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.
I wish to take the time to mourn the end of what might have been an interesting experiment in self-government. Now, on the weak, undefended, morally reprehensible and irrational basis of democracy, Iraqis will now have to deal with a majority rule government. I had the slimmest of hopes that the people over there would reject aggression, reject moral compromise, and reject violence. Instead, they have embraced it in the form of the state.
The degree of government imposed on them will likely be less than during the era of Saddam, but that doesn't justify it. When I see Iraqis happily going to the polls to vote for who will rule them, I see people happily imposing their will by passive means on others. How very, very sad.
Those who generally oppose restrictions on economic liberty (like me) tend to think that there's a looming crisis for Social Security and the sooner it is reformed the better; but the Global Warming issue is probably not a real crisis that warrants drastic changes, and we can deal with any potential problems better later. Those who tend to support economic restrictions take exactly the opposite positions.
Perhaps this is because those who worry more about global warming simply think economic freedom is a vulgar, materialistic, and ultimately pointless value to hold.
As I commented in his post, for my philosophy of individualism (of which ethical egoism is a part) to make any sense, individuals must exist. This means that no matter how similar I may appear and act compared to others, those others and I are fundamentally different entities and therefore ought to be treated that way. What actually differentiates these "human units" is something I cannot explain clearly, but the term "soul" works well enough for me and is better than "personality," which is what I used in the past.
Back in 2003, I openly wondered if I was a criminal for not getting my car legally inspected on time. I did eventually take care of that to avoid being bugged by the police and fined by the courts.
A year later, got notice to get my car re-registered. Truth be told, I went online at the Texas DPS website and paid to update my registration, but I lost the receipt and I never heard back from them again.
Then a few months after that, prompted by a Jay Jardine post, I pondered a hypothetical situation where I could test to see if being costly to govern might be feasible. In it, I figured a number of things the police could nail to me if they caught me driving home from a friend's place:
I'm driving home from a friend's house after having three Lone Star beers and a few bong hits over a period of two hours. I'm driving home at my usual velocity, which is to say 10 to 15 miles over the speed limit. I'm spotted by a cop and pulled over. Imagine what I face now:
- A misdemeanor (< $200) for not getting my car re-inspected
- A misdemeanor (< $200) for not getting my car re-registered
- The cost of the speeding ticket which varies depending on the mood of the officer and whether or not I've taken the safety course in a year:
- Driver Safety Course: $95.00
- Speeding - up to 25 MPH over speed limit: $236.00
- Speeding - up to 10 MPH over speed limit: $146.00
- Failure to respond on or before court date: $191.00
- Arrest warrant fee charged for the above: $50.00
- Denial of driver's license renewal DPS fee for the above: $30.00
- If the cop smells beer on me and asks me to take a breathalyzer test, I am "subject to an automatic 180-day driver's license suspension" if I refuse to comply
- If the cop decides to bust me for "intoxication" due to detecting marijuana on me, I face the following possible penalties for a first DWI offense:
- up to a $2,000 fine
- 72 hours to 180 days in jail
- driver's license suspension: 90 days to 1 year
A pretty damn impressive list of shit to deal with, all for doing something I've done hundreds of times without inflicting pain or causing damage.
Both my inspection sticker and registration sticker expired last year around August and September. I simply ignored this glaring lack of obedience to the state of Texas and went about my business.
My father is a deputy sheriff in Comal County and we've tangled over the law in the past. I go down to see them in New Braunfels once or twice a month. During one of those visits near the end of last year, Father apparently did a quick tour of the 2002 Volkswagen Golf TDI I drive and discovered what could only be described as criminal behavior!
So he began to nag me about "taking care of business" and whether or not my "car chores" had been completed. For the months leading up to December, I was able to brush him off with vague explanations about getting it done when I wasn't busy buying and moving into my new house or telling him I was waiting on my registration to arrive in the mail since I did that online. Well, one night at dinner he felt like comparing my story to what DPS had on file, so he literally called in my license plate number to the county dispatch and asked what the status on my registration was. To my simultaneous dismay and disgust, it came back simply as expired. Thus, the "dialogue" between us continued.
However, it took a turn at this point. My father is a master of the verbal art of delivering a pointed opinion without directly saying it to your face, literally or figuratively. I have to say I learned a great deal of my sarcasm from him. So it came as no shock to me when he began to refer to the TDI as "our car" rather than "Charles's car" or "his car."
The TDI was purchased at the beginning of September, 2001 after I spent the previous month scouring the inventory of any Texas Volkswagen dealer within 200 miles for the new '02 model year. I knew that I wouldn't be paying for the cost of the car upfront. My dad told me he was going to liquidate most of an investment account set up by his late older brother (originally intended to pay for my college education) to cover the price, which topped $16,000. The initial agreement was for me to mail my mother a $100 check once a month for a few years (I think for 5) and then the Golf would formally pass to me. As a reflection of this, the car is jointly titled in our name.
Over the years, the car has not been without it's miscellaneous expenses:
- In December of 2002, someone stole my car stereo and my insurance replaced something my father spent $300+ on.
- This timeline of automotive doom details other expenses incurred from December 2002 through January 2003. Father pays for two new tires.
- I upgraded the Golf's sound system with a subwoofer and amp that came from some certificates of deposit I cashed in. They were bought by my dad years ago and had matured.
- After getting trashed at a party, I drive the Golf over a curb and brush against a telephone pole, causing damage. Dad helped with what wasn't covered by insurance.
- Then the Golf developed transmission problems. Total costs, including rental car? $1,400 and though I took the hit and maxed out my credit card and depleted my checking account, my dad reimbursed me for most of it.
- Somewhere in there, he also paid for a new set of tires.
I'll be plain at this point. My father has put far, far more money into this car than I have. He bought it for me with money entrusted to him. In addition, he also pays the Shell/Texaco gas card I use and for the one or two maintenance visits at the dealership that exceed $200.*
I wanted to lay this out because I want to establish the ownership of the car because it was entering into the running argument we were having over the registration and inspection. Unfortunately, that argument came to a head during Christmas when the bulk of my immediate Canadian relatives came down.
The eighteen of us were eating in San Antonio and I was sitting in front of Aunt Penny with her husband at the end of the long table holding us all. Before dinner was served, he walked by and asked how "our" car was doing and if I'd "taken care of business yet." By this time, I had grown tired of him bothering me about it and intended to stop fucking around and actually argue what I really thought: that as someone who values individuals and their right to their property, the state has no business whatsoever of telling me to register and inspect my car. That was what I wanted to avoid, but the fraud of my excuses over the process of getting those things done was haunting me more and more.
But that argument was not one I wanted in a public place while out with family and friends during the holidays. So I told him the truth: "Dad, this is an argument I want to save for later. Now is not the right time." I had to repeat myself over the noise of the other patrons of the restaurant and my Aunt Penny overheard me. To my discomfort, she asked me what the fuss was about. I waited until my dad left and gave her the watered-down version: he wanted me to get the Golf inspected and registered and I thought I shouldn't have to.
So she asked the obvious question: "Why?"
The details of the heated and attention-grabbed argument that followed are not important. It didn't take long at all for the subject to be changed from state vehicle laws to the nature of rights and the government. She figured out after a while that I "sounded like an anarchist" and I just gave up trying to cloak myself and just came out and said, "yes." Round 2 followed, and the rest of the table had almost gone silent as she and I went back and forth. The primary point of contention: smoking bans. She has asthma and was vociferously in favor of them in order to protect her health. She took it personally that I was against them on the grounds of individual freedom.
Well, the dinner ended and so did the argument. I guess after calling me and my ideas "stupid," "irrational," and "impractical" (among other things) and being unable to really address my central point, she realized a truce was better than continuing on. I accepted and waited for everyone else to get ready to leave. While we walked out, one of my sisters and one of my younger cousins complimented me on my debating ability and thought I'd trounced her. I just wanted to get away from everyone and go home to relax with something other than Mexican beer.
Unfortunately, I had forgotten Aunt Penny and her husband (who had mostly stayed quiet during the debate) were riding with my parents back home to New Braunfels. As I drove there with a close friend and the two cousins who are my age, we pondered the drama going on in my dad's Explorer. It didn't take long to find out.
He confronted me two days later and we had the talk I should have had months ago. In it, he implied that if I wasn't going to update the two decals, the car would be taken away from me. It wasn't an argument because we just explained our positions on the issue, but he was deeply skeptical of mine, up to and including, I am disappointed to admit, the very same kinds of crap non-arguments against stateless societies I run into online. We parted that night and I spent the next week with larger things on my mind: a new female friend, moving in to the new house and unpacking, renovating a few things there, and coordinating a New Year's Eve party to break in the place and introduce my friends to it.
But after that all ended, the subject returned to my thoughts. How best to resolve this clash? I remain as against the act of registering my car and having it inspected at the whim of the government as ever and my dad won't back down. Where is the solution that allows me to remain (at least somewhat) true to my principles and defuse the ticking domestic time bomb?
The answer to this, I decided, is related to the costs of the car as I described above. Do I actually "own" the car? I figure I don't. My father used a great deal of his money to pay for it and the vast majority of expenses I've incurred since then. Granted, I have paid for most of my car washes and scheduled maintenance stops at the VW garage. But that doesn't compare to what he's voluntarily invested.
Did I obtain ownership when I became the primary user, in essence homesteading my way into possession? There was no agreement to do so. Obviously, my father had no intention of acting as an owner in the day-to-day activities of the vehicle's operation and maintenance. I literally assumed control of the car. But it is clear now that with his renewed interest on who owns what and his threat to take the car back; he thinks he has the higher authority, which means he thought the car came with strings attached.
As he was the first owner of the car (even though I drove it home from the dealership), he ought to set the terms for the car's transfer into another's hands. I see now that the conflict we've gone through lately is a classic case of two entities fighting over property rights to some object. Thus, my philosophy, assuming it is correct and non-contradictory should have an answer to the problem.
That answer is: respect the wishes of the owner.
So I told my dad he won. I would get the car inspected and take him up on his offer to register it through police back-channels for me. Here is the e-mail I sent:
Like I said last night, I will get the Golf inspected and re-registered. I will try to get the inspection done before the end of the week and get the registration paperwork moving before the end of next week.
I am doing this because you and Mom are, in my book, the technical owners of the car. You paid for the vast bulk of the price and I hardly repaid a tenth of what I owe. Therefore, since this is more your car than mine and you want these done, I will take care of the above items.
However, I am not doing this because I think cars should be inspected for and registered with the state. I will emphatically argue this with you until the sun comes up. I did not refuse to do these things to "make a statement" even though I've written about it on my website a few times. I did this because I think I am right and if principles are to mean anything, they need to at least be followed through occasionally in real life and certainly beyond one's keyboard and mouth. The consequences of doing so are painfully aware to me and those consequences are precisely why I oppose this business in the first place.
So, if you can, I would like to know exactly how much I owe you and Mom, and specifically how much I owe you for the Golf. I remember you once gave me a figure of $8,000-$6,000 this time last year and I would like an update. Once I have this figure, I will begin paying you back for your generosity. At some point in the future, I will have my car debt paid off. When that occurs, I will operate and maintain the car as I see fit. If you object to this, then you might as well take the car away from me, because I think repayment and full ownership are the only reasonable ways out of our current disagreement.
He responded back and asked to be considered the full owner. I agreed. A few days later, he offered me a deal: I could pay him a certain amount per year for three years and then take full possession of the car or wait that timeframe plus a few years and then take full possession. If I didn't give him enough money during a year to meet the amount he specified, he'd count it towards the next.
I agreed.
His Golf has been inspected by a licensed and registered Texas vehicle inspector and I paid the fee to do so. He re-registered his car and covered that fee. Both stickers have been on my windshield for over a week. I no longer tense up when I pass police on the highway. I no longer worry about dinner being ruined at my parents' house randomly over this political disagreement.
So I ask you if you think I have abandoned my principle and endorsed the very thing I loathe. To some, this may seem like ridiculously trivial shit, pointless hand-wringing over something so simple to correct they question my sanity. I'm not asking them to answer because they quite simply cannot see the issues at stake.
