Libertarian Leanings

The Post Partisan Obama

I wonder if there is anybody who still believes all that election campaign nonsense about the post partisan Barack Obama uniting the country. 

'Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.'

Obama's Attack on Capitalism

This economic crisis is most assuredly not going to waste, according to Scott Powell, a vice president of ELP Capital.  In his Investors' Business Daily editorial Mr. Powell offers three possible motivations for the sudden urge by President Obama and his Treasury Secretary Geithner to regulate venture capital firms.

'The first is that the Obama administration's faux pas resulted from a lack of understanding the intricacies of the free market and conflating venture capital with Wall Street, banks and hedge funds. If job-creating venture capital is elusive to our current political leaders surely we are in deep trouble. How then can we trust their judgment on an ambitious restructuring of the national economy, which next targets 15% of U.S. gross domestic product in health care?

A second possibility is that venture capital needs to be constrained, lest its free-market reliance to pick winners and losers highlights the deficiencies of central planning and socialized sectors of the economy.

As the administration attempts to regulate decision-making in every industry in which it gets involved, price distortions and misallocation of resources will become glaring.

[...]

The third and most plausible answer is the administration's distrust of venture capitalists is simply an extension of its antipathy toward the free market. It suspects that venture capital seeks economic returns over political ends and will not direct enough funding to politically favored sectors — particularly after recent disappointments with clean-tech investments in fuel cells and ethanol. Regulating VCs is an indirect but very real means of forcing alignment with the political objectives of the administration.

Speak Up

In any case, U.S. recovery and progress is surely jeopardized if venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are diverted from economic to political calculation.

There is plenty of blame to go around for our current economic mess, with moral ambiguity and weak leadership from big business being increasingly acquiescent to the encroachment of the federal government.

Now is the time for entrepreneurs everywhere and those specifically in venture capital and Silicon Valley who delivered a disproportionately large Obama vote to speak up and demand some candor and accountability about all this.'

Option three is the winner.  Obama is all about political objectives, and foremost is keeping a firm grip on power.  And won't there be great opportunity for the exercise of power when federal approval is necessary for the normal conduct of all business.  Future campaign contribution harvests will be massive. 

But don't hold your breath waiting for any Obama voters to admit they got it wrong. 

VPC

Eugene Volokh reminisces about the Assault Weapons Ban with a portion of a 1998 press release from the Violence Policy Center.

'...Assault weapons -- just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms -- are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons....

So when gun rights supporters worry that "assault weapons" bans are (1) attempts to grease the slope to restrictions on handguns and other guns, and (2) attempts to capitalize on public confusion about what assault weapons really are, they are really only saying what the Violence Policy Center has itself already said.'

We have yet another example of liberal wisdom, in which we Americans must be deceived into supporting the policies that are best for us. 

Quotes of the Day

Both from Henry Kissinger:

'The administration's approach seems to be pointing toward a sort of concert diplomacy, which existed for some two decades after the Napoleonic Wars, in which groupings of great powers work together to enforce international norms. In that view, American leadership results from the willingness to listen and to provide inspirational affirmations.'

This is leadership?  I have this vision of Obama providing "inspirational affirmations" like, "Right on, bro!" 

Kissinger closes:

'The administration has launched the country on an important diplomatic enterprise. It now needs to fulfill its vision with a diplomatic plan.'

Right!  Now all we need is a plan!  Can you even make this stuff up?

Death of Card Check?

According to Thomas Frank Card Check is dead.  Card Check refers to the proposed legislation that would make it "easier for workers to unionize."  And how would it be easier for workers?  Why, it would "would allow workers to organize in many cases merely by signing cards instead of holding elections."  Mr. Frank laments:

'Union members worked hard to elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, as they did to put Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in the White House. And now, just as in those previous two periods of Democratic governance, labor's friends are having trouble enacting basic labor-law reforms.

To understand why we need new rules governing unionization, look no further than yesterday's New York Times, where Steven Greenhouse told the story of a Louisville, Ky., hospital whose nurses tried to form a union but failed after they were reportedly threatened with losing their benefits among other things.'

