Category: Libertarian

Ewww! Oh my God, you sick little monkey!

Where in the Constitution does it say that the United States government should engage in morality propaganda?

The White House is distributing government-produced, anti-drug videos on YouTube, the trendy Internet service that features clips of wacky, drug-induced behavior and step-by-step instructions for growing marijuana plants.

I won’t prattle on about the remaining details since this will be an inevitable failure. Any third-grader high on his big brother’s weed could figure that out. More absurd is this:

“If just one teen sees this and decides illegal drug use is not the path for them, it will be a success,” said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

This program is “free”, since the Office of National Drug Control Policy is only placing previously produced videos on YouTube. Gotcha. But no man hours were spent in the organization of this project? No man hours were needed to design the YouTube goodness? How much did we spend previously to put us in a position to save “just one teen”? Free is not free. It’s not provided in the Constitution, either, but I’ll just stick with the notion that propaganda is not free.

Recall that this is not the first time in recent memory that a government official has set the “just one teen” standard for any and all government intrusion. Now I’m giddy with anticipation (without the help of marijuana!) for future campaign slogans stating something like “If just one teen is saved from terrorism by program X, it will be a success.”

Do schools in Texas teach American civics?

If ever we had doubt that President Bush is unwilling to carry out his duties according to the Constitution’s text, he’s trying to open our minds to that reality:

Bush said he has “one test” for the proposed legislation [to allow “aggressive” interrogation techniques not authorized by the Geneva Conventions]: “The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue.” He declined to comment on whether he would veto the alternative bill if it passed, saying that he expects his version to win out.
…

Also vital, Bush said, is passage of legislation that would “provide additional authority” for a warrantless eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency. The program, which he approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to target communications between suspected terrorists abroad and plotters in the United States, has helped to detect and prevent attacks, Bush said.

“Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror,” he said. “We’ll work with Congress to get good bills out, because . . . we have a duty to work together to give our folks on the front line the tools necessary to protect America.”

Protecting America from attack is a valid use of governmental power, and the president is the person most directly charged with ensuring that we remain safe. But the president (and Congress and the Judiciary) must act within the bounds of the Constitution. President Bush needs to add at least two more tests for any proposed legislation, ones that involve assessing the Constitutionality of the legislation and its accordance with American principles. On the latter president Bush’s proposed legislation fails miserably. America should not torture. For the sitting president to make the counter-claim brings disgrace to the office.

Naturally he had to tangle himself up in his words to make his atrocious plea. Forget the mangled sentence structure of his first sentence. Read what he means in his statement.

“If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic,” Bush said, his voice rising. “It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

Since the explanation is in how the comparison is phrased, of course we’re not the same. The more fundamental point is whether or not we believe in civilized society ruled by law. Islamic extremists have already proven that they do not. But I think (thought) we do believe in the rule of law. Surely that entails a basic respect for human life, independent of actions. We’ve decided that justice may include the taking of life, but is that life not protected until we determine guilt? Is it okay to bash someone’s brains in because he might be holding information? I say no, regardless of whether or not the tortured person is scum. Our decency and ethical restraint is not about his worth; it is about ours. The president thinks differently. The president is wrong.

Specifically:

Bush criticized language in Common Article 3, notably a prohibition against “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” He said, “It’s like — it’s very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

Reasonable people can decipher “outrages upon human dignity,” but since the president believes we cannot, thus opening our interrogators to possible prosecution, let’s have a debate. Let’s discuss the techniques we can and can’t use. The president will not do this because he says he does not want to let our enemies know how we will extract information from them. A hollow, I believe, but I’ll grant that condition. To do so, the president must accept the vague prohibition against outrages upon human dignity. He cannot have plenary power to authorize whatever interrogation methods he deems necessary, with only the assurance of saying “oops” if someone goes too far.

Limited government does not thrive on vagueness. The president wants the vague rules to remain, as he only seeks immunity from prosecution under those vague rules. In other words, he wants no rules. But we knew that. Congress must not grant it to him. Bravo to Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham for defending the Constitution.

