June 23, 2005
Peak Liberty
America has been, throughout the course of our history, a nation that values liberty. In 1787, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, liberty was on the brain. A Constitution was written to ensure that all people in this nation, for all time, would enjoy the blessings of freedom. Freedom from tyranny of government, which was ensured by the protections of a document that limited its powers and a Bill of Rights that enshrined personal liberty into its hallowed wording. And a nation whose freedom was guaranteed based upon the rule of law as written in that document, not the whims of an electorate or the legislature of the day.
There were flaws at that time, to be sure. The nature of our nation did not yet live up to that document’s billing. “Freedom to all” meant freedom to land-owning white males. Everyone else was out of luck. The work of millions of people helped to change that fact. The souls of hundreds of thousands of young men were lost in a war to bring freedom to the slaves, only to take another 100 years to bring true equality with the end of Jim Crow. Racial equality came to pass. Gender equality came to pass. Even today, these battles are still being fought for the rights of same-sex couples. Since the day this country was founded, you have seen the liberty of unpopular groups gain hold and reach parity with the rest. In a country that is based upon the right to be safe in unpopularity, the march of history has been remarkable to make that a reality.
But there’s another current at work. We are slowly seeing social liberty for all groups reach parity. Parity, however, can be equally great or equally poor. As unpopular groups have raised their level of acceptance and been granted the same rights as those of the popular, liberty has been defined down for all.
We have reached a point, socially, where government regulation intrudes on our lives and decisions from the time we wake until the time we retire, and all through our slumber. Rights, from what one can ingest into his body, be it benevolent medicine to malevolent narcotics, are decided by government. Free speech has survived, mostly, as long as you have a legal degree and training to comply with McCain-Feingold. The 2nd Amendment is still alive, and you’re allowed to own firearms, as long as you apply to the right bureaucrat to inform the government where to look for them. You have the freedom to practice religion, as long as you make sure not to do it anywhere approximating a “public” place. You have the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, provided, of course, that you never visit the library. Seemingly innocuous laws such as the requirement to wear a seat belt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle may be in your own best interest, but forcing such behavior is tyranny nonetheless.
Economic liberty, of course, has become a joke. It is almost unnecessary to even go into the details, but we must remember what we’re up against. The land of the founding fathers was one where government and business were more separate than religion and government are now. Starting with the anti-trust acts (probably before, of course), continuing through Wickard v. Filburn, through the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of 2002, the government has a hand in regulation of every business in this nation. On the personal level, nearly every monetary transaction performed is taxed through a myriad of different local, state, and federal rules, you only own as much of your income as government allows, and likewise you only own as much of your property as government allows. You exist economically not as an individual, but as a servant of the state.
It is obvious, that as some personal liberties may be slowly advancing, many other liberties are quickly dying. So we ask ourselves, how did it get so bad? Can we turn it around? Jon asks in this comment at Dadahead whether we should start thinking of it as Peak Liberty. I.e. just like the extraction of oil from the ground might eventually hit a point where the increase in demand and limited supply lead to global catastrophe, have we reached a point of no return in our loss of liberty? Have we reached a point where our only options will be an eventual slide into tyranny, requiring nothing less than a bloody revolution to turn around? And if so, how do we know the “Peak”? Has it happened yet?
Then perhaps somewhere it peaked and we’ve been sliding downward, living on the backside of the bell curve for a while now. We’ve peaked and have entered liberty’s long emergency. As with peak oil, defining peak liberty might not be clear except in hindsight. Was it the Civil War? Was it Brown v. Board of Education? The Sherman Anti-Trust Act? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Was it landing on the moon? ADA?
Or was it some act against democracy that defined the peak (Dred Scott? ERA fails? NAFTA?) Is protecting against “flag desecration” just one more drop out of a near empty tank? Does our ‘democracy’ function like our suburbs now, sprawling, messy and without some sense of direction other than growth?
