Its interesting because this map roughly divides between republican and democrat. I still shake my head when i think about how there are actual state laws giving unions the right to force new employees to join the union. This strikes me as wrong at such a fundamental level that i would seriously consider an amendment to the constitution banning unions from forcing people to join their union.
Over at the Cato-at-Liberty blog Stephen Slivinski does a fine job of articulating why setting minimum wage at the federal level is such a bad idea.
Now consider what might happen if Congress were required to adjust the federal minimum wage by the cost of living in each congressional district. In areas where the cost-of-living is close to the national average, the minimum wage would be around $7.25. In Manhattan – where it costs twice as much to live when compared to other areas, like Kansas City – the minimum wage would be at least $14.
From the political perspective of a legislator in a big city this is a political win-win. The politician gets to use minimum wage as a way to excite his base while not incurring the wrath of local business because average city pay is will beyond the hike. In this example we see how a federal mandate frees a politician from the accountability needed to keep his political power in check. This is precisely why I advocate for smaller government. By consolidating power, you make those that wield it less accountable to those that grant it.
So I didn’t hear all of Bush’s speech. When he was talking about Iran did he say we were going to bomb then back to the stone ages if they continue messing with Iraq? I heard him mention Iran but I didn’t hear him use the words ‘bomb’ or ’stone ages’. I remember him using the pusillanimous expression ‘diplomatic effort’ but never heard ‘bomb to obliteration’.
According to this Cato-at-Liberty post some policitans are arguing for more cental planning in education. To which he responds with:
America will start leading on the international education stage when it starts leveraging its strengths. We are an entrepreneurial nation that values individual liberty and recognizes the virtues of voluntary cooperation, competition between providers, specialization, and the division of labor. Instead of standardizing our schools and our kids, we should be energizing our education system with the same market freedoms and incentives that have made us a world economic power.
There is a notion that the education of our children is to sacred to be left up to free markets. Our children are much to important to let there education be managed by a bunch of capitalist. But when you look at how capitalism has enhanced practically every facet of a America it seem almost criminal to not let that same power be applied to education.
One might argue that keeping the markets from education is to the betterment of children, but if you ask me it’s only to their detriment.
The best line? At the very end one of the experts says ‘we can’t fathom what video games will be like in 40 years’ as a way of warning the viewer of the potential hazard of violent videogames and why they need to be regluated today. If you ask me the fact that we can’t fathom their impact is the reason to leave them alone instead of regulating them. My default setting is not to regulate that which you can’t predict, but in fact to only regulate when there is good reason to believe an undesirable set of events will actually occur. Even then I’m quite skeptical of the regulation and would like to look at it first.
The trailer also shows an expert talking about the dangers of exposing children to violent video games. The children argument is prevalent in political rhetoric because its one of the most effective ways to get around the libertarian counter argument of regulation. The counter argument focuses on the notion that regulation will stop a citizen from being able to live their life in the way they see fit. The underlying principle is that citizens should be allowed to live in a fashion of their choosing regardless of how others may feel about their lifestyle. Only in cases were a citizen’s choice directly and involuntarily harms others does the libertarian argument yield to regulation.
Thus, to respond to the libertarian counter argument those supporting the regulation must employ an argument that shows how the law attempts to regulate something that involuntarily affects a group of people in a harmful way. Often times, supporters of regulation will use children as a group that has involuntary harm done to them. Since children are not considered an autonomous group capable of free choice, supporters of regulation will argue they are involuntarily harmed by the activity they wish to regulate, even when it seems children choose to engage in that activity. Such regulation will often times regulate adult’s choices, which in a lot of ways is the original intent of the law, but is not politically viable because of its violation of the fundamental libertarian principle that people should not be allowed to regulate lifestyle choices of others.
As a side note, disease is being used more and more as another way of getting around the fundamental libertarian argument. Those with a disease are no longer voluntarily doing those things that others find distasteful. Thus, government intervention is justified.
I have some of Reznor’s music on my Ipod and I hate to say it but it sounds so mid-nineties. Very dated. I probably sh0uld just take the music out of rotation for a while. It will probably sound better once I give it a rest for a couple of months.
Speaking of which does anyone have any suggestions for some music? I have about 700 songs on my ipod but I have grown tired of the same old songs. I would like to mix in some new stuff.
