ATTENTION: You are viewing my old blog archives, kept here for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To view the new archives, go here.
To find something on my new blog, search here.
News8Austin: Texas has highest percentage of dropouts
A recent study by the U.S. Census Bureau found Texas ranks last in the nation for percentage of high school graduates. The numbers are worst among Hispanics who also happen to be the fastest growing minority population in the state.[...]
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reported there is a $2 million lifetime cost for a dropout who becomes involved in crime.
[...]
"We primarily need more funding for dropout prevention programs like Communities in Schools, getting involved in your local school districts, becoming a tutor or a mentor," [Vanessa] Brown said.
Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
If we're going to objectively judge the "lifetime cost" involved with these things, then I'd say having the state educate, jail, house, feed, regulate, transport, and harass these kids is the real problem.
Watching Blow Out was not part of my plans for last evening, but since I screwed up and didn't set my VCR to record yesterday's West Wing episodes, I needed something to observe while burning MP3 CDs and cooking dinner. I've known of the show ever since Bravo started advertising it, but it didn't seem interesting enough for my time.
Anyway, the episode last night focused primarily on Jonathan Antin firing Brandon Martinez. Mr. Antin is the owner of the appropriately named Jonathan Salon in Beverly Hills, California and was not willing to put up with Mr. Martinez's antics any longer. So, in Episode 3 Jonathan dismissed Brandon on the spot, handed over his list of clients, and that was that.
I was somewhat taken aback by this. I had assumed that by now such freedom to fire had either been stamped out in California or was greatly restricted. Obviously, I also don't know the details of Brandon's contract to work, so that's a huge thing to consider. So I searched through the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, but didn't find relevant laws related to hiring and firing. I found a lot of other nasty statist shit, but that's something for another time.
I tried to access this site which allegedly has a searchable list of legislative activities, laws, and the California constitution, but the damn thing isn't consistently online. Searching for California Labor Code gets me a UC Berkeley website, and more than half of that points back to the government server mentioned above. Searching within that server for "fire" results in 19 different sections of the Labor Code, nearly all of them dealing with firefighters and none of them dealing with an employer firing an employee. So for now, I'll just sit contented that in at least one area of the law California businesses aren't grossly hamstrung.
I did, however, find this useless bit of opinion-mongering at the end of Contracts Against Public Policy, Section 923:
923. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, the public policy of this State is declared as follows:
Negotiation of terms and conditions of labor should result from voluntary agreement between employer and employees. Governmental authority has permitted and encouraged employers to organize in the corporate and other forms of capital control. In dealing with such employers, the individual unorganized worker is helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment. Therefore it is necessary that the individual workman have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
This passage has some good parts and one bad part. The good parts deal with the importance of an employee having the freedom to associate, organize, and assign representatives in labor discussions. I've no problem with that. The bad part is what I've bolded above.
I don't know who authored this legislation, but that sentence stinks. It stinks because it sends the wrong impression and is wholly unnecessary (much like the Code itself). I can exercise liberty of contract on my own. I can protect my freedom to work for whom on my own. I can obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment on my own. Do accomplish all this takes the simple decision to work or not to work; to sign or not sign a contract. If I don't like the terms of employment offered by a business, I can quite simply take my labor elsewhere and find someone else who has a more agreeable offer.
No, it's not likely that I can walk into an employment interview and bring my own contract and have the business agree to it. It's also not that likely that I'll be able to get some terms changed on their offer through negotiation. The majority of jobs won't be offered in negotiable terms unless there are special extenuating circumstances, such as disability. If I were hired and got my conditions of employment changed so that I could wear sandals any time I wanted, merely because I feel more comfortable doing so, it would likely upset a number of my coworkers. People prefer to be treated as equals and having small quirks get legalized into contract by some would create tension in some workplaces. Perhaps that tension isn't justified, but it would exist.
Not any less important is the business's desire to have a smoothly functioning workplace. This means most businesses will have a standard of behavior, dress, and work ethic to which they want their employees to adhere.
So while it may seem unfair that companies basically get to set the terms of most employment, there are valid reasons they should be allowed to do so. More importantly, of course, is the fact that no employee "owns" the job the employee works and the property being used by that employee is owned by the business. The business gets to dictate the terms because it owns its property.
The employee owns his or her labor and therefore has absolute veto power over how it's used. Describing them as "helpless" is completely wrong.
OK, so I won't be jumping into politics immediately. For my 881st entry, here is what I'm submitting as my essay in my application packet to St. Edward's University. Yes, I am attempting to reenter college and get a degree, hopefully in Public Safety Management. I should know whether I've been accepted or not in two or three weeks.
Charles Hueter
8801 McCann Dr.
Apt. 140
Austin, TX 78757
A Response to Essay A
June 29, 2004Once, when I was eight or nine, I asked my parents to describe where I was born. My father grinned and said I was born in a "Mafia hospital" and that he and my mother were served wine before the birth took place by some very polite and well-dressed "Italian types." The City of Marlton, New Jersey, exists - I've checked - but I've been less successful in finding the hospital, whose name seems to change each time I ask. The facts as I know them are merely that my parents lived near Washington, D.C.; it was June 26th, 1980; and less than three weeks later, we were in the middle of a move to Fairbanks, Alaska.
Being an Army Brat has both it's privileges and drawbacks. In the case of the former, you get to tell all sorts of stories about growing in up in disparate locations such as Alaska, Texas, Washington State, Hawaii, Kentucky, and Texas (in that order). Since most of my civilian friends have rarely left the state in which they were born, my memories have more of an exotic edge to them. I can judge weather from a higher authority given my exposure to such a variety of climates. The rich experience of living within an institution with it's unique codes, rituals, and symbols is not easily matched by the average civilian childhood.
However, when almost your entire youth is spent on military bases and, aside from the fact that no matter what you do you can't get rid of your fraternal twin sisters, you acquire a sense that things just don't remain constant. Friends come and go - you don't even get to accumulate enemies. I attended three different elementary schools and two different high schools, fracturing any attempt by my teachers to educate me cohesively. It became second nature to rely on myself to get through difficult parts of my life, shunning help unless absolutely needed. I read fiction, techno-thrillers, and sci-fi by myself often.
My father retired a full colonel in June of 1996, having spent 30 years with the United States Army and serving twice in Vietnam. He met my mother in Germany during a tour of duty and they were married not too long after. My mom is a legal Canadian resident alien and works in the Comal Independent School District as an administrator while my father, being utterly unable to remain retired and idle, has become a deputy sheriff with the Comal County Sheriff's Department. The aforementioned evil twins were born in June of 1984, cementing the month as one of my family's most expensive in terms of gift giving.
I can't place the exact date or location, but I recall entering my junior year of high school with a strong desire to work with computers and technology once I graduated. My father had just retired, we were living in New Braunfels, and I needed something to latch onto after losing my Fort Knox friends. Working with Apples and IBM-compatible PCs came easily to me whether I was installing Windows 95 at my father's defeated insistence or sneaking networked games of Doom II past my high school computer science teacher. I felt comfortable with the keyboard and monitor. I was somewhat worried that my overall grades were slipping and I was having trouble keeping up in calculus, but school wasn't something that usually troubled me and I brushed the C's and occasional D aside by rationalizing that it was the tedious teachers' fault for holding me back.
In 1998, I graduated in the top ten percent of my high school class and I applied for a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin. Getting that acceptance letter was all the more exciting because my father earned several degrees there and he's big on tradition. That fact made the academic probation and subsequent dismissal after only two semesters doubly disappointing. When I moved to Austin, I brought along everything I thought I wanted and needed. What I couldn't bring were my study habits and effective time management because I had neither. Dispirited and losing interest in programming, I moved to San Marcos with some friends and proceeded to waste about 14 months of my life. This wasn't entirely because I worked for Avis Rent-A-Car, but they didn't help much either.
Emerging from that posttraumatic funk in 2000, I moved back to Austin and joined a temporary employment agency. I regained my interest in reading, but rather than fiction, I turned to political philosophy as my primary subject area. Over the years, as what I learned in school clashed with the reality of things around me, I felt myself drifting towards the optimism and fresh ideas from the libertarian line of thought. I became active on the Internet after my absence in San Marcos and joined in innumerable online debates. I adopted a love for Japanese animation as a new hobby. Even though I mistakenly felt the momentum I had built up would be used well at Austin Community College to gain readmission to UT, I knew the direction in my life was changing.
A temporary assignment as an envelope-stuffer at the Texas Association of School Boards impressed whomever is impressed by such things and I was asked to work there full time as a secretary. Since October of 2000, I've been with TASB's Risk Management Fund, working for public school districts from behind the scenes. This unexpected line of work is for our pooled insurance members in workers' compensation, property/casualty, and unemployment compensation. I help our traveling consultants with administrative and logistical tasks in order to make their jobs of inspecting schools for hazards and training personnel more effective. I don't wish to remain at the level of administrative assistant for much longer, but I cannot proceed unless I understand more about public safety and disaster preparedness. This is responsible for a great deal of my desire to earn a degree in Public Safety Management.
I grew up with an above average academic record and it ran afoul of my lack of discipline during my late teens and early twenties. I think it's time to change that and begin moving forward again and St. Edward's New College represents the best opportunity available that matches my needs. I never tire of learning, but after my disappointment at UT and ACC, I questioned whether it should continue in information technology. Now that I've worked at TASB for nearly four straight years, I've come to be more and more interested in the workings and mechanics of public safety. Not only would a degree in PSM greatly expand my knowledge base in my field of work, but I can also feel the familiar desire to discover a subject that interests me. This energy needs to be channeled productively.
I once promised my father I would wisely spend the money he saved on education. I broke that promise during my two semesters at UT and burned both his and my money at ACC. I want to change that record and accomplish something I've looked forward to for many years: earning a four-year university degree. I want the pride that comes with achieving that document and the integration of learning behind it. I want the enormous positive impact on my job and my future prospects for advancement. I want to establish a line of successes to keep me motivated for whatever lies ahead. And besides, both my sisters are working on their higher educations and I can't just let them get ahead of me, right?
For the moment, I plan on entering the New College and taking two classes per semester in order to build up my credit hours for an application to the P.A.C.E. program. If I focus and dedicate myself, I believe I can take home the degree just as opportunities open up within my division for advancement. I don't foresee working for TASB my entire life and with the combination of experience and education (and personality), the doors to a much greater depth of career choices should be open and accessible more than I would ever expect without.
