Yet another article that shows that libertarians clearly have not developped mentally enough to grasp the concepts of Civilization.

Comment by Jean Naimard — April 24, 2008 @ 11:42 am

Wow, Mr Naimard, what a substantive rebuttal!

So, where did I go wrong?

Was I wrong when I said that there should be freedom of association? Should you be forced to hire skin-heads? Room with neo-nazi’s?

Was I wrong when I said that governments shouldn’t artificially limit the number of doctors in order to keep their wages artificially high?

Or was I wrong when I argue that tax laws that compel people to depend on their employers for medical coverage should be repealed because it harms both the employer and employee?

Or am I being uncivilized when I argue that we should not have laws on the books that are largely unenforceable, are easily evaded by the politically connected, but provide yet another club with which political appointees can harass businesses and organizations that oppose the dominant political party’s political aims?

Where, pray tell, did I go wrong?

Comment by tarran — April 24, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

Yet another article that shows that libertarians clearly have not developped [sic] mentally enough to grasp the concepts of Civilization.

I love it when statists try to insult our intellectual capacity while filling their comments with typos, non-sequiturs and grammatical errors. It’s like having a four-year old tell you he can beat you up. :)

Comment by UCrawford — April 24, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

I will never mock anyone for type-o’s; people in glass houses, you know.

Comment by tarran — April 24, 2008 @ 3:27 pm

Normally it’s a short-sighted strategy…blogs just sort of invite hasty typing, which leads to mistakes (I’ve made more than a few myself). However, people who call other people stupid in a comment that looks like it was written by a guy who slept through high school English class never fail to amuse me :)

Comment by UCrawford — April 24, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

This looks like a privacy issue to me. No one has the right to invade another persons privacy.

Comment by uhm — April 24, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

uhm,

The government shouldn’t have a right to invade your privacy. When you get into private individuals and private employers, however, it’s a much grayer area.

Comment by UCrawford — April 25, 2008 @ 5:31 am

Tarran wrote:

Dr Collins has identified yet another aspect of the complete mess government intervention has made of the medical industry. People cannot afford to pay for their own medical care out of pocket, primarily because state governments unconscionably reduce the number of practicing doctors to a fraction of what would be provided in a free market, and because of federal tax laws encourage people to purchase socialized medical care from their employers, resulting in a form of the tragedy-of-the-commons where people are encouraged to over-consume medical care. We should be condemning the way the U.S. and state governments have cartelized the medical industry; it is this cartelization that causes people fear that without these nondiscrimination policies that they couldn’t afford to have their broken bones treated. Rather than calling for yet another unenforceable law, it would be better for Doctor Collins to lobby for the dismantling of Medicare and Medicaid, the repeal of tax laws that encourage employer funded health coverage, and the numerical caps placed by state licensure boards on the number of students medical schools graduate and the number of doctors who are allowed to practice medicine within each state.

Excellent points. I completely agree. Larger, freer markets are a consumer’s best friend. They always mean the best possible goods and services at the lowest possible prices.

As far as employment…

How many of us have been asked by a prospective employer to pee in a cup? I have always agreed, but known I could decline to offer that information when entering the employment contract if I chose. I can contract with another employer if it’s a deal-breaker for me.

I ask the employer questions about their financial solvency, management principles, and turnover. So far, they always choose to answer my questions as well. They can hire another employee if my questions are too intrusive.

I am not forced to give more information than I choose, nor are they. I am not forced to ignore aspects I uncover about the company that are unfavorable, and they…hmmm. Well that’s probably going to change now, isn’t it?

For me, this is more a question of information privacy, not discrimination.

As far as anti-discrimination laws, I’ve never been a fan of any government intrusion into willing agreements (or disagreement) between private citizens.

Comment by Akston — May 2, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

So you would rather be pure with association than pure with someone taking care of a perfectly capable person with a genetic disease weather they were sick or not. There would be no associations that could care for everyone in that situation, so would it be the impure government who would take care of them or the moral purity of death for those persons.

Comment by VRB — May 7, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

I’m sorry, but I am not certain what “pure with association” and “pure with someone taking care of a perfectly capable person” means.

The points that I am tying to make are:

1) The laws prohibiting discrimination based on certain criteria are immoral.

2) These laws are largely unenforceable.

3) People would be more eager to be tested if the government weren’t making medical care unaffordable.

