one small voice

one small voice: politics

about

feeds

American Royalty

Hypocrisy on the highways...

Radley Balko does a fine job of exposing how many members of America's would-be royalty -- elected politicians -- like to lord it over us commoners on the public thoroughfares. As Bob Dole used to say in a different context: where's the outrage?

Posted on 2007-05-13 at 13:51. File under politics.

~ link ~

IATF RFC

A task force for societal understanding...

In a recent essay, Arnold Kling draws inspiration from the Internet Engineering Task Force as a model for developing the ideals of freedom (or, as he puts it, the ideology of libertarian conservatives). So he calls for an "Ideological Affirmation Task Force" that will publish Requests for Comment (RFCs) among libertarian conservatives, as the IETF does among Internet engineers.

As someone who has written a few IETF RFCs (if you're keeping track, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 4622), I like the impetus behind the idea. But if anything, I don't think Kling is ambitious enough.

The task before us is not to affirm a certain ideology in a kind of mutual admiration society. The IETF provides engineering for the Internet -- it is building something new in the world, not affirming an existing ideology. What could a similar task force provide in the realm of society, culture, politics, and economics? In large measure, such a task force would try to deeply understand why certain societies are more successful than others (can you say the Anglosphere?). But unlike the IETF, it would attempt to first and foremost understand and clarify rather than engineer solutions -- because we know that rampant social engineering has almost invariably led to disaster.

So we need something larger than "ideological affirmation" -- we need to understand nothing less than the cultural, social, political, and economic basis for healthy, successful, productive, voluntary interaction among human beings. Call it the "interpersonal interaction task force" (IITF) if you will. Achieving that kind of deep understanding is the work of lifetimes. And many lifetimes have already been devoted to it, by world-class scholars such as F.W. Maitland and Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and Alan MacFarlane.

But it's not merely a task for scholars. It's also a task for the societal equivalent of those Internet engineers -- the entrepreneurs in all fields of endeavor who would judiciously improve aspects of what already works by offering new and better ways to solve problems in voluntary, non-coercive ways.

So Mr. Kling, if you're serious about this task force, let me know -- I have a bit of IETF experience that might just apply to the IITF as well...

(Cross-posted at Albion's Seedlings.)

Posted on 2007-02-03 at 22:35. File under politics.

~ link ~

Hobgoblins

Mencken on practical politics.

I really must read more H.L. Mencken. Here's a tasty quote found at Cafe Hayek:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Classic.

Posted on 2006-12-28 at 21:51. File under politics.

~ link ~

Free-Market Liberal

Newly labelled?

Over the weekend I came up with the term "free-market liberal" (well, there are 19,200 hits at Google, so clearly I didn't coin the phrase). I like it because it helps us take back the term liberal, which by all rights means "valuing freedom".

Now what would be the equivalent term for those on the Right? Free-thinking conservative or progressive constitutionalist, perhaps?

Posted on 2006-11-26 at 20:31. File under politics.

~ link ~

Misplaced Priorities

Going wrong in Denver?

From Joel Kotkin's latest essay:

Successful cities like Houston grow because primary emphasis has been placed on the fundamental blocking and tackling of economic development -- streamlining regulations, maintaining sewers and drainage systems, building up the port and the road network. The mayor of fast-growing Aberdeen, South Dakota, says his city owes its success to $100 million worth of new highways, plus a pro-business climate and some of the lowest tax rates in the nation. By contrast, stagnant places like New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Cleveland have poured their limited resources into convention centers, sports stadiums, cultural palaces, or the development of planned entertainment districts.

Let's see, what has Denver done lately? Convention center? Check! Sports stadium? Check! Cultural palace? Check! Sure there's been highway expansion too, but in general it seems that priorities are off in the Denver metropolitan area. And that doesn't bode well for the future...

Posted on 2006-11-20 at 21:37. File under politics.

~ link ~

Parties

Beyond red and blue.

You know the old joke: "There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't."

It all comes down to the social psychology of in groups and out groups. People like to feel that they are good and those others are bad or stupid. Thus the Republican demonization of Bill Clinton and the Democratic demonization of George Bush. Thus all the Red State vs. Blue State guano.

Yet as Michael Barone points out, basic party identification in America is evenly split at ~37% Democratic and ~37% Republican. That 37% + 37% adds up to 74%, so the other 26% of the people are independent. And that doesn't even count the large number of people who don't vote (but just might if they were offered a compelling alternative). Notice, however, that independents and non-voters simply don't count in the rhetoric of the Democrats and Republicans, because they exist above the plane of their limited ingroup/outgroup perspective. Yet sometimes to find true reform you need to look up (it's a Flatland kind of thing).

The Democrats and Republicans merely seem to be locked into a death-struggle because they have gotten so good at honing their messages to attract voters. Example: the Democrats don't talk about gun control anymore; the issue didn't resonate and indeed actively turned off the voters, so they gave it up (at least publicly). Result? More votes for Democrats. But Republicans do the same thing, so the party balance is amazingly even. Hopefully that means we'll have divided government most of the time, which doesn't necessarily conduce to greater freedom but at least limits the excesses of either party, thus creating a bit of breathing room for practical libertarians, market progressives, free liberals, or whatever you want to call them (whether they're arrayed in a new party or spread out among the existing parties).

Posted on 2006-11-15 at 22:17. File under politics.

~ link ~

Sea Change?

Move along, there's nothing to see here...

Gosh, people get all excited about these American elections, don't they? It's a sea change! The end of Republican hegemony! The dumb American electorate has finally awoken from its Bushevik slumbers! The extreme Republican right has been resoundingly repudiated! And similar claptrap.

In point of fact, congresscritters from the party of a sixth-year president almost always lose big. The Republicans this time did a little better than the historical average. So there's really nothing to see here. And all we did was elect more politicians!

There do seem to be small signs (not to be exaggerated) that some independent-minded people are fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans. But whether that will translate into meaningful change at the federal or state level remains to be seen. Don't hold your breath for, say, a new party of practical libertarians or a resurgence of the Whig Party. And if you think this is the end of the line for big-government Republicans, check your premises.

Posted on 2006-11-13 at 20:27. File under politics.

~ link ~

Running Sacred

Celebrating the free society.

Heh, I got Joe Hildebrand to post twice in one day. :-) He replies to my post by clarifying what he meant:

I suppose I was trying to comment on the things that we do choose to make national holidays. It seems to me that the enforcement of some of the holidays that we have in place is less important to our freedoms than voting.

Some of the current holidays I see as "a time to reflect on X", where X is some set of people or ideals that correctly deserve veneration. Perhaps what I'm actually suggesting that the folks that fought for equality of voting rights deserve that kind of respect; I can't think of a better way to honor their memories than to reflect on the issues of the day, carefully weigh my options, and exercise the right that they fought for so desperately.

I can't say I disagree. Probably I had a knee-jerk reaction to the idea (not in Joe's original post, it's just one of my hobby-horses) that voting is some kind of secular sacrament, when I think it's far from that.

So Joe, shall we have a Bill of Rights Day party on December 15th? :-)

Posted on 2006-11-08 at 09:31. File under politics.

~ link ~

What's Sacred

What makes society free?

My friend Joe Hildebrand wonders:

Is there anything that should be more sacred in a free country than careful reflection on one's choices at the ballot?

Well, Joe, I voted too, but I can think of plenty of things more sacred in a free society than voting:

Individual life
Marriage
Friendship
Free speech
Free association
Private property
Markets
Voluntarism
Separation of church and state
The culture of trust
Technological innovation
Every human right listed (and not listed) in the Bill of Rights

IMHO voting is pretty far down the list of sacred values, since it is in many ways derivative -- it's everything else about a free society that gives voting what meaning it has. Especially in the modern world of gerrymandering, safe seats, two-party politics, and artificially restricted alternatives at the ballot.

Furthermore, voting happens only once a year. There are plenty of ways to be involved every other day of the year, such as writing letters to your representatives or to the editor of your local newspaper, participating in your neighborhood association (I run the website for mine), even blogging your ideas for making our society a freer and better place.

We need to think outside the (ballot) box if we're going to debug the bloatware that is our modern American democracy. :-)

Posted on 2006-11-07 at 12:31. File under politics.

~ link ~

Can You Count to Ten?

The great political inversion.

I started to read Randy Barnett's book Restoring the Lost Constitution but I didn't need to finish it, because the basic idea is so clear to me: America has reached almost the exact inversion of its founding principles, which (as I've noted before) can be summed up in the last two articles of the Bill of Rights:

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unfortunately, our intellectuals and our political elites have never been able to count to ten when it comes to the Bill of Rights. If they could, perhaps we'd still retain a form of government that is strictly limited in its powers -- and a people who are unlimited in the enjoyment of their natural rights. Instead, today we've experienced what folks in software development call scope creep and bloatware. It's about time to hack the political system by performing some serious debugging, no?

