The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page). Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Friday, October 12, 2007
My Respect for the Profession is Declining I mentioned a little earlier a debate going on via a professional historian email list, the Society for History of the Early American Republic. I am disappointed at how rapidly the discussion has declined to professors trying to defend their claim that Pennsylvania had no militia from the end of the French & Indian War (1763) until 1777, when Pennsylvania passed a new militia law. I pointed out that even if the Associations (voluntary military units) did not meet a formal definition of "militia" as defined by statute, they took orders from the Pennsylvania government, and were provided ammunition and some guns as though they were militia. Most significant of all is Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd series, volume 14, p. 8. Under the chapter heading "Papers Relating to the Militia" is a discussion of prisoner exchanges dated December 8, 1776. The document includes Doctor Gill and two privates of the Royal Artillery. (British.) for Captain Garret Graff and two privates of the Pennsylvania Militia.Those who insist that Pennsylvania had no militia between the start of the Revolutionary War the 1777 militia statute are welcome to continue to believe this--but the people of the time clearly believed that Pennsylvania had a militia, and put it in writing. And professional historians (people with Ph.D.s and academic appointments) keep insisting, contrary to the 1776 document above, that there was no militia--and they cite secondary works: a book published in 1994, and a website by the Pennsylvania government. I am beginning to wonder if my professors taught me wrong, emphasizing the importance of primary sources--the documents of the time. It appears that Cornell's defenders are reduced to using secondary sources to back up their claims--the primary sources that I foolishly use show that their secondary sources are in error with respect to the absence of a Pennsylvania militia in 1776. Were my professors all wrong? Should I give preference to books and articles written centuries after the events over documents produced by the people that were there? Is this is what passes for professional historians today? Should I really be trusting secondary sources over primary sources for identifying the facts of the time? Is it really worthwhile to read a book that two different reviews have identified as grossly inaccurate about something as simple as the state of antebellum case law on this subject? (And that particular issue is one that I have read the primary sources--and Cornell either has not, or has chosen to ignore.) Perhaps I'm on the wrong mailing list. The gullibility of historians when the Bellesiles fraud happened lowered my perceptions of the profession substantially. The bizarre state of this discussion makes me wonder if the politicization of history has perhaps rendered it more like creative writing than a serious social science. UPDATE: It appears that the 1757 statute may have not lasted more than a year or two after passage. But there's still this problem that the official documents in 1776 refer to members of the "Pennsylvania Militia." Labels: history Funny Video I have always been a big fan of Weird Al Yankovic. I think it takes more cleverness to write a parody than write the song that it parodies. Some years back, I took my son to see Weird Al in concert overlooking Clear Lake in California--and it was fun evening, with a surprisingly wide range of ages present. I don't know how I missed this Weird Al song, "Ebay" which is a parody of the Back Street Boys "I Want It That Way." Someone put together a collection of pictures and text as a video for the song, and it is righteously funny. If you are familiar with the Back Street Boys song, the parody is funny in its own right. If you aren't, you can still appreciate the social commentary on eBay and how it works. Labels: humor The SCHIP Veto I've made the point for some time that the Christian commonwealth idea upon which this government was founded includes both private and governmental assistance to those who are in need of the essentials of life--and I would say that medical care qualifies. President Bush vetoed the SCHIP expansion bill because he claimed that it would provide government health insurance to families making $83,000 a year. The Frost family of Baltimore has become the Democratic Party's poster child for why this program needs to go so far up the income scale. Michelle Malkin has some pictures of the three cars that the Frost family owns--along with details of a home for which they have almost $200,000 equity. There's also an email that Michelle Malkin received from some neighbors of the Frosts that is really very nice about them--but makes it clear that this is not a good example of people in need. I won't try to summarize it; I'll just encourage you to read it. There are people who need the government's help. There are people who do not need the