So while watching the news today I saw some intriguing developments in the GOP, or at least interesting enough to spur me to do a new post about it on here, at least. But then I was surprised to find, once I logged on, that there haven't been ANY posts about the GOP race yet! So basically I thought it might be nice to give everyone the opportunity to just share their thoughts about the race.
Just so you guys know, the latest development, which I alluded to earlier, is that Rick Perry has now (at least according to some recent polls) edged out Romney as the "official GOP front-runner." Seemingly in response to this, Romney shifted gears a bit (up 'til now he's avoided fighting with other GOP candidates) and directly attacked Perry (well, technically any "career politicians," but the consensus is that it was aimed at Perry) in an address to veterans in Texas
I was actually somewhat surprised at the commentary about this attack from the talking heads on CNN, basically agreeing that it was a good way to strategically contrast himself with Perry while simultaneously focusing on the most important issue, i.e. the economy. It also seems smart to me because the contrast also applies ESPECIALLY to Obama (I heard he recently fired his chief economic advisor, by the way). I believe this was smart for another reason: it’s probably the best way to unite his support from both mainstream conservatives/independents and from tea partiers, meaning that he’s arguably a better candidate to face Obama in the general election.
So all this got me to wondering: does Perry really have a shot at seriously contending with Romney, and (for that matter) how could he possibly have gotten ahead of him in the first place? I would think that John Stewart isn’t the only one who would be wary of voting for what seems in many ways like “George Bush on steroids” or “George Bush ++” (i.e. “what happens is Lex Luthor distilled down George Bush essence in a laboratory, and crossed it with gunpowder and semen from the finest thorough-bred in Lubbock, then shot it into the sun” … lol).
So how 'bout it: do you guys think he's really on par with Romney, or is he maybe still benefiting from all the hype from when he joined race? Oh, and feel free to comment about the race in general as well.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Sheriff Arpaio's Tent Prisons
Since there hasn't been anything posted here in a while, I'd like to find out everyone's thoughts on the controversial Arizona sheriff, Joe Arpaio. I've posted below a brief commentary on the subject from Brad Spangler of the Center for a Stateless Society which I'd also like to discuss:
Any thoughts?Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is literally roasting prisoners alive. Temperatures inside the tents at the prison camp the Sheriff operates are reaching 145°F. By way of comparison, a round of roast beef is said to be medium-rare when it reaches a core temperature of 130°F to 140°F.
Obviously, this is a horrific crime on the part of the Sheriff and all working for him. While it’s common to label such abuses under statism as an aberration, both the ovens of Maricopa County and Dachau are logical consequences of the perverse economic incentives of monopoly government.
The entire punishment-based approach to justice, including punishment for victimless non-crimes such as drug use or being Jewish, is an example of the Misesian calculation problem in the context of the state’s monopoly of law. Abuses such as Arpaio’s are an inevitable result so long as monopoly government is in place.
Market anarchists correctly recognize genuine crimes to be best understood as torts. Any genuine offense is an offense precisely because it’s an injury to someone else who did not deserve it. If some behavior could not be treated as a tort, it is injustice to treat it as a crime. No victim, no crime.
Flowing from the above is the understanding that justice is not punishment but compulsory restitution. Yet without a free market for adjudication of disputes, the monopoly state has no way to find rational price information for compensation of victims — no more so than Soviet central planners could figure out a rational price for a loaf of bread that would keep bread on the shelves without terror.
The state, any state, is in all cases economically blind and can’t calculate. As a result, the state must maintain the pretense that arbitrary punishment is justice, instead, and insulate those who carry it out from the liability costs for their criminal (i.e. tortious) actions that a free market would place upon them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
