Government – Page 8 – Rolling Doughnut

Interpretation of facts is the key.

Perhaps the large hadron collider created a black hole and our world has ended. I can think of no other way to explain Robert Samuelson’s latest column.

Tired of high gasoline prices and rising food costs? Well, here’s a solution. Let’s shoot the speculators. A chorus of politicians, including John McCain and Barack Obama, blames these financial slimeballs for piling into commodities markets and pushing prices to artificial and unconscionable levels. Gosh, if only it were that simple. Speculator-bashing is another exercise in scapegoating and grandstanding. Leading politicians either don’t understand what’s happening or don’t want to acknowledge their own complicity.
…

A better explanation is basic supply and demand. …

Politicians promise to tighten regulation of futures markets, but futures markets aren’t the main problem. Scarcities are. Government subsidies for corn-based ethanol have increased food prices by diverting more grain into biofuels. A third of this year’s U.S. corn crop could go to ethanol. Restrictions on oil drilling in the United States have limited global production and put upward pressure on prices. If politicians wish to point fingers of blame, they should start with themselves.

I was content that he didn’t seek a government solution, his usual default. Directly (and accurately) blaming politicians is more than I could’ve ever hoped for. I think I’m going to stock up on canned goods now. The end is near.

———-

And yet, there is proof that there are some constants. Following his whining about the Heller decision, E.J. Dionne is back with more lamenting on the conservative court and what it means for the people. Basically, he writes an ode to jurisprudence based on outcome rather than principle. He concludes:

The four conservatives on the Supreme Court, when empowered by the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, have already shown their willingness to overturn the will of Congress and local legislatures when doing so fits their political philosophy. The same majority could keep conservative ideas in the saddle long after the electorate has decided that they don’t work anymore.

I still hold to the idea that truth is independent of when public opinion reaches 50.1% in favor of an idea. They may correlate, but the latter is not a requirement for the former.

You say 1:367,200, I say 0:367,200.

Let’s set aside the obvious complaint about state lotteries. Obviously the state has no business being in the lottery/gaming business, but that won’t get us anywhere here. Instead, this article raises an interesting question about a scratch-off game in progress. Specifically, this:

State lotteries are coming under renewed criticism for selling scratch-off tickets after the top prizes have been given away. The latest challenge comes from a professor who says he intends to sue Virginia for allegedly selling $20 million a year in lottery tickets that had no top prize available.

About half of the 42 states that have lotteries — including Florida, New Jersey, Michigan and Tennessee — keep selling tickets after the top prizes are gone. The states say the practice is fair because lottery tickets and websites disclose the practice. Also, other prizes are available.
…

In August 2007, Washington and Lee University business professor Scott Hoover bought $5 tickets for a game called “Beginners Luck” in Virginia. Later, he learned the top prize was awarded in July. Using public records, Hoover calculated that the state sold about $20 million annually for three years in tickets when a top prize wasn’t available. He says the state should compensate these players.

Reflexively I side with the state’s position in this case as long as the practice is disclosed. If, in the example above, Virginia advertised the game on television, radio, and in print with the lure of the top prize after it had been awarded, that’s a problem. But if the rules of the game explain – even in the fine print – that the game will continue until all prizes are awarded (or all tickets are sold), there is no fraud. What’s the issue?

Then there’s the odds. The player is playing a game in which the odds the player will win the top prize are absurd from the game’s inception. Yes, the odds become zero after the top prize is awarded, but surely the player intends to win something if he doesn’t win the big prize. Most lottery players I know habitually use their winnings to purchase more lottery tickets. It becomes (hopefully) a financially self-sustaining habit. So, if the state should compensate players for buying tickets after someone won the top prize, will those players be required to return any winnings?

Or I could be totally wrong and the state’s engaging in shady practice. I seem to be in the minority in thinking the state shouldn’t be in the gaming business, to say nothing of imposing a monopoly. Maybe I’m also being a silly here in thinking the contract is the contract.

Note: Beginner’s Luck on the Virginia Lottery site clearly states that zero top prizes remain.

Assumptions need to be tested as much as principles.

Commentary on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (pdf) is widespread around the Internets. I won’t delve any deeper than to say I agree with the ruling and much of the libertarian commentary. The Second Amendment is an individual right. Reading it any other way is ridiculous. Yesterday was a good day for the Constitution.

