It's a Cull Day - Filler Ahoy

Well, this is no doubt going to happen on occasion; I get up, look at the news, look in my queue of bookmarked stories, and find nothing I want to write about in any detail.

So, instead of a long essay on one story, today I'm going to declare a Cull Day. I'm going to go through all the stories I've bookmarked for later reference and delete the bookmarks older than a week. Today's December 17, so every bookmarked story with a byline of December 10 or earlier gets dropped in here with a short note on why it got my attention.

Boehner Offers GOP Strategy to Take Back House

Well, Boehner's memorandum is notable for deliberately avoiding any admission that Republicans abandonded the 1994 Contract with America or became corrupt in power. It's even more notable for not saying much of anything about what Republicans themselves can or should do- aside, that is, from remaining true to their core principles. Boehner deliberately shies away from the notion that Republicans- heaven forbid- were repudiated by the electorate on their merits.

More importantly, slightly more than half the article is taken up with attacking the Democrats. The Democrats, Boehner says, bring nothing new to power- they're the same corrupt group from before 1994. They lie, they bait-and-switch, they're incompetent, they're fiscally irresponsible, etc. etc. etc. Although Boehner does say, "Republicans have to offer ideas of our own," he provides none himself. Instead his strategy, as presented in the memorandum, is to attack the Democrats to the exclusion of all else.

In short: look for the 110th Congress to work out about the same as the 109th, with only the deck chairs rearranged.

Tasty Chewable Birth Control Pill Now On Market

But are they shaped like Dino or Bamm-Bamm?

Seriously, I just bookmarked this because it's nice to see a competitive market at work. Granted, competition in medicine is virtually nil for prescription items, but flavored birth control is definitely a case of the market driving change, even to a limited degree.

Of course, the question remains: will people be able to get it at all? My opponent in the 2006 elections, Texas State Representative John Otto, voted in 2005 for a bill that would allow pharmacists to refuse service to women seeking birth control. Similar laws have passed in other states, mostly concentrated in the old Confederacy, the Republican Party's new homeland. (And isn't that a sad irony?) There are so many ways a medical free market is hobbled, we don't need more- especially not obstacles based on the concept that life begins when the man takes the woman's bra off.

Iraqi President Calls Baker Report an Insult

... well, he doesn't have to worry, since Bush has rejected the Baker Group's call for troop withdrawals and Iraqi accountability, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has rejected any talks with Syria or Iran, effectively destroying the three main points of the Iraq Study Group report.

On the other hand, although President Talibani specifically opposes bringing former Ba'ath Party members back from exile to restore the old Iraqi bureaucracy, Prime Minister al-Maliki is rumored to be doing that very thing as part of his reconciliation efforts.

But the key quote:

"If you read this report, one would think that it is written for a young, small colony that they are imposing these conditions on," Talabani said. "We are a sovereign country."

No, Mr. Talibani, you're a puppet government propped up almost solely by United States military power. When that power is removed- a week, a year, a decade, a century from now- it will collapse like a house of cards under the weight of would-be dictators like al-Sadr and would-be dictatorships like al-Qaida, with Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia all jumping into the fray to support their preferred tyrant.

You, of course, don't dare acknowledge this, but we American citizens need to... in fact, the 2006 elections suggest that we have, and that now we must push those we elected to meet our demand and bring our boys home.

I Wouldn't Want My Daughter to Marry Him, Though

The hot news among online Libertarians, of course, is former GOP Congressman from Georgia Bob Barr joins the Libertarian Party and is elected to the national Executive Committee.

For more coverage, check the AP story here, the discussion at Third Party Watch here, and the story at Reason Magazine Online here.

This is especially interesting because, only four years ago, the Libertarian Party took credit for throwing Bob Barr out of office, a move celebrated by some and regretted by others on grounds of freedom.

