There is overwhelming evidence that power corrupts. Of course, some people claim the foregoing chronology is wrong: it is not power that corrupts but the corrupt who seek power. I think both are true. I do not deny the phenomenon of decent people running for office or otherwise trying to assume unjust authority over others. But such people do not seek power per se. It is not a goal in-an-of-itself but a means to achieving another end....social justice, individual rights, religious purity. Power is merely a necessary evil or an expedient. Of course, the decency doesn't last long once people start wielding their authority over others; you cannot embrace injustice and remain a just human being. At some point, being powerful becomes a habit -- that is, it becomes part of who you are -- so it seems only natural for you to enjoy special privileges or a respect that you are denying to others. This creates elitism -- the kind of double standard by which those who make or administer the law do not believe they have to abide by it themselves.

I understand that process far better than I understand its corollary: namely, why do "the people" agree with the politician and accept that he or she deserves special privileges and respect?

[ Read the rest ... ]

Ken Gregg offers a fine intellectual portrait of Frank Chodorov along with extensive links to his work online...

Frank Chodorov (2/15/1887-12/28/1966) was a libertarian's libertarian. Born in New York's lower East Side and brought up on the lower West Side, his inspiration was his father, an immigrant peddler who worked hard and built a successful department store (his "mother operated a lunch room in the rear of the store"), the bequest to his children by the time of his father's death. During college, Chodorov was attracted to anarchism.



[ Read the rest ... ]

One of the few so-called "luxuries" in which I indulge -- because it is one of the few that I value at all -- is world travel, which I find fascinating. Note: fascination is different than pleasure; sometimes the most fascinating experiences are far from pleasant. I recall several incidents in Budapest that were, frankly, unpleasant but which gave me a sharp insight into what daily life under a totalitarian regime must have been like. Ironically, they occurred in a museum meant to memorialize the particuarly brutal rise of communism in Hungary and the often-tragic fight for freedom, especially the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 that was a spontaneous and nationwide rebellion against the Stalinistic authority.

So what happened? Nothing dramatic...but there were a constant series of encounters that highlighted the difference in attitude in North America and in a regime that was Soviet-style until 1989. The encounters within the museum were with several different women who worked as 'monitors', all of whom seemed to be in their mid-50s or early '60s. (It is difficult to judge the age of people in Communist -- or formerly Communist -- nations because they seem to age more quickly than North Americans. The important point here is that their attitudes as both children and adults would have been formed by the daily life under dictatorship.)

Two encounters capture the sense I am trying to communicate:

[ Read the rest ... ]

"The libertarian is in no sense a utopian. He argues only that in a world in which each imperfect individual was left free to make his own imperfect decisions and to act on them in any way that was peaceful, enjoying the fruits of his successes and suffering the agony of his mistakes, man could at least fully attain to the dignity and tragedy and comedy that comes with being a man rather than a thing."--Benjamin Rogge, "The Freeman" October 1969

Ken Gregg offers a typically insightful response to the question "What is libertarianism?"

Let us suppose that an ichthyologist (fish scientist) is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he arrives at two generalizations:

(1) No sea-creature is less than two inches long;
(2) All sea-creatures have gills.

An onlooker may object: "There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long, only your net is not adapted to catch them."

The ichthyologist dismisses this objection contemptuously. "Anything uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of ichthyological knowledge. In short, what my net can't catch isn't fish."

A more tactful onlooker makes a rather different suggestion: "May I point out that you could have arrived more easily at the same generalization by examining the net and the method of using it? The net can never bring up anything that it is not adapted to catch.1

Indeed, there are many ichthyologists of libertarianism who claim that libertarianism is tied to: individualism, Austrian or Chicagoan economics, egoism, utopianism, nihilism, anarchism, a night-watchman state... Well, the list is innumerable. For libertarians expound a wide range of philosophies in many different areas: metaphysics, ethics, economics, structure of government, strategy. There are Aristotelians, Kantians, existentialists, Christians, deists, who would agree on little else except restricting the sphere of governmental activity. There are libertarians who are socialists, syndicalists, mutualists, cooperativists, capitalists, and those who adhere to almost every economic policy. There are anarchists, Georgists, voluntarists, advocates of night-watchman states. There are libertarians who wish to create a free society through education, political activism, creating free-port enclaves and many other techniques.

Each of these, libertarian, socialist, free market economist, objectivist, Christian libertarian, anarchocapitalist and others who regard themselves as libertarians have only one point in common: opposition to an expanded sphere of activity by the government. They identify the focus of harm in society with the government. All of the different schools within libertarian thought interface in one area: opposition to the government (although not necessarily total rejection of government, which would be anarchism--one subset of the wider umbrella concept of libertarianism) and a demand for the limitation of state activity.


[ Read the rest ... ]

Jack Ohman's Downsizing; Dwane Powell's Auto Bailout; Glenn McCoy's New Dummy; Pat Oliphant's Treasury Humor; Chad Lowe's A Clinton State Deparment; and, Walt Handelsman Conflict of Interest.

