"If listeners of the Today programme could introduce a new law to Britain, it would be one allowing them to kill an intruder in their home should the need arise.
That was the surprise - and, in the programme's own word, controversial - choice of listeners who voted for the piece of legislation they would most like to see in the statute book.
The audience for the Radio 4 programme were asked to put forward ideas that had a real chance of becoming law. Five were shortlisted and more than 26,000 took part in the final vote.
The winning idea, announced yesterday, would authorise home-owners to use any means to defend their properties from intruders. It received 37 per cent of the vote.
It narrowly beat a proposed Bill making it mandatory for individuals to offer their organs for transplant after death, unless they specifically opted out."
I've got a year-end essay at The Atlasphere on The Cultural Ascendancy of Ayn Rand. It deals with an increase in Rand references throughout popular culture, from television shows to comic books.
Happy New Year!
Some things are literally unthinkable. For example, Frederick W. Kagan's,"The art of war," an article in the November 2003 issue of The New Criterion, presents compelling evidence that attempting to dominate the world militarily will fail and lead to national ruin, yet Kagan, a teacher of military history at West Point, advocates just such a policy, and apparently sees no need to defend this choice. Excerpts follow:
"In each of the periods in recent history in which one might see a fundamental change in the nature of war, it is true that normally one state begins with a dramatic lead. …
"In each case, however, we must also consider the sequel. Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all ultimately lost subsequent wars and were destroyed. ...
"History so far … has been very clear that 'asymmetrical advantages' gained by one state do not normally last very long. Technology and technique inevitably spreads. Other states acquire either similar or counteracting capabilities. The final victors of each new 'revolutionary' epoch have not usually been the states that initiated the revolution, but those that responded best once the technologies and techniques had become common property. …
"The search for an indefinite American 'asymmetrical advantage,' therefore, requires not merely a revolution in military affairs: it also requires a fundamental revolution in human affairs of a sort never seen before. …
"...[F]ew if any of America's enemies will have the vast resource-stretching responsibilities that America has. They will be concerned only with their own region of the world and will focus their efforts on developing communications...
Although Professor Dresner knows far more than I do about East Asia history, I am dubious about the usefulness of this comparison. Japan had tremendous advantages over Iraq in the nation building process.
Most importantly, it had the starting point of an ethnically/culturally homogeneous society. Despite internal clan and political divisions, the Japanese people had a strong and centuries-long common sense of nationhood. Iraq, by contrast, is a multi-ethnic/multi-religious artificial entity which was cobbled together in the twentieth century by the British. It is Bosnia writ large and, like Bosnia, probably cannot survive on its own as a unified democracy.
Although it too is a long shot, partition probably represents the best hope for freedom and peace in Iraq. Unfortunately, the U.S. state department can always be depended on to oppose such a solution (much as it did in the 1990s for Bosnia). The bloody demonstrations yesterday in Kirkuk between Turkmen, Sunnis, and Kurds do not bode well for those who wish to “build” a unified and democratic Iraq.
Finally, despite Commodore Perry and other foreign pressure, Japanese modernization was ultimately an indigenous process. Thus far, Iraqi modernization/democratization is a foreign imposed affair. As a result, Iraqi modernizers and democratizers, in contrast to the Japanese in the Meji period, are more likely to be tainted among their own people as lackeys of foreign...
"You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: and allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power" (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 121.)
"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to `unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word state (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!" (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 63.)
By the way, I cast my vote for The Return of the King as the best entry in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy.
The NY Times tells us that James Baker's call to service in Iraq is all well and good, but that he"is far too tangled in a matrix of lucrative private business relationships that leave him looking like a potentially interested party in any debt-restructuring formula. The obvious solution is for him to sever his ties to all firms doing work directly or indirectly related to Iraq." The editorial continues:
Mr. Baker is senior counselor to the Carlyle Group, a global investment company that has done business with the Saudi royal family. He is also a partner in Baker Botts, a Houston law firm whose client list includes Halliburton. Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh and a strategic alliance with another firm in the United Arab Emirates, and it deploys Mr. Baker's name and past government service on its Web site to solicit Middle East business. It is inappropriate for Mr. Baker to remain attached to these businesses, whose clients and potential future clients could be affected by the decisions made about Iraq's official debt.
Duh. The"iron triangle" has been a perennial staple of the"mixed economy," a central characteristic of what Rand called the"new fascism." It involves a reciprocally reinforcing relationship between interest groups, bureaucrats, and politicians, wherein the personnel are very often the same: former interest group members become the bureaucrats who administer the political relationships that impinge upon the very interest groups being regulated. The alphabet soup of regulatory agencies functions by virtue of this iron triangle, blurring the line between the regulators and the regulated.
If the NY Times would like James Baker to sever his economic...
