Bill O'Reilly has been flogging his two bestselling books Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy for what seems like years now. These are the two most famous assassinations in U.S. History and they have been done to death, if you'll pardon the pun. I'm hoping Bill will continue to produce books in this vein shedding light on lesser known events in presidential history. Here are some of the titles I'd like to see:
Killing Harding
Socking It To Nixon
Scaring Carter Like A Little Girl
Get writing Bill.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Mile High Indeed
In voting to legalize marijuana, Colorado and Washington have set up a neat object lesson in federalism. After all, what does it matter if the voters of these two states have decided that people should be able to decide for themselves, without interference from the state, whether or not to use marijuana, if the federal government will continue to prosecute those who chose to do so?
The marijuana issue is interesting because it involves so much ideological inconsistency on both the left and right. Marijuana legalization seems to be more popular with the left (and the libertarian right) than with the traditional right. The voters in Colorado and Washington who approved legalization presumably would like to proceed without interference from the federal government. On the other hand, leftists consistently support federal involvement in most other areas of national life. They like federal initiatives in education, transportation, energy, industry, health care, etc.
By contrast the right tends to support a comparatively smaller role for the federal government in these areas but also favors federal drug prohibition. I once heard Rush Limbaugh in a conversation with a caller about the subject of states' rights, which Limbaugh generally supported. But when the subject turned to drug legalization Limbaugh stated that drugs are "inherently federal." I rarely yell at my radio but I nearly lost it when I heard that phrase. The whole point of the Constitution's creation of a government of limited and enumerated powers is that nothing is "inherently federal." Limbaugh's use of the phrase represented an ignorant and careless attitude about Constitutional government. The right should be better than that.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder have indicated their intention to enforce federal laws against marijuana possession even within the states of Colorado and Washington. One suspects that both men's ideological sympathies run towards legalization and they would be happy to see Congress follow those two states' lead. However, I think the supremacy of the central government is far more important to them than any given policy position.
This is one of those occasions when I'm reminded why I like the Eighteenth Amendment so much. The Eighteenth, which enacted Prohibition in 1919, represents one of the last times that Congress recognized that it's authority was subject to Constitutional limits. For if Congress already possessed the Constitutional authority to ban alcoholic beverages, it could have proceeded by a simple legislative act requiring only a simple majority of both houses. Instead Congress recognized that it had no power to implement this policy, no matter how popular it might be. The only legitimate course was to augment Congress' powers through the amendment process, requiring two-thirds of each house plus ratification by three-fourths of the states.
When Franklin Roosevelt took office the Congress began asserting the power to intervene in a number of areas previously understood to be beyond its authority. For several years the courts refused to allow Congress to act outside of the limited and enumerated powers contained in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court eventually knuckled under to political pressure and removed any practical limits on Congress' power. Can anyone doubt that if Congress decided to enact Prohibition in 1939 instead of 1919, it would simply have asserted the power to do so under the Commerce Clause?
The fact is that Congress has no authority to ban the cultivation or possession of marijuana. Presumably it could legitimately act to bar the interstate transportation or importation of marijuana into states where it is not permitted but that is the extent of its power in this area. Conservatives need to be true to their convictions and support the right of Colorado, Washington and any other state that so chooses to legalize marijuana.
The marijuana issue is interesting because it involves so much ideological inconsistency on both the left and right. Marijuana legalization seems to be more popular with the left (and the libertarian right) than with the traditional right. The voters in Colorado and Washington who approved legalization presumably would like to proceed without interference from the federal government. On the other hand, leftists consistently support federal involvement in most other areas of national life. They like federal initiatives in education, transportation, energy, industry, health care, etc.
