As a native of West Virginia, I am often compelled to defend my home - where most of my family has lived since the 1700s.

The media likes to play games. Sometimes they will work to advance one group by dispelling stereotypes, and other times they will work to reinforce them. Usually when it comes to West Virginia, they like to reinforce. They will intentionally avoid those Mountaineers who are college-educated with good dental health. They forget West Virginia has also produced people like Gen. Chuck Yeager, former Sec. of State Cyrus Vance, and other good people without titles.

As I climb down from my pulpit, thanks for sharing the clip. You’re right, it does make for the strongest argument to keep the Electoral College.

Comment by Pepe Johnson — May 16, 2008 @ 10:36 am

[…] Brad @ The Liberty Papers   […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Why Obama Lost West Virginia — May 16, 2008 @ 11:14 am

As an extremely small state (only three Representatives and therefore five electoral votes), West Virginia is of course overrepresented in the Electoral College.

Comment by KipEsquire — May 16, 2008 @ 11:17 am

And I like the electoral college instead of democracy because it means that smaller states like Kansas and West Virginia have a say in national politics and aren’t completely drowned out by population centers like New York, Florida, and the People’s Democratic Republic of California. :)

Comment by UCrawford — May 16, 2008 @ 11:32 am

That said…

“I don’t like that Hussein thing…I’m sick to death of Hussein”

Fucking idiot shitkicker…she is a poster child for all that is wrong with rednecks. Let’s see Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy show that side of the rural American demographic in their crappy routines.

Comment by UCrawford — May 16, 2008 @ 11:39 am

Pepe,

I don’t mean to single out West Virginia. There are ill-informed morons that cancel out votes nationwide, especially here on the left coast. They just seemed a particularly poignant example.

All,

I’m actually not for or against the electoral college, nor for or against democracy, per se. I am in favor of expanding freedom and individual rights. If democracy or the electoral college do so, then I’ll take it. If libertarian judges strike down state power (in opposition to the democratically-enacted policy) via judicial fiat, I’ll take that too. I just often point out that democracy is not a panacea in advance of liberty, and “50%+1″ does not make a government legitimate or correct in its actions.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 16, 2008 @ 11:41 am

the tyranny of the majority, yeah.

the only intended democratic process in this republic is supposed to be elections. personally i’m against the electoral college as they can be corrupted into a decision easier than the general population can. not that it really matters anymore, Diebold took care of real voting.

Comment by oilnwater — May 16, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

oilnwater -

A cheap shot at Diebold? C’mon, you can do better than that.

Besides, you think Diebold has got any chance against the insane gerrymandering and vote buying of the people already in power?

Comment by Quincy — May 16, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

hey i was expecting much worse than that just for bringing it up. at any rate, when you look at the company’s ownership the activities and people you mentioned go hand in hand with the machines.

man i guess i’m a lot more anti-corporate than i realized. it’s just that i see these days as the same sort of technologically stagnant era as before the automobile and even decades after, where societies and economies suffered and corporations did take serious advantage of people and put no investment in R&D or real development and instead used their resources for either simple control of populations or distributing stagnant product. and now in this era we’re facing the same sort of dark age where the Computer Age is starting to run flat and all we get are rehashed walkmans and phones, while also the energy and transportation infrastructure is in the early stages of complete crumble. the whole scene just feels of deep decay, and old tech now being refined for simple control.

completely unrelated tangent to the topic? you bet! it’s really late and the loony in me is shining %100 :P

Comment by oilnwater — May 16, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

all someone has to do to point out the root issue is indicate that Federal recogition of marraige affects Federal taxation rate. and so being a necessarily defined status before the United States, must (in their eyes) be uniform throughout the country. in the Civil War era there was no IRS or Federal income tax.

people inject myriad other rhetorical, moral or ethical viewpoints on marraige, but Federal income taxation is the magna mater of definition of marraige before the Federal govt, like so many other things.

Comment by oilnwater — May 16, 2008 @ 7:55 am

I suspect that in 20-30 years people will end up viewing gay marriage the same was as they did viewed interracial marriage 20-30 years after the fights about that. Some will always hate it, but eventually they’ll become the minority. I think Barr is correct in how it should be approached, not just because it is Constitutional, but because it’s the best approach for gaining acceptance…all federal mandates do is create resentment and polarize opinion by micromanaging how states run their community in a manner that the Constitution does not clearly allow (as the feds did with abortion).

