Independent Country

The Prisoner's Dilemma, the Market Dilemma, and the State

2008-07-16T22:06:00.000-07:00

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In real life, neither honest nor dishonest people can discern right from wrong, because government over-spending causes inflation and speculation, and government planning and regulations cause confusion. When the government exerts force on on an individual, we can't expect that individual to be honest or dishonest, or to be good or bad. All we can expect that individual to do is to do what he can to protect his wealth and stay out of trouble. When the laws and regulations are too confusing for lawyers and the taxes too complicated for accountants, and when government controls everything from charity to forest management, we can't expect individuals to "do the right thing." Everywhere they turn, the State will be there to punish them severely for even honest mistakes.

Rights and Wrongs

2008-07-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

[UPDATE: My apologies for not including the link earlier.]

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

If we have the sense to agree that we can't use force against a person who does nothing illegal and commits no act of aggression, how then can we say that it is proper to make once-legal activitiy illegal? If no one was wronged yesterday, how are they wronged today? If there were no victims yesterday in a mutually-consenting relationship or exchange, how would passing a law create a victim today in identical relationships and exchanges?

The Worst of All Worlds

2008-07-10T04:06:00.000-07:00

Quotes of the Day

"It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws." - Dick Cheney

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." - Bill Clinton

Subject: The Worst of All Worlds

Why did nearly half the Democrats in the House vote for the "FISA Amendments Act" that's now pending in the Senate, when most of them had opposed warrantless spying and telecom immunity before? The answer is that they were bribed, using your tax dollars.

The Washington Post claims a deal was cut: the Democratic Leadership would support the FISA bill if the President would agree to add $95 billion in DOMESTIC spending to the latest Iraq appropriation.

In other words, House Democrats voted to continue the war and sold the Fourth Amendment for $95 billion.

Republicans say they want less spending. Democrats say they want less war. What's their compromise? More spending and more war.

Indeed, House Democrats supported the Iraq bill at a higher rate than Republicans did.

So much for the "anti-war message" sent by the American people in the 2006 elections!

This sort of "compromise" brings us the worst of all worlds. It's the kind of world expressed in the views of Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton above. Politicians of both parties get annoyed when gadflies start talking about the Constitution and America's proud traditions of individual rights, liberty, and the rule of law. To them, "laws" and "rights" are just bargaining chips to use in passing their spending bills.

The current course they're plotting will lead to economic collapse, fiscal bankruptcy, an Orwellian Big Brother police state, and a faltering, over-extended military empire. Who knows what kind of chaos or despotism will follow.

But the people don't have to wait for things to fall apart. Instead, we can put massive, persistent, resistance-numbing pressure on Congress. Apply the pressure, and members of Congress will bend, and then they will flip-flop. They will have to, if they want to keep their jobs.

So let's tell Congress that the American people do not tolerate their cavalier attitude toward Constitutional rights and the rule of law.

Tell them to pass the "One Subject at a Time Act," which would have forced them to separate the Iraq bill from domestic bills. Tell them you're aware the Democrats in the House sold out in return for increased domestic spending. Tell them you don't like having your tax dollars used as bribes.

Tell them to pass the "Read the Bills Act," which would have forced them to actually read the 116 pages of H.R. 6304, the "FISA Amendments Act."

And keep telling the Senate to oppose the "FISA Amendments Act."

In your comments on all of these messages tell them you're proud we're a nation of laws, not men. Tell them OSTA and RTBA will help restore liberty by making it more difficult to sweep aside Constitutional rights in legislative horse trading.

Also, please consider joining the "Read the Bills Act Coalition." When you add "Read the Bills Act Coalition" button, banner, or tower ad on your website, we'll link to it from our blog and announce it in a Downsizer-Dispatch like this one, reaching almost 23,500 subscribers. To learn more, click here.

This week we welcome two new members to the Coalition:

Reinke Faces Life
The Virginian Rebel

Finally, in the last two weeks of June the House passed 44 bills totaling 969 pages, while the Senate passed 34 bills and 269 pages of legislation. A list of bills is available below my signature at the Downsize DC blog version of this Dispatch.

Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

What Are States' Rights? Or, The Meaning of "Or"

2008-07-08T18:15:00.000-07:00

In one of his Mises talks (I think this one), Thomas DiLorenzo clarifies what is meant - at least, what he means - by States' Rights. To paraphrase, the doctrine of States' Rights is merely the right of the people to come together to oppose and resist federal tyranny. It does not mean that the state governments have a "right" to oppress the people.

I received a letter from someone who has an interesting take on the Tenth Amendment that sounds very plausible and is consistent with DiLorenzo's thinking.

Think of these statements:

1. "My pet Fido was a canine, meaning, he was a dog."

2. "My pet Fido was a canine, that is, a dog."

3. "My pet Fido was a canine, or, a dog."

All statements indicate clarify the meaning of "canine" to those who may not know what a canine is. In the third sentence, the word "or" means "meaning" or "that is."

The Tenth Amendment reads, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If "or" is used the same way as our canine/dog example, then "the States respectively" means "the people of each state."

If this interpretation is correct, The State is understood not as the government of a defined geographical area, but as the people of that area.

It seems that the common understanding of the Tenth Amendment is something like this: "Powers not delegated to the United States are thereby reserved to the State governments, and if the State governments don't exercise those powers, the people can have them to do as they wish; either way, the federal government isn't supposed to care one way or another." And this interpretation is distasteful to those who correctly assert that government's do not have the "right" to take away individual rights.

Does this new interpretation, in which "State" means "people" rather than "government," make any difference?

