:: walterindenver ::

Walter rubs two sticks together, makes blog
:: welcome to walterindenver :: bloghome | Comment ::
Listed on BlogShares
[::..archive..::]
[Neighbors and Allies]
:: libertarian samizdata
:: vodkapundit
:: Dean Esmay
:: Matthew Edgar
:: Andrew Olmsted
:: Colorado Freedom Report
:: worldwiderant
:: Fusilierpundit
:: Arthur Silber
:: Glenn Reynolds
:: Roverpundit
:: TalkLeft
:: Resurrection Song
:: Jay Solo
:: Cal Ulmann
:: Reason's Hit and Run
:: Jim Henley
:: Dave Cullen
:: Soapbox Canyon
:: Glen Whitman
:: Random Act of Kindness
:: Colorado Compound
< ? Colorado Blogs # >

:: Friday, August 30, 2002 ::

Dearth of Blogging on this Site
In large part because of this. Please read it.
Thanks. I've been busy this week, 'cuz I'm one of the unfortunate board members who had to offer judgement on the whole sordid affair. For more detailed information go to Ari's site, where he's got lots of good, accurate info on the whole thing.
So imagine my chagrin, when I today get this e-mail:

Uh oh, you've been linked!
By general acclamation amongst the anarchic Samizdata Team, your site 'Walter in Denver' has received the dubious honour of a permanent link on Samizdata.net.
Regards,
The Samizdata Team


Finally, the Holy Grail, recognition from the grandaddy of libertarian blogs. And from all the way over there across the pond, no less. Just look over there on the left, it's the first link on this page.

And I've got no new content.

:: Walter 9:27 PM [+] ::
...
:: Monday, August 26, 2002 ::
More on Barr's Defeat

From CNN's Inside Politics:

(Emory University political science professor Emory) Black said Linder would probably have prevailed without help from non-Republicans. Nonetheless, he said Linder likely benefited strongly from Libertarian voters, whose party ran a stinging TV ad this month criticizing Barr for opposing the use of medical marijuana.

I guess a few mainstream observers did notice. Democrats and Republicans aren't likely to publicly admit that Libertarians could influence politics inside their parties and primaries. Especially not Republicans.

:: Walter 6:18 PM [+] ::
...
:: Sunday, August 25, 2002 ::
Instant Runoff in Alaska
TalkLeft reports the northernmost state is considering adding instant runoff rules to its elections. This is great news for third parties, and for voters, who no longer have to vote for 'the lesser of two evils.' Pick your favorite candidate, instead of voting against your least favorite.
Read how it works here.

:: Walter 7:40 AM [+] ::
...
:: Friday, August 23, 2002 ::
You, Too, can be a Libertarian

I recieved a lovely letter from a university student asking about The Mysteries of LIbertarianism. I'll excerpt some parts and see if I can answer some questions....

I'm a sophomore mathematics student at ____ State
University, and I've recently started reading a lot about political
issues (though I've been interested in economics for much longer). I
scored libertarian (leaning towards left-liberal) on the world's
smallest political quiz, but I'm not sure so sure of the results. In
the past, I've aligned myself with the left for mostly social reasons,
but I've been opposed to many economic policies of the democratic
party. I do, however, have the following doubts about labeling myself a
libertarian:


It's hard to study economics and still agree with Democratic Party economic policies.
The world's smallest political quiz can be found here.

First of all, I support some limited forms of welfare and medical aid.
My parents were extremely poor when I was a child (my father discovered
he had no marketable skills other than his training as a
minister--hardly useful for someone who lost his faith), and they were
able to get by only by getting food stamps and subsidized medical care
for their children. On the other hand, my father got out of poverty by
working very hard at learning marketable skills (he's now a network
administrator with no formal training). I think welfare should be very
much limited in its scope, but is a great help to those who need it.


Libertarians , or people who claim that name for themselves,are a pretty diverse bunch, with diverse opinions. I'll try to answer these questions from a sort of orthodox libertarian viewpiont. Inevitably, there will be libertarians out there who disagree with me. So here goes.
Libertarians have nothing against helping folks who need help. The main objections to welfare system/public assistance programs come on two points.
One, government programs on such a large scale will always become inefficient, bloated bureaucracies. One of the results is that large numbers of people will use those programs as permanent sources of income, and actually make the poverty problem worse than it should be. Another result is a set of bureaucracies so expensive that we could bring every poor person in the nation up to middle class income levels just by paying them directly instead of funding the myriad programs out there.
Two, and to my mind most important, welfare is funded through income taxes. That means the government is forcing one set of citizens to work for, indirectly, another set of citizens, without compensation. When the poor did this for the rich it used to be called slavery. I, too, could support a limited welfare system to support people like your dad, if we can find an alternate funding system. And I'm sure we could do that.

