Out of Control

If there was any silver lining to the global food price crisis, it was that countries around the world started tearing down long-standing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas against food imports. But that silver lining proved short-lived as another threat to free trade emerged: export bans and export taxes on domestic food.

To return soaring food prices to earth and placate irate consumers (read: voters): India announced a temporary ban on some varieties of rice; China slapped export taxes on rice; Pakistan imposed a 35 percent duty on wheat; and Russia quadrupled wheat-export taxes to 40 percent.

But the problem with such measures is that the relief they provide will be temporary – and the pain they cause more enduring. Why? Farmers who can’t command the market price for their produce will have little incentive to invest in yield-enhancing technologies, making it much harder for food production to catch up with demand. Farmers will certainly lose out -- but so will consumers.

The only country that seems to understand this is South Africa which has refused to jump on the export-ban bandwagon. “We don’t believe banning exports will help us in the long run,” noted Lulu Xingwana, the South African agricultural minister.

Bonus:
Check out Noble laureate and Chicago econ prof Gary Becker's brilliant analysis of the Malthusian fallacies underlying the discussion of this issue here.

A growing number of laptop seizures by U.S. Customs from U.S. citizens entering the U.S., predominantly at airports, has concerned enough companies that they are now requiring employees to wipe their hard drives before traveling abroad. At least two multinationals, one American, one Dutch, have told employees not to carry confidential information on laptops when they travel overseas, according to the Washington Post.

The fact that corporations are instituting policies to protect themselves should signal how abusive this practice has become.

It what could amount to a case of illegal search and seizure, Customs agents are ordering employees of U.S. companies, be they U.S. citizens or foreign nationals, predominantly of Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds, to surrender cell phones, BlackBerry devices, iPods and laptop computers when re-entering the country.

Customs agents will then copy phonebooks and calling information from phones, and browser and email data from the laptops. The Post reports that border agents have demanded users provide passwords to open hard drives – the information of which is often confidential. (What the Post does not report is that, should the laptop contain confidential financial information about the company, the password disclosure itself could be a felony under Sarbanes-Oxley Act, so the hapless employee is stuck between being arrested for not cooperating with Customs agents or opening himself and his entire company’s executive management to jail time).

If there is any doubt that global warming alarmism is turning into self-parody, the study reported below courtesy JunkScience.com should put it to rest. If it had been released on April 1, most would have dismissed it as an April Fools joke. But, no, these guys, both Michigan State University profs are dead serious. But the methodological flaw in this study is this: It did not take into account the environmental damage of staying in a hellacious relationship. Surely, the heart-ache, indigestion and consequent increase in flatulence could not be good for global climate!

Divorce, Global Warming-Style

JunkScience.com, December 3, 3007

Will lawyers soon be working out green divorces? They may need to since divorce causes global warming, according to a new study published Dec. 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Michigan State University researchers Eunice Yu and Jianguo Liu report that divorce results in more households that use more water, energy and land resources and that generate more solid and liquid waste, including more greenhouse gases. The study was edited by Paul "Population Bomb" Ehrlich who, in 1967, predicted that the world was running out of food and that hundreds of millions would die of starvation as a result in the 1970s and 1980s.

Remarriage helps reduce environmental damage. "The results suggest that mitigating the impacts of resource-inefficient lifestyles such as divorce helps to achieve global environmental sustainability," the study concludes.

"The personal life is over," is what a Bolshevik apparatchik told Boris Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago. Soon we'll all be living for the Left's twisted idea of what's good for Comrade Earth -- that is, until someone comes up with a no-carbon divorce.

A radio ad aired by Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire has unleashed a firestorm of protest by the media. In it, Giuliani, a prostate cancer survivor, thanks God that he was treated in the United State’s (semi-socialized) medical system where survival rates for this type of cancer are 82 percent – as opposed to the (fully) socialized medical system in Britain where survival rates are allegedly only 44 percent.

But a number of reporters and pundits have pounced on the stat like a jackal on a bunny (actually, make that an ant). Rick Klein of ABC News accuses Rudy of “fuzzy healthcare math.” Ezra Klein of CBS denounces the stat as a “straight lie resulting from a basic mathematical error.” Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson intones that this is precisely the kind of “cherry-picking” of data that has caused 160,000 US soldiers to be bogged down in Iraq.

My, my! So what exactly is the truth, according to these oracles?

Well, WaPo’s Michael Dobbs claims that mortality rates for prostate cancer in the United States and UK are the same: About 25 men out of 100,000 die of prostate cancer each year in the two countries. But that comparison hides more than it reveals.

Rudy’s claim was taken from an article in a 2007 issue of the City Journal by Dr. David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute – and a contributor to Reason Roundtable – that were based on 2000 OECD data. Gratzer admits the figures are now outdated -- although it is curious as to why he used 2000 figures in a 2007 article (he does provide an answer of sorts in a New York Post article linked below.) But Gratzer points out that Dobb’s comparison is based on overall mortality rates. That is, the percentage of all Americans who die of prostate cancer is similar to the percentage of all Britons.

However, Gratzer, who is also Rudy's health care policy adviser, notes, that this comparison misses the point given that a much higher percentage of Americans are diagnosed with prostate cancer than Britons. And the latest figures from Lancet Oncology, a respected journal, show that the five-year survival rate of people diagnosed with prostate cancer is much higher in the U.S. (99 percent) than in Europe (78 percent) and Scotland and Wales (71 percent). Britain’s latest figures are not yet available.

Gratzer’s detractors such as Eugene Robinson of WaPo, however, counter that the higher prostate cancer diagnosis in the U.S. is not the result of higher incidence of cancer -- but of early screening and detection. And that discredits Rudy and Gratzer how? Because very often this type of cancer is non-lethal and its detection bumps up U.S. survival rates among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer even when they are not treated or treated inadequately. Get it?

But even if these pundits were right that the higher diagnosis of non-lethal prostate cancer does artificially boost the survival rate of U.S. patients, can it account for the entire 22-27 percent differential between U.S. and European survival rate that the Lancet study found? Highly unlikely.

The bottom-line is that Rudy’s accusers have no fool-proof evidence of willful mendacity on his part. Rudy might have over-stated his case (Isn’t that shocking: a politician overstating!). But they have certainly engaged in over-kill.

All of which raises this interesting question: Where were these pundits when Al Gore was going around making movies claiming that global warming would cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet, when, in reality, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put the figure at no more than two feet: a ten-fold exaggeration?