The New York Times has an editorial in today's paper on The New Republicans, which argues that the 21st-century GOP has embraced big government in a way that is very much at odds with its allegedly historic support for"smaller government."
That's news to me. The modern GOP has been"me-tooing" the growth of government for most of the 19th and 20th centuries. Some have tried to slow the increase in government, but the current crop has endorsed deep deficits, Medicare spending increases, vast increases in defense spending and corporate welfare, major foreign adventures, and so forth.
In many ways, this" change" in the Republican Party harks back to its 19th-century Civil War-era origins, when it embraced national government domination, protective tariffs, business subsidies, monetary inflation, and conscription. Indeed, it was the Democratic Party, the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians in the 19th century, that was the"small government" party. My, my, how times have changed. Now, both parties fight over how large the US government can be!
This speech was delivered, in 1850, in the wake of some treachery by the Greek government against some British citizens there. In response to this treachery, Lord Palmerston supported belligerent action by the Royal navy against Greece. (Palmerston was then, I think, Prime Minister.) Gladstone was outraged at Palmerston’s might-makes-right justification for unilateral British military and diplomatic action. George W. Bush and too many other modern hawks would be applauded by Palmerston – but excoriated by the great Gladstone. My lot is with Gladstone. Here is part of Gladstone’s speech:
“Sir, great as is the influence and power of Britain, she can not afford to follow, for any length of time, a self-isolating policy. It would be a contravention of the law of nature and of God, if it were possible for any single nation of Christendom to emancipate itself from the obligations which bind all other nations, and to arrogate, in the face of mankind, a position of peculiar privilege.... Does he [Palmerston] make the claim for us that we are to be uplifted upon a platform high above the standing-ground of all other nations? It is, indeed, too clear...that too much of this notion is lurking in his mind; that he adopts, in part, that vain conception that we, forsooth, have a mission to be the censors of vice and folly, of abuse and imperfection, among the other countries of the world; that we are to...
The children sit in a circle. Some are wearing mittens; others are waiting expectantly with little plastic shovels. The rules of the game state that a few of the children must do nothing but sit and watch as the action begins. On the leader's"Go!" the children scramble for 100 pennies that have been scattered on the floor in the center of the circle. The players with mittens are having a rough time picking up any pennies at all. The kids with shovels are scooping up some pretty good numbers, while the kids working with their bare hands experience modest success.Boortz is not making...... Once the exercise is completed the children with shovels will have more pennies (the rules also allow the use of candy or peanuts), the kids wearing mittens will have less. The participants who were not allowed to scramble for pennies will have nothing. The pennies, of course, represent the world's wealth.
After the scramble is completed, the students with many pennies are told that they may give some pennies to their classmates with less, if they want to. If they do decide to give away some pennies, they will be honored on a list of"donors."
During the second part of this exercise students are asked to devise plans for a fair distribution of the pennies. They are asked to pass judgment on the other students who did or did not give away some pennies to others, and whether or not there should be a redistribution of wealth in America, and how to accomplish this redistribution.
Because of their hatred of Bryan’s views in 1896, many had bolted to the National Democrats, some had stayed home, and some had supported McKinley. Now, they were faced with an every greater dilemma. Their old nemesis, Bryan, had endorsed anti-imperialism but refused to tone his inflationist support for free silver, thus directly attacking the gold standard they had long championed. What would they do?
The gold democrats split into four camps. As Koritz notes, many held their noses and voted for Bryan. Others stayed home. A few backed McKinley because of his continuing defense of the gold standard. Some, including Oswald Garrison Villard, Senator Carl Schurz, and Moorfield Storey, made plans for a third ticket.
Villard even made a personal visit to Grover Cleveland to try to persuade him to run as a third party candidate in 1900, possibly under the National Democratic banner. Cleveland, believing that the voters had no interest in what he had to say anymore, politely turned down the offer. But Villard, Storey, and their allies were not quite ready to give up yet. They organized the National Party to run Senator Donelson Caffery, a pro-gold/anti-imperialist Democrat from Louisiana. The campaign collapsed, however, when Caffery (without explanation) pulled out of the race....
It occurs to me that I haven't yet stated (and I should) that: My views don't necessarily reflect those of Antiwar.com.
I'm pleased to see Chris Sciabarra's link from this blog to"
Hentoff also reminds us that the law in effect curtails the ability of individuals of modest means to speak politically during the crucial period before an election by denying them the right to pool their resources, while it leaves the First Amendment rights of billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates intact. At the end of his piece he quotes a letter writer to the New York Times, Edward Wronk, who says, “The powerful have only gotten more powerful.”
