We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I received my absentee ballot from Pittsburgh last week but it was not until this afternoon I was able to look over the papers. I opened up the list of candidates to see who was running… and I saw no Libertarians. I opened up the ballot itself, thinking there must be some mistake. Again, no Libertarians and not even a box for the party.
I am not one to give up easily. I did a quick search and found the LP of Pittsburgh web site. The first number I tried just rang. Then I decided to look over their blog and that was when I started to see the picture of what sorts of things are going on over there:
The challenge to Posipanka’s nomination papers, which had been accepted by the State Elections Bureau on August 1st, was filed on August 8th, and Posipanka was served with court papers the evening of August 10th by a local constable. Local Libertarian Party database manager and Posipanka campaign advisor, Harold Kyriazi, estimated from careful database work, that Posipanka would fall about 40 signatures shy if he sought to fight the court challenge, because about 110 of the signatures seemed to be from residents who aren’t registered to vote.
Not wishing to travel all the way to Harrisburg on a workday for what would almost certainly be a losing effort, Posipanka decided to submit to the request of Gergely’s lawyer friend, who brought a withdrawal form to Posipanka’s house the day after “informing him” about the possibility of punitive legal fees if the case went to court.
Gergely is the Democratic candidate in that district and appears to be a really nasty peice of work.
I found a contact number which answered and further discovered there are no Libertarians on the ballot this year. Some of the problem was also mentioned in the blog article:
Major party candidates need only collect 300 signatures during the weeks before the Spring Primary, whereas minor party candidates need to solicit either 300 or 2% of that district’s previous election’s highest winning vote total, whichever is higher. This means that in some cases, a minor party candidate needs to collect almost 600 signatures while major party candidates need only 300. For statewide offices the situation is infinitely worse: this year, any minor party candidate for Governor or U.S. Senate needed 67,000 valid signatures, while major party candidates needed only 2,000.
“These sorts of shenanigans are not only unfair, but a direct violation of the Pennsylvania constitution, which stipulates that ‘elections shall be free and equal,’ said local party chair Dave Powell, from Morningside. “In my book, 67,000 does not equal 2,000. And, if minor party candidates for the state house needed only the 300 signatures needed by major party candidates, David Posipanka would still be on this year’s ballot.”
So for any Democrats who drop by Samizdata, let it be known that instead of voting “none of the above” as I probably would have done, I instead voted straight Republican for just a tiny bit of revenge against this low life by the name of Gergely.
There is a more general issue here. The Pennsylvania laws have totally disenfranchised me. I have no way of being represented. I have no stake in the government or the way it is run because I have been declared outside of it just as surely as if there were men in white peaked hats and shotguns standing outside of the polling stations.
Free country? Democracy? Do not make me laugh.
Recently the Democrat Mayor of Chicago (Richard Daley) vetoed the higher minimum wage law proposed by the (Democrat) city council and they have failed to overturn his veto.
The proposal was quite wrong headed, both because it discriminated against large employers (such as Walmart) who were the only employers who were to pay the new ‘living wage’, and on the general grounds that (all other factors being equal) increases in minimum wage law (over the amount of money already being paid) levels cost jobs (in accordance with the law of demand).
However, the Democrats are making great play in the mid-term elections with both Walmart bashing and with minimum wage level law increases generally (if they get their way, most States will have higher minimum wage level laws than the Federal level) and for the best known Democrat Mayor in the country to veto such an increase (and an increase linked to Walmart bashing) both points to the absurdity of Democrat policies and shows the Democrats to be disunited as well.
Meanwhile in California the Democrats are pressing for universal government health-care (basically a version of the plan Mrs Clinton proposed in the early 1990’s) and the Republican Governor is pledged to veto the proposal.
This may seem to be a winner for the Democrats, but people who support universal government health-care (with all the increase in taxes, health rationing and the decline in the quality of health care that it means) would vote Democrat anyway. Whereas many Republicans were considering not voting for ‘Arnie’ on the grounds of his wild spending on building projects. The Democrats in California have given the Republicans (and independents and moderate Democrats) a reason to turn out and vote – vote against the Democrats.
