| Tim Slagle is a
stand-up comedian living in Chicago. |
|
Keep honking, I'm reloading A
flier campaign, sponsored by the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence, warns
Florida tourists that residents can use deadly force, and cautions tourists not
to argue with the locals. Although this is obviously intended to pressure
Florida's most profitable industry to join the campaign against handguns, there
is a good chance that it will have the opposite effect. I suspect that the locals
would like it if tourists were a little more polite. After all, isn't the
ultimate goal of the concealed-carry advocate to make civilization just a little
more civil? Tim Slagle
| Andrew Ferguson
is managing editor of Liberty. |
|
They're coming for your site Think
of the Internet as a frontier; better yet, as a homestead. In order to get a
plot, a prospective homesteader must register the "address" he wants and then
indicate his continued interest in the plot by re-registering each year. As with
physical homesteads, the plot is "free": the expense comes in getting to the
territory (having the necessary hardware: computer, modem, etc.) and improving
the territory (software: web design programs, graphics programs, etc.). The only
expense for the plot itself is the registration fee, which ensures our
homesteader that his address is unique when he gets to his territory, he
won't find any competing claimants on it. Add in some general stores, some
squatters, and some neighbors to trade with, and the landscape is
complete. The part of the Homestead Board is here played by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an American non-profit group.
ICANN issues each unique address in two forms: one easier for computers to use
(192.0.34.65); one easier for humans (icann.org). ICANN also administers the
Top-Level Domains, like the .org above, or the ubiquitous .com and, more
contentiously, the country codes, like .ca for Canada. Collectively, these tasks
are known as Domain Name Service, or DNS.
The United States doesn't own the Internet. No one does. But the U.S. does
have some amount of control over it, and the restraint our country has shown in
its DNS administration is remarkable. We have not used it as a political weapon
(deleting, say, North Korea's .kp country code). We have not tried to tax other
countries for allowing them Internet access (though the UN has, as yet another
way to finance corrupt dictators). Now the UN, and model states like North
Korea, want DNS out of American hands, preferring control by a UN Subcommittee of
Something-or-Other. To show how serious they are, they're deploying their
favorite slogans, speaking of "American online hegemony" and "the imperialistic
Internet." What would happen if the UN gained control of DNS? A look at
French policy is instructive and bear in mind that I'm not using as my
example a repressive regime. France has no First Amendment: speech is protected,
except when it's not. Nazi paraphernalia falls in the "not" category; it can't be
worn, displayed, or shown in France. A few months ago, the French government
decided to ban from French webspace (any site hosted in France, or with the .fr
country code) any websites selling or discussing Nazi gear, and also to ban any
links to such sites. The homesteaders whose Internet plots were thus taken either
closed down, or moved to U.S. webspace to take advantage of First Amendment
guarantees. With DNS in American hands, that's the end of it. With DNS in UN
hands, France could lobby the committee to vote that speech completely off the
Internet, by cutting off any country that tolerated such websites. Once the
Internet is turned into a political weapon and the first instance will be
for a Good Cause, like banning Nazi propaganda it's not going to be used
for surgical strikes. It'll be used as a blunt object, a stick to belabor those
out of step with UN policy. So a country refuses to cough up foreign aid, or sign
the Kyoto Treaty? No problem, cut their country off the Internet. All this
is set to explode at the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society in
Tunisia (a country that has eagerly silenced online dissidents). The preparations
for the summit have resembled a game of chicken, with various world reps
threatening to "vote themselves power over the Internet," and the U.S. refusing
to hear any proposal that would mean ceding DNS control. It is difficult to see
how this will end, but easy to imagine the worst case: countries creating their
own "Internets" and fragmenting the DNS, which would in effect boot millions of
Internet homesteaders off their plots and turn them into refugees. And we all
know how well the UN handles refugees. Andrew Ferguson
| Patrick Quealy
can be seen in his natural habitat, a Seattle coffee shop.