Note
Lest someone get the impression I'm a trust fund baby who has his daddy pay for everything, the money he's poured into the car is the single great anomaly in an otherwise self-sufficient life. He pays for my meager cell phone bill, uses leftover money from the "car fund" to pay for my St. Edward's tuition (after that is drained I'll apply for student loans) and helped me with the earnest and closing cost monies for my house. Unless it is an emergency, I take care of my own financial needs. I don't live a cushy life and I by no means have anywhere near a desirable amount of surplus money lying around waiting to be spent. I live almost paycheck to paycheck.
UPDATED 6/8/2005 2:49am
An Austin Parking Ticket
FULL DISCLOSUREI took Pell Grant money from the Federal Government as part of my college financing package.
You, gentle reader, should then assume that all words on this blog and all independent thoughts and ideas I have are duly vetted and approved by the administration of President George H.W. Bush, by whose largesse I could afford a private university.
That's Brian J. Noggle.
Hey, he rightfully exposes the jackassery of the notion that when you receive money from someone you must parrot that person's beliefs.
But the real crime is left unsaid. Property obtained by through aggression is not legitimately possessed. That Pell Grant absolutely qualifies as stolen goods...not as something the first President Bush rightly owned and magnanimously gave away.
Quoted from News8Austin and its copy of his prepared remarks:
...I want to issue a special welcome to our newest members. You are the invigorating lifeblood every democratic body needs. Thank you for your willingness to serve.
...at the expense of the citizenry's financial blood, he declined to say.
Democracy functions best when we have an active citizenry. It is great to see the balconies filled by folks our forefathers called, "we the people."
Democracy is the idea that some portion of the individual's life in a society ought to be governed and controlled by a voting population within that society. What Governor Perry is discussing here is merely the participation of civilians in the witnessing of the results of that voting process.
Then again, he may just be subtly acknowledging something else: democratic governments cannot function without the general consent (coerced or not) of the individuals within, nor without the wealth skimmed from those "active" individuals who work to create the wealth in the first place.
As we gather today, I am more optimistic than ever about our future.Dark economic clouds are dissipating into an emerging blue sky of opportunity. In the last 15 months, we have added 162,000 jobs. In 2003, we attracted nine of the 24 largest capital investments in the nation, including the single largest investment, a $3 billion Texas Instruments semiconductor plant.
Last year we convinced Vought Aircraft to add 3,000 jobs in Texas, and then we persuaded Countrywide Mortgage to bring 7,500 jobs to our state – the largest job expansion nationwide in four years.
These major investments, and many more, were made possible by the Texas Enterprise Fund, a fund that is not only bringing jobs to the big cities, but to towns like Brownwood, New Braunfels, Buda, Nacogdoches, Port Neches, League City and Ennis too, Chairman Pitts.
It’s no wonder Site Selection Magazine called Texas the best business climate in the nation in 2004.
Without the aforementioned wealth ($390 million as a starting figure)to lure those companies here, they'd rethink their plans quite quickly. Reminder to all government officials: the state does not create, it consumes. It is free enterprise that creates.
Job growth has led to tremendous revenue growth.
Spoken like a true parasite, even if he and his cohorts managed to "[lower] general revenue spending" for the first time in more than sixty years.
Going forward, we must not retreat on the principle behind our prosperity, fiscal responsibility.We did not tax and spend our way to a revenue surplus, and we need not tax and spend our way to future shortfalls.
Note that when he says "our prosperity," he's talking to the assemblage of government officials who hold the tax wealth purse in their hands. Also note that, despite the most strenuous objections to the contrary, all politicians (including Republicans) "tax and spent" on a daily basis. The disagreements are on what to tax and how to tax; what to spend, and how to spend.
A perfect example is public education.
Standards are higher and test scores are rising again. According to a study by Achieve Inc., Texas is the first state to make a college-prep curriculum the standard coursework in high school, starting with this year’s ninth grade class.We were the first state to require individual graduation plans for at-risk students, and provide a personalized study guide for 11th grade students that fail state assessments. And we have joined the Gates Foundation in investing $130 million in the Texas High School Initiative to reorganize and reconstitute failing schools.
Public education is funded through tax-and-spend means, so it is obvious Governor Perry doesn't actually care about what he's speaking of.
Because of leadership on both sides of the aisle, doctors are returning to areas once deemed high-risk, hospitals are seeing double-digit declines in their insurance costs, and patient access is improving because the personal injury trial lawyers are no longer calling the shots when it comes to Texans' health care.
By outlawing some kinds of lawsuits, the state of Texas has squelched the freedom to large just rewards for legitimate cases of medical malpractice in return for addressing a symptom of the real disease: government interference in the health care sector of the sort that forces providers to assume and absorb costs they'd otherwise avoid.
Texans stuck in traffic now know that help is on the way. The Trans Texas Corridor is quickly becoming a reality with the private sector willing to expend $7.2 billion up front without asking for one dime in state money for construction. This toll project will allow us to build needed corridors sooner and cheaper. And for those who like driving on free lanes today, let me be clear: I do not support tolling existing lanes.
What goes unmentioned are the perverse and pervasive incentives offered by the state of Texas to those contractors to do the work in the first place. You disagree? Then why didn't those contractors, sensing a profit opportunity, jump on that opportunity and build those roads themselves?
And I call bullshit on this assertion that the public roads we drive on are "free." This is patently NOT the case: how do, for example, the Texas Department of Transportation (2003 budget: $5.2 billion) and the City of Austin's Transportation Division (2004-2005 budget: $54.7 million) get the money to do the work they do? Yeah, toll roads are a bad idea, but only because they represent multiple-taxation and continued state control over the transportation network.
The reforms of the last two years have protected Texans’ pocketbooks, preserved their health care and improved the job climate. With our recent economic growth, continuing gains in education and a better budgetary picture, the Lone Star of Texas is once again on the rise.So, today I am proud to declare the state of our state is vibrant and our future is limitless.
Again, I think he means the state of the State of Texas, and the future for any entity that exists primarily because individuals fear resisting it has an almost limitless future.
Because of the right choices you have made, we find ourselves at the brink of a new era of possibility. And today I ask you to consider what is possible if we make wise investments in good jobs, great schools, and stronger families.
...with the money you taxed away from those you intended to help, he declined to say.
Education often gets reduced to a numbers game inside the walls of this Capitol. But inside the walls of our schools, the greatest concern is whether our children grow and learn. Let us keep the most important issue the most important issue: and that is the quality of education in our schools.
Educational quality is important. But privatizing education would be my priority, because once parents are freed from the burden of heavy property taxes, they'll have more money at their discretion to find schools that successfully compete in the marketplace and offer the kind of curriculum and learning environment that more closely matches their values.
This is not merely an exercise in accounting, or a chance to change our complex funding formulas. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure children of every background are given a chance in life.The financing component is critical, but it is only the means to an end destination. And we will not arrive at that destination until every child, in every corner of this state, can walk through the schoolhouse doors and have waiting for them the best teachers, the best curriculum, and the best opportunity to succeed.
This is a fat slathering of moronic utopianism. It cannot be done, not while at the same time upholding economic and social freedom.
I ask you to think about what is possible, not what is standard practice, when it comes to education.
Shit, it would be "possible" and "nonstandard" for the Texas lawmaking process to mandate that all children in families that make less than $100,000 a year to enroll in public schools, to impose an income tax of 30% on all individuals earning over $100,000 a year, to require all public school children to pass a state test every semester, and to threaten those who do not comply with punishments. Words, ideas, and concepts mean things, man. This is dangerous rhetoric, particularly in the hands of people who control the government.
We must have two goals: ensuring more students graduate and ensuring more students graduate prepared for college.
So much for the previous utopian goal of "the best teachers, the best curriculum, and the best opportunity."
Today we have 36,399 students trapped in failing schools. Last year 889,468 students failed at least one section of the TAKS. And two years ago 15,665 students dropped out.[...]
When our work is done, parents won’t measure our success by how much money we spend, but whether more children learn.
I'd so dearly like to have a minute or two at a public podium to declare this simple message: Stop pushing every child through a process that they do not either unanimously desire to experience or at which are not unanimously capable of succeeding. School attendance ought to be voluntary and schools ought to have the authority of throwing out whomever they please for whatever reasons they choose. The deadweight of deliberate delinquents, thugs, and the mentally inept ought not to be on the shoulders of those who want to educate the willing. In any system, there is going to be a certain and shifting percentage of "noise" that cannot be converted to "signal." I say identify and stop worrying about them.
And I'd like to know why the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test is a standard against which academic achievement should be measured. Because it was established by the government and with the input of experts?
Let’s attract our best and brightest teachers to our toughest learning environments. Too often our struggling schools attract our most inexperienced teachers. We need to recruit proven teachers to under-performing schools, teachers who can turn around a campus one child and one classroom at a time.We have many excellent teachers in Texas. I want our best and brightest teachers to be paid salary incentives as high as $7,500 a year when they rekindle the love of learning among children too often left in the shadows of success.
Excellence should not be rewarded the same as mediocrity; otherwise, mediocrity becomes its own incentive. When money follows results, we will get more results for our money.
That’s exactly what is happening with the Advanced Placement incentive program that rewards schools with up to $100 for each student that registers a high score. In its first five years, the A.P. incentive helped double student participation and helped us nearly triple participation among African-American and Hispanic students.
Achievement incentives work.
Incentives do work, but they work best in a capitalist system. The incentives he speaks of here can not and could never compare to the incentives in an educational free market. The greatest incentive a state could offer to a teacher - "produce x% of student excellence or we'll execute you" - would merely induce the teacher to do to an extreme degree what is already done: "teach to the test." The incentives in a free market, on the other hand, revolve around meeting the demands of the customer. Designing a system to mimic this process is doomed to fail due to the fundamental differences between a state-run entity and a privately-run entity.
With the right incentives, we can encourage more students to take our hardest course of study...We must provide meaningful progress incentives for schools that serve mostly disadvantaged student populations. The challenges these schools face are difficult but not impossible. Let’s meet this challenge with new resources...
We must establish school turn-around teams at the Texas Education Agency...
Every child is entitled to a public education...
It is time to take the next step and increase funding for the Early Start program...
I also support the expansion of teacher mentoring.
Let’s do more to help children in broken families...to promote responsible fatherhood...invest $25 million more in mentoring programs...
In other words: Tax and spend.
Let’s give children who need a second chance new choices that can forever change their future. Let’s give them school choice.
People already have a choice in education. However, it is the government that has whittled away at the ability of individuals to make that choice.
It is time to cut property taxes for the hardworking people of Texas. In fact, let’s not only give Texans property tax relief. Let’s give them appraisal relief too.Texans don’t like taxation without representation, and they are sick and tired of taxation by valuation.
Hoo-ah! Cut those damn taxes!
As we lower property taxes, we must all work together to find the right mixture of new revenues without harming Texans’ jobs. I join the leadership of both houses in support of the concept of a broad-based business tax that is fairly distributed, assessed at a low rate and reflects our modern economy.When it comes to a business tax, most employers want you to keep it simple, treat everybody fairly and create protections so the rate is not easily raised.
*scoff*
This is the gentle fleecing of the wealth creators and it should be opposed.
More later.
With our vastly improved budgetary picture, we can provide new money for education and real reductions in property taxes without increasing the net tax burden on Texans.[...]
Today I am submitting a budget that substantially increases investments in jobs, public education, higher education, health care and protective services and that reduces spending at 60 percent of our state agencies. And it provides a $2.3 billion cushion to close out the books on this biennium and invest even more money in key priorities.
And what happens when, after you rachet up spending again, the budgetary picture deteriorates further and the margins you have to work with (revenue - the spending too politically entrenched to cut) shrinks? It is irresponsible to see a budget surplus as an invitation to spend enough to fill the gap.
Some say it can’t be done. But if we can avoid a tax hike in the face of a $10 billion shortfall, we can do it again in times of surplus.
As if it is some miracle Texans in government discovered that one way to get out of a budget deficit is to cut the freakin' budget.