By contrast the right tends to support a comparatively smaller role for the federal government in these areas but also favors federal drug prohibition. I once heard Rush Limbaugh in a conversation with a caller about the subject of states' rights, which Limbaugh generally supported. But when the subject turned to drug legalization Limbaugh stated that drugs are "inherently federal." I rarely yell at my radio but I nearly lost it when I heard that phrase. The whole point of the Constitution's creation of a government of limited and enumerated powers is that nothing is "inherently federal." Limbaugh's use of the phrase represented an ignorant and careless attitude about Constitutional government. The right should be better than that.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder have indicated their intention to enforce federal laws against marijuana possession even within the states of Colorado and Washington. One suspects that both men's ideological sympathies run towards legalization and they would be happy to see Congress follow those two states' lead. However, I think the supremacy of the central government is far more important to them than any given policy position.
This is one of those occasions when I'm reminded why I like the Eighteenth Amendment so much. The Eighteenth, which enacted Prohibition in 1919, represents one of the last times that Congress recognized that it's authority was subject to Constitutional limits. For if Congress already possessed the Constitutional authority to ban alcoholic beverages, it could have proceeded by a simple legislative act requiring only a simple majority of both houses. Instead Congress recognized that it had no power to implement this policy, no matter how popular it might be. The only legitimate course was to augment Congress' powers through the amendment process, requiring two-thirds of each house plus ratification by three-fourths of the states.
When Franklin Roosevelt took office the Congress began asserting the power to intervene in a number of areas previously understood to be beyond its authority. For several years the courts refused to allow Congress to act outside of the limited and enumerated powers contained in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court eventually knuckled under to political pressure and removed any practical limits on Congress' power. Can anyone doubt that if Congress decided to enact Prohibition in 1939 instead of 1919, it would simply have asserted the power to do so under the Commerce Clause?
The fact is that Congress has no authority to ban the cultivation or possession of marijuana. Presumably it could legitimately act to bar the interstate transportation or importation of marijuana into states where it is not permitted but that is the extent of its power in this area. Conservatives need to be true to their convictions and support the right of Colorado, Washington and any other state that so chooses to legalize marijuana.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Virtues of Price Gouging
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy comes the entirely predictable harangues against "price gouging." Politicians and media figures channel their inner Madame Defarges, condemning "greedy" merchants who raise prices sharply on high-demand items during a crisis or in its aftermath. Since 1979 a majority of states have passed laws limiting price increases on certain critical goods and services during declared emergencies. Some of these laws impose criminal penalties for violations. These laws have an undeniable emotional appeal. Emergencies like Sandy inflict widespread hardships and people react viscerally when a few appear to benefit at the expense of their neighbors simply because they happen to have goods or services to sell that have suddenly become in short supply.
However, price gouging is just a pejorative term for the rational movement in prices in response to temporary localized shortages. Higher prices in these situations are neither immoral nor parasitic. They perform two functions necessary to coping with shortages. Firstly, they encourage conservation and economizing. Secondly, they encourage suppliers to enter the market who would not have been able to do so economically under lower prices. Anti-gouging laws prevent these ameliorative forces from operating. Nevertheless they are popular with politicians because the benefits of such laws to a discrete, politically significant constituency are easily apparent while the costs are less visible.
The reporting on Hurricane Sandy over the past week has disclosed multiple examples of the harm caused by anti-gouging laws although the reporters involved were apparently too blinded by economic populism to recognize them. The long gas lines seen in New Jersey and New York are a direct result of gas prices held artificially low by anti-gouging laws. Increased prices for commodities like fuel, water, construction materials, etc.in the aftermath of a weather emergency simply reflect the fact that those commodities become significantly more valuable in such conditions due to disruptions in supply and, in some cases, increased demand. Artificially holding prices low does nothing to change the intrinsic value of the goods and services affected. Consumers know this and they are encouraged to purchase, and hoard, these items because they can obtain them at below-market prices - hence the long gas lines.
If prices were allowed to rise to reflect the real value of commodities, people would be encouraged to reevaluate their requirements. Should they fill up their gas tanks as if nothing had happened? Or should they make alternate arrangements on a temporary basis? People could arrange car pools, take public transportation, take a bicycle to work. If available and practicable they could take vacation time. On the supply side, suppliers from outside the affected area might find that higher prices make it economical to divert product from their existing customers to meet the emergency demand. Or they could increase production, put employees on overtime, or take other measures to increase their output on a temporary basis. Scarce commodities get allocated according to real demand on something approaching a rational basis.