During his eight years in office, Bob Barr remained more or less true to the Contract with America that brought him and a host of other Republicans into Congress. He fought with consistency for smaller government, balanced budgets, and restraint on the power of government. However, he did not do this from the position that smaller government is always better. Purist Libertarians point out- quite loudly, in the discussion on the above links- that Barr was a sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act. He voted for the USA-PATRIOT Act. Worst of all, he was an aggressive zero-tolerance drug warrior, even defending a ban on hemp rope because it might contain trace amounts of THC... and it was for this sin that the LP targeted him in 2002 with attack ads that may, or may not, have cost him the Republican nomination in the 2002 Georgia primary.

The purists and anarchists in the party are screaming that the election of Bob Barr to the committee that runs the national party is a sign that the "Party of Principle" has abandoned its principles. To the contrary, I say- Bob Barr's advent to the Libertarian Party is the best news this party has had all year.

First, let's look at Barr's positions, as shown in this December 2003 interview. Bob Barr has openly come out against USA-PATRIOT, saying he voted the wrong way on that issue. He hasn't changed his mind openly about gay marriage yet, but he defends his vote there as a state's-rights issue- he supported the bill only so that states would not be forced to recognize gay marriage, not to outlaw it completely. That's disingenuous, considering the Defense of Marriage Act comes as close as any federal law can to doing just that, but at the least his justification shows he's paying attention to the Libertarian position on the issue. As for the Drug War, rumors fly that Barr is preparing to do a one hundred eighty degree turnaround on that issue... but nothing's solid as yet.

But so what if he doesn't?

The fact is that civil liberty activists like Bob Barr- who has worked quite often with the ACLU to fight government overreach- are precisely the kind of people we need to persuade if the Libertarian Party is to build its own political base.

According to a recent Zogby poll, most self-described libertarians don't vote for Libertarian Party candidates. Here's the number crunch: according to Zogby, fifteen percent of people who vote have a political belief set that classifies them as libertarians. In 2006, these people voted 59% for Republican candidates for Congress, 36% for Democrats, and only 5% for everyone else combined- Libertarian, Green, Constitution, whatever. This means that at most the Libertarian has, among its core base, only 5% support maximum- which leads to a support in the overall electorate of less than 1%. Sound familiar?

There are four reasons for this. First and foremost is the perception that Libertarians cannot win election. There's next to nothing we can do about that directly. Second, there are massive obstacles to Libertarians even making it to the ballot- which might well artificially shrink the numbers in that poll I just mentioned. There's not much we can do there either, except lobby for lowering ballot access restrictions. Third, too many of our nominees are outright nutjobs. Although we could use None of the Above much more frequently, laws don't allow us to turn away candidates outright in most places, so we can't do too much there either.

The fourth reason, however, we must do something about. A lot of people who agree with us as much as 80% of the time won't support us because they disagree VERY strongly with that last 20%. People who want lower taxes, smaller government, and greater freedom may well take the choke at auctioning off all public roads to the highest bidder, declaring unilateral free trade with all nations, abolishing all government social programs, endorsing secession, defending the individual's right to own nukes and anthrax, etc. etc. etc. We need these people's support to get anything at all done... but the purists in the party cling to ideals and principles above all and demand that moderate libertarians either "become educated to the truth" or else keep the hell out of the party.

Now let's look at the other two parties. The Republican Party tolerated people such as Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Snowe because, without them, conservative and neo-conservative goals could not be achieved. Without pro-choice Republicans in certain areas, the Republican Party would have no power at all; with them, Republicans can make advancements on other issues, such as war powers, tax policy, and social issues. Likewise, the Democratic Party embraced errant son Joe Lieberman and former Republicans Jim Webb and Bob Casey for the same purpose. Although Lieberman is pro-war, and both Web and Casey anti-abortion, without them Democrats would be unable to block anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court or to advance Democratic issues such as a higher minimum wage.

Long story short: you don't have to agree with everything to get things done. In fact, if you insist on total agreement on everything, you get nothing done.