Then again, it may be.
I ask you to not only replenish the Enterprise Fund, I ask you to make investments to grow our world-class research institutions, develop cutting edge technologies and harvest the miracle of modern science with a new $300 million Emerging Technology Fund.
In other words, corporate and academic welfare. No thanks.
Over the next 10 years, California is investing $3 billion in one area of biotechnology, Ohio is putting up $1.1 billion for technology commercialization and Kansas is investing half a billion dollars in biotechnology. We can’t afford to be left behind.
I know of a bridge people like to jump off of...
In the next 10 years, emerging technologies will generate $3 trillion in revenue worldwide. The question is, where will those investments be made, and who will reap the benefits? Where will the better, faster computer architecture be designed, the gene therapies and treatments that will rescue people from terminal and chronic diseases, the cleaner technologies that will clean the air our children breathe? I want them developed in Texas labs by Texas minds to the benefit of the Texas economy.
Putting aside the troublesome fact that no useful product the market can find a price for will quite quickly transcend vulgar geopolitical barriers...
Preserving jobs requires action on three other fronts.First, I ask you to relieve Texas employers of some of the highest workers compensation costs in the nation.
Easy. Stop forcing/incentivizing individuals and businesses to participate in workers' compensation to begin with. Abolish the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission. Let people come to their own agreements about restitution for workplace dangers and injuries. BOOM - instant growth in the Texas economy.
Second, as the Public Utility Commission goes under sunset review, I ask you to modernize telecommunications laws so we have a regulatory framework that keeps up with technology advances…and allows for greater economic opportunity.
Easy. Abolish all the regulations from top to bottom. Let participants in the market choose the direction of technological growth, deployment, and service. BOOM - instant economic growth.
And third, it is time to end Texas’ status as the home of frivolous asbestos lawsuits. Let’s care for those who are truly sick, while preserving legal rights for those who are not.
I haven't followed this issue much at all, but if the plan is to restrict who can file for damages, when they can file for damages, where they can file for damages, and how much in damages they can get, then I'd say it's on the wrong track.
Medicaid and CHIP meet a great need.
And I shouldn't have to be forced to help meet it.
When it comes to CHIP, better economic times will allow this legislature to re-examine the program’s benefits, and provide dental, vision and mental health care. I support such an investment. Our goal should be to provide benefits we can afford while preserving CHIP for families that need it the most.Reconciling these two is something no effective politician will be able to do in today's political climate. I have no doubt Governor Perry and the Republicans will screw it up while the Democrats make demands that would screw it up further.[...]
We must not lose sight of the long-term goal to move more Texans from subsidized insurance to private insurance.
We need to continue these successes by promoting innovative options like health savings accounts so Texans have viable health care alternatives that put them back in charge of health care decisions.
What is so gawddamn "innovative" about the idea that we should be allowed to keep more of out money to spend it as we see fit?
Let’s fully fund the Irma Rangel Pharmacy School in Kingsville. And let’s fully fund the Texas Tech Medical School in El Paso.
I'm begining to wonder if these kinds of things are just giveaways to the Democrats to get their help on other issues.
Our greatest concern in health and human services must be to invest in the most fundamental components of our safety net so we can protect those who can’t help themselves: those in the dawn of their lives or the twilight of their years who are at risk of neglect and abuse.
These kinds of services are not my responsiblity to fund as long as I'm not the one using them. This is what lifetime savings and investments are for, people! You act foolishly by not building them and act maliciously when you make someone else fill the gap. Ditto for his words on Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services.
The right to life is a fundamental right declared by our forefathers.
Funny you should mention this because you don't respect the secondary rights that follow from that primary.
If you send me a bill requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion, I will sign it without delay because it will protect innocent life.And in order to preserve the sanctity of human life, I ask you to send me a bill to ban human cloning in Texas.
The required bones thrown to the conservatives.
Texans agree there is a legitimate role for government but there must also be a limited role for government. While government must meet a great many social needs, it should never loom larger in our lives than our freedoms.
I hope it is painfully clear by now that when he says this I consider him a complete fucking liar.
Today, we have once again been reminded that freedom is protected at a great price with the news that 31 Marines were killed in a helicopter crash early this morning in Iraq, the deadliest day since American forces began the liberation.These brave Americans gave up their dreams so our children can realize theirs.
Copyright ©2005TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Are they actually "fighting for our freedom"?
I'll leave the rest of the speech to the curious.
I've never understood why conservatives in principle oppose tougher fuel standards or conservation measures. Conserving energy is conservative, no? And increasing energy independence is a useful foreign policy tool, no? Where's the catch?
Where's the catch?
The catch is neither YOU nor THE GOVERNMENT own car manufacturers or their suppliers, so neither YOU nor THE GOVERNMENT have a right to tell them how to build their products. For the very same reason conservatives (are supposed to) oppose having the state tell you what you can't write on your blog and how you write what you can, conservatives (are supposed to) oppose the government imposing economic controls on businesses to achieve social goals. The label of "conservative" has nothing to do with the conservation of economic goods, unless you consider mid-twentieth century social tradition, Christian religion, and "decency" economic goods.
Previous posts on the Daily Disher: Talking About Whom?, The Jubilation of Catching Saddam is Fraying Minds, Andrew Sullivan's Confused, Poor Andrew Sullivan, What the Hell, Sullivan's Hand in Your Pocket.
UPDATED 9/28/2005 9:53am
Andrew Sullivan Needs Slaves
According to Drudge, Howard Kurtz is writing in the Washington Post that Maggie Gallagher was on the payroll of the Department of Health and Human Services for $21,500. And what was she doing? She was defending marriage.
She was also attacking gay marriage. I wrote about her twice: You'd Think the World Is About to End and Maggie's Calmer, But No Less Silly. In the first, I quoted her saying this:
Winning the gay-marriage debate may be hard, but to those of us who witnessed the fall of Communism, despair is inexcusable and irresponsible. Losing this battle means losing the idea that children need mothers and fathers. It means losing the marriage debate. It means losing limited government. It means losing American civilization. It means losing, period.
More info on this new development at Instapundit, who thinks this isn't going to be as bad as the Armstrong Williams situation.
As the Professor notes, she has replied here:
I just got off the phone with Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post. He called me with a very good question: "You had a contract with HHS to do some work on marriage issues in 2002. Should you have disclosed that?"[...]
In 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services approached me to do some work on marriage issues for the government, including a presentation of the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for HHS regional managers, to draft an essay for Wade Horn, assistant secretary of HHS, on how government can strengthen marriage, and to prepare drafts of community brochures: "The Top Ten Reasons Marriage Matters," stuff like that.
The contract reads: "ACF (Administration for Children and Families, part of HHS) is pursuing research to create knowledge about the dynamics of marriage among low-income populations, and potential strategies states might pursue to strengthen marriage. ACF needs additional expertise to accomplish this work.
"Statement of work: The contractor shall consult with and assist ACF in ongoing work related to strengthening marriage, and provide assistance advice on development of new research activities in this area. The contractor shall perform a variety of activities including (but not limited to) providing information on the programs to strengthen marriage, advising on the dissemination of materials, and participating in meetings and workshops."
The contract did not authorize a general consulting fee. Instead it authorized payment for actual work performed, to be submitted and approved via separate invoice.
By my records, I was paid $21,500 from HHS in 2002.
You know what...the disclosure thing isn't what annoys me. The motivation that someone has to write about something isn't high on my list of concerns when reading a news article or an opinion piece. What concerns me are the validity of the facts and arguments within the writing.
So I also see this things as "tempest in a teapot" situations, because the larger issue for me is, Why the hell is the United States Government engaging in social engineering to change Americans into what it thinks will be better citizens? This shit isn't the purview of anything close to what a proper limited government conservative or Constitutionalist administration or Republican movement ought to have the state doing, let alone what even the most justifiable minimal state might engage in.
The real problem isn't private citizens getting paid to promote government policies. The real problem is the existence of the government itself and the fact that it has the tax money to waste on things like "strengthening marriage."
Ladies and Gentlemen, Steve Gilliard: Those damn rappers
As Chris Rock says "You don't have any investments, but you got rims." That, to me, is a lot more insidious that the abuse of women, which is bad, but nothing new. The celebration of greed, however, is. The RyanKenny $7000 shirt, the $300 throwback jersey, the $150 hoodie sweatshirt, that sends a message far worse than calling a woman a ho.[...]
I'm not discounting the mysoginy in rap, any more than I would in rock, but it's the celebration of materialism and greed which should frighten people.
UPDATE 2/11/2005 12:26am
To clarify, it should be said that I think Mr. Gilliard has got it viciously, seriously wrong. The pursuit of wealth - provided it is not accomplished through the use of aggression - is a positive good for both the individual and the society of individuals with whom that person chooses to associate. It is the very call of material wealth that has expanded our standard of living and greatly lessened the burden of survival.
As far as I'm concerned, the police have long since gone from being occasionally helpful, generally useless, overly glorified public servants to becoming one of the most prominent threats to an individual's liberty.[...]
In theory, the cops should be a last resort called upon to protect your life and property. In practice, they have become part of the problem.
Normally when I head out to lunch, I prefer to have something along with me to read. I dislike spending my free time staring out the windows at passing traffic when I could be digesting ideas along with roast beef, turkey, cheddar cheese, ranch dressing, and whole wheat sub buns. These articles are almost always "scholarly" in nature and make bad reading while at work because I get so caught up in them.
So today I had lunch at the Quizno's near the intersections of Highway 183/Research Blvd., Burnet Rd., and MOPAC. As I pulled up, I noticed the parking lot was pleasantly low on vehicles, meaning I could enjoy at least some quiet time to read and eat before the lunch rush ruined the atmosphere. As I parked, I noticed the best spot in front of the primary door was occupied with three Austin Police Department motorcycles.
The cops were eating at a table directly in front of the ordering line and there was no one in front of me when I walked up to ask for my sandwich. The employees provided me with their typically high level of customer service and I was out of the line and at a table with little wait.
Which was a bit of a disappointment. I was carrying a printout of Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Government (PDF) from the Ludwig von Mises Institute's Journal of Libertarian Studies and I was hoping they'd see the title and offer a pithy comment or two to each other just loud enough for me to hear.
What would I have done at that point? Well, it depends on the nature of the comment(s), but I can imagine the "frank exchange of ideas" roughly ending up like this if it went ugly:
Policeman 1: Whether you want to admit it or not, you need us and you need the government to live safely.Me: I certainly may want property protection, but I certainly don't want other people to have money coerced from them to pay for it. Besides, it is my right to decide if my things need protection from third parties by third parties.
Policeman 2: Coerced? C'mon, man, don't be so silly. Taxes are too important to the things that keep society going to just give up. Grow up, son.
Policeman 3: Hell, if you don't want us to help you with a robbery just send us a letter saying you want no protection at all.
Policemen: *laughter*
Me: You motherfuckers certainly didn't help me much when two of my car stereos were stolen, so why should I give a damn about your help anyway? And you question the coercion in taxes? Let me explain what I mean - you see those firearms strapped to your belts?
For the typical citizen, they serve two or three purposes. They provide a means to self-defense, pleasure from target shooting, and pleasure from hunting. Do you know what they are for you? They are means to coerce people to obey the government's laws and to self-defense from the people who won't obey your commands to obey those laws. In your hands, they are primarily instruments of threat to follow your orders. Without that threat of violence, you are powerless. In that sense, you are thugs with badges on a mission to decide what's in my best interest while keeping in mind the request of the community to be nice to me.
Those guns are what give you and your brothers at the state and federal level the means to bust down my door at dawn to kidnap me for not paying my taxes; for ignoring your demands that I register my car and get it inspected; for buying a responsible teenager a beer; for opening a restaurant that won't follow the city's rules on indoor smoking; for not getting a permit to improve my house; for producing wildly explicit pornography involving consensual actors under the age of 18; for not sticking my financial head into the shadowy and unpredictable viper's nest of neighborhood, city, state, and federal regulations that dictate what, where, when, and how I live my life or for any number of sane and useful activities that your employers believe should be criminalized...to arrest, assault, and harass me for acting as the rightful owner of my property?