Posted on 2006-10-31 at 22:11. File under politics.

~ link ~

Realignment?

1776, 1860, 1932, ????.

It may be that American political history goes in cycles, with major realignments every 70 or 80 years. Think American Revolution in 1776, Civil War in 1860, Great Depression in 1932. What's next? Aren't we about due for the next major realignment? Perhaps. But in a recent essay the ever-insightful Michael Barone notes that major realignments need a trigger:

Political realignments occur because of events that have deep demographic impact and when one party stands for new ideas that command majority support. The Iraq war (2,500 deaths) and our current economy (4.6 percent unemployment) are not events of the magnitude of the Civil War (600,000 dead) or the Great Depression (25 percent unemployment).

It's not clear what the next trigger might be, but the current distractions are not it. Be afraid, lest it will be something truly horrible. May you live in interesting times.

Posted on 2006-10-31 at 21:59. File under politics.

~ link ~

I Voted

Colorado ballot 2006.

This evening I cast my votes in state and local elections (or at least they gave me one of those little "I Voted" stickers -- do those new computerized voting machines really work as designed?). For elected officials, two principles guided most of my choices: (1) vote against incumbents and (2) if no incumbent, vote for gridlock by splitting the ticket.

But the real fun came from all the initiatives and referenda on the Colorado ballot this year. Here again two principles guided most of my choices: (1) vote for economic and personal freedom and (2) make life more difficult for the political class (yes, call me a libertarian populist if you must). So I voted as follows:

Amendment 38: Petitions. YES. If we make it easier to get petitions on the ballot, the voice of the people shall be heard even if the political elites don't want to listen.
Amendment 39: School District Spending Requirements. YES. Sorry, school administrators, but as long as you're part of the political class, you'll have to pay the price. There's a simple solution: take the schools out of government hands and give the schools to the teachers.
Amendment 40: Term Limits for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges. YES. Sorry, judges, but you too are part of the political class. If term limits force you out of your current position, you can always find another job in another court, in electoral politics, in academia, or (gasp) in the market economy.
Amendment 41: Standards of Conduct in Government. YES. Here again we stick it to the political class. No one ever said it should be easy to feed at the public trough.
Amendment 42: Colorado Minimum Wage. NO. It's just wrong to legislate wages, especially since the result is that low-skilled workers (such as teenagers) are priced out of a job. But if we're going to raise the minimum wage, why stop at $6.85 an hour -- why not, say, $68.50 an hour? Now that's a living wage! :-)
Amendment 43: Marriage. YES. No this doesn't really belong in Article II of the Colorado Constitution, but I'm enough of a lexicographical conservative to hold that marriage means a particular legal relationship between a man and a woman (first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary: the year 1297). But see below on Referendum I.
Amendment 44: Marijuana Possession. YES. As Bob Marley said, legalize it!
Referendum E: Property Tax Deduction for Disabled Veterans. YES. This one wasn't clear cut for me, but it involves a tax reduction and my father's experience caring for disabled veterans makes me think that they deserve a break.
Referendum F: Recall Deadlines. NO. Why open the handling of recall elections up to legislative skullduggery?
Referendum G: Obsolete Constitutional Provisions. YES. It's good to keep our state constitution neat and tidy.
Referendum H: Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction. NO. Another close call, but in the end I decided that there's no good reason to burden small businesses with the government's problems regarding immigration. Shall we, say, reform the INS instead?
Referendum I: Domestic Partnerships. YES. No, it's not marriage, but I see no good reason why same-sex partners shouldn't have the privilege of entering into civil unions.
Referendum J: School District Spending Requirements. NO. This is the toothless version of Amendment 39, and it isn't hard enough on the political class for my taste.
Referendum K: Immigration Lawsuit Against Federal Government. YES. Sure it's tilting at windmills, but it annoys the federal government on the subject of immigration, which might just possibily lead to reform of the INS (though don't hold your breath).

Posted on 2006-10-30 at 20:20. File under politics.

~ link ~

Swing

Courting libertarians?

A brief article in this week's issue of the Economist makes a case for libertarians as an underappreciated swing vote in American politics. Since so few people self-identify with the geeky term "libertarian", David Boaz and David Kirby of the Cato Institute use positive answers to the following questions as proxies for libertarian sentiment:

Do you think that government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses?
Do you think that government should not favor any particular set of values?
Do you think that the federal government has too much power?

According to a recent study by Boaz and Kirby, 13% of Americans agree with those statements. While that's not a majority or a plurality, it's at least a sizable percentage that is being mostly ignored by Republicans and Democrats alike. It's also a lot more than the miniscule percentage of people who vote for the traditionally feckless Libertarians Party (there are many problems with the LP, not the least of which is its geeky name -- wouldn't something like the Founders Party be more palatable?). In any case, it's true that those of us who trend libertarian are in essence politically homeless. And as the Economist article hints, it doesn't help that liberty-lovers tend to be independent cusses who don't flock together for joint (read: collective) action.

Sigh.

Posted on 2006-10-26 at 18:11. File under politics.

~ link ~

Dawn For Governor

Why I'm voting libertarian.

Boy, is the race for governor of Colorado depressing. On the right we have Bob Beauprez, an anti-choice, big-government Republican. On the left we have Bill Ritter, an anti-choice, big-government Democrat. That's right, the Democrats and Republicans have given us two anti-choice, big-government candidates!

But all is not lost, because over here in the radical center we have Dawn Winkler, the only candidate who reflects the Western heritage of smaller government, individual choice, and personal responsibility. And the people of Colorado are starting to pay attention, because with almost no media coverage she is running around 8% in the polls. Plus she's blogging and speaking in her own voice, not that of some PR agency.

If you ask me, it's time for a new Dawn in Colorado politics. :-)

Posted on 2006-09-14 at 21:37. File under politics.

~ link ~

Realignments and Revolts

Populist politics.

Over at TCS Daily, Arnold Kling speculates about the possibility of a populist revolt coming soon to American politics. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. I think real people -- that is, you and me -- are sick and tired of polarizing pundits and posturing politicians. I share Kling's concern about what populism might mean for economic policy (protectionism), immigration (closed borders), and a host of other issues. Which is why we need to educate real people about the benefits of free trade (America has nothing to fear from economic competition, and in fact benefits from it), open but smart immigration (we're a nation of immigrants after all, and the periods when immigration was closed off led to a lack of economic dynamism), etc.

As I see it, the major challenge for the West over the next few decades will be retaining our freedoms in the face of the 21st-century jihad. The best we can hope for is that some leader or party is going to get smart about populism by emphasizing things like eliminating our effective subsidies to the modern-day tribalists who want to destroy us. How about repealing the income tax (no more IRS!) and replacing it with a huge tax on foreign oil? That kind of proposal could go far, and tap into populism in a good way. (Yes, the libertarian in me dislikes all taxes but the realist in me knows that we're going to have taxes for the foreseeable future, so why not tax the damn Saudis instead of hardworking Americans?)

Posted on 2006-08-23 at 21:39. File under politics.

~ link ~

But There Is No Peace

Stereotypes and reality.

This month's issue of the Washington Park Profile (a fine local paper in Denver) contains a heartwarming letter to the editor about the imminent opening of a "peace garden" at the Cameron Church. The driving force behind the creation of this little oasis of peace is a local high school student, who says:

The message of the garden is that Muslims, Jews and Christians unite to help end to the stereotype of all Muslims being terrorists.

Warm-hearted but muddle-headed. I don't know anyone who claims that all Muslims are terrorists. However, following the demise of the Baader-Meinhof Gang and with the exception of localized groups such as the IRA, Tamil Tigers, Shining Path some Basque separatists, some Ameican anti-abortion extremists, and eco-freaks such as Earth First, it's pretty clear that the primary terrorist threats in the world today come from the Muslim world. As far as I know, there are precious few Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, Sufis, animists, agnostics, atheists, or Zoroastrians bombing buses and trains, flying airplanes into buildings, or blowing themselves up in crowded nightclubs. It is Muslims -- specifically, Jihadis -- who are using terror as their preferred means of "interacting" with the rest of the world -- specifically, the Dar al-Harb or "land of war" as opposed to the Dar al-Islam or "land of submission".

Draw what conclusions you will. My conclusions are drawn from Patrick Henry:

Gentlemen may cry Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

(Update: Similar thoughts here and here.)

Posted on 2006-08-17 at 21:27. File under politics.

~ link ~

LP Reform?

More Whiggish thoughts.

Last week I posted some Whiggish thoughts about the prospects for freedom in America. It seems that Denverite David Aitken recently participated in the national convention of the Libertarian Party, where as a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus he had a hand in producing the LP's new platform. Is there hope for the LP? I'm not yet sure, but I may take another look.

Posted on 2006-07-30 at 20:49. File under politics.

