Positive Liberty

“America just needs a vacation,” said a friend of mine. That was three freakin’ years ago. He was right back then, and he’s still right now.

It sure would be nice if we could all just have a vacation — from terrorism, from the war, from all that stuff our government’s doing that most of us prefer not to think about. Can we just have three months, say, of Bill Clinton, and rising stock markets, and scandals that didn’t really matter very much?

I’d been so optimistic of late. Really, I had. Things were looking up — the MPA defeated, the Iraqi government finally formed, Zarqawi cold in his grave, or, at any rate, no warmer than the rest of Iraq on a summer’s day — But now Congress is bringing back the so-called flag desecration amendment, and I’m forced to explain, in plain English, how an attack on a piece of cloth — a piece of cloth that you don’t even own — is not an assault on America, or on you, or on the Sacred Idea of Freedom Itself.

I know, I know, I can’t prove a negative. But I’ll give it a shot anyway.

Continue Reading »

My Policy Report for the Goldwater Institute, Playing The Takings Game, is now available on line.

From Kansas to the Rolling Stones. Remember that game from Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon where one could name any actor and trace him to a movie with Kevin Bacon in six steps.

Well I thought of tracing some of my favorite musicians/bands. Instead of acting in a movie together, the rule would be playing in a band together. And I noticed I could, within about five degrees or so, trace some of my favorite players who play in a variety of different albeit somewhat related styles (the related aspect being, some type of focus on rock instrumental or musical proficiency — “musicians music” if you will). We could go from Kansas to the Dixie Dregs to Mahavishnu Orchestra to Jeff Beck. And once I traced Kansas to Jeff Beck…Hell, I could connect them to the Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and others. Continue Reading »

Sorry, I’ve just discovered how to search YouTube for rare clips like this, this, this, this, and this. I could spend all day doing this.

Update: Now this is when Genesis were cool.

Yesterday was the 63rd anniversary of one of the most important Supreme Court rulings in our history, West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. The case dealt with the question of whether the government could force students to salute the flag and recite the pledge of allegiance, and it was brought by a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed that to do so would be blasphemy because only God is deserving of such a vow. Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion is incredibly powerful, one of the most lucid and bold statements on liberty ever written.

The historical significance can’t be fully understood without understanding the historical context in which this case took place. This was 1943, at the height of our involvement in WW2, and only three years earlier, the Supreme Court had upheld a similar law in Pennsylvania and affirmed the government’s authority to compel students to repeat the pledge and salute the flag even if it violated their most cherished beliefs. The timing could not have been worse for such a case. But Justice Jackson led the court in reversing that decision and restoring a vital limitation on the government’s authority to compel our assent.

The entire ruling is worth reading; indeed, I would argue that it should be mandatory reading in any American history class. Below the fold, I’ll paste my favorite passage so you can see that Jackson’s eloquent defense of freedom of conscience would fit in perfectly with many passages written by Jefferson or Madison. And also because it provides a perfect lead in to discuss a current controversy:
Continue Reading »

The Salt Lake Tribune has picked up my latest editorial on eminent domain.

One year after the Supreme Court shocked Americans with its eminent domain decision, Kelo v. New London, officials in Riviera Beach, Fla., announced their intention to seize 400 acres of land, including hundreds of homes and businesses, and transfer the property to a developer to build stores and condominiums.

Although Gov. Jeb Bush signed a new law on May 11, 2006, that prohibits these kinds of property seizures, the city rushed to approve its plan in an emergency meeting on May 10. Asked about these shady tactics, Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown insisted the city acted legally.

“We’re comfortable,” he said, “with everything we’ve done.”

Unfortunately, Brown’s audacity is typical of bureaucrats who see Kelo as signaling open season on landowners. These officials perceive themselves as sculptors of neighborhoods, who mold their ideal city from the property that people have worked hard to buy. They don’t see property as a right, but as a privilege that can be revoked or altered in the name of “progress.”

(Read the rest)

Let me strengthen Kuznicki’s overall point in his post that the problem or the clash between “gay rights” and liberty isn’t about gay rights per se, but an already existing system of laws and policies that inhibit liberty. And it’s only when gays or “sexual orientation” ask for some sort of equal recognition in this already existing system of laws and regulations that religious conservatives cry their liberty is being threatened.

The problem is their liberty has already been threatened since 1964. Continue Reading »

Josh Claybourn and Eugene Volokh host discussions on the subject of gay rights and possible discrimination against conservative religions, sparked by this article in the New York Times.

To my mind, the best suggestion is still Rowe’s. But I did smile at this comment:

We pro-gay rights folks promise to treat you anti-gay people at least as well as you have treated gay people. Enjoy. And remember, you’re always free to change your lifestyle choice.

More serious thoughts below the fold.

Continue Reading »

What a surprise. Over a billion dollars* of government relief for Hurricane Katrina was snatched up by opportunistic frauds:

The government doled out as much as $1.4 billion in fraudulent claims for relief after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, getting hoodwinked to pay for season football tickets, a tropical vacation and even a divorce lawyer, congressional investigators have found.

