Category Archives: Liberty

Economic Freedom

An interesting story from Ethiopia – something for everyone:

Northern Ethiopia is rugged and poor. It is a place where people mostly get by as subsistence farmers. The government and international organizations like the World Bank have tried and failed for years to improve the well-being of locals. But then, one village went and did it all on its own.

The community is called Awra Amba. About 500 people live here in simple wattle and daub houses, and they keep busy in a variety of money-making activities.

The village has a mill, where grain is crushed into flour. There is a textile factory, where villagers make clothes for themselves and to sell. You will also find a café, a tourist hostel, and two stores that cater to people from outside the village.

With all of these businesses, Awra Amba has managed to pull itself out of poverty. Compared with the rest of the region, the average income here is more than twice as high. Literacy rates are higher than in neighboring villages. Mortality rates are lower.

“Everyone here dreams of becoming more prosperous — that’s a big reason why our economy has grown faster than others,” says Zumra Nuru, who founded the village 40 years ago as a kind of utopian community. He says at the time, he was dissatisfied by the injustice he perceived in traditional Ethiopian culture and wanted to organize a society along more egalitarian lines. He also saw the community as a way to increase wealth.

“We use all our time for work and to improve our village,” he says.

One reason the people of Awra Amba are able to work so hard is that they do not follow organized religion.

In neighboring Christian and Muslim villages, residents respect the Sabbath and holidays. “They have quite frequent religious days, so on those days, they don’t go to [do] farming work,” says sociologist Ashenafi Alemu of Ethiopia’s University of Gondar. “But for Awra Amba, this is not the case. They work every day.”

The lack of religion is not the only competitive advantage for Awra Amba. The village invests a lot of energy in educating its children and diversifying its economy. It also embraces gender equality. You will see women here doing what is traditionally considered “men’s work,” like plowing, which effectively doubles the workforce.

Hard work, lack of religion and gender equality.

Indeed!

Duck Dynasty – A Win For Civil Libertarians

Duck Dynasty

A&E Reinstates Phil Robertson

Late Friday night A&E announced that is was going to resume filming the show with family patriarch Phil Robertson:

(CNN) — Little more than a week after it suspended “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson for incendiary remarks about homosexuality, the cable channel A&E said Friday that it would include him in future tapings of the reality television show, effectively lifting the suspension amid a flurry of petitions in support of Robertson.

I’ve stated many ties that I am a firm believer in the concept that people enter into relationships voluntarily and that they may exit those relationships at their discretion.  For example, if I take a job and begin to grow out my hair -I have hair down to my mid back- I should feel free to do so.  However, if my employer doesn’t like her employees to have long hair, she should be free to terminate my employment.

I have no problem with A&E terminating Phil Robertson for his hair, his beard, his age, his religion or his general redneckiness.

But we don’t like in my world – we live in a world where people have been granted civil liberties.  And one of those liberties is the protection of religion.  I may not hire or fire someone based on their religion.

And Phil was.  He was fired for his fundamental Christian beliefs.  There isn’t anyone who thought that he would have answered in any other way than he did when asked about his feeling towards homosexuality.  None.

And as much as I disagree with Phil, and agree with A&E’s right to fire him, the rules of this real world don’t support their decision.

Now, I’m also not so naive to think that A&E backed down due to some noble adherence to law; no – make no mistake about it, they backed down because without Phil they lose 14 million viewers and the money that goes from “Duck Dynasty” to “Duck Commander”.

Phil wins, for the wrong reason, and I lose.

When We Said We Don’t Trust The Government

Big Brother

This is what we mean:

The California health exchange has admitted it has been divulging contact information for tens of thousands of consumers to insurance agents without their permission or knowledge in an effort to hit deadlines for coverage.

Covered California said it was handing out consumer information as part of a pilot program to help people enroll ahead of a Dec. 23 deadline to have health insurance in place by the new year, according to the Los Angeles Times. The consumers in question had gone online to research insurance options, but didn’t ask to be contacted.

Social Security numbers, income and other information were not provided to the agents, but names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses were made available, exchange officials said.

The names provided by Covered California include people who started an insurance application on the website but didn’t complete the process.

State officials say they do not know exactly how many people are affected by the information sharing.

Whoever is in charge, your team or mine, they are gonna think that what they are doing is in the best interest of the people.

And it just gets worse from there.

On Phil Robertson – From The Left

It’s been fun watching the reaction to the whole Duck Dynasty thing.

