Mercia Rising

I have a hard time understanding some Republicans.  The same people who don’t trust the government to do, well, anything somehow find it perfectly acceptable for that the same government to lock people up and throw away the key (no trial, no due process) as long as those people are “terrorists.”  Because that isn’t a system susceptible to abuse. 

WASHINGTON [08 Oct 2008]—An appeals court in the U.S. capital has blocked a lower-court order to release 17 ethnic Uyghur detainees held at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay camp without charge since 2001.

The ruling Wednesday, by the U.S. Appeals Court here, temporarily freezes an order earlier this week by a federal judge who said the Bush administration was wrong to keep holding the men because it lacked evidence against them.

The men, all members of the Muslim Uyghur minority concentrated in China’s northwesternmost region, Xinjiang, were cleared for release in 2004 but could face persecution if they are repatriated to China, according to U.S. officials and human rights groups.

If you missed it, these men were cleared for release four years ago, but they are still in custody.

And, just in case you thought you needn’t worry because you’re an American citizen and not part of some Chinese ethnic minority whose name you can’t pronounce.

The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.

. . .

[Police Superintendent] Sheridan said protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations in the databases, but his staff has not identified which ones.

. . .

“I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government,” he said.

There was “no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime” by those classified as terrorists.  I think we have been stretching the definition of terrorist for some time, but now, apparently, protesting the Iraq war or the death penalty is enough to get you labeled with the “T” word. 

You’re probably still OK though.  These were “fringe people,” and you’re not a “fringe person” are you?

[An audio recording of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush, is available for download at the Oyez Project or on iTunes.]

Primary farm producers in the world’s developed countries receive about $280 billion a year in government support. In the European Union, farmers receive a third of their income from government subsidies. Beef and veal producers get more than 70% of their income from subsidies.

A typical cow in the European Union receives a government subsidy of $2.20 a day. The cow earns more than 1.2 billion of the world’s poorest people.

Mark Vaile, Australian trade minister in 2005

(HT Carpe Diem)

Or, what do you mean “we”?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

An insightful point:

Looking at the (long term) consequences of an act is an important part of individual decision making.  This is so obvious that we are led to believe that such consequentialism is possible for society as a whole.  Political consequentialism can take two forms. In its first incarnation, it is assumed that society is a collective effort toward shared goals. This view regards society, and as a consequence “the economy,” as one organism. A good example of this mindset is displayed by Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell when he says, “Our whole economy you could think of as the human body and the credit markets as the circulatory system.” Presumably, any measures that are made to restore circulation will benefit us all.

. . .

In its second incarnation, different interests and values among individuals are acknowledged but it is believed that policies can be designed to optimize a “social welfare function.” This position is a non-starter on epistemological grounds, as evidenced in real life by the lack of consensus among its advocates. This should not be surprising because consequentialism is not possible without guesswork and making personal value judgments. As the political philosopher Anthony de Jasay has argued, at some point someone needs to make decisions that will be binding for all, and consequentialism will ultimately collapse into authoritarianism, plain and simple. Nevertheless, this view has obvious appeal to people  who advocate government intervention and redistribution of incomes.

That brings to mind this Milton Friedman quote at the opening of Capitalism and Freedom:

President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” . . . Neither half of that statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.

(HT Cafe Hayek)

I did not watch the Vice Presidential debate, but I’m pretty sure I got everything I need to know from Will Wilkinson’s live blog.

JustKidding, a friend, reader and frequent commentator on this site was recently asked, in another forum, to provide a list of Libertarian readings that might help someone get an idea of what Libertarians are all about.  He was kind enough to forward his response to me, and I think it is well worth repeating here.  I have included links for those works that are available on line.

Here are some books that I would recommend.  They are not all the most scintillating books, but they will get you started:

1.  An easy start to learning about libertarian philosophy (or classical liberalism, as it is also called) is to read almost anything by Frederic Bastiat, a nineteenth century philosopher.  He is generally concise and easy to understand, something not all philosophers can say.
a. The Law
b. What is seen and what is unseen
c. The petition of the candlestick makers

2.  One thing that most libertarians believe is that the use of government force is inherently immoral, and that in only a few cases is that immoral quality outweighed by the near-universality of the benefits (some level of national defense and law enforcement, for example).  However, most libertarians also believe that, even if it weren’t immoral for government to use force to do “good things,” it is impossible for the government to coordinate the resources necessary for it to do what it claims to want to do.
a. I, Pencil, Leonard Read (discusses the enormous amount of info needed to make a simple pencil)
b. The Use of Knowledge in Society, by Fredrich Hayek (this is a little more complicated reading than I, Pencil, but addresses the same principles in a much more powerful fashion)

3.  The environment is one area where people usually assume that the government has to step in or we humans will destroy everything, but humans are possibly not that destructive, and government can also be devastating to the environment.
a. Free Market Environmentalism, by Terry Anderson
b. The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lumborg

4.  There is a lot written about the natural inclination of government towards being bought off by interest groups (economists call it rent-seeking), but much of it is pretty complicated.  Here is one that isn’t:
a. Beyond Politics, by William Mitchell and Randy Simmons

5.  There are some libertarian books that are just a fun read
a. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein (a sci-fi book about a moon colony - very good)
b. Fair Play, by Steven Landsburg (non-fiction, but written by an economist who writes in a very easily understood and entertaining way)

6.  Finally, if you like these books, and want something a little more in-depth and complicated, try:
a. The Road to Serfdom, by Fredrich Hayek
b. The Fatal Conceit, by Fredrich Hayek
c. The Mystery of Capital, by Hernando de Soto

I hope that helps!

Apparently the what the economy really needs to get back on its feet is more subsidies for wooden arrows and motorsports.

Sweetners added to get the “bailout” through the Senate.

* Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
* Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
* Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
* Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
* Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
* Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
* Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
* Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
* Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
* Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

Every time I think I can’t possibly get more cynical . . .

Harry Hutton’s take on the credit crisis.

Since the credit crisis started I have been cramming my face with cheeseburgers. Now that I weigh 300lb the Federal Reserve will consider me Too Big To Fail.

Once again I have outwitted them.

Paul Johnson in Forbes on the continued relevance of the Angloshere.

The need to keep the relationship flourishing is greater than ever, now that the distribution of power in the world is becoming more diverse and novel combinations of friendship—and enmity—are emerging. It may be that the word “superpower” is out of date and that the old term Great Power is now more important. If so, China and India must be included in this group. The rise in energy prices has emphatically restored Russia to its Great Power status, and it has added enormously to the spendable income of Saudi Arabia—faster than to any other power in history.

. . .

But amidst all this flux the special relationship will remain strong if we are watchful, stable and secure, because it is based not so much on the passing phases of economics and wealth creation but on the fundamentals of culture, language, political philosophy and public morale. When Americans and Brits meet, anywhere in the world, they can begin discussing public issues without the need for preliminaries, because they already have so much in common—and have had for generations.

In the international college of English-speaking people we can also include Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, to a growing extent, India, whose elites share not only the same language but also its political nuances, as well as many of the same constitutional concepts and a regard for such elementary graces as fair play.

Bob Lutz discusses the Chevy Volt, burning rubber and wooing woman on the Colbert Report.

What? You were fiscally responsible and didn’t buy that house you couldn’t afford even though banks seemed to be throwing free money at you?

Sucker! 

The report that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is considering the formation of a vehicle like the Resolution Trust Corp. that was set up during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s left previously solemn investors ebullient. Wall Street hoped a huge federal intervention could help financial institutions jettison bad mortgage debt and stop the drain on capital that has already taken down companies including Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.