4) Employers would not care about a person’s predisposition towards genetic illness if it was easier to fire sick people and if they weren’t paying medical insurance premiums for their employees.

I have no problem with people hiring people who are predisposed to suffer from genetic illnesses. I have no problem with people taking care of sick family members, in fact I encourage it. just because I don’t think something should be prohibited does not mean I think it should be mandatory.

Comment by tarran — May 7, 2008 @ 7:41 pm

Stephen,

You’re right, but the other side of the coin is that one doesn’t talk to Sean Hannity with the expectation that you’ll have a conversation with an actual intellectual.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 14, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

Ahhh you’re wrong….such a response would be disastrous if not downright foolish.

His answer was perfect because it was constitutional and left the power to the states.

He didn’t have to answer the question of right and wrong because he focused on the question of who has the power to decide. It shuts Hannity down.

Comment by Chris Kachouroff — April 14, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

I agree with Doug and Chris. It wasn’t an opportunity for a principled education. Hannity would have fired back with some sweet-sounding non-sequitirs and his audience would have lapped it up.

Barr got some good PR out of the interview. If you want to know where he truly stands on the nuances, keep an eye on his low-profile interviews.

Comment by Jeff Molby — April 14, 2008 @ 7:56 pm

Got to agree with Doug, Chris, and Jeff on the smaller point…there’s a place and time for a nuanced discussion of politics and the War on Drugs. Hannity & Colmes isn’t it…that would have blown up in his face because Hannity would have gone into blowhard mode and shouted Barr down. He made a smart move by ducking the question because it didn’t allow Hannity to go on the attack.

That said, I completely agree that merely legalizing at the federal level shouldn’t be the end goal for libertarians, but since the states are the ones taking the more progressive approach to drugs anyway I think that repealing federal anti-drug laws should be all the federal government attempts to address. If we want complete legalization of drugs, we should work as individuals at the state level to achieve that…not have the feds dictate it to the states.

Comment by UCrawford — April 14, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

Stephen,

Where does Bob Barr really stand on the war on drugs?

He works for the Marijuana Policy Project and he’s publicly spoken out for quite some time now against the War on Drugs…there’s really no reason at this point to believe that Barr hasn’t changed his views on drugs from his time in Congress.

Comment by UCrawford — April 14, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

Barr’s answer was a conservative answer NOT a Libertarian answer. The reason is simple. Barr is no Libertarian. He is a Rightwing social conservative who opposes libertarian ideas. As such he is not worthy of the LP nomination. And people ought to ask why it is that some libertarians are promoting him.

Comment by WRR — April 14, 2008 @ 11:34 pm

Crawford,

Hannity would “go into blowhard mode” ?

When is he not in blowhard mode ?

Let’s face it, William F. Buckley he ain’t.

Besides that, the only question that the former construction worker cared about was how Barr could dare run for President if it might cause John McCain — the same John McCain who Hannity was blasting daily on the air only two months ago, by the way, — to lose votes in November.

This is why I don’t bother with talk radio anymore.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 15, 2008 @ 3:52 am

Doug,

When is he not in blowhard mode?

Whenever he’s asking questions, trying to figure out where to attack…he can’t bloviate as effectively until his guest actually takes a solid position on something. That’s why you give responses that are evasive enough to keep him asking questions.

Fuck Hannity anyway…his show sucks. And I haven’t bothered with talk radio since the early ’90s, when Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern were still somewhat interesting.

Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 5:35 am

Doug and other Folks at Liberty Papers like to bash Ron Paul’s “rambling answers” but, viewed in hindsight, he was far superior to Barr. He was not only more precise but, more importantly, was not so evasive and had a deeper understanding of liberty Doug and company also made fun of Paul’s “quirky” emphasis on the Fed. It turns out that he was very much ahead of the curve on the Fed issue which is very much in the news. Will they ever admit it or do they want Barr to pretend that the Fed doesn’t exist?

I hope that Paul will reenter the race. As the economy heads toward recession, who else is there?

Comment by Dodsworth — April 15, 2008 @ 5:38 am

WRR,

Barr’s answer was a conservative answer NOT a Libertarian answer.

He was appearing on a conservative show, run by a conservative host who’s hostile to libertarians, while trying to win over conservative voters…he’s trying to bridge the gap between libertarians and conservatives, he’s not supposed to start preaching to the choir. That’s what a politician running a serious campaign is supposed to do. You’d prefer that he start rambling about the Fed and how we never needed to fight the Civil War?

