July 8, 2008
Protecting Borrowers From -- Loans!
Great bit from the esteemed political philosopher, Emily Dickenson:
The surgeon must be very careful,
When to use the knife.
For underneath his fine incision,
Lays the culprit, life.
(From memory, so don't complain if I missed a comma or something)
Fed plans new rules to protect future homebuyers When I read the headline, a shiver went down to my feet in sort of a reverse Obama-Matthews. Reading the story did not make it go away. Broad new powers for the Fed (expanding our services because we rock so much at our other tasks) to regulate home loans.
Under the proposal unveiled last December, the rules would restrict lenders from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early, require lenders to make sure these borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance and bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income. It also would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value.
Government comes up with some hare-brained ideas now and then but I think this one will indeed work. If you make it too expensive or perhaps impossible to get a loan, that should inhibit defaults.
Mortgage crisis solved! I knew getting a Princeton Man in would be a good idea!
Quote of the Day
Don't blame speculators for the food crisis: It was already here when they arrived. Rather thank them for a wake-up call. Financial markets are driving today's prices to match expectations of tomorrow's values – the consensus of countless investors and producers is that the era of surpluses and cheap food is over. Yet even a credible promise that G-8 protectionist policies will be reversed would raise output down the road and drop prices at the corner grocery counter overnight. -- AEI's Adam Lerrick, explaining that subsidies, not free markets, cause a misallocation of food.
Le Tour
I love all things American and can be almost as much of a sports jingoist as James "Metric Football" Taranto. In all my time in the UK and Ireland, I never developed a taste for soccer. To be honest, the Olympics remind me too much of the UN for me to enjoy any but a few of my favorite events.
Enough Ugly American cred for you? Good.
The Tour de France is one of the great sporting events. They don't always speak 'merican real good, and they have funny names -- but this is well worth watching. I was an avid, compulsive cyclist before I had MS. I had a couple of 10,000 mile years, I went with no car for most of a year, and I was in the mountains every warm weekend (usually bleeding in the dirt).
I have the build of a blocking tight-end and not a bike racer, and I lacked the athleticism to be good, but I made up for my deficiencies in enthusiasm. More a mountain-bike guy, I nevertheless tried to follow the tour. And it was almost impossible, you could read about it in a magazine, but there was almost nothing on television and VP Gore's Internet was not up to video specs yet.
This year, the cable channel Versus (home of the Stanley Cup as well) is providing incredible coverage. I don't know that they will do every stage, but so far they have complete live coverage of each stage, commentary, interviews -- it's an incredible production.
The race is great this year as well. No time bonuses, and no prolog time trials have really opened it up -- the yellow jersey was available to about any rider on the first stage. All the finishes have been mind bogglingly exciting. It's July: hockey's done, football hasn't started and baseball is in the soft middle. Enjoy the French countryside and incredible athleticism of these premier athletes.
Keep the volume down, and if anybody asks, tell 'em you're cleaning your guns...
July 7, 2008
Bob!
We have not talked much about Rep. Barr's candidacy. I don't think we have a lot of LP folk, but I am curious how many agree with Samizdat Dale Amon:
Bob Barr is looking more and more to have been an excellent choice to carry our banner this year. He is getting the sort of serious media coverage we have only dreamed of despite us working towards it for decades. Ron Paul's run for the Republican ticket earlier this year has probably had a great deal to do with it.
I'm a long time fan of Amon, but I left a (n overly snarky) comment that I don't see Rep. Barr as the great libertarian savior. He is neither dynamic nor charismatic -- and his message of purity seems to be undercut by his very un-libertarian career in the House.
Am I missing something?
The South Will Rise Again
Bourbon makers' spirit spreading worldwide
Distillers are expanding their bourbon production and storage and dispatching sales teams around the world, bullish for a traditionally Southern beverage gaining popularity worldwide. Surging exports, the weak U.S. dollar and rising popularity among younger Americans are driving the boom.
Hat-tip:
Insty, natch.
Now That's Nuance!
I wondered whether my mad lefty brother was getting a little upset with Senator Obama as he tacked to the right. He's not angry enough to be a Kos kid, but he is true believer in collectivism.
Well another email thread pried out the truth. He applauds the Junior Senator from Illinois for his (wait for it...) "nuance."
