Let Leviathan finance the defeat of Leviathan

 Limits on government power  No Responses »
Mar 082008
 

Here’s how to get Leviathan to finance the defeat of Leviathan. (I’m reminded by the Couch Potato Entitlement editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal.) When you convert your analog TVs to digital, don’t turn down your $40 coupon(s) on the principle that the government has no business subsidizing private entertainment. You’ll never beat the welfare-police state that way.

No, you should use those coupons. But money is fungible. Immediately send an equivalent $40 (or $80) to defeat the members of Congress who voted for this program.

You could give the money to the Cato Institute, or to the Club for Growth. Or you could send it as a direct contribution to some member of Congress who voted against this subsidity — to your own Congressperson, if you’re that lucky. (I’ll try to find a list.)

One more thing is important. Be sure to let it be known what you’ve done with the money. Tell your Congresspeople. Tell about it on your blogs. Write a letter to the editor. And tell the recipient.

I should warn you that hell hath no fury like that of a welfare pimp towards a recipient who is not properly grateful for government subsidies. Look at how they’ve treated Clarence Thomas. But that’s how you know that this is one of the most effective means of opposing them.

George McGovern for President!

 Free markets, Health care reform, Regulation  1 Response »
Mar 072008
 

Where can I get a George McGovern for President bumper sticker? I didn’t have one on my car back in 1972 (I’m not sure my wife would have approved) but I was a McGovern supporter back then.

Well, mostly I was against Nixon and Watergate, but I was suffering from a bout of leftwingism, too. I got over it in time for the 1976 elections, though suffered some lingering symptoms until Ronald Reagan’s first year in office.

But here is George McGovern at the WSJ, sounding like the type of libertarian-leaning Republican that could make me become a Republican again:

…Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior…

…There’s no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market….

…Health-care paternalism creates another problem that’s rarely mentioned: Many people can’t afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It’s as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as “payday lending.” …

…Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn’t perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who’s familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.

Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.

Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

I’ve been wondering what to do with my vote on election day. Now I think I know. I’ll write in George McGovern’s name!

Monster vs Ken Starr

 Clinton scandals, electoral politics  No Responses »
Mar 072008
 

Ok, I give up. Which is which?

Samantha Power says Hillary Clinton is a monster. This, after one of Hillary Clinton’s people compared Barak Obama to Ken Starr.

So far, it’s all good and wholesome mudslinging. But then (according to this AP article), Clinton said the two cases are different, because “one is an ad hominem attack and one is a historical reference.”

So which one is which?

I’m afraid the distinction escapes me.

I do notice that one of Barak Obama’s unofficial advisors resigned, while Sandy Berger is still an unofficial advisor to Hillary. I don’t understand that distinction, either.

The Great Firewall promotes self-censorship

 Free speech  No Responses »
Mar 062008
 

James Fallows at atlantic.com makes an interesting point about internet censorship in China, in an article titled The Connection has been Reset.

“The presence of censorship, even if easy to evade, promotes self-censorship.”  The point is that a regime doesn’t have to assert a 100-percent effective prohibition in order to accomplish its object.   A moderate amount of government censorship will cause people to censor themselves in order to avoid trouble.

And he concludes:  “How long can the regime control what people are allowed to know, without the people caring enough to object? On current evidence, for quite a while.”

Kalinovski Square

 Belarus, Dissent  1 Response »
Mar 032008
 

I found this while surfing YouTube, looking for Russian video with English subtitles. It does seem to be useful at my stage in learning the language — I understand some words and phrases, but I wouldn’t understand much of what is going on without the subtitles. And it gives some great shots of people and places, including those in villages in Belarus. The narrator gives us a wry look at President Lukaschenko and the political situation in Belarus. It’s entertaining but deadly serious.

I suppose this is the direction in which Putin is taking Russia, and in which we’re following at a long, long distance. Things like McCain-Feingold and extremely high rates of congressional incumbency are only baby steps in that direction, but that IS the direction.

 Newer Entries