Second, I support harsh, enforceable laws limiting anticompetitive or
dishonest behavior and monopolization on the part of businesses. I'm
not really certain how this fits in with libertarian thought, but it
seems to me that when a business attains monopoly status that most of
the advantages of free competition go out the window.


You are absolutely right. But consider, most monopolies are actively maintained by governments. Those would be things like cable and telephone companies, oil companies, and other businesses which receive exclusive rights through government contracts or non-competition laws. Other monopolies tend to fade quickly, and state action to end them does more harm than good. See Microsoft.

Third, I strongly support harsh environmental protection laws, for
fairly obvious reasons. Once again, I'm not sure how this fits in with
libertarian philosophy.


No conflict there. Libertarians favor fair punishment for polluters and restitution for pollution victims.

Fourth, I think that going to strictly private education would result in
a huge disaster from the introduction of commercial culture into
schools. Also, this would make it more difficult for poor people to get
any kind of an education, which would tend to exacerbate the class
distinctions in education, and create an even more unfair environment
for the poor in terms of competing with the rich for good jobs.


I think it's difficult for poor people to get an education in this country right now. This is a complicated issue, and deserves more space and time than I'm going to take right here, but one of the solutions I see is going to a sort of neighborhood co-op system. That would be similar in some ways to the highly effective system practiced in rural America toward the end of the nineteenth century.
I don't see a 'commercial culture' takeover in the schools, unless that's what parents want.

Last, it seems that nearly every libertarian website I can find that
mentions it is extremely hawkish. I was raised Mennonite, and while I'm
now an atheist, I'm still an ardent pacifist on secular moral grounds
(and opposed to the "war on terror" for a number of pragmatic reasons as
well). I see war as just another means of oppression, and really a form
of state-sanctioned murder. Furthermore, military spending is by far
the greatest chunk of the government budget (perhaps other than social
security). Hawkishness strikes me as a very anti-libertarian viewpoint,
but most libertarians seem to support it


Your postion IS the orthodox libertarian position. The hawkishness a recent development, largely represented by the blogosphere. Look at some of the official national Libertarian Party news releases, and you'll see a strong anti-war stance. Too strong for me, sometimes.

On the other hand, I'm opposed to all but very small income taxes, drug
laws in general, tariffs and quotas on trade, minimum wage laws,
subsidies of any business for any reason, anti-abortion laws, and any
law which tries to legislate personal activities which harm no one but
the person doing them. I support gay rights, strong church-state
separation, human rights both here and abroad, and the principle of a
free market.


Smart kid. That abortion thing is probably the most divisive issue. Every national Party convention rehashes that plank in the platform and votes it back in by a narrow margin.

Do you think it's fair to call me a libertarian, or are my doubts well
founded? You seem to know a lot about the spectrum of libertarian
thought, and hence I thought you would be a good person to ask.


Nice of you to say that. I officially pronounce you a libertarian. Go directly to the nearest underground meeting, pick up your complimentary case of ammo, and learn the secret handshake. Find much more useful info for the neophyte at libertarian.org.
Keep in mind the saying, 'There may be two libertarians who agree on everything, but I'm not one of them.'

:: Walter 7:15 AM [+] ::
...
:: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 ::
Down Goes Barr
Chief Republican nanny statist Bob Barr loses in his primary bid for re-election. I wonder how much of the credit can be given to Libertarian Carole Ann Rand, who took the unusual step of running an anti-Barr TV ad during the primary season. (You can view the ad at her website ) If it's shown that the ad has an impact, it will make medical marijuana an increasingly visible campaign issue for Libertarians, especially against conservative hacks like Barr. It may even force those conservatives to reexamine their stance on the issue, if only to save their own political necks.

:: Walter 7:52 AM [+] ::
...
:: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 ::
I'm Not Making This Up
The U.N. thinks that Libya's Gadaffi would be a good choice to head an agency devoted to human rights.

Really.

I can't think of a better argument as to why the U.N. has outlived its usefulness. (Link via Vodkapundit.)

:: Walter 8:23 PM [+] ::
...
Clay S. Conrad
Author of "Jury Nullification" weighs In on the debate at TalkLeft. More evidence of the power of the Blogosphere.

:: Walter 8:13 PM [+] ::
...
:: Monday, August 19, 2002 ::
More Jury Nullification
TalkLeft joins the debate. Also Ernie the Attorney leans toward converting to our side.

:: Walter 7:55 AM [+] ::
...
:: Sunday, August 18, 2002 ::
The Prof on Jury Nullification
Instapundit Glenn Reynolds links to lawyer Howard Bashman's blog and argues against Bashman in favor of nullification. (Note, the archive links to Bashman's blog are not working, please scroll down to Aug. 16th's postings to find the relevant article.)

