Positive Liberty

I figure if you let yourself have a vice and be addicted to some substance, it might as well be this one.

The California State Senate Judiciary Committee has given a negative report to SCA 15, the proposed amendment to the State Constitution to forbid the abuse of eminent domain. It held onto SCA 12, a meaningless measure designed to fool people into thinking eminent domain abuse is being fought, for further consideration. It approved SB 1162/AB 1026, a bill which would impose a two-year moratorium only on condemnations of “owner-occupied residential property,” and require bureaucrats to write a report about eminent domain, and then let them go right back to doing the same thing, hoping people forget about the issue.

Clapton’s new album Back Home has a more even feeling than Reptile, which had two good songs and a lot of crap.
Continue Reading »

An important message from the Castle Coalition:

Tomorrow, August 30, the California Judiciary Committee will vote on Senate Constitutional Amendment 15 (SCA 15), the Homeowner and Property Protection Act. If it becomes law—through a vote by the legislature and a vote by the general public—this amendment will protect all home and business owners throughout the state from the abuse of eminent domain for private commercial development. It is crucial that the Committee approve the amendment so that the full legislature and the people will have a chance to enact it. If you are interested in the plight of California home and small business owners, it’s vitally important that you contact the members of the Judiciary Committee today and urge them to approve SCA 15.

SCA 15 requires that property taken by eminent domain be owned and occupied by the government entity taking it. It continues to allow condemnations for public utilities and railroads but otherwise flatly prohibits eminent domain for the benefit of private parties. This is the best legislation in the entire country to address the problem of eminent domain abuse that has been introduced since the Kelo decision. If enacted, it will not only protect Californians, but will also serve as an important reform model in other states. There is competing “moratorium” legislation that is being touted by some as a significant reform, but that bill only protects owner-occupied residences, and thus leaves thousands of people vulnerable to eminent domain abuse. Churches, small business owners and tenants, including families who are long-term residents of apartments and other rental homes, will find no protection under the moratorium bill. There are also other proposed constitutional amendments that the committee may consider, but these leave the door wide open to eminent domain abuse.

Please contact the members of the Judiciary Committee as soon as you can and tell them that you support SCA 15 and that it, not the “moratorium” bill or other watered-down constitutional amendments, is the way to accomplish real reform of eminent domain laws in California. SCA 15 has a strong chance of being passed in a vote by the general public; it should not die in committee.

The contact information for the Committee members is here.

Joseph Dunn, Chair: 916-651-4034
Bill Morrow, Vice-Chair: 916-651-4038
Dick Ackerman: 916-651-4033
Gilbert Cedillo: 916-651-4022
Martha Ecutia: 916-651-4030
Liz Figueroa: 916-651-4010
Sheila Kuehl: 916-651-4023

The text of the amendment is available here.

If you are in Sacramento, the meeting is open to the public and we’d urge you to attend it as well—and be sure to wear any t-shirts or stickers opposing eminent domain abuse. It will be in Room 4203 of the State Capitol Building.

Call today and have your voice heard. We thank you for your help.

Best wishes,
Steven Anderson
Castle Coalition Coordinator

Several people sent me the Jack Balkin article about living constitutionalism, and asked my thoughts. The problem with this debate, I think, is the large population of straw men and red herrings that can confuse any person trying to see this thing straight.

Continue Reading »

My article on eminent domain in California has been quoted in a law review article in the Pacific Rim Law And Policy Journal, the subject of which is land reform in China. The passage reads:

The ideological dilemma plaguing China today is that enforcing property rights of the type recognized in the United States in effect provides for “natural restitution” of land. In other words, wholesale adoption of the U.S. system would force China to recognize more than just use rights, but also rights in the land itself. In turn, this would require the governing regime to collapse and streamline the “bundle of rights,” and pave the way for individuals to request return of property nationalized by the State. Such a path toward privatization of land would call into question the very Marxist roots underlying Chinese society and Party legitimacy.

A shift in reform efforts, to focus on the core of the Party’s mandate—service in the interest of the people—would not undermine the rights movement. To the contrary, rights are significant precisely because they allow individuals to participate and associate in the deliberative process. Under a republican theory, which formed the basis of the American Revolution and Lockean liberalism:

[T]he power to take property for public use rests, not on the government’s right to exact support from subjects without their consent, but instead on the rights of all the people in the society. The majority may rightfully do only what the people can rightfully do unanimously.

