Molly Ivins suggests that we forego the exchange of material gifts during the holiday season in favor of making charitable contributions.

“You simply send a check in honor of everyone on your list to some worthy cause you know they cherish and regard the simplicity of it. Checks do not require packaging. You will not be adding to the plastic peanut plague, so ecologically incorrect. A check is such a simple thing — lightweight, portable, shipped without fuss by the U.S. Postal Service for 37 cents — and the mailperson picks it up for you. “

Why stop being ecologically correct there? Since it’s really all about the emotions- the feeling- and not about the substance for mush-headed Marxists like Ivins, why not just leave out the check and the stamp altogether and simply tell your friends you made a donation in their names, then make up your own personalized thank you note from the charity in question. It’s even easier than shopping at Amazon or Ebay.

Just this evening I made a $100 donation to the Violence Policy Center in the name of my long time liberal friend, Michael. Of course, I simply would never give a cent to such a repugnant outfit in Mike’s name or anyone else’s, but I did type up a lovely thank you note from the VPC enthusiastically thanking Michael for his generous donation.

What? Was that tacky?

Well, it’s far less contemptible than Ivins’ ploy to lead unsuspecting holiday shoppers down into the inky, spiralling riptide of her half-witted plea to put organizations like Wellstone Action, Granny D, and FAIR on their Christmas lists.

“Now, isn’t that nicer than another popcorn popper?”

Radley Balko draws attention to a crucial problem, but what remedy can there be within the context of a representative democracy?

According to Roll Call, there are 25,627 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. — or 47.9 for every member of Congress. That’s not counting unofficial, unregistered lobbyists.

Now, how many of those lobbyists do you suppose are asking our government to spend less money? My guess is that you could count them on one hand, and still have at least one finger left over to express your disgust for the whole process.

Think about how many of these people the typical Congressman meets with every day, each business day of his term. Think about how many requests for money for special projects, some of them unsavory, but others like cancer or Alzheimer’s or AIDS research he gets each week. Think about how difficult it would be to turn down one request after another, day after day, for the length of your term, inevitable extracting promises of reprisal come next campaign each time you do.

The problem is not that something is being bought and sold, the problem is that what is being bought and sold is not legitimate in the first place - the authority to arrange the private affairs of others. Once such authority is produced a market for it naturally arises. There is no check or balance that can suppress such a market, attempts to suppress it will only drive it underground.

(I also fail to see why public funding of swimming pools is any more unsavory than public funding of AIDS research. I’m unlikely to personally benefit from AIDS research; I judge I’d be more likely to benefit from the pool.)

Does it properly belong to the occupying government, Halliburton, the future Iraqi State, or to the Iraqi people?

That’s a trick question. It should belong to whomever can pump it out of the ground, using honestly acquired equipment, labor, and land. The oil still in the ground is not truly an economic good. You can talk about it, and try to measure it, but you can’t ship it, refine it, or make useful products out of it until someone pumps it out and collects it. At that point, it is transformed into something that can actually be bought and sold.

John Venlet’s Improved Clinch now has it’s own domain and a great new look. John credits me with encouraging him to make the move.

The ingrate Shonk on the other hand gives me no props for similarly nagging him to move Selling Waves.

The Hunchback of Nostradamus

(guest essayist: Neil)

Some people have been quite surprised to hear that the Hunchback of Nostradamus is the most important philosopher of all time. That’s because they never read the books I’ve read about him and they don’t know his incredible secret, and they just want to put him down anyway.

The truth is that he wasn’t just a deviant zombie with a lopsided face who could only speak French. In fact he was a really good guy, and, as anyone who has seen the film will tell you, he spoke English perfectly well unlike the rest of fourteenth century Paris who spoke with dubbed American accents.

But, apart from that, he had this amazing secret life. Every night, after a hard day swinging on bells or shooting his film, he’d come back home and work on his great project - predicting the whole of human history to the end of time. Incredible, right?

Now, this is really interesting because, like all other really important people, he was never taken seriously by anyone. Members of the French Court would lay all sorts of shit on him saying “Yes, but how d’you know there will be a fearful conflagration between 1914 and 1918?” He’d shrug and say “I just got a hunch that’s all.” That was his joke.

Well, at least he had a joke, unlike Aristotle.

Put it this way, okay? Would you be more interested in someone who told you that any significant truth which is comparable to a generalization must by it’s nature be self-confirming or in someone who could tell you exactly what was going to happen to you?

Enough said.

Neil.

- from NEIL’S BOOK OF THE DEAD (written by “Neil” of “The Young Ones”), 1984

(let it load…)

…from Radley Balko

(Pupshaw borrowed from the brilliant Jim Woodring)

A girl needs a gun like a boy needs a girl,
The crimes of the heart have no place in this world
- “Babylon Drifter”, My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult

Tonight, I had the pleasure of being lectured on politics and history by my friend M. - a local Seattle Democratic Party activist, who is connected with the Howard Dean campaign. He angrily informed me that:

“Anti-communists were on the right side of history, but on the wrong side of humanity.”

