Libertarianism

From Machiavelli and State Power:

We cannot abide State kidnapping, just because they call it the draft. We cannot abide the incarceration of people who ingest the wrong substances, just because they call it the war on drugs. We cannot abide theft just because they call it taxation. And we cannot abide mass murder just because they call it foreign policy.
Murray Rothbard, who earned his Ph.D. from this very institution in 1956 and went on to become known as Mr. Libertarian, said that you could discover the libertarian position on any issue by imagining a criminal gang carrying out the action in question.

Rockwell's thesis is that Machiavelli said that a prince should be prepared and willing to take immoral actions to retain power; the libertarian's response is that what is immoral for an individual doesn't change just because that individual is a representative of the State.

Second Amendment

I've often thought that while I should, of course, have the right to any weapon I can buy, I'm not so sure that the guy down the street should be allowed to carry anything more than a plastic butter knife, non-serrated. That leads to the idea that if people are to have access to guns, perhaps there should be some requirement that they have some training. Larry Correia, however, points out that states with a training requirement are no safer than states with no requirement whatsoever. Mandatory training sounds like it would make things safer, but it doesn't. And policy needs to be set on the basis of what really works, not what sounds like it would work.

Expat Explorer

HSBC had an "Expat Explorer's Guide", just in case you're planning to move to another country if Obama wins, the US collapses for other reasons, Iran gets the Bomb, New Madrid has another earthquake, or other factors make you want to get out of town in a really big way.

The Federalist Solution

Jonah Goldberg talks about how the solution isn't to push the Federal government Left or Right, but rather disempowering it in favor of localities:

Pushing government decisions down to the lowest democratic level possible — while protecting basic civil rights — guarantees that more people will have a say in how they live their lives. Not only does that mean more people will be happy, but the moral legitimacy of political decisions will be greater.

hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy

Let A Thousand Nations Bloom

Hat tip to  Marginal Revolution for a pointer to Let A Thousand Nations Bloom:

Our blog begins with the truth of Winston Churchill’s comment on democracy–that it is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. Unfortunately many then falsely deduce that democracy is superior to all forms of government which can ever be imagined. We believe this assumption to be deeply misguided.

Like any technology, democracy was once a radical innovation, thought unlikely to work. Now, it is the industry standard. Our aim is to find, analyze, and debate the innovations in governance today that may become the standards of tomorrow, especially those that utilize the best technology for social organization ever developed–the market. We are particularly interested in the meta-innovations that will alter incentives in the governing industry to improve the rate of innovation.

"To rule Big Oil, we need Big Government"

That was the title of a CNN article a friend pointed out to me. It was written by Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000 and currently a DNC chair for something or other. She claims that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill proves that we need More Government. Presumably she thinks some of her arguments are logical. To quote Kevin Renner: "That turns out not to be the case." Ms Brazile says:

"Bobby Jindal was trying to privatize much of Louisiana's government services. Had his approach been applied nationwide, the Federal government wouldn't have the resources he's demanding it use to save Louisiana's coast."

Presumably she thinks Governor Jindal were being inconsistent. What he's actually saying is "You shouldn't have taken everything we own, and we want it back; meanwhile, since you do have it, we expect you to maintain it properly."

[The] Interior Department released a report that uncovered "a culture of cronyism" between federal regulators and oil and gas executives. [...]

So, because the bureaucrats are corrupt or incompetent, we should give them more power?

 BP failed to follow federal mandates, environmental guidelines [...] 

It sounds like the problem is not that there aren't laws in place, it's that the government didn't apply the existing laws honestly or efficiently.

What the right fails to acknowledge is that big business, by its nature, is a bully.

What the Left fails to acknowledge is that big government, by its nature, is a bully. And it's a bully that can not only cheat you and wreck your livelihood, as a business may; government can imprison or kill you. Neither tyrant is good, but if you had to choose one, which is the lesser evil?

"No expectation of privacy"

The Federal government is trying to claim that it has the right to find out where we've been, based on cellphone information. The theory is that because the cellular company has to know where we are, that we have no expectation of privacy and the government should be able to know as well. In a word, no. I entered into a contract with the company with the expectation that they would keep my information private; furthermore, the government is restrained, in ways that a company would not be, by the Fourth Amendment. It's a little thing called the Constitution--ever heard of it?

Classical Values blog

Where were you when wood became a felony? It's amazing what our government does when no one's looking. I've said before: our elected officials are like three year olds. If you don't keep an eye on them every minute, they will get into trouble.

Fighting slavery

I haven't looked into these organizations yet, but here's an article about Polaris Project, including the National Human Trafficking Resource Center.

John Ringo has also recommended the Helen Bamber Foundation.

Beyond Folk Activism

That's the title of a post by Patri Freidman at Cato Unbound. He starts of by saying, "My new perspective is that the advocacy approach which many libertarian individuals, groups, and think tanks follow (including me sometimes, sadly) is an utter waste of time.", explains why he thinks that and what he's doing instead. An interesting article, well worth reading. I particularly like:

Government is just another industry, where countries offer services to citizens, but it has some unfortunate features. It is a geographically segmented monopoly, and since all land is taken, the industry has an enormous barrier to entry. To start a new government you have to beat an old one, which means winning a war, an election, or a revolution. And it has very high customer lock-in: there are barriers to emigration and immigration, and switching countries involves both high financial and emotional costs. These characteristics result in a horribly uncompetitive industry, so it is no surprise that existing firms tend to exploit customers instead of innovating to attract them.

That pretty much coincides with my view.

Now Reading

It's been busy the last few days, what with getting the material together for the garden boxes, doing home repairs, and dealing with finances. This afternoon we bought supplies--dried and canned food, batteries, flour, powdered milk--and added it to what was already in the storage closet. We've been maintaining stocks for a while, in case of hurricanes or terrorist attacks or whatever else might happen; I hadn't expected Congress to launch an attack on our economy, but I guess that counts as part of "whatever else". I recently read a comment on someone's blog to the effect of "if our government leaders knew they'd be hanged on Jan 1, 2010, if the Dow wasn't above 10,000, they'd become tax-cutting, pro-business libertarians overnight."

Speaking of which, I ran across For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto in a used book store. I've just barely started reading it; based on the comments at Amazon, it looks like a winner.

I've also been reading The Moon Goddess and the Son, which weaves a girl who loves the Moon, an engineer and his son, plus the Mongol influence on Russian law, a mathematician, the space race, a gamer designer, the Cold War, Middle Eastern antiquities, and other threads to form a dense, complicated, highly enjoyable novel. I have to re-read a Donald Kingsbury book to find out what I missed the first time; and they're good enough that I'm ready to start re-reading them the minute I finish them.