Also by beating the drum for more government health care (on top of Medicare, Medicaid, and all the rest of it) the Democrats risk turning attention to places where it has already been tried. Such as Louisiana (where the long established system of government hospitals are a terrible mess) or Tennessee where even the Democratic party Governor has admitted that ‘TennCare’ did not turn out too well.
If they go on like this the Democrats could well save the Republican House of Representatives. Otherwise the Republicans’ wild spending (on the ‘entitlement programs’ and other such) might well have led to many pro-liberty voters staying at home (giving the Democrats the House, if not the Senate).
Today is a day of remembrance and a day to say “Thank you” to those who daily risk their lives for us. It is a day to ponder the guts and determination to save lives which drive fire and police men and women to risk – and sometimes lose – their lives so that others might live. It is a day to remember and thank our military men and women who have made our enemies reap what they have sown.
it is a day to be thankful of the courage which exists within the hearts of very average Americans, a strength of character that caused a small group to fight the first hand to hand battle of World War III in the skies over Pennsylvania.
Above all, it is a day to remember a horror perpetrated against us and to renew our vows to make our enemies pay and pay again for what they did.
There will be much media hype and spin today. Officials will say those sort of things which officials always must say. Personally I prefer the simple direct emotions of people much like myself who needed an outlet to express what they felt: Why We Fight and Have You Forgotten.
If you have not listened to these before (or have but not lately) I recommend you sit back and do so when you have a private moment and are free to shed a tear in remembrance.
They would probably be better off just unplugging Hollywood but:
California is set to introduce tough new legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions under a deal reached by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It would make California the first US state to impose a cap on expulsion of carbon dioxide and other gases.
And when their energy bills start to climb, Californians will blame (a) George Bush and (b) the “so-called free market” while demanding state intervention and subsidies.
There is a strange article in the LA Times called The Governor’s cold shoulder to Muslims, in which Shakeel Syed, the executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California criticises state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for refusing to meet with him. The title suggests this refusal amounts to cold shouldering ‘Muslims’ rather than just certain Muslims (i.e Shakeel Syed).
After waiting for more than a week, and following up with at least 10 phone calls to the governor’s office, I had gotten no response. I felt it was my duty and my right as a citizen to avail myself of a public forum to reach the governor. When a reporter from the L.A. Times called, I spoke with him and, on Aug. 16, The Times correctly reported my perspective: The fact that the governor had ignored my request to meet was disrespectful and insulting.
Of course, what with being the governor of a large state, I would guess Schwarzenegger is not exactly an easy man to get a meeting with, so I am not quite sure why Mr. Syed thinks not being able to meet with him amounts insult and disrespect. Moreover he then tried to apply pressure to Schwarzenegger by attacking him in the LA Times for not meeting with him, whilst noting the Governor was quite happy to meet with “rabbis and others who support Israel”.
He then acts surprised that Schwarzenegger’s communications director stated that: “We did not meet with Mr. Syed [because] it was inappropriate for the governor to meet with someone who uses the media to demand meetings and threaten political retaliation.” In other words, as Mr. Syed annoyed the person he wanted a favour from (to meet him), he was surprised that the person he annoyed was, well, annoyed enough not to meet with him.
In the earlier LA Times article, it said…
Muslim leaders on Tuesday called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger disrespectful and insulting for ignoring their request to meet about the war in Lebanon so he could explain his appearance at a rally supporting Israel that was attended by thousands.
What does Schwarzenegger need to ‘explain’? Clearly he supports Israel (the dead give away is that he attended a rally supporting Israel) and if some Muslims in California do not like that then perhaps they should consider not voting for him. Which bit of that needs an ‘explanation’? Arnie obviously values the Jewish vote rather more than the Muslim vote.
