Billy Beck writes at his blog :

“The Cold War” is not “over”, socialism is not “dead”, and the Democrats will be an unprecedented disaster.

Beck implies that the Democrats will bring some sort of special evil to the table if they get elected. The problem with that idea is that this election, like all before it, will be an “unprecedented disaster” simply because whoever wins will have more power and a more-cowed populance than any of their predecessors, and they will in turn use those things to create more of the same. A majoritarian democratic government is controlled by positive feedback:

In every feedback loop, as the name suggests, information about the result of a transformation or an action is sent back to the input of the system in the form of input data. If these new data facilitate and accelerate the transformation in the same direction as the preceding results, they are positive feedback - their effects are cumulative. If the new data produce a result in the opposite direction to previous results, they are negative feedback - their effects stabilize the system. In the first case there is exponential growth or decline; in the second there is maintenance of the equilibrium.

Positive feedback leads to divergent behavior: indefinite expansion or explosion (a running away toward infinity) or total blocking of activities (a running away toward zero). Each plus involves another plus; there is a snowball effect. The examples are numerous: chain reaction, population explosion, industrial expansion, capital invested at compound interest, inflation, proliferation of cancer cells. However, when minus leads to another minus, events come to a standstill. Typical examples are bankruptcy and economic depression.

In either case a positive feedback loop left to itself can lead only to the destruction of the system, through explosion or through the blocking of all its functions. The wild behavior of positive loops - a veritable death wish - must be controlled by negative loops. This control is essential for a system to maintain itself in the course of time.

More government interference in individuals’ lives leads to more clamoring for interference which leads to more elections won by those who promise government interference which leads to more interference. Repeat enough times, and soon enough, everyone is either a jailer, or in jail.

And we are heading just there. Beck’s implicit claim that the Democrats will be worse is like arguing over which brand of gasoline will make the fire worse - you might be right, but it doesn’t matter in the context. The fire’s going to be plenty bad enough no matter which one gets poured on it.

The problem with pouring gasoline on a fire isn’t making sure that you choose the one with an anti-knock additive, and the problem with this election isn’t the Democrats. The problem with this election is democracy.

No Treason has been moved to a new host. The main blog is now open for business, though I’m sure some parts of the site need fixing.

I’ve been searching for information about the selection of the delegates to the constitutional ratification conventions in the several states. I’ve spent about two hours on Google trying to find information, but instead I keep coming up with information about the actual votes by the conventions. I wanted to know how the delegates for each ratification convention were chosen, and, if possible, who was eligible to vote, and where.

Thanks.

If the site goes down again, please check No Treason In Exile for further announcements.

NT Bloggers: Don’t blog here for the time being.

Everyone else: Any comments made here now may be lost.

I voiced some disagreement with what seemed to be the notion that government controlled online gambling is a better bet than free market online gambling. After all, reputable online gambling operatons have, in the past, and will continue to thrive with or without government regulation because it’s good business to run an honest game.

So at Uncommon Sense Rich Nikoley explains that by pointing out that the online gambling industry is regulated in the UK, he means to dispel the notion that offshore gambling is largely run by rogue con-men that operate with impunity.

Of course, online gamblers themselves know the score, but they’re not the ones who’ll be supporting this sort of prohibition. It’ll be the church nannies who view gambling as the work of the devil. It’ll be the church nannies who view gambling as the work of the devil.

But Rich puts too much emphasis behind the role of what he calls the church nanny crowd. The argument that gambling is sin - a vice which ruins families - is pure BS and most of the people who make that argument know it. It’s window dressing.

Is there a state in the Union where no form of gambling is allowed? That should be a clear indicator that the Senate cares almost nothing about the vice aspect of online gambling. And they obviously don’t care about protecting consumers from rogues and con-men. If they did care, they would disband themselves and never return to Washington DC. It’s about preserving their own influence, protecting their contributors’ monopolies, and the attempt to keep a significant amount of surveillance on the flow of gambling revenue. That’s difficult to do with online gambling.

Legislators want to be the sole decision makers on who’ll run lucrative gambling operations. They can bestow that privilege on themselves via state run lotteries or they can dole it out to special interests, like Indian tribes and certain selected businesses. Their current preference here is to exclusively license brick and mortar operations. They want the owners of these operations to be beholden to government and it’s easier to apply the carrot and stick to these businesses if they exist in meatspace, within their reach.

It’s not about vice and church nannies. Online gambling makes it hard for lawmakers to get their cut. That’s what “problem gambling” really means to your government.