government's help. Giving help to those who don't need it sucks money out of programs for the truly needy--and in some cases, will be transferring money from working poor families to people who aren't at all poor. I suspect that the Democrats may have porkified the SCHIP bill just so that they could force a veto, in the hopes of having an issue. Labels: health care Interesting Definition of Tyranny There has been a rather vigorous discussion of the Second Amendment happening at the Society for History of the Early American Republic list. This is a list used by professional historians, largely in universities and similar institutions. Robert Churchill started the excitement with a polite but critical review of Saul Cornell's A Well-Regulated Militia, which asserts that the right to keep and bear arms was not intended to be an individual right at all, but that developed this idea in the 19th century. I am not impressed with Cornell's claims on this, largely for the reasons that David T. Hardy's very critical review in the April 2007 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal articulates. I threw my two cents in as well, and a torrent of defenders of Cornell's claims responded--including the astonishing claim that the Pennsylvania Constitution's 1776 and 1790 guarantees of a right to arms were not individual: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. [1776 Penn. Const.]and: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.[Penn. Const. 1790]The rationalizations for these are quite astonishing, and a pretty good indication of how important disarming the masses has become to the intellectuals of our society. Similarly, this professor decided that the Indiana Constitution of 1816's guarantee was not individual. My response is here. One criticism of my careful effort to demonstrate that these were understood as individual rights produced this response from Bob Arnebeck on the list: Jon Roland provides us with the high ground, and I appreciate hisNow, argue if you want that the Iraq War was a mistake. But setting up and defending a democratic republic where there had been a dictatorship that routinely engaged in torture and genocide qualifies as "tyranny"? To the degree that the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights,Quick! Alert the ACLU! Guarantees of individual rights are "undemocratic" and "abets tyranny"! Labels: gun history Mental Illness & San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom No, he's not crazy, just an idiot. But this October 10, 2007 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle takes him to task for a problem that is far more serious than the lack of same-sex marriages: "Laura's Law" was designed as a way to compel outpatient treatment for severely mentally ill people who pose a danger to themselves or others. It was named after Laura Wilcox, a 19-year-old Nevada County college student who was shot to death by a 41-year-old man who resisted his family's determined efforts to get him into treatment. It took effect in 2003, yet has been implemented in just one county, Los Angeles.The severe problems of the homeless mentally ill have been getting a lot of attention from San Francisco newspapers of late--but unfortunately, those oh so liberal San Franciscans seem more interested in enforcing the laws against being a public nuisance than in helping the severely mentally ill. Here's a chance for liberals to do what they seem to love doing--spending tax money--and actually helping people that are in severely bad shape--another thing that liberals claim to want to do. But perhaps government funding of the Folsom Street Festival with naked men whipping other naked men is more important. Labels: deinstitutionalization Thursday, October 11, 2007
The American Safety Net I have previously linked to news stories about why the Canadian health system works so well--they are next to the United States, which handles their peak demand problem. This isn't just a few isolated cases, either, as this October 10, 2007 Fox News story reports: Mothers in British Columbia are having a baby boom, but it's the United States that has to deliver, and that has some proud Canadians blasting their highly touted government healthcare system. Labels: health care Reasons Why Sex & Suffering Don't Belong Together But I guess statements like that just make me an old fuddy-duddy. From October 11, 2007 Associated Press: LYNN, Mass (AP) - Adrian Exley was wrapped tightly in heavy plastic, then bound with duct tape. A leather hood was put over his head with a thin plastic straw inserted so that he could breathe, and he was shut up in a closet.Aside from Vice President Rockefeller's famous "death in the saddle" with his mistress--how often does any die from having consensual, heterosexual sex? It is something of an argument against confusing sex, pain, and humiliation, isn't it? Labels: homosexuality Switzerland County, Indiana Kind of a pretty area of Indiana along the Ohio River. Here's some video as I entered the county seat of Vevay. They restored the county courthouse quite nicely--much better condition than several other county courthouses in that part of Indiana and Kentucky that I stopped to photograph.  