Category Archives: Politics

Maryland’s Wal-Mart Law Struck Down

Economics, Politics

A Federal Judge has struck down the law passed by the Maryland legislature earlier this year which would have required Wal-Mart to provide health care for all its employees.

BALTIMORE — A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care, arguing the retail giant “faces threatened injury” from the law’s spending requirement.

The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by the law.

However, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz concluded that the law would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law “imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart.”

More details to come later, I’m sure, but this is definiately a good development and, for me at least, a surprising one. If nothing else, this will definitely have an impact on similar efforts in other states.

Update: The Post story has been expanded to included reaction and an analysis of Judge Motz’s ruling. The reaction of Maryland Senate President Miller is priceless:

Democrats, meanwhile, called the ruling an affront to everyday working people. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert), one of the measure’s chief sponsors, said it was nothing less than a matter of “good versus evil.”

“These guys are billionaires,” Miller said. “It’s these guys versus the little people. We’re not going to let a big Arkansas corporation, protected by their contributions to the Republican party, avoid their basic responsibility to the citizens of Maryland.”

Miller noted that the measure is widely popular in the state. A Washington Post poll conducted last month found that 77 percent of registered voters supported the legislature’s efforts to force Wal-Mart to spend more on its employees’ health benefits.

Fortunately, we don’t like in a pure democracy sir, we live in a nation of laws where even 77 percent of the people can’t do whatever they want if its wrong.

As KipEsquire points out, though, this is hardly a victory for libertarians in a legal sense when you look at the basis for the ruling:

But those arguments did not satisfy Motz, who wrote in a 32-page opinion that the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act prevails when determining the types of health and pension plans that companies can offer their workers. And it also allows those companies to create a uniform system of benefits across several states.

The Maryland law, Motz wrote, “violates ERISA’s fundamental purpose of permitting multi-state employers to maintain nationwide health and welfare plans, providing uniform nationwide benefits and permitting uniform national administration.”

In other words, this was not a ruling that said that government doesn’t have the right to regulate employer-employee relationships when it comes to health care. It merely ruled that the Federal law trumps Maryland attempt at Socialism. A good result for the wrong reason, but probably the best we could’ve hoped for.

Update # 2: The full text of the opinion can be found here. (H/T: Professor Bainbridge)

Related Posts on this law at Below The Beltway:

Targeting WalMart
Hell Freezes Over
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Well That Didn’t Take Long
More Socialism In The Free State
Little Tyrannies
A Pro-WalMart Blowback ?
Wal-Mart And The War Against The Poor II
First They Came For Wal-Mart
Increasing The Burden On The Productive
Another Bad Idea Spreading Like Wildfire

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

How to Fix the Middle East

Foreign Affairs, Politics, War on Terror

I think I’ll declare today The Liberty Papers’ “Middle East Day”.

Now, on to business. I think that an overwhelming majority of the Israelis want nothing more than to live in peace and prosperity. At the same time, most of the “Palestinians” want nothing more than to live in peace and prosperity.

So let’s see what is needed to bring this about.

For the Israelis, they have a powerful military, plenty of technology and firepower, and in a shooting war, are the odds-on favorite. For them to stop fighting only requires one thing: that the terrorists stop blowing them up.

For the Palestinians, they have no military, no economy, and are incredibly resentful that they keep having Israeli tanks and artillery raining down on them. For them to stop having Israeli use overwhelming force only requires one thing: that they actually stop trying to blow Israelis up.

In reality, there is a possible future of a two-state solution. As long as that solution isn’t an interim step to wiping Israel “off the face of the map”, there can be a lasting peace. It is possible, although I don’t think it’s very likely these days. Several things have to happen for this to occur. First, the Palestinians need to have a government that respects individual rights, private property, and the rule of law. Right now, the Palestinian people have something to hate, but nothing to live for. As Golda Meir said, “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.

At the moment, there is no reason for Israel to continue a war. There is no monetary benefit. There is no wonderful territory to conquer. There are no necessary natural resources to exploit. It’s clear that the Israelis are fighting a defensive war against people who want to kill them. That, of course, doesn’t mean that the situation is completely “fair” to the “Palestinians”. As Chris pointed out:

I will concede several issues here. The creation of Israel was a blatantly illegal act, in so far as international law exists. The British and Americans basically drew some lines and said “Here jews; we feel guilty because we let 1/3 of you die, so you can have this country. Oh, there are some people here already, but we’ll move them out for you”.

Of course those people then fought a war against the jews, and they lost. They’ve been terrorists ever since. The Jews won, the Arabs lost, that was in 1948.