Fuck. You. Or has the right to speak my mind been so abrogated by the state and its cronies that it has become illegal for me to tell you what I really think about the illegitimate enterprise that you work to uphold and defend?
Policeman 1: Sir, please step outside so we can speak with you further.
Policemen: *stand up, chairs squealing against the floor*
Me: Of all the times I decide to not bring my handgun with me...
Of course, this is a nightmare scenario that revolves around me having the guts to preach like that in the first place and I am under no illusions that a shoot-out would end well for anyone or is desirable in the first place.
But as I read that JLS article, I wondered what they'd do in the face of a tirade like that. It would be embarrassing to anyone to have such a pointed verbal assault directed at them and their institution, so I certainly wouldn't encourage intellectual debate by saying it. My father being a deputy sheriff wouldn't matter a damn to them or me, but it would certainly spice up the wire report if it devolved from a discussion to a fight.
Would they simply write me off as some idiot kid?
Would they demand I produce my driver's license so they can make a note of me in some database to be monitored later?
Would they take me into custody on a disturbing the peace charge and forget about the thing except as a joke for the buddies to hear about the next day?
Would they snap under the stress of a job that has them viewing and engaging with the nastiest elements and actions of society?
Would they pause and consider what I'd said?
UPDATE 1/28/2005 11:51am
Hypocrisy or Consistency?
My employer released my W-2 to me today and I added up the federal taxes withheld. I sent the IRS $5,014.89 in cash without even a second thought over the last year. That breaks down to $2,682.06 in income tax, $1,890.63 in Social Security tax, and $442.20 in Medicare tax.
This year, I won't be taking the standard deduction on my federal taxes because I have tuition to St. Edward's University, mortgage interest, and Texas sales taxes to deduct (as well as whatever else the guy doing my taxes can find). I expect to get a significant portion of that $2,600 back and that portion would have been better put to use in my hands at the time I earned it, not as some "tax return" bonus bullshit check I'm lucky the feds didn't lose or screw up in their titanic bass-ackwards bureaucracy.
This issue of taxation has been a source of internal friction for me over the last few years. I don't think any tax should be levied anywhere on anything and I don't support the activities of (wild-ass guess) 99.9% of the entity that receives that money. On the other hand, TASB will report my income to the feds whether I ask them to stop or not because it faces criminal sanction if it doesn't and my one case isn't likely to drive them to challenge a system so institutionalized and powerful the mere mention of fundamental disagreement with it brings down wrath and condemnation from most political corners, even from people who would ordinarily have nothing to say about politics and economics.
I intend on acquiescing to the pressures this year because my life is financially fragile and one good push from an auditor in Washington (or at 825 E. Rundberg Ln.) could ruin my situation. As I see it now, this isn't likely to change for a while. It might take a few months, but no court is going to give a damn about my rightful claim on my property so fighting it legally will almost inevitably result in failure and add to what I "owe."
What I can do at the very least is change my withholding so the bastards don't get shots of free money in the arm throughout the year.
I'm enrolled in St. Edward's P-PADM 3330 Public Finance course this spring semester and my first class was yesterday. It is going to be a pain to endure, as a post I'll write later will demonstrate.
In the People's Weekly World, Shane Brinton says "capitalism spreads HIV."
In The Washington Times, Lawrence Kudlow says that under a second Bush term in office, "Freedom is transforming."
The Age opinionates that "capitalist ideology reigns unrestrained and unchallenged" in Australia.
In Arizona State University's The State Press, Solomon Rotstein gets bitchy about someone going to Costco.com and buying a Picasso.
One does not need to look at them to witness the depth of their ass-kicking, but it helps.
I saw them last night at Beerland headlining for The Apeshits and The Svengalis (I didn't get there in time to see the openers: Animals of the Bible). They're in the middle of their Let's Bowl 2005 tour and Peelander-Z was easily the greatest hardcore rock show I've seen in years.
Lesse, the Japanese Action Comic Punk Band had:
- Peelander Yellow, lead singer and guitarist, dressed in a banana suit!
- Peelander Blue, drummer, in a ton of blue feather boas and a wrestling champion belt!
- Peelander Red, bassist, with his mighty dredlocks and an indian headdress!
- human bowling!
- strangers playing their instruments!
- placards with funny sayings on them!
- signs explaining important Japananese words ("yes" in Japanese is "hi" and "comics" in Japanese is "manga"!)
- funny dances in the name of, among other things, medium rare steak!
- and almost incomprehensible punk rock
Just as I was getting bored with the first two bands, Peelander-Z came in and saved the day with something new and energetic. Kudos, my cracked musical guests. You convinced my friends to buy all of your available albums at the show on the spot. And I have another sticker for my CD cabinet.
DRA-GON!
Peter Robinson: A Conservative President?
Aw, gee. He’s our guy, I like him, and his performance since 9/11 has proven brave, steadfast, and completely admirable. But this speech? It was well-written - in places actually beautiful - and well-delivered. (I dissent from Jonah Goldberg and others who fault Bush for his delivery on the ground that they’re forgetting to multiply his score by the degree of difficulty. Just try standing outdoors, in freezing weather, using a sound system that echoes, and then delivering a speech to an audience that consists of more or less the entire planet. Denny Hastert couldn’t even administer the oath of office to the vice president without misspeaking. Bush delivered his entire text without a flaw.) But the speech was in almost no way that of a conservative. To the contrary. It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation. This overturns the nation’s fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception.
[...]
On domestic policy, a "broader definition of liberty?" Citing as useful precedents the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G. I. Bill? Compare what Bush said today with the inaugural address of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the first inaugural address of Ronald Reagan and you'll find that Bush sounds much, much more like LBJ. He as much as announced that from now on the GOP will be a party of big government.
Too true.
In the text of Bush's speech, there are 16 references to "liberty," 34 references to "free" or "freedom," 6 references to "tyranny." Here's Bush in his own words:
...no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.
Oh how easily the fundamental, widespread, and immediately superficial counter-examples to this statement from his own administration could be demonstrated. His speech is ripe for heavy anarcho-capitalist fisking.
TechCentralStation: A Political Cyber-Coalition
However, a great many bloggers are libertarians. While right-of-center, they have certain disagreements with conservatives on various issues. And their ranks are well represented in the Blogosphere. Glenn Reynolds, perhaps the most famous blogger around (next to Sullivan), is a libertarian.
Though it doesn't get mentioned that much, when I hear this I get pissed off. Pejman Yousefzadeh is wrong. Here's why:
- "Fixing potlholes [sic] and funding education should be the responsibility of state and local governments."
- "Yes, it's rare for me to praise [Senator Fritz Hollings], but this looks like a good idea to me." "This" being a bill that would force cable operators to offer their programming a la carte and would bar "excessive or gratuitous violence" from broadcast, basic cable and satellite TV channels between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. in the interests of protecting children. (original link rotted, go here instead)
- "ARE WE GOING TOO SOFT IN IRAQ? Some people think so. It seems that way to me, too, though I'm reluctant to make a judgment at this distance. But in my lifetime, at least, the United States has generally erred by not being violent enough, rather than by being too brutal."
- "I'd much rather see Hillary at the top of the Democratic ticket. She's better on the war, and seems to have much more backbone in general. No Carter, she."
- "I think this is a significant step forward." "This" being proposed legislation that would "lays out the definition of a suborbital space passenger vehicle, solidifies the process for licensing such vehicles, and allows paying passengers to fly into space at their own risk."
- "YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK -- and working well. I sent my passport off for renewal on Thursday, and got it back today. Nice work!"
- "This isn't an attitude that's likely to pave the way to political success." That attitude being the sentiments expressed by Robert Higgs on voting: "I never vote. I don't wish to soil my hands."
Professor Glenn Reynolds thinks the coercion should be used to build and maintain roads, educate children, determine what cable providers offer, bring even greater destruction to the lives and property of Iraqis who have never presented a threat to him, and provide passports to Americans. He also desired to see Hillary fucking Clinton as a candidate for the highest public office in the United States and apparently thinks principled non-voters are silly.
This, of course, is just what I'be bothered to document.
The Instapundit is not a libertarian and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what makes libertarianism different from other political ideologies: primarily, the firm commitment to avoid using or advocating the initiation of force against non-aggressors.
Link via No Treason.
UPDATE 3/2/2005 5:12pm
Further evidence: "I'd go for mandatory unbundling, but not decency rules." This is translated as I want people who work in the broadcast industry to be thrown in jail for not offering a la carte programing. And that is "libertarian" how??? I discussed this topic here and therefore must conclude that Glenn Reynolds also needs slaves.
UPDATED 3/21/2005 11:12am
An interesting development.
UPDATED 6/7/2005 3:25pm
On the other hand, this post does work well from a libertarian mindset:
I HAVE A LIBERTARIAN SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM: Over at The Corner we're seeing a rather large number of abortion-related posts today. In this one (which really goes beyond the abortion issue) Kathryn Jean Lopez decries a poll showing that 80% of Americans think that pharmacists ought to have to fill prescriptions for contraceptives even if they're personally opposed to birth control.Of course, this only matters because pharmacists enjoy a government-created monopoloy on the dispensing of prescription drugs. Just take that away, and the problem disappears, too. In the meantime, like others who enjoy government monopolies, they are forced to make some concessions to public convenience. That doesn't strike me as an overwhelming imposition, but if the pharmacy profession feels otherwise, I'll be the first to support a move to eliminate its privileged position.
Agreed.
UPDATED 9/26/2005 2:33pm
He hasn't been paying attention to An Intellectually and Morally Serious Antiwar Movement.
"What we're seeing in these neighborhoods is that the situation has gotten to a point where we do need to do something," Director of the Town Lake Animal Center Dorinda Pulliam said.People get mauled by stray animals, so the county government is asked to "update" it's laws on pet control. This could potentially mean the criminalization of not putting a leash on your pet when in public places (or even your own property) and not registering your pet.
Here's what a concerned citizen might do in lieu of getting the government to step on our rights and expand its power to control our lives:
- Keep better track of your children and warn them of the dangers of unknown animals.
- Remind neighbors of the danger such animals pose so they don't leave incentives for the animals to come to the neighborhood (such as securing garbage and neutering/spaying pets).
- Arm yourself with what you think is necessary (ammonia spray, loud horns, Browning Hi-Power) and keep them handy in case your little girl is threatened by a roaming mutt.
- Form an animal control company and sign up customers to have their property/neighborhoods protected.
Kevin Carson, aka, The Mutualist, now has a blog. And a very worthwhile read it is.
Long-absent San Antonian blogger Erik has returned to Brainville and is also worth reading. Even if he's a skinny white guy.
First signs of protest in world's top secret state
The first known visual evidence of dissent within the world's most secretive state emerged yesterday when video footage taken in a North Korean factory showed a portrait of the dictator, Kim Jong-il, defaced with graffiti demanding freedom and democracy.The 35-minute video clip, said to have been taken in November, was posted on the website of an opposition group based in South Korea. It shows a poster of Kim scrawled over with the words: "Down with Kim Jong-il. Let's all rise to drive out the dictatorial regime.''
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.
Link via Instapundit.
Big Business' health care problem
The GOP's opposition to universal health care may take a hit as its Big Business patrons feel the bite of soaring costs.
If Rick Wagoner can't sleep at night, it could be because he's thinking about the escalating cost of health care.General Motors Corp.'s chairman and chief executive officer said his company's health care costs worry him more than other problems, including the automaker's slipping market share and the strength of its competition.
"I don't feel good about health care costs. I don't feel good about what it does to our profitability," Wagoner said at the North American International Auto Show Sunday.
Analysts say he's got reason to fret.
With health care costs rising by double-digit percentages annually, health care has emerged as a major concern for all industries. But GM's case is more dire: The company supports the health needs of 170,200 active workers and 430,000 retirees [...]
Wagoner has proposed partnering with the government to offset some of that expense. But he knows that will be a tough sell.
"What are the odds of getting the government to cut me a $1 billion check because we have health costs to cover? Not great," he said.