I don't want to beat up my brother here, but the reviews are rolling in, and they're not too good. It seems all those mad right wingers: Mark Halperin, Ted Koppel, George Stephanopoulos, Mara Liasson, and Juan Williams were all critical. Here's Juan Williams:
My sense is, though, along the lines of the Wall Street Journal editorial this week that said who would have guessed that Barack Obama is legitimizing George Bush’s — and the whole notion of George Bush’s position on Iraq, and the whole notion of a third term for Bush, because he’s picked up not just on Iraq, but on things like faith- based initiative, even on the abortion question, which I — it was befuddling to me. He says suddenly, you know, mental distress is not a basis for a woman to have an abortion. I mean, that’s going to outrage people on the left. So what it seems to me is you could say on Iraq it’s a matter of emphasis. All along he has said he would take into consideration the position of the commanders in the field. But the heart and soul — I mean, the heart of his campaign has been to say, “This is an unpopular war. It’s a war that was ill- conceived. We never should have gone in there. We have put too much money in there. We have spent too much of our precious blood there.” And suddenly he’s saying, “No, no, you know what? I’m going to refine my position.”
I watched Williams make that statement on FOX News Sunday yesterday. I was struck by the fact that four, fairly bright pundits (Fred Barnes, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, Juan Williams) who do this for a living -- none of the four had any idea what direction a President Obama would take. Liasson quotes Paul Krugman:
I mean, Paul Krugman, who’s a liberal columnist, wrote this week, “Gee, is he a centrist just masquerading as someone who’s a transformational progressive figure or is he really the opposite?” You know, people just don’t know. He’s a blank slate.
Dude promised change.
"Change:" The new 'one-a-day' supplement from Obamaceuticals.
Just wait until he's elected when in many cases he can be expected to change back again.
It took the leftists 18 years to acknowledge the truth about the Clintons (i.e., they will say and do anything to get elected). There is evidence that they're learning a similar lesson about Obama a bit faster. This column is another example of left-wing disillusionment with Obama. The left will not abandon him at the polls, but the moderates may figure out that he's just another politician who's principles extend no further than the current audience.
July 6, 2008
Final Yellowcake Removed from Iraq
Sixteen words...
Sixteen words...
Wait a minute.
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
This is not the yellowcake you've been looking for.
Mmmm, cake.
Am I missing something here? I saw a couple of things on this, but it seems to be a non-story. The MSNBC story you linked has 300 words on the difficulty of safely removing it -- and then a weird non sequitor ending about Scooter Libby.
Am I the only one who thinks the story might be, um, something like: "SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD MORE THAN 600 TONS OF URANIUM!!"
That evil Karl Rove...he has such power, even after leaving the Bush Administration, that he makes the MSM forget about his evil plans to out Valerie Plame and frame Scooter!
Seriously now, why should this be a "problem" for Washington, when it vindicates the Bush Administration's belief that Saddam harbored stuff he shouldn't have had? Sheesh, only the damn liberal media could spin it this way. I suppose this was among the banned materials Saddam shouldn't have had, which the inspectors for a long time said he didn't have, then on the eve of the invasion "found" it again. I was briefly acquainted with one of the inspectors, a real bitch who did little to dispel the stereotype of French arrogance. She had a Ph.D. in physics, specializing in rocketry, but she was a poor detective.
So Saddam didn't buy any from Niger. Now we see why: he still had plenty at home, which apparently could have been used in the so-called "dirty bomb." I wonder how many degrees of separation there were between Saddam and the likes of Jose Padilla.
Nor am I willing to concede that Joe Wilson IV was right that none of the 600 tons was bought from Niger. Speaking of people who are really not good detectives...
But the important thing was that the CIA told Bush not to use the intelligence information on yellowcake in his SOTU address (and he did it anyway, that impertinent little man) - not whether it was true or not. No matter what you can't take away from that bit of "gotcha" journalism that the Times is so proud of.
I don't know that I'd give a **** what the CIA asked me to say or not say. This is the same CIA that has its own agenda, whose least sin is continuing to keep Valerie Plame in covert status -- after she outed herself to a guy she was romantically involved in (she revealed her covert status to Joe Wilson when they were dating). Love trumped duty and being a competent spy, as I explained here to a dimwit limey.
http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/007395.html
Anyway, the only "gotcha" the liberals ever had on Bush is accusing him of lying about something he never said. If John Kerry or B. Hussein had said it, liberals would say that the 16 words were too "nuanced" for critics to understand.