The sanctimonious Mr. Frank puts up a transparent pretense of concern for workers.  He says Card Check "would allow worker to organize."  Actually it would allow unions to organize workers.  For the workers there is a downside to "merely signing cards."  Names are on cards.  Union thugs would know precisely who does and who doesn't need to be "persuaded."  

As any student of democracy knows, without the secret ballot democracy would not exist.  Mr. Frank is oblivious to the concept, and he says anybody who brings it up is like the Soviets.

'Before I go on, I should acknowledge that this whole thing might be a clever bit of jiu-jitsu by the unions. After all, the mere threat of EFCA has turned business almost Soviet in its feigned concern for the proletariat. The Chamber of Commerce is now exhorting the public to "stand up for workers' rights," running a "workforce freedom airlift," and, along with other trade associations, supporting groups with names like "Coalition for a Democratic Workplace" and "Workforce Fairness Institute."'

A virtual caricature of the good leftist, Mr. Frank believes workers need to be forced into union membership for their own good.  People are really quite ignorant, you know.

'Why does labor always get it in the neck?

First, there are those Democrats who don't care much for labor to begin with. Then there is the wide spectrum of Democratic donors and supporters who simply don't understand the problems of blue-collar life. They might dislike the religious right, but they didn't give money to Democratic political campaigns to increase union membership.'

Ah, but then light dawns on Marblehead.  It's about the money, says he.  Of course it's about the money.  Spouting off about freedom and fairness while working to eliminate of the secret ballot, Frank isn't going through these mental gymnastics for the sake of intellectual exercise. The beauty of unions is not that they help American workers.  Their value is in the big campaign contributions to Democrats.  Time and again Mr. Frank shows us he is one of those liberal intellects who really understands.  American workers have to be fooled into voting for what is obviously in their own best interests.  Mr. Frank is doing his part.

Torture

The four Bush administration memos from the Office of Legal Counsel supporting the legality of "enhanced interrogation techniques" have stimulated some discussion among libertarians at QandO.  The most controversial of the questionable techniques and the one on which the case for accusing Bush administration officials of torture rests is waterboarding. 

I have always wondered how waterboarding could be considered torture when U.S. military personnel are subjected to it as part of their training.  Based on that, I've taken the position that it is not torture, and objections to Bush administration use of it seem to me to be nothing more than moral preening.  It turns out that threatening to kill a prisoner constitutes torture.

18 U.S.C. sec. 2340 provides the definitions of what constitutes torture (emphasis mine):

As used in this chapter--

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from --

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

I've wondered how threatening to kill someone who has vowed to kill himself can be considered torture.  In any case it would appear that we're talking about legal technicalities, and clearly, not everyone subscribes to the current definition.  When George Tenet went on 60 Minutes he said that those interrogation techniques did not constitute torture, and more importantly, that they prevented other planned terrorist attacks.

'Tenet also said aggressive interrogation tactics saved lives after Sept. 11, 2001, but insisted that none of those tactics can be defined as torture.

“We don’t torture people,” Tenet said in an interview scheduled to air Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes." “We don’t torture people. I don’t talk about techniques and we don’t torture people.”

Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said he would let Tenet “speak for himself.”

"We have a manual now that governs what we do and I think certainly for the level of interrogator that we have, that they are very appropriate," Petraeus told FOX News.

Tenet said the highly criticized program of questioning "high value" targets by using sleep deprivation and water boarding, among other techniques, was more valuable to the security of the United States than all the work done at the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency, which tracks foreign electronic communications.'

At QandO, Dale Franks first comes out against torture then offers mitigating circumstances. 

...QandO has been pretty much opposed to the use of torture, and we’ve taken some heat for it every time the subject has come up.

[...]

When I speak of “torture”, I want to be sure that we all have the same thing in mind when I use the word.  So I will define it here as the intentional application of physical pain, accompanied by the possibility of permanent injury, scarring, derangement, or death. 

