Calling “Liberventionists” By Their Real Name

Anthony Gregory must have been reading my mind. His editorial today on LRC deals with a subject that has been screaming for comment for quite some time: “liberventionists” (not the term he uses, but one that expresses the same idea) who claim to be libertarians but who support the war against Iraq and other conflicts that the U.S. has initiated or in which it involved itself when no act of aggression has been waged against American soil. Anthony has summed it up superbly and doesn’t need my help to recapitulate his points, but I’d like to add three of my own thoughts to his.

1. Those who call themselves libertarians should take the time to (re)familiarize themselves with the core values (there is no one authoritative source, but I think Fishiferous does a good job of summing them up here under his “True Libertarians” posting [dated April 8, 2005]). Notice not just here, but in any authoritative source for libertarian thought that aggressive or pre-emptive war is something we are categorically opposed to for reasons obviously related to our other core values. What could possibly be more destructive of life, private property, free trade and free thought than war?

2. I’m not sure that the term “conservative” necessarily does justice to those who may be straddling the fence about calling themselves libertarians but who clearly express libertarian beliefs (columnists Joseph Sobran and Charley Reese come readily to mind, their occasional misplaced trust in government notwithstanding). For those who espouse beliefs obviously contrary to the tenets of libertarianism while insisting on retaining the name, I recommend “neoconservative” or “pseudolibertarian” as interchangeable appellations. Both imply the same thing - misappropriation of a word with a longstanding and clearly accepted definition and imposition of a new and diametrically opposite definition from the term’s original meaning (George Orwell, where are you when we need you?).

3. Anthony’s acknowledgement of and thanks to those pseudolibertarians who have stopped calling themselves “libertarians” is well taken. Understand, however, that this is not an attempt to censor or marginalize those whose opinions and beliefs different from ours (to do so would obviously negate our own legitimacy as libertarians). I, for one, very much enjoy reading and debating with those who oppose everything I stand for. What I find unnecessary and more than a little dishonest is when people are so unsure or ashamed of what they believe in that they attempt to camouflage it by misrepresenting themselves, believing that this will either gain them acceptance in certain quarters or shield them from ridicule. It is important for everyone to stand up for what they believe in, whether or not it is popular or conventional. Better a neoconservative out of conviction than a libertarian (or anything else) out of compulsion.

Be honest in expressing your beliefs and call them what they really are; after all, what’s the point of bringing about a world of free minds if everyone expresses the same opinion?

Please, Walter, Don't Give Them Any Ideas

I've just finished reading the most recent Walter Williams editorial (Hurricane Evacuation Lessons) to be posted on his website. Dated yesterday (28 September), it discusses the effect on prices, particularly for gasoline and emergency lodging, brought about by the recent evacuations of the Texas Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Rita. In the penultimate paragraph he makes the following comment:

Market allocation isn't the only way to make sure people economize on resources that have suddenly become scarce. Texas officials resorted to pleading with motorists not to top off their tanks. Their pleas were ignored. What Texas officials could have done was to place anti-top off officers at every gas station to make sure people weren't buying more gas than they needed to get to their evacuation destination. Texas officials also could have stationed hotel officers at every hotel. The job of the hotel officer would be to query potential guests as to whether they had nearby relatives or friends with whom they could spend a night or two. If they had relatives or friends within a reasonable distance, such as my example of the husband and wife with relatives in Austin, the hotel officer would tell them to hit the road. Would measures such as these have been preferable to rising prices or the unavailability of gas and lodging?

Very true, Dr. Willams, but I wonder how wise it is for one as widely respected as yourself (and whose columns are widely read by the entire political spectrum) to make this suggestion. While the baboons in charge of the machinery of state generally ignore your salient economic advice on every other topic, they are just twisted (and stupid) enough to take your tongue-in-cheek suggestion at face value and jump at the chance to misuse public safety resources in precisely such a manner the next time a crisis manifests itself. I cringe at the thought that they would justify their actions by pointing out that you recommended them, regardless of the idiocy of such an accusation.

On the other hand, such a flagrant display of rank stupidity might just be what is needed to push the public over the edge. I would be curious to see if any lessons have been learned by the end of this year's hurricane season, but the entrenched ignorance of economics coupled with an almost religious reliance on government doesn't make me optimistic.

The Value of Knowing One’s Neighbors

We held our first-ever neighborhood block party on Saturday from 3:00 till 8:00 PM. We had quite a turnout, about 40 families totaling about 140 people. I was amazed at how well things went, considering that the neighbor who set the whole thing in motion really only started coordinating things about six weeks ago and only did all the “heavy lifting” over the last ten days. Quite a feat, I’d say. I also discovered that although she’s lived just seven doors down from me for nearly two years and works for the same company I do (albeit at a different office), I had never met her until a week ago Sunday when she rang our doorbell asking if we were planning on participating in the party. Being the people we are, my wife and I weren’t about to make her do all the last-minute work herself, so I volunteered to help contact people in the neighborhood, set up games and prizes for the kids’ activities, and just generally spread the word.

Saturday turned out to be a long day for us all, especially for poor Veronica, whose mother got in a car accident the night before while on her way down from Philadelphia to visit for the party (fortunately neither the mother nor Veronica’s little god-sisters were hurt; their car, however, was totaled). But in the end it was more than worth the effort. The kids in particular all had a blast. I really do stand in awe of Veronica, an energetic young lady who did what I thought no one could do, which is take what I’ve always thought of as generally apathetic and unfriendly people who barely pay attention to one another, let alone socialize, and get them together for a really fun time. All it took was some dedication and the decision to act. She realized that “somebody else” wasn’t going to make it happen; the old axiom “if it is to be, it is up to me” was one she took to heart.

Among the activities we had (in addition to a “moon bounce” for the kids, which I couldn’t get my grandson to participate in) was a Fairfax County police officer who set up a table and answered questions from the residents about crime and safety. If you’ve read this blog lately you know that I’m not particularly happy with the way law enforcement in this area conducts itself. However, I was quite impressed by this officer’s demeanor and rapport with the community. One of the things he did that I found very helpful was distribute pamphlets and instructional guidance on how to set up a Neighborhood Watch program. I’ve been meaning to pursue this for several years and was amazed at how little it really takes other than neighbors cooperating with each other to look out for each other’s property and safety. In other words, the county seemed to be encouraging us as a community to do what everyone of libertarian bent should be doing anyway as a first line of self-defense (well, alright, maybe “second line”, the first line being looking out for the immediate safety and security of your own property and family).