Comment by UCrawford — May 16, 2008 @ 8:50 am

UC,

Coincidentially, California was among the first states whose Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws. That is in 1948. It took the rest of the country 20 years to catch up.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 16, 2008 @ 8:58 am

I agree it is the best approach for allowing same-sex marriage. Reading the comments, I felt like someone was reading my mind. I think most Americans find themselves in the proverbial “middle” on many, many issues - especially “gay issues.” Once a large number of people, or even a majority of states, have created same-sex marriage or civil unions, it will be a matter of course before the entire nation has accepted it. Forcing it down the throats of Americans will only make them refuse and create laws that will have to repealed where no laws exist today.

Comment by Pepe Johnson — May 16, 2008 @ 10:48 am

Our government sure has a strange take on drugs. If you want to take them to get high, or to improve sports performance, or to dull the pain of debilitating diseases, you deserve to be put in jail. But if they’re trying to make someone malleable and complacent, such as schoolchildren, drugs are great!

That would be my nomination for “quote of the day.”

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 15, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

This is an interesting angle (government intrusion) on the Washington Post article series. I’m glad to read your commentary!

Comment by J. Gomez — May 15, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

Illegal immigrants fleeing Arizona has brought economic prosperity!

A MUST READ…?

All law abiding citizens should read this, but not parasite employers
Read about the successful expedited economic impact of Illegal aliens fleeing Arizona

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/15/striking-changes-in-arizona-as-illegal-immigrants-flee-the-state/#comment-62672

Get your pro-illegal immigrant Democrats to sponsor the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088)

Comment by Brittanicus — May 15, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

Brittanicus,

A thought experiment: Imagine if 90% of the population of the Earth suddenly disappeared, leaving everything else intact.

At first, it would be great; you could move into Donald Trump’s digs, drive a Lamborghini, eat the finest foods of of the finest china.

It would be great until you had consumed the wealth that had been produced before the disappearance. Then you would be forced to limit your consumption to what you and your fellow 10% could actually produce. Your luxurious life would end, and you would inexorably find yourself enduring a tougher one full of deprivations. Guess which part of the narrative you guys are experiencing right now?

From the article, it see that much of the “improvement” is in the reduction in shortages in the socialist services provided the state. This is *not* something to crow about. Invariably as a coercive socialist system gets overstressed, the commissars hit upon the idea of reducing demand via violence. After a few short term gains, the system continues its death spiral, since none of the structural causes of the stress (the impossibility of rational provisioning of services - the inherent rigid mismatches between supply and demand) have actually been addressed.

Comment by tarran — May 16, 2008 @ 5:20 am

Ahh, Chicago. One of the most corruptly-run cities in America. But at least we can have foie gras again!

That is, if you can afford to pay the 10.25% sales tax on it…

Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 14, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

Ahh, Joe Moore…idiot whore to the labor unions. Penn & Teller absolutely decimated him as a corrupt stooge in their episode about Wal-Mart.

Comment by UCrawford — May 14, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

Brad,

Corrupt ? Chicago ? Surely, you jest.

Doesn’t matter, though, I can still find the best martini on the planet there ;)

Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 15, 2008 @ 3:58 am

Doug,

Where? I took my wife to the bar on the 96th floor of the Hancock building once while I was there, and they had some good martinis (made better by the “top of the world” feeling you get drinking 1,000 feet above the city streets)…

But my wife and I are headed back for a wedding next month, and spending at least one day downtown, so if you have any suggestions, let me know…

Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 15, 2008 @ 8:16 am

The Drake Hotel. Coq D’Or Room.

Though I have been to the restaurant at the Hancock Tower. That’s a view you can’t beat.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 15, 2008 @ 8:19 am

Ahh, the time we went to the Hancock we stayed at the Drake. Somehow we got a great deal (”club-level” room, including complimentary drinks in the evening & breakfast for only $200)… Ended up eating dinner at Ditka’s, though, which was pretty good.

