The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property -- a home, a business -- and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth?

Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell 2 Feb. 1816Writings 14:421--23 No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free, (and it is a blasphemy to believe it,) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical. The elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who will not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte. How powerfully did we feel the energy of this organization in the case of embargo? I felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships. There was not an individual in their States whose body was not thrown with all its momentum into action; and although the whole of the other States were known to be in favor of the measure, yet the organization of this little selfish minority enabled it to overrule the Union. What would the unwieldy counties of the Middle, the South, and the West do? Call a county meeting, and the drunken loungers at and about the courthouses would have collected, the distances being too great for the good people and the industrious generally to attend. The character of those who really met would have been the measure of the weight they would have had in the scale of public opinion. As Cato, then, concluded every speech with the words, "Carthago delenda est," so do I every opinion, with the injunction, "divide the counties into wards." Begin them only for a single purpose; they will soon show for what others they are the best instruments. God bless you, and all our rulers, and give them the wisdom, as I am sure they have the will, to fortify us against the degeneracy of our government, and the concentration of all its powers in the hands of the one, the few, the well-born or the many. The Founders' Constitution Volume 1, Chapter 4, Document 34 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s34.html The University of Chicago Press The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.

I have some proposals for what to call statist "libertarians": "pseudolibertarians" "lapsed libertarians" as analogous to lapsed Baptists "cigar store libertarians" Better yet, you could call them what they really are and preserve the meaning of the term libertarian.

MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT HARTER (Anonymous) 2005-02-19 01:26 (link) Many of you have followed the recent news reports regarding a complaint filed against UNLV economics professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. This matter has finally reached the level of presidential appeal, and I have completed my review. As a result, I have directed that the letter of instruction and related materials be withdrawn from Professor Hoppe

The Constitution provides for a possibility of enacting limited exceptions to the Constitution by passing legislation observing the procedure of enactment used for amending the Constitution. In this manner, the legislator can avoid an issue of unconstitutionality arising with regard to legislation that is in its substance contrary to the Constitution. Such laws do not, however, acquire the high normative status of constitutional amendments, but are like ordinary laws; they can be repealed in the general enactment procedure. Under normal conditions, the above procedure is not widely used; indeed, the Parliament has stated the procedure shall be used "only under quite exceptional circumstances and for very pressing reasons".

Despite common belief to the contrary, there is no such thing as

Sheesh, Stephan. I'm an old fogey and even I know the answer to this one. It's because they've grown up in the digital era, with its easily traded and downloaded electronic files. The impossibility of actually owning an idea or anything else nonmaterial is brought into sharp focus with the ubiquity of the internet. For instance, in the case of videogame pirates, they ask how they can be accused of stealing something when the original product remains with its original owner. This starts them thinking about the whole idea of intellectual property and the notion that one can somehow own something as ephemeral as a thought.

The reason is actually pretty simple. The RIAA just sued my roommate and about 10 other kids here at [my college]. The younger generation is anti-IP because we love free file sharing and hate getting sued.

I have my doubts about a process that takes ANY carbon-based feedstock and turns it into a single chemical Even petroleum, which contains thousands of different --- but related --- chemicals emerges from a refinery as a range of output from heavy oils (for asphalt) to methane. Usually, heat tends to cause polymerization. I have no expertise in organic chemistry, but DE-polymerization by a thermal process sounds fishy, though it might work for some chemicals. That much said, I have my doubts about the numbers. I doubt that every bit of biomass produced in the US --- if it were simply burned, using all of its energy --- could produce as much energy as we use.

In the December 2003 issue, Scientific American designates CWT the top company in the energy category, for devising a method for turning solid waste into oil. CWT

OUR PEACE PLAN Since it has become the fashion for everyone to present to the public a sure cure for world war, we hereby offer our never-fail plan for ending wars of all kinds. 1. Put all the kings, presidents, and congressmen who advocate war, state and city officials who are in favor of war, in the front ranks of the military forces. Along with them, put all the editors who advocate war, and all the preachers who pray for war. 2. If a referendum on the question of war or peace be put before the people, draft for military service all who vote for war, and exempt all who are opposed to war. Those who want war should do their own fighting. 3. Confiscate, for military use, all the property of those who vote for war, or engage in battle. 4. Pay no wages or salaries to any soldier, sailor, or officer.

Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia [remaining] traditional monarchies instead of being turned into short-lived democratic republics. With a Russian Czar and a German and Austrian Kaiser in place, it would have been almost impossible for the Bolsheviks to seize power in Russia, and in reaction to a growing communist threat in Western Europe, for the Fascists and National Socialists to do the same in Italy and Germany. Millions of victims of communism, national socialism, and World War II would have been saved. The extent of government interference with and control of the private economy in the United States and in Western Europe would never have reached the heights seen today. And rather than Central and Eastern Europe (and consequently half of the globe) falling into communist hands and for more than forty years being plundered, devastated, and forcibly insulated from Western markets, all of Europe (and the entire globe) would have remained integrated economically (as in the nineteenth century) in a world-wide system of division of labor and cooperation. World living standards would have grown immensely higher than they actually have.

And what a glorious thing the hamburger is. It combines meat, grains, cheese, and vegetables into a simple, delicious package for quick and enjoyable consumption. It seems so easy, yet the efficient production of the hamburger, in all its details, is of infinite complexity. Only the coordinative powers of a market economy could possibly produce it.

The introduction of the common law system was opposed by the native population, but the leader of the opposition was Edward Livingston, a New York lawyer who immigrated to Louisiana in 1803. Livingston, the statesman and jurist, was a convert to the cause of the civil law. He studied Roman and Spanish law after his arrival in New Orleans and became convinced that the civil laws system was by far superior to the common law that prevailed in all other sister states. He devoted his time and energy, therefore, to the preservation of the civil law system in his new home state. In this he was successful, and, moreover, he contributed greatly to the formation of the Louisiana tradition of codified laws.

And as for what Lincoln may have thought about Obama's election to the Senate in 2004? "He may not have dreamed of that exact outcome. But I like to believe he would have appreciated the irony," Obama said.