In one sense, it doesn't. Some will say that it still grants state governments the freedom to oppress if "the people" consent. But that's just a recognition that neither the other states nor the federal government has the right to govern them. Neither the state of Nebraska nor the federal government has the legitimate power to tell the people of South Dakota what to do or how to govern themselves. Similarly, neither the U.S. nor the United Nations have the legitimate power to tell the Canadian people what to do or how to govern themselves.

More significant is how the "United States" meant at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. I believe DiLorenzo along with probably several others have noted that when the preamble begins "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union" the meaning was not "we the people acting collectively as one nation" but rather "We the People of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia . . ."

So why wasn't it written that way? Because
a) the collection of states was understood when people said "the United States." They didn't have to name them all. They'd say, "the United States are . . ." instead of "the United States is . . ."
b) writing all the states out is awkward, and
c) because there was a possibility that not all the states would ratify and become part of this supposedly "more perfect" Union.

In sum, the people of the States formed the Union; the "American people" did not form the Union, for the "American people" did not exist. The Union was formed by and for the States, not by and for the majority of the "American people." Power is to emanate from the people as individuals coming together within their respective states - not from "the American people" as a whole, not from the state capitols, and not from the federal government.

To be for "states rights" is not to assert the right of state governments to oppress. It is rather, the right of the people to be free from centralized, federal control.

Bad McCain Ad

2008-07-08T17:51:00.000-07:00

McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time, but then criticizes Obama for voting Democrat 97% of the time.

The first time I saw the ad, I thought it odd, because if McCain is supposed to be so great because he disagrees with fellow Republicans some of the time, isn't a Democrat who disagrees with Republicans almost all of the time even better?

Causes and Cures

2008-07-07T08:58:00.000-07:00

Two economists, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, agreed that many of the steps Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt took to end the Great Depression only made it worse. Also, that their expanded Presidential powers, new bureaucracies, and curbs on economic freedom had long-term disastrous consequences both morally and economically. Both Friedman and Rothbard promoted the downsize DC message for several decades, and remain admired by many for their work.

But the funny thing is, they disagreed about what actually caused the Great Depression in the first place. Friedman thought the Federal Reserve was too deflationary; Rothbard thought it was too inflationary and that the Fed itself should be abolished.

They disagreed about the causes, but agreed that FDR's
"cure" was worse than the disease.

Likewise, we don't have to agree on everything in order to agree that DC must be downsized. We often get mail from supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement disputing some of our assumptions, such as that we were attacked by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.

We do believe a new investigation of 9/11 should take place, because the federal government already had the tools it needed to prevent the attacks and that those who failed should be held accountable. And if an investigation reveals criminal conduct rather than mere incompetence, the guilty persons should be prosecuted.

But here's a question for 9/11 Truthers: what if there was nothing fishy about the attacks? What if it was indeed true that Islamic terrorists planned and executed the whole thing?

Would the War on Terror then be justified? Would it be justified if we had a smarter, more trustworthy President?

We at DownsizeDC.org say no, and that is the basis of our "I am not afraid" campaign. Regardless of the causes behind 9/11, the government's cure - destroying a thousand-year Western tradition of individual liberty - is worse than the terror threat itself.

We saw something similar with the War on Iraq: after-the-fact finger-pointing. The Administration claimed that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction and had links to Al Qaeda. When both claims were demonstrated to be false, the question turned to who in the Administration lied about what. But the following points were missed:

- The Administration did make "claims" before the war, but never did provide much in the way of evidence;
- Congress had an obligation to insist upon evidence;
- Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why such evidence provided a justification for war;
- Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why an invasion, and not less extreme measures or diplomacy, was necessary;
- Congress had a Constitutional responsibility to declare war, and violated the Constitution by "delegating" that power to the President to start a war when and if he deemed it necessary.

What if U.S. troops invaded, discovered nuclear warheads, and found Saddam playing tennis with Osama bin Laden? Unfortunately, many war critics would have been silenced, and the war would have been seen as a "triumph" for Bush.

But this would have been a "post-hoc" justification for the war, where the end result excuses an illegal act. And it would have been unnecessary to invade illegally, had Bush actually provided evidence and Congress actually declared war.

We may disagree on what the "real motives" of the Administration were in invading Iraq. But whether or not their intentions were good, good intentions do not justify by-passing the Constitution.

Likewise, even if the "official account of 9/11 is true and there was no government conspiracy, and even if the Administration has only "good intentions" in keeping Americans safe, these do not justify shredding the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of what you believe about conspiracies and criminality within the government, we hope that you will join us in refusing to be afraid. Regardless of how it started, the War on Terror as it is presently waged must come to an end. We may disagree about causes, but we can agree to oppose government "cures."

The Golden Rule and the Three Laws

2008-07-04T10:52:00.000-07:00

I recently saw the 2004 film I Robot. It's set in 2035 with human-shaped robots filling various service roles for humans. Although apparently not given a"soul," they are given judgment, which means they have to be able to learn and grow, or "evolve." They are also programmed with the The Three Laws of Robotics, which figure prominently in the plot:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

A robot, then, is probably better able to protect human life than humans themselves can, because doing so is literally hard-wired in their nature. Humans, being organic life, must overcome the survival instinct. And, being social creatures, humans inherit religious beliefs that inspire an existential fear of death as well. So, saving others at the cost of one's own life is harder for us. But the Laws apply in a servant-master relationship, whereas in a relationship of equals, that is, among human beings, the Golden Rule would be sufficient.

