ONE QUESTION. O.K. MAYBE TWO: Just what the fuck is "a capital-L Libertarian"? For that matter, what in the hell is "a small-L libertarian"? Is it just me or have these labels gotten a little out of hand? I consider myself a libertarian because that's the way I vote. In fact, there's no other reason to even be considered a Libertarian (small-L, capital-L, double-L, whatever). O.K., that's not fair. But how much differentiation can you make out of:

While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others. [courtesy of Libertarian.org]

For me it is real simple -- I believe in freedom, period. I don't want to be told what to do by these people, or by those people (most definitely not by this person), and will not stand for the governance of these people.

Can you really define freedom as capital-F or small-F freedom? If the answer is 'No" (Hint: the answer is "No"), then why define yourself as a Libertarian (small-L, capital-L, double-L, whatever)?

**UPDATE: Steven Den Beste, Captain of the USS Clueless, has informed me that Capital-L Libertarians are those who belong to the U.S. political party of the same name. I guess that makes sense. The only libertarian political party I actually follow is my state party.

HYPOTHESIS: HELEN THOMAS IS INSANE
PROOF: RES IPSA LOQUITOR (the thing speaks for itself)

INTERESTING IDEA: Nick Denton has come across somethinh to think about. It sure as hell worked for Australia. And come to think of it, wasn't Georgia originally a prison colony as well?

AND..........? Talk about easy predictions.

MARY ROBINSON'S SWAN SONG: The folks at Innocents Abroad offer an intellectually comprehensive farewell to the head of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. My favorite bit of analysis is this tidbit:

Within Kant’s thought there is the suggestion that the international order of laws and consensus built on abstract notions of human rights may only be a rouse, that the devils it seeks to restrain might find ways to take advantage of the laws, installing themselves as emperors decked in the vestments of morality. The moralists and the scoundrels would end up on the same side.

This sounds like a prescient concern about the scourge of socialism. Basically, since government is merely a vessel, or an instrument, for accomplishing discrete but powerful tasks, it necessarily matters who is in the driver's seat. Our founders understood this and sought to create a vessel of limited and constrained powers, else the instrument of unrestrained good be used as the tool of irrepressible tyranny.

Collin May is talking about how international law is used to protect scoundrels while some perceived higher morality is foisted on those who suffer at the hands the scoundrels. I seem to remember a similar comparison of the Hobbesian (American) and Kantian (European) worlds in a National Review article recently. If anyone comes across it please email me with the site, or post to the comments, so I can link it here.

**UPDATE: Tim Blair shows his concern for Mary Robinson as well.

NANNY STATE: I am always skeptical of someone who thinks they know what's in my own best interests better than I do. When that someone doesn't even know me, that's an even bigger problem.

One of my friends is dating a girl who grew up in Pakistan but has since become an American. When I first met her a few months ago, I asked her what she thought of the situation in Pakistan right now. She basically said that she liked what the government was trying to do, but that the country was simply not ready for a full-fledged democracy because the population was too uneducated. When I asked her if she thought that Musharref was the right man for the job her reply was sobering: "He may be trying to do what's best for Pakistan, but I think any dictator is a bad one in the long run." Amen, sister. Amen.

So it should come as no surprise that I am more than a little dismayed at this latest attempt by the White House to fix my problem. Admittedly, I think the problem of runaway juries and greedy trial lawyers are driving medical costs up. But I don't see how I need the federal government to come in and fix this for me. Especially when I read things like:

The White House said the president's plan could save the federal government $30 billion annually in health costs and could reduce such costs for all Americans by $60 billion or more.

How in the hell is the cost for "the federal government" any different than the cost for "all Americans"? Or how about this:

It is estimated that frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of government health programs by over $25 billion every year.

O.K., but how about the cost of frivilous government programs? How about forcing insurers to provide services not everybody wants? How about the government mandating what sorts of procedures are performed and at what cost doctors need to perform them? How about the fact that $25 billion is only the amount that these programs are being driven up by? Wait, there's more:

The president's plan is aimed at correcting a wide disparity among states concerning medical-malpractice insurance....Mr. Bush believes a nationwide malpractice award cap should be imposed on all states because their failure to adopt "reasonable" liability caps on their own is damaging the nation's health care system, said White House health care adviser Mark McClellan.

Damaging the nation's health care system? Since when do we have a national health care system? I thought that idea went out with Hillary. Or possibly does this mean medicaid and medicare? Even so, this only points to the problem of those systems, not the malpractice awards of certain states. And what's more, this is supposed to be a government of limited powers. For the federal government to tell a state what laws it has to write is repugnant to the Constitution and the founders of our nation.