Shifting the focus of reform to incorporate a stronger theory of agency into eminent domain jurisprudence would reaffirm the relevance of the “whole people,” while at the same time allowing the Party to effectively recapture legitimacy and quell the social unrest stirred by recent public land scandals. What this new theory requires is a strengthening of land administration to distinguish between government acting in the public interest, to carry out its police powers, versus government acting in self-interest, to profit from back-door transactions. Only where the government is genuinely acting in the public interest should it enjoy the powers and immunities inherent in its sovereignty.

Pamela N. Phan, Enriching The Land or The Political Elite? Lessons From China on Democratization of The Urban Renewal Process, 14 Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J. 607, 648-49 (2005).

Needless to say, this is absurd. The “whole people” has no legitimate authority to “administrate” land—a euphemism for taking land away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who do not, or for forbidding people to use their land in the ways they wish. More importantly, rights are not “significant” because they “allow” people to “participate in the…process [of telling other people what to do with their lives].” They are significant because they allow people not to “participate” in any process. You don’t need rights to agree. You do need rights if you want to disagree. It is not conformity, but non-conformity that makes rights so precious.

In the view of the American Revolution and of Lockean liberalism, one does not have any fundamental right to “participate” in any “process” of government—quite the opposite. One gains that participatory authority only by permission: that is, by the consent of the governed. Because all men are created equal, no person has any inherent right to govern another person, but must ask that other person for permission. Thus, there is no such thing as “inherent sovereignty” in the view of Lockean liberalism—all sovereignty is derivative from the equal rights of the people who make up that society. So to participate in the “process” is not a right—but to be free from the wrongful acts of government (no matter how “participatory” that government is)—is a right. And that is the right that the Chinese government squarely and enthusiastically violates every day of its existence.

The reports from New Orleans are chilling to say the least, and I’m sure I speak for everyone at Positive Liberty when I say to our readers in the New Orleans area, What the hell are you doing reading a blog? Go get in a shelter or something!

I went through a hurricane once, sort of. I and my parents were traveling south toward Vicksburg, Mississippi in 1995 when (of all names) Hurricane Erin began threatening New Orleans. We knew that no hurricane had ever hit the city, and there was a great likelihood it would veer north and hit some other place, but at sunset we had to decide whether to continue on, and we decided not to. Directly east from Vicksburg, halfway through the state is Meridian, Mississippi, a lovely little town, and we headed that way through rain the like of which I’ve never seen. It was like a firehose spraying on the windshield, and the wind buffeted the car in a way frightening even to someone from Rialto, California (birthplace of the Santa Anas). When we finally found what I think was the last hotel room in Meridian, we turned on the TV only to hear the weather channel person say that the hurricane had swerved north from New Orleans and was headed directly for Meridian. Fortunately for us, it broke up right over our heads and we experienced no significant damage—just gorgeous sunsets for the rest of the week. Now, by that time it was no longer even technically a hurricane, so I can only imagine what the weather must be like in New Orleans right now. News pictures certainly don’t capture it.

Over the last few years, a bizarre situation has been going on here in Michigan. In 2003, a philanthropist named Robert Thompson offered to spend $200 million to build 15 charter schools in the city of Detroit, each serving 500 students, with a guarantee that each one would graduate at least 90% of its students. That plan required approval of the state legislature and in late 2003 they had reached a deal to pass a bill that allowed this to happen, but the Detroit teacher’s union called a one-day strike and marched on the state capitol to protest this plan. As a result, the Detroit mayor and Governor Granholm both pulled their support of the bill and it collapsed.

Detroit public schools are among the worst imaginable. Jack McHugh of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy gives some of the shocking facts, quoting the Standard and Poor’s School Evaluation Service report on Detroit schools:
Continue Reading »

Jeff Jacoby’s recent column argues, using a real life incest prosecution example, that there is no principled way such prosecution could survive Lawrence’s holding.

