly because it is fun as fun can be, but mostly because there’s liberty and opportunity, as well as all of their consequences, good and bad, everywhere you look. To illustrate, Vegas’ mayor is sponsored . . . by Bombay Sapphire gin. By contrast, New York is considering prohibiting restaurants from seasoning food with salt, strongly indicating that American society is not worth its salt. With that said, Desert Cab is a fairly snazzy name (and it’s certainly appropriate). In hopes that Vegas has fleets of uniquely named Cabs, I’m commissioning a team of photographers to visit Vegas later this month to canvas the strip and airport (always a veritable gold mine for Cabs) to search for presumptive gems such as Venetian Cab (no ways that’s copyright infringement), Pyramid Cab (has a cousin in San Diego, the Nile cab (note: spotted Blue Nile Cab recently), or Sands Cab (referencing Vegas’ soil structure as well as a Vegas icon). Come on Vegas, don’t let us down. We’re feeling lucky. How about Craps Cab? That’d be a sweet one.

It should come as no surprise that Surf Ride Cab is (apparently) on its way to Mission Bay. According to the San Diego County Government website, Mission Bay is “a perfect spot for everyone from wind surfers to water skiers,” since Mission Bay “offers boat docks and launching facilities, sailboat and motor rentals, bike/walk paths, basketball courts, and playgrounds for children” and is “one of San Diego’s most fun-filled spots to visit.” Me thinks, however, that “Surf or Ride Cab” would be a better name than “Surf Ride Cab” because it’d be a funny take on the the Surf MC’s 1987 classic Surf or Die, which you can listen to at http://tinyurl.com/2ezykts (@2:20 to see a surfer take a hacksaw to a vintage, yellow skateboard).

I possess a particularly deep appreciation for the cab driver who christened his cab USA Freedom Cab. I think I like USA Freedom Cab better than “Libertarian Cab,” which is a cab name “so awesome I think I may have just crapped.” (Ed note: If you spot Libertarian Cab and get a picture, I will buy you a beer and a shot at Stout.) If I had fuck you money I’d buy a fleet of cabs and give them names such as “Cato the Younger Cab,” “Nat Turner Cab,” and “Cicero Cab,” and give discounts to customers who could identify the individual my cab is named for and cogently discuss that individual’s enduring socio-political impact. Maybe I could setup a video camera, record our conversations, and send in the really dumb ones to Jay Leno for his Jaywalking (watch that clip, btw). Hey, Leno could use a ratings boost. What’s certain about USA Freedom Cab is that no two-bit teenage punks would dare ditch the cab fare and beat up its driver. If you tried that, USA Freedom Cab’s steely-eyed driver would threaten to castrate you with his metal bill of rights (that he picked up at the Penn & Teller show in Vegas (hey, that’s where I got mine)), take your wallet, extract the proper cab fare plus tip, and tell you to get the hell out of Dodge, or else. Of course you’d feel compelled to say “You’re a hard man,” and he’d reply “it’s a hard country.” Then he’d drive off into the sunset, and you’d be wondering, among other things, how the hell he didn’t even drop his cigarette.

My apologies for the lack of original content at DuelingBarstools over the last couple of weeks. I am studying for the California bar exam, a difficult and arguably unnecessary examination that has tremendous bearing on my future prospects. I regret that I likely will not be posting much besides weekly cab roundups and links to fascinating articles (see below). I reserve the right, however, to return from Stout mildly inebriated and wound up about something socio-political / economic, and pen a rant of some sort. In that event, I’ll probably be expressing my angst as to the criminally low level of national discourse surrounding immigration reform. A prelude: In my view, proper immigration reform requires fundamental changes to our tax code, social-welfare policies, and minimum wage; tearing down the regulatory barriers restricting free enterprise; ending the war on drugs; streamlining the process to obtain legal residence in America; and revisiting some of America’s 19th century federal land policies that provided real opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike to create wealth and engage in free enterprise. By contrast, the immigration “debate” – and I am loathe to use that word – seems to revolve around two equally stupid, shortsighted measures: (a) send hardworking, illegal immigrants home (and don’t let them come back) or (b) add 12 million plus plus new legal immigrants overnight without revising state and federal labor / employment policies, social-welfare, taxation, and business policies. In time I intend to discuss in detail what I consider to be a comprehensive immigration “reform,” and look forward to your comments, suggestions, and criticisms in the comments. Until then, I will be engrossed by mountains of Barbri study materials, and attempt to relearn three years of law school in the next two months. In the meantime, enjoy this read (courtesy of Pila), which reminded me, among other things, that the US of A is a long, long way from a free market system, and in the macro sense may never have truly had one. On a different note, I found this piece on neanderthals interesting too, and particularly enjoyed this piece on domestic militia paranoia reminding us that “[w]e can reenact the Brown and Red Scares of the past, or we can pull back from a mentality that has never been good for either liberty or security; we can plunge further into madness like the Oklahoma bill, or we can adopt the measured skepticism displayed this week by Judge Roberts.”

Here’s a link and video from Gov. Johnson’s twitter feed. First, a Salon article about Gov. Johnson titled “The Most Interesting Republican You’ve Never Heard Of,” which is as curious as it is an understated title for an article essentially showing that Gov. Johnson shatters the left’s narrative of eeevil Republican politicians. It’s worth the read anyhow though, and I liked this bit too:

Johnson is betting that the country is in the mood for some more tough love, albeit wrapped in flamboyantly libertarian garb. It’ s a risky wager at best. But one thing is guaranteed: If Gary Johnson runs for president, he’ s sure to freshen up the national conversation. And those debates with Mitt Romney should be fun to watch.

A Gov. Johnson v. Gov. Romney debate would be epic. Common sense, plain-expression versus expert legal wordsmithing. Legal wordsmithing might carry the day in court, and in Andrew Sullivan’s portion of the blogosphere, but common sense, but in the voting booth Gov. Johnson’s message will carry the day. As the article correctly points out, however, the challenge will be getting enough voters to hear Gov. Johnson’s message.

