Alternet just started it's up-to-the-minute Iraq newslog for those keeping an eye on the unfriendly skies.
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
HOUSE PASSES BILL OUTLAWING INTERNET GAMBLING
Alas, just when you thought our government could not possibly do anything worse, a bill passed through House today essentially outlawing internet gambling. As with many other gifts of the Congress to the people, this one is for the children (and that includes all of you). A light, however, shimmers through the darkness. Here is Congressman Ron Paul's statement on the subject:
Statement of Ron Paul on HR 556
"Mr. Speaker, HR 556 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.
In addition to being unconstitutional, HR 556 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile "war on drugs," shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, HR 556 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling!
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 556 violates the constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as HR 556 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject HR 556, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act."
You gotta love him.
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
HITCH YER HORSE TO THIS ONE
Sorry guys-- the South, as you can see, did rise again in my language. It's addictive-- like chewing tobacco. (Joke-- I haven't fallen quite that far yet. A girl should only chew tobacco when her baseball team is losing...) Anyway, a friend sent his opinion on the Hitchens scandal to me and I was hoping some of you might give him a reply:
"My theory as to why Hitchens supports this war is he sees it as a war for secular humanism and a form of liberalism against what he believes is the greatest danger to human liberty and happiness, monotheism. Hitch has, I fear, succumbed to modern one-world utopianism based on free-trade and world government, but only if the UN and it's allied instructions have the will to strike down nationalism and any form of unique ethic identity that prevents people from seeing themselves as part of the brotherhood of man. In Hitchens' case he combines it with a hatered for all traditonal relgious. I am thinking of writing soemthing on how one world uptohsims has infected the libertarian movement and explains libertarian support for the war as well as for global government (egthe WTO)."
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
MEMETICS FOR LIBERTARIANS
If libertarians premise their political philosophy on the doctrine of non-initiation of force, George Justin Mallone believes they are building on quick-sand. Referring to Wendy McElroy's argument against voting, he remarks:
"Wendy argues that while a bullet can be narrowly aimed, a ballot affects third parties, and thus induces some sort of moral complicity for what the evil individual does. But the fact is that a bullet can go astray and harm third parties, yet the gun is regarded as a legitimate tool against aggression, while the ballot is not."
Allow me to confess my bias at this point. I have an incredible amount of respect and sympathy for McElroy's individualist anarchism. When I was a student at Auburn, she gave a brilliant talk at the Mises Institute on American anarchism, weaving together the likes of Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, and William B. Green. After the talk, she provided insight for an assignment I was completing which attempted to reconcile the premises of the New England transcendentalists with early American anarchism-- small fry for Wendy.
Suffice it to say that my personal weakness for Ralph Waldo Emerson barely tops my reverence for McElroy's work distinguishing individualist anarchism from communist anarchism. Now, more than ever, liberty-minded folks should concentrate on these distinctions, as the anti-war, anti-globalization, pro-labor-union protestors are lumped in with libertarians and individualist anarchists by the ever-ignorant media.
While Mallone's argument misses much of McElroy's (he should read a little more about her anarchism and relate that to her views on initiation for force), he introduces a term worth remembering, namely, a "libertarian meme", inspired by the writings of Meme-master Richard Dawkins. If you ever have questions about libertarian memetics, don't say I didn't introduce you to the guru himself.
Excellent piece by Robert Higgs today on why presidents lie during war-time. To be read while listening to the Rollins Band's anthem, "Liar" for full effect.
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
THE WOEBEGONE STATE OF RIGHTS IN THE UNION
Is there a "right" to life? What about a "right" to death? Or a "right" to kill an enemy? Even a "right" to not do the "right" thing? For all the times one hears the word "right" tossed around, the sense of what it means to "have a right" remains elusive. Mary Kenny sniffs rights-talk out for Index on Censorship and, like nost of us, concludes by barely satisfying herself.
If rights-talks doesn't satisfy us-- if it no longer serves as a means of clarifying confusion about meaning, sense, and reference-- why does it always end up being everyone's default defense? Of course there is the ever-famous argument from because-it's-easy; but this argument fails to resolve or reveal anything. Do humans just want to be confused and conflicted? At this point, we can't even agree on which supposed "rights" are in conflict, nevertheless begin to understand what these conflicts entail. I'm tired of rights-talk. I want to see the rights in question.
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
OPPOSITION IN NAME ONLY
The Democratic Party will have to do more than whine about senior pension plans if it wants to win seats in the upcoming Congressional elections. When Al Gore's meek dissent is as much as can be mustered to critique the Bush administration's foreign policy, the party in opposition certainly isn't flexing its vocal muscles enough.
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
DOLDRUMMING
The Economist ends its intro article its most recent issue with the warning, "Doldrums are dangerous". The concern focuses on the threat of deflation, along with the inability of monetary policy to remedy deflation without adverse consequences. The ladies and gentlebeasts at my favorite journal don't believe that things are getting better in the economic arena. If I agree, it is only to the extent that, given globalized markets, economies tend to rise and fall together. I would argue for sharply diversified governmental responses to the current doldrums. "Policy competition"-- say it slowly three times. Sexy, isn't it?
