Final Victory in the War of Ideas?

A friend of mine believes that this recent election may signal a final defeat for the ideals of conservatism, that no genuine right wing alliance will ever again regain control of the country.

While I fundamentally disagree, I'll grant him certain points.

• On some social issues (homosexuality, immigration, and other types of xenophobia) the conservatives will moderate significantly over the next 10 years.
• Conservative aversion to changes to the patent law may reduce as changes in the software industry make those changes more evidently necessary.
• On environmental issues, the conservatives will drop the issue of whether global warming is an issue, and focus on policies that help the market incorporate environmental cost into their decision making (carbon tax or 'cap-n-trade' vs. arbitrary per-company pollution controls).

There are a few other issues where I wish they would change the party line, but these are the ones I think will actually change. Once these changes are made, the conservative party will have a far more focused platform based on consistent principles. It will still be necessary to find a leader who can articulate those principles well to the masses, but those come in time.

The modern GOP is very different from the 1950's GOP which was far away from the 1900's GOP. Political platforms change to fit the times, but some ideas don't become less correct.

To justify 'spreading the wealth around,' one has to accept that wealth does not belong to the individual who creates it. Is wealth created by the social environment that created the person, or is it the creative and motivated character of the person that creates both the wealth and the social environment? If you claim that the social forces created the person's character, than it becomes one social duty to do everything possible to forcibly improve the social environment. That can and will be used to permit government control of anything that affects the social environment, words, print, businesses that compete with government programs, etc. If you deny the basic premise that a person owns the product of their work, then you deny the basic freedom that a person even owns his/her self.

Capitalism 2.0?

I've heard a great deal of talk about this in the wake of this 'crisis,' and it troubles me. I commented on the linked article, my thoughts also available here.

One of the basic tenents of philosophy is that while one cannot prove the existence of others, the act of proof is sufficient evidence to assume one’s own existence (I think, therefore I am). The only person, object or force in all of reality that must exist is you yourself.

Given that, freedom is not a luxury, or a benefit we receive from benevolent governments. Freedom is a fact of nature. 

Capitalism recognizes that nature and attempts to harness it for the best possible outcome. To deny freedom is to reverse the basics of philosophy, holding each person more accountable for the well being of others than that of those they directly care about.

Please don’t misunderstand me. There must be discussion about the proper law society uses to hold people accountable. Peaceful coexistence requires standards of behavior. If those standards are called ‘regulation,’ then fine. But if you deny the basic reality that Freedom is natural and required for life, then expect disaster.

Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I have been sent this link by 2 friends that do not know each other, but know me very well. Jeffrey Miron makes some amazing points.

• The implicit backing of the federal government for Freddie and Fannie encouraged them to take on far more risk than a free market would have allowed.
• "Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending."
• "The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government."
• "If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen."
• "Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents."

Read the article. He makes many more points that fill in the blanks, but I figured 5 was a good synopsis.

Bring On the Shorts

Bloomberg is reporting that 2 companies, Diamond Hill Investment Group and JMP Group Inc. have opted to let their shares be short sold. I know very little about these companies, but I do know that what they've done takes guts and is the truly moral thing for any company in their position to do.

The regulators are giving the financial companies unfair exemptions instead of letting the market run its course and are protecting the weak at the expense of the good. 

Congratulations to the leadership of these 2 firms in standing up for what capitalism is all about, free and fair competition with transparency and justice for all.

Philosophy of Liberty

This was posted 2 years ago, and I just now found it. I have now seen it 3 times, examining it closely for any idea that I even in part disagree with. The only point I have found is a minor one that can wait until you've seen the clip.



Back to that point, When the author says that people should stop asking their governments to initiate force on their behalf, it assumes democratic governments. Dictators pursue ownership of the life and liberty of their subjects as an objective for their own life. And may cause global atrocities without the deliberate consent of their people.

Rudy Giuliani Defines Freedom

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.
-Rudy Giuliani

Compare that to:

You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
-Abraham Lincoln

Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.
-Mahatma Ghandi

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
-Dwight Eisenhower

'Not for Resale' free stuff

Universal Studios sent out a bunch of free promo CD's with a 'promotional use only' label to selected listeners. These CD's arrived completely free through the mail.
Troy Augusto, who decided to disregard that label and sell the disc on Ebay, is now fighting a lawsuit from Universal. The record company claims that the promotion use label identified the product as in part their property, and that they retained all rights of sale. Augusto claims that since the discs arrived in the mail with no action on his part, they were gifts and therefore his property.