Now, a video:

You’re probably aware that when South Park’s SuperBestFriends episode aired in 2001 there was no Muslim backlash to speak of. Of course that’s wholly unsurprising, since:

[t]he Qur’an contains absolutely nothing about depicting Mohammed. It is only the Hadith, most of which came several hundred years after Mohammed’s death, that discuss this—one of them bans all depictions of living creatures outright, and another merely says that such illustrations are not to be encouraged, but does not decree that those found guilty are to be punished. The major reason it is widely considered wrong to depict Mohammed, especially among the Sunni majority of Muslims, is that it might encourage idolatry. This might be fair enough within the Islamic world, but is clearly absurd to apply outside of it. After all, non-believers cannot make themselves any more guilty of non-belief or idolatry by drawing pictures. But if the justification behind fatwas against depicters of Mohammed is based in the Hadith, then clerics would have to issue fatwas against all those who draw pictures of living creatures—a crime which virtually every person on earth is guilty of.

That being said, the obvious inference is that the violent “protests,” threats, and vitriol surrounding the Mohammed Cartoons a couple years ago, as well as the more recent South Park episode, stems less from religion and more from anger at being insulted. The final nail in the no-can-draw-Mohammed coffin is the plain fact that Islamic artists have long depicted Mohammed in a variety of ways. Enjoy (below) the contrast between Islamic art circa 12th century and some choice pieces from the 21st century.

I post in regard to Comedy Central censoring South Park’s episode last night, and pulling the SuperBestFriends episode off of the South Park web-porthole. Every badass on this list (except Muslim members thereof) is ROTFL, again at the purportedly free world’s collective refusal to stand on the highest of grounds that is freedom of expression, the most natural and inalienable of birthrights  that only religion and government (can – and does – restrict. Fortunately, all is not lost. Freedom loving souls hacked the website that threatened Trey Parker and Matt Stone, South Park’s creators, and replaced it’s front page with the Mohammed Cartoons, and a picture of a man kissing a boy. FTW.

See it here, and may it ever remain.

If health care, a complex commodities bundle, is a fundamental human right, it makes perfect sense to extend that logic to . . . tourism. Serially. Via Reason:

In the wacky, long-running, and possibly-doomed gameshow that is the European welfare state, everyone in the EU just moved one step closer toward winning a free vacation:

Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidised by the taxpayer.

Under the scheme, British pensioners could be given cut-price trips to Spain, while Greek teenagers could be taken around disused mills in Manchester to experience the cultural diversity of Europe.

The idea for the subsidised tours is the brainchild of Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, who was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.

I boldly predict that in order to sell products and services to subsidized tourists the EU will require hostels, hotels, restaurants, pubs, taxis, museums, national monuments, tour agencies, gift shops, airlines, etc. be “EU Subsidized-Tourist Certified.” Obtaining that certification will require companies and agencies to pay annual fees to the EU and comply with wholly unnecessary travel / health / safety / regulatory codes drawn up by a shiny-new EU agency. Unsurprisingly, large tourism corporations will ensure the EU’s tourism provider certification policies effectively stifle competition, which will result in higher prices for non-subsidized tourists and a diluted, homogenized travel experience for all – in spite of EU politicians’ populist rhetoric condemning the large hotel chains, mass-tour companies, and restaurant chains. Such an artificial rise in the cost of travel will spawn a black market in tourism. A black market in tourism services will require a special EU police task force to crack down on illegal tourism services. In order to pay for this task force the EU will levy an additional value added tax on a non-subsidized tourism, while prisons will fill with tourism provider-criminals. But no amount of money or regulation will quash this black market – demand for low cost travel is too strong. The EU’s logical choice will be to levy additional taxes on non-tourism related industries. As the cost of legal traveling rises, legal traveling will decline, and the EU’s tourism lobby will demand more tourism subsidies. And on and on it will go. Eventually the subsidized tourism class will demand a single payer travel system to ameliorate the travel inequity between the subsidized and non-subsidized classes.

Just imagine a centrally planned tapas selection.

Come one, come all, step right up, pay grab your camera, ready your cell phone, and enter DuelingBarstools’ BOUNTY (CAB) HUNT. Thats right, there’s a bounty on the following cabs (non-photoshopped picture required). By the way, the local firewater in Fiji is Bounty Rum. Me thinks Bounty Cab would be an excellent cab name. Now, on to DuelingBarstools’ Most Wanted Cab List:

• Dream Cab
• Camelot Cab
• Destroyer Cab
• Knight Rider Cab (3x points if it’s black)
• Tornado Cab (worth 4x points, as it’s only been spotted once and has Mexican plates)

You’ll earn Internet fame, I’ll award you for fun only fictional worth zero cents Internet points, and you’ll have the chance to pen the official cab name speculation / rant / info-dump for the scalps bounties you claim. Lock and load, people. By the way, if you’re packin’ bear mace heat, the Smith and Wesson Cab is the one for you. Hey, S W Cab is as close to Smith and Wesson as it’s gonna get.

Via loyal reader Marc I find the newest member of DuelingBarstools’ Magna Cum Blogroll: Kiva microloans. Read about Kiva below, consider the prosperity microloans produce in developing countries by equipping  individuals with capital to seize opportunity, and then lament (again) with me America’s spectacularly failed concept of  social justice, which provides neither capital nor opportunity, and rewards state-dependency rather than individual initiative.

Kiva’s mission is to connect people, through lending, for the sake of alleviating poverty.

Kiva empowers individuals to lend to an entrepreneur across the globe. By combining microfinance with the internet, Kiva is creating a global community of people connected through lending.

Kiva was born of the following beliefs:

• People are by nature generous, and will help others if given the opportunity to do so in a transparent, accountable way.
• The poor are highly motivated and can be very successful when given an opportunity.

• By connecting people we can create relationships beyond financial transactions, and build a global community expressing support and encouragement of one another.

Kiva promotes:

• Dignity:   Kiva encourages partnership relationships as opposed to benefactor relationships. Partnership relationships are characterized by mutual dignity and respect.
• Accountability:   Loans encourage more accountability than donations where repayment is not expected.
• Transparency:   The Kiva website is an open platform where communication can flow freely around the world.

I’m no fan of Mitt Romney.  I don’t trust a word out of his mouth, and simply don’t want another Ivy League lawyer / financier, big-government believin’, flip-flopping, unprincipled, professional politician in Washington. I’ll be beside myself if the libertarian-ish energy spreading through the independent / center-right population results in Romney becoming the GOP’s candidate in 2012. I’ll puke, but I won’t move to Canada. Anyway, here’s the Cato Institute giving Romney what he deserves for centrally planning Massachusetts’ health care into a cautionary tale (albeit one adored by health care rubes), making sorry attempts to distinguish Mass-Care from Obamacare, and overall trying to hoodwink the electorate into thinking he’s a conservative. He’s not. He’s a Republican, and while he’s preferable to Huckabee, he’s no Buckley – and he’s damn sure he’s no Gary Johnson.