As I chatted with neighbors I had never seen before, some of whom have lived in this community for almost the entire twenty years it has existed, it struck me that this was “local government” in action at the most basic level, what we libertarians preach about constantly but which I think we often neglect to put into practice. The real challenge, in my mind, will be to keep this momentum going over the next several months and years to forge a real community. It won’t be easy in a region with as transient a population as this one, but one has to start somewhere. The more we do for ourselves, the less we owe to outsiders, namely county and state government, who simply impose ever-higher taxes and regulations upon us under the guise of “protecting and serving” us, assuming that we wouldn't dream of doing it ourselves. While establishing a largely self-sufficient community may not preclude formal government control, it certainly will give government less obvious justification for imposing order on us from above.

Regardless of the direction things take, I’ll definitely keep everyone up to date on this. What better way to spread the libertarian gospel than to start with one’s next-door neighbors? I can hardly wait for the next community event!

(By the way, I emailed Veronica at work today just to see how she survived the rest of the weekend, having gone home at 10:00Pm Saturday after two hours sleep in the previous 24 hours. She didn't answer me, so I'm assuming --hoping-- the poor thing took the day off to recover from the weekend).

Out of the Mouths of Babes

With absolutely no prompting whatsoever from me, my grandson summed up the Bush presidency last night in words more appropriate than any pundit could ever muster. I swear on a stack of New Testaments that the following is true:

I was channel surfing and stopped on MSNBC for a second to look at a brief news segment that captured my interest. After it ended the subject quickly shifted to the feds' plan to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and featured a sound bite from the Smirking Chimp in which he pledged the entire federal treasury to the effort. At that moment my grandson, sitting on the couch with me waiting for me to switch the channel back to his cartoons, pointed to the TV and exclaimed "Don't want it, PopPop! Scared!"

What else could I do but give him the biggest bearhug I could without breaking any of his delicate little bones? Granny and Mommy heard it too and couldn't help but feel proud.

That's my little BooBoo!

Vocation, Calling and Opportunity

Reading Gary North’s article posted on this morning’s LRC started me thinking once again about the idea that one has an obligation to exercise one’s calling (as opposed to one’s vocation). Gary defines a “calling” as “the most important thing [one] can do in which [one] would be most difficult to replace.” It’s not necessarily something that one does for a living or even to earn money at all. For example, let’ say that I take up as a hobby the study of ancient Dacian language and literature while still working my nine-to-five job as an information security engineer. In fact, I do more than just take up Dacian language and literature as a hobby; I become obsessed with it, to the point where I know more about ancient Dacia, its language and surviving literature than anyone else alive. There is no small bit of trivia on this subject that escapes my attention. While clearly there is little or no opportunity for me to make this my vocation, I can still be an indispensable source of assistance to archeologists, philologists and scholars involved in the study of this part of the ancient world. If I were to suddenly die, it would be very difficult or impossible to find anyone else with my depth and breadth of knowledge on the subject. Thus my death would create a certain vacuum in the academic pursuit of new knowledge on Dacia and its culture, while my vocation as an information security engineer will be none the worse for my passing.

One of the most difficult tasks each of us faces in life, one that causes no small amount of anxiety, frustration and depression, is identifying our calling. What exactly is that one talent or skill at which each of us excels and at which few others could replace us? Do each of us really have a specific talent in something, no matter how seemingly useless and trivial, that we enjoy doing and over which we are the uncontested master?

My own inclination is to say that only a very tiny number of us have a talent that makes us truly unique. Most of the rest of us, while very good or even expert in some particular skill, subject or talent, still face competition from a large number of others who are at least as good as we are, if not better. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t develop and nurture our talent, particularly if it’s something that we really enjoy doing. If God has given us the gift of proficiency at something, who are we to waste it, particularly if we feel something missing in our lives because we don’t use it? To act upon the talents we discover within ourselves could be sowing the seeds of a calling (particularly for those believers who are looking to heed His calling).

What prompted this is that I received an email the other day at work from someone whom I don’t know, but who is apparently in charge of developing some new business opportunities. His email consisted of a call for those of us in the firm who are proficient in one or more high-interest foreign languages to volunteer for an opportunity to do part-time translation of a variety of technical documents. As one who for twenty years exhibited native proficiency in Arabic while doing technical intelligence translation work, I still miss not being able to use the language on a regular basis, though I’ve been surprised lately at how much of it I’ve retained even without regular practice. This opportunity looks like one that I would very much like to take advantage of for the very reason that I would like to continue to maintain proficiency in the language for my own personal reasons.

What’s holding me back is the idea that most of the demand for translation services in this language comes from the State and for purposes that run contrary to my own beliefs and sensibilities. To exhibit any proficiency in this language on any level seems to me to be asking for the attention of people whose attention I would rather not have. Also, there are the opportunity cost factors to consider. Do I devote time to exercising my language skills at the expense of improving my skills and knowledge as an IA engineer, which is definitely more remunerative in vocational terms? Is there a way to productively marry the two skill sets that will add to my marketability to the (real) private sector? Is there a risk that reviving my language skills and demonstrating proficiency in them will result in getting “sucked back” into the military/intelligence world of which I’ve long washed my hands?

Finally there is the idea in the back of my mind that honing proficiency in any foreign language while living in America is an exercise in diminishing returns, both personally and professionally. It seems to me that for all the lip service American industry and government pay to the idea of proficiency in a foreign language, those who truly are proficient in one or more foreign languages are rarely ever rewarded for it on any level. The USG, in particular, is known for its monstrous treatment of those proficient in high-demand foreign languages. To me this is yet another measure of this country’s ever-worsening xenophobia and ignorance of the rest of the globe, not to mention the heavy-handedness of overfunded and ineffective State agencies. The prevailing attitude seems to be, why learn and use a foreign language? Let the rest of the world’s unwashed masses learn the language of the Empire (even though the Visigoths are beginning to outnumber the Romans within Italy, if you know what I mean).