Another reason I’m a libertarian

I don’t shop at Wal-Mart because I loathe its overall experience. A few pennies extra is a small price for the (by comparison) more upscale presentation Target offers. Yet, I agree with George Will’s column today demonstrating how stupid the Democratic party is in its anti-economics crusade against Wal-Mart. Here’s a simple highlight:

People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart — it has one-fifth of the nation’s grocery business — save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party’s leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times as many applicants than there were jobs at this store.

Demand creates supply, unless politicians get in the way. Demand won’t go away, as the Democrats hope. The supply disappears, or worse, becomes diluted to something that satisfies no one. In this case, Wal-Mart pays more than it should, passing those costs onto customers who don’t want to pay. The only people who get what they want are the politicians.

Yet, I have a disagreement with Mr. Will’s column:

Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald’s (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?

It’s a small point, but painting liberals as our national scolds is nowhere near generous enough in placing blame. How liberals treat the Wal-Mart issue is telling, but only of the sense of superiority politicians of all political stripes take in telling others what to do. Mr. Will is trying to make a point, but it’s applicable to every person in political power.

Telling customers Americans they shouldn’t want what they want is a losing long-term strategy.

We hold these truths to be subject to warrantless wiretapping

Ahem:

President Bush urged Congress today to give him “additional authority” to carry out a controversial warrantless eavesdropping program directed against international terrorists and to approve “broader reforms” in the 1978 law that regulates domestic surveillance of foreign agents’ communications.

I’m not a legal scholar, but I’m fairly certain that Congress does not have the authority to override that feature of the Constitution without an amendment to the Bill of Rights. Of course, the Bush Administration has pliable courts at its disposal, so I suspect this push is only for show. The administration didn’t let the Constitution trouble it during implementation. Our do-everything-but-what-is-federal-and-important Congress isn’t likely to fight back.

Better than being an irrational hermit

I’d planned to examine yesterday’s Best of the Web Today yesterday, but the Phillies are in town and the game didn’t get rained out as expected. That’s okay, because the absurdity of Mr. Taranto’s logic hasn’t faded. In the section titled “Rational Fools,” he discusses libertarians who believe we must keep an absolute protection on civil liberties while trying to prevent terrorism. The entirety is ridiculous, with Mr. Taranto reaching a conclusion that is nowhere on the map of his initial argument, but a few bits stand out.

Mr. Taranto begins by focusing on this passage from a recent editorial:

Richardson R. Lynn, dean of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, had an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the other day in which he argued against any limitations on civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. This passage is especially revealing of the mindset of civil-liberties absolutists:

Even if a totally preventive legal system did work, should we adopt it? The horror of losing friends and loved ones in the inexplicable violence of terrorism is surely one of our deepest fears. But someone has to say: There are worse things.

Naturally Mr. Taranto can’t think of what might be “worse things,” although he acknowledges what I perceive to be the proper context for “worse things”. Seemingly, no “worse things” for individuals justifies eroding civil liberties for all. Mr. Taranto accuses Mr. Lynn of thinking only of the abstract notion of what is good for society, yet somehow fails to see that he’s doing the same in believing that erasing civil liberties for all is acceptable if it protects the good for one. Reverence for civil liberties can be absolute, but is the belief that any measure against the whole is reasonable as long as it protects any less absolute? In preventing terrorism there can remain no element of the risk of living. We must live in a safe world. Nonsense.

It is entirely rational to accept some level of terrorism, crime or disorder rather than live in a police state that claims to guarantee perfect safety.

That is from Mr. Lynn. Mr. Taranto responds with this:

Like Dukakis’s arguments against the death penalty, the truth of this assertion is debatable (and never mind that no one is seriously proposing a police state). But also like Dukakis’s answer to Shaw’s question, it misses the point in a profound way. Human beings are not “entirely rational.” If we were, we wouldn’t worry about losing loved ones in terrorist attacks, because we wouldn’t love anyone.

If you believe in all of the civil liberties protected by the Constitution, you also believe that human beings shouldn’t love anyone. Emotionally safe, sanitized, and encased in bubble wrap, so there is no interference in pursuing the libertarian dream of drugs, hookers, and firearms. Mr. Taranto may believe that libertarians live in a dream world that doesn’t exist, but I’d rather strive for a dream world than live in fear.

