A Shift in Conscience

So, noted playwright and filmmaker David Mamet has outed himself as an ex-Liberal -- in the Village Voice no less! Basically, his turn towards libertarianism has happened for the same reason he was originally became a liberal in the 1960s: a believe that government is inept in the best of times, and corrupt and oppressive in the worst. In the 1960s, that belief led many to liberalism, which then stood in support of civil rights and the Voting Act, and against the Vietnam war. In other words, the biggest gains for the cause of liberty and freedom could be found in the left-wing movement. But in the aughts, distrust of government and support for civil liberties nearly necessitates some libertarian tendencies, and so Mamet moved in that direction.

I suspect that many people in the coming years will go in the "left-libertarian" direction that is best represented (at this point in time) by Obama. In this view, the government isn't a nanny but a tool; it isn't an end but a means. Of course, who knows what an Obama presidency would look like, so this might be a projection, but one could hope that the left principles of full social equality for everyone might meet the right principles of government skepticism to forge a new coalition dedicated to liberty, but without coercion.

More on FISA

A few weeks ago Roger Pilon, Cato's legal VP, wrote an essay in support of Bush's desire for practically unlimited wiretapping powers. This called me, and others, to call into question Cato's dedication to liberty and small government.

Thankfully, Cato has published a dissenting view, by Tim Lee, which neatly slices through some of the terrible arguments in favor of giving the executive branch an even looser leash.

FISA Me Once, Shame on Me...

The Cato Institute is begging us to ask whether or not they actually believe in liberty and small government. They've allowed their legal VP to opine in the WSJ that the president ought to have legal authority to wiretap just about anything, everything, and anyone that he pleases so long as he mentions "terrorism" or "national security" while he's doing it. I won't link to the original piece, as it is too disgusting, but Julian Sanchez's detailed take-down is a must-read for anybody interested in the issue.

As Stephen Colbert, riffing on Patrick Henry, once said: "Give me liberty... or do whatever it takes to make sure I don't die."

Libertarianism as Anti-Conservatism

Will Wilkinson dismantles some typical groupthink from conservatives:

Benjamin Storey & Jenna Silber Storey: “The moral vacuity of dogmatic libertarianism is poisonous to public life.” Translation:

Libertarianism is dangerous because it discourages juvenile romantic attachment to higher things — meaningful things – like Honor, Virtue, and the indescribable joy of sacrificing one’s life to the service of the American Volksreich. All libertarians care about is superficial shit like not starving, living a long time, and being creative and happy. Blah blah blah. But, really, what’s the point of living to 200 if all you do is enjoy yourself the whole time? I mean, don‘t you want to know what it is like to kill a man? DON’T YOU WANT TO TASTE BLOOD!? Besides, virtue.

Vote John McCain.

Oh, goodness that’s not fair! But, really, that whole thing is just as embarrassing as misspelling ‘Friedman’. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that National Greatness Conservatism, like all quasi-fascist movements, is based on a weird romantic teenager’s fantasies about what it means to be a grown up. The fundamental moral decency of liberal individualism seems, to the unserious mind that thinks itself serious, completely insipid next to very exciting big boy ideas about shared struggle, sacrifice, duty, glory, virtue, and (most of all) power. And reading Aristotle in Greek.

I sometimes think that liberal individualism is something like the intellectual and moral equivalent of the best modernist design — spare, elegant, functional — but hard to grasp or truly appreciate without a cultivated sense of style, without a little discerning maturity. National Greatness Conservatism is like a grotesque wood-paneled den stuffed with animal heads, mounted swords, garish carpets, and a giant roaring fire. Only the most vulgar tuck in next to that fire, light a fat cigar, and think they’ve really got it all figured out. But I’m afraid that’s pretty much the kind of thing you get at the Committee for Social Thought. If you declaim the importance of virtue loudly enough, you don’t have to actually think.

I find his last paragraph to be entirely correct.

Preach It, Brother

Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher, explains to the Canadian government that he doesn't have to explain to the Canadian government why he decided to reprint the Danish Muhammed cartoons.

The "Canadian Human Rights Commission" doesn't seem to understand.

Preach It!

Annie Duke -- professional poker player, Columbia grad, and mother of four -- testified before Congress on the illegitimacy of anti-internet gaming laws in the U.S. She even brought John Locke and John Stuart Mill (and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) into it! The manner in which the bill outlawing online gaming (it was snuck into a Ports Defense bill) is shady, and the philosophy underpinning prohibition is disingenuous. Somehow, this woman was able to illustrate all these point -- and more! -- in a few minutes before Congress. The video is fuzzy, but the arguments are clear.

The WTO ruled against the U.S. law, saying that it went against the U.S.'s requirements in the WTO charter. The WTO acknowledged the right of the U.S. to opt out of WTO requirements for moral reasons, but ruled that the U.S. was not doing so because it still permitted gambling on horse races and state lotteries to continue online. Hopefully, this matter may be resolved.

This Salon.com article provides further background, and is the source for Duke's video.

Enemy of the State

There is a mounting case for impeachment (wiretapping, extortion of the military, Plame, torture, intentional and acknowledged violation of laws, etc.) and Balkinization piles on:

I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

To me, the worst thing about this isn't that Dr. Murphy was detained, or that he was on the No-Fly in the first place. The worst thing about this is that the security guards acknowledged this was sort of profiling was systematic. That the Bush admin is making a habit of intimidating those who they consider to be political opponents. That the Bush admin is willing to sacrifice the Bill of Rights so easily for cheap revenge.

I would be shocked if Pres. Bush personally ordered this guy be placed on the No-Fly list. I would be amazed if he even knew about it. But his employees follow his policies. Obviously, there is a systemic effort to intimidate those who criticize the president, as we witnessed before in the "Quaker terrorist" incident. Add to this Bush's constant appeals to executive privilege, his doctrine that and his consistent opposition to Congressional oversight, and plenty of other abuses/assumptions of power over the past six years, and a clear pattern is emerging: Bush is an authoritarian.

And so he should be opposed. I doubt that impeachment is possible, and that's a shame. But he should be opposed. Republicans won't do it, which is maddeningly stupid. After all, the next president will likely be a Democrat, and he will abuse his power in the same way that Bush has, but the GOP won't have a damn thing to say about it. The "conservative" base, which stopped looking anything like actual conservatism a long time ago, has dug its own grave with its blind support of Bush. Rightly, voters demanded a change in the next election, and the backlash will likely last for a few more election cycles. And the GOP will likely get a taste of its own medicine. And everyone will get screwed.