Category: Libertarian

Once a regulator, always a regulator.

I’ve been mostly away from my computer and the Internets over the last few days as I take advantage of some of the better freedoms from being unemployed between contracts. I expect to post regularly in the coming weeks, but finding a new contract is obviously my first priority. Just so you know.

In the meantime, I have a two related items clogging my aggregator, so now is a good time to clean them out. First, the call for regulation is never too far from any success.

But now, precisely because of its success, it’s fair to ask if Google should be barred from furthering its dominance through acquisitions or collaborations. At issue are the recent purchases of YouTube, the leader in online video sharing, and DoubleClick, the leading broker of online advertising; in both instances Google used its gusher of profits to outbid rivals. There are also new joint ventures with Clear Channel, the giant radio broadcaster, and EchoStar, the satellite television operator.

Consider this: There may never have been a Google without the government’s antitrust suit that prevented Microsoft from crushing upstart rivals. By the same principle, isn’t it time to begin restraining Google to increase the odds another Google will come along?

It’s easy enough to look at the first paragraph and point out that YouTube doesn’t make any money. No one is certain how, or if, Google will make money from YouTube. There are theories, but theories don’t equal revenue without creativity, work, and luck. It’s a little premature to assume that this acquisition will result in further revenue growth. We could also simply look at the reality that Google is buying Internet successes rather than creating them.

The second paragraph, though, is more instructive. The phrase “may never have been” is hardly persuasive. Maybe the government’s antitrust suit helped, but we can’t know. That’s hardly a principle, unless we’re looking to some system outside of capitalism.

Nor do we have any proof that Microsoft’s dominance in its earlier markets translates into future dominance. Microsoft dominated the web browser market by the late ’90s, but its dominance in even that is waning as Mozilla builds Firefox as a product and a brand. More instructive, the web browser market is not the Internet.

Microsoft’s largest foray into the actual market Google now leads was MSN. Microsoft tried creating a closed system so that it could act as a gatekeeper to the Internets. Like AOL, this strategy was brilliant in the early days of the Internet’s public growth. As customers became better accustomed to technology, and technology got easier, the flaws in this strategy became clear. That left searching, which Google is simply better at. When Google stops being the best, customers will go elsewhere. This is the only principle at work.

Next, to demonstrate why we shouldn’t give government regulators more power than absolutely necessary, the FCC wants Congress to further violate the Constitution by giving it the power to censor violence on television.

The Federal Communications Commission has concluded that regulating TV violence is in the public interest, particularly during times when children are likely to be viewers — typically between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., FCC sources say.
…

“Parents are always the first and last line of defense in protecting their children, but legislation could give parents more tools,” FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said yesterday regarding the report. “I think it would be better if the industry addressed this on its own, but we can also give parents” help through regulation.

Beyond the obvious arguments that “Congress shall make no law…”, legislation to allow the FCC to regulate violence – including basic television, if the FCC gets its wish – would do nothing to give parents more tools. This is little more than a disguised version of the “for the children” argument used to excuse away most new intrusions on the rights of American adults. I expect the Congress to act on the FCC’s request because Democrats don’t love rights any more than Republicans have the last 200 6+ years. Unfortunately, I don’t have much faith in the courts, although if this finally pushes big television networks to finally fight back, I trust that we could finally see a change. Here’s hoping.

What Paternalism looks like.

The mind-set of a nanny-statist who knows better than you what you need. I’m joining mid-stream, but you won’t miss much. The post deals with prescription drugs.

Second, even professional pharmacists have a hard time keeping up with the huge number of dangerous drug interactions. Some interactions are automatically bad, some become risky with certain medical complications. The libertarian model hardly breaks down if consumers are willing to take risks that doctors are not, but it absolutely depends on consumers’ ability to gauge risks accurately. When it comes to prescription drugs the concept of a fully informed consumer becomes untenable.

So there you have it – what libertarianism really looks like and why, in my view, it doesn’t work.

If someone might make a choice without being fully informed, the liberty to make that choice must be restricted. Okay, but who gets to make the decision?

When I started college, I knew I wanted to be an investment banker or something similar. I spent six years studying finance. Yet, nearly a decade after graduating, I’m still doing software development. I don’t expect to be doing this forever, but I’m almost positive I won’t go into investment banking or any other field that will directly use my finance education. Why didn’t someone step in to force me to make an informed decision? I could’ve saved (saved!) a lot of money and a few years of my time. I would’ve missed two of the most enjoyable years of my life when I got my MBA, but that would’ve been an unfortunate side-effect of getting my life right the first time. Right?

No, thanks. I’ll choose liberty with the possibility that life will go poorly. I believe incentives work well enough to encourage people away from stupidity.

Rent-seeking protectionism is ugly when you confront it.

More on the proposed Sirius-XM merger, this time recapping recent research studies:

One of the main arguments against the merger, according to the Carmel Group, is that consumers’ audio options, particularly in the car, are limited. While some technology firms promise great advances that could bring more choice — such as in-car, high-definition radio and built-in MP3 technology — regulators should consider only what’s available now, the group says.

