Snowflakes in Hell

Ahab is confused as to why Liberty Dollars are illegal. At first I thought this was another case of the federal government acting outside its authority, but after more research I’m not sure. While I will still say that they should find better use of resources than picking on Liberty Dollars, the Liberty Dollar does appear to be in violation of federal law. The article mentions:

The U.S. Mint recently issued a statement saying “prosecutors with the Department of Justice have determined that the use of these gold and silver NORFED ‘Liberty Dollar’ medallions as circulating money is a federal crime.”

“Consumers who are considering the purchase or use of these items should be aware that they are not genuine United States Mint bullion coins and they are not legal tender.”

That would imply they are being charged under Title 18, Chapter 25 of the United States Code, titled “Counterfeiting and Forgery”. They certainly aren’t guilty of counterfeiting, but my guess is that they are probably being charged under this:

Section 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It says the coins were of gold and silver, so I’m guessing these guys are nailed. The power to mint currency is one reserved to Congress, so you can’t really argue that it’s outside the federal government’s purview.

UPDATE: Just noticed there’s more about this over at Reason. It seems to me that the argument that because you had to use federal reserve notes to pay for your liberty dollars, that they were fraudulent, seems off base to me. I have to use federal reserve notes to buy video game tokens, poker chips, or various other substitutes for currencies. Are these fraud as well? I will read through the affidavit. But it seems to me the only thing they could be guilty of, based on the limited information I have, is utterance of silver or gold coin.

UPDATE: After reading through the affidavit, I agree there is evidence of fraud.  It seems they were allegedly making claims that their currencies were backed 100% by silver, when that was not, in fact, the case.  There is also accusations of fraudulent marketing practices and such.

It seems there might be some problems here:

Because as Sullivan prepares to decamp for DC, taking with him his carefully cultivated reputation for relentlessly cracking down on street crime, he leaves in his wake a basket case of a U.S. Attorney’s Office. Judges are complaining of sloppy briefs and missed deadlines in Sullivan’s shop. Cases are taking longer to resolve than in any other state in the country. And bungling management and sometimes shocking instances of patronage have sunk morale. An estimated dozen assistant U.S. attorneys—the career professionals who do the important legal work—left the office during a recent 12-month stretch.

Given that track record, it’s fitting that Sullivan feels such warmth for Alberto Gonzales, his old boss at the ATF and U.S. Attorney’s Office, whose going-away party he marked with this dewy-eyed toast: “When I think of the attorney general, three words come to mind: discipline, duty, and honor.”

When I think of Alberto Gonzoles, I have a different image:

Hat tip to Red’s Trading Post for the story.

John J. Kelly III, Middletown Township Supervisor, managed to send out a flyer this week that convinced me to vote for the guy. You see, John Kelly is apparently under the delusion that he lives in Utah:

I think a bar/restaurant there is a fine idea! I firmly believe that a person ought to have the freedom to start a small business without some local political worm telling them “Sorry, but I think there are too many bars in Middletown Township!” because he gets off on power.

And what’s with the Chuck E. Cheese reference? Last I checked, Chuck E. Cheese sold beer and had a liquor license. Don’t give me crap about protecting children. I’m not worried about the presence of a bar corrupting kids, but I’m very concerned about a citizen’s ability to start a small business.

Great job Middletown Township Republicans, you just convince me to vote for Democrats!

UPDATE: Breda thinks if these worms think a pub next to Chuck E. Cheese is a problem, Ireland would make their heads explode.

Apparently the TSA has caught several other potential shoe bombers, and various other potential terrorists, and just let them go.  And these are the boobs the Brady’s want me to rely on for my personal security?  No thanks.

Via Eric, who has more to say about it.

I’m sure someone will say that more laws needed.

Hmmm….

Maybe the problem is the proliferation of shoes. Especially the high-capacity thick-souled variety….

Worrying about the bombs instead of the bombers?  Where have we heard that one before?

