Monthly Archives: January 2007

Why I’m Not an An-Cap

Economics, Individual Rights, Theory and Ideas

A few weeks ago, I delved into the question of Libertarianism and Utilitarianism. The two are competing moral philosophies, with Libertarianism valuing personal liberty as its paramount goal, and Utilitarianism valuing maximizing utility (aka “the common good”) as its highest goal. I believe that the logical end of Libertarianism is anarchism (which, to be truly anarchist, will likely take the form of anarcho-capitalism). The logical end of utilitarianism, to most people who believe in “the common good”, is socialism, but that’s not necessarily the case. The logical end of utilitarianism is a political system which best maximizes utility, which socialism has proven— at least in practice— to be far from maximizing utility.

I call myself a libertarian, but I don’t consider myself an an-cap. The reason I’m not an an-cap is that I have a bit of utilitarianism in me, and I see the tradeoffs of anarcho-capitalism as being less able to maximize utility than a just minarchy. Ideologically, I see anarcho-capitalism, if it were to be stable, as being the most moral possible system. My understanding of humanity, though, makes me think that the end result of a society set up as an-cap will be worse than the a just minarchy.
» Read more

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

They Never Learn

Election '08

As much as we have griped lately about the GOP not learning it’s lessons (Doug has been especially effective on this front), the Democrats show no propensity to learn from their victory. They did not win because the hard core left of the Democratic Party carried them to party. They won because the small government Republicans were sick of “Compassionate Conservativism” and the centrists were sick of the war. Now, we have Hillary and Barack Obama, John Kerry and John Edwards vying for the Democratic nomination. Yet, none of them will appeal to small government Republicans or centrists.

You doubt me? David Boaz at Cato reminds us of Hillary’s record:

For more than 15 years now, Hillary has been the incarnation of Big Government. She votes with taxpayers only 9 percent of the time, according to the National Taxpayers Union. She calls herself a “government junkie.” She says, “There is no such thing as other people’s children” and calls for ”a consensus of values and a common vision” for 300 million people. She was best known in her White House years for heading a team of 500 bureaucrats organized into 15 committees and 34 working groups to recreate in 100 days one-seventh of the American economy. After health care, she told the New York Times, her next project would be “redefining who we are as human beings in the post-modern age.” Or, as the Times put it, “She wants to make things right.”

She just might be the scariest collectivist this side of Al Gore.

Except that Kerry, Edwards and Obama all have records as bad, or worse. As Boaz points out.

The best hope we have is for Ron Paul, as a spoiler, to shift the debate. And he may just be able to. Better yet, a surprise upset in the ’08 primaries as all the Republicans who are not “Compassionate Conservatives” realize he is their dream candidate now that Reagan and Goldwater are no longer among the living.

Heaven forbid we see McCain vs. Hillary, because the outcome is bad, period. Either a First Amendment hating big government conservative or a Bill of Rights hating big government progressive gets elected. Think on that for a minute if you hated the last 6 Bush years.

Adam Selene
https://thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/

More on Police Culture

Crime and Punishment, Police Watch, The War on Drugs

In yet another clear sign that the Drug War’s most prominent success has been the corruption of police culture in this country, we have this story in Milwaukee.

The Milwaukee Police Department is accused of taking possession of a Mercedes-Benz convertible from a drug-addicted local businessman in return for agreeing not to prosecute him for cocaine possession.

So, in Milwaukee rich folks can trade an expensive car for having criminal charges dropped? That hardly sounds like Rule of Law to me. Wisconsin law does not provide for forfeiture of vehicles in cases of simple possession. Even if it did, normally forfeiture laws and criminal charges are separate issues and you can’t just forfeit a vehicle, or other property, to get the criminal charges dropped. It turns out that wasn’t all the police decided was appropriate for this guy.

Maistelman [ed: the Beck family’s attorney] also cited the family’s belief that police contributed to Beck’s death by threatening to disclose his drug activity.

“At the time of Jordan’s arrest he was in a custody battle with his wife for his minor children. Subsequent to his arrest Jordan and his family were bombarded with threats by your office and or the Milwaukee Police Department that unless he gave his car up, then the authorities would contact his wife’s attorney and ‘rat him out’ about his drug offense.”

