Weigel at LP Convention

Here's a link to Reason's Hit&Run blog, where Dave Weigel is posting from the Libertarian Party convention in Denver. This is the most interesting LP event in years, for a couple of reasons. Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr (GA) and Democratic Sen. Mike Gravel (AK) have declared that they're libertarians now and are running for the presidential nomination, in a year in which a considerable LP vote in a few key states might -- just might -- swing the election one way or another, most likely against McCain. In addition to the new converts, LP veterans like Wayne Allyn Root, Mary Ruwart, and Steve Kubby are also in the presidential race.

I don't have a horse in this race, though Steve Kubby is an old friend and Mary Ruwart a long-time acquaintance. I met George Phillies in New Hampshire. As Dave Weigel notes, Bob Barr has to convince LPers that he has come over convincingly, from a conservative record, on issues like the drug war, gay marriage, and Mike Gravel that he isn't still for socialized health care.

So far I don't have a sense of how it's likely to turn out.

Texas FLDS decision

Here's a link to the Texas appeals court decision in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints alleged polygamy/early marriage/child abuse case Please read it if you're so inclined and decide for yourself.

State overstepped in Texas polygamist case

I was beginning to get bits and pieces of this story from some of Freedom's Texas editors and writers during Freedom School. Now a state appeals court has pretty much confirmed it. It has ruled that the state acted improperly when it seized more than 400 children from the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints church "compound" near Eldorado, TX. The state simply didn't have sufficient information of endangerment to warrant such a wholesale seizure. Apparently not all the children are being released, only those of 48 mothers who had refused to be separated from their children and had been housed in a barracks. But attorneys say that by implication it should apply to all 455 of the children seized.

What I've been hearing from Texas writers is that while it seems likely that there were polygamous marriages at the ranch, the state just swept up everybody, including children born into monogamous marriages. Another problem, hinted at in stories when the raid was conducted in April, is that the telephoned tips about abuse and young girls forced into marriage may not have come from inside the compound but from a more-or-less professional polygamy-buster who claimed to be a young girl. At any rate, the girl who was supposedly the informant has never been identified or found.

What's fascinating about all this is that most of the news media have been cheering on and gloating about the raids and generally pining for more. All it takes to arouse the seizure-lust of most of the media, apparently, is allegations of child abuse along with the fact that members of the group are just plain weird. I'll admit that the group I saw once on TV sounded like Stepford Wives. And if there really is child abuse, it should be sought out and prosecuted. But the government seems allergic to doing things properly; it has to conduct a military-style raid and take custody of hundreds of children. Apparently the state learned nothing from Waco.

My Texas acquaintances say the San Angelo Standard-Times has done the best job of covering this story and is just about the only media outlet to do skeptical stories rather than cheerleading for the government. Here's a link to its Website and to today's story on the release of some children.

I maintain that many of the apparent problems associated with sects like this would be less likely of the government were smart enough not to outlaw polygamy. When a practice is forced to go into hiding or underground, there's a strong tendency for its practitioners to get more insular, paranoid, and just plain weird. If polygamists could live next door, fewer would go into compounds. And compound residents who didn't have to hide and lie and feel persecuted might not be so psychologically dependent on leaders whose subsequent power (like any power) is likely to be abused.

Stuck in airport limbo

Well, so much for prompt travel. My flight (it's ExpressJet, and the flight here was just fine) from San Antonio to California is delayed by about 4 hours. I'll blog a bit here and on the Register's blogs, and read from the books I always have in the evnt of such exigencies.

Blogging at Orange Punch

I blogged a little more about the Freedom Inc. Freedom School over at the Register's Orange Punch blog if you're interested in taking a gander.

Traveling tomorrow

I'm flying back to California from San Antonio tomorrow and have to attend some meetings in the morning, so the blogging may be a little light unless I have down time in the airport and a free WiFi connection.

How 'bout them Lakers?

