Libertarianism

Extending the Drug War

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Federal Government Libertarianism US Politics on by

Perhaps the bushies* are also working on an obediance drug:

Alongside efforts to reduce the supply and demand of illegal drugs, the federal government has begun pursuing a new tactic, one that expands the drug war battlefield from the Columbian coca farms and the Middle Eastern poppy fields, to a new terrain directly inside the bodies and brains of drug users.
As Radley Balko says, this report from the the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics is frightening.
*Yea, I know I can’t blame just the bushies as this fiasco has been going on for a long time. The bushies are, though, the ones currently violating people’s rights and wasting resources.

Supremes Sing for bush?

This entry was posted in bush Conscription Constitution Domestic Terrorism Federal Government Iraq Law Libertarianism Patriot Act War on Terrorism on by

Arthur Silber isn’t very happy with the rulings in Hamdi, Padilla and Rasul:

…as Turley notes, the fact that these questions arose in this form in the first place — questions that lie at the very foundation of what was our original system of government — is a very ominous sign, a sign whose significance a great many people appear not to appreciate fully, if at all.
…
MORE CONFIRMATION: Of my view — if the Wall Street Journal is pleased about the Supreme Court’s rulings, you can be pretty damned sure that they’re bad news for the defenders of individual rights:
Now I’m not as happy with these rulings as I was two days ago.

bush’s shocktroops

This entry was posted in bush Conscription Constitution Election 2004 Libertarianism on by

I thought we fought WWII to get rid of this kind of stuff:

The defense offered by the GOP’s local functionaries is that the soldiers asked to attend the rally “so they could show their support for their commander-in-chief before getting shipped out to fight the war on terrorism.”
And, of course, they were also given those t-shirts to wear. So at least they weren’t in uniform.
So how could anyone – except maybe some pinko terrorist lover – complain about something so innocuous?
Well I wouldn’t – if not for the fact that we already have several thousand years of history to draw on for examples of what happens when the armed forces of a powerful state dabble in politics – or, worse still, allow themselves to be transformed into the personal shocktroops of a political leader or party.

Your assignment: Read the original news article and the rest of Bilmon’s long post.
Study question: What is the role of the military in a free society?

Speeding

This entry was posted in Government Law Libertarianism on by

Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayak tells this story:

There it was, in big, bold, black and white: “SPEED LIMIT 65”
As I drove on Saturday to a conference, signs with this crystal-clear message were displayed prominently along I-66, I-81, and I-64 in Virginia. And yet I disobeyed this command not to drive at speeds in excess of 65 MPH. I set my cruise-control on 73 (just shy of ten-miles per hour over the posted speed limit), kept it there, and enjoyed the drive. I even passed three or four patrol cars lying in wait for speeders. Not one pursued me.
And then opines:
This everyday driving experience and my mental experiment confirm that law is not just what the state says it is and only what the state says it is.
Except when the state wants it to be exactly what it says it is.
Law is much more nuanced, rich, and spontaneous than the state’s written rules.
But not near as nuanced, rich and spontaneous as it was prior to the state writing this precise law.
The real law on U.S. highways is something like the following: if weather conditions are decent and if traffic is not too heavy, then you can drive between five and ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit.
Which is not near as nuanced, rich and spontaneous as what used to be the law in many jurisdictions, e.g., Washington:
No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.
And then came maximum speed limits.
Back to Don:
No one legislated this rule; it’s not written down in any official statute book; it’s certainly not posted along highways. It evolved spontaneously from everyday practice and is now part of the expectations of all drivers — and, importantly, it is also part of the expectations of highway patrol officers.
This does seem to reflect everday practice. But both the law and the practiced rule represent a devolution from the days of no written maximum speed limits. And, in many cases, this cushion may exist via legislative intent as the penalties available for minor speeding infractions are nominal and enforcement is viewed as a poor use of officer’s time both from the perspective of revenue generation and highway safety. They want the big ticket reckless speeders as defined in their respective state statutes.
There is a fairly detailed review of state speeding laws here.