Dangers of the Death Penalty

Bob Barr

The internet loves to destroy the tradition of not judging books by their covers. As I clearly said, I was afraid of this guy as a Libertarian candidate. His ex-neocon status made me wonder if McCain just might be OK. I have to say he doesn't make a good first impression, and I'm not sure I "got" where he was coming from for a while. Looking over the evidence against him:

The Defense of Marriage Act was actually a truly conservative solution to an important problem. It just sounds like Pat Robertson brand bullshit. It actually would have removed the issue of marriage from the Federal level and respected states' rights to define marriage as they see fit. That would mean conservative states could have their barely secular man-woman marriages, Utah could give every man a harem, and California could allow gay disabled Wiccan illegal aliens. Liberty at its finest.

Secondly, I was a hardcore conservative for roughly the first Bush term. I would have voted for higher spending to fight drugs and more authority. To be honest I wasn't fully convinced that the dug war should end until I researched drug policy for an Original Advocacy. My primary education on the subject came from the Cato Institute's handbook for Congress on the War on Drugs. I think Bob Barr had a very similar turning point when he joined the Libertarian Party. I don't believe he will waste our money on more bullshit drug policy anymore.

The impeachment of Clinton was actually legitimate, though unnecessary. Barr certainly had an agenda in supporting it, but it's really irrelevant - it just makes him more likely to call Clinton on his mistakes. They were still mistakes that needed to be accounted for, even if was somewhat of a show trial. Public officials cannot be allowed to commit perjury, and I'm glad Barr stands for that.

There are a number of things where you can choose whether or not to cut him any slack. A change of heart? It's his best excuse, but I can attribute to the fact that it's easy, and almost natural, for even Neocons to wake up to true conservatism.

He also seems to be rather moderate (compared to his trainer - I mean, running mate, Wayne Allyn Root) which could actually mean a smoother transition, if by some miracle he became president. A little sensibility is a lot to ask, I know, but withdrawing from NATO and the U.N. overnight might not work out so well. We sure wouldn't want to blow our incredible opportunity this year.

Nationals Topic Research

I am going to have a hard time arguing the affirmative, but that's the price one pays for being opinionated. Luckily there are great arguments on both sides that don't require me to practice my poker face.

The social contract is in in place to serve us, not to restrict us.The resolution makes it seem as though the affirmative is trying to take away freedom, and such a suggestion carries a range of logical and sensational reactions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy best explains this distinction.

Economic freedom is an example of negative liberty, or a type of freedom that is granted merely by the fact that nothing stands in the way of you doing something. Negative liberty is implied solely by the lack of restriction. Positive liberty, however, is defined as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes.

In other words, negative liberty allows opportunity by simply maintaining absence of authority, while positive liberty is process of using things like government to create opportunity, and therefore create liberty. You could think of it as progressive and regressive liberty.

This surprises people: anarchy is NOT a condition of maximum liberty. It is maximum liberty, and it is not the optimal level of freedom in a society. This is where I disagree with Ayn Rand and friends - when you allow complete economic freedom, you condone any private action (think monopolies) that results in the destruction of the free market, and therefore individual rights (see Ayn? we're cool).

There is another name for complete anarcho-capitalism: John Locke's 'state of nature'. The social contract exists because people chose not to live in such a state. Social contracts are really just lists of positive liberties that the people want to guarantee.

THE POINT - You can, and should, decrease economic freedom without suffering a net loss of liberty. The question then becomes: to what degree?

Heller raises Hell

It took over 30 years, but the citizens of D.C. managed to avoid being murdered in their happy joyful gun-free city just long enough to get their day in court.

Washington D.C. has done America a great public service, not specifically because of this ruling, but because their failed attempt at controlling gun violence is now the best possible evidence against handgun bans: a case study.