Instead, with prices held artificially low, scarce supplies go to those lucky enough to reach them before they are sold out. No pressure is placed on anyone to conserve. The results are that motorists wait in gas lines for hours only to find that the tanks are empty when they finally reach the pump. Television reporters related that some vehicles in line were running on fumes while others had half a tank or more and were looking to top up. Who knows if any of the motorists languishing in long gas lines took the opportunity to reflect that low prices are of limited benefit if there is nothing to buy?
Also, as a practical matter, anti-gouging laws can't really touch the secondary market. Which is why people in New York were posting to Craigslist with offers of gasoline, presumably purchased at somewhere between $3.50 and $4.00 per gallon, at $15.00 per gallon. The laws of economics are as immutable as the law of physics. Attempting to prevent rising prices in the wake of a hurricane reflects an ignorance and arrogance that would only be exceeded by attempting to ban hurricanes themselves. Of course President Obama, who famously promised to slow the rising of the oceans, might just think he can get away with it.
However, price gouging is just a pejorative term for the rational movement in prices in response to temporary localized shortages. Higher prices in these situations are neither immoral nor parasitic. They perform two functions necessary to coping with shortages. Firstly, they encourage conservation and economizing. Secondly, they encourage suppliers to enter the market who would not have been able to do so economically under lower prices. Anti-gouging laws prevent these ameliorative forces from operating. Nevertheless they are popular with politicians because the benefits of such laws to a discrete, politically significant constituency are easily apparent while the costs are less visible.
The reporting on Hurricane Sandy over the past week has disclosed multiple examples of the harm caused by anti-gouging laws although the reporters involved were apparently too blinded by economic populism to recognize them. The long gas lines seen in New Jersey and New York are a direct result of gas prices held artificially low by anti-gouging laws. Increased prices for commodities like fuel, water, construction materials, etc.in the aftermath of a weather emergency simply reflect the fact that those commodities become significantly more valuable in such conditions due to disruptions in supply and, in some cases, increased demand. Artificially holding prices low does nothing to change the intrinsic value of the goods and services affected. Consumers know this and they are encouraged to purchase, and hoard, these items because they can obtain them at below-market prices - hence the long gas lines.
If prices were allowed to rise to reflect the real value of commodities, people would be encouraged to reevaluate their requirements. Should they fill up their gas tanks as if nothing had happened? Or should they make alternate arrangements on a temporary basis? People could arrange car pools, take public transportation, take a bicycle to work. If available and practicable they could take vacation time. On the supply side, suppliers from outside the affected area might find that higher prices make it economical to divert product from their existing customers to meet the emergency demand. Or they could increase production, put employees on overtime, or take other measures to increase their output on a temporary basis. Scarce commodities get allocated according to real demand on something approaching a rational basis.
Instead, with prices held artificially low, scarce supplies go to those lucky enough to reach them before they are sold out. No pressure is placed on anyone to conserve. The results are that motorists wait in gas lines for hours only to find that the tanks are empty when they finally reach the pump. Television reporters related that some vehicles in line were running on fumes while others had half a tank or more and were looking to top up. Who knows if any of the motorists languishing in long gas lines took the opportunity to reflect that low prices are of limited benefit if there is nothing to buy?
Also, as a practical matter, anti-gouging laws can't really touch the secondary market. Which is why people in New York were posting to Craigslist with offers of gasoline, presumably purchased at somewhere between $3.50 and $4.00 per gallon, at $15.00 per gallon. The laws of economics are as immutable as the law of physics. Attempting to prevent rising prices in the wake of a hurricane reflects an ignorance and arrogance that would only be exceeded by attempting to ban hurricanes themselves. Of course President Obama, who famously promised to slow the rising of the oceans, might just think he can get away with it.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Whedon on Romney
Joss Whedon has published the following video to YouTube:
Now I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon. He's had two hit television series and at least one of his other two series should have been a hit (I'm kind of ambivalent on Dollhouse). As a writer and director he's brilliant. As a political analyst he's as unbelievably stupid as the rest of his airheaded Hollywood compatriots.