How do you spell d-o-u-b-l-e s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d?

David Gratzer's column in the New York Post taking on his critics here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11052007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/uks_bad_medicine_901295.htm?CMP=EMC-email_edition&DATE=11052007

WaPo's Eugene Robinson's commentary here:
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/209570

I heard the most illuminating – and the most depressing – assessment of Iraq yet last Wednesday at Michigan State University where Stephen Biddle, one of the most – if not the most -- respected military strategists in the United States, was speaking. (Full disclosure: Biddle was invited as part of a lecture series called the Symposium on Science, Reason and Modern Democracy that my husband co-directs at the MSU political science department.)

Biddle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and award-winning author of Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle, and an early opponent of the war, explained why America’s pre-surge strategy in Iraq was a colossal failure. And even though the current U.S. strategy is on the right track, he put its odds of success – defined not as the creation of some fancy-shmantzy pluralistic democracy in Iraq, but just “sustainable stability” -- at no more than 10 to 15 percent. And that too if the U.S. maintains the current approximately 160,000 troops for at least 8 to 10 years till a new generation of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds has had a chance to grow up without each side feeling that it was about to be slaughtered by the other. This is an enormously difficult and expensive proposition with huge opportunity costs. But if the U.S. is not prepared for such a commitment, he believed, it should hit the exit doors now. This would certainly lead to an all-out civil war with epical bloodletting and nightmarish geo-political consequences for the whole region – but at least it wouldn’t cost anymore U.S. lives.

What, most emphatically, wouldn’t work was the middle-ground that every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, was proposing: Cutting troop levels in half and changing their mission from combat to peace-keeping. This would make U.S. troops sitting ducks for both Sunni and Shiite militias without preventing their mutual slaughter. “This is a situation where the extreme options – total withdrawal now or a big troop commitment for about 10 years -- are clearly better than the middle one.”

Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s plan for carving up the country into a loose federation of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves was wishful thinking too, Biddle felt. To convince Sunnis, who have little oil in their areas, to go along with such an arrangement, Biden proposes that an oil-sharing formula be written into the Iraqi constitution. But who’ll enforce the constitution? Given that Sunnis constitute only 20 percent of the population and have only minimal political representation, it would have to be the Shiite-dominated government. So we would basically be asking the Sunnis to lay down their arms for the sake of a piece of paper that would be enforced by their mortal enemies.

But the most interesting part of the lecture was Biddle’s explanation for why America was not able to control the insurgency till General Petraus took over. Till then, Biddle noted, the U.S. was not fighting Iraq – it was refighting Vietnam. Essentially, there are two types of insurgencies: A classic ideological insurgency and a sectarian-communal civil war. Vietnam was the first type of conflict where different groups were struggling with each other to impose their idea of good government on the rest of the country. Iraq, however, is the second kind of conflict where each is trying to protect itself and its identity. “The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are fighting a zero-sum game with existential stakes.”

Indeed, U.S. efforts to apply the lessons of Vietnam to Iraq, namely political reconciliation through elections, economic reconstruction and rebuilding an indigenous military, actually “poured gasoline on the flames of the Iraqi insurgency.” For instance, consider the creation of an indigenous force: In an ideological conflict, this would make perfect sense. Afterall, unlike foreign troops, locals have a direct stake in the well-being of their country. Moreover, since they speak the local language, they can more easily separate innocents from guerillas and avoid targeting the wrong people – something that is essential to gain the confidence of the larger population. But in Iraq’s case, none of this applied. In a country riven by ethnic hatreds, there was no reason to believe that an indigenous army would protect all Iraqi lives equally – or that it would be possible to convince anyone that it would. Thus, as far as the Sunnis were concerned, Biddle noted, the force that we put together was nothing short of a “Shiite militia on steroids.” Their response under the cirumstances was completely rational: escalate their insurgency and prevent this force from ever taking root. Even the much vaunted elections in Iraq fuelled the sectarian fires because, in a war of identity, electoral politics creates a further incentive to demonize the other groups. They gave Shiites an opportunity to say to fellow Shittes, “Vote for me and I’ll protect you from the Sunni Devils” – and vice versa. “Elections, did not mitigate underlying conflict, they intensified the centrifugal forces that were breaking-up Iraqi society.”

If things have calmed down a bit since General Petraeus took over in February, it is not necessarily because going in he had a more accurate understanding of the nature of the conflict – but sheer dumb luck. Even though we were screwing up badly in Iraq, as it turns out, al Qaida was screwing up even more. In Anbar Province, a predominantly Sunni area, al Qaida was systematically terrorizing the local population, leaving Sunni leaders with no option but to approach our units as the lesser of the two evils.

The success in routing out al Qaida in Anbar with local cooperation gave birth to what, Biddle calls, Petraus’ new bottom-up approach in Iraq in addition to the top-down model that U.S. had hitherto followed. The top-down apporach aimed exclusively at controlling the security situation in Baghdad in order to create the politcal space for a power-sharing compromise. “Petraus has decided to do this (stabalize the country) retail, as opposed to imposing a wholesale formula from the top.”

The new approach involves cutting bilateral deals with every local faction – and Biddle counted 20 main ones – under which the U.S. gives them the following option: Either stop shooting at us and, in return, we will not only let you keep your arms but also place U.S. troops in your neighborhood to protect you from your enemies. Or, if you decline, we will raid your homes, take away anything that you can possibly use to defend yourself. “And, once we are finished, guess what your enemies across the street will do to you.”

“We have to counter existential stakes with existential stakes,” Biddle notes. “We can’t convince them to lay down their arms for three hours more of electricity a day.”

If the U.S. had the troop strength and the resources to fully implement both the top-down and bottom-up approach simultaneously, then U.S. prospects of succeeding would be better than the one- in-10 odds that Biddle gives them. But that would require nothing short of reinstituting the draft – a political impossibility. So sooner or later General Petraus will have to decide to give up one or the other.

In the end, Biddle noted that the administration’s strategy of maintaining current troop levels was rational – and CATO Institute’s strategy of getting out now was rational. Everything else was irresponsible or wishful thinking.

But these choices themselves testify that Iraq is a tar baby the U.S. never should have grabbed. Thank you President Bush!