~ link ~

Shadowing Diana

My so-called representative.

The Club for Growth reports:

Thanks to Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 anti-pork amendments, we now have every House member on record regarding their positions on earmarks. Before now, House members have been able to avoid scrutiny because their pork was co-mingled with other projects and tucked into the dark corners of big spending bills. Or they were able to withstand the scrutiny because they were attacked as a whole chamber and not directly attacked themselves. But because of Flake's amendments, they were recently forced to cast up-or-down votes on specific projects.

Diana DeGette, my representative in Colorado's First District, voted for all 19 of the listed pork projects. Methinks that someone in Denver needs to start shadowing Ms. DeGette's every vote. Here's a list of web pages that might be of assistance:

Posted on 2006-07-30 at 20:27. File under politics.

~ link ~

Whig Nation

Libertarians and the future of American politics.

[Written while flying from Denver to Portland on 2006-07-23, posted from OSCON on 2006-07-26.]

A recent exchange over at ChicagoBoyz pointed to an article by Ryan Sager on the place of libertarians within the Republican Party (see also Sager's earlier articles in the thread here and here). Sager argues that libertarians -- those who believe in free minds and free markets -- will never exercise much political (as opposed to intellectual) influence if they pursue third-party politics. As many observers point out, America is a two-party country. Third parties are typically doomed, especially ideological third parties such as the Socialists (in the early 20th century) and the Libertarians (in the late 20th century). Given that those with libertarian leanings are only 10% or at most 20% of the American population, they will never win elections (even in rare two-way races, Libertarian Party candidates typically win only 30% of the vote). The only way that a third party could become one of the major parties is if it could form a coalition that draws from the existing factions among the Democrats and Republicans -- e.g., modern-day libertarians, small-government conservatives, and freedom-oriented liberals. Even then, it's doubtful that there are enough Goldwater Republicans and Jeffersonian Democrats around to form a coalition. (And I ignore the fact that most people of such political persuasions are cussedly individualistic, thus naturally being averse to party politics and organized action.)

So what is a libertarian to do? As I explored in my essay Toward a Practical Objectivist Politics, there are many opportunities for influencing the American debate outside of electoral politics: fighting for pro-freedom initiatives and referenda, providing expert testimony, speaking out at public meetings, serving on non-partisan boards, and the like. But when it comes to electoral politics, libertarians are betwixt and between (here I ignore those voluntaryists and others who eschew the political process entirely, although I have respect for their approach as well). However, something that Seymour Martin Lipset says in his book American Exceptionalism resonates with me: America is essentially a Whig nation. Lipset argues that conservatives in America have never really been big-government Tory paternalists (though there have been Rockefeller Republicans, a tradition in which we can squarely place the current president). Similarly, I would argue that dedicated progressives care more about freedom of speech, association, and action at the local level than about centralized government programs promulgated and managed from Washington, DC (the anti-statist stance of early labor organizations such as the A.F. of L. and the I.W.W. is consistent with this thesis).

Is there a constituency for decentralization, local action, market freedom, religious tolerance, inidividual opportunity, and the rest of the American creed? It can be hard to discern true support (as opposed to lip service) for that creed in the Republican Party of George Bush, and even harder in the Democratic Party of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. Yet I'm enough of an optimist to believe that it's there, and even not that far under the surface. If I'm right about that, then it is possible and legitimate to work toward greater freedom in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or the Libertarian Party -- and one's decision about which party to work within is a matter of means, not ends. Sager argues that the best place for libertarians to fight for their ideals in electoral politics is within the Republican Party. The fact that there is a fairly large remnant of small-government conservatives and Goldwater Republicans might lead me to agree with Sager. Balancing that is the fact that, as Bruce Bartlett pointed out recently, Republicans are the most successful party in most of the country right now and therefore attract the kind of opportunists who simply want to get elected (until about ten or twelve years ago, those people were probably attracted to the Democratic Party). Having worked within the Libertarian Party (and knowing that third parties traditionally do not succeed in American politics), I would argue against investing too much effort in the LP on practical grounds. I somewhat doubt that folks in the Democratic Party will open themselves very far to libertarian ideals, but if they continue to lose elections then they might welcome some fresh thinking. And let's not forget that if history repeats itself, American politics is about due for a major realignment (1776, 1860, 1932, and perhaps 2012?) In any case, libertarians won't have any influence if they don't get involved. So pick a venue and get busy. :-)

The Whigs are dead, long live the Whigs!

Posted on 2006-07-26 at 15:15. File under politics.

~ link ~

Politics for Edglings

Can wikis save the world?

Jimbo is aiming to shake up American politics with a new wiki. Participatory politics for participatory people! Will it make a difference? I don't know, but it's worth a try. Count me in!

Posted on 2006-07-06 at 10:53. File under politics.

~ link ~

Either-Or?

Markets, governments, and voluntary interaction.

Seth Wagoner (whose blog I've found via Stowe Boyd) quotes an interview with George Soros as follows:

We need to maintain law and order. We need to maintain peace in the world. We need to protect the environment. We need to have some degree of social justice, equality of opportunity. The markets are not designed to take care of those needs. That's a political process. And the market fundamentalists have managed to reduce providing those public goods.

So we have a distinction between market fundamentalism and, presumably, government enlightenment (those wonderfully reality-based bureaucrats).

Since I'm essentially a market anarchist, I tend to think that many more human needs can be met through the market than people like Soros might imagine -- yes, even needs for law, order, peace, justice, and environmental protection. But the choice is not only between profit-oriented companies and government force. There is a wide range of voluntary solutions that do not require the exchange of money -- mediation, arbitration, charitable giving, neighborhood organizations, international networks, educational institutions, student exchanges, boycotts, letter-writing campaigns, public protests, and much more. These endeavors share with market exchanges an essentially voluntary nature (which government force distinctly lacks). So call me a volutarist rather than a market fundamentalist, but no matter the nomenclature I encourage people like Soros to keep their political processes to themselves -- or, at the least, to an absolute minimum.

Posted on 2006-06-19 at 21:27. File under politics.

~ link ~

My Land is Your Land

The Eminent Domain Song.

I've written a political protest song against eminent domain abuse but haven't recorded it yet (I hope to do so soon). Here are the words, to the tune of "This Land is Your Land":

My land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to steal

As I went walking out on that highway
I saw developers taking our property
I heard rapacious big corporations
Saying our land's for them to steal

My land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to steal

In fair New London near old Fort Trumbull
There lived a woman named Susette Kelo
The politicians told her to vacate
They said your land's for us to steal

The politicians in fair New London
Weren't building bridges or schools or highways
They took that neighborhood to give to Pfizer
They said this land's for us to steal

My land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to steal

The Constitution forbids all takings
Except for public use with compensation
But our Supreme Court said that's all bunkum
They said our land's for them to steal

My land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to steal

Posted on 2006-05-31 at 14:47. File under politics.

~ link ~

Travesty in New London

Against eminent domain abuse.

I just sent the following letter to Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell:

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision last year in the case of Kelo v. the City of New London, Americans of all political persuasions have united against the abuse of eminent domain to evict people from their homes, many legislatures have taken serious steps at reform, and citizen-initiated referenda will be on the ballot this fall to modify state constitutions across the land. Yet Susette Kelo and her neighbors still face eviction by the City of New London! Today's editorial in the Hartford Courant says it best, and I join them in urging you to intervene in this matter lest an even greater travesty of justice occur.

And I urge you to contact Governor Rell, too.

Posted on 2006-05-31 at 14:34. File under politics.

~ link ~

The Network Commonwealth Begins At Home

Radical decentralization as a cure for what ails America.

More and more, it seems that Americans disagree -- over the war in Iraq, immigration, gun control, and a thousand other topics of public interest. Each national election feels more momentous, or a least more vitriolic. Politics has been become personal in a nasty sort of way that does no one any good.

As far as I can see, one of the root causes of the American predicament is the ever-increasing centralization of power and decision-making. When most signficant policies are set in the District of Columbia, national elections take on ever-greater importance.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. When America consisted of thirteen colonies, most powers were local or state, not central. That used to be called federalism. Now federalism is practically synonymous with centralism. The results have not been salutary.

What is the way out? Arnold Kling has advocated 250 states. But the logic of power relations (eludicated by French scholar Jean Baechler) might mean that a USA of 250 states would be even more centralized, since the most stable arrangement for any power structure is to have around 5 major powers and several smaller ones (as evidenced by the traditional balance of power in Europe and, not coincidentally, by the early United States with its thirteen former colonies, only four or five of which were signficant in size and power).