In the second column John R. Lott Jr., perhaps America’s staunchest Defender of the Second Amendment, discusses a recent announcement by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that it is considering buying a television or radio station. Just as Hentoff shows that the law fosters inequality among individuals Lott demonstrates that the law creates inequality among institutions. He asks,
“But what really distinguishes General Electric’s versus General Motors’ ability to influence elections? Is it really simply ownership of television networks? Can unions buy radio stations? Can anyone possibly...
Much has been made of the timing of Qaddafi's first overture to negotiate an end to his unconventional weapons programs--in March of this year, shortly before the United States invaded Iraq. Although the imminent U.S. invasion may have prompted Qaddafi's feelers to bargain away his weapons efforts, Qaddafi has been trying to mend fences with the United States and the West for a decade. Five years ago, he turned over two Libyans for trial in the terrorist bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988; recently, he agreed to pay reparations for the incident. British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that Qaddafi's disarmament initiative arose from the success of those negotiations. Also, for several years Libya has eschewed terrorist attacks. And it is probably no coincidence that negotiations to end Libyan unconventional weapons programs accelerated only after the United States agreed to allow the United Nations to end economic sanctions against Libya. Qaddafi most likely wanted to see some gains from his years of efforts to reconcile with the West before he made any more concessions.
Moreover,...
David and Linda Beito's article"Gold Democrats and the Decline of Classical Liberalism, 1896-1900" (mentioned below in"Anti-Imperialists, Classical Liberals, and Progressives") describes the presidential election of 1896, in which some classical liberal Democrats were so opposed to their party's rabble-rousing inflation-advocating presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan, that they formed a new political party, The National Democratic Party (NDP), to oppose him. They captured only a meager (Libertarian Party-like) less-than-1% of the vote but, as they hoped, Bryan lost. (Some NDPers would later claim responsibility for Bryan's loss but this is questionable; unlike, for example, the Nader votes in 2000, even if all of the NDP votes had been gone to the Democrats Bryan would still have lost.) The"Mugwumps" (more or less"big chiefs," a mocking name given to them by their critics), New England reformers who viewed themselves as defenders of the old republican virtues, were important organizers of the NDP and later the Anti-Imperialist League. Daniel B. Schirmer ("Republic or Empire") suggests a group economic basis for the Mugwumps' emphasis on free trade, sound money, and ethical government:
"The political thrust of mercantile discontent had been carried after the Civil War not by the merchants alone, but also by a group of Boston liberals, many of whom were later prominent in the anti-imperialist movement. Linked as they were to the city's older mercantile wealth by manifold family ties and social connections, these lawyers and professionals quite naturally shared its...
I couldn't agree more. Considering the text of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law..."), I'd say that the Court's approval of a federal law sharply regulating political speech prior to an election is surprising, at the very least.
The only difference between Sunstein and me is that I wouldn't dare call myself pleasantly surprised by an emerging trend of judicial deference to" congressional authority" in this arena.
Raimondo predicts that the neoconservatives and other enthusiastic pro-warriors will condemn the agreement as a ruse. Why? Because it might put the squeeze on Israel to abandon its own WMD and ease up on other hard-line policies. As if almost on cue, Raimondo’s prediction has been confirmed today in two articles. First,
Joseph Farah frets that Libya’s action will increase “international pressure” on Israel to abandon WMD.
Farah is a pussycat compared to Ariel Natan Pasko who defends the inalienable right of Israel (and no other country in the Middle East) to own WMDs. In what has to be the most priceless neoconservative quote of the week, he uses the pages of the normally secular Frontpage to proclaim: “Sure Israel should 'Ban the Bomb'; When the Messiah comes!”
Who should try Saddam Hussein?
The Nuremberg trials have had both a positive and a negative legacy. The positive legacy is the affirmation of a higher moral standard to which government rulers are subject and in the name of which they can be called to accouint. But the negative legacy is the notion that the vanquished may legitimately be tried by the victor.
As John Locke famously pointed out, no one can be trusted to be a judge in his own case. Thus, apart from emergency situations when instant action must be taken, plaintiffs should submit their grievances to a third-party arbiter.
(Locke further takes this principle to support the establishment of a single monopoly arbiter. Of course it does no such thing. The inference from All disputes should be submitted to a third-party arbiter to There should be a third-party arbiter to whom all disputes are submitted is no more legitimate than would be the inference from Everyone likes at least one TV show to There's at least one TV show that everyone likes. In fact Locke's principle rules out a single monopoly arbiter – for a single monopoly arbiter would have to be a judge in its own case in any dispute to which it was a party.)
Locke's principle obviously rules out a trial by the U.S. – especially since the U.S. president has already called for Hussein's execution, thus nullifying any semblance of a fair trial. But it equally rules out the legitimacy of having the new Iraqi government try Hussein. (I say"Hussein" rather than"Saddam" because I am not on a first-name basis with the man; I’m not sure why everybody else seems...