July 5, 2008
Review Corner
I have to play catch up from before the move, so I will do what Larry Kudlow calls a "lightning round:"
Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg. I wanted to read this and I read some good reviews. But in the end this book was better than I thought it would be. Goldberg checks his trademark humor at the door, and writes a very serious and important book. He tries bravely to keep it from being a polemic and he is mostly successful. Yet his topic makes it hard to escape. If you haven't read it or much about it, Goldberg aims to:
- Define fascism, not just as an insult or dysphemism for "something I don't like." He looks at Mussolini's Italy and, of course, Nazi Germany though he is thorough in separating Hitlerism and Fascism
- Look at America's closest brushes with fascism or fascist tactics, through the Progressive Era, Margaret Sanger, New Deal, 1960's radicals and the life work of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
- Lastly, tie fascism to the beliefs and tactics of the left. Amusingly, they love to throw the word at their enemies, but from greater State control of industry to organic food -- the shoe seems to fit a little better on the left if ya catch my drift.
I, like other reviewers, sell it a little short by synopsizing. It's a better, more serious, and more informative book than you are expecting. Four stars and change.
Economic Facts and Fallacies, by Thomas Sowell. Holy cow, Sowell is prolific, and I'm gonna agree with everything he says anyway, why give up $17.16?
Well, it's only 15.44 on Kindle® (both of these books were read on Kindle) and Sowell is a deity. You will certainly think of something in a different way (one for me was to consider the different median ages for different ethnic groups. When you consider African-American income statistics against the US population at large, consider that the median black age is five years younger (30) than all (35), with age having a huge factor on income). Even when you say you've heard the story before, Sowell is so lucid and his arguments are so tight, you will be far better prepared to yell at your in-laws at the next family function. Completely non-technical, very accessible, very well done. 3.75 (it would be higher if there were more new material).
Tin Man (DVD). I guess this aired as a miniseries on Sci-Fi Channel. I wanted to rent it from Redbox (it came out on DVD last March), missed it, and ended up accidentally buying it from Redbox (long story, but they sell older DVD's for $7, I had a credit and took a flyer). Merciful Zeus, this is a great film! This is another look at Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz. This one is more modern, a little darker, and a lot more Baum-ier than Judy Garland's with those great Harold Arlen songs.
Don't get your panties in a bunch if you love the original. This is not a remake. It's another look and that is all I'll say. And it is full of little devotions and homages to the 1939 film (the address of the farmhouse is "39"). It is told in three "editions." each of which is film length, so I realize you're making a substantive time commitment. But this is a gem. It is well shot, well acted, a ripping plot-line -- and the breadcrumbs of those little homages keep you alert every minute.
I'm thinking five stars. I can't think of anything not to like -- It's Buffy meets Dorothy!
I genuinely enjoyed Tin Man myself. Watched it last December on vacation at the in-laws, where they have HDTV and I was captivated. I will add that it's also thoroughly sexy, in a 'Ginger and Mary Ann' sort of way.
Six hours seemed like three.
Glad to get a little reinforcement; this really blew me away (you have got to try Buffy again, starting at a newer season or starting with Angel).
I cannot disagree with your comment. Ms. Deschanel is completely captivating (I had never seen her before) and, in true Buffy fashion, even the villain is attractive.
July 4, 2008
China for a Day?
Megan McArdle is in Aspen, which is almost, sortof in Colorado. You can call me names if you want but I really hate Aspen. Like Boulder, it has its charms, but it lacks Boulder's tenuous tether to actual reality.
She is there at a seminar listening to Thomas Friedman. And he is exhorting us to lead the way to "abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons" (my experience with electrons to date has been that they are all four of these things without government interference). Friedman catches McArdle's heart by saying that we don't want a green Manhattan project, that we want to use price signals. But it seems to deteriorate pretty quickly from there:
At this point he sort of goes off the deep end and talks about how great it would be if we could be China for a day--have the government get in, totally reorganize the energy market, and then go forward from there. He bases this on a conversation with Jeff Immelt, who thinks the world would be a better place if this happened.
