I admit to a few seconds of schadenfreude when I heard that NY Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught buying prostitution services, and that it will probably end his political career.

But, then, I felt a little uncomfortable by all of the glee expressed on some of the libertarian blogs I read. I don’t really like the idea of anybody suffering because of unjust laws. In fact, I don’t like the idea of anybody suffering at all. Not really.

Of course, it’s hard to argue with Glen Whitman, who wrote that “The only people I think should be prosecuted for victimless crimes are people who have prosecuted others for those crimes.”

Also, I suppose that if somebody had to suffer because of the silly enforcement of this victimless crime law, it’s better that it’s a pompous, abusive, bullying jerk like Spitzer, who has ruined many other people’s lives for his own glory.

I don’t know whether or not New York is likely to get a better or a worse replacement; so it’s not clear to me whether this is a good thing for their political scene.

My pie-in-the-sky hope is that all of this attention will hasten the day that prostitution is legalized.

It was upsetting, but not shocking, to read about the recent California Court of Appeals decision In Re Rachel L., that asserted that “Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” and that homeschooling is illegal unless the parent has a teaching credential.

I’m not sure whether this is a bad decision in terms of how it applies existing law, but it sure is bad in terms of protecting basic rights.

Fortunately, it seems that Gov. Schwarzenegger has the right idea about all of this, and will urge the improvement of existing law.

Perhaps this can be like the Kelo v. City of New London case that ruled against property rights, but raised awareness enough to change the laws in several states, and reduce incidence of eminent domain abuses.

There’s too much to say about schooling in a single blog post, but I just want to note that it’s amazing how blind so many people, who claim to be vitally concerned about civil liberties, can be to the basic injustice of the state position. Children are not criminals. They do not deserve to be forced into state education facilities. Homeschooling is not producing worse outcomes than public schooling. It seems to be an article of faith in the religion of statism that children are better off going to state-run schools.

I agree that children should be protected from parents who deny them access to basic information about the world to the extent that it inhibits their ability to develop the knowledge and skills required for a successful, independent, adulthood.

But, it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that mandating school attendance (with state-credentialed teachers) is very far from the most reasonable way to achieve this protection.

Children have a right to be fed, too! But, we don’t mandate that state-credentialed nutrition professionals prepare each child’s food. I can imagine the high cost and low quality of that food.

I typically don’t have enough emotional energy to devote to hating people, but the following video makes me come close to hating Officer Rivieri:

What do you think?

Fortunately, it seems that he was suspended after the video came out.

Perhaps I’m a bit biased, because I have a special aversion to the abuse of authority and to the mistreatment of children. But, watching this video made me hope that Rivieri is not only suspended, but permanently removed from any position of authority over other people. He shouldn’t even be a manager at a fast food restaurant!

The guy is a bully. And, he behaved just like a gang-member; demanding unearned respect, and confusing respect with fear. Maybe he agrees with Hillary Clinton that “It Takes A Village” to raise a child, but I think most children are better off being raised by people whom they know and love.

It’s especially sad because it makes it even harder for those officers who don’t abuse their positions to get the positive recognition and respect that they deserve.

Another thought that this brings to mind is that if we are creeping into a surveillance society, the first people who should be under constant surveillance are law enforcement officers. If they do their jobs right, they should have nothing to fear. It would help protect us from this kind of excess,
and it would prove useful as a source of evidence that’s much more reliable than frail memories.

In the mean time, three cheers for YouTube and people like the one who recorded and posted this incident. Who knows how often this stuff goes on without being recorded? Hopefully, the prevalence of privately controlled cameras will bring about more professionalism among our “servants.”

Amount John McCain spent in the primaries by the end of 2007: $39 Million

Overall primaries spending limit for those receiving public funding: $50 Million

Having McCain’s front running campaign hamstrung by the inevitable effects of his own authoritarian speech-limiting regulatory regime: Priceless

Unfortunately, I suspect that a political insider like McCain will manage to get around this problem (something an outsider would have much more trouble doing).

But, it sure is satisfying to see the web of regulations actually hurting someone who richly deserves it, for once.

Today, I was led by this New York Times article to a new site (bigthink.com) for the sharing of ideas (“A YouTube for ideas.”).

I haven’t spent very much time there, yet, but it seems to be a good idea, well executed. If they can keep the quality from degrading, it should be a great resource.

I don’t have much to say about the presidential primaries other than that I’m pleased by all the attention that Ron Paul’s candidacy has garnered for libertarian ideas. I hope that the enthusiasm extends beyond this election season. [Update: I wrote this before learning of the TNR hit-piece. I’m reserving judgment because I don’t know the facts. But, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.]

One other thing to pass along, however, is Bryan Caplan’s recent article debunking five oft-repeated myths about voting and elections. The myths are:

1. People vote their self-interest.

2. Unselfish voting will solve our problems.

3. Voters’ errors balance out.

4. Political disagreement is all about values.

5. Voters want serious change.

These are some of the points he makes in his great book: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies

Everyone who cares about democracy should become familiar with his thesis.

If you don’t have time to read the whole book, you can get the gist of it from his Cato policy analysis, as well as the Cato Unbound discussion beginning with his lead essay.

Needless to say, I agree with him. I think most voters do, indeed, have persistent biases that lead to all of us getting bad policies enacted.

I’m not sure what to do about it. A good first step, though, is probably to recognize and understand the problem.

After that, if we’re to escape from this worsening situation, it seems that we’ll either need a radical transformation in which ideas are dominant in our culture, or some structural changes to our institutions, or (probably) both.