Zakaria Gets His Talking Points From PE

...Ok, maybe not. But in this debate with NPod, Fareed Zakaria sounds an awful lot like I did in my posts here, and here. The transcript of the debate is worth reading, but the thrust of Zakaria's argument is that Iran has, for the last 25 years, shown no signs of acting counter to their rational interest, and is in no way, shape, or form crazier than Kim Jong Il or Mao Tse-Tung. Zakaria's best line? " When the Iranians elected a moderate, a man called Khatami, as the president, conservatives kept telling us the president has no powers....Now they elect Ahmadinejad, and they say he's got his finger on the button."

NPod responds with the tired old Neville Chamberlain/Hitler comparison, and the newer, but still tired, argument that Iran is more irrational than Jong Il and Mao because it is motivated by religious fervor (of course, our own President's religious zeal is irrelevant). NPod so understands the degree to which Zakaria is winning the debate that he tries to cut Zakaria and Woodruff off on at least 6 occasions. Realizing he can't win on an appeal to logos, NPod makes repeated appeals to fear and pathos, including the closing line of "God help us if we follow that counsel." And the Iranians are the ones who are irrational?

Anyhow, George Ajjan had an excellent post earlier this month on this issue that provides far better information than even the Zakaria discussion (based on information from someone who, I don't know, actually lives in Iran) here.

The key information from Ajjan's source:

The President in Iran does not have the authority to declare war nor does he control the regular Army or the Revolutionary Guards. There may be individuals or groups in both that support him but that does not mean that he commands a major allegiance which would allow him to use the military for his own purposes. Also, the Supreme Leader has used reshuffles in the IRGC and the Army to ensure that people do not remain long enough to establish power bases or to establish alliances with other political actors.One interesting thing that most people don't know is that the President in Iran doesn't even control the police forces, since the national chief of police is appointed by the Supreme Leader and the law enforcement forces broadly answer to him. This was one of the things that [former President Mohamed] Khatami was trying to change, i.e. to get the police to be accountable to the Interior Ministry rather than to the General Staff of the Armed Forces.To Question 1:There has been no indication whatsoever that Supreme Leader Khamenei wants to go to war with Israel. In fact, just a few days after Ahmadinejad first made his remarks about Israel in 2005, Khamenei gathered the main actors of the regime and made a very public speech in which he stated that:
1. Iran's policy vis-à-vis Israel has not changed (i.e. Iran continues to oppose the "oppression of the Palestinian people" and support their demands for their own rights)

2. Iran would "never carry out aggressive acts against any country". Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Leader's comments, which carry much more weight in policy matters in Iran, where not widely reported by the international media.

Why the neocons insist on ignoring Khamenei and instead choose to demonstrate fear of Ahmadinejad is beyond me. It's as if they don't realize that doing this just makes Ahmadinejad relevant on an international scale even though he is on the verge of irrelevance within his own country.

Ron Silver's Incoherent Rant

This has got to be one of the most incoherent rants I've ever read in my life. I honestly have no idea who holds the positions he is attacking here- for example, he includes financial aid and international programs for Palestinians as "isolationist." Apparently, "isolationist" now just means "anyone who is not a neo-con." If he's attacking the Ron Paul/Old Right position of non-interventionism, then he's making no sense (since Ron Paul would not support international aid to anyone and since non-interventionism is anything but cultural relativism). If he's attacking the "Hollywood liberal" position, then who in Hollywood is advocating non-intervention in Darfur and Africa? Who in Hollywood is opposed to "nation-building," which was the brainchild of their beloved Bill Clinton? I mean, I'm all in favor of getting into debates that you can't lose- but it's not very worthwhile if you're not actually debating a real person.

I'm left totally confused by this one- I would love to know who he is attacking. Moreover, I love how he assumes that there's only one possible result of each of the straw-men positions he is attacking. You have to love it when people just refuse to ask the questions "Why?" and "How?"

Most importantly of all, though- Ron Silver is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations? Really? When did this happen? Does being a porn king in a short-lived TV knockoff of Romeo & Juliet now qualify one for joining the CFR? What about being a real-life porn king- can Larry Flynt become a member of the CFR?

Yes, there is a crisis

Atrios claims that not only is there no Social Security crisis (something I'm inclined to agree with, if only on linguistic grounds), but that:

"[H]aving [Obama] suggest that Social Security is a problem which needs to be dealt with by any serious candidate is like the bat signal for people like me. There is no problem with Social Security. None at all. Whatever broader fiscal time bombs exist have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security."

This "ostrich-neck syndrome" when it comes to New Deal and Great Society programs on the left is the equivalent of the Right's "ostrich-neck syndrome" when it comes to the War on Drugs. It shows a fundamentally gawdawful understanding of simple economics. The argument that Social Security faces no fundamental problems amounts to an argument that you can take a system designed for people living for x years after they retire (and which is theoretically funded by the salaries those people made), and maintain it when those people are, on average, living x+y years after they retire. Simple common sense, logic, etc., will tell you that this is impossible.