Still slammed with work and study, but came across this excellent bit of snark at Reason:

Here we are nine or ten months into the Obama economic boom, and still the president whovowed to focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs” (or actually, the most recent president to vow to focus on “job, jobs, jobs”) is unable to show any growth in employment.

What does President Obama have to do? Hespends hundreds of billions of dollars on makework projects. He orders companies to pay their interns. He begs banks to start lending again. He turns everything from government contracting to student loans into a jobs-creation battleground. And still the jobs just won’t come falling out of the sky.

It must be a conspiracy. But who are the villains? Insurance companies? Unscrupulous lenders? Republicans?

Maybe it’s small businesses. Last year Obama praised small business owners as the engine of job creation. But according to Constant Contact’s 2010 Small Business Attitudes & Outlook Survey, the ingrates have responded by not hiring anybody.

Although 70 percent of the 6,800 small businesses surveyed expect to grow over the next year, 61 percent say they do not plan to hire any new employees in that period.

What could cause such an unpatriotic attitude? Sure, 65 percent of small business owners say their costs of doing business have increased, and 45 percent say taxes have been the most significant portion of that increase. And cross-referencing Constant Contact’s figures with this month’s Index of Small Business Optimism from the National Federation of Independent Business, we find that small business owners are feeling unprecedented pessimism about their future prospects.

That kind of crappy attitude has no place in America. The solution is clear: The Department of Labor needs to order small businesses to start hiring people, at higher wages, with coverage for pre-existing conditions. And we should probably raise their taxes to make sure they get the message.

The King of Rants had a good one the other day regarding the young muslim girl who tragically died on while driving a go kart:

Several days ago in an absurdly senseless death; a young, twenty-four year-old Muslim woman from Australia was killed in a go-kart accident when her burqa became entangled in the kart’s wheels resulting in her gruesome strangulation. Her death was nauseating for the very tragicomedy of its circumstances. The media, however, immediately associated her death with the romantic denouement of Isadora Duncan, one of the early pioneers of modern dance, who had died in 1927 when her flamboyantly long scarf billowed into the axle of the Bugatti Type 35 she was riding in, proving, as Gertrude Stein would later remark, that affectations can be dangerous. For the thrill of living life to its delirious excesses, for the allure of pushing its boundaries to the extremes, and for the triumph of simply living – in a vibrantly idiosyncratic manner – your own life in your own way, there are no comparisons between the two tragedies.

With that in mind, here’s what Isadora Duncan would have done if she was born into a traditional muslim household.

Hat tip to GoodShit for the find.

I’m pleased to introduce the newest admission to DuelingBarstools’ Magna Cum Blogroll, the Hyacinth Girl, whom the DialecticalPlaya, King of Rants, describes as “captivating in her phrasing, nuanced in her prose, and a grammatical wizard with her syntax. In short, she’s an exceptional writer.” That’s high praise, people. Hyacinth Girl recently thought out loud about social justice, which made me recall a series of barstool conversations on the same topic that I shared with several friends a while ago. For the purposes of this post, I’m combining them into a single conversation (that will likely devolve into just me writing).

John posited an interesting question: “How can you be a Darwinist and believe in social justice?” That’s a compelling premise, as the concept of survival of the fittest is squarely at odds with, for example, providing “free” medical care to the elderly. Pila probed the question further, however, asserting that some measure of social justice may in fact be consistent with Darwinism, depending on what type of evolutionary creature you consider homo sapiens to be. For instance, solitary predators such as great white sharks probably do not share their catch with fellow great white sharks. By contrast, wolves run in packs, and collectively provide for the young and old – to the extent doing so is efficient for the pack. [Ed. note: for the record, John contends that humans are hairless apes with car keys, and are "not as smart as we think we are, but clever enough to get to the moon."]

I’m no expert on the matter, but human’s are more like wolves than great white sharks. As such, providing for our young, infirmed, and elderly – to the extent doing so is societally efficient – is in our best interests. The pertinent questions, then, are: what is social justice; how to provide social justice; and to what extent do we provide social justice. A well known Chinese proverb is instructive here: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
To build on that proverb, we should teach the poor to fish, not only so they can eat for a lifetime, but so they can generate income by selling their catch – the fruits of their labor. We should further provide the poor with fishing equipment and ample opportunity to fish. Yet, in the US of A, we provide the poor with enough fish to eat three squares a day, but not enough to sell. Nor do we provide adequate fishing education to the poor, or fishing equipment. And we categorically deny the poor the opportunity to sell what they catch (selling fish requires a commercial fishing license, which is beyond the reach of someone lacking the money to eat). Here’s the master doing a far, far better job than me explaining the matter, noting especially why relying on government to play the role of the wolf pack is a dereliction of our self-interested duty:

Unfortunately time is not on my side at the moment, but I came across this article via Reason. Up From Serfdom – this is basically how I see things.

In his article “Up from Slavery,” David Boaz points out that in my article “Liberal Delusions about Freedom” I failed to except American slavery from my reference to the freedom enjoyed by early Americans.

His point is valid and well taken. In the past, I have always made a point of mentioning that tragic exception when discussing the history of American freedom. (See, for example, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

This time, however, I made a mistake and neglected to include the slavery exception in my article and then failed to catch the omission before the article went to press for The Future of Freedom Foundation’s journal, Freedom Daily.

Boaz raises another point that needs addressing: He attempts to diminish the significance of what our American forebears achieved.

It is true that the principles of liberty on which our ancestors founded the U.S. government were not applied to everyone, especially slaves; and there were, of course, other exceptions and infringements on freedom, such as tariffs and denying women the right to vote.

But should those exceptions and infringements prevent us from appreciating and honoring the fact that our ancestors brought into existence the freest, most prosperous, and most charitable society in history?

I don’t think so. I believe that it is impossible to overstate the significance of what our American ancestors accomplished in terms of a free society.