But then if Schwarzenegger wanted some even better reasons for refusing to meet someone from the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, those would not be hard to find. Mr. Syed supports making it illegal to say or print things Muslims find deeply offensive, making the categorical statement “We call for laws that prohibits defamation of all Prophets and faiths”. So the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California thinks the sensibilities of religious people trumps the First Amendment and therefore the rights of people who might think religion is so much superstitious claptrap to say what they please about a historical figure or a person’s beliefs. Just a guess but I suspect the rabbis Schwarzenegger met were not urging him to pass any laws against making movies like The Life of Brian or other forms of satire which clearly defame religion.
Syed does not just demand tolerance, to which he is of course entitled, he also frequently demands respect, which is not something a person should get as a matter of right. I hope Schwarzenegger continues to tell him to get stuffed.
…by Mr. Lileks. A taste:
There was no such thing as Castroism, after all. Only Castro. In the end it all dies with you.
Eventually it will come down to this, my friend: history will note that the people in the American jails at the tip of this island ate better than the average Cuban.
Lets hope he dies Real Soon Now, and that Bush manages through some miracle not to miss the opportunity to lift the embargo, so the succession struggle gets swamped in a tide of US dollars.
American judge Alex Kozinski, interviewed recently in U.S. magazine Reason, is roughly billed as a ‘libertarian’ judge. He is asked, among various things, for his views on the infamous Kelo eminent domain decision, which relates to the case in which a local municipality in the States won the power to evict people from their own homes in order to redevelop a site for commercial and tax-raising reasons. It is a decision which has scandalised classical liberals and defenders of property rights. Yet Kozinski thinks the decision is fine, and comes up with the following jaw-dropper:
What’s the difference between taking property for public roads or anything else? Do only public automobiles travel on public roads? I don’t understand why it’s a problem. If the government thinks the city will benefit by having a road there instead of having your house so that people can drive their private cars on it, then it has to make that decision. Who owns the road really doesn’t matter. What matters is that it makes it easier for other people to get from point A to point B using their private vehicles for private purposes. You could say “but it’s my house and my private purpose is more important than your private purpose.” But we live in a society.
“We live in society”. And so what? This judge is using ‘society’ as a sort of mystical incantation to shut down debate. His argument seems in broad terms to be a sort of utilitarian one: if the interests of a supposed majority are served by seizing the property of some people, then this is okay so long as ‘fair’ compensation is paid. His argument seems not to accept that though certain outcomes may be desirable, that it is necessary for the state to be constrained by certain long-term rules and institutions, most emphatically, by the existence of property rights. The judge’s position seems to be “property rights be damned”. If we imagine there are alternate uses of property that might put a gleam in the eye of a politician with property developers in his back pocket, then there is no limit to the assaults on property rights that could be permitted under the Kozinski formulation.
Eminent domain – what we Brits call compulsory purchase – can be justified, if at all, for creating certain facilities like a road, military base or law court that are essential for the peaceful ordering of a society, essential for human life and in the interests of all, and not just because it makes life a bit nicer for some or most of us, whether we be motorists or whatever. What is terrible about the Kelo decision is that it was driven by commercial gain, not a clear public interest such as defence of the realm.
After all, if the economic pie really is swelled by people selling their homes for new development, then that would happen in a market, albeit perhaps not in the neat and tidy way favoured by power-grabbing government official. Yet this ‘libertarian’ judge cannot see that. May we be preserved from ‘libertarian’ judges like this.
For an excellent book about this subject, see this work by Timothy Sandefur.
As an aside, I should point out that the reason I keep focusing on this issue is because American legal rulings and arguments have a habit of travelling across the Big Pond.
When I grew up, “Buy low, Sell high” was a mantra you learned at your mothers knee. It was what any good proper American had ingrained into them. Somewhere along the line it seems to have become ‘suspicious activity’ to those in law enforcement. I am not alone in feeling that a couple Arab-American men in a truck full of cheap phones has much less to it than meets the law officer’s eye.