[...]

'I’ve noted before that, when I was on active duty, if I’d ever been faced with getting caught behind enemy lines in a Soviet attack in Europe, I would like to have the option of capturing a Russian officer, and finding out how to get back to our lines.  And, if I had to hook up a field telephone, and make a collect call to his genitals, I’d do it without blinking, if that’s what it took to get my guys back home alive.

I wouldn’t brag about it, or mention it to anyone in responsible authority later, but if I got found out, I’d expect to take the Court-Martial.  And, as long as I’d gotten my guys out, I’d have been happy to do it.

Necessity, it’s often said, knows no law.  But the law shouldn’t explicitly bow to necessity. I would rather have it understood that any torture inflicted is done without sanction, and the official authorizing the torture may be in danger of serious sanctions if he uses it.

It’s probably not the best solution.'

Probably not.  We will always have just what we have now.  One politically motivated administration second guessing the one before it and criminalizing its actions in time of war.

On the other side of the QandO debate is Michael Wade.

'Torture, however defined, is not a pretty thing. I make no bones about having zero regard for my enemies (i.e. those who want to destroy my country a la 9/11). If subjecting them to extreme psychological and/or physical discomfort, or the threat of such, will prevent further attacks, then I confess that I am happy to reward those monsters with the penalty they richly deserve. I accept that I may be wrong in such thinking, but I don’t find that case has been successfully made as of yet. Indeed, I defy you to take this test and declare that “torture” can never be acceptable.

The ultimate point is, torture is a horrible thing and should be avoided if at all humanly possible. But, unfortunately, we live in a world where the “humanly possible” has limits. In those cases, why is it that torture should be off limits? Is there a rational reason? I’m willing to be convinced, but I have my doubts.'

It's interesting that both sides of the QandO argument end up favoring the actual practice, but Franks says it should be illegal anyway, and while Wade says he could be convinced otherwise, he believes it should be permissable.  Admittedly this is not the full spectrum of the torture discussion. 

At any rate, let me pose two situations and two questions:

1.  Someone in the CIA leaks evidence proving beyond anyone's doubt that torture of a Guantanamo prisoner yielded information that prevented a terrorist bomb from being set off in Fenway Park during a 2004 World Series game.  Is George Bush a criminal for sanctioning torture to get that information?

2.  A huge bomb explodes in a Boston shopping mall on the day after Thanksgiving, the busiest shopping day of the year.  Thousands of shoppers are killed.  A short time later a former Guantanamo prisoner brags that he knew everything about the plan to bomb the mall while he was still in custody.  Is Barack Obama to be admired for his steadfast support of this prisoner's rights by his refusal to subject him to enhanced interrogation?

Feel free to comment. 

Zo

Via Hot Air

Support for Gay Marriage

John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign manager is urging Republicans to rethink their position on gay marriage. 

'Steve Schmidt, a California political strategist, has long held more moderate views on social issues than do many top GOP officials. Yesterday, he used a speech in front of the gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans to urge the party to shift its views on same-sex marriage. Otherwise, he said, it will continue losing voters who are younger than 35 or who live outside the South.

"For the party to be seen as anti-gay, that is injurious to its candidates in places like California and Washington," Schmidt said.

He added: "Republicans should reexamine the extent to which we are defined by positions on issues that I don't believe are among our values and that put us at odds with what I expect will [be] over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters."'

I am inclined to agree, although I can't argue with the fact that there is a substantial Republican constituency among religious conservatives who may never reconcile themselves to the legal recognition of gay marriage.

'Many Republicans oppose both civil unions and gay marriage, and several key party leaders, including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a potential 2012 candidate, condemned the Iowa decision. Responding to Schmidt's comments, Trevor Francis, Steele's spokesman, noted that opposition to gay marriage is in the party's platform but said, "We have a big, broad and diverse party."

Schmidt pointed out that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (R), who leads one of the most conservative states, has recently come out for civil unions. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who opposed the initiative that passed in his state in November, has backed efforts to overturn it.