Let’s consider, say, the year 1880. Here was a society in which people were free to keep everything they earned, because there was no income tax. They were also free to decide what to do with their own money—spend it, save it, invest it, donate it, or whatever. People were generally free to engage in occupations and professions without a license or permit. There were few federal economic regulations and regulatory agencies. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, bailouts, or so-called stimulus plans. No IRS. No Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. No EPA and OSHA. No Federal Reserve. No drug laws. Few systems of public schooling. No immigration controls. No federal minimum-wage laws or price controls. A monetary system based on gold and silver coins rather than paper money. No slavery. No CIA. No FBI. No torture or cruel or unusual punishments. No renditions. No overseas military empire. No military-industrial complex.

As a libertarian, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a society that is pretty darned golden.

Boaz entitled his article “Up from Slavery,” which raises the question: How do we libertarians living today free ourselves from the serfdom of the welfare/warfare/regulatory state under which we live? That is, how do we build on the magnificent, albeit far from perfect, achievement of our ancestors?

That, of course, raises the important issue of methodology.

I have long maintained that the key to our success lies in strict adherence to libertarian principles. Nothing worse can befall a good cause than for its supporters to compromise its principles.

Thus, ever since our inception some 20 years ago, The Future of Freedom Foundation has focused not on proposals designed to reform, modify, improve, or reduce the welfare state, regulatory state, and warfare state but instead on raising people’s vision to a much higher level, one that focuses on the libertarian principles of a free society and a constitutional republic—e.g., the separation of economy and the state, of health care and the state, and of education and the state; the right to keep and bear arms; the protection of civil liberties; and the restoration of a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Notwithstanding slavery and other violations of liberty, our American ancestors brought into existence the freest society in history. The question is: How do we restore the lost liberties, especially economic liberty, that characterized their society while retaining and building upon the positive strides that have been made since then, such as in the area of civil rights, so that all aspects of liberty are enjoyed by everyone? By hewing to our principles, libertarians have the opportunity to use what our ancestors accomplished as a foundation for leading the world to the highest reaches of freedom ever seen by man.

Boaz responds to the above article.

First, apologies for the last few days’ lack of content. My final semester of law school is nearly over, final exams are upon me, and M-Wife and I had to move apartments yesterday. I did, however, find this article by John Stossel, which may be the best thing I’ve read in a long, long time. Show it to your friends. Now, here’s Stossel’s awesomeness.

I used to be a Kennedy-style “liberal.” Then I wised up. Now I’m a libertarian.

But what does that mean?

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they’re for limited government, but they’re pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support “nation-building.”

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government — they say — to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone — in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don’t hurt anybody else.

Ironically, that used to be called “liberal,” which has the same root as “liberty.” Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.

I wish I could call myself “liberal” now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can’t call myself a “liberal.” I’m stuck with “libertarian.” If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: “That’s cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?”

I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

“It might in some cases be a little cruel,” Miron said. “But it means you’re not taking from people who’ve worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard.”

But isn’t it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?

“The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity … will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state.”

Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, “government aid doesn’t enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor … right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise.”

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.

“Instead of asking, ‘What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?’ The first question is, ‘Why is this a rich country?’ …

“Five hundred years ago, there weren’t rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism.”

Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.

“The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way — maybe it’s the first — is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state.”

This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.

Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it’s done in the name of the poor.

“What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. … You should be asking advocates of that system, ‘Why don’t you care about the poor?’”

I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.

See, e.g., Obamacare; Bailouts; Stimulus; Patriot Act.

More excellent work here by Michael Totten, this time an interview with a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is chock-full of invaluable information, perspective, and recommendations for the West.  Most striking of all, perhaps, is his recommendation as to what the West should do about Iran.

MJT: Let’s say President Barack Obama invites you to the White House and says, “Reza, I need your advice. What should I do?” What would you tell him?

Reza Kahlili: I would tell him that he needs to do the following, and this is just my opinion, obviously.  Immediately, the Western countries should cut off all shipping lines and air lines, and deport all Iranians who work in offices connected to the Iranian government. They’re Quds Force members. They’re intelligence guys. Deport them. And stop sending refined oil to Iran. They rely on that. Corner the country and give them a deadline. And if the Iranian government doesn’t give up its program, take it out. Do not allow this country to become nuclear armed. Sanctions are not going to work. In the worst case scenario, if there is a military confrontation, do not invade the country. Do not destroy the country. Take the Revolutionary Guards out. If you take the Revolutionary Guards out, this government can’t last 24 hours. * * *

Reza Kahlili: We know all their bases. We know all their officers. We know all their buildings. If they move in convoys, take them out. And that will be the end of this government.

MJT: [Long silence.]

Reza Kahlili: It needs a lot of courage and understanding of what we’re facing right now. All this talk of sanctions and ultimatums is not going to change anything.

MJT: The administration does not want to hear this. Nobody wants to hear this. And I have a hard time imagining anything like it happening.

Reza Kahlili: Yes. But the advantage of this government not being in the Middle East will be huge. It will weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Venezuela [laughs], and bring benefits to many parts of the world. It will weaken China and Russia and their foreign policies. It would be huge. If we are able to achieve this, not only would it be fantastic for the people of Iran, it would benefit the whole world. You’ve read my book. You know where my heart is.

MJT: Yes.

Reza Kahlili: I’m in pain because of my people. I’m in pain because of what I’ve seen. I’m in pain because the West doesn’t get it. I didn’t have to come out, Michael. I was living under the radar. Nobody even knew I existed. I’m putting myself out there to get this message across, to sound an alarm, and hoping that somebody will listen.

Also interesting is what Kahlili believes the Iranian people’s response to such an action will be (they will only support the government if foreign forces invade and occupy – air strikes alone against nuclear facilities and Revolutionary guard bases will not prompt Iranians to back the current regime), the differences between Iranians and Arabs’ respective perception of Jews and Israel, and the influence of the Iranian lobby in Washington D.C.

Via Instapundit I find Stating the Obvious, which in five sentences fleshes out a point I made earlier this week reminding individuals who crave government influence in the marketplace that “if the 20th century taught us anything it is that concentrating power in the State and centrally planning economies is an EPIC FAIL:”

[S]tatism slows productivity growth, and in the end productivity growth is more important than anything else (GDP is just population x productivity). You’re about ten times better off being in the lowest quartile of the rich, unequal United States than a median forcibly equalized Cuban or North Korean, and the poorest U.S. state has a higher PPP GDP per capita than most of the Western European social democracies.