Where to start? Very few people think that China is succeeding because of its awesome industrial policy--China is succeeding very much in spite of its industrial policy. Indeed, its industrial policy is threatening to drag down important sectors of the economy, like the banking system, which may well cause the whole thing to implode.
Here, friends and neighbors, I will make my stand as a pragmatic man of the right. We all feel the Hamiltonian urge. Now and then, we all want to force something on the public or electorate that they don't know is good for them.
But it has been a province of the left to consistently exercise this. Republicans have, I'd cite Nixon, Theodore Roosevelt, and Hoover, but none is held in great esteem by the party or limited government philosophers. President Reagan perhaps blurred the lines a bit in the Iran-Contra imbroglio, President George W. Bush pushes Executive power a long way past what Madison envisioned in Federalist 10, and used some strong-arm legislative tactics to get Medicare Part D passed in a GOP Congress. But the smaller-government politicians have been pretty philosophically consistent.
Against these exceptions, I look at FDR (with Hoover's man Rex Tugwell), Wilson, Johnson -- and the campaign rhetoric of Senator Barack Obama. Constitutional restrictions on government power are an impediment to remaking the world in their way. They have to be "China for Day" to get their benighted ideas past a foolish electorate.
I have railed as well against the millenarian überright who look forward to rebuilding their ideal libertarian world out the ashes of a post-implosion society, We don't need to be China for a day and we don't need to have the Obama administration bring the whole thing down. We enjoy a modern, functioning, self-directed government. It has great flaws, but it can be changed with vision and ideas -- without leaving the Constitutional structure. Going outside or beyond that structure is what got us here -- it is not the solution.
1215 Reenlist in Baghdad
BobKrumm.com:
BAGHDAD – How are you spending your 4th of July holiday? While most Americans probably slept, 1,215 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines raised their right hands and committed to a combined 5,500 years of additional service during the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the American military. Beneath a large American flag which dwarfed even the enormous chandelier that Saddam Hussein had built for the Al Faw Palace, members of all services, representing all 50 states took the oath administered by Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq.
Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”
Happy Fourth! Hat-tip:
Instapundit.
UPDATE:
Words fail. To share a country with these young men and women.
July 3, 2008
jk, this one is for you
With all the talk about Pigouvian taxation, I thought I would highlight Bryan Caplan's recent thoughts:
I'm not going to say that Pigovianism is inherently totalitarian. But I will say that if intolerant preferences are widespread, then Pigovian thinking justifies totalitarianism. There's no denying it: If most people are horrified by the sight of an unveiled woman, then Pigovian logic requires a massive tax on visible female faces.
Happy commenting!
Thanks, hb, that's a superb piece. I only wish you had excepted more. He makes my argument (sigh) a lot better than I do,
Happy Fourth From GoDaddy.com
I got an email alerting me to a special 4th of July message from GoDaddy.com and I prepared myself for a buxom young lady in a red white and blue bikini.
Happy Independence Day from GoDaddy.com (Give it time to load).
The disappointment faded quickly. It’s awesome to see unabashed, undeconstrusted, unapologetic patriotism from a US Company.
Immigration, Again
We can't all go off to our Fourth celebrations as indivisible, proud Americans, can we?
I wonder if the forces at ThreeSources who are -- shall we say -- less tolerant of illegal immigration than I am -- are you disturbed that Senator McCain is spending the Third in Mexico? Mickey Kaus sure is:
So the Fourth of July newspapers will have John McCain in ... er, Mexico plotting how to achieve comprehensive immigration reform with Felipe Calderon. ... And some people say the McCain Team has a tin ear!
I've heard some good points made around here -- I like the prosperity that they bring to us and am more willing than most around here to shrug off some of the problems. I'll agree that it is complicated, and I will cede that the other side has honest interlocutors.
But Kaus -- whom I admire greatly -- is not one of them. I feel a little sorry for him -- a Democrat yearning for Tancredoism has a tragic side to it.
I would think that one thing we might agree on is that the government of Mexico will continue to be mui importanto to future immigration concerns. I think this episode exposes the flaw in the Kaus theory. Why is the candidate holding talks without preconditions with Calderon? The solution is to be found on the north side of the Rio Grande. It's 14 feet high, has barbed wire on top and a lot of armed people in its shade to ensure its integrity.