I’ve heard the Signature Room (restaurant on the 95th floor) is good but overpriced, which was why we just went to the bar up there for drinks.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 15, 2008 @ 8:32 am

Have you read much of the book Doug? Do you recommend it to fellow libertarians and those interested in American history?

Comment by Ben — May 13, 2008 @ 11:33 am

Ben,

My copy of the book is on it’s way from Amazon, but I did read the Reason excerpt and it seems really good.

I’ve also read other things Healy has written and I like those.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

we’ve only got ourselves to blame for the way things have turned out.

I’m pretty sure I don’t share any blame.

Comment by Joshua Holmes — May 14, 2008 @ 9:38 pm

Obama wants to relax medical marijuana enforcement by the feds, but is appalled by a drug that doesn’t have any of the “scary” consequences of hard drugs.

Nobody’s getting “high” on steroids, nobody is knocking off liquor stores to get their “fix”, as most of the people who he’s trying to convince not to use them are multi-millionaire athletes or college students aspiring to become multi-millionaire athletes.

It just goes to show you. Obama isn’t pro-freedom just because he’s against the criminalization of medical marijuana. He isn’t in favor of reducing the ability of the federal government to control your choices in life. He simply wants to enact his own preferences into law, and his own preferences are not against medical marijuana.

Either that, or this is merely pandering of the highest order. “Steroids in sports?! I’m SHOCKED! I, as President, will save us from this unholy scourge!”

Comment by Brad Warbiany — May 12, 2008 @ 9:03 am

Either that, or this is merely pandering of the highest order. “Steroids in sports?! I’m SHOCKED! I, as President, will save us from this unholy scourge!”

“Either”? :-)

Comment by Jeff Molby — May 12, 2008 @ 11:16 am

Why any of these fools care about steroids is beyond me.

Comment by LBest — May 14, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

Unfortunately you miss a fundamental source of fear: the fear that they will go to hell for eternity if they say no to the bishop. Because of this even if all persecution from the outside ceased immediately institutionalized abuse would still continue.

Also, just legalizing polygamy is unlikely to stop persecution by itself. The historical persecution of polygamists goes far deeper than just bigamy laws. Even non-polygamist mainstream Mormons have found significant anti-Mormon sentiments from others, and add in isolation and “funny clothes” and the like and some people just seem to think that’s some sort of invitation to bully, oppress and condemn.

I do think legalizing polygamy would seriously help by forcing law enforcement and helping the media differentiate between illegal (but not too harmful) polygamy that isn’t really that distinguishable from adultery, having lots of baby mamas or the various other more socially acceptable familial forms and illegal (and quite harmful) abuse of men, women and children.

Comment by V.S. — May 7, 2008 @ 11:43 pm

Mother Nature supports monogamy, not polygamy. Polygamy is anti-social. There are not even two women for every one man. Therefore, if polygamy were legalized, who would collect all the extra “wives”? (In reality, concubines.) Rich men would collect concubines for their harems, but poor men would have to do without a sexual partner with whom to raise a family. That would make for social unrest. And concubines and harems are part and parcel of backward Third-World countries where women are 2nd-class citizens. They do not belong in any First-World country that claims men and women are equal.

Comment by Jancis Andrews — May 8, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

Jancis, I give you an assignment;
write 100 times: “That which is not forbidden is not compulsory.”
If this is confusing, ask yourself whether adultery should be legal or illegal.

Oh and having one alpha males who mates with all the females in his band and prevents other males from mating with them shows up repeatedly in the great apes, including our species. From an evolutionary standpoint it is the natural, or primitive condition of human societies. That’s not to say I advocate for people to set up their families that way - most women do not want to live in a polygynous group. Nor do most men want to live in a polyandrous family. Thus the fraction of polygamous families would be quite small if it were legalized and not stigmatized.

Edited to fix numerous spelling errors :(

Comment by tarran — May 8, 2008 @ 12:11 pm

minor correction: “That which is not forbidden is not necessarily compulsory.”

Comment by Jeff Molby — May 8, 2008 @ 12:22 pm

One other thought: I find it interesting that when one is talking about polygamy, most people assume that one is really talking about polygyny: one man paired with multiple women.

We could just as easily be talking about polyandry which is one woman paired with many men, which is rare but not unheard of.