It started out with his comments from the interview, then moved to his suspension.  From there, Cracker Barrel got into the game by pulling Duck Dynasty merchandise that only upset THEIR customer base.  After much complaining on the innertubes, Cracker Barrel relented apologized and put the stuff back on sale.

My take?

I think that an employer should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason, so I have no issue personally that Phil got the axe.  But we don’t live in my world – we live in the real world, where firing someone for their religion is against the law – or at least I think it is.  I can’t image that an employer, upon learning that his employee isn’t Christian, could fire him.

Anyway – so I think that Phil’s civil liberties were abused to a degree.  And if they weren’t, if there is a legal standing that A&E can rest on – think morals clause or spokesman – I have some trouble wrapping my head around the whole thing.  I mean, the whole show is based on the fact that these Robertson people are God Fearing evangelical Christian rednecks.  There isn’t one single person alive that would have thought Phil would think that homosexuality wasn’t a sin.

So, yeah, it’s been fun watching it.  But here is a take I didn’t expect:

I have to say I’m befuddled by the firing of Phil Robertson, he of the amazing paterfamilias beard on Duck Dynasty (which I mainly see via The Soup). A&E has a reality show that depends on the hoariest stereotypes – and yet features hilariously captivating human beings – located in the deep South. It’s a show riddled with humor and charm and redneck silliness. The point of it, so far as I can tell, is a kind of celebration of a culture where duck hunting is the primary religion, but where fundamentalist Christianity is also completely pervasive. (Too pervasive for the producers, apparently, because they edited out the saying of grace to make it non-denominational and actually edited in fake beeps to make it seem like the bearded clan swore a lot, even though they don’t.)

Now I seriously don’t know what A&E were expecting when the patriarch Phil Robertson was interviewed by GQ. But surely the same set of expectations that one might have of an ostensibly liberal host of a political show would not be extended to someone whose political incorrectness was the whole point of his stardom. He’s a reality show character, for Pete’s sake. Not an A&E spokesman.

Robertson is a character in a reality show. He’s not a spokesman for A&E any more than some soul-sucking social x-ray from the Real Housewives series is a spokeswoman for Bravo. Is he being fired for being out of character? Nah. He’s being fired for staying in character – a character A&E have nurtured and promoted and benefited from. Turning around and demanding a Duck Dynasty star suddenly become the equivalent of a Rachel Maddow guest is preposterous and unfair.

What Phil Robertson has given A&E is a dose of redneck reality. Why on earth would they fire him for giving some more?

Fascinating.

Public Records Law

Gene Nichol

Here in North Carolina we have a public records law:

 § 132-1.  “Public records” defined.

(a)        “Public record” or “public records” shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government.

(b)        The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, “minimal cost” shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information.

In short, if you work for the state, your state “stuff” is free to be requested by the public.  It appears that some folks at The University of North Carolina are a titch upset:

A group of law professors at UNC-Chapel Hill is standing behind Gene Nichol, director of the school’s poverty center, after a conservative think tank requested the left-leaning professor’s emails, phone records and calendars.

Thirty law professors signed a letter questioning the motives of the Raleigh-based Civitas Institute, which promotes limited government and implementation of conservative policies. On Oct. 25, the institute used the state’s public records law to seek six weeks’ worth of Nichol’s email correspondence, his calendar entries, phone logs, text messages and a list of electronic devices issued to Nichol by the university.

“Surveilling a professor’s communications is a really troubling approach to protecting liberty,” the law professors wrote in a letter published Tuesday on the Chapel Hill News website and in the paper’s Wednesday print edition. “We deeply admire Gene Nichol’s commitment to protecting and speaking for the state’s poor and disempowered. The only comfort we take from this sorry request by Civitas is our confidence that it will increase his passion.”

Look, I have no idea why Civitas would request Nichols’ stuff, but they don’t have to explain themselves.  The good professor is an employee of the state, and the law says that people who are such employees are obligated to deliver their stuff when requested.

I think that a larger threat against our liberty is not that Government has to answer to the people, but that the people are somehow supposed to explain their desire to want that answer.

More On Gay Marriage

Gay Rights

I was listening to Diane Rehm this morning, I just can’t stomach Glen Beck.  The topic was gay marriage and her panel consisted a mix of supporters and opponents to laws being passed around the country in support of equal rights.

A caller called in from Michigan and spoke of her personal experience.  Her children have several friends who have 1 or more gay parents.  As often occurs, the parents of children friends begin to become friends.  Soon the families were having dinner here and there, the kids would have sleepovers and all the normal things that happen with kids.