And his actions outside of the talk circuit indicate he is plenty libertarian these days.

Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 5:41 am

Dodsworth,

Will they ever admit it or do they want Barr to pretend that the Fed doesn’t exist?

The Fed is not an issue most mainstream voters care about, abolishing the Fed is not a solution most mainstream voters are interested in, therefore it’s not an issue that anyone who wants the libertarian candidate to do well wants Bob Barr to focus on. No matter who were to get elected, the Fed’s not going away, the gold standard’s not coming back anytime soon and it’s a waste of time discussing either of those things in regards to the presidential race.

Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 5:49 am

…Slamming head against wall repeatedly….

I’m getting sick of fever swamp commenters, both the libertarian-ish Paulestinian version here, as well as the far left version that I’ve been putting up with at my own site and Megan McArdle’s site. Not to mention the conservative version I’ve been putting up with at McArdle’s site. At some point I need to realize that it’s not even worth debating these people. You’re better off just ignoring (or deleting) their comments and moving along. Otherwise, you’re just having a conversation with a wall.

Comment by Mark — April 15, 2008 @ 6:48 am

Mark,

Preaching to the choir, brother…

Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 6:56 am

I know, UCrawford. I just needed to vent. It’s the left-wing fever swamp that’s been the worst, actually. For them, hatred of libertarians is an outright religion. It’s not the entire left-wing, of course - I’ve got some great relationships with a bunch of leftie blogs. It’s just the fever swamp I can’t stand.

Comment by Mark — April 15, 2008 @ 7:03 am

Mark:

At some point I need to realize that it’s not even worth debating these people. You’re better off just ignoring (or deleting) their comments and moving along. Otherwise, you’re just having a conversation with a wall.

So far, I think the discussion in this thread has been quite productive. I don’t really know what to make of Congressman Barr at this point so I really appreciate hearing the arguments on both sides. To be honest, I haven’t followed his career or post-career very closely (but I will look into his work on the marijuana policy project when I have some time). I do however, remember John Stossel interviewing him when he was in congress defending the war on (some) drugs.

Did Barr really have a change of heart about his ant-libertarian record (some of which Alan Colmes pointed out) after leaving congress? If so that’s great, I would love to hear more about how and why he changed (some of which he explained in the interview).

I do find it disheartening though seeing people like Mike Gravel, who is clearly not a libertarian, join the LP for opportunistic reasons. The LP is the third largest political party and has ballot access in nearly every state. I could imagine a scenario where others like Ralph Nader would join the LP as a vehicle to further non-libertarian agendas.

I don’t think that Bob Barr is one of these people but if he wants to promote the LP agenda, he needs to stand up to people like Sean Hannity (as I believe any of the other candidates seeking the LP nomination would have).

Comment by Stephen Littau — April 15, 2008 @ 11:30 am

Stephen:
I was just blowing off steam at the Paulestinian interlocuter. Nothing directed at you or at the thread more generally, which I agree is good.

Comment by Mark — April 15, 2008 @ 11:47 am

Barr belongs back in the Rupugnant Party. He, as the Libertarian presidential nominee would be an insult to the entire libertarian movement. Here, when pushed, he states he wouldn’t vote to legalize hard drugs. We don’t need Libertarians who pussyfoot around issues they are afraid the majority of moronic voters will not approve. Libertarianism is still in the educational phase. So educate those who can be reached by explaining we’re about liberty, then point out the real world horrors these drug laws cause. None of the masses will learn anything with sell-outs like Barr speaking for us.

Comment by marlow — April 16, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

If I’m going to vote it will probably be for Bob Barr. He isn’t perfect. Neither was Ron Paul. Bob Barr went on a crusade against Wiccans awhile back. However in this society that is a badge of honor.

Mike Gravel is seeking a party to use for his run for presidency and has an inability to defend his rigid belief system. He goes on a Bill O’Reilly like tirade like some of his supporters when faced with facts and reality, hurling abusive accusations to hide his ignorance.

Comment by uhm — April 17, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

Bob Barr went on a crusade against Wiccans? What’s that about?

Comment by Stephen Littau — April 17, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

As I recall bob Barr was incensed that the military was allowing Wiccan service-members to practice their religion on base.

Essentially, he tried to get the millitary to ban the religion.

