Some interesting how-I-became-an-anarchist stories are going up over at Charles’s blog. Read some, add some.
Archive | May, 2010
Census and Sensibility, Part 2
Assume for the moment that we accept the legitimacy of the Constitution (although we shouldn’t).
Assume, also, that the Constitution’s census clause not only authorises the federal government to conduct a census but also authorises it to compel people to answer it (though, again we shouldn’t accept that either).
Even so, as Rothbard reminds us, the freedom to speak includes the freedom not to speak. And since freedom of speech is guaranteed in an amendment to the Constitution, that provision automatically trumps anything in the body of the Constitution that’s inconsistent with it. So, FWIW, enforcement of the census is doubly unconstitutional.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, Doctor Who Style
From the 1970 serial “Ambassadors of Death.” During the Pertwee period, the Doctor was continually clashing with his more military-minded colleague, Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, with the Brigadier always wanting to use force and the Doctor always preferring to use his mind. The relevant section begins at 2:20.
The Novel We Live In
If I believed in copyright, I’d say J. Neil Schulman’s case against the government(s) for enacting a public performance of the central plot of Schulman’s novel Alongside Night was a good one.
(But I hope JNS won’t sue us when we enact the Revolutionary Agorist Cadre part of the story.)
Camelfeathers?
Olbermann just described the NRA’s “Eddie Eagle” program as “Joe Camel with feathers” (meaning, I guess, that it’s pro-gun propaganda aimed at children).
I’m no fan of the NRA, which is actually a (“moderately”) pro-gun-control organisation and a Republican PAC, but this particular charge is a bum rap. As a former NRA member I’m quite familiar with the Eddie Eagle program, and there’s no pro-gun propaganda in it. The program consists pretty much entirely in conveying to kids the lesson “If you see a gun, STOP! a) don’t touch; b) leave the area; c) tell an adult.” That’s it.
Which part of that is Olbermann against?
Selective Responsibility?
Just saw Jack Conway (Rand Paul’s opponent) on Olbermann, explaining that he can woo conservative-leaning voters away from Paul because “I’m fiscally responsible in certain areas.” So which are those other areas where he’s fiscally irresponsible?
Apparently foot-in-mouth disease is rife on both sides of the aisle in the Kentucky senatorial race.