Libertarianism

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.

Federalism?

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

Jonah Goldberg thinks federalism is a good thing and rues the apparent abandonment of the concept by bush and other conservatives:

The virtue of a federalist, republican form of government is that the more you push these decisions down to the level where people actually have to live with their consequences, the more likely it is they will be a) involved and interested in the decision-making process, and b) happy with the result. Federalism is also morally superior because it requires the consent of the governed at the most basic level.
Goldberg, though, believes the “most basic level” is the individual state when, in fact, state level legislation exhibits the same problems as federal legislation, e.g., it can not properly take into account the local1 context and, as above, legislators at all levels are disconnected from the consequences of their decisions, their feedback loops are broken, the have likely been captured by moneyed interests, and their citizens are poorly served.
It is time for us, the citizens, to eliminate the federal, state, and, perhaps, city monopolies on creating law and implement federalism carried to a more appropriate level, a polycentric government structure.
Via Running Scared.
1At the level where human interactions take place.

Raich v Ashcroft

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

This is what you should be paying attention to today! Drug War Rant has a detailed guide on the issues and links to the supporting documents.
Though I do not have high expectations that the Supremes will do the right thing Lawrence v Texas does give me a bit of hope. Heck, maybe they will go just a bit extreme and just whack Commerce Clause legislation back to its foundations: the feds only business in regulating interstate commerce is to make sure the states do not establish laws that discriminate against the citizens of other states.

Making the Drug Thugs Useful

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

The DEA is about as useful as an appendix. It and the rest of the thugs participating in the so called war on drugs do much more harm than good to the citizens of the US and its dependent countries.
They could, if we must allow them to continue to exist, make themselves a little more useful if they focused their efforts on a real problem. Something that kills 5 million people a year world wide.