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge A very Midwestern looking water tower in Vevay:  Click to enlarge Here's the main drag of town:  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge Like a lot of counties, they had to add onto the original courthouse--but unlike a lot of counties, they worked pretty hard to make the addition match.  Click to enlarge And here's the plaque thanking the businessman who made all the restoration and economic vitality of the county possible:  Click to enlarge Interesting plaque--but I'm asking some experts if this is just local legend or reality:  Click to enlarge Of course, it's not a county courthouse without an artillery piece in front!  Click to enlarge Labels: history Imagine If They Kidnapped Her To Prevent An Abortion Do you think the courts would have been this lenient? From October 11, 2007 Red Ink: Do you remember the Kampf's? No? They were the white couple up in Maine that were so livid that their 19 year old daughter had gotten pregnant by a black South African man that was serving time in prison for receiving stolen property and will be deported back to South Africa when his sentence is completed, that they kidnapped and tied up their pregnant daughter at gunpoint and were driving her to New York State in order to force her to have an abortion. Now does the name ring a bell? Yeah, I thought that might jog your memory. Well the wheels of justice appear to have four flat tires in Maine. The Kampfs have negotiated a plea deal that allows them to serve no jail time at all. Labels: abortion More On My Windows XP Problem Thanks for all the help. I ended up using the chat room support from HP--and they suggested that I look around for the XP Media Center restore disks that I should have made when I first received the computer, rather than trying to unravel the security issues that were preventing XP Pro from sharing the workgroup MSHOME. Amazingly enough, I found the disk, restored XP Media Center--and everything is now working. Wednesday, October 10, 2007
XP Professional Incompatible With XP Home? HP got my notebook back to me--but where it had Windows XP Media Edition (pretty much the same as Windows XP Home), now it has XP Professional. Unfortunately, there seems to be some incompatibility with respect to workgroups. XP Pro can't see any other members of the MSHOME workgroup, and XP Home on my wife's computer can't see my notebook. I haven't even tried to look at the notebook from the Linux box. My guess is that XP Pro is more demanding on permissions or something, and I guess Microsoft figures that no one would actually try to put to XP Pro and XP Home on the same LAN, so there seems to be nothing that clearly identifies how to resolve this problem. I really do not want to send this notebook back to HP, and I just don't have the energy to spend another five hours on the phone to India. I'm hoping that someone out there knows the magic trick to get XP Pro to share a workgroup with XP Home PCs. Was I Unfair To Ron Paul Supporters? I received some email from a Ron Paul supporter who said that I was being unfair judging them all by the statements of a few whackos--and as the email exchange continued, he proceeded to add another Ron Paul whacko to the list: Fred T. was a pro-abort lobbyist(love of money?), is a CFR member and has never shown by his actions(not his words) to be a lover of liberty. The lash he wields may be gentler than Hillary, but a lash it will be.I see that Thompson apparently did work for a firm that did some lobbying on behalf of abortion groups, and appears to have been rather peripherally involved in advice to them. I can't claim to be surprised, nor particularly pleased. Now, Ron Paul is pro-life, and introduced a bill defining that life begins at conception. This does not surprise me. Dr. Paul is an ob-gyn, and apparently seeing a late-term abortion performed as part of his residency left a deep impression on him. I can appreciate and even support a pro-life libertarian position; I just don't believe that a complete ban while a strong minority still supports abortion on demand will be enforceable. (There's a lot that can be done to strongly discourage abortion without a complete ban--and a lot of private persuasive effort that can be done to shrink that abortion on demand minority.) What astonishes me is the mental gymnastics that pro-choice Ron Paul supporters have to perform to explain why their positions are not incompatible. CFR: Council on Foreign Relations. When I start to see people blathering on about the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, I can pretty quickly discount that they know much about anything. I've read so much John Birch Society literature over the years. It's unfortunate that the Birchers engage in these bizarre conspiracy theories, because much of what they have to do say about the proper role of government is quite sensible in a conservative vein--but then the