If a person wants to engage in a legal, legitimate activity, then the fact that he is part of a group should not make a difference. To that extent, I agree with the G20 resistance project when they say that they don't need a permit to march today . I've heard that some cities only require march organizers to submit their parade route to the authorities, which is infinitely more reasonable than the bureacratic/autocratic "permit" process.

 However, when the stated goal of march organizers is to interfere with someone else's legitimate actions ("disrupt the summit"), then organizing the march amounts to inciting a  riot--which is never permitted.

In the interest of keeping some fresh content on this site, I am republishing an essay that I wrote for Freedom Democrats . It is targeted at a left-libertarian audience and has has only been slightly updated for a general audience.

One of the most common arguments for the state is that some authority figure needs to mete out punishments to those who do not contribute to public goods, most generally by mandating tax payments. While most people take this as an obvious fact (probably due to a desire to justify the status quo), these arguments are little more than naive speculation.

In the interest of keeping some fresh content on this site, I am republishing an essay that I wrote for Freedom Democrats . It is targeted at a left-libertarian audience and has not been updated for a general audience. I also can't promise that I'll have time to respond to comments. It's easier to just preach to the chior.

In preparation for the G20 summit, some Pittsburgh activists convened the People's Summit to discus a global social and economic agenda without involving the global elite. Even as they claim to offer an alternative to a shallow commercial culture, they use vapid leftist buzz words that would comfortably fit into a corporate press release. As reported by the sympathetic G20Media , their rallying cry is:

"We share the conviction that another world is possible,"

 

Cross-posted to FreedomDemocrats .

During the Presidential campaign, Gene Healy at Reason wrote up an article about the Cult of the Presidency -- describing the unreasonable faith that many Americans place in the Presidency and its occupant* (covered by John here ). Despite the hypocritical right-wing hand-wringing over the implications of Obama's effectiveness in mass politics, Obama cannot take credit for inventing the Cult of the Presidency.

A number of recent events have vividly illustrated one long-standing aspect of the Presidential cult -- the idea that the President is the ultimate arbiter of cultural worth and the representative of a national consensus on cultural issues. These events showed that Americans expect the President to be the ultimate representative on issues as broad as military valor , piousness , and athletic accomplishment .

Some issues are big and scary and complicated (like war and our financial system), and I can understand how I'm not really in a position to specify expectations for how the government will address them.

However, some other issues are so straightforward (even if they aren't 'big') that I can confidently say that if the new Democratic government does not address these issues, then they will be guilty of negligent government.

I'm sure that many issues fall into this category, but here's are two issues that I expect the new government to take care of in fairly short order:

McCain: We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

McCain made this serious accusation during the third presidential debate . It has also been propagated by television advertisements , and extensive editorializing by Obama's opponents. However, if we look into the specific accusations against ACORN (let alone the actual evidence), they do not add up into the grand conspiracy theory that McCain is promoting.

In today's commentary on Marketplace, Robert Reich articulated some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head since the government started bailing out financial firms: Maybe 'too big to fail' is just 'too big':

The Black Swan , by Nassim Nicholas Taleb is an engaging book about an important topic. However, if a reader who is familiar with the topic(s) will not find any new ideas.

Is Charles Krauthammer really so naive as to believe that:

It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama
sporting associations with three more execrable characters [than Rezko, Ayers, and Wright].

WTF, mate?

We are facing the abyss.

Even if Paulson's package does get passed by Congress, there is still a chance that our financial system will fail. As President Bush described the risk :

More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock
market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your
retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures
would rise dramatically.

I've often been irritated by people who treat "majority rule" as a simple and inviolable tenet of democracy. Any familiarity with the theoretical or practical aspects of elections (let alone theories of government) will quickly show that this is absurd.

Promoted by John

Does Sarah Palin believe in evolution?

Numerous bloggers have been asking variants of this question since Palin was selected as McCain's running mate. There are two issues here:

• what does she believe?
• to what extent does it matter?

I don't like McCain's proposal for the Feds to offer a prize for a better battery.

From his campaign page:

Promoted by Brendan

Much of our political discourse refers to narratives of civil conflict, either using them to frame issues (e.g. Lou Dobbs' War on the Middle Class) or accusing others of promoting these narratives of conflict (e.g. class war, racism) rather than narratives of unity. Below is a haphazard analysis of narratives of civil conflict. I'd love to hear your thoughts, as well as any recommended readings on the topic.

Promoted by Brendan

There has been much commentary about how websites can serve as "echo-chambers" allowing us to limit our discussions to like-minded individuals. While sites like Wikipedia and Swords Crossed may counteract this tendency on the web, we may face a much more fundamental threat of political/cultural balkanization arising from where we live .

I, for one, was heartened by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the limit that states may only apply the death penalty in response to crimes that result in death. As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed that Obama disagrees :

This is absolutely insane.

Dunkin Donuts has pulled an advertisement featuring Rachel Ray after Michelle Malkin and friends accused her of promoting terrorism (possibly inadvertently) by wearing a scarf with the faintest resemblance to the traditional Arabic head-dress, the Kaffiyeh .

When all this fuss started over Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, I initially thought he was a crank and was bothered by the fact that Obama associated with him. I dug up what little information that I could about him (his offensive statements are rarely presented in context), and my opinion didn't change. I was particularly bothered by how he racialized theology and ancient (Roman) history.

Promoted by John

McCain is delusional, Nader is pathetic. Now that this is settled, let's just put a Democrat in the White House.

Seriously, McCain recently criticized (his interpretation of) Obama's proposed Iraq policy , on the basis that if we leave, Al Qaeda will take over Iraq.

if we left they wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country.