(The painting above, by Soviet death camp survivor Nikolai Getman shows inhumane anti-Communists about to be shot by the humane NKVD. How much or how little regret lies in the secret heart of Seattle liberals for Uncle Joe’s lost paradise is a question for others to answer; I can only report that when I brought up the question of present day peace movement tolerance for quasi-Stalinists like “International ANSWER”, I was roundly accused of a “false dichotomy”. Interpret that how you will.)

So says Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution.

No kidding man, who wouldn’t at these prices?

But I’m pretty sure the the guy you’d tax to fund the subsidy wouldn’t prefer it, because if he did he could fund it voluntarily.

Sigh…

Normally I would post this as a comment to The Agitator but Balko is tired of such comments there so I’ll post it here. Today he writes:

The moratorium on bids from firms in those countries means that the American, Italian and Spanish firms get to compete in something that’s less than a completely open market. That means that U.S. taxpayers will be footing artificially high tabs for construction projects, and it means that Iraqis will be getting something of less quality than what a truly open market would provide.

Of course, this assumes that we’re awarding contracts based on competition and not patronage in the first place, which is a pretty generous assumption.

There’s also something decidedly unseemly — and at odds with free trade principles — about holding private firms accountable for the foreign policy of their governments. Consider if France or Germany or Russia decided to punish McDonalds or Microsoft or General Motors for the Bush administration’s unilateralism.

We’d be outraged, and rightly so.

But then, no one has ever accused the Bush administration of consistent devotion to free trade principles.

Earlier today in a comment here he wrote:

To answer your question, I personally subscribe to Lockean natural rights theory. So I think some form of state is necessary to preserve those rights, from forces both internal and external. So yes, I do believe in a minimalist state, and in the taxes we’d need to impose for a criminal court system, prisons, and a national defense.

Balko doesn’t want a completely free market. He doesn’t want a free market for defense or security or law. This of course means that he would have taxpayers footing artificially high tabs for such projects and it means those taxpayers would get something of less quality than a truly open market would provide.

Shall we assume his minimal state will award contracts based on competition and not patronage?

If one should be outraged that Germany would prevent it’s subjects from making private arrangements for fast food shouldn’t one be outraged at any government that would prevent it’s subjects from making private arrangements for defense or security?

Look, if Balko just wanted to make a consequentialist utilitarian argument that less interference in markets would yield better results that would be fine and he’d be correct. But the moral outrage he expresses is inappropriate to such arguments and it cannot be squared with the principles he affirms.

Over the past few days I’ve participated in several comment threads at The Agitator, most notably here, here, and here. Yesterday Radley Balko posted on the matter of Compelled Speech:

The merry band of libertarian litigators at the Institute for Justice have latched onto yet another righteous cause.

This time, it’s the government-mandated requirement that all producers of certain agricultural products be required pay up for generic ad campaigns designed to boost demand for their product — be it beef, pork, honey, or in this case, milk. (Imagine you’re a pork or beef farmer, and you’re required to pay for Cool 2B Real, or Pork 4 Kids?)

So all of those “Got Milk?” ads you’ve seen aren’t the result of milk producers getting together voluntarily to launch an ad campaign, they’re the result of a federal mandate requiring every dairy producer to pay up, whether they want to or not.

IJ is representing a small dairy farm that wishes not to associate itself with its Big Dairy competitors.

I think there’s another interesting angle to this story, too. The federal government is simultaneously requiring diary producers fund ad campaigns for milk, while cozying up to nanny-state organizations that criticize Big Dairy for promoting an unhealthy product in those very campaigns.

When the day comes that John Banzhaf finally launches his class action suit against Big Dairy or Big Pork, then, will he be able to name as co-defendant every dairy producer who was compelled by law to support the ad campaigns?

Following through on a line of argument I’d been pursuing in the above threads I commented:

Didn’t the milk producers agree to pay for these ad campaigns by not moving to Somalia? (I gather that’s how social contracts work.)

How is this in principle different from billing me for any other damn thing the government wants to say or do?

If the first part of that seems harsh consider what Agitator Brian Kieffer argued about consent of the governed in a comment to me two days ago:

You volunteer based on your decision to stay.

Whether you like it, or not, the land on which you live is subject to the laws of a government that came into existence long before you arrived. You don’t have to love this country, or our taxes, or our laws… and fortunately you are able to change them if enough people agree with you. However, you are obligated to abide by them. You are also free to leave any time you like…. it’s been done before.

If that’s so then it’s pretty clear that by not leaving the country, the dairy farmers agreed to pay whatever the government requires of them. What’s special about this as a free speech issue? There’s plenty of speech going on down in Washington that I don’t want to pay for so can I get a refund too?

Agitator Brooke Oberwetter responded to my comment:

I think the “point” that JTK is getting at is that we as bloggers are half-assing it by complaining about some egregious misuses of power but not others. Our efforts are useless in the face of our massive and tyrannical government.