Thank you for your time and I hope you judge me competent and worthy for admission to your educational establishment.
Sincerely,Charles Hueter
UPDATE(7/9/2004 3:33pm)
I got in!
- Rainbough skewers some really bad Newspeak in USA Today on the issue of college tuition prices.
- Jonathon Wilde reprints the dark words of Matthew Yglesias.
And now, back to the dreary reality of politics...
Another year and another birthday. :)
hit "refresh" or "reload" to view the ad again
President George W. Bush: "I'm George Bush and you can trust ME to run your life."Senator John F. Kerry: "I'm John Kerry and you can trust ME to run your life."
Independent Candidate Ralph Nader: "I'm Ralph Nader and you can trust ME to run your life."
Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Michael Badnarik: "I'm Michael Badnarik and I trust YOU to run your own life."
You can download the HTML code and the Flash file for the ad here.
It is quite obvious Mr. Badnarik is correct on the first three counts. The few feeble attempts President Bush has made towards real, objective reductions in the reach and power of government are more than outweighed by the status quo supporting, shift-revenue-from-here-to-there, anti-personal freedom stances he's taken over the years. Senator Kerry is roughly the same; his few stances that oppose Bush's social tyranny are more than outweighed by his support for even more economic tyranny. Thus, the infuriating false dichotomy of social liberty verses economic liberty continues.
Ralph Nader has one thing going for him: his belief that the Democratic and Republican parties represent two sides of the same coin and that they pander, subsidize, prioritize, and treat their government-hungry donors and sponsors over the interests of other Americans. There are exceptions, of course, but the two parties differ on fundamental political philosophy very little. On the other hand, Mr. Nader is also part of that same coin. Nader would be utterly disastrous to personal freedom, wanting to do more damage than either President Bush or Senator Kerry. His collectivism towers over Bush's and Kerry's.
So what about Mr. Badnarik? I took a peek at his stand on some issues last time, but does his rhetoric match his advertisement? I realize this is a high bar to set, asking a would-be politician to follow through on his or her word and checking to see if the reality of the person's positions matches the reality of what is said to support them. But I'm quirky like that.
I must note that am disappointed to see several pages of his website have been taken down:
- http://www.badnarik.org/issues/politics
- http://www.badnarik.org/issues/second_amendment.html (as I remember it, though, this is essentially what he has in his gun section below)
- http://www.badnarik.org/issues/drugs.html (ditto, but I'm less certain)
- http://www.badnarik.org/issues/schools.html
- http://www.badnarik.org/issues/lneilsmith.html (this was a very interesting interview with L. Neil Smith that can be instead found here)
His website says more position papers are coming soon, so hopefully they'll recreate what he's written in the past and present it to the public.
On health care and drug costs, he says
I would end excess regulation of pharmaceuticals, health care providers, and insurance companies. Physicians will be held liable for malpractice, but not for problems beyond their control.[...]
Tax credits can then be extended to any person or organization funding Health Savings Accounts for themselves or others. With such tax incentives to aid in charitable gifting, Medicare or Medicaid recipients can transition into their choice of private health insurance, allowing rapid privatization of these programs.
[on drug prices]
Why have drug prices risen so steeply in the past several decades?
The answer is excessive FDA regulation. In 1962, Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Amendments, in the wake of the European thalidomide tragedy. This sweeping legislation meant that pharmaceutical firms had to go through more elaborate animal and human studies. New regulations made manufacturing more costly. Advertising had to undergo an approval process by the FDA.
We could slash pharmaceutical prices overnight by ending these regulations.
The question becomes, what is "excess regulation"? Myself, I'd think that would be everything beyond prosecuting fraud and theft. Anything beyond that would constitute a violation of individual property rights.
His tax credits idea is certainly interesting, but wouldn't it just be better to slash income taxes in general? Adding complexity to the tax code is something we should be avoiding. I'm not much more enthusiastic for the idea if he advocates eliminating 90% of all federal tax loopholes, exemptions, and special cases. If that's the case, then why not stop dicking around and just hack the tax rates down for all brackets by the same amount that eliminating those complexities would create?
Still, it's a far better approach than what we hear from the other guys.
See final note below.
On gun control, he says
Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.
I've known him to say something to the effect that all or nearly all gun laws in this country ("20,000+") are unconstitutional and should be repealed.
Obviously, I'm in favor of this. But why equivocate with "unconstitutional"? He says he stands for individual rights, so therefore he should support no gun control laws. Perhaps I'm just misreading him.
See final note below.
On minority discrimination, he says
Throughout our nation, entrepreneurial African-American hair braiders have been similarly threatened. Would-be van operators and taxicab owners face prosecution unless they pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a permit. In some areas, newcomers are routinely denied permits no matter how much they are willing to pay. Minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged have a difficult time jumping these costly hurdles.[...]
Barriers to self-employment discriminate against minorities because few can afford the time and money necessary to tackle the red tape. Even minorities who would never start their own business get more respect from employers when they have the option to choose differently.
Minorities don't need preferential treatment to get ahead - they are just as intelligent, hard-working, and ambitious as other Americans.
[...]
If you elect me as your president, I promise to end the economic discrimination that government regulations and licensing laws have imposed upon minorities.
Excellent, but see final note below.
On gay marriage, he says
Establishment politicians can't solve this real world problem because they aren't asking the tough question: "Should lovers jointly decide what their marriage will be or should government dictate the terms of their most intimate union?"Today, of course, government decides if a couple is even permitted to marry through a licensing process. In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as it can be denied to gay couples today.
[...]
Like every partnership, marriage should fit the individuals it unites, rather than be a "one-size-fits all" proposition defined by those outside the relationship. Each marriage should be what the partners want it to be - ;no more, no less. Ideally, the terms of marriage should be defined ahead of time with procedures to modify them as necessary.
Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role in marriage should be the same.
Excellent, but see final note below.
On unemployment, he says
The answer is too much regulation and too much government spending.[...]
We know how jobs are destroyed: too much regulation and too much government spending. We know how to reverse the process; we've done it before. If you elect me as your president, I promise to downsize government instead of your job!
Excellent, but see final note below.
On the war on drugs, he says
The federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere with state drug policies.[...]
On a fundamental level, Libertarians believe that it is the unalienable and constitutional right of individuals to medicate themselves and choose for themselves what to put into their bodies, as long as they live up to the consequences of their actions. The federal government has no proper say in the matter, and state governments violate the rights of the people in their own attempts to enforce morality. The decision to ingest, smoke or consume any drug should be up to the individual, under the advice of his or her physician, when appropriate. Locking people up for trying to relieve their pain is cruel and unusual punishment for an act that hurts no one.
The Drug War has led to some of the worst violations of the constitutional liberties of Americans, as well as to the worst wave of violent crime in American history since Alcohol Prohibition. It has been used to rationalize unlawful searches and seizures, corruption of the court system, no-knock raids, racial profiling, and "civil asset forfeiture" - a policy whereby government officials can confiscate private property without even charging anyone with a crime. The War on Drugs, more than anything else, has served as a means of destroying the Bill of Rights. It has also led to excessive taxes and spending, costing more than 40 billion dollars a year to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent drug offenders.
Excellent, but see final note below.
On the war in Iraq, he says
As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.[...]
People in the Middle East, do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.
The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results.
[...]
It is a contradiction to forcibly institute a democracy where the majority wants nothing to do with it.
Here at home, war leads to a decline in civil liberties, higher taxes, and wartime economic measures that blur the line between business and state, and allow politically favored corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.
[...]
In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world.
This is good, but from the reading of his statement in the ad, he says he trusts us to run our own lives. He appears to make an exception for national defense, something I disagree with, as do others. The "market", if you will, for defense services is no fundamentally different than the market for any other service and should I wish to contract my desire for defense services out, I view it as immoral and wrong to use force to prevent me from doing so - the essence of a federal monopoly on national defense. So I view this as a contradiction that remains to be explained, especially given this exchange in the The Libertarian Enterprise interview mentioned above:
TLE: You have a well-deserved reputation for your knowledge of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. At the same time, you're a libertarian of good repute and long standing. In your opinion—the opinion of a potential President of the United States—what comes first, the Zero Aggression Principle or the Constitution?BADNARIK: The Zero Agression [sic] Principle, of course! That principle is summarized by the Declaration of Independence which states that ALL men are created equal, asserting that their rights to life, liberty, and "property" are unalienable. The purpose of the Constitution is simply to outline a form of government that will put the Zero Agression [sic] Principle into practice.
Emphasis in original. That's a very strong position to take and one whose implications are far-reaching. Hopefully, he'll keep that in mind.
Also in the interview are some other tidbits worth mentioning.
I am opposed to ANY individual taxes until we eliminate all of the unconstitutional agencies, and I suspect we wouldn't need a tax after that.[...]
The only type of rights that exist are INDIVIDUAL rights. There is no such thing as "community rights" because communities do not exist in the literal sense. They are abstract concepts. Only the individuals within a community have rights.
[...]
In order for the United States to survive economically, we need to reestablish a non-inflationary currency based on some commodity, not necessarily gold and silver, though I admit a preference to precious metals. Eliminating the unconstitutional Federal Reserve is a logical and necessary first step.
A Final Note
In his policy paper on the drug war, Mr. Badnarik says this
Libertarians would hope and expect most states to come around and severely reform their policies to make them more humane and less at odds with the Constitution and the American way of life.
One of the great problems facing liberty-minded people in the United States is that, for all the denunciations of the federal government and it's abuses of power, it's only part of the problem. The laws most people generate friction against are the result of state legislation. Fifty states, each with their own sets of laws, rules, regulations, requirements, mandates, and other euphemisms equals an ungawdly tangled mess of legalized limitations to undo and abolish. The President alone can't do this. Only a dedicated nationwide movement of people committed to principle can. Hell, even just the combination of one state and the federal government's acc
Given that he teaches a class on the Constitution (part 1 in MP3 form here), he should know that the President doesn't have much, if any, control over the legislation produced by the states. Additionally, any impact he'd have as President would be greatly, greatly, tempered by Congress and the collectivists within. He might be able to put together a grand package of genuine limited government proposals, but are the House and Senate going to pass them?
