Wednesday, November 23, 2005

ABC News: Fox News Won't Show Ad Opposing Alito

This is interesting - the story comes from the AP, so don't go blasting ABC for reporting, as anything they added would be editorializing.

Why is it interesting to a libertarian? Well, for a few reasons...

First, although I abhor Fox News (in fact, I abhor most news broadcasts), they are a private company and can do what they wish, including refusing to sell their product (advertising airtime) to anyone for any reason. It's called private property rights, and if Fox doesn't want to run the ad, for whatever reason, so be it.

Second, the fight over Supreme Court justice nominations since the 1980's have focussed on a single issue - abortion rights. While the AP story does mention Alito's queer views on what constitutes a legal search, it also mentions his views on abortion when he was seeking a job in the Reagan administration. Abortion isn't the only issue here, and making the fight against any Supreme Court nominee hinge on his or her views on abortion is, in my mind, horribily short-sighted. Given his views on illegal searches, his views on abortion should be evident to anyone anyway.

Third, I find it an extraordinary juxtaposition of philosophies. You see, the abortion rights people feel that a woman's body, and anything growing inside it, it hers to do with as she pleases. While the religious fervor they exude is off-putting at best, the idea that what you do with your body is up to you stems from the most basic of property rights - you own your body. This is the "I think, therefore I am" of property rights, and it's culminates, in this story anyway, with Fox exercising its right not to air this ad.

Of course, despite the lip-service both parties hand out like candy at a parade, neither of the two major parties give a damn about your property rights, whether it's the right to your own body, or your real estate, or your domain name, or you broadcast airwaves, unless you've got some money and power that can help them.

And as for Alito's view on abortion, that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion", I'd encourage him (and the rest of you fascists who think there is no right to an abortion, or to use drugs, or prostitution, or any other supposed crime that involves consensual activities) to reread Amendments 9 and 10. Don't understand them? Well, the basically say two things:

  • We couldn't list every right the People have, so we're explicitly saying there are more.

  • We listed every power the Federal government has - any others are either State powers, or left to the People.

All this means we should be freeer and the government smaller, but it hasn't worked out that way, has it?

ABC News: Fox News Won't Show Ad Opposing Alito

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

Interesting - need to find out if the Fark comment is correct. The comment is that Bush's current approval rating of 34% is the same as Lincoln's. In South Carolina. In 1863. - Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

Friday, November 11, 2005


Check out the link below - the quote is from the last paragraph. Substitute your own network, news program, and news anchor, of course...

Fox may be able to condense all the political news into a 30-minute 'No Spin
Zone,' but in those same 30 minutes a person could read the entire text of the
U.S. Constitution and gain a far better understanding of the American political
establishment than Bill O'Reilly will ever provide.

I Hate TV - Editorial/Op-ed:

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Election results - Damage

I-901, the public smoking ban, passed in Washington yesterday.

You know, everyone wanted to make this strictly a health issue, and I don’t deny that health is a part of the issue. However, by making this ONLY a health issue, you ignore the infringement on private property owner rights. This sets a precedent that, if not overturned in court, will have repercussions in the future. For example, there has been talk about banning smoking in privately owned condos for the same reasons. There are people (like my mother-in-law) who have allergies to ingredients in perfumes and colognes – could this be next on the list of non-approved public substances? One of my hobbies is building model planes and cars, and the lacquer and enamel paint and thinners I use contain VOC’s (volatile organic compounds)– will the health issues of using VOC solvents override my rights to paint models in my garage someday?

From I-901 to the CAO all the way to the East Cost and Kelo v. New London, everyone’s property rights are under attack for one reason or another. I’m glad people feel safer and healthier – too bad that collectively we don’t truly own anything anymore. A government that doesn't respect your property rights will shortly and surely lose respect for your other rights as well.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Property rights and I-901

There's an election tomorrow, and in Washington state, there's an initiative on the ballot that would severly restrict property rights. It's not as blatant as the Kelo decision, but is much more insidious and just as outrageous. It's Initiative 901 - an indoor smoking ban for all private property.

This initiative, if it passes, would ban smoking on all private property if it's accessible to public - think restaurant, bar, MC repair shop. Any piece of property that you allow the public to access will be non-smoking, even if everyone on the property is a smoker.

The proponents of this initiative claim it's to protect non-smoking employees in smoking establishments - they parade a sad-faced working mom serving drinks in a smoke filled bar. However, the initiative would prohibit smoking even if you have no employees, or your employees already smoke.

This is nothing more than a CAO-like piece of legislation stripping your property rights, masquerading as a public health masterpiece. The juxtaposition of socialist agendas with libertarians ideals usually take the form of initiatives, and usually get settled in the courts. The problem is that the Washington Supreme Court (and the U.S. Supreme Court) have taken the side of the socialists in the recent past - gas taxes were reinstated, eminent domain was expanded, the Patriot Act still is being argued. I expect to see a court case on this, but not much news coverage and I'm not hopeful this will be overturned.

Remember folks - if you don't control what happens to your land, you don't own it anymore. A government that doesn't respect your rights to your property will soon stop respecting your other rights, like freedom of speech, bearing weapons, speedy impartial jury trials, keeping soldiers in your home.

Until then, smoke 'em if you got 'em, and read this guest article in the P.I. - I'm rather surprised the premier newspaper for Soviet Seattle let this one run. I guess they needed to run it to preserve some sense of "balanced reporting" (although how they, or any newspaper, can pretend to be impartial reporters of news is doubtful when they support key issues and initiatives - specifically, the P.I. has come out in support of I-901). You can also check out for more info (I'm not a balanced reporter - you want the proponents web site, find it your-damn-self).

The Politics of Oil, and Economics 101

OK, he's a conservative, but this guy articulates the argument that when demand exceeds supply, prices should go up, and when people buy more of something, the company selling it should make more profit. Of course, you can read the rantings and ravings of the socialists on Fark as well (where I got the link from).