It is a valid question. After all, we can look at the possible peaks. The Civil War, where slavery was ended but the concepts of federalism were greatly weakened and the federal government made more powerful? The 16th Amendment, where we first determined, as a nation, that the ability to keep ones income was a privilege, and the extent allowed was determined by the whim of government? The New Deal, where many people were helped, but where it was taken as fact that individuals were subservient to “society” and the government thereof? The sixties, where we reached our greatest heights in the civil rights movement, only to transition to the even more obtrusive welfare state of the Great Society, and the victim politics that arised? Or was it today, when our Supreme Court decided that private property rights no longer matter? Or has it not happened yet? Are we still on the upward trend (doubtful).
I can’t answer where the peak was, but it certainly seems like we’re on the downslope. Peak Liberty, as a theory, has some serious flaws. After all, liberty is not a finite resource. It is elastic, and greater liberty can be enjoyed by all. So no matter what happens, it can be reversed. It is certainly possible that an equilibrium point can be reached. It may be argued that Europe has reached that point, and only something as silly as a “European Union” can move them farther down the slope. But the effort and ease at which that reverse occurs depends greatly on what point of the downslope has been reached. If we act in time, we can defeat tyranny at the ballot box. But history has shown that people do not respond to the lack of liberty until it is too late. If the slide continues, the day will come where government will not tolerate our attempts to restrain it, and that government must be replaced, by any means necessary.
Peak Liberty, like Peak Oil, can happen. Each can also be avoided. Peak Oil, of course, is a completely different topic, so the aversion strategies are beyond the scope of this post. But to avoid Peak Liberty, it simply takes education. Oddly enough, our own government has provided us all the lesson plans we’ll ever need. Pissed off about Social Security? A failure of government. Pissed off about the inefficiencies of the IRS? Blame government. EPA declared your home “wetlands” and not letting you build that inground pool? Overreaching intrusion of government on your private property rights. Government educational system in your locale a morass of corruption, lack of discipline, excess of political correctness, and not doing a thing to educate your kids? Ask why we rely on government as the primary source of education in this country? And first and foremost, trumpet Kelo v. New London to everyone in earshot. People listen to what affects them personally. Nothing is more personal than the government seizing your house for what they determine is just compensation, only to turn it over to another private entity.
Peak Liberty, like Peak Oil, relies on current trends. We may have reached Peak Liberty, but by changing trends we can step back from the abyss. Our current populace cares about nothing but bread and circuses, and our current political crop is perfectly willing to erode their liberty while providing those diversions. We can change the trends, but to do that, we need to win the hearts and minds. We can’t change government without changing the minds of voters, so let’s get cracking. There may be dangerously little time left.
Multiple Mentality | www.multiplementality.com linked with Items of Interest #47
Owlish Mutterings linked with Carnival of Liberty
Life, Liberty, and Property Group Blog linked with Carnival of Liberty II
Searchlight Crusade linked with Carnival of Liberty #2
Life, Liberty, and Property Group Blog linked with Carnival of Liberty II
word-hoard linked with there is no left. there is no right
Pole Dancing In The Dark linked with Peak Liberty
News, the Universe, and Everything linked with The Unrepentant Individual » Peak Liberty
The end of private property
I am angry, sad, and disgusted. I literally feel a sickness in my stomach. I just want to absolutely scream.
Why? The Supreme Court has given their official blessing to private property being seized for other private parties under the guise of Eminent Domain.
Eric’s already given a much more reasoned response to this issue. So if you want reasoned discourse today, go see his post. But in my frame of mind, all I can do is rant.
First target: the left. Not long ago, we were debating whether property rights are inherent. The left has argued that private property rights are only as valid as “society” allows them to be. Well, it looks like they’ve proved their point. Now, they can all claim victory when poor elderly people are thrown out of their houses to make room for hotels and office parks. They can laugh and play in the streets when mom and pop hardware stores are razed to make room for Home Depot, and wonderful union-friendly stores like Walmart can secure land at low, low prices to open stores and crowd out local businesses. The left, who is the “champion of the poor and downtrodden”, has just given big business a huge wrecking ball to crush the poor and downtrodden. Good thing that your inability to respect private property is now going to be a major form of corporate welfare. Congratulations!!!
