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

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

Actually, saying that the Governemt (At all levels) has absolutely no sense of humor is slightly missing the mark. They do have a sense of humor.

As we has born witness to countless instances, Bad jokes are told in congress all the time. And they all have the same punchline: They get signed into law.

Comment by Jimmy Mac — May 4, 2008 @ 7:54 am

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

Why does a website with 14 contributors average one post every day or two? You guys always post good stuff, just not enough. The readers want more.

Comment by Ben — March 20, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

Ben,

Why does a website with 14 contributors average one post every day or two?

Because we’ve all got jobs…except, I’ve long suspected, for Doug :)

The readers want more.

The Paulestinians would probably argue that point, but much appreciated. Of course they keep coming back here to throw their two cents in despite the abuse we occasionally heap on them, so I guess in a perverse sort of way they enjoy the work we do as well :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 20, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

And right as I say that, Doug puts out a very good piece about free speech :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 20, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

the only abuse at play on this forum is the self-abuse you employ towards your character and your intellectual honesty. none of that has anything to do with Paul, paulestinians, or any other buzzword that you need in order to keep your bearings in your hollow mindset.

Comment by oilnwater — March 20, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

oilnwater,

the only abuse at play on this forum is the self-abuse you employ towards your character and your intellectual honesty. none of that has anything to do with Paul, paulestinians, or any other buzzword that you need in order to keep your bearings in your hollow mindset.

My child, you have come to me my son. For who now is your father if it is not me? I am the well spring, from which you flow. When I am gone, you will have never been. What would your world be, without me?

Comment by UCrawford — March 20, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

better.

Comment by oilnwater — March 20, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

Oilnwater hereby forfeits all cool points for failing to recognize a direct quote from one of the greatest movies ever made.

Not that he’s forfeiting all that much :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 20, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

While men like UCrawford are almost entirely bereft of intellectual honesty and principle on several key issues, and who along with several of other editors here are atrociously at odds with their purported classical liberal forebearers, the tenor of conversation on a good many issues is slightly above the mean.

Comment by Benjamin Kuipers — March 20, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

Gotta love those Paulestinians…writing in to whine about intellectual honesty on a joke article about electing Dave Grohl as president. Apparently being an avid supporter of Fuhrer Paul requires a humorectomy and an inability to read for comprehension. What a laugh riot your meet-up groups must have been. :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 20, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

I’m throughly surprised at the amount of whining & bitching that goes on, and yet, no one stopped to think:

“Wow, If i did this all on a blog of my own, instead of providing rhetorical, linguistic masturbation on a blog I supposedly “hate”, I could possibly further the debate by providing competing view points and blog posts of my own and other people that agree with me. I could even come up with a neat little logo, and hire neat writers, and somehow eventually come face to face with other commentators that did what I used to.

With a brand, pride of my own, and loyal followers, I could certainly deflect criticisms of my and other people on my blog’s viewpoints with the deft ability of Superman leaping over buildings in a single bound! If the ARI somehow manages, then by golly, so could I; I mean, so could “we”! Oh, the fun would never end!”

In other news, Vaudeville is still dead. But some of you Paul followers can still make it, you just gotta have a gimmick! Don’t let those talking pictures fool ya!

Comment by Nitroadict — March 20, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

speaking of masturbation, did you enjoy your post?

Comment by oilnwater — March 21, 2008 @ 10:39 am

I’m glad the irony wasn’t lost on someone.

Comment by Nitroadict — March 21, 2008 @ 11:54 am

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

Outstanding post.

Comment by UCrawford — March 6, 2008 @ 9:04 am

Ditto what UCrawford said.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am

Excellent post & a terrific counter to the brewing frustration with the left regarding a possible “armed” revolution. The GRU reference is also excellent; I for one always found Russian history particularly intriguing.

Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am

Konkin/Agorist Counter-Economics…

Comment by Kaligula — March 6, 2008 @ 9:50 am

Sorry, i just noticed Brad’s thursday’s open thread…

Comment by Kaligula — March 6, 2008 @ 10:03 am

Well said, and I think the Sun-Tzu and John Adams quotes you included have incredible force.

If the revolution is won before it is fought, it may never be “fought” at all.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 6, 2008 @ 10:16 am

You state that there is no legitimate government. I happen to agree; in fact I made this point in my philosophy of law class the other night when I asked why it was justifiable in the first place for a third party to carry out retribution on behalf of another (one of the basic functions of even a minimal state). My inquiry went unanswered.