I am proud and pleased to announce that Reason Papers has a new website, the chief virtue of which is the full-text PDF archives. Reason Papers was founded in 1974 by Tibor Machan, and I took over editorship in 2000. All of issues 1-25 are now available for download or on-line reading in the

Napolitano: First thing we should do [to end "constitutional chaos"] is abolish the 16th Amendment. That would make the income tax unconstitutional, which is what it was until we enacted the 16th Amendment (even though we had two income taxes before then). That of course would starve much of the federal government out of existence. [...] I would change the third word of the Constitution from people to states because it was the states, not the people, who enacted the Constitution. And I would put the word expressly back in the 10th Amendment [before delegated], which is where it was until it was removed by a political maneuver before the final document was sent to the states for ratification. I would define the word regulate in the Interstate Commerce Clause in its true meaning, which is

I am surprised at the hostile reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London. The crux of the case is, using their analogy, that the state can take property from A to give it to B because B will pay higher taxes. The people don't like that? Hahahaha! I shake my head in wonder! This is the exact same loathsome Leftist lunatic philosophy that has permeated everything for the last half century! But now, NOW, they are upset? The government is continually taking something away from you, whom I will refer to as A, to give it to some other guy, whom I will label as B. But now, just because it is their houses on the line, people are getting upset? Hahahaha! What morons!

But you never hear WHY New London is making this grab for people's property. The reason is, obviously that the morons of New London, like moronic governments everywhere, have persisted in electing Leftist morons to their government, and that government of morons (GOM) has spent the last half century spending every dime they can get their hands on, and raising taxes to get MORE money to spend, and promising the moon to everybody. Now they need money. They need lots of money. Lots and lots of money. But taxes are already so onerous that they can't raise them any more. And why do they need so much money? They have provided for legions of city workers who are, like all government workers everywhere, grossly overpaid and under-worked, and who have benefit packages so outrageously generous that they are not even available anywhere in the private sector, and they are under-funded. They have promised lifetime pensions to everybody that ever sat on the City Council, or worked for the government, or even merely walked by City Hall one day when they were handing out generous pensions to everybody in sight. They have continuously built parks and playgrounds and recreational facilities and gymnasiums and nature trails and museums and swimming pools and erected a multitude of public buildings, and staffed all of them to the max. They have responded to the egregiously bad performance of their educational system by paying the bad teachers and administrators more and more and more, instead of firing them. They have created local entitlement programs and welfare programs and before-school breakfast programs and after-school latch-key programs and school-crossing guard programs and assistance programs of every stripe. They have whole fleets of new cars and trucks for city employees. They have issued general obligation bonds and revenue-anticipation bonds by the truck full. And now they have, like the butthead citizens who elected these dimwits, spent their way to the literal edge of bankruptcy. And so the people are upset? Hahahaha! The state has debased and destroyed their money, but they are not upset about that. The state has grown itself to be, literally, half the entire economy, but they are not upset about that. The state has now installed so many taxes on so many things that they have driven up prices, but they are not upset about that. The state has indebted every citizen alive, and citizens who are not even born yet, so heavily that the debt cannot ever be paid back, but they are not upset about that. The state has encouraged that all the retirement accounts of everyone be put into the stock and bond markets, and they have lost money for years, but they are not upset about that. The state has gradually eaten away at every liberty, piece by piece by piece, but they are not upset about that. They have allowed the Constitution to be gutted, bit by bit by bit, but they are not upset about that. But maybe force them to move out of their houses, and they are, all of a sudden, upset about that! Hahahaha! Perhaps Vox Day, in an essay on WorldNetDaily.com, encapsulated it best when he wrote, "Merely substitute a few terms in describing the system and it becomes clear that the Supreme Court has established a neofeudal oligarchy, where all land is held in the name of the federal government-king, governed by his local government-nobles and worked by taxpayer-serfs. Should one serf fail to produce a satisfactory harvest of crops-tax revenues, the noble can take the land from one serf and give it to another who promises to produce a more abundant harvest. "This is a major expansion of the eminent domain concept, and I can confidently predict that the redefinition of the constitutional term 'public use' will soon be as stretched beyond recognition as the now-meaningless phrase 'interstate commerce,' (as has) the Orwellian term that now covers things that do not cross state lines (and thus are not interstate) and have not been sold or exchanged for other goods (and thus are not commerce)."

The indispensable resource for [the pro-federalist] argument is St. George Tucker's book, A View of the Constitution. It lays out the Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constituton, which was replaced by the centralizing, big government, Lincolnite interpretation after 1865. Clyde Wilson's foreword brilliantly summarizes the importance and context of the arguments. The first chapter of the book [Of the Several Forms of Government], as well as the first part of the next chapter [View of the Constitution of the United States] contain a lot of his essential ideas and are really all that is needed. The "libertarians" you are debating are completely ignorant of all of this. They are only aware of the New England reinterpretation of the founding that was invented in the post-1865 era. That's why they worship The Federalist Papers, unlike Tucker, who was highly suspicious of them despite the fact that a few of the articles were solid. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy, by William J. Watkins Jr. is an updated version of this argument. It is excellent.

• Social justice is the basis of building the society.
• The state must ... implant moral values ....
• The state shall guarantee for women the appropriate services related to pregnancy, childbirth, and the period after childbirth and provide her free health services as well as adequate nutrition while she is pregnant and nursing.
• Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security and free health care.
• The state is responsible to support the provision of work opportunities for all qualified and pay monthly salaries for all unemployed for any reason until opportunities are provided in the case of disability, handicap, or illness until the malady ceases.
• There is no tax or fee except by law [note: well, that's a relief!]. The basis for taxes and public expenditures is social justice [oh, goody, better than some other ... basis].
• All natural resources and the [resulting] revenues are owned by the people. The state shall preserve them and invest them well. [Well, heck, we ought to just require American mutual funds to "invest well". That would be a good idea, no?]
• Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law.
• The state shall guarantee the realization of social and health insurance for the child from his birth until he completes his university studies.
• The state shall guarantee the realization of the social guarantee necessary for citizens in case of old age, disease, inability to work, or if they are homeless, orphans, widowed, or unemployed. It shall provide them social insurance services and health care and protect them from the talons of ignorance, fear [shades of Woodrow Wilson!], and want, providing them with housing, and special programs to train them and care for them.
• The state and regional governments shall combat illiteracy and provide their citizens with the right of free education at the various stages.
• There is no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, advertising, or media [hey, this sounds alright!... but wait: ] except by law. [uh oh]

Books

• Berger, Raoul, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (1989)
• Berger, Raoul, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (1977)
• Berger, Raoul, Federalism: The Founder's Design (portions)
• Quirk, William J. & R. Randall Bridwell, Judicial Dictatorship (1995) (How High The Court?, book review by David Gordon)

Articles

• Fourteenth Amendment & Selective Incorporation -- summary, links -- by Jim Allison