After a bit of research and consideration, I’ve decided that I am opposed to ratification of the LOST treaty.  Tyler Cowen has a good post about why it doesn’t make sense economically, along with links to other critiques.  Tyler also brings up the argument that’s had me wavering on the issue:

The real issue these days is stopping the Russians from claiming most of the Arctic, at least the sea lanes, and this is why the Bush administration now supports the treaty.  We’ll then have international support, or at least the pretext of such support, for telling the Russians they can’t colonize the Arctic.  That’s it, that’s the whole real reason for supporting the treaty and jumping into bed with the UN.  But hey, I can sympathize with stopping the Russians.

But I think I agree with Tyler that stopping the Russians isn’t worth signing on to a UN boondoggle.  There have to be better ways to deal with the Russians.

Robb Allen finds out that Motor Voter can be used by illegal or non-citizen immigrants to register to vote, because immigration records are seldom checked. 8 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were registered to vote.

One thing that separates me from most progressives is that I do not worship at the altar of Democracy. I don’t find low participation rates in elections as a sign our Republic is about to crumble, nor do I believe in encouraging people to vote.

I do believe in encouraging people to pay attention and get educated about what’s going on our country, but I’d prefer people who can’t even be bothered enough to get a voter registration, fill it out, and send it in, not be voting in our elections at all. If you don’t care enough to spend the time to register to vote, you don’t care enough to educate yourself on the issues, get involved, or do much else other than ignorantly pulling a lever. Somehow progressives tend to believe that more participation is a good thing. I do not agree. I think we’re a much healthier public with a smaller pool of informed voters than we are if we just encourage everyone to ignorantly pull a lever for one fool or another.

This post from Clayton got me thinking about something I wrote last year when I was still writing on Live Journal for an audience of about 25 people.

When evaluating current events, a good knowledge of history is essential for being able to place those events in context and understand them. It makes sense why even very educated leftists often overlook history, or seldom appeal to it; leftism is a forward looking philosophy that desires to achieve the perfection of man.

The history of man is replete with evidence that he is not perfectible. Human history is really nothing but horror and brutality, followed by periods of civilization, which also contain horror and brutality, just on a lesser scale, and accompanied by wonderful achievements.

I am not a religious man, but I do think, as a philosophical construct, the Judeo-Christian notion that man is fallen from God is a worthwhile one. An agnostic would say that man is just a primate species that has language and thumbs, and otherwise isn’t all that different from most other hominids. Can we really expect perfection of a bunch of damned dirty apes with big brains?

I don’t believe in the perfectibility of man, but I do believe man can and should better himself, which is what our civilization, based on the values of The Enlightenment, is about. The radical elements of Islam wish to take us back to a pre-enlightenment age, essentially destroying our current civilization. Many people on the right and center right wonder how those of the radical anti-war left can be so dismissive of radical Islam as a threat, since it stands against everything the left claims to hold dear. But I think their desire to perfect man, rather than accept him as fallen, offers an explanation. While those of the left are products of our civilization, they despise its lack of perfection, and therefore have little issue with it being swept away and replaced.

I agree with John Adams that you need a moral society to have civilization, but you don’t need a religious society to achieve that. It is possible to achieve moral status without being religious. But you do need a population that buys into the moral constructs of your civilization. Where people like Clayton and I sometimes find disagreement is on what those moral constructs ought to be.

I think the moral constructs embodied in our Constitution, which I would note does not once mention God, and the other founding documents of our nation, which sometimes do, are our nation’s moral foundations. This was best summed up by James Madison in Federalist 51:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Madison was aware that what was to become the federal government was to rely primary on flawed human being for its just administration. Our founders harbored few notions about man’s perfectibility, and thankfully our system was well designed to be administered by flawed human beings.

As much as I disagree with some religious folks on a great many social issues, the greatest risk we face as a nation is from those who desire to put too much faith in men, not those who put too much faith in God.

… I think we’re screwed.  Michigan is definitely screwed.   Pennsylvania has long term problems too.   The Sun Belt is starting to look a lot more attractive isn’t it?