Anyway, given what we know of his positions now, I'd say that his rhetoric almost matches the reality of his positions. He was booked for the O'Reilly Factor a few days ago, but that got cancelled. He does, however, have a lot of media appearances coming up and has a scheduling section on his blog. Keep an eye out.
UPDATE(7/9/2004 10:03am)
Looks like Badnarik and his team weren't the first to come up with the ad idea. I found this PDF newsletter from the September 2000 edition of Liberty News, published by the Boulder County Libertarian Party. On page 9, there is a letter from Chuck Wright, LP candidate for Colorado's 17th State Senate District. It opens:
Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan: "I'm Pat Buchanan and you can trust me to run your life."Republican Party candidate George W. Bush: "I'm George Bush and you can trust me to run your life."
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader: "I'm Ralph Nader and you can trust me to run your life."
Democratic Party candidate Al Gore: "I'm Al Gore and you can trust me to run your life."
Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne: "I'm Harry Browne and I trust you to run your own life."
That's why I'm a Libertarian. I prefer to run my own life rather than having some politician run it for me. If you prefer to run your own life rather than having politicians run your life for you, vote Libertarian.
There's more, but that's the relevant part, emphasis in the original.
Mr. Badnarik has some new position papers up.
On the crime prevention and punishment, he says
Crime rates go down when offenders must compensate their victims and responsible citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons. Privatizing police gives them incentive to emphasize prevention and focus on violent, rather than victimless, crimes.[...]
Only one industrialized nation has succeeded in consistently lowering its crime rates since World War II. Japan emphasizes restitution to the victim, rather than punishment of the criminal. Once caught, offenders must formally apologize to their victims and enter into a compensation agreement in order to get leniency from the court. They learn the extent of the damage they do and the cost of rectifying it.
Such restitution is the most effective rehabilitation known. Further crime is discouraged when young perpetrators must compensate their victims. If offenders had to pay the cost of their apprehension and trial as well, this justice system might even become self-supporting.
Wow, a candidate for President that advocates the privatization of police! That's news to me and an amazing step towards reconciliation between his words and his plan. This is one of those issues that the public never thinks about because it's taken for granted that the police MUST be government employees. This doesn't solve the problem of who pays for jails because he doesn't explicitly say the courts and jail system should be in private hands.
On free trade as opposed to state capitalism, he says
Although free trade is a blessing, managed bureaucratic trade is not. It is a dangerous misconception to think of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international quasi- governmental structures as free trade organizations. They rely on thousands of pages of confusing regulations and corrupt agreements between multinational corporations and oppressive governments. True free trade - the kind that fosters peace - does not depend on such organizations and rules, but is actually hindered by them. Managed trade - the kind that fosters resentment and poverty - is all that these organizations have so far delivered.The managed trade that we see today, where politically connected corporations and favored nations get special deals, is anything but free; it is no more and no less than mercantilism, the same economic system that Adam Smith railed against in The Wealth of Nations, when he saw the inefficiency and aggression of imperial governments endowing special privileges to state-sponsored cartels and forbidding those without power to exchange with each other in peace.
Libertarians want to see free trade between individuals, where people become less dependent upon their governments and the WTO and IMF, where instead they become connected in peaceful commerce, where the power and influence of governments and bureaucratic trade agreements diminish to make way for a world in which there are relationships between people, rather than alliances and arm-twisting between states.
[...]
Libertarians understand that government is force. It is coercion and violence. It is not an answer to the world's problems or a way to bring about international friendship. We look forward to a time when state power declines, corporations and special interest groups no longer have an unfair advantage, and individuals are allowed to live and cooperate harmoniously and in peace. Free trade is a necessary component in ushering in a peaceful tomorrow.
Right on the money.
UPDATE(1:42pm)
From his blog:
The best thing that could happen to our federal government would be if every American stopped paying income taxes. This would force the government to reduce spending to the limits established by the constitution, and prove that a government limited to its constitutional functions doesn’t need an income tax.But most Americans have families who depend on them—and can’t afford to take the risks involved in standing up to the IRS.
My situation was different. I do not have a family that depends on me. I was putting no one at risk but myself. So I decided to take that risk and follow through on my beliefs by not filing.
But since I received the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President of the United States, that situation has changed. Now there are millions of people depending on me. Because of that, and only because of that, I have taken the legal steps required to determine whether the IRS thinks that I owe them or if they owe me. I do not have that answer yet.
My party has always demanded an end to the income tax. As your president, this will be one of my first goals.
Yours in Liberty,
Michael Badnarik
Didn't know he didn't file for income taxes.
UPDATE 9/22/2004 1:03pm
Slashdot has posted a Q&A with Badnarik:
Last monday, you were given the chance to Ask Questions of the Libertarian Party's US Presidential nominee, Michael Badnarik. Today we present to you 15 of the most highly rated comments, and the answers from the man himself. Thanks to Mr. Badnarik for taking the time to talk to us.
I won't quote the whole interview here, so go check it out if you're interested.
UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:22pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information
UPDATE 10/10/2004 2:43pm
Michael Badnarik has been arrested while protesting his exclusion from the presidential debates.
UK's The Register: Beastie Boys CD installs virus
A new Beastie Boys' CD called "To the Five Boroughs" (Capitol Records), is raising hackles around the Web for reputedly infecting computers with a virus.According to a recent thread at BugTraq, an executable file is automatically and silently installed on the user's machine when the CD is loaded. The file is said to be a driver that prevents users from ripping the CD (and perhaps others), and attacks both Windows boxen and Macs.
The infected CD is being distributed worldwide except in the USA and UK, which prevents us from giving a firsthand report. However, according to hearsay, we gather that the Windows version exploits the 'autorun' option, and that the Mac version affects the auto play option.
On Windows, when a CD is loaded, a text file called autorun.inf is read, and any instructions within it are executed. In this case, the machine is instructed to install some manner of DRM driver that prevents copying. We haven't seen either the .inf file or any of the executables, so we can't say how or at what level it accomplishes this - or if indeed it actually does accomplish this.
But assuming that the unconfirmed reports are accurate, we have here a media company infecting users' machines silently with a file that affects a computer's functionality, without first obtaining informed consent: a likely violation of pretty much every jurisdiction's anti-hacking laws. It's possible to foresee criminal charges being brought at some point: after all, having a good reason for spreading malware has never been much of a defence in court. And a file that alters a computer's functioning without the owner's informed consent is the very definition of malware. Because this malware can be transferred from machine to machine on a removable disk, and requires user interaction to spread, it is, quite simply, a computer virus. (A worm, on the other hand, is distinguished by its ability to spread without user interaction.)
There's an extended technical discussion in the rest of that link.
Further corroboration from Slashdot: Beastie Boys' New Album Silently Installs DRM Code
"After more than five years, the Beastie Boys have released a new album. It seems that the retail disc is bundled with a copy protection autoinstaller which silently silently puts itself onto the listener's computer. Many listeners are up in arms and some are venting their frustrations on the band's website."
Register link Via Radley Balko, on whose website a commenter says this was a Capitol Records decision and not the band's. A check of their message board apparently confirms this.
All I know is I wouldn't put up with it if I were in any position of power in the band.
ABCNEWS: Demonstrators Protest U.S. Polices on AIDS
Hundreds of demonstrators marched Thursday to protest U.S. policies on AIDS, demanding that President Bush do more to treat and prevent the disease.
Do these idiots think President Bush is some sort of global doctor and the United States is his physician's bag?
In Johannesburg, about 500 angry AIDS activists, many wearing red and white T-shirts that said "HIV Positive," criticized Bush, saying he had hurt the global fight against the disease by spending billions of dollars on war.They also contended he undermined the global fight against AIDS by limiting access to condoms, reproductive choices and generic drugs.
[...]
"The effect of the U.S. government's unlawful war in Iraq has been to divert international attention and resources away from global health and poverty," [Mark] Heywood said, reading from the memorandum.
Do these idiots think President Bush is diverting the money and attention they apparently think they deserve from the fight against AIDS to wage war in Iraq and combat terrorism? Do they think he has actually been denying people the ability to acquire the goods and services mentioned? I'm certainly not going to put it past the United States Government's ability or will to grossly interfere in a market, but I've got a hunch what these people really is the Bush Administration isn't spending enough taxpayer money subsidizing these activities; a totally different beast altogether, the difference between a voluntary mutual exchange and a government racket.
In the memorandum, the activists demanded that Bush cut military spending and earmark more money for the fight against AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, malnutrition and poverty which they called the biggest threat to human security today.The memorandum noted the United Nations estimated that 2.5 million to 3.5 million people died of AIDS last year, 1 million died of malaria and 2 million died of tuberculosis. It said the U.N. estimated 800 million people suffered from malnutrition and that it contributed to half of the 10 million child deaths in the developing world.
The activists also demanded that the U.S. ensure the success of the World Health Organization's plan to treat 3 million people with AIDS by 2005.
They also accused the United States of undermining public confidence in generic anti-AIDS drugs, and demanded that it stop limiting access to condoms and reproductive choices through family planning. They also demanded that the United States give the promised $15 billion for AIDS prevention and treatment to the Global Fund.
Well now. That's a hell of a list of demands. I wonder from where these people think the money to pay for this stuff would come? Actually, I don't wonder because they don't care.
If they did, they'd understand they are publicly demanding that Americans have more of their wealth stolen and redistributed to the needy around the globe. It's bad enough we have to contend with Bush's bogus AIDS initiative, but we don't need more demands we sacrifice ourselves for others. Why don't these animated, motivated individuals put their energy into enterprises that are honest and do more immediate good?
Furthermore...
"We promote choice, we don't dictate like George Bush. His policy is killing people, it is making the problem worse," said Mark Heywood, a leader of the South African activist group Treatment Action Campaign.Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
...how about they cease the gushing hypocrisy of simultaneously demanding I have our income coerced from us and then assert they stand for choice and against dictatorship? Is a little intellectual honesty too much to ask?
Via Will Baude, I learn that Michael Newdow has been keeping busy since the Supreme Court decision against him. He's written two articles, one for Slate and one for the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. Both are good reading.