With that behind us, Eugene Robinson understands and accepts the principle behind the Supreme Court’s decision:

This case, for me, is one of those uncomfortable situations in which my honest opinion is not the one I’d desperately like to be able to argue. As much as I abhor the possible real-word impact of the ruling, I fear that it’s probably right.

I’m not a fan of guns anywhere other than in movies and television. I don’t own one, and don’t expect to in the future. Partly this is because my father died in an accidental shooting. But that part of me can’t be used to interpret the Constitution. It says what it says.

Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson follows that reasonable statement with this support for his apprehension:

The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia — and in just about every city in the nation, big or small — there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.

The use of the word effective is key. Gun prohibition has been the law in D.C. for decades, yet people still die regularly. It doesn’t work, if only because we haven’t figured out how to make it effective. If a 100% prohibition is not effective, I’m not convinced anything could be.

There’s also the pesky matter of his unscientific assumption of what statistics would show. Theoretically it’s probably true that fewer guns would mean fewer shooting, but reality shows we’re back to (in)effective. And the idea that we’d have fewer funerals is little more than an appeal to “don’t kill Bambi”. There are plenty of ways to kill people.

But come on, it’s not as if the law was making gun violence in the city any worse — and it’s not as if striking down the law, and perhaps adding hundreds or thousands of weapons to the city, will make things any better. The law was flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing.

Do we really know that the law wasn’t making gun violence in D.C. any worse? It’s at least as reasonable to assume that a law-abiding citizen who owns a (legal) gun could stop her murder better than a law-abiding citizen who would own a gun if she weren’t prohibited by the D.C. City Council.

E.J. Dionne, meanwhile, sticks to his partisan line.

In knocking down the District’s 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.

The court’s five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia’s talk about “originalism” as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.

Mr. Dionne fails to acknowledge the difference between a principle and a preference. He also can’t seem to understand that his boogeyman – the contemporary political right – is not quite reality. Agrees With Me and Disagrees With Me aren’t political parties.

Also, Justice Scalia is the broken clock of legal jurisprudence, not the bulwark of any particular principle.

Finally, this gem:

It was telling in the gun case that while Scalia argued that the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home” — note that the Second Amendment says nothing about “self-defense in the home” — it was Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent who called for judicial restraint. He asked his conservative colleagues where they were able to find an expansive and absolute right for gun possession.

Mr. Dionne writes this despite having written in the previous paragraph that the Supreme Court “ran roughshod” in its ruling striking down a portion of campaign finance law. Where in the Constitution can he find the power in the Constitution for Congress to make laws abridging the freedom of speech?

The rest of his editorial suggests fealty to the democratic majority. I wonder how much he’d bow to that if his perception of that opinion if he felt the majority had a disdain for gun control. The Constitution may not be a suicide pact, but democracy certainly is.

———-

Bonus question: Why does the editorial in favor of the Supreme Court’s ruling have a 600×204 pixel picture of a handgun? Admittedly I get most Washington Post editorials through RSS, but I’ve never seen a picture added to the editorial column. Perhaps a giant picture of the Constitution preceding Dionne’s editorial would’ve been equally appropriate?

Your honor: peas or carrots tonight?

Via Amy Alkon, a story with some relevance to my stance that medically unnecessary male circumcision of all minors should be prohibited (and enforced, where necessary) by the state. From Canada:

A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl’s grounding, overturning her father’s punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer.

In the case of cultural circumcision, which includes medicalized circumcision that seeks potential health benefits, the obvious first standard for what to prohibit is objective harm. Circumcision is surgery, so it always involves objective harm to the body. When there is no medical need for the surgery, forcing it on another person is an assault, regardless of the intent. Preventing this type of harm to one by another is a legitimate function of any state. Prohibition of medically unnecessary circumcision forced on minors is valid. QED.

Discussing the male circumcision issue within the libertarian community is an interesting process. Strangely, many libertarian males seem displeased, however mildly, about their parents circumcising them. Yet, in an odd consideration of limited government and individual liberty, they also seem reluctant, often vehemently, to consider state involvement. This is more a misdirected focus on minimizing the state as the ends than on maximizing liberty with the best, possibly necessary means. (More on this to come in a detailed post I’m working on.)