I have to admit that I was on the verge of losing hope when the Lakers fell 20 points behind the Lakers in the third quarter of their game against the San Antonio Spurs. But Kobe Bryant, who had been pretty quiet until then, took over the game and virtually willed the Lakers to the win. Jordan Farmar and Vujaicic also brought a lot of energy on a night when Odom and Fisher weren't quite on their game.

I don't expect it will be an easy series. The Spurs may be getting a little long in the tooth, but they are the defending champions and an excellent team. Tim Duncan may be the best power forward playing now, and maybe ever. I expect them to bounce back from what must have been a demoralizing loss and give the Lakers all they can handle.

As I've mentioned before, I'm strictly atavistic in my sports loyalties -- quite primitive for a guy who makes a living with his brain. I fell in love with the Lakers back in the Baylor-West days, when they were terrific but the Celtics were great. It will seem like old times if it's a Lakers-Celtics final again. The Lakers lost my wife when Kobe Bryant did whatever he did with that girl in a Colorado resort, and there's little doubt in my mind that he was up to no good even though he beat the rape charge. But he seems to have grown up some since then, and he has developed into probably the best basketball player on the planet.

Downtown San Antonio

It's interesting. Although San Antonio's Riverwalk is a wonderful and popular place to walk, eat and have a drink -- moderately crowded at midnight last night -- much of the rest of the downtown area, apart from the luxury hotels, looks only moderately healthy. I saw several buildings that were boarded up, and most of the buildings themselves obviously had some age and wear on them. A few even looked marginally seedy. That's similar to many of the downtowns I've seen in America. Downtown in America -- or at least that's my impression -- is no longer the center of things, if it ever really was. Apart from the trip from the airport I didn't see all that much of the suburbs, but I got the distinct impression that most of the real action is on the outskirts or the suburbs.

Freedom's underlying principles

At the Freedom School here in San Antonio we held a session moderated by Tom Palmer of the Cato Institute, who was sent local-issue editorials from almost all the Freedom newspapers and asked to analyze them. Tom is a very smart guy and a good synthesizer, and he teased out the principles underlying the editorials he was given to read, with these results:

1. Freedom papers tend to support the widest scope of personal freedom consistent with equal freedom for all.
2. The rule of law is an important principle, meaning that societies should be guided by institutions that operate consistently rather than by the personal predilections of leaders or rulers — and that the law applies to the rulers as well as the ruled.
3. Economy in government — that the primary purpose of government is to provide justice and other genuinely essential services, that choices have costs, and that when services can be provided without coercive action, the voluntary route is better.

Not a bad set of principles. Having been to a couple of them, I can't help but think that the Freedom Schools, where top-notch scholars and speakers are invited to give presentations and lead discussions on applying freedom principles to everyday issues, have something to do with this kind of consistency. I'm very pleased that Freedom Communications thinks this is important and invests some of its profits in the endeavor.

A young Milton Friedman prize winner

For some reason the Register didn't post the editorial we did congratulating the Cato Institute for giving the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty (which comes with $500,000!) to 23-year-old Yon Goicoechea, the Venezuelan law student who was a key leader in defeating Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's bid to change the constitution so he could have even more arbitrary power and the potential to be dictator for life. That victory in the referendum in December was a surprise to almost all observers, and it's gratifying that it came mostly as the result of activism by young people.

The subject did come up, however, at Freedom Communications' Freedom School in San Antonio today, where I am sojourning. Cato President Ed Crane gave the luncheon speech, and it was preceded by a Cato video about Yon Goicoechea. Ed gave a brief overview of American history, noting that the country was originally about freedom and individual rights, but underwent what amounts to a revolution during the New Deal, after which government grew continually grew and freedom and individual rights retreated. He managed a smidgen of optimism, noting that people are onto the teachers' unions and ready for more choice. He thinks Bush blew it big-time on Social Security by talking about numbers rather than ownership, but reminded us that the numbers dictate that something will have to be done before the system goes into default. He also stressed that the freedom movement, as Nobel economist James Buchanan noted, can't hope to be successful if it's about economic efficiency more than the ideals of human liberty.