And to the right, we need to marshal your forces against this. I’ve got an idea! Let’s raze a couple churches! After all, they don’t pay any property taxes. It’s simple math that something is bigger than nothing, so if we replaced the razed churches with, say, strip clubs, bars, and adult book stores, it will be a huge boon to the local government tax receipts. Bulldozing a few churches (or simply converting them to strip clubs to save money) will probably gain quite a bit of support, huh?
This decision has be so upset I don’t know what to do with myself. Private property in this country was just killed. Free speech is nearly dead, and if this flag desecration amendment goes through, we can call the end on that. Freedom from government interference has gone the way of the dodo with interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. What do we have left? One of Dada’s commenters, in a play on the “Peak Oil” idea, has asked whether we’ve reached “Peak Liberty”? I fear that it’s all downhill from here.
The Unrepentant Individual linked with God, make way for CostCo!
T. F. Stern's Rantings linked with Supreme Court Did Away with Private Property Right
News, the Universe, and Everything linked with An absolute abomination...
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with More Reactions to Kelo
Political Caricatures
Political cartooning is a long-standing tradition in our nation. Lampooning our politicians and political hopefuls in print is a way to bring issues to light in a quick manner.
But what happens when political debate treats those politicians not as humans, but as caricatures?
You see, we have a serious problem here. The left in this country believes that George W. Bush is evil. They believe that he is like Hitler. They believe that comparisons to Darth Vader are fully valid. They believe that George W. Bush hates freedom, hates minorities, hates the poor, and hates individual rights. They believe that his true goal is to set up an Evangelical Christian theocracy. They believe, truly believe, that George W. Bush would go to war, sending American soldiers into harms way, to enrich oil tycoons in Texas. They truly believe that George W. Bush cares more about his own glory and building an “empire” than protecting and serving the citizens of this country.
Now, I ask, how can you argue with that? How can you argue policies with opponents who think your side is evil and full of hate? You can’t. You cannot have meaningful debate when your opposition believes you are evil, nasty, and hateful. If you believe a policy will help a situation, and your opponent believes it will hurt a situation, you can debate. If your opponent thinks you secretly want to hurt that situation, however, there is no debate.
This, of course, is not only the domain of the left. There are people on the right who think our leftist friends are actively anti-American. They think the left is trying to tear down and destroy all they hold sacred in our nation. You look at the way the hard Right treats Hillary, and you have to believe that they’re not just opposed to her policies, they hate her and think she’s evil. If we continue this way, and Hillary gets the nomination in ‘08, what voice will those of us who oppose her based on policy have when we’re being shouted over by the people who hate her?
The rhetoric has caused meaningful debate and meaningful change to become impossible. We need to fight against this. We need to fight against the Ed Kleins, Jerry Falwells, and Pat Robertsons of this country just as hard as we fight against the Dick Durbins, Charlie Rangels, and Howard Deans. It is time for us to start talking and stop yelling. It is time for us to stop treating our opposition like a mortal enemy. It is time, quite frankly, to start acting like grown-ups.
I do my best to treat opposition with respect. For example, our good lefty Dadahead is about as diametrically opposed to me politically as you can get. Do I think Dada is a bad person? Nope. Do I think he’s trying to destroy this country? Not at all. I do think he’s wrong. I do think his policies will do immense damage to this country. But I think he is acting in good faith. I think he believes that he is right and that his policies will do good. I debate Dada, in the hopes that I can show him where I believe he is wrong. Or, more accurately, that people on the fence that read our debates can see why I am right and he is wrong, because Dada and I probably won’t change each other’s minds. But if I thought Dada was a bad, evil person, or he thought such of me, we wouldn’t even be able to talk. Dada and his readers can debate with me, Eric, Robert, et. al., because we engage in civil debate about ideas, not personal invective.
If we want to see change, we need to end the “politics of personal destruction”. We need to start engaging in debate, not rhetoric. Unless that happens, we’re just going to have more of the same, a government that bickers over who holds the reins of power instead of debating the effects of proposed policies, and a populace that distrusts our politicians and tunes out the nasty rhetoric. Let’s remember, our politicians, whether it’s Bush, either Clinton, or any of the others, are human beings. They’re not cardboard cutouts of political cartoons. Wrong and evil are two different things. Showing why your opponent is wrong may be more difficult than calling them evil, but it will improve our nation to do so.