But there is a limit to legitimate state intervention. Always, the first response I get in the libertarian discussion is that parents make all kinds of decisions for their children that the child may not like, should we legislate those? I think that logical leap is lacking in logic, but it’s not (generally) offered with malice, so it’s worth considering. I usually discuss some combination of objective harm and the permanence of choices. Unless one is being intentionally ridiculous, it’s worthless to advocate an exact comparison between requiring your child to take piano lessons and requiring him to undergo unnecessary surgery that removes portions of his healthy, functioning anatomy. “Requiring” is a key word in considering intervention, but “unnecessary” is the much more important word as it ties directly to objective harm. Surgery causes objective harm in a manner that piano lessons do not. The difference, to some degree, is parenting. I do not favor state intervention in normal parenting, nor have I written anything that could be construed as favoring limitless intervention. I offer specific guidelines for legitimate state intervention.

Which brings us to this case from Canada. I guess it’s possible that there’s more to the case than the reports I’ve read. It seems hard to believe that, so I will assume there is nothing more. So, this judge made an egregious error. The state’s intervention is illegitimate.

It’s not controversial to accept that, which gets us back to the more fundamental issue. What is the legitimate boundary for state intervention? It’s somewhere short of this case, we all probably agree. It’s at least as far as prohibiting the assault of children, however well-intentioned. We don’t all agree, or I wouldn’t be writing this. But I’ve made an argument in favor of my stance that outlines criteria for deciding how to limit or condone state involvement in parenting decisions. This case shows that my effort is an attempt at an objective standard that aims to protect the rights of all individuals, regardless of their power within society based upon having not reached the objectively arbitrary age of majority.

Politicians like power, not lessons.

Here’s another example of why Sen. Obama’s economic thinking scares me. (Not enough to vote for Sen. McCain, but more than enough to not vote for Sen. Obama.)

Sen. Barack Obama rolled out a proposal yesterday to curb speculation in energy markets, which his advisers said would help stabilize soaring gasoline prices.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee laid out a four-step program that would, among other things, close an “Enron loophole” that protects some trading in energy futures from federal oversight, his advisers said.

I don’t know enough about oil futures to offer any educated comment. But I know that suggesting placing allegedly-benevolent government regulators with a specific goal in mind (i.e. lowering gas prices) is a recipe for disaster. Central planning does not work. The laws of economics are not mere suggestions. Where price can’t reach its natural point, even if that includes speculation, supply will decrease.

An interesting insight into how economic facts are irrelevant to all politicians:

“I think everyone believes there’s too much speculation in the oil markets, and a lot of it flows directly from that particular loophole,” New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D) said on a conference call hosted by the Obama campaign.

I do not believe that there is too much speculation in the oil markets. I believe there may be unwise speculation in oil, but that will catch up to the speculators.

I, like everyone who travels any distance in a vehicle powered by gasoline, feel the effect of any speculation in oil. So what? What legitimate claim do I have to say to you that you can’t speculate in oil? The arrival of speculators in baseball cards in the late ’80s/early ’90s killed the economical fun of the hobby for me. Where a pack of cards used to cost 50 cents for a dozen or so cards, the price changed to $2 for six cards. Should the government have regulated that? It even had the built-in “for the children” excuse.

But oil is different!

Is it? People have made choices, whether to live far from work or drive inefficient cars (relative to other available choices). Choices have consequences.

If we approach this debate honestly, many of those being hurt today by the rising price of gas are speculators. They speculated that oil would be cheap and abundant forever. They speculated that oil prices would stay within their comfort zone. They lost. And now the market for less efficient SUVs is changing.

Why should I trust that politicians actually care about the problem when proposals like this clearly demonstrate that the most recent lesson – the speculative effect on housing – is entirely lost on politicians? More importantly, will this increase in “gotcha” regulation decrease if/when the speculative bubble pops? Speculating does assume that prices are artificially high, that there’s some lower point at which prices “should” be. It is about nothing but the price of gas, right?

Post Script: Proposals like this strengthen my belief that Bob Barr’s candidacy will harm Sen. Obama. There are libertarian/moderate voters who will never vote for Sen. McCain and want to see the death of George W. Bush-style Republican government. Where they might’ve voted for Sen. Obama, spewing stupidity after stupidity in a populist appeal to those ignorant of economics will cost him votes. Maybe the net will benefit him, but there will be a trade-off. How is Sen. Obama a new kind of politician?