He predicts that a President Romney's policies will "guarantee poverty, unemployment, overpopulation, disease, rioting . . ." Poverty and unemployment? Does he seriously think that Obama has successfully dealt with either of these issues? The poverty rate has risen steadily over the last four years and there are a record number of Americans receiving food stamps. Unemployment has remained persistently high despite Obama's incurring of six trillion dollars in new debt. Based on historical patterns, a recession as severe as the one we experienced in 2008-2009 should have been followed by a robust recovery. Instead we have had a dead cat bounce. Just as the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Recession, Obama's policies have retarded and obstructed the natural corrective tendencies of the American economy.
As for the rest of Whedon's prediction, I can't tell if he really believes Romney's election will lead to "overpopulation, disease [and] rioting" or if that's just fanciful language meant to further his theme of the zombie apocalypse.
I have two main objections to Whedon's interposition of himself into the election. The first is that, like most wealthy left-wingers, he is essentially immune to the harmful effects of the policies he wants to impose on the rest of us. Whedon's net worth is estimated at $45 million. Unemployment doesn't matter to him because he never has to work again, although he will because his talents are in high demand. It doesn't matter if Obamacare drives insurance rates up and drives doctors out of the market because he has enough money to pay cash for whatever healthcare he needs. No matter how many Americans are inflicted with shrunken horizons, diminished opportunities and restricted freedoms, Whedon and his fellow wealthy progressives will live out their lives in comfort, congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to support progressive politicians and policies.
My second objection is that, while Whedon may be an Obama fan, Malcolm Reynolds definitely is not. Reynolds fought for the Independents in the Unification War. Reynolds thinks governments are for "gettin' in a man's way." Reynolds has contempt for elites who think they can make people 'better." He aims to misbehave.
Obama is so Alliance I expect to see Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod wearing blue gloves. He's an arrogant elitist who doesn't hesitate to attempt wholesale re-engineering of an economy or a society but refuses to acknowledge his responsibility for the entirely predictable negative outcomes. He rolls the dice on a massive overhaul of the health insurance market that will only result in increased costs, decreased service and government rationing. He attempts to conceal the negative consequences by postponing implementation of some aspects of the law until after the election and illegally exempting favored constituencies from compliance with other sections. He has engaged in a ham-handed and cynical cover-up of the Benghazi debacle because it exposes the flaws in his Middle East policy. He subjected the entire population of a planet to the experimental drug G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate causing most of the people to give up and die and converting the survivors into a race of subhuman cannibals. No wait, that wasn't Obama; but it's the kind of thing he'd try.
Obama isn't just the Alliance. He's the Watchers' Council, or rather he admires and respects institutions like the Council - a self-appointed unaccountable cabal of European busybodies who have arrogated to themselves the right to regulate vampire slaying here in the United States. Obama seems to think that America is a destructive, disruptive force in the world and needs to be restrained by international institutions. He gazes enviously at foreign governments that intrude far more deeply and regularly into the lives of their citizens than the U.S. government has historically been allowed to. He often defends his policies, like health care nationalization or green energy cronyism, by saying that other countries do it and the United States need to catch up. One of his chief acolytes, Thomas Friedman, famously wished that the U.S. could be "China for a day," taking orders from the central government without that messy Constitution getting in the way.
In short, Obama is a classic Joss Whedon villain. He's Wolfram and Hart, twisting and perverting the law. He's Loki, the god who aims to 'liberate' us from freedom. The fact that Whedon can't see this isn't really surprising, but it's still sad.