“The FCC and DOJ aren’t in the business of looking into some crystal ball and predicting some technology in the future,” said Jimmy Shaeffler, Carmel Group senior analyst and author of the group’s report released last week. “Somewhere down the line, maybe 5 years, 7 years or more, XM and Sirius can come back to this argument and possibly prevail.”

I wrote about this study last week when it first appeared. I must say, it’s mighty gracious of Mr. Shaeffler to permit Sirius and XM to come back to regulators and the National Association of Broadcasters, presumably with hat in hand, and ask for permission. Assuming they’re both still around, of course. But it’s not competition they have to worry about. Nope, that’s not evolved, and it would certainly be irresponsible to predict changes that will no doubt be glacial in speed. Look at where we were 5 or 7 years ago. So little has happened, it would be irresponsible to assume anything.

Nothing to see here, folks. The Carmel Group’s study is independent and unbiased, despite being paid for by the National Association of Broadcasters.

Unpopular is not synonymous with bad.

Yesterday, I wrote this in response to a judge’s moralizing about an American’s speech while upholding its constitutional protection:

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the judges had any business inserting the court’s opinion that it has little regard for her vulgar epithets. So what? If it has no bearing on how the case should be interpreted under the law, keep the subjective disdain out of the ruling. I might accept “While the court recognizes that A.B.’s use of vulgar epithets is unpopular, …” or some such pandering to community morals. I doubt it, but even then, speech is speech.

It turns out I only had to wait one day for an example of how it should be done. Via Hit & Run, a federal judge in Orlando demonstrated how to approach this correctly. Consider:

Should strippers be allowed to touch themselves on stage? Orange County thinks not. County law specifically prohibits “fondling, stroking or rubbing of human genitals or anus.”

On March 30, however, a federal judge in Orlando struck down that and other portions of the county’s adult entertainment code as unconstitutional impediments to free speech. “Some self-touching, even of the genitals or anus — no matter how crude or distasteful — may be ‘central to the expressive nature of the dance itself,’” ruled Judge John Antoon II, quoting from a 2005 ruling from a case in Georgia.
…

“The First Amendment cannot both protect the expressive element of erotic dancing and also restrict and contort it by prohibiting the very movements that contribute to its erotic message,” Antoon wrote. “While the public en masse may not approve of such explicit performances, the First Amendment does not turn on generally accepted views of propriety.”

Bingo. Objective interpretation of the Constitution without the subjective opinion about the content being protected. Exactly as it should be. Bravo to Judge Antoon.

The Logical Conclusion of Majoritarianism

Normally, I’d present the facts and comment on them. Thanks to YouTube, I don’t have to do that. See for yourself what democracy mob rule really is.

That’s why, in the wisdom of America’s Founders, we are a republic, not a democracy. It’s why nonsense like the National Popular Vote Plan are ill-conceived. The will of the people is instructive, but it should not be exclusive. We have principles enshrined in our Constitution to protect the minority viewpoint from unjust harassment and an outright ban on their liberty.

Original story here, via Fark.

I want no part of this conservatism.

There are better places to get information about the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case now before the Supreme Court. (Kip’s explanation is a good start.) What’s more telling than anything is that the Bush administration is on the side of limiting speech. And, even though this isn’t a stand-in for the Bush administration’s opinion, the Wall Street Journal’s take should embarrass every member of the editorial board. Primarily, this:

The pious extension of First Amendment speech rights amid Vietnam from adults to students prior to college was a mistake.

So the Wall Street Journal believes that minors should have no free speech rights. How disturbingly authoritarian. I’ll pass. I think the nation’s children can be educated while possessing an opinion. I thought that was kinda the point of education.

Rights begin at 18-years-old.

Via Hit and Run, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its stance on routine drug testing for students. It sides on the right side, but barely. In the body of the policy, under the heading “BENEFITS AND RISKS OF DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS AND AT HOME”, the AAP waits until almost the end to state this:

Drug testing may also be perceived by adolescents as an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

No kidding. So why not elaborate on this? Granted, the AAP is mostly approaching this from a scientific standpoint, but ethics should still be a part of science. You can’t convince me that there is no one at the AAP who is aware of ethical implications. Will the AAP bow before any government desire to invade an adolescent’s medical privacy if the science was clearer than it is with drug testing? I hope not, but this might be a better time to stand up than some point in the future.

P.S. The title of this post is sarcastically incorrect. Obviously.

Don’t steal the free.

I have no idea what the law would say, but if an organization leaves its WiFi connection unprotected, it should not be surprised that someone uses it. But should police confiscate computers from anyone using that connection outside of the property and/or outside of normal business hours?

Brian Tanner was sitting in his Acura Integra recently outside the Palmer Library playing online games when a Palmer police pulled up behind him.

The officer asked him what he was doing.

Tanner, 21, was using the library’s wireless Internet connection. He was told that his activity constituted theft of services and was told to leave. The next day, Sunday, police spotted him there again.

“It was kind of like, ‘Well gee whiz, come on,’ ” police Lt. Tom Remaley said.

The police officer confiscated Tanner’s laptop in order to inspect what he may have been downloading, Remaley said. Remaley on Friday said he hasn’t looked inside the computer yet; he’s putting together a search warrant application.

