Category: Libertarian

Let’s debate, but using only my arguments.

Via Radley Balko comes a bizarre, uninformed attack on libertarians from Amanda Marcotte, at Pandagon. At the entry is a bingo card designed to poke fun at libertarians, except each space is little more than a boiler-plate attack based on uninformed assumptions about libertarians. Mr. Balko calls it trite, which is the perfect description.

I can’t say I’m surprised, though. I had my first introduction to Pandagon and Ms. Marcotte a couple of weeks ago when she blogged her reaction after Egypt banned FGM. We obviously agree on the merits of banning FGM, although I was (and remain) less optimistic about this law’s effectiveness. What irked me then is the same lack of intellectual thoroughness evident in the libertarian bingo card. Her post:

Counting down to the “WHAT ABOUT TEH MEN?!” trolls who want to equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation. Look, you can oppose the former without blowing it all out of proportion. Dan Savage did a bang-up job in The Kid, for one instance of arguing against the practice of circumcision without drawing parallels to a much more horrific practice. And that’s just the first that comes to mind.

That’s a very typical response I encounter. Unfortunately, it’s a weak argument that seems to indicate a willingness to shout down debate rather than engage in a debate open to ideas.

I’ve never said anything contrary to the fact that FGM is almost always worse than male genital mutilation. It’s important that almost always doesn’t get lost in the focus on worse. It does. The World Health Organization recognizes four types of FGM. Not all are more severe than MGM. And not all are practiced specifically to reduce or eliminate the female’s capacity for sexual pleasure. (The outcome doesn’t depend on good intentions, but that could be said about male circumcision, too.) The overwhelming majority of cases are worse, of course, and many are done specifically to affect the female’s capacity for sexual pleasure. But we must not ignore the exceptions. Our ignorance permits us, as a society, to turn a blind eye. That is wrong.

Intellectually, the argument is obvious. Forced genital cutting for non-medical reasons on a non-consenting invdividual is wrong. The violence involved is still violence, and the mutilation is still mutilation, no matter how much the cut individual eventually likes the result or how much society approves. Gender is irrelevant.

Disagreeing is understandable and the precursor to enlightening debate. But squashing dissent before it arrives is little more than forced intellectual conformity. Such non-thinking stifles progress.

To her credit Ms. Marcotte makes several statements in the comments – where the comparison did erupt, to much bandying of the term troll – that she doesn’t support male circumcision, labeling it “a mildly barbaric practice that is cruelty to children”. She is open to more than just what our society believes about cutting the genitals of children. That’s what makes the original statement in her entry so frustrating, and what makes several of her other remarks in the comments section disconnected. For example:

Ah, I figured the false equivalence trolls would come out. Shameless. They probably think cutting off the foreskin is worse that slicing girls apart and letting many die, but they at least know better than to say that. Instead, they just equate the two and imply that anything less than calling circumcision the worst crime ever is supporting the practice.

No, I don’t think cutting off the foreskin is worse than slicing girls apart and letting many die. But that’s not really a fair comparison, is it? As I mentioned, not all forms of FGM are worse than MGM. But where they are, I’m not making a quantitative comparison. We don’t judge whether an action is wrong on the amount of wrong. It is or it isn’t. Qualitatively, genital cutting is genital cutting. That’s the argument, and why there is no “false” equivalence.

In the same comment where she labeled male circumcision “mildly barbaric”, she offered this:

It also troubles me to describe circumcised penises as mutilated when so many owners of them like them that way. Again, they don’t know any different and I think that they should stop to consider that they might be prejudiced, but still, it’s hardly mutilation to the same degree as FGM. …

… I think the proper analogy is to other minor cosmetic surgeries, like Botox injections. My opposition to it is that it’s better to leave well enough alone when the results of interference are dubious at best.

Ms. Marcotte’s absurd comparison to Botox aside, I don’t need to convince happily circumcised men that they’re damaged. If they like it, great. But mutilation is still mutilation. Not everyone is happy with it, and most who aren’t wouldn’t dream of having it done. That and it’s almost universal lack of medical necessity are enough for us to know that both are wrong. Again, both are wrong because they are the same action, medically unnecessary genital cutting forced on a non-consenting individual.

Freedom for $1.05 or drugs for $2?

The words leading to the coordinating conjunction in this story’s lede sentence gives the reader more than enough information to know how this will affect drug enforcement policy.

A cheap, highly addictive drug known as “cheese heroin” has killed 21 teenagers in the Dallas area over the past two years, and authorities say they are hoping they can stop the fad before it spreads across the nation.

