Yikes! Slate published an article recently that has gotten a lot of attention regarding how the Federal government poisoned its own citizens during Prohibition:
Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.
1. A divorced couple is asking the legal system to adjudicate their dispute about exposing their child to various religions. This seems like a tough issue to me, not because of the religious issues involved, but over the dispute about whether or not exposing the child to both Judaism and Catholism “confuses” her or has any “harmful” effects. A very wise professor I am acquainted with once said, “Children create problems for any political philosophy,” including libertarianism. Indeed!
2. Most Pakistani women do not read their marriage contracts, in which they often relinquish many rights most in the West take for granted. On a related note, I have often been surprised at how even people in the West do not think long and hard about the legal issues surrounding their marriages: money issues (in particular, in the event of a divorce), issues regarding how they will raise their children, et al. Why do most people just accept the default prescriptions: joint bank accounts, the courts will decide custodial issues (often in favor of women), etc.? As the author of the Slate article points out, your marriage contract is probably the most important contract you will ever enter into, yet even most lawyers don’t bother to think through the implications.
“Avoid activities that will distract you from research. Whatever you do, do not start a blog. That will only establish your lack of seriousness as a scholar.
“Remember that you got into academics in part for the intellectual freedom it allows. So pursue your passions. Do not be too strategic. Be wary of advice from old fogies like me.”
Hmm. I choose to go with intellectual freedom and pursuing my passions.
A few days ago, I posted in favor of a debt commission. I just wanted to clarify my views on the subject. My preference would be to phase out all entitlement benefits and impose stringent controls on the way Congress can appropriate money, but the former will definitely not happen, and the latter has a frighteningly low probability. But that is precisely the point. Rather focus on particular policy victories (which are few and fare between), I am more interested in how many people are becoming libertarians, or at least more skeptical of big government, which nowadays, is a common phenomenon. The more attention the federal fiscal crisis receives, the greater the “net influx” of libertarians will be.
Furthermore, raising taxes now (along with at least modest reform of benefits) is better than completely kicking the can down the road, at which point the options will be even less palatable: even more tax increases being weighed against even greater benefit cuts, along with a more-enfeebled economic position for the US in the global economy. If the recommendations are heavy on the tax-raising side, at least it will introduce Americans to the reality of the fiscal problem in a very poignant way, by hurting their pocketbooks. This, hopefully, will result in more libertarians.
Simply put, without getting into the nuances of the trade-off between the two, I would value more libertarians above short-, or even long-term policy successes. Of course, policy successes are great, and ultimately, that is what most people are after. However, more libertarians will eventually lead to more liberty-friendly government, and in a more sustainable way. Does it really matter if the government is more libertarian for a few years, only to be voted out of power?
A couple of days ago, Alexander McCobin of Students for Liberty, applauded the inclusion of GOPround, a gay Republican group, at CPAC. He was roundly booed, then cheered. Following his remarks, Ryan Sorba gave an anti-gay rant. Both have been broadcast on national television and have received plenty of attention in the blogosphere. You can see the videos here.
The bottom line is clear: Many conservatives are not truly committed to liberty in any fundamental way. Rather, depending on the issue at stake, they pick and choose the extent to which they incorporate liberty into their position. I applaud Alexander’s courage in defending liberty despite hostile elements in the audience. He serves as in inspiration to us all. He is right. They are wrong.
1. California’s insurance regulations have forced WellPoint to increase its premiums. As expected, the politicians are using the company as a scapegoat. More here.
4. Illinois is essentially insolvent. Interesting excerpt: “In the short run, then, I wouldn’t be surprised if substantial state aid finds its way into the jobs bill. That may buy Illinois and other struggling states some time.”
The disability program is already in a negative cash flow position and the retirement and survivor’s income program is expected to have a negative cash flow in 2010-2011.
I just read a comment a from a reader over at chicagobusiness.com, where he suggests that people who collect unemployment benefits should have such hand-outs subtracted from their social security benefits. In other words, if you collect unemployment benefits for a year, the age at which you can collect Social Security gets pushed back by one year. This sounds like an excellent idea to me. It would pacify those who favor unemployment benefits on humanitarian and other grounds, while creating some incentive for people to look for jobs and to be less picky in their job search (Beggars can’t be choosers.). Of course, it is uncertain how effective the incentive would be, given that for many people, retirement is too far in the future for them to worry about today, and besides, there is policy and fiscal uncertainty surrounding Social Security decades into the future.
Obama might follow through on creating a commission to addrses the federal government’s long-term fiscal problems within 10 days. I am not up-to-date on the details of the proposed commission, but regardless, I am generally for it. Whether or not you like it, taxes are going up, entitlements will be cut (either through legislation or through de facto means, like raising the retirement age, not covering certain medical treatments, etc.), and the future of our country is at stake. The more publicity this issue gets, regardless which political party might benefit from it, the better. Whether or not the commission accomplishes much, neither political party will be serious about addressing long-term fiscal problems until there is enough popular pressure on them to do it. More publicity leads to more people being aware of the problem, which will lead to a greater probability of slowly addressing it.