A more workable arrangement might be what in The Anglosphere Challenge Jim Bennett defines as a "network commonwealth" -- a loose network of civic states, wherein decisions are localized and only a few powers (e.g., common defense) are delegated up to the commonwealth level. (We could see this structure as a kind of updated Hanseatic League.) One key here is that a network commonwealth would consist of civic states -- that is, states that are (according to Jim Bennett) "dependent on essentially voluntary forms for cohesion", likely with small populations since "consensus and coherence are easier to achieve among a limited number of people" (anywhere from tens of thousands to ten or twenty million, as in Kenichi Ohmae's region-states). A vibrant civic state also tends to have "a core population sharing strong ethnic or religious bonds" (and, I would add, cultural assumptions, legal structures, and often economic interests). (Quotes are from chapter 1 of TAC -- and yes, I need to clean up the HTML for that page.)

While the United States has traditionally had a strong narrative of shared culture and history, at 300 million people it is perhaps reaching the breaking point given the strong centralizing tendencies witnessed over the last 150 years. Rather than trying to decide everything in the District of Columbia, it makes more sense to form policy at the state or local level. Indeed, it may make sense to devolve many powers also to the regional level, along the lines of Joel Garreau's book The Nine Nations of North America -- out of those nine (or dozen or whatever) regions, four or five would probably dominate in size and power and thus set most of the (strictly limited) commonwealth agenda. In a sort of fractal design, it makes sense for those regions themselves to be commonwealths or confederations wherein regional power is again delegated up by the civic states making up the region. With around 325 million people in North America, the result would be perhaps 10-15 regions of 25-30 million people, where each region would consist of 10-15 civic states, each with 1-3 million people. At each level, there would be 4-6 main actors (leading to regional and continental stability) and several smaller actors (allied with the main actors on various issues).

Because only about 20 American states have populations less than 3 million people (see statistics), any kind of political devolution would likely result in a much larger number of civic states in North America, driven especially by division of high-population states such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey -- see the CommonCensus map for some possible fault lines (downstate vs. upstate New York, Chicagoland vs. central and southern Illinois, north vs. south Jersey, Philly-centric vs. Pittsburgh-centric Pennsylvania, the many varieties of California and Florida and Texas).

Will such a system come to pass? Probably not. But the current system is increasingly unstable (it goes well beyond the Red State vs. Blue State divide), and in a true crisis radical change might become palatable. Only time will tell.

(Cross-posted at Albion's Seedlings.)

Posted on 2006-04-30 at 21:17. File under politics.

~ link ~

Concord Hymn

Happy Patriots Day.

Today is the 231st anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord (more here). My favorite remembrance of those events is Emerson's Concord Hymn:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Amen.

Posted on 2006-04-19 at 09:37. File under politics.

~ link ~

Rending Fences

Some thoughts on immigration.

I've deliberately stayed quiet about the recent controversy over American immigration policy (mainly emigration from Mexico to America), but here are a few thoughts:

America is a nation of immigrants, built on the foundation made by its original settlers (yes, there is a difference between settlers and immigrants). Immigration has always been good for America, making it a more dynamic, vibrant civilization. I see no reason to think that continued immigration will be a bad thing.
The long border between Mexico and America is just about the only place in the world where the Anglosphere directly interfaces with another culture (the only comparable area of the world is probably the Irish Sea, but Ireland is essentially Anglospheric compared to Mexico, which is a staunch member of the Hispanosphere). This is in contrast to Anglospheric nations such as Great Britain (an island), Australia (a continent), and Canada (bordering only America). We would expect trouble along such an interface, and that's what we've got.
When border enforcement was much more lax and a guest worker program was in place (e.g., in the 1950s and 1960s), people went back and forth as they pleased, often several times a year. More strict enforcement made it much harder to get in, but also much harder to go back, paradoxically resulting in more illegal immigration, not less.
Some Americans resent the fact that immigrants can come into America and sponge off the welfare system (whether they do so in greater numbers than existing citizens is an open question). Here's a solution: get rid of the welfare state and find localized, voluntary solutions to social problems (not centralized, bureaucratic programs instituted and controlled from the District of Columbia).
All the racist claims that Mexicans have lower IQs, will never assimilate, are too different (etc.) were made against the Irish, Italians, Slavs, Chinese, and so on throughout American history. Yet all those groups assimilated just fine. The same is happening for second-, third-, and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans, who overwhelmingly speak English rather than Spanish, are starting lots of small businesses, etc.
One obvious solution to illegal immigration is this: make legal immigration easier. But couple that with a strong commitment to assimilation, assimilation, and more assimilation (welcome to America, you will be assimilated!). English immersion in the schools, English only for governance and business, and a dedication to accepting everyone as Americans (no hyphenation, please) if they abide by American (really Anglospheric) norms and cultural assumptions such as open debate, high trust, common law, respect for the individual, personal responsibility, and economic flexibility.
The root cause of the Mexican exodus to America is not how attractive it is to live in America, but how unattractive it is to live in Mexico. After the Iron Curtain fell, many countries in central and eastern Europe had net out-migration, but that was perceived as a bad thing. Why would you want the people (especially the young people) of your country to think that life is way better somewhere else? The only long-term solution is to make Mexico a good place to live and work, not the hotbed of corruption it is now. Unfortunately that will require a kind of cultural imperialism that is much out of fashion these days, since in essence it would require that Mexico ditch the Hispanosphere for the Anglosphere, or at least develop a kind of hybrid culture with a higher radius of trust, stronger rule of law, more open competition, a more flexible economy, and all the rest. This would give new meaning to the phrase Hispanamerica is coming. It would also present quite a challenge to both Mexico and America. But in the long run it would be much more beneficial to America than, say, the damn war in Iraq.

Posted on 2006-04-13 at 15:39. File under politics.

~ link ~

Jitneys, Anyone?

On the further dangers of centralization.

So the local bus drivers are on strike here in Denver (word has it they want wages on par with their colleagues in New York). Which got me to thinking: in just about any other profession, unhappy workers at one company would simply quit and go work for somebody else. The problem is, there is no "somebody else" in the public transport business, because it's a local monopoly. Here's a better way: take all the huge public buses off the streets and simply let private vans and other jitney services stop at the existing bus stops (or build new ones if they want). Let a thousand entrepreneurs compete for the rider's dollar and determine the best routes, best schedules, and best prices. Open competition: what a concept!

Posted on 2006-04-05 at 21:41. File under politics.

~ link ~

Rough Diamond

Intellectuals and the lust for power.

While reading the latest policy paper from PERC -- an essay by Kendra Okonski on the state of the environment in Montana -- I came across a revealing quote from Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Diamond argues that Montana is in dire environmental straits because Montanans are "reluctant to accept their new need for government planning and for curbing individual rights" (Collapse p. 432).

Isn't it fascinating how intellectuals almost unanimously argue for more government planning and fewer individual rights? Granted, all that planning would be done by the intellectuals and their proteges (or so they think), so you can understand why they would want governments to have more power and for individuals to have their rights stripped away. But the unmitigated hubris of the intellectuals never ceases to amaze me. And folks wonder why most Americans are anti-intellectual! What a bunch of guano -- especially when you realize that Diamond plays fast and loose with the facts regarding Montana's environment, which leads me to think that he is more interested in increased government planning and weakened individual rights than he is in scientific truth or societal success.

Posted on 2006-03-16 at 20:56. File under politics.

~ link ~

Buy Danish

Don't boycott, buycott!

Naturally, even if we can't boycott non-producing Islamic countries, at least we can buy Danish.

Update: The Dissident Frogman has more images, in many languages.

Posted on 2006-02-09 at 21:01. File under politics.

~ link ~

The Goods

What to do when boycotting is not an option?

Because of some cartoons representing Mohammed that were published in a Danish newspaper, people in various Islamic countries are (at their most peaceful) boycotting Danish goods. Unfortunately, those of us who care about freedom of speech can't boycott products from said Islamic countries because they don't produce anything (well, sure, they sell oil, but that's a commodity, not a product). Wouldn't it be something if all those Muslims who are burning Danish flags (where do they get them on such short notice?), storming Scandanavian embassies, and removing Danish products from Islamic stores were to join the market economy and produce something that people in other countries might want to buy?

Posted on 2006-02-09 at 20:21. File under politics.

~ link ~

A Little Red Reading?

Making me ILL.

According to a report in the Standard-Times of New Bedford, Massachusetts, a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth was visited by agents of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after using inter-library loan (ILL) to request a copy of Mao's Little Red Book (which, supposedly, is on a DHS "watch list" of subversive material, especially because the student asked for the unabridged version). While it's not clear if the story is a hoax (doubts have been raised), the standard response is to recommend buying potentially subversive books with cash (though who could take Mao seriously these days?). My response is just the opposite: I have just requested that very edition through inter-library loan (at least I think I've requested the right edition -- perhaps I'll contact Brian Glyn Williams, one of the student's two history professors, about it) and will wait to see if DHS shows up at my door. Yes, even ILL can be a small vehicle for civil disobedience.