Bob Barr doesn't necessarily agree with everything the LP has stood for in the past. He doesn't have to. If he fights for greater freedom, if he works to get Libertarians elected, that's all we need. Barr has experience in WINNING election campaigns and firsthand knowledge of what a political party does in support of its candidates. He'll make a very good Executive Committee member- and an even better public fact than we've had in the past.

And if we want to expand our political base from less than one percent to fifteen percent- and more, if we want to elect people- we need to moderate our positions. We need a platform that doesn't call for anarchist utopia. We need concrete proposals that strengthen liberty without bringing about chaos and panic. Finally, we need spokespersons who focus on practical solutions to popular issues, rather than people trying to convert people to the religion of anarchocapitalism.

Bob Barr is such a person. He almost certainly wouldn't win an election for us as a candidate- even if he were running, which he says he isn't. His expertise as a politician, a legislator, and a public speaker will be invaluable to getting other candidates elected, though. This is a vital opportunity for us... and no one dedicated to getting Libertarians elected should throw it away by either bolting the party or driving Bob away.

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Dave Hollist

Remember, last week I said that it wasn't enough to post something monementually stupid on a web site or blog to become a Corn Flake. It requires an action in public, where the voters can look, point, and say, "See, Martha, that's whut all dem Liberal-tarians iz like."

Today I give you Dave Hollist, bus driver and student of the works of Ayn Rand... who is currently making his third run for President of the United States.

That's right, three.

And to give you some idea of his success, at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention, he got, on the first ballot... one vote.

One.

Out of over eight hundred.

Even Jeffrey Diket, who in his nomination speech said point blank he only wanted the votes of those who agreed with him on every point, got more votes than that. (Four, actually.)

Oh, Dave did a little better in 2000, it's true, but he was never even close to challenging Harry Browne. At this point he's not even taken seriously within the Party... mostly because he's a one-note candidate.

And what is his one note? Contract Insurance. (If you come late to this post and this URL doesn't work, I apologize. This site has moved around a LOT over the years, but the content has remained mostly identical- as has the presentation.)

To cut through a ton of rambling text, here's the core of his message: government should be regarded primarily as a guarantor for voluntary contracts. The cost of enforcing contracts would be paid by "contract insurance", i. e. a stipend paid by everyone who enters into contracts to the government. No one would be forced to pay this stipend. Those who opt out will, instead, be quite simply locked out of the court and law enforcement system. Not to worry, though- civic-minded volunteers will no doubt protect those who cannot protect themselves from murderers, rapists, etc.

Now, this sounds quite anarchist indeed... until you read further down and discover that Hollist has no intention whatever of cutting any government program. Instead he asks that the government make them all voluntary.

So- on the one hand, with a one-bullet solution for the evils of government, he alienates the moderates in the party. On the other hand, with his stated intent to preserve most of government as it is, he alienates the anarchists and radicals. Finally, he has no material support, no campaign organization, and no prior elective experience- alienating the pragmatists in the party.

As the 2004 convention demonstrated, this doesn't leave very much at all...

... but he still goes out and campaigns, actively, outside the party, for the Presidency.

Dave Hollist for President, this week's Corn Flake!

You Don't Own Your Money

As you might have heard, nickels and pennies are more valuable now for the metal they're made of than for their face value. With pennies it's been that way for over a decade- each penny currently contains $0.016 in metal value. With nickels, it's been more recent.

This is a crisis, especially since the minting of money has traditionally been a minor income source for governments. Buy the metal at a lesser value, stamp the coin out, put it in circulation for a value slightly higher than its metal's cost. Granted, the mint still prints treasury notes at a massive profit and other coins at a lesser one, but it shouldn't take a loss on ANY currency.

So, what does it do? Does it phase out the penny and nickel? Does it revalue the dollar and put out new currency? Does it change the metal content of the coins?

No. It enacts a law making it illegal to melt them down for scrap metal.