Okay, right or wrong, Mr. Tanner doesn’t take clues well. Does that justify taking his laptop without a warrant, to hold onto it until a warrant can be granted? I think not, particularly given the obvious fact that the library can track its usage through its log files. There is no need to search the computer to find out where he went and what he might’ve downloaded. This is not complicated.

More to the larger fact, the wireless connection was broadcast from a library. The library leaves the WiFi open during the day. It left it on at night. Is it reasonable for Mr. Tanner to assume that the connection was not left on intentionally, with the library’s administration unconcerned about his use? By mistake, it wasn’t turned off, and the library is (was?) in the process of putting the router on a timer. I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe Mr. Tanner could know this, absent some posted policy at the library or shown on the startup page for the library’s connection, as is common in hotels, for example. The burden to protect the connection when administrators don’t want it used is on the library’s staff.

Lt. Remaley offered one interesting quote regarding criminal prosecution:

But, “in this particular case you know he’s feeding off something that we know the city of Palmer pays for and there are requirements to use it,” Remaley said.

Again, I concede that the requirements might’ve been clear. The article does not say. But the city of Palmer pays for the service. How public is public? This might be a different analysis if the library was private, as it should be. But the taxpayers are funding this wireless. Barring some stated policy that he knowingly violated, and I don’t consider a police officer telling him to scram sufficient from what the article doesn’t state, Mr. Tanner has taught the city of Palmer a lesson in competence, not committed a crime.

For consideration, if the city of Palmer can’t correctly manage its WiFi connection, what makes anyone believe it can handle more important tasks better than private industry?

Source: Boing Boing

“The effects were temporary and the students recovered…”

The negative symptoms of those affected aren’t enough incentive, so those who aren’t affected must be denied:

A high school banned a caffeine-packed energy drink after students complained that it made them sick and shaky and caused their hearts to race.
…

About a half-dozen students reported symptoms including shortness of breath, heart palpitations and nausea, school officials said.

The energy drink is SPIKE Shooter. Based on my personal preference, I’d never drink the stuff, but I don’t drink coffee or soda, either. My reason? Caffeine makes me sick and shaky and causes my heart to race. Beets do the same thing to me. Should we ban beets? Perhaps some other standard makes sense.

In the CNN article, this:

The drink Web site says an 8.4-ounce can has 300 milligrams of caffeine. By comparison, the average 5-ounce cup of coffee has 80 to 115 milligrams of caffeine, according to the London-based International Coffee Organization.

Ounce for ounce would be a better comparison. In that scenario, the average cup of coffee contains 134.4 to 193.2 milligrams of caffeine. That’s a slightly different story. To its credit, the drink’s maker, Biotest Laboratories, puts a warning on the can to “begin use with one-half can to determine tolerance.” If that warning is insufficient, then what’s the point of mandatory labels?

For what it’s worth, it would take 31.85 cans of SPIKE Shooter to kill me.

There’s no free pass for noble intentions.

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley penned an essay in today’s Washington Post on his opposition to the death penalty. I like and agree with much of it. The state should not be in the business of killing people when a less troublesome solution is available. I see no reason that life without parole can’t guarantee the same benefit to society. That, and I don’t want people killing in my name any more than necessary.

However, his essay is not perfect.

And what of the tremendous cost of pursuing capital punishment? In 2002, Judge Dale Cathell of the Maryland Court of Appeals wrote that, according to his research, processing and imprisoning a death penalty defendant “costs $400,000 over and above . . . a prisoner serving a life sentence.” Given that 56 people have been sentenced to death in Maryland since 1978, our state has spent about $22.4 million more than the cost of life imprisonment. That’s nearly $4.5 million “extra” for each of the five executions carried out. And so long as every American is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the cost of due process will not go down.

If, however, we were to replace the death penalty with life without parole, that $22.4 million could pay for 500 additional police officers or provide drug treatment for 10,000 of our addicted neighbors. Unlike the death penalty, these are investments that save lives and prevent violent crime. If we knew we could spare a member of our family from becoming a victim of violent crime by making this policy change, would we do it?

Why not stop at stating that Maryland has spent an estimated $22.4 million more than necessary to achieve the same result? That’s money that Marylanders do not need to pay to the state to receive effective government. But I get his point. He’s advocating an argument that Maryland can be even safer if the money is better spent. It’s a pleasant argument without guaranteed results. It’ll market his solution to a few more people. Still, it’s extraneous fluff not central to the topic of what government should do to convicted murderers.

Gov. O’Malley’s second suggestion irks me more. Of course we should save those millions, because then we can fight the War on Drugs treat drug addicts. Drugs are bad, mmmkay. This isn’t even a pleasant argument. It’s marketing to the basest understanding of where morality and public policy should meet. I can think of only one way for Gov. O’Malley to make his suggestions worse: propose using that $22.4 million for 500 additional police officers to arrest 10,000 drug addicted Marylanders. I’m actually surprised he didn’t.

For what it’s worth, note that Gov. O’Malley suggests using money saved over 28 years to pay for 500 officers for 1 year. Talked about an unfunded mandate based on feel-good marketing.