Quote of the Day
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.Friedrich Nietzsche
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Being Classical Liberal |
Privatize It!
From the Independent Institute:
Authored by two leading experts on public-private partnerships, economists Simon Hakim and Erwin A. Blackstone, Prison Break: A New Approach to Public Cost and Safety finds that using contract prisons often results in cost savings two or three times as large as the 5 to 10 percent minimum that some states require. In some cases, the long-run savings is much higher, such as in California (savings of 58.61% at one prison), Oklahoma (up to 36.77%), and Texas (up to 44.95%).For a free softcopy, click here.
“Our study found that contracting out inmates to private prisons saved state governments money while maintaining performance at least at the same quality as public prisons,” Hakim and Blackstone write. “Indeed, public-private competition and cooperation could even be extended to further these fiscally responsible goals.”... Interestingly, they note that states that contract for correctional services tend to employ a variety of alternatives to incarceration, such as sentencing reform, community-based corrections and reentry programs, and that private operators often partner with government agencies to provide such services.
Obama Sheeple Farm
Lawrence Reed of FEE notes this description of the "Dunning-Kruger Effect": "Unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude." Hmmm. Could he possibly be referring to someone with megalomaniac delusions whom got elected to the White House despite a paper-thin resume, with zero executive experience and an undistinguished legislative record?
Bono On the Idea of America
HT Mark Perry of Carpe Diem
Facebook Corner
 |
| via Christian Libertarians |
(Christian Libertarian). If I were to try to point someone in the general direction of libertarian thought (basically trying to win them over to liberty) what website or specific article would you suggest I have them spend some time on?
I am talking someone who is an average joe, (not someone who is gonna read Mises) so either a website or article that is simple and to the point that will help draw them towards liberty.
Bastiat's Candle Makers' Petition and Broken Window Fallacy are brilliant parables; The Law is short and highly readable. The cartoonist Henry Payne has some good work (e.g., minimum wage), and I've seen some good essays from A. Barton Hinkle, a columnist. Tom Woods, a Catholic convert and libertarian/historian, has written a text on The Church and the Market (I think he also has a related Youtube video online.)
(Congressman Amash). I voted no on the Cotton of AR Amendment 2 to #HR4870, which prohibits the Department of Defense (DoD) from transferring or releasing any Guantanamo detainee to the individual's home country or to any other foreign country. Some of these detainees have been held for over a decade, and many of them have already been cleared for release.
Notably, the underlying bill already includes a provision restricting the ability of the DoD to obligate its funding until it provides Congress with a detailed spending plan, "including an assurance that no funds will be used in contravention of Sec. 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014," which requires the Obama administration to inform Congress at least 30 days before initiating a transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees.
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay should face military trials or other appropriate process and be punished for their actions if guilty. They should not be held indefinitely without charge or trial.
The amendment was agreed to 230-184.
"...which requires the Obama administration to inform Congress at least 30 days before initiating a transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees."
Mr. Justin Amash, has there been any effort by the House to enforce this? Obama broke the law in this regard when he released those 5 detainees in exchange for Bergdahl, which, in my mind, calls for impeachment.
Said restriction is manifestly unconstitutional. It has always been under the power of the Commander in Chief to negotiate for the release of POW's.
What the hell are you talking about? It's a pro-liberty thing....
All judicial elections and appointments should be scrupulously non-partisan. Texas is a nightmare in which candidates for the criminal court bench have to pander to the slack-jawed electorate just like legislative candidates. Judges, your job is to call balls and strikes
All those who serve in the public sector should be accountable for their performance, including judges. I'm far more worried about legislative and prosecution attorney/sheriff demogoguery like the unnecessary prosecution of victimless crimes, unjustly harsh sentencing requirements, etc.
(Christian Libertarianism). Just a random thought, I have been having! I have been a libertarian for a while now, but only recently have, I come to accept Anarcho-Capitalism. In a world with such diversity, I believe Anarcho-Capitalism is the best economic model in a secular society, because it advocates the non aggression principle, most An-Caps advocate property rights, and complete freedom from state coercion and involuntary force. However, I believe Anarcho-Capitalism has one giant inherit flaw that keeps it in the theoretical realm. It assumes, that each individual wants freedom over security, that is a terrible assumption. One personal example, I have noticed when talking to relatives who have immigrated to the United States or Canada, the group that chose the United States wanted the freedom to start their own business, those that choose Canada wanted the security of healthcare along with other benefits. In addition, go back to the revolutionary war, I am simplifying the numbers a bit, but look at the different mentality between the 1/3 of Americans that fought against the king, and the 1/3 that fought for the king ultimately ending up migrating to Canada. In traveling back and forth between the two countries even till this day, I see the difference between those that love freedom and those that love security. Unfortunately, trying to convince someone who loves security that they would be more secure without authority, well good luck with that!!