• Amar, Akhil Reed, Articles on the Fourteenth Amendment by Akhil Reed Amar
• Berger, Raoul, Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment: A Nine-Lived Cat (1981)
• Berger, Raoul, Incorporation of the Bill of Rights: A Reply to Michael Curtis' Response (1983)
• Boyle, F.W., Just What Rights Do You Have in the U.S., 1998, another on incorporated rights; and excerpts from a chapter on Fourteenth Amendment from his book The Rape of the Constitution
• Curtis, Michael Kent, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, Conn.L.Rev. 1982
• Curtis, Michael Kent, Further Adventures of a Nine Lived Cat: A Response to Mr. Berger on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights, Ohio.St.L.J. 1982
• DiLorenzo, Thomas J., The Truth About the 14th Amendment
• Healy, Gene, The 14th Amendment and the Perils of Libertarian Centralism (2000/5/5) (I believe this was presented to the Law and Economics panel at the Mises Institute's Austrian Scholars Conference 6, March 25, 2000)

• Summary of Kentucky and Virginia Resolves
• Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions : October - 1798
• Kentucky Resolution : 1799 (Jefferson)
• Virginia Resolution : 1798 (James Madison)
• St. George Tucker on the Constitution and Federalism
• The States

The Appeal of States Under the "independent adequate state grounds" doctrine,

If a state court decision rests on "independent and adequate state grounds," then regardless of how the U. S. Supreme Court resolved the federal issues presented in the case, the result of the case would remain unchanged. The Court has said that were it to accept jurisdiction in such a case, it would be rendering an advisory opinion in violation of the Constitution's command that the federal judicial power is limited to real cases and controversies.

So if, say, in Connecticut the state high court were to have ruled that the New London taking was unconstitutional under the state takings clause and the federal takings clause, then even if the state court gave the wrong intepretation to the federal clause, there would be no reason for the feds to hear it--even if they overturned the state court ruling on the federal takings provision, the state court ruling against the taking would still be the same since it has independent and adequate state grounds to make this decision. It has always bugged me that a state agency can appeal to the federal courts a state court's interpretation of the federal constitution that is broader than the federal courts' interpretation. It does not seem proper to me that a state is able to review a decision of its own state supreme court, in federal court--even if there is a federal question. Let's say the state court throws out the conviction on the grounds that the state law violates the federal First Amendment. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court does not itself interpret the protection of the First Amendment as broadly. Today, the prosecutor can appeal to the Supreme Court. I am aware that prior to about 1913 (I think) that the Court did not typically hear such appeals, because there was no federal right denied. But this was not on jurisdictional grounds. In my view, the court has no jurisdiction to overturn a state supreme court holding which broadens a federal constituional provision. The main reason for my view is that the Constitution does not prevent states from protecting individual rights to a higher degree than the minimum level set by the Federal Constitution. Indeed this is why the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine does not permit appeal if the state broadened the individual right in some other way, e.g. by its own constitutional provisions. All the commentators today (except, as far as I can tell, Donald Bell) seem to question whether or the indep. & adequate state grounds is justifiable in restricting federal jurisdiction. But they all seem to take it for granted that, IF there is a state supreme court that rules in favor of a state indivdual citizen on federal constitutional (or legal) provisions, THEN there is federal question jurisdiction. It is that presumption that seems incorrect to me. I'd go so far as to say it is an unconstitutional exercise of jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to overturn a state court's holding in this regard. That is because it simply does not violate the Constitution for a state to expand individual rights--no matter how the state does it. For example, if a state enacts a mere statute or even a state constittuional provision protecting freedom of speech very broadly, this will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Nor, if the state prosecutor refuses to prosecute someone engaged in speech activity. Nor, if a common law rule were to develop. But what if the voters (or state legislators) vote for a state constitutional amendment or law based on their belief that the First Amendment is broader than the Supreme Court says it is? Why is that not reviewable, but it is reviewable if the state supreme court does it? What if I as a juror believe the first amendment is broader than the Supreme Ct says it is, and thus I refuse to convict a defendant. My grounds for refusal cannot be reviewed by the supreme court. Nor if I vote in favor of a state measure based on my interpretation of the First Amendment (which is at variance with hte feds). I just do not see why it is the Feds business how a state decides to make policy, or how it expands individual rights protections. IF it does it by common law, by prosecutorial policy, by jury nullification, by state law or constitution, by referendum--all those are okay; but a court can't do it. Makes no sense to me. The distinction is arbitrary. To put it starkly, a state court freeing an individual for any reason, simply does not violate the federal constitution because nothing in the federal constitution requires states to jail citizens. Thus, if a decision of a court against a prosecutor cannot violate the constitution, why is it a "federal question"? Why is it reviewable and reversable by the Court? Why does it have jurisdiction at all?

It would be interesting to know how the U.S. S.Ct. would have ruled if the Conn. S.Ct. had upheld the trial court on the grounds that it violated Art. 1, Sec. 11 of the Conn.Const. - "The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor" - and New London, rather than Kelo, had appealed on the basis that its right of eminent domain under the U.S. Const. was greater than its right of eminent domain under the Conn. Const. In Pruneyard, the U.S. S.Ct. said that states could confer more expansive rights in their constitutions than were conferred by the U.S. Const. By implication, states could not confer a less expansive right than that conferred by the U.S. Const. (In Pruneyard both parties were private.) New London might argue that it had greater rights under the U.S. Const. than under the Conn. Const. That is essentially the position of the U.S. SCt in Pruneyard. That decision was logically inconsistent because it was, in part, a case involving different rights in conflict - propery rights v. free speech rights.