On the other hand it seems counterproductive and self-defeating to not exercise a God-given talent, even if others don’t appreciate it. If this skill is a calling that I need to maintain and improve upon, perhaps this is the best way to jumpstart the process. If anyone else has had similar experiences or run up against this same dilemma, I’m more than open to any suggestions or to learn from your experience.

A "Dilbert" Moment Captured Digitally

I've just returned to my regional office from a meeting at our company headquarters half an hour and fifteen miles away. What should await me on my voicemail when I return? The following message from my project supervisor, with whom I had just sat through a two-hour meeting without the exchange of even five words between us, let alone the communication of anything urgent. Her message, verbatim:

"I really need for you to give me an idea of how many project hours you intend to burn for the remainder of this month, particularly if you aren't planning to use all of the ones that I've given you. We're totally out of money, for everything, including non-task-related incidental charges [travel, supplies, etc.]. By the way, can you support a system demo up at the New Jersey office on Thursday?"

I've just played that message back for the fifth time in about seventy-five seconds. The message should give you a good indication of why I refer to this woman as "blondie." Before even responding to her I already know what she'll say in answer to the two most pressing questions I'll ask: 1) If we're totally out of money, how do you intend to fund my five-hundred-mile round-trip travel to the New Jersey office? 2) Why the hell didn't you bring this up before our meeting this morning when you were standing around gabbing with the wall for half an hour before the meeting started?

But I won't ask these questions because I know I'll get answers along the lines of "Nice weather we're having" and "Guess I need to talk to the client more often, huh?" Instead I'm just going to delete her message, knowing that she'll probably forget all about this little crisis within the next two days, if not much sooner, like she does everything else (my two-and-a-half-year-old grandson has a longer attention span and knows more about information security engineering, to boot).

The scary thing about this woman is that not only is she a retired USAF Lieutenant Colonel who used to administer systems that controlled ICBM targeting and guidance (I'm serious!), she is also power hungry in a way that I've never seen in a simi-moron (never mind that she can barely get out of bed, get dressed, and get herself to work each day without fatally injuring herself in the process). Sadly, her powerlust is inexplicably being accommodated by our group manager, who complains just as loudly about her as I do and definitely should know better. The fact that our client is one of the few clients our company has who knows what's going on and who can and will raise the BS flag isn't going to help things for that poor woman.

I guess the lesson to draw from this is that, contrary to what Scott Adams tells us, the Peter Principle is still very much alive and kicking and that the market sometimes requires a lot of time and pain to weed zoological incompetence out of the workplace. But as I've said before, since the company I work for is basically a treasury-draining welfare queen whose clients are in even sorrier shape than the firm, the rules of the market, as they affect the truly private sector, may not apply here. Let's hope I'm wrong; I can literally feel myself losing IQ points each time I have to engage blondie in a conversation.

Maybe the Germans Are Onto Something

I notice in this morning’s news headlines that Germany’s national elections yesterday resulted in a stalemate, with neither of the two coalitions on the ballot gaining a clear majority. The impact of this situation on the world’s markets notwithstanding, I’d like to think that das deutsche Volk have done the rest of the world a service by sending the message “we’re sick and tired of politics and don’t really give a damn who governs this country; after all, it’s not like any of these politicians have our interests at heart and are going to rule according to the will of the people anyway. Just look at fact that they wouldn’t let us hold a referendum on EU membership.”

My own experience has always been that no matter how they label themselves politically, the average German has always been a Eurosocialist at heart. But maybe, just maybe, the fact that the rest of Europe expects the German economic powerhouse to sustain and subsidize the rest of the EU is finally dawning on the average German voter, who has only to look at his own wallet and prospects for sustained employment to know that this is a losing proposition. I certainly don’t expect the average German to undergo an evangelical conversion to Austrian School economic philosophy, particularly since the average German (indeed, the average European) is as economically benighted as his American counterpart. However, it looks like the German voter has finally worked up the courage to say that the gravy train has pulled into its last station, that neither political faction has captured the confidence of the voting masses, and that government gridlock may not be such a bad thing after all (could it be that they’re finally learning something useful from American politics?).

Whatever the ultimate outcome, it would be interesting to see if the German politicians (or the rest of Europe) take note and start changing their way of doing business.

FEMA Asking for Donations?

I just paid a brief visit to FEMA’s (dreadfully designed) web site and noticed that there is a link to a page soliciting donations and volunteers. This leads me to ask two questions: First, what on earth is a federal agency funded by taxpayer dollars doing soliciting donations, whether for themselves or any other charitable aid agency? Second, why can’t these charitable NGOs for whom FEMA solicits donations do so on their own, or through another NGO such as United Way (not that I would recommend that organization)? I find it hard to believe that any of them would even want FEMA’s filthy fingers anywhere near their cash.

We’ve all seen what happens when the Federal Excuse-Making Agency gets its mitts on money and supplies; both disappear down a dark rat hole, like everything else the government takes, never reaching the people who most need the assistance. FEMA’s performance over the last couple of weeks is ample demonstration of that fact. More to the point, what on earth makes this rogue extra-constitutional body think it has either the authority or the wherewithal to collect or disburse funds from private citizens or corporations? The fact that it even continues to show a face to the public after this debacle is all the proof anyone needs that federal arrogance and stupidity know no bounds. I guess that’s just what we can expect from an organization that has the effrontery to believe that it can actually suspend the Constitution on orders from the president.

I urge you to write your representatives and senators today (or those from another state if yours are neocon fascists or ultra-left-wing statists) and demand that they sponsor bills in both houses to disband this foolish and deadly waste of taxpayer dollars.

Finally, an Update to My June 4th Post – A Response from FoF

For those of you who read my post way back on June 4^th (“Don’t Let Them Ignore Us!”), in which I said that I was going to write to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and challenge him to respond to an article by Michael Gaddy (posted on LRC that weekend). I stated that if I received a reply I would post it here on the blog, even though I didn’t expect to receive a response.

Well, I actually received one about six weeks ago, much to my surprise, from Mr. Timothy Masters, the man to whom Michael wrote his original article in the form of an open letter. The reason I didn’t post anything earlier is that I really didn’t like the idea of keeping this whole issue going, since I had a very good idea what kind of response to expect – that is, a non-response that would not address or answer any of the original questions or concerns raised. Mr. Masters did not disappoint me.