Courtesy, the South Asian Journalists Association (SAJA), here is an interesting story about intellectual property enforcement gone amuck:
It seems that Penguin books and Harry Potter author JK Rowling won't be collecting $50,000 from a Durga Puja (Durga is a Hindu goddess and Puja means prayer) committee in Calcutta. A court threw out their claim of copyright infringement over a (huge) unauthorized replica of the Hogwarts school for wizards, constructed for the Hindu festival. The images (that can be viewed on Reuters) show the mockup (pandal) on the left and the actual, film version of Hogwarts on the right.

From a Daily Mail (UK) article on the decision:
Organisers of the festival in Calcutta said they were 'overjoyed' after claiming a court ruling allowed the hybrid Hindu-Potter festival to take place without any compensation payment. The community's lawyer, Ghose Chaudhuri, said: "The court has given us permission to use the Pandal (the structure) and whatever has been made till the 26th of October, no compensation has been directed to be paid."

From a BBC article, prior to the decision:
Members say that they make a different model every year - in the past they have built the Titanic. This year they chose Hogwarts School - as well as life-size models of Harry Potter and his friends. Organisers said a mock steam engine train is also being constructed next to it, to resemble Hogwarts Express. Correspondents say the construction is nearing completion and is expected to cost around 1.2 million Indian rupees ($30,000). But it is argued that the organisers did not seek permission, and so are being sued for breach of copyright.
I've been in Kolkata during Puja (when it was still Calcutta) and saw some of the more outlandish modern themes used for pandals - I vaguely remember a huge Rambo towering over us. These are scattered all over the city, along with more traditional takes on the festival.

Check out the 2 comments that follow the Daily Mail article - both from English readers:
I think this has taken Rowling down a few pegs in my estimation. The sheer greed, of someone who has millions, in trying to claim £25,000 from a simple religious non-profit making festival, is beyond belief. - Jennifer Thomson, Manchester England

Of course it is vital to both Rowling and Warners to get the money in from this type of thing to keep the franchise going. A few hundred million is never enough. What's next? Charging the kids for walking around as Harry Potter on Halloween? - Freddie, Dorset, England

More on Durga Puja at Wikipedia:
During the week of Durga Puja, in the entire state of West Bengal as well as in large enclaves of Bengalis everywhere, life comes to a complete standstill. In playgrounds, traffic circles, ponds -- wherever space may be available -- elaborate structures called pandals 'are set up, many with nearly a year's worth of planning behind them. The word pandal means a temporary structure, made of bamboo and cloth, which is used as a temporary temple for the purpose of the puja. While some of the pandals are simple structures, others are often elaborate works of art with themes that rely heavily on history, current affairs and sometimes pure imagination. Somewhere inside these complex edifices is a stage on which Durga reigns, standing on her lion mount, wielding ten weapons in her ten hands. This is the religious center of the festivities, and the crowds gather to offer flower worship or pushpanjali on the mornings, of the sixth to ninth days of the waxing moon fortnight known as Devi Pakshya

Reason has launched reason.tv, where we plan to bring you the latest, most compelling stories about policy issues and freedom from all corners of the Internet, and we'll be experimenting with new interactive content and features.

It's already very cool, and we have only just started.

The latest This Is True newsletter turned me on this great story of a local police idiot.

An insurance company sent a small private fire crew to protect some homes it insured that were threatened by a wildfire. Control freaks at the PD were not happy--"That sounds ridiculous to me," said Kim Rogers, a Ketchum Police Department spokesman, " I mean, this is a Forest Service fire, not a private fire."

Heaven forbid the insurance firm or residents don't leave their fate in the Forest Service's hand, but actually try to protect their property.

The ban on Internet gambling that passed last year could create a heap of trouble between the U.S. and the World Trade Organization.

Antigua and Barbados are pressing their WTO complaint that the ban violated the treaty because it effectively favors U.S. gambling interests over non-U.S. companies that house gaming servers in their countries. And the U.S. Trade Representative is not finding it as easy as he thought to simply state that Internet gambling is not covered by the treaty.

Turns out it just might be part of entertainment services covered by the treaty. And twice, in 2004 and 2005, the WTO ruled against previous U.S. attempts to curtail online gambling by preventing U.S.-based banks from processing transactions with gambling sites.

Although it does not seem likely the ban will be overturned anytime soon, another WTO ruling unfavorable to the U.S. could mean a fine between of up to $10 billion, according to Mark Mendel, attorney for Antigua in the WTO proceeding. And although a trade dispute over Internet gambling may seem trivial, international trade officials are watching the dispute closely and treating it seriously.

Got a whole lot of money that’s ready to burn
So get those stakes up higher!

Some nice quotes on the benefits of smartly-regulated medical marijuana dispensaries from today's San Mateo County Times:

Since Oakland introduced medical cannabis regulations in 2004, "the dispensaries have been so problem-free and crime-free that citizens who aren't participating hardly even know they exist," said Barbara Killey, an assistant to the Oakland city administrator.

Killey, who oversees the permitting and regulation of the city's dispensaries, would rather the federal government legalize medical cannabis so that pharmacies could sell the drug.

"Since that's not really a current option, then I think dispensaries are the next best alternative," she said.

The collectives pay business taxes to the city, draw people to the community to shop and even reduce crime in their neighborhood because of the security they hire to protect their operation, said Killey.

... San Mateo's mayor agrees that patients are better served by cooperative or collective dispensaries which can offer medical cannabis in exchange for money.

Forcing patients to grow their own medicine is "a very primitive way" of providing medicine, he said.

"What if we decided that you could have all the aspirin you wanted as long as you grew the birch trees?" he said.

Reason's report on medical marijuana dispensary regulation in Los Angeles earned a mention in the LA Daily News a couple of weeks back.

If you have a sick fascination for screeds on all that is evil in the private sector and markets, not to mention whitey and the federal government, you can't beat this.

Those fighting to ban race-based admission policies in public schools and colleges won a big victory today. The Supreme Court just struck down Seattle and Kentucky school districts' practice of matching students to schools by race. For years, hundreds of kids have been denied admission to schools of their choice in their own neighborhood in favor of worse ones much further away. Why? Because their skin tone threatened to disrupt the delicate racial balance district authorities were trying to achieve.

The court’s 5-4 decision in these cases effectively reversed its ruling three years ago when it gave the University of Michigan’s race-based admission policies a thumbs’ up. Outraged Michigan voters last year overturned that decision when they overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative spearheaded by black California businessman Ward Connerly to ban the use of race in government admission and hiring. Connerly is launching similar petition drives in five more states in time for the 2008 November elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing the majority opinion in the Kentucky and Seattle cases, noted that school authorities had failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating why such race-based policies were necessary. “The best way to stop discrimination by race,” he said, “is to stop discriminating by race.”