Decrease your demand for oil. (We want it.)

I have two comments on this story:

As high-level delegations from the United States and China meet this week in Annapolis for their latest talks on economic coordination, the Bush administration’s concerns about the value of the Chinese currency have been overshadowed by anxiety over the global price of oil.
…

On the first day of talks, U.S. officials repeated their call yesterday for China to stop subsidizing fuel for its citizens, arguing that it contributes to surging demand for oil and thus higher global prices. Since Chinese citizens pay a fraction of the market price, they have less incentive to pull back in their use of gasoline and heating oil.

Comment the first: It’s pathetic for a country that subsidizes so many products, to the detriment of its own citizens, to criticize another country for subsidizing a product. It makes zero difference whether the product is corn, milk, sugar, or oil. Subsidies lead to distortions in an attempt to bypass the price system. There will be unintended consequences. It’s transparent when acknowledging this on one product and playing dumb on others.

Comment the second: If you’re meeting with representatives from another country for talks on “economic coordination”, it’s a bit embarrassing to be criticizing a country’s “economic coordination”. Central planning is as central planning does.

It shocks his conscience (that he might not get more donations).

With the news that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would support the proposed Sirius-XM merger after achieving “voluntary” “concessions”, a merger (without the extorted concessions) I’ve loooooooong supported, I should’ve known some further rent-seeking would interfere. It’s just too obvious for politicians to bypass the blood in the water when the companies are willing to cut themselves. And so it was yesterday:

Senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus yesterday criticized a compromise plan for the proposed merger of the XM and Sirius satellite radio companies, saying the deal does not provide enough opportunities for minority-owned programming.

The companies already agreed to lease 4% of their channels. Central planning now should surprise no one since the FCC created this mess by stipulating from the beginning that exactly two companies would be involved in the satellite radio business. Hubris is a bizarre flaw inherent in central planners. Still, this new ~~extortion~~ extension of the sleaze is amazing. I can think of no recent examples quite as bold and shameless.

[North Carolina Democrat Rep. G.K.] Butterfield said he got the idea for the 20 percent set-aside for minority-owned companies from Georgetown Partners, a minority-run private-equity firm based in Bethesda, and its managing director, Chester Davenport.

The firm, which has invested in wireless and media companies, objected last year to the merger, arguing that a monopoly could limit opportunities for minority programming.

Georgetown Partners isn’t claiming that it expects to receive that 20 percent. (Nor does it suggest terms that will inevitably be dictated rather than negotiated.) And I’m sure its political donations to certain Democratic congressmen is entirely coincidental.

Delving further into the role of mafioso as public servant, this:

“It’s shocking to the conscience in this day and age, where “the minority populations” comprise a significant part of the satellite radio audience, that Mr. Martin would settle for what I deem to be crumbs that have fallen off the table,” [Maryland Democrat Rep. Elijah] Cummings said. “We can do much better. I am hoping that this can be revisited.”

If “the minority populations” are listening, it’s incomprehensible to think that Sirius and XM are not already serving this market in a manner that the market deems acceptable enough to pay $13-plus-taxes each month. It’s also incomprehensible to imagine that “the minority population” does not already own a portion of the satellite radio market. I am neither a minority nor a woman, but I imagine that many individuals who qualify for one or both of those distinctions own stock in Sirius and/or XM, just as I do. Amazing as it is, no one is restricted from being financially involved. With Sirius’ stock price, each 100-share block is under $300. The Free Money Congress is mailing could buy nearly 250 shares.

As I suggested above, it’s also possible for anyone, minority or not, to approach Sirius and/or XM about creating programming aimed at segments of the market. I’m speculating, but I doubt executives at either company would refuse to consider such new ideas. Not that they’re actually new.

This is just another example of the inevitable embrace of ego, greed, and power become the only reason for regulation. Protecting consumers is the ruse. Whether regulatory actions benefit consumers is irrelevant to the regulators. Cummings demonstrates this with his contradiction that “the minority populations” demand minority-owned channels, even though they’re already listening to satellite radio and have yet to advocate for divesting of some assets to (other) minority-owned companies at shareholder meetings.

There is a slippery slope on the other side of the hill.