I'm not sure I follow the twists and turns of your question. I assume you are saying the trial court ruled against the taking but the Conn S.Ct. overruled that, in essence saying the taking was consistent with both the Conn and Federal takings provisions. If that is what you mean--then you are asking, if the Conn S Ct had overturned the takign on the grounds that it violated the STATE provision, then could New London have appealed it. I think the answer is a clear no. It is clearly permissible for states to give greater protections than teh fed constitution. Now I suppose that since the 2 provisions had diferent wordings, New London could try to argue that a broad interpretation by ConnS.Ct of the Connecticut taking provision is tantamount to an identical construction of the federal takings provision, and thus the constructions was subject to federal review. But I think that would not work. If the Conn S. Ct had struck down the New London taking based on BOTH the Connecticut and US takings provisions, I think here, again, the Court probably would not hear it. Why? Because there is an equal and independent STATE ground to uphold the state ruling. It would not matter if the state court gave too broad a construction to the federal provision, because even if the S.Ct overturned this, the state decision would not change since it would still hav overturned the state law on state constitutional grounds. Now: if the Conn S. Ct had overturned the conn taking based solely on its interpretation of the federal takings provision, then the law is that the S.Ct can review it, since it has jurisdiction over "federal questions." Coincidentally, I have written before (informally--no full article yet, but I have contemplated one)--on this very last topic. In my strict, or "extreme," federalist view, in this case the S.Ct should have NO jurisdiction. The reason is because the Constitution at most places LIMITS on what the states can do. As is recognized, this is exactly why the states are able to have GREATER protection of rights. But my view is that the state can provide greater protection in a number of ways. It could have its own constitutional provision, that is tighter than the feds'. Or, it could have its own courts construe its own constitutioanl provision, that is worded identially to the feds', in a braoder fasion. Or, it could have its police simply refuse to enforce certain laws. Or, its juries might regularly overturn certain convitions. Or, the prosecutors might not act on it. Or, there might be a statute protecting the right. Or, a common law rule. What busienss is it of the feds how the states give greater protection of rights? So it seems to me another way is for hte state to give a broader construction to the fed's own provisions. NOtice this is one branch of gov't striking down the law of another branch of government for SOME reason. From the point of view of the feds, and the victim, the state is a black box that is acting as if the victim has greater rights than the feds recognize. This is permissible--so what does it matter WHY? Why is it even the feds' buseinss? In short: I believe state agencies should NEVER be able to appeal an action of their OWN GOVERNMENT to the feds--even if it is based on the calim that the sttae government (court, whatever) gave "too broad" a construction to the federal provision. Consider this: suppose a state prosecutor BELIEVES the First Amendment gives greater protection to, say, commercial speech, than the Supreme Court has interpreted it. So he refuses to prosecute based on his own belief in the First Amendment's meaning. Surely the Supreme court couldn't review this. Why then, if a court does something similar? Or what if the legislators in the state enact a law to grant braod protection to commercial free speech *because the legislators believe* the First Amendment really means to do this and the Supremes have misconstrued it. Would their legislation itself be challengable just becaus it was based on an opinion of the legislators as to the meaning of the federal Constitution? The point is: it violates the Constitution for a state to do something it prohibits. It does not violate th Constitution for the state to grant more rights than the Constitution grants. So no matter how this is done, why shoudl the fds have jurisdiction? THey should hear a case where the state is a party only to ensure the state is not violating the constitution. It does NOT violat the constitution for the state to have a certain view of the Constitution and to act on it.

Chief Justice Warren had tendered his resignation to Preisdent Lyndon Johnson and was set to setp down as soon as a succcessor was confirmed. Johnson nominated Justice Fortas to be the next Chief, but his confirmation stalled when conservative senators (furious over Fortas's record in criminal cases and buoyed by allegations of impropriety) launched a successful filibuster. In October 1968, with his nomination doomed, Fortas had Johnson withdraw his name."

My own view is that although the Court

Responding to popular outrage over the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the use of eminent domain for economic development, Connecticut legislators and Gov. M. Jodi Rell are calling for a moratorium on the practice until the legislature can decide whether it should be permitted. The moratorium would prevent forced transfers of property from one private owner to another that are aimed at generating jobs and tax revenue.

• Houston Rapper, the 'Arabic Assassin', Loses Job Screening Airport Luggage...
• Interrogators forced male suspect to wear bra...
• Football gangs plot 'revenge'
• ARCTIC POLLUTION LINKED TO BIRD DROPPINGS...
• Woman Grows Penis...

Kinsella bases his argument upon a refutation of the long-standing doctrine of incorporation, which holds that the constitutional protections guaranteed to the people at the federal level are also binding upon the states. His case here, which takes a strictly legal rather than philosophical perspective, is persuasive.

However, Kinsella goes on to assert that libertarians should actually welcome the Kelo ruling; that so long as the evil of eminent domain (which the two of us agree is simply theft) must be endured, that takings for private use are no worse than, and arguably preferable to, takings for public use. It is at this point that I dissent from Kinsella

A slave could own no property, but from early times it was customary to give the slave a peculium, a fund that he could administer as if it belonged to him. Technically, this sum belonged to the master, but to some extent it was treated as a separate estate with which the master did not interfere except for good reason. [p.40]

It is interesting to note one (only apparent, as will be seen below) theoretical difference between the civilian and common law conception of real property ownership, concerning the right of the sovereign (king or state) to ultimate ownership of land. In Louisiana,

Having just gone through a controversy about a Supreme Court decision about government's power of eminent domain, most Americans may be surprised to learn that the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act could expropriate them instantly and far more broadly without any of the due process extended to parties in eminent domain cases. All that is needed is a presidential proclamation of an emergency of some kind -- and of course Americans lately have been living in a state of perpetual emergency.

• Baton Rouge churches are opening their doors and becoming refugee shelters, providing food and shelter;
• Baton Rouge Catholic schools are going to take in kids from New Orleans so they won't miss a year or more of school;
• Houston and Texas public schools are apparently considering doing this too;
• Sam's Club, where a relative works, is undertaking a huge effort to help their own employees from New Orleans--letting them sleep on the floors, giving them money, diapers, food, clothing
• The Superdome Crowd--probably largely populated by residents of New Orleans' welfare housing--is being relocated to the Astrodome here in Houston
• As Harold writes, "Everyone also seems to be forgetting walmart as well. The "horrible" "evil" corporation has donated a million dollars and is giving out 400,000 meals a day for free, 1000's of bottles of water, portable showers, the list goes on. Its a shame capitalists are such "evil people" to the media, but are the first to jump in line to help in disasters.

Stephan: I'm surprised you're surprised about all the positive comments on your recent essay. There seems to be a disconnect between people I would consider at the "top" of the libertarian community (academics, writers and political activists) and "rank-and-file" libertarians. Perhaps more people (not necessarily you) realize that the cause of liberty is hampered by the importation of millions of people with no tradition of limited government. These new arrivals (the ones here legally) owe the blessing of US residency not to the locality where they live but to the District of Columbia. I think the libertarian arguments against immigration can be summarized as follows: 1. Mass immigration is a form of rent-seeking. Employers can increase their margins and off-load the increased infrastructure and various non-monetary costs on others. 2. Government is enforcing compulsory association. "Civil rights" laws and welfare benefits mean that those who do not want immigrants around are forced to abide and pay for them. 3. Government is importing more welfare-warfare state constituents. 4. Government is deliberately changing the native culture over the wishes of its own citizens. Substantively, there is no difference between the US open borders policy and the American Indians de facto open borders policy. 5. Open borders are a tragedy of the commons. 6. Government is inflating citizenship and residency in the US, as it did with college educations. Prior purchasers of these assets now see them devalued. Few people realize that prior to a Supreme Court ruling in the 1850's, immigration was a matter for the individual States, where the expense of immigration is actually borne. Keep up the good work.