Moreover, we already have a pretty good example of a similar system collapsing under its own weight. At this point, it's pretty well understood that one of the biggest reasons Detroit is becoming increasingly less competitive in the global auto industry is its pension plan system, which creates an additional $1500 (I've actually seen this number a bit higher from other sources) in overhead for every car produced. I've seen the Left complain increasingly about "disappearing pensions" in the private sector more generally; unfortunately, the belief is usually that these plans are disappearing because of theft and greed. Unfortunately, it's emotionally easier to blame theft and greed rather than deal with the simpler, Ocham's razor explanation: just as you can't consume more than you produce, you can't take out more than you put in.

Of course, the retort is simply going to be "well, raise taxes to pay for the increased costs," as if you can raise taxes ad infinitum without ever having a negative effect on the economy as a whole. We can disagree about the point at which that negative effect will begin, but the fact is that simply raising taxes does nothing to solve the underlying problem, which means that you will have to continue to raise taxes every so often as people continue to live longer and longer. Eventually- whether 10, 25, 50, 100, or 200 years from now- you will get to a point where you can't increase taxes any more.

Religious Political Correctness

Things like this always amuse me:

"[True conservatives] unashamedly love their country and have reached the point of no return with regard to political correctness and pandering politicians..."

Followed by- in the very next sentence:

"[True conservatives] have a deep and abiding belief in God. A belief that is under a daily, escalating and obscene assault from those on the left who only use the word “Christian” as an insult, a punch line, or as an identifier to be added to a blacklist to deny employment at most schools, colleges, newspapers, and television networks. [The Republican nominee] needs to understand that this is a belief that must be acknowledged, respected, and defended."

So, I guess this means some forms of political correctness are more equal than others, right?

On unintended consequences

Thomas Sowell's column today does a great job of illustrating the law of unintended consequences. His argument is definitely an oversimplification (you can't blame the wildfires entirely or even mostly on open space laws, for instance) but it still does a pretty good job of showing the inability of government to know everything or foresee all the consequences of its actions. A better understanding in government that you can never know all the consequences of a policy and that every policy has tradeoffs would at the very least, create a bit more humility in the government (and a little less hubris).

Is Ron Paul's Spending Record As Good As Advertised?

The Club for Growth says no. They still give him overall high marks, but there are some definite red flags in this report, and some that aren't. I identified 9 areas of criticism in the Club for Growth's report:
1. Line-item veto. Given the current expansion in Executive Power under the Bush Administration, I think Paul's opposition to any line-item veto legislation is more than justified, constitutional or not; frankly, my position on the line-item veto has changed over the years, and I now firmly believe that the separation of powers concerns far outweigh any improvement in fiscal restraint.
2. Federally-mandated election reform; the vote was to increase funding for the Help America Vote Act, specifically for updated election equipment. Given that federal elections are conducted locally, their importance, and the need for reliable results, this is probably as constitutionally appropriate an area of funding as you're going to get.
3. Paul's sudden drop from 100% in 2006 on designated pork barrel votes to 29% in 2007. This number, in and of itself is quite disturbing. (More on this point below).
4. Newfound sponsorship of earmarks, along with a statement of essentially, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." This is frankly inexcusable, since that is the logic of virtually every pro-pork congressman, and any Paul supporter needs to question their candidate's commitment to his stated ideals if he is willing to start backing earmarks as soon as he starts running for President.
5. Opposition to trade agreements. This is something that Paul is pretty open about, and I understand his position. I just disagree with it- the goal of free trade is global free trade, and it's tough to get other countries to eliminate their restrictions on free trade without working with them through agreements. Frankly, this is clearly an area where even I think government has an important role to play.
6. Paul's impractical opposition to "reforms" of broken systems. Sometimes, "reforms" are worse than the broken system they're trying to fix. Admittedly, Paul's absolutism about just immediately eliminating programs is impractical, but at least it's intellectually honest. Club for Growth's mild rebuke on this issue is still, I think, legitimate.
7. I disagree with the mild rebuke on Paul's approval for negotiation of pricing on Medicare drugs. This won't lead to "de facto" price controls, as the article suggests, since the drug companies would still be free to charge whatever they wish to non-government entities (who, I might add, would be able to negotiate their own pricing structure). If government should be run like a business (and it should), then permitting it to negotiate pricing is part of the deal.
8. School vouchers. Paul's support of credits as opposed to vouchers (which he correctly points out will increase government's role in private schools) is perfectly consistent with small government principles. Indeed, as Cato Fellow (and old acquaintance of mine) Adam Schaeffer has argued, credits are the more practical approach to school choice both legally and politically, and are likely to be just as effective. Club for Growth's characterization that Paul's support of credits over vouchers places him with the Dems and NEA in opposing reform is seriously misplaced and out of line.
9. Tort reform. While I generally agree with the principles behind Paul's opposition to most tort reform (and thus disagree with Club for Growth's position on most tort reform), Club for Growth's very muted criticism is fair and appropriate.