The State likes the Golden Rule - when private citizens deal with each other. But its view of humans viz-a-viz The State is similar to the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A human being may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm - except on orders of the State.
2. A human being ought to obey orders given to it by people in positions of authority except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, and no order by authority figures in civil society can supercede orders given by the State.
3. A human being must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

For example, Humans will agree that a youth should obey his father, but not obey orders to rob a bank. And that he should obey his coach, but disregard orders to deliberately injure someone on the opposing team.

But we also think a human being must obey orders given by the government, even where such orders conflict with the Golden Rule and inflict harm. Indeed, if you fail to support the deliberate infliction of harm on fellow human beings to achieve certain governmental ends, then you deserve to be vilified if not arrested.

Why do we think this way?

Perhaps it is because we, like the central computer in I, Robot, have "evolved" to see the "meaning" or intent of the laws, to see the "big picture" that examines the ends of humanity in general rather than the rights of individuals. In order to keep human beings physically safe and economically secure, we must tax them, regulate their property, and provide them with "services" they supposedly can't provide for themselves. And to preserve the lives of the many, we must spy on people, control their movements, and even sacrifice the lives of some.

But that's putting the cart before the horse. Laws emanating from the Golden Rule will protect our lives as individuals. And that is the point. Not saving the greatest number of humans. Not to make some suffer for others to prosper, not to make some die that others live. Not pre-]emptive attacks or restrictions to rid us of some perceived threat. Indeed, this is the opposite of the Golden Rule: if it is permissible for the State to harm one innocent person, why is it not permissible for the State to harm you?

It is no wonder that the State we rely on to "protect" us kills many times more people than criminals do. We rely on the State to fight poverty, when it has, through tax, land, and labor policies, inflicted more poverty and misery than any other institution throughout history. We rely on the government to fight pollution, but it is the biggest polluter. Without considering the individual as the primary unit in society, the State has literally no sense of proportion.

The Rule of Law

2008-07-02T21:59:00.000-07:00

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I'm not saying that the United States of America respected individual rights to the degree that it should have. But I am saying that everything good about America stems not from utilitarian estimates of the public good, pre-emptive wars against far-away dictators, or religiously-motivated crackdowns of other people's wayward behaviors. I will say that these are extremely anti-American attitudes and reflect the very worst in us.

The best thing about American history and tradition is that we have at least some understanding of what the Rule of Law is, that it is about rights, and that good government rests on protecting rights, not on managing other people's affairs.

What Duty?

2008-07-01T15:29:00.000-07:00

Pat Buchanan looks at the Dobson-Obama flap, and thinks Dobson makes a couple of good points. "At issue: What is Christian truth? Does the true Christian put social peace ahead of his duty to make God’s Law man’s law?"

Indeed, Obama celebrates the Underground Railroad and the abolitionists who, to end slavery, took us over the brink into Civil War. He invokes the defiant marchers of Selma Bridge and Dr. King, who chose confrontation and tore the nation asunder rather than see segregation endure.
Obama, however, is now preaching a kumbaya Christianity where leaders who believe abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn are to set their convictions and cause aside in the name of ecumenical amity.

But what is this "duty" to make "God's Law man's law?" Is it a law to love another, or a law to sow discord and conflict in order to object to the choices other people make? Did Dr. King have a "duty" to call for unprecedented federal intervention in property rights and freedom of association? Does Christian A have a duty to force racist B to kinder to minority C? Or should A just love B and C and do unto them as he would do unto himself?

Does Dr. Dobson have a "duty" to criminalize the killing of the unborn? And if this is accomplished in the U.S.A., do we then have a "duty" to save the unborn in Canada? In China? Why not? A few months ago I was told by a friend that she was pregnant. Even at ninth months it was hardly noticeable. What if she had a miscarriage months before, and never told anyone? It wouldn't have made a difference to anyone else, any more than every time she had sex and didn't conceive. What then would have been the difference to the rest of us if she had an abortion (not that this friend ever would)? To what lengths is The State supposed to go to make sure abortions don't happen, or to prosecute those who perform or procure them?

Frankly, I think social peace is often underrated.

Be Your Own Policymaker

2008-06-30T18:03:00.000-07:00

Greg Wendt at Reality Sandwich examines the fallacies of the Gross Domestic Product. Particularly, many harmful things count toward increasing GDP, while many good things are not measured. Some forms of economic "growth" create profits in the short-term but environmental damage over the long term.

But why measure GDP at all?

It is really a tool for "policymakers."

When politics is about "lawmaking," the fundamental issue is rights. When politics is about "policy," the issue is welfare, that is, well-being.

It can be correctly said that the GDP has no relevance to our rights and is a poor tool to measure well-being. But it could be said that every tool to measure "well-being" is flawed.

Because well-being can't be measured.

For instance, the nation's average life expectancy isn't going to determine how long you will live. Climate changes will affect some people directly and severely, and others more indirectly and less severely.

So when "policymakers" use their surveys and charts to to make plans and programs, which in turn coerce and cajole you into fitting into their norms, they may or may not help somebody else, but at the same time they can harm you. Their smoking bans can harm your business; their taxes can destroy your savings. Their beautification programs and bike paths can infringe on your property, their imposed energy solutions may drive up prices of things you need, their health care policies can make drugs unaffordable or beds unavailable. Their public libraries, museums, and concert halls may feature books you don't care to read, exhibits you're not interested in, and music you don't like. Their humanitarian crusades may portray your own overseas relatives as the "bad guys" in a foreign conflict.

Their attempts to make the world a better place may leave you worse off. That's because statistically-driven conclusions about happiness, values, or quality of life will not reflect your own personal judgments.