Texas schools get ready for temporary students ... Educators statewide started scrambling Wednesday to find classroom space, supplies and teachers for the roughly 10,000 evacuee students who are expected to enroll in Texas schools during the weeks and months that it takes to rebuild New Orleans and other communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina. ... Houston-area schools could see the largest influx of refugee students. About 5,000 school-age children are expected to move into the Astrodome today, and thousands of other Louisiana youngsters are already settling in at Houston hotels, shelters and homes.

Katrina marks the end of the Democratic party in its current incarnation. Some day you will be able to measure time as "Before Katrina" and "After Katrina". The last great Democrat capital of the old south has fallen to an outside force, a force of lawyers and officials that will make life hell for the political machine that has run the state and city for generations, there is no "win" here, only a "hold" and in the end they will have to give up. Louisiana in 20 years time will look like a smaller leaner version of Texas, friendly to business with low taxes and Democrats will only exist in force at the edge of college campuses, just as they do today in the once great Democrat stronghold of Texas. 30 years ago, Texas was Louisiana. Today Texas is an economic force that is capable of the highest growth out of any state in the union. An economy so strong that its taken to supporting 150,000 people from Louisiana in the blink of an eye. A large number of those people will go on to stay in Texas after the waters have been removed from New Orleans but all will be impacted by what they saw in Texas, and some will begin to expect it of their own government when they finally return to Louisiana. The Louisiana Democratic machine - is Dead.

Unlike many libertarians who dally with socialism before seeing the light, I have never been attracted to leftism. Indeed, although I of course welcome former pinkos to our ranks, I

I have known Walter for about 20 years. We hooked up initially when I was involved in politics. I was part of a group of libertarians who ran what would be the rough equivalent of the state Young Republican apparatus. A bizarre situation where the Rothbard wing of the youth faction actually took control and maintained that position for years. In those days, we would bring Walter out to speak to various events. A few of the stories are quite funny. I will tell you only one so as not to impose upon your time.

In the mid-80's, probably in 1985, we brought Walter up to Simon Fraser University for the first time. It was to be a debate. That was the first time he and I met. He was debating two lefties. We were used to dealing with politicians in those days and, being good little political organizers, we stacked the room. It was a room full of about 200 of us, with a few token socialists, who got in late, stuck in the back of the room. We basically have every seat covered. Anyway, Walter arrives ready to be (and I am sure looking forward to being) booed and hissed as usual. Polite and quiet applause when they introduce socialist number one. Polite and quiet applause for labour organizer two. Then they introduce Walter and the place goes ballistic. People are standing on chairs, chanting his name, going wild and I am thinking, "hey, our man is well taken care of here. We have stacked the place." I look at Walter triumphantly to see how he is responding to our organizational capabilities. (Our politicans, understand, would be basking in the glow.) All I see--not kidding--absolute bewilderment in Walter's eyes, a look of concern, bordering on panic, as he nervously starts looking around behind him to try and figure out what exactly is going on. Clearly, he was not comfortable with the crowd cheering his every word, interrupting his talk with applause. This was not a man used to applause at a left wing Canadian campus.... He looked... I'm not sure quite sure really how to describe his reaction and how he looked ... he actually seemed almost disturbed by the events as they unfolded. At one point he even asked the crowd to stop cheering for him. Anyway, that is where we first met. It was quite funny. You had to be there to really appreciate it.

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts

That term "shelter in place" seems to be a new Homeland Security fad. The middle school where I teach had to do it a week ago. A pretend accident 'happened' down the road with a tanker truck full of bad chemicals. The pretend gases were being blown by pretend winds to the school. We had to take the kids into the halls and pretend to tape up every opening in the school to keep bad air from entering. No one asked what would happen once hundreds of kids used up available oxygen and were breathing only carbon dioxide.... I wonder if the Feds expect the people left in Houston to tape all openings against water and wind, then sit in hallways as we had to do? Damn stupid to force them to stay there and possibly die when they could very well be on the roads.

My preliminary bias is:

• Against the first one to call the police (if no violence occurred);
• Against anyone whose income depends on the outcome;
• Against someone who attaches a broader agenda or shifts the ground of discussion;
• For anyone who argues rather than insults;
• For those calling for a private resolution.

My preliminary bias can easily dissolve in the presence of a compelling fact to the contrary.

Kinky Friedman is an author, a musician, a humorist, an animal activist and a personality. He

Rivers, 72, broke in, saying: "I'm so, so bored of race. I think people should inter-marry. Everybody should be part this, part that and part everything. Race doesn't mean a damn thing. Everybody should just relax, take the best of their cultures and move forward." Purves suggested that was a "very American approach" but Howe disagreed, saying: "That's not an American approach. America is one of the most savagely racial places in the world." And then he later suggested: "Since black offends Joan

In other words, the limits in the Constitution require a federal judge to strike down, in effect, unconstitutional federal law, and also requires him to recognize he has no jurisdiction over many (unlibertarian) state laws. To call for a judge to "believe in limited government power" lumps in state and federal power, thereby asking the judge to treat dissimilar situations in the same way. It is a call for the judge to, on the one hand, follow the Constitution (or a libertarian interpretation of it) to strike down bad federal law; and to disobey the Constitution to strike down bad state laws.

• More Fourteenth Amendment and Federalism resources
• Libertarian Centralists
• A Libertarian Defense of

... John Paul II lived, arguably, the greatest life of the 20th century, and I think his life was marked by more than the usual number of occurrences that seem fateful, even prophetic. ... There is also the interesting fact of those who seemed to know, along the way as he lived his life, that he was a man of great destiny. His predecessor, John Paul I, said he would be pope. The day he was made cardinal of Krakow, a little girl told him he would be pope. One of his best friends had an epiphany and told him he would someday lead the church. And there were of course the prophecies of saints that a light out of Poland would come at a crucial moment to head the church. It's all uncanny. But I have noticed that the great are not uncommonly surrounded by those who have a presentiment of their destiny. Lincoln was like this.

Mr. Kinsella, in response to your blog post maybe Ms. Noonan would be interested to know that Pope Pius IX, author of the Syllabus of Erros and maybe the greatest Pope in all of history was an unabashed southern sympathizer. When Jefferson Davis was imprisoned after the war the Pope sent him hand-woven crown of thorns. He was also quoted at the time by an Englishman as saying that, "all his sympathies were with the Southern Confederacy and he wished them all success." Indeed most Cahtholics were remarkable in the South for their loyalty to the Confederacy. I was watching EWTN the other day and the priest said that the agnostic Abraham Lincoln was the most prayerful president in all of U.S history. Does he know the Poet Laureate of the CSA was a Catholic priest? Guess not. And there's so much more. Just goes to show you that evangelical protestants aren't the only ones seduced ! by the religion of Americanism.