As I suggested above, Paul's sudden embrace of earmarks and sudden approval of pork projects in the last few months is troubling indeed for anyone who views him as an icon of consistency and intellectual honesty. I took a look at each earmark that was the subject of the Club for Growth's study, and there is little doubt that, in each case, the earmark is the very definition of "pork." It does appear that for several of the votes, Paul was simply not present in Congress, and was likely on the campaign trail so you can't read that as support of the pork (though some would make a legitimate argument that being on the campaign trail during a vote raises other question marks). Still, the votes that Club for Growth selected for inclusion in its rankings seem to be a fair choice- the pork at issue in each selection is very, very clearly pork. Ron Paul's sudden votes against the anti-pork amendments (especially beginning in July) are extraordinarily puzzling.

What is most puzzling about these votes is that they serve no apparent political purpose, so you can't say that he's just trying to curry votes for the primaries (although that is the only legitimate inference given the sudden shift from absolute opposition to general acceptance). Essentially, I just don't see how voting for a few small pork barrel projects in other people's districts is going to noticeably increase your support (especially in the primaries) in those areas. Did Paul cut some sort of a deal with some of the Democrats?

In all, these questions aren't enough to get me to stop backing Paul, but it sure as hell makes McCain and Thompson look more and more palatable- and Obama even more so (since he has the best shot of stopping Hillary without managing to be as scary as Hillary).

When Krugman Starts Making Sense To a Libertarian

.....You know the world is completely upside down. In today's Times, the bane of lovers of free markets questions why, exactly, we should fear Iran. Money quote:

Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would
be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some
perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of
Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as
Sweden’s.

This line of questioning is closely related to the fifth of my recent questions for neo-cons and theo-cons, to wit:

Why would it ever be rational for Iran to try to nuke us (or provide a terrorist
with a nuke) if it is a virtual guarantee that we will always have way more
nukes? In other words, if a nuclear attack on Israel or the US would result in
the complete obliteration of Iran, why would Iran ever attempt such an attack?
If, in fact, they are developing nukes, isn't it more logical that they are
developing those nukes purely as an attempt to get leverage against us (and
prevent us from attacking them)? If you agree that it is irrational for Iran to
attack us, but believe that Ahmadinejad is irrational (because he wants to bring
about the Apocalypse), do you realize that Ahmadinejad has very limited power in
Iran's theocracy?

Of course, the fear is frequently cited as being more one of Iran giving terrorists a "suitcase nuke" that would then be exploded in the middle of Manhattan. Presumably, in this scenario, Iran would do so with the irrational expectation that we wouldn't find out it was they who supplied the suitcase nuke. The other problem with this scenario, though, is that the concept of a "suitcase nuke" being used by terrorists is far-fetched, at best (at least at current technology levels). Moreover, for Iran to develop an effective "suitcase" nuke would require a level of investment far beyond Iran's capability (you know, the whole GDP of Connecticut thing), and even farther beyond the capability of an independent terrorist organization. As for the so-called "dirty bomb" scenario, well, you don't need a nuclear program to achieve that end- you just need access to a modern hospital.

The other line of argument is often that Iran would have no qualms about taking out Israel. This line of argument also fails, though. First, while I tend to support much of our support of Israel, the fact is that we aren't Israel, and if any other country knows how to take care of itself militarily, it's the Israelis. Second, at this point nuking Israel would probably be about as rational as nuking the US itself- to think at this point that the US wouldn't respond to a nuclear attack against Israel with a nuclear attack of its own would be silliness beyond even the capability of Ahmadinejad (who, again, isn't as powerful within Iran as the neo-cons would have us believe anyways).

In actuality, we know that Ahmadinejad is quite unpopular in Iran, primarily because he has caused an economic disaster and has undone much of the social progress Iran had been making before he was elected . The thing is, the more we rattle our saber at him, the more opportunities he has to say that he is standing up against imperial aggression, and the more Iranians are able to get distracted from the domestic mess he has created. Moreover, our saber-rattling doesn't exactly help the image of America as bully, meaning the developing world is driven more and more into the Chavez/Ahmadinejad camp.

Alas, the fear-mongering will continue because, as Orwell wrote:

"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac. "

I hope this destroys any illusions about single-payer

This morning, the blogosphere is abuzz about a report that tens of thousands of Brits who are fleeing the UK's socialized health system because of wait times, quality, etc.

Now, I have said before, here and here, amongst other places, the US healthcare system has deep flaws of its own, resulting in costs that are way out of whack. Additionally, there are relatively few advocates of a true single-payer system in the US- with even Hillary backing away from single-payer, the debate is now centered primarily on different ways of implementing universal coverage more generally (thankfully, most of the approaches at least pay lip service to being "market based"). Nonetheless, I would hope this report is a death knell to the arguments advanced by Michael Moore and others (and believed by those deceived by "Sicko") that socialized medicine works.

Still, a proponent of single payer can legitimately make the argument that the report only tells one side of the story, that it represents a relatively small portion of the Brit system, etc. However, even more telling to me than the report itself is this online discussion of the report. I find the discussion more telling because it reflects the actual opinion of a fairly good cross-section (it seems) of Brits (and expat Brits) about the overall state of the British system. You will notice a near-universal dissatisfaction with the system- these are not the "happy patients" you will see in "Sicko." One other thing you will notice is that there is not a single person suggesting that the system is underfunded (unless you include those complaining about the failure of poor immigrants to pay into the system).