Ryan has the scoop on how Sullivan’s confirmation hearings went.  A little butt kissing in a confirmation hearing is par for the course, but I’m concerned about his statement indicating he’d release more trace data.

Have you sent your letter to DOJ yet?   Here was mine.

Supposedly it’ll pass the Senate tonight, and head to Bush for signature.  I’ve said before that I don’t believe this bill is a bad deal, and I remain unopposed to it.  I know a lot of people have concerns about this bill, some legitimate, some not so much.  I’m prepared to eat crow if this turns out to make things worse for gun owners, but for now, I think having a means for relief from mental health disability is a positive step.

Follow this link to see who in your town might be receiving inappropriate welfare payments farm subsidy checks.  Republicans will never end farm subisides, because the people who receive them are also the people who vote for them.  Democrats will never end them, because they’ve never met a government program they didn’t love as one of their children.

Apparently Senator Casey and Senator Specter are taking separate positions on I-80 tolls in Pennsylvania.  I think Center Daily is on drugs, because their positions sound the same to me:

But U.S. Sens. Arlen Specter and Robert Casey, in separate Ag Progress Days news conferences, took divergent stances.

Casey said he supports the position of Rendell, who signed Act 44, the state transportation funding bill, into law. The law calls for up to 10 tolling stations along the 311 miles of I-80, to be planned and managed by the state Turnpike Commission.

Of the Peterson amendment, Casey said: “I don’t think that’s a good idea — we need all the revenue we can get. … I don’t think it (the amendment) will carry the day in the Senate.”

Specter took a hands-off position, saying 511 of the 535 U.S. House and Senate members are from other states and alluding to a proper balance of federal and state authority.

“I-80 tolling has to be decided by the state government,” Specter said. “This is a Pennsylvania issue. You don’t want all the decisions coming out of Washington, D.C.”

The real news here is that Senator Casey is, in fact, alive, and speaking to the media. Seriously, I barely even know that Bob Casey exists, and I have a lot of Pennsylvania political issues and federal issues Google alerted. Arlen Specter may be a nut, but at least I know he’s there.

I’m not one to want my Senators to do anything for me really. But I at least like to know they are alive and have opinions.

Countertop tells the story of our goverment’s plan to give 55 billion dollars in subsidies to oil refiners, already swimming in lute due to our nations very tight refining capacity, in order to encourage them to keep blending ethanol into gasoline.

I think there are too many special interests that are bound to make any government energy policy a boondoggle. This is one area I think the markets should sort out. If we’re worried about global warming, there are better ways to deal with it than politicians mandating how we produce energy in this country. They are bound to get it wrong.

I mean taxes.  Congress and the Pennsylvania Legislature have been mulling over taxes on cigarettes and booze.  In principle I have no problem with excise taxes on booze and tobacco provided that those taxes are meant to raise revenue.  The government runs a real risk, if these taxes are raised too high, that they’ll create a black market.  It’s safe to guess these black markets will not to be run by the Boy Scouts.

Of course, increased taxes on alcohol would have a nice effect on the home brewing market.

Ever since I read David Brin’s book A Transparent Society, I’ve become a big advocate of more transparency in government, and a big advocate of proliferating the tools that allow it. I’m going to second David Codrea’s call for more of that, in regards to the activities of the BATFE. More light shining in the crevices of government is nearly always a good thing. We can’t remain a free society without an active citizenry scrutinizing government.

But that said, I think we need to be careful about how we go about it, and with that in mind, I do take exception with some of David’s rhetoric:

I repeat my call for a rapid response team of “minuteman” volunteers to make themselves available via a phone tree to go to gun stores being audited, and audit/document/photograph the auditors. Don’t let creatures of the shadows hide there–expose them to the light and make them live there–or cravenly slink back under the baseboards where they belong. You can also help by spreading the link to this post to fellow gun owners and letting them know what is going on. BATFU is relying on people remaining uninformed and apathetic.