In general Rand tended to be rather cavalier with questions of casuistry (the application of moral principles to hard cases)

• How 'Bout Relocating Israel to Mexico?, by Ken Layne, FoxNews (April 2, 2002);

More seductive, however, is the idea

Here you have it, the result of government education: Academic freedom is dead

WINNER: The Survival Blog of New Orleans Operating from the offices of Web host DirectNIC in downtown New Orleans, the Interdictor blog kept posting during the worst of Hurricane Katrina, powered by a 750-kilowatt diesel generator and a fiber-optic hookup. Blogger Michael Barnett and his colleagues slept in the air-conditioned room where they kept the servers, and blogged throughout the crisis. The Interdictor's live Webcam offered some of the first images of the city following the disaster, and the blog has continued to cover the region's recovery and rebuilding.

Some of you may wonder why I am disassociating myself from TOC in such a public fashion, rather than merely drifting away in private discontent like so many others over the years.

For these and other reasons, I am pained by the end of my ten year relationship with IOS/TOC.

These guys are canoeing upstream without a paddle against Gresham's Law. Why would I trade away something as valuable as gold for a PC when I can trade away paper money for those goods. Besides, currently the transaction costs (which include hassle) of using fiat money is far lower than using gold, e-gold, norfeds, etc. One day gold may become generally accepted as exchange medium, but not now. I think the problem with a lot of libertarians is that they're just dorks, plain and simple. I used to chide [certain free market think tank interns I know], "you love to talk about free markets, but if you were thrown in the middle of one you wouldn't last 10 seconds." Many libertarians like this just lack street smarts and any kind of work ethic.

speaking of IP, Greg Perkins has written a very powerful critique of the libertarian opposition to Intellectual Property rights for the February issue of Axiomatic. I don't think it will shut the libertarians up, but it will put their arguments to rest.

I suspect the reason the residue of cultural Leftism resonates as that there are a whole lot of people, many of whom live in Blue-state urban areas, who find "social power" as oppressive as any state power they could face. I am one of them.

...I must publicly indicate my disappointment that in the time since he left CAC, Mr. Skip Oliva, a former policy expert, has chosen to become a contributing writer to libertarian organizations such as lewrockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. ... The logical outcome of the libertarian position

As a recovering activist/do-gooder I whole-heartedly thank you for writing this fine article. The brevity and clarity of it will provide me with a far better tool than my normal rambling to explain to others why I now detest all activists, and the harm their unprincipled actions cause. Thank you for your efforts to share the light of a principled existence.

Again; you activist types can't help but imposing "what works" as a standard to critique substantive normative assertions. It's very exasperating that you don't even seem to be aware there is a difference.

Any activist success does not gainsay my points. In fact, to point to them in this context, as you do here, seems to illustrate my point that activist types just can't separate strategical concerns from questions of truth and right and wrong.

These are unconnected statements which are set forth as if they are related. First, I don't know what a "blanket judgment" is or what you mean; or why you oppose them. I am not a California relativist hippie who "doesn't like labeling, man." And in any event, whether he is successful strategically, is wholly irrelevant and has nothing to do with your hortation to avoid "blanket judgments." If you are trying to say some of my comments were too broad or inaccurate, go ahead and explain why.

It's not that I don't like it; it's that it is flawed and is arguing for socialistic measures (taxes). I am a libertarian, not a socialist. I am also not one of the starry-eyed activist types. that is not my gig. I have seen nothing to show that Milsted offers much on topics that intereset me--rights and legal theory, and the like. That is not to criticize him; we just have different interests. I'm glad he's had political success; but in the realm of theory, which is what I was criticizing when he ventured, I disagree strongly with his reasoning and method and conclusions. Sorry to label this so plainly.

That empiricist mindset is not surprising; I think it is correlated with the activist types. The principled types tend to have more of an apriori or deductive or normative framework. Anyway, I don't think of people being "about" things. Not my way of communicating or conceptualizing things.

You activist types speak in terms of what is next; the "roadmap"; etc. Do you not even see how mired your (plural) thinking is in such concepts? There is nothing wrong with activism in general; but be aware of the difference between tactics employed to achieve political goals, and positions on truth and right and rights. Yes, we need to have priorities and do "certain things first"--like have jobs and normal lives, and not believe there is some altruistic duty to delude oneself into thinking one is "making a diffrence" by devoting a large portion of one's life, time, and resources to a futile attempt to ever-so-slightly increase the chance that we will have a very small and very temporary decrease in the rate of increase of tyranny, for the benefit largely of our socialist-advocating neighbors who don't deserve it. If that's your hobby, fine. In a way, it's mine, but I realize I'm in it for the fight, for the process; not because I delude myself that liberty is just around the corner.

You see, it is the activist mindset that leads you to judge my substantive comments on the grounds of whether it widens the gap, etc. Are you saying my substantive comments and reasoning are wrong? Or that I should not utter them in public? BTW I did not excommunicate Milsted; I have no power to do so and I would not anyway. And let's be clear here: if anyone did anything wrong, it was Milsted, for using his perch to call for institutionalized theft. If you want to get indignant, get indignant at him. He is advocating criminality; I am criticizing him for it. Think about what you are doing: you are blaming the victim; instead of criticizing the statist you are criticizing his libertarian critic! Saying we "need everyone to man the oars" is such an activist mentality. I tend to think in terms of what I and my family "need". I am not a sacrificial beast whose life is to be spent in a futile attempt to marginally benefit others. Have we libertarians turned into altruists? Do it if you want; but exhortations like this imply we libertarians have a duty to be activists. We do not. Our only libertarian duty is to avoid endorsing or employing aggression.

Good article! I know what you mean about engineers. I am an architect so I work with them on a regular basis. Their thinking is what many architects describe as linear. In other words, "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line". However, quite frequently the straight line is not the best solution. I also disagree with Milsted's contention that sometmes "the economies of scale" justifies the theft for defense, roads ect.... It appears he has not worked in the real world. My experience has been that public works projects cost significantly more than private ones. In fact I know a contractor who bids on many government projects. His method of bidding is to price it as if it were a private job then double the price. He gets a lot of government work. Thanks again for the good article.