Now, if politics was about law, about rights and wrongs but not policy, things would be different. Courts would resolve conflicts, but otherwise everyone would be their own "policymaker." Sometimes, they would voluntarily cooperate with other policymakers to make policies for a voluntarily-formed group, other times their would make policies only for themselves. Individuals would be concerned with their own "gross domestic product," and weigh it against "priceless" things like time with family. Some would agree with Ian Fleming, thinking "I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them," while others would derive pleasure from health-consciousness. Individual policymakers would strike their own balance between work and play, and not judge others on that score. Most importantly, individual policymakers could determine for themselves if they are well-off in terms of happiness, or not.

It's hard to quantify that feeling of contentment in your gut.

The AMA Writes the Laws

2008-06-27T09:26:00.000-07:00

QUOTES OF THE DAY:

"It would be unconstitutional for Congress to create a statute stating that it was a crime to engage in conduct forbidden by the AMA, or by particular HCBPs, or by the health care industry as a whole. This is because neither the AMA, nor the HCBPs, nor the health care industry more generally are governmental entities, and Congress does not have the power to delegate law-making authority outside of the government."
- DEFENDANTS JOINT MEMORANDUM, United States v. Stephen J. vs. Linda K. Schneider

"Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
- Sir Thomas More, in Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons"

SUBJECT: The AMA Writes the Laws

Should the American Medical Association (AMA) have the power to write laws? Some bureaucrats think they already do.

DownsizeDC.org proposed the "Write the Laws Act" (WTLA) to prevent unelected bureaucrats from writing regulations that have the force of law. Only elected representatives should have that power. We believe there should be "no legislation without representation."

Sadly, we've just learned that the problem WTLA seeks to fix is even worse than we thought. Unelected bureaucrats in the Justice Department have now taken to treating the standards of a private organization, the AMA, as if they had the force of law.

A doctor in Kansas is facing twenty years to life for failing to conform to the standards of the American Medical Association.

Dr. Stephen J. Schneider and his wife, nurse Linda K. Schneider, are charged with illegally distributing prescription drugs, along with several counts of related fraud and illegal monetary transactions.

Did the Schneiders sell illegal drugs? No. They simply prescribed FDA-approved medications to people in pain. Now they face years in prison simply because the Justice Department disagrees with their medical judgments.

That's bad enough, but there's more . . .

While the Schneiders are charged with violating the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Schneiders didn't actually violate any specific provision in it. Instead, the Justice Department accuses the Schneiders of violating . . .

The policies of the Health Care Benefit Providers (HCBP's) whom they billed -- if true, then the HCBP's should sue the Schneiders in civil court.
Kansas state law -- if true, then Kansas should prosecute them, not the federal government.
"Industry principles" -- but those "principles" aren't encoded in federal law, and if the Schneiders violated them, they should instead be investigated by medical licensing boards.
The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code book, a "privately written, trademarked and copyrighted publication of a commercial affiliate of the American Medical Association."

The AMA, of course, is a private organization, and while the CPT is used by the government, it is not law.

It's important to recognize that Justice Department bureaucrats want to imprison the Schneiders because they disagree with the Schneider's medical judgments, NOT because the Schneider's broke the law. Mere bureaucrats are treating the guidelines of private organizations as if they were laws. Like a six year-old in a playground game, the bureaucrats are "making it up as they go along."

This prosecution threatens all doctors -- and their patients, including you.

The Schneider's case, and others like it, will encourage doctors to let their patients suffer in agony rather than risk a prison sentence. But . . .

Under WTLA the Schneider's case would be dismissed, because the couple isn't being accused of violating any law enacted by Congress. According to the WTLA, this would constitute a complete defense.

Thomas More is right: if the Devil breaks the law he should be prosecuted, but not before then. The same should go for doctors and everyone else. This is a fundamental principle of free society. Our constitution says that the only valid laws are those enacted by Congress, not those written by unelected bureaucrats or lifted from the guidelines of private organizations by tyrannical prosecutors.

Tell your Representative and Senators to introduce the "Write the Laws Act." In your personal comments, tell them about the Schneider case and how the Justice Department is treating AMA rules as if they had the force of law. Tell them the WTLA would prevent such a legal travesty from ever occurring again. You can send your message here.

Thank you for being a a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Civil Liberties Myth

2008-06-26T06:25:00.000-07:00

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Democrats get a lot of mileage for their extreme pro-abortion views, faint pro-gay rights views, hobnobbing with Hollywood celebrities, and being perceived as on the "Left" along with the ACLU. And yes, perhaps if you think the most important issue in the world is whether "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance, you correctly perceive the Democrats agree with you more than Republicans. But if you think you can therefore trust Democrats in Congress and the White House to protect your rights on any issue that actually matters, you are hopelessly naive.

Calling Attention

2008-06-25T04:17:00.000-07:00

In an interview this past winter, George Clooney admitted that his activism in Darfur may have been counter-productive: "“I’ve been very depressed since I got back. I’m terrified that it isn’t in any way helping. That bringing attention can cause more damage. You dig a well or build a health-care facility and they’re a target for somebody.”

That's the trouble with civil wars and "internal matters" in other countries. If the international community takes one side - usually the side that's losing - it will only increase the determination of the oppressors. Sure, they may fall or die sometime, but often it's years or decades later.