Comment by tarran — April 17, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

Even though I think Barr’s conversion to libertarianism is authentic, it’s worth pointing out something else that got his name in the papers back in the day.

He was legendary for his crusade to name pretty much the entire DC/NoVa region after Ronald Reagan. At one point, IIRC, he was responsible for withholding funds from the DC Metro until they changed the name of National Airport on their system maps to Ronald Reagan National Airport. But my memory might be wrong on that account- it may have been someone else, although I’m pretty sure it was Barr.

I would tend to think that today’s Bob Barr largely regrets some of those crusades, but I might just be overly optimistic.

Comment by Mark — April 17, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_aw2.htm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/wicca/wicca5.html

Comment by uhm — April 17, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

Other movements would do well to read this entry.

Comment by Justin Bowen — April 11, 2008 @ 11:21 am

I do think that in budgetary matters, relativity is relevant (i.e., pork is puny compared to defense, interest-on-debt and entitlement spending).

Beyond that, what libertarians are combatting is a mindset. And in that sense, “size matters not.”

Comment by KipEsquire — April 11, 2008 @ 11:28 am

I didn’t mean to imply that a battle should be avoided specifically because it was small. As I alluded to with this statement,

Yes, all problems must be attacked incrementally, but we need to focus on the right increments. If we’re to be successful in the long run, we need to teach people why government intervention, in and of itself, is bad.

there are small battles that need to be fought.

How do I tell the difference? I’ve been trying to put my finger on that for awhile and I still don’t quite have it, so bear with me while I ramble a bit. Hopefully someone can summarize it succinctly for me.

It comes down to the difference between a systemic abuses and human error/vice. Unless you’re some flavor of an anarchist, you’ll have to admit that there will always be some sort of government structure. You’ll have to further admit that the government(s) will have to be staffed with humans, a significant number of whom will inevitably be immoral and/or incompetent.

Thus, even the most ideal libertarian universe will have waste and abuses. We must always work to limit them, but we have to recognize that that is a separate battle. Even if you magically eliminated the portion of waste and abuse that comes from individual humans, you will still have rampant waste and abuse that comes from a system based on a flawed ideology.

That’s why I focus on the waste and abuses that stem from ideology. I accumulate small and large abuses (many of which I learn about here) and use them to create a narrative that will educate my mainstream peers about why our ideology is better than the status quo.

There cannot be any meaningful gains until they begin to accept our ideology and focusing on waste that stems from basic human nature does not help to accomplish that.

Comment by Jeff Molby — April 11, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

For the record, Barr is a conservative who supports the war on drugs. He has only moved slightly on the issue medicinal marijuana not on legalizing drugs. He is also a social conservative on abortion, gay rights, and prayer in state schools. Barr is NO libertarian and if the LP goes for Barr then I am forever finished with the party. It will have become one of the forces rotting libertarianism from within.

Comment by WRR — April 11, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

“Big government did not happen overnight, nor will any progress toward smaller government.”

This is precisely what a whole lot of Ron Paul supporters still don’t seem to realize, and hence, the lack of appeal.

Comment by TAO — April 12, 2008 @ 5:31 am

[…] like to direct some attention to this post by Stephen Littua at The Liberty Papers regarding the relative importance of pork barrel spending. The post was spurred by the […]

Pingback by The Crossed Pond » Does Pork Matter? — April 12, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

Number of times this will be discussed in the Presidential debates: 0.

Comment by Ben — April 3, 2008 @ 9:28 am

[…] that’s working out real well. At The Liberty Papers: Bill Of Rights ? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bill Of Rights!. Doug Mataconis drops this nice little bomb, or should I say that former Presidential advisor John […]

Pingback by FreedomSight » Blog Archive » A Government of Laws — April 3, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

Well, we weren’t really using them anyways, right?

I bet not one person in ten could remember them if you asked people on the streets.

There was a recent diary on DKos from a high school teacher in govt and civics no less who tested his kids and found that 28% of them believed Bush’s frequent assertions that the President has nearly unfettered powers in a time of war and could overrule any laws necessary.

He apologized and grimly stated that he was going back to the beginning with them and starting over in order to counteract the propaganda.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
— Benjamin Franklin

Comment by MikeF — April 3, 2008 @ 4:12 pm

I architect the systems that do this for one of the largest banks in the world.

You really don’t want to know exactly what the capabilities are; even if I could tell you.