Basically, he rehashed the same argument that he gave to Michael’s friend who had originally challenged Dr. Dobson’s assertions on the Iraq War. I forwarded to Michael a PDF copy of Masters’ response shortly after I received it, giving him my full blessing to use it in any way he wishes in his future editorials. Michael shared my opinion that Mr. Masters’ response was “interesting”, to put it politely. The first thing we both noticed was that the response did not address, let alone answer a single one of Michael’s questions. Masters’ claim that neither he nor Dr. Dobson had ever received an email from Michael is quite curious. Michael informed me that he checked with his lay minister friend who had originally written to Dobson to make sure he had used the right address. His friend verified that he had indeed sent his email correspondence to the right address, so FoF’s claim to never have heard from him has a slightly suspicious odor to it (particularly considering that they found the time and staff to respond to me, a rather less prominent individual than Michael). Rather than attribute any particular motive to Mr. Masters, Dr. Dobson or FoF, I’ll just let you, my readers, read the response for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. Take care to read Michael’s article first, then my letter as posted on my June 4^th blog entry. I doubt that I’ll waste time writing a response to Mr. Masters (Michael said he doubts he will either); it doesn’t seem at this point that it would do any good. Anyway, here is Mr. Masters’ reply. Again, draw your own conclusions.

Dear [Liberranter]:

Thank you for your recent letter to Dr. Dobson and myself (June 6, 2005). Thanks, too, for copying us on Michael Gaddy’s article, “Challenging Dr. James Dobson and His ‘Just War’ Theory,” which was written in reaction to my correspondence with Mr. King. I can assure you that Dr. Dobson would have preferred to send a personal reply if circumstances allowed. Unfortunately, he is out of the office for the summer on a writing sabbatical. I’m sure you can understand why I’ve been asked to respond on his behalf. It is a pleasure to serve you as his representative.

Let me begin by saying that, despite his claim to having contacted us by email, we have no record of having received any correspondence from Mr. Gaddy. If and when his message does reach us, I can assure you that it will be answered with all due diligence and speed. Quick and efficient service of this kind is a top priority for everyone who works here at Focus on the Family.

In response to the concerns you and Mr. Gaddy have expressed, we’d simply like to remind you that there have always been and always will be endless debates about the applicability of Augstine’s “Just War” criteria to any given conflict. In the modern world where technology, methodology, and changing military tactics have altered the face of warfare so drastically, it is not always easy to determine whether a particular military action can be considered “defensive” or not. Similar problems attend the assessment of the other four guidelines laid down by the fourth-century saint. For example, exactly how are we to determine at what point the violence employed “exceeds in injustice the original injury occurred” (criterion #5)? I’m sure you can also see that it is extremely difficult to insure the safety of innocent non-combatants (criterion #3) within the context of an air attack, an approach to warfare that was unknown in Augustine’s day. (As a side note, we don’t believe that it is fair to cite the incidents at Abu Ghraib as evidence of the “unjustness” of the Iraqi conflict; it is far from clear that the abuses perpetrated by the prison guards were in any sense a reflection of official U.S. policy).

In view of these complicating factors, one could easily write several volumes in an attempt to reconcile America’s invasion of Iraq with the details of Augustine’s theory. As a specifically family-oriented ministry, we have neither the time nor the capability to compose a comprehensive dissertation on this subject. Suffice it to say that Dr. Dobson takes issue with your contention that the war on Iraq was purely “aggressive” and “preemptive” and Mr. Gaddy’s unqualified assertion that “there was nothing “defensive about our strike against Saddam.” It’s all a matter of how you define your terms. In the Doctor’s view, the potential for mutually supportive connections between Saddam’s Ba’ath regime and dangerous anti-American terrorists was very real, weapons of mass destruction or no. This, as I tried to explain in my letter to Mr. King, is why he believes the campaign in Iraq is a case where the biblical and theological justifications for the use of force are fairly obvious. Stated simply, he sees it as a component of the much larger “War on Terror.”

We trust this reply has been helpful. Your interest in the ministry of Focus on the Family is genuinely appreciated. Grace, peace, and God’s richest blessing to you.

Sincerely,

Timothy Masters

Office of the Chairman

Again, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about Dr. Dobson’s or FoF’s credibility, either as family relations counselors or true Christian believers. In any case I consider this matter closed.

Gas Shortages in Store for Hawaiians

The residents of Hawaii's islands may want to consider investing in bicycles, because gasoline for their cars will be in very short supply, very soon.

The Aloha State is now nearly two weeks into the ill-considered cap on gasoline prices enacted by the state legislature in response to the "crisis" of rising gas prices. "Crisis" is a strange way to define the current situation, as Hawaii has long been home to the nation's highest gas prices, due in no small part to the inherent costs of transporting petroleum to the islands. But apparently the state's politicians have decided that both the Hawaiian people and those oil companies that provide their gasoline should be exempt from those pesky laws of economics and that fuel prices will be capped accordingly at a level closer to those of the mainland, specific prices to be determined by the state's public utilities commission, being the august body of economic geniuses that it is.

According to Frank Young, a member of a Honolulu group called Citizens Against Gasoline Price Gouging, "The purpose of the cap is so that we move with the rest of the country" (MSNBC News, August 25th).

Moving in what direction, Frank? Toward the socialism that is crippling businesses all over the nation? Increasing government regulation of the market that removes incentives to produce, thus resulting in the very shortages you and your economically illiterate compatriots think you're fighting against?

News flash, Frank: You pay more for gas because, in no small measure, you and your fellow Alohans insist on making it cost more to provide you with said gas (remember the priniciple of "cause and effect"?). In addition to the already steep costs of transporting gas to the islands from the mainland, coupled with the current shortages brought on by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Hawaii also has some of the most stringent environmental protection laws in the nation that add further to the costs of refining and storage.

And by the way, Frank, let me ask you and your compatriots another question. Since Hawaii is one of the smallest states and consists of islands with very little roadway, why do you depend on cars to the extent that you do? The H-1, the island's only interstate highway, endures rush hour traffic that rivals that of the D.C. area in scale. God only knows what the rest of the roads are like at peak traffic hours. Indeed, one of the first questions that popped into my inquisitive little skull on my one and only visit to Oahu a couple of years back is: why can't an island this small be serviced extensively by public transportation or privately operated bus-taxis operating on regular schedules along fixed routes? That might save a few bucks from going into the tank over the long term.