Amen!

Here are the links to Reason’s coverage of the Michigan ballot initiative:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20061026b.shtml
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20061107.shtml

And here is the Wall Street Journal story of the latest Supreme Court ruling:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118303957086351501.html?mod=djemalert

While we're sharing videos, here's news on a designer drug for politicians suffering from Chronic Re-Election Paranoia (CREEP). Looks like this could be more important than Ambien in the coming election.

The FCC's madcap dash to censor everything has a setback.

Christian Probasco has written an article called “California Looms” for New West about California nanny statism and other legislative tomfoolery. Probasco fears that the legislative excesses of California may work their way to other states in the western region (and elsewhere). As he notes in his column,

California is a trendsetter state. Much like the weather, every Californian fad eventually makes its way over the Sierras and diffuses into the intermountain West. That’s wonderful, and it’s frightening, because there are some pretty disturbing things going on in the Golden State right now.

It is, I fear, a legitimate concern. As my colleague Skaidra Smith-Heisters is quoted as saying the article, “What is perhaps different about California is that politicians and voters are not shy about approving radical laws. They enjoy the sense that California is the first state to try new things.”

Among some of the nanny bills being considered in California:

• AB 722—Would “phase out” the sale of incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs (despite the fact that harmful levels of mercury from fluorescent bulbs can add up in landfills, contaminating the soil and making their way into the food supply). This bill has been amended so that now, instead of banning bulbs outright, it would have the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission set a minimum energy efficiency for bulbs. A nice P.R. move (banning things seems so harsh, but who can be against energy efficiency?) that would, in practice, still essentially ban incandescent bulbs.
• SB 7—Would ban smoking in a vehicle—moving or stationary—in which there is a minor.
• AB 86/AB 90/AB 97/SB 490—Would restrict the use of trans fats in restaurants and school cafeterias.
• SB 120/SB 180—Would require caloric, trans fat, saturated fat, and sodium content information to be printed on restaurant menus.
• AB 1634—Would require dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their animals by four months of age.

On their own, such nanny measures may seem innocuous, but small erosions of liberties can lead to large losses of freedom in the long run. As I said to Mr. Probasco in the article:

“In the grand scheme of things, it might seem like a minor inconvenience to buy a different kind of light bulb (and to have to start recycling instead of throwing them away) or to stop smoking in your own car if kids are present or include certain nutritional information on restaurant menus, but such minor violations of liberty add up over time. Before long, you look back and realize that you have given up a lot of your freedoms merely by acquiescing to others’ beliefs on how you should live your life.”

Philosopher and economist David Hume said, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." If we want to continue to enjoy the blessings of a free society, it would be wise for us—in California or anywhere else—to heed his warning.

You don’t have to live in the San Francisco Bay Area to see how extreme smoking bans are born: tune in live (online) at 7:30 tonight and watch deliberations on the latest iteration of the now-infamous Belmont smoking ban. Since it was daylighted in November 2006, the City of Belmont has gotten a lot of attention for their proposed smoking ban, which would have been the most restrictive in the country—extending past the pre-existing ban on smoking in California places of employment (including bars and restaurants), to virtually all outdoor areas (whether public or private), and to private indoor areas such as apartments, hotels, townhouses and condominiums and possibly cars. Mayor Coralin Feierbach insists Belmont wasn’t trying to make headlines with the proposed ban and notes, “Other cities are going to start passing us by.”

Among those cities could be Oakland, where tonight the Public Safety Committee is reviewing options to add two notable provisions to their smoking ordinance: declaration of secondhand smoke as a public nuisance, and banning smoking in all new multi-unit housing built in the city. (Presumably, this means that people who wish to smoke at home will never be able to live in any apartment or condo built after 2007.) Put your bandwidth to the test and watch it live at the same time as the Belmont vote or read the proposed ordinance here.

Provisions in both bans go beyond the “model” ordinance promoted by Berkeley-based Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, who incidentally also have handy online maps of smoking restrictions throughout the country. The California Department of Health Services has a good database on smoking and smoking cessation efforts as does California’s Clean Air Project (CCAP). I highly recommend putting these resources to use—after all, if you pay tobacco taxes, you helped to fund them!

Read on for the late-hour update/rant.

Justice is blind—but with a little help it can be used to single out and prosecute people who enjoy public sidewalks too much.

A brief search of municipal codes in the U.S. reveals at least a dozen laws against hand organs and hurdy-gurdies, a musical instrument that looks like a violin and sounds something like bagpipes. The City of Los Angeles municipal code states, "No person shall operate or play any hand organ or hurdy-gurdy in, upon or along any street or sidewalk.” (That’s in § 41.29, sandwiched, perhaps appropriately, between laws against public drunkenness and the building of “spite fences.”) Old Tappan, NJ takes it a step farther, stating nobody “shall have, keep, own, maintain or use within the limits of the borough” any hurdy-gurdy without a license.

Presumably, the hurdy-gurdy is the most maligned instrument in the U.S. municipal codes because, at one time, it was associated with street vendors, blind musicians, and—worst of all—dancing “hurdy-gurdy girls.”

That line of thinking might sound crazy, but then, so does this, from an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle today:

Berkeley figures it's found a way to get homeless people off the streets. Keep them from smoking there. As Mayor Tom Bates sees it, the alcoholics, meth addicts and the like who make up a good portion of the homeless population on Shattuck Avenue downtown and Telegraph Avenue on the south side of the UC Berkeley campus "almost always smoke." And because smoking bans are the hot ticket these days for California cities, why not meld the two as part of a "comprehensive package" for dealing with the street problem that Bates says "has gone over the top"?

Smoking regulations tend to be one issue where progressives can reliably be found promoting regressive taxes and opting for reduced civil liberties. The city ordinances that prohibit smoking outdoors on sidewalks or at parks, bus stops, and private restaurant and bar patios are rarely enforced. When they are, it is typically a “secondary” enforcement where the first offense is being young, obnoxious, or otherwise uncouth (adjectives which might describe the majority of people who loiter along Berkeley’s Telegraph Ave.). The liberty of the young and/or poor ends where the better judgment of paternalistic lawmakers begins.