A few things have to be acknowledged to make this legitimate. There is not, and never will be, a causal relationship between gun restrictions and murder rates. Nor is there even a direct correlation. A negative correlation could be achieved if a significant number of guns were taken off the streets, but at this point in American history (those two words are enough) there are enough guns on the street to keep a black market alive forever. D.C's policy tried to exploit this correlation but was defeated by that little exception. As a result, the number of murders more than doubled, while their population continued to shrink. In the 1990s, D.C. officially earned the highest murder rate in the country.

So how do criminals keep their guns? The same way they buy crack - they break the damn law. People (especially those who are either too old or too high-class to remember what is practical for the average person) tend to vote for bullshit ideas that are designed to make them feel good. Politicians like Adrian Fenty know that. An effective plan would entail too high a cost and result in too much police power (you can go ahead and repeal the 2nd amendment at that point).

Drug Bust at San Diego State

News Story

If I were one of these parents, I would be outraged at the police, not the school.

This all reflects a bigger problem - the war on drugs continues to take its toll on this society. The DEA has no business existing in the first place, and incidents like these may help people realize that.

First, there is the obvious question that nobody ever seems to ask because they are too busy bullshitting about "I never thought something like this would happen here!" That is, why is it a problem for these people to do drugs? They can drink and die of alcohol poisoning, as 1400 college students do every year, but they can't smoke pot or take ecstasy. The cops need to be arresting dealers and smugglers, not users.

Secondly, if someone can use drugs while performing well enough to be at SDSU, shut up and let them party. And if it gets to the point where the drugs harm their academic performance, listen to the parents. After all, it's their job to help their kids.

Then again, the DEA is probably just bitter because they are entirely incompetent. It's not their fault; they are being funded to fight a war that would require them to interdict around the world in order to successfully prevent drugs from getting on campus in the first place. They can't. Nobody can. But instead of acknowledging this, the government raids the occasional pot farm or school campus so that people will see what can happen. The cumulative amount of drug seizures in this country is still only a tiny fraction of what would be needed to successfully reduce the availability and presence of drugs in America. We intercept only 3% of drugs that cross our borders, and according to a former New York state prosecutor, we would have to increase drug seizures by 1400% in order to reduce drug use significantly (as of 1988; the number has grown since).

New Ron Paul?

Bob Barr, congressman, lawyer, lobbyist, and everything else, announced he is going to run on the Libertarian ticket. I'm scared.

Policy positions:

• He only voted for the Patriot Act after his amendments adding "sunset clauses" were added to the final bill. Barr played a similar role during the debate over Bill Clinton's Comprehensive Anti-terrorism Act of 1995, crafting pro-civil liberties amendments to the original text.^[4] He now publicly regrets his Patriot Act vote.
• He is best known for his role as one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial.
• He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.^[7] However, he does not support the Federal Marriage Amendment, citing states' rights reasons.^[8]
• Barr was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs and adamantly opposed the legalization of medical marijuana. He remarked that marijuana "has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief, and ... no place around our children."His position on medical marijuana has changed dramatically as he continued to work on civil liberties issues after leaving Congress.
• he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military.
• Barr is also a supporter of the Fair Tax

See what I mean? This is a lawyer who is playing the classic civil libertarian card, because he knows nothing else. At least Ron Paul knows his shit about economics and foreign policy. I hope I'm convinced otherwise.

LD Workshop

I'm workin on getting my stuff together for this one... coming soon.

The March-April topic (for quals, state, and national) is:

Resolved: hate crime enhancements (HCE'S) are unjust in the United States.

Hey, they heard my prayer for a good topic. Cool. Start with some definitions:

The definition of "Hate Crime" in the United States, according to the Department of Justice, says:

Hate Crime: A criminal offense against a person, property, or society that is motivated by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

Black's Law Dictionary defines justice as:

Legally right; lawful; equitable.

