Sentence of the Day - The Corner - National Review Online

Sentence of the Day - The Corner - National Review Online: "From a NYT editorial: “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”"

So true.

More Machinery of Freedom

From The Machinery of Freedom:

If I invest time and energy in discovering which candidate will make the best President, the benefit of that investment, if any, is spread evenly among 200 million people. That is an externality of 99.9999995 percent. Unless it is obvious how I should vote, it is not worth the time and trouble to vote 'intelligently', except on issues where I get a disproportionately large fraction of the benefit. Situations, in other words, where I am part of a special interest.

Funny how the conventional wisdom on this point --that for the greater good, we all should vote for, and those who do not vote or educate themselves on public policy issues are acting irrationally--is exactly backwards

Unqualified Reservations: Why I am not a libertarian

Unqualified Reservations: Why I am not a libertarian: "If some government is limited by its own volition, it can abandon these limits at any time. (Historical experience suggests that the 'sacred-document' trick is of extremely limited utility in preventing it from doing so.) If the government is limited by some external power, it is not a government in the usual sense of the word, and we should direct our attention to the limiting power."

This, it seems to me, is a fundamental problem with anarcho-capitalism. Some protection agency is going to emerge as the strongest, in which case they can demand the best bargains, and use the threat of force in a way that gives it all the characteristics of government anarchists hate.

Unqualified Reservations: Why I am not a libertarian

Unqualified Reservations: Why I am not a libertarian:

In my opinion, the practical problem with grounding libertarianism in the ideals of the American Revolution is that Americans no longer hold those ideals, and Europeans never did. Both, today, follow a moral code which is essentially socialist. It is true that this is the natural consequence of 'education' at the hands of a government which is essentially socialist.

This has occurred to me, too. Some people need to be led to water. But all the people doing the leading have a vested interest in the current state of education, and vicariously, government.

Murder in 24

24 Spoilers below.

In season 3 of 24, President Palmer's very duplicitous wife, Sherry goes to visit the wife of a former political ally now turned against him. The former ally is old and frail and takes many medications. He accidentally comes upon the meeting and gets very angry, triggering a heart attack. The two wifes can easily give him the medicine, but decide not to do so, mostly due to Sherry pressuring the wife.

When president Palmer find out what happens he calls his wife a murder. But I'm not sure that's the case--at least as a matter of law.

In law school we study the old common law, which is mostly worthless because the common law is now entirely replaced by statute. At common law, however, you generally have no duty to save. If a world class swimmer walks by a drowning child and decides he wants to watch the kid drown, then at common law he can without legal consequence.

Maybe statutes have changed this result. I found Com v. Pestinikas, 421 Pa.Super 371 (1998), a case where a Pennsylvania court upheld the conviction of the Pestinikas, a couple unrelated to the victim who were supposed to care for him but failed to feed him or give him medicine.The court, while recognizing that a stranger refusing food and medicine to a person does not give rise to a murder claim, still upheld the conviction in Pestinikas because the Pestinikases were contractually obligated to provide food and medicine.

but I think for the most part, american law generally has stayed the same on this point--there is no duty to save.

Now, the wife was related, so she may have had a duty to save, but it seems Sherry didn't.

The only two other ways I can see that Sherry may be guilty of murder:1. she made the former supporter mad constituted creating a life-threatening condition such that she needed to save him from it, or 2. she interferred/discouraged the wife from saving the supporter making her some sort of accomplice to the murder of the wife or otherwise guilty of murder.

On the question of creating a life-threatening condition--I wonder whether you take your victim as you find them (like you would in tort law) or whether the condition has to be objectively life-threatening to normal fit people. I would assume the latter, because we would want the perpetrator of the crime to have the mens rea, before punishing them. If I'm correct, then Sherry would still have no duty to save.

My inclination then is to think that what Sherry did was not murder.

This is supposed to be L.A., so maybe I'll have to do some California-specific research.

The If-You-Loved-me-You'd... case study challenge!