That paternalism becomes particularly noxious in the regulation of urban commons like sidewalks. Yes, these regulations often relate, at least tangentially, to real public health issues. Just as often, though, they’re intended to drive away people who use public areas disproportionately by criminalizing things they like to do, whether it is skateboarding, smoking or playing the hurdy-gurdy.

Poker players, whether they play online or in brick-and-mortar casinos and card rooms, agree that winning consistently depends largely on skill, even though an element of luck comes into play with the turn of the cards.

The “luck or skill” question could factor heavily in a judgment on whether a ban on Internet gambling—particularly poker—is legally justifiable. Under U.S. common law, games that are predominantly chance are considered gambling, while those that are mainly skill are not.

Case law has cut both ways. In 1989, a California circuit-court judge found poker to be a game of skill. The decision kept the state’s card rooms open. In 2005, however, a North Carolina state judge called poker a game of chance, allowing local authorities to shut down a card room. Debate is likely to intensify now that Barney Frank has introduced a bill to reverse the ban on online wagering passed by Congress last year.

There’s a strong case to be made for poker as a game of skill. In games of chance, like lotteries, slots or roulette, every player has the same odds of winning. In roulette, for example, a bet on any one number pays 35:1. The payoff is the same no matter who’s putting out the bet. In a game of skill like No Limit Texas Hold ’Em, however, the outcome of the exact same hand, dealt under the exact same conditions with the same opponents, can differ vastly depending on who’s playing the cards.

Word is that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is readying legislation to lift the ban on Internet gambling – or at least relieve the banks of the responsibility of enforcing it.

The bill reportedly has the support of Ron Paul (R-Texas), a member of the House Financial Services Committee that Frank chairs.

The news follows a March 30 World Trade Organization finding that the ban is not compliant with an earlier WTO ruling that called on the U.S. to change the way it regulates on-line gambling. The complaint was brought by Antigua and Barbuda, two Caribbean nations that handle a heavy amount of Web hosting for Internet gaming companies. Cato’s Sallie James recently outlined the implications of the WTO decision at TCS Daily.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed last October as part of a larger ports security bill. In its wake, the U.S. Department of Justice began an unprecedented campaign of harassment against legally operating non-U.S. banks. In January, it charged two former executives of Neteller, a publicly traded U.K. online money transfer company, with moving billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds from U.S. citizens to Internet gambling companies located overseas. According to InformationWeek (in an excellent report on the consequences of UIGEA), the DOJ also reportedly issued subpoenas to a number of prominent global banks that had participated in the underwriting of the IPOs of overseas gambling sites. Upon this news, stock prices of online gambling concerns registered on the London stock exchange tumbled.

In the meantime, Congress’ attempt at Internet nannying has led some of the best and most reputable gaming sites, like PartyPoker.com and 888 Poker-on-the-Net, to stop taking U.S.-based customers, potentially leaving the market to more shady operators.

A Friday LA Times article "State preschools short of space, survey says" opens with:

Classroom space in California public preschools is at such a premium that 21% of eligible 4-year-olds would be unable to attend if they all attempted to enroll, according to a statewide study released Thursday.

Yikes! you say. But wait. As Steve Frank puts it:

The key phrase is, "if they all attempted to enroll".

Yes, and if all drivers decided to be on the Hollywood Freeway at two in the morning we would have gridlock. That is not going to happen.

This is a classic effort by government to create what is not needed or wanted. Pretend there is a crisis, use good sounding statistics and then beg for mercy to save the day.

In this case, government wants all children to go to "approved" day care. If they don’t, space needs to be available for them anyway, build a bureaucracy.

Check out the starlet in a revealing CNN interview. Be sure to stick around for the bizarre ending.

BTW, here’s what Human Rights Watch says about Cuba. Seems a tad different than what goes on in the US.

Related: Trendy Che

I've been fighting the urge to puke all day.

Latest Public Policy Inst of CA survey includes this gem:

"In general, which of the following statements do you agree with more--I'd rather pay higher taxes and have a state government that provides more services, or I'd rather pay lower taxes and have a state government that provides fewer services?"

OK, not the best worded question around, but reasonable. Result?
53% of all adults (69% of dems, 27% of reps, 53% of ind) prefer "higher taxes and more services"!!!

Holy cow! when was the last time you paid higher taxes and actually got more services? CA is not the land of the fruits and nuts, it is the land of the gullible.

As David Nott, prez of Reason, pointed out to me, this shows the folks who support limited government in CA have their work cut out for them. And if you need more proof the Republican Party is intellectually bankrupt in CA (at least) 27% of them want "higher taxes and more services"!

In the Boston Globe:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says the Supreme Court must promote the political rights of minorities and look beyond the Constitution's text when necessary to ensure that "no one gets too powerful."

I read Capitalism and Freedom sometime during my sophomore year in college—1977—when any proposition of permitting telecom competition, let-alone private sanitation services and privately-managed toll roads, would get you laughed out of your economics class.

It’s hard to believe that Friedman, who died today at 94, came of age in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when capitalism and market economics were highly suspect. Instead, people around the world were turning to totalitarian governments, and many of Friedman’s intellectual contemporaries believed that true freedom lay in socialism.

While the U.S. never embraced the collectivist extremes of fascism or communism, two collectivist-derived ideas filtered into our political consciousness. The first notion was there are certain aspects of the economy – including banking and money supply – where central planning was necessary; second, that interests of commerce and the interests of the common man were forever in opposition.

Friedman’s lifelong work challenged both. His critique of the central planning model was validated as early as the Carter administration, when the “stagflation” of the late seventies—high inflation and high interest rates accompanied by high unemployment—confounded the Keynesians that had been directing U.S. economic policy for the preceding generation. Yet it came as no surprise to Friedman and his associates at the University of Chicago, who had warned of the consequences of high taxes, deficit spending and near-profligate pumping of the money supply for years.

The second notion, that commercial and public interests are natural enemies, still underpins policy debate today. Capitalism and Freedom lays out the fundamental libertarian argument that a political environment that permits and encourages voluntary transactions between consenting parties is not only the best way to maximize the common economic good, but that it creates a more just and free society in the long term.

Friedman always cautioned that the coercive power of the state, even a democratic one, is a danger to very freedoms it aims to protect. In the citizen’s personal and commercial affairs, government intervention, he argued, should be a last resort, with a high bar of justification, not a simple matter of course. In the area I cover, telecommunications, it’s a battle we see reflected in the calls for network neutrality, limits on media ownership and cable and Internet content regulations. But it applies as much to the debate over the environment, energy, health care and education.