I don’t disagree at all with the sentiment, but minuteman evokes images of people showing up with guns, ready to do battle. It’s important to note that the problem at the ATF is cultural, and it goes beyond those on the ground, or any one agent or auditor. The ATF, as an organization, is broken, needs to be abolished or reformed, and the agents who fail to respect the kind of power they wield, need to be moved to other lines of work. But we should treat individuals in the ATF as just that. They may be part of the cultural problems, or they may just be doing a job. I would not discourage anyone from shining the light on their activities; that’s important to maintaining a free society.

I’ve always liked this advice on how to deal with the ATF:

Under general principles of law a compliance inspection must be “reasonable” in terms of time, duration, scope, number of inspectors, lack of disruption to your business, etc. If the inspector is reasonable and professional, you should be too. The process does not have to be adversarial or antagonistic. If the inspector is not reasonable or professional, keep in mind that your license does not require you to talk to him, or to provide him access to your copy machine, rest room, etc.

If you decide to peek in on a compliance inspection, introduce yourself. Be civil. Explain yourself to them if they ask. Sure, they might be boneheads back to you, but let them, and then let everyone know about it. That’s the big reason I have Red’s on the blogroll. His story needs to be out there, and I think he’s doing us all a service by telling the world about his experience.

That many ATF auditors and agents are decent people doing a job shouldn’t excuse the vendetta against Red’s. That’s part of the cultural problem. But if we’re to achieve a political solution, we must be careful about how we proceed. We must seem reasonable, and interested in a political solution. I’d rather fight the ATF politically in Congress, and people on the ground will be invaluable in that struggle. But for the people who have to deal with the ATF on a regular basis, I’d worry that turning up the rhetoric too much would just make things worse, and make us look like a bunch of pissed off miscreants to Congress, not to be listened to, or considered.

I agree with Clayton’s sentiment here about wolves.  He quotes from a reader:

Currently Federal Rule 10-J allows commercially licensed OUTFITTERS only to shoot wolves that attacking their horses, we non-outfitter licensed horsemen must simply sit and watch the wolves eat our horses.

On Thursday, July 19th at 6pm at the Boise Center on the Grove the US Fish & Wildlife Service will hold an open house on a proposed rule change to allow us peasants to defend our horses if they are attacked. The open house will be 6pm to 7pm and a public hearing from 7pm to 9pm will follow.

Then states:

I am generally prepared to let wolves be wolves, but if the choice is shooting a wolf, or letting it destroy a domesticated animal in the presence of a human being–I’m hard pressed to see why the wolf should have a higher priority than a horse or a dog.

This seems sensible to me.  Horses and other pets are like family members to those that own them.  I can tell you that were I out in the wilderness, and a pack of wolves threatened my pet, the feds can shove rule 10-J where the sun don’t shine; we will be practicing the three S’s (normally Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-up, but in this case Shoot, Scoot, and Shut-up).

I’m generally in favor of the reintroduction of wolves into wilderness areas, but when they have encounters with people, the people ought to be allowed to win.  There’s a difference between actively going out and hunting down wolves and killing them, and defending yourself, your family, property and livelihood.

Via Bruce, I found a story about an interview with Michael Moore by John Stossel on his movie “Sicko”.  One thing I’ve always hated about Moore is how he presents his arguments, which is how I’ve often feel when talking to people of the more extreme left.  It’s probably not surprise to anyone that I don’t support an expansive welfare state, but nor do I buy that libertarian line that we can solve our social problems with private charity.  I do think private charity has a role, but there are good reasons for there to be some (albeit minimal, and not necessarily federal) government sponsored safety net.  The primary reasons are:

• Although safety nets allow people to freeload, they also allow people to take risks without having to worry about becoming destitute.
• They free people from the burdens of their families and communities.  A lot of conservatives are probably opposed to these policies for exactly this reason, but family and community ties, if they are especially strong, can arguably result in loss of freedom.   Think Iraq, where family comes first, and tribe comes second.
• We’re an incredibly wealthy society, and we can provide safety nets without creating undue burdens on taxpayers.  Our tax rates are high now in large part because we’re providing universal social insurance, without much regard to need.