Prison inmates, a supposed victim who used a New Orleans cemetery for a home address, and a person who spent 70 days at a Hawaiian hotel all were able to wrongly get taxpayer help, according to evidence that gives a new black eye to the nation’s disaster relief agency.

Federal investigators even informed Congress that one man apparently used FEMA assistance money for a sex change operation.

Imagine if the Salvation Army discovered that a billion dollars of its money had gone for sex changes and football tickets. Somebody’s head would seriously roll, and it would never happen again. Of course, it would never happen to begin with, because the Salvation Army pays attention to where its money goes and what its money does. The government, on the other hand, has no real incentive to monitor where its money goes or why, and although there might be some cosmetic “hearings” and a few ceremonial firings, it’s safe to predict that there will be no institutional change as a result of this scandal. What’s a billion dollars? It’s only someone else’s money.

What’s frustrating to me is that, as a libertarian, I’m constantly challenged by people who say “But what about disaster relief? Shouldn’t government do something to help these victims?” The answer to that is no; not only do we owe them nothing, and not only should genuine charity be voluntary and not coerced through the state’s taxing power, but government is also widly, hysterically, preposterously incompetent in such matters, as this latest incident attests.

*–Keep in mind that a billion is one thousand millions, which is to say, 1,000,000,000. That’s the entire yearly income of New York Life Insurance Co., or half the price of a B-2 Stealth Bomber, or four dollars for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

What might surprise you about this article is not that George and Singer have their differences, but that, until now, the two were cordially fond of one another. Though, Singer may have done something to sour their personal relationship. I think George, as much of a nice fellow he seems to be in person, is a bit of a religious fanatic…well, more than bit (though he dresses his religiosity up in the neutral-universalistic language of the Thomistic natural law). But at the same time, I find Pete Singer and Cornell West (two other of Princeton’s public intellectuals), just as extreme on the other side of various issues. Princeton needs more Robby George’s to balance out the extreme leftyism that dominates colleges and universities.

What’s interesting, as the article notes, is the way that George tries to get involved in team-teaching with these leftists with whom he disagrees. George has initiated the idea of team teaching with both Singer and West. (And has team taught with other lesser well known leftist public intellectuals.)

As a libertarian I don’t particularly like right-wing religiously or Thomistically conservative dogma being thrown in my face (did NOT have much of that in college and grad. school). But I also don’t like having neo-Marxist radical lefty dogma being thrown in my face either (had lots of that in higher education).

If I were President of these Universities, I’d make all of these lefties team teach with a Robby George for balance.

PLF has filed suit against Riviera Beach, Florida, for seeking to condemn private property Kelo-style despite a new state law prohibiting such takings. Here’s a copy of the complaint.

Although I agree that the Drug War is immoral, unconstitutional, and unjustifiable in every way, I’m not so confident in my thoughts about jury nullification. It is obviously an important and legitimate part of the judicial system—I’m not sure what the point of having a jury system would be if jury nullification did not exist. That being said, we have to think about these things as realistically as possible.

Continue Reading »

The following is a blogcast I recorded as a follow up to Sandefur’s excellent post on postmodern prose that we see, surprisingly, coming from conservative thinkers as opposed to the leftist deconstructionists who have made using a lot of big words and compound sentences which ultimately say nothing into an artform.

Here is part I, and here is part II.

Julian Sanchez discusses jury nullification:

I was once again invited to do my civic duty by going through the Brazil-esque process of juror selection at a courthouse in downtown D.C. today, and I found myself thinking of a quandary my friend Baylen Linnekin faced last year. A commited anti-Drug War activist, he’d had an opportunity to serve on a drug case, but been promptly removed from the pool upon revealing his views on the subject. He’d solicited comments, and at the time, I opined that it would’ve been perfectly morally justifiable to fudge that point (or, if we want to be sticklers about it, to perjure yourself) in the interest of preventing someone from being convicted of violating an unjust law. I even recalled musing it was a shame I hadn’t had a chance to do something like that last time I was called, when (thanks to a last-minute settlement) I didn’t even make it to voir dire.

Sanchez and I are both strongly against the Drug War. I know that I write about same-sex marriage more often than I do about the Drug War, but if anything, I feel more strongly about the latter. Mostly it’s a question of what firsthand source material I have. (I’m not into drugs.) But the Drug War destroys lives and families. It tramples the liberties of everyone, whether they’re into drugs or not. It is not worth what we pay for it, and it is by far the most serious abuse in our system of government today.

Sanchez continues:

We went through the usual litany of questions, with each of the hundred or so prospective jurors writing down the numbers of any they answered “yes” to. “Number Six: Are you or any close friends or relatives lawyers, or have you or any of those people studied law?” Oh, goodness yes… “some of my best friends,” as they say. “Number Nine: Do you have strong feelings about drugs or drug dealing that might prevent you from objectively applying the law to the facts of the case? [She pauses, and then, as an afterthought] … or about the drug laws, I should add.”

But if I read this right, I do not think it would not be perjury for him to answer “no.” If he truly believes that prohibitionary drug laws are unconstitutional — and I certainly think that they are — then this is an objective application of the law at hand. Jurors are not to ignore the Constitution when they take the jury oath, I’d think.