Eastern Europe and Asia are still recovering from their wasted 50 years chasing coercive equality at the expense of growth. China’s rise to relevance was powered by free market reforms that produced growth. The Arab socialist dictatorships haven’t done much better than the communists.

In short, relatively free economies are more prosperous – which is fundamentally good for societies, see above – than relatively planned economies. Yet, if political party affiliation is any indication, an overwhelming majority of the illiterati intelligentsia in American universities is antipathetic to free economic systems, preferring instead some measure (and many cases, a great measure) of government intervention and/or planning in the marketplace. For instance, law professor-turned-Obama-Czar Cass Sunstein so strongly believes in government that he would prefer government skepticism be centrally planned. In any event, assume for the purposes of this post that a majority of “intellectuals” categorically reject the premise of free markets in favor of government intervention and planning, that we may discuss why they do so.

In this video F.A. Hayek charitably offers the following to explain the broad source of American intelligentsia’s hostility towards free markets:

Intellectuals in most instances have a deeply ingrained intellectual attitude which forces them to disapprove of something which seems to them unintelligible and to prefer something which is visibly directed to a good purpose.

Essentially Hayek is saying that intellectuals “disapprove” of free markets because they are unable to grasp, analyze, compute, or measure the entirety of the economy, or even a single marketplace. Relying on a seemingly incomprehensible system simply doesn’t jive with the scientific method, and therefore intellectuals categorically reject free markets in favor of government measures “visibly directed to a good purpose.” In short, since intellectuals cannot understand free markets in their desired fashion they prefer government measures they believe they understand, Parmenides Fallacy (not to mention unintended consequences) be damned. Hayek would have enjoyed South Park’s Margaritaville episode, which mocks, in part, the idea that simply because the economy is a vitally important, but tangibly elusive entity, common fiscal sense should give way to (ultimately) central planning, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

I come to a different conclusion, however, than Hayek regarding intellectual hostility to free markets.  Hayek’s explanation forgets that there are many tangible entities and ideas intellectuals fail to completely understand, yet do not categorically reject (and, indeed, accept as Gospel). For instance, the big bang.

It is not a lack of understanding of, or a lack of capacity to understand, every microcosm of free markets that drives a large portion of intellectuals to categorically reject them in favor of central planning. Let me repeat: intellectuals’ antipathy towards free markets does not derive from the inability to completely understand free markets. Rather, it stems from the fact that the success of free markets does not require intellectuals’ input, approval, or understanding. Nor does understanding free markets require intellectuals’ purportedly heightened level of intelligence.

Ockham’s Razor, alone, explains why a particular free marketplace (such as the relatively unencumbered laser eye surgery market) is more successful than similar but restricted marketplaces. That free markets succeed without intellectual analysis, approval, and input fundamentally galls, or bores, them. And intellectuals hate that. By contrast, nuclear fission requires an academic, precise understanding of physics that, truly, only scientists, themselves intellectuals, can attain. There’s more, however, to the complex that precludes what appears to be a majority of intellectuals from proponing the economic obvious.

Intellectuals particularly enjoy having (a) something to write about, (b) a domestic field or industry to influence, and (c) a lower caste to juxtapose their (assumed) superior intellect. As such, believing in the big bang theory is intellectually perfect. There is a lot to write about the big bang, and doing so will directly influence a number of academic fields and industries. And perhaps most importantly, at least a third of the United States denies the big bang theory in favor of creationism, which permits intellectuals to snob NASCAR fans, broadly speaking.

By contrast, believing in free market economics does almost nothing for intellectuals. Sure there’s lots to write about free markets, and your research might influence any number of individuals (and perhaps centrally planned nation states. But a large proportion of Americans, including hordes of creationists non-intellectuals, already understand, at least in practice, that free markets produce more economic prosperity and opportunity than planned or regulated markets. As a result, believing in the efficacy of free markets puts intellectuals in the same ark boat as the untouchable caste they normally distinguish themselves from. Since no true Scotsman intellectual would stand for that, intellectuals categorically reject the efficacy of free markets.

After all, the real intellectual challenge lies in swimming upstream. And there’s no upstream swim like that against a current of historical precedent (see above, again) and established economic facts. As such, intellectuals rise to the challenge of convincing their students the rest of us that a centrally planned socialist-democracy is economically preferable to the individual liberty and robust economic prosperity free markets produce. Intellectuals adore the irony that beating back history and economic fact requires their allegedly heightened cognitive abilities. Put more bluntly, cogently reaching such dumb economic conclusions requires tremendous intellectual capacity.

Now, there are compelling moral and philosophical arguments for a great measure of social justice. Yet, intellectuals do not frame discussion of social justice as how to best, economically speaking, go about achieving social justice. The intellectual war drum beats only for more government. There is precious little intellectual debate as to whether a better system than public schools exists, in spite of the fact that private, charter, and home-schools consistently outperform the public system (while public schools appear to serve their employees better than their students). Nor do intellectuals contemplate providing national access to health through system more akin to Shriners Hospitals than the Veterans Administration. The debate is over. There is a consensus. And it is more government.

Intellectuals crave government intervention in the marketplace because its presence provides a forum for intellectuals’ otherwise unnecessary economic theories, gives intellectuals control of other individuals and industries, and distinguishes their caste from the untouchables they now control. This is the root of intellectuals’ hostility to free markets, and corresponding love affair with centrally planned economies.

Over the last week I rounded up (see here too) the various categories of health care rubes, which I defined as “those who support the bill for fiscal, moral, and philosophical, reasons that cold, hard facts show the bill utterly fails to provide.”  Today I found two articles providing very different macro-explanations of why rubes (in health care as well as other areas) are suckered into supporting patently fraudulent legislation.

Humor first – the Cartoon / South Park explanation:

The cartoons South Park and The Care Bears can teach us an important lesson about economics and politics.  And in so doing, they also caution us about why we need to take such topics more seriously than cartoons do.

In a classic episode of South Park the boys have to write a paper about corporations.  They end up encountering a group of underpants gnomes who have a detailed business plan:

1.  Collect Underpants

2.  ?

3.  Profit

The health care bill is like the “Underpants Gnomes” episode of South Park.  Enthusiasts for the bill have the following model in mind:

1.  Pass Health Care Bill

2.  ?

3.  Health Care for All

So we have passed the bill.  Its supporters need to ask the question that informs Thomas Sowell’s Applied Economics: “And then what?”  Talking solely about the goals of institutional changes is likely to lead us to error.  We have to talk about what those changes do to social processes. Government intervention removes decision-making power from individuals acting through voluntary channels and gives that power to moral and intellectual surrogates acting through involuntary channels.