Analysis and Evidence for Affirmative

The value in this debate is fairly straightforward for most people - justice - but if you can build a case on something else, go right ahead. Even if you don't come right out and value justice, you will end up talking about it anyway. The value criterion will be much more interesting - do we adhere to the Constitution? Or is justice fulfilled through something greater than law? My value criterion will be Egalitarianism. Here's why:

The aff case will likely focus on how HCE's violate the principle of justice. First of all, justice is easier to argue in this topic than it usually is, because the topic narrows the meaning. It tells you that we are talking about the legal system of the United States. Since we are focusing only on this country, look to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. If the law gives you what is due to you, what exactly are you getting? Ignore rights and such for now; legally speaking, all citizens are to be equally protected under the law. The engravement on the front of the Supreme Court building even says so.

Think of a criminal punishment as a price. The criminal commits a crime, he pays that price. We know that price and value are related; e.g. if something has a high value, it has a higher price.

Now think of how this applies - two crimes with identical circumstances, perpetrators, a modus operandi could carry different prices depending on who the victim is. If one victim warrants harsher punishment and therefore higher price than another, the court has failed to maintain equal protection of equal citizens.

The second main point of the affirmative should be to critique the Department of Justice's definition of hate crime. Once again, the defintion is:

A criminal offense against a person, property, or society that is motivated by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

There are a number of problems with the law:

1. It does not establish adequate criteria for determining hate.

(more stuff coming soon)

Congress Time

This is a bit of an experiment in sharing resources. As much fun as it may be to bullshit, everyone is going to need to be prepared with a good case for each Congress bill in order to do well at Quals. The idea is that we can all help with case writing. BE PREPARED FOR EITHER SIDE OF THE DEBATES.

First bill first: A Resolution Regarding Low-Emission Vehicles

I am inclined to go against this one, but then again, I go against everything. First of all, what the hell is a SULEV or ZEV?

About LEV's

Controlled pollution categories are:
Hydrocarbons
Nitrous oxides
Carbon monoxide
The
well to wheel emission balance is not included in the classification as
SULEV,
with certain fuel generation paths it might well prove to be more
polluting for
the wider environment.

So it sounds like the EPA (or whoever defines the terms) says pollution is composed of those three types of emissions. Funny how they forget about the production of the vehicles.

(more later)

Hillary Drinks the bong water while Ron Paul poisons it

Ron Paul definitely just stole some votes from the liberal Hillary followers. The ones that Obama hasn't already bought, I mean. In the Myspace/MTV "Super Dialogue," he scored over 60% in the poll with a clever strategy.

While Hillary went after the young liberal voters of Myspace with her progressive bullshit, Paul redefined the Republican party in order to incorporate many of these people. He is the only candidate who seems to realize that the true conservative was Goldwater, not Reagan or Bush. That means you can, and SHOULD be removed from social issues as a government (or at least a president).

Paul made a profound point when he observed that young people aren't looking for government involvement, entitlements, and high taxes. Hillary assumes they are. Instead, according to Paul, young people vote for democrats because they don't want to be controlled by corporations and a corrupt government that tells them how to be safe and moral. It wasn't that the Democrats succeeded in convincing them in the past, but because the Republicans failed them. Bush is no exception; in fact he is the biggest culprit of all. That's why 52% of viewers were "just not buying it," while at least that many "were sold" on Paul.

in short, Ron Paul realizes that the next generation doesn't want to be a socialist movement, but just free Americans.

Translated for the rest of RP's internet following: Ron Paul FTW

Reason I Hate California #1

Convicted of making threat to interfere with religion
Henson was convicted in 2001 under a California law (Sec. 422.6) that criminalizes any threat to interfere with someone else's "free exercise" of religion. One Usenet post that was introduced at his trial included jokes about sending a "Tom Cruise" missile against a Scientology compound (the actor is a prominent Scientologist). Picketing Scientology buildings and other "odd behavior" were also part of the charges, Deputy District Attorney Robert Schwarz said at the time.

First it was yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Fine. But the act of obviously JOKING on the INTERNET about doing something that MIGHT offend religious people?