Comment by David Wilson — March 6, 2008 @ 10:24 am

And yes, I do agree, this is a valuable post!

Comment by David Wilson — March 6, 2008 @ 10:27 am

Tarran,

Tremendous piece of writing. Well done!

Comment by Quincy — March 6, 2008 @ 10:30 am

Great post. And what a jackass quote from Bill Clinton.

Comment by Ben — March 6, 2008 @ 10:53 am

Great post, and I second the jackass quote from Comrade Clinton.

I remember, after the OK city bombing when all thoughs sweeping laws were being passed.I had a sticker on my car that said “I love my country but fear my Government”. And I still hold to that belief. I had a few people question me about that sticker and calling me “Un-American”. It’s moronic that the sheep will celebrat the 4th of July, but not understand what happened to get to that celebration.

But to answer your question, “When is Armed Rebellion Appropriate?”..First and foremost, you would have to “win the hearts and minds” with atleast a quarter of the people. Secondly, the State would have to do something truly alarming to the beer drinking, nascar watching moron, so atleast we have the people waking up. And last but not least, be armed to the teeth and to be prepared for a lasting Rebellion. Cause it couldn’t be just a few days.

A side note…I do watch Nascar. Was not meant to take offense.

Comment by RegularRon — March 6, 2008 @ 11:16 am

I would caution anyone who would want to begin or support an armed revolution against the government to study the French Revolution. There is always a chance that such actions can make matters worse, even if the revolution is successful. The French Revolution did not have the same success as the American Revolution. I would say that the outcome of the American Revolution is the exception, not the rule.

Even as bad as our government is at times (which we write about here on nearly a daily basis), we are still very free relative to most of the world. Freedom always yields to tyranny; it’s only a question of how rapidly it is allowed to happen. As a practical matter, we can only hope to slow this creeping tyranny to a level where we can work within the system. Armed revolution should always be the very last resort.

Great post Tarran!

Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:31 am

Stephen,

I would caution anyone who would want to begin or support an armed revolution against the government to study the French Revolution. There is always a chance that such actions can make matters worse, even if the revolution is successful. The French Revolution did not have the same success as the American Revolution. I would say that the outcome of the American Revolution is the exception, not the rule.

Excellent point. I’ve often wondered what it was that made the American Revolution different from the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution, or any of the countless number of third-world revolts against colonialism after World War II.

It’s more, I think than just the fact that the American Colonies in the 18th Century were blessed with some incredibly wise men, though they clearly were. I think it comes down to the philosophical basis that they were working from.

The American revolutionaries had Smith and Locke and the writers that followed them. The French had who ? Voltaire ? In 1848 it was Marx. In Russia it was Marx and Lenin. And, in the third-world it was Marx, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh.

When you build your revolution on a foundation of sand, it’s bound to fail in the end.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 6, 2008 @ 11:35 am

Doug,
I just finished with Atlas Shrugged the other day (what an excellent book!). I can’t help but wonder if the non-violent tactics John Galt and his fellow “men of the mind” used to change the system would work? Imagine if a large number of entrepreneurs, industrialists, investors, inventers, etc. went on strike in hopes that the entire economy went to hell? If such a thing could be organized, I think that it would not take very long before we would see sweeping changes in attitudes toward achievement, free markets, individualism, and wealth distribution/creation.

Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:44 am

Actually, RP did mention The Remnant in one of his videos, and further mentioned people being left behind that would be able to rebuild, although beyond that he didn’t mention anything specific. But yes, I also think it’s an interesting and potentially effective idea; I’d imagine it would definitely rally up the agorists.

I sadly have yet to read the book, but have read summaries of it. I still have an immense back log of books piled up on my desk as it is, although as of late, some of her quotations are convincing me to possibly put the fountainhead & AS higher up in the queue…

Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 11:55 am

Nitroadict, 2 words: audio book :)

I listened to Atlas Shrugged about 1 hour a day at work on audio book (the abridged edition; 10 1/2 hours on 10 discs).

If you can listen at work or if you are taking a long road trip, this is the ideal time to listen. I simply do not have much spare time to read otherwise.

Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am

Indeed, I recently decided to take the plunge with Rothbard via audio-book (For A New Liberty), and while I think reading would allow for more retention, it definitely is a time saver.

I’m thinking I might read The Fountainhead before reading AS, though. If there is an audio-book version of it, what version would you recommend?

Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

[…] Tarran at The Liberty Papers had a very insightful post regarding the appropriateness of armed rebellion. Tarran does address the improbability of an armed rebellion actually achieving its aims; my qualm with his argument is the contention that there would actually be a fight to begin with. This contention might be more applicable to the times when the gun barrels of oppressors were not that much bigger than those of the oppressed. […]

Pingback by Why nonviolence is not a choice | The Libertarium — March 6, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

[…] a comment to tarran’s post about the morality of armed rebellion, co-contributor Stephen Littau makes this point: I would caution anyone who would want to begin or […]

Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Friday Open Thread — Why America ? — March 7, 2008 @ 5:43 am

Stephen Littau,

You should check ot The Free State Project:

http://freestateproject.org

Comment by dean — March 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

If they weren’t criminals then they wouldn’t have broken the law :)

Comment by UCrawford — February 29, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

What is this tomfoolery?!?! If we legalize the drugs, they’ll just keep doing them! And they’ll keep going to jail!

Comment by Nitroadict — February 29, 2008 @ 10:16 pm

Right…and if someone was on drugs while driving and killed a family of six Stephen would probably want them to go free because he probably thinks murder is okay if you’re on drugs. People for legalization are evil…eeeeeeeevillllllll….

It’s fun to throw around anti-drug straw men :)

Comment by UCrawford — February 29, 2008 @ 10:33 pm

If 72.5% of Georgians are 18 and over…and there are 9 million people in the state of Georgia…and GA has roughly 500,000 in jail or probation, then GA’s rate is 7.5% (if we include probation, which I think is a more worth statistic)

Comment by Ken — March 1, 2008 @ 4:53 am

[…] Freedom Democrats (which notes that even as the Drug War wanes a bit, War on Sex Crimes waxes) and The Liberty Papers which can’t help itself in snarkily asking: One would think that based on an adult […]

Pingback by The Crossed Pond » That Pew Report — March 2, 2008 @ 4:51 am

If they weren’t criminals then they wouldn’t have broken the law :)

The article has a valid point. From my experience, it is not so much theft, murder and drugs that people are in jail for, it is for violations which were once misdemeanors that are now felonies. I am not sure what it is in Georgia, but in Arizona it is a felony to be caught without a valid drivers license.

Now, I grant that if someone is caught driving and does not have a valid license, there should be a punishment. But a *felony* conviction??? To deny an individual his right to participate in his community??? Once, a felony conviction was applied only to those who were proven in court to be not just completely outside of the bounds of society, but to have committed a heinous crime.

I don’t see where most of the current felony “crimes” currently on the books meet this criteria.

Comment by Harry Rossman — March 2, 2008 @ 9:50 am

I’d love to ask him why he’s wasting his time and my money on a massive game of he said-he said.

Please do.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 13, 2008 @ 10:50 am

Jeff,

Believe me, if I thought it would do any good I would.

He’s leaving office after this term so he doesn’t care what anyone cares.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 10:51 am

Jeff,

Actually, I went ahead and sent a note.

Let’s see if anyone responds.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 13, 2008 @ 10:55 am

You’ll get a form letter in response. And you’re right that it won’t do any good in and of itself, but the squeaky will principle does apply.

Since you, as a blogger, have already taken the time to type your gripe, you might as well lodge it officially.

Comment by Jeff Molby — February 13, 2008 @ 11:18 am

I remember reading the letter a while ago, and I must admit, I too relished in the schadenfreude of it all.

“Statists Gone Wild!”
(Tacky, or a product whose time has come?)

I would gladly pay money to see an anti-marijuana ad featuring Sen. Coleman (R-MN) as the kid who gets so high, he picks up his dad’s rifle and shoots himself in the head.

With an implied cross in the background, of course. Yes. That would make it all better.

Comment by Nitroadict — February 4, 2008 @ 10:28 pm

[…] Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) ? Pot-Smokin? Hippie? Liberty Papers - Elk Grove,CA,USA You know, many of us who might consider a run in politics have […]

Pingback by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) ? Pot-Smokin? Hippie? - The Garden's Cure — February 5, 2008 @ 5:03 am