Now, the thing is, currency is, by definition, the substitution of an abstract mode of exchange in the place of barter. Rather than trading twenty apples for a goat, you say that two apples are worth a dollar and a goat is worth ten dollars and use dollars to make the exchange. In this example, the apples are your property. The goat is the other guy's property. When you sell the apples for dollars, the dollars should be your property, right? And when you pay the other guy for the goat, the dollars should be his, right? And if he wants, say, to light a cigar with a dollar bill, that's his business and nobody else's, right?

Not according to the Treasury Department. According to Mint director Ed Moy, your money does NOT belong to you; it belongs to the government. All of it. All the time. You are merely allowed to hold on to it in order to promote the economy, but the government has not merely the power but the right to determine what you can and can't do with the currency in your possession.

And since that currency is merely a means of exchange for other forms of wealth, it's an extremely short step to saying that anything you BUY with that money belongs to the government, and anything you sell to GET that money belongs to the government, because since X goods = Y dollars, and Z services = W dollars, then all goods and all services are equivalent to dollars... and, thus, belong to the government.

Not only will this law be unenforcable for the most part, it utterly fails to address the root problem: that the American dollar has declined vastly in value since the last time the currency was significantly changed. Instead of fixing the problem, they're at best addressing the symptoms... and in so doing violating the property rights of every man, woman and child with a penny in their loafer.

(Oh, one other thing: don't go into Canada with more than five bucks in loose change. This new law makes that illegal, too.)

Trial Lawyers- The Freedom & Happiness Destroyers

America has, over the past twenty years, gone lawsuit-happy... a state of being eagerly encouraged by the trial lawyers who have become multimillionaires by claiming between a third and 60% of high-dollar awards and settlements.

I'm not going into chapter and verse on why the current civil court system is hopelessly broken- John Stossel does it better than I can in his most recent book. I'll just touch on the main points of why the system has failed to work to rectify the violations of rights and now works only to enrich lawyers while depriving us of freedom.

In our current system, there are three kinds of damages awarded in civil courts: active relief (taking an action to make right the wrong done), monetary damages (paying the costs or losses incurred by the wronged party), and punitive damages. This last item is the corruptive one- because it takes a system never intended to be used for punishment and makes it the first, rather than last, resort.

Put more simply: under normal circumstances, you're only punished if you intentionally do something wrong. In criminal courts this requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt- the jurors have to be certain of guilt before dealing out punishment. Punitive damages, however, take place in civil court... in which the burden of proof is much lighter. All you have to prove is that the defendant is more at fault than the plaintiff- even by a 51%-49% difference- and the defendant has to pay up.

The result? Trial lawyers come in with junk science, pick their most friendly jurisdiction- Jefferson County, Illinois being a particular favorite- overwhelm a jury with emotionally full and factually empty arguments, and win multi-million-dollar awards. The expense of fighting these cases- which can take as long as a decade- is often enough to scare people into settling out of court, even when they are obviously in the right.

To make things even better, many laws- particularly the Americans with Disabilities Act- have given civilian trial lawyers the power to make private prosecutions, without any client or complaintant, and to collect massive fees for doing it. Between the natural desire for vengeance, basic greed and corruption, and the growing tendency to use courts to bypass the legislative or political system, lawsuits are booming like never before. We pay the cost in higher prices at the store and lower freedom in the marketplace and in the public arena.

My personal solutions are:

(1) Adopt the European "loser pays" system. By mandating that the loser in any case pays full court cost, including the fees of the opposing counsel, frivolous lawsuits get a hard reining-in... while, at the same time, "no charge unless you win" ambulance-chasers find their sales pitch no longer effective.

(2) Take punishment away from the civil courts. If someone has done something for which they deserve to be punished, MAKE IT A CRIME. If it's not a crime to do it, you shouldn't be punished for doing it. Either way, punishment should only be dealt out if it can be proven that the act was deliberate and intentional beyond a reasonable doubt- the criminal standard, rather than the civil standard.

