Monthly Archives: May 2015

Memorial Day Celebrations

Posted on by
Reply

I first posted this in 2012. It bears repeating.

Enjoy this holiday. Take the time to kick back, relax from the hard work you’ve been doing, and just goof off for a bit.

While you’re doing that, though, do something else, also. Invite that veteran in your neighborhood, who came back from his service wounded or maimed, and his or her family, to your celebration. Invite the family in your neighborhood whose veteran was killed in his or her service to your celebration. They need the break and the relaxation and the support, also. And they’ve earned your respect and remembrance.MtSoledadMemorialImage_big

MojaveCrossTo which I add this, excerpted from Alex Horton’s remarks on the significance of the day to him and his:

I hope civilians find more solace in Memorial Day than I do. Many seem to forget why it exists in the first place, and spend the time looking for good sales or drinking beers on the back porch. It’s a long weekend, not a period of personal reflection. At the same time, many incorrectly thank Vets or active duty folks for their service. While appreciated, it’s misdirected. That’s what Veterans Day is for. Instead, they should take some time and remember the spirit of the country and the dedication of those men and women who chose to pick up arms. They never came home to be thanked, and only their memory remains.

 

h/t Spirit of Enterprise

NSA, Bulk Collection, and Security

Posted on by
Reply

For now, there is no bill extending in any form the NSA’s ability to bulk collect metadata about our telephone calls. The House-passed bill that would have kept those data in phone company possession and NSA-searchable under explicit court order failed in the Senate Friday, as did any effort to extend the existing capability, for any duration. At this point, the House and Senate are in Memorial Day recess and won’t return until the 31st. With the collection authority expiring on 1 June, that leaves the House and Senate only a few hours to figure something out or leave the thing expired.

Senator and Presidential Candidate Rand Paul (R, KY) said in the aftermath,

We should never give up our rights for a false sense of security. This is only the beginning—the first step of many. I will continue to do all I can until this illegal government spying program is put to an end, once and for all.

For all his braggadocio, Paul is right on the essence of this.

There is, and there always will be, creep; there is always expansion of government power, if not authority, no matter the good intentions for the original expansion. The best place to draw the line against further creep, the only effective place to draw the line, is at zero. The Constitution has transferred to government all the fraction of our liberty necessary; there need be no further transfer.

We can have security by giving up (some more) liberty? No. There is no security at all without liberty. The House-passed bill would have been a suitable intermediate step in winding down the bulk collection, and it should have been passed: a sudden disruption of the NSA’s necessary intelligence gathering can be dangerous. At best, though, it should have been taken as only that, and additional measures taken to complete the winding down.

Update: An earlier version of this post foolishly referred to Senator Paul as “Ron.”  That error has been corrected.

Government Imperative to Regulate

Posted on by
Reply

This time in the commercial space industry. There is a bill slowly wending its way through the House that would limit—or not—regulation of the nascent commercial space industry. This is a bill that would

…extend and update federal protection for commercial launches from some potential liability involving property damage or personal injuries and fatalities on the ground. The legislation [also would bar] the Federal Aviation Administration from closely regulating fledgling space-tourism ventures for up to 10 more years….

There’s a hint about the wrong mindset there. The hint is clarified by the bill’s supporters’ attitude. They [emphasis added]

want to extend until the end of 2025 a so-called “learning period” during which companies and regulators are supposed to analyze operational data and consider the best way to create a regulatory structure.

Based on what theory do they think the commercial space industry must, of necessity, be regulated? What, even, is their limiting principle on government regulation?

The answers to these questions are, respectively, none and none. There is no need to regulate something just because someone wants to do it. Americans are not so stupid that our every action needs a rule to permit or prohibit it or to guide it. The lack of limiting principle is demonstrated empirically by the steady growth (and explosive recently, as that growth has reached the sharp bend in a typical growth J-curve) in the size of our government and the amount of regulation it’s committing on us.

What these guys don’t get is that a free market is a very fine regulator, and one that is both fast acting and flexible in all of its controls. A space company shows itself too dangerous? It goes out of business for lack of customers. It has no customer service worthy of the name? It goes out of business for lack of customers. Customers are reluctant to fly from concerns about recompense? Sounds like a market niche for insurers. Some other problem or reluctance? The market will fill the void, and quickly; it’s what competition does.

All government regulation does is protect the regulated companies from that competition, a function which achieves far more efficient regulation far more efficiently and without need of taxpayer-paid bureaucrats adding to the cost of the service.

The Congressional mindset is another argument for limited government. If it’s small enough, it can better be forced to keep its hands to itself.

Another Judge Gets It Right on Guns

Posted on by
Reply

People in the nation’s capital no longer have to show a good reason to get a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes and businesses.

The District of Columbia’s police chief said Tuesday that she’s dropping this requirement, a centerpiece of the city’s handgun-control legislation, after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against it.

That’s entirely appropriate since government does not get to dictate the reasons for a man owning a gun.

The city’s law, one of the nation’s toughest, says a person must show a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property” or another “proper reason for carrying a pistol” to get a concealed-carry permit.

Balance that against the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Try as I might, I can’t find anything in that Amendment, neither clause nor syllable, that says “agreeable with reasons approved by the government.”

What’s in Your Food?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not PC to ask or to know, according to the World Trade Organization.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) just ruled that America’s popular country-of-origin labeling law (COOL) enacted in 2008 violates global trade standards because it erects a trade barrier to US meat imports from countries like Canada and Mexico.

Japanese customers don’t get to know that the beef they’re thinking about buying came from the US. Nor do PRC diners. Nor do American customers get to know that their beef is coming from Canada.

Such knowledge constitutes a trade barrier, don’t you know.

What’s next? WTO ruling that food labeling generally is illegal? After all, if the food is known to be not halal or kosher, Jews and Muslims might not buy the food. Trade barrier.