One of the more illustrative quotes about the downside of socialized medicines (and really, socialized anything) comes from someone trying to defend the British system:

People who go abroad are playing into the hands of those who want to see
private health care. It's like people who accept the same pay rise as those who
have given up pay to go on strike for it. They are not doing anyone any favours.

So, people are supposed to let their health deteriorate, waiting exceedingly long for inferior treatment, just so they don't "play into the hands of those who want to see private health care." I don't think James Taggart could have said it better. To put this quote another way, people should accept suffering in order to prove that the government can do things better than the private sector.

An equally poignant refutation of government programs comes from a former NHS employee:

After having worked in NHS, I tend to agree with the article and most of
the comments by readers. Most of the NHS trust CEOs are mediocres and lack
innovative ideas. Degradation is in almost every segment. I came across cases
where even written contracts are not honoured. Its not the funding, but
management which needs to be blamed for all the ills.

The problem of course is that you will have extreme difficulty ever getting a government program in which management is anything but "mediocre" and "lack[ing] innovative ideas." There is, after all, little or no incentive for them to excel and be creative when doing so will not result in a better life for them. In fact, there is a giant disincentive to do so, since questioning one's superiors (who themselves lack any profit motive) means taking a risk of destroying your relationship with your superior and thereby potentially risking your job.

Trading One Form of Autocracy for Another

I was watching Real Time this morning, and found this segment to be particularly disturbing. What was amazing was how Wesley Clark views any criticism of Clinton in much the same way as Republicans view any criticism of the GWOT, which is to say that all such criticism is unpatriotic, traitorous, or in this case, just a Republican smear campaign.

I don't know that Clark could have done a better job proving Sully's point that Clinton is "Cheney in a pantsuit" if he had tried.

(For the record, I had already made the decision to make this post before I saw Sully's post about the exchange).

Economics and Happiness

A commenter at Tyler Cowen's indispensable Marginal Revolution asks whether thinking like an economist results increases happiness, and then answers, well, yes, of course:

1. I cherish my consumer surplus. I value most of the stuff I buy way more than
what I have to pay for them; vanilla ice cream makes me happy beyond belief, and
the same is true for the music of Dream Theater and the (soon to be purchased)
Apple iphone. And what am I asked to pay for them? Peanuts.
2. I cherish my producer surplus. I am getting paid way, way more than the salary that would make me indifferent between supplying labour and staying at home.
3. I never have regrets: I did the best I could given the information available to me at the time. Judging I could have done better using information I acquired at a
later date makes as much sense as regretting the existence of gravity. On a
related topic, I understand the irrelevance of sunk costs.
4. While I do care for my welfare in relative terms, my welfare in absolute terms looms large in my utility function - and, boy, look how its value has been growing.
5. The selfishness of my fellow human beings does not make me anxious or depressed. Adam Smith (or was it Mandeville?) taught me that humans, selfish as they are, can make happy societies. And perhaps more to the point, they can make me happy.

I, for one couldn't agree more, even if I'm not an economist (though I do have at least some background in economics, so I'm not completely talking out of my ass). At the very least, attempting to evaluate the comparative value in every action or transaction makes you appreciate things a hell of a lot more, and take a hell of a lot less for granted.

On the other hand, as some of the commenters to Cowen's post point out, the fact that there are people who don't act and think like economists can be extraordinarily frustrating- but it's more the fact that you see people acting irrationally counter to their rational interests, and then watching as those irrational actions hurt not only the actor, but also other people (possibly including yourself).

Still, on the balance, basing your own decision-making and worldview on economics is pretty likely to increase your happiness. As Cowen himself notes:

Most generally, (good) economics insulates people from expecting the impossible, and that does make for greater happiness and contentment.

Fred on Executive Power

Andrew Sullivan is pleasantly surprised that Fred Thompson has a restrained view of Executive Power that seems to break with Cheney. Sully also makes note of Thompson's real (not faux) humility.

I want to say this much about Fred: despite my making fun of him here and here, I've had occasion to follow the former Senator's career a little more closely than other politicians. I once attended a guest lecture he gave where he made a last minute change of topics (from discussing the Clinton Justice Dept. to discussing campaign finance reform). Even though I completely disagreed with him on the issue, I came away very impressed with his candor and, yes, humility about the topic. He was one of the rare politicians who was willing to acknowledge a little bit of doubt that his position was correct, and to acknowledge the legitimacy of the other side- no railing against corporate lobbyists and special interests or anything of that sort. Just a rational discussion of what he thought was good and bad about McCain-Feingold, and why he may have been wrong.

When I saw that the die-hard conservatives were trying to draft him to run, I was more than a little surprised, given what I knew about his humility in general. In some ways, he is this year's Republican answer to Obama- just without the charisma. Generally speaking, Fred is a good man with a fairly well-rounded commitment to principle. I don't know that he would be a good President, but he'd be far better than Hillary or Giuliani, if only because of his more humble view of Executive Power.