(3) Outlaw the practice of charging a percentage of settlements. This freedom has been abused so grossly that even a Libertarian mindset must rebel. When the lawyer walks away from a winning case with more money than his client, the system is broken... yet this happens quite often. In class-action cases, the "clients" usually get NO MONEY AT ALL. By making lawyers return to charging fixed fees, the legal industry is brought back into a competitive free-market system... rather than the rigged rules which allow them to get rich and backstab their clients without consequence.

Here's three recent news items which each reflect outcomes driven by the current lawsuit epidemic, and the trial lawyers such as John Edwards who support, defend, and strengthen the current system:

4-year-old suspended for sexual contact for hugging teacher's aide - Schools live in utter terror of lawsuits brought by parents. The result, obviously, are absurd zero-tolerance CYA policies that destroy the freedom of teacher to teach and student to learn.

The Seattle Christmas Tree Affair - Since this particular article was written, the Christmas trees have been restored. Again, the yanking of the trees was done in terror of lawsuit- even though the trees themselves have been established in prior court cases as secular, not religious, symbols.

Silicone implants back on the market, Houston Silicone City again? - Silicone implants were sued out of existence for a decade based on junk science. Before that, Houston was the main city where people went to have the surgery- and, indeed, the main place they were manufactured. Science has established that the implants are as safe as any other implants.

BONUS NOTE: Quoting for the article: "The National Women's Health Network said the agency failed to do its job because it did not demand the companies prove that implants are safe." In other words, we as supposedly free people should not do anything, buy anything, sell anything unless we can prove to everyone that there is absolutely no risk whatever. That's not freedom. That's the very OPPOSITE of freedom. Perfect security can only come with perfect control of everything... and you, the individual, won't be the one with that control. With the freedom to choose comes the freedom to risk yourself and take the consequences. Provided you know up front what the risk is, and nobody's misled you about it, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want.

Allen Hacker Follow Up, or Frosted Xenu Flakes

I can't possibly add anything to this:

Third Party Watch: Some Interesting Tidbits on Allen Hacker

What Is- and What Should Be- a Libertarian?

One of the commenters yesterday asked what the Libertarian Party stood for, if anything... and what makes it more than just a collection of political loonies.

First, it needs pointing out that political parties aside from the Democratic and Republican Parties tend to attract a higher percentage of out-and-out loonies in the first place. These people really have no political home to speak of. Few people want them- especially since they tend to drive away more votes than they bring in. The Democrats and Republicans won't support their views, so they look for an organization that will- or, barring that, they create one of their own.

Yes, there are a lot of loonies in the Libertarian Party. That sort of person is why I coined the term "Corn Flake," and I'll expose a lot of them as this blog goes on. Not all of us are insane, though, as I'll explain in a bit.

First, check the national Libertarian Party website's FAQ for their statement on what the Libertarian Party stands for. To go into a bit more detail: Libertarianism is founded on the classical liberal concept that individual human rights are not creations of or grants from greater society or a government, but are inherent in the human condition. If you're a living, breathing human, you have rights. Human beings tolerate government as a means of protecting those rights more efficiently.

This is, to the Libertarian mindset, a vital point. If all freedom is a grant of government, then you, the individual, are the property and servant of that government. Whatever rights a government wishes to deny you or grant you, the government is always ethically and morally justified, because those rights are the government's to give or take away. In such a system the weak have only the amount of freedom the strong are willing to grant... and historically speaking, that's very little freedom indeed.

If, on the other hand, rights come from the individual, then government becomes the servant instead of the master. In such a system government's powers are only delegated to it by the people, as per Rousseau's concept of the social contract. The individual citizens have both the right and the authority to curb government abuses of power in such a system.

At this point we come to a difference of opinion- in fact a deep schism which has plagued the Libertarian Party almost since its inception in 1971. For most of the Party's history the ideology and strategy of the party have been driven by anarchists- those who believe that absolutely no level of government is acceptable, and that man should be subject to no involuntary control from outside himself. Such people believe that government in any amount is an evil- and they refuse to accept even incremental steps towards that goal as an impurity of principle.