I've said very little about the economy or frugality lately, in part because I've been down-hearted about economic events and prospects, in part because I don't want to lecture people on how to act.

But, now that I'm in economic mode, I may as well give a thumbnail sketch of where I think the economy is going. I think we are in for a deep, dark recession that will not improve significantly until the middle or end of 2010. Or, rather, a recovery is likely to begin then if government intervention does not prolong the pain; government cannot shorten the recession but it can delay recovery. I think the next bubble to burst will be "the dollar bubble." By which I mean: the U.S. dollar is being massively devalued by such factors as deficit spending, jaw-dropping bailouts, hyper-production of currency...and it will significantly decline, resulting in severe inflation. The greenback is currently holding onto value because people (both domestic and foreign) are fleeing to it for safety. But the pyramid scheme that constitutes U.S. fiscal policy cannot maintain itself indefinitely any more than the housing market could. I give the dollar bubble about 6 months before it bursts.

If my analysis is correct, one of the most frugal things you can do right now is to spend greenbacks on any purchase you know will be necessary in the next year or so. Replace a failing stove, rebuild your car's engine, stock the pantry with 6 months food, reshingle the roof.... Again, if my analysis is correct, your dollar will buy more in tangible goods right this moment than it will in mid-2009. Perhaps considerably more.

An interesting read: historian Scott Reynolds Neslon suggests that we're not reliving the Great Depression...instead, we're reliving the Panic of 1873. (Hat tip to Angry Bear.)

Ken Gregg asks, Is J.K. Rowling a libertarian?

Benjamin Barton has a wonderful essay, "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy" (in Harry Potter and the Law (Jeffrey E. Thomas, ed., Carolina Press, 2006) on J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books (tip of the hat to Volokh). The Rowling series certainly has captured the imagination of an entire generation, as few works have before. Rowling does not venture into fundamental principles as, for example, Ayn Rand had done in her fiction, but it is well worth considering the politics (or anti-politics) of the framework of Rowling's novels. For the complete essay, click here for html and here for .pdf. The abstract for Barton's paper states:



There has been a increasing number of posts by libertarians (see Patri Friedman, Brian Doss, Daniel D'Amico, and Natalie Solent, among others, for example) on the anti-state/Harry Potter/J.K. Rowling connection, and with good reason, as Benjamin's paper makes clear.

I've lately thought that someone should start keeping track of incidents of pets being killed by cops. J. D. Tuccille has made a start. Warning: don't read it if you love dogs and are easily upset.


Damn right, though I'd say the police still reach all too easily for their guns, period. Why the hell do they need to be armed when they are investigating a burglary (i.e., collecting evidence) or delivering tax documents? (Why are they delivering tax documents?) Let them learn to do their jobs without relying upon that lethal crutch, the authority that gets pulled out of the holster every time one of them "feels threatened."

Scott shares his analysis of the proposed auto-maker bailout:

I've been curious about the alleged "domesticity" of GM, Ford, and Chrysler and the "alienation" of "foreign" makers for some time. I have been generally aware that all three of the former are multinational corporations that source a significant portion of their vehicles and parts destined for the US market from foreign locations. Ford has major manufacturing operations in Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, the People's Republic of China, and South Africa. GM currently manufactures cars and trucks in 34 foreign countries, and engine blocks have been made in Mexico for many years. Chrysler, even after the recent divestiture by Daimler-Benz, is still building vehicles in Argentina. I was also aware that several nominally Japanese manufacturers had factories and other operations located in the US.

I was quite astounded at the results of a little research on the latter subject. 8 foreign auto manufacturers have operations at 25 locations in 12 US states, and employ >49,000 US workers. BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota build virtually every car and truck that they sell in the US, in the US. Last I heard, the officers of those manufacturers were not queued up in DC, hat in hand, begging for handouts like incompetent fools. And what are the Senators and Congressmen of those 12 states (AL, CA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MS, OH, SC, TN, TX, VA) thinking? US auto sales are essentially a zero sum game. In a prospective bailout, every vehicle that GM, or Ford, or Chrysler sells domestically that they would not have sold without the award of stolen tax dollars, is a vehicle that one of those other 8 makers will fail to sell. Every job "saved" at a GM, Ford, or Chrysler US location will (all else equal) ultimately reflect in one of those other 49,000+ US jobs lost.

In addition, Ford, at least, seems to be speaking out of both sides of its corporate mouth. They have clearly indicated that they think they can survive until 2010 (their apparent estimate of the duration of the current economic crisis). I suspect that Mullaly is only joining the other beggars in self defense, out of fear that otherwise GM and Chrysler will be awarded stolen tax dollars that Ford will be denied, which might indeed be a mortal blow. My challenge to anyone who actually wants to help the idiots at GM, Ford, or Chrysler survive is: "Not on on my dime, you don't! Go buy a car with your own money. Hell, buy three." Unfortunately, my ability to enforce that position is somewhat limited.

Another story I'm late catching (October 29th) ...and another reminder to never, never, never click on a link in an email:


Customers of other domain name registrars may be targeted next. Be alert.