“Cheese heroin” is a blend of so-called black tar Mexican heroin and crushed over-the-counter medications that contain the antihistamine diphenhydramine, found in products such as Tylenol PM, police say. The sedative effects of the heroin and the nighttime sleep aids make for a deadly brew.

We’re going to get fear to justify more brutal attempts to enforce prohibition. It’s stupid, but typical. And being so obvious, it’s not what warrants the most attention. Better to start here:

“Cheese” is not only dangerous. It’s cheap. About $2 for a single hit and as little as $10 per gram. The drug can be snorted with a straw or through a ballpoint pen, authorities say. It causes drowsiness and lethargy, as well as euphoria, excessive thirst and disorientation. That is, if the user survives.

I expected a multimedia presentation with the requisite pause and ominous drumbeat after that last sentence.

It makes no sense to pretend that something like “cheese heroin” is bad. I’m sure it is. But what evidence do we get to excuse “if the user survives”? After all, we’re told that 21 teens have died in 24 months. That’s an awful statistic, but outside of some other context, it doesn’t tell us anything meaningful.

Authorities say the number of arrests involving possession of “cheese” in the Dallas area this school year was 146, up from about 90 the year before. School is out for the summer, and authorities fear that the students, with more time on their hands, could turn to the drug.

The first statistic we get is an approximation that 236 people were arrested for possessing this drug in the two years in which 21 students have died. I’m left wondering whether these arrests involved teens or not since the article doesn’t say. It does use the academic calendar to measure arrests. That’s a quaint device.

But looking at the numbers, are we to assume that almost 10% of users die? Highly unlikely, for no rational person would believe that Dallas police have arrested every possessor of “cheese”. (I’m sure they’ve tried, mightily.) I’m still left trying to triangulate a rational context for this hyper-fear.

Drug treatment centers in Dallas say teen “cheese” addicts are now as common as those seeking help for a marijuana addiction. “It is the first drug to have even come close in my experience here,” says Michelle Hemm, director of Phoenix House in Dallas.

Without hard numbers¹ it’s difficult to draw concrete conclusions, but I’m guessing the number of marijuana users addicts is high enough that a comparison implying a 10% death rate among “cheese” users is flawed. So the death rate is lower, as a percentage. What percentage are we looking at? Is the level of fear and panic implied in this story justified?

I don’t have the answer, unfortunately. Again, I’m sure “cheese heroin” is nasty, dangerous stuff. But I’m left wondering if there isn’t a message in this story about prohibition?

[Dallas police detective Monty] Moncibais then asked how many students knew a “cheese” user. Just about everyone in the auditorium raised a hand. At one point, when he mentioned that the United States has the highest rate of drug users in the world, the middle schoolers cheered.²

“You know, I know being No. 1 is important, but being the No. 1 dopeheads in the world, I don’t know whether [that] bears applause,” Moncibais shot back.

Decades of prohibition and we’re the best at having people use drugs. A sane policy would not continue pursuing prohibition at all costs. It would acknowledge that people will use drugs, despite a general consensus among fans of prohibition that drug use is bad. Reasonable officials would seek to minimize the damage from that drug use instead of trying to win an unwinnable “war”, even if it meant decriminalization.

But that doesn’t win elections or justify larger budgets. Fear does that.

¹ The next paragraph in the article:

From September 2005 to September 2006, Phoenix House received 69 “cheese” referral calls from parents. Hemm says that in the last eight months alone, that number has nearly doubled to 136. The message from the parents is always, “My kid is using ‘cheese,’ ” she says.

That provides more numbers, but I don’t think they help or hurt my argument.

² At this point in the story, CNN has a video link titled “Watch middle schoolers raise hands, admit they know drug users”. I laughed at the stupid absurdity.

Not Acting Presidential

This lovefest for Democrats and their progressive rebuke of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is fascinating:

The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.

In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, while not a single Republican embraced the idea. Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.

Right. Allow me to quote Kip:

… If Biden, Dodd, Obama and Clinton are all so yippee-ki-yay to abolish this abomination, then why haven’t any of them actually introduced a bill in the Senate to do so? Recall that the House version already exists (although it is languishing in committee) — all any Senator has to do is introduce the same text. …

That’s obvious, and as Kip also points out, Sen. Clinton is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where such a bill would begin. So why exactly should those of us who think that members of our military should be judged solely on their conduct be happy about this?

Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster who also works for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, argues, “Iraq and the war on terror have created a whole new narrative around the issue of gays serving in the military.” Advocates of changing the policy increasingly argue that it is costing the military talent and manpower it badly needs.

On the other hand, there are political risks, which Republican candidates hinted at this week. If the Democrats emphasized the issue, even in their primaries, it could seem a distraction from issues that are more important to most Americans, including the war, gasoline prices and health care, said David Winston, a Republican pollster. Beyond that, in the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering.

Why should I vote for a Democratic candidate who can’t figure out that a narrative explaining why booting translators, who are in short supply, from the military during a war in which those skills are most needed is the perfect, impenetrable argument against such nonsense that the war demands institutionalized bigotry? If they can’t understand that, they are idiots incapable of formulating any strategy more complex than basic pandering. If they understand it, they are cowards afraid to challenge stupidity. I’ll vote for neither.

Post Script: Mitt Romney believes that now is not the time to repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” because we should not undertake a “social experiment” in a time of war. First, as currently defined, that war is permanent. Quite the convenient catch-22. Second, Romney believes that equality under the law is a “social experiment.” I don’t know which point makes him more unfit to be president.

I don’t gamble online, but I like liberty.

I’m watching today’s proceedings by the House Committee on Financial Services. The subject is “Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?”. I’ve already learned that Alabama Congressman Spencer Bachus is a moron. I’m paraphrasing until I can find a transcript, but he had the nerve to suggest that Congress should not repeal last year’s anti-gambling bill because the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NCAA have all come out against online gambling. I’m fairly certain that the Constitution matters more than what David Stern and Bud Selig believe is best for America. I don’t recall electing them to any public office.

Also worth noting, there are several witnesses for the Committee. I’m only familiar with Radley Balko. While I’m sure he’ll overwhelm the Committee with something most politicians aren’t comfortable with (logic), I’m pessimistic simply because several members of the committee have already gone out of their way to praise a minister who will testify that his son ended up in jail as a result of his addiction to internet gambling. Good grief.

Also, Rep. Barney Frank is slaying the nonsense of the conservative members when they claim that no one should have the liberty because a few people can abuse that liberty in a way that harms themselves. Bravo. Now, maybe he’ll apply that to his other, less liberty-minded economic ideas.

Update 1: Rep. Frank smacked down Rep. Bachus by referring to our professional sports leagues as “arbiters of absolute moral superiority.” He drew a large chuckle from the tiny crowd.

Perhaps in a surprise, I don’t swear in this entry.

I’m behind on commenting on this, but I was quite pleased at the smackdown handed to the FCC in its indecency ruling against Fox. It’s nice to see that fighting back against Constitutional abuses can succeed. (I’m assuming the Supreme Court won’t reverse the decision.) The court’s arguments throughout the last thirty years have been absurd, despite the limited and “public” nature of broadcasting at the time of Pacifica. With the rise of cable and the Internet, among other sources of entertainment, government meddling in content is simply unacceptable. The First Amendment says what it says.

What’s most useful to read into the decision is the reaction.

“I’m disappointed in the court’s ruling,” FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin said in an interview. “I think the commission had done the right thing in trying to protect families from that kind of language, and I think it’s unfortunate that the court in New York has said that this kind of language is appropriate on TV.”

It’s his job to “protect families”. The government should not be in the nannying business. And notice his obfuscation of the ruling. The court did not rule that swear words are “appropriate” on television, only that the FCC went too far in the way it applied it its vague, unclear rules in the case at hand. It said the FCC’s behavior was inappropriate. The decision of what’s “appropriate” on television is up to broadcasters and viewers. The free market can decide, as it’s already doing on cable. There are more than enough channels offering a wide-range of programming, along with the technology to block anything unwanted.

The Parents Television Council, which has sent hundreds of thousands of indecency complaints to the FCC in recent years [ed. note: many of them form letter duplicates from people who never saw what they complained about], criticized the ruling. The group’s president, Tim Winter, said in a statement that “a court in New York City has cleared the way for television networks to use the f-word and s-word in front of children at any time of the day.”

A court in New York City didn’t do that. “Blame” the framers of our Constitution. It also bears repeating here that, while the way is allegedly cleared, market demands will still restrain what shows up on television. Maybe the Parents Television Council could divert some of its attention from bombarding the government with pleas for force to networks with declarations that “indecent” programming will be met with the “Off” button on the television.

Saving the best for last, Commissioner Copps goes further in threatening his dream of censorship because he is never one to be outdone (see here and here):

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps warned in a statement, “any broadcaster who sees this decision as a green light to send more gratuitous sex and violence into our homes would be making a huge mistake.”