Somewhat quixotic discussion since under the Obama regime, we have dropped out of the top 10 of most freedom indexes, even behind Canada. I find it curious you would use healthcare in using the term security, since American healthcare and innovation in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology are the gold standard, and hospitals are required to take emergencies regardless of ability to pay. There are notorious cases of Canadians coming across the border vs. waiting lists for "free" healthcare. I understand they may be misled by "Progressive" propaganda which tries to hype dubious statistics on the uninsured and apples and oranges comparisons of things like infant mortality, but pardon me--I hardly feel secure about Statists in charge of anything, from pursuing unnecessary wars to unfunded retirement entitlements to healthcare.
(Christian Libertarianism). Sermon today was on Romans 13. Thoughts on this passage?
I wrote this in another forum a couple of months back:
"First, note that Jesus Himself rejected a political mandate, and when He was asked whether to pay taxes (Luke 20:25), He did not give a direct answer "yes" but discerned between one's obligation to the State and one's obligation to God, the latter being higher. It's disingenuous to argue that Paul was endorsing the Roman government which executed Christ or imprisoned multiple apostles and said, Egypt and Babylon which had enslaved the Israelites were acting according to God's will.
Second, I think Paul is simply speaking in a symbolic sense here. He knows that Nero and others were killing people, an abomination, and engaging in other heinous acts, contradicting God's commandments; Nero did not have a divine mandate to contradict Jesus' teachings. In my view, Paul was in essence reinforcing Jesus' clever response to the Pharisees' trap in raising the tax question. Paul wanted Christians to focus on living Christ's teachings, don't get fixated on pedestrian politics. If you are persecuted for following Christ's teachings, it's one thing, but don't get prosecuted for doing the wrong thing."
When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the [a]two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the [b]two-drachma tax?” 25 He *said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” 26 When Peter said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are [c]exempt. 27 However, so that we do not [d]offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find [e]a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.” -Matt17:24-28 NASB
The Matthew text does not imply Jesus' recognition of and compliance with State authority; He simply did not want His mission to be confounded with that of an insurrectionist. Don't forget He had enemies looking for deviations from Scripture and/or occupation law.
This has been my home church for over four years. I have never walked out on a service before. My stomach has been all churned up for the last hour plus. It isn't going away. But I just couldn't be a part of that.
I'm an alien here. I'm in this country, but I'm not of this country. My kingdom is not of this world. I am set apart. This is my mission field, not my home.
I could use a good word if anyone has one for me. I'm in pain over here.
We have a country where 40% of births are illegitimate, millions of preborn children have lost their lives, and a significant number of marriages end in divorce. This is a Christian nation? As you point out, Christ rejected a political mandate; He focused on personal accountability to God, not the State. I commend you from acting out of conscience.
(separate comment)
It's one thing to believe in God, sight unseen; it's another thing to have undue faith in or pledge fidelity to fallible, corruptible man or his institutions.
(another comment)
I can't speak for others, but one reason I don't like to see the confounding of the State and the Church is that I feel that the State is co-opting the Church to validate its actions; I think it's important for the Church to maintain her independence and to rebuke the State when it engages in morally outrageous acts like violations of equal protection, unjust imprisonment, morally hazardous social policy, and unnecessary wars.
(Christian Libertarians). Neocon Catch 22 on flag burning: Isn't it ironic that people get so upset with flag burning considering that it is supposedly an icon representing our freedom? If it is an icon of freedom, then there should be no problem with someone being free to burn it. If people are forbidden to burn this icon of freedom, then the freedom that this icon represents is a mirage and therefore it OUGHT to be burned for the hoax that it represents. [This thread quickly breaks down into a familiar conflict between ancaps and minarchists; the anarchists accuse minarchists as being fundamentally inconsistent: if you admit exceptions to common defense and justice, you buy into the excesses of the State, including redistribution policies. I'm still on the minarchist side of the fence, but that doesn't mean I buy into today's corrupt common security and justice system: I would radically downsize and/or decentralize the status quo.]
You can have a quasi-monopoly by virtue of economies of scale, not by the blessing of government, and the same human failings that corrupt limited government can undermine voluntary entities. To a certain extent you can mitigate an oppressive sociopolitical context by your freedom to migrate. I do agree that we have failed to keep the discipline of limited government, in large part due to the surrender of the judiciary (particularly, economic freedom) to the majoritarians, to the point the Ninth Amendment is considered an "inkblot" and the Bill of Rights more as a checklist of narrowly-defined exceptions to the stealth expansion of Statism. Common defense has been transformed to preventive defense.