Also- no matter what, it's about time we ended the string of electing people whose primary political experience has been in the Executive branch (whether it be federal, state, or local). If you ever wanted to know why federal power has grown so much in the last 40 years or so, you need look no further than the fact that Gerald Ford (who wasn't even elected) is the only President during that time period whose primary political experience was in the legislature (or, for that matter, the judiciary).

This isn't to say that a former Congressman won't expand Executive Power (see, e.g., LBJ), just that a former Congressman or judge is much more likely to have an actual concern for the Constitutional separation of powers and respect for the will of at least one other branch.

Lucky Dube, RIP

If you have never heard of South African reggae star Lucky Dube, then I am sincerely sorry- in my opinion, he was the greatest advocate of the freedom philosophy in music since at least Bob Marley. In some ways, I (a devout fan of Marley) think Lucky's music had more of an effect on my thought than Marley's.

Sadly, Lucky Dube was shot and killed last week in a carjacking attempt in Johannesburg, South Africa- by the very types of people he dedicated his life to fighting through his music. If you have never listened to him, you can listen to some short samples here, or check out his song lyrics here. What made him particularly powerful was that his advocacy of freedom did not change one bit after apartheid fell- he was every bit as opposed to racism against white people post-Apartheid as he was opposed to racism by white people during apartheid. There is also a strong undercurrent in his songs- both pre-and post-apartheid - that government is more often the cause of problems than the solution. This isn't to say Lucky Dube was a libertarian (I'm not sure he ever even heard of libertarianism), or even would agree with libertarians on a lot of important things (though "Taxman" is as libertarian a song as they come). But the underlying message of his music was one that was profoundly at the heart of a true libertarian philosophy: self-reliance, personal responsibility, a deep respect for others, a love of life, and a rejection of force. He also had some extremely personal songs about children, family, and love that are as beautiful and emotional as you will ever come across. Put another way, Lucky Dube's music is

as human and unselfish a portrayal of the freedom philosophy as you will ever find. The world is a little less bright without him.

Just a few of his most libertarian-ish songs included:

"Taxman", a song that talks about the government as legalized theft, and, in a sad coincidence, contains the lines "I pay for the police/To err..I don' t know why/'Cause if my dollar was good enough/There wouldn' t be so much crime/In the streets".

"Affirmative Action", about the tendency of people to look for government to save them rather than educate themselves and actually work for a living.

"Feel Irie", (NOTE: the "bother?" in the link should read "part of") about the fact that life is tough, but we shouldn't feel as if somehow others are immune to troubles; instead, people have it within themselves to make their own happiness. This includes two of my favorite lines of all time: "People had troubles since the Pope was an altar boy/People had worries from when the Dead Sea was only critical".

"Is This Freedom?" and "Mickey Mouse Freedom", about the false perception of freedom that results from replacing one form of particularly nefarious oligarchy with another.

"House of Exile", a particularly beautiful song the exact meaning of which I find difficult to express.

"Life in the Movies"- a post-apartheid song that includes the phrase: "Don't steal, the police hate competition."

"Sleeping Dogs Lie"- a song about the importance of individual happiness, and the need to let other people be happy. Includes a tale of tolerance and acceptance towards gays- a rarity in the reggae world, not to mention subsaharan Africa.

A few random questions for neocons and theocons

1. Can people really be forced to be free? If yes, isn't this a paradox? If no, how do you justify military action for the purpose of spreading democracy?

2. Isn't the core of a moral act the fact that you actively chose the moral act of your own free will? If so, then how does prohibiting immoral action (as you define it) increase morality?

3. Why do free market principles apply in the field of business and economics, but not in the field of moral action?

4. If God is omnipotent, why must he be protected? If God is infinite, how can you know for certain what his will is? Similarly, if God has a "plan" that we do not and cannot know, how can we know for certain how he wants us to implement his plan?

5. Why would it ever be rational for Iran to try to nuke us (or provide a terrorist with a nuke) if it is a virtual guarantee that we will always have way more nukes? In other words, if a nuclear attack on Israel or the US would result in the complete obliteration of Iran, why would Iran ever attempt such an attack? If, in fact, they are developing nukes, isn't it more logical that they are developing those nukes purely as an attempt to get leverage against us (and prevent us from attacking them)? If you agree that it is irrational for Iran to attack us, but believe that Ahmadinejad is irrational (because he wants to bring about the Apocalypse), do you realize that Ahmadinejad has very limited power in Iran's theocracy?

A few random questions for Progressives

These questions aren't meant to be snarky- I really am curious about the answers.

1. Why should the arbitrary fact that someone was born in the United States mean that they should be forced to pay for top-quality healthcare that is unheard of outside the West for someone in Hawaii, and in the process be prevented from spending that money to make sure that a family in Malawi is able to live on $5 a day instead of $1, or has access to a minimal level of healthcare? In follow-up, which of these two examples does more to make the world a better place?

2. Why do micro-loan programs work so much better than entitlement programs in bringing people out of abject poverty?

3. Which is more selfish- only helping those you care about, or forcing other people to help those you care about?

4. If, as I often hear Progressives claim, you believe in the (fundamentally libertarian) maxim that you can't legislate morality, how is forced charity (aka entitlement programs) not the legislation of morality?