It is kind of strange how everyone makes a simmilar assumption about something that Jancis claims is not a part of human nature.

Comment by tarran — May 8, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

Very interesting article. I especially liked the quote given from the woman who grew up in a polygamous family. If only more people would hear those kinds of stories instead of the ones where woman and children are being abused!

As for what Jancis said about men out numbering women, statistically women out number men world wide. Women are about 51% of the world’s population, men are 49%. In polygynous societies less than 5% of married men have multiple wives, and even then they usually only have two. Large harems are not very common.

As for being anti-social, what’s wrong with two or more women falling in love with a man who is able to provide for his family? Often that is the case with Christian polygyny (not what the FLDS practice). It is not to gain status or to become more holy. It’s about adults being in love.

Again, good article. I enjoyed reading it!

Comment by WSG — May 8, 2008 @ 11:44 pm

Jancis, “Mother Nature” overwhelmingly supports polygyny over monogamy. More than 90% of all human cultures have been polygamous throughout history, and of the 1200 or so documented in modern times, more than 80% are polygamous.

As for equality, is it EQUAL to tell adult women that they cannot have the one man they choose? What about their rights?

Anyway, the fact is that men and women aren’t equal–they’re different. Equal means the same. Physically and mentally, men and women are very different. Value-wise, men and women are equal, of course, but to say that polygamy makes them unequal when it is by CHOICE, is to ignore the fundamental differences between the genders in spite of science and Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Comment by John_for_Christ — May 8, 2008 @ 11:52 pm

I am glad that many of you can look so dispassionately upon polygamy, but something is missing in your legalistic arguments:

the suffering of the women and children

I am from a fifth generation mormon pioneer family. The first polygamist in my family joined the mormon church in 1835.

I heard as a child many personal stories from
grandparents of how they suffered and their
mothers suffered in polygamy.

I have read many pioneer journals and histories.
There is no way that polygamy or polygny or polyandry or plural marriage or multiple wives should be legalized or decriminalized.

It would be bad social and bad political policy.
SLAVERY and POLYGAMY (POLYGNY,POLYANDRY,ETC.) ARE FOREVER LINKED.

There is no equality in SLAVERY/POLYGAMY/BIGAMY.

Comment by ann mere — May 10, 2008 @ 11:29 am

ann - with respect, the problem is not with polygamy itself, but with a religious belief that in effect treats women as slaves of their fathers or husbands. By making women’s salvation dependent on their husband’s salvation and prohibiting divorce, the Mormon church effectively made women chattel of men.

Even if the Mormon church had been monogamous, you would still have the tales of misery.

If a person chooses to be in a relationship that isn’t monogamous, it is none of our business. I have no business stopping my neighbor from marrying anyone for any reason.

If a man tries to compel a woman to marry him by force, then it is a crime regardless of how many (or how few) wives he already has. Prosecute that crime, rather than outlawing all sorts of victimless behavior in hopes that somehow among all the innocent people who are harmed a few criminals will be thwarted.

Comment by tarran — May 10, 2008 @ 6:07 pm

I agree with what Tarran says. Polygamy is not the root of the problem of woman and children being abused. Woman and children have been, are being, and, unfortunately, will be abused with or without polygamy.

I am a woman who is not opposed to polygyny, but will not stand for abuse. I will not allow my husband to harm either myself or our children, but I wouldn’t mind if he had a second wife. The key here is that it’s not for gain on a religious level for us. It is simply a choice of a different life style than most others. He is not abusive, I am not forced to stay home, I don’t have to wear funny clothes or go to church everyday. It’s not about our religion (we’re not Mormon). When you turn that, or anything really, into a symbol of religious status, thats when you end up with problems.

Marriage should be between the people who are entering into that union and no one else. It should be for reasons of love, not force or gain.