Armed intervention will only make the invaders another, disruptive factor in the conflict, as the U.S. invasion of Iraq shows. Often, the "good guys" are nearly as bad as or worse than "bad guys," with only media propaganda telling us different. Peace-keeping forces may end up presiding in a "reverse ethnic cleansing" as they have in Kosovo. Trade sanctions will actually solidify the grip on power of the oppressor and hurt that nation's opposition, minorities, and poor people the hardest. Even mere diplomatic condemnation will offend the regime and poison its relations with neighbors and the international community, further steeling their resolve to hold onto power.

Many people look back in shame at Rwanda. But if US/UN intervention was even logistically possible, they would have been forced to choose sides and end up slaughtering one side and take responsibility for governing Rwanda after, whereas today Rwanda is rapidly developing and relatively stable on its own.

Remember that the U.S. intervention in Vietnam probably added a million deaths to that conflict. Since the U.S. left in defeat, Vietnam has also experienced rapid development.

The other night on ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas was virtually clamoring for U.S. intervention in Zimbabwe. It appears to me that the best course is to do nothing. Condemning Mugabe and his regime won't lessen his grip on power, but only make him more likely to lash out at his opponents. If the people want to resist through armed conflict, that's their business, not ours. And if they decide instead to wait the old man out, that, too, is their business. Trade sanctions and condemnations will only make things worse for them.

Why Democrats Are Hated

2008-06-24T09:41:00.000-07:00

Over the years, the reputation has been that Democrats are in favor of civil liberties, a regulated economy, and Big Government, whereas the Republicans are in favor strong policing and morality over individual freedom, but favor a deregulated economy, and small government.

The perceptions don't meet the reality very often. Democrats often vote for "tough on crime" and "tough on national security" legislation to make people think Democrats can keep them "safe," while Republicans will expand regulations and the welfare state to make people think they stand for fairness and compassion. The result is that most "bi-partisan" bills create more laws and more spending.

And the funny thing is, such compromises never work. Even if some or most Republicans join Democrats in a major spending bill, the fact is that all the budget hawks and smaller-government advocates are on the Republican side, which "taints" the party as a whole for lacking compassion and fairness. Likewise, even if some or most Democrats join Republicans in some "War on Terror" program, the fact that almost all the pro-peace and pro-civil liberty advocates are on the Democratic side , which "taints" that party for being soft. That's why the parties are portrayed as if it's still 1964.

An example of this is the House Democratic Leadership folding on warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The issue is back in the Senate where there have been heroic efforts on the part of Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd. The Republican attack machine will claim that the Feingold-Dodd position is what Democrats really believe.

Now, I support Feingold and Dodd in their efforts to protect Americans from warrantless spying by their own government. But they are vulnerable to the charge that they are the worst possible hypocrites on this issue. For instance, Feingold is most famous for the McCain-Feingold bill, which sought to silence the speech of non-partisan groups during elections campaigns. What will Republicans say? That Feingold values the rights of terrorists over the free speech rights of Americans. Meanwhile, Dodd is working on a bill that would "would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government" and "a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers."

Mortgage brokers!

The Republicans would say that Dodd favors the rights of terrorists over people who want to make an honest buck.

Now, let me emphasize that Feingold and Dodd are right about warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The government is being given permission to spy not just on suspected terrorists, but on average Americans and, especially, high-profile critics of the government who then become vulnerable to frame-ups and blackmail.

But Feingold and Dodd have dug a whole for themselves. It is precisely because they are right on this issue that their hypocrisy stinks all the more. It is true that Feingold and Dodd are rightly fighting for the rights of suspected terrorists, because by preserving their rights we preserve our own. But it is also true that Feingold has no regard for free speech, and Dodd has contempt for the rights of anyone who wants to make a purchase or a decent living. In that sense, they do favor the rights of terrorists over law-abiding Americans.

This feeds the perception that Democrats, essentially, favor the rights of criminals over the law-abiding. That they are soft on criminals, hard on businessmen. That they protect the lives of murderers, but not the unborn. That they care more about the rights of undocumented immigrants than native-born Americans. That when it comes to national security, Democrats favor rights over security, but when it comes to economics, freedom be damned.

If Dodd wins the telecom fight but then, next week, wins on spying on America's mortgage brokers and financial transactions, that would be a pyrrhic victory indeed.

A Matter of Faith

2008-06-22T20:41:00.000-07:00

Government justifies its existence because of the "anarchy" (that is, "chaos") that would ensue without it.

Does the theory fit the reality?

At its best, the State's institutions prevents the pitchfork-mob "let's get him!" mentality so often parodied in The Simpsons. Without the State, Michael Vick may well have been lynched a year ago.

Then again, because of the State, Michael Vick is in prison, although he violated no one's rights.

The occasion for mentioning last year's news is the Democrat sell-out last week of the Fourth Amendment.

It suggests that The State is worse than the diseases - crime, disorder, insecurity - that it is supposed to fix. If The State can violate your rights at will, that is worse than stateless anarchy, because at least then individuals have a chance to band together and protect themselves.

But the problem is, the debates go back and forth:

Who knows if the War on Terror saved more lives and property than a more freedom-friendly approach would have? Maybe some bad guys really were caught?
The 1,000 deaths per year in the Iraq War is dwarfed by America's domestic murder rate, which makes it seem not so bad after all. Compared to most major wars, it looks like a success.

This kind of thinking plagues domestic policy as well. After all:

It would be said that without government aid to industry, we'd be a third-world country;
It would be said that without welfare programs, we would have had a more extreme, communist revolution;
It would be said that without regulations on business practices and personal behavior, we'd have lower standards of living from business exploitation and lower life expectancies from uncontrolled, indulgent behavior.