(more fun cartoons below the fold)
Cartoon Central linked with Political Caricatures
June 22, 2005
What can I say…
Giant Popsicle melts, floods New York park
The 25-foot-tall, 17 1/2-ton treat of frozen Snapple juice melted faster than expected Tuesday, flooding Union Square in downtown Manhattan with kiwi-strawberry-flavored fluid that sent pedestrians scurrying for higher ground.
Hmmm, just like the movie. Of course, I think “The Blob” has a little better ring to in than “The Snapple”.
Boortz ‘hates’ republicans?
Fellow HCBA blogger the Nerdy Conservative posted an open letter to the President. As the name implies, he is a conservative, but much like the rest of us, there are some things that our President has done in office that make us question whether he is really willing to stick his neck and and do what it is believed needs to be done. The Nerdy Conservative was very upset about our inability to control our borders and the borders of Iraq, leading to trouble at home and danger to our soldiers. Check it out.
From Neal’s Nuze… He brought up one of my biggest problems with our current Republican administration: the inability to control spending:
Federal government spending has gone up by 33 percent since George W. Bush took office. For those of you who think that we were spending enough when Clinton was president … just imagine spending one-third more! Think about this one … During every year that Clinton was president and the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives the final budget was less than the budget proposed by Clinton. Congressional Republicans at least put some effort into holding back spending. But what about the Bush years? Every single year since George W. Bush was sworn in the Republican congress has passed a final budget that spent more than Bush requested. More, not less.
He then went on to show exactly where that spending growth is coming from.
I love the fact that Bush cut taxes. But if you don’t also cut, or at least hold down spending, what the hell is the point? I understand increased defense spending, since there’s a war on, but why everywhere else? Instead, we’re borrowing ourselves deep into debt, and will be paying for todays spending in interest many years down the road. I’ve had to learn that credit cards are the bane of my existence, and have resigned myself to trying to stop using them. Of course, I have to pay that money back, from my own income, so I have to be careful about how I spend. But for our elected thieves, they absolutely don’t care, because they never have to pay back that money if they can push it off to the next bunch of elected thieves.
Neither I, nor Neal Boortz, hate Republicans. What we do hate is people who get elected under the banner of cutting spending, and then start acting like drunk, spoiled fratboys squandering their parent’s money on lapdances at Chances Are.
A Living Document
I don’t have time for a full post, so let me point you all to an excellent one that Eric wrote. Originalist vs. “Living Document”
He brings up the ideological and historical reasoning behind the idea that our constitution should be interpreted as written, as opposed to as a “living document”. With the realization that the amendment process is the correct method for changing the document, not judicial fiat. And specifically, the notion that we no longer live in a state governed by the rule of law, we are now governed by the will of the majority and the rule of man.
One excerpt, which particularly caught my eye, is quoted below. Eric points out that many of the current laws and injustices in our nation are perpetrated because of the left’s use of the Constitution as a living document. When you choose to ignore individual rights and the rule of law, you shouldn’t be surprised when the majority votes to oppresse you…
The amendment process, in fact, is the answer to the “living document” argument of constitutional theory. Much of the ills that the Left argues against today, the bureaucracy and congress that favor the corporate state over the individual, the military-industrial complex, the gross extension of police search and seizure powers, the intrusion into social issues that should be matters of purely local and state law are, indeed, the result of the “living document”. We can point at any number of laws and regulations passed by congress and any number of decisions made by the courts that have “interpreted” the constitution, rather than being based on its original meaning. Surprisingly, the Left does not (or chooses not to?) see that one is the consequence of the other.
Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave linked with How Much Power Will You Give the Statists?
June 21, 2005
Deee-troit
The NBA will have it’s first Game 7 in the Finals since 1994.
But does anyone even care?
The Pistons strode into San Antonio and handed a loss to one of the best home teams in the league, quite an accomplishment. This means game 7 on Thursday night to decide the NBA champion.
