June 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The Enemy of the Good
Kerry Howley at Reason has a nice piece up about the recent controversy about Microsoft's MSN Spaces blog software enforcing Chinese censorship against certain words used in blog entry titles.
I agree that the criticisms of Microsoft are silly, and that those bloggers who want to circumvent restrictions will easily be able to do it.
My main complaint, though, is that it seems to be very common for people to criticize some person or company (particularly Microsoft) by comparing the actions to an imagined ideal, rather than currently realistic alternatives. They are letting the unrealizable perfect become the enemy of the good.
The question is NOT: "Should Microsoft refuse to comply with these restrictive Chinese laws and bring down Chinese repression by the sheer force of its moral rightiousness?" This is just not a realistic possiblity.
The question is: "Would things be better if Microsoft supplied Chinese bloggers with a, somewhat restricted, forum for sharing information and ideas; or none at all?"
These are the realistic alternatives, and the answer seems obvious to me.
I agree that the criticisms of Microsoft are silly, and that those bloggers who want to circumvent restrictions will easily be able to do it.
My main complaint, though, is that it seems to be very common for people to criticize some person or company (particularly Microsoft) by comparing the actions to an imagined ideal, rather than currently realistic alternatives. They are letting the unrealizable perfect become the enemy of the good.
The question is NOT: "Should Microsoft refuse to comply with these restrictive Chinese laws and bring down Chinese repression by the sheer force of its moral rightiousness?" This is just not a realistic possiblity.
The question is: "Would things be better if Microsoft supplied Chinese bloggers with a, somewhat restricted, forum for sharing information and ideas; or none at all?"
These are the realistic alternatives, and the answer seems obvious to me.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Lying About Drugs
Matt Welch has written a nice, short, article about how the Raich decision helps enable the government's addiction to lying about drugs in general and marijuana in particular.
The War on Drugs aggravates me on many levels.
It aggravates me philosophically because it violates individual liberty and responsibility for risk-taking. It's just wrong to forcibly prevent someone from acting on a considered judgment about what to consume or buy for personal use.
It aggravates me practically because of all of the waste, corruption, liberty infringements, and real crime that come with prohibition. Especially now, when we have genuine security threats to focus on, this misuse of resources to do much more harm than good is particularly infuriating.
The War on Drugs aggravates me on many levels.
It aggravates me philosophically because it violates individual liberty and responsibility for risk-taking. It's just wrong to forcibly prevent someone from acting on a considered judgment about what to consume or buy for personal use.
It aggravates me practically because of all of the waste, corruption, liberty infringements, and real crime that come with prohibition. Especially now, when we have genuine security threats to focus on, this misuse of resources to do much more harm than good is particularly infuriating.
Monday, June 06, 2005
We Need More Clarence Thomases
I was going to write a post praising Clarence Thomas for his reasonable decision in
Gonzalez v. Raich
today, but Radley Balko already did it, with all of the good quotes, here. I'll just quote part of the opening paragraph of Thomas' dissent:
I hope Bush has the opportunity to appoint several more Justices like Clarence Thomas. Unfortunately, I'm sure that someone like that would trigger the "extraordinary circumstances" loophole to the filibuster compromise.
I can't say that I'm surprised by the decision. I expected the left-liberals on the Court to side with virtually unlimited federal power. I was curious which way Scalia and Kennedy would go, and the anti-drug-user weasels showed their colors. So, I guess the case is valuable to show us where they stand.
I'd also like to mention that I think Randy Barnett did a great job of arguing the case, and his work really seemed to connect with Thomas' thinking as Thomas quoted him three times in the dissenting opinion.
If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.Thomas insists on interpreting the Constitution as limiting federal power. Others seem to see it as allowing federal power limited only by whether or not they happen to like the particular policy.
I hope Bush has the opportunity to appoint several more Justices like Clarence Thomas. Unfortunately, I'm sure that someone like that would trigger the "extraordinary circumstances" loophole to the filibuster compromise.
I can't say that I'm surprised by the decision. I expected the left-liberals on the Court to side with virtually unlimited federal power. I was curious which way Scalia and Kennedy would go, and the anti-drug-user weasels showed their colors. So, I guess the case is valuable to show us where they stand.
I'd also like to mention that I think Randy Barnett did a great job of arguing the case, and his work really seemed to connect with Thomas' thinking as Thomas quoted him three times in the dissenting opinion.