“How is this misuse different?” he asks.

“Aren’t these legislators playing by the rules they have adopted?” he asks. “Why bother pointing this shit out?”

“Why is this coercion any worse than me, John T Kennedy, paying my taxes.”

Well it’s not. But bloggers pick the ones that are of interest to us and that we personally find to be particularly ridiculous.

We’re all aware, JTK, that most government action sucks. And those people who aren’t aware aren’t going to be convinced by Radley writing “It all sucks” over and over again. And obviously there simply isn’t enough time to document every single abuse of power, every instance in which the government sucks. So we introduce anecdotal evidence of the suckage, examples that make the suckage more real.

I don’t think that just because this blog contains criticism of un-liberal actions, it is in some way responsible for pointing out and criticising all egregious actions of the government. It’s one thing for JTK to say, “Well, I feel that this case is particularly unimportant.” But that’s not what he’s doing. He’s saying, “Well, it’s all unimportant in the face of me having to pay taxes.” While it may be a valid argument, it certainly would get old fast if every post ended with “…but this misuse of power is of course expected. After all, John T Kennedy is still paying his taxes.”

Sorry for the rant.

I do not hold anyone responsible to point out all the wrongs done by government. Nor do I think that my own situation need be of special interest to anyone but me. What I’ve been pointing out is a failure to generalize and a failure to follow principles through to their logical conclusions.

Imagine if The Agitator was a blog for physicists and Radley blogged a lot of observations about fruit falling from trees:

Radley: There goes a big red apple. There goes a little green one. There goes an orange!

John: How is that any different from this rock or my pencil?

Brooke: We’re all aware that most things fall, but we can’t report on each one so we introduce anecdotal evidence of the falling, examples that make the falling more real.

It’s quite true that you cannot report every instance of misdeed by government but you can address every instance by discerning principles and following them through to a logical conclusion.

Oberwetter appears to say that it’s wrong to tax me but, but why is it wrong? Kieffer says I’ve agreed to the rules by which that tax was implemented.

If Kieffer is right then taxation is not wrong and there is no moral foundation for libertarianism. If “The People” are our landlords through the agency of the U.S. government then they can require whatever they choose for the privilege of staying. There is no moral reason why the landlords must allow freedom of speech or freedom of association or freedom of religion on their property.

If such coercion is wrong in principle then there is no moral foundation for government. And if it’s not wrong in principle then how can Balko and Oberwetter hold that it’s wrong at all?

I see little evidence that they are prepared to follow that principle through to it’s inevitable philosophical conclusion: Anarchism. If they are not willing to take the principle through to it’s logical conclusion then how are their moral observations anything more than special pleading? Why should anyone take such special pleading seriously?

It’s official, it’s a crime to defend yourself. Melvin Spaulding found out just that (link courtesy The Advocates). As Tim Goodman said, “The use of a weapon to stop a confrontation is not the right way. He would have been better off calling 911.” Certainly Goodman has a point, had Spaulding not used his pistol, he and he friend may have been beaten up or killed, but at least he wouldn’t be in prison. This might remind some of Lester Campbell, and the similarities are striking. While there is some debate about how many defensive gun uses annually, it seems quite clear that punishing such would encourage rather than discourage crime. I doubt that there will be much disagreement about that.

Of course, real guns aren’t the only problem. Toy guns seem to be as much of a problem, especially when in the hands of aspiring rappers. Police in Britain, always ahead of their American counterparts, have already realized this problem. But don’t fret, the great and powerful Blair may take care of it.

And then there is tyranny of a very different sort. However, this type of tyranny is only mildly annoying. Not having much of a way to finish this, I suppose I can just drown the reader with links. Like the man in my backyard. Seems like his big mistake was turning in the money. But let’s face it, he was screwed no matter what, we all know how good the military is at finding people. But, surprisingly, guns aren’t the only thing that can lead to death (link courtesy my cousin). Finally, just in case you were wondering, cops can tell jokes too (link courtesy PFCIV).

Ebay Item number: 2579649837

This very special piano was claimed as part of an IRS Property Seizure at the Buckhead mansion of the songwriter/recording artist. It is in outstanding condition and has been tuned recently.
It’s ironic that on Friday afternoon, just as the IRS was laying out Peabo Bryson’s personal belongings for a weekend garage sale, President Bush was saying these words before an audience of Home Depot employees in Maryland:

“When a person has more money in their pocket, they’re likely to come to Home Depot. If they have less money in their pocket, they may not come here. And so I worked with the Congress… We cut taxes on people. It’s your money to begin with, by the way.”

(Footnote: Billy Beck has rightfully damned the eyes of music commentator Joanne Huff for her notably scatterbrained take on Bryson’s situation. According to Huff, “While we wish Bryson the best of luck with his trials and tribulations, we also take this as a cautionary tale; just because you’ve sung with Celine doesn’t mean you can’t pay your income tax!”

Dreadful, yet, the likes Huff are the very people to whom rational evangelists would plead a case for liberty.)