The Libertarian candidates

CNN.com has a nice round up here.

Setting the bar quite low

Randy Barnett has an interesting article on libertarian opinion and the Iraq war in the Wall Street Journal. It had this little nugget of pessimism disguised as hope

They hope that the early signs of progress in this offensive will continue, so that American and Iraqi forces can achieve the military victory necessary to allow the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for protecting the Iraqi people from terrorists, as well as from religious sectarian violence. They hope this success will enable American soldiers to leave Iraq even before they leave Europe and Korea, and regain the early momentum that led, for example, to Libya's abandonment of its nuclear weapons program.

WWII ended in 1945, the Cold War in 1991, and Korea has been at truce, if not at peace since 1953. that means we would be in Iraq until 2040 at the earliest?

Ever more Ron Paul

A good performance by Dr Paul on the Colbert Report - Colbert did raise some of his less popular positions, which Paul endorsed with some gusto. Curiously no one has mentioned that he was the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988.

Thoughts on Ron Paul on the Daily Show

He came across better than usual for his usual presentation. They talked a little about domestic policy, nothing about drug legalization or gun control, mostly spending. Not bad though.

Ron Paul on the Daily Show tonight

Republican presidential candidate, former Libertarian Party nominee, current Texas representative, temporary darling of the trendy left and overall interesting guy will be on the Daily Show tonight. We'll see if they go into his foreign policy stance (popular to the Daily Show audience, so long as it's kept vague) and away from his views on abortion and national health care.

More on the Libertarian Party

A very well written post on the LP over at the Volokh Conspiracy, to wit:

Some LP defenders argue that even if the Party doesn't have any chance of winning, it can at least help educate the public about libertarian ideas. However, there is little if any evidence that the LP has actually had any success in this task over its 35 year history. Those libertarians who have succeeded in spreading libertarian ideas - people like Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and the Cato Institute - have done so without any LP affiliations, and indeed have tried hard to work with the two major parties. Whether fairly or not, the mainstream media and academic world are not going to pay much attention to ideas emanating from a tiny third party that has no chance of winning any elections; therefore, the LP's educative potential is unlikely to be much greater than its electoral potential.

If we had a proportional representation electoral system, like many European countries and Israel, a separate libertarian party would make excellent strategic sense. The party (if better run than the dysfunctional LP) could command 10-15% of the vote, thereby winning roughly that percentage of legislative seats, and would be a potential part of a ruling political coalition. A libertarian party might also make sense if one of the major political parties were on the brink of collapses and the libertarian party stood a chance of taking its place (as the Republican Party displaced the Whig Party in the 1850s). However, in the real world, the US is unlikely to move toward proportional representation and neither major political party is likely to collapse anytime soon. Therefore, the cause of libertarianism will be better off without a separate Libertarian Party.

Interesting poll numbers

Bush hits 33% approval or so says Fox, and the affection isn't going anywhere else. Why isn't everyone happier about this? America is essentially having a libertarian perception of it's government (similar to the mid 90's actually). I'm thrilled, but the rest of the libertarian blogsphere seems to not notice this at all. It's odd.

Quick round up

1. Virtual Earth and Local.Live.com are very cool, with very good arial photography.
2. I am undecided about Geek Entertainment TV
3. Charles seems like a cool program.
4. Acronis seems to be a cool backup program.
5. A free book about information markets.
6. N-Unit ASP seems like a good tool.
7. The Russian birth rate is up.
8. Libertarian views on the Iraq war, from Reason Magazine.
9. A budget photography lighting system.
10. A wired article on arial photgraphy.
11. An interesting post from David Friedman about immigration and the welfare state.
12. European Demography.
    

Quick Saturday afternoon round up

1. Baltic Crusades - on WikiPedia. Interesting.
2. Tips for startup companies
3. The torn up credit card application - this is scary - get a shredder now.
4. An interesting article about the self-described "The Hell with them Hawks."
5. Interesting post from Marginal Revolution about inherent tensions in libertarianism.
6. Borders is refusing to stock a magazine that is showing the Mohammed cartoons. More here and here.
   

RIP Harry Browne

He passed away in Franklin TN on Wednesday. Here is the UPI obit.

The pro-war libertarian quiz

The ever interesting reason magazine posted

The Pro-war Libertarian Quiz

How far are you willing to go to win the War on Terror?

These days I'm more for finishing Iraq favorably than pro-war, but I am strongly against just "declaring victory" or "strategic redeployment" without really changing anything.

Recently, here are my answers

1. Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?
   
   Nope. I think this is an impeachable offense too. The current case (supposedly) only monitored calls that crossed borders, which is legally a different matter, if I'm understanding things correctly.


2. Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?
   
   No. If caught on the battlefield I support stripping them of citizenship (by virtue of them being a foreign army and then treating them as one would a foreigner).


3. Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?
   
   Yes. This question doesn't belong here at all. This should be subject to warrants as well, but there are several situations where this could be the right thing to do.


4. Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?
   
   If they committed treason (using the standard definition that is unrelated to journalism) ,then yes. If not, then no. No to sedition laws. FYI - I consider freedom of the press to mean publishing, not protecting confidentiality of sources. They should be able to publish whatever they want, its the cover-ups and withholding information that I don't consider protected.
   


5. Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
   
   Yes


6. Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?
   
   No. I guess this is really asking is if we should have super-cops or not.


7. Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?
   
   No. Absolutely not. Due process of law in all things.
   


8. Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
   
   No. With a possible exception of keeping order in case of natural disasters.


9. Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?
   
   No.


10. Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
    
    No. Anything classified should have an automatic sunset date commensurate to it's secrecy, but nothing should be indefinite.
    

8 out of 10.