Slate: Family Feud - Family courts don't solve conflict, they create it
Why do so many people who were once extraordinarily happy together end up in such deep conflict? The answer may be that the custody laws - not the people - are to blame.©2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
New York Times: Pledging Allegiance to My Daughter
Last week the Supreme Court ruled in effect that once parents are involved in family court proceedings, their federal rights are at risk. This decision sets a dangerous precedent that violates the rights of citizens to have the federal judiciary address their claims.The case, which I brought, presented the court with an important question: is a classroom recital of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? The pledge - with its claim that ours is "one nation, under God" - is recited daily in the public school attended by my daughter. Because I am an atheist, she is, in essence, told every school morning that her father's religious views are wrong.
This is an injury to me personally, which should give me "standing": the right to have the court adjudicate my claim. Nonetheless, the merits of the case were never addressed. Instead, the court ruled that since I do not have legal custody of my daughter, I do not have the right to pursue the matter in the federal courts.
I wrote about Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow a while back.
UPDATED 9/14/2005 3:13pm
Michael Newdow is at it again!
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton rules school pledge is unconstitutional
News8Austin: Hispanics on pace to surpass whites
New state population estimates show Hispanics are still on pace to outnumber whites in Texas by 2020 and they may even do it sooner, according to data from the Texas State Data Center's biennial population projection released this week.[...]
The traditional projection has non-Hispanic whites becoming less than half the population next year. That projection holds that Hispanics would edge non-Hispanic whites in 2020, with Hispanics becoming a majority by 2035.
But if trends continue as they did from 2000 to 2002, non-Hispanic whites could lose the majority this year, with Hispanics becoming the largest ethnic group by 2015 and the Texas majority by 2030.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved.
I wish I had paid more attention in Spanish class. Then again, I doubt I'll be living in this state in 16 years.
The website of the Texas State Data Center and Office of the State Demographer has the full data.
I'm not worried about "wetbacks comin' to take our jobs!". If a voluntary arrangment can be worked out between potential employee and potential employer, then go for it. The size of the job market isn't locked in stone and one man's employment doesn't require the unemployment of another.
This only concerns me to the extent these people demand government provide for their lives, which, on balance, they will. It really doesn't matter what ethnic group you are a part of these days; clear majorities want greater government involvement in our lives. Neither Democrats/liberals or Republicans/conservatives have good responses to this. On average, the former want to increase the number, strength, reach of worker protection laws and on average the latter want to use the law to swing their nationalism clubs around to protect Americans and our cultural integrity.
Besides, there will be far bigger things to worry about during that future time than larger percentages of nonwhites in our state.
UPDATE(1:57pm)
On a related note...ABCNEWS: San Antonio Is Nation's 8th Largest City
San Antonio has eclipsed Dallas as the nation's eighth-largest city, buoyed by a steady population influx and plenty of room to spread out.According to estimates released Thursday by the Census Bureau, San Antonio had about 1,214,725 residents compared to Dallas' 1,208,318. The annual estimate measured population as of July 1, 2003.
[...]
At around 1.7 million in population, the San Antonio metropolitan area remains far smaller than that of the Dallas-Fort Worth region, which stands at about 5.6 million and is climbing heartily.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Gettin' tight down there, Erik?
News8Austin: More Libertarians centered in Austin
Austin is becoming the headquarters for the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party selected an Austinite to run for president and several state party positions are occupied by people in Austin.
The list of Libertarians in Texas office includes:
- Libertarian Mayor Pro Tem Mark Wilson
- Charlie Lambert of Hutchison County and Noah Davis of Lubbock County who were elected to the offices of Public Weighter and are attempting to abolish the position as Wendell Weatherford did in Travis County.
- Buffalo Springs township councilmember Marshall Phillips
Not screamingly impressive...but we've also got the Libertarian nominee for President, Michael Badnarik.
The Libertarians believe in liberty. The party platform calls for the government to get out of their lives."It's not the government's job to tell you how to live your life or to do things that they think are in your best interest. The only valid function of government is to protect your property," Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik said.
I won't delve into this too deeply at this time, but it should be noted that this libertarian minarchist position of state-provided property protection is a tough stance to take if one also concurrently believes taxes are a legitimate way to raise government revenue to fund such protection. It is also worth mentioning that, even though this is just a soundbite and isn't by any means a full summary of his philosophy, I think it's a dangerous notion to offer people the idea of government providing property protection services...worse still, you can take that simple statement and convolute it into getting the government to protect "the nation's property" for things like national parks, waterways, scenic areas, air quality, and on and on. I'm confident Mr. Badnarik himself would say property protection is rightly the priority of the property owner first and foremost, especially considering his strong pro-gun ownership stance.
A quick look at the national and state party shows Austin is a powerbase."We seem to be making great strides, primarily because of the work that's been done here in Travis County," Texas Libertarian Vice-Chair Nancy Neale said.
On Tuesday Neale was scoping out a new party headquarter office location in East Austin.
"I think it's going to do good things for our image," Neal said.
That's news to me. What isn't clear is if this is for the Texas Libertarian Party HQ or the national LP HQ. Pretty damn cool though...as long as real work gets done towards a freer society and less government.
Party chairman Pat Dixon explained why Austin is generating Libertarian leaders.
"I think Austin is a very independent minded area. People don't like to be labeled as Democrats and Republicans. People are drawn to our party because we're offering independence and liberty," Dixon said.During the party's national convention in Atlanta, Travis County sent more Libertarian delegates than almost any other area in the nation.
Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Austin does have a very independent mindset. However, it's also infested with collectivists who have:
- enacted a smoking ban
- proposed City Council-imposed design standards for new businesses
- imposed a new tax district to pay for Travis County hospitals
- banned "big box" developlement over certain areas
- continued to interfere in the Austin taxi market
- intervened in the selection of food at the airport
- threatened property confiscation on Halloween
- banned advertising along certain parts of ground near roads
- bad budget priorities
Among the other typical things you'd expect a local government to get involved in. Austin has an additional infestation of environmentalists and anti-corporate types of the "Indie Music Über Alles!" variety.
I've been to one Travis County LP meeting, I have helped get TXLP ballot access, and I have been to the 5th year anniversary of the Liberty Dollar which was riddled with TCLP members. I've been uninterested in working with them since, but may help out more in the future.
The Post and Courier: Capitalism soaring to new heights:
Free enterprise is an awesome force for upward mobility. That reality of economics -- and physics? -- was reconfirmed Monday when Michael W. Melvill piloted the first privately funded vehicle to carry a human being into space.[...]
The Federal Aviation Administration even honored Mr. Melvill with its first commercial astronaut wings. And Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, welcomed Mr. Melvill to his highly exclusive "club."
In another sense, Mr. Melvill is now a club of one. Everyone else who has reached space did so on a government-funded craft.
[...]
The big picture is that we don't necessarily need a boost from the taxpayers to fly in space. And as history proves, government funding isn't the only way to bankroll amazing advances in transportation -- and exploration.
Copyright © 2004, The Post and Courier, All Rights Reserved.
Assuming the state doesn't regulate this nascent market to death or stagnation, I look forward to the day when I can afford to snag a ride.
More comment around the blogosphere can be found here.
I would argue that any society that needs to use coercion (which is what law is) as its primary organizing principle is a society that is already unhealthy to the point of failure.
-Sol Invictus
WorldNetDaily: Bush to screen population for mental illness
President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Will Bush go first?
Because he'll have to prove he's beyond the intellectual development of a toad if he thinks he can coerce my family, friends, and myself into allowing some asshole to examine my mental state, which, I must add, if it were to happen, would be so profoundly incensed that I'd fail any test administered. I don't care if the coercion is in the form of forcing me to undergo examination or if it takes the form of even more stolen personal wealth to pay for the services of others.
Fuck this president and his shockingly misnamed program. It is a black eye insult to mention "freedom" within ten breaths of this idea.
Via e-mail. That Gawd sure is one neat-o guy.
The Creation of Texas
Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven, God went missing for six days. Michael, the Archangel found him resting on the seventh day. He inquired of God. "Where have you been?" God signed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look Michael, look what I've made."Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said "What is it?"
"It's a planet," replied God, " and I've put Life on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."
"Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused. God explained, pointing to different parts of earth. "For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while southern Europe is going to be poor."
"Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a continent of black people," God continued pointing to different countries.
"This one will be extremely hot and dry while this one will be very cold and covered in ice." The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a large land mass and said, "What's that one?"
"Ah," said God. "That's TEXAS, the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful lakes, rivers,streams, hills, and forests. The people from TEXAS are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent and humorous and they are going to be found traveling the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking and high achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace."
Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there would be balance!!!"
God replied wisely, "Wait until you see the idiots I'm surrounding them with in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana Mexico, and New Mexico."
I'll always celebrate an entrepreneur who makes good pilsners and lagers! Especially one who doesn't bow easily to the prevailing winds of current practice.
New York Times: A Mix of Beer, Free Speech and Home-Grown Hip
Oleg Tinkov sees himself as something more than Russia's "beer oligarch," as he has been called here.[...]
His provocative opinions show up even in the company's stated mission: "Propagate liberal values and respect freedom of choice." While other wealthy Russian businessmen have toed the Kremlin line since the arrest and jailing of one of their own, the oil billionaire Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, Mr. Tinkov is having fun with the fortune he made, mixing free speech and free enterprise.
"Oil and freedom, maybe they don't go well together," Mr. Tinkov said with a chuckle in an interview earlier this year, alluding to Mr. Khodorkovsky, whose trial on tax charges is scheduled to begin on Wednesday. "Beer and freedom do go together."
[...]
A recent Tinkoff beer commercial made the most of this freedom. It begins with two leggy young Russian beauties gliding up to a lingerie shop. Amid a flash of panties, the two women alight from a canary yellow Mercedes, link arms and float smiling into the dressing room. A pat on the rump here, a bump there, and they lean in and kiss. An Italian aria swells, and a Tinkoff beer pops its bottle cap.
The ad scandalized Russian audiences.
"It's a fantasy, it's a peep show," Mr. Tinkov explained without apology. "Men like that. We're going after a look like Polanski's 'Bitter Moon' or 'Lolita,' but in 30 seconds.'' Then Mr. Tinkov grows serious. "No, really, people who are scandalized by this are stupid and narrow-minded."
And by the way, he said, the two women "go home to their husbands, everything is fine."
An earlier ad, featuring a smiling young man stretched out on a yacht between two naked women, one black and one white, under the slogan "freedom of choice" - was deemed so offensive it was ultimately banned.