Rationalizations for price caps notwithstanding, this is deja vu all over again. Surely those Hawaiians old enough to remember the 1970s will not feel nostalgia at the return of lines, shortages and rationing, things that will surely follow in the wake of any price cap. To her credit Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, has fought the price caps and has warned of what's to come. Unfortunately for economic common sense, that body closest to the people, the state legislature, overrode her veto and made economic chaos inevitable.

We can only hope that enough misery follows in the wake of this stupid decision to cure people once and for all of the imbecilic idea that government regulation of the economy does anything but harm.

I'm not holding my breath.

Let's Hope SCOTUS Overturns This, PRONTO!

If this isn't an abomination, I don't know what is. Let us hope that the Supreme Court overturns this decision, forthwith, and that impeachment charges proceed against the majority of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that rendered the decision. If this stands, we are finished as a nation of free people.

Not Enough Cops in New Orleans? Take Some of Ours, Please!

I have a very easy solution for the shortage of cops in the Big Easy – take some from Northern Virginia. A bunch of them. Right now. Please. I can say with absolute confidence that most of these badged bullies would chomp at the bit to see some real police action if given the chance, as they are clearly bored out of their skulls here at home.

Over the last year Fairfax County alone has collected nearly ten million dollars in fines from traffic citations. The figures for the region's other three major counties are almost certainly similar. To anyone who drives in this affluent extended suburb of the nation’s capital, this comes as no surprise. It is not uncommon to see two, three, or even four oinkmobiles sitting inconspicuously in supermarket parking lots, vacant lots, or residential driveways (probably without the owner’s knowledge or permission) within a few blocks of each other waiting like cobras for a stray rodent. Over the course of the last few weeks I’ve counted an average of five motorists pulled over on the shoulders of the major roads during the course of my twelve-mile, thirty-minute drive to and from work. I can assure you that these people have not been pulled over because the cop liked the color of their car and wanted to know where they bought it from or wanted to borrow a pen with which to do a crossword puzzle.

Meanwhile I witness at least a half-dozen cars on the road within any given five-minute interval or two-mile stretch of highway weaving in and out of traffic without the benefit of turn signals, dangerously tailgating commercial vehicles, riding the road shoulder at fifty-plus miles per hour, or pulling out of side streets onto the major thoroughfare to cut off oncoming traffic and nearly cause a pile-up. Amazingly, for all of his alleged vigilance, not one of these highly dangerous activities elicits any notice whatsoever from Officer Cruller, who is usually to be found around the corner on a side street ticketing some soccer mom, working man, or grandma for doing five to ten over the limit (though nearly always with the speed of traffic), ensuring that he fulfills his revenue collection quota (and maybe his chances for a promotion). Clearly there’s no profit to be made in fighting what very little violent crime exists in this region or exerting himself to stop truly dangerous drivers from causing harm and havoc. Nah, easier to write a ticket instead.

It is obvious to any conscious observer that an area as affluent as this one will have relatively little violent crime, particularly if a sizeable percentage of the population owns and carries firearms, as is the case here. I really look forward to the day when regional government stops insulting our intelligence and lets it be clearly known that the police are, first and foremost, uniformed revenue collectors, like IRS agents, only with less stylish clothing. They should also admit that they have too many of these uniformed agents to justify keeping on the county and state payroll and that instead they will contract them out to other jurisdictions around the nation that could put better use to their services, especially if the revenue they take in fails to equal or exceed the cost of their employment.

Here’s where the counties of Northern Virginia can cash in, big time. Send a bunch of these boys down to “Nawlins” and points east to deal with the mayhem of looters, rapists, and armed gangs. Bill the respective states or local governments for the cost of their services. Use that money to reduce deficits in Northern Virginia’s own local government budgets. No, it’s not a real libertarian solution by any means, but it is one that will at least reduce the odds of the local regime picking my pocket to fund their wasteful boondoggles and that will put some of these superfluous cops to something resembling productive use.

Why People Hate Economics

Dr. Hans Sennholz, Chairman of the Economics Department at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, has written an excellent article posted on today's LRC that explains why those who believe in the omnipotence of the State, on both the left and the right, hate economics. For anyone curious as to why the relevance of economics isn't more widely appreciated or understood, it's a worthwhile and informative read.

I've spent the last couple of days arguing with posters on blogs belonging to Individ and Heartless Libertarian (both of whom have posted spot-on commentary on why the economy's response to Hurricane Katrina is both normal and ultimately beneficial) that there is no such thing as "price gouging", a popular concept with people these days in the wake of rising gas prices. As I've commented on both blogs, I never cease to be amazed at just how ignorant and fearful of economics the average person is, particularly here in America, and even those with post-secondary educations in at least some lower-level economics courses are mostly Keynesian indoctrinates (worse than no economic education at all, IMNSHO). What we need is more evangelism of the Austrian school, particularly with those not familiar with such fundamental concepts as supply and demand. As far as I'm concerned, getting someone to "unlearn" a Keynesian economics education is harder than teaching someone who is an economic "blank sheet" the Austrian philosophy. The sooner people begin to understand why prices and markets work the way they do, the less nonsense we'll hear out of people's mouths or see out of government at all levels.

Anyway, give Dr. Sennholz's article a read. Grove City College, by the way, is an impressive private institution. My daughter seriously considered applying there several years ago, but her and our finances and lack of adequate scholarship opportunities precluded it from being an option . I almost wish that I had received my own undergraduate degree from them myself, as they are one of two schools in the country that I am aware of (the other being Michigan's Hillsdale College) that actually emphasize free markets and libertarian philosophical thought in their economics and social studies curricula.

More of Liberranter's Thoughts on the Art of Management

It's Tuesday after a long holiday weekend and my first day back at work. As is typical on such days, my brain is not fully back in gear, so I'm not as effective or productive as I normally like to think I am. While I fully expect to be back to normal tomorrow and face the tough deadlines I have to meet by week's end, I'm taking an opportunity during a chow break to share some thoughts that I've drafted in response to an email that I received from the project leader of a task that I provided technical support to for over a year and which is finally coming to a (premature) end a year after I moved on to bigger and better things. The tone of the email is best summed up by the final sentence: "I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this project! We can be proud that we delivered a very professional application/work and have gathered many valuable lessons learned along the way."

