Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
I’ve been planning for ages to write about my Vegas and Prague trips/conferences, as well as to add some further thoughts on the French rioters (remember them?). I’ve even got a catchy title for the post: APEE, PCPE, and CPE.
Well, I’ve been way too busy to get to it, and on Thursday I leave for Edinburgh (ah, Scotland! land of Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Reid, Duns Scotus, and most importantly Bran Mak Morn!) so it’ll have to wait a little bit longer. Back in a week!
I’ve been planning for ages to write about my Vegas and Prague trips/conferences, as well as to add some further thoughts on the French rioters (remember them?). I’ve even got a catchy title for the post: APEE, PCPE, and CPE.
Well, I’ve been way too busy to get to it, and on Thursday I leave for Edinburgh (ah, Scotland! land of Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Reid, Duns Scotus, and most importantly Bran Mak Morn!) so it’ll have to wait a little bit longer. Back in a week!
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 17:33
Comments
Mark Brady
Here is a report of the proceedings of the Annual Movable Delegation of the Order of Druids. Let me amplify that statement. The meeting took place in 1902.
What I find to be especially interesting is that"[I]t was resolved that it was the duty of the state to provide old-age pensions of not less than 5s. per week to all thrifty and deserving persons of 65 years of age and over who were unable to work and in need."
Six years later, in 1908, David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer in Asquith’s Liberal government, announced means-tested Old Age Pensions between 1s. and 5s. per week for those aged 70 and over.
What I find to be especially interesting is that"[I]t was resolved that it was the duty of the state to provide old-age pensions of not less than 5s. per week to all thrifty and deserving persons of 65 years of age and over who were unable to work and in need."
Six years later, in 1908, David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer in Asquith’s Liberal government, announced means-tested Old Age Pensions between 1s. and 5s. per week for those aged 70 and over.
Monday, May 22, 2006 - 00:05
Aeon J. Skoble
To start the week on a cheery note, the
Attorney General says that “The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information,” or more (less?) precisely, that “There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility." Ok, you get back to us on that right away. It gets worse, both politically and logically. After the obligatory lip-service to the First Amendment, the AG said “But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity.” Note the circular reasoning? They need the power to prosecute criminal activity, so they need to define criminal activity as that which they want to prosecute.
Monday, May 22, 2006 - 09:44
David T. Beito
A singer from 1916 declares that"I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be A Soldier." Hear it here. Woodrow Wilson had other ideas, however.
Hat tip, Laurence Vance at Antiwar.com
Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 18:01
Gene Healy
Apparently, the latest issue of National Review has a piece on the "50 Greatest Conservative Rock Songs of All Time," and"Won't Get Fooled Again" is number one.
Criteria for selection:"The lyrics must convey a conservative idea or sentiment, such as skepticism of government or support for traditional values.""Skepticism about government"?! Oh, my side...
Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 18:59
David T. Beito
I am now attending a Liberty Fund seminar on this issue. As readers of L and P know, this issue has generated some commment here. Thus far, the discussion at the seminar has helped to shed much led on the history of associations, current development, and implications for liberty and markets. More later when I return.
Friday, May 19, 2006 - 14:00
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Who wrote the following passages?
Who wrote the following passages?
1. If he loves you in the right way he’ll not stop you. You were just made for the stage, Anne, and if anyone interferes with your career now you’d never forgive him in after years – you’d always be thinking of what you might have achieved. ... Suppose you didn’t like the motion picture business and made him give up his theaters? He’d always brood about that and be unhappy. You’ll be unhappy if you can’t go ahead with your work, that you love. In either event an unhappy home will result, but if he keeps his beloved picture houses and you stay on the stage you’re both happy in your work, and that’s a longer stride toward mutual happiness than starting out on your married life with one of you harboring a regret that may easily grow into a chronic condition of discontent and unhappiness.Read the answer.
2. That is a question that should never arise between two people unselfishly in love with one another. The man would never make it necessary for her to choose – he would encourage her. ... After all, happiness is all that counts in life. There isn’t so much of it running around loose in the world that a man can afford to deny his wife the right to win it in any clean and decent way that she sees fit.
3. If you mean [I should stay] in the kitchen, then I can tell you that [no] woman with a nervous organization higher than a cow’s, is ever satisfied with that. Lots of us have to do it, but that does not mean that we like it and I’ll be darned if I’m going to peel potatoes and swat flies all the rest of my life when I have the brains and the chance to do something else .... I want to think for myself and use the brains the Lord gave me ... I want to rise above the mediocrity of a household drudge ....