Update: Yes indeed, the story was a hoax.

Posted on 2005-12-20 at 12:03. File under politics.

~ link ~

Politically Homeless

Life on the long tail of politics.

I'm politically homeless -- part of what Arnold Kling calls the long tail of politics. Although my political philosophy is generally libertarian or Jeffersonian ("that government governs best which governs least"), I stopped supporting the Libertarian Party several years ago because it is a feckless, corrupt organization. Yet the issues that are important to me -- reforming eminent domain, ending the War on Drugs, eliminating corporate welfare and trade barriers (especially with the so-called Third World), maintaining reasonably open immigration, encouraging greater cooperation within the Anglosphere (e.g., sojourner status for citizens of the English-speaking nations), freeing education by giving the schools to the teachers, ending occupational licensing and other restrictions on making a living, safeguarding the right to self-defense, pushing as much power as possible down to the local level, etc. -- are not important to the Republicans or Democrats. These days I tend to follow Kling's advice to vote against incumbents, though I doubt that does much good. Better, I think, to support organizations that are focused on particular issues (e.g., the Castle Coalition on eminent domain reform). Too many people associate politics with electoral politics, which is a hopeless arena because of gerrymandering and the sheer size of electoral districts. I hold out more hope for initiatives, referenda, and judicial activism (cf. the Institute for Justice). While I think it would help to split electoral jurisdictions into smaller, more manageable units (along the lines of Jefferson's call to divide the counties into wards, Kling suggests local governments would best represent at most 3,000 people), even that reform would be limited in its effectiveness without a change in how we fund government (now, if those local governments collected all the taxes and fed them up the line to regional, state, and federal governments, we might get somewhere).

Further, as I mentioned the other day, most places get the government they deserve. Translation: culture drives politics, not the other way around. Which implies that if you really want to change the political scene, fundamentally you need to change the culture. I happen to think that part of changing the culture is finding common ground among those in the Long Tail and supporting political changes that will change behavior in healthy ways (e.g., strengthening civil society, encouraging volunteerism, reducing dependency on government programs). But such changes are not always (or even are seldom) palatable to the general public (and certainly not to politicians), thus the need to change underlying cultural attitudes as well.

I tend to think of it this way. Progressives love the slogan "If you want peace, work for justice." But what is justice? Progressives think of it as so-called social justice: redistribution of wealth and such. Those in the Jeffersonian tradition tend to think of it as freedom of opportunity, equality before the law, etc. So back in my salad days as a libertarian I used to add a second slogan: "If you want justice, work for freedom." Catchy, eh? But what's it mean? Doesn't that just reduce you to what Ayn Rand called a "hippy of the right"? I think I stopped being committed to the Libertarian Party the first time I saw a television advertisement for Harry Browne, whose campaign slogan was "Freedom Now!". How petulant! How adolescent! That's no better than the damn labor unions chanting "What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!" out on the picket line, or the multiculturalists with their cries of "Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go!"

So my old friends the Randians would supplement my second slogan with a third and a fourth: "If you want freedom, work for individualism." and "If you want individualism, work for reason." (since Rand and her followers reduce everything to philosophy and by god we've got to get everything down to metaphysics and epistemology or we're just not being radical enough, always in the good sense of focusing on root causes of course). Yet the more history I read the more I see that philosophy is not the cause of everything, or even of much. Consider some of the most significant transitions in history: human beings did not change from hunter-gatherers to farmers because of a philosophy of "agriculturalism", from farmers to engineers and factory workers because of a philosophy of "industrialism", from oral to literate because of a philosophy of "chirographism", from the written world to the printed word because of a philosophy of "typographism", from the printed word to the electronic word because of a philosophy of "digitalism", etc. These developments were long-term secular trends -- driven not only or primarily by ideology (religion and philosophy) but by a wide range of environmental, intellectual, technological, military, political, economic, and social factors -- what we can broadly call cultural factors. Thus I'd agree with my old Randian friends that "If you want freedom, work for cultural change" -- but I no longer think that cultural change is a monolithic process rooted in philosophical-religious ideas. The reality of human history is much more complex than that.

I liked being a Randian and a libertarian. If social psychology teaches us anything, it is this: it's comfortable and comforting to belong to a group. It's much easier to be a member of a group (even a group of individualists!) than it is to stand alone. Many people are happy to identify with groups as amorphous as Republicans or Democrats, as if that were the extent of the political spectrum. Others define themselves as members of smaller groups within the Long Tail (Greens, libertarians, socialists, Trotskyites, or what have you). Yet if you remain true to your own uniqueness, you will find that you have similarities to (and differences from) most of those groups, that you can work together with their members on certain issues and part ways on others, and that the opinion that matters most is not that of some arbitrary amalgamation but the one small voice of your own conscience.

Repeat after me: "I am an individual." :-)

Posted on 2005-12-16 at 20:51. File under politics.

~ link ~

Bill of Rights Day

Celebrating American freedom.

Yesterday was Bill of Rights Day, which celebrates the day in 1791 when the American Bill of Rights was ratified.

(Poster courtesy of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.)

Be sure to celebrate by exercising your rights. Choose from the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Note especially Amendment IX -- the rights of the people are by no means limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights -- and Amendment X -- the Federal government has only those certain powers granted to it by the Constitution and reserves all other powers to the states or to the people. In combination, Amendments IX and X mean that individuals are to be fully respected in their persons and property and that a very limited government exists only to serve the people. Would that it were still true...

Posted on 2005-12-16 at 19:27. File under politics.

~ link ~

The Not So Great White North?

What happens when you don't have the Second Amendement.

Canadian Prime Minister (for at least a little while longer) Paul Martin wants to ban handguns. It seems that he is not familiar with the research of John Lott.

Posted on 2005-12-09 at 08:37. File under politics.

~ link ~

Hypocrisy?

No public on the transport.

A while back I started taking bus and light rail to work when I don't ride my bike (and with a high temperature today of 3°F -- that's -16°C for you non-Americans -- I wasn't about to ride my bike!). One thing that mystifies me is the lack of a public on public transport. Last night, during an admittedly cold and snowy commute, but in the middle of the normal rush hour, I was the only person on the bus headed east from the light rail station. Where are all those enviro-conscious folks who voted for FasTracks? I'm sure my neighborhood is full of them, but they're not riding the bus. So who's more hypocritical: someone who voted for a massive government-funded public transport project but doesn't use public transport, or someone who voted against said project but uses public transport?

Posted on 2005-12-07 at 20:50. File under politics.

~ link ~

Whither Liberty?

Toward a libertarian realism.

Tyler Cowen wonders what the future holds for those of a libertarian persuasion. Realism dictates that we recognize a simple fact: a libertarian world is not in the offing. Indeed, neither is a libertarian country or even a libertarian state. As I like to say, utopia is not an option. Unfortunately, there is a strong utopian stream among libertarians. Part of the reason is that most prominent libertarian thinkers have been philosophers, economists, and other cerebral types. For better or for worse, libertarianism -- the vision of a purely voluntary society -- is an ideology. Ideologists want to change the world and will not be satisfied until the world matches their vision (joke: "A libertarian is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somehow, somewhere, there are still a few miles of publicly owned sewer pipe").

While the ideology of libertarianism was a product of the deeply ideological twentieth century, that doesn't mean that the need for freedom is an artifact of ideology. Yet, although all human beings need liberty, the practice of liberty is a cultural phenomenon that has flourished only in certain times and places. Those who value freedom would do well to study its history. In particular, the modern concept and practice of a primarily (if not fully) voluntary society emerged in northwestern Europe, most sustainably in England and the places settled by the English (Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). In other words, the Anglosphere.

It's important to have gadflies in any society, and libertarian ideologists can and do fulfill that role. Yet I think they undercut their effectiveness by not recognizing historical realities. A voluntary society is not some unnatural, pie-in-the-sky utopia -- it can be an organic extension of existing cultural traditions of individualism, common law, volunteerism, strong civic ties, high trust, pluralism, entrepreneurship, scientific investigation, technological innovation, private property, and intellectual freedom. The key, I think, is to evolve those traditions rather than attempting to foment some kind of utopian revolution. One aspect of evolving those traditions is strengthening ties between those areas of the world that have built on these predominantly English foundations. Another aspect is clearly understanding that this inheritance is not genetic but mimetic, not a matter of blood relations among people of English descent but a matter of ideas, laws, institutions, principles, and practices. Another aspect is leading by example -- forming schools, starting companies, creating new products, defining new technologies, defending privacy and property -- rather than attempting always to stand outside of society from a position of criticism rather than a practice of engagement. This does not mean "selling out", compromising one's principles, or giving up on the dream of a fully voluntary society. But it does mean doing the intellectual and practical work necessary to make a difference in this world, not sitting around and complaining.

Posted on 2005-10-26 at 21:22. File under politics.