Bashman: "Jury nullification is something our system endures because there's no other alternative, but it's not something to be encouraged."

Reynolds responds: "I think this is wrong: it's not a bug, it's a feature."

Reynolds wrote an excellent review (for the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy) of a book by Clay S. Conrad on the subject. Some excerpts of the review:

Every day, in courtrooms around the nation, cases like this end with the defendants being placed on probation, sent into diversion programs, or - perhaps most commonly - not prosecuted at all. At every stage up to the trial, state actors have discretion to drop prosecution, reduce the charges, or approve probation or diversion. That discretion is almost entirely unreviewable. It is also almost entirely without remark or inquiry.....
Yet strangely enough, the notion that a jury might have discretion to make the same kind of judgment appears shocking, even un-American, to many. Jurors are unaccountable, after all (though prosecutors and judges are not especially accountable either, and are also shielded by absolute immunity).


The review is highly recommended reading, especially for those of you not well familiar with the concept of jury nullification. My estimation of Professor Reynolds' intellect has been raised several notches.

:: Walter 7:06 AM [+] ::
...
:: Saturday, August 17, 2002 ::
ILTE of the Day
Mel Keisel, of El Paso, TX, has a letter appearring in today's El Paso Times. Quote:

For weeks we have been bombarded with mudslinging campaign ads from both gubernatorial candidates. I have heard nothing from either candidate about what he would do for Texas or about their professional backgrounds and experience.
At this point, I would not vote for either candidate. Between these two guys and the lawyers' ads, I am ready to leave the TV set turned off until after the Nov. 5 general election.


O.K., maybe Mel's not an idiot, perhaps it's not his fault he doesn't know there are more than two candidates for Governor of Texas.


:: Walter 9:20 PM [+] ::
...
:: Thursday, August 15, 2002 ::
Anti Idiotarians Unite
Ben Fischer wants to give a Palistinian spokeswoman a true Fisking.

:: Walter 5:06 PM [+] ::
...
:: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 ::
ILTE of the Day
Today's Denver Post, a missive from Thomas J. Kerwin of Woodland Park, CO. He's incensed by a column written by Linda Chavez. Not that I relish defending her or her opinions.

How dare you, Linda Chavez? How dare you impugn the motives and patriotism of union members and Democrats?
How dare you make worst-case scenarios: "What happens if a newly federalized airport-baggage screener falls asleep on the job, or border agent shows up drunk, or a customs agent becomes careless in searching foreign travelers?" Are you unaware of what thinking like yours did to Japanese-Americans during WWII?
And your surname is Chavez - the same hallowed last name of Cesar Chavez, who gave his life for the United Farm Workers.


Well, she could have questioned the patriotism of Republicans as well. Then I could have said that she's right on. But, Mr. Kerwin, when you equate questioning Democrats' patriotism with the worst form of racism, then you are doing public debate a serious disservice.

:: Walter 6:51 PM [+] ::
...
:: Monday, August 12, 2002 ::
A Home Run
Bob Barr is one of the bad guys. No two ways about it, he'd rather see innocent people die than give an inch on the war on drugs. Libertarian Carol Ann Rand is running against him in Georgia, and she's putting this ad on TV. (Click on one of the multimedia players under 'Why would you do that to me, Bob?') If the Libertarian party could run similar ads across the country they'd be a major political party, instantly.

:: Walter 9:32 PM [+] ::
...
:: Sunday, August 11, 2002 ::
What is a Libertarian?
Perry de Havilland attempts to explain. At Samizdata, of course.

:: Walter 6:56 AM [+] ::
...
:: Saturday, August 10, 2002 ::
Introducing the Next Governor of the Great State of Colorado
Gubernatorial candidate Ralph Shnelvar (L) responds to an earlier post on this site concerning water rights. Here are a few edited portions:

In regards to www.colorado.blogspot.com, I read it all and found all of it
interesting.


So far so good.

What I found most interesting was your reporting on Coase's theorem. Your
analysis was incisive and correct, but, unfortunately, missed the point.


Uh-oh.

I have spoken to various experts in the field and I always ask them to
consider how to make this current collection of water rights into a market
system for water.
As yet I have come up empty handed.


No surprise.

Let's go back to your correct analysis that once the (water) rights are
legally well defined and transaction costs are low, the economic system will
allocate water in the most efficient manner. As you can well imagine, right
now there are perverse incentives (e.g. "use it or lose it") for those with
water rights to waste unbelievable amounts of water.


Go on.

Our first problem is that we could initially allocate those rights in a
totally inequitable manner. Perhaps, we allocate all water rights to Walter
Schlomer. Walter Schlomer is now richer than Bill Gates.
Congratulations, Walter, I always knew you'd make it.