Comment by WSG — May 11, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

As far as nature being supportive of monogamy but not polygyny, I offer the following:
There would be enough women to go around because there’s enough men who find men attractive it leaves a surplus of women. I suspect this will increase hugely as we reach the end times.
IF, and I say if for a reason, polygyny was legalized, women would be able to choose a good man who’s already married and avoid the ‘losers’ who just sit on their butts. The only thing women would find oppressive is they wouldn’t be able to rule the roost nearly as easily as in a monogamy only society. But if they love their man, are treated well as they should be, it’s not oppressive at all. Our government is way more oppressive than marriage…. Then again, considering the state of monogamy, maybe that is more oppressive….
Plenty of men stay single for whatever reason, if we can only have monogamy, that leaves many women with poor options. Statistically more women wish to marry than men, seems to be built into them. So actually this creates a situation that is anti-social because women fight amongst themselves for rights to the man they control. Ever see a cat-fight between women competing for a man? It’s just not pretty, and is certainly not an indication of an evolving society.

So, this makes me wonder which society is more progressive, one that allows multiple wives where a woman isn’t abandoned for another, or one that recognises a responsible man can love more than only one wife?

Comment by KGM — May 16, 2008 @ 3:11 am

KGM

What about the women who don’t want a man? This morning my wife was commenting that men tend to be slovenly pigs- that pigs were in fact preferable as they didn’t put on pretentious airs (Someone forgot to clean up after capping a marathon coding session with a late night snack). ;)

I also notice that you talked about legalizing polygyny but not polyandry… Out of curiosity, why?

Comment by tarran — May 16, 2008 @ 5:26 am

As Radley Balko says, “If this were causing people to drive recklessly, you’d think it would be covered by laws against . . . reckless driving.”

It is, of course, but that’s a heck of a lot harder to enforce. Police work is supposed to be easy, donchaknow.

Comment by Jeff Molby — May 7, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

It’s too bad that so few people realize that the single most likely cause of their death is a car accident. If we can reduce car crashes a percent or 2 with this law then it is a good law.

The most dangerous thing you will ever do is be in a moving car. My step-daughter’s father was killed by an idiot who didn’t care about driving safety.

Comment by SOBrien — May 7, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

SObrien, we could dramatically slash the death rates of children by passing a law forbidding them from riding in cars. We could save countless lives by forbidding women from riding in cars.

Would such a law be “worth it”?

Comment by tarran — May 7, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

laws controlling human behavior “for the sake of public saftey” are iffy at very best. most often these laws needlessly restrict actions and more importantly they serve as an excuse to initiate search and seizure at traffic stops. that is the essence of these types of laws and why i personally oppose them vigorously.

on the other hand, you have a law like this one mentioned that could be justified from the view of a libertarian principle of “not illegal unless it harms other people in the community” (my paraphrase). but ultimately i consider driving a vehicle as a vital practice to society, which it obviously is if you want to do almost anything, and it comes with an acceptable shared risk to maximize liberty. passing laws like this pushes the concept of pre-emptive guilt in my opinion.

but the entire thought of laws passed for pre-emptive purposes and supposed guilt are the way things are done today. it’s a trend that looks like it’s only going to gain momentum as our society slowly and surely moves toward totalitarianism in the Age of Scarcity/Austerity.

Comment by oilnwater — May 8, 2008 @ 8:39 am

that cuban dissident you met in habana injected you with bad information –as usually they do to foreigh guys that dont understand what cuba is: that butter factory is illegal because factories are only legal for state or foreign, or mix state/foreing enterprises. sucks, we know, but thats the fact. if the guy made his money illegaly eventually will fall –again, sucks, we should get granted the right to do our own business, etc etc but thats the reality anyway. don’t pay attention to dissident comments too much, they are people that want to have some changes and some of them are right about it, but others usually distort reality to just get some funds out of naive foreigners :) they just say the words outsiders want to hear LOL! I dont think there is a state-run honey pot to catch and send good money pockets to cut sugar cane :) this story is very usual to hear here. And about what the outside news uses to compare: a cuban has $15 wage and the cells cost $100: that’s said because non of those reportes have never come here and do not understand what cuba is: almost **everyone** has from some way or another –illegal factories and business, legal factories and business, family pumping down money from outside, stealing, overworking, etc… any means– they have enough money to buy a cell. dont believe me? come here and see the loooooong lines to get one, but not only there, come and see the loooong lines to get a $1k bike!!! From where the money comes? Who knows exactly hehehehe!!!
btw, yes, im cuban, i live here

Comment by cubanito — May 6, 2008 @ 7:41 am

Brad,

I wouldn’t worry too much about it. As with all government actions, the crackdown on illegal income will have its unintended consequences too. After all, how do you think the Cuban people have survived for as long as they have…by black marketeering and hidden income. Take that away and the Cuban people have a whole new incentive to break from the system because the government is incapable of supporting them without that underground economy.