Comment by Chris — March 13, 2008 @ 7:40 pm

I, for one, had *already* concluded on these issues on my own powers of reason and I didn’t need bloody Spitzer as an object lesson.

To hell with him.

Comment by Billy Beck — March 14, 2008 @ 8:06 am

er, NPR already did a full report on what pre- and post- 911 legislation regarding banking can do will all bank account holders. the report included not only the names of the uniform/standard bank monitoring database names, but even had a guest that ran these flagging systems.

the report, in fact, was opening by mentioning spitzer and how he got caught, then meandered into how, how often, and why Joe Sixpack has various transactions monitored and/or flagging.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132229

Comment by oilnwater — March 14, 2008 @ 8:09 am

[…] Further thoughts along the same lines at The Liberty Papers. […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » The Problem With The Spitzer Case — March 16, 2008 @ 6:58 am

“The Courts have no business overturning laws against prostitution as this is clearly something that has traditionally fallen within the police power of the state.”

You’re joking, right? Are you suggesting that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?

Comment by KipEsquire — March 13, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

I’m suggesting that when Court’s start acting like legislatures they begin overstepping their bounds.

Do you really think that a credible Constitutional case can be made for striking down laws against prostitution ? Incest ? Polygamy ?

And, more importantly, if the Court did do such a thing what do you think the political firestorm would be like ?

And, no, I’m not saying Lawrence was wrongly decided.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 13, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

What is “legalizaing”? Is that a process by which something is legalizaited? :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 13, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

Damn lack of a spellchecker :)

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 13, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

Excellent point about the role of the Courts. I still contend that if abortion had been legalized state by state by the respective legislatures it would be no more controversial today, politically, than legalized gambling.

Comment by Tony Iovino — March 14, 2008 @ 5:52 am

Doug,

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the courts are going to side with the defendent here…and the police handling the case should be fired (even though they likely did catch a rapist). The police, without warrant, essentially placed a tap on the vehicle. Sure, the guy is likely guilty of the crimes…but what if he wasn’t? What if he’d had nothing to do with it? What if the cops had bugged the car of an innocent person and tracked where that person went, who he talked to, what his business was? If the police are allowed to circumvent the warrant process as a matter of convenience in this case, what’s to stop them from doing it in other cases where maybe the motive isn’t to stop a criminal but to engage in harassment of law-abiding citizens because of department corruption, like what happened in Manassas, VA?

http://www.theagitator.com/2006/12/22/manassas-park-smears-a-businessman/

Once you ignore the police violating civil liberties to catch someone who probably merited being pursued, you open the door to allow police to do it to people who don’t deserve it as well…and I have a hard time believing the courts are going to miss a point that obvious.

And it’s unbelievable that the cops in Fairfax County didn’t realize that this would come back to sink their case either. They had probable cause…they couldn’t go talk to a judge or prosecutor and get a warrant for this? I generally appreciate the police, believe they’re necessary and understand that their job can be difficult, but either the cops’ evidence on this suspect was so weak that they knew there was no way they’d get a warrant or the police officers of Fairfax County are some of the dumbest fucking people on the planet (and that’s saying a lot).

Also, I suspect that even if Foltz is exonerated he’s not going to go free as the state will likely do what it can to have him committed to psychiatric care. Best of all possible worlds, the courts rule against the police, Foltz gets committed to an institution, and the police responsible are either suspended or fired.

Comment by UCrawford — March 13, 2008 @ 7:56 am

I blogged about a similar post-Knotts case a while back.

Comment by KipEsquire — March 13, 2008 @ 8:52 am

Kip,

Here’s hoping that the court that takes this case is more sane than the one you wrote about, then.

Comment by UCrawford — March 13, 2008 @ 9:33 am

Kip,

While I think we both agree on how this case should be decided, do you agree with me that, given the current make up of the Supreme Court and their rulings to date on 4th Amendment issues, that the Supremes would be unlikely to declare this an illegal search and seizure ?

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 13, 2008 @ 9:36 am

Having been a police officer for five years, I can definitely comment from a legal standpoint. It’s simple: If an officer has information to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, he should have the right to attach a GPS tracking to the vehicle.

The same rule already applies to vehicle searches, which by the way, police don’t need a warrant for during a traffic stop. Applying a GPS Tracking System to a vehicle is less intrusive than a physical search of the vehicle or suspect. So, why wouldn’t gps tracking by police be permissible without a warrant?

