Law

Keeping Our Business Secret

This entry was posted in Federal Government Information Law Libertarianism on by

How not to be accountable: don’t tell anyone what you are really doing (PDF).

In 2004 the federal set a new record for keeping secrets. Last year, the federal government employees chose to classify information a record 15.6 million times, according to new government figures released this week. The figure is 10 percent higher than the total in the previous year. And when given a choice, government employees last year chose to keep their new secrets longer than in years past: Two thirds (66 percent) of the time government employees chose to keep those new secrets for more than a decade. At the same time, the flow of old secrets to the public dropped to its lowest point in nearly a decade to 28 million pages.

In fairness to the bushies increases in classification started trending upward again around the beginning of clinton’s second administration. The clinton folks were, though, declassifying more documents than they were classifying while the bushies have brought declassification to a near standstill.
Makes me wonder just what they are hiding and why they don’t want us, their employers, to know.

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!?

Public Servants?

This entry was posted in Constitution Democracy Government Information Law Regulation on by

Why are these people even in office?

North Carolina cities and other government agencies are pursuing the authority to sue citizens who ask to see public records.
Lawyers for local governments and the University of North Carolina are talking about pushing for a new state law.
That law would allow pre-emptive lawsuits against citizens, news organizations and private companies to clarify the law when there is a dispute about providing records or opening meetings.

I can think of only one reason for public records not to be disclosed: they contains personal information that should not be released without an individuals consent. Anything else should be provided right now accompanied by a bow and a “May I help you with anything else?”
Via Politech.

Suing Caterpillar

This entry was posted in Law on by

My deepest condolences go out to the parents of Rachel Corrie:

the 23-year-old American peace activist and student who was run over and killed by a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer on March 16, 2003.

I also wish them success in this suit:

The Corries also filed a tort claim today in Israel against the State of Israel, the Israeli Defense Ministry and the IDF for their role in the death of their daughter.

The perp driving the dozer should also be and object of the suit and serving time.
When I first heard it from one of the evening talking heads I had a much different initial reaction, to this suit:

…filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western Federal District of Washington, alleges that Caterpillar, Inc. violated international and state law by providing specially designed bulldozers to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) that it knew would be used to demolish homes and endanger civilians.

I thought this was BS. Sure, go after the hands on perpetrators: the driver, his employer, relevant patrons, etc. But Caterpillar? Nope. There are tens of thousands of these big machines out around the world. Caterpillar should be no more culpable than a baseball bat manufacturer whose product is used in a beating.
On the other hand, if Caterpillar conspired with state actors to create a device specifically to be used to violate individual rights then both Caterpillar and the state actors should be held accountable.