CFR/TC stuff completely destroys their credibility. If two members of the CFR say the same thing, it's proof of conspiracy. If two members of the CFR say opposite things, it's proof of internal conflict within the conspiracy. Conspiracy requires intelligence; stupidity is so much more common. You are aware that if you look at the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto you will see central banking, income tax, free public education among the planks and what candidate other than Ron Paul wants to undo these communist doctrines that we live under.The problems with this statement are that: 1. The Communist Manifesto's "central banking" plank isn't the Federal Reserve System. It is actually: Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.The Federal Reserve System does not have a monopoly on banking or extending of credit. Not even close. 2. Support for free public education in America predates the Communist Manifesto. Thomas Jefferson (someone that many libertarians worship without actually understanding his positions) was among the big supporters of public education. 3. The income tax is hardly a Communist plot. The U.S. government during the Civil War adopted an income tax. I don't like paying income taxes. I would prefer a national sales tax--easier to administer, less discouraging to hard work. But seeing the income tax as a Communist conspiracy is deranged. Politics ultimately will not be our salvation, but what concerns me is this delusion that Hillary is the enemy, if she is why have the Republicans greatly enlarged government power, knowing that she might become President someday.Because Republican politicians concentrate on getting re-elected more than anything else. Unfortunately, limited government as a system can only survive until the voters figure out that they can vote themselves money out of the public coffers. Some of this expansion was because voters demanded more; some was because special interests demanded more, and Republican politicians were afraid that if they didn't start shoveling out the money, a Democrat would win the next election. If the U.S.A minded its own business and truly unshackled the productiveness of free people, who would we fear?Continual terrorist attacks. Islamofascism isn't angry at America about our support of Israel. It is angry that much of the world is both non-Muslim, and rapidly advancing in economic status, while Islamic nations have trouble getting out of poverty while sitting on an ocean of petroleum. Is being a truther worse than being a proponent of abortion?Yes, being a "9/11 Truther" is worse than being a proponent of abortion. The "9/11 Truthers" are committed to claiming that the U.S. government did a horrible crime that Osama bin Laden has boasted was done by his people! Labels: 2008 presidential candidates Oklahoma Parking Lot Protection Law A few years back, Weyerhauser searched the cars of employees in the parking lot. Employees were told that if they didn't consent to a search, they would be fired. Eight employees with rifles in their car (apparently it was the start of hunting season) were fired. In response, Oklahoma passed a law that prohibited employers from imposing a "no firearms" rule in parking lots that were open to the public, if the car was locked. According to this article in the October 6, 2007 Tulsa World, a federal judge has ruled that employers are not just allowed to have a "no firearms" rule, but seem to be required to do so by federal law: U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.I have some misgivings about the government telling private employers what rules they can have, for the same reason that I would be upset if the government told me that I had to allow anyone that wanted to walk about my property with a gun. But I am not at all impressed with anyone who makes this argument while using the 1970 OSHA law as the excuse--because that also told employers what they could do on their own land. OSHA was well-intentioned, and probably has saved lives, but the same could be said for Oklahoma's statute protecting the right of employees to have a gun in their car in the parking lot. At the same time, I am very sympathetic to employees who drive to and from work, and are effectively prohibited from defending themselves because they can't have a gun in their car. I live somewhere very safe, so I don't worry too much about this, but there are plenty of people who are not so fortunate. It would be nice to get Congress to pass a clarifying amendment to the OSHA statute to clarify that this was not the intent--but I rather doubt that this has any chance until the Democrats no longer control both houses. Thanks to Arms and the Law for bringing this to my attention. Labels: gun rights What You Do In Private Is The Government's Business! Liberals like to argue that what consenting adults do in private is none of the government's business (as long as it involves sex or drugs, but not if it involves guns or hiring). But here's an example of liberalism run amok again--telling people who live in apartments that they