AUSTIN vs. COHEN: The latest Scourge from SQNP. Be sure to see the comments section for a response by yours truly. Here's my synopsis of the Cohen piece --> "Making money? Bad. Caring about people by using the gov't to tell them what to do? Very, very good."

WAR ON DRUGS: Suman Palit of Kolkata Libertarian offers this analysis of the John Stossel 20/20 piece. I only saw a very little bit of the show, but I liked what I did see. I am in agreement with Suman here, unsurprisingly, in that the WOD has really only succeeded in creating criminals and breeding violence (since drug dealers have no property rights in their contraband). My experience with potheads is also similar to Suman's -- almost all of them have grown past the old "party" stage and moved on to other things. The ones who still smoke pot all have very successful jobs and are quite productive. I fail to see the problem with any of them doing something that could potentially only harm themselves.

LIBERTY: Read this fine essay on the meaning of liberty. [via John Hudock at Common Sense]

POSTS FROM INNOCENTS ABROAD: This is still one of my favorite blogs even if I haven't been linking to it of late (sorry, fellas!). There are two posts I think are related and should be read together as painting a dire picture or the EU's future. I would read this homage to Milton Friedman first, then this post concerning EU accounting scandals. As always, I would then read the remainder of the posts, as they are all very good.

THE ESSENCE OF LIBERTARIANISM: As explained by Stephan Kinsella at his eponymous site. According to Stephan, the doctrine of "Better Title" explains the fundamentals of Libertarianism. While I think he makes a good case, and I too have always thought of Libertarianism from a property-rights perspective, I subcribe more to an "emanation theory". By that I mean that sovereignty begins with one's body and emanates outwardly to the realty and personalty we rightfully (i.e. first) possess. The purpose of government is then to enforce those property rights through the law so that I don't have to use physical force to guard all of it against trespassers (i.e. I can be compensated for any transgression or conversion). Where I think Stephan's stance may be more consistent is where an aggressor is physically repelled or prevented from transgressing against one's person. My emanation theory simply defines such actions as legitimate defenses of one's sovereignty without explaining why it is a legitimate defense (although I suppose the idea of "sovereignty" offers its own explanation). In any event, his post is an excellent thought-provoker. [link to Stephan's site via Ernie the Attorney]

AUSTIN vs. COHEN: For an excellent example of "drawing the battle line" read this informative (albeit long) post by Charles Austin. If you were ever unclear as to who the combatants are according to SQNP, this will unmuddy the waters.

THE BALLAD OF RICHARD REID: As told by Steve of Happy Fun Pundit. These guys aren't looking for the same sort of attention garnered by Steve Earle are they?

CASTIGATION OF COUNSEL: Personally, I would have trouble representing an alleged child molester. That is why I practice complex commercial litigation. However, I am every day thankful for those who do represent such defendants, even when these counselors are of the limelight-seeking Johnnie Cochran variety, primarily because every person should have full access to the court system. Bill O'Reilly's castigation of John Pozza is aptly rebuked in this Reason article by Cathy Young.

As an attorney, I constantly take umbrage to those who would disparage my criminal-defense brethren merely for having less-than-moral clients. First, if the typical criminal defendant was someone of other than this ilk there would be something seriously wrong with our justice system a priori. Second, an attorney is no more than a mouthpiece for a party in court. We are not the plaintiffs/defendants. We do not magically take on the persona of those whom we represent. And we are not responsible for our clients behavior before we are hired, nor after our representation has ended, provided the party is not directly acting on our advice. To skewer a criminal defense attorney for representing his client to the best of his ability and winning is a bit like lambasting a glove for keeping your hand warm.

P.J.'S RANT: I don't know what all the fuss is about over at InstaPundit and The Spoons Experience. I thought this was exactly what you would have expected from O'Rourke -- a witty, sarcastic, biting, verging-on-vulgar commentary using various media tidbits.

A BRIEF LOOK AT BIZARRO WORLD: I seem to recall something about an Einstein claim that there is a parallel universe in which exists the exact opposite of everything in this universe. The Indepundit makes a case for what that world must look like -- using media accounts of what's happening in our universe. [link via InstaPundit]

ANTI-PORK: I think Josh Chafetz of OxBlog is trying to start a movement!