5. Can someone who chooses to work be forced to work more and harder in order to provide food, shelter, and healthcare for someone who actively chooses not to work?

Something forgotten by the "Ticking Time Bomb" argument

I've argued before that torture, or "harsh interrogation techniques" (per the Bush-euphemism du jour) doesn't generally work particularly well. But, that isn't to say that it never works- just that on average it is less likely to get reliable intelligence than other methods, or is likely to produce so much bad intelligence as to overtax precious resources that could be used on pursuing more reliable intelligence.

Anyways, the argument of the pro-torture (or "harsh interrogation techniques") crowd often centers on the ticking time-bomb scenario. And, frankly, they're probably wise to do so- in an event where you are talking about an imminent threat of millions of people dying and where you know (or have ample reason to believe) that torture is the only thing that will get you the intelligence you need quickly enough, why wouldn't you torture? Therefore, the argument goes, the President (or appropriate officials down the line) should have discretion to make the call on when torture (or "harsh interrogation techniques") is permitted- without fear of prosecution.

Here's the problem with this argument, though- necessity, self-defense, and defense of others is an affirmative defense already recognized by every single common law court in the US, Britain, and- to my knowledge- the world. Having such an affirmative defense means that, yes, the authorizing official and (maybe) the interrogator, rather than the prosecutor, will bear the burden of proof if they are ever brought up on charges...but isn't that the way it's supposed to work? If you're going to cross the legal line, shouldn't you be required to have sufficient justification for doing so? Think of the affirmative defense as a post-sentence trial (for purposes of this analogy, the torture is the "sentence") of the alleged terrorist, but with a lower standard of proof (either "clear and convincing" or a "preponderance of evidence," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt").

Why is this already existent way of handling torture issues insufficient to protect national security?

Groan!

I hate to continue with this string of comments about Townhall.com columns, but they've been particularly bad these last few days.

Today's Chuck Colson column has one of the most preposterous premises of any column I've ever read, and may be the penultimate example of the cringe-worthiness of mixing sports and religion. The premise of his column? People should root for the Rockies in the World Series, not because they are underdogs who put on one of the most amazing runs in baseball history, but because "The Rockies are the first major league sports franchise organized on specifically Christian principles."

First of all, the premise itself is deeply flawed- the Rockies are hardly the first team to screen players for "moral values"- this has actually been the operating premise behind a huge number of teams, some successful, some not so much. Additionally, while it is truly a kind thing that the Rockies have voted the widow of their minor league coach (who was killed during a game in a freak accident) a full playoff share, does Colson really think that just about any other team wouldn't have done the same? Finally, does Colson really think that the Rockies are "the first major league sports franchise" to post Bible quotes in their training facilities and have regular prayer and fellowship meetings?

Second of all-the Rockies are hardly the only successful sports franchise in recent years to have an emphasis on good character (usually referred to in sports as "chemistry"). For instance, would anyone say that the reigning Super Bowl champion Colts- led by hard-core Christians Peyton Manning and Tony Dungy, and all-around nice guy Marvin Harrison (who are run by the same guy who put together the 1990's Bills Super Bowl teams) have a lack of emphasis on character (though I'll admit, Peyton Manning's face makes me nauseous)?

Worst. Column. Ever.

It is amazing to me that, in this day and age, we still have columnists on widely-read sites like Townhall who continue to insist that the War in Iraq is justified as an attack against the terrorists of 9/11 or against closely aligned terrorists. I always love when columnists make the argument that the "Constitution is not a suicide pact", as if pre-emptive attacks (without a declaration of war) on nations that aren't an imminent (or even near-imminent) threat to the US are somehow necessary to prevent the destruction of the US.

Listen- if you don't like the way the Constitution is written, then it gives you a pretty good idea of what you should do: AMEND IT! This used to be the conservative position; now, though, conservatives have decided that the Constitution can just be ignored on the grounds that "it's not a suicide pact," so the plain meaning of the words can be altered to create enough ambiguity to allow the President to do whatever he wants to fight a couple of stateless terrorists.

I also love the common claim that "they" despise us (to the point of wanting to kill us) just because we exist and do not practice sharia law. Of course, this ignores the fact that there isn't just one "they", and that most of the "theys" have various different reasons for hating us. Some of "them" hate us because of the mess we made in Iraq; some because we're killing a lot of people in "their" region; some hate us because we have a military presence in their holy land; some hate us because of our pervasive culture; some hate us for our support for Israel; and finally, yes, some hate us because we're not them. Of course, the idea that a different response is required for each group of "them" requires an appreciation of nuance and a desire to ask the question: "Why?" And the idea that maybe we should try to take approaches that eliminate existing "theys" without creating new "theys" is, apparently, the equivalent of a "clearly written prescription for disaster." Or maybe Harris just believes that every single Arab is a terrorist just dying to attack the US, so no new "theys" can be created, and we only need to destroy the existing "theys"- if that is the case, though, then why isn't he advocating just blowing the whole region up with a couple of nukes?