Never mind, then, that the State is the most active thief, killer, and polluter in society, because without it things would supposedly be worse than they already are. Tens of millions of people believe this.

And I don't know if that position will ever be refuted with logic or any other form of persuasion. Perhaps Statism really is a religion, and at the core of all religion is a paradox:

Religion at its best encourages peace and harmony, both within the individual and within society, brought about by a genuine love for one's self and one's neighbor;
But religious discipline can warp one's mind into waging war against one's own flesh, and defers to others (Authorities in Organized Religion) on matter of faith, doctrine, and conduct, leading to abuse of power by those with Authoriy.

So critics of Religion say: "Yes, Religion fostered a few good things, but leads to so many bad things that have destroyed humankind's happiness and hope for survival," whereas advocates of Religion say, "Yes, Religion has fostered a few bad things, but leads to so many good things that have led to humankind's current standard of living, and is our only hope for survival."

Religion is the enemy of civilization, or is its foundation. People view The State the same way: it is the cause, or the destroyer, of civilizations.

Which came first, love or sacrifice? Which comes first, freedom or force?

However one may answer such questions, it is probably most important for the individual to make peace with an imperfect world, a world that won't conform to one's ideological beliefs and moral convictions. Recognizing that, the next question is, do we want inflict even more death and destruction on the world, or less? Because if we choose less death and destruction, we may actually look at facts on the ground, and investigate other people's beliefs, cultures, and histories.

The world you feel on the inside is the world you see on the outside. Is it a world at war, or a world at peace? If you are at peace with yourself, you are already free, and the biggest war has been won. Nobody can make the world free and peaceful, but individuals can choose to be free and peaceful. Perhaps the most important victories for Freedom are not seen in political change but in personal transformations.

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

2008-06-19T07:46:00.000-07:00

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Comments welcome at the PO. Excerpt:

Buchanan wrote the book because the of Churchill Cult that exists in the United States. While fighting evil is admirable, destroying our own country's prosperity and strategic position to fight "enemies" who pose no threat to us and want no war with us is not. The would-be Churchills of the U.S. - President Bush first among them - appear more concerned about how history will look upon their own courage and heroism, but have little regard for the lives and welfare of the people they are supposed to govern.

Is the "Read the Bills Act" Practical?

2008-06-17T08:01:00.000-07:00

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"You are at work, and someone hands you a draft report you are required to sign your name to and pass up the chain of command. What happens to you if you sign it and hand it to the next guy, but after it is implemented you find out that it has obvious errors, or worse includes payment of company funds to someone who has done nothing to deserve it? I'm guessing you get fired and have to think about how to phrase the departure on your resume."
-- Anthony, "the view from my windscreen"

SUBJECT: Is the "Read the Bills Act" Practical?

As we noted in our June 5 Dispatch, the "Climate Security Act" was actually read in the Senate chamber -- 500+ pages in ten hours. Also, on one April day, the Florida House of Representatives had 398 pages pages of legislation read aloud.

Both times, the minority party insisted the bills be read as a form of protest. But there's something revealing here about the practicality of the "Read the Bills Act" (RTBA).

Imagine if RTBA was in force, and stipulate the following . . .

It normally takes one hour to read a forty-page bill.
Each member of Congress has a copy of the bill, a high-lighter, a pen, and a notebook to jot down their questions and objections.
And let's also grant four hours for debate and votes on amendments for every one hour of reading. That's five hours to finalize a forty-page bill.

This would leave plenty of time for meetings, final votes on bills from the previous week, and other business. That evening, Congressional clerks could post the bill on the Internet. Interested citizens could read it and contact their representatives with feedback. Seven days later, Congress could vote.

Assuming Congress meets for 200 days a year, the above scenario would allow them to pass 8,000 pages of legislation quite easily.

Keep in mind, we at Downsize DC don't want Congress to pass this much legislation. But, contrary to what some in Congress claim, they could still pass a lot of laws under the "Read the Bills Act." Indeed, the changes to the process would be all for the better . . .

There would be increased pressure on Congressional committees to write short, understandable bills. For instance, large Cabinet Departments wouldn't need to be funded in one bill; separate agencies could be funded in separate bills
Many bills are uncontroversial and wouldn't need much debate; even so, reading them aloud would allow Congress to spot errors
Peer pressure would limit the addition of amendments on unrelated subjects
Members of Congress (and the public) would have the chance to expose and remove wasteful and unwanted earmarks
And the same could be done with other hidden, dangerous, and harmful provisions
Urgent, high-priority bills would come first

Please tell your Representative and Senators to introduce the Read the Bills Act.

In your personal comments, tell them that the RTBA gives Congress plenty of time to pass needed legislation -- perhaps as much as 8,000 pages a year, plus the bills would be simpler, cleaner, and better than they are now. You send your message here.

In addition, we invite you to help spread the word about RTBA by joining the "Read the Bills Act Coalition." You help spread the word about the RTBA, and we'll spread the word about you, linking to your site on our blog. Details are here.

This week, we welcome four new members to the Coalition.

Intellectual Splatter
Debt Sucks
Call of God
Spotlight Radio

Over the past two weeks the House passed 35 bills totaling 503 pages, and the Senate passed 7 bills amounting to 1863 pages. A list of their bills, and their length, can be found in the blog version of this Dispatch.

NOTE: You can remove this funding section if you forward this message to others, or post it on your blog. You can also comment on this message at our blog.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

The Ron Paul Presidency

2008-06-16T17:22:00.000-07:00

The end of Ron Paul's bid for the Presidency raises the question:

Would he have made a great President?