At Uncommon Sense, Rich Nikoley writes:

How many of you realize that when the politicians in D.C. talk about “online gambling,” they are talking about legitimate, publicly-traded companies listed on the London stock exchange, with market capitalization in the billions of dollars, regulated in a manner similar to publicly-traded companies in the U.S.? Sure, at one time, the industry was largely composed of rogue con-men operating in tax havens offshore with laws specifically designed to flaunt civil and criminal action.”

Online gambling isn’t mostly legit because it’s been regulated by government; it’s regulated by an efficient free market - there’s simply a whole lot more money to be made offering an honest game than a crooked one, on the net.

The good news about this law is that the online gambling market isn’t going away. Entrepreneurs are not going to abandon the vast profits that have already been demonstrated. Internet markets are going to route around such legal obstacles. This law, if it is enforced, will spur efficient black markets like nothing ever has.

And that will turn out to be a very good thing.

For Entertainment Purposes Only:

Someone apparently read one of our Marcus Epstein related threads and sent me some pretty funny links.

I especially enjoyed: Marcus Epstein and Michelle Malkin (And The Failure To Create The Asian “Super Jew”) at Overthrow.com, which also featured this picture. Can anyone identify the guy with Epstein?

I think it’s Jared Taylor. Also, can anyone confirm that Epstein now works for Ron Paul?

One Peoples Project.com featured this amusing report on a recent debate Epstein arranged between Jared Taylor of American Renaissance and John Derbyshire of National Review.

I’ve known for years that there were writers in the Lew Rockwell universe who opposed Rockwell’s anti-immigration stance. Gene Callahan once told me he didn’t submit immigration pieces to Rockwell because he didn’t think they were welcome. Callahan has now published over 150 articles at Lew’s place without, to my knowledge, ever once contesting the house position on immigration.

Well, there must be a blue moon because Mises.org has finally seen fit to prominently feature an anti-anti-immigration piece by Bob Murphy.

Perhaps Callahan and others will now take up the subject at LRC and Mises.org.

I was working my way through the search line at the airport. Lost in thought, I was pondering how to get more production out of certain writers at No Treason. I got to the point where I was asked to turn over my toiletries in a clear plastic bag, and for some reason I suddenly scrawled “Kip Condor Is A LazyBones!” on it.

“What’s this about?”, asked an impertinent TSA screener, holding up the bag.

I pinned him with an icy stare, like a matador would stare down…

…well, in this case, a sheep.

“It’s… a… long… story…”, I spat the words softly, lacing each syllable with infinite contempt.

“Whatever”, he replied, looking terribly bored as he passed the bag along.

“Have a nice flight”, droned the insufferable quisling as I was collecting my belongings.

I froze him the patented icy stare again, this time for a full three seconds, until I summarily dismissed him with a scornful, “See you later.”

As I turned away, I could swear I heard him say, “Baa, now.”

Libertarians cannot defend abortion on property rights grounds, and until they stop getting the abortion analogy wrong, they will continue to use the property rights grounds defence incorrectly. Prof. Block, in a recently-published paper, repeats these wrong analogies, leading him to continue to defend the horrific practice of abortion.

Block uses two analogies - realising the second is wrong, but not the first. He first cites the Violinist’s Kidneys. Suppose you wake up one day in the hospital sewn to a world-class violinist. The violinist’s kidneys were failing, and they sewed yours into the violinist’s system, so that you are both sharing your kidneys. The violinist didn’t request this or perform it; it was done by wicked doctors. The second case is the case of an airplane owner who invites a person onto his plane then, in mid-air, decides to invoke his property rights and pitch the invitee out of the plane.

Both of these analogies fail, and they fail because of the agency of the woman having sex. A woman who has sex (save rape) is consenting to an ejaculate. With that ejaculate comes a risk: a risk of pregnancy. That is, a woman who consents to sex consents to a risk that another person becomes dependent on her. And, if someone cause a person to become dependent, that person must take every reasonable means of preserving the dependent: if I shove a person into deep water, I have to take every measure I can to save that person from drowning. If I cause a person to rely on me and me alone for their life, care, and sustenance, I have to take every reasonable means of preserving that life.

In the violinist’s analogy, the analogy fails because the victim took no action that could put the violinist at risk of becoming dependent on the victim. The agency entirely rests with the doctors. Thus, this analogy fails. The airplane analogy fails, as Block notes, because of the implicit contract.

The correct analogy must acknowledge the woman’s assumption of risk. So, I propose a new one. The USS Enterprise is flying over the surface of the planet. It has a new gadget that performs some task, but as a side effect, it may accidently beam a person on the surface of the planet aboard the ship. Can that person be shoved out the nearest airlock on the captain’s whim? Absolutely not.

