There's nothing new under the sun,
but there are lots of old things we don't know.
Ambrose Bierce
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via Independent Institute |
 |
| Via Economic Freedom: Where's Printer Yellen? |
Chart of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of the Mercatus Center via the Independent Institute |
I'm referring, of course, to the recent repulsive soundbites about blacks by Bundy and Sterling. First, I want to point out something I wish that he would have fleshed out a little more in a recent post:
In the Bundy case, the feds did suppress speech by keeping it three miles away from them. Free speech, assembly and the right to petition the government would become empty and meaningless if the governmental targets of the speech and assembly could not hear it. The First Amendment will condone outlawing the use of a bullhorn by protesters in front of a hospital at 3 o’clock in the morning. But it will not condone free speech zones for the sake of government convenience. The entire United States of America is a free speech zone."Progressive" intolerance has used these tactics before, e.g., even restricting distribution of US Constitution on campus except for out-of-the-way designated "free speech" zones, in one prominent case publicly-funded Modesto Junior College and more recently Hawaii-Hilo. Tea party activists have similarly protested via distribution of historical American
document copies e.g., outside of libraries. Just think for a moment about the chutzpah: universities, given the tradition of academic freedom, banning distribution of a document of historic significance, or libraries, which have fought censorship, engaging in the same.
His argument here is spot on:
All rational people, understanding the colorblindness of the natural law, have a moral obligation — but not a legal one — publicly to treat persons of different races with equal dignity and respect....What to do with them because of their speech? Nothing. I mean nothing. Racially hateful speech is protected from government interference by the First Amendment, which largely was written to protect hateful speech.Precisely. If what we say is agreeable to others, why would we have need to guarantee its expression? The only need we would have to protect it is if others, particularly government with its monopoly on the use of force, sought to suppress it.
In Sterling’s case, is it fair to punish someone for speech uttered in the privacy of his home? It would be exquisitely unfair for the government to do so, but the NBA is not the government. When Sterling bought his basketball team, he agreed to accept punishment for conduct unbecoming a team owner or conduct detrimental to the sport. Is speech conduct? For constitutional purposes, it is not; the Constitution does not restrain the NBA. It is free to pull the trigger of punishment to which Sterling consented.
The most effective equalizer for hatred is the free market....I hope [government agents] stay home and follow the natural law principle of subsidiarity, which mandates that public problems be solved using the minimum force necessary, not the maximum force possible — and no force at all where peaceful measures are just as effective.I agree with the second paragraph; the Judge in my opinion, bows a little too much to the god of political correctness. I remember, for instance, back in college, students often ate together segregated in groups, say by gender or ethnicity. (I've mentioned this anecdote in the past. I went to a former women's college, which by the time I started was maybe a third male. I often ate by myself, but one lunchtime I was invited to join a large table of coeds. I was mildly curious, when the coed who invited me over said, "We heard you treat women the same as you treat men." I almost choked on my food and managed to mutter, "I hope not--I'm attracted to women.") People often do or say things that would be considered just as unfair or stereotypical as anything as Sterling is alleged to have said. I don't believe that one form of incivility is "more equal" than others. I'm not defending what Sterling said, but it bothers me that the revelation of what Sterling said in a private conversation violated his privacy rights, and from a conceptual standpoint, it violates the spirit and intent of the First Amendment. Free speech is not artificially restricted to criticism (identifiable or anonymous) of government; it includes uncivil speech to others. This kind of incident sends a chilling message to the practice of free expression. What, for instance, if someone wiretapped a lawyer's conversation with his client or a Catholic confessional?
There's a related arcane discussion in libertarian/ancap circles about the Non-Aggression Principle. I have not really focused on it in this blog; I will simply note that, e.g., boycotts against market principals can be considered non-violent responses. Personally, I regard boycotts to be a form of economic aggression and a violation of free market principles. In any event, the judge makes a distinction between talk and conduct and basically argues that the league has broader discretion to sanction under whatever conduct clause appears under the league's ownership agreement. I have no doubt that the NBA is willing to throw Sterling under the bus as a matter of trying to contain the problem and avoid the risk of a broader boycott. But to me, it's hard to believe that Sterling knowingly signed away hia unalienable right to private speech.
But, as the old saw goes, life isn't fair. Consumers in a free market have a right to purchase or not purchase, unaccountable to anyone as for their choices. Employers may worry that their firms may become the target of boycotts if, say, an employee or his family members has been charged with a serious crime, regardless of the merits of the case. I would argue that the moral case is for a free market based on salient trade characteristics, not incidental factors. Similarly, an employee should be judged on objective standards of job performance, not what he does on his own time. I would have hoped that the judge would have warned against potential escalation of racial tensions.
A Shockingly Bad Idea for Public Sector Pension Bond: Gambling At Taxpayer Expense
I haven't heard this Reuter's news item on many of the conservative or libertarian blogs. Let me summarize: Atlanta Public Schools have maybe five times in unfunded liabilities for every dollar in its pension fund. Already on a Pay-Go basis they are barely breaking even on pension contributions vs. outflows. So they have this idea of selling half a billion dollars worth of 20-year pension bonds paying 4.5% in interest; they figure they can clear a net gain of 3% (7.5% market returns) from investments.