Sorry, Mickster, a real solution involves Mexico. To deny that is to expose your thinking as being too small for the problem.
Happy Fourth!
July 2, 2008
The Pigou Club Is After Me
I thought for sure it would be the FDA that would come after me for my blogging, possibly arranging a special clinical trial of crushed razor blades and coffee.
But no, I have run afoul of the Pigou Club. My anti-Pigouvian post of June 26 attracted a smart comment and a link from Mike Moffatt, who writes an economics blog on About.com. Moffatt says "Every decision governments make either implicitly or explicitly make at least one determination about goodness or badness. It is entirely what governments do. Why object to it only in this case?"
A fair point to which I will return. I followed the link to his blog post, An Absurd Anti-Pigouvian Argument Absurd? Pretty strong language from a guy who wears a suit on his blog photo. He excerpts the original (Tim Kane) post and my assent. And continues:
What the author is advocating here is not some limited government libertarian fantasy - he is advocating for anarchy. I will explain with an example:
The example provided is murder. Because I do not support a tax on global warming, I reject the right of government to proscribe murder.
I responded by email (does about.com require membership or registration? the comment link did not work)
Mr. Moffatt
I appreciate your comment and link to the ThreeSources blog and am certain that the absurd anti-Pigouvian argument you referenced was Tim Kane's and not mine.
I accept your premise that governments do separate good from bad. I offer that:
a) I would like our government to do less of this. Inviting our 535 benighted betters in Washington additional opportunities to attack global warming, or trans-fats, or wide neckties by relative taxation of various pursuits does not seem wise.
b) I would like to separate the collection of revenue from the good/bad decisions. Revenue is required and decisions of what to regulate and proscribe are also needed. To merge those two functions invites more meddling than I would like.
To take your example of murder, there is clear legislation to proscribe it and punish those convicted. Adding a carbon or trans-fat tax creates a new category of behavior that is permitted but discouraged through taxation. You would be correct in pointing out that there are examples of this. I don't think that makes it right.
Let government enact specific legislation to regulate or ban products or procedures. These can be discussed and the legislators can be held accountable. Do not create a new, soft, method for government to further influence behavior.
UPDATE: I went to my sent box to copy the letter and it appears I sent an unspellchecked and horribly typed version. I'm sure he is now telling Professor Mankiw, "Yeah Greg, these guys are something else..."
"Because I do not support a tax on global warming, I reject the right of government to proscribe murder."
Of course I'm not arguing this! All I'm wondering is, at what point do you allow the government to make decisions of right and wrong? If it's *never* (which you seem to be implying), then how can you be for any law?
"To take your example of murder, there is clear legislation to proscribe it and punish those convicted. Adding a carbon or trans-fat tax creates a new category of behavior that is permitted but discouraged through taxation. You would be correct in pointing out that there are examples of this."
So you'd be okay with the government banning things (say, the government banning trans-fats), but you're against the government taking a more gentler approach (and collecting revenue from it, rather than collecting revenue from, say, higher income taxes)? Your further comment suggests that you are. I don't find anything wrong with that line of reasoning. I just find it, well, surprising.
What I am saying to both is that I am more comfortable separating revenue and regulation. If Congress wants to ban trans-fats, let them try. Let's have a sponsor, co-sponsors, floor debate, a final vote, and a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden. I suspect that such a bill would not make it that far and that those who supported it might face some heated primaries and elections.
The Pigouvian tax is stealthier. Would I prefer an outright ban? At least it would be honest and traceable. The Pigouvian tax we now have is on cigarettes, and its reductio ad absurdum was the California proposition to fund Universal Preschool with it.
I am uncomfortable with cigarette taxes. They are regressive and they represent the social engineering that scares me away from the Pigou Club. (I quit when GHWB was President, so my concern is purely philosophical.)
"If Congress wants to ban trans-fats, let them try. Let's have a sponsor, co-sponsors, floor debate, a final vote, and a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden."
Unfortunately, that's not how most bans work. (I work for a firm that does regulatory consulting to the chemical industry).
For the vast majority of substances which get banned in the U.S., it's likely going to be in a piece of regulation from the FDA, EPA, OSHA, which is buried somewhere in the Federal Register.
