Constitution

The Threat to Freedom

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Economics Government Libertarianism US Politics on by

Lew Rockwell gets it close to right:

What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left. If anything, the left has been solid on civil liberties and has been crucial in drawing attention to the lies and abuses of the Bush administration. No, today, the clear and present danger to freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on the world.
The bit he misses is that these folks are not interested in free enterprise and like much of the rest of their rhetoric think doublespeak. When they say free enterprise or free market you should interpret it as we have found another way to protect our corporate sponsers from the market.
Via Stephen Horowitz at Power and Liberty.

Dissent

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Federal Government Libertarianism US History on by

Geof Stone, author of Perilous Times, is guest blogging at Lawrence Lessig’s place.
Start here:

Can we learn the lessons of history? Can we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past? Given the pressures and fears of war, can we discipline ourselves both as individuals and as a nation to respect civil liberties even in a time of war? And is it even sensible to talk seriously about civil liberties in wartime? What do you think?
Then go back to the main blog page to pick up subsequent entries.
What do I think? In brief: our servants shall not infringe on our freedom.
I am, though, going to follow this thread closely and may have more to say as it progresses. And, I added Stone’s book to my Amazon Wish List (I’ll probably buy it when I place my last xmas order).

Government Failure

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Law Enforcement Libertarianism on by

Via Avedon I learned that John Perry Barlow is going to court, is doing battle for our freedom:

Apparently, everyone else who has been arrested as a consequences of these inspections, and there have been many, has pled guilty rather than face the cost and trouble of mounting a constitutional defense.
I might have done so myself had it not been for Gilmore’s willingness to support the handsome cost of my defense. That, and the recognition that unconstitutional behavior by the authorities is constrained only by the peoples’ willingness to contest them.
That his defense has a handsome cost, that people plead guilty rather than face the cost and trouble of contesting in court tells me that we no longer have a system of justice for the people of this country. People must be able to challenge the behavior of government, business, and other people in a timely fashion and at a reasonable cost. The backlogged courts and monopoly cost of legal assistance are significant failures of federal, state, and city governments in the US.

Going in Circles

This entry was posted in Constitution Government Libertarianism on by

Our local transportation folks are excited about traffic circles. I have not been as thrilled. The first one installed creates backups in a direction that did not have backups before and does not eliminate the backups on the side street that previously had them.
It may be that I have not been thinking about this in the right way:

The circle is remarkable for what it doesn’t contain: signs or signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave. There are no lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk, so it’s unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the pedestrian zone begins. To an approaching driver, the intersection is utterly ambiguous – and that’s the point.
Monderman and I stand in silence by the side of the road a few minutes, watching the stream of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians make their way through the circle, a giant concrete mixing bowl of transport. Somehow it all works. The drivers slow to gauge the intentions of crossing bicyclists and walkers. Negotiations over right-of-way are made through fleeting eye contact. Remarkably, traffic moves smoothly around the circle with hardly a brake screeching, horn honking, or obscene gesture. “I love it!” Monderman says at last. “Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can’t expect tr
This makes me reconsider my dislike for our local traffic circle. It seems to make sense to eliminate things like stop signs and traffic lights so that users can make decisions based on the existing local context. Perhaps we will see more of this in other areas of government activity.
Via Marginal Revolution.

Wine and Commerce

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Federal Government Libertarianism on by

Lynn Kiesling is a bit unhappy with Justice Souter. Her words to him: with all due respect, sir, bite me.
I second this.
The case argued before the Supremes yesterday has to do with interstate sale of wine, the commerce clause, and the 21st amendment. In the grand scheme of things this is pretty important stuff . Lynn’s post has links to additional informative material.
I do, though, hate to see so many bright folks wasting energy on issues that should not even be up for discussion. A much more interesting and valuable constitutional amendment than some of the others that have been floated recently would be something like:

federal, state and local governments may not interfere with commerce between or amongst individuals and associations of individuals. Federal, state, and local governments may provide services for the adjudication of disputes related to fraud, theft, or contractual disagreement. Adjudicants may, by mutual agreement, use alternate dispute resolution services.

And strike the commerce clause, the 21st amendment and anything else gets in the way of me, Lynn, or anyone else making consensual exchanges of whatever we want to exchange domestically or internationally.