The most staggeringly bad line of this staggeringly idiotic column is: "the fact remains that we were indeed attacked by a people, on our shores.(emphasis mine)" So, because we were attacked by "a people, on our shores," we can now attack just any people we wish?

In any event, not even Ron Paul wants to just stand idly by and allow us to be attacked by "them." While I am not 100% supportive of Paul's foreign policy (it is more isolationist than I am willing to go), the fact is that he did support fighting back in Afghanistan (if not the subsequent nation-building, which Republicans used to find abhorrent), and he continues to support a variety of non-military or quasi-military measures to get people who actually represent a threat to our national security- whether they be massive bounties, letters of marque (I always have to throw that one in- who doesn't love pirates?), or more appropriate law enforcement efforts. But it's not about curling up in the fetal position and letting "them" come after us- it's about asking why "they" want to come after us in the first place. Going over there and destroying a country in the heart of the Arab world might kill some of "them", but if it creates more of "them" than it kills, is it really a good idea?

To quote a once-widely respected (until he fought against the neo-con party line) Republican ex-General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State:
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

Of course, Phil Harris' career as a software engineer in frickin' Nebraska (yeah, that center of terrorist targets Nebraska) makes him far more knowledgeable about military matters than a guy who waged perhaps the most successful war in American history.

Dennis Prager on Killing Internet Freedom

I've obviously been a pretty emphatic advocate of the need for civility on internet blogs, message boards, and e-mails to commentators. But Dennis Prager's column today strikes me as one of the best ways to attack the free speech triumph that is the internet. Money quote:

"There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings."

To sum up, Prager believes that the anonymity provided by the internet is responsible for all sorts of ad hominems and vitriol, making the comparison with a relative lack of ad hominems and vitriol in the letters to the editor section of the newspaper, where people must identify themselves with name and hometown. As a result, Prager advocates requirements that individual commenters and bloggers give their name and hometown for any comments they wish to post.

There are a number of huge flaws with this idea, though:
1. Incivility on the internet is a nuisance, but not a threat; if you are seriously offended and hurt by something said by an anonymous commenter or blogger, then you need to grow a thicker skin. Not to say you can't be seriously annoyed by this sort of thing- just that we're not usually talking about serious threats to someone's reputation or physical well-being. An ad hominem by an anonymous poster is hardly going to hurt someone's reputation, and it really shouldn't hurt their feelings. The primary effect of the ad hominem nuisance is often that it prevents the anonymous poster's legitimate arguments from ever getting a fair hearing from the "victim."

2. The anonymity provided by the internet, whether on comments or in the actual blogosphere, is one of the most essential elements of the internet. If you are able to maintain some degree of anonymity, you are much more free to advocate unpopular positions, or even just popular positions on divisive issues. This is a particularly important element point now that google gives employers and prospective employers virtually unlimited access to everything that exists on the internet- access that employers increasingly use to research job candidates. For instance, think of the effect of non-anonymity on an outright communist's willingness to engage in internet discussion if the communist is aware that his current or future employer will be able to tie him to his statements.

3. How would one enforce this anonymity policy? Would one be able to just put down any old name and town- in which case anonymity is essentially unaffected? Or would a poster's hometown have to be closely correlated to his IP address? Or would we have to have software that is tied to the name of the account owner (creating massive privacy concerns)?

4. Who says that tying one's name to a comment actually has an effect on civility? I've seen plenty of letter to the editor over the years that could be characterized as "ad hominems" or invective-filled. Moreover, how many letters to the editor containing ad hominems and invective don't get published at all because they simply contain nothing worth publishing (which is usually the case with any ad hominem)?

5. Regardless of anonymity, most sites already have editorial control over comments posted on their websites. When a comment shows up that is particularly lacking in substance and filled with ad hominems or invective, the site's owner has the ability to delete the comment- and frequently does.

Now, I have no problem with individual sites choosing whatever commenting policy they wish. Indeed, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why a site would wish to prevent anonymous comments. But there are also plenty of legitimate reasons why permitting anonymous comments is worthwhile. To ignore these reasons is just silly. An even scarier type of anonymity ban, though, would be on an abolition of anonymous blogging in general (rather than just commenting). Currently, the blogosphere is as close to a pure meritocracy as has ever existed- good blogs get the most traffic; bad blogs wither and die. What makes many blogs good blogs, though, is their willingness to express unique ideas; an anonymity ban would have a chilling effect on any blogger expressing unique ideas where the blogger's ideas aren't well-known to begin with (and where the blogger isn't already pursuing a career path surrounded by like-minded people).

The Internet, Nanotech, and the Obsolescence of Government

(WARNING- DORKY POST ON LIBERTARIAN POLITICAL/ECONOMIC THEORY)

Perhaps one of the most important- and legitimate- functions of government is as a sort of clearing-house for information sharing. For instance, government can claim a proper role in regulating lead content in paint not so much because one or two extra parts per million will automatically mean a catastrophic risk to children, but because citizens lack the ability to be all-knowing about the safety of everything that comes into their lives. Unfortunately, with many things, a customer can only find out the hard way that a product is unsafe. Similarly, government can claim a proper role in prohibiting or regulating drug use on the grounds that, by banning a product and enforcing that ban, it is preventing people from using unsafe products that may seem safe at first and are highly addictive (of course, the drugs chosen for this prohibition and regulation are completely arbitrary, but that's besides the point). In other words, the status that government gives to a product, person or action is intended to let the public know that the product, person or action is good or bad.

