Libertarianism

Kelo Fallout….

This entry was posted in Anarchism Constitution Government Libertarianism on by

I expect we will be seeing many more reports like this one:

Unjust and un-American indeed.

Most children learn the right lesson much better than the 5 who supported theft in Keno and, in fact, better than the founders:

The most important fact in all this childhood drama was simply that I wanted something that was not mine, and without the consent of the owner, nothing I could do would make that thing morally mine, and as long as my parents were my parents, nothing I could do would make it physically mine, either.

A constitution that respects individuals will not contain a takings clause but rather it is clear that it needs to be a blocking clause something along the line of

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without the consent of the owner.

The mafia might object but not an entity intended to protect its citizens.

What’s the Dif? Part 2

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

I read the news today oh, boy!
Even prepared, though, I expect to become nauseous this weekend when I read Kale. It is another case that Micha can use in his paper equating the mafia and government. Lynn Kiesling quotes this from the AP:

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. …
Yep, it’s all about more revenue. And, as Patri Friedman notes:
Now they

Credit Freezes and Personal Information

This entry was posted in Constitution Law Libertarianism Privacy Regulation on by

Kevin Drum has this right though he does not go quite far enough:

I have an idea to fix this: don’t take three days to unfreeze the report. In fact, I have a better idea: by default, personal credit reports should never be shown to anyone until the credit reporting agency contacts the consumer independently and receives permission to do so. This could be by phone, internet, or mail.

I proposed something related but more generalized a while back:

No institution or business, government or private, can be allowed to collect or distribute, for free or for fee, any information about an individual without that individuals 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.

We must give back control of personal information to the owner of that information: the involved individual. Right off the top I can’t think of any acceptable exception to this.
In the other direction and something I did not address in the earlier post:

Individual consumers of goods and services may disclose evaluative and price information about their transactions with individuals and entities who regularly offer goods and services to consumers. Individuals and businesses engaged in commercial activity may disclose price and evaluative information about their activities as long as this information can not be related to an individual connsumer. Private institutions or businesses may collect and disseminate this information for free or for fee except as noted above.

Thus you can evaluate and provide pricing information about your doctor, lawyer, service station, hardware store, etc., by name but not vice versa.
The general principles here are: 1) individuals own information specifically related to them; 2) therefor individuals can not be prevented from releasing seller specific evaluation or information so long as that information is truthful and non-libelous; and 3) for these purposes corporations, partnerships or other commercial associations of individuals are not individuals.

They Are All Awry

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

The drug terrorists in action again:

Lawndale residents were on edge and Chicago police on alert Tuesday afternoon after a police officer shot a 17-year-old youth in what authorities described as an undercover drug bust gone awry.
As dozens of uniformed officers and detectives combed the crime scene in the 1800 block of South Harding Avenue, more than 75 people gathered around, many angrily protesting the shooting and shouting obscenities.
The shooting unfolded around 11:40 a.m., when an undercover officer, a member of the narcotics and gang division, attempted to make a drug buy from an unidentified 17-year-old male, Chicago police spokesman Pat Camden said.
The teen and another male signaled to the police officer that a deal would be made, Camden said. The pair led the officer to a narrow vacant lot between two houses on South Harding.
Before the transaction could be made, the youth allegedly displayed a handgun and told the officer to turn over his money, Camden said. The officer obliged, Camden said, and handed over a series of bills that had been marked by police.

Sure, the kid may have deserved being taken down for the alleged attempted theft. However, the undercover officer terrorist was attempting to entrap the victim in order to enforce unjust and immoral legislation. When those who are charged with protecting us interfer in the non-fraudulant exchange of goods and services amongst free people it time to hire someone else.