Maistelman also wrote that a member of Beck’s family had witnessed “harassing, intimidating and coercive telephone calls” and that authorities also threatened that if he didn’t give up the car, “they would tell certain drug dealers that Jordan and his family were informants, when in fact they were not.”

Remember, as you are reading this, that Mr. Beck was a drug user, not a dealer. He was facing charges for possession, not dealing. He was not a criminal, he was a drug addict. But, he had something the police coveted. An expensive car, worth $100,000, give or take.

We have taught our police departments that taking property if someone is a drug user is okay. They are simply doing something that we have condoned. We have given them power, and they have abused it, as was predictable.

h/t: Radley Balko

Adam Selene
https://thelibertypapers.org/2006/11/22/comrades-i-hereby-declare-the-revolution/

Should The State Protect You From Making Bad Choices ?

Economics, Government Regulation, Individual Rights

The Virginia General Assembly is debating a number of bills that would regulate, and in some cases nearly eliminate the pay-day loan industry in the state based upon the belief that the loans’ high-interest rates take advantage of lower-income citizens:

The rite of borrowing modest amounts of cash against a future paycheck — known as payday lending — has become an increasingly popular practice for working families in Washington’s suburbs and for people all over the world. In today’s society, people can now get quick, painless payday loans from Zebra (NZ) or other reputable loan companies, at the click of a button. Most people find payday loans to be really helpful, particularly when times are financially hard, but if the loan isn’t paid back, you can easily get yourself into debt.

But the routine is under increasing scrutiny in the commonwealth, where a broad coalition of religious and consumer advocacy groups say they are concerned that the practice enables low-income earners such as Reyes to unwittingly take on more debt than they can handle. This in turn often leads to them ruining their credit scores which can affect them for life. When this happens to you, you need to look into how to fix your credit before attempting to make any future payments, or it could spiral out of control. A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the General Assembly want to reverse a 2002 law that eased restrictions on the payday loan industry.

There’s no denying that pay-day loans can be expensive for the people that enter into them. Depending upon how long the loan is outstanding, the effective interest rate can be as high as 390 percent or more, but when you consider the fact that the people who are serviced by this industry typically have bad credit, low income, and few assets, it’s not all that surprising that they would be charged high-interest rates for a loan. Most families would be better off finding credit cards that require no credit and lending money via a card. This way, they can spend money as they need it, not in one lump sum, and the credit cards would have much better interest rates than compared to a payday loan.

One of the very few ways families could relieve their debt is to Consolidate Payday Loans. Consolidating loans allows all of the loans to be brought together and be paid off with one monthly payment. This could be ideal for families with a low income as they can arrange a suitable monthly payment that can actually be managed. Moreover, as the article points out, they really don’t have many other alternatives:

Interviews with more than a dozen customers in Northern Virginia over the past week found that many have come to count on the access to easy money if they are in a pinch, although several admitted they sometimes took out one loan to pay another.

Percy Jones, who works as a chef, among other jobs, and who recently moved to Dumfries from South Carolina, said he has several outstanding loans to payday centers. He said he was waiting for a check from his previous job to be able to pay everything off. The District native added that he has tried to avoid relying on payday lending, but having four teenagers to support on a modest $32,000-a-year salary forced him to cut corners.

“I can see how people would see this as bad, but this is how I’ve had to scrape by,” he said.

He added that in some cases he has paid one loan off with another, but always knew he had money coming in the future that made him secure. He expects to take out more over the coming months because life in Northern Virginia is more expensive than in South Carolina.

“It’s a way of life for some of us,” he added, counting several $20 bills as he headed to a brown Chevrolet. “It would be better if it wasn’t, but, frankly, it’s like an addiction.”

You can question the wisdom of Mr. Jones’ decision to enter into a payday loan, or even his decision to move to a part of the country with a much higher standard of living, but it is his choice. What right does the state have to say that he can’t make it?