I would restrict the State to common security and enforcement of negative liberties, but I would try to privatize much of that to provide a competitive check on public monopoly, e.g., to volunteer organizations, religious courts, arbitration panels, etc., a broad implementation of the principle of Subsidarity.
With regards to the original question, I don't mind people being vested in our cultural heritage and its symbols, but I'm well aware of the dangers of nationalism and the manipulation of the masses by the practice of demagoguery.
I agree I would point out that the dangers present in nationalism when taken to extremes are not absent from anti nationalism or internationalism. The Nazis were hyper nationalist the Soviet union was anti nationalist/internationalist and neither were good nor were either evil because of their view of a nation.
I'm not sure I agree with your description of the Soviet Union as such; certainly Lenin denounced bourgeois nationalism, but Stalin did embrace Russian nationalism during WWII. But your point is well-taken; one person's nationalism is another person's ideological movement like Communism, Caliphate, sectarianism, tribalism, clan, whatever.
(Christian Libertarian). Although not ideal, is it worse that a homosexual couple would raise an unwanted child (because those who would ban gays from raising children will not accept the responsibility to do so) than left to be raised by the state? Is this a false dichotomy for which other solutions can be discovered?
I don't think the State should have a say in adoption; it should be privatized. I would prefer heterosexual adoptive parents, and let's face it, if gay people comprise about 4% of the general population, the preponderance of committed relationships are heterosexual, but if it was a choice between the permanent home of an acceptable gay couple and a dysfunctional State institution, the child would be better served in a private, permanent home.
(Christian Libertarians). I have many on the fence friends, who are beginning to agree with my libertarian philosophy , but their main concern is that we don't , "
Do anything of significance." They compare me to a perfectionist with an all or nothing mentality, because I didn't vote for either party last election. Many of them really liked Ron Paul, but they didn't see the point in rallying behind him . I've been told that choosing to not vote for an electable party, is socially irresponsible . Why not at least try to preserve some rights, and why waste a vote ? Some have even gone as far as to tell me they would join the party, if we proved we have done anything of significance to improve this country . How do some of you respond to these situations ?
Spontaneous order is a difficult concept for many to understand; the problem is that you can't win the game if you play by their rules. Sometimes there is virtue in not doing the wrong thing, like spending over a trillion dollars and losing over 4000 soldiers in the wrong war and occupation at the wrong time and place. We have a war on drugs that is not only ineffective but has led to one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. We have a Federal Reserve which not only lost over 95% of the purchasing power of the dollar over a century but whose policies were responsible for the Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession. We have senior entitlements over $80T in unfunded liabilities as the Baby Boomer retirement tsunami is already in process. Everything government touches--college tuition, healthcare, education, etc.--becomes an unsustainable bubble and/or inflation-bound.
In the liberalized economy, unlike the government monopoly of force, we have true competition and innovation, greater consumer equality. More people have been brought out of poverty by capitalism than any other ideology.
On the political front, I think we have an advantage that people are not happy with the Congress and the President. I think that younger people are very receptive to the libertarian message, as with their enthusiastic support for Ron Paul, whom ran a strong second or third in many state races. Will we ever see a transition like the Federalist-Whig-GOP? The odd thing is the Progressive Democrats have nearly completely flipped from the party's origins in terms of opposition to a central bank and strong federal government, free trade, while the GOP has largely shed its protectionist, infrastructure-oriented perspective. I think from a pragmatic perspective, a coalition with the conservative wing of the GOP is probably best given broad consensus on classical liberal principles, although one can see some bipartisan coalitions on foreign policy and civil liberties, possibly educational choice.
(separate comment)
There have been principled leaders like Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge. And there is no doubt that the GOP Senate minority has frequently blocked Obama's Statist agenda. It has been so effective that Reid exercised the nuclear option. I realize that the GOP has its own fair share of problems, but speed bumps on the Road to Serfdom are a good thing.
New Batch of Marriage Proposals
I'm being inspired by other news... In two weeks, I'll have a new nephew-in-law and step-grandnephew, and one of my nephews just got engaged to a lovely young woman while on a European vacation.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall |
Dan Fogelberg, "Rhythm of the Rain". One of the greatest remakes in pop history. Dan completely remade the song; the original, by the Cascades, sounds almost bouncy in comparison. Dan's soulful, mournful interpretation, brilliantly backed by a wailing sax, makes the song his own. My baby sister gave me the relevant CD; I did have his greatest hits album, but this is still one of my favorite albums.
This marks the end of my Fogelberg series. Next up, my first female vocalist, Anne Murray, whom is also one of my Dad's favorites.