Friedman’s legacy will be his assertion that personal freedom and economic freedom are inseparable, and that any restraint on one is as much as restraint on the other. As libertarians we honor that legacy by working for a nation and society where individual choice is respected, coercion is minimal, and men and women are allowed the responsibility and opportunity to reach their fullest potential.

We can start with the reason I offset the word banning in quotes. Because the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (HR 4411) being debated in the House today would ban only the types of online gambling Congress finds objectionable. Poker and blackjack are banned. Internet betting on horse racing and lotteries are not for the simple reason that states have a cut of the ponies and the numbers.

Let’s not pretend for a minute this is about morality or protecting compulsive gamblers. It’s all about protecting state lotteries and billions in tax revenues from U.S. casinos. Meanwhile, off-shore online gambling companies, which include Sportingbet PLC, a corporation publicly-traded on the London Stock Exchange, saw $4 billion of $12 billion in 2005 total revenues come from U.S. players, according to the American Gaming Association. Although these companies have stated that they would welcome legitimate status in the U.S., and agree to regulation and taxation, Congress remains hostile to them.

Even conservative groups who oppose gambling on principle are unhappy with the bill’s selective definitions. “If you're going to support legislation that is supposed to ‘prohibit gambling,’ you should not have carve-outs,”' Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition, told the Associated Press.

Okay, here's a little humor for a Friday.

Anyone who has owned a dog or cat will see the humor in "pets' diaries" immediately. But, as I received this via email, as a policy wonk is bound to do, I couldn't help but think about worldviews and how they translate into the way we govern, who would be more likely to govern for freedom, and who would be more likely to govern for control. I began thinking about Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" where he discusses those with a "constrained view"--we are inherently limited (by knowledge, experience, etc.) in what we can accomplish--and those with an "unconstrained view" (like pogressives who think we know enough to accomplish a lot through government and public policy). I also thought of Viginia Postrel's excellent book, "The Future and Its Enemies" and whether those embracing the dynamism would be better than those who value stasis at governing in a free society.

So, even if you've seen this, it's fun to read and now you have the opportunity to ponder the larger questions about whether dogs or cats would value individual freedom in our system of Constitutional and representative democracy. Are you a dog or a cat?

EXCERPTS FROM A DOG'S DAILY DIARY: 8:00 a.m. Oh, boy! Dog food! My favorite! 9:30 a.m. Wow! A car ride! This is a blast! 9:40 a.m. A walk in the park! Ate some crap...Delicious! 10:30 a.m. Getting rubbed and petted! I'm in love! 12:00 p.m. Lunch! Yummy! 1:00 p.m. Playing in the yard! I just love it! 3:00 p.m. Staring adoringly at my masters feet...they're the best! I'll wag my tail in joy. 4:00 p.m. Hooray! The kids are home! I'm bouncing off the walls! 5:00 p.m. Milkbones! Great! 7:00 p.m. Get to play ball! This is too good to be true! 8:00 p.m. Wow! Watching TV with my master! Heavenly! 11:00 p.m. Sleeping at the bottom of my master's bed! Life is soooooooo great!

EXCERPTS FROM A CAT'S DAILY DIARY:
Day 683 of My Captivity:
My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They
dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed hash or
some sort of dry nuggets. Although I make my contempt for the rations
perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my
strength. The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape. In an
attempt to disgust them, I once again vomited on the floor.

Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet. I
had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it clearly
demonstrates what I am capable of. However, they merely made condescending
comments about what a "good little hunter" I am. The audacity!!

There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight. I was placed
in solitary confinement for the duration of the event. However, I could
hear the noise and smell the food. I overheard that my confinement was due
to my power of "allergies." I must learn what this means, and how to use it
to my advantage.

Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my
tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I must try this
again tomorrow-but at the top of the stairs.

I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches. The
dog receives special privileges. He is regularly released-and he seems more
than willing to return! He is obviously retarded. The bird has got to be an
informant-I observe him communicating with the guards regularly. I am
certain that he reports my every move. The captors have arranged protective
custody for him in an elevated cell, so he is safe....... For now.

I have looked at a lot of legislation and efforts around the country to limit eminent domain abuse. Most of them are laudable. But the effort of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights stands out from the crowd. Not only are they meticulous about changing the law to confine eminent domain to true public uses, they put real effort into discussing alternatives to eminent domain for cities dealing with blight and economic development challenges. I am impressed by how they combine a hard line on property rights with an effort to address the public policy consequences.

The Village of North Hills in Long Island is considering using eminent domain to seize a private country club and golf course in order to open it up to the public.

City staff are arguing that having a public golf course would increase community property values and thus justify the takeover. Must be good drugs out there. When is the last time you saw higher property values near a municipal golf course than you saw near a private country club?

Worse than being wrong, though, is being evil. For no other public purpose than raising property values, they want to seize people's property? By that logic, each state in the nation should use eminent domain to seize 25% of all existing housing, and all vacant land, then raze the homes and not develop the rest of the land. Property values would sky rocket for the remaining homes!

Perhaps most depressing, there is precedent for North Hills' evil:

Thomas Merrill, a Columbia University law professor, said legal precedents date to the 1880s, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the acquisition of land in Pennsylvania that is now the Gettysburg National Military Park. Examples closer to home include Hempstead's attainment of private Lido Beach clubs, said Allan Hyman, an attorney from East Meadow.

BB&T, one of the nation's largest banks, has announced it "will make no loans to developers who plan to build commercial projects on land taken from private citizens by the government through the power of eminent domain."

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided; in fact it's just plain wrong," John Allison, chairman and chief executive of the Winston-Salem-based bank, said Wednesday.

BB&T is the first major bank to announce such a policy. Lets hope more follow suit.

A wide ranging interview in Budget & Tax News with David Denholm of Public Service Research Foundation on games government employee unions play in public policy and how they drive growth of government.

Sand Springs, OK has $ in its eyes.

Since the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo decision last summer, eminent domain has entered a new frontier. It’s not just grandma’s house we have to worry about. Now it’s God’s house, too. “I guess saving souls isn’t as important,” says Reverend Gildon, his voice wry, “as raking in money for politicians to spend.” The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot. It’s the kind of stuff that makes tax collectors salivate. It’s also the kind of project that brakes for no one, especially post-Kelo. “I had no idea this could happen in America,” says Reverend Gildon, after spending Monday morning marching in the Sand Springs Martin Luther King Day parade.