Comment by Brad — March 13, 2008 @ 10:12 am

Brad,

It’s simple: If an officer has information to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, he should have the right to attach a GPS tracking to the vehicle.

Police officers don’t have rights, individuals have rights. Police officers have jobs. The police officer’s job is to uphold those laws that protect individual rights and to defer to the courts’ judgment when those rights need be infringed upon in the enforcement of those laws.

Semantics on “rights” aside, I’ve got no problem with your argument that police should have the authority to put a GPS on a suspect’s car as long as they present the probable cause to a judge and get a warrant to do so. When officers, however, decide that they’re the ultimate arbiters of what our rights are and feel they don’t need to go through the court system to seek permission when they violate individuals’ rights in the course of an investigation then those police officers are nothing more than vigilantes and criminals themselves.

The officers in this case were wrong because they were lazy and because they cut corners in doing their job, and as such may have helped to allow a known sex offender to get away with what he’s done (if he gets competent counsel) by using tainted evidence…and if they get away with their tactics they’ve undermined the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process. The officers in this case deserve to lose their jobs for what they’ve done, even if they thought they were doing it for the right reasons.

Comment by UCrawford — March 13, 2008 @ 10:49 am

I am not a lawyer, but wasn’t the cop guilty of tampering with private property. Wouldn’t the cop have had to physically touch the car to attach a device?

I see that as the difference between this situation and the Knotts case. The Knotts case was more of a sting operation, installing a tracking device with the “current” owner’s permission. In this instance, the cop essentially vandalized a private citizen’s car and the case should be decided with that in mind, even if most people would want it to be otherwise.

A cop that breaks the law is no better than the criminal he is trying to stop.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — March 13, 2008 @ 10:55 am

While I personally find it objectionable, as it is one step closer to a police state, considering other things allowed, I’d have to say it is legal, baring individual state legislation.

It is legal to follow a vehicle, and externally monitor it. As long as the device is external and causes no damage(i.e. mounting damage, drain on power, etc) then it should be legal.

I know in my state it is legal for people to lift your wiper blade and place advertisements on your windshield, using the wiper to pin it. As long as the wiper is not damaged, it is legal.

If the police use a magnetic gps tracking device on the under carriage of the vehicle, then I suppose it is about as damaging.

As was pointed out, following a signal is not considered an invasion of privacy, nor do you have an expectation of privacy as to where you go when you are driving.

Just my 2 cents.

Comment by Ted — March 14, 2008 @ 5:25 pm

Government always operates on the principle of “Once you have their money/data/DNA/whatever, never give it back.”

This shouldn’t be a surprise.

Comment by Quincy — March 12, 2008 @ 1:27 pm

Two things that repeatedly suprise me but shouldn’t:

1) A government’s ability to be incredibly incompetent at all levels in all things.

2) The public not caring about number 1.

Comment by Ben — March 12, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

I oppose DNA databases on the practical grounds that they would enable a tyrannical state to oppress citizens that much easier. But I don’t agree that people have a right to privacy. The DNA database is just a bunch of numbers in a computer. Provided the owner of the computer obtains the numbers legitimately (ie without coercion), they haven’t done anything wrong in my books. The same applies to Google, Facebook etc holding onto users data.

But the fact is the government probably will take your DNA coercively (forcibly taking a swab or blood or whatever). Here they do violate peoples’ rights as if you haven’t been convicted this is essentially assault.

But again, I oppose the government keeping any biometric data because it would make it terribly easy to track down dissidents. But there are reasons why a private company might want to collect DNA and, provided they do it non-coercively, I don’t think (so called) civil libertarians would be justified in demanding they erase data at someone’s request based on the (non-existent) “right to privacy”.

Comment by Robbie — March 12, 2008 @ 6:11 pm

a biometric database will indeed be the model for population data in the now-future. be in 1:ALL biometric interfacing for the purposes of physical entry, or access to any information query.

i hate to sound like some yadda yadda crank about this. but i have been intimately familiar with various industry-oriented open-source consortiums involving biometrics. not only have industry products been offered to service the NIR in England, but the industry is planning on introduction in the United States, the primary vehicle being government.

Comment by oilnwater — March 15, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

given that the NIR is now a technical fossil in England after the privacy bills failed. something like the NIR concept will guaranteed be resurrected.