According to the league, fan attendance at games reached an all-time high in 2005. This despite the brawl between the Indiana Pacers and the Detroit fans at the beginning of the season. Many speculated that this incident would turn people away and the league would suffer. It doesn’t appear to have happened. However, the broadcast ratings have steadily declined in the past decade. So ticket prices are at an all-time high, the league has a black-eye from the fracas in Detroit – but still fans turn out in record numbers. But apparently only watch when they’re at the game and don’t tune in when they’re in their living room.
Other news in the NBA -
The NBA players’ union and the league have reached a new collective bargaining agreement. It is a 6 year deal with some major changes.
The biggest: Players must now be a minimum of 19 years of age when they are drafted.
I actually am quite shocked that the players’ union agreed to this stipulation. Some of the league’s best current talent were drafted prior to their 19th birthday – Tracy McGrady, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant to name the big ones. Now, Jermaine O’Neal (who was drafted when he was 18) would have us believe that this is all racially motivated. Not really sure of the rationale behind this, but really, are most NBA players members of MENSA?
This really boils down to whether it is the right of a person, regardless of age, to earn a living in the best manner possible. Should the NBA be allowed to prohibit a high school senior from declaring for the draft right after their graduation? Should they force them to either enter college for a year or just sit around and wait until the following draft?
I say YES. It may seem unfair, but professional sports are all about IMAGE. Why is hockey so unpopular? They don’t have an image. Why is football the nation’s favorite sport? They have a great image (aside from a few felonies here and there). All professional sports should look to the NFL for guidance. They recently signed a new network deal worth a kazillion dollars. Paul Tagliabue (NFL commish) has done a great job of keeping the NFL what it is meant to be – something that the entire family can turn to on Sunday and see a competitive game. The reason I mention the NFL is because they don’t allow anyone to enter the NFL draft until they are at least two years removed from high school. That means you can’t enter straight out of high school, nor can you enter after your freshman year at college (just ask Maurice Clarrett, he learned the hard way). The result of this is that the NFL doesn’t have any 18 year old kids there to create an image of rich-little-boy-that-hasn’t-proven-anything. The NBA does have that right now. That’s the reason Kobe Bryant has so many detractors – he is smug as can be and has been since the day he stepped on the NBA floor right out of high school.
So the new CB agreement may not be too popular with some 11th graders right now. They’re probably already scrambling to see where they can go to school for one year and major in Phys Ed. But in the long run it has proven to have a good effect on the most important thing in pro sports – image.
June 20, 2005
Marginal utility of charity
The problems in Africa have been a major component of international news and debate as of late, especially regarding foreign aid. It has stirred the debate over whether or not industrial nations like the US are “doing enough”. Typically this brings out the statist crowd, who believe that our official governmental foreign aid should be increased to help the poor, starving people of Africa. They’re countered by the religious charities and small-government folks like me, who point out that while America’s per capita government aid is not large, our private donations are staggeringly large.
Libertopia linked with How poor is poor?
June 19, 2005
Blogroll updates & more
A few new blogs:
From my last post, although completely unrelated, Schadenfreude
Fellow Boilermaker, otho at The Pros and the Cons
Wally Conger at out of step
Al at the Old Whig’s Brain Dump
Tim West at Liberty for Sale
Check them out.
I’ll be flying to Pittsburgh tomorrow, and may not post much until I get back on Wednesday. I’ll try to get Wilson to post while I’m gone. JimmyJ is working on a very long post advocating a national single-payer health care system, which should come up this week. I think that should stir some debate (probably between me and him), so keep your eyes open for it.
Schadenfreude
scha·den·freu·de Pronunciation Key (shädn-froid)
n. – Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.
From Wikipedia: “Ultimately though, in the english language Schadenfreude is commonly characterized as ’sick pleasure’.”
Schadenfreude, as a word, has been a recent addition to the average person’s lexicon. As a concept, however, it is probably as old as time itself. I consider it to be a corollary to the concept of envy. We wish ill on those who are better off than and find pleasure in those worse off than ourselves.