UPDATE: Kevin Williamson has a better, more comprehensive takedown of the Whedon video over at National Review Online.
Now I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon. He's had two hit television series and at least one of his other two series should have been a hit (I'm kind of ambivalent on Dollhouse). As a writer and director he's brilliant. As a political analyst he's as unbelievably stupid as the rest of his airheaded Hollywood compatriots.
He predicts that a President Romney's policies will "guarantee poverty, unemployment, overpopulation, disease, rioting . . ." Poverty and unemployment? Does he seriously think that Obama has successfully dealt with either of these issues? The poverty rate has risen steadily over the last four years and there are a record number of Americans receiving food stamps. Unemployment has remained persistently high despite Obama's incurring of six trillion dollars in new debt. Based on historical patterns, a recession as severe as the one we experienced in 2008-2009 should have been followed by a robust recovery. Instead we have had a dead cat bounce. Just as the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Recession, Obama's policies have retarded and obstructed the natural corrective tendencies of the American economy.
As for the rest of Whedon's prediction, I can't tell if he really believes Romney's election will lead to "overpopulation, disease [and] rioting" or if that's just fanciful language meant to further his theme of the zombie apocalypse.
I have two main objections to Whedon's interposition of himself into the election. The first is that, like most wealthy left-wingers, he is essentially immune to the harmful effects of the policies he wants to impose on the rest of us. Whedon's net worth is estimated at $45 million. Unemployment doesn't matter to him because he never has to work again, although he will because his talents are in high demand. It doesn't matter if Obamacare drives insurance rates up and drives doctors out of the market because he has enough money to pay cash for whatever healthcare he needs. No matter how many Americans are inflicted with shrunken horizons, diminished opportunities and restricted freedoms, Whedon and his fellow wealthy progressives will live out their lives in comfort, congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to support progressive politicians and policies.
My second objection is that, while Whedon may be an Obama fan, Malcolm Reynolds definitely is not. Reynolds fought for the Independents in the Unification War. Reynolds thinks governments are for "gettin' in a man's way." Reynolds has contempt for elites who think they can make people 'better." He aims to misbehave.
Obama is so Alliance I expect to see Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod wearing blue gloves. He's an arrogant elitist who doesn't hesitate to attempt wholesale re-engineering of an economy or a society but refuses to acknowledge his responsibility for the entirely predictable negative outcomes. He rolls the dice on a massive overhaul of the health insurance market that will only result in increased costs, decreased service and government rationing. He attempts to conceal the negative consequences by postponing implementation of some aspects of the law until after the election and illegally exempting favored constituencies from compliance with other sections. He has engaged in a ham-handed and cynical cover-up of the Benghazi debacle because it exposes the flaws in his Middle East policy. He subjected the entire population of a planet to the experimental drug G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate causing most of the people to give up and die and converting the survivors into a race of subhuman cannibals. No wait, that wasn't Obama; but it's the kind of thing he'd try.
Obama isn't just the Alliance. He's the Watchers' Council, or rather he admires and respects institutions like the Council - a self-appointed unaccountable cabal of European busybodies who have arrogated to themselves the right to regulate vampire slaying here in the United States. Obama seems to think that America is a destructive, disruptive force in the world and needs to be restrained by international institutions. He gazes enviously at foreign governments that intrude far more deeply and regularly into the lives of their citizens than the U.S. government has historically been allowed to. He often defends his policies, like health care nationalization or green energy cronyism, by saying that other countries do it and the United States need to catch up. One of his chief acolytes, Thomas Friedman, famously wished that the U.S. could be "China for a day," taking orders from the central government without that messy Constitution getting in the way.
In short, Obama is a classic Joss Whedon villain. He's Wolfram and Hart, twisting and perverting the law. He's Loki, the god who aims to 'liberate' us from freedom. The fact that Whedon can't see this isn't really surprising, but it's still sad.
UPDATE: Kevin Williamson has a better, more comprehensive takedown of the Whedon video over at National Review Online.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)