The major significance is the challenges this case could pose for the 'first sale doctrine.' Universal wins, could a car manufacturer place a limit on the number of resales for the car? I could do a whole new post on that idea.

EFF has counter sued Universal on Augusto's behalf.

Constitution? What Constitution?

Bush administration claimed that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to them.

For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

I'm embarrassed to say that I'm rusty enough on the Constitution that I had to look this up.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So far this is just an echo chamber post, Hat tip to MRogers @ slashdot. But I can't think of any commentary that won't sound like whining.

Reagan on the role of Government

Hat tip to Brian Hollar @ Thinking on the Margin
Who gave "(HT Stephen Bainbridge via Instapundit)"

Second Life CIA

Concerns Over Online Economies as Breeding Grounds For Terror

U.S. intelligence officials are cautioning that popular Internet services that enable computer users to adopt cartoon-like personas in three-dimensional online spaces also are creating security vulnerabilities by opening novel ways for terrorists and criminals to move money, organize and conduct corporate espionage.

The CIA has created a few virtual islands for internal use, such as training and unclassified meetings, government officials said.

The CIA owns islands in Second Life! I'm glad I pay taxes.

Most virtual worlds are proprietary of some sort. World of Warcraft is owned by Blizzard Entertainment, Second Life is owned by Linden Labs, combined they constitute an estimated 22 Million users total, maybe 6-12 million of which are active more than once a week. For the time that they spend in these worlds, very few of their decisions are in any way affected by the laws of their respective real world governments. While the company has full access to all the data regarding chat, text, exchanges, etc.; the government can request that access.

Second Life gets more media attention because of real money that gets exchanged in that world on a daily basis. 18 Million Linden$ ($67 Thousand) was exchanged in Second Life this January. It is illegal, however, to exchange real money in World of Warcraft (it still happens though).

Freedom in the Image of God

Freedom in the Image of God

I just wrote this, it has something of the tone of a rant. And although I'm still in the same mood that I was when I wrote it, I think I like it.

To be truly free, is to accurately be the living breathing image of an all knowing, all powerful God that loves the people around him so much, he is willing to sacrifice his own flesh to help those people become more like himself.

Educational Duties to the Future

Video clip of Richard Dreyfus on liberal education.



Any Questions?

Hat Tip to Brian Holler at Thinking on the Margin.

Immigration Regulations

On the other side of this argument are the well reasoned arguments of Samuel Huntington in Who We Are. My personal perspective is more along the lines of how immigration restriction restricts freedom, here explained by Don Boudreaux.

Huntington's point about culture is true, immigrants will change a culture, and ideal characteristics that attracted the immigrants are likely to be watered down or eliminated. But immigration is the very freedom that allowed those settlers to create this nation in the first place and removing that freedom seems very wrong to me. A wall on the border, for it's own sake seems like a perfectly reasonable project to me, but not for the purposes of keeping immigrants out. The great wall of china was built for real security reasons, I have no problem with that. I'd support the wall, if open immigration were in place on a very permanent basis.

Hat tip to Ampersand at Alas, a blog.

Libertarian Solution to a Political Conflict

A Libertarian Solution to Evolution Controversy: No More Public Schools

When you force people to teach a subject in a way they don't want it taught, and the school system is a political beast, which our public schools are, you're going to see the curriculum you have in mind corrupted by the political process. People campaigning for strong teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools are ignoring that this is what's purportedly been going for the last 50 years. There are no states with a theistic presentation in their classrooms. Real science is what's supposed to be taught; yet when you look at polling data, the ones who see a non-theistic, purely naturalist explanation are in the minority.

The particular libertarian speaking there is strongly pro-evolution, and is trying to resolve the debate about whether to allow the intelligent design curriculum to be taught in public schools.
A lot of people feel very strongly that EVERYONE should be well educated. I rather agree with that, education expands the human experience and gives them the tools to provide high quality services to the people around them throughout their lives. It preserves the knowledge base for a growing economy.
Many people assume however, that the ONLY way to do this is through a ubiquitous government run public education system. The argument for 'school choice' is that you could use the same tax dollars used to fund the public education system to provide limited credits that can be used to pay tuition at all sorts of educational institutions. This would make the market for education more competitive, raising quality, lowering price, and vastly simplifying the content debate.

