Matthew Yglesias here confuses cowardice with pragmatism.
In response to a question about controversial Danish cartoons, he suggests that free speech is “a matter of principle… tied to practicalities.” He’s entitled to his perspective, but its impossible to reconcile such nonsense with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Taken together, they clearly identify freedom of speech as a fundamental component of man’s essential nature.
The Declaration of Independence declares that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Constitution goes further still, specifying that “Congress shall make no law…” —that is, not a single law— “abridging the freedom of speech.”
These provisions do not regard mens’ rights as a matter of conditional permissions granted by a government; they were forceful assertions of innate negative rights that aught be defended by, and from government.
I’m a staunch advocate of free speech. I’m also plenty suspicious of anyone that would not only surrender their own liberties, but also cavalierly dismiss the rights of others in response to threats, real or hypothesized.
Yglesias’s position is not prudence or pragmatism. It’s a contemptible concession of essential liberties.
If, upon reading a particular comic, you feel compelled to don a vest laden with explosives, may I suggest that you first take a very cold shower, and then cancel your subscription to the offending publication. Freedom of speech is a right, but you are not obligated to read or listen to what anyone else has to say.
I can’t begin to understand how subverting liberties in order to satisfy some potentially murderous constituency wouldn’t serve as a clear example of the efficacy of such coercion.
You might wonder how the same progressives that rightfully criticized the Bush administration’s questionable actions throughout its prosecution of the “War on Terrorism” can so easily brush aside rights in this context. Apparently, utilitarian calculations can lead you to some bizarre places.
As for Matthew Yglesias, while I fully support his right to say what he likes, I’d much prefer that he hadn’t written anything at all.
-k
I wasn’t at all surprised when I saw the following headline at WSJ.com: “Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions”.
The story reads much as you might expect. Congressman lobby hard to ensure that money from the hastily implemented TARP program is routed to favorite banks. While precise economic criteria for government handouts might be lacking, and the worthiness of the recipient may be in doubt, finding that representative are funneling money to their constituents and favored interest groups is a virtual certainty.
I did however find this gem pertaining to OneUnited Bank in the articles closing paragraphs:
[Rep. Barney] Frank said he didn’t try to interfere with the regulatory process. “We have never told the regulators that they should ease up on them or not order them to do this or that,” he said.
He cites the bank’s status as the state’s only financial institution owned by African-Americans. “We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that’s why I think it was important to try to help them.”
And thus, a new category of distressed enterprises is created.
- k
Nicholas Kristof had this excellent op-ed in the New York Times last week. In it Kristof warns the incoming administration against pressing for labor standards reforms in developing countries. In short: sweatshops may not be ideal places to work, but they’re often far better than the relevant employment alternatives.
Assuming reform minded politicians mean well (its possible that many know better, but misrepresent the issue for political gain), they would better serve the for whom they advocate by liberalizing trade and hoping for the creation of even more sweatshops. In the United States, India, and China – competition for labor among sweatshops has inevitably lead to greater employment, improving labor conditions and increasing wages.
-k
http://www.blackbirdhome.com - The encumbrance of black skin has apparently grown so great - that one can no longer use a racially agnostic version of FireFox.
I’ll pass.
-k
On Saturday Decider-Elect Obama shared some of the details of his economic recovery plan. Predictably, it was filled with promises of infrastructure investment, school improvement, green initiatives and even a promises of broadband Internet access for all (apparently to promote access to PornTube - stimulus).
Obama assured viewers that he would avoid the old Washington pitfall of “throwing money at the problem”, stressing his desire to “use your tax dollars in new and smarter ways”. Curiously, this assurance was accompanied by a threat to State governments not spending federal dollars quickly enough.
How much will all of this costs? Well he didn’t mention that - but he indicated that his plan would “save or create 2.5 million jobs”.
There really isn’t much new here. The particular projects hardly matter as much as the fundamental reaility that these programs have to be paid for with tax payer dollars, and unproductive projects dont waste wealth, they destory it.
If i’m wrong about that, why not spend twice as much and create 5 million jobs? Why be stingy when the economy is sputering and you’ve got the magic elixer? Speard the Gummy Berry Juice on thick, and get the economy humming again.
-k
One establishes a blog for a multitude of reasons. If you’re sufficiently narcissistic, its not at all difficult to convince yourself that such an enterprise is worthwhile. With blogging, the barriers to entry are low enough that any chump with thumbs and a dial up connection can participate.
Whether or not anyone visits, I’ll behave as if everyone on the planet is paying close attention. And while I can’t promise that every post will be grammatically correct, I’ll always strive to be honest, fair, intriguing and where appropriate, merciless.
- k