Dear Mr. Kinsella, I understand your point of view and it tends to be coherent with mine about engineers in general, because we have been indoctrinated into approaching problems from a rational and planning point of view. Therefore we tend to think that we can solve anything by applying mechanical principles to them, especially when it comes to political problems or societies at large. I think it is best said that engineers would like to "engineer society" (Brave New World - style ?!). However, I also know engineers who are looking beyond this view on society and are also interested in the "human or social arts" (as they are called in Germany). But to persuade an engineer of it, you have to take the economics way of doing it, because we are largely more open to such arguments, than we are to general philosophical ones. I am studying mechanical engineering, so I am closest to the future engineers in Germany and despite that Germany is a social-democratic country, those young bright students are divided between the two big socialist parties (CDU and SPD). Somehow, engineers still think of the world and society as a mechanical device. So, we are somehow struck in the 19th century, when it comes to society. But still there is hope to get them to the liberal side.

The Vatican sent a 15,000 euro invoice ... to Italian publisher Baldini & Castoldi for a small anthology of Ratzinger's writings published immediately after his election by journalist Marco Tosatti of La Stampa. It also dunned Piemme, another Italian publisher, for 5,000 Euro for reprinting John Paul II's nine-page final testament in a book by Andrea Tornielli, who writes for Il Giornale. Tosatti's case may end up in court.

... it could be that most Americans are, in fact, liberals and conservatives. Maybe Gallup is wrong, every year. But the exit polls on election day 2004 offer some confirmation. According to those polls, 17 million voted for John Kerry but did not think the government should do more to solve the country's problems. And 28 million Bush voters support either gay marriage or civil unions. That's 45 million who don't fit the polarized model. They seem to have broadly libertarian attitudes. In fact, it's no secret that libertarian voters make up a chunk of America. But you'd never know it from watching TV -- or listening to our elected politicians.

The Sunshine Project advocacy organization has argued the grenade should not be further developed and used. The weapon would be "practically useless in CWC compliant applications," said Sunshine Project co-director Edward Hammond. "This is not a riot control weapon."

As long as we're being iconclasts, why not get rid of all medical licensing? Instead of having the government decide who may perform a strep test or an MRI, leave the decision to the consumer. The latter idea is so radical that when I proposed including it in my book, the folks at Cato said, "You shouldn't say that. We don't want people to think we're moonbats." Yes, support for the free market has its limits.

HOUSTON -- Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers. "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing. *** Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association said that although some would consider cameras an invasion of privacy, "I think a lot of people would appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them."

The only other thing I can say about the Club's obsession with excommunicating people is that it strikes me as an initiation ritual of sorts--like how the Cosa Nostra makes you whack a guy to "make your bones." It's also an obvious way of generating false self-esteem, which is something I see a lot of in O's. After all, most of their lives revolve around taking credit for the work of a dead philosopher who in turn borrowed heavily without attribution.

... I leave CBS News with tremendous memories. But I leave now most of all with the desire to once again do regular, meaningful reporting. My departure before the term of my contract represents CBS's final acknowledgement, after a protracted struggle, that they had not lived up to their obligation to allow me to do substantive work there. As for their offers of a future with only an office but no assignments, it just isn't in me to sit around doing nothing. So I will do the work I love elsewhere, and I look forward to sharing details about that soon.

I know of no writer who understands the Constitution--including such subtle matters as divided sovereignty and the legal significance of the preamble--better than Akhil Amar. Given the alarming number of libertarians willing to humiliate themselves with such concoctions as the "right to secede," it would be a real relief to see more of them sober themselves with this brilliant book.

Nock has no time for the "Founding Fathers," who were intent on leaving the British Empire so they could start their own exploitative "Merchant-State." The Constitution was the result of a "coup d'etat" in Philadelphia, where men who wer supposed to make only marginal adjustments to the Articles of Confederation opted for a whole new system features a strong tax-collecting central government. thus was born America's Corporate State. Yet, for reasons that escape Nock, constitutional sentimentalism lives--even among libertarians. Go figure.

It's hard to understand for many westerners but it's true that many of our workers are willing to work overtime to make more money. We don't force them to work overtime and won't allow them to work overtime for more than 20 hours a week.

Per your recent post, I read Walter Block's article replying to Peter Schwartz. Unlike Block, I've never subscribed to the view that contemporary Objectivism is a cult. A cult is a social pyramid scheme where the leaders use coercion, even violence, to keep the followers in line. Cults do not, generally speaking, "excommunicate" their own members. That goes against the very purpose of a cult, which is to grow a following. Objectivism is almost a reverse pyramid scheme where everyone views themself as the leader. An Objectivist once told me that the problem with Objectivism was that they all wanted to be generals, leaving no soldiers. I think he was spot-on. Rand's use of romantic fiction to spread her philosophy managed to inspire a lot of disciples, but they all fashioned themselves as Roark or Galt. There are no "middlemen" in Randian fiction, only prime movers and parasites. I think this is what leads to the practice of excommunicating people. It's less about ideology than it is about the banisher proclaiming his "leadership," much the same way Donald Trump fires people on television.

In the absence of nation-state government, the institutions that will maintain a social order capable of defending individual responsibility, autonomy, and rights in property and contracts will be the conservative institutions of the family, the bourgeoisie, the Anglo-Saxon common law, and the Church. The sneering rejection of conservatism by the "anarcho-capitalists" places them firmly in the camp of the Marxists. What a juvenile and short-sighted position. For shame.

As culturally conservative libertarians, we are convinced that the process of de-civilization has again reached a crisis point and that it is our moral and intellectual duty to once again undertake a serious effort to rebuild a free, prosperous, and moral society.

I do agree. The essence of conservatism (what we must now call "paleo-conservatism") is the defense of the natural order. With all the libertines running around, my knee-jerk response to your post was to assume that you were allied with that camp. I also agree with your characterization of neo-conservatism as a mish-mash of half-complete ideologies. Neo-connnery is all about process and policy ends and at bottom, therefore, is completely unprincipled. Paleo-conservatism, by contrast, is based on the natural order: family, natural law, the iron laws of economics, etc. Our little misunderstanding, and the deliberate conflation of progressivism and conservatism that is neo-conservatism reminds me of the errors people make (intentionally and otherwise) when discussing Nazi Germany. Because the Nazis admired the old Prussian martial spirit and received money from the blue-blood Junkers, Nazism is often labelled a "conservative" movement. It was actually a lower-class movement that was about as radical a departure from the old German order as Bolshevism would have been. Same thing with the Straussian school: it preaches militarism and jingoism, which are the conservative values of discipline and self-reliance, and loyalty to kith and kin twisted to a perverted extreme.