[...]
Despite a decade of transition to capitalism, he said, successful Russian businesses are still at odds with Russia's retro-statist government. The arrest of Mr. Khodorkovsky, the former chief executive of Yukos and Russia's richest man, was "a bad sign,'' Mr. Tinkov said.
Even so, he said, capitalism in some form is in Russia to stay, though mixed with heavy doses of red tape and cynicism.
"Politicians don't want to lose power," Mr. Tinkov said. "They have to buy votes, they need money, and business has to pay. That's capitalism. Unfortunately, no one has figured out a better system. But capitalism is still better than communism. That was horrible."
Even though the news bums me day in and day out, reading about people like Mr. Tinkov is all that it takes to keep me on the side of optimism. He may have a wrong concept of capitalism in his mind, but he seems like he's one or two books or in-depth conversations away from getting it right.
For the moment, I'm reopening the comments. If something doesn't work, e-mail me (delete the SPAM for the address to work) and I'll get to it as soon as I get back online.
Good buddy Hiig has a problem:
I absolutely can not condone Bush getting into office again. According to an article linked from FARK.com, Rumsfeld is evil. Just evil. Not bad, or mean, but a genuine evil human being. He has NO problem whatsoever of denying the most basic of rights to anyone he has a problem with, and I will do everything in my capacity to prevent him from having any further positions of power.My dilemma is as follows though. I realize the candidate I was going to vote for has no chance in hell of being elected. None. But I was going to take the moral high ground, so to speak, and say "I voted for the person I would be proud to have as the president." However, this would be taking a vote away from the one person that has any chance whatsoever of defeating Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld in the election.
Dare I vote for John Kerry? I am almost entirely opposed to every view he has on any issue of social or economic importance. He's all in favor of everything I am against. But I sincerely believe that there is no candidate on the ballot worse than Bush.
He then asks for my input, which is as follows.
As an individual, your vote for or against someone will be washed out in the greater masses. Your vote has a marginal value so small that the value it does have is mostly symbolic. The only time your vote contains real value is when it is a deciding factor in an election...and that case is exceedingly rare. So I wouldn't worry at all about "taking a vote away" from Kerry to vote for Badnarik.
That's actually a bad way of putting it. Kerry doesn't own your vote; no politician does. None of them start off with it by default, so when you vote for someone, the other candidates' vote tallies don't necessarily drop one. That'd mean your one vote actually counts positively towards one person and negatively against all others.
I think it's a waste of time to weigh Bush and Kerry and choose between one of them. Neither are people we want in the White House and Badnarik is someone who only mostly gets it in terms of private property and freedom. He's better than the other two by landslides, though.
This isn't a jib at you, but I simply cannot understand why libertarians who vote don't vote for the libertarian candidate and instead get all contorted over which lesser evil to pick from the two main parties. Bush isn't getting my vote and Kerry isn't getting my vote because both of them are a choice towards greater economic and social centralization and consolidation. Both want to increase the power of the federal government, just in different degrees and directions. At the barest of minimums, if I am to vote for anyone, the person has to advocate an objective, substantial, and absolute reduction in federal power and reach and must be open and honest about it. Someone willing to implement meaningful limited government as a starting point.
That cuts down the field of candidates to single digits. And since I favor principle over pragmatism, the fact that - barring some amazing turnaround in the majority of American voters' minds - none of them are going to win in November doesn't bother me. In all probability, I won't decide the outcome of this or any other large-scale election and neither will you.
So, if you are going to vote, vote for the person who best represents you and your values. Since we can't vote for specific parts of a person's political platform, any vote for one or two ideal aspects of some candidate ends up being a vote for the things you don't like about that candidate. So pick the person who overwhelmingly represents good rather than overwhelmingly represents evil.
Badnarik belongs in the former. Kerry and Bush belong in the latter.
UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:23pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information
...'cuz no one wants to buy the art he and his friends make.
That's what arts grants are, right? Free money. You know this guy who used his grant as a down payment on an SUV. Heard of this other woman who used hers to make grapefruits talk to each other and someone else who made lesbian porn with public money. Taxpayer money! Your money and my money!All of this makes for a great bitch session at the bar after a hard week taking the boss' shit and doing real work while the artists get up at noon for an hour's scribbling in a notebook. Or making a potato sculpture. Or whatever it is they do between their afternoon absinthe binges and picking up their grant cheques.
I can think of better reasons why people shouldn't be taxed to provide for others...
It's fun to lampoon artists, even though I am one myself. And given the kind of unpleasant and undignified things people have to do to pay the rent, it's understandable that those of us who get to do what we are passionate about take a certain amount of flak. Especially when even the artists I've talked to are a little vague on why grants are important.Because arts grants aren't just a good thing. They aren't a form of charity for the fey and sensitive and suffering souls. A touchy-feely impression that they're nice is not going to stand up to the winds of change. There needs to be a well-rounded analysis of their social value.
A grant is essentially a monetary gift given to someone in order to fund that person's activities in some area. The idea of a grant doesn't ruffle my feathers. The idea of a public-funded grant does. The "social value" of a private grant is, of course, a subjective thing between the grantee and the granter. If the grant helps a legitimate enterprise that becomes successful, the value to the rest of us is positive.
However, stealing from others, regardless of the uses that wealth is put towards, is a negative social value and one that is spread across the society. We can argue whether some public-funded art makes up for the theft that is taxation, but that line of argument is moot in any moral analysis. If:
- I liked the artist's prior work;
- I wanted to see more produced;
- and I had the extra money to pay for it,
then I might consider commissioning him or her to do a piece or two. Perhaps this artist is a friend and I want to see a wider distribution of his or her work. There are a number of reasons why I might donate money to unknown or local artists.
And they are all based on the premise that I own my wealth and property and no one else has the right to appropriate it for themselves or for others. Anyone claiming otherwise wants you to be their slave.
On my trips to the dystopia to the south, I hang out with my American counterparts in the indie-press community. They're struggling, and they'll always be struggling. Even if they develop an audience of thousands of people they'll still have to supplement their incomes by teaching or doing something else. No access to grants makes their lives harder: pretty much all of them have full-time jobs, and the idea that I don't is as amazing to them as our healthcare system. (Since 9/11, I've also had five or six people confess that they've checked out the Canadian immigration website.) When I explain that the two grants I've received over the last eight years gave me the opportunity to work on projects that didn't have to make money, they're confused.I explain it this way: arts grants fund the R&D wing of our cultural operations. Just like research and development in the scientific community, this allows for new methodologies and new strategies to be investigated without having to turn a profit. But in science, experimentation is a valued part of the process. When an artist is called "experimental," it's often derogatory. There's this idea that if it's not understandable to a mass audience or a layperson, it's fraudulent.
Mr. Munroe 's attempt to fight against immutable economic laws of human nature is admirable, but dangerous and stupid. To be successful, you have to have products and services that enough people want to buy in order to offset your expenses. By their very definition, these indie artists work outside the hated "industrial corporate media complex" making it hard to achieve success. If they want to be truly independent, they should make a living for themselves and take responsibility for their actions and mistakes. If they want to produce art but don't want to (or can't) make a living at it, they need to find another job to pay for their desires.
It's a shame that the conventional wisdom assumes fringe artists and independents make crap or worse. A lot of the music I love would be dissed by the arbiters of culture.
But I don't demand that people in Indiana and California and Dallas pay for Blue Noise Band's roadie gear or for Austin's Techno Spraypaint Guy and his costs for working on 6th Street.
Mr. Munroe's comparison to private industry R&D is misleading. That effort goes towards something with the potential of making money and it's funded through mutual exchange. Federal, state, and local grants are funded through coercion and the money is distributed through a political process. That process is political whether the money is handed out directly from the mayor, from a firm the government sets up, from a council of uninterested advisors, or from an elected board. The nature of the money's acquirement and the nature of the state are fundamentally opposed to the way the research arms of GlaxoSmithKline, Sony, and Ford work.
But mass culture doesn't spring from a vacuum. The arts and the sciences are both communal activities -- everyone's building on and reacting to the stuff around them. So that neat camerawork in a blockbuster summer movie was inspired by some more obscure film the director saw, which in turn was inspired by an underground photo exhibit, which in turn was inspired by something else... but only the person at the end of the chain of inspiration gets paid -- the guy at the head of the line is the only one who isn't invisible.
Here's a particularly ugly example of the application of the principle of externalities. Do I owe someone money because a long time ago, they did something that inspired someone who did something that inspired someone who did something that inspired me? Even worse, do I owe someone money because what they do today may influence someone to do something in the future that I may enjoy or derive a benefit from?
Grants address this blind spot of pure market capitalism. As much as economists like to present it as a force of nature, capitalism is a construct we made, a robot that can't tell the difference between things that we feel are priceless and things that are valueless unless we step in. Clean air, for instance, has less inherent market value than a can of Coke. Grants are a little like speculation. By supporting projects and propagating ideas that are currently too far ahead of the curve to make money, we're investing in an artistic legacy that we all benefit from.
This isn't a "blind spot" in real capitalism. In pure market capitalism, individuals are free to pursue what they wish provided they don't aggress against anyone along the way. Individuals would be more free than they are now to spend their money and associate with others as they see fit. Charity doesn't meet it's end in free market capitalism: it very likely would increase as our wealth would be greater than it is now, allowing us to consider donating to causes and people we support.
Personalizing capitalism is a fool's errand. It's a description of a process. It itself does nothing. Only the people working behind it matter because it is they who set prices and attach value to items. Mr. Munroe's claim that clean air has less value on the market than a can of Coke is silly because the marginal value of air is less than the marginal value of a Coke...given today's context. If clean air became less abundant, then it's value would rise.
Anyway, it's not "investment" when I don't have the choice of investing or not.
There are some problems with the grants system -- people can get dependent on public money and make passionless art for a committee rather than for an audience. But hell, people get hooked on private money, too, and make derivative art trying to please an imagined demographic. Pitting the grant-funded artist against the market-funded entertainer usually ignores the fact that the people who do R&D and the people who find applications for it are both working towards our cultural enrichment. Whether it's a corporation or a council paying for it has an effect on both the artist and the art, naturally, but at least a diversity of sources in Canada means that the artist needn't feel beholden to just one of them. Private sources are varied, but all of them have to toe the bottom line -- I'm happy that when I get sick of hustling for private cash there's the option of navigating the public bureaucracy for funds, boring as this is.Giving people more freedom in this respect makes for better art. And, yeah, some of it will be self-indulgent crap. But I'd rather feed a few frauds if it means not starving our geniuses.