Good story.

But then she went on to explain that as a Christian she does feel that marriage is between one man and one woman – and therefore doesn’t support gay marriage.  Further she went on – whenever she mentions her stance in company, at least someone will claim she’s a bigot and a hater.

She wanted to hear advice on how to handle her dilemma.

My response would be simple and straightforward.

“Lady, do you believe it is a sin to take the name of the Lord in vain?”

She’ll answer, “Why yes, of course it is.”

“Well, do you think that we should pass a law making that illegal?  Further, just because you might think that such language is a sin, do you think that people who DO use such language are going to hell?  Or, further – do you hate them?”

Look, I am fully supportive of the legal right of free people to live how they want to.  When it comes down to “Is it a sin?”

Well, I don’t really know or care.  There are a TON of things that I DO think are sins and people all over creation have no issue with them.

  • Divorce
  • Premarital sex
  • Lying

Anyway – this whole debate seems to simple to resolve.  You can still think a thing is “wrong” and yet have it be legal.

Sheesh.

Guns And Abortion

Spy vs Spy

If you wanna listen to a debate on policy that is all about form but is specific policy agnostic, listen to republicans and democrats debate abortion and guns.

  • Both sides feel that their cause is protected by the constitution
  • Both sides feel the others cause isn’t, as currently represented, protected by the constitution.
  • Both sides advocate policies that would eliminate the right.
  • Each side has taken to regulation, citing safety, to restrict access to the right.

Guns or abortion, the debate is the same.

And the true wacko’s are the loons on the extreme of both issues.

The Immigration Debate

Immigration

At some point the focus of the nation will return to the immigration debate here in America.  And when it does, I’ll continue to be confused.  For the life of me, I don’t understand the positions of each side of the debate.

So, here are my questions:

  1. Why is the current debate limited to those people here illegally?
  2. Why, in general, do we limit immigration at all?
  3. If we do limit immigration, why do we limit it in so many stages?
    1. Green Card
    2. Student Visa
    3. Citizenship
  4. How are the numbers decided on?

Personally, we have TONS of room here, not only for anyone that wants to live here in America but literally, every one in the world:

the-worlds-population-concentrated-small

We have the room.

So LET THEM IN!

The End Game Of Liberalism

Liberalism

To e sure, it’s a slow drip.

The intentions are noble.  The individuals who claim to be liberal, I firmly believe they are engaged in what they think is the good work.

But it doesn’t change the fact that the Liberal feels that they are better able to decide what is good for you than you yourself are.  Further, they conflate the problem using numbers that are sound scary:

I want to write about risk.  Drum and Carroll are taking the high ground here, claiming they are truly the ones who understand risk and all use poor benighted folks do not.  But Drum and Carroll repeat the mistake in this post which is the main reason no one can parse risk.

A key reason people don’t understand risk is that the media talks about large percent changes to a small risk, without ever telling us the underlying unadjusted base risk.   A 100% increase in a risk may be trivial, or it might be bad.  A 100% increase in risk of death in a car accident would be very bad.  A 100% increase in the risk of getting hit by lightning would be trivial.

In this case, it’s probably somewhere in between.  The overall lifetime risk of melanoma is about 2%.  This presumably includes those with bad behavior so the non-tanning number is likely lower, but we will use 2% as our base risk understanding that it is likely high.  The 5-year survival rate from these cancers (which by the way tend to show up after the age 60) is 90+% if you are white — if you are black it is much lower (I don’t know if that is a socio-economic problem or some aspect of the biology of darker skin).

So a teenager has a lifetime chance of dying early from melanoma of about 0.2%.  A 50% increase to this would raise this to 0.3%.  An extra one in one thousand chance of dying early from something likely to show up in old age — is that “so, so, so, so, so, so, so bad”?  For some yes, for some no.  That is what individual choice is all about.

But note the different impacts on perception.

  • Statement 1:  “Teen tanning increases dangerous melanoma skin cancer risk by 50”.
  • Statement 2:  “Teen tanning adds an additional 1 in 1000 chance of dying of skin cancer in old age.”

Both are true.  Both should likely be in any article on the topic.  Only the first ever is included, though.

The whole sell of the Liberal State is that some Angel knows more about your well being than you do.  And to make it worse, they aren’t representing the numbers correctly.

 

Role Of Government

Libertarianism 101

Boom