I would love to come up with something witty, but I’ll point to Jesse Walker’s reaction:

In real life, Michael Copps has five children. In his mind, he has 83 million.

I might even up that fantasy to 300 million.

I guess I’m now jumping into the 2008 discussion.

I’m not a die-hard fan of Ron Paul. His position on immigration is offensive and his support for returning to the gold standard is ludicrous. But he’s consistently voted against expanding the size of the federal government. So, he’s not a great choice for president, except he’s a better choice than all of the other announced candidates.

Last night, the Republicans held their second primary debate. I didn’t watch, but this clip from Congressman Paul is worth watching.

Rep. Paul doesn’t fully explain what he’s trying to say, but anyone with a shred of sense can figure out the gist. We should probably demand more from a president, of course, but consider Guiliani’s performance in that clip. Would we rather have a president who stumbles on his words (hey…) or a president who’s an unquestioning, deceitful prick?

Video link via Andrew Sullivan.

Breaking (Not) News: Politicians are dishonest and hate freedom.

Add Montgomery County, Maryland to the list of governments that doesn’t trust its residents and business owners. Yesterday, it passed a ban on trans fats in “food service establishments”. The story offers the standard fare discussion, which misses how anti-liberty such government intrusion is. For example:

The move comes as health officials across the country decry a rise in bad eating habits, growing waistlines and an increase in heart disease and other ailments. The anti-trans fat bill puts Montgomery in the vanguard of a growing national movement to make it easier to obtain healthy foods in restaurants and grocery stores.

I disagree that easier is the correct word to use in that paragraph. Such anti-trans fat bills seek to make it obligatory to obtain healthy foods. Why bypass that? To make this sound more reasonable? Don’t bother; nothing can make this reasonable.

That doesn’t mean I like trans fats. I avoid them. But I’m not egotistical enough to believe that what I choose for myself is the best, or at least desirable, choice for everyone. We’re all unique human beings with different, subjective preferences and an individual risk aversion not readily apparent to government busybodies. Personal choice is better than institutionalized denial of choice.

Where governments go wrong with that is most apparent in this:

Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), the bill’s chief sponsor, said she thinks the food industry will be able to adjust. Some Montgomery establishments, such as the Silver Diner and Marriott Corp., stopped using trans fats voluntarily.

I wonder what evidence Councilwoman Trachtenberg used to come to her conclusion that the food industry will be able to adjust. Wishing isn’t evidence.

“The goal is to protect the public health,” she said. “People want to know what they are eating.”

And there’s the deceit. Mandatory menu labeling would achieve her stated goal, for customers to know what they’re eating. They’d have the information to make an informed choice. But that’s not the bill Councilwoman Trachtenberg sponsored. What she’s done speaks louder than what she said.

Will Councilwoman Trachtenberg achieve her stated goal?

Gene Wilkes, owner of Tastee Diners in Bethesda and Silver Spring, said the ban will force him to eliminate certain items, such as lemon meringue pie and chocolate cream pie, which he buys from a supplier. His popular biscuits, made in bulk at the diners from a General Mills mix that contains trans fats, will be a no-no. He said he’ll begin making them from scratch, most likely.

I guess if people in Montgomery County want to know what’s in their lemon meringue pie or chocolate cream pie, they’ll know because they’ll have to make it themselves. Mission accomplished. Right?

Persuasive Doesn’t Mean Complete

I didn’t comment on the recent hate crimes legislation considered by Congress that would’ve included sexual orientation because I hadn’t considered it enough to have anything intelligent to add to my previous thoughts. I’m not saying what I wrote earlier is correct or the final stance I’ll have. I just hadn’t thought about it more.

While Congress considered the recent bill, Kip posted an interesting analysis based on gambling courts and how criminal justice punishes the same crimes differently based on the circumstances. I’m not wholly convinced, although I admit I can’t clarify exactly why. I’m beyond the simplistic view that such laws punish thought, but I’m still not ready to commit to embracing such legislation. I will say that, as long as we have such legislation at the local, state, and federal levels, sexual orientation should be included in every hate crimes law.

That’s a long way of introducing today’s column by George Will, which is about hate crime laws.

Hate-crime laws are indignation gestures. Legislators federalize the criminal law in order to use it as a moral pork barrel to express theatrical empathy. They score points in the sentiment competition by conferring special government concern for more and more particular groups.

That seems mostly correct to me on its surface, but it improves when considering Mr. Will’s opening statement.