Have you ever seen the size of a year's worth of Federal Registers?
More information about the reach of regulatory agencies can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.%2C_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council%2C_Inc.
I guess my big frustration and all this (and my unjustified snottyness than pops up from time to time) is how "conservatives" and "libertarians" keep comparing Pigovian taxes to some kind of idealized libertarian regulatory world that doesn't exist.
If the anti-Pigovians considered how chemical regulatory law works (and surely isn't through ballot box issues and signing ceremonies in the Rose Garden), they'd probably be more amenable to alternatives.
"Every decision governments make either implicitly or explicitly make at least one determination about goodness or badness. It is entirely what governments do. Why object to it only in this case?"
And those, Moffatt, are precisely why governments *should not* be making economic decision. Tell me how bureaucrats have the right to decide that something is "good" or "bad," when it harms no one but the person voluntarily buying/ingesting/using it.
"Have you ever seen the size of a year's worth of Federal Registers?"
Do you not see the simple answer, that it means the federal government is exceeding its constitutional powers? So don't worry about *controlling* bureaucracy, when you must *destroy* it.
One doesn't have to be an anarchist to make jk's argument, and I can assure you that he's hardly one anyway. However, he and I know that the only, ONLY purpose of legitimate government is to protect life, liberty and property. Murder is a violation of someone's life and is therefore punishable. If I eat properly made cannoli, that's not violating anyone's rights.
If I want to buy gasoline, or something made with trans fats, why is it of your concern? Who make *you* God, that you have the right to "regulate" my "behavior"?
Remember that "busybodies," as well as liars and fornicators, are condemned to hellfire. But go ahead, go on and keep worshipping the state, believing it will save you from your own sins, and that through it you can save others from their sins too.
One more thing I'll address, before I leave you and jk to hash things out between yourselves. You said:
'"conservatives" and "libertarians" keep comparing Pigovian taxes to some kind of idealized libertarian regulatory world that doesn't exist.'
That's a ludicrous strawman, and if you have a modicum of intelligence, you know it is. So which is it: are you the moron I'm starting to take you for, or are you deceitful in making your arguments?
A society of freedom and individualism does not exist only because people of your ilk destroyed it and won't allow it to return. You make specious arguments about "regulation," "banning" and the most "efficient" ways to control others' lives to your liking. You use fuzzy logic and throw around "Pareto improvement," when you wouldn't know a real example of the latter if it bit you in the behind. Every time you deny me the right to eat trans fat-laden food or do something that harms no one else, I'm harmed. Period, end of story, quod erat demonstrandum.
Polluters don't have to be regulated; they just need to be held accountable for their damages, by and ONLY by the people who are actually harmed. I suggest you read about polluters in Lew Rockwell's piece about what he would do in his first 30 days.
Go on, return to your worship of the almighty State. I really don't care if you do; you have the freedom to. Just don't make *me* worship it with you.
"Lew Rockwell's piece about what he would do in his first 30 days."
Read it. It is highly flawed, as I will demonstrate below.
"Polluters don't have to be regulated; they just need to be held accountable for their damages, by and ONLY by the people who are actually harmed."
And how are you going to manage that?
Stylized Example - Someone gets sick from air pollution (which happens all the time - go visit a respiratory ward and you'll see what I mean) and racks up a $10,000 medical bill. For the sake of argument, assume that 90% of that pollution came from automobiles and there are 30,000 registered cars in the area.
I have clearly been harmed here. But what is my option - to sue each and every driver in the city for 37 cents to cover my damages?
I wanted to thank Mike for his thoughtful comments, welcome him to ThreeSources, and mention that if he called me an anarchist, pretty soon some real anarchists around here would take umbrage.
I am the blog pragmatist and am often chided for not demanding more of the liberty promised in the Constitution. I don't believe in an ideal libertarian state, but I do fight at the margins every proposal and every election to stop, slow, or possibly even roll back a little government encroachment.
You're right about the supra-Constitutional regulation. I also fight the arrogation of powers to the Executive branch that allows its agencies to make law without deliberation or balance of power. Because we are leaking liberty like a sieve, does not make me any more favorable to the giant drain of Pigouvian taxes. Always fighting at the margins: more liberty, less government coercion.