Whole story here.

My colleague over at Reason magazine offers a different point of view on the potential success of Sandy Springs.

Generally a good piece, and much better written than I could have done, but I thought I'd spend a few minutes with my off the cuff reactions:

First, it may be a bit idealistic to go completely private i.e., true privatization. Especially at the local level, in an established community. However, Sandy Springs isn't the model of either approach (full private or just contracting things out). They didn't take on any new functions, and they contracted out everything else they are responsible for. Trash collection and disposal remains an unfettered free market. Many other services remain the purview of the county (water and wastewater are two examples). OMI, the contractor, is responsible for basic municipal functions, among other things, road maintenance - there is no real way to fully privatize this...unless we privatize the roads, but we haven't figured out how to do that on a local level. There may be some "questionable" services in the mind of a libertarian; at least under the contractual arrangement they're doing it for much less.

Second, code enforcement and the restrictions on strip clubs and porn shops. For 30 years, Fulton County ignored their own codes and zoning restrictions and approved any application along Sandy Springs' main road. Having been there, things were clearly out of place. A Longhorn steakhouse was bordered by a massage parlor/adult bookstore and a strip club. Next door to the Starbucks, the same rings true. There was a family Mexican restaurant that ultimately went out of business because families wouldn't bring their kids to that part of town (similar development pattern to Longhorn). Unfortunately, the AP articles don't give you as full a flavor as having boots on the ground does.

Sandy Springs is simply enforcing the codes and laws on the books. You and I (my colleague) may not fully agree with their target, and I respect the rights of the 6% and those that didn't vote (they had huge turnout), but this has been a 30 year fight so nothing is a surprise. If they're unhappy, folks can always fight to change the codes. In addition, Fulton County could have changed its business practices at any time, rather they let Sandy Springs languish to the point of citizen revolt. And like my article said, now three (could be four) other cities are pursuing their approach -- the only difference is their biggest is the spending and less on porn shop or code enforcement -- I doubt you'll see similar articles (code enforcement, going after porn shops) once the other communities incorporate.

It's an old story that the incredible profits created by banning something so many people wants makes the war on drugs a machine for corrupting law enforcement personnel.

But the old story plays on, as in Arizona ". . . more than 40 soldiers, airmen, border guards and correctional officers took bribes from FBI agents posing as cocaine smugglers."

Pat Schneider, the top federal criminal prosecutor in Arizona, said he doesn't know whether government corruption is getting worse or it just seems that way because more public servants are getting caught.

That's reassuring! Just like the Tulia, TX story from a couple years ago (see the book).

This has floated around the Internet a while, but if you have not seen it, enjoy.

Bill of No Rights

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, and delusional.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone, not just you. You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need. But we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in government-run health care.

ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII
You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX
You don't have the right to a job. All of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times. But we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

Thanks to all those who have served in our wars. Liberty depends on a lot of things, including, sometimes wars against despotism. We shouldn't forget the sacrifice of those who fought in those wars.

I am a vet and a libertarian. The volunteers in our military serve because they think they are needed to protect our liberties. In my experience most of them didn't worry too much about agreeing with a war or not, they believe that the system will usually get it right. Their hearts are in the right place and their bodies are on the line. They pay the price for our democratic decisions. We owe them our respect for that.

News from the Marijuana Policy Project.

U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) -- along with nine cosponsors -- introduced the "Steve McWilliams Truth in Trials Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would end the federal government's gag order on medical marijuana defendants in federal court by ensuring that they can introduce evidence that their marijuana-related activity was for a valid medical purpose under state law.

Under federal law, McWilliams was barred from mentioning in federal court that he was providing marijuana to sick and dying patients in compliance with state law. He pleaded guilty to the charges because, without a plea agreement, he faced 40 years in federal prison. Facing years in prison and unable to present jurors with accurate information about his activities, McWilliams took his own life.

Fairly or unfairly, in the Western mind Calcutta is known as the city that offered Mother Teresa a a life-time of gainful employment through its steady supply of lepers and beggars.

Well, its Communist rulers decided a few months ago to do something to shore up the city's image and attract investors: They banned hand-pulled rickshaws.

The practice of sweaty-browed, emaciated men straining every sinew to pull a human cargo turned off investors, they claimed.

That Communists should be shoving off rickshaw-pullers to pave the way for private business is ironic – not to mention dishonest given that during their five-decades of rule they have consistently condemned businesses as profiteering, blood-sucking, scum-of-the-earth whose presence was the biggest impediment to their vision of social justice.

So it is not surprising that the opposition (this is a democracy, after all) mounted a strong protest. Among the groups protesting the loudest were the environmentalists.

But why? Because the ban would deprive the poorest of the poor of their only way of earning a living? Because it would throw their families, already living hand-to-mouth, into utter destitution?

No. The ban would lead to a switch to motorized vehicles, contributing to pollution. "The annual total of pollutants would increase by 11 tons of lead, 4,000 tons of particulates, 20,000 tons of carbon monoxide and 150 tons of nitrogen," one of the enviros claimed.

For the sake of the rickshaw pullers, one hopes that the enviros prevail over the commies.

Who said two wrongs don't make a right?

Former Seattle polic chief writes in the Los Angeles Times why the war on drugs is foolish and wasteful.

Good news in Tempe for property owners.

Particularly significant since "Courts rarely rule in favor of small property owners who fight condemnation, attorneys said."

From the U.K. comes a ominous Fourth of July warning from Perry de Havilland...the evisceration of property rights (via eminent domain and asset forfeiture laws) poses an emormous threat to the American experiment:

Today is the 4th of July, when Americans celebrate their independence and much talk of freedom and constitutions occurs. This day is in many ways an orgy of self-congratulation, much of which is entirely justified (I make no secret of my pro-Americanism Atlanticism).

But perhaps, just perhaps, the 'shot heard around the country' that was delivered by the Supreme Court of the United States with the Kelo verdict will snap a great number of Americans out of their understandable but entirely misplaced complacency regarding the benevolence of their own nation-state.

Not only does Eminent Domain now pose a threat to anyone whose property happens to catch the eye of a well connected property developer, the USA also has outrageous 'asset forfeiture' laws that allow suspects to have their property taken by the state, reversing the burden of proof and making the accused (but un-convicted and usually un-tried) person prove their property is not the proceeds of some crime in order to have the property returned (they cannot prevent it from being taken in the first place). So much for 'due process'.

