Paul M. Jones

Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine talks about how he became a libertarian in two posts:

• Skepticblog » How I Became a Libertarian
• Skepticblog » The Other ‘L’ Word: Why I am a Libertarian.

First sign of a gun grab?

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 would authorize Attorney General Eric Holder to deny the sale or transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists -- a list that could extend beyond groups such as radical Islamists and other groups connected to international terror organizations.

Critics say the names of suspected terrorists could be drawn from existing government watch lists that cover such broad categories as animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists and anti-technology extremists.

via Critics Deride Bill Designed to Keep Weapons Out of Terrorists' Hands - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com.

Glad I have my Unholy Trinity already: .40 pistol, 12-gauge shotgun, and .223 semi-auto rifle. Maybe it's time to stock *more* ammo.

Here are two totally intuitive common sense arguments:

"Buying local is better than buying from a chain store--the money stays in the community."

"New products only benefit the inventor--the money he receives necessarily reduces the money available to other producers."

Both are intuitive and common-sense. Both are wrong. Both illustrate an additional fallacy--that economics is "just common sense."

via Cafe Hayek: Following the money.

Wait, I thought it was only the evil Republicans who wanted to limit freedom of speech?

A private citizen objects peacefully to a proposed government action, and, as a result, is not only forced to appear before Congress to explain but also to be threatened with further burdens if he doesn't cooperate with the arrogant power-mongers on Capitol Hill.

via Cafe Hayek: What Happened to Freedom of Speech?.

And here I thought that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.

Here is Adam Smith speculating in The Wealth of Nations on the dynamic nature of the British labor market if all tariffs and barriers to imports were removed. Surely, there would be mass unemployment and catastrophic disruption. Not so, says Smith. And he uses a very elegant natural experiment to make his case:

via Cafe Hayek: Sudden disruption.

In short, "free trade now" is an excellent plan, one that we stand only to gain from.

Meanwhile, what does it say that the Administration has resurrected or maintained the core elements of so many Bush Administration national security policies while OLC nominee Dawn Johnsen sits in limbo? And would the Administration's policies be any different were she already confirmed?

via The Volokh Conspiracy - It's Official: Kinder, Gentler Military Commissions.

I'm laughing at Obama, but I'm also thanking him for doing the right thing and reasonably tolerant of the way he's tried to save face by pretending he's not doing exactly the same thing Bush did.

via Althouse: Obama is like Bush -- with purported process appurtenances..

Hope and change!

This is a good satire: President Palin’s First 100 Days (by Victor Davis Hanson). I'm sure glad we didn't elect the "inexperienced" candidate. :-/

Say it with me: "protectionism is stupid."

Obama’s protectionism echoes Herbert Hoover’s protectionism, which helped spawn the Great Depression. President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which helped turn a recession into the Great Depression by triggering a trade war with other countries.

Unemployment is now even higher than what Obama predicted it would be without the stimulus. The White House now admits that there will be no job growth until 2010. The Congressional Budget Office repeatedly predicted that the stimulus would shrink the economy “in the long run“), but increase it in the short run, i.e., by the next election.

But so little of the stimulus money has gone into sectors of the economy where unemployment is high (like construction and transportation) that it seems to be doing nothing for the economy even in the short run. The $100 billion it pours into education -- a sector where unemployment is very low, and where the U.S. also spends more per capita than almost every other country -- appears likely to be wasted. Only 5.9 percent of the stimulus will go to transportation, a small amount compared to the amount of money it showers on state governments, which are using it to continue to provide lucrative pension and health benefits for state employees, whose wages continue to rise much faster than private sector workers.

via Stimulus Ignites Job-Killing Trade War With Canada | OpenMarket.org.

Free trade helps everyone, *especially* the country practicing it. Even if nobody else reciprocates, the country that practices free trade comes out ahead.

Does the cost of living get less expensive when you don't own a car?

No, you've got it backwards, a car-free existence is more expensive. I live in Manhattan, so I can tell you how expensive it is to live here. It costs a lot less money to live in some non-walkable place in the midwest and own a car or two.

I also lived in Arlington VA, and it was walkable but much more expensive than most other places in the USA as well, and you still needed a car to drive to work.

For whatever the reason, packing in people so close together that car-free life is feasible also has the effect of raising the price of everything else, and thus we can only conclude that densely populated areas are economically inefficient.

via Half Sigma: It costs more money to live without a car.

Part two here: http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/05/its-less-expensive-to-own-a-car-part-ii.html