That’s why I get pissed off at folks like Michael Moore, who suggest the solution to people not being able to afford health insurance is to create another universal benefit without any means testing.  I don’t need the government to provide me with health care; I can do it on my own.  I also get pissed when they suggest that I’m a selfish, heartless bastard for thinking I pay too much in taxes to government.  I’m fine with the government providing some safety nets, as long as taxes stay reasonable.  European levels of taxation are not reasonable.   Our current levels of taxation are not reasonable.  I’d like to see what they could be if we rejected this idea of universal benefits, and instead only focused on the people who need it.

Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer apparently think a million of my tax dollars are well spent on a museum dedicated to Woodstock:

$1 million for the Museum at Bethel Woods, which is dedicated to recreating the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival experience and will feature “An interpretation of the 1969 Woodstock Music & Arts Fair” exhibit in 2008, according to the museum’s website. The earmark is at the request of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.

One of the sad disappointments that associated with the advances in medical science, is that the Baby Boomers are going to be with us a long time, and will have many more years to impose this self-absorbed crap on younger taxpayers as they start hitting their retirement years. If aging hippies want a museum dedicated to Woodstock, they can have a friggin bake sale, and raise the money themselves.

SayUncle has a good post up about the ATF getting smacked down by federal courts over the “one a machine gun always a machine gun” and their AOW regulations. What do to?

Well, probably not much. It would help, I think, if we had a President who was interested in getting the various federal bureaucracies, including the ATF, under control. I think, though, that there’s been too much proliferation of federal law enforcement in general, and it would be beneficial to eliminate some of them. As I’ve said before, if I were dictator for a day, I’d eliminate the ATF, FBI, and Secret Service and roll their functions and agents into the Marshall service.

I don’t think this would automatically solve problems, but it would present the opportunity to get some new leadership into the bureaucracy, which hopefully would effect change in the long run.

Even though I think some tasks are best left for the police, I’d much rather live in a world where a few people are a little too eager to throw themselves into dangerous situations, than one where everyone cowers in the corner, crippled with fear, and then afterwards complains about how long it took the police to show up.

I think one thing that separates us from other people is we’re a bit more cognizant, and maybe even a little more accepting, of human limitations and failings. I’ve long thought that one of the key features of the left is a belief in the perfectibility of man, whereas we tend to think that’s a fool’s errand.

A person of the left would look at the two citizens, who tried to stop the killer in Idaho, and think “See, that’s exactly why only the police should have guns.” I’m sure many of us at least understand the motives that drive someone to go hunting after a killer, and therefore don’t see things that way.  We may think it’s foolhardy, but view it as a consequence of human nature, and not something we can, or really should, try to weed from the population.

The left tends to place a great deal of faith in government, and tend to be the most surprised when it fails.  Government failings aren’t simply an inevitable consequence of a system made up of imperfect humans, but are somehow the fault of those in positions of power. Put the right people in charge; people who have faith in, and are competent in the exercise of governmental power, and the world’s problems can be solved.  Mankind can be perfected!  This attitude, taken to the extreme, leads to Marxism. We deal with a much softer manifestation of that, but I’m convinced it all erupts from the same intellectual well.

It explains why the left is eager to trust police as the only ones with the means and authorization to engage in violence. The police are an organ of the state, which is the left’s primary tool.  The idea that the police are just a collection of imperfect humans that we hire to do the job of keeping law and order, well, that idea is giant wrench thrown into the intellectual works.  If the police make mistakes, if sometimes they fail to or cannot protect, indeed, if sometimes they actually even harm, then maybe those folks who demand that they have the means to act when the government can’t, or won’t, have a point, don’t they?