Normally I would find encouragement in something like this; however, this project was one of the most dysfunctional I’ve ever worked on (out of many, indeed most, that I’ve ever done for the United States government). It resulted, for all practical purposes, in our company getting fired without actually getting officially fired. The client basically told us, in not so many words, that our services were no longer required. So for this project manager to sugarcoat this for those of us who saw the worst mistakes happen, knowing that most of them were perfectly avoidable, strikes me as disingenuous at best and insulting at worst. It doesn't help us or our clients, present or future, to ignore our own mistakes and refuse to draw meaningful conclusions and lessons from them. That said, let me enumerate some of the "valuable lessons" to take away from this project that I think are applicable to any project in any corporate setting, public sector or private. The fact that I know these lessons will go largely unheeded, not only by my employer, but its competitors as well is also the main reason why I'm so sick and tired of government clients and look forward to the day when I can stop dealing them entirely.

• Valuable Lesson Number One: Pick your clients carefully. Megalomaniac bureaucrats with access to nearly limitless amounts of precious taxpayer money are neither profitable nor reliable sources of income, particularly when they: 1 ) don't have a clue what they really want, but somehow know they have to have it yesterday; 2) insulate themselves from reality; 3) refuse to listen to the very "experts" they've hired to solve their problem; 4) are incapable of making a decision and staying with it; 5) run up massive cost overruns due to the aforementioned reasons and then blame the contractor for them; 6) clearly derive pleasure from setting up political gladiatorial arenas into which they push their contractors and support staff, and 7) surround themselves with servile and spineless staffers who won't rein them into the real world before they hurt themselves . In fact, such clients will cost you very dearly in the long run. Let them become some other company's nightmare, preferably your most bitter competitor.
  
  
• Valuable Lesson Number Two: Have some kind of uniform process structure in place within your organization (preferably one with which every employee is familiar, such as SSE-CMM) before you start building a solution for your client. It tends to greatly reduce the number of "aw shits" that occur over the course of your project, the kind that get clients pissed off and make them not want to do business with you anymore. If we had really created a "very professional application/work", why is the client essentially telling us that our services are no longer required before said "very professional application/work" is formally delivered, client organization-wide, as a finished product?
  
  
• Valuable Lesson Number Three: Don't bring people or teams onto your project whose advice and expertise you do not take seriously and have no intention of really using. Such people don't need the aggrevation you will bring them by marginalizing them and have infinitely better and more profitable ways to spend their creative time and energy. Besides, you are only wasting the client's money by having these people on the project if you are not using them efficiently or effectively. This is especially true in that the client is using your and my money to pay for this project, do not forget!
  
  
• Valuable Lesson Number Four: Communicate, communicate, communicate (see lesson numbers two and three, and five below).
  
  
• Valuable Lesson Number Five: Manage your client and their expectations. Contrary to what some schools of what passes for thought would have you believe, you are not doing your client any favors by telling them what they want to hear if what they want to hear is 180 degrees out from reality. The people of New Orleans no doubt wanted to hear that Hurricane Katrina was going to pass them by completely and that they could go on living their carefree Big Easy lives without a thought to their own safety. Mother Nature, unfortunately, had other ideas and made them loud and clear to the Gulf Coast residents in advance before she bitchslapped them with a Category Four hurricane and flooded them and their property in a dozen feet of toxic water, probably as payback for ignoring her in the first place. Your client will be infinitely less upset and expend considerably fewer resources with having to cope with a project-related disaster that you warn them about in advance than with having to explain to their big boss of bosses a surprise catastrophe that you decided was "too sensitive or upsetting" to mention. Whether or not they choose to act on your recommendation is not really your problem; you've done your job by simply keeping them informed in a timely manner and doing your professional best to provide them with a solution. Refer back to the end of valuable lesson number one for what will result from neglecting to do this.
  
  
• Valuable Lesson Number Six: Note the size of the morsel you plan to bite off when you tell your client that you can do their bidding in record time and with the leanest and meanest of budgets and resources. If that morsel appears big enough to obstruct your windpipe and deprive you of oxygen (something that will make itself evident not long after kickoff), you might want to cut it up into bit-sized pieces. Re-evaluate the amount of time it will take to chew, swallow, and digest each piece. Again, you are not doing yourself or your client any favors by trying to build Rome in a single day using Tinker Toys, Elmer's Glue and an Erector Set. This relates closely to valuable lesson number five.
  

These are just a half dozen "valuable lessons" that are based on my own painful experience. If I didn't have other more pressing things to do I could probably come up with more. As for the somewhat sarcastic and cynical tone of this piece, well, that's just me, as anyone who reads this blog is well aware. It's my way of relieving the stress brought on by having to explain to certain allegedly experienced senior people who should know better things that are so self-evident that an explanation shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Although it was a government client that prompted this post (and thus, one could argue, not really reflective of a company working under market conditions), it seems that all sectors of the economy right now would do well to step back and perform a "common sense" check that will gauge their effectiveness in satisfying their customers needs with the greatest efficiency possible.

I Guess Some People Will Never Get It

In my post yesterday urging people to read Lew Rockwell’s article on Katrina and the Government, I made the following statement: “Perhaps this catastrophe and Dubya's response to it will be the final straw needed to deprogram those people still captivated by Bush and his neocon propaganda.”

Would that such logical consequences actually take place in real-world America. I should have known that this statement would sound like one made by someone high on crack. Allow me to ramble here on something that has really been getting under my skin for a long time.

I received a call last night from my parents in California who are currently playing host to the woman who, twenty-seven years ago when both of us were teenagers, was my partner in a summer exchange program between Germany and America. She and her husband are visiting California with their 13-year-old son for the first time in a decade and my folks wanted to give me the opportunity to chat with her, since we rarely get a chance to communicate except every few years, and then only for a brief few minutes. At any rate, our conversation was a very pleasant one that didn’t touch at all on American politics or current events (and which also brought me to the embarrassing realization that my once-native fluency in German had deteriorated hideously, especially when compared with the fluency of her English, but that’s a whole other post) .