These concepts are on the extreme end of normal human emotion. Seeing those who are doing well in life can give us motivation to do more to emulate their success. Seeing those who are downtrodden can remind us to be grateful for what we have, and bring out our altruistic side when we help those. But it can easily be taken too far. Envy is an irrational hatred of those who are doing well, and lends it to treating them as scapegoats when things go bad for us. The left side of the political sphere has made an art of blaming the rich for the poor being poor. Coupled with that hatred is a desire to tear down those who are doing well, and the pleasure (Schadenfreude) that comes with it.
In the political and economic realm, I am not one for envy or schadenfreude. But I am certainly not above reproach. My envy is reserved for those who have acheived a cult status and hero worship for simple things like singing or acting talent. I am not envious of their money, mind you, but I absolutely despise the fact that they are elevated to such a high position in society with seemingly no actual accomplishments to justify it. In one of my first posts, Elevating the Depraved, I went into more detail about it, but I don’t see why we laud these people for what they do. The rapid rise of “reality TV” has done even more damage, to award fame to bombastic TV personalities (i.e. Bob Guinney) who are not even famous for being talented actors or actresses, they’re famous simply for being on TV.
In addition, and completely unrelated to fame, I seem to find it hilarious when people injure themselves. My wife doesn’t understand it, but when I’m watching TV and someone falls off a skateboard, does multiple flips down the side of a mountain on a snowboard, I laugh my butt off. It’s especially funny when it is someone doing something dumb and getting his just desserts, i.e. someone trying to jump a hedge on a skateboard and face-planting, or watching someone trying to pull off a motorcycle stunt, ending in the bike doing cartwheels one direction and them doing them the other. I don’t find it funny when someone is actually seriously injured, but as long as it’s kept non-life-threatening, it’s pretty darn funny. Of course, this one hits a lot closer to home, because if someone videotapes me being stupid, it’s quite likely someone like me will be laughing hysterically at my misfortune.
Does that make me a bad person? Well, I’m working on getting over my resentment of celebrities, because that is irrational and does me no good. On the other hand, I don’t know if I’ll ever stop laughing at the second group. After all, face-plants are pretty funny.
June 18, 2005
Dogblogging
Those cat folks have too much of a stranglehold on this blogging thing too long. So here are some shots of our home security system:
1. Oddly, Guinness actually picked that bone up (belongs to a 91-lb black lab) and jumped onto the chair with it in his jaws. Impressive.
2. Spanky. In his defense, he’s not as small as he looks, I’ve got grotesquely large feet…
3. Guinness has some good taste in books!
We let these people govern US?
Scott Scheule posted yesterday on why it strange that all statists seem to think that individuals are irrational enough that they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions, but that they are rational enough to elect people who are capable of doing it for them. Or, as Jefferson asked:
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?
So we have to ask ourselves, can these elected officials be trusted with our governance? Well, The Brad Blog (no relation) provides evidence that they cannot. Watching the Daily Show the other night, I saw a wonderful display of immaturity from James Sensenbrenner. Unfortunately, I can’t find the video of it off hand, but perhaps if it is available, one of my readers can point it out. Holding a hearing on the Patriot Act, he proceeded to cut off the testimony of witnesses he didn’t like, mid-sentence. He then, on a whim, decided to call the meeting to a close. He did this over the objection of one of the Democratic members (who was trying to call out “Point of Order” at the time), then walked out of the room carrying his gavel. When the Democrat tried to address the crowd, staffers turned off his mic.
This display of childishness is all too familiar. Politics in Washington is a battle between the Bloods and the Crips, with no rules and with “winning” far superseding any sense of ethics or serving the public. You see this behavior, and yet you entrust Congress as a body to make decisions for you? For all those statists who believe that the government can fix the problems of the private sector, please let me know exactly what problems the government has fixed in the past to make you believe this?
The Unrepentant Individual linked with Prime Minister’s Questions
The Unrepentant Individual linked with Marginal utility of charity
How to generate content
People who post anywhere between one to several times a day occasionally get the question “how do you post so much?!” Typically this question comes from bloggers who have very nice, well-thought out posts, about once a week or so. Since I’d like to see more prolific posting from these excellent writers, here’s my thoughts on the matter.