Americans would do well to remember that it was the use of British sedition laws to seize private property from political activists was a major cause of disaffection in the colonies in the lead up to the Revolution in 1776. Moreover those sedition laws were far less capricious and more respectful of due process than modern 'asset forfeiture' laws (colonial era sedition laws at least required you to actually be convicted).

The fight against Al Qaeda and any who ally with them must go on but the greatest threat to liberty (and in the long run that inevitably means life) facing the people in the United States comes not from without but from within. Until the entire scope of what government can do is radically cut back, Kelo is pointing the way to a grim future. I hope that the Supreme Court's destruction of the 5th Amendment by allowing the state to take private property for the private use of property developers, will be reversed long before it requires the active use of the 2nd Amendment to make private property secure against those who would rather use political power rather than markets to enrich themselves.

Happy birthday America.

None of this is news to those of us that recognize the fundamental importance of private property rights to liberty and the functioning of a capitalist economy. But as a nation, we would do well to put our justifiable outrage over the Kelo decision in its proper historical and philosophical context. It's not just that our homes and livelihoods are at risk; what's even worse is that we have allowed our government to slowly erode the most critical pillar of the American economy and way of life. If that weakened pillar crumbles under pressure, so goes the nation.

One more thought...make no mistake, eminent domain and asset forfeiture are indeed pernicious influences, but the greater threat comes from the expanding regulatory state. Masked in the guise of noble intentions, a pletora of Federal, state, and local land use and environmental regulations have spread their tentacles across vast portions of the country, trampling citizens' property rights and livelihoods in their slow creep. That's not to say that all regulations are undesirable or malicious; some have value. The real threat lies in the accumulated weight of these regulations over time and the waning ability of our system of property rights to support (and overcome) them.

Befitting the Fourth of July holiday, today's New York Times has an interesting piece by Charles Mann recognizing the little-discussed Native American contribution to what eventually evolved into the American democratic spirit, particularly with regard to notions of limited government and individual freedom:

The Iroquois confederation was governed by a constitution, the Great Law of Peace, which established the league's Great Council [...] What was striking to the contemporary eye was that the 117 codicils of the Great Law were concerned as much with constraining the Great Council as with granting it authority. "Their whole civil policy was averse to the concentration of power in the hands of any single individual," explained Lewis Henry Morgan, a pioneering ethnographer of the Iroquois.

The council's jurisdiction was limited to relations among the nations and outside groups; internal affairs were the province of the individual nations. Even in the council's narrow domain, the Great Law insisted that every time the royaneh confronted "an especially important matter or a great emergency," they had to "submit the matter to the decision of their people" in a kind of referendum open to both men and women.

In creating such checks on authority, the league was just the most formal expression of a regionwide tradition. Although the Indian sachems on the Eastern Seaboard were absolute monarchs in theory, wrote the colonial leader Roger Williams, in practice they did not make any decisions "unto which the people are averse." These smaller groups did not have formal, Iroquois-style constitutions, but their governments, too, were predicated on the consent of the governed. Compared to the despotisms that were the norm in Europe and Asia, the societies encountered by British colonists were a libertarian dream.

[...]

As many colonists observed, the limited Indian governments reflected levels of personal autonomy unheard of in Europe. "Every man is free," a frontiersman, Robert Rogers, told a disbelieving British audience, referring to Indian villages. In these places, he said, no person, white or Indian, sachem or slave, has any right to deprive anyone else of his freedom. The Iroquois, Cadwallader Colden declared in 1749, held "such absolute notions of liberty that they allow of no kind of superiority of one over another, and banish all servitude from their territories."

[...]

In the most direct way, Indian liberty made indigenous villages into competitors for colonists' allegiance. Colonial societies could not become too oppressive, because their members - surrounded by examples of free life - always had the option of voting with their feet.

It is likely that the first British villages in North America, thousands of miles from the House of Lords, would have lost some of the brutally graded social hierarchy that characterized European life. But it is also clear that they were infused by the democratic, informal brashness of American Indian culture. That spirit alarmed and discomfited many Europeans, aristocrat and peasant alike. Others found it a deeply attractive vision of human possibility.

Historians have been reluctant to acknowledge this contribution to the end of tyranny worldwide. Yet a plain reading of Locke, Hume, Rousseau and Thomas Paine shows that they took many of their illustrations of liberty from native examples. So did the colonists who held their Boston Tea Party dressed as "Mohawks." When others took up European intellectuals' books and histories, images of Indian freedom had an impact far removed in time and space from the 16th-century Northeast.

Freedom-lovers and libertarians will certainly relate to this sentiment:

"There is nothing so difficult to control as the tribes of America," a [17th century European] missionary unhappily observed. "All these barbarians have the law of wild asses - they are born, live, and die in a liberty without restraint; they do not know what is meant by bridle and bit."

So when you gather tonight to celebrate the American independence amid fireworks displays and the grand 1812 Overture, please be sure to pay proper respects to the Native American influence on the ideology that spawned this nation.

The Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws trump state laws allowing prescription use of medical marijuana. CNN coverage here.

Nice blogs on the issue by my colleagues Nick here and Julian here.

The Star Wars series is fodder for lots of articles on modern politics and war--here, here, and even relating it to the Civil War. I quite like this one by Scott Horton at Antiwar.com.

I was struck by the slipping away of democracy too, as I watched the Revenge of the Sith. At the time I happened to be reading Steve Pressfield's historical novel Tides of War about the Peloponnesian war. The book does an outstanding job of showing all the flaws of Athenian democracy--the fickleness of the masses, the herd behavior, and the hatred of anyone who displays demonstrable superiority in any way. A gripping reminder that democracy doesn't always lead to the right decisions so limiting the scope of those decisions is wise.

It also reminds that democracy sucks, it just sucks less than every other system of collective decisionmaking out there.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Today is the 100th birthday of that woman who's book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead provoked so many of us in our college days, and keeps on doing it to today's kids.

Reason has a round-up of articles and commentary to mark the occasion.

Fellow Russian-born writer Cathy Young talks about how relevant Rand still is.

Rand-O-Rama is a collection of snippets of Rand embedded in American culture.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.

Martin Luther King spoke with great power about freedom and responsibility, and toiled behind his words. If have not already, I recomend that you watch his "I have a dream" speech.

Also worth looking at is this effort to build a memorial to King.