Like I said before, it's not that I disagree with the White House's assessment of the problem -- some juries and some lawyers are out of control. The idea of putting limits on punitive damages is a very good one. What turns my stomach is that such reforms would be forced on me by those who claim to know best. There is simply no need for the federal government to step in here. I think that my state's motto expresses it best: Sic Semper Tyrannis

SILVER LINING: David Farrer at Freedom and Whisky points to the bright side of the stock market crash -- Austrian Economics is suddenly cool again. Of course, if it had ever really been cool we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

DO NOT READ THIS POST!: Seriously, Jonah Goldberg said not to. O.K., since you gonna do it anyway take a gander.

NEWS FROM INNOCENTS ABROAD: Finally a new post from Collin May, et al. I was beginning to think these guys just quit.

U.S. SAYS "SCREW E.U.!": According to Samizdata, the U.S. won't be the E.U.'s taxman anytime soon. This doesn't really come as a surprise. At least no more a surprise than the EUites expecting that we would help them drive their own constituents into the poorhouse.

PSYCHE!: Can you say "Jackass?" [courtesy of Dr. Manhattan at Blissful Knowledge]

WHO's WATCHING THE WATCHERS?: It looks like somebody's a little cranky about being taken care of by a bunch morons who don't know their ass ... well ... you know what I'm saying. [link via Common Sense]

WHY THERE WAS NO STOCK MARKET DIVE IN 1999: The hoopla over Haliburton is really starting to look like nonsense (the Harken story never really had much to stand on in the first place). Ipse Dixit blogger C.D. Harris parses an article proclaiming that there is no merit to the Dems' claims of misdeeds by Cheney. What I think Mr. Harris' (apparently only his friends may call him Dodd) most interesting point is concerns the fact that when Haliburton did disclose it's misstatement, the market didn't much seem to care:

...Halliburton did disclose the change in 1999. The amount had become enough, compared to their net income, that they thought disclosure was in order. Well, the announcement didn't roil their stock price. It didn't send the analysts into paroxysms. It didn't do much of anything, really. Which means that neither the investing public nor the professionals saw it as a big deal. We can second-guess all day long about 1998, but we can't get around that fact that nobody cared about this until Tom Daschle figured out that he could make the year-long delay in annoucing it sound far more nefarious than it actually was. (emphasis added).

What one has to wonder is would any of the recent "scandals" have been noticed by the media if Gore had won the election? Moreover, doesn't the fact that the market took Haliburton's restatement in stride suggest that the current panic is more closely related to the media hype than any real fear of corruption? Let's face it, when all of sudden every major corporation is under suspicion because of accounting errors, shouldn't that make somebody think, "hey, those accounting rules must be pretty screwed up" instead of "corporate CEOs are all crooks." There is no question that many firms were ridiculously overvalued in the 90's (most likely by the same fools that are driving the market down now). We constantly heard about how the bubble would burst. So now that it has, it must be a scandal? GET REAL, PEOPLE!

MAKING SENSE: Antitrust law is stands out among other areas of law as being the most pernicious method of "evening the playing field," resulting in less innovation, slower growth and entirely too many useless players in the game. The boys at Common Sense point to an article about the 1972 case against IBM and the unfortunate coincidences with the Microsoft case. While I agree with the assessment that the prosecution of MS was not entirely the cause of the downturn in the market, I think that are a great many similarities between the mindsets of those who tried to tear down both IBM and MS. In fact, it's rare that antitrust law has been used for anything but preventing market leaders from getting too far ahead of those who lack the same skill, innovation, etc. The result is the destruction, rather than protection, of competition.

WHY JOHNNY CAN'T READ A SUPPLY-AND-DEMAND GRAPH: Suprise, surprise! Our nation's public school teachers are a bunch of dumbasses when it comes to economics. To quote one brainiac econ teacher, "What if I don't believe in GDP?" Joanne Jacobs gives us the scoop at TCS: Tech - Teaching Anti-Economics. [via Happy Fun Pundit]

FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT: Free speech and private choice are getting a big hand from the folks at The Institute for Justice. They are currently taking on the Michigan Education Association in its attempt to stifle a leading school choice proponent, the Mackinac Center.

AUSTIN VS. COHEN: Richard Cohen gets his comeuppance yet again in the form of a nimble, verbal undressing by Charles Austin of Sine Qua Non Pundit.

