Freedom from telemarketers

Via CalPundit: Tyler Cowen of The Volokh Conspiracy has this to say about telemarketing "do not call" lists:

Take those people who have put themselves on the list. Do they really not want to be called? Maybe they are afraid that they really like being called. That they will buy things. That they will be impulsive.

Arguably those people have a rational controlling self, and an impulsive buying self, to borrow some language from Thomas Schelling. Why should we assume that the rational controlling self is the only one who counts (do you really want a life devoid of spontaneity?)? Why should our government be in the business of altering this balance in one direction or the other? Isn't the market a better mechanism for balancing the interests of the conflicting selves?

The thing he seems to be ignoring is that the government doesn't go around arbitrarily forcing people to put themselves on the do-not-call list; it's their decision. They may make that decision on exactly the basis Cowen suggests above - "I may buy something if called, so I will remove the temptation" - or they may simply not want obnoxious pricks trying to ram a sale down their throat during dinnertime. Either way, it's their choice, no matter what the reason.

Though this does raise the interesting question of who exactly is entitled to "balance the interests of the conflicting selves". Some breeds of Rationalist have held that a rational State is entitled to do this, in order to free its citizens from their irrational desires and false consciousness and help them achive true freedom (in other words, they know what you "truely" want, and if you claim not to want it, you're simply deluded - the danger implicit in this attitude has been pointed out by Berlin). Liberals, OTOH, have traditonally been very suspicious of anyone who claims that any outside agency is entitled to overrule the choices of individuals in this fashion - respect for individual freedom demands that we respect people's irrational or impulsive decisions as much as their rational ones, as both are an expression of who they are (at least if you're a Compatibalist about free will). Libertarians have traditionally been in the liberal camp, at least with regard to one particular outside agency (the State). I guess the difference between Cowen and myself is that I think that "the market" is as much of an outside agency as the State is.

This changes nothing

So Uday and Qusay Hussein are dead. Woo-hoo. Big deal. I guess its important if you're keeping score (and I expect Bush will make another disgusting, smirking speech to count coup), but it's been clear for some time that Saddam and his sons are no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq. The Iraqis aren't resisting the Americans because they're loyal to Saddam - they're doing it because they want their country back. And killing the ousted tyrant or his flunkies isn't going to change that one iota.

Update: As usual, Steve Gilliard on Daily Kos puts it better than me:

OK, let's say we get Saddam as well. What happens next? Do Iraqis jump up and down and stop killing Americans? Or do they ask why we're still there once the threat's been eliminated.

"Book burning" at Canterbury

What the hell is going on at Canterbury? According to Stuff and the Herald, they pulled the entire run of their in-house journal History Now, sacked the editor, and had their very own book burning. Why? Because said issue contained an article about Joel Hayward, and the effects of the scandal surrounding his Masters thesis on his subsequent career.

Now, Hayward may be a dirty little holocaust-denier, and the whole episode deeply embarassing to the university, but a university is supposed to be a place where academics can freely question revered wisdom and gore sacred cows without suffering the same fate as Galileo. The decision to recall the journal and suppress this article is about as far from the principle of academic freedom as you can get, and I hope that the censorious little fascists responsible suffer for it. Realistically though, the worst that will happen is that Canterbury may have some trouble attracting quality staff over the next few years. [Sigh]

I guess the best we can hope for is for the suppressed articles to turn up on the internet somewhere, so we can read them, and see what all the fuss was about.

You can tell a man by the company he keeps

I guess who this is a condemnation of depends on whether you like stupid with your evil.

National Caucus Votes To Suspend Williamson

Please continue your petty bickering - we find it most amusing.

The joys of a federal system

One of the joys of a federal system is that power is distributed. So, for example, if the President won't sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and implement policies to limit carbon emissions, state governors will do it themselves. New England and northeastern governors are establishing their own carbon dioxide "cap and trade" regimes, promoting energy efficiency, setting quotas for alternative energy sources, and generally implementing Kyoto-friendly policies from below, against the wishes of the president. And the best bit? Most of those governors are republicans...

The question Blair didn't want to be asked

"Have you got blood on your hands, Prime Minister? Are you going to resign?"

Kudos to the reporter who hit him with this in Tokyo. It cut right to the point: a public servant is dead because Blair's team callously sacrificed him like a pawn in an attempt to stave off public criticism and discredit the BBC. Blair does have blood on his hands, and everybody knows it; the only question is who he's going to try and dump the blame on. Though actually, there's no question at all - his allies are already trying to pin it on the BBC...

US undermining another international treaty

Not content with "unsigning" the Rome Treaty on the ICC, withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, and undermining Kyoto, the US is now setting its sights on the Montreal Protocol.

The Montreal Protocol is one of the more successful international environmental agreements. It's been responsible for the phasing out of ozone-reducing chemicals in much of the world, giving the ozone layer a chance to recover and preventing untold cases of cataracts and skin cancer. But now the US is trying to wreck it by pushing for special exemptions so it can continue to pollute while others cannot. Why? Because its cheaper, of course!