4. You say that you love us. You say that you want homes and wives. All you love is your own selfish comforts and desires. ... Your idea of home is a breeding plant. ... Your ideas of marital happiness start and end with yourselves – and having babies. If you have what you want – everything your own way – why, then, marriage is a blessing. You want us to sit at home without an interest in the world that we can call our very own – and raise children. ... I intend to have children; but I do not intend to devote my body and soul and mind exclusively to the business of breeding.
Friday, May 19, 2006 - 17:57
Radley Balko
Cory Maye's lawyers file their brief last week in his motion for a new trial.
To my untrained legal eye, the brief is absolutely devastating. I don't know how anyone could possibly read it and still believe this guy deserves to die in Mississippi's death chamber.
The scary thing is the enormous disparity between the brief his talented legal team filed last week and the brief filed by his incompetent trial attorney many months ago. Makes you wonder how many other people sit in Mississippi prisons solely because they had crappy counsel.
Read the brief here. Read the reports filed by forensics experts hired by Maye's legal team here and here. I elaborate a bit more here. And check here for several more updates to the case.
Also, there's much, much more coming.
To my untrained legal eye, the brief is absolutely devastating. I don't know how anyone could possibly read it and still believe this guy deserves to die in Mississippi's death chamber.
The scary thing is the enormous disparity between the brief his talented legal team filed last week and the brief filed by his incompetent trial attorney many months ago. Makes you wonder how many other people sit in Mississippi prisons solely because they had crappy counsel.
Read the brief here. Read the reports filed by forensics experts hired by Maye's legal team here and here. I elaborate a bit more here. And check here for several more updates to the case.
Also, there's much, much more coming.
Friday, May 19, 2006 - 17:26
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
A text version of my August 2005 talk “Economics and Its Ethical Assumptions” is now online. (Thanks to B. K. Marcus for editing it to make it a bit less transcript-y.)
In it I talk about the relation between subjectivism about economic value and objectivism about ethical value, and do my usual song-and-dance about fusing the Austrian and Athenian traditions.
The talk also serves as a useful preview of the sort of thing I’ll be talking about in my upcoming week-long Mises Institute seminar.
A text version of my August 2005 talk “Economics and Its Ethical Assumptions” is now online. (Thanks to B. K. Marcus for editing it to make it a bit less transcript-y.)
In it I talk about the relation between subjectivism about economic value and objectivism about ethical value, and do my usual song-and-dance about fusing the Austrian and Athenian traditions.
The talk also serves as a useful preview of the sort of thing I’ll be talking about in my upcoming week-long Mises Institute seminar.
Friday, May 19, 2006 - 18:04
Aeon J. Skoble
It's official: everyone at L&P is a racist, according to Seattle. Apparently, the new definition of racism includes"emphasizing individualism" over"more collective ideology." Hat tip: VC (Interesting comments thread, too, but on a different facet of this topic.)
Update: Radley Balko has more.
Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 09:56
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
In the latest (June ’06) issue of Liberty, in a review of Stephen Cox’s excellent Isabel Paterson biography, Bruce Ramsey writes:
Is it any good? Judge for yourself. Here’s an in my opinion beautiful excerpt in which the protagonist is contemplating the statues in the garden of my beloved Musée Cluny in Paris. (The garden, while still lovely, nowadays no longer contains these statues, but you can see photos here of how they once looked.)
In the latest (June ’06) issue of Liberty, in a review of Stephen Cox’s excellent Isabel Paterson biography, Bruce Ramsey writes:
Though Paterson penned novels, some of which Cox says are good, all have been out of print for more than half a century.
I’ve read all eight of her published novels, and greatly enjoyed them. My copy of The Singing Season is autographed by Paterson herself:
To John FarrarBut it’s not quite true to say that her novels are all long out of print. As I’ve blogged previously, Paterson’s Never Ask the End was recently reissued by Kessinger Publishing. (Some of Kessinger’s reprints are shoddy disasters – see my Amazon review of their messed-up edition of Lysander Spooner’s Vices Are Not Crimes, for example – but this Paterson one is just fine.)
With the sincere regards
of a contributor to an
editor and the indescribable
sentiments of an author toward
a possible critic
From Isabel Paterson
Is it any good? Judge for yourself. Here’s an in my opinion beautiful excerpt in which the protagonist is contemplating the statues in the garden of my beloved Musée Cluny in Paris. (The garden, while still lovely, nowadays no longer contains these statues, but you can see photos here of how they once looked.)