But accepting that means accepting you can never end crime, stop foolhardy people from trying to be heroes, prevent the idiot from accidentally shooting himself, or the depressed from doing it on purpose. It means accepting that man is not perfectible, and that’s a tough pill to swallow, especially if you’re, say, a politician or other person of means and influence, that fancies himself as one of those smart, competent people who is just the right person to tug on the levers of power.

Personally, I like living in a world with other imperfect human beings, and where people have the freedom to make decisions and take action, even if in hindsight we find that action foolish or reckless. I think most of the time, most of the people will do the right thing. I’d rather with a government that finds ways to work with its citizens rather than live under a government that just wants to manage them. To me it’s the difference between actually being free, and just saying you are.

It’s tax freedom day for a lot of us today. Looks like Pennsylvania’s tax freedom day was last Friday. Bitter’s is today! Washington D.C. still has to work 13 more days to their tax freedom. New Jersey has 11. People in Tennessee were free 15 days ago. Most heavily taxed states?

1. Connecticut (May 20)
2. New York (May 16)
3. New Jersey (May 10)
4. Vermont (May 9)
5. Rhode Island (May 9)
6. Nevada (May 8 )
7. California (May 7)
8. Washington (May 6)
9. Massachusetts (May 6)
10. Minnesota (May 4)

Least heavily taxed states:

1. Oklahoma (April 12)
2. Alabama (April 12)
3. Mississippi (April 13)
4. Alaska (April 13)
5. Tennessee (April 15)
6. New Mexico (April 15)
7. Louisiana (April 16)
8. South Dakota (April 16)
9. Texas (April 19)
10. Idaho (April 19)

Pennsylvania appears to be slightly below the average rate of taxation. There’s a handy map, if you follow the link.

Hat tip to Instapundit

The Citizens Committe for the Right to Keep and Bears Arms is calling out the Democrats for their recent vote on DC Voting Rights, which was voted down because of the addition of an amendment that would have repealed the Washington D.C. gun ban:

Congressional Democrats claim at every turn they “support the Secon d Amendment,” but the truth came out Thursday when they pulled a coveted District of Columbia voting rights bill because of an amendment that would have ended the long-standing handgun ban.

“This shows the true colors of the Democrat leadership,” Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms stated. “It should have been easy for the Democrat caucus to agree to the Republican-sponsored amendment, because of the recent federal appeals court ruling that declared the handgun ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Instead,” Gottlieb said, “Democrats proved once again that all their avowed support for the Second Amendment is nothing but empty rhetoric. House Democrats had a chance to stand up and be counted, but instead they ran for cover, afraid to have a recorded vote prove that, as a party and as individuals, they remain as anti-gun as ever.”

I can’t honestly say I’m all that displeased with the outcome, to be honest, because it would have removed standing for the Parker plaintiffs if they go before The Supreme Court.  But this move was purely political: to get the Democrats on record as being in favor of handgun bans, so much so that they were willing to sacrifice a coveted bill in maintain it.  The politics of this is pretty  smart for the Republicans, as polls show that most Americans do not favor making handguns illegal.  This puts the Democrats on record as being pretty extreme on the gun issue when compared to most Americans.

But the Democrats could be playing it smart too, in a way.  Parker is a win-win case for them, and I could see that they might think twice before they would derail it.

If Parker prevails, it will essentially give the Democrats the political cover they need to back further away from gun control as one of their issues.  The Democrats seem to have accepted that this issue has been a killer for them in national elections, and is in no large part responsible for them being reduced to strips along the Northeast Corridor, parts of the Midwest around Chicago, and the West Coast.  In 2006, they won on the backs of some pretty pro-gun Democrats like Jim Webb, Bob Casey, John Tester, and the like.  Parker changes the political landscape a bit, and might give some politicians with less then stellar records on guns, to back away from the issue without making it look like flip-flopping.