1) I have no kids, and my wife and I have different tastes in TV. That, coupled with a laptop and a high-speed connection, means that I have time in the evenings to surf the web. While I’m sure I could post fairly often if this were not the case, it certainly gives me more time than some folks have. I doubt any fellow bloggers will be giving up their kids to increase their blogging time, but it is worth mentioning.
2) I set a goal for myself to get out at least one post a day. I don’t require it to be any major treatise, but that’s in addition to little quizzes/etc. In some cases, if I’m really busy, or just not feeling like posting much, I’ll link to a news story or somebody else’s blog, with only a little bit of commentary. Setting a goal for regular postings takes some of the pressure off, because when I do put up a longer post, it is not the only post I’m doing for the week.
3) I keep a notebook. When I’m listening to the radio, watching TV, or driving, I often come up with a topic that I want to post about. The world is full of large and small idiosyncracies, and so there is always something to write about. If I don’t write those ideas down, though, they leave my brain by the time I reach a computer. If I put a little reminder of the topic, I can go back and do the writing later. Since I always have a stream of topics “on tap”, I don’t find myself sitting down at the computer worrying about what I should write about.
Following the above rules for the past few months has made me very comfortable sitting down at the computer and blogging. That comfort level has really been what has made it easier to keep my content up. The writing itself isn’t actually all that hard (even for an engineer!), and the above rules really help to avoid writer’s block. In addition, getting into a flow of regular writing of shorter posts makes it a lot easier for the longer posts to come out. I think many bloggers fall into the trap of always striving to write the “perfect post”. The posts they manage to write are usually extremely good, but very infrequent. Instead, I try to write good posts often. Some may miss that target, certainly, but I think some also exceed it.
Now, if I could just figure out how to get more and more people here to actually read those posts, I’d be all set!
I am OS/2 Warp
Actually, that’s about right. In fact, I remember the day that I installed OS/2 Warp on my system, because it was way ahead of development of Windows 95. Back in those days (early teens), my Dad used to get pissed at me all the time. Every time he would finally figure out an operating system, I’d change to something else.
Those were the days.
(Thank god it didn’t come back with MacOS or WinME, or I’d have hurt someone.)
Eric’s Grumbles Before The Grave»Blog Archive » linked with Eric’s Grumbles Before The Grave»Blog Archive »
The value of incrementalism
Back in January, I pointed out what I thought were some of the problems with libertarians. One of the key points was that too often, they put all their effort into shooting for the moon, instead of understanding that you need to work your way up. Incrementalism, in a society that is so heavily statist as ours, is going to be the only way to make the serious changes that we need.
I tried to explain it well. But Andrew at Liberty For Sale did much better:
I wonder if any of these people hell bent on stating this ideal Libertarian world plan saw an attractive woman in a bar and decided he wanted to eventually have sex with her if he would want up and say “Hi, wanna f***?â€I doubt it; he would probably ask if she wanted to go out first. He knows the goal, he knows what he wants, and he is not deceiving her or leaving his principals behind. He just understand that if he walks up and says “Hi, wanna f***?†that he would not only risk a slap in the face, but he would have only a slight chance of success and most likely would come of looking like a fruitcake. It will not work.
Amen. As I’ve said before, to enact my principles would entail radical changes in our society. And if things went perfectly, I could hope to see that in my lifetime. But instead of asking the American people if they “wanna f***”, maybe we should try a first date…
Hat Tip: Hamstermotor
« Previous Page — Next Page »
You did good. Hard to believe that anyone could argue your points. Proud to know you.
Comment by TF Stern — June 23, 2005 @ 11:31 pm
I appreciate what you’re doing here. I’m bit more of an anarchist or liberal than a libertarian in my thinking, but I can probably survive in a libertarian world. We will disagree on a great number of the details of what’s right and what’s wrong with the world, but we likely won’t end up threats to one another.
I’m happy to claim credit for the mediagenic term Peak Liberty, however I didn’t intend it in the context of a comment on Dadahead to be a fully developed theory. It’s more of a probe, in the McLuhan sense of the word. See http://www.dreamwv.com/probes/ and http://www.probe.org/content/view/754/170/ for some treatment of how “probes” were intended to be applied as McLuhan envisioned.