aren't allowed to smoke inside their own dwellings. From NBC channel 11 in San Jose: Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences. Smoking on city streets and sidewalks will be permitted under the ordinance, except in the location of city-sponsored events or in close proximity to prohibited areas. Ron Paul Supporters I'm impressed with the rhetorical excesses that I am seeing from Ron Paul supporters--the fanaticism that I heard from a couple of his supporters at the GRPC is apparently not just a quirk of those few. Over at Unalienable Rights, a Ron Paul backer: As I have said in the past, I understand the non-interventionist foreign policy argument and I see some merit to it. But the people that did 9/11 were overwhelmingly from countries where we have never intervened in their internal politics. The only U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East back then were placed there at the request of the governments in question, in response to a very real fear of invasion by Iraq. Oh yes, "dictator Bush." Come on. He was elected twice. The Iraq War Authorization for Use of Military Force passed both houses of Congress by wide margins. Labels: 2008 presidential candidates, terrorism Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Any Guesses As To What This Word Was Supposed To Be? I'm looking at an order that was published in the August 30, 1794 Centinel of the North-West Territory (a Cincinnati, Ohio newspaper). It's an order for all members of the militia to be armed when attending church, and there's one word here that doesn't make any sense: The practice of assembling for public worship without arms may be attended with most sedlicious and melancholy consequences--it presents to an enemy of the smallest degree of enterprize to effect each fatal impression upon our infant settlements as posterity might long in vain lament.I thought perhaps "sedlicious" might be a misspelling of "seditious," but that really doesn't fit, and I can't find any word that is close to that spelling that makes sense. Any ideas? UPDATE: One reader suggested that it might be a typo for "sedulous" but that doesn't make sense in that context. Another reader pointed to these 1790 and 1792 uses of seditious--which are similar--but don't seem to be used in a sense different from the modern meaning of the word--which doesn't make sense in this context. Labels: gun rights, history Kentucky Touring On Sunday, I drove down through Kentucky, just to get an idea what the countryside my great-great-great-grandfather fought in looked like. I was a little disappointed to find that Kentucky south of Cincinnati along I-75, at least as far south as I took it, was like a lot of other newly built parts of America. I could have been in west Boise, the suburbs of Raleigh, or many San Francisco Bay Area suburbs, at least with respect to the architecture. When I moved a few miles away from the interstate, however, it started to get character--the kind of places that I have always imagined when hearing Elvis Presley sing "Kentucky Rain": Showed your photographsYou get to share in the experience as I wandered up along the south shore of the Ohio River! This video I shot with the HP PhotoSmart E427. Considering the limitations of video mode on what is really a cheap digital camera--and that I was holding in one hand while driving with the other--it came out rather better than I expected. This is at 2x the actual speed. I'll post some more pictures and video later. UPDATE: Here's a picture of the Ohio River looking north from Kentucky, and a sign detailing a tragedy that took place there in 1868. The sentence about "The AMERICA rammed deeply into the UNITED STATES" almost sounds like a metaphorical description of the Civil War, doesn't it?  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge Labels: history Bumper Stickers & License Plates As you might expect, the bumper stickers at Gun Rights Policy Conference ranged from humorous to infuriating. This particular truck had a collection that I got a good laugh from, and I suspect that the driver and I would have gotten along quite well!  Click to enlarge While I don't have a picture that came out well, I saw a rather surprising specialty license plate issued by the state of Indiana that I am surprised hasn't generated an ACLU lawsuit yet: "In God We Trust." While not likely to produce a lawsuit from ACLU, I was slightly surprised to see this specialty plate:  Click to enlarge Labels: establishment of religion, humor Pictures from the Folsom Street Fair, 2003-2006 Definitely not work-safe. For those of you who think I am being narrow-minded and a homophobic bigot for asserting that homosexuals are not like heterosexuals except for who they love--take a look at the Folsom Street Fair. Yes, I know that there are some straight people who are part of the sadomasochistic bunch as well. But ask yourself--why is this kind of depravity so closely associated with homosexuality? Why is it that homosexuals choose to identify themselves with affiliated groups such as sadomasochism? Do you really think