Cool! But that's no problem. Assuming I'm a rational actor in the market, everyone will get the water they need, provided that they are the best users of that water.

This reductio ad absurdum result indicates that we first need to equitably
convert the current system of water rights into their cash equivalent.
Damned if I know how to do that.


No, as in my original post, there's no need for the governor or any government body to convert anything, save bad laws. Your job, should you chose to accept it, (cue Mission Impossible theme music) is to identify laws that have the following effects:
-Prevent water owners from selling their water
-Prevent water users from buying water
-Allow local water boards or communities or anyone else to seize water rights through eminent domain or similar processes
-Prevent water from being transported via pipelines or other methods
-Give the State or other government ownership of the water

And then crush those laws into oblivion.

Let's think about this: every person with usufructuary rights in this state
has exercised a right to a certain amount of water each year. Let's say
that we agree that Farmer X's ditch rights average out to an acre-foot of
water per year.
That's the same as 250,253,900 teaspoons of water. Really. I counted it
last night. My tomato garden is now a ruined mess.
Some BIG questions:
(1) What is the fair market value for that acre foot of water? I don't know
and I don't know how to determine it. For argument's sake, let's call it
$1,000.
(2) The State pays $1,000 per year to Farmer X for the water rights he has
given up. Where does the State get that $1,000? Clearly, from selling that
water to anyone ... including Farmer X.
(3) Water now runs through your property. Do you pay the water owner
upstream of you for the water? What if you don't want to pay?


Now I KNOW you know there's no need for the Governor to determine the market value of water! Once you get the state out of the equation the rest of your problems start to disappear.

The net result of the government taking the actions described above is that the consumers who need the water most urgently (read; 'are willing to pay the most') will wind up with the water. Most likely, some people, such as developers wanting to build in arid regions, will not get the water they want.

I'm not naive. Politically, we likely can't get there from here. As a Libertarian Governor, you'll see plenty of similar dilemmas.

:: Walter 5:59 PM [+] ::
...
:: Thursday, August 08, 2002 ::
Oops
I can't even imagine the emotions going through the minds of these families.

:: Walter 10:16 PM [+] ::
...
1,000
Hits to this little site, as of some time last night. Thanks mom!

:: Walter 7:44 AM [+] ::
...
:: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 ::
Muslims and Lutherans
LILEKS finds an absolutely sick site, a forum for Muslim teens, where they describe how they'd kill Jews, given the chance. He remembers his Midwestern Lutheran upbringing, and how unthinkable such hateful thoughts are to the average American Christian. Love the insider Lutheran humor.
Have I mentioned that Lileks may be the best writer in the blogosphere?
Go there and follow the links provided.
Update
Little Green Footballs
notices the same website and its sickness. Read through the 265+ comments if you have the time.

:: Walter 9:07 AM [+] ::
...
:: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 ::
More Neighbors
I had never seen this lovely blog until I noticed an incoming link. Actually, you get two for one there, a husband and wife team. Coloradoans, it seems. We'll have to have another one of those blogger bash thingies soon, so my wife and I can meet all the locally based bloggers. Again.

:: Walter 5:55 PM [+] ::
...
:: Sunday, August 04, 2002 ::
ILTE of the Day
That's Idiotic Letter To the Editor for those of you keeping score at home.
Today's winner is Jim Silva, who hails from Denver. He thinks the recent E. Coli scare is the occasion to push a vegan lifestyle.

How many illnesses and deaths will it take before American consumers consign meat consumption to the garbage heap of lifestyle history, along with smoking and drug addiction?


My guess is a whole lot more. As for smoking and drug addiction, it seems that the desire for intoxication is a biological urge, like sex. Of course addiction is bad, but if you're trying to get rid of meat and drugs you might as well go for the trifecta and try to ban sex while your at it.
Jim, please run for public office. Make speeches in places where I can throw smelly rotten things at you. Please.

:: Walter 7:48 PM [+] ::
...
Socialism won 40 years ago
John Derbyshire notes on National Review online:

Practically all of the Socialist Party platform on which Norman Thomas ran in 1928 has been implemented. Thomas himself noticed this as far back as 1962, exulting that: "The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly."

If you dislike socialism, you're about 40 years late in abandoning the Republican party.
Mr. Derbyshire is completely wrong about other things, however:

Pop culture is filth. It is now completely degenerate. Why do you never hear anyone humming a current pop song any more? Because none of them is hummable, or even worth bothering to remember.

That's only on the radio. Good, or even brilliant pop music is out there. You have only to look for it. I'm humming it every day.
(Link via Libertarian Samizdata)

:: Walter 7:10 PM [+] ::
...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?