A terrorism expert interviewed on Fox News told them even a huge terrorist plot would only require a handful of phones. A thousand phones are likely to be exactly what the men (and their wives) say they are: a plot to make money. Making money is a good, patriotic American act.
I will require a hell of a lot more proof than I have heard so far to believe there is an enemy use for thousands of mobile phones. Maybe there is… but I am not even mildly convinced of it at the moment.
I can almost hear Del Boy laughing…
The Specter-Cheney ‘Warrantless Surveillance Bill’ will leave a gaping hole in American civil rights by providing a tissue thin excuse for warrantless surveillance of Americans in America. Anyone who has any dealing with foreigners, as long as the state claims the surveillance is ‘aimed at foreigners’, will now be subject to surveillance at the pleasure of some faceless government employee…”in other words, if you call or do business with someone overseas, the government may be watching you”.
Do something about that.
This just in from the US Defense Department:
WASHINGTON, August 2, 2006 – The National Guard has exceeded its troop requirement along the southwestern U.S. border by almost 200 servicemembers and is assisting U.S. Border Patrol activities there, a senior Defense Department official said here today.
We were obligated, by Aug. 1, to have 6,000 National Guardsmen deployed to the four-state southwest border region. And, in fact, as of close of business yesterday, we had 6,199 soldiers, Paul McHale, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, said in an interview.
Now if they had not met the stated goal, that would naturally have been newsworthy…
There is an very commendable article on the LFB blog which applauds an Ohio Supreme Court ruling that economic development is not a sufficient reason under the state constitution to justify taking homes, in other words overturning Kelo in Ohio. However what makes the article so interesting is that it correctly identifies the poor thinking behind Justice O’Connor’s interpretation of the issues:
I need not merely infer that O’Connor is one who believes in “balancing” the interests of victims and thieves. In her formal opinion, available at the web site of the Ohio State Supreme Court, O’Connor states that the Norwood case is about “the constitutionality of a municipality’s taking of an individual’s property by eminent domain and transferring the property to a private entity for redevelopment. In doing so, we must balance two competing interests of great import in American democracy: the individual’s rights in the possession and security of property, and the sovereign’s power to take private property for the benefit of the community.”
But, as the Founders themselves should have better understood and stated in framing the Constitution, the only “benefit of the community” that may properly be attended to in most possible cases has to do with the actual rights of the individuals who make up that community. The community is best off, in fact, if no member of it may ever be robbed by government and at the behest of “the community,” whether that “community” is a group of home owners who want to forcibly prevent a mall from being built on somebody else’s property by the persons who own that property, or a group of developers who want to forcibly impose a mall on the property of home owners.
Excellent article.
Perhaps instead of ‘American Idol’ there is need for a new program on ‘American Wimps’. After reading this I practically broke out laughing:
Utility companies were still struggling to restore power. By Thursday evening, electricity had been restored to 160,000 customers in St. Louis, but new reports of outages kept coming in. The day’s high temperature was 97 degrees, but the humidity made it feel like 111.
The evacuated residents were taken to “cooling centers” after leaving their homes.
“We can’t overemphasize the danger of this heat,” Mayor Francis Slay said. “The longer the heat goes on and the power is out, the riskier it is.”
I just can not get the image out of my mind of long lines of Conestoga Wagons crawling across the prairie with A/C water dripping out the back; or of the ‘Little House on the Prairie’ with a rush of cool air from the built-in heat pump as you step through their door…
This is a bit of warm weather guys. Get real. A/C has only existed in the typical American home for a couple of decades. I grew up without it. I cannot even remember anyone in our town who had it.
We lived through days like this with little more than a comment to the neighbors over the back fence. We kids ran about playing baseball in humid 90 and 100F July days. Our parents made dinner in the unairconditioned kitchen and worked in the garden with little more than a sunhat.
Am I the only one who finds the above article… embarrassing?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