© 1991-2004 eye
So since this guy hates having to adhere to economic reality, since he feels artists should be unhindered in their pursuit for their work, and since he doesn't mind deliberately, openly wasting tax money on frauds...he wants the freedom to take away some of your money.
Jim Munroe needs slaves. To those Canadians reading this, beware.
News8Austin has a poll up asking it's readers what should be done about Round Rock ISD not having enough money for textbooks. The possible answers are:
- Allow corporate sponsorship
- Car washes
- School-sponsored garage sale
- Textbook buddy system
- Other
I choose "other" and left this comment...and yes I'm aware I spelled "separation" incorrectly:
How about the seperation of school and state? How about making parents individually responsible for the educations they want for their kids? How about - and here's a shocker - CHARGING FOR TUTITION and services in a manner indistinguishable from any other private business? Any other of these proposed "solutions" completely skips over the central problem at hand: education is funded and regulated through the government rather than funded and regulated through the actions of free individuals.
-Charles Hueter
It's so annoying to read polls like these who don't acknowledge the vast, undiscussed arena offered by decoupling the government from some service.
One amusing comment left by "pfville dad" worth mentioning:
I don't have this problem. My kids get a real education in private school.
*zing!*
Other comments containing wisdom of above-average weight:
RRISD, as are most SD's in Texas, is simply a 12 year tax-supported day care center, and when the 12 years have passed , students who are essentially illiterate are given a diploma and sent on their way.
No doubt. Since education is forced on children these days and they have to go or violate truancy laws, businesses get adults who can work more and not worry about their kids.
Two words - Private Schools. The public education system died a long time ago. Bury it and move on.
Woot! Who wants to break the ground?
Rotten Tomatoes is a fun and useful site to get quick opinions on films. It also has a number of sponsorships/affiliations with other websites that sell and promote movie-related items. One of them is Allposters.com.
I was checking out a rather cool Fight Club poster (#409944) and wanted to see if the company had other good offerings. Moving up a few levels, I discovered their "college section" and underneath it, their "Peace / Activism Posters" section. Curious (and apprehensive) to see what this contemporary business might have, I peeked inside.
It has sixty-six posters. Of them:
- Far more than half have the peace signs of the dove, V-fingers, or some other instantly recognizable symbol of peace or opposition to war
- Eight posters are pictures of Earth from space
- One explicitly anti-Bush poster ("Start Wars")
- One Che Guevara
Is this what "activism" means these days? Searching for capitalism gets you squat. Ditto for free market and laissez faire. I found an inappropriately named poster called "Free Enterprise" (#351752) that shows the Space Shuttle and a NASA starter plane. There are quite a few images of the Statue of Liberty. Looking for freedom nets you a slew of Norman Rockwell prints, some generic US flag and eagle shots, a few pictures of the famous toppling of Saddam's statue, some miscellaneous posters, and a good one (#838279) quoting Justice William O. Douglas: "the right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom."
Anyway, I'm not going to go peruse the other possibilities and pass judgment on them. I have an idea of what to expect. Just as the word "liberal" has been utterly perverted into meaning the opposite of it's core concept, being an activist for anything other than socialism, unilateral peace and tolerance for all, and environmentalism is seen as being a novelty. Being an activist for capitalism is either unheard of or relegated to those vile "right-wing oppressor think-tanks."
It certainly doesn't have the wide recognition as being an activist for other causes.
The incessant spam in my comments have pissed me off too many times to continue doing nothing. Tolerating the drug advertisements wasn't so bad, but the scoundrel(s) peppering my blog with rape, bestiality, and other nasty spam have changed my tolerance levels.
As a result, I will be backing up what I have in preparation for an upgrade to Moveable Type 2.64. The newer version will enable me to install the MT-Blacklist hack and hopefully get a grip on the majority of these bastards. In addition, I plan on installing James Seng's Security Code hack so as to require a human to read a captcha and type it in before a comment can be posted. Hopefully the inclusion of these two technologies will wipe out most or all of the crap that spammers keep sending my way.
I don't have Net access at home (getting tired of saying this) so everything will have to be done behind my employer's firewall unless I can find a friend with broadband Net access. I'll be offline for a few days until I'm finished or unless something truly outrageous crosses my path.
UPDATE(6/10/2004 8:35am)
I think the transition to version 2.661 is successful. I skipped over 2.64 when I found a place to download MT-2.661-upgrade.tar.gz, the proper upgrade version file. The blacklist and captcha installs are scheduled for tonight.
UPDATE(9:50pm)
The captcha didn't install properly so there'll be another attempt this weekend. No new posts until then. Dammit.
UPDATE(6/11/2004 9:50pm)
Gawddamn this. Comments are seemingly screwed and I'm not going to fuck with them any longer.
I'm not tinkering with this for a few more days. Can't even get a simple renaming of mt-comments.cgi complete. I want people to be able to comment on this blog but I cannot allow spammers to utterly ruin the content in the process.
Until I get back, pay very close attention to this Billy Beck post. Clarity, purposeful, concrete...they don't begin to describe the content. It matches my mood at the moment as well.
UPDATE(6/18/2004 5:00pm)
Comments have been reopened for the moment.
UPDATE(7/14/2004 11:13pm)
MT-Blacklist is installed. Hopefully it'll work.
Mon Jun 7,12:12 PM ET, AFP/File/Jerome Delay
I was born in June of 1980, so I spent a considerable amount of my formative years under President Reagan's government. Given that my father served in the Army well before and well after Reagan's reign, the man served as one of those mythical figures that was spoken of frequently in tones both reverent and insulting...but never really explained to the curious and ignorant child that I was.
There is no question President Reagan took the fledging libertarian ideas of the Republican Party and put them front and center for the rest of the country to see. That service alone deserves praise. His work in vocally opposing the Soviet Union and communism is equally important. And though he often backtracked on his promises, didn't often fulfill his rhetoric with action, and imposed domestic social policies that I continue to deeply disagree with, I respect him.
Whilst browsing my daily taste of news, I hit upon a series of texts that just sucked the life outta me.
First up, from Jim Henley I hear of Tyler Cowen's post on Brad Delong's thoughts on John Kerry health care proposals. After reading Mr. Cowen's post and then reading Mr. DeLong's post, I felt familiar emotions race through me.
How in Hell could Mr. Cowen review it and calmly state it was "one of the best economics posts [he's] read in the blogosphere in a long time"? Why, because it was dressed up in "serious" sounding terms, took a look at the players and forces involved, and Mr. DeLong made clear that What Must Be Done is a Complicated and Difficult Process? Mr. Cowen then went on to end his post with:
Health care reform is an area where no one (i.e., you, the reader, and me, the writer) should feel they already have a pat or satisfactory answer.Actually, I do and it comes from morality rather than crude economic calculations: stop forcing me (and you) to pay for others' healthcare. Why Mr. Henley didn't opine on this is beyond me.
But ignore all that. The pigs feeding at the trough in that post are worth more attention. With insignificant exception, they all gleefully spent their commenting time nitting and picking through various ways to get the proposal to work. Figures and freedom are tossed about and private sector profits get a healthy dose of hatin'. Of key importance is this comment by "Mandos":
Like I said, for an outsider the debate is so jargon-filled and laced with history and ideology that it's hard to figure out what a given change to the system really means in human terms. Which is, after all, what this is all about.
This person wants to know what this proposed Kerry change would mean in "human terms." He had previously asked, "What does this do for the uninsured? How does this equalize access? Extend life spans?"
Alright.
How about this:
John Kerry proposes to tighten the thumbscrews on millions of Americans in order to provide a service the government has utterly no business in providing and will doubtlessly fuck straight up. The portion of wealth ripped from the taxpayers of the United States to fund this plan will be uniformly wasted and abused in ways that will surprise only Comrade Mandos and those with mental faculties similarly limited.Perhaps that's not exactly what the Canadian wanted. Maybe this works better:
This proposal will further entrench and legitimize government theft from society. It will provide an artificially-created, unnecessarily rationed, price-fixed, and subsidized service to people and businesses who should be taking responsibility for their own desires and needs. It will "reinsure" an industry that has been simultaneously assaulted and coddled and distort a market that has long stopped reflecting reality. It will energize and bolster the prevailing winds of insanity that say society "owes something" to those who have needs they can't fulfill through their own efforts.Metaphorically, it will attempt to force-feed someone to shit up a pole in order to paint it brown.
Mandos wants it in human terms and yet he's staring directly at a discussion on how to efficiently abuse humans and their property. The blind are following the blind.
On a related note...Duxbury schools banish birthday cupcakes:
Frequent classmate parties once had students consuming numerous unplanned cupcakes each school year.
"It would be 23 times during the year that other families would not be anticipating that their kids are going to be eating something sweet,'' Chandler Principal Deborah Zetterberg said.© Copyright by the Boston Herald
Well. Now that the threat of "unplanned" cupcakes is gone...
Meanwhile, the Pope thinks I exist to live for you. And you exist to live for me. And the Catholic Church knows what's best for us all.
Thanks for ruining my Friday, you assholes.
The Socialist Disease: More Education Money Won't Solve Problems, written by the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Michael Quinn Sullivan, doesn't quite come out and be honest about what needs to be done. It does, however, say this:
Consider this: we've tripled real-per-student spending in less than 30 years, and built monuments to fiscal mismanagement with athletic and administration complexes rivaling college facilities; we have superintendents with multi-year contracts valued in the millions of dollars.Meanwhile, scores on the SAT, ACT and other national indicators of academic achievement have shown no improvement in the quality of education for kids surviving the system. Drop-out rates, especially for minorities, are an embarrassment.
[...]
Let us set aside reason and pretend more money might actually, finally, for the first time, make a positive difference. Why not prioritize state spending? Is there nothing to cut in the state budget to provide more money for education? Nothing less important?
We have a commission to encourage government employee productivity; there are at least a dozen river authorities with billions in assets. Texas has a commission on acupuncture. There is nothing to cut? Nothing to change? No way to save money?