And the government shouldn't cut GM that check. Corporate welfare and all. Especially since they're not alone with this problem.But GM wouldn't have to shoulder that expense if its workforce was otherwise covered. Say, by the U.S. government.
The dynamics are headed in that direction.
*pause*
What in the fucking FUCK does Kos think universal government-paid healthcare coverage would be to big businesses but anything but a massive corporate welfare program? Who cares how the "check" is cut or under what aegis its distributed! Businesses are suffocating under the costs of their human resource obligations and want to be bailed out by the state. Pay no attention to the fact that the federal govenment helped created this crisis by incentivizing, encouraging, or outright requiring businesses provide these benefits in the first place. Abolish that niggling detail and onward with the dramatic expansion of the robber nanny state!
What a jackass. And this guy is supposed to be an important figure in the Democrat/liberal grassroots system?
Previous entries on Kos: The Hypocrisy of Daily Kos, Fiscal Responsibility?, Daily Kos Wants It All, and The Democratic Party: The Party of Personal Liberty?.
UPDATED 4/19/2005 10:20am
Economic Ignorance, For the Privatization of Freedom, Sacred Cows and Kossack Hypocrisy, and Kos Strikes Again
"The Government shall not start or carry on any activity to provide a commercial product or service if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial source."
This Russmo cartoon hits it perfectly. It is a depiction of a US soldier in Iraq reading a letter from his father. It describes the situaton back home with either the most sarcastic clenched-teeth anger I've read in some time or with the all-too-common complete naivete on display by so many of the war's supporters:
Dear Jimmy,Hope all is well in Iraq. We are so proud of you for going over there to fight for our freedom. A lot has happened since you left...
Our home was taken by the feds for back taxes we owed, and then the family business was condemned by the city so they could build a football stadium.
Mom was arrested for carrying a gun in her purse and your brother is in prison for smoking a joint. At least your sister is okay, though she has to go to court for not wearing a seatbelt.
We wish you were here to help pay for all the legal fees, but just knowing you are over there fighting for the liberties we cherish makes it all worthwhile.
Love, Dad
I'll opt for the former.
This is why I inwardly sneer at the bumper stickers that proclaim "Freedom isn't Free." Yeah, apparently it isn't.
Russmo's also got good ones on the 2004 election cycle schematic and the direction of the Republican Party.
News8Austin: County could adopt fire code
Travis County Commissioners are considering a fire code for new buildings.The county has never had a fire code and commissioners have started the process of adopting one.
Fire officials from all over the county attended Tuesday's meeting in support of the plan.
[...]
The code would require permits for any commercial or public structure, but not for private homes.
Copyright ©2005TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Here is the text of that meeting last Tuesday. Though the transcript isn't "official" there are some choice quotes:
Good morning, judge, Commissioners. I’m with the Travis County fire marshal. A brief history, the collaborative effort of the commercial building community, the 13 emergency service districts/county fire departments and the city of Austin have agreed to adopt the recommendations required by the adoption of the international fire code as the fire code for Travis County. The purpose of the fire code is to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Travis County. By requiring permits for the construction of commercial structures and public buildings in unincorporated Travis County and to impose standards to protect the lives and property of the general public.
I have little doubt the "commercial building community" is primarily going after this for two reasons:
- the desire to have an important task standardized and partially subsidized by the state so they don't have to bear the burden of developing it; and
- the benefits of a state-approved building code so the insurance industry might cut their premiums
The other two entities have a focus of only on preventing death, injury, and destruction due to fires. While that is admirable and honorable, they pay little to no attention to the proper way of doing that and instead rely on the government to impose their recommendations.
As an urban county we are embarking on a comprehensive mechanism to ensure that all of the citizens of Travis County can be assured to be fire safe in any public or commercial building located in the county.
Even if one could coherently justify the existence of a state (and I don't think you can), something like this would not be on it's very short list of legitimate activities. This is the socialization of what is rightly the business of individuals, the spreading of costs across society, and the artificial and dangerous diversion of risk from the mind of the person attempting to weigh economic choices against each other.
Per current state law, this fire code does not apply to private residences.
And only because the law and its makers have chosen to leave private residences alone.
Fire codes regulate the design, construction and maintenance of structures and establish a minimum acceptable level of public fire safety.
If this was done without the threat of being entrapped in the court system, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Safety will be increased for buildings such as schools and businesses, reduction in deaths, injuries and direct property loss as a result of the fire codes enacted and enforced. Citizens require the assurance that buildings in which they work, shop, use for child care, and parental care and educating their children are safe for fire hazards.
On one level, safety will be increased. But adopting the international fire code should not assure anyone that the buildings that have adopted the code are "safe for fire hazards." You can assume all you want, but when people run the show, screw-ups will be made. Not all regulations will be followed properly, not all hazards will be addressed promptly, and not everyone will maintain a fire hazard awareness in their attitude as they go about their business.
Why would I? they think. This building's design, construction and maintenance were supervised by the government and the government is always looking out for me.
It's only when your ass is on the line and on the line physically, financially, and ethically that you really begin to give a damn. Imposing a countywide fire code partially takes your ass off those lines.
Business owners expect a consistent level of code enforcement to maintain a level playing field.
Otherwise known as "screwing all to keep me from having to innovate and spend." State capitalism unmasked, right in front of your eyes.
[in response to a question of whether apartments would fall under the code]...any duplex that's greater than 10 occupancies or 10 people in it. Anything greater then a four-plex or a multi-plex building, that would all fall under the international fire code.
So much for the "private residences" provision, but since you wouldn't truly own an apartment even in an anarcho-capitalist society (it would belong to the landlord), I have little to argue here besides my aforementioned primary objection.
The previously quoted statements were all from the same person, if the transcript is accurate enough and I didn't miss anything. The following comes first from an unnamed county commissioner who is answered by Fire Chief Ron Mullenberg (President of the Capital Fire Chiefs Association)
>> am I hearing, although I’m not hearing it this way precisely, that if you have a fire code as a governmental entity, the international code is where everybody seems to be headed?
>> yes, sir. There's a -- there's not just a movement in Texas. It is a national movement to move toward one code. That in the past where there were several uniform codes, including the uniform code, southern building code, there's even a Dallas code that we sometimes see appear. Of course what that does is allow for confusion because we have contractors that move in here from metropolitan areas, want to erect a building according to codes that they are familiar with, we have to sit down and -- and play the game of finding a point of common -- compromise there. Under the international code that should be taken care of. And certainly it is gratifying and my particular district we were previously the uniform code. The city of Pflugerville was previously the uniform code. We already adopted the international code. Knowing that was the direction Travis County was headed to and knowing that the city of Austin personally we did not want to get caught in between. You know, we want to be just like everybody else. That's what I think is really great in our community now.
My emphasis.
I acknowledge the great utility of having widely-accepted standards, but pushing them through the political process is the wrong venue.
I don't know who said the following, but it was not a commissioner:
Commissioner Davis, there's a standard in the industry contract, builders that are building buildings will make a submission for their plan review. That is what we make the -- not to say it always happens, because even in ESD 2 we begin to find buildings that grow out of the ground.
Stamp them out like the weeds of economic freedom they represent!
We may visit and I’m very familiar with the fire marshal's staff and I know that we all kind of think alike. It's time to have a polite visit then with the superintendent to say let's start right here.
It's always polite before the police.
And that's where we begin to negotiate those points of your building has to be built according to these standards. Generally speaking, you know, other than somebody that goes out there and buys a bunch of two-by-fours and starts you know erecting a building, we don't want that to happen.
Because we desire control.
But generally their building is some sort of a starnld [sic]. The architectural -- standard, the architectural community that draws the plans knows that there has to be a standard employed. And so they even -- even after the building is begun, if that should happen, there are ways to bring it into compliance from that point.
Vee have vays ov making you comply.
The very ability of the Travis County lease-to-buy housing program to provide the $35 million in funding is the very fact that the state believes homeowners don't actually own their homes. If it did believe that, why would the state believe it also had the right to impose a tax on them in the form of demanding payment for the interest on the $35 million bond?
The AP via News8Austin: Senate has school finance consensus
A Texas school finance overhaul plan unveiled Wednesday would cut property taxes by one-third and raise the salaries of teachers.
Cutting taxes: good.
Raising teacher salaries: good, provided they individually deserve the extra wages and their bosses agree.
The measure would add $6.7 billion for public schools. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst announced the plan on the second day of the legislative session, saying the measure has the support of all 31 state senators.
Always be wary when every politician in a legislative body agrees on something.
The plan is touted as closing loopholes in the state franchise tax, which is the state's main business tax -- forcing all businesses except sole proprietors to pay a tax.
So in order to "pay for" the goodies of lower property taxes and higher educator pay, business owners should be threatened with the tender mercies of the justice system. They should be told that if they do not cough up a certain percentage of their wealth, they'll be arrested, have their time diverted away from productive activities, and face the twin coercions of jail time and property seizure.
This is how things are done in civilized states.
Other money for schools would be generated from a combination of a higher sales, motor vehicle, cigarette and alcohol taxes.
But that's not all!
"You! Sir! May I ask you a few questions?"
"Sure, what's up?"
"You live here in Austin, right? You buy things here, go out and drink, and such?"
"Yes, I live here and my friends and I are avid fans of booze."
"Thank you. Thank you so much."
"...why?"
"Because of your generosity and choice, millions of Texas children can be educated."
"I don't recall donating money to public education."
"But you did! You bought goods and services in Texas and a portion of the final sales price went to fund education."
"Well, while I might have decided to buy those things, I didn't do it in order to fund an entity that I think ought to be entirely in the realm of the free market. Furthermore, the money taken from me in taxes isn't a donation or charity. Those activities are predicated on one thing: a free and uncoerced choice to decide for one’s self. You don't get that with sales taxes. Since the businessmen and -women ultimately face physical violence against themselves - and in some cases their families - if they don't comply with the tax laws, most of them decided to obey the state and charge me extra for certain products. If I choose to not pay that extra amount, the odds are they won't take any of my money and eventually ask me to leave. How's that for your charity?"
"But you choose--"
"I choose because if I didn't, my quality of life would deteriorate to the point of misery. The state has effectively ransomed off my desire to live well against my desire to not be harmed by their guns and jails. Avoiding that punishment may be a choice I made on my own, but that choice lacks the virtue of the kind you imply in your objection. That kind of choice is in the context of deals with agents I consider moral, honest, and trustworthy...not the kinds of people who sit in the Capitol thinking up ways to skim more cash from society."
Details still need to be worked out.
It must be absolutely fascinating work to fine-tune the minutiae of legitimized theft, coercion, and the threats of both. Pouring over the details of which agency gets the task of arresting, which agency gets the task of "collecting," and which agency gets the propaganda and advertising...must be a bitch of a job. They sure do want it though. Every campaign season you see them slandering, lying, and begging for your votes.
The plan, which now makes its way through the Legislature, also includes a statewide property tax, which ultimately would have to be approved by voters.Copyright 2005 Associated Press, All rights reserved.
Dirty gawddamn LIARS. You're going to tell me these fools will "cut property taxes by one-third" and then tell me they want to impose a "statewide property tax"?
Here's a solution for high property taxes: end the Texas school financing problem by privatizing public education.
Something within me is screaming that this is just a dream.
The AP: Pair Arrested for Telling Lawyer Jokes
"How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?" Harvey Kash reportedly asked Carl Lanzisera."His lips are moving," they said in unison.
While some waiting to get into the courthouse giggled, a lawyer farther up the line Monday was not laughing.
He told them to pipe down, and when they did not, the lawyer reported the pair to court personnel, who charged them with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Guess who Kash and Lanzisera work for?
Americans for Legal Reform.
The AP via News8Austin: UT: Legislature hasn't kept pace with enrollment
SAN ANTONIO -- The University of Texas System chancellor says the system needs more state money to accommodate higher enrollments.Copyright 2005 Associated Press, All rights reserved.
SAN ANTONIO -- The University of Texas System chancellor says the system needs more of your money to accommodate higher enrollments.