The ground zero mosque controversy reminds me of those arguments that high school couples have. The if-you-really-loved-me-you'd-do-X argument. The obvious retort is always, if you really loved me you wouldn't ask me to do X. For the political context just replace "love" with "respect" and "ask me to do X" with "offend me by doing y." the retort: if you respected me you wouldn't view my action as offensive.

Four case studies:

1.Mormons performing baptisms for the dead for jews who died in the holocaust.

2. Carmilite nuns moving into an abandoned Nazi death camp and praying for holocaust survivors.

3. Muslims building a mosque two blocks from ground zero.

4. Drawing cartoons of the prophet Mohammad or Allah.

In each case, one party takes offense at something the other party is legally entitled to do. Stop doing that; it offends me! In each case the offending party can reply: don't choose to be offended!

Here's the challenge: in which of these cases is the offended party justified and in which case is the offended party being thin-skinned? What principles help you differentiate between the cases?

Portland lemonade stand runs into health inspectors, needs $120 license to operate | OregonLive.com

Portland lemonade stand runs into health inspectors, needs $120 license to operate | OregonLive.com: "Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday."

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The Volokh Conspiracy: "The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage."

Does anyone actually believe that?

Are the Corporate Money Floodgates About to Open? | Mother Jones

Are the Corporate Money Floodgates About to Open? | Mother Jones: "But free-flowing corporate money may also have a price. In Minnesota, it's fueled a backlash from gay rights activists who have slammed Target and Best Buy for backing Emmer, a gay rights foe who's called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman.' Both Target and Best Buy had previously garnered praise from the LGBT community for their support of gay rights in the workplace and beyond. Target, for instance, offers domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees, and has backed the Minnesota AIDS Walk and Twin Cities Pride. Best Buy had a similarly gay-friendly reputation, and both companies have been celebrated by the Human Rights Campaign."

Two points about this Citizens United: 1. business people are always giving money to politicians expecting political favors. What is the practical difference between CEO Smith giving money or corporation Target giving it? 2. Does any politician in his right mind want to be the Taco-Bell-McDonalds-Walmart-Target candidate?

Nobody thinks,,,

From the Machinery of Freedom:

Nobody, except a few Brahmins in Delhi and two or three Trotskyites in New York, still believes that the earthly paradise can be achieved by nationalizing General Motors and turning the corner grocery store over to the Mayor's office. Socialism, as a coherent ideology, is dead and is not likely to be revived by student rebels in Paris or Soviet tanks in Prague. (emphasis added).

hmmm.

24, Machinery of Freedom, Journolist

1.

I agree that this is a non-apology apology. Best Parody of Jounolist e.v.e.r.

2.

Breitbart screwed up and should apologize to Shirley Sharrod. I don't agree with the the video's apologists (Also, I think its interesting that Sharrod thinks it's okay to pick and choose who to help based on wealth). I think the most interesting thing about this ordeal is how swiftly the right-leaning blogosphere corrected the misreporting and denounced the deceptive editing.

3.

Leigh and I have been watching 24. I like the show, but there are significant problems (spoiler warning). The whole real time thing seems to work, but really doesn't. Like apparently nothing important ever happens during commercial breaks, which count as time in this world (1 hour is really 40-50 minutes of air-time). Also no two important things are ever happening at the same time such that you can't watch them both. So I don't know that the real-time thing really contributes that much to the suspense of the show, because I don't think that it creates that much of a feeling of reality.

Also, I've only watched two seasons (plus, I think, season 6 when it was new) but we're already seeing a lot of the same suspense creating ploys: mole in CTU, injured person who needs to be aroused from/prevented from going unconscious to communicate some important information; nuclear bomb in L.A. The daughter's plot in season two is completely unbelievable--either that of every dude in L.A. is a creep.

4.

As I always do with books, I read about the first 30 pages of David Friedman's book, The Machinery of Freedom before stopping. It was, in a lot of ways, much like Capitalism and Freedom. I agreed with most of what I read, but I never got the anarchy stuff. Today I read a chapter on how anarchy would work, which buttresses into some of my own thoughts about government.

First, I reserve the right to revise all of these thoughts as, they are pretty much an off the cuff reaction.

So I don't think that David Friedman is right, but I do find his ideas interesting.