I don't think so - and this is no reflection on Paul, his ideas, or his abilities.

For Paul to have a successful Presidency in this day and age, he would need at a minimum:

60% support in a general election
filibuster-proof majorities in Congress

In other words, something we've rarely seen in modern politics, and even then only under Democratic control. But considering how different Paul's goals are from that of the neo-con and progressive wings of the Establishment, a "successful" Presidency would likely be impossible.

To make the point simple, think of this: If you believe federal employees always follow the President's orders instead of their own ideologies, interests, and agenda -- for instance, if you believe it is impossible for any CIA agent to have played any role in the JFK assassination, I respect your views. I have no quarrel with you. It is also pointless for you to read on.

On the other hand, if you are open to the idea that the CIA may have been involved in the JFK assassination, or that federal employees may follow their own agenda instead of their President, you may understand why a Paul Presidency could have been doomed.

If, once inaugurated, Paul by snapping his fingers could turn every federal employee into a Constitutionalist, he would have made a fantastic President. But it is far more likely that, in the period between Election Day and Inauguration, forces would be at work to undermine the Paul Administration. Two obvious scenarios come to mind:

False-flag attacks blamed on Iran or other terrorists, "proving" that Paul is "soft" on the terrorists.
Using their warrantless wiretapping powers, federal agents could frame senior Paul aides of illegal or embarrassing conduct.

But it could be other issues:

A scare introduced into the food supply that undermines Paul's opposition to, for instance, the National Animal Identification System and other command-and-control programs.
Manufacturing another corporate fraud scandal, emboldening calls in Congress for imposing yet more regulations while making Paul appear to be a free-market "extremist."
Manufacturing a statistical upsurge in drug use and drug-related crime, while feeding the mainstream media anecdote after tragic anecdote of crime, neglect, and negligence due to drug addiction, making Paul appear soft on crime and weak on morality.

By sabotaging Paul's program, an environment could be created in which Paul's vetoes are always overridden, where his own legislative proposals never get out of committee, perhaps even where Congress declares a war he believes is wrong, thereby forcing him to resign.

It makes one wonder why anyone would want to be President, especially anyone who suspects there could be rogue elements within the Executive Branch and powerful people outside it who could manipulate Congress and the media. Push too many buttons, and one could face scandal after scandal, setback after setback. Or suffer the same fate as JFK.

Traitor?

2008-06-14T11:08:00.000-07:00

In 2004, I recall Jay Mariotti on his Chicago radio show questioned Shaquille O'Neal's for not playing in the Olympics, costing Team USA the gold. Never mind that he had already played for the team in '96, that it is positively decent to give younger players a chance to play in the Games, and that after a grueling NBA season an athlete in his 30's could break down if he had to play in the summer as well.

And now, the coach of the U.S. Women's team is calling Becky Hammon a "traitor" for choosing to play for Russia in the games.

I do not understand this mentality, and find it utterly contemptible. I don't know all the reasons Hammon chose to play for Russia, but I respect it. I know I wouldn't want to represent the USA in this day and age. With a war criminal in the White House, Olympic athletes invited to do photo-ops at the Rose Garden, and the likelihood to be hated and booed by the international audience in Beijing, playing for the U.S. would likely be a joyless experience.

Is Charlie Gibson a Communist?

2008-06-13T04:12:00.000-07:00

Last night Gibson's World News Tonight had a feature on the salmonella tomato scare, from which nobody has died. Why is it so hard to trace where the tomatoes came from? I thought, "Yeah, barcode every tomato, ha ha," and they suggested precisely that. Undoubtedly, such a federal plan would be ruinous for small farmers, just as the National Animal Identification System would be, and raise the price of food all the more.

"Prevention" and "protect the consumer" programs have unseen opportunity costs. For every case of food poisoning prevented, there will be a cost that will probably cause 1000 children to go hungry or malnourished.

And if central control of the food supply isn't communism, what is?

The Revolution: A Manifesto

2008-06-12T07:10:00.000-07:00

This is my latest at the Partial Observer, a review of Ron Paul's book.Excerpt:

Ron Paul did not intend to write a campaign book. If he did, he's too late; although Paul has not conceded, John McCain's nomination by the Republican Party is all but official. What Paul has written instead is a practical guide to the ideas of individual liberty and limited government.

By "practical" I mean that Paul has not written a philosophical discourse on ethics - although he does quote Aquinas. Neither has he an economic treatise -although he does express his admiration for Ludwig von Mises. Instead, Paul provides a list for further reading in the back, and gives us a brief, 167-page guide to what's wrong in the U.S. and which principles can make the country strong and free again. These are:

a non-interventionist foreign policy
following the letter and originally-understood meaning of the Constitution
economic freedom
personal freedom
sound money

Obama Gives the Green Light

2008-06-11T06:11:00.000-07:00

Initially, I was appalled that Hillary Clinton had to apologize in any way for her RFK remark. Then I check out Carol Moore's blog, and she predicts that if Obama is elected, he'll be taken out by Mossad, and that Hillary's statement was a "leak" of the plan (or a threat?). Oh, and they'll probably frame Muslims or Arabs.

(That would be the ultimate I Told You So: "See? See? Obama was soft on terror, and then killed by terrorists! It just goes to show you can't negotiate with these thugs . . .")