He would be the first to acknowledge that it isn't all his doing, but Ed has really done the remarkable with Cato. It has an annual budget of $25 million and gets 40,000 hits a day on its Web site. In talking with Ed the other night, I learned that it now has blogs in several foreign languages, much of it written by people in other countries. This is largely the work of Tom Palmer, who is also here this week.

That damn farm bill again

Here's a link to the Register's editorial on the farm bill, urging President Bush to veto it as threatened, even if it turns out to be little more than a gesture. The persistence and even the increase of farm subsidies when farm prices and farm profits are higher than in recent memory should be a surprise, but unfortunately it isn't. It's the old public choice analysis -- that when there are concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, the people getting the concentrated benefits will win out in the political game every time, and that bureaucrats act in their own interests, just like everybody else rather than being dispassionate, disinterested avatars of virtue.

Working for freedom

It had been longer than I had remembered since I was in San Antonio. Like everybody, apparently, back then, I had been mainly impressed by just how small the Alamo (or the part that is left; I understand there was more to it back in 1836) seemed as compared to the large mythology surrounding it. I don't think I spent more than a few minutes on the Riverwalk -- which is underneath the streets cars go on, virtually invisible if you're just driving around -- on that previous trip. This time I spent about an hour, walking through countless outdoor cafes and enjoying the entire scene. Quite a bit of good music. Come and enjoy it if you get the opportunity.

At the reception Tibor Machan introduced me to Jonathan Rauch and we had a good time chatting at dinner. He's a smart guy, but not (quite) a libertarian, as advertised in the program. We'll see if we can jolly him along a little bit. Not much of great substance at dinner tonight, more a matter of getting acquainted or reacqauinted. Tomorrow we'll tackle immigration, hear Ed Crane on whether freedom is on the march or in retreat, and discuss church and state with Tim Sandefur.

Musical chairs in Moscow

Here's a link to the piece I wrote last week for Antiwar.com on the changing of the presidential guard in Russia. I can't help but think that in time Medvedev will evolve into something other than Putin's sock-puppet, as the presidency has more inherent powers than the prime ministership. Then it will be interesting to see how much conflict comes about. Making Medvedev a real president might just be Putin's plan, but I suspect he'll want to keep his hand in.

Here in San Antonio

Well, I made it to San Antonio for Fredom Communications' Freedom School. Flew on Express Jet, apparently a new airline. It uses smaller je ts (56 passengers) and the flight was smooth and generally trouble-free. The event starts at 6:00 local time (4pm PDT), so I'll meander on the Riverwalk a bit, then change clothes. I'm looking forward to it. It will be interesting to see how widely the perception that the newspaper business is changing in fundamental ways is shared, particularly in smaller cities. And to get a little refresher course in freedom. I'll report my perceptions beginning tonight.

Register approves gay marriage decision

Here's a link to the Register's editorial on the California Supreme Court's decision that a law restricting marriage to man-woman couples was invalid under the California constitution. This should be a "teaching moment," reminding people that a written constitution, and especially one that includes a bill of rights or sets forward a set of protected individual rights, exists partly to limit government power, as a protection against government, by whatever majority, violating those rights. Thus a supreme court using a constitution to invalidate a law is not being "activist," but doing its job. Courts have been known to go over the line and invent "rights," but having read the decision, I don't think that's the case here.

Remembering the Alamo

It's off to San Antonio tomorrow morning, to attend the Freedom Communications Inc. Freedom School. The company that owns the Register (and about 27 other papers and a half-dozen TV stations) has one of these events every 12-18 months, mostly for editors and editorial writers to get a little refresher course in libertarian thought, and with any luck ways to apply it to the kinds of issues that arise in communities as well as nationally and internationally. Tibor Machan, who's now teaching at Chapman U. in Orange, and is an adviser on freedom issues to Freedom Inc., puts these events together. The main speakers this yhear will be Jonathan Rauch (I've read him for years but never met him), Ed Crane, Tom Palmer and Timothy Sandefur. I'm very much looking forward to it. Should be gone through Thursday but plan to find some time to blog.