Thursday rapid fire

• Bush Urges End of Trade Tariffs, Subsidies - this would actually be a legacy worth remembering, and probably the first "Conservative" thing he's done (with the exception of the tax cuts) since becoming president.
• You Don't Save What You Don't Own - a nice summation of the bus thing in NOLA
  
• Trial Of The Century: Keillor V. MNspeak.com - Someone else approximately shares my feelings about Garrison Keilor
  
• Via the Agitator
  

  ...if I can't have a libertarian paradise where state power defers to social power, or use recent events to urge others to the wisdom of such a state of affairs, I'm willing to propose a second-best for America: replace the three branches of republican government with permanent joint rule by Wal-Mart and the Salvation Army. Go on, tell me you could honestly do worse.

  From Colby Cosh
• I can't find a link to this anywhere, but Commie-Rocker Steve Earle sold one of his songs to be used in a truck commercial. It was quite the talk of the DBT email list (which I still read periodically)
• Since we don't hear anything about hurricane relief in Alabama and Mississippi can we assume that state and local government did their jobs there?

Got the I-Sticker

A few days ago I got the "i" (for individualism) stickers from this site. The sticker seems to be of good quality and is pleasantly tasteful. I have seen the counterpart of this sticker (the yellow and blue "=") which is intended to represent egalitarianism in a subtle way. May all bumper sticker debates be this civil.

The whole thing seems to be the brainchild of one Sean Rife, who evidently works in a sign shop and can produce these at a low cost and can give them away. Thanks Sean!

I see by reading his blog that he's attending (or just finished) an IHS Seminar, which I think is one I went to in 1998. I hope he finds it as helpful as I did.

Get your stickers here

An interesting blog find

Via Tom Palmer, comes the interesting blog Right Watch, which is dedicated to keeping an eye on the self-styled "Paleo - Libertarian" section of the American political landscape, the Paleo libs being those who identify strongly with the later thought of Murray Rothbard and (improbably) the Confederate States of America. While a small group, they do seem to speak for a somewhat larger group of anti-war right wingers.

I've seen these folks in print for a while, and one thing always jumps out at me. For all their pro-CSA rhetoric, they have no visible connection to the actual South. One does not see any mention of a Southern birthplace or education on their bios. Any actual tie to the South, old or new, is conspicuous by it's absense.

Shaking my faith in the role of women in society

Whenever I need to feel smugly superior I read the "Woman to Woman" feature in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, where a pretentious left-leaning woman debates a cloying right-leaning woman. Naturally I was interested in this weeks topic Should medical marijuana be legalized?

The left starts out with an irrelevant racial remark, then takes the remark back, taking up about half of her column, and then somehow using up all of her remaining space to issue a strawman attack at religion (why? Who knows), then closes with

While some argue medical marijuana can be addictive, few would contend it has the same dependency risk as the medications hospitals routinely administer for debilitating pain. Conservatives aren't clamoring for hospitals to turn off the morphine drip for dying cancer patients because there?s a heroin problem in the world. But they want to draw a line in the sand over medical marijuana? Please. Show me the logic.

Which is to say..... Well, I'm not sure exactly. Marijuana is being treated differently than heroin, which is not the same thing as marijuana? Is that actually a reason?

And quote frankly, how can she miss the actual strong arguments in favor of legalizing medical marijuana, namely, federalism, wasted government resources, the fact that none of the "dangers" of marijuana apply to say, 60 year old cancer patients, the chilling effect this has on medical research and treatment, the loss of privacy, etc.

That was the logical cesspool that is left-leaning Diane Glass. Then she gets topped by right- leaning Shaunti Feldhahn. She leads with a personal story, then closes with

I suspect that pro-medical marijuana opinions are less about ensuring the availability of treatments unavailable anywhere else, and more about legally getting high.

When I oppose legalizing backyard marijuana, I am not being heartless toward those with chronic conditions who use it to relieve their suffering. By championing other effective, controlled options, I am trying to spare other individuals and the public health the even greater suffering from, yes, that 'slippery slope' that countless of us have experienced firsthand: that marijuana is not a harmless drug and its use can go terribly awry.

To answer her ad hominen attack, I support the legalization of medical marijuana, and I have no interest in getting high, legally or otherwise.

As for her closing paragraph, it so uniformly ridiculous I don't know where to begin. None of the problems associated with marijuana as a "gateway" drug (even if you believe in that as a concept) apply to the people who would take medical marijuana.

What combination of circumstances would have to exist for her statement to be true, accurate and altruistic? You would have to have cancer patients who have no interest in selecting the best treatment for their cancer, who are utterly incapable of differentiating between treatments like Marinol (incidentally, Marinol must be swallowed and kept down for a prolonged period of time, not the easiest thing to do during chemotherapy) and smoked marijuana.

It would also have to be true that outsiders, with no specific knowledge of the medical condition in question would know more about the cancer and the patient than the patient and his/her doctor. They would also have to be more concerned about this patient than the patient himself.

It would also have to be true that the same dangers that exist with marijuana as a "gateway" drug (even if you believe in the concept) apply to a 60 year old woman with breast cancer the same way they apply to 17 year old angst ridden teenagers. And what substance doesn't have the potential to go "terribly awry"?

This turned into quite a little rant.

Time to end the Libertarian Party

I just finished watching Jim Lazinski's second appearance on the Daily Show. It is now clear that political Parties are simply NOT something libertarians do well. Throw in the recent Badnarik campaign and the matter is a metaphysical certainty.

What to replace it with? Why not a PAC? There are no signature requirements and much less regulation. Imagine what could be done if all of the money, time and effort spent on just keeping the Libertarian Party going actually was spent on rogue candidates of both parties and ballot initiatives? Something might actually happen.