This shyster and his crew were able to pry the state's hands off the controls for setting the System's tuition rates and now they want the best of both worlds. What bastards.
Here is further anecdotal weight to Billy Beck's thesis from a variety of blogs. These were arbitrarily limited to the most recent three posts from each website that had something to do with the slow suffocation of individual freedom and reason.
The Agitatorians: ban on outdoor public smoking, building codes for doghouses, and preemptive drug searches
UK's Samizdatistas: threats of Islamic theocrat thuggery, the imposition of national British ID cards, and political thought control
Reasonoids: Bush blowing his attempt at Social Security reform, No Child Left Behind creates perverse incentives, and more stupid warning labels
Das Misesians: legislative and judicial insanity, horrorible tales from the Federal Trade Commission, and defending the broken window fallacy.
Noodles!: forced obesity in the Middle East, gross misunderstandings of Ayn Rand, and tons of people turn out to vote on your freedom
The Rockwellians: the need for control, North Korea's fashion police, and the neoconservative and liberal love of Teddy Roosevelt
And then the Magnifisyncopathologican: Human Jackals in Benevolent Clothing, Neal Boortz goes wrong on Social Security, and No Texan's Life, Liberty, and Property are Safe...
Last night, the third and fourth episodes of 24 aired on FOX. What will be discussed contains spoilers for the series up to this point, so anyone not interested in learning them should refrain from reading further.
Reality in 24: A Libertarian Nightmare
I hold the following to be true: every individual human has at least one inalienable right (the right to his or her own life). I also think there are logically derivative rights that follow from this primary (such as the right to one's physical possessions) and if those rights are violated, those responsible have committed a moral crime, no matter who they are or why they did what they did. The only way to violate one's right is to initiate force against him or to coerce him to do something. Those criminals owe the victim compensation of some sort to right their wrong. How that gets worked out is between the criminal(s) and their victim(s).
I see no problem or contradiction in following this to the obvious conclusions. I don't think it requires much deliberation to see why I'd condemn a man who murders* and men who murder, because the number of rights violators perpetrating the crime is not relevant to the magnitude of the individual crimes for which they are responsible. It shouldn't be too hard to regard as despicable the act of attacking someone and then claiming you were authorized or justified to do this because a majority of the country said it was OK. Furthermore, I think it is unnecessary and monstrous to steal from someone because that theft will serve the lives and welfare of others.
So it should come as no shock that after watching episodes 403 and 404, I have come to despair of the ideological situation of both sides. Just as in today, the innocents in the background and on the front stage are surrounded by people who are criminal in act, nature, and belief.
On one side, we have the clearly evil acts and intentions of the terrorists. At this point, it seems they are led by Navi Araz, played by Nestor Serrano. Navi is apparently married to Dina Araz (Shohreh Aghdashloo) and they have a son, Behrooz Araz (Jonathan Ahdout). They are all aware and part of a larger terrorist plot (in 24, there's always a larger plot!) and have been prepared to murder anyone who gets in their way if that person presents a threat to their mission.
Behrooz likes a young American girl named Debbie Pendleton (Leighton Meester) and she likes him back. However, she wants to know why he's been acting so weird lately and during a task his father asked him to accomplish, she sees Behrooz when he drops off a briefcase at a remote underground bunker. His parents learn of this and his mother calls her over to their home under the pretense of coming to an understanding about her son's relationship. Dina asks her son to shoot his friend, but when he attempts to save her, it doesn't matter. Dina didn't trust her son in the first place and poisoned a drink she made for Debbie, who consumes it and collapses, either dead or incapacitated, while she is led out of the living room by Behrooz. He, of course, is now deeply confused about the situation and only hesitantly gives back the gun to his mother. She calls him a disgrace.
Araz, meanwhile, is directing crimes of his own. He's involved with the bombing of a passenger train, the theft of the aforementioned briefcase from a passenger onboard, the kidnapping of James Heller (William Devane), the United States Secretary of Defense, his daughter Audrey Raines (Kim Raver), and the murder of several Secret Service agents (yep, the they protect the SecDef). Araz is also the one who gave the order to torture, murder, and kidnap programmers who discovered evidence of the Internet angle to his plan.
On the other side, we have Jack Bauer assaulting a Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) guard in order to interrogate just-captured known terrorist Thomas Sherak/Jann Bolek who Bauer thinks is involved not only with the train bombing but with a bigger plan. When Sherak doesn't answer when Bauer asks what his primary objective is, Jack shoots him in the leg and then asks the question again while aiming the gun at his other leg. The prisoner promptly spills his guts and says SecDef Heller is the real target. This enrages CTU head Erin Driscoll (Alberta Watson) and the chief of Field Operations, Ronnie Lobell (Shawn Doyle), but Driscoll temporarily reinstates Bauer over the objections of Lobell because he will be useful in tracking the SecDef's kidnappers and the other terrorists.
On the watch and under the orders of Driscoll, the only witness to the kidnapping of the Secretary of Defense Heller is his son, Richard (Logan Marshall-Green). He has been brought in for questioning and is outraged that he's being treated like a criminal and demands an end to his interrogation, which starts off with tough questions and forced detainment. His outrage is quickly joined with fright as the lead interrogator, Curtis Manning (Roger Cross), begins sensory deprivation and overload. This was after he talked Driscoll out of her order to inject Richard with drugs to get him to speak. After being informed he'd just experienced a half hour of this technique, Richard realizes his fate. His screaming at this point was worse than the screaming as the needle came close to his veins a minute prior.
Later on, Bauer takes a gas station convenience store and several people hostage in order to track a man (Kalil Hasan, played by Anil Kumar) among the hostages who killed Lobell as Hasan abducted Andrew Paige (Lukas Haas), the surviving programmer who discovered the Internet attack code. In the course of this, Bauer strikes the store's owner in the face when he calls for help over the radio of a police officer captured after the rest of the hostages were detained.
This was after Hasan assaults Paige repeatedly in order to learn what he knows about the operation. Once he's convinced Paige has given up what he knows, he passes along Araz's order to his cronies to kill Paige. Paige is a cock of the hammer away from murder when Bauer, after having CTU agent Chloe O'Brien (Mary Lynn Rajskub) plead with him to save her friend, shoots both henchmen in the chest, killing them. For not a mere moment does it look like Bauer is about the leave Paige to his death so Bauer can run off to continue tracking Hasan, hopefully back to wherever SecDef Heller's holding place is. This deeply upsets O'Brien who later tells Bauer she lost trust and faith in him.
The Initiators of Force
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that I think no government can exist without violating someone's rights and about half the characters are under the pay and direction of the United States government, we have here a serious array of abuses. We have, in essence, "private sector" criminals and "public sector" criminals. Terrorists who have tortured, kidnapped, and killed in order to accomplish their goals are on the loose. Government agents who have tortured, kidnapped, and killed (Bauer executed his boss Ryan Chappell during the previous season in order to forestall a terrorist attack) are on the loose.
I cannot view the Arazes and their accomplices and a significant number of CTU's personnel in anything other than negative light. They saw individuals as means to an end and treated them as such. This is merely the beginning of the fourth season and I fully expect more bad things to happen to more innocents. Granted, some of the people who experienced rights violations were not innocent of crimes themselves. But like I said that is an issue to be dealt with between the aggressor and victim; should the victim be dead or incapacitated, a representative should take his place.
If we are to disregard the justifications of terrorists when they murder, steal, and injure because no one should do those things, we ought to also disregard the justification for those acts when committed by agents or representatives of the government.
I was disgusted when Bauer did some interrogating of his own in previous seasons, but the scenes with Heller's son Richard really repulsed me. Quite appropriate in regards to current events, I consider those scenes as scenes of torture. Richard's pleas to decency and moral justice were ignored by his government. Its agents explained he was going to give up everything he knew about his father's abduction or else. I saw it different only in detail from the scenes of torture involving Paige and Hasan.
This Surrounds Us Everyday
Why do I call this a "libertarian nightmare"? Because as I conceive of it, libertarianism explicitly rejects the collectivist morality of putting society above the individual and the initiation of force against non-aggressors. Both lead to the abuses outlined above, both are everywhere in today's world, and both dog honest libertarians at every turn.
It would be a nightmare to be a bystander and get caught up in these plots and whether the bystander acknowledges it or not, the roots of the nightmare start in the libertarian objections to those plots.
Unfortunately, even for those libertarians who are not also anarchists like myself, that nightmare is becoming more and more of a reality right her, right now, some in the form of
No need to get into income taxes, the draft, public education, or any number of other liberty-robbing institutions..
If this be pessimism, I do not flinch from it. Better to see reality for what it is than for what you wish it to be.
*
"Murder" in the context of this discussion is the deliberate killing of at least one human being who has not presented a demonstrable and serious threat to the life and liberty of the killer or who has actually violated the rights of the killer, who in response acts in self-defense.
UPDATE 8:25am
Like last time, Jim Henley has observations on the series worth reading, though this time they are mostly confined to criticisms of the plot and what happened. That kind of post would take a lot of my time, but I still love the show.
UPDATE 2/8/2005 11:35am
The Jack Bauer Power Hour
UPDATE 2/22/2005 11:25am
When Bosses Attack
UPDATED 3/28/2005 10:40pm
Inner Outrage; The Enslavement of Behrooz Araz.
UPDATED 4/18/2005 11:04pm
The Total Erosion of the Fourth Wall and The 24 Embrace of Contemporary Politics
UPDATED 5/2/2005 10:58pm
Humanity Revealed in FOX's 24
UPDATED 5/17/2005 2:07pm
Quickie '24' Blog Items with an Emphasis on Richard Heller
UPDATED 3/13/2006 9:47am
My Take on FOX's '24' Ethics
Jim Henley makes good observations.
I myself began to wonder just as Jack Bauer pulled out his pistol: Just what the fuck do you expect to accomplish with - by your own admission - mere minutes of time to spare?
And then I remembered: Oh yeah. This is TV Land, where Jack Bauer can accomplish damn near anything as long as he has a cell phone, a firearm, and a pulse.
The producers missed a grand opportunity to raise some good questions. Next episodes are one tonight and I look forward to the unfolding.
UPDATE 2/8/2005 11:35am
The Jack Bauer Power Hour
UPDATED 4/18/2005 11:06pm
Additional posts: Fox's '24': A Libertarian Nightmare, Inner Outrage; The Enslavement of Behrooz Araz, The Total Erosion of the Fourth Wall, and The 24 Embrace of Contemporary Politics
UPDATED 5/2/2005 10:58pm
Humanity Revealed in FOX's 24
UPDATED 3/13/2006 9:47am
My Take on FOX's '24' Ethics
Here in central Texas, we've been firmly adhered to annual pattern of one or two really frickin' cold days (read: 24-29ºF, quickly levelling out around the 40's) out of a whole winter. The last two years, those days came in February and were accompanied with precipitation.
You would have thought the Fifth Coming of Christ was upon us. Wails of "black ice" deafened me from every angle except my best friend, who was as amused at the spectacle as I was.
Hell, I have MORE FUN on those days than any other in the year. The roads are utterly deserted (and this includes IH-35, one of the busiest highways in the US) and the police are too busy with wrecks inside Austin and little old cold ladies to pay me any attention as I make the most out of a low-friction driving environment.
Inspiration due to Jay Jardine.
Speaking of undeveloped land...
Associated Press via ABCNews: Tsunami Reverts Beaches to Natural State
Many believe the tsunami that devastated this tourist hotspot and killed thousands had one positive side: By washing away rampant development, it returned the beaches to nature.
What good is that? Beyond just enjoying the scenery and the solitude (things, I hasten to admit, I enjoy myself), what is the value of undeveloped land?
Greg Ferrando glistened with sweat and sea water as he went for a barefoot jog up the immaculate white sand beach, where the tsunami has wiped away almost all signs of humanity."This whole area was littered with commercialism," said the 43-year-old from Maui, Hawaii. "There were hundreds of beach chairs out here. I prefer the sand."
[...]
"Everyone is talking about it. It looks much better now," he said. "This looks a lot more like Hawaii now, where vendors aren't allowed on the beach."