Sitting on the steps of the side entrance, with her chin on her hand, she discovered why she had stopped here. In the long grass of the garden, fragments of medieval sculpture reposed tranquilly. Their granite features were blunted, all but effaced. It gave them a ghostly aspect, an infinite calm. It is the material substance that is ghostly, she thought. It wears thin, dissolving with time. Something more powerful and enduring wears it out ... The soul, having stooped to embrace mortality, is caught in the net of time. It strives to break through by the keen devices of the intellect, by the intensity of passion, the persuasion of tenderness, even the violence of anger; and falls back on silence at the last. But at parting it cries out, wait, one moment more and I could have told you ... oh, wait! What we desire is communication. ... Perhaps, some other where, we achieve it, by a persistence to which even granite must yield.
Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 18:38
Protagoras
Do you remember when Bush was elected to his second term that the claim was made by lots and lots of people that the average IQ of residents of the red states--that is, those that went for Bush--were lower than the average IQ of residents of the blue states? That claim was repeated all over the place, including in respectable venues like The Economist (although The Economist later retracted the claim, based, as it said it was, on insufficient evidence.) One colleague of mine printed out the entire chart listing the average IQs of all the states, along with who they voted for, and posted it on her office door.
According to Steve Sailer (and others), the whole story is a hoax. On a related topic, Sailer claims there is evidence that George Bush's IQ might actually be a point or two higher than John Kerry's. Kerry's reaction when he was asked by Tom Brokaw about that?"I must have been drinking the night before I took that military aptitude test."
[Cross-posted at Proportional Belief.]
According to Steve Sailer (and others), the whole story is a hoax. On a related topic, Sailer claims there is evidence that George Bush's IQ might actually be a point or two higher than John Kerry's. Kerry's reaction when he was asked by Tom Brokaw about that?"I must have been drinking the night before I took that military aptitude test."
[Cross-posted at Proportional Belief.]
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 14:39
Steven Horwitz
Those of you who enjoyed my post on "social snowflakes" will enjoy this wonderful essay by Dan Klein on the roller rink as illustrative of many aspects of the concept of spontaneous order. It's clear from this essay what a great teacher Dan is as well.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:03
Wendy McElroy
By now everyone knows that some phone giants, like AT&T, have given the NSA access to their voice and data networks and to their customer databases without notifying customers. Those who defend the practice often use the following argument:"We are not listening in on content. We are merely recording the phone numbers in order to establish patterns that could indicate terrorist activity." Of course, it is trivial for the NSA to use the phone numbers to also get the names and addresses of whomever you call but, nevertheless, the idea that they are not listening in makes their activities seem less intrusive, less harmful. That is, until you consider how analysis of those patterns can be used and abused...
One example of abuse is being currently discussed on the ABC News blog. It reads in part, A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources."It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation. One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.
By analyzing the phone pattern of reporters who are investigating material that the government would like to bury, the NSA can identify/intimidate sources and plug 'leaks' thus making an end-run around freedom of the press. It is equivalent to having a phone tap on irksome media members without the unpleasantness of securing a warrant.
You are cordially invited to join my libertarian discussion BB.
One example of abuse is being currently discussed on the ABC News blog. It reads in part, A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources."It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation. One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.
By analyzing the phone pattern of reporters who are investigating material that the government would like to bury, the NSA can identify/intimidate sources and plug 'leaks' thus making an end-run around freedom of the press. It is equivalent to having a phone tap on irksome media members without the unpleasantness of securing a warrant.
You are cordially invited to join my libertarian discussion BB.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:41
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Francis Tandy’s 1896 book Voluntary Socialism is one of the classics of market anarchism. (Don’t be misled by the title; Tandy, a disciple of Benjamin Tucker, uses the term “socialism” in the sense employed by “free-market socialists” like Tucker, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and, today, Kevin Carson.) A good many political philosophers have probably seen Tandy’s name at some point, since Robert Nozick cites him early on in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, in a list of proponents of competing protection agencies; the others listed are Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, Friedman, and the Tannehills. (Nozick appears unaware of the battlin’ Belgians Molinari and de Puydt.) Nevertheless, Tandy is far and away the most obscure name on the list, and his book is damnably hard to find; and apparently the Denver Public Library (where Tandy, a Denver resident, once worked) possesses one of the few existing copies but refuses to allow it be photocopied.
Happily, I managed to get my hands on the elusive 1979 Revisionist Press reprint version a couple of years ago, and I’ve just now posted the first five chapters on the Molinari site. (I had already posted the preface and introduction back in March ’04.)