I *have* read it, long ago. How else do you think I cited it?
I'd wager you didn't read it till today. The only reason you think it's "flawed" is because you don't think it can work in the real world -- because you're a pathetic, dribbling state-worshipper and don't believe in freedom.
I do like your example of automobiles. It demonstrates that you're harmed by an inconsequantial amount by an individual, but there's no significant damage from any single source. So in the ideal libertarian world, you chalk it up to, "Well that's how life is." It also demonstrates your absurd thinking that you can quantify such things when there are so many involved, and that when all else fails, you want to lump everyone together. A car may be registered in the area, but it does not necessarily have a proportional amount of blame. I drive mostly on weekends only, so should I be held to the same standard as someone who drives to work and also does two trips nightly? When I walk down Fifth Avenue and crinkle my nose at all the second-hand smoke, do I blame all smokers who live and work in the area?
It's the same as someone who lived before modern times, who obtained water from a river that people upstream also used for washing, bathing, etc. If someone kills you, or cuts off your arm, that's easy enough to figure out. But there's no reasonable way, let alone a practical one, to allocate a fixed percentage of blame when you're dealing with so many people of so many different actions. What you *can* do is say, aha, this New Jersey refinery was built in the area where I've lived all my life, I don't smoke, my family has no history of cancer, but I developed lung cancer, and these several independent doctors and biopsies blame it on the type of pollution emitted by the refinery. *That* you can demonstrate beyond a preponderance of the evidence (the usual requirement in civil suits). It's really not hard if you want to *think* about it for a little bit, instead of spewing your state-worshipping drivel.
But even in this "ideal" libertarian world you denigrate, there's the practical side of going after people who harm you only if they've done significant damage. Even the most die-hard anarchist (unless he's actually a psychopath) doesn't talk about going after others for the tiniest infractions, because Pyrrhic victories exist in all real universes. We bump into each other all the time. Unless it's serious, like a broken bone or torn clothes, dust yourself off and move on.
You still haven't addressed the issue of how *you*, who is not deity, have the authority to tell me how to conduct my peaceful, voluntary commercial transactions. Stop dodging the question, if you're not afraid. Meanwhile, take the beam out of your own eye, before telling me about the speck in mine.
Must see TV
Jonah Goldberg says he is likely to be on Kudlow & Company tonight. I can't imagine missing Larry for any reason, but it should be fun to see Goldberg asked about the TED spread.
I'm way behind on Review Corners, but I owe a solid four star review for Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." I really recommend that you grab that one. Goldberg turns down his humor to write a serious book, but enough trickles through, like "Compassionate Fascism."
I'll do a little more soon -- also the newest Thomas Sowell and a film that absolutely blew me away. But get Jonah's book on order first.
Reaching Out to Libertarians
My illustrious Congressman is running for the U.S. Senate. Mark Udall has been a Democratic backbencher and a reliable D vote with a safe seat in CO-2 (Boulder and environs) since 1998. He's "movin' on up" by running for Wayne Allard's seat and one has to think everything is in the Scion's favor in 2008.
I am intrigued because I have seen extensive advertising on the Reason Magazine website and today he has a web ad with video on the (gasp!) WSJ editorial page. I wonder if his GOP opponent, Bob Schaffer, will make as much effort to reach out.
Safe to say Udall will have buckets of money. Colorado remains an inexpensive media market which a George Soros or Rob Reiner can saturate with change from the couch cushions. He can afford to go after these voters. I also question whether he will change any polity, or if it is all marketing. His website trumpets his bipartisanship:
Mark is known for his willingness to elevate the policy debate above partisan politics in order to find workable solutions to difficult political issues. Most recently, he worked across party lines to pass legislation to reduce wildfire risk and bark-beetle infestation in Colorado, and to pass legislation to protect the natural beauty of the Roan Plateau while still allowing some access to the area's mineral wealth.
Yeah, bucking the pro-bark-beetle lobby is a profile in courage! That's change we can believe in.
Third Bush Term
The Wall Street Journal Ed Page borrows my meme. Their lead editorial opens "We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it."
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama's campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.
It's okay Paul. It's okay Rupert. I have grabbed a few from you guys over the years. Fair is fair.