Libertarians are fond of pointing out that these functions can be performed just as well- indeed, even better - by private industry, like Consumer Reports. Unfortunately, this argument has been impractical- the costs of obtaining this type of information have historically been extremely high, particularly in terms of time required to research a product, person, or action.

So government regulation of some things that present legitimate hazards is perhaps legitimate. The problem, of course, is that few products, persons, or actions are bad for everyone, just as few are actually good for everyone. So, while the government policy may have a good intent (for instance, preventing people from becoming drug-addled criminals), it often has very arbitrary results as applied (locking up people whose casual use of "illegal" drugs causes no external harms). Indeed, government's decision to regulate something is almost never the result of a finding that something is 100% evil or good for 100% of the people, but is instead based on a finding of what does the most good for the group that is most politically powerful on an issue at a given time.

The internet, however, has the power to combine the best of the personal choice/well-informed consumer ideal of the Consumer Reports-type industry with the relatively lower opportunity costs (to the individual consumer/taxpayer) of government regulation. With the continued development of portable nanotechnology that can be brought anywhere, and the unlimited potential of the internet in terms of making information available, the need for government one-size-fits-all rules is decreasing. In other words, portable nanotechnology with access to the internet presents an opportunity for individuals to have almost zero cost (both opportunity and actual) in obtaining information about a purchase or action. Near-immediate access to this information will allow them to better decide for themselves whether their intended purchase or action makes sense for them specifically.

Under this scenario- which will certainly take many years to reach its full potential- the immediate access to information will obviate the need for government to impose an absolute barrier for or against the subject products or actions. To put it all another way: government action is unnecessary where all individuals have a zero or near zero-cost opportunity to learn for themselves whether something is right or wrong for them. Nanny-statism, to a large degree, loses much of its rationale.

What might happen if Giuliani wins

There have obviously been plenty of stories the last few weeks about the possibility that the theocons will run a 3rd Party candidate if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. There has also been plenty of speculation (denied by the Ron Paul campaign) that Ron Paul could mount a third party candidacy after he uses the primaries to boost his name recognition. Even if Ron Paul does not mount a third party candidacy, his nomination campaign will likely have succeeded in creating a potentially permanent and irreconcilable divide between the libertarian wing of the party and the neocons.

Should there be two third party campaigns from the traditional Republican coalition (and assuming Hillary gets the Democratic nomination), we could be faced with the most historic election in many decades. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the theocon candidate captures 10% of the overall vote, just about all of which would come from traditional Republican voters. In addition, let us say that Ron Paul captures 15% of the overall vote, with 2/3 of that coming from libertarian Republicans. These assumptions, I think, are pretty realistic given anti-war sentiment, the typical voting cohesiveness of the theocons, and the fact that Giuliani and Hillary are the libertarian anti-Christs.

This would mean that Giuliani would get- at best, I think- 25-30% of the vote in the general election. A performance of that nature would almost certainly have serious and long-lasting effects on the Republican Party. What kinds of effects? I think the possibilities are:
1. Complete disintegration, a la the Whigs post-1852. This is certainly a possibility, especially if the Republican Party does nothing in response to this (hypothetical) historically bad performance. This is most likely to happen if the Party just blames the election on the ever-popular BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), resulting in the formation of at least one somewhat viable third party that would ultimately drain the Republican Party.
2. The Republican Party is forced to completely re-invent itself as essentially a reincarnation of the Old Right in an attempt to entice the theo-cons and libertarians back into the fold. This would most closely parallel the response to the 1976 election, which of course led to the nomination of Reagan in 1980. Depending on Hillary's governing philosophy (which I suspect will not be much different from the neo-cons), this scenario could center on the Republicans turning themselves into very much a pure anti-war party, dumping the neo-cons in the process while bringing on board a bunch of angry Progressives.
3. The Republicans concede to additional "Campaign Finance Reform" in the name of "preventing corruption." As with previous Campaign Finance Reform, this would result in making life even more difficult for independent candidates, and would safeguard the Republicans from needing to do very much at all to keep their status in American politics.
4. Ron Paul makes a significant enough impact in the primaries that, when Giuliani goes down in flames, Paul becomes a major voice within the Party. By "significant," I mean 15-20% of the vote, which seems quite unlikely right now. This results in a scenario where the Republican Party is essentially pushed back to its positions of 1992-1994.

I'm sure there are plenty of other possibilities. All I know, though, is that a showing of 25-30% by a major party in this day and age would be catastrophic for that party. This is particularly true where almost all of the third party voting would be coming from that party's traditional base (contrary to popular belief, Perot voters in 1992 were almost as likely to be taken out of Clinton's support as Bush's).