The gadget performs some non-beaming function, just as sex may: revenge, pleasure, etc. But just like sex, there is the assumed risk of bringing someone else aboard. Once aboard, of course, the ship is responsible for the welfare of the new passenger until that passenger can be safely off-loaded.

So, what about the health of the mother and rape?

In the health of the mother analogy, the only thing that changes is that, while aboard, the passenger unwillingly and unwittingly threatens the safety of the ship: the person puts off some sort of natural radiation that causes the engines to feedback. The first right of all is self-defense, and the ship’s crew has a right to kill the person or evict them in order to save the ship. In the same way, a person who shoots at you, albeit under mind control, may be killed in order to save yourself.

The rape case is much harder. Someone is unwillingly beamed aboard the ship, through neither the fault of the ship or the new passenger. The new passenger is undesired, and causes distress and embarassment to the ship’s crew, but is causing no harm (say, a Lwaxana Troi episode). Can the ship force the passenger out the nearest airlock? I don’t think so. Why? Because the property rights of the ship’s owner are less than the right to life of the person. People are worth more than property. “Property rights serve human values. They are recognized to that end, and are limited by it.” State v. Shack, 277 A.2d 369, 372 (N.J. 1971).

People will contend that a ship is not a person, and that the person has bodily integrity rights that a ship’s owner does not have. I agree with that, which is why rape is a harder case. But, ultimately, the life of the undesired passenger outweighs the shame and humiliation of the mother. Put another way, rape puts up bodily integrity & stigma vs. life, and the health of the mother puts up life vs. life. Life always wins.

Prof. Block argues that there is no right to life, because that would be a positive right. But abortion is about the ultimate negative right: the right not to be killed. If we are to support liberty, we must support life.

Libertarians cannot be pro-choice.

“Is C-SPAN worthwhile?” asked a contributor to Wendy McElroy’s forum?.

Well, it’s not as messy as waterboarding and it doesn’t leave any marks.

And speaking of worthwhile efforts, Brad Spangler is looking for a few good dungeonmasters to help him “stand before the Balrog”. Kennedy, who identified the madness of sanctioning State torture three years ago, has volunteered to help.

Spangler:

I want to get waterboarded. In order to call attention to this heinous practice and make it the subject of broader public condemnation, I believe it needs to be shown to people. I’m volunteering in order for it to be so shown — online, as a video. These are the sort of dark times that demand a Gandalf to stand before the Balrog and shout “You shall not pass!“. That’s not me, but I can take my best shot at it.

Here’s the plan…

I’m asking for the following volunteers:

1) A lawyer to help us put together all of the appropriate waivers and confirm we can do this without government intervention.
2) A psychiatrist or other trained mental health professional to confirm for all interested parties that I am not acting on any self destructive impulse or urge to do myself harm. I’m not. This is a political statement.
3) A doctor or certified paramedic willing to stand by and administer treatment if it looks like things have gone to far.
4) A videographer to document it.
5) At least one trusted friend willing to help me — by torturing me.

Kennedy:

I volunteer for # 5.

Who says we’re not team players? Who says we’re not willing to get down in the trenches and put our shoulders to the wheel for liberty?

Last May Seth Stein was restrained on a flight by a fellow passenger who claimed to be a New York City police officer.

As he settled down with a book and a ginger ale, the father-of-three was grabbed from behind and held in a head-lock.”This guy just told me his name was Michael Wilk, that he was with the New York Police Department, that I’d been acting suspiciously and should stay calm. I could barely find my voice and couldn’t believe it was happening,” said Mr Stein.

American Airlines offered Stein $2000 to forget the incident, but later withdrew the offer. He could sue the airline, to be sure. However, it looks like Michael Wilk, the phantom passenger who subdued Stein, might be getting difficult to track down.

In a twist to the story, Mr Stein has since discovered that there is only one Michael Wilk on the NYPD’s official register of officers, but the man retired 25 years ago. Officials have told the architect that his assailant may work for another law enforcement agency but have refused to say which one.

It wouldn’t be unfair to reckon by about 50/50 odds that the character who identified himself as Michael Wilk is an air marshal. The Federal Air Marshal Service is, after all, chock full of knotheads. At best, it’s a waste of flesh and, at worst, it’s a menace.

Indeed, there is little to be admired in the way the Federal Air Marshal Service handles incidents. Their half-smart smoke and mirror spin tactics are contemptable and I find it a tad distressing that their incompentence is so well-tolerated by the media and the public, in general. It’ll be interesting to see how this case pans out.