Or a police state. The defense against our march to police state is laughable. Of course no one is seriously proposing a police state. That’s what makes the erosion of our civil liberties so awful. For more than two centuries, our liberties were the goal of conservatives, but now they must be sacrificed for safety. Yet, no one wants to claim credit for the damage done. Blame the terrorists, for they are the ones who hate our freedom. Passing blame doesn’t change the reality of what’s being done to us, by us. Saying we want a police state is not necessary to enact a police state, or at least policies indicative of a police state. Implementing police state policies in secret speaks loudly enough for me.

Mr. Taranto concludes:

Wisdom entails not only rationality but also due regard for human feeling. In this regard, civil-liberties absolutists seem totally oblivious. Fear is the enemy of civil liberties. If America suffers another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, Americans will become more fearful–a reaction that is not entirely irrational–and civil liberties will become more vulnerable. Civil libertarians’ lack of concern with preventing terrorism may be “entirely rational,” but it sure is foolish.

Americans will become more fearful. I don’t doubt that, as the initial reaction to any attack will not be rational. But we’re nearly five years beyond September 11, 2001. Shouldn’t there be room for some rational discourse, with respect for our principles? I understand that the answer in practice is no. However, why do we accept our leadership selling fear? That may be due regard for human feeling, but by Mr. Taranto’s logic, it also makes our leadership the enemy of civil liberties.

Seattle Factoids

For anyone thinking of visiting Seattle, here are a few tidbits of knowledge I picked up:

  1. Mighty O donuts makes the greatest vegan donuts doughnuts the planet has ever known. In eight days, Danielle and I inhaled 2½ dozen doughnuts. Granted, I consumed more, but they were good. Like crack, even. Every time we were in our hotel room, they called our name. So. Good.
  2. The locals refer to the city as the People’s Republic of Seattle. I don’t know if this is meant affectionately, but you can imagine I’d never live there. It’s a wonderful place to visit, though.
  3. The common perception that it rains a lot is a myth. I lugged a rain jacket and umbrella across this continent based on this lie. Don’t believe it. We encountered zero drops of rain on our vacation, including more than five days spent in Seattle.
  4. I’ve never been to San Francisco, but I imagine it feels like Seattle. I’d never ridden on roads that slope at an 88° angle before, but now I know what it’s like.
  5. Not Seattle-specific, but taught by the aforementioned hills, I can report that the Saturn Vue is possibly the worst car ever designed. How can an automatic transmission require two feet to operate the pedals to avoid slamming into cars behind you? (Side note: The hills weren’t really 88° angles. The engineers at Saturn inspired that bit of exaggeration.)
  6. As a DC resident I was susceptible to Seattle’s hatred of jaywalking. I obeyed all the signals to avoid the $55 ticket, which police will apparently issue at 7am Sunday morning on an empty road.
  7. Mount Rainier is big.

Now you know.

Will a computer guard the prisoners beyond hour 48?

Richard A. Posner may be on to something regarding an American need for an MI5 equivalent, in light of the recent foiled attacks. In his essay, he concludes:

We cannot afford to assume that we are safe. Perhaps we will now abandon that comfortable assumption.

I’m fine with that, and don’t believe I’ve argued for anything to the contrary in my words here. But this is not a strong foundation for convincing me of his specific plan:

But to the extent that our laws do handicap us in fighting terrorism, it is one more sign that we do not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough to be willing to reexamine a commitment to a rather extravagant conception of civil liberties that was formed in a different and safer era.

I read that portion of Judge Posner’s essay as referring specifically to the period in which suspects can be held without a hearing. Let’s debate that, and take appropriate action if 48 hours doesn’t make sense. But the solution does not involve removing an extravagant conception of civil liberties. The government already believes any constraints are extravagant. They do not need fewer constraints. Seek a solution that protects oversight of civil liberties protection, not a solution that tramples our ideals with a guilty until the government decides otherwise conception of national security.