"I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don't honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same-sex marriage," Schmidt said. "Nor do I see support from it from a strong majority of the general public."'

Schmidt may be right about the slim chances for a quick shift in party stance on the issue, but support for gay marriage in the general public may be stronger than he thinks.  A Newsweek poll from last December revealed substantial support for civil unions, though somewhat less for gay marriage. 

Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter. When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

But notice how much support has grown in a matter of only four years.  More and more Americans are concluding that the difference between marriage and civil union is little more than semantics.  So, let's get over it people.  The fabric of American society will not be harmed because two people of the same gender get married.  

It's been my position that the future of the Republican party lies with the libertarians.  There are practical advantages to maximizing personal liberty, and often severe disadvantages that arise when we attempt to curtail it.  One great example from history is progressive support for prohibition.

'Prohibition exhibited many of the characteristics of most progressive reforms. That is, it was concerned with the moral fabric of society; it was supported primarily by the middle classes; and it was aimed at controlling the "interests" (liquor distillers) and their connections with venal and corrupt politicians in city, state, and national governments. Still, it was not until U.S. entry into the Great War that prohibitionists were able to secure enactment of national legislation. In 1918, Congress passed the 18th Amendment to the Constitition, prohibiting the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. States ratified the Amendment the next year.

Herbert Hoover called prohibition a "noble experiment," but the effort to regulate people's behavior soon ran into trouble. Enforcement of prohibition became very difficult. Soon, such terms as "bootlegger," "bath tub gin," and "speakeasy" became household words. Gangs of hoodlums became more powerful as they trafficked in alcohol. By the 1930s, a majority of Americans had tired of the noble experiment, and the 18th Amendment was repealed.'

That particular attempt to regulate behavior gave rise to organized crime in America.  Not the outcome progressives had in mind.  Just as progressives of the early 20th century misjudged the effects of prohibition, today's conservatives misjudge the impact of legalizing gay marriage.  The nation will barely notice it.  The gay movement will breath a collective sigh of relief, and its members will be free to direct their attention to other pressing issues. 

Log Cabin Republicans are natural allies with the libertarians.  Both value personal freedom.  It is not a stretch for more gays to gravitate towards the libertarianism once they are comfortable with the idea that they need not rely on the protection of Democrats, who really don't place a high value on personal freedom anyway. 

Democrats place a high value on political power, and when liberty threatens their grip on it, liberty becomes a target.  Think Fairness Doctrine.  Think campaign finance reform.

'The issue bandied about on Tuesday asked whether banning the broadcast of “Hillary: The Movie,” 30 days before last year’s Democratic primary, violated McCain-Feingold (a lower court said yes), and whether that application of McCain-Feingold violated the constitution.

Much of the intrigue arrived courtesy of Malcolm Stewart, the lawyer for the government. According to the NYT’s take, Stewart largely argued that Congress has the sweeping power to ban political books, signs and videos, so long as they’re paid for by corporations and disseminated not long before an election.

Stewart argued there was no difference in principle between the 90-minute documentary and a 30-second television advertisement, a position which Justice Kennedy seemed to find hard to stomach.

“If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional,” Justice Kennedy said, “then the whole statute should fall under your view because there’s no distinction between the two?”

It didn’t sit well with other justices, either. According to the NYT’s Adam Liptak: “by the end of an exceptionally lively argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it seemed at least possible that five justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law . . . .”

Part of the problem facing the law seems to lie within the current makeup of the court. Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an author of the 5-to-4 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold law in 2003. Justice Alito appears to be more skeptical of campaign finance regulation than Justice O’Connor was.

The Court could take a somewhat narrow approach to the case. But, according to Liptak, Stewart’s answers on Tuesday seemed to invite the court toward a broader ruling.

Justice Scalia admitted to feeling a little “disoriented.” “We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember which said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press?” he asked.'

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, both are subject to interpretation when Democratic political fortunes are at stake.  Democrats seem all to willing to place limits on liberty when their political advantage is threatened.