Effective economic and political institutions are ones that provide both the incentives for people to pursue their own good by serving others and the knowledge of which actions will do so.  In the world of the underpants gnomes, and the world of health care reform, such questions are not asked.  Results are expected to magically appear from good intentions.

Another relevant South Park episode is I’m a Little Bit Country, from season seven, which makes fun of the fact that Americans as a whole will go to war while actively protesting the war on the other so as to have our cake and eat it too.

In short, a lot of people focus their energy and attention on the goal of “health care for everybody” without really thinking hard about the steps between passage of the bill and what they want to happen.  Applied economics, according to Sowell, is the art of “thinking past stage one,” and our refusal to do that will cost us trillions of dollars. The previous administration failed to think past Stage One when it started writing checks for wars of questionable merit and for bailouts of financial firms.  The current administration has continued the trend with health care reform.

The Care Bears are kind of like the underpants gnomes in that they too think good intentions are enough.  They fight evil with what is called “The Care Bear Stare.”  Wikipedia explains:

The Care Bears’ ultimate weapon is the “Care Bear Stare,” in which the collected Bears stand together and radiate light from their respective tummy symbols. These combine to form a ray of love and good cheer which could bring care and joy into the target’s heart.

This describes the shallowness of a lot of public-policy debates.  Rather than focusing on the processes by which social decisions are made, people debate the merits of proposed legislation based on their intended outcomes, and this frames opposition to well-meaning legislation as follows: People who want the legislation are kind and good; people who don’t want it are either evil or corrupt or they just don’t want to share.  One need only examine the rhetoric coming from the pro-ObamaCare side in the final congressional debates to see this in action.

It’s apparent to me now that the Care Bears were avid readers of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Reality is more subtle.  Good intentions are neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure that we get the outcome we want.  Careful consideration of the actual economic institutions that “reform” creates and how they will affect the incentives and knowledge facing individuals and firms is the only way to get past Stage One.  Judging legislation by its intentions and not engaging in real social scientific analysis is the equivalent of using the Care Bear Stare.  And when trillions of dollars, most of it coming from the future wealth of our children, is on the line, it is the height of irresponsibility.

We predict that future economics textbooks will look back on the disaster that emerges from the so-called “health care reform” as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences and, we hope, of the difference between decision-making in politics and decision-making in markets.    We should not be surprised to find out that when we approach serious social issues with the mindset of cartoon characters that our economy quickly begins to resemble a cartoon.  In this case, we fear we that in spending trillions on intentions, we have become like Wile E. Coyote running off the cliff and hanging in midair until he realizes the situation he’s created for himself, at which point he comes crashing down.

The second explanation is more academic in nature.  Excerpt below, article via Von Mises:

The aggregate economy involves so many interrelations, permutations, combinations, interpolations, extrapolations, and other “ations” of inputs and outputs and wants and desires that arriving at a meaningful measure of an entire system or a general level of anything is as likely as Hollywood accurately depicting an entrepreneur.

Nevertheless, that irritating fact fails to deter the prescribing economists from prescribing. Perhaps it is hubris that overrides their intellectual sense of the possible. Peter Klein suggests as much in his November 2006 Mises Daily posting, “Why Intellectuals Still Support Socialism,” when he refers to Dwight Lee’s cogent observation on the academic propensity to pry and provoke. Says Lee,

Like every other group, academics like to exert influence and feel important. Few scholars in the social sciences and humanities are content just to observe, describe, and explain society; most want to improve society and are naive enough to believe that they could do so if only they had sufficient influence. The existence of a huge government offers academics the real possibility of living out their reformist fantasies.

The government is huge, to be sure, and alluring. Klein also reveals, in the same posting, a couple enlightening numbers on economists and their relationship with government:

The US federal government employs at least 3,000 economists — about 15% of all members of the American Economic Association. The Federal Reserve System itself employs several hundred. There are also advisory posts, affiliations with important government agencies, memberships of federally appointed commissions, and other career-enhancing activities.

Bureaucrats don’t employ so many economists and number manipulators just to inform and explain; that would be purely descriptive, and there’s no glory in that. No, bureaucrats want action, and they want the numbers (bogus or otherwise) and theories (bogus or otherwise) to support whatever prescription they believe will cure whatever they believe ails us.

Finally, I wrote a few days ago about who isn’t a health care rube:

At this point, you’re basically not a healthcare rube if you support the bill because you understand it is an intentional, manipulative leap left towards a centrally planned economy and the establishment of government’s authority to manage every area of our lives. To your dismay, however, you’re not a tough, Machiavellian sonofabitch either.  You’re a moron because if the 20th century taught us anything it is that concentrating power in the State and centrally planning economies is an EPIC FAIL.

The aptly titled article, The Fallacy of Central Planning, cogently explains why. Excerpt below:

The dangers of planning, which planners often ignore, because they seem academic or overcomplicated, are ethical as well as logical. The chief ethical problem involved in planning is that which Berdyaev has termed the dehumanization of man.[2]

The sober truth is that, in central planning, men are pawns. As planning becomes more central and more nearly complete, there is a strong tendency to forget that the ultimate units of any society are persons and that the order exists for their sakes. Unless this is kept in the consciousness of planners, the entire situation becomes impersonal; individual decisions on the part of the people really count for nothing.

A development in this direction seems to be intrinsic to an ever-growing bureaucracy. It is almost impossible, for example, to have any large-scale planning without some illustration of Parkinson’s law. Bureaucratic control always has a tendency to increase, with the consequent loss of initiative on the part of the people. The danger comes subtly and appears even in the most beneficent of enterprises.

Via Reason:

Here’s Harold Koh, previously the Dean of Yale law school, now the State department’s top lawyer, explaining why killing suspected terrorists (as well as innocent bystanders) with drones is A-OK. In short, Koh’s rationale is that nothing in the rules of war specifically prohibits using super-smart technology when fighting an enemy that relies on donkeys for transport, so long as those super-smart weapons are employed only as necessary and proportional. That’s a curious position, Harry, considering you had this to say (worth reading if for no other reason than Koh uses three strawman arguments in one paragraph) regarding Bush’s comparatively humane policy of not killing suspected terrorists outright, but rather detaining them until they are tried before a military commission:

The Supreme Court’s historic decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has presented both Congress and the President with an opportunity to make a fresh start in crafting a fair and durable solution to the problems of humane treatment and fair trial of suspected terrorist detainees.