Here are my thoughts:

A protection agency could work like a renta-cop within a country, but what about war between countries? There seems to be a presumption that the entire world will submit to this scheme. What if America becomes a functional anarchy: how would it defend against foreign countries? contractual agreement between protection agencies? and what if one agency failed to live up to the contract? Who would enforce the contract? They would lose reputation among other protection agencies, but they would be helping the people they protect, assuming they can free-ride on other protection agencies, and pass those savings on to their customers. This could be particularly true if a foreign country's invasion is in an area where one particular protection agency has very few clients.

If a hit to a person's reputation for honesty was the only way a person is punished for failing to live up to their contract, then I think a lot of people would fail to live up to their contracts. I know a lot of shady characters who get sued regularly, and yet seem to do very well despite that fact. I just think that the transaction costs associated with learning the reputation of a person may be too high to be an effective deterrent to errant behavior. I guess the counter argument might be that in this anarchy world, reputation will become very important to business, and so people will become more protective of it.

The world has lots of community action problem. Protection is one of them. If my neighbor has really sweet cameras and a security guard checking up on him frequently, then he's protecting me to an extent too, and I do not need as much security. We need a government who can forcefully collect taxes to protect free-riding. I guess the counter argument might be that, even with some free-riding, the price reduction that comes from the efficiency of competition might more than make up for it for the person with the sweet security system. He might still get better bang for his buck than provided by government.

I think protection agencies may be able to create externalities that are not properly internalized. Suppose most protection agencies play by some sort of arbitration rules. But what if one protection agency doesn't, and acts quickly before another protection agency can act. Does this mean that what it did was legitimate? What if person is not protected by a protection agency? Can a protection agency act against them with impunity? What if one protection agency just decides that it prefers force to negotiation. Again, I think that a protection agency's repudiation for ruthlessness against people outside the agency may be plus to finding new clients. It may be more expensive, but there may be people willing to pay that premium. Is there a significant difference between government use of force and protection agency use of force? Maybe the counter argument here is that there is no difference, but the profit motive will make protection agency use of force less likely?

There's also a natural monopoly problem. Electronic surveillance may work on an individual property basis, but patrols wouldn't work, because you need to be in proximity to the property. And if people start to choose the protection agency that is closest to them, (and that, maybe, is mostly related to their ethnicity or religion), doesn't that start to look like tribal government, or just government in general?

This segues into what I've been thinking about in the association context. Associations exist to control externalities created by people in proximate to their homes. They solve a community action problem and are very much like small local government. You can't let new owners "opt in" or "opt out" because it disrupts the expectations of the surrounding owners, so you have to force these owners to comply. You do that by having the "contractual relationship" binding on future owners too. Otherwise the association will fall apart, disrupting the current member's expectations and destroying the system. The result is a constitution-like document defining property rights that is binding on future generations.

In what sense is this system of protecting property rights any different from government? (it doesn't have it's own police, but it could.)

Which raises the question: what is the difference between government and private control? Is the Association government or private? In almost all respects, other than the threat of force, it is the same a government, including the ability to bind future generations to things they did not agree to.

There is one difference, however, which I think is key. Associations are small. It is easy enough to leave them by moving down the street. Sure, that's inconvenience, but its a good way to select the rules and laws that you want to live by. Voting with your feet is very important.

So my thought is that the most meaningful way to protect liberty is to 1: have a central government that only does things like provide for the defense of the nation as whole (This is necessary to avoid the community action problem posed by defending against a war) and 2. have very small local governments with all other regulatory power, that people can easily leave by voting with their feet.

I suppose the issue then is how to keep the central government from assuming more power than you intend for it to have, like has happened in the U.S.

Marketing Done Right

Unemployment

There's difference between unemployment benefits being the sole cause of unemployment, and being a factor that increases unemployment at the margins. If the only point is that the graph doesn't support the thesis, great! It doesn't justify distorting Laffer's argument.

Hours of Education

You can watch all of Milton Freidman's PBS series, Free to Choose, here for ... well... free.

Fourth of July

Happy fourth. Even anarchists must be grateful that they ended up in a very wealthy, classically liberal illegitimate government.