I am in favor of school choice from kindergarden through the fourth year of college.

Less is More

We're doing more with less. That's good for planet Earth.

Since 1977 the value of the U.S. economy has doubled, yet the amount of physical stuff it took to supply all the needs and wants of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds. Even more astonishing: the "weight" of the economy fell while U.S. population grew by some 55 million people.

This probably not true for each individual resource, only in aggregate. 55 million additional people will require additional water, and while water can be delivered and used more efficiently, the total supply is not unlimited. The good news is that although the use of water probably went up, that means other resources were probably used less, and those other resources were probably less environmentally friendly than water.

I recommend checking out the other Knowledge labeled posts. As this sort of change is what knowledge economies are good for.

Hat tip to Brian Hollar at Thinking on the Margin. Which is rapidly becoming one of my all time favorite blogs! Not to detract from my extensive respect for the eminent professors at Marginal Revolution & Cafe Hayek. Their sites are much better known.

Anti-anti-smoking Forces

Customers desert smoke-free restaurant

A restaurant owner in China started to ban smoking in the restaurant, and lost about 20% of his patronage.
Assuming that the smokers know how bad smoking is for their health (which might not be accurate, they might just not know) this owner can see the direct results of his policy in the patronage. It might be that the people that perfer a smoke-free environment just haven't heard about the restaurant yet, and will more than compensate for the 20% loss. But based just on the content of the article. I'd say he should let folks light up.

Tabarrok on the knowledge economy

Dismal Science Sees Upbeat Future - Alex Tabarrok

So imagine this: If China and India were as wealthy as the U.S., the market for cancer drugs would be eight times larger than it is today.
...
People used to think that more population was bad for growth. In this view, people are stomachs--they eat, leaving less for everyone else. But once we realize the importance of ideas in the economy, people become brains--they innovate, creating more for everyone else.

New ideas mean more growth, and even small changes in economic growth rates produce large economic and social benefits. At current income levels, with an inflation-adjusted growth rate of 3% per year, America's real per capita gross domestic product would exceed $1 million per year in just over 100 years, more than 22 times higher than it is today. Growth like that could solve many problems.

It's definitely about time for some major works on how the knowledge economy works. There's just not a lot out there and it leads to some real misunderstanding and probably miss communication.

This is a somewhat connected to an earlier post by Tyler Cowen, co-author of Marginal Revolution with Alex Tabarrok. Also my commentary on that post.

Hat tip to Brian Hollar @ Thinking on the Margin.

The All Seeing Eye - New policies

US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search

Without this law, anybody plotting a terrorist attack is going to use encryption, so why bother? If you won't be able to understand the only people that you claim you want to watch, then why pass a law saying you can look at everything everywhere anytime with no notice or accountability?

I lack expertise in this area, but I've read some good stuff about the security features of the BSD operating system.

It seems the interest in encryption has been decreasing for the past 4 years or so. I wonder if this policy will have an effect on that trend.

Seagate has released a full encryption drive, which would not protect against this policy, but would protect against your data from theft of your drive physically.

What would help against this policy is OpenPGP.

Student Expelled For 'getting involved' on campus

Student expelled for student body activism

NEWSFLASH: When you make a stink about something, your target will look at you're background.
The real news is that they might expel you for making amateur movies (nothing indecent, either) for a contest. If you read it through, there was apparently an ad the student put together that scared the president so much he asked for a temporary bodyguard. But seriously, there was no real threat in the ad.

In a related story, from the article above:

FIRE is simultaneously pressuring Valdosta State to reverse its “free speech area” policy, which is unusually rigid in restricting student expression to a single stage on the 168-acre campus, only between the hours of 12 and 1 p.m. and 5 and 6 p.m., with prior registration.

GO MASON.
Go Mason Student Government.
Hat-tip to 'flutterecho' at Slashdot

Information Disclosure

New law enhances Government transparancy

If you pass enough laws, eventually you'll accidentally come up with something good.