Re: your post on the Portland Purge, I [...] was in Portland. I assure you that Samuels has many, many facts incorrect, for the record.

I wrote only of large-scale public actions of a political or commercial type that have an inherent tendency to further the public legitimation of behaviors contrary to traditional morality.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that some readers might wonder whether what I say above about a community prohibiting

CleanFlicks first obtains an original copy of the movie from its customer or by its own purchase from an authorized retailer. It then makes a digital copy of the entire movie onto the hard drive of a computer, overcoming such technology as a digital content scrambling protection system in the acquired DVD, that is designed to prevent copying. After using software to make the edits, the company downloads from the computer an edited master copy which is then used to create a new recordable DVDR to be sold to the public, directly or indirectly through a retailer. Thus, the content of the authorized DVD has been changed and the encryption removed. The DVDR bears the CleanFlicks trademark. CleanFlicks makes direct sales and rentals to consumers online through its website requiring the purchaser to buy both the authorized and edited copies. CleanFlicks purchases an authorized copy of each edited copy it rents. CleanFlicks stops selling to any retailer that makes unauthorized copies of an edited movie. ... CleanFilms maintains an inventory of the unedited versions of the copies it rents or sells to its members in a one-to-one ratio. [italics added]

Government land is stolen land is unowned land. The taxpayers don't necessarily have any more claim to it than anyone else, depending on how the state first obtained it. If it can be clearly retraced back to original owners, that would be best. But I'd say the second best solution, short of having the land turned over to private ownership in as fair a way as possible, is to minimize state violence in the commons. I'd say the only thing that should be forbidden is the initiation of force. Feeding people is not initiating force.

"This mean-spirited law is wrong for many reasons but the most obvious is that the city does not have the power to make its own immigration laws," Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement.

that a small part of the federal tax code exceeds Congress's power to lay income taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment. The tax code, the court held, does tax as income compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. But such damages aren't "income" for purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"), because they are not a gain but merely a compensation for loss; therefore, the court held, they can't constitutionally be subjected to the income tax.

     JUSTICE SCALIA: By not occupying it, you mean including not licensing it to somebody else.      MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you didn't license it -- and actually we have no relevant licenses here too -- that would be another factor that ought to be --that ought to count in the mix. Again, it's not -- I'm not looking for a presumption the other way and I'm not looking for categorical rules that say that if you --if you're a nonperforming entity, that you don't get a license, or even if you're a troll, as that term gets bandied around, that you're never entitled to a -- to an injunction.      JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, is -- is the troll the scary thing under the bridge, or is it a fishing technique? I -- I want --      (Laughter.)      MR. PHILLIPS: For my clients, it's been the scary thing under the bridge, but --      (Laughter.)      JUSTICE KENNEDY: I mean, is that what the troll is?      MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I believe that's the -- I think that's what -- what it is, although you -- maybe we should think of it more as Orks [Orcs], now that we have a new generation, but at this point troll is the word that gets -- that gets used.

• John Taylor of Caroline
• Lord Acton
• William Lloyd Garrison
• Ezra Heywood
• Alexis de Tocqueville
• Richard Cobden
• Thomas Jefferson
• Albert Jay Nock
• Raoul Berger
• William Rawle
• Murray Rothbard
• Walter Williams
• William Watkins
• James J. Kilpatrick

DURHAM, N.C. - Gary Hull thinks today's colleges are failing, and he believes he has a better way. Hull, who teaches at Duke University, plans to start a liberal-arts college in the fall of 2007. His plan is to operate it as a for-profit business, with investors, a copyrighted curriculum and a bottom line. ... Called Founders College, the school would offer programs in liberal arts and business and a classic curriculum in philosophy, history, economics and literature, Hull says. He hopes to start with 100 students the first year and build to 500 by the fifth year. Tuition would be about $22,000 a year, Hull says, and the school would have no sports teams. ... At Duke, Hull is a nontenured faculty member and director of the university's Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace. He is a scholar of Rand, the novelist and philosopher who wrote "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Her philosophy emphasized individualism, rational self-interest, capitalism and limited government. But Hull maintains there is no connection between Founders College and any particular philosophy or outside organization such as the Ayn Rand Institute, for which he has written articles.

And who was on the ARI Board of Directors that voted to pay the high salaries to Schwartz and Binswanger? Why, Schwartz and Binswanger, of course! Surprise! That's right. Schwartz and Binswanger voted, as members of the Board of Directors, to pay themselves high salaries out of the ARI coffers, for teaching at the Objectivist Graduate Center. ... [Reisman] didn't want to pay Schwartz and Binswanger .... [Reisman] thought that the needs of the students at the Objectivist Graduate Center could be met just as well, and for far less money, by using local Objectivist graduate students and PhDs, instead of flying Schwartz and Binswanger across the country for seven weeks, and paying them fifty thousand dollars (about ten times what a typical college professor makes for the same amount of teaching). ... Of course, this wouldn't have put any money in the pockets of Schwartz and Binswanger, so George was declared to be "immoral," and kicked out of the ARI.

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate--"do you hear me? No man may start--"the use of physical force against others.

[An aggressor] A might claim that our classification of actions as either aggressive or not is invalid. We might be smuggling in a norm or value judgment in describing murder as "aggressive," rather than merely describing the murder without evaluative overtones. This smuggled norm might be what apparently justifies the legitimacy of punishing A, thus making the justification circular and therefore faulty. However, in order to object to our punishment of him, which is just the use of force against him, A must himself admit the validity of describing some actions as forceful--namely, his imminent punishment. If he denies that any actions can be objectively described as being coercive, he has no grounds to object to his punishment, for he cannot even be certain what constitutes punishment, and we may proceed to punish him. The moment he objects to this use of force, however, he cannot help admitting that at least some actions can be objectively classified as involving force. Thus, he is estopped from objecting on these grounds.

Objectivism provides answers to these questions because it is systematic, and politics can only arise out of a proper metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Politics (e.g., libertarianism) is not a primary.

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The past 25 years have been an intellectual tug of war for me. Morally, my soul is still attached to the notion that the keystone of libertarianism

The position of members of federal unions is interesting. In the constitutions of Switzerland and the German Federal Republic component states are permitted to exercise certain of the capacities of independent states, including the power to make treaties. In the normal case, such capacities are probably exercised as agents for the union, even if the acts concerned are done in the name of the component state. However, where the union originated as a union of independent states, the internal relations retain an international element, and the union may act as agent for the states. The United States constitution enables the states of the Union to enter into agreements with other state of the Union or with foreign states with the consent of Congress.[emphasis added]