No, it was the conversation with my father before Gudrun and I talked that had me reeling with suppressed rage and disbelief. In our ten-minute conversation that focused itself largely on current events, the very first words out of my father’s mouth were “how can people be criticizing Bush for what’s happening with federal relief? He had no idea this was coming and he’s done everything humanly possible. Just more of the usual leftist bashing!”

I wanted at that moment to scream with all the fiber of my being and launch into a tirade that would have been began with me asking my father what planet he has been living on for the last week and if he has dared to watch any other media coverage of this disaster than that provided by the Faux News Network (a.k.a. Neocon Propaganda Central). I know what the response would have been. Those of you who have read my posts from late July while I was visiting my parents probably have some idea of just how excruciating a conversation with either one of them can be, especially being as obsessed with pseudo-rightwing politics as they are. It’s as if no dialog can take place on any subject without political overtones working their way into it, and woe be unto anyone who dares disagree with the neocon agenda. I just don’t know how to talk to them anymore, since rational discourse on anything is impossible.

Reluctantly swallowing the bait, I asked my father what he thought of Bush’s pathetic, disjointed speech the other day. I also asked him what he thought of Bush being missing in action until four days after catastrophe struck (remember 9/11?), when the Fratboy-in-Chief finally condescended to visit the disaster area (albeit safely ensconced in an aircraft flying several hundred feet above all of the suffering, but apparently still sufficiently close in his mind for him to have “seen the suffering firsthand”, a la Bill Clinton’s “feeling [their] pain”). Did he think this vindicated Bush’s “leadership?”

True to form, Dad praised Bush’s speech as being the epitome of eloquence under adversity and wondered what I would have had Bush do differently. Rather than get into what I knew would be a long, no-win argument that would surely turn ugly, I simply said that I would furnish him with a whole laundry list of things at a later date and time, something that I fully intend to do (and will probably publish here).

So it’s official: my own parents are brainwashed members of one of the most destructive cults ever visited upon the United States of America (and, owing to its belligerent and interventionist nature, the world at large). Maybe it will take a major earthquake hitting central California, one of such catastrophic magnitude that no one goes unscathed, for their views to change. I have no doubt that just as the Bush regime calculated that there is no political hay to be made from rescuing underclass Blacks from a flooded New Orleans, we can similarly assume that far-left California that so loudly gave Bush and Company the middle finger in both elections 2000 and 2004 will be abandoned to the dogs of fate as well should it suffer its own catastrophe. It will be very interesting to see if the Reagan Republican rhetoric that my parents love to platitudinously spout in public will remain in tact once their overpriced, flimsily-built stucco house is in ruins, they are without electricity, running water, or fresh food (hopefully in the middle of Summer), and lawlessness runs rampant through Silicon Valley. No doubt they will focus all of the blame on California’s own loony liberals, whom they will claim are somehow responsible for some nefarious obstructionist act preventing the almighty federal government from providing relief to the beleaguered white middle class who are most entitled to it (I seriously doubt they will be very worried about whether the Bay Area’s urban Black poor or the inhabitants of the barrios of the East and South Bay get their fair share of help). This from a couple who railed loudly against the evils of Social Security until they became old enough to start drawing it, at which point it mysteriously became an untouchable sacred cow.

All of that said, it dawned on me last night that for the next fifteen to twenty years (my parents are both in their mid seventies, but in excellent health) my relationship with Mom and Dad is going to be a proverbial walk on eggshells unless I cease to be concerned about their feelings and simply assert my own viewpoints when they choose to talk politics, consequences be damned. I would much rather have things remain apolitical, focusing our precious times together and conversations on things spiritual and family-related rather than poison the waters between us. Yet like the parent whose drug or alcohol- addicted child’s behavior has turned them into an alien being who makes life unbearable, I realize that they are subsumed by something that gives a certain perverse meaning to their lives. I suppose living three thousand miles away on the other side of the North American continent is a blessing in disguise, but to have such a painful point of contention come between us in what are their twilight years really hurts.

I suppose that ultimately the only thing to do is pray that something brings them to their senses in much the same way that certain events lead one to become born again in Christ (to use a less-than-appropriate analogy). In short, let them see and think for themselves and draw their own conclusions based on reasoned observation and interpretation of facts, which is the only solution any libertarian could sanction. I still might not like the ultimate outcome, but to each individual his own conscience.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

On the Lighter Side....

Cafe du Monde's website is still up and running. I just checked to see if the online store is still functional and it appears that it is.

For anyone who has ever visited the Big Easy, there are few experiences in the world that compare to drinking chicory coffee and getting a sugar high off of beignets at zero-dark-thirty in the morning after a night of indulging at Pat O'Brian's (or any of the other downtown watering holes). I plan in the next few minutes to place an order for several boxes of beignet mix and at least two cans of Cafe du Monde coffee as my own small way to help one of New Orleans' most venerable businesses get back on its feet.

For anyone who has never had the pleasure of tasting either beignets or Cafe du Monde coffee, I say give it a try! It's one of America's culinary landmarks, like Chicago-style pizza, fresh lobster from Maine, Philadelphia cheesesteak sandwiches, or Memphis barbeque.

As Usual, Lew Rockwell Hits the Nail on the Head

Read Lew's article this morning on government and the New Orleans floods. Nothing I can say would bring the point home harder or better. Especially galling will be the nonsensical doubletalk sure to issue forth from both sides of the Bush administration's collective mouth in the days, weeks and months to come, in which they will promise every measure of interventionism imaginable while simultaneously lecturing people on the virtues of self-sufficiency in time of crisis. Perhaps this catastrophe and Dubya's response to it will be the final straw needed to deprogram those people still captivated by Bush and his neocon propoganda.

Katrina, Leviathan, and Human Stupidity

Like the rest of America my heart and wallet go out to those unfortunate victims of Hurricane Katrina who are languishing in the subhuman conditions prevalent along the Gulf Coast. Enough has been written already by writers more proficient than I on specific instances of the State’s pitiful ineptitude in coping with this disaster; allow me, however to make a few observations of my own.