|
|
Got a license for that baster? In
the October 2004 Liberty, I suggested, in a reflection that was supposed to be
satirical, that state governments ought to implement sex licenses. As one must
have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle, one would need a sex license
to legally get it on. Indiana state Senator Patricia Miller recently took
strong first steps toward making this happen in her state. She proposed changing
state law so that "before intended parents may commence assisted reproduction,
the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from a licensed child placing
agency in the intended parents' state of residence." The assessment was to
include, among many other things, "a description of individual participation in
faith-based or church activities." Also part of the assessment was I swear
I am not making this up "intended parents' purpose for the assisted
reproduction." In case, I suppose, you're only using that turkey baster for fun
and not for godly procreation. When the would-be parents finally made it
through the red tape, the placement agency would "issue a certificate that the
intended parents . . . are ready to commence assisted reproduction." Commence
assisted reproduction? What is this, pillow talk with Data from Star Trek?
But the, ah, climax of the text is this: "An intended parent who knowingly or
intentionally participates in an artificial reproduction procedure without
establishing parentage [as this law requires] . . . commits unauthorized
artificial reproduction." Unauthorized reproduction. Reproducing without a
license. Predictably, the senator withdrew the proposed legislation
shortly after bloggers got hold of it and had a field day. "The issue has become
more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the
Health Finance Commission," she explained. It's easy to dismiss this as a crazy
right-wing idea that would have been limited to one state, had it passed, and
would in any case have been repealed or struck down before long. Maybe. But if a
fascist-friendly U.S. senator like Rick Santorum gets in on the act, what now
seems comical could become truly frightening. Patrick Quealy
| Ted Roberts is a
freelance humorist living in Huntsville, Ala. |
|
The Japanese Diet: cut taxes and sell the post office
Historically, you know, we have a couple of grievances with
the Japanese. First, healed over like an old wound, are the events of December 7,
1941. In the usual American tradition, we won that war but lost the peace. Next
was the Great Scare of the 1980s, when armies of U.S. economists, with teary eyes
and downcast faces, predicted the mortal wounding of the U.S. economy. The
Japanese system a partnership of government and business would
flourish. They'd steal our jobs. It was the '80s version of outsourcing. You'd
need a wheelbarrow of U.S. greenbacks to buy ten yen. Japanese conglomerates,
partnering with banks, would eat us up like tuna sushi; the Tokyo Stock Exchange
backed by big government was the golden brick road to wealth. The economic
undertakers, leaning on their shovels, predicted our demise. Thankfully, we
rejected the Japanese model and stuck with our halfway capitalistic
system. But now that the Liberal Democratic Party, led by Junichiro
Koizumi, has scored a landslide victory, they too are rejecting old models. They
plan to begin their reign with an innovation that should challenge American
politicians: they intend to privatize their post office! Handing over
ownership from the Japanese government to shareholders will take about twelve
years. The Japanese Postal Service is more than a vanilla Post Office. It's a
bank. A huge one with US$3 trillion in assets and 270,000 employees. The bill to
accomplish this immaculate transmogrification passed the lower house of the Diet
months ago and seemed destined to become law, but the Upper House rejected it
provoking the new elections and a mandate for Koizumi. The objective of
the new government is to downsize itself; take those 3 trillion dollars, and
invest them for consumers. Hmmm, sounds like our social security
discussions, does it not? And, in the meantime, our postal monopoly rumbles on.