that this behavior isn't an indication of something desperately screwed up with this bunch? Labels: homosexuality A Very Nebulous Law--And Maybe That's The Point From the October 8, 2007 Daily Mail: Stirring up hatred against homosexuals is to become a serious crime punishable with a seven-year jail sentence under a law announced last night.I can't quite tell what would be unlawful--which may be the point--to create chilling effect on free speech. Will you be able to express opposition to homosexual-affilated groups like North American Man-Boy Love Association or sadomasochistic displays like the Folsom Street Fair? Would that "cross the line" or not? If you aren't sure, many people will decide just to shut up, and take no chances of going to prison. If you want to know what sort of society Britain is becoming--and which America will become, if the ACLU has its way--well, there's this news story from the October 4, 2007 Daily Mail: Firemen who shone their torches [flashlights] at four men they found having sex in bushes have been disciplined by their bosses.What a great future we have ahead of us in America. Labels: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, homosexuality Monday, October 08, 2007
Probably A Little Early To Start Using For ScopeRoller Still pretty cool. This press release from the University of Michigan is about a new light and strong plastic: ANN ARBOR, Mich.—By mimicking a brick-and-mortar molecular structure found in seashells, University of Michigan researchers created a composite plastic that's as strong as steel but lighter and transparent. There's Gotta A Be Better Way Suddenly, those overly detailed scanner devices don't look so bad. From October 5, 2007 Fox News: COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho — Security guards refused to allow a woman into a federal courthouse until she removed a bra that triggered a metal detector. Labels: search and seizure I'm Not Laughing This piece from The Onion is clearly intended to suggest that gun rights groups are just being paranoid: WASHINGTON, DC—The National Anti- Quartering Association, America's foremost Third Amendment rights group, held its annual gala in Washington Monday to honor 191 consecutive years of advocating the protection of private homes and property against the unlawful boarding of military personnel.Believe me, I wish that the Second Amendment enjoyed even close to that level of support. Labels: gun rights I'm Not Happy About the Headline But how many events like this do you have to have before someone starts to question the deinstitutionalization policy? From the October 7, 2007 New York Daily News: A shirtless madman wielding stolen knives went on a bloody midtown rampage yesterday - stabbing a restaurant worker and a psychologist walking her dog before being shot by an off-duty cop, authorities said.And in case you wonder if New York City needs "knife control"--he stole the knives from a restaurant, attacking a chef that tried to stop him. Labels: deinstitutionalization A Troubling Encounter With Ron Paul Supporters Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President right now. He spoke at the Gun Rights Policy Conference Saturday night. No surprise: he's the most outspoken pro-gun candidate, and this isn't the first time that he has spoken there.  Click to enlarge There was a police officer and, I suspect, a Secret Service agent with him, based on these two vehicles outside:  Click to enlarge I can't blame him for the security--Presidential candidates attract nuts. I voted for him when he was the Libertarian Party nominee for President in 1988--not because I thought he had a chance, or would make a good President, but because he was the standard bearer for the Libertarian Party, and the goal was to get people thinking about libertarian ideas. I am no longer a libertarian. In the 1990s, my libertarian beliefs started to morph into conservative ones for several reasons: 1. A core libertarian idea is that the only actions that should be punished by government are those involving force, the threat of force, or fraud. The theory is that it doesn't much matter what others are doing--as long as their beliefs and actions don't cross the "force or fraud" line, it really doesn't make life all that difficult. This is a beautiful theory. Raising kids in the San Francisco Bay Area really caused me to reconsider whether this beautiful theory had any applicability to the real world. I concluded that it did not. Peer pressure didn't much influence me as a kid. I defended communism in 6th grade--when my peers were parroting the liberalism of their parents. (This was Santa Monica.) By junior high, I didn't mind being the only Republican and only supporter of free market capitalism in most of my classes. But I have since seen that this is a tremendously difficult position for most kids to take. The herd instinct is overpowering, and in a place like the Bay Area, it is quite destructive. There comes a certain point where enormous damage gets done by subscribing to this doctrine that only "force or fraud" should be subject to governmental discouragement. For example, we have laws that prohibit public nudity or defecating in the middle of the street. A strict libertarian would say, "Why? As long as you clean up the mess afterwards, no one is hurt by it. And no one is really hurt by public nudity." You can go too far, obviously, in promoting virtue and discouraging vice, but there are actions that need to be discouraged to create a civil society. 