Further thoughts over at Atlas Blogged

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

More Mandatory Minimums Madness: The “Sexual Predator” Edition

Crime and Punishment, General, Legal, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Theory and Ideas

Cross posted at Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds

I have written in the past about the insanity of mandatory minimum sentencing laws on at least two occasions (here, and here). In my previous posts, the minimum sentencing guidelines had to do with the war on drugs. In this latest outrage however, this mandatory minimum sentence has to do with “aggravated child molesting.” Many people enjoy sexual relations with someone younger than themselves, but the majority of the people know that sexual acts with a minor is illegal and therefore will remain on the right side of the law, but instead perhaps enjoy legal sites like young sexer.

In theory, mandatory minimum sentencing for certain crimes seems like a great idea. The problem with such a “one size fits all” approach is it gives judges absolutely no discretion when it comes to particular cases. No matter how well written or intentioned a law may be, there are always going to be cases where the application of the law is simply unjust. The case of Genarlow Wilson is a perfect example of what I mean.

From The New York Times article “Georgia Man Fights Conviction as Molester”

[Genarlow Wilson] was sentenced to 10 years in prison without parole for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year’s Eve party, an offense that constituted aggravated child molesting, even though Mr. Wilson himself was only 17.

[?]

Disturbed by Mr. Wilson’s conviction, the Legislature changed the law in March to ensure that most sex between teenagers be treated as a misdemeanor. But the State Supreme Court said legislators had chosen not to make the law retroactive.

[?]

Even more confounding, at the time of Mr. Wilson?s offense, a so-called “Romeo and Juliet” exception had already been made for sexual intercourse between teenagers. “Had Genarlow had intercourse with this girl, had he gotten her pregnant, he could only have been charged with a misdemeanor and punished up to 12 months,”? said Brenda Joy Bernstein, Mr. Wilson’s lawyer.

So let me get this straight: Genarlow Wilson is 17 and engages in oral sex with a girl who is 2 years younger than he is. At the age of 15, the girl is not at the legal age of consent in Georgia. However, had the two had “consensual” sex instead of oral sex, Wilson would have been charged with a misdemeanor offense carrying a maximum sentence 1 year but because they didn’t go all the way, Wilson is facing an 11 year sentence and will not be eligible for parole until after he has served 10 years. OR if Wilson chooses, he can have his sentence reduced to 5 to 7 years with a possibility of parole if he agrees to register as a sex offender.

So why won’t Wilson take the deal? According to the aforementioned article, Wilson is quoted as saying the following:

“Even after serving time in prison, I would have to register as a sex offender wherever I lived and if I applied for a job for the rest of my life, all for participating in a consensual sex act with a girl just two years younger than me,” he told a reporter for Atlanta magazine last year, adding that he would not even be able to move back in with his mother because he has an 8-year-old sister. “It’s a lifelong sentence in itself. I am not a child molester.”

There is no question that Wilson used poor judgment in engaging in oral sex with a girl who was under the age of consent. Most people are often aware of the legal age of consent within their states and will try their best to understand the law and if they aren’t sure they can read a post like this and understand where the age of consent lies for them. But he is quite right in making a distinction between a child molester and a couple of horny teenagers. When I think of the term “child molester” I tend to think of an adult (usually middle-aged) having inappropriate contact with a prepubescent child. These are the real sexual predators who should be put away possibly forever.

It seems to me that there needs to be a serious discussion about where exactly the line should be drawn. Clearly, children should be safe from predators but at what point is a child an adolescent of an age where he or she can be held responsible for his or her choices? I believe there should be some sort of sliding scale taking into consideration the ages of the parties involved. Is an 18 year old having sex or sexual contact with 17 year old molestation, regardless of the age of consent? I think not! What about a 30 year old with a 17 year old? I tend to think so!

There seems to be no clear answers; what might seem reasonable to me might not seem reasonable to you. When a “zero tolerance” policy in the form of mandatory minimum sentences is in play, there can be no thoughtful discussions in the jury room. It’s all or nothing.

Genarlow Wilson has served nearly 2 years for this offense. Does he really need to serve another 8 to teach him a lesson? Alternatively, should he be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life? The answer to both of these questions depend on whether or not one believes that Genarlow Wilson is a threat to children based on his actions as A 17 YEAR OLD WITH A GIRL WHO WAS ONLY 2 YEARS YOUNGER THAN HIM. If you ask me, he has already done enough time.

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/
1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 35