1. This isn’t an isolated historical event; wasn’t anyone paying attention? Only someone from another planet or the brain-dead attached to a life support system could possibly imagine that hurricanes of category three and above are a remote possibility along the Gulf Coast. The last two years alone have produced more horrific hurricanes impacting the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico than in most of the last century, something that meteorologists have been warning us about for at least the last decade. I mean, come on now, did anyone really need anymore convincing after Hurricane Ivan tore through Florida last year? Is our collective memory and attention span so short that we can’t see a pattern in the weather over the last few years and draw something resembling a clue from it? It’s enough to make me think that Mother Nature was trying to do the universe a favor by erasing a piece of human civilization that clearly wasn’t smart or concerned enough to adapt to the changing conditions around it (maybe we can call this concept “meteorological Darwinism”). Add to this the fact that New Orleans alone has managed over the last two hundred years to sink from an elevation of a couple of dozen feet above sea level to the same distance below (something almost impossible without deliberate human intervention), and you can’t help but wonder what cerebral roadblock prevented anyone from seeing all of this coming. I can’t wait to hear from Walter Block, a native of the region, for his views on this whole fiasco.

2. I’m still searching in vain for the constitutional clause delegating to Leviathan all of this power to provide humanitarian aid. Actually I think my biggest concern isn’t so much the flagrant lawlessness of Leviathan’s response to the crisis, but rather the breathtaking ineptitude of its execution that will probably kill more people than Katrina ever would have. Watching the TV news coverage that shows most of the Gulf Coast under six-plus feet of toxic water, people being housed in emergency shelters without electricity, running water, or sanitation; poor refugees having their civil rights violated while trying to seek shelter, and looters running rampant throughout the region in full view of the State’s armed enforcers who’ve suddenly grown cold feet in the face of others armed as they are, I can’t help but believe that the Founders were more prescient than we give them credit for. Surely Jefferson, Madison, et al., knew that an institution so far removed from the people and with so few practical resources at its disposal would never be an effective agent for providing (as opposed to promoting) the “general welfare.” I also have to imagine that were these gentlemen brought back from the dead and could see how far we’ve advanced technologically, economically, and socially since the Republic’s founding, they would no doubt declare that anyone lacking the moral fibre and personal responsibility to provide for their own safety when given sufficient advanced warning (as everyone in this case was) probably doesn’t deserve to be saved except through the mercy of friends and family and certainly not at the public’s expense.

While we’re on the subject of Leviathan’s trampling of the Constitution here, let me ask the question that is on many libertarian minds right now, one that I wish to God some prominent spineless media toady would ask Il Duce Americano, point-blank: When will National Guard troops be called back from the Iraq quagmire to which they were illegally and unconstitutionally dispatched so that the various state governors, at their discretion, can use them to provide humanitarian aid to the folks here at home (not to be appropriated directly by Leviathan itself, which flies in the face of federalism)? Also, how many is will be called back, and will the various governors of the affected states be consulted so that they can summon the quantity and type of assistance that they need to restore public order? Note that the nature of the question is not is Bush going to do this, but when? If Katrina provided us with any benefit at all, it was to give us a stark and much-needed example of the destructive idiocy of the Bush regime’s military policy (see Paul Craig Roberts for a much better analysis of the situation). I can just hear the neocons/liberventionists howling at the very mention of this possibility, but now is as good a time as any for reality to rub itself like sandpaper in these people’s faces.

3. When are Americans going to grow brains and stop building permanent structures on coastal flood plains? I wonder if anyone has ever stopped to wonder why civilizations far older than ours, particularly in the Asia/Pacific region that are subject to equally severe seasonal weather, didn’t and still for the most part don’t build cities along coastal regions at or below sea level. While there are some exceptions (Bangladesh being the most prominent), you will no doubt notice that most coastal cities in the Asia/Pacific portion of the globe are built either on hills or plateaus several hundred feet above sea level or are sufficiently far inland as to not be located directly in the tidal path of coastal flood patterns. While last September’s tsunami caused unprecedented damage to India, Thailand, Burma, and other southwest Asian nations due to its unusual force, meteorologists and seismologists have estimated that the damage would have been much more catastrophic had India’s cities, in particular, been built at or below sea level.

There have been ample lessons to be learned about the inhabitability of coastal regions and the damage that is done to them at certain clearly identifiable times of the year. One of the factors preventing Americans from exercising common sense is that among its other extra-constitutional depredations, Leviathan offers what amounts to premium-free flood insurance to those who exercise recklessly poor judgment, subsidized by you and me. While the feds claim, year after year, that they are going to slap severe restrictions on or eliminate compensation to those who choose to deliberately build on flood plains, such legislation mysteriously never seems to make its way out of congressional committees staffed by politicos whose own summer vacation homes are often built on these very same flood plains. Indeed, only a fool would believe that these people who can’t be responsible enough to balance their own personal checkbooks (let alone the nation’s) are ever going to assume fiduciary responsibility for their own lives and property.

So for those who live in areas subject to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters, I offer the following free advice: pay attention and be prepared. Keep emergency supplies on hand, including a few extra gallons of gas to be used in the event that you have to make a quick exit from your home to some remote location, and be sure to designate a vehicle, if you own more than one, that is to be used for emergency getaways. Beginning in June, pack up an emergency travel bag full of extra clothes and supplies that you can grab at the spur of the moment in the event of a storm warning or evacuation order. Consider alternate locations, either in some other part of your home state or out of state to where you can relocate in time of emergency. Do you have friends or relatives on whom you can impose yourself for a few days or weeks? If so, ask them if they can be prepared to host you in an emergency for a few days or weeks. Offer to compensate them for food or other expenses incurred by your presence. Are you dependant on life-saving medication such as insulin or heart medicine? Ask your doctor about ways to keep emergency supplies on hand for contingency situations or if there are ways to extend prescriptions if you can’t get contact the doctor under emergency conditions. Finally, always –ALWAYS—keep a plentiful supply of bottled potable water at home, to be used only in case of emergency.

It’s just common sense, folks; the kind that seemed to sustain our self-reliant ancestors during the early years of the Republic when technology and population disbursal patterns gave little warning of impending natural disasters. If they could ensure their own survival, we certainly have no excuse today to not do so. It's time to get past the "somebody else is responsible for my well-being" attitude and start taking charge of your own life and safety, particularly given the State's abominable track record in this area.