So I don’t know that it’s a theory, as much as an aphoristic device to throw into the ether and see how it impacts others. I’m inclined to wonder if liberty’s elastic or–possibly more appropriately–renewable (to extend the fuels/resource metaphor).
Comment by Jon — June 24, 2005 @ 12:40 am
One might argue that the “Peak Liberty” happened the day the Bill of Rights made it into law. The absolute level of liberty available to those considered “full citizens” has been decreasing ever since then, even though many more people are considered full citizens now than at the time of the Bill of Rights.
Comment by Quincy — June 24, 2005 @ 1:06 am
[...]
June 24, 2005
The Unrepentant Individual » Peak Liberty
The Unrepentant Individual » Peak Liberty Just wanted to send you over to the Unrepen [...]
Pingback by News, the Universe, and Everything » The Unrepentant Individual » Peak Liberty — June 24, 2005 @ 3:12 am
Peak Liberty
Brad has a wonderful essay on the idea of “peak liberty” and how this nation seems to be sliding backwards on the rights of the people. Go and read it now. I think he pretty much covers my opinion on…
Trackback by Pole Dancing In The Dark — June 24, 2005 @ 7:52 am
there is no left. there is no right
The little cluster of neurons thinking about Peak Oil hooked up with the ones thinking about freedom and our long slither into fascism. Bingo: what if we’ve seen peak liberty?
Trackback by word-hoard — June 24, 2005 @ 10:09 am
Brad, I think I finally understand what these liberal judges are doing. I can’t believe they can just change an ammendment to the Constitution with one feld swoop. They don’t have the right to do that. Where are our checks and balances now? I’m totally baffled!
Comment by Lucy Stern — June 24, 2005 @ 10:28 am
I think Lucy may have unintentionally provided another point: checks and balances aren’t here because the legislature seems too busy making sure we’re not able to burn our own flag. To put it another, more succinct way, when checks and balances fails, it is up to the people, often through their elected representatives, to see that appropriate action is taken. When the representatives fail, it is up to the people themselves.
Hmm, do I dare risk posting on blogger with my uncle’s dial-up connection? I think I shall endeavor.
Comment by Mike — June 26, 2005 @ 10:13 pm
[...] w the Supreme Court has gotten too powerful. Unrepentant Individual discusses the idea of Peak Liberty, noting that we are less free than we once were. Patriotis [...]
Pingback by Life, Liberty, and Property Group Blog » Carnival of Liberty II — July 10, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
Carnival of Liberty #2
Here it is! The one, the only, the second Carnival of Liberty! We’ve got a good variety of various topics here. I tried to vaguely categorize them by main topic.
Law and Regulation:
Eric’s …
Trackback by Searchlight Crusade — July 11, 2005 @ 5:04 am
[...] w the Supreme Court has gotten too powerful. Unrepentant Individual discusses the idea of Peak Liberty, noting that we are less free than we once were. Patriotis [...]
Pingback by Life, Liberty, and Property Group Blog » Carnival of Liberty II — July 11, 2005 @ 1:17 pm
Carnival of Liberty
The Second Carnival of Liberty is up. Interesting posts include this one linking determinism and leftism [which is why someone I had been talking to was proclaiming “Violence begets violence,” and why I think that’s utter bullshit. Plus this post…
Trackback by Owlish Mutterings — July 11, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
Items of Interest #47
In this issue: Ann (the one with the tits), Mary Carey, Oliver Stone, and more.
Trackback by Multiple Mentality | www.multiplementality.com — July 12, 2005 @ 8:30 am
Well done Brad. You lost me on a couple of issues, but all-in-all, it was a good read (and I don’t really like to read). Great article. I’m proud to know you. Garringer
Comment by Garringer — August 11, 2005 @ 11:06 pm
Peak “Anything” only occurs with resources that are finite. As you say, the effects of lack-of-Liberty are reversible — with education.
So we are in much better shape here than we are with Peak Oil.
Comment by Webster Hubble Telescope — August 13, 2005 @ 6:38 pm