The natural counter for this is a Republican party embrace of the libertarian model.  That means unequivocal support for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right for people to live as they see fit.  It includes supporting gay marriage.  Let's wake up, people.

The Beginning of the End

Carbon dioxide, CO2, is now considered a pollutant, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

'EPA Proposes Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Write
Friday, April 17, 2009; 12:41 PM

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposal today finding greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, a determination that could trigger a series of sweeping regulations affecting everything from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.

In a statement issued at noon, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations."

She added, "This pollution problem has a solution -- one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country's dependence on foreign oil."

The finding identifies six gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluorid -- as contributing to global warming.'

Keep in mind that these gases add up to less than 1% of the atmosphere.  CO2 is measured at around 300 parts per million.  If you do the arithmetic you find that it amounts to .03%.  That is, three one hundredths of one percent.  And how will that .03% affect the economy and life in America?

'In a teleconference with reporters this week David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said he did not think the agency would target small emitters of greenhouse gases if it began regulating emissions under the nearly 40-year old Clean Air Act.

"That is just not true," said Doniger. "EPA is able to focus on the big stuff, the big sources of global warming pollution."

Even before the formal announcement, experts predicted the decision would transform the federal government's role in regulating commercial operations across the country. Roger Martella, who served as EPA's general counsel under Bush and is now a partner at the firm Sidley Austin in Washington, issued a statement saying, "The proposed endangerment finding marks the official beginning of an era of controlling carbon in the United States."

"This means that EPA's mission of environmental protection will burst outside those bounds and place it on the stage as one of the most influential regulators of both energy use and the greater economy in the upcoming year," Martella added. "The proposal, once finalized, will give EPA far more responsibility than addressing climate change. It effectively will assign EPA broad authority over the use and control of energy, in turn authorizing it to regulate virtually every sector of the economy."'

If you think for a moment that EPA authority over the private sector will be uninfuenced by the size of a company's campaign contributions, you ought to think again.  This power grab through environmental regulation is positively totalitarian in scope.

Safe and Sunny April 2009?

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard speculates on the implications one might draw from the White House release of the Bush administration "torture memos" .

'It wasn't really a surprise that President Obama sided with leftist lawyers in his Justice Department and released, over the objections of the intelligence community, four Office of Legal Counsel memos that concluded certain interrogation techniques used in the last several years by CIA officers on certain al Qaeda terrorists were legal. Nor was it a surprise that the presidential statement put out by the White House was a medley of preening self-righteousness and defensive disingenuousness.

What was more interesting was the accompanying statement by the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, trying to justify Obama's decision--or at least put it "into perspective." The perspective, the context, is that in the months after 9/11, "we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qaida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal."

Blair continues: "Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos and those guidelines."

So: We were once in danger. Now we live in "a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009." Now, in April 2009, Obama's Director of National Intelligence seems to be saying, we're safe. Good news, if true. And it would be an amazing tribute to the preceding administration's efforts in the war on terror--efforts that Democrats have been saying for years were making us less safe. Apparently, the old policies worked. The threat from al Qaeda has gone.'

The release of those memos provides a good indicator for gauging whether the Obama administration will ever succeed in gathering intelligence on potential terrorist attacks against the U.S.  I think we can expect his administration will be just as successful there as Obama himself was when he asked for cooperation from our European allies.  Zero.  Besides, according to his Department of Homeland Security the real threat is posed by veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, not al Qaeda.

It's interesting to note that certain Democrats who have been outspoken in their condemnation of the Bush administration, at one time approved of what they would later call "torture".  Here is a Washington Post article from December 2007.

'In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

[...]

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."'

That may be one reason neither the Obama administration nor the Spanish courts will pursue any charges against Bush administration officials.  It could be embarrassing for certain high ranking Democrats.  There is another one, according to William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School. No law was broken.  It's all about he moral preening.

The Democrats by their actions admit that Bush administration policies really did protect the U.S. made us safer than we otherwise would have been.  Now that the Democrats are firmly in power the plan is to continue those policies.