California Supremes validate gay marriage

The California Supreme Court handed down its decision today on the subject og gay marriage -- or perhaps more precisely, whether California's constitution allows the government, whether through initiative or legislative action, to forbid same-sex marriage or refuse to grant it equal standing. The court (4-3) concluded that it could not. I think it was a good decision.

I haven't read the full 172-page decision yet, but I read enough of it to get the gist. The court (Chief Justice Ron George wrote it), after disposing of some procedural and standing matters, noted that the constitution contains an equal-protection-of-the-laws provision, and the court in previous decisions had affirmed that various constitutional provisions recognize the right to marry as a fundamental individual right of such importance to society and of such value to individual people that government cannot restrict it. To deny it to a class of people because of their sexual orientation is discrimination of a kind that demands "strict scrutiny" (the highest standard of review) of laws that deny or restrict it. The state could show neither "compelling" nor "necessary reasons to deny it, therefore the laws that did so could not stand.

I found it pretty persuasive, and the Register's editorial tomorrow approves it. We'll hear a lot about activist judges inserting themselves into a policy decision that is rightly the province of the legislature and the people. After all, an initiative declaring that only marriage between a man and a woman may be valid or recognized in California passed by a healthy margin in 2000, and the Supremes just invalidated it. But in this case that argument doesn't hold. One of the purposes of a constitution -- the most signal simple example is the Bill of Rights of the national constitution -- is to declare which rights of citizens are so fundamental that the government may not violate them. If the legislative power enacts a law that does so it is the court's duty -- its most important duty -- to invalidate it and uphold the integrity of the constitution. That's what the court did here.

Immigration Ironies

On the same day yesterday two developments regarding immigration were interestingly juxtaposed. Federal agents conducted the biggest immigration enforcement raid of the year at an Iowa Kosher meat plant, rounding up about 300 people suspected of being in the country illegally and/or using a Social Security number fraudulently.

On the same day the Manhattan Institute (generally conservative with some mildly libertarian leanings) released a study that used various measures to show that recent immigrants (past quarter-century) are assimilating into the United States at a faster rate than did previous generations, even though they have less mastery of English and earning power than did those who came at the turn of the 20th century. The study used factors like rates of citizenship, military service, rates of homeownership and English facility to see how quickly immigrants came to resemble native-born citizens. The results seem to demonstrate, as Jacob Vigdor of Duke, who conducted the study, put it, "that the nation's capacity to assimilate new immigrants is strong."

A troubling aspect of the study was that Mexicans have a relatively low assimilation rate (as compared to Vietnamese, for example), which can mainly be attributed the the fact that so many are here illegally. Being illegal cuts off a lot of paths to assimilation. To me, the conclusion should be that we should get those people legalized as quickly as possible (if the buzzword "amnesty" doesn't make it politically impossible) and adjust or eliminate the quotas so the marketplace rather than bureaucrats laying down arbitrary numbers decides how many immigrants the U.S. economy "needs" and can absorb without undue friction. The workplace raids can't get them all and turn out to be disruptive (in this case a small town's primary business is crippled, at least for a while). We need to change our policies to be open to more immigration (but not to subsidize immigrants) which will make assimilation easier.

Israel at 60

If I do say so myself, I think this Register editorial on Israel's 60th birthday is about as well balanced as anything printed that I've seen. Fairly succinctly it acknowledges accomplishments and presents challenges that Israel will have to face.

As I say and write often, the U.S. would do better to understand that it can't force an Israeli-Palestinian accord; if it happens it will be when the parties involved are ready. But every U.S. president seems to consider it obligatory to give it a try during his last year in office. What fools these mortals be!