~ link ~

Flunking the Test

Colorado gets an F on Referenda C and D.

The state of Colorado is asking for more money (technically, overriding the "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights" or TABOR, which specifies that state spending shall be limited to inflation plus population). Here's their argument (as presented in the voter blue book):

... the state experienced a recession during 2001 and the amount of money collected in 2002 was $7.8 billion, while inflation plus population growth would have allowed spending of $8.1 billion. The next year's limit grew from the $7.8 billion, not the $8.1 billion. This lowering of spending is known as the "ratchet-down" effect. The amount the state can spend under TABOR is now permanently below what it would be if no recession had occurred and spending had grown by inflation plus population each year.

Well, cry me a river. It turns out that the company I work for experienced a downturn right around the same time, about 40% of the employees were laid off, and the remaining employees took a pay cut to keep the company afloat (a much bigger pay cut than the state budget experienced, I might add). So my salary underwent that same "ratchet down" effect and the amount I'm paid is now permanently below what it would have been if no downturn had occurred. Yet if I presented the state's argument to my employer, they would (no doubt very nicely) tell me "tough luck". So I say tough luck to the state of Colorado. Spin off some marginal "product lines" (I can think of plenty) or tighten your belt a little further. Recessions happen, and you're going to have to deal with it rather than stamping your foot at economic reality. In other words, I'll be voting no on C and D, thank you very much.

Posted on 2005-10-13 at 18:03. File under politics.

~ link ~

Independence Day

Liberty and hypocrisy.

I wonder how many millions of dollars are spent every July 4th on municipal fireworks displays that are put on in celebration of American liberty. Don't you think towns and cities could find a way to spend a small fraction of that money in actually protecting freedom rather than loudly and hypocritically expressing their devotion to it? Personally, given recent Supreme Court decisions and other developments, I don't feel much like celebrating this year.

Posted on 2005-07-04 at 21:07. File under politics.

~ link ~

The Outrage

Fighting eminent domain abuse.

Bob Dole used to ask "Where's the outrage?" Well, it's here: Americans across the political spectrum are outraged at the Supreme Court's odious decision in the case of Kelo v. New London, allowing governments to take property from one person and give it to another for private use as long as "the public" (read: local governments) will benefit through increased tax revenues. I'm sure that your home or business could bring in much higher tax revenues if it were converted into a luxury high rise, a hotel, a big box retailer, or a fast food restaurant. Think it can't happen? Think again. The Supremes have given the green light to confiscation of private property anywhere in America, and unholy alliances of unprincipled politicians and greedy developers are already springing into action. But the people are fighting back. An enterprising soul in New Hampshire has proposed to confiscate the vacation home of Justice David Souter for the "Lost Liberty Hotel". Great idea! The people need to put some serious pressure on any politician or developer who attempts to cash in on the Kelo debacle, any judge who allows property confiscation to proceed, any business that tries to use eminent domain for their own benefit. The Castle Coalition is leading the fight by organizing local citizens across the country, encouraging governors to sign the "Hands Off My Home" pledge, providing materials and legal support for those threatened with eminent domain abuse, and much more. It's time to get busy. Kelo is only the start. We have not yet begun to fight!

Posted on 2005-06-29 at 20:31. File under politics.

~ link ~

Takings

Supreme Court v. American Homeowners.

I try not to pay much attention to political matters, but today's Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. New London is tremendously depressing. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observed in her dissent, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

The Constitution is dead! Long live the Constitution!

Posted on 2005-06-23 at 14:37. File under politics.

~ link ~

Just Say No

European Constitution, R.I.P.

Since I am half French and half Dutch, I must say it warmed my heart that the French said "non" and the Dutch said "nee" to the European Constitution in the span of a few days. David Carr's obituary is classic:

Her all too brief life started out with glamour and hope and ended with controversy and acrimony. But, what she lacked in longevity she made up for in impact, holding an entire continent in her thrall. She was the "It" girl of Europe and there could scarce have been a single Prime Minister, President, King or Bishop who did not want to walk into a room with her draped across his arm.

But it was her qualities of impeccable breeding that gave rise to resentments as well as plaudits. For everyone that she seduced with her charms, she vexed with her arrogance. For all those that were willing to flirt with her, there were others that feared her embrace. In the end she was brought low by the little people she was born to rule over.

As much as any analysis of the Constitution is possible at all, then the final one must be that she was a puzzle draped in an enigma. Even those closest to her admitted that she was difficult to read and even harder to interpret. Despite all earnest attempts to present her as something coherent and friendly, she remained stubbornly opaque and inpenetrable; a capricious, whimsical, moody, temperamental, volatile, eccentric, arbitrary, erratic, fickle, inconstant coquette whose last act of defiance is to take her unfathomable mysteries with her to the grave.

Whither Europe? Heck if I know, but at least the people have spoken resoundingly against those elitist bureaucrats in Brussels.

Anglosphere, anyone?

Posted on 2005-06-02 at 20:57. File under politics.

~ link ~

Wining

A victory for economic freedom.

Congratulations to the Institute for Justice and its clients on their victory in the case of Swedenburg v. Kelly -- the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that allowing direct sale of wines by in-state wineries but restricting such sale by out-of-state wineries was a violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Keep up the good work, IJ!

Posted on 2005-05-17 at 20:16. File under politics.

~ link ~

Guilding the Lily

On occupational licensing.

Markets work. One person offers a product or service, a second person buys that product or service, a third person may ask the second person for a recommendation, the desire for reputation (and more business) leads most sellers to try to be ethical, competition leads sellers to offer high value for a good price -- well, you get the picture.

The fact that (in general) markets work -- and work well -- makes me wonder about the supposed need for occupational licensing. Think about it: would it be right for the government to require you to have a license in order to do your job? Let's say you live in Denver, Colorado and your dream job is to run auctions, dance the striptease, recycle auto parts, apply body art, run a dry cleaners, be an escort, run a gravel pit, make or sell ice cream, collect junk, offer massage services, be a security guard, run a parking lot, pedal a rickshaw, sell second-hand goods, drive a taxi, trim trees, be a valet, start a towing service, or any of a number of other occupations. Well, don't dream for long, because you need a license before you can make your dreams a reality.

Is there any reasonable justification for these occupational licensing restrictions? (Emphasis on the word "reasonable".) Are these regulations at all fair, especially to women, minorities, immigrants, and the poor? Some folks say "if you want peace, work for justice". I say "if you want justice, work for freedom".

Posted on 2005-05-03 at 19:43. File under politics.

~ link ~

Concord Hymn

Happy Patriots Day.

In 1836, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the following poem for the dedication of a monument erected in Concord, Massachusetts to remember the first American revolutionaries, who died at the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Amen.

Posted on 2005-04-19 at 20:11. File under politics.

~ link ~

More Justice

Alternatives to incarceration in Denver.

Last month I wrote the mayor of Denver challenging him to seek alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders such as prostitutes and drug users (most of whom probably need counseling and social assistance a lot more than they need time in the country jail). It turns out that the mayor had already formed an Alternatives to Sentencing Committee recently, but I had not heard about it. Let's hope the committee does good work.

Posted on 2005-04-04 at 19:54. File under politics.

~ link ~

True Justice

A letter to the mayor.

Today I received a letter from John Hickenlooper, mayor of Denver, urging me to vote on May 3rd for a ballot initiative that would significantly expand Denver's courtrooms and jails. Granted, it was a mass mailing on behalf of Citizens for a Safe Denver, but it was a letter just the same, so I've sent him the following reply:

Dear Mr. Mayor:

Your recent letter regarding the upcoming vote on a new Justice Center struck a chord with me. While I respect your opinion that expanded courtrooms and jails are needed, I cannot help but wonder if the city has investigated all other options. For instance, anecdotal evidence indicates that many of those incarcerated in the city and county jails are non-violent offenders who have been booked for victimless crimes such as prostitution and drug use. My considered opinion is that it would be much more productive to find alternative approaches to truly helping such people than to continue wasting valuable jail space and courtroom time on putting them behind bars.

According to your letter, last year you "appointed a task force of community members, business leaders and local experts to review the situation and make recommendations for improvements"; I challenge you to do the same on efforts to find lasting solutions that will improve both the city and the lives of those in need, rather than just sending them through the same old revolving door of court appearances and jail time.

Sincerely,

Peter Saint-Andre

Posted on 2005-03-22 at 19:43. File under politics.

~ link ~

It's the Liberty, Stupid!

Reason #268 why the Democrats are doomed.

Speaking of Wired, a while back they published an article on technology and the Democrats, which makes it plain that the Democratic Party is studiously avoiding the big reason for their lack of success: they're more interested in rearranging the technological and fundraising deck chairs than in aligning their philosophies and policies with the core American tradition of freedom and liberty. If this keeps up, don't expect Hillary to go far in '08.