Active skepticism is not defeatism

I don’t understand how today’s conservatives can complain about judicial reliance on foreign law while using successful policies (i.e., conform to preferred neocon outcomes) as a rationale for changing U.S. policy. It’s hypocritical, at best, but it’s also flawed. Consider this from today’s Opinion Journal:

Britain’s successful pre-emption of an Islamicist plot to destroy up to 10 civilian airliners over the Atlantic Ocean proves that surveillance and other forms of information-gathering remain an essential weapon in prosecuting the war on terror. There was never any real doubt of this, of course. Al Qaeda’s preferred targets are civilians, and civilians have a right to be protected from such deliberate and calculated attacks. Denying the terrorists funding, striking at their bases and training camps, holding accountable governments that promote terror and harbor terrorists, and building democracy around the world are all necessary measures in winning the war. None of these, however, can substitute for anticipating and thwarting terror operations as the British have done. This requires the development and exploitation of intelligence.
…

In addition, the British police have certain extraordinary tools designed specifically to fight terrorism. …
…

  • Secrecy. Similarly, there is a substantial body of opinion in the U.S. that seems to consider any governmental effort to act secretly, or to punish the disclosure of sensitive information, to be illegitimate. Thus, for example, Bush critics persistently attacked the president’s decision to intercept al Qaeda’s international electronic communications without a warrant in part because of its secrecy, even though the relevant members of Congress had been informed of the NSA’s program from the start. By contrast, there appears to be much less hostility in Britain toward government secrecy in general, and little or no tradition of “leaking” highly sensitive information as a regular part of bureaucratic infighting–perhaps because the perpetrators could far more easily be punished with criminal sanctions under the Official Secrets Act in the U.K. than under current U.S. law.

Anyone who believes that we can bury our head and pretend like no threat of terrorism exists does not deserve to be included in the debate. So, why are op-eds such as this arguing only against those people? It would be wiser, and more effective, to debate the merits of how best to achieve our safety within the context of our Constitution. Instead, the conservative discussion is “with us or against us”, where believing in checks on the abuse of power amounts to “against us”. This is stupid.

Consider the notion of secrecy, as presented in the excerpt. The primary objection of libertarians is not that the government must engage in intelligence gathering. As far as it is necessary to protect national security, it is a legitimate function of the government. However, the degree to which it is carried out, and under what exposure to public scrutiny, cannot be ignored. Intercepting electronic communications is an important, and potentially fruitful, endeavor. Assuming that without a warrant is fine since relevant members of Congress were informed is erroneous and anti-Constitution. We grant the power of warrants to the judiciary, not the legislature. Critics of the administration do not quibble for an elimination of power. Critics understand that unchecked power will result in abuse, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.

We have tools in place already. If they’re insufficient, the administration should make that case to the Congress. It has not done that, ignoring existing rules out of convenience. Given its inability to follow existing requirements, the administration should not be granted the freedom to enact its policies without oversight. That is the chewy center of opposition to the administration’s (indefinite, undefined) war prosecution.

More thoughts on this at A Stitch in Haste, where Kip batted down last week’s silliness from the Wall Street Journal.

Let’s live in huts and wear animal skins

Ummm, the definition of capitalism is not this:

The deteriorating relationship between the German government and business was underscored on Wednesday when a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union called on the party to shed its “capitalist” image.

“The CDU is not a capitalist party,” Jürgen Rüttgers, state premier of North Rhine-Westphalia and one of the party’s four deputy chairmen, told Stern weekly. “It is a community of values that is not just rooted in materialism.”

Mr. Rüttgers should get his reasoning correct, since capitalism is not as he describes it. I believe the term he’s searching for is consumerism.

Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of equating personal happiness with purchasing material possessions and consumption.

Compare that to capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit. These include factors of production such as land and other natural resources, labor and capital goods. Capitalism is also usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” (or corporations) to trade in a free market.

Capitalism, as Mr. Rüttgers should realize, means that individual Germans can decide how much or how little materialism is appropriate in their lives. The CDU’s responsibility is to get out of the way. I’m sure Christian social awareness will survive the purchase of a new iPod or twenty.

Lust for power isn’t a virtue

Inept responses to emergencies are unacceptable but understandable because humans are involved. Mistakes happen. But covering up an inept response is unforgivable. The threat of new attacks means that an honest accounting of our past responses and how we can improve them must take precedence over any concern for public shame or bureaucratic humiliation. As such, this is infuriating if true:

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
…

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

Tell me why we should grant ever-expanding powers to government over more areas of our lives when government can’t be honest about not accomplishing one of its few legitimate tasks.