JUST PLAIN FUNNY (AND SADLY TRUE): Chris Weinkopf put this list of things leftists hate together for Frontpage Magazine.com. [via Ipse Dixit]

UNHAPPY FUN PUNDIT?: If you have been following the whole Brendan O'Neill thing (i.e. he thinks there's a lot of bad writing in the blogosphere), you might have noticed how much of an uproar a little bit of criticism can make. It seems every blogger out there has had to make some comment about how (a) they are offended by O'Neill's presumptiveness; (b) O'Neill's not such a great writer either; (c) who the hell does O'Neill think he is anyway?; (d) O'Neill's such an asshole; or (e) they don't really giving a flying fig what the hell that O'Neill punk thinks anyway. Well Happy Fun Pundit decided to get into the game with the best answer (other than my own) I've seen so far. As for myself, I haven't been blogging long enough to really know who this guy is, and I don't really give a flying fig what the hell he thinks. And who knew those guys were Canadian?

IDIOTARIANS ON PARADE DOWN UNDER: Tim Blair is not very nice to those with whom he disagrees. Kudos!

THOSE CRAZY MARXISTS!: John Hudock at Common Sense offers this review of the "24th annual 'intensive study' of Marxism."

CALIFORNIA? MEET SCIENCE: Steven Den Beste chides California and Gray Davis for playing fast and loose with the laws of physics and ... well ... reality --> USS Clueless - Carbon emissions.

UPDATE: WHY THE WELLSTONE BILL IS A BAD IDEA: Jane Galt at Live from the WTC explains the risks of producing new pharmaceuticals, and why the Wellstone bill will accomplish the opposite of its intentions. This is a great (and much more thorough and intelligent) addendum to my earlier post about the consequences of reimportation of drugs from Canada or any other place where a lower price is mandated.

GUN EDUMACATION: Hawkgirl finds fault with this commission's findings on teaching children gun safety. I like her ideas on parenting, too.

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS!, THE NEW BLOCKBUSTER BY MICHAEL BELLESILES:

In the latest controversial research tome by emminent historian Michael Bellesiles, the real truth on gun ownership and the Second Amendment is laid bare. Meticulously combing the files of long-forgotten textiles records have revealed what many historians had suspected -- the Second Amendment was meant to protect the militia's right to wear short sleeves! According to Bellesiles, the real threat to America's fighting men was the puritanical modesty that forced many to wear restrictive long-sleeved clothing and coats while in the midst of battle. However, because there was no uniform manner of spelling during Revolutionary times, the term "bare" was misspelled as "bear". In response to gun-toting, right-wing war mongerers about what the words "the right to keep ..." preceding ".. and bear arms..." could possibly mean given the new interpretation, Bellesiles bravely pointed to his exhaustive research of county land and drivers records from 1122 to 1975 saying "my research is unassailable and will confirm everything I've written." That research shows that "keep" was also sometimes spelled "keef" or "kief" which was the term for approximately one ounce of chewing tobacco. Bellesiles contends that the oft-misinterpretted passage would read today "...the right to approximately one ounce of chewing tobacco and short-sleeved uniforms shall not be infringed."

VOLOKH ON LIBERTARIANS: Sasha Volokh, of Volokh Conspiracy, points out that Libertarians aren't necessarily conservatives and really shouldn't be confused. However, in a typical law professor sort of way, he manages to offer the most complicated explanation when a simple one was available (a Libertarian thinks it f*#%ing ridiculous that someone has to get a permit to build on their own g-damned property). To be sure, he does point out the difference between an infringement of property rights (being required to grant an easement in order to to be given a fricking building permit) and entitlements (being forced to grant warrantless searches in order to receive government aid). In any event, there are enough issues raised in this one post to comment on for the rest of the summer.

JURISPRUDENCE: Steven Den Beste offers his take on the inefficacy of international law --> USS Clueless - International Law. Porphyrogenitus at Ranting Screeds follows up with some further analysis about the "rule of law" --> Some Thoughts On Law. I have to recommend that anyone interested in this discussion at least browse through A.V. Dicey's Lectures on the Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century. I'll be commenting more on this later.

WHO AM I? I'm not sure this really answers the question, but it's still pretty cool having a picture of Aristotle on my weblog.
Welcome to Neko Revolution!!

What Were You In A Past Life?

GETTING THE ENEMY IN THE CROSSHAIRS: Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings posts a few a good reasons why Libertarians can be differentiated from Republicans or Democrats. In this post he points out who is fighting for civil liberties and that you can't always depend on "Conservatives" to defend liberty. It reminds me a little of F.A. Hayek's Why I am Not a Conservative.

ARTICLES FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE: There are several good articles posted here --> Samizdata.net - The latest publications from the Libertarian Alliance. Unfortunately, they're all in PDF.

NOW HEAR THIS: The EU is pressing for restrictions on the decible level in the workplace. Some, like those estimable forces at Dodgeblog, find such nanny tactics somewhat overbearing. If the directive is put into force (setting the decible level in the workplace at 85 or lower -- anything higher would require the handing out of earplugs) some fear that live music will all but be eliminated and that the pub scene will seriously impacted.