Whatever

• As the state grows we all become criminals. I can't believe you have to have a license to own a TV! Oh, and check out number seven on the list.
• Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to pay taxes
• Bailout spam
• Wow! China is crowded
• A good history of laissez-faire (or the lack thereof) in America
• Obama promises to stop America's shitty jobs from going overseas (NB: bad language)
• Property rights save the environment
• Never ask a question to a live audience if you don't want to know the answer
• Just pile it on

Whatever

• Obama wants to tax (i.e., reduce) the production of and subsidise (i.e., increase) the demand for oil. People, this is not hard: reducing the supply of or increasing the demand for a good, ceteris paribus, means the price will increase. Encouraging both as a plan to ease higher prices should be a sign of insanity (or political prowess).
• What's the big deal? We weren't using the Fourth Amendment anyway.
• Oooh! LHC is sexy (in a sciency sort of way)
• An interesting video explaining why, even if you are 100% innocent, you should never talk to the police (HT: Bruce Schneier)
• I agree with Perry's comment at the end of this blog post, but it won't be long before it is considered anti-social
• More significant than the iPhone?? How dare you say such things!
• The food industry, in an effort to avoid dealing with a problem itself, calls for more regulation. "More important than the financial loss is the loss of consumer confidence," says an industry representative. Well, getting consumers confident in your product is a cost you should have to bear. Calling for government to regulate makes you sound noble, but it has the added "benefit," I'm sure, of pushing out marginal competitors.
• Don't think that raising the minimum wage had no part is bringing this and this about
  

Whatever

• Just avoid smalltalk all together
• It's always fun to watch central banks blame their ineptitude on businesses
• How to stop a sequel
• Servitude is coming back into fashion. "I solemnly swear that I will never take part in any involuntary civilian service at the behest of the federal government, regardless of the consequences."
• Maybe this technology would be cost effective (i.e., profitable) if water prices were allowed to reflect reality
• A Nudge to fix the wrong problem
  

Money and Power

Robert Frank, in a New York Times piece (free, annoying registration may be required), spews the typical liberal pabulum regarding campaign finance reform. I won't comment on the entire piece, but I want to say something about the general theme: money corrupting politics.

Just because our representatives are elected by a majority of the population and sit in the seats of power in Washington, doesn’t make them omniscient. It is silly to believe that just because they are not influenced by money that their decisions would be more just and wise. Sure, the policies would be different, but we are still dealing with mere mortals. They would have to be experts in economics, science, law, history, medicine, technology, etc. to govern as they do now. Only if we scale down the size of government dramatically will this arrangement even be remotely possible. But, at that point there would be no need for campaign finance legislation because government would not have the heavy hand it does now nor would it have anything to sell.

But why do we need to limit contributions anyway? If we are assuming that these people we send to Washington are wise enough to determine the ‘right’ legislation if they were only free from the corrupting influence of money, why are they not wise enough now to just not be corrupted by the money in the first place? In other words, if they are so easily corrupted now, maybe they aren't fit govern at any time.

It could be said that we would want politicians to only get influence from the experts in the respective fields. But who are the experts? Do all experts agree? Who will be the arbiter if they don’t? Again, with a small government limited to a specific set of tasks, this could possibly work (I still have my doubts, however).

The other question we need to ask is how is it possible to prevent conflicts of interest? We are a nation of 300 million and we have different interests and wants. If government is reduced to a fraction of its current size this might be possible, but when government spends $3 trillion and has its tentacles in every aspect of our lives there are going to be conflicts of interest when it comes to how to spend that money and wield that power.

Lastly, I would like to comment on a specific quote in the article. After begrudgingly admitting that money can't be completely eliminated from the political process, Frank writes this: "The harsh reality is that free speech and good government are conflicting goals." When I first read that statement I had to stop and say "Wow!" Free speech is now a "goal" - not an inalienable right of the individual, mind you - a goal that can be negotiated like all other issues in government. Maybe this is why so many people want to buy influence. Maybe this is why so many people need to buy influence.

Let me use Mr. Frank's language to close: free speech and big government are conflicting goals. In fact, any individual right and big government are conflicting goals.

Whatever

• I love this idea of "competing" tax plans. It's like competition between McDonald's and Burger King - the differences are marginal and they both suck.
• Oooh, save me from Google, I'm so oppressed
• Jason Kuznicki does a great job at debunking the idea that the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Habeas rights will lead to a "flood" of lawsuits. And here is some good stuff from George Will, as well.
  
• The Web Time Forgot (annoying, free registration may be required - try BugMeNot)
• Is labeling menus with nutritional content a good idea? Maybe not.

No Win

We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called...habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases."

Those were the words of John McCain in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees. It is also a big reason why I can't vote for him this year.

Habeas Corpus is not about filing suits to complain about diet or reading material; the term literally means 'you have the body'. It is a basic right, not of Americans, but of all human beings to challenge their imprisonment in front of a neutral party. For McCain, a Senator and Presidential candidate, to make such a silly statement is disturbing.

I shouldn't be surprised, though. I've always disliked McCain because of his stance on civil liberties. His support for anti-First Amendment campaign finance regulation really told me all I needed to know about him.

Oh, BTW, here is one of many reasons why I can't vote for Obama this year either. Surprise, surprise, he'll raise taxes.