2. Libertarian activists like to portray themselves as the descendants of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution as a libertarian document. Studying American history carefully demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that the Constitution was not a libertarian document, and you have to pick and choose your Founding Father quotes with considerable care to portray them as libertarian. The Constitution certainly sought to limit federal government power (and failed), which is a libertarian idea, but it left the states free to exercise power in all sorts of arbitrary and often antilibertarian ideas--for example, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which actually authorized the legislature to not only use tax dollars to support churches--but also to pass mandatory church attendance laws: As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.3. Libertarianism suffers from the same reductionistic tendencies as many other political theories. This isn't because libertarianism is especially defective as a philosophy. Indeed, I think it has considerable merit as a direction (at least in much of America), but not as a goal. The problem is that strongly principled ideologies tend to attract people who are looking for single, simple answers to what are often complex problems. Is there poverty? Quick: it's all about (depending on what philosophy you have oversimplified) one of the following:
This post is not primarily about Ron Paul. It is really about some of his supporters that I spoke to--and what I heard rather concerned me. You see, after the 1988 campaign, Ron Paul sent those of us who had contributed to his campaign a newsletter that concerned me enough that I decided not to contribute to further Ron Paul campaigns or projects. I see from this discussion at Flopping Aces that Ron Paul only contributed his name to that newsletter--he claims that he didn't write or even read some of this material that went into the newsletter. But shortly, you will see why I am concerned, nonetheless. I have never been an unquestioning supporter of Israel. There are Christians who conflate respect for Judaism with respect for the nation of Israel--a country originally established by Jews who were not particularly religious--and who were held in considerable contempt by Orthodox Jews because of their secularism. Nonetheless, while I have often been critical of how Israel does things, I generally give Israel the benefit of the doubt. A bad human rights day for the Israeli government is far above the best days that just about every Arab nation achieves. I understand the non-interventionist foreign policy position that some libertarians espouse. I agree that the U.S. has far too often stuck its nose into the affairs of other nations, with often destructive results for both human rights and our pragmatic national interests. But the 9/11 attackers weren't Nicaraguans, or Costa Ricans, or Mexicans, or Haitians, or Iranians--countries in whose internal affairs the U.S. has intervened, and would at least have a plausible complaint. If anything, the U.S. has gone out of its way to be hands-off to the governments of Arab countries. Whatever argument you want to make for non-interventionism, it doesn't fly to explain 9/11. Even U.S. support for Israel is a pretty inadequate explanation. We've poured absurd amounts of money into Israel--but also into Egypt. We've supplied the Israelis with weapons--but we have also pushed them very hard at times to play nice, and negotiate with the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors. And the results of forcing Israel to deal have more often than not been more bloodshed by what increasingly seems like a deranged bunch of monsters. One of the Ron Paul newsletters that turned me off so much talked about how he would look up into the galleries of the House and see Israeli agents giving directions to members of the House as to how they were supposed to vote--and I begin to sense something about two steps back from "Jews are running the world." Nothing quite so direct and paranoid--but it gave me some real discomfort. At the GRPC, I spoke to several Ron Paul supporters (who seemed to be a large fraction of the attendees, based on the buttons and such), and I found myself increasingly reminded of that newsletter. While we were standing in line for the buffet, I joined a conversation about the mistakes that Bush has made with respect to the Iraq war. He's made several very severe ones--even if you agree that the war needed to be fought. I pointed out that the several reasons for the war that enjoyed general support in the U.S. at