Had someone shown up, taken territory from me to give to someone else, I’d understandably be pissed. But look at what’s happened in the last 58 years. Israel became a thriving democracy. “Palestine” remained a desert wasteland. Why is that? Has Israel been keeping the Palestinians down? I don’t think so, because if you look within Israel itself, the population is about 18% Arab, and 16% Muslim. Within Israel, multiple religions live in mutual peace and respect. In fact, for the most part, the debate within Israel hinges upon whether they’re foretelling their own doom by respecting their Muslim population too much, rather than whether they’re oppressing them.

So what’s wrong with Palestine? Why have they gone from slightly beyond a stone-age society in 1948 to slightly beyond a stone-age society in 2006? That one is obvious. Their own ruling forces won’t allow it, and the nearby Arab societies use them as a proxy to foment war against Israel.

To solve the Arab-Israeli conflict only requires one thing: that the Arabs stop blowing up Jews. It’s that simple. Have the Israelis occasionally acted heavy-handidly in response? Sure, but after decades of terrorism, that’s somewhat expected. But until the Palestinians and Arabs allow their own citizens to flourish, creating a society where they can love life more than they hate Jews, the “cycle of violence” will continue.

I’ve said on numerous occasions that I think most people in this world are the same. They want to live in peace, in a society where they have freedom, opportunity, and the chance at a good life. That society doesn’t exist in Palestine, and at the moment, there are few signs of change. Until the Palestinians fault their own government for that problem instead of Israel, the current situation will continue. And a lot of people will die.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

So Be It

Foreign Affairs, Politics, War on Terror

“It’s clear that in the Middle East, no one is sick of the fighting. They have centuries of grudges to resolve, and will continue fighting until they can get over them. And considering that they obviously have no interest in “getting over them,” we’re stuck with a war that will not end in any forseable [sic] future. It doesn’t matter what we bloggers say. It doesn’t matter what the President of the United States says. Or the United Nations. Or the usual bloviating gasbag pundits.

When two sides are this dead-set on killing each other, very little can get in the way. ”

— Markos “Kos” Koulitsas

Well, no-one is sick of the fighting, except say… 99% of the jews

He’s entirely correct about the grudges bit, and about the nothing anyone says matters bit, but the fact of the matter is, the Israelis have done everything possible, and more than everything reasonable, to have peace.

The so called Palestinians (THERE ARE NO PALESTINIANS, there is no Palestine. Palestine was an arbitrarily created place that only existed between world war 1 and 1948. Most so called Palestinians are either Syrian, Egyptian, or Lebanese), Syrians, and Lebanese muslims who support them, (as well as most of the rest of the worlds muslims who are “supporting” them) are doing everything possible to kill every Jew.

Not a lot of jews, not some jews, not “the jews that are fighting us” or “the jews that are occupying our homeland”. They want to kill every jew everywhere.

Yes, that is their goal. They make no bones about it. They don’t hide it. They dont obfuscate. They clearly and unequivically state that they will not stop fighting until every jew is dead.

The Israelis just want to eat pizza without being blown up.

The Arabs, and the other muslims around the world that support them, initiated tribal warfare against all Jews world wide during WW2, and intensified this warfare after the world war was over. In fact, WW2 is still being fought, in one small section of the middle east.

I will concede several issues here. The creation of Israel was a blatantly illegal act, in so far as international law exists. The British and Americans basically drew some lines and said “Here jews; we feel guilty because we let 1/3 of you die, so you can have this country. Oh, there are some people here already, but we’ll move them out for you”.

Of course those people then fought a war against the jews, and they lost. They’ve been terrorists ever since. The Jews won, the Arabs lost, that was in 1948.

Its been almost 60 years, you lost, get over it. Move on.

And I’ll also concede that Israel is often stupid, high handed, arrogant, a poor friend to their allies at times; and that a certain small percentage of Israelis (and other jews for that matter) are bigoted against everyone but other jews.

…….Funny, sounds kind of familiar doesn’t it… but I digress.

But for the most part, Israel is just another democracy; and has been since 1948, if a vaguely socialist democracy with some overtly religionist elements.

The rest of the arab (and most of the rest of the muslim) world are essentially tribalist governments. They are almost all dictatorships or hardly different from “monarchies”, really nothing more than typical third world tribal structures given guns and money. They have all pretty much decided that it was easier to focus their peoples anger and hatred over their corrupt axploitative governments and shitty lives against the jews, than it was to actually… oh I dunno.. govern properly maybe?

Tribal warfare is the bloodiest there is. It’s a gang fight on a national, or even semiglobal scale; and it goes on until all of one side is dead; or utterly, humiliatingly, crushingly defeated.

The Arabs, and the muslims who support them, are a failed culture, propping themselves up with oil money, and an evil “religion” turned into a death cult. They hate and resent their failure; and their cultural and social imperatives force them to obscure and refuse to acknowledge it; but people can see with their own eyes how bad it is. They need a scapegoat, and like all throughout history, the jews have been very convenient scapegoats; as is America, and western culture for that mater.