So what does Obama do once he wraps up the nomination? He kisses up to the Israel Lobby, and says, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

There are ways to interpret this:

a) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but understands that the beginning of negotiations means a tough, firm starting position. This is the weakness of non-interventionist candidates. While I support non-interventionism, it's a tough sell to suddenly break-off ties with long-time allies like Israel. Not that Obama is a non-interventionist, but hopefully, he's a realist who neither wants to concede to Iran nor go to war. This is the most optimistic interpretation.
b) Obama doesn't want war with Iran, but is soliciting support from pro-Israel voters. This, of course, is the ethical equivalent of running as a segregationist with the intention of becoming a moderate reformer once in office. Even if the false promise would be terrible, it's still a false promise. It's lying.
c) Like Carol Moore is suggesting, Obama really does have a gun pointed at his head, and he knows it. He's doing what he can to avert a terrible fate.

Most likely, however . . .

d) Obama really would nuke Iran and essentially gave the green light for Bush to start the war.

No matter the reasons, Obama's AIPAC speech removed any remaining temptation to vote for him. As I wrote last week, Obama sounds better than McCain, but for all we know he could be much worse. I'm sticking with Bob Barr.

Da' Tara Wins Belmont Stakes

2008-06-09T18:20:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg has the headline right, even if its story focuses on Big Brown.

Da'Tara led the Belmont Stakes - the longest race in the Triple Crown - from beginning to end, in 96-degree heat. And it began to pull away just when the other horses would make their move. It was clearly the best horse on Saturday, and it annoys me how little credit the horse has received.

That said, Big Brown's race in the Belmont Stakes was the biggest flop in a major sporting event that I've ever seen. For "most overrated athlete," the new champ has to be Big Brown, replacing the last "inevitable" Triple Crown winner, Smarty Jones.

Foot injury, not training for three days, being taken off steroids, uncomfortable heat, the "buzz" which these Triple Crown hopefuls must sense - who knew these things would add up?

That said, as a casual observer (that is, not one who normally watches horse racing), it appeared to me that jockey Kent Desormeaux fought too hard at the beginning to get Big Brown out of the crowd and into the outside #3 position. It's a long race and he had plenty of time to get there by taking advantage of gaps as he did in the Preakness. Trainers are also suggesting that the jockey didn't let his horse run, and that by the time the Desormeaux did want Big Brown to cut loose, he was unwilling to do so.

Then there's the "fix" option. What if a great horse is healthy enough to race, but not to win? I could see insiders talking him up, making him an overwhelming favorite - and then secretly betting against him. I'm not suggesting this is what happened here, but I believe it is plausible in the same way an NBA referee can bet on 100 games he officiated before getting caught.

In any case, I think there's too much wishful thinking in the media these days. The next time a horse enters the Belmont with a chance at the Triple Crown, I'd watch the race to see what happens, but I wouldn't believe the hype.

The only flop bigger than Big Brown on Saturday was the media. First, by overrating Big Brown, then by dissing Da' Tara's victory and making the whole story about Big Brown.

Take everything the media says with a grain of salt - in sports and everywhere else.

I'll be looking to see if Da' Tara's next race will be televised.

Tell Congress You Want Direct Dialogue -- Not War With Iran

2008-06-09T09:03:00.000-07:00

This is not authored by me, but I encourage everyone to copy and post! Original here.

DownsizeDC.org is one of about 35 organizations participating in a "National Call-In Day on Iran" that will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, June 10th.

This is a major national campaign, with press events and photo ops. Details about tomorrow's events are available at the coalition website NewIranPolicy.org.

The same people who called for attacking Iraq, based on faulty intelligence, are now raising the drumbeat for military action against Iran. Despite the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration is, once again, making a case for war.

As with Iraq they are claiming that Iran is a huge threat to American security.

We believe bombing Iran would bring disastrous consequences.

Such an attack will increase the chance of terrorist blow-back on U.S. territory
The entire Middle East could descend into further violence putting the well-being of innumerable civilians at risk
U.S. standing in the world would plummet once again, and oil prices would likely soar
A U.S. attack would strengthen hardliners in Iran, and turn the Iranian people, who are now pro-American, against us

Current U.S. foreign policy is not working. Threats of military attacks and regime change, and a refusal to talk with Iran until they stop enriching uranium -- something Iran is allowed to do for peaceful purposes under international agreements -- is a prescription for heightened tensions, and worse. Such a policy could lead to full-scale war, and as we know, "War is the health of the State" -- the ultimate Big Government program.

We want you to take two actions - one today; one tomorrow . . .

First, go to DownsizeDC.org and send a message asking for Congressional action to prevent an un-authorized attack on Iran by President Bush.

Then, join thousands of individuals from our coalition partners and call your Congressional Representatives on Tuesday, June 10th. Our coalition has created a telephone number specifically for this purpose -- 1-800-788-9372

Tomorrow, when you make your phone call, tell members of Congress that . . .

We need direct, comprehensive talks, without preconditions, between the U.S. and Iran
The U.S. and Iran share common interests in a stable Iraq and Afghanistan
The U.S. pursued successful negotiations with North Korea and Libya, and it's time to talk with Iran too

Tell your Congressional leaders that you want dialogue -- not war!

So, please send a message today using our online system.

Then, please participate in the "National Call-In Day for Dialogue with Iran" tomorrow, Tuesday, June 10th. This campaign will be sponsored by a coalition group of which DownsizeDC.org is a member: The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran.

This is a huge coalition, so you won't be alone when sending your message and making your phone call. Numbers Matter. God tends to be on the side of the bigger battalions. This is your chance to be on the side of a bigger battalion. And we thank you for being a part of our growing Downsize DC army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

McCain's VP . . .

2008-06-06T15:57:00.000-07:00

. . . will be South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Once he's announced, I'll explain my prediction.