Why does anybody bother to sign treaties with the United States anymore? It's clear that, under Bush, the US no longer stands by its word. It will happily sign a treaty, then renege on it six months (or sixteen years) later; "unsign" treaties with no withdrawl cluase; or simply reinterpret things so the US can continue to do whatever the hell it wants (at the same time demanding that others stick to what they originally signed up for). With a "partner" like this, why even bother with an agreement in the first place?

Holy Shit

The body of Dr Peter Kelly - the man fingered by the British Government as the BBC's source for claims that Downing Street "sexed up" the Dodgy Dossier - has been found near his home in Oxfordshire.

Tony Blair's response? "People should not jump to conclusions". That's because the obvious conclusion - that the government's efforts to finger Kelly and divert blame for their lies had ruined his career and driven him to suicide - is deeply damaging to Blair. "Government drives scientist to suicide to secure re-election" is a headline that even Alastair Campbell won't be able to spin his way out of.

(I'm just waiting for some right-wing wingnut to blame the French for this...)

Rob O'Neill has a rather brutal fisking of the US Declaration of Independence in light of the US's current behaviour. Read it and weep.

New Fisk

What Israel does to Palestine, we are doing to Iraq

Getting the message across

On Face to Face tonight, John Banks presented his answer to the problem of reviving the National Party: all they have to do is enunciate their policies clearly to the public. Make it clear what the party stands for, and say it in small words so we idiots can understand.

This solution is commonly espoused by soul-searching National supporters. There's just one problem though: the public knows perfectly well what National stands for - we suffered through it for nine years, after all - and its the main reason for disliking them. Offering more of the same isn't going to make it any more palatable.

You'd have thought that two resounding election defeats would have got the message across, but no. You just have to shout louder, and eventually everyone will come around...

Civil Unions

The government's plan to extend legal rights to gay couples via civil unions is getting the expected result. United Future is spitting tacks again, but as with the previous fight over the care of children bill, they're irrelevant - the Greens have already said they're in favour, so it's as good as a done deal.

I'm pleased to see the government moving ahead on this. As far as I'm concerned, it's a human rights issue, pure and simple. A segment of our community is being denied legal recognition of their relationships, and therefore rights that most of us take for granted (like being able to visit your partner in hospital). Whether its called "marriage" or not isn't so important; what's important is that the package of rights associated with marriage is extended to those who want them but can't (at the moment) have them.

The side effect - that this completely seperates that package of rights from marriage, and effectively makes "marriage" a traditionalist's term for a secular civil union - is icing on the cake :)

Busy, busy, busy

I've been busy, so posting has been light. I know I've got a lot to blog about, and hopefully I'll get on to it soon.

Shredding the US Constitution

Two weeks ago, the other half of the blogosphere made a lot of noise in celebration of American freedoms on Independence Day. I wonder how much noise they'll make about this?

Basically, the US government is ignoring the rulings of its own courts. Worse, they're doing it specifically to deny a criminal defendant facing a possible death penalty access to a government-held witness with exculpatory evidence. So much for fair trials, so much for the rule of law, and so much for the Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

I've always admired the strong protections afforded criminal defendants in the US courts. I guess they're just another victim of the "War on Terror".

Today's must read

20 Lies About the War.

Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath.

A backwards step

The newly formed Belgian coalition government has confirmed that it intends to repeal Belgium's controversial "universal jurisdiction" law.

This is a step backwards in the fight to hold governments - all governments - accountable for their actions. The very idea of "crimes against humanity" is based on the principle that some things are wrong, whether or not they are against the domestic laws of the local jurisdiction (or indeed, approved of by the government of that jurisdiction). In other words, it rests on a principle of universal jurisdiction. While Belgium's law didn't do much, it did put the fear of god into certain politicians that if they set foot in Europe, they would be held accountable for what they had done (or at least be forced to justify it). And judging by the fear the Sharons, Kissingers and Bushes of the world reacted with, they were afraid they wouldn't be able to.

Fortunately we still have the ICC, but it can only deal with crimes commited in signatory nations, and only after June this year. Those who commited crimes against humanity before then - Sharon, Kissinger and Castro, among others - get off scott free.

New Fisk

US Leans On Belgians to Spare Sharon From Trial.

Update: You can get it here too.

Snap!

Yes, Mike and I are reading the same book: The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's an alternate history, exploring a world where Europe was wiped out by the Black Death, and the Chinese, Japanese and Arabs inherit the earth.

I only started on it yesterday, but so far it seems interesting enough. Timurlane's mongols ride through the Moravian gate, and find the place... dead. I was wondering what Robinson would do without a landscape to write about (something readers of his Mars trilogy or Antartica will understand), but at the moment he's doing a great job of evoking the emptiness and desolation of a whole continent which has just died.

It'll be interesting to see what he does with it; maybe one of us will blog a review when we're finished.

Today on Crooked Timber

An analysis of the philosophical incoherance of the Cato Institute's index of economic freedom. In particular, they point out that two of the Institute's five categories (legal protection of property rights and "sound money") are positive rather than negative liberties - things the government provides so you can actually use your freedom - and that this reduces the whole index to measuring "what rich people need to enjoy their money".

(Needless to say, it's also a big "oops" for people who normally claim that the only real liberties are negative ones, and that positive liberty is the gateway to tyranny.)