Political entrepreneurship involves devising benefits to excite or mollify niche constituencies.

Politicians govern out of a degenerate self-interest rather than an adherence to the Constitution. This is our most significant political problem, and I don’t see anything in the recent debate over this legislation (i.e. President Bush’s threatened veto) to suggest otherwise. That’s getting in the way of the real debate. We should discuss hate crime laws, but not be afraid to accept that, if hate crime laws make sense, any and every hate-motivated crime should be included. If they make sense, we should apply those laws with a fair and equal hand.

Must sixth-graders pack heat?

I guess he isn’t busy forcing optional vaccines on pre-teen girls. (Link via Fark.)

Gov. Rick Perry, mulling ways to stop the kind of murderous rampages that recently left 33 dead on a college campus in Virginia, said Monday there’s one sure-fire solution he likes: allow Texans to take their concealed handguns anywhere.
…

“The last time I checked, putting a sign up that says ‘Don’t bring your weapons in here,’ someone who has ill intent on their mind — they could [sic] care less,” Perry told reporters. “I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they’re in church or whether on a college campus or wherever.”
…

“Let me cover it right here,” Perry said. “I think a person ought to be able to carry their weapons with them anywhere in this state if they are licensed and they have gone through the training. The idea that you’re going to exempt them from a particular place is non-sense to me.”

Not only does Governor Perry not have a good understanding of bodily autonomy, he has a poor understanding of property rights. For liberty to continue, property rights must exist first. Violate and abandon those, and everything else will eventually fall. If a business or homeowner doesn’t want guns on her property, she has the right to deny access, regardless of the governor’s wild notions. This is so fundamental¹ that I wonder whether Gov. Perry can be considered competent to continue in his role.

Afterthought I: Someone who despises religion could have a field day with Gov. Perry’s comments:

…protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they’re in church…

Pronoun attribution can be vicious sometimes. I’m just saying.

Afterthought II: I can’t tell if he’s being serious or sarcastic, but Glenn Reynolds notes this news:

If it saves just one life, it’s worth it!

God, I hope he’s kidding.

¹ The obvious parallel to smoking (and trans fat and …) bans must be noted.

Catching Up: Food Edition

I didn’t expect to be away for this many days. I’ve been pre-occupied, so Rolling Doughnut has taken the hit. You know the rest, so I’ll just get to a recap of some news items of interest lately.

I first read about proposed changes to chocolate standards via this entry at A Stitch in Haste. From a few days later than the original story Kip linked, the Washington Post summarizes the changes, which would allow “chocolate” to include other vegetable fat in place of cocoa butter and still be called chocolate. (There’s a story in the FDA’s regulation of such, and the politics of this apparently rent-seeking change, of course.) If enacted, this change doesn’t bother me because I like dark chocolate exclusively, even before I limited myself to it through veganism. It simply tastes better. And I care enough to look at ingredients. To the people like me who care, this change will mean little.

For example, it doesn’t harm me as a chocolate lover/buyer if Hershey’s can start calling Whoppers “chocolate”, even though they already contain no cocoa butter. I’m not their customer. I’ll venture a guess that most chocolate buyers don’t have an especially refined palette for the difference. I’m not judging in that; I don’t have a refined palette for many things, so little nuances escape me.

We’re all different. The market for fine chocolate, or real chocolate, will determine how important this change is if it’s implemented. That’s enough. Besides, I’m more up in arms about the fact that companies like Hershey’s advertises its products as “dark” chocolate when it has milk in it.

Next up, following the recent pet food scare, several thousand hogs destined for human consumption appear contaminated with the same chemical (melamine) because they consumed the contaminated pet food. The risk to humans is allegedly small. I don’t eat pork, so I don’t care, mostly. I do find this fascinating:

A maximum of about 300 of the animals may have already entered the human food supply, but the rest of the hogs have been quarantined and are slated to be euthanized, Agriculture Department officials said.

It’s good to know that if animals become tainted, they’ll be euthanized. Humane treatment for the sick is decent. What about the millions of hogs who aren’t sick? Here’s an example showing how hogs are slaughtered. (Warning: Link has graphic pictures.)

Officials emphasized that the human health risks of eating pork from animals fed the contaminated food are very low. The decision to keep those animals off the market — and to reimburse farmers for the losses — was made in the interest of extreme prudence, they said.

If the hogs ate contaminated feed, that sounds like a tort in which whoever bought the tainted feed could sue the feed producer for the damage done to the hogs. Why should the government taxpayers foot the bill for such negligence?