Mr. Ferrando, I'd like to remind you and those who agree with you that those signs of humanity provided the means for hundreds - if not thousands - of people to earn a living. Your "littered" metaphor is a slap in the faces of people who wanted to work and create value. Your desire to see the state prevent people from working and offering products and services to tourists is just as bad.
You can prefer the sand all you want. I love walking down clean and sedate beaches, but I find it disgusting you'd think this is a good thing, even without the context of far more than 150,000 dead silently staring back at you.
The beauty of Thai beaches is the stuff of folklore: pristine, clean and untouched. That was 10 or 20 years ago. More recently, they have been swamped by development.
Alisa Tang wrote this article and her anti-development bias shines clearly, does it not?
Phanomphon Thammachartniyom, president of the Phuket Professional Guide Association, said when tourists return to Thailand for their second or third visits, he has to recommend new beaches."They will complain, 'Why has this place changed so much? I don't like it anymore. I want it to be like it once was,'" Phanomphon said.
Phanomphon fears politicians and organized crime will steer development in the wrong direction and hopes care will be taken when the area is rebuilt. "Nature has returned nature to us. I want it to be this way forever," he said.
Then buy it and manage the land yourself, as an individual.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said the tsunami swept away unplanned and possible illegal building, creating an opportunity to regulate growth."I have sent a team to collect information on damaged buildings, including hotels, resources and guest houses," he said. "We need the quick restoration of the tourist facilities there, but we also have to establish restrictions for building."
Predictable, if still unjust.
Some on Phi Phi Island agree."They were just building and building and building. It was too much. You couldn't even walk around," said Moriel Avital, a 24-year-old Israeli who lived on the island for four months.
"It was all gone in one wave it's telling people not to mess with nature," she said. "Paradise should be paradise and should not become this civilized."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
What a perfect encompassment of the mentality afflicting these folks. I'll end this post with that last quote. Dwell on it for a while and think about what it means.
UPDATE 1/10/2005 4:33pm
...and Radley Balko agrees, though in a more, uhm, direct, way.
UPDATE 5:07pm
Add Jesse Walker to the Camp of the Disgusted, with particular emphasis on the choice of title for the Seattle Times article: Tsunami wipes out tourist beach clutter. These people are depraved.
News8Austin: Money needed to bring down Intel
Three U.S. Congressmen from Texas are going straight to the top to get some help in tearing down the abandoned Intel building in downtown Austin.
Ideally, "straight to the top" would mean private financiers.
The building sits where the new federal courthouse will stand. Budget issues are delaying the construction of the new courthouse, which means the demolition of the Intel building is delayed, too.So, Congressmen Lloyd Doggett, Lamar Smith and Michael McCaul are asking for President Bush's 2006 budget to include $1 million in funding for the demolition of the Intel building.
Obviously, we live in a non-ideal world.
The lawmakers believe the building is an eyesore that detracts from the many efforts underway to enhance downtown Austin.Copyright ©2005TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
An outdated but still useful downtown map can be viewed here. Back story here, here, and the "eyesore" can be viewed here.
Why in hell should taxpayers in Montana, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and California have to pay for this? The rightful owner of the property should handle the demolition. Of course, Intel sold the site to the General Services Administration, so the feds are sorta stuck with the cost of the project. Does that then make it OK?
No. Because states and governments cannot own property in the sense of legitimate ownership rights.
The Washington Times: U.S. drops on economic index
The United States has dropped for the first time from the top 10 nations in an annual "index of economic freedom" issued jointly by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal.In the new rankings, released yesterday, Hong Kong remained in first place, where it has been for years in spite of the handing over of the former British colony to Chinese rule in 1997. Singapore, Luxembourg and Estonia — the latter, a former Soviet republic — held the next three spots.
The United States' score in the Heritage Foundation index was unchanged from last year, when it ranked 8th, but it slipped to 12th place because of reforms in Chile, Australia and Iceland, all of which moved up.
[...]
The report defines economic freedom as an absence of government "coercion or constraint" on citizens' ability to "work, produce, consume and invest in ways they feel are most productive," the authors say.
Copyright 2005 News World Communications, Inc.
Practically speaking, any President who makes it her or her primary goal to move the US back to the top of lists like these and keep it there is someone that would, at the very least, be a enormous improvement over everyone else we've suffered under.
Something In Your Living Room Wants All of Your Money
Clever, if on a rebellious 10th grade level. I propose an alternative:
Someone in Washington, D.C. Thinks They Own You
After seeing the rabid anti-car mentality over there, I at first thought the rest of Microcosm Publishing's sticker catalogue wouldn't offer much in the way of things I'd like, but I pleasantly surprised to find some worthy items:
- Don't support wars fought over economic interests...I don't support state war at all, especially when it's over two groups of thugs fighting over someone else's property.
- If We Aren't Supposed to eat Humans , Then Why Are They Made Out of Meat?...Support your local cannibalist!
- revolution begins with an individual...Very true.
- i buy beer for minors....Even better is the caption on the website: "A great way to advertise for your little business on the side. Making some money for yourself and helping out kids in need."
- Keep Corporations Out of Politics...and I'd start by keeping politics out of corporations...
- You Cannot Trust the Government - Just ask any Native American...Or anyone screwed by the FBI, ATF, FDA, DHS, FCC, IRS, USDA, CIA, DoD...
- The military state is the burden: not the welfare state....So close, yet so far.
- End Corporate Welfare Now!...And scrap the other kinds of welfare while you're at it.
- Chemicals Make Our Lives Better...Indeed they do. Couldn't have the bumper sticker without chemicals, could we?
- Wrench in the Gears...No text, but it is the thought that counts!
- Privitization of The Fire Department...Why not?
- First Amendment....You'd wonder what part of "Congress shall make no law" Congress hasn't understood for the last 200 years.
- To Serve and Protect? We live in a police state....We've a few more steps to take before it gets really bad, but we're certainly headed in the wrong direction.
- WARNING: In case of Rapture, I'm going to steal your car...There's a whole symposium of capitalist thought just waiting to occur regarding the delineation of individual property rights during the Tribulation, but I'd rather just laugh at Christians who have the "In case of Rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned" bumper sticker.
Probably the next bumper sticker I'll buy is Other people are not your property, from Strike The Root. Has a great simplicity and directness to it, eh?
I watched Hero last night. Directed by Yimou Zhang, starring Jet Li, and "presented by" Quentin Tarantino, it may be the pinnacle of this particular genre of martial arts film. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is the most obvious comparison to make and it is a valid one.
I don't think Quentin Tarantino had anything to do with the production of the movie, but I sure thank him for his efforts to get it over here. My only quibble with this film is the explicit message that it is a heroic thing to sacrifice oneself for the "greater good" of a nation-to-be.
Guardian: Another wave of miserliness from Britain's super-rich
Today's British companies enjoy some of the lowest tax rates outside America. Now they have the best of both worlds: low tax and no guilty expectation of philanthropy. They can keep almost all their money to themselves.Unless we, their customers, say otherwise. This last week has seen a rare and stirring demonstration of people power. Maybe we ought to turn to the big companies and say: you can no longer have it both ways. Either you give as generously as we do - or we will take it off you in tax. Either way, it's time to start paying.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
This man is fucking scum, a thug-by-proxy who openly thinks you should bow down and sacrifice yourself to the gawd of altruism, to a degree defined by his whim. If you don't, it's time to send in the jackboots.
The only thing distinguishing this bastard's call for your wealth from 90% of the world's stance on the issue is the in-plain-sight outright threat of police action against you if you don't comply with his "charitable" plans.
Here is one man - of many - who dresses up each day in civilized clothing only to utter the concepts of a street punk.
Via Samizdata.
Austin-American Statesman: Austin mayor issues July 4 relay challenge
Mayor Will Wynn threw down the gauntlet Tuesday, encouraging Austin companies to get involved in his quest to make Austin the fittest city in the nation by entering teams in the brand-new Silicon Labs Relay. Then he departed on a 5-mile training jog around Town Lake.[...]
In February 2004, the mayor announced his mission to make Austin the fittest city in the country — by 2006. Men's Fitness magazine annually compiles a list of the country's fittest cities. That magazine ranked Austin the 19th fittest in 2004, down from 13th fittest in 2003.
The rankings are based on 14 categories, including the number of health clubs, the number of fast-food restaurants, television viewing, health care availability and the number of public basketball courts, tennis courts, golf courses and swimming pools per capita. Also factored in are statewide statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on obesity and sedentary behavior.
Copyright 2001-2005 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.
So what does Will Wynn expect to accomplish with this? Does he think a single relay will offset the above categories? This list of criteria is a giveaway to community groups salivating over taxpayer-financed public property. This call to change people is yet another way the government (local) thinks it has the right to change our behavior.
I want no part of it and I don't want to be challenged to improve my health when I know damn well how crappy it may or may not be.
Austin-American Statesman: Restoring the land: Ranch near Kyle joins a growing trend in land conservation
[Julie] Johnson and her husband, Gordon, bought the 100-acre ranch in the late 1990s and immediately began a painstaking process to restore the land to its natural state.Just about a mile away, the latest subdivision has sprung up, bringing with it increased pressure to sell the land to developers. But the Johnsons would rather turn back the clock on their property. "It's not uncommon to see some effort made to restore some of the natural vegetation, but they've done more work than anyone I've run into yet," says Todd Votteler, executive director of the Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust, a nonprofit land conservation organization.
A couple of years back, the Johnsons received an offer of $15,000 an acre from KB Home to sell their land for development. They declined.
"Even though right now where we're standing is very undeveloped, it doesn't take very long for developers to come in," Gordon Johnson says. "People have got to have a place to live. But the thought of having it turned into a development, we just couldn't take."
To hear Gordon Johnson tell it, restoring the ranch land to its native beauty took a few cedar tree clearings here, a few seeds thrown there and nature taking its course.
But the project has cost up to $17,000 a year, Gordon Johnson says, not counting the physical strain of building weirs - piles of rock preventing water runoff - and reseeding native grasses to control erosion.
There you have it. These two people value undeveloped landscape so much they turned down an offer of $1,500,000 for their ranch. I couldn't have put it any clearer than this.
Your typical environmentalist sees it differently. He or she sees the private ownership of land as a threat that must be dealt with by public custodianship. They literally hate and fear the freedom landowners have to do what they want with their land. They would rather encourage the state to simply take the land (call it "eminent domain" or "right of way" or declaring something a landmark, it's all about taking), pass laws against certain uses of it, and let the park rangers and cops do the rest.
Gordon Johnson sometimes picks up his chainsaw and just starts walking, looking for pesky cedar to chop down.Julie Johnson routinely ventures out on the property and removes prickly pear cactus with a pick-ax. And she's built dams on certain areas of the ranch in hopes of preventing heavy water runoff.
Obviously, they have an idea of what the place should look like. I'd call this landscaping rather than mere land preservation, but it's not that important right now.
To ensure that the property remains unspoiled, the Johnsons handed over development rights, through a conservation easement, to the Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust. The arrangement qualifies the Johnsons for tax breaks and gives the River Trust control over how much the land can be developed."If you drive out there, you'll see just how much development is right near this place," says Votteler, the River Trust director. "That kind of land does see rapid increases in value, and there's a substantial financial incentive for people to stop ranching and to sell their property."
The trust, launched in 2001 and funded by the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, has entered into three conservation easement deals with landowners covering 300 acres in its 12-county area of operation.
Hmm, perhaps I spoke too soon regarding this as a capitalist endeavor.
I really dislike it when people refer to undeveloped land as "unspoiled." I wonder if they've actually stopped to ponder the implications of that label.
The GBRA has a mission and a vision, and they are:
The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority is a widely recognized leader in managing water resources that benefit both people and the environment.The Mission of the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority is to protect, conserve, reclaim and steward the resources of the ten-county District in order to ensure and promote quality of life for those we serve.
As you can see from the fourth page of it's organizational chart (PDF), both the Texas Governor and the Texas Legislature have their fingers in the Board of Directors. I was suspicious of the "authority' in that title, and now I know it was created by the State of Texas on October 17, 1935. I knew it was too good to be completely true.