Same thing was true in Russia with their agricultural sector in the bad old days of communism…the best production came either from the few private farms the Soviets allowed to exist or from black marketeers misappropriating state crops. Take those two away, and the country would have starved if they had to depend on the government to provide for them.

Comment by UCrawford — May 6, 2008 @ 10:24 am

How stupid does [she] really think we are?

Stop talking like some elitist economist!

;-)

Comment by KipEsquire — May 5, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

If I qualify as an elitist economist, then we are in real trouble :)

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:47 pm

I don’t know how many times I read over the post and never noticed the “she” was missing. Thanks for pointing that out.

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

Both Hillary and Osama Hussein Obama are reflexively anti-gun. As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!

Comment by Wendy Weinbaum — May 6, 2008 @ 10:25 am

Wendy, just wondering why you felt it important to give Obama’s name like that? You didn’t even bother putting his first name, Barack.

Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

Aimee,

Wendy, just wondering why you felt it important to give Obama’s name like that?

I’m going to assume that it’s for the same reason that she chose to identify herself as Jewish immediately after she did it…because she somehow thinks that being a member of a group that’s been in conflict with Muslims and black people makes it okay for her to make racist comments about Muslims and black people (despite the fact that Obama’s not a Muslim).

By all means, feel free to correct me if there’s another reason for it, Wendy.

Comment by UCrawford — May 6, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

UCrawford, that was the impression I got, I was just curious.

Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

Even funnier the rifel on the envelope is a German made European high end model with the bolt on the left hand side. It also has double triggers which is only popular in Europe. Someone mirrored it because left handed style of that model was never made. Here is the dugg version along with comments.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Annie_Oakley_s_Gaffe_Clinton_mailer_shows_non_existent_gun

Comment by Norm Nelson — May 6, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

She learned to appreciate the necessity for self defense in Bosnia, I guess.

Comment by hydralisk — May 7, 2008 @ 12:25 am

Yeah, HRC must be stupid if she thinks she can fool Second Amendment voters into believing she would be a staunch defender of the right to bear arms if she were president. She really must assume we are all stupid or that willing to consider her as an alternative to the other statists running for office.

Comment by Andrew — May 7, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

I guess South Park had it right when they compares our electoral process to the choice between a giant duesh and a turd sandwich, dems want out guns and Mc Cain will give us 100 years in Iraq. I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?

Comment by Jay — May 8, 2008 @ 5:29 am

“I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?”

To which I say: tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. I no more trust a mob to tell me what I can and cannot do than I trust a couple of politicians. The beauty of the American Constitution, at least as envisioned by Madison, is that it is set up to protect individual rights against the tyranny of the majority…this turns that principle on its head.

Comment by Mark — May 8, 2008 @ 6:35 am

wow.

The guy with the pink sunglasses almost sounds like he’s speaking directly against Hayek.

Comment by John V — May 7, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

This is equal parts absurd and disgusting. What kind of “free” country does things like this. They threw a woman in jail for trying to provide for her family and delivering what her customers want. Terrence Powell should go to jail for 45 days.

Comment by Ben — April 25, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

Ummmm…Doug, can we throw something other than bacon into the Pacific? Maybe tofu dogs or something? If so, I am all for it. (Plus I think we would be doing the world a much bigger favor by getting rid of that awful “meat substitute.”)

Comment by trumpetbob15 — April 25, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

Agorism in action,

underground food FTW!!!

Comment by Matthew Lee — April 26, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

I love my state.

/sarcasm

Honestly, though, the state has emaciated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th Amendments. The 2nd is teetering and the 3rd is anachronistic. Why shouldn’t they be going after the 6th, too?

Comment by Thomas Blair — April 25, 2008 @ 11:45 pm

No doubt. It is not like we were actually using them or anything.

Comment by MikeF — April 28, 2008 @ 6:51 pm