The case Jacoby cites is interesting. It involved consenting adults — Allen, 45, Pat, 30 — who didn’t meet until Pat was 18. Right there a key rationale for incest laws is missing from this case: Incest is rarely consensual and adult; it invariably involves the abuse of minor children living in the home. It is far harder to make a moral case against incest if this element is missing. But the second legitimate rationale for incest prohibition was indeed present in this case: The couple had four children (and as I’m sure all of us are aware, the argument is incest is bad for the species because inbreeding heightens the chances for biological defects). Continue Reading »

Daniel Dennett, a man I consider one of the half dozen or so most brilliant thinkers on the planet, has an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times about “intelligent design” called Show Me The Science. He makes essentially the same argument I have been making on my blog for nearly 2 years now:

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist’s work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a “controversy” to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. “Smith’s work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat,” you say, misrepresenting Smith’s work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: “See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms.” And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as “some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers.” What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, “You haven’t explained everything yet,” is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything.

To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.

As usual, Dennett is on the mark. The essay is well worth reading in its entirety.

This afternoon I will disassemble the desk from which I have blogged for the last year and a half.

Following this post, I will be offline for an unknown amount of time while I move into the new place. I have a longish post on Dennett that’s nearly ready to go, but it will have to wait for my return. Likewise to personal e-mails, administrative PL updates, and the like. My apologies in advance if you try to contact me during this time.

When I wrote about ID logically pointing in the direction of super-advanced natural alien visitors as the “designers” as much as if not more so than the God of the Bible, I thought I was making an original point. Compare what I wrote with Michael Shermer’s nearly identical thoughts on the Huffington Post (scroll down to the second half of his post).

Of course I wrote my post before Shermer. But then again, Shermer was just reiterating a point he had argued in 2002. Continue Reading »

I just finished Eric Foner’s Short History of Reconstruction, which at only 260 pages is aptly named. I was interested in the analogy between the Reconstruction period and what’s going on in Iraq right now—an analogy I think pretty strong. In both periods, a reforming zeal dissipated into a desire to “bring the troops home,” while many argued that the local, formerly oppressed population was simply incapable of self-government. Meanwhile, bands of dispossessed thugs, seeking to restore the former “way of life” used brutal acts of terrorism to disrupt the attempt at reform.

Reconstruction failed in the south for many reasons, of course, not the least of which were the Johnson Administration’s outright sabotage, and the Grant Administration’s indifference. By the time self-rule was restored to southern states, Reconstruction had already been more or less abandoned by the federal government, which alone was capable of putting down the southern insurgency. There were surprising gains, of course, including even black senators and governors in southern states. But these were almost entirely given up in the years after 1875, as fundamentalist, traditionalist, terrorist rule was restored. What’s sadder is that what gains were made in Reconstruction were due to advantages lacking in Iraq: a common religion, a common language, a common national heritage. Immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, even given a good constitution (which I think unlikely) would be a far greater disaster for Iraqis even than the withdrawal of federal troops from southern states.

I also recently finished 1776 by David McCullough. I’ve never been a great fan of his writing—I thought John Adams was superficial in places, and lacking in objectivity. 1776, I was sorry to discover, focuses almost exclusively on military history, a subject that interests me little. I think the most interesting events of 1776 occurred in Philadelphia and Williamsburg (not to mention, Scotland). The tribulations of Washington and his army are, of course, much worth remembering, but to spend almost no time on the Declaration of Independence, and absolutely no time on the Virginia Declaration of Rights or any of the intellectual accomplishments of that year is pretty disappointing. Still, I found the description of the battle of Brooklyn Heights particularly well written—suspenseful and intriguing. And I enjoyed McCullough’s speculation that Nathan Hale was part of a covert plan to burn New York—something I’d not heard before. Still, if you’re looking for a good, readable, informative book on the American Revolution, you’re much better served reading Langguth’s Patriots, one of the best books I’ve ever read.

Some interesting thoughts at Hat Full of Hollow.

Here is a translation (in pdf) of Iraq’s on-again off-again draft constitution. Given recent developments, I am fairly sure it is a couple of days out of date, but it is apparently the best we have to go on.

According to the Associated Press, there is evidently at least one significant lacuna in the BBC translation; the AP version of the document begins with the following words

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

“Verily we have honored the children of Adam” (Quran 17:70)

which the BBC version does not include.

Comments are welcome; more analysis to follow.