Yodelling Llama

Don’t like the fact that so many Congressmen get reelected term-after-term? What’s the solution, you ask? Term limits has been the usual answer. It worked well for the presidency, certainly.

But perhaps a better system would be to prevent sitting Congressmen from ballot access. Which would mean a given Congressman can be reelected as many times as he’d like, but he cannot appear on the ballot for so long as he is in office. The beauty of this is to allow those individuals who are truly noteworthy politicians to spend quite a bit of time in Washington, while at the same time preventing the stagnation and tyranny that results from the current lifer system. It would also discourage public servants, being paid to govern the country, from moonlighting as campaigners. And lessen the use of public funds intended for legitimate government purposes–e.g. transportation for Senators desiring to address their electors–from being co-opted for illegitimate personal purposes. Of course, a given Congressman could serve back-to-back terms, but only if he wins his write-in campaign. Neat, no?

One latecomer justification for the Iraq War is that by invading Iraq, the US has created a state of chaos. Say what? I gather the idea is that by making Iraq such a mess, the terrorists will see this as their chance to get noticed and really instill some fear in the squares. The terrorists will drop whatever their doing elsewhere in the world and join the party.

Even if this were true (and not just a lie Bush tells himself to explain why people in Iraq keep killing American soldiers, given that real Iraqis are of course grateful, and welcomed American soldiers as liberators), it is still one of the most backwards pieces of reasoning to which I’ve ever been privy. It is akin to the Union and the Confederacy putting aside their differences to move the whole war to Mexico, because that way American civilians will not be so severely impacted. [Actually, it is more akin to the Union deciding to unilaterally move the Civil War to Mexico, hoping the Confederate soldiers follow. But let's just put that aside for the moment.] What about the impact on the Mexican people? It is horrifying for a government to use its own civilian population as bait; it is much more horrifying for a government to use another civilian population as bait.

Would I rather fight terrorism on US soil than in Iraq, Ms. Rice? Absolutely. Because at least that way it is the beneficiaries that are taking the risk. Because at least that way I get to sleep at night.

Why the Clean Air Act? We have the common law doctrines of trespass and nuisance, either of which would give rise to a cause of action against air polluters for damages. We are able to contract around air pollution by paying for scrubbers that can be donated to factories. Hell, my electric company currently offers the option of purchasing power for a small premium that is generated by wind turbines. Don’t we have enough free market solutions?

No. The main problem with tort actions against polluters is evidence of damages and evidence of causation. Do you have any idea how poor the current state of science is at deciding to what degree a particular factory’s emissions caused a particular person’s health problems? And without the threat of tort actions, it is hard to get the less scrupulous industries to play ball.

So we have the Clean Air Act to approximate the net results if our proof problems were substantially reduced. To crack down on the most obvious causes, to reduce the damages generally. How do we know the “obvious” causes are in fact causes? Science is pretty good at generalities; it is only on the specifics that it falters.

Does that mean libertarianism doesn’t work? Yes. At least when broadly defined. There are certain types of human interaction that lend themselves to a hands-off approach, and there are certain types of human interaction that do not.