Posted on 2005-01-31 at 21:23. File under politics.

~ link ~

Kritarchy

Lessons from Somalia.

Thanks to Glyph #139 at the Explorers Foundation, I've found the work of the late Michael van Notten, who late in life became heavily involved in the stateless society of Somalia, specifically the northern area of Awdal, where he worked to set up a free port and other enterprises. His essay on the Somali experience makes for fascinating reading.

Posted on 2004-12-26 at 17:13. File under politics.

~ link ~

BGZ

The pre-9/11 mindset.

Roderick Long describes the pre-9/11 mindset. Come to think of it, Thomas Jefferson voiced the ultimate pre-9/11 credo: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." But I suppose that went out of fashion about the time of the Spanish-American War...

Posted on 2004-12-03 at 19:59. File under politics.

~ link ~

Rand to Goldwater

Toward a practical Objectivist politics.

On June 4, 1960, Ayn Rand wrote a letter to Senator Barry Goldwater, which is long enough to qualify as one of her more extended treatments of practical politics (earlier this month I noted some of Rand's public reflections on Goldwater's candidacy). The letter is fascinating in several respects. For one, it illuminates the conservative leanings of so many Randanistas. Commenting on Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative, Rand equates conservatism with capitalism (Rand's preferred term for a fully free society) and liberalism with collectivism. Perhaps she was simply flattering Goldwater here, but it seems clear that Rand always hoped for a politically consistent conservatism (i.e., a truly free-market rather than corporatist or second-hand collectivist movement on the political right), even if those hopes were dashed throughout her lifetime (despite their individualist and libertarian rhetoric, she was bitterly disappointed by candidates such as Willkie in 1936, Goldwater in 1964, and Reagan in 1980). Why did she keep getting her hopes up? Her behavior doesn't seem very rational in this regard.

Notice that I say a politically consistent conservatism, not a philosophically consistent conservatism. Both in her essay "How to Judge a Political Candidate" (March, 1964) and in her letter to Goldwater, Rand separates the political realm from that of philosophy and religion. In fact, she takes Goldwater to task for mixing religion and politics in the first chapter of his book:

According to the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state, religion is a private matter; it should not be brought into public issues or into the province of government, and it should not be made a part of political movements. Consider the implications of the attempt to tie Conservatism to religion: if such an attempt succeeded, it would make religion an integral part of our political system, in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

(What would Rand think of the current political scene, in which a supposedly compassionate conservative institutes a Presidential office of faith-based initiatives? Egads!)

Rand argues that Goldwater's proposal to "unite all Conservatives in a common cause" is "the most crucially important goal in politics", but that "it cannot be accomplished without ... a set of rational principles, which all those who join can accept with full understanding and conviction." Although Rand calls this a "philosophical base", she must mean a base of specifically political philosophy, not anything much deeper (e.g., she did not mean a philosophical base consisting of her own philosophy of Objectivism, since presumably not all advocates of a free society could accept her philosophy with full understanding and conviction). As she wrote in "How to Judge a Political Candidate":

One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate's total philosophy -- only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials). It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing, but an executive for a specific, delimited job.... we have to judge him as we judge any work, theory or product of mixed premises: by his dominant trend.... A vote for a candidate does not constitute an endorsement of his entire position, not even of his entire political position, only of his basic political principles....

Given Rand's early and clear statements on the relationship between underlying philosophical or religious theories and specifically political movements, it's puzzling why latter-day Objectivists have been so critical of the modern libertarian movement for its alleged lack of a consistent philosophical base (by which they do not mean the lack of a consistent set of basic political principles, but the lack of a deeper base in ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology). That's an issue I'll have to address when I write my planned essay on a practical Objectivist politics.

Posted on 2004-11-25 at 20:38. File under politics.

~ link ~

Anti-Empire

The death of the American ideal.

Thanks to a plug by Roderick Long, I've just discovered the writings of William Marina, who provides deep and depressingly accurate historical insights into the current predicament of Western civilization and the American Empire. Mining the vein staked out by Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations (which I have previously discussed in a blog entry and applied to both world history and American culture), Marina explores what I, too, see as the issue of overarching importance in American society, Western civilization, and indeed world affairs today: the continued and seemingly inexorable transition of the United States from a republic into an empire, with all the implications of that descent for Americans and the world. Marina has discussed this issue from numerous angles: religious, military, social, historical, and political (the essays at some of those links are long but eminently worth absorbing). Given the momentum of this long-term trend (which, one could argue, began with the War of 1812 and accelerated with the Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, and every war since then), I sadly doubt that Americans will reverse course anytime soon. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the American descent into empire is that the historical legacy of political and economic freedom in the United States has made it an unprecedented engine of economic production and technological innovation, which yields seemingly boundless resources for the empire-builders and interventionists to misuse for their own purposes. It is enough to make one cry for the death of the American ideal.

Posted on 2004-11-14 at 16:46. File under politics.

~ link ~

Dead Rat

Another tyrant bites the dust.

Well, The Rat is finally dead. Can it be too much to hope that Castro will be next?

Posted on 2004-11-10 at 22:01. File under politics.

~ link ~

Blue Moves

Internal migration within the US.

Over at Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux quotes reader Don Noone regarding migration of Americans from blue states to red states. Case in point: Denver, where most folks are "from away" (as we used to say back in Maine). Supposedly, the average American moves every five years. Many such moves are local, but many are long-distance, and a consistent trend over the last 30+ years has been migration of people from the Left Coast and Northeast to the South and interior West. Naturally, some people (mostly younger) are attracted to big cities like New York and San Francisco, too. Most likely there is an age factor here: people become more conservative as they age, and they may want to retire to safe, pleasant, and expensive places like the Colorado mountains or Carolina coast once they can afford to do so. What happens to the political outlook of such people? Do they soak up the more conservative values of their surroundings, or impose their more liberal values on the locals? Probably a bit of both. And let's not forget that those red-state/blue-state maps make American states seem more monolithic than they are in reality: there are plenty of blue areas within red states (e.g., Denver and Boulder within Colorado) and red areas within blue states (usually more rural areas in the far West, Northeast, and Upper Midwest). In general I'm getting rather tired of all the red vs. blue rhetoric -- if you ask me, much of it boils down to nothing more than what Dr. Seuss in his wisdom lampooned as Star-Belly Sneetches vs. Plain-Belly Sneetches.

Posted on 2004-11-10 at 21:16. File under politics.

~ link ~

Gridlock and Logjams

More on progressive libertarianism.

Doc takes courage from Chris Nolan's analysis of the current political scene. Nolan (any relation to LP co-founder David Nolan, I wonder?) foresees a potential coalition of progressive libertarians, which might break the logjam in American politics. I've been using the term "progressive libertarianism" since early 2002 -- perhaps it is a meme whose time has come?

Posted on 2004-11-10 at 10:54. File under politics.

~ link ~

This Blog Has No Title

Saying no to politics for a while.

I was going to blog some more this evening about the role of technology in the recent U.S. elections, lessons for future campaigns, big-government conservatism, proper priorities for Bush's second term and why they won't be pursued, even the impact of American demographic exceptionalism (not to mention moral and religious exceptionalism) on the next new few election cycles (hint: Hillary faces an uphill battle in '08). But then I decided that I'm tired of blogging about politics. So my apologies for the interruption -- we now return to our regularly scheduled programming...

Posted on 2004-11-07 at 20:43. File under politics.

~ link ~

Loonie Liberation

How the Canadians can save the world.

Funny maps have emerged in the last few days showing three nations in North America: (1) Quebec, (2) the rest of Canada joined to the Northeastern U.S., Upper Midwest, and West Coast, and (3) a sea of Red States forming a rump U.S.A. Well, that's amusing, but if the Canadians really want to save the world, they can sacrifice their country and join the United States. Among the provinces-turned-states, only Alberta might be "red", which leaves seven more states that would be overwhelmingly Democratic (yes, I know how many provinces there are, but P.E.I. is way too small to rate two Senators and would have to be added to New Brunswick -- or it could be preserved as a museum piece). So the Canadians could tip the balance of presidential politics back to the Democrats for a while (until demographic trends overtake the Democrats again). Therefore it's obvious that folks on the U.S. left need to brush up on their French and foment secession in Quebec, thus throwing the rest of Canada into the waiting arms of imperial expansionists in the U.S. (remember the War of 1812?), who will be surprised when those new states turn out to be a Trojan Horse for the left. Loony, eh?