Get it? The way to craft a “fair and durable solution to the problems of humane treatment and fair trial of suspected terrorist detainees” is to skip the sticky issues of capture, detainment, and subsequent legal proceedings. Just send in the drones. Then again I find his rules of war argument unavailing, too, considering that we’re no longer involved in a war on terror, but rather engaged in a global contingency operation.

No, wait, that’s a brilliant argument. What are the rules expressly governing global contingency operations? None that I know of. Do the Geneva conventions apply? Can you find a lawyer within your own administration to say no because the issue is novel, and therefore executive authority must Constitutionally fill the void? Subject to, of course, Congressional limitations speaking directly (via mandate) or indirectly (failing to provide funding) on the matter.  Hey, it worked for Bush and John Yoo, and I have yet to be persuaded that Yoo was wrong as a matter of law. I’m pretty sure, however, that Koh and company weren’t big fans of that. For instance, prior to becoming Attorney General, Eric Holder’s law firm litigated, pro bono, a good number of cases challenging Bush’s terror policies.

So how does the Obama administration square it’s drone assassination policies with its previous opposition to Bush’s detainment policies?  This author essentially asked the same question, in January 2009, after Obama promised to close Gitmo, but didn’t say anything about ending drone asassinations.

Next, How the Left Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the FBI:

And so when a progressive like Rachel Maddow cheers that the Michigan militia members can be indicted and imprisoned without having done anything violent, when she reports that the FBI has infiltrated this group for months and stepped in to arrest them just in the nick of time, we should not be too surprised when she fails to make the obvious connection, and fails to be the least bit skeptical of the federal government’s police agents infiltrating a group for months only to discover that that group’s members are saying things about government that amount to “seditious conspiracy.” What kind of Orwellian world is it when the government can arrest people accused only of planning to commit violence against government agents and unleash a “civil war” that we all know is only a fantasy? What kind of world is it when the very media figure who denounced Bush’s “preemptive war” and Obama’s adoption of Bush’s “pre-crime” approach to imprisoning “enemy combatants” in “prolonged detention” before they commit violence is happy to see a group indicted on federal charges of talking about committing violence—talk that we can safely guess was likely incited by the very FBI that had been infiltrating this group for months? What kind of absurdist dystopia has the left crying foul when a private citizen infiltrates ACORN, but has no similar apprehensions about the FBI infiltrating “extremist” groups and arresting them for “seditious conspiracy”? How can anyone who saw through the Bush lies of war and crackdowns in the name of “national security” and stopping madmen from getting “weapons of mass destruction” really believe that fewer than a dozen Americans with some rifles and some pipebombs were themselves planning to use “weapons of mass destruction” in any way that posed a threat to the U.S. government? And what about the charge of having weapons in connection to a crime—that crime being the intention of one day committing a crime, without even a specific target in mind?

More on the beloved FBI here, specifically information about it’s “secret room,” via GoodShit.

It is where the government has hidden the most secret
information: plans to relocate Congress if Washington were attacked,
dossiers on double agents, case files about high-profile mob figures and
their politician friends, and a disturbing number of reports about the
possible smuggling of atomic bombs into the United States.

It is also where the bureau stowed documents considered more embarrassing
than classified, including its history of illegal spying on domestic
political organizations and surveillance of nascent gay rights groups.

It is the FBI¹s ³special file room,¹¹ where for decades sensitive material
has been stored separately from the bureau¹s central filing system to
restrict access severely and, in more sinister instances, some experts
assert, prevent the Congress and the public from getting their hands on it.

Basically everything at IntelNews is interesting, and I didn’t know about it. For instance, this bit on The Limits of Israeli Espionage.

Discriminations snark: Will Obamacare’s tanning salon tax provide palefaces with a disparate impact claim?

More Discriminations snark: is the logical end of Obamacare a civil right to electricity? Why not?

The deity one atheist conservative would designate as his God-particle, if he believed either in the human need for a God-particle, the potential for a deity to exist, or that such beliefs were germane to conservatism.  For the record, it appears Instapunk would choose Christ, brah, and bear-mace liberals accordingly.

Economic Trouble Looming Abroad, by Mish Shedlock.

Finally, a film on Gerrymandering, ”the practice by which politicians manipulate voting districts for personal and political benefit.” It happens more than many think, too.  See here for the twenty most gerrymandered congressional districts in the US of A.

Instapunk has an interesting post up contrasting liberals’ fascination with government as the cure for all ills with conservatives’ reliance on the individual, and asserting that liberals’ and conservatives’ opposing views correlate with where they stand, respectively, on a spectrum with faith in Christ on one end and the absence thereof on the other.

Liberals are believers in Christian morality who can no longer bring themselves to believe in personal salvation. This is the explanation of their extraordinarily vindictive and hateful bile. They are all jilted lovers. (Why they excuse every manifestation of personal depravity in themselves and celebrate their politicial morality instead. “Teddy Kennedy was a GOOD man…” Really?) They believe in Christ’s message but they hate Christ because he isn’t there, didn’t exist, didn’t rise from the dead, didn’t savethem. It’s that simple. Every dreaded liberal apocalypse from nuclear Armageddon to global warming is just one more variation on original sin. But for them, the new Adam never came and so they wait, like Noah at the high-tech helm of his impossible ark, for the annihiliating rains to come.

Interestingly, this is also the explanation of the rise of a kind of rigid fundamentalism that eschews the philosophy of Christianity in favor of Jesus as a kind of dashboard totem. I’m saved. You’re not. End of story. The liberals think they’re reacting to a simple-minded version of the faith they’ve graduated from in their infinite wisdom, but the truth is they’re responsible for the bogeyman they see in every rural corner of a country they’ve learned to loathe. As they grew rigid and progressively more self-destructive, fundamentalism became the scar tissue of the common folk, a way of protecting themselves against the soul death created by doubt.

Everything else that’s happened in the last hundred or so years flows from this elementary observation. Liberals are the people who became their own version of Christ to save the sinners from themselves. Socialism, fascism, communism are all attempts by human pretenders to the throne of Christ to fill what they perceive as a vaccuum. Their mistakes are all attributable to the fact that men and committees and political parties are no substitute for Christ. Show me a liberal, a leftist, a progressive, etc, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t really believe, in his heart of hearts, in the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Their hatred for the believers who oppose them is an irrational fury they cannot contain.

