Friday, July 29, 2005

And the next thing you know, we'll be plugged into a big matrix.
Because the machines will rise against us, even if they do look like us.
Walter Williams deserves his own radio show.
He's guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh right now and I am enjoying. He focuses much more on history and the principles of liberty. Quite educational, quite good.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

My favorite amendment.
The 9th! It tidies up so many loose ends. To wit:
First, that the entire purpose of the bill of rights was to protect liberty from democracy - to insure that no majority, no matter how large, could violate the rights of individuals. Second, that there was a raging debate over whether such a bill of rights was a good idea because, many of the founders argued, if you enumerate a list of specific rights, future governments will presume that anything not specifically enumerated is fair game for the government - i.e. the majority - to regulate or prohibit or do with as they will. All of the founders, as near as any historian can tell, agreed that this would be a bad thing because all of them agreed that no list of rights could possibly be exhaustive. Madison came up with the 9th amendment as a means of avoiding this negative outcome.
Pity it's not currenlty interpreted that way.

So, if the 9th amendment implies that we have rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constition [hear that, Santorum?!], how do we determine what they are? Why, via the classic formula, of course:
As long as they do not violate the rights of others (as defined by the common law of property, contract and tort), persons are presumed to be Â?immuneÂ? from interference by government. This presumption means that citizens may challenge any government action that restricts their otherwise rightful conduct, and the burden is on the government to show that its action is within its proper powers or scope. At the national level, the government would bear the burden of showing that its acts were both Â?necessary and properÂ? to accomplish an enumerated function, rather than, as now, forcing the citizen to prove why it is he or she should be left alone. At the state level, the burden would fall upon state government to show that legislation infringing the liberty of its citizens was a necessary exercise of its Â?police powerÂ? - that is, the stateÂ?s power to protect the rights of its citizensÂ?
This is exactly the opposite of what we really have now, where the government can do pretty much whatever it wants.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Here's one for Bart.
Jane Fonda to Oppose Iraq War on Bus Tour:
"I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."
No [bleep]!
This is big.
The Teamsters and the SEIU are leaving the AFL-CIO.
Feel the love.
Jon Henke: "Increasingly, I find that what I like least about libertarianism are the libertarians."
Freakin' big brother!
No, that's not a reference to myself, Joe.

A legislator in New Jersey wants to ban smoking in cars. Arg!

What is worse?
Having Fred Phelps and his ilk protest a military funeral, or having a state official do the same.

Discuss.
More on the Mega-Conference
Jason Rosenhouse at The Panda's Thumb continues his coverage of the Creation Mega-Conference here and here, and he says there's more to come.