Several days ago I wrote about the alleged stoning to death of a 13-year-old girl in Somalia who had sought protection from an Islamic Court after being gang-raped...only to have that Court sentence her, instead, as an adultress. I expressed skepticism about the account -- a skepticism that has grown with time and the continually evolving coverage of the story that 'broke' somewhere around October 27th.

Let me state at the outset, however, that I have no doubt militant Islamic courts would and do sentence females (and males) to death for transgressing moral and sexual laws -- that is, for victimless crimes. The officials of such courts are cold-blooded murderers who richly deserve what they mete out to others. My skepticism is not over the barbarity with which militant Islam treats women.

But the details of the teenager's stoning have never rung true to me and I suspect it is an urban legend in-the-making. And a powerful one at that. Across the Internet and around the world has sparked calls for intervention into Africa, denunciations of Islam, and been used to create sympathy for one side of the violent conflict in Somalia... On Nov. 11th, WorldNetDaily reported, Britain's MI6 intelligence service has identified a group that raises funds with impunity in London as the organization whose militia members in Somalia imposed a death sentence on a 13-year-old rape victim...MI6 has revealed that the group operates without restriction in London, funding the fierce guerrilla war against Somalia's long-time enemy, Ethiopia, which invaded Somalia last year. In order to know why the WorldNetDaily account is invoking MI6, I would have to subscribe to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, which I am not willing to do. But I expect Farah is calling for MI6 to enforce domestic controls within Britain on those who allegedly funded the alleged stoning.

My skepticism is not merely or even primarily based on how the story is being used, however. I am skeptical for several other reasons.

[ Read the rest ... ]

An oldie but a goodie: H.L. Mencken's credo:

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

Hat tip to Ken Gregg.

This site pauses for a conspiracy theory moment...which doesn't mean the speculation isn't dead on. Sam writes,

I've got another pair of events glowing brightly on my coinkydink radar.

Yesterday it was all over the media that Mark Cuban, billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner, has been charged with insider trading by the SEC. Those charges seem to relate to incidents that are four years old. Basically, at that time, the CEO of internet search engine Mamma.com emailed Cuban about an impending additional stock offering, hoping to get Cuban to increase his 6.3% stake. Cuban instead decided to sell his stock. The new offering would dilute the value, and apparently he wanted the liquidity more than the long term benefit (if any). My reaction is that this doesn't appear to be very topical, as the events have been known for some time. Also, without passing moral judgment on the event itself, it is inconceivable to me that this level of "insider trading" is not relatively common practice.

So what brought these charges on?

We come to the second event on my radar. Mark Cuban has recently sponsored a site named bailoutsleuth, which has a mission of exposing that information about the funds allocation of the 700BN Treasury bailout of Wall Street (et al) that the goobermint seems intent on withholding from US taxpayers (i.e., all of it). The site has already attracted quite a bit of attention and publicity. Could this be a factor in the timing of the SEC charges against Cuban? D'ya think?

UPDATE: Today's Naked Capitalism, a highly recommended site, has a post entitled "More to the Mark Cuban Insider Trading Indictment Than Meets the Eye?" The post states, A reader e-mailed to point out that Cuban had started campaigning for greater transparency in the bailout process (see here and here and here) and suggested the indictment was related. Normally I'd dismiss that sort of thinking as paranoid, except this reader has been very close to the bailout process, not merely on a first name basis with some of the names you saw in the paper during key initiatives, but actively advising them. My take is that based on previous conduct of this Administration, he thinks it is quite plausible that this move is retaliation. Naked Capitalism also suggests another matter for which Cuban's prosecution may be retaliation.

I missed this when it happened last week. After an investigation by The Washington Post revealed that McColo Corp., an Internet hosting company in northern California, was being used to host spam servers, the companies that provided McColo's connections to the Internet pulled the plug. Spam activity immediately dropped by 40% to 67% according to various estimates.

The McColo servers weren't sending the spam. Instead, they were hosting the web pages of the phony on-line pharmacies and such that spam victims would be tricked into visiting. (By "hosting" I mean selling server space and bandwidth to the baddies. McColo, like any other hosting company, did not create the content of these web sites. Their culpability lies in not shutting down these scam sites when it was brought to their attention...repeatedly.)

I gather that McColo's customers also included the control sites for various bot networks...and when those went offline, the bots on millions of zombie computers stopped sending spam.

I (and others) predicted years ago that the U.S. "CAN-SPAM" Act would be useless; it would simply cause spam to be sent from offshore servers or zombie computers. It's been almost five years, and despite an occasional prosecution, spam is still abundant. Now, through a private investigation and private action, we enjoy a huge (though temporary) reduction in spam volume.

Yes, temporary. Spammers will move their sites to new hosting services. But every step that makes it more costly or more difficult to send spam -- or to sell hosting space to spammers -- makes the enterprise less profitable. And that, not the huffing and puffing of politicians, is what will someday make the problem go away.

Update: Okay, I spoke too soon. It seems the feds aren't completely useless.