In the religious pantheon of the left, government agencies and programs are wrathful gods to be fiscally appeased - never questioned - on a regular basis, regardless of the economic effect.
Call for the elimination of wholly unnecessary government departments - much less call for budget cuts of 10% or more - and you'll be demonized and remembered as a hater of all that is needy for years. The only time it's OK to scale back the government is when the corruption and mismanagement reach news making levels...and even then the investigations will take forever, few will take responsibility, and fewer will be punished for their actions.
Fourth Annual Worldwide Celebrate Capitalism Day, Sunday, June 6, 2004New York City, NY (PRWEB) June 3, 2004 -- This Sunday, June 6, 2004 at noon, the fourth annual Celebrate Capitalism walk will begin at the steps of Federal Hall to promote and celebrate the benefit to mankind that comes from the freedom inherent in capitalism. The walk will be just one of the Celebrate Capitalism events taking place in more than 150 cities and 46 countries on this day. From Belgium to Brazil, individuals will express their enthusiasm for capitalism through walks, music, speakers and more.
They are individuals as excited about capitalism as the event's founder Prodos, an Australian internet radio host who wants the day to be for "people of every walk of life and from every corner of the globe." "It's a day," he says, "to thank the Producers and Creators -human kind's great benefactors and to praise their achievements, independence of thought and their courage in following their dreams in order to uphold the only political system which makes all this possible. Capitalism."
A system founded upon freedom and creativity. And it's the life-affirming ideal of Celebrate Capitalism that through this system, the quality of life for all people is made better. As Prodos says, "the rich get richer, the poor get richer." It's an ideal passed down to us by pro-capitalist thinkers like Ayn Rand, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson. And it's highlighted in The Bernstein Declaration, Celebrate Capitalism's official position statement, written by New York-based philosopher and novelist Dr. Andrew Bernstein, now translated into more than 20 languages making it the most widely translated pro-capitalism literature ever and is available at www.CelebrateCapitalism.ORG/bernsteindeclaration. It reads, "It is no accident that man's freest periods have seen his greatest achievements. From the Golden Age of Athens to the Italian Renaissance to the technological and industrial breakthroughs of the United States, the freedom of man's mind has led to magnificent advances in philosophy."
Whether it's been the gathering of 40 people in Poland or Perth, Australia's union of two for the cause of capitalism, those involved in Celebrate Capitalism in previous years have seen the value of the marriage of belief and action. New Yorkers will see it again during their walk which starts at the Federal Hall steps, overlooking the NY stock Exchange and the JP Morgan building. It will commence after a brief speech on how these two institutions helped other institutions in America, before winding through capitalism's monument, the financial district of NYC and arriving at Old U.S. Customs House, (1 Bowling Green, across the street from the Bowling Green train station) where speakers will share of the happiness and prosperity that comes from the freedom of capitalism.
robert-at-begley.com
www.newyork.celebratecapitalism.org
Robert Begley / 917.655.2053
The Bernstein Declaration opens with:
Capitalism is the only system based on the recognition that each individual owns his life. Capitalism is the only social system in which individuals are free to pursue their rational self-interest, to own property and to profit from their actions. It entrenches individual rights, limited Constitutional government, and political/intellectual/economic freedom.
Celebrate Capitalism calls attention to Aristotle, Adam Smith, John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, and Ludwig von Mises as the "'official' thinkers for this campaign." It mentions the following cities and countries getting involved:
- Amherst, Annapolis, Arlington (Virginia), Atlanta, Austin, Binghamton, Birmingham, Boston, Breckenridge (Colorado), Bristol (Rhode Island), Burlington, Carson City, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland (Ohio), College Station, Columbia, Columbus (Ohio), Dallas, Dayton, Detroit, El Paso, Gainesville, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Iowa City, Kalispell (Montana), Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Medford (Oregon), Miami, Montgomery, New York City, New Haven (Connecticut), Oklahoma City, Orlando, Portland (Oregan), Raleigh, Reno, Sacramento, St Louis, Salisbury (Maryland), Salt Lake City, San Jose (California), Saratoga Springs, Seattle, Spokane, Syracuse, Tucson, Washington, Westminster (MD)
- Austria, Georgia, Romania, Ecuador, Australia, Netherlands, Estonia, Venezuela, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Botswana, Portugal, Brazil, Canada, Poland, Suriname, Hong Kong, Lithuania, Slovak Republic, Spain, Kenya, Mexico, United Kingdom, Nigeria, France, Pakistan, Norway, Czech Republic, Germany, New Zealand, Turkey, Finland, India, Albania, Barbados, South Africa, Bangladesh, Italy, Greece, Argentina, Korea, Yugoslavia, Costa Rica, Hungary, Russia
Bureaucrash also has a small page for it.
Wish I had known about this earlier. The Travis County Libertarian Party's calendar for June doesn't mention this nor does their e-mail newsletter.
News8Austin: Austin Marines headed to Iraq
An Austin-based Marine Corps Reserve unit ships out Thursday.
They'll support U.S. military operations in Iraq. About 200 reservists from Camp Mabry are headed for the Marine Corps base in Twentynine Palms, Calif.There, they'll get pre-deployment training before getting their orders.
Those orders are expected to last a year, but they could remain on active duty for two years under the present partial mobilization President Bush ordered.
The 200 reservists are the largest group Camp Mabry has sent since the start of the Iraq war.
Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
I think the unit being ordered out is Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Marines, 4th Marine Division.
Get back with speed and safety, guys.
The worm continues to turn.
Guardian: 'Ladies Night' Discount Axed in N.J. Bars
The state's top civil rights official has ruled that taverns cannot offer discounts to women on "ladies nights,'' agreeing with a man who claimed such gender-based promotions discriminated against men.David R. Gillespie said it was not fair for women to get into the Coastline nightclub for free and receive discounted drinks while men paid a $5 cover charge and full price for drinks.
In his ruling Tuesday, J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, director of the state Division on Civil Rights, rejected arguments by the nightclub that ladies nights were a legitimate promotion. Commercial interests do not override the "important social policy objective of eradicating discrimination,'' he ruled.
The ruling specifically addressed the weekly ladies nights at the Coastline in Cherry Hill, but it carries the force of a court decision and applies statewide. Vespa-Papaleo said state officials would write formal rules after a public hearing.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
Mr. Gillespie drives another nail in the coffin of individual freedom and property rights in the name of making things "fair" for everyone. Judge Vespa-Papaleo doesn't kill the stench of the corpse by dressing it up in warm fuzzy language. Neither of them understands the difference between "bad discrimination" and "good" or "normal discrimination."
Bad Discrimination is characterized by people acting violently towards other people on the grounds that those other people are somehow lesser than themselves. Groups like the KKK, various radical Islamists, and such are Bad Discriminators. Now, their crime isn't that they discriminate against women, homosexuals, Jews, or Blacks but that they act aggressively towards them. Their reasons are irrational and that's what makes their motives so hard for the rest of us to understand. Their actions are rightly condemned for they are based on nonsensical logic and immoral action.
Good Discrimination is characterized by people deciding among many non-violent options of action. That sounds unduly broad, but it must be. For if humans are to prosper and progress to greater levels of living, we must choose the best alternative among many, throughout our lives. I have to decide if I want to hang out with friends or continue reading Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman. I discriminate between one activity that might provide a few hours of entertainment and one activity that might further expand my set of knowledge. The option I pick will be the one that I consider to have the greater value. Furthermore, if I choose to leave time for friends, I have to decide which friends to visit with. I must discriminate among the group of friends based in Austin, the group in New Braunfels, or the groups elsewhere. Humans aren't capable of doing everything they want at once and our resources are scarce. Hence, we discriminate.
The same goes for businesses. Bars and clubs, like every other enterprise, live and die by the revenue they earn and any profits made. Given the nature of their customer base, most bar owners and club owners want to attract beautiful women to their establishments. The market has repeatedly demonstrated having those female crowds around generates greater revenue through increased alcohol sales and cover charges that men willingly pay in order to mingle with the extra women. There's the multiplier effect where increased foot traffic itself is a reason to stop by the night spot. If this weren't the case, bars wouldn't have these nights so often and wouldn't advertise them. If the specials didn't pay off, they wouldn't be offered.
These incentives deliberately discriminate against men because the incentives make economic sense. They aren't done in order to hurt men or insult them or make them feel inferior. Ask any male in a club during one of these promotions and he'll tell you the price is worth it; if it weren't so, he would be off somewhere else that had a cost-to-benefit calculus that he preferred.
"Ladies' Nights" are not Bad Discrimination. They do discriminate, but not in the commonly oVersused negative connotation that's been thrown about us for decades. Not all discrimination is bad; we must discriminate every day in order to survive and live.
UPDATE(7/22/2004 1:22pm)
News8Austin: Firefighter sues ESD 11
Last week, the former fire chief of the Southeast Travis County Fire District, Stephen Beran was charged with theft.Now, his mother, former firefighter Ann Beran, has filed an age discrimination suit against the department.
She was fired for being too old, she said, but her complaint is separate from her son's.
Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
The other facet to discrimination is property. Being the owner of something, other people can only use it provided I give them permission. Using my property is a privilege for others, not a right. This includes any businesss I own. Working for me is something I decide and I have the right to dump your ass when I please and for whatever reasons I please.
There are any number of good pragmatic reasons to fire someone who's old. But none of them trump my right to actively discriminate towards those who I want to work with and against those I don't.
Via QandO (via Beckster), I came across this Atrios post that led me to this Rude Pundit post.
*breath*
Mr. Rude says:
It'd Only Be Cooler If Saddam's Lifeless Hand Was Attached To It:
In the realm of the "Ya gotta be fuckin' kiddin' me" is this: apparently our President keeps Saddam Hussein's gun, the one he had when he was captured from the "spider hole," in a study off the side of the Oval Office. Bush shows it to visitors; he is "proud of it" because, it seems, or so it is said, it reminds the President of how "proud" he is of the troops.[skipping past some bile]
One does wonder if Bush is following D.C. laws in reference to the ownership of a working handgun - Does Bush get around registration laws? You know, it's illegal to own a handgun in D.C. unless it was registered prior to 1976. Licensing laws? And if he's breaking the law, isn't this like Capone and tax evasion, and we can finally, at last, jail this petty tyrant?