The first four of these chapters set out the psychological, sociological, and ethical foundations of Tandy’s libertarianism. This section is rather a mixed bag from my point of view; Tandy’s theory of human action combines praxeological insight with psychologistic confusion, and his blend of Stirner and Spencer manages at times to look more like stereotypical “Social Darwinism” than does either Stirner or Spencer singly. Still, there’s plenty of good stuff here.
But what the book is best known for (well, to the extent that it’s known at all!) is its fifth chapter, which is devoted to an explanation and defense of the concept of competing protection agencies – in its day, one of the fullest discussions of the idea post-Molinari. It’s fascinating to see how many of the standard moves in market anarchist theory today are already in evidence in Tandy.
More chapters to follow! In the meantime, enjoy.
Francis Tandy’s 1896 book Voluntary Socialism is one of the classics of market anarchism. (Don’t be misled by the title; Tandy, a disciple of Benjamin Tucker, uses the term “socialism” in the sense employed by “free-market socialists” like Tucker, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and, today, Kevin Carson.) A good many political philosophers have probably seen Tandy’s name at some point, since Robert Nozick cites him early on in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, in a list of proponents of competing protection agencies; the others listed are Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard, Friedman, and the Tannehills. (Nozick appears unaware of the battlin’ Belgians Molinari and de Puydt.) Nevertheless, Tandy is far and away the most obscure name on the list, and his book is damnably hard to find; and apparently the Denver Public Library (where Tandy, a Denver resident, once worked) possesses one of the few existing copies but refuses to allow it be photocopied.
Happily, I managed to get my hands on the elusive 1979 Revisionist Press reprint version a couple of years ago, and I’ve just now posted the first five chapters on the Molinari site. (I had already posted the preface and introduction back in March ’04.)
The first four of these chapters set out the psychological, sociological, and ethical foundations of Tandy’s libertarianism. This section is rather a mixed bag from my point of view; Tandy’s theory of human action combines praxeological insight with psychologistic confusion, and his blend of Stirner and Spencer manages at times to look more like stereotypical “Social Darwinism” than does either Stirner or Spencer singly. Still, there’s plenty of good stuff here.
But what the book is best known for (well, to the extent that it’s known at all!) is its fifth chapter, which is devoted to an explanation and defense of the concept of competing protection agencies – in its day, one of the fullest discussions of the idea post-Molinari. It’s fascinating to see how many of the standard moves in market anarchist theory today are already in evidence in Tandy.
More chapters to follow! In the meantime, enjoy.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 16:44
David T. Beito
Glenn Singeton, who has built a thriving financial empire as a race"expert" via lucrative contracts at Bellevue Community College (secured with the unwitting help of Michelle Malkin), the Cherry Creek, Colorado school district, and many others, is not the only successful diversity entrepreneur.
Many academics are creatively using the courts for similar goals by testifying as legal experts on"unconscious bias." They are showing that whole new careers can be built by trying to prove a negative. Here is the latest from Business Week on this disturbing trend:
Hat tip King Banaian at SCSU Scholars.
Winning a big employment lawsuit these days often requires a bit of magic. After all, companies are awash in diversity training, equal opportunity policies, and 800 numbers aimed at rooting out bias. Managers have been well trained to keep their discriminatory thoughts to themselves, edit all hints of racism and sexism out of e-mail, and couch pay and promotion decisions in legally defensible language. So how do plaintiffs' lawyers prove their cases?
Enter the magician. Sociologist William T. Bielby is the leading courtroom proponent of a simple but powerful theory:"unconscious bias." He contends that white men will inevitably slight women and minorities because they just can't help themselves. So he tries to convince judges that no evidence of overt discrimination -- no smoking gun memo, for instance -- is needed to prove a case. As Allen G. King, an employment defense attorney at the Dallas office of Littler Mendelson, puts it:"I just have to leave you to your own devices, and because you are a white male," you will discriminate.
Monday, May 15, 2006 - 18:36
Steven Horwitz
This morning's LA Times has a story of the astounding rates of economic growth being produced in the developing world and attributes this growth to the expansion of free trade. Shocking, I know, from the LA Times, but perhaps the facts are finally the facts. A brief excerpt:
The global economy is on a growth streak that is shaping up to be the broadest and strongest expansion in more than three decades. Rising spending and investment by consumers and businesses worldwide are boosting national economies on every continent, pushing down unemployment rates in many countries and lifting business earnings and confidence. Of 60 nations tracked by investment firm Bridgewater Associates, not one is in recession — the first time that has been true since 1969.... The trend is being driven by free trade, which has created millions of jobs in emerging nations in recent years, fueling stunning new wealth in those countries.