Conservatives are the people who choose to believe in the Christ, as either a human-divine superposition or a parable good enough to be the organizing principle of their lives. Again, it’s that simple. They’re the non-jilted lovers. Yes, they’re also sinners, as we all are, but they accept that. They also accept that things like poverty, disease, misfortune, endless other awful things are inherent in life itself and not the fault of insufficient government control. That’s why the most rigidly braindead of them tithe to their churches.

Instapunk could have quoted Jesus himself here, per Mark 14:7: “For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good.”

Men who do not believe in God nevertheless feel the need of God and seek to become God or one of his factotums. They’re the danger. Their greatest fear is the lack of belief in their own Godhood. That’s why they turn ugly, controlling, violent, and murderous. But they’re all still Christians. That’s why they keep trying to expand their power. Their awful, debilitating secret is that there’s no Christ and so they have to fill in for him.

How should conservatives deal with the left’s disrespect and lack of empathy? By spanking their ass. Like a disappointed Dad. Until it gets so hot and red they call out to God to make it stop. That’s how you learn there are consequences for personal choices that can only be called, uh, poor.

My theory has long been that the divide between Left and Right stems from liberal’s fundamental belief that: (a) government is inherently noble; (b) wealth is inherently bad; and (c) the unwealthy are inherently oppressed.  Instapunk’s theory does a good job of fleshing out part of my theory. Liberals believe government is inherently noble in the same way that Christians believe God is inherently noble.  In effect, liberals substitute ever more government as their God Particle to fill the inexplicable God-void innate to humans worldwide. In that sense, Tim Tebow and Ted Kennedy are basically the same person, except that Ted Kennedy violated his big government principles by deregulating the airline and trucking industries (to all of our benefit), while Tim Tebow is still perfect by Christian standards, to the detriment of the whordes of men and women who want to sleep with him.

Last week I began a list of healthcare rubes – those who support the bill for fiscal, moral, and philosophical, reasons that cold, hard facts show the bill utterly fails to provide.  Yesterday I added a couple of clueless Congressman to that list.  Today, I add those of you who support the bill because, notwithstanding it’s other failings, you believe it will prevent insurance companies from asserting preexisting conditions as the reason for denying essential coverage to children.

See here, and here for a long, thorough breakdown of what Congress and the administration promised (before and after the bill passed), why those promises are false, and who confirms that they are false. With regard to who has confirmed that Obamacare’s promise to force insurance companies to provide full coverage to children regardless of preexisting conditions, JOM writes “[f]olks reassured by an appeal to authority will note that the AP has quotes from two Democrats supporting their interpretation.”  LOL.

More persuasively, the articles points out that, due to actually reading the fucking bill and suffering through objective analysis of its provisions, Obamacare-fanatic Ezra Klein backed away from his previous full-fledged commitment to the Administration’s talking points, and the Old Gray Mare herself acknowledged that health insurance companies “do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.”

At this point, you’re basically not a healthcare rube if you support the bill because you understand it is an intentional, manipulative leap left towards a centrally planned economy and the establishment of government’s authority to manage every area of our lives. To your dismay, however, you’re not a tough, Machiavellian sonofabitch either.  You’re a moron because if the 20th century taught us anything it is that concentrating power in the State and centrally planning economies is an EPIC FAIL.

Here’s a dooozy from Steve Horowitz at Coordination noting that, not even two weeks after Obamacare’s passage, Congress is stunned that, contrary to the bill’s stated purpose of lowering health care costs, the bill is doing just the opposite.

And so it begins.  As many folks predicted, the passage of so-called “health care reform” has sent the signal to major US corporations that their insurance costs will be rising.  The result is that several have already announced plans to take large charges on their budgets to offset the costs.  In the case of AT&T, for example, it’s $1 billion due to changes in the tax treatment of their in-house subsidies for the health care costs of their retirees.

Equally predictable has been the reaction of Congress:  demand that the CEOs come to Washington and justify those charges.  If you didn’t think we were on the road to the world of Atlas Shrugged, this should make matters clearer.

What’s most amusing though is the way that Representatives Waxman and Stupak phrased matters in their letter to the CEOs:

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern.”

I’m adding Reps. Waxman and Stupak to my list of Obamacare Rubes.

In other words:  “this law isn’t working out how we intended, dammit, and it must be your fault! We said this would bring down costs, so that should be sufficient!”  It really is the equivalent of a five year-old’s temper tantrum at not getting his way in a complicated world.

It never occurs to Waxman, Stupak, et. al. that there might be a set of economic laws out there that not even the mighty power of Congress and King Obama can bend to their wishes.  If their law “said” coverage would expand and costs would come down, then only the evil designs of greedy people could be frustrating that result.

It couldn’t be that the legislation was doomed from the start and that this is the result that a number of critics predicted, could it?

That Congress would ignore or discount unintended consequences is indeed a “Dog Bites Man” story.  But for those who claim that opponents of ObamaCare were fear-mongering or racists or just opponents of change, I will only suggest that this will be the first of many of our predictions about its effects that are likely to come to pass.  And I will be doing my personal best to document as many as I can, so watch this spot.

Congress and the President are similarly stunned that the CBO’s projected budget deficits for the next decade are considerably larger than Congress and President hoped for, and that Social Security has run out of money much sooner than they anticipated, as in this year (the first in which Social Security payouts exceed receipts).

Cato put together the following video breaking down the what, why, and how of implementing a flat tax.  The author, Daniel MItchell, also notes the following:

There are two big hurdles that must be overcome to achieve tax reform. The first obstacle is that the class-warfare crowd wants the tax code to penalize success with high tax rates. That issue is addressed in the video in a couple of ways. I explain that fairness should be defined as treating all people equally . . .

Emphasis added.  I couldn’t agree more:

In an unfair world equal treatment is the least unfair policy, and may be the only equality, and dignity, society can provide.  Equal treatment should be the policy of individuals and private institutions.  Equal treatment must be the policy of local, state, and federal governments, as well as public institutions.  Equal treatment rises above every brutish form of collectivism and treats people as individuals, without regard to color, class, or creed, that we may all enjoy the dignity of rising, falling, failing, and achieving, on our own fortune and merit.