If Parker loses, then the Supreme Court would be emboldening anti-gun forces within the Democratic Party, and offering political cover for some more moderate Democrats to move more to the anti-second amendment position.  The folks in Congress like Carolyn McCarthy and Charles Schumer would love to have a Supreme Court ruling that definitively said that the second amendment is no obstacle to gun control in order to beat pro-gun or moderately pro-gun democrats over the head with.

The real losers in the Parker case would be the Republicans, who would not like to see the gun constituency split between the parties.  We’ve been a good voting block for the Republicans, so I can see why they’d want to get this issue away from the courts and back into the legislative arena where it can help them more.  If gun owners feel secure in their gun rights, they might just be tempted to vote Democrat.  If we go down to defeat in Parker, it could convince a lot of gun owners that the system is stacked against them, and stop participating in political activism altogether.

I think looking carefully at each parties interest can explain the vote on the issue.   I don’t think it means the Democrats will head back to their gun control roots; they will stay away from the issue until after the 2008 elections.  Both parties are using this particular vote as part of a larger political game, and getting rid of the DC gun ban at this point isn’t in the Democrats political interests, even if a lot of party members would like to move away from an anti-gun position.

Of course, I could be wrong about this, and the Democrats are just being stupid.

[UPDATE: It should be noted that we have been deceived by Congressman Murphy in the intervening years, as he signed onto the semi-automatic ban I wrote to him in reference to below.  See Congressman Murphy's Anti-Gun record here.]

I had been wondering what my new Congress Critter’s stance on the gun issue was. I had planned to write about HR 1022 shortly, but hadn’t completed my thoughts yet. I was quite pleased when perusing the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association to find a copy of a letter received from Congressman Patrick Murphy on the same subject. I’ll post the good bit:

Thank you for contacting me in support of maintaining the rights of gun owners. As you probably know, I personally hold a concealed-carry permit and I am a strong supporter of upholding the 2nd amendment. You can rest assured that when legislation involving gun-owner rights comes up before Congress, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

A Democratic Congressman who admits he holds a PA LTC? Congressman Murphy has overcome a big hurdle toward getting my vote. If the Republicans run a bonehead, as they are wont to do, there’s a strong likelihood I’ll be in his court come election day.

Generally I’m in favor of government records being very transparent and freely available to the public.  I’m a big proponent of the Freedom of Information Act.  But I do believe the public interest is best served by keeping some information private.  I would not like to see IRS returns made a matter of public record, for many of the same reason I disagree with making gun licenses public record; it lets people who want to steal valuables or firearms know which houses have them.

I also think in may-issue systems, there’s a public interest in knowing whether licenses are being handed out as political favors to the connected and powerful, which I believe might override anyone’s privacy interest.  So if people in may-issue states wants privacy, pass shall-issue laws, and then I’ll be fine with keeping the records private, since I know that licenses are being handed out according to statutory criteria rather than based on the whim of a politician or bureaucrat.

A good example of how I think about privacy can be found in David Brin’s book The Transparent Society.  It’s a great book to read, and will change your ideas on privacy and open government.

… and “Bureaucrats are the same stupid people, with bad incentives.”

So says Megan, referencing an earlier post:

Which brings up one of my perennial peeves about people advocating national health insurance or any other big programme: they point out all the ways in which public choice problems make the current system suck, and then proceed to outline their future plans as if those problems will somehow magically fall away in their system. Companies won’t lobby. Voters won’t demand that every stupid alternative procedure they can complain about be covered, much less react to the lack of a price signal by using more of everything. People employed in that sector won’t band together to keep wages high and productivity as low as possible. Bureaucrats won’t shift priorities to minimizing their own political risk, rather than maximizing the level of service provided to the public.

Both her first and second observations I think are quite good.  I’d also recommend reading the original Tyler Cowen post linked to if you follow the last link to the quoted post.

I don’t talk much about health care because it’s one of those subjects where I don’t trust anyone who tells me they have a good solution to the problem.  The more I understand about the problem, the less I think I understand it, and the less I think anyone else understands it either.   This is, of course, going to naturally make me skeptical about government solutions to the problem.