Culture

Personal Data Protection

This entry was posted in Culture Federal Government Information on by

Kevin Drum echoes Charle’s Kuffner’s concern that congress will, if it enacts a security breach protection law similar to California’s, preemptively dilute California’s law in the process. Kuffner says:

For the rest of us, what we want here is the same protections that Californians currently enjoy. Anything less is unacceptable.

well, yes, but are after the fact disclosure laws really protections? Certainly miscreants like Choicepoint should be obligated to disclose to one and all when someone’s personal information has been breached. It seems to me, though, that protection should happen before the event not after and that, as I have noted before, the minimum acceptable starting point must be along the lines of:

No institution, government or private, can be allowed to collect or distribute, for free or for fee, to any private or government entity any information about an individual without that individual’s specific consent on a per incident basis and if the distribution is for a fee then that individual must be compensated at a rate agreeable to the individual.

Violations should be treated as felonies and violators must reimburse violated individual(s) for all related losses including legal costs related to the disclosure.

Fighting the Wrong War?

This entry was posted in Capitalism Culture Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Economics Law Libertarianism War on Terrorism World Affairs on by

Gary Becker argues that the war on drugs has failed and that alternate approaches involving legalization, regulation and high taxes might achieve current results along with other benefits without the large social and individual costs associated with the current prohibition.
Richard Posner generally agrees with Becker arguments:

If the resources used to wage the war were reallocated to other social projects, such as reducing violent crime, there would probably be a net social gain. For one thing, it is particularly costly to enforce the law against a �victimless� crime, more precisely a crime that consists of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

In addition, he points out that:

The political source of the war on drugs is mysterious if, as I am inclined to believe, there is a legal substitute for every one of the illegal drugs:…
…it is apparent that our society has no general policy against the consumption of mind-altering substances, and there seems to be a certain arbitrariness in the choice of the subset to prohibit.

To get a sense of just how large the failure has been on a global scale check out the maps that Michael Stastny has posted from the World Drug Report 20041. Note what country is either number 1 or 2 in usage for each category. Stastny has an interesting supposition about his government:

Maybe Austrian authorities know that watching TV does more harm to your brain and health than taking drugs once in a while and that stigmatizing long-term users doesn’t help either.

So, a war on TV instead of drugs? Well, no. We do not need any increased government intervention in media. But I would accept regulation and taxation of now illegal drugs as a first step out of the current quagmire. The proper long term goal is, though, to completely remove the government from any involvement in “transactions between a willing buyer and a willing seller.”
Via Marginal Revolution where you can find more here.
1The report and the above referenced maps appear to overlook certain other popular drugs, e.g., alcohol!?

The Pledge

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Culture Government Law Libertarianism Politics on by

Kenneth Quinnell, in his essay Why I Don’t Say the Pledge of Allegiance states:

But the very concept of a Pledge of Allegiance is wrong in a free country.

He elaborates on this at some length and I could, and I’m sure some others might, debate some of his points.
I do, though, agree with his basic point that free individuals have no obligation to recite a pledge of allegiance.
On the other hand, there is a group who by dint of their position should recite a pledge…probably several times per day. That would be the set of government employees, elected, appointed or hired, throughout the world. Our servants: congress critters, kings and queens, premiers, secretaries of desks and states, governors, presidents, soldiers, firepersons, police, mayors, etc.
They, each and everyone, in every government job throughout the world should start their day with something like:

I pledge allegiance to the people of name your jurisdiction and swear to protect their lives, help them maintain their liberty and assist them in their pursuit of happiness.

…and repeat it frequently throughout the day and once again before going to sleep at night.