the time, even among Democrats, and this one Ron Paul supporter suddenly said, "The Iraq War was about one thing: protecting Israel. Full stop." The idea that the Iraq War is all about doing Israel's bidding--because those "Jewish neocons" ran the Bush Administration--is very popular in leftist anti-Semitic circles at the moment. For purposes of argument, let's accept that there was concern in the Bush Administration that Iraq, once in possession of a nuclear weapon, might use it against Israel. This does not preclude the other possible risks of a nuclear-armed Iraq such as a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the dangers of escalation with Iran, or of Iraq supplying such weapons to terrorist groups. This complete oversimplification of the question to doing Israel's bidding, in conjunction with that creepy newsletter some years ago, really makes me wonder what kind of a crowd Ron Paul is attracting. Another aspect that disturbed me was the crowd of Ron Paul supporters who suddenly showed up for his speech (but who had not been at the GRPC). There were signs that declared, "Ron Paul Will Save America." When Ron Paul arrived, there was a frightening intensity to the chanting, "Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" I've volunteered for Presidential campaigns before. In 1980, I put a lot of effort into coordinating volunteers for the Ed Clark campaign. But I do not recall ever seeing this level of leader worship--what at least from the outside looked like fanaticism. I don't mean that every Ron Paul supporter is a closet Nazi. But there was something just a little peculiar about what I saw and heard--and I found it a bit disturbing. UPDATE: I'm told that another gun rights activist is also seeing similarly disturbing signs of a messianic following for Ron Paul--probably because so much of our political class has shown so little reason to be leading us. This is a very dangerous sign--when people start seeing politicians in that light. We all want someone decent (or at least smart) to follow, but we should never lose sight of the fact that politicians put their pants on one leg at a time--except when in public restroom stalls. Labels: 2008 presidential candidates Gun Rights Policy Conference If you don't know what this is--every year, several gun rights organization put together an event for gun rights activists in various parts of the country. It is free to attend, and they unload a pile of useful books and materials on you. I have never gone to one of these before--but being one of the speakers certainly incentivized me a lot! Anyway, many of the people that you have heard of, if you are concerned about gun rights, were there. (Sorry about these pictures--I decided to bring my pocket HP PhotoSmart E427 camera instead of the Pentax. These are the sort of situations where the Pentax is a big winner.) Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute and Alan Gura, both of who are attorneys on the lawsuit that has so far) overturned DC's gun control law were there:  Click to enlarge  Click to enlarge I had a chance to talk to Mr. Gura at some length about what I could contribute to their efforts, if the Supreme Court decides to hear DC's appeal. There was a panel discussing state legislative concerns which included several state legislators. As you might expect, all of them were pretty effective speakers, but Jackie Walorski, who represents the 21st district in Indiana's lower house, was just on fire!  Click to enlarge Dr. John Lott was there as well.  Click to enlarge Amusing story. There was an awards part of the program from 1:00 to 1:30, and the panel that I was on started at 1:30. So I wolfed down my lunch, and went for a swim. I figured that I could skip the awards part of the program, and just be back in plenty of time for the 1:30 panel. Well, my arms haven't been swimming much recently, so I cut the swim short. Shortly after I sat down, they announced the James Madison Award for Journalism in Defense of the Second Amendment was awarded to... Clayton Cramer for Armed America! I was really not expecting this, in spite of winning this award some years ago jointly with Dave Kopel for our Tennessee Law Review paper. Somehow I ended up on a panel about Popular Culture with Dr. Timothy Wheeler of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership and Nicole Stallard of Pink Pistols, the gay gun rights organization. Nicole explained that Pink Pistols opposes hate crimes laws, preferring to see shall issue laws in all 50 states instead. (I presume because they think it makes more sense to discourage or kill gay bashers instead of punishing a criminal after they have already victimized someone.) It was also nice to see old friends like David Hardy and Don Kates--and to finally meet Dave Kopel in person--someone with whom I have collaborated for many years, but never actually met! I also met a lot of my readers--and people that only knew me by reputation. It wasn't all work. I'll tell you in another post about my sightseeing in Kentucky, Indiana--and my visit to 1794 Ohio. |