But seriously, there is one little problem here: neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to reduce the power of the central government. The welfare state and the warfare state go hand-in-hand. Democrats get all whiny when they are out of power, because they know they are culturally superior and would increase government power for worthy ends such as economic regulation, helping their union supporters, cutting the debt by taxing the productive class to pay for increased spending, and altruistic foreign interventions (i.e., assisting downtrodden places such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and Haiti). Republicans get all whiny when they are out of power, because they know they have God on their side and would increase government power for worthy ends such as moral crusades, helping their corporate supporters, cutting taxes but not spending and thereby increasing the national debt, and imperialistic foreign interventions (i.e., installing puppet regimes in formerly authoritarian or leftist places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Grenada). Both parties think centralization is a beautiful thing and work assiduously to increase Federal power; but each one thinks that power is appropriate only when they wield it. Heaven forbid that the nefarious opposition should be elected: it will be the end of the world as we know it!

There is one business in American that never downsizes, that never has to fear being driven into obsolescence by some upstart innovator, whose employees never worry about mass layoffs, in which revenues are always up, for which the outlook is always positive, to which the normal laws of economics don't apply. It sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? In fact, it's too true to be good, because that "business" is the government headquartered in Washington, DC. And no matter whether the "reds" or the "blues" are in charge, that government continues to arrogate to itself ever greater powers, at the expense of the states, local governments, and the people themselves.

What's the solution? Is there really a third America (neither red nor blue), a radical middle? Don Boudreaux notes that the best red-state value used to be distrust of centralization. Now it seems that everyone loves centralization as long as their kind is in power. Yet I continue to maintain that we've built too much functionality into the kernel of our political operating system. Further centralization is not the answer, nor is joining with those Canadian centralizers north of the border. Rather than one nation of North America, we need many smaller political entities on this continent. Secession, anyone?

Posted on 2004-11-06 at 21:31. File under politics.

~ link ~

Showing Some Initiative

Political alternatives.

Charles Johnson (a.k.a. RadGeek) hits the nail on the head: it's time to think about avenues of reform other than electoral politics. One venue is the courts (a strategy pursued by the Institute for Justice, which I wholeheartedly support). Another is initiative and referendum: the ability for those who gather enough signatures to put issues directly on the ballot. Most of the time I find myself voting against such initiatives, but it seems to me that this provides a good (if imperfect) mechanism for bringing issues of reform directly before the voters. (Who needs political middlemen, i.e., politicians? It's time for some disintermediation in the political realm.) A good example from supposedly leftist Massachusetts was a referendum there a few years back on repealing the income tax. Amazingly, it almost passed! Those spearheading the initiative were pretty much hardcore libertarians, who probably polled the usual 3% at the ballot box that year but almost got the state income tax repealed.

Here are some possible topics to bring before state or local voters:

Repealing homeschooling regulations or even giving the schools to the teachers.
Ending licensing for certain occupations (e.g., hairdressers).
Getting rid of restrictions on certain industries (e.g., jitney services).
Recognizing the right of nurse practitioners to write prescriptions.
Eliminating estate taxes.
Restricting the use of eminent domain.
Outlawing the death penalty.
Decriminalizing victimless crimes such as marijuana possession.
Reinstating state militias (de-federalizing defense).
Allowing concealed carry.
Encouraging or recognizing neighborhood watch groups.
Introducing term limits on elected politicians.
Opting out of certain Federal laws, such as the PATRIOT Act.
Privatizing state universities (most of which receive perhaps only 10% of their budget from the state).
Making it easier to form land trusts, private nature conservancies, neighborhood gardens, and the like.

One good thing about such topics is that those who advance them and vote on them don't need to agree on everything under the sun, just the topic at hand, so it's easier to build coalitions. Why try to get candidates outside the mainstream (libertarians, greens, progressives) elected, or even worse try to influence candidates in the Democratic and Republican parties? That seems like an awful waste of time. Take your case directly to the people! Another good thing is that such reforms would put pressure on the government headquartered in Washington, D.C. (e.g., if all the states repealed their estate taxes, the Feds might have to follow suit).

Posted on 2004-11-04 at 21:22. File under politics.

~ link ~

Common Sense

Purity vs. practicality.

In his reflections on the 2004 elections, Ari Armstrong writes as follows:

Until recently I participated with the Libertarian Party, and I sometimes fell into reactionary rhetoric about taxes. This is a pervasive flaw in the regular libertarian approach, and one that spills into the fiscally-conservative Republican camp. Voters, skeptical of the pseudo-moralism of the religious right, understandably see anti-government reactionism as another variant of the same pseudo-morality. Voters don't like the tax-and-spend alternatives of the left, which is why many Colorado Democrats are fiscal moderates, but neither are voters comfortable with those who seem to hate government for its own sake. Thus, most people end up as economic moderates, who want limits on spending but who support ad hoc proposals to fund specific, sympathetic causes.

What's missing, of course, is a spirited defense of economic liberty based on individual rights and a sound economic explanation of the benefits of free markets and economic voluntarism. Most people seem keen on the idea of individual liberty in the personal or social realm. They don't want political controls on abortion, speech, sex, and so forth. Yes, they run from the socialist left, but they also run from the reactionary right on economic matters. Both Republicans and Libertarians have obscured the deeply American case for economic liberty, or, to use the old term: liberalism. So the task of those who favor individual liberty across the board -- in both personal matters and economic matters -- is to dump the dogmatic baggage and make a moral and practical case that rings true with the public -- because it is true.

Herewith a confession: although I think that most or all functions of government could be better provided through markets or charities, I'm not particularly anti-government in the way that most hard-core libertarians are (i.e., I really don't get all that worked up about plenty of government programs, because life is too short to spend my energy on being anti-government). Sure, I want lower taxes and less government, but if government spending were (say) 5% or even 10% of GDP instead of its current 20%, I'd see that as a major victory (especially if we returned government functions to state and local governments -- we've built way too much functionality into the kernel, if you will, and that doesn't work well). I think plenty of Americans are moderate libertarians: in favor of both civil liberties and free markets. But they're not offered that choice most of the time, so they polarize along party lines. I doubt that the Libertarian Party could reform itself along more moderate lines, but (having worked in the LP) I know how hard it is to start a third party. Yet I think a moderately libertarian party -- we'll call it the Jeffersonian Party in honor of old TJ -- could have a salutary affect on American politics.

To be continued...

Posted on 2004-11-03 at 21:53. File under politics.

~ link ~

Responsibility and Reform

Havel and Kapor.

I'm going to re-quote Vaclav Havel:

If the hope of the world lies in human consciousness, then it is obvious that intellectuals cannot avoid forever assuming their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distaste for politics beneath an alleged need for independence.

It is easy to have independence in your program and then leave others to carry out that program. If everyone thought that way, soon no one would be independent.

I think that Americans should understand this way of thinking. Wasn't it the best minds of your country, people you could call intellectuals, who wrote your famous Declaration of Independence, your Bill of Rights, and your Constitution, and who -- above all -- took upon themselves the practical responsibility for putting them into practice?

I was reminded of Havel's words after having dinner with Mitch Kapor (and of course the charming Lisa Dusseault) a few weeks back, right after the San Francisco Chronicle published his essay on the state of the American body politic (see also the AlterNet interview and Mitch's political weblog). Mitch seems to be a good example (another is Doc Searls) of what I would call a moderate libertarian: he talks about the importance of self-government and inalienable rights but doesn't offer revolutionary prescriptions or a radical critique of our current system of government, even though he knows that much is rotten in the state of America. Yet if weblogs are to the current revolutionary age what pamphlets were to the first American revolution, can we expect a radical shake-up of American politics in, say, 2008? LP founder David Nolan argues that American political history runs in cycles (1776, 1860, 1932, ????), and that we're due for a sea change soon (he originally thought 2004, but 2008 or 2012 seems more likely if a new era starts every 78 years or so; perhaps the time period is even correlated with generational shifts, in which case today's longer life spans might result in longer political eras, so don't pin your hopes on 2012). Mitch's blog is called "Of, By, and For" (as in Lincoln's "government of, by, and for the people" not today's "government of, by, and for the Beltway"). It remains to be seen whether all these polemical geeks and intellectuals active in the blogosophere can translate their criticisms and enthusiasms into actionable reform "of, by, and for the people", but Mitch is hopeful that the Dean campaign was only the crude model for something much more lasting and significant. One thing is for sure: we know that such a movement is going to have to bubble up from below, because it's certainly not going to emerge from the so-called leadership of our longtime two-party duopoly. So those who would take responsibility for reforming American politics and society (rather than merely standing aloof from the admittedly distasteful fray) had better get busy soon.

Posted on 2004-11-01 at 20:53. File under politics.

~ link ~

The Question

To vote or not to vote.

I still haven't decided whether I'm going to vote tomorrow. Although I don't think that casting a ballot once every four years is the best way to reform society, I also don't quite think it's evil, either (as the voluntaryists insist). One approach to voting is to see it as a form of self-defense (e.g., voting against excessive taxation or draconian regulation). The problem is that voting is usually construed as a form of consenting to the results or at least the process, which troubles me because I don't think that most issues put directly before the voters are within the legitimate purview of even a constitution