YOU HEARD IT THERE FIRST: Charles Austin makes a prediction on Sine Qua Non Pundit.
**UPDATE: Maybe this prediction was a little too easy. What will truly be interesting is to see how long it takes before we see that "D-New Jersey" after Torricelli's name again. Charles Austin seems to think it won't ever happen again.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: According to Paul Marks in a post on Samizdata a new Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being proposed!?!? ---> South Dakota and Jury nulification. It says that an Amendment allowing a defendant to argue for jury nullification of a law is being proposed in South Dakota. I'm not sure exactly how this would work, unless such an Amendment has already passed through the House and the Senate and is now making its rounds through the States (does anyone know if this is the case?). Or, more likely, this is an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution, although I don't know if this is correct either. Unfortunately, the post did not link to anything.

I think there may be a lot of information missing here since, to my knowledge, there's nothing preventing a defendant from arguing for the reversal or repeal of a law (unless it is deemed to be a non-justiciable issue). In the very least, I thought most states allowed for an appeal to jury nullification in closing arguments (anyone who knows for sure, please comment). Moreover, why would there be an Amendment to Constitution for something like this? It doesn't seem like the sort of issue that would need to be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PARTS I-IV: via C.D. Harris IV

INTERNATIONAL CO-DEPENDENCY: Suman Palit of Kolkata Libertarian offers this view of the consequences of foreign aid. Burdening developing nations with billions of dollars in foreign aid is like teaching a child to fend for itself by feeding it solely from the teet. The fostering of a neverending dependency is always self-serving.

COUNTING 101: I am not much of a war blogger because, frankly, I don't really know anything about the subject. I will say for the record that I am 100% behind the stated goals of the War on Terror (including soundly thrashing any harboring countries); I can see no viable alternatives for Israel than to preempt their attackers; and identifying the Axis-of-Evil was not simplistic but unabashedly honest (something not familiar to the E.U./U.N. diplomatic community). One thing I do know is that the political hand-wringers who decry any miltaristic effort in favor of "communication" should be forced to take a refresher course in history -- World War II history in particular.

That being said, I must add that I am repulsed by any statistician who would include Palestinian homicide bombers in the figures of Palestinian dead as result of the intifada (although they seem to claim it is a result of Israeli occupation -- again a history lesson would be in order here).

DRINKING AND DRIVING: Stephen Green at Vodka Pundit has some choice words for bad drivers everywhere. You should check out the Comments section for some particularly potent invective.

U.K. vs. E.U.?: There is something deliciously ironic about a British Development Minister for the E.U. complaining that the E.U. is too bureaucratic such that accomplishing the goal of redistributing the World's wealth is not being done efficiently enough.
And BTW, is the E.U. really "the world's largest aid donor"?

MY FIRST PERMALINK!: It seems that The Last Page has seen fit to include me in her list of links. Thanks, Page! I haven't actually linked any of her posts yet, so now I feel obliged. Frankly, I like all her posts, but the ones where she spouts off on some poor fool are the best. For a great example, see here and here.

TRANSLATING U.N.-SPEAK: Collin May at Innocents Abroad breaks down the typical U.N. report and explains why globalization actually means "U.N.-run world."

LIBERTARIANISM AND MORALITY: Peter Cuthbertson at Conservative Commentary opines on the importance of moral norms in a truly libertarian society. This piece sings for me in that it succinctly identifies one of the unmentioned elements of a free state -- civic responsibility. I think this may be what Den Beste was talking about when pointing out to me that there are differences between the Libertarian Party and libertarianism. (see Comments).


I think one of the problems with clearly expressing a libertarian agenda may be that reducing the size and power of the state is such a daunting to task to begin with, explaining what will fill the vacuum is simply not thought about. A political party that offers solutions to moral problems also seems anti-libertarian -- it's not the state's job to tell people how to live their lives. Overall, I agree with Mr. Cuthbertson's analysis that while the state should not play a part in defining acceptable societal norms, this does not mean there should be none at all. I may find the War on Drugs repugnant in the eyes of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean I want everybody to go out and shoot up heroin. It may be ludicrous in my eyes that we have redistributive taxes in this country, but that doesn't mean I think the rich have no responsibility to the poor. The overarching theme will always be freedom to do what you will, as far as I'm concerned. But this will always include taking responsibility for myself and my community, whether the state tells me to or not. [via Andrew Ian Dodge at Dodgeblog]

WHAT IF?: Tim Blair offers this vision of the world where Mikhail Kalashnikov created lawnmowers instead of rifles.