Andrew Sullivan nominates this Douglas Kmiec editorial for his Malkin Award, which is given “for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric.” (see here) Mr. Sullivan quotes this:

“In a depopulating world, the claim that there is a universal right to marry regardless of gender becomes a frightening ally of a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children.”

Strangely, there is nothing to build to that anywhere in the essay. Nor does Kmiec word the next sentence – his concluding sentence – correctly to argue for what he wants. Perhaps it’s not an intentional “mistake”. Judge for yourself:

People should reject this claim by returning traditional marriage to its rightful place.

No one is removing traditional marriage from its allegedly rightful place. To achieve accuracy, though, the proper assessment is to request that people reject this (again, unsupported) claim by returning marriage to its traditional place. The use of “traditional” still assumes a history of marriage that is not based in facts, but it would get to the debate a smidge better.

The rest of the essay is a rather ridiculous example of the form, which is surprising since it comes from an attorney. Has Kmiec never studied the concept of rights independent of the majority? He doesn’t give any basis for rejecting that concept other than to make a feeble bow at the altar of mob rule. That’s not enough. For example:

Voting to overturn the court’s ruling should not be misunderstood. Gay and lesbian individuals are within the humanity acknowledged to be created equal and worthy of respect in the Declaration of Independence, but that responsible reaffirmation of equality of citizenship does not deprive the community of making a necessary and reasoned distinction for its own survival.

The community, apparently defined as America, will not survive if we grant equal rights to all citizens. “You’re equal, don’t get me wrong, but you understand that we don’t want to die out, right? It’s not personal?” It gets more pathetic, though:

Beyond correcting the court’s disregard of the separation of powers, insisting upon preserving the link between marriage and procreation: 1) promotes the orderly continuation of the species; 2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing); and 3) takes respectful account of the difficulties of accommodating religious freedom that arise subsequent to the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. Oddly, and incompletely, the California Supreme Court managed to ignore these important issues in its 170-plus page opinion.

People will not stop having children because gays and lesbians can marry. If you decide that two gay men marrying means you no longer wish to have children, you’re mistaking cause and effect because you’re an idiot. You retain your choice. If you make the choice not to have children, it’s still your choice, one that is not forced upon you.

If you wish to avoid uncertainty, do not have children. Children change the lives of their parents in unpredictable ways.

There is no difficulty in accommodating religious freedom that arises from the legal acceptance of same-sex civil marriage. That’s all that’s under discussion. An attorney should understand that, so Kmiec is either ignorant or shameless.

For good measure, Kmiec throws this out:

When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

First, our Constitution is not based on democratic equality. Those two words do not complement, they compete. We get one or the other as a default. If we get the latter from the former, it’s a happy accident. I’m not inclined to organize the state around praying for happy accidents.

Second, is a married couple using a surrogate to carry an embryo created from the couple unnatural? What if they raise the child in Kmiec’s Catholicism?

Kmiec wants to run from the non-looming end-of-the-human-race slippery slope he fears. In doing so, he sets himself on the non-looming forced-child-rearing slippery slope. That’s better?

Beware: The vegetables are out to kill you!

How many times do we have to go through foodborne illnesses, with vegetables blamed as the cause rather than carrier, before someone with a national forum finally speaks the truth and tells people to stop being stupid? Once again a vegetable is tainted with harmful bacteria – this time, tomatoes and salmonella, respectively – and the reaction is to blame the vegetable and act stupid. For example:

Restaurants are removing tomato slices from sandwiches and grocery stores are plucking red plum tomatoes from their produce aisles following a nationwide alert that raw tomatoes may have infected scores of people with a rare form of salmonella.

Of course that’s a reasonable response because tomato slices are served raw, which allows the bacteria to survive. But how does that then lead to this?

Salmonella is more frequently associated with poultry, which carry the bacteria. But produce is increasingly a vehicle for salmonella infection as well. Scientists and public-health experts don’t completely understand how pathogens contaminate produce. …

Don’t completely understand? Fine, but are they aware of the link? Let’s see how the paragraph continues:

… The bacteria can be found in animal feces, which can spread through contaminated water, manure or improper handling. It can enter tomatoes through the roots or flowers, or through cracks in the skin of the fruit or the stem scar. Once inside, the microbe is hard to kill without cooking. Tomatoes have been linked to 13 outbreaks of salmonella since 1990, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington advocacy group.