Unfortunately, a subtext of the story is that this growth worldwide is accompanied by stagnation for US workers. This earlier post of mine suggests the reality is otherwise and that traditional aggreate measures of economic well-being miss the real gains for average Americans. The LA Times piece also (wrongly) places blame on the trade deficit for supposed"stagnation," and refuses to see how state intervention is responsible for high unemployment rates in Western Europe.
Still, any time a major media outlet argues that free trade is making billions of lives better off across the world, I'll forgive a few mistakes.
Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:53
Sheldon Richman
Rush"Jail All Drug Users But Me" Limbaugh did it again the other day. His Blowhardedness, ever striving to be George II's No. 1 brownnoser, condemned the Democratic critics of the NSA's mass collection of our telephone records and showed he is either a demagogue or is actually unable to tell a sound argument from a fallacy. (I guess he could be both.) Here's his standard pitch: The Democrats oppose something George II's men are doing even though they have done or approved of the same thing in the past. Therefore their criticism is baseless.
Wrong. Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a criticism; it just undermines the standing of the person making it. If Democrats condemn something the Bush administration does that they praised when Clinton did it, that's hypocrisy. But it doesn't mean the Bush administration is right to do it. It may mean Clinton was wrong to do it. What about princpled critics who condemn both administrations for their misconduct? Doesn't Limbaugh have to concede that criticism from a principled person is valid? That sounds like relativism to me: For Limbaugh, an argument is valid or invalid depending on who makes it.
Limbaugh has used this bogus line of attack many times. He once introduced something of a twist to the argument. When he got caught using more painkillers than the state's attorney thought he should be using, Drug Warrior Limbaugh said he wasn't a hypocrite because his prohibitionist stance is still valid. If you spend too much time trying to make sense of that, you'll give yourself a headache.
What should we expect? Intelligent discourse? The Doctor of Democracy heads the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies for gosh sakes. (Remember when conservatives said,"This is a republic not a democracy?")
In his contortions to defend the NSA, he said that to be consistent, critics should demand that the agency get a warrant before looking in the telephone book, which contains all our phone numbers. Yep, that sounds like advanced conservative thinking to me.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Wrong. Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a criticism; it just undermines the standing of the person making it. If Democrats condemn something the Bush administration does that they praised when Clinton did it, that's hypocrisy. But it doesn't mean the Bush administration is right to do it. It may mean Clinton was wrong to do it. What about princpled critics who condemn both administrations for their misconduct? Doesn't Limbaugh have to concede that criticism from a principled person is valid? That sounds like relativism to me: For Limbaugh, an argument is valid or invalid depending on who makes it.
Limbaugh has used this bogus line of attack many times. He once introduced something of a twist to the argument. When he got caught using more painkillers than the state's attorney thought he should be using, Drug Warrior Limbaugh said he wasn't a hypocrite because his prohibitionist stance is still valid. If you spend too much time trying to make sense of that, you'll give yourself a headache.
What should we expect? Intelligent discourse? The Doctor of Democracy heads the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies for gosh sakes. (Remember when conservatives said,"This is a republic not a democracy?")
In his contortions to defend the NSA, he said that to be consistent, critics should demand that the agency get a warrant before looking in the telephone book, which contains all our phone numbers. Yep, that sounds like advanced conservative thinking to me.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 11:45
Sheldon Richman
George II defended whatever eavesdropping he might be doing (he wouldn't say), by stating:"The intelligence activities I authorized are lawful."
In other words, in his view,"no controlling legal authority" has said otherwise. (Of course, he doesn't recognize that the courts have any role in overseeing his Unitary Executive.)
Cross-posted at Free Association.
In other words, in his view,"no controlling legal authority" has said otherwise. (Of course, he doesn't recognize that the courts have any role in overseeing his Unitary Executive.)
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 11:48
Sheldon Richman
Anyone who values liberty should read about this travesty of justice over at Rad Geek People's Daily. Here's a taste:
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Cleveland antiwar activist Carol Fischer is being held incommunicado in the psychiatric [section] of the Cuyahoga County jail in on the orders of Judge Timothy McGinty. Fischer, who at 53 years old stands 5'4" and weighs 130 pounds, was convicted of a"felonious assault" she allegedly committed against two Cleveland Heights police officers last year. The cops claim that Fischer bit and tried to hit them when they arrested her for posting"Bush Step Down" posters in violation of the city sign ordinance.Locking up political dissidents in psychiatric wards is what they used to do in the Soviet Union. Free Carol!
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 11:52