Set against the anarchists are another group, called at various times moderates, reformers, incrementalists, etc. but most frequently called minarchists. Minarchists recognize that, in a lawless "state of nature", human rights may be inherent, but there is nothing to defend them except the strength of the individual, unassisted human. Anarchists claim that people will gladly defend each other's rights from violation out of "enlightened rational self-interest". Minarchists recognize that, historically speaking, most people look away or step aside when someone else's rights are violated. In short, a minarchists believes that government is necessary... but that nothing more than the absolute minimum level of government necessary to protect the rights of the individual should be tolerated.

The two camps within the LP- anarchist and minarchist- disagree on more than just the structure of society. The anarchists believe the LP is an educational organization and that it should not give much priority to actually electing anyone. Minarchists believe that the only purpose of a political party is to get people elected. Anarchists believe that compromise is the greatest evil, a form of hypocrisy and impurity. Minarchists believe that compromise is usually the only way to get anything at all accomplished. Minarchists try to recruit people who are libertarian-minded, even if they disagree on key specific positions; anarchists try to indoctrinate new recruits and actively drive off anyone who isn't pure enough for them.

There are a great many reasons why libertarianism hasn't been successful, but one of the largest reasons stems from 1983. In 1980 Ed Clark received over 900,000 votes for President- by far the best showing a Libertarian ever had for that office, before or since- on a moderate Libertarian platform. This platform angered the anarchists in the party, particularly Murry Rothbard. In 1983 the two factions came to a showdown, and the anarchists effectively drove out Clark's moderate Libertarians, who eventually founded the CATO Institute. Shortly thereafter, the "Dallas Accords" were set- basically requiring that the Libertarian Party never take any position that gives up the ideal of total anarchy in exchange for the core anarchists remaining in the party.

In this election year we had what may turn out to be a reversal of this trend. At the national convention in Portland a coalition of minarchist reformers and disillusioned anarchists fought to bring the Libertarian Party out of anarchist control. An effort to remove the Membership Pledge- a tool the anarchists have used in their quest for party purity- failed, but got over forty percent of the delegates' votes. A second effort to purge the party platform of its most anarchist planks succeeded beyond the reformer's dreams and intents, getting rid of about three-quarters of the entire national platform. With some radical planks still in and some moderate planks taken out, this was at best a mixed victory... but it was enough for a number of the purists and anarchists to bolt the LP and form the Boston Tea Party.

As you might guess, I'm a member of the minarchist wing of the party. In the years I've been a member of the Libertarian Party I've been called a statist, a Communist, a closet Republican, a dictator, and many other things by the anarchists in the party. On more than one occasion I've seriously considered switching to another party. I've stuck with the LP for seven years for one reason: the Libertarian Party is the only political party that consistently calls for smaller government.

The only one.

This may, of course, change. Dissatisfied Libertarians formed the Personal Choice Party in 2004, which was on the ballot in only one state (Utah) and was noted only because its VP candidate was porn star Marilyn Chambers. There are efforts to create a "Moderate Party", the broad outlines of their platform reading like a series of first-steps towards a libertarian system. Finally, there's the Boston Tea Party, and we'll have to wait and see there.

But the Republicans... well, even before George Bush got into power, they demonstrated their desire to expand government's power to control your religion, your creativity, and your sexual habits. Democrats act to redistribute property for their own ends, control minds and viewpoints, and promote racial preferences. The Constitution Party calls for theocracy; the Greens and over a dozen socialist and communist parties call for socialism; the Reform Party, what's left of it, doesn't even know what it calls for. For a person who wants government to stay out of his or her pocketbook and mind alike, there's only one real choice: the Libertarian Party.

One final note: it's a bit amusing that the websites for each side of this internal debate share the same acronym, LRC. LewRockwell.com generally represents the anarchists and purists in the party; the Libertarian Reform Caucus represents those who want to take party control away from the anarchists and make the Libertarian Party more palatable to the electorate. At present the two sides are pretty evenly balanced, so your participation could very well decide what happens in 2008 and beyond. Read both, consider, and then decide for yourself.