Holy smokes! Who would’ve guessed that? Too bad we don’t have any prior evidence to suggest that animal agriculture is the cause. Blame the vegetables! Except, that’s irrational. We have prior evidence of salmonella contamination, as well as evidence involving E. coli that suggests this exact link:

The likely source of an E. coli outbreak in spinach that killed three people and sickened more than 200 was a small cattle ranch about 50 kilometres from California’s central coastline, state and federal officials said Friday as they concluded their investigation.
…

They found E. coli “indistinguishable from the outbreak strain” in river water, cattle feces, and wild pig feces on the ranch about a kilometre from the spinach fields, the California Department of Health Services and U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a joint report.

Let’s continue burying that in the story, though. Meat is fine because it should be cooked. I, dirty hippie that I am, with my “natural” foods, I need to be careful because that will kill me. And, anyway, I’m not getting enough protein, so who am I to tell anyone else what is and is not the cause of anything to do with food?

Thankfully, with our main course of ignorance, we’ll get a heaping side dish consisting of rent-seeking regulation:

Consumer advocates and produce trade groups say fresh produce needs mandatory safety standards. Currently, growers follow voluntary guidelines issued by the FDA.

Lovely. Our existing animal agriculture safety regulations are followed so closely that vegetables regularly become contaminated. But, if we just regulate the vegetables enough, we’ll all be safe. That’s a brilliant line of thinking.

Or I could just mutter “barriers to entry” and end this entry.

Returning with a bit of this and a bit of that.

My schedule’s been a bit chaotic over the last two weeks. It’s too late to start any in depth blogging tonight, so instead, here are a few quick recaps of the news items I’ve logged as interesting over the last week or so.

**********

First, I know nothing of the legal argument involved in the recent case of Major League Baseball and “its” statistics. I don’t doubt that the Supreme Court was correct to reject the case because there’s just no property right there to describing what happens during a game. The recap from a specific service provided would easily meet a licensing requirement, but I’m not paying a fee for saying that Chase Utley has a home run in five straight games or that he was 3-4 with a homer and two singles last night.

That said, anything that gives Commissioner Bud Selig a figurative black eye is good. He had “good enough”, which was more than the owners could legitimately claim. Yet they let greed at the expense of fans interfere with basic long-term business sense. Again. More than any other sport, statistics dominate baseball. Let fans have that and they’ll continue to demonstrate their love for the game by buying tickets and jerseys and the $200 television package. This is not complicated.

**********

I haven’t paid enough attention to the FLDS case in Texas to remark on the judge’s ruling that the State must return the children to their parents. However, this is not proof for those libertarians who believe that the state has no role in parent-child relationships. An anecdote makes a strained theory, at best. Many libertarians have made convincing arguments that the state has a legitimate role in the parent-child relationship, principally in protecting the rights of the child.

**********

Sebastian Mallaby misses on “pro-growth”:

… Given the yawning budget deficit and the coming demographic crunch, tax cuts aren’t affordable anyway.

The same goes for deregulation. Getting the nanny government out of trucking and airlines yielded huge benefits in the 1970s and 1980s. But the “price-and-entry” regulations that used to cosset such industries have long since gone, and remaining regulation is harder to demonize. We are left with government rules to protect the environment, check the safety of medicines and prevent systemic financial crises. These rules are generally helpful. There’s nothing “pro-growth” about bashing them.

“Generally helpful” is enough? Is Sarbane-Oxley hard to demonize for being only generally helpful? On what criteria may we base future decisions to cause just a little, allegedly inconsequential harm?

**********

Like extending movie franchises 20 years later, old habits die hard:

Members of the Russian Communist party have called for the new Indiana Jones film to be banned in the country because they say it distorts history.
…

St Petersburg Communist Party chief Sergei Malinkovich told the Reuters news agency it was “rubbish”.

“Why should we agree to that sort of lie and let the West trick our youth?”

He said many Russian cinemagoers were teenagers who would be “completely unaware of what happened in 1957”, when the film is set.

Good thing the censoring communists are no longer in charge in Russia. Oh, wait.

(I liked last year’s Die Hard movie, and I’m looking forward to seeing the new Indiana Jones movie.)