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
CURRENCY COMPETITION, CORRUPTION, AND CONSTANTINO
Reading The Economist's piece on the dollarization of El Salvador brought a favorite friend to mind. My former apartment-mate, Constantino Diaz-Duran, persuaded me of many things during our time in DC. However, his case for currency competition took the choclate mousse.
Being from Guatemala, Constantino explained the situation in an economy where there are two legal currencies for transactions-- the international dollar and the national quetzal. Under a dual-currency regime, since citizens and investors can choose which currency to use, this provides a sort of legitimacy check on government policies. For example, if the government adopts what appears to be a bad monetary, social, or legal policy, people can reveal their preferences by pulling out of the quetzal.
Venezualan economist Jose Luis Cordeiro argues the case for monetary sovereignty as a tool to empower citizens-cum-consumers economically and politically. Noting the current emphasis on monetary policy, Cordeiro complains that the official national currency only fuels an increase in governmental power. In the case of Guatemala, as of January 2002, the economy's continuing growth was clear.
What prevents the economic benefits of this growth from being more diffuse, however, is a facet of the political corruption plaguing the country's government since the unsatisfactory resolution of the dirty war. Among other reasons, Tino fled Guatemala due to his involvement in the "Black Friday" protests against government corruption and higher taxes. Protesters, journalists, academics, human-rights acitvists, and many others continue to recieve violent threats when they tread to close to the truth. Though the dirty war officially ended with the 1996 peace accords, the implementation of these accords has proven shoddy at best.
Journalists criticizing government corruption recieve threats, sometimes resulting in their death, illustrated by the case of human-rights activist Myrna Mack, who investigated the crimes of the past before her savage murder in 1990. Similarly to the predicament of transition states like Romania, the Guatemalan courts lack the precedential legitimacy or distance from politics to pursue justice in cases involving the crimes of the military. And judges who try recieve threats too. Contrary to the requirements of the peace accords, the presidential-security division of the military recieved more funding this year from President Portillo. The peace accord called for the disbanding of this division.
How can the government earn the trust of its people when Portillo does little to effectively disguise his crookery. At least former President Clinton gave us the veneer of honesty; Portillo, however, is as bad an actor as he is a politician. Recently, the Guatemalan and Panamanian press linked Portillo, Vice President Juan Francisco Reyes, and several other high-ranking puppets to offshore companies and bank accounts in Panama.
In a policy tack, Bush administration recently denied visas to several of Portillo's closest political and security advisors in an effort to send a message that "US support for further international assistance to Guatemala will be conditioned on concrete steps to eradicate official corruption". It remains to be seen whether Bush will relent under the pressure of international economic instability.
As for that sweet euphemism, "regime-change", or dictator-doctored-democracy, Bush and company would be foolish to consider this option for Guatemala. Many Guatemalans have lost faith in democracy itself, due to the continuing rise of crime and corruption. "Exporting democracy" under such circumstances would only further aggravate conditions for Guatemalans, since democracy is merely a formal description, as opposed to a substantive guarantee.
Columnist Alejandro Giammattei writes: "If democracy is to elect government officials so that they can do as they wish, and one must remain complacent at the looting of the country and even be thankful that something is left..., then I do not want to live in that democracy". Clearly, fair elections alone are not enough to secure democratic legitimacy.
Something more besides the official hair-dos must change in Guatemala. Columnist Oscar Clemente Marroquin observes: "For years we have been betting that the country will improve with a change of government, but experience shows that it is absurd to believe that substituting the personalities signifies the abolition of the old ills".
First, Guatemala must reclaim justice through its court system by trying former officials connected to military crimes, abuse, kidnappings. Truth commissions have been cited by some legal experts, like Anne-Marie Slaughter, as means to this end. It is noteworthy that those transition states who adopted lustration laws in the early 1990's witnessed a smoother political transition, partly because issues of legitimacy were resolved prior to office-holding.
Second, the Guatemalan government's actions should be sharply limited until its influence on the economy sheds the aura of "partisan clientism". There is a reason why Constantino's politics centered on free markets and minimal state interference-- limited government is one of the only effective ways to curtail the influence of institutionalized corruption on political, economic, and social life.
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
STILL LOVING THE ECONOMIST
In retrospect, the sole lessons of merit that I retained from the needlessly pretentious summer in Oxford program (to which my mother shipped me during high school) consisted in
1) long-distance boyfriends make for salacious phone bills 2) The Economist is a lot more interesting than boyfriends and phone bills.
To this day, my week begins badly without my darling Economist to share my morning coffee; and my anxiety increases towards the end of the week when all the articles have been eaten. So I dedicate this day to my continuing romance with The Economist, who has always been the voice of reason, tapered by British wit, when love and lust lost their luster. Cheers, darling-- here's to forever. For now.