In a subsequent post, the Rude One continues:
And What About Those Other Little Firearm Laws?:
See previous post for more about President Bush's ownership of Saddam Hussein's handgun - a gift from the troops, allegedly. Exactly how may laws, federal and D.C., might the President be breaking with his possession of that firearm? Did he receive a background check for the transfer of ownership? Is Bush licensed to possess a firearm in a federal facility? The District of Columbia prohibits firearms to be gifts. How many people are implicated in Bush's firearm possession?And, of course, ignorance of the law does not excuse the potential crimes.
So.
Let me first dispense with any notion that I think President George W. Bush is not a tyrant. He is, just like every President I can think of, a tyrant to some degree. Whether it's designating an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and indefinitely detaining him with the military, nationalizing industries, or imposing price controls, Presidents throughout history have used their power to push Americans around. Dubya is no different, though better in most objective respects to other tyrannical luminaries such as FDR or Nixon.
However, the solution to the problem of petty tyranny is not more petty tyranny. Gun controls and regulation are forms of direct tyranny of the government over the people. They restrict our freedom to make choices for ourselves in our interest. Their proponents and supporters want to take away my right to armed self-defense, currently embodied in the form of a Browning Hi-Power. I possess a Texas Concealed Handgun License not because I want the government to grant me the privilege of carrying a firearm, but because I don't want to get arrested if carrying one. That, having to conform to the wishes of others due to the threat of violence against myself and my property, qualifies as tyranny in my book.
Bitch about Bush all you want. I do, in many ways. But don't advocate fighting fire with extra gasoline.
Los Angeles Times via Yahoo!: GOP Takes Off Gloves in Bout of Budget Infighting
Eclipsed by the furor over foreign policy, Congress' debate over the federal budget has slipped quietly into an impasse that is no garden-variety partisan standoff. It is a battle among Republicans over what their party stands for, analysts say.At issue is whether this year's budget should put the brakes on the tax-cut drive that has been a hallmark of the Bush presidency, and instead put more muscle behind an old GOP orthodoxy: reducing the deficit.
[...]
A small but powerful faction of Senate Republicans is insisting that the fiscal 2005 budget include rules that require any future tax cuts to be offset so their effect on the deficit would be neutralized; that would mean either cutting spending or raising taxes in other areas. The proposal would strike at the core of President Bush (news - web sites)'s domestic agenda if he is reelected by making it much more difficult to cut taxes.
But House Republican leaders have vehemently opposed the pay-as-you-go requirement as an affront to their party's credo that, when it comes to taxes, the lower the better. They have kept the requirement out of the budget resolution passed by the House ? and have openly questioned the loyalty of Republicans who disagree.
"It is a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party: Is it a party about deficit reduction or a party about tax cuts?" said Stanley Collender, a budget expert at Financial Dynamics, a business communications firm in Washington.
Copyright © 2004 Los Angeles Times
Copyright © 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Mr. Collender, this is a False Dilemma! This is not an either-or proposition. The Senate Republicans who want budget rules that reduce spending along with cutting taxes have it right. Don't increase taxes elsewhere; cut across the board and cut everything. Do it to taxes and do it to the budget. Push back against the tide of rising statism and start the process of returning the US to limited government.
Otherwise, stop bothering to even label yourselves apart from Democrats, acting as if there are any serious fundamental differences between the two parties. Continue to posture and bicker over the details of increased government control over our lives. And don't ever expect to be taken seriously.
UPDATE(6/3/2004 1:09pm)
Can't Cut the Budget; Politicians Will Eat Me!
First, they came for the smokers...
In Austin, "they" have been coming for the smokers for over a year.
Austin Considers a Smoking Ban
Austin Smoking Ban Passes, Kinda
Austin Smoking Ban Finale
Austin Smoking Ban Considered Today
Austin Smoking Ban Passes
Individual Rights & Collective Rights: Smoking
Why Society Must Change First III
Austin Smoking Ban Update
Austin's Smoking Ban, Revisited
The Austin Smoking Ordinance goes into effect today. News8Austin: Smoking ordinance effective June 1
Almost 100 bars and venues have received permits. Businesses that violate the ordinance could face a Class C Misdemeanor and fines up to $2,000.The City of Austin webpage regarding this ugly invasion of property rights is here. The "lowlights" of the regulation are here. They are:The Alligator Grill in South Austin made changes for a restricted permit, but the request was denied.
Mangers say the city never mentioned specific guidelines for the separate ventilation system.
"The ordinance now between the lines says 'we want an air exchange rate of so many molecules per hour' and the only way to comply with that is to put in totally new units and have the thing completely re-engineered," manager Doug Foreman said.
Alligator Grill believes the playing field isn't level between restaurants and bars. And he says his business depends on live music to attract people to the bar as well as to the restaurant menu.
"They [bars] don't have to comply at all; it's not a fair ordinance," Foreman said.
[...]
Alligator Grill will have to spend $200,000 to meet permit requirements.
Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
- Smoking is now prohibited in all enclosed public places and enclosed places of employment, with the following exemptions:
- A dwelling unit or private residence.
- A hotel or motel room designated as smoking.
- A retail tobacco shop.
- A private or semi-private room in a nursing home or long term care facility.
- An outdoor area of a workplace.
- An enclosed meeting room used for a private function.
- Bingo facilities with proper non-smoking area.
- Bowling alleys which meet the required criteria.
- Facilities operated and controlled by a private fraternal organization.
- Permitted establishments which meet the required criteria.
- A dwelling unit or private residence.
- How Do I Get a Permit:
- Contact the Austin/ Travis County Health and Human Services Department at 972-5600 for an application and application instruction page.
- Submit the completed application with the permit fee of $300/year and follow the instructions.
- There are two types of permits; an Unrestricted permit for stand alone bars, which maintain at least 70% alcohol sales and do not allow anyone under the age of 18 into the establishment; and Restricted permits for designated smoking areas in a restaurant/bar, if the smoking area is fully enclosed with an approved HVAC system, and no one under the age of 18 is allowed into the smoking area between 2pm and 6am, when smoking is allowed.
- Smoking is not permitted until the permit is approved and issued.
- Contact the Austin/ Travis County Health and Human Services Department at 972-5600 for an application and application instruction page.
Permits are revoked when "the permittee is convicted of three or more violations of this chapter or the permitted premises is the location of three or more violations."
- Penalties:
- Penalties for noncompliance have been added to the ordinance for clarity, and enforcement capability has been strengthened.
- Violations of the ordinance are a Class C misdemeanor, punishable under Section 1-1-99 (Offenses; General Penalty) by a fine not to exceed $2,000 for each offense.
- The Health Director may suspend or revoke a permit issued to the operator of a public place, where repeated offenses occur.
- Penalties for noncompliance have been added to the ordinance for clarity, and enforcement capability has been strengthened.
Smoking is also banned at, in, or around public swimming pools. The owners of public places (defined as "a space that is enclosed on all sides by solid walls that extend from the floor to the ceiling, exclusive of windows and doors" and "that is used by the public or that is a workplace") will be held liable if they don't "take reasonable steps to prevent or stop another person from smoking in an enclosed area in a public place." It's now illegal to smoke "within 15 feet from the entrance or openable window of an enclosed area in which smoking is prohibited." The only exemptions to this are if:
- the entrance is not the primary pedestrian entrance to the premises; or
- the distance between the entrance and the adjacent roadway is less than
15 feet.
Live music venues laughingly defined as a "Unrestricted Smoking Facility" are now forced to "provide not fewer than 52 two-hour long live music performances each year during which smoking is not permitted" and document the availability of those performances as the director of Health and Human Services Department requires it. Clubs defined as a "Restricted Smoking Facility" must now "provide not fewer than two hours of a live music performance each week during which smoking is not permitted" and document to the HHSD director, yadda yadda. The ordinance demands that all ashtrays and smoking accessories be removed from nonsmoking public places. I'd like to test this one by bringing my own in and waiting to see what happens.
At taxpayer expense, the City of Austin will now:
- develop a comprehensive tobacco education program to educate the public about the harmful effect of tobacco and its addictive qualities;
- conduct informational activities to notify and educate businesses and the public about this chapter;
- provide information about smoke-free activities, including smoke-free live music performances; and
- coordinate the City's tobacco education program with other civic or volunteer groups organized to promote smoking prevention and tobacco education.
The City of Austin will also further engage in the propaganda business by allowing the city manager to "publish and distribute educational materials relating to this chapter to businesses, their employees, and the public." The ordinance explicitly outlaws smoking in taxicabs, though the "holder of a taxicab service franchise may designate one or more of the taxicabs operated under the franchise as smoking." Provided a sign is posted "conspicuously."
It is now illegal if someone "discharges, refuses to hire, or retaliates against a customer, employee, or applicant for employment because the customer, employee, or applicant for employment reports a violation of this chapter." Thus, employees to help injure the business for which they work are protected from being tossed out on their asses as they so very much deserve.
There are also specific signage requirements with which to comply.
The whole mess can be read here in PDF. Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman and Council Member Brewster McCracken sponsored this legal sewage. Those who voted for the amended regulation were Mayor Will Wynn, Mr. Goodman, Council Members Raul Alvarez, Betty Dunkerley, and Mr. McCracken. Daryl Slusher and Danny Thomas voted against the ordinance. Unfortunately, Mr. Slusher is the prick who asked for the permit fee to be increased to $300. Mayor Wynn and Mr. Thomas voted against the increase but everyone else voted for it.
I view this to be petty nanny state authoritarianism at it's worst. It's a gross violation of private property, self-ownership, and the freedom to associate. It says that within the city limits, you don't actually own your property because the Austin City Council can simply vote to say what can and cannot happen on your grounds. It says people cannot be trusted to make decisions on their own and the government must step in to fix things. It says all this and it gives a big Fuck You to the principle of personal responsibility.
Government has no right to interfere in most matters concerning private individuals and certainly no right to impose restrictions on behavior because a subset of citizens don't like being exposed to tobacco smoke when going out or when working. This ordinance should be repealed and the Council should apologize for ever considering it.
UPDATE 2/24/2005 4:34pm
I feared this would happen. The health Nazis are coming back for something stronger. Fight the Austin Smoking Ban
UPDATED 5/9/2005 9:03am
The Additional Tyranny - The New Austin Smoking Ban Passes
UPDATED 8/30/2005 1:49pm
Deadline for the Austin Smoking Ordinance