This is sheer desperation and madness. Anyone foolish enough to part with his money on such a dubious scheme is not investing; he's gambling and shouldn't expect return of principal; I would worry about Atlanta declaring bankruptcy before the bonds are due and taking your chances in bankruptcy court. With economic growth at nearly half the average rate of roughly 3.4% through the twentieth century and a stock market based on easy monetary policy and nearly record margin growth, and escalating unfunded liabilities based on similar return expectations across the states since the 2000's, a severe market correction and/or recession could put Atlanta in a deep hole. Atlanta needs to get serious about pension reform, including lowered benefits and increased pension contributions from the city/state, not to mention converting to a defined contribution program..
Facebook Corner
(Libertarian Republic). Why I reject conservatism and liberalism.
I'm more of a fusion libertarian-conservative or a pro-liberty conservative, somewhere in the neighborhood of Ron or Rand Paul and Justin Amash. I think your characterization of conservatives reflects more partisan than principled differences. For example, principled conservatives rejected Bush's unpaid Medicare expansion, TARP, and "Food Stamp Nation". The link between the farm bill and food stamps was a quid pro quo corrupt political bargain between the parties.
My conservatism lies in the core social context of virtue and traditional social/religious norms, institutions (marriage and family); my libertarianism reflects a profound skepticism of government intervention (in economics or the social context) and a certain "live-and-let-live" tolerance of human activities not violating the fundamental rights of others.
(Independent Institute). See Thought of the Day above.
Wrong. The more corrupt a people, the more corrupt a state and its laws. Nock knew this. Socrates knew this. Jesus knew this. They all knew this. Apparently we don't.
Wrong. Power corrupts intrinsically, and the way to sustain power is to bribe enough of the populace, which is corruptible. Think of a familiar quotation (often wrongly attributed to de Tocqueville or Tytler, but probably an Oklahoma op-ed writer Elmer Peterson), Why Democracies Fail: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.".
However, de Tocqueville did write: "Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power... it seeks, on the contrary, to keep [men] in perpetual childhood... it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself.."
(National Review). Chuck Schumer wants to invest Congress with virtually unlimited power to regulate the political activism of private citizens.
BS this is just to rectifying the courts mistake of making corporations equivalent to people. If that is the case then any organization can be considered a person which is nonsense. Is a school a person? A labor union? How about a baseball team? Can any of these go to jail like a person? No they can't because they are not people. There is nothing here that takes away anyones freedom of speech and for you to claim it does is a blatant lie
I am sick and tired of "progressive" parasites whom don't have a clue that people shouldn't have politicial speech suppressed simply by being a voluntary stakeholder in a corporation.
(Independent Institute). Senior Fellow Lawrence McQuillan: "California’s heavy licensure burdens make it harder for people to get hired or start new businesses that create jobs. The barriers are especially harmful to poorer people aspiring to climb out of poverty, those with less education, and minorities. People with means and education are little affected by licensure rules, while the poor and minorities can be shut out of entry points into the job market. This is unjust and regressive."
Sorry, TII--this is so much BS I can hardly believe it emanated from your organization. Licensing laws are there for a very good reason: it tells the consumer that this person is trained and skilled to a specific level of expertise in whatever area they are presenting themselves. Do I want an unlicensed hairdresser to come at me with scissors? Uhhhmmm...that would be NO! Do I want an untrained dental assistant poking around in my mouth? NO, again. Do I want my lab work evaluated by an untrained person? Again--NO! Those at the lower end of the income scale have the option of getting their free, pubic school education(they WOULD actually have to attend and work their butts off) and putting themselves in the position of GETTING the additional training they need to achieve. Without basic educational skills, few, if any, businesses would be viable. The work ethic, not dumbed down standards, are what makes ANY person succeed.
All of this discussion basically avoids the point. There are some independent organizations which do not exercise monopoly power but provide some assurance to consumers; take, for example, the AICPA, BBB and Consumer Reports. But while working in the IT industry, I have met some talented professionals whom have lacked a college degree. Occupational cartels constitute an arbitrary barrier of entry, which creates an anti-consumer artificial shortage; simple examples include taxidriver resistance to innovative ridesharing services, IRS' attempt to regulate tax preparation services, and physician resistance to increased roles for midwives or licensed practical nurses.
But ultimately we should reject self-serving crony special interest group rationalizations and Statist paternalism, which is little more than a corrupt bargain at the expense of consumers. The market will reject incompetent professionals whom don't provide quality services.
(IPI). According to newly released Harvard study, Americans ages 18-29 are losing trust in government. Since just 2010, trust in major government institutions declined by 8% among Americans ages 18-29. Not one major government institution in the poll achieved a level of trust of 50% or above.
The poll revealed more than just a general mistrust in government among American youth. Americans ages 18-29 increasingly believe elected officials don’t have their interests in mind; young Americans also feel they have increasingly less ability to change what government does.
Due in no small measure to vitriolic web sites
Yeah, right. Not that "progressive" indoctrination in government schools and college has failed to live up to expectations....
Marriage and Family
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson via Townhall |
Steve Winwood, "While You See a Chance"