Comment by oilnwater — March 15, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

As a New Yorker and a libertarian I am over joyed at seeing Spitzer get everything that’s coming to him. I hope they throw the book at him and he goes to jail. The man is a megalomaniacal, power hungry douche.

Is there any doubt that if one of his political opponents had this scandal happen to them that Spitzer would use it to humiliate them and end their career?

Comment by Ben — March 11, 2008 @ 11:37 am

Spitzer’s petard, meet the hoist.

Spitzer deserves to go down for the reasons Stephen mentioned and because of the incredible lack of judgment that he showed here.

I don’t think that prostitution should be illegal, but it is. By exposing himself to exposure (apparently many people at the Emperors Club knew who he was), he opens himself up to blackmail and puts the future of the State of New York in jeopardy.

Bad judgment combined with criminal activity ? Clear grounds for impeachment I would think.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 11, 2008 @ 11:46 am

[…] Hypocrisy Has A New Hame: Elliot Spitzer   [link] […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Spitzer And The Hookers — March 11, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

It’s times like this that I wish we still tarred and feathered people especially those who think the laws they impose and enforce on the general public don’t apply to them. Spitzer should step down yesterday!!

Comment by A Nonny Mooose — March 11, 2008 @ 8:06 pm

[…] Post: Hypocrisy Has a New Name: Eliot Spitzer Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]

Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Spitzer Resigns — March 12, 2008 @ 11:10 am

[…] all, I’ve got to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen’s sentiments, expressed here and here, that Elliot Spitzer pretty much deserved everything that has, and will, come to […]

Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Lessons From The Spitzer Debacle — March 13, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

What kind of “right” do you have, when the government can completely rob you of 100% of the exercise of that right, anytime they decide they have a good reason?

That’s pretty much how the Fourth Amendment works: If the legislature decides, and the courts agree, that a search is “reasonable,” then you have no right to refuse.

Heller will be a two-part decision:

(1) “individual right” versus “state power”?

(2) If “individual right,” then what standard of review?

It would not surprise me at all if the Court found the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right, but then imposed a weak “reasonableness” standard of review. They are certainly not going to impose an onerous strict scrutiny standard comparable to the First Amendment. No way.

Comment by KipEsquire — February 21, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

Hate to break it to you, Stephen, but the words “Compelling State Interest” have been causing this kind of doublethink long before Obama hit the scene.

Personally, I’m waiting for Hillary to propose MiniPlenty and MiniLuv.

Comment by Quincy — February 21, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

You have a point there Quincy. There’s plenty of doublespeak to go around. As Obama gains traction, we need to make sure he doesn’t get a pass though.

Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 1:12 pm

I never really trusted obama seeing as how despite his grandiloquence he never seemed to display a consistent message to me. And to think poor Doug voted for this sort of fast-talking politician…. I’m almost rooting for Hillary just to teach the country a lesson- then I remember if she is our President and we have an undivided Democratic government, it will be too late for America the Beautiful.

Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

NA,

I don’t regret my vote in the primary because I think Hillary would be even worse.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

Stephen,

How dare you criticize the savior of our souls, the man who has made us all proud to be Americans for the first time in our lives !

Don’t you realize that if we have hope and we want change, then we can bring that change and restore the hope of the nation ? But it will only happen if we hope for change

:)

Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

I know; leave it to me to leave a turd in the punch bowl :)

Back to the talking points:

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

NA, Doug’s vote for Obama was a strategic vote to stop Hillary. I agree, she is worse. If my primary would have been an open primary, I would have done the same thing.

Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

NA,

I’m almost rooting for Hillary just to teach the country a lesson

Me too, actually. I’d never consider voting for her because I don’t play that whole “spoiler” game, but since she represents pretty much the exact opposite of my beliefs and because I think her presidency would be a complete disaster (since she’s incapable of working with people) if I can’t have a libertarian-leaning president get elected I’d much rather see the worst, most incompetent statist get elected because I think she’d turn the entire country against her and discredit most of the programs she pushes with her, shall we say, “diplomatically-challenged” personality.

Watching the worst example of statism go down in flames while in office may actually be the best possible thing for the pro-freedom movement in the long run…it lets people know exactly what the consequences of the statist ideology are.

Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

I know Doug, I was just saying it’s too bad that one must “Block” a candidate as opposed to voting for one.

And this is bothering me:

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6109957

Comment by NA