What do others think? Unlike half of Positive Liberty, I’m not a lawyer, so I would be interested in hearing from those who are.

I admit I don’t know a lot about the issue of net neutrality. I have read a number of hysterical op-eds, some frankly mystifying articles — and, I suspect, a good deal of nonsense. I have had a hard time seeing what all the fuss is about, in any direction. Worse, the even quasi-technical accounts I’ve read mostly convince me that the pundits themselves don’t understand the issue in the slightest.

The free-marketeer in me wants to ask a very simple question: There are price differentials in everything else — why should there be no price differentials in Internet service? Isn’t competition a good thing? What if I want a meal at the French Laundry rather than McDonald’s? Shouldn’t I be allowed to pay more? And what if McDonald’s is more my thing? Shouldn’t I be allowed to save the difference? If a neutral ISP, that is, one that doesn’t block or charge more for competitors’ signals, really is the optimal ISP, then there is little to fear. Either the sub-optimal ISPs will be forced out of business — or they will attract a clientele of people who didn’t really desire those other types of signals anyway. In which case, they were never sub-optimal to begin with.

Again I say, what’s the big deal?

And please, in the comments, try not to get hysterical.

My Dad and I saw Richard Brookhiser speak at the Barnes & Nobles at the Princeton Market Faire (just up the road from where I teach). And I finally got Brookhiser’s book which he autographed.

Brookhiser is definitely one of the fairest reporters on the Founding. He acted as “press secretary” for the Founders who were hiding away at an undisclosed location.

A number of questions on religion came up, one of which was asked by me. I asked why did Washington systematically refuse to take communion at his church? Brookhiser honestly answered that no one really knows why, all we can do is speculate.

He did note, correctly, that Washington kept his “religious card” closely guarded, that he went out of his way to take the specific details of his religious beliefs to his grave. We do know that Washington believed in a warm-intervening Providence whose Hand helped America win the Revolution. Beyond that we can only speculate as to what Washington, in private, really believed. Continue Reading »

A fascinating thing has been going on in the Louisiana legislature: they’ve been busy trying to edit the ten commandments. They are working on a bill that would allow the posting of the ten commandments on public property and in public buildings, but they’re having a bit of trouble deciding which version to use. You see, there are at least three different versions – Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish. The site is a bit surreal to witness:

The committee didn’t settle on the version to include but did amend the more Protestant-oriented version in the bill after a civil-rights lobbyist noted some disparities.

“It says ‘murder’ rather than ‘kill,’” said Michael Malec, noting the Sixth Commandment, which commonly reads “Thou shalt not kill.”

“We can change that,” replied Rep. Peppi Bruneau, R-New Orleans, who handled the bill for its absent author, Sen. James David Cain, R-Dry Creek.

And remember, these are allegedly timeless, eternal rules of right and wrong straight from the finger of God himself. Wouldn’t you think that the religious right would be just a wee bit bothered by the idea of politicians editing them to get around an inconvenient court ruling? Of course, the mere fact that there are three versions causes serious establishment clause problems:
Continue Reading »

Via Radley Balko comes this example of paternalistic overreach from Chicago, where they’ve apparently already banned the sale of fois gras and now are proposing to ban the sale of french fries because – surprise, surprise – they’re bad for you:

If the City Council can ban foie gras, a fatty liver delicacy that most Chicagoans have never tasted and cannot afford, why not ban a product that’s known to cause obesity and heart disease? Chicago’s most powerful alderman raised that question Wednesday, then began to answer it — by thinking out loud.

Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th) has an ordinance pending that would ban Chicago grocers from selling meat treated with carbon monoxide to make it look pink and more appetizing.

Burke said it “might be a good jumping off point” to target french fries and other fast food that’s cooked in artery-clogging oil and food that’s processed or loaded with additives and preservatives.

“You know the way things are going in this nation. The problem with obesity is continuing to be a big problem. A lot of that has to do with saturated fat and the way fast foods are produced. Maybe we should start thinking about a local ordinance to restrict some of those unhealthy practices in preparing meat products,” said Burke, who pumps out more consumer-oriented ordinances than any other alderman.

Some people think I’m paranoid when I say that this trumped up obesity “epidemic” is a pretext for more government control; those people are out of their minds and ignorant of history. We’re already seeing lawsuits against fast food restaurants for making people fat. This is the next big wave in paternalism, all justified by saving people from themselves and by saving the nation money on healthcare. Welcome to the world of the health nazis (and Godwin’s law can go to hell, it’s still a good phrase).

I was reminded today of Frederick Douglass’ speech “West India Emancipation,” delivered in New York on August 3, 1857. Douglass is more than a personal hero to me; I think a strong case can be made that he was the greatest rhetorician in Victorian America—an age known for great rhetoric. Lincoln, of course, was fantastic; Charles Sumner was brilliant. But Douglass’ speeches have an electric effect beyond these speakers.

Continue Reading »

Now that the MPA has been defeated once again, I’d like to take a look at an even more important victory for gays and lesbians, one that’s happened with little media fanfare — even while making a huge difference in the lives of ordinary people.

Continue Reading »