When is the rest of the world going to wake up to the fact that the Arab world has declared war on EVERYONE ELSE; that it’s a war to the death, and that Israel is fighting the front line…

Oh and that front line just happens to be IN THEIR HOMES.

Yes, America is on the front line too, but that front line is 8000 miles away from the majority of us. We’ve got 200,000 of our men and women at risk over there right now, out of 300,000,000. Israel has EVERYONE, all 7,000,000 of them at risk, every day.

7 million people, 8000 square miles (almost exactly the same population and size as New Jersey funnily enough), and in excess of 1 BILLION people trying to kill every single one of you (or supporting those who are). Someone tell me how the Israelis are wrong here?

No wait, don’t, because they ARE RIGHT.

Like I said, Kos got some of it right, the Arabists and Islamists won’t rest until every Jew is dead, and there’s not much that can get in the way. Well, I don’t think we as a nation are going to let that happen. I don’t think that I as an INDIVIDUAL will let it happen before I’m dead.

Israel WILL NOT BE DESTROYED.

The Jews will not be destroyed.

Not while I live.

Not while America is still America.

By their choice, there will be no peace anywhere, never mind just the middle east, until every Arabist, and Islamist is dead.

So be it

Chris Byrne
I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com

Who Wants to Vote In Georgia?

Politics

We’ve got some primary elections coming up here in Georgia, including the only incumbent Republican congressman in the state that’s even facing a battle. In what might be a serious fight, it’s come time to enlist help from all sides.

Thanks to Judge Harold Murphy, Georgia can now enlist the help of people who may not even be legally registered:

The same federal judge who threw out Georgia’s voter ID law last year blocked the state Wednesday from enforcing its revised law during this year’s elections.

The ruling came less than two hours after the Georgia Supreme Court denied the state’s emergency request to overrule a state court order that blocked enforcement of the new photo ID law during next week’s primary elections and any runoffs.

U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy’s ruling, which he delivered verbally from the bench, was much broader, also including the Nov. 7 general elections and any runoffs.

If the rulings stand, Georgia voters will not have to show a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot this year. The state’s primary election — which would have been the first election for which the IDs were required — is scheduled for Tuesday. The general elections are Nov. 7.

Yep. It’s now official. In Georgia, in order to vote, you don’t even have to do anything to prove that you’re actually the person whose name is on the rolls. I’m personally thinking about voting quite a few times on Tuesday, just because I can. After all, I’m originally from Chicago, the land that pioneered the slogan “vote early, vote often”.

Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue and other supporters of the IDs had argued they were needed to prevent election fraud. Civil rights groups challenged the law in both federal and state court, arguing that it discriminated against poor, elderly and rural voters.

…

Critics have also argued that voter fraud in Georgia stems from absentee ballots, an issue not addressed by the law.

In all reality, I’m not that worried about election fraud. As they point out, there’s a much higher chance that someone’s trying to fix the election by screwing with absentee ballots than by voting multiple times in person. What I am worried about, though, is making voting too easy. I hope that if someone is going to take the time to vote, they’ll actually have some idea what’s going on. At the very least, proof that you’ve thought about voting months in advance to be properly registered is a clue that you might actually try to exercise your civic duty responsibly. Asking that you actually prove your identity falls in the same boat.

We tell people how important it is that they vote. And I think it is important. Like most important things, you value it more if you have to work a little bit to acheive it. I hardly think that things such as registering and having a free photo ID constitute an unreasonable restriction on voting. But if you’re not capable enough to even take care of that, do I really want you picking our next representatives or president?

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

A Vision For A Libertarian Future

Individual Rights, Politics

Over at Hit and Run, David Weigel writes about the outcome of the recent Libertarian Party convention. Not surprisingly, it seems that, once again, the efforts of those seeking to turn the LP in to something other than a fringe party have come to naught:

Specifically, David laments the failure of a group calling itself the Libertarian Reform Caucus to effect real change in the Libertarian Party.

The LRC adovates ideas that I think make entirely good sense:

Fringe politics does not work in the United States. A political party must appeal to a plurality of voters (effectively, at least 40%) in some districts in order to win elections. Since districts vary, such a party could get away with appealing to less nationwide, but it must at least appeal to 20-30%.

In other words, for the Libertarian Party to be effective, it must appeal to the top 20-30% of freedom-lovers. Appealing to the tiny minority of freedom-lovers who want no government at all, or something very close to that, is a recipe for failure.

The platform and message of the Libertarian Party is extreme, sacrificing practicality and political appeal in favor of philosophical consistency with a single axiom. As such, the party currently appeals only to a tiny fraction of the voting public.

The Libertarian Reform Caucus is working to reform the Libertarian Party, to turn it into an effective tool for increasing liberty.

The fact that candidates that support the LRC agenda were rejected by Libertarian Party members only serves to demonstrate how out-of-touch the Libertarian Party is with reality.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 277 278 279 280 281 … 286