With that in mind, onward to the rest of the article.
The Johnsons are part of a growing trend: landowners looking to ensure the natural beauty of their property through conservation easements. Across the state, the use of these easements by nonprofit land trust groups has more than doubled since 1999, jumping from 121,120 acres to 281,080 acres in 2003, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
There isn't anything opposed to laissez-faire in this, assuming these trust groups aren't associated with, funded by, controlled within, or regulated by the state. Despite the howling you often hear from collectivists, there are people out there who don't want the government controlling things and who are also not out to make money. Values don't begin and end with cash, as they themselves so often mention.
That's not counting land acquired by municipalities to ensure that it remains pristine, such as more than 4,000 acres purchased by the City of Austin during the last four years to preserve the Edwards Aquifer.
That sort of land conservation I could do without. It is the Siamese brother to the otherwise typical land grab that happens when environmentalists want something saved.
"The wide-open spaces and those things that we think are so 'Texas' - big open spaces and mountain vistas and fresh clear running streams - I think we can't take for granted any longer," says Carolyn Vogel, coordinator of the Texas Land Trust Council at the Parks and Wildlife Department. "People are concerned, and I think they also realize now they have tools - some ways to sort of help."Copyright 2001-2005 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.
People have always had the tools to save land they value. They've either just gone about their business and done it quietly. I have no data and will make no inference about the number of people doing this in the past, but I have no doubt individuals have been buying land and keeping it clear of commercial property for hundreds of years.
In fact, nearly every homeowner does this when they buy a house. While the amount of land on your average plot is drastically smaller than that on a 100 acre ranch, the concept remains the same.
UPDATE 1/7/2005 1:10pm
On the opposite side of the ledger, we have people smiling at the destruction of Thai beaches because the tsunami "returned them to nature." Ugh.
Via Drudge, we get this load of charmers from the UK's The Independent: Could the tsunami disaster be a turning point for the world?
THE RIGHT REV TIM STEVENS, Bishop of LeicesterI am hopeful, but we must see a real commitment to changing the economic relationships between the West and the poorer countries. As well as charitable giving, we need to tackle these fundamental issues.
Be wary of anyone who wants to "change the economic relationships" among anyone outside of the consent of those within the relationship. I have little doubt Bishop Stevens, when pressed, would advocate the use of force and coercion to make those changes.
RORY BREMNER, ComedianOn an individual level, it is not just about what we are prepared to give, but what we are prepared to give up. Having left Afghanistan and Iraq in their wake, can our leaders be trusted to fight a war on poverty?
And just to whom does he expect us to give up our wealth? The first comment should be seen for what it really is: a near-naked call for people to surrender their property to the state/NGO as the state/NGO sees fit.
His second comment has a twinkling of potential, but he ruins it with wanting another disastrous "war on something" and those wars always end up hurting the peaceful noncombatants more than the intended target.
KANYA KING, Founder, Mobo awardsNo longer can we exist in isolation when we see lives and livelihoods being destroyed. All of us need to be pro-active to change things, but we have shown that public opinion and the media can influence government.
Actually, I can exist in isolation when I see lives and livelihoods being destroyed. I've generally done it since I was little and I continue to do it today. The magnitude of the tsunami disaster doesn't change fundamental aspects of reality.
STEPHEN TINDALE, Executive director, GreenpeaceIt seems churlish to say it, but while it's relatively easy for most of us to give £50, it would be much harder for us to make the changes in our modern lifestyles that are needed if we are to move to a fairer world.
churl•ish
adj.
- Of, like, or befitting a churl; boorish or vulgar.
- Having a bad disposition; surly: “as valiant as the lion, churlish as the bear” (Shakespeare).
- Difficult to work with, such as soil; intractable.
The bastards aren't satisfied with your money. They want to you live your life on their terms and according to their values.
DR GHAYASUDDIN SIDDIQUI, Leader of Muslim ParliamentCompassion, care and concern for mankind joins each of us - whatever our faith or ethnicity. The tragedy has shown there is a formula on which all mankind can be united to help each other. Mankind has moved forward.
Finally, something that isn't a demand for the government to tinker with our lives even more. While I am an atheist and I think those who base their lives on faith have special problems of their own, I don't think the values prized above are negative.
BILL BAILEY, ComedianIt was the same after 11 September. Everyone said it was a great opportunity to try to understand the world but it was used by the US as a reason to go on a rampaging adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Man, is it getting trendy in here, or is it just me?
MO MOWLAM, Former cabinet ministerI think most people will simply forget. Some charities say people will even forget how much they pledged to give. I wish it would change our attitudes to other people in other countries, but I'm afraid that it won't.
A realist! Better than most of the previous, I can't deny.
SIR JONATHON PORRITT, EnvironmentalistThe response reveals a deep sense of empathy that could be of lasting value. If it is just a philanthropic flash, then we have seen those before, but if people gain a sense of their interdependence, we will be better off.
I'm only as interdependent as I choose to be, Sir. Only the value I place on civilized living and social interaction keeps me from just trotting off into the wilderness with a large middle finger painted on the back of my jacket. The deep woven links among consumers, producers, distributors, and the like I value as well. Trade interdependence is something I'm fine with, but in a proper free market, there is no real "dependence" - only the desire for stability, value, and good relations.
DINOS CHAPMAN, ArtistWestern capitalism demands that people must be impoverished. I cannot think that anything will change this year, because we are the ones who have made the world the way it is. I don't believe in altruism.
If you don't believe in altruism (that has got to be a typo or something), then what sort of system do you propose replace western capitalism? It certainly has little to do with altruism on a fundamental level.
If I cared for his explanation, I'd ask this guy a few things. If "Western capitalism demands that people must be impoverished," then
- How would businesses make money off the destitute masses? A giant share of economic activity occurs among the middle and upper classes.
- What is the reason for the massive levels of corporate charity to all manner of anti-poverty causes?
- Why does the West have the best standards of living compared to the rest of the planet?
This is a man who is deeply confused about the world.
LORD HURD OF WESTWELL, Former foreign secretaryThe danger is that resources which might have gone to Africa will go to this instead. While huge publicity continues to be given to the tsunami, human beings are killing each other in Iraq, and places like Darfur.
Here we have the classic bureaucrat dilemma: to whom should get all this wonderful coerced wealth? Everyone has differing opinions as to the importance of helping the various troubled areas of the world. This is one reason to let people keep their wealth to distribute as they see fit.
SIR MAX HASTINGS, Journalist and historianWe have to bear in mind that we have been here before. There have been tragedies before, and many fine things have been said, a lot of them by the US. We just have to hope that in this case they will follow through.
"Your government promised $200 million for the relief efforts."
"And?"
"Your government hasn't followed through with its promise."
"So? That money doesn't belong to the government. We gave it to the state under its threat of violence against us and our property."
"But those people need the money, your government knows where it should go, and other governments have taken into account the United States' pledge to contribute."
"It isn't a contribution when it isn't yours to begin with, so if you want my money, you better at least have the guts to ask me for it first. If not, you better have the balls to take it."
J G BALLARD, NovelistIt would be one of the biggest breakthroughs mankind has ever experienced if we pooled our wealth in order to look after the poorer people of the world. Sadly, I don't think it will happen.
Sadly, it's already happening, you commie jackass.
SUE MACGREGOR, BroadcasterI hope politicians will take note of the public reaction. But it is difficult to tell whether it will do anything to change the way politicians see things, when our own Prime Minister chose not to break his holiday.
Politicians see things in ways wholly different from the subjects they rule over, Dear. Get used to it.
TONY BENN, Former cabinet ministerIt may make people realise that the UN needs to be well-equipped and funded. If people diverted money from weapons and war, we have the technology and money to be able to help - if we decide to do that.
If that wealth diversion was conducted under a free market, then fine. But it isn't. In any event, the UN is a singularly poor organization with which to entrust money for critical needs. The reasons for that are myriad, but simple.
SIR RICHARD BRANSON, EntrepreneurI think that politicians must realise that people do care about these issues and want them to do more. If 2005 could become the year when people make a real effort, then it could make a real difference.
©2005 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved
People caring about the welfare of strangers is a Good Thing.
People demanding ever-increasing amounts of an individual's wealth to be handed over to others is a Bad Thing.
The New York Times: Relief Effort Gains as Aid Is Reaching More Survivors
It was only the beginning of a relief campaign that has drawn pledges of $2 billion from 40 countries and will go on for months, if not years, and the suffering was still widespread. But after a week of horrific reports - with estimates of as many as 150,000 dead, 500,000 seriously injured, millions of homeless and hungry and tens of thousands missing - there was a sense of progress and even rays of hope.
I have two close friends out in the Philippines at the moment and only just heard back from them today. They are safe, but we were concerned about them for a while. Thankfully, they aren't a member of those grim figures above. I watched those numbers increase by leaps and bounds over the last few days and no words of mine could capture the scope and the depth of this tragic event.
However, I would like to point out something that I'm sure most people don't know.
From Wikipedia: White Sea-Baltic Canal
White Sea-Baltic Sea Canal (Russian: Belomorsko-Baltiyskiy Kanal (BBK)), opened on August 2, 1933 is a ship canal that joins the White Sea and the Baltic Sea near St. Petersburg. Its original name was Belomorsko-Baltiyskiy Kanal imeni Stalina, "White Sea-Baltic Sea Canal in the Name of Stalin" and it is known under the abbreviation Belomorkanal. During the construction up to 100,000 Gulag prisoners had died.
Yesterday, The History Channel aired Stalin: Man of Steel at 1pm. Within that program, someone stated the final death toll on the laborers for this canal was 150,000. Obviously, accurate numbers are hard to come by for, "projects," like these. Furthermore, I'll quote from The Economy of the OGPU, NKVD and MVD of the USSR, 1930-1953 by Oleg Khlevnyuk:
The development of the OGPU economy was strongly influenced by the decision to build the White Sea-Baltic Canal (see chapter by Morukov). Construction of this transportation system, which started in the second half of 1930, was completed in the record time of two years. At certain times more than 100,000 prisoners were being used in the construction. It was the first time the camp economy demonstrated its "advantages" in practice: rapid deployment of large worker contingents at a needed site and the capacity to exploit prisoners in any conditions, regardless of casualties. Methods of organizing the Gulag's major economic projects were refined in the course of White Sea-Baltic Canal construction, and OGPU leadership personnel gained experience. After the White Sea-Baltic Canal project, the OGPU began to establish other major economic divisions. On November 11, 1931, the Politburo adopted a decision to form a special trust, which was later named Dalstroi (Far Northern Construction), "to speed up the development of gold mining in the upper reaches of the Kolyma"[4].
More than one hundred thousand humans were arrested and forced into slave labor. They were then forced to build a mammoth public works project that Stalin chose with no small emphasis on how it would make him and his style of Communism appear on the world stage. Those people were literally worked and tortured to death while exposed to some of the most inhospitable weather and working conditions on the planet.
And that was considered such a success that it helped lead to the hated and feared Kolyma gold mining system, so hated and feared that it reinforced with bleak finality the saying, "Kolyma means death."
Now, I am not attempting to belittle, denigrate, or dismiss the magnitude of the disaster along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean. Far from it. I think the event deserves all the attention it has received.
What I do think deserves attention is the fact that what happened last week was not the result of human design. Without a doubt, had those people and nations affected enjoyed a higher standard of living and lower rates of poverty, the number of casualties and the difficulty in recovering from them would be less severe. But this is one of those rare situations where "tragedy" is apt and appropriate.
On the other hand, what happened in the Soviet Union was deliberate and merely a small part of a larger system. While people will remember the Asian tsunami disaster for years, during that time the few remaining survivors and relatives of a man-made murder machine will quietly pass away with the horror of their experiences to themselves. Their primary connection to history, the canal that killed their friends and family? A brand of fucking cigarettes.
Keep that in mind as you read the superlatives, calls for aid, and likely hyperbole employed in the news relating to the Indian Ocean earthquake-tsunami disaster.