Ted Roberts
| Jo Ann Skousen
is a writer and critic living in New York. |
|
Bread and debit cards In his 1845
autobiography, Frederick Douglass describes "the most effective means in the
hands of the slaveholder in keeping down the spirit of insurrection. Were the
slaveholders to abandon this practice," he wrote, "I have no doubt that it would
lead to an immediate insurrection among the slaves." What was this
insidious practice that kept the slaves from revolting? Was it the threat of
being sold, the practice of separating babies from their mothers, the
capriciousness of selling slaves who tried to escape? No. It was Christmas. "The
holidays are part and parcel of the gross fraud, wrong, and inhumanity of
slavery," Douglass wrote. "They do not give slaves this time [off] because they
would not like to have their work during its continuance, but because they know
it would be unsafe to deprive them of it." He describes the levity of the holiday
week, when slaves were given their clothing allowance for the year, an extra
allotment of food, and enough time and whiskey to get thoroughly drunk. "The
object seems to be, to disgust their slaves with freedom, by plunging them into
the lowest depths of its dissipation. . . . Thus when the slave asks for virtuous
freedom, the cunning slaveholder . . . cheats him with a dose of vicious
dissipation, artfully labeled with the name of liberty." Slavery is no
longer legal in this country, but a paternalistic government artfully employs
some of the same methods to keep down an insurrection among the poor (regardless
of ethnic origin), providing just enough of an allowance in welfare benefits to
give its recipients a sour taste of a fraudulent freedom. Forty years of the
"Great Society" has not improved the lot of the poor; it has only made it worse.
One study reveals that over $6.5 trillion have been spent on welfare programs in
the past 40 years, yet millions of Americans live below the poverty line, more
than ever before, with poor education, poor skills, and little hope for
improvement. The amount spent on one year of incarceration could provide a
four-year college education, yet many turn to crime because their skills are
simply inadequate for a job that offers a living wage. Clearly, the Great Society
has been a great disaster. Now we are preparing to spend $200 billion in
government money to rebuild the southern coast. Like Santa Claus, government
leaders are getting the credit, but the money is coming from you and me. Already
the government has followed Douglass' model for keeping down an insurrection:
when victims of the hurricane and flood complained of how the government
mishandled the evacuation, they were handed debit cards worth $2,000 just
enough to avoid an immediate insurrection. The money was intended to buy
temporary housing, food, clothing and other necessities, and I'm sure that many,
if not most, spent the money carefully. But charges are appearing on these debit
cards for everything from lap dances to Louis Vuitton handbags and that's
only the L's. The point is that throwing money at a problem will not make it go
away. Money should be combined with community support, education, and job
training. The existence of emergency-relief agencies, funded by taxes,
creates an implied contract between the government and its residents to take care
of them. Like it or not (for those of us who believe in free-market solutions),
the government failed to honor its contract. Don't impute to me a racism that
does not appear in this article the government failed in its contract with
the poor and elderly who are white, as much as it did with the poor and elderly
who are minorities. What I am saying is this: why does this surprise anyone?
Government inherently fails to deliver. It has unchecked powers to tax, unlimited
appetites to spend, and unnumbered hands stretched out to pocket money in
between. It destroys the incentive to work and the incentive to be grateful. It
provides just enough to keep a person alive, but not enough to give a person
dignity. Douglass concluded his treatise on the evil nature of benevolent
holidays by saying, "When the holidays ended, we staggered up from the filth of
our wallowing, took a deep breath, and marched to the field, feeling . . . rather
glad to go, from what our masters had deceived us into a belief was freedom, back
to the arms of slavery." Let us hope that the victims of Hurricane
Katrina do not march back into the filth of the welfare system. We should
recognize that the real heroes of the past few months have been the private
corporations and churches and the semi-private relief organizations who were on
the spot immediately, assessing damage, handing out food, bandaging the wounded,
providing housing, and giving millions and millions of dollars of their own free
will and choice. Even more money could be given by private citizens if they
weren't already spending staggering percentages of their paychecks on taxes for
agencies that will always drop the ball and then scurry around trying to pick it
up again before anyone notices. Compare that to the Red Cross, Salvation Army,
Wal-Mart, celebrity fundraisers, and countless church and civic organizations,
including neighborhood kids sponsoring lemonade stands. Government has had 40
years to produce a Great Society; let's give the free market a fair chance to
find solutions. Jo Ann Skousen
| | | | |