NH Liberty Conference, Day 2

(There's no "day 1" post. Yesterday I was at work during the day and with friends in the evening.)

This year's New Hampshire Liberty Forum is in the Crowne Plaza hotel in Nashua, which is convenient for me. After registering, I dropped in on the dealers' room, which had an odd array of tables. The John Birch Society, real estate agents, the Libertarian Party, and various issue groups were all there. The quality of the ideas represented varied a lot. I picked up a bumper sticker and a T-shirt.

At least 20 people commented favorably on my T-shirt showing Bush as a vampire attacking the Statue of Liberty.

The first talk I went to was by Jim Lark, on "Knee-Jerk Libertarianism." It was a very good presentation on "ill-considered responses to statist stimuli." These responses, even if they're correct, don't do much to get the message across. Examples include vaguely invoking the market, dismissing all government employees as scum, and speaking without adequate knowledge. He pointed out that trying to get people to accept new ideas may compel them to do a painful self-examination, since people's ideas are often part of their self-concept; we can't expect people to turn around quickly on that level. The talk was an entertaining one, with good illustrations and even Monty Python references.

Scott McPherson gave a talk about the history of public schooling in the United States, showing how governments took over a situation with minor problems and kept expanding their power. He blasted Horace Mann with particular vehemence. There was a lot of material, and I gave up on taking detailed notes with my handheld.

Wayne Green advocated eating raw liver, not getting vaccinations, avoiding amalgam fillings, and outlawing pasteurized milk. That was in the first ten minutes; I couldn't take any more and left. He's done many wonderful things, including founding 73 and Byte magazines; if he's gone crazy now that he's somewhere past eighty, he's entitled to it.

The last talk I went to was by Ed Hudgins of the Atlas Society. He talked about the Objectivist ethics as the basis for liberty, noting that many people are blind and deaf to principles and that it's difficult to communicate ideas to them. Some points which he discussed were the attempts to base morality on religion, the manipulation of people by guilt, and the morality of crossing borders to earn a better living. He also mentioned that the Atlas Shrugged movie project is still active, and that there should be news for better or worse this month.

Before going home I talked with quite a few interesting people. Jack Shimek told me about a project to create a small library of freedom, called the Renaissance Reading Room. The domain renreadingroom.com is registered, but either no website has been set up or it's not currently running.

I was very pleased to meet with Declan McCullagh, whom I crib from in half the posts on this blog. We had an enjoyable if brief conversation.

More tomorrow, including Ron Paul.

More blog coverage here.

Clinton wants to bring medicine up to the 1980's

Hillary Clinton is, it would seem, under the impression that medical offices and hospitals haven't yet heard of computers.

NASHUA, N.H.--In a new push to win over New Hampshire voters on Friday, Hillary Clinton highlighted a technological facet of her pledge to revamp the nation's healthcare system: ditch paper medical records.
 
Digitizing the vital documents will not only cut an estimated $77 billion in costs, but "much more important than that, we would save lives," the New York senator said Friday morning to a few hundred cheering, sign-waving supporters huddled around the stage in a drafty airplane hangar here.

Perhaps back in Arkansas there are still medical offices that keep their records on paper, but she sounds very silly saying that in high-tech Nashua.

I don't think she really believes it. What she really means is that our personal medical information should be in a central database under the authority of the federal government. A report cited by the ACLU places the United States among the world's worst surveillance societies, mentioning "[w]eak protections of financial and medical privacy" as one factor. Clinton thinks we still have too much medical privacy.

Hanlon's (or Heinlein's) Razor -- "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" -- is a doubtful guide when it comes to politicians. On issues of policy it may be true, but on issues of fact, I'd suggest: "Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by political posturing."

NH Liberty Forum

The New Hampshire Liberty Forum is in Nashua this weekend.

I still haven't decided whether to vote for Ron Paul (which is to say, vote against the Bush League) or sit out the primary. I may have a better idea after I hear him speak.

Clinton on Real ID

CNET News reports on Hillary Clinton's comments on Real ID (skip to page 2 from that link, or go here directly). Aside from the sneaky way in which the legislation was passed, these are her primary criticisms of the law:

Had there been an opportunity to properly consider this legislation, it would have been revealed that the Real ID Act imposes dramatic new burdens on our states and substantially changes our immigration and asylum laws in ways that deserve critical examination.
 
Among other things, Real ID's driver's license provisions impose a massive unfunded mandate on states, while ignoring our broken immigration system.

Note what's absent. She doesn't say it assaults people's privacy and puts personal data at risk. She doesn't mention that it will cripple the lives of people living in non-Real ID states. She doesn't object to its allowing Homeland Security to ignore any law it finds inconvenient when fortifying the border.

The criticisms she offers are mostly vague and ambiguous. What changes in the immigration and asylum laws does she object to? How does she think it should have addressed the immigration system? The only clear criticism is of the lack of federal funding. If she is elected president, she might well be perfectly happy with a massive federal allocation to fund the force-over.

Myth about RIAA action

It's been widely and credulously repeated on blogs that the RIAA has taken legal action based on the claim that it's a copyright violation to copy music which you've purchased onto your own computer. This struck me as dubious from the beginning; the RIAA would be running squarely against the Sony decision, and I don't think it would waste resources on a hopeless suit.

The Paltry Copyright Blog sets the record straight:

But despite Ms. Pariser's comments in the Thomas case (if accurately reported), in the Howell case, the RIAA is being unfairly maligned. I have read the brief (and you can too here). On page 15 of the brief, we find the flashpoint: "Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format AND they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs."
 
I have capitalized the word "and" because it is here that the RIAA is making the point that placing the mp3 files into the share folder is what makes the copy unauthorized.

People can argue about whether the case as being made is legitimate, whether penalties are too high, etc., etc., but the RIAA isn't claiming you don't have the right to copy recordings you've bought onto your computer for your own use.

Jefferson's library

A group of LibraryThing users have catalogued Thomas Jefferson's library and put the list online. The catalogue includes not only 4,889 books, but 187 reviews consisting of quotations from Jefferson's writings.

I like it!

Hope for liberty?

It's the start of a new year, which is traditionally a time for putting old disappointments behind and looking toward new hopes. Where can we find hope for the principles of individual rights and limited government?

Certainly not in the presidential campaign. I've already gone over the major candidates, and Ron Paul is the deepest disappointment of them all. If he'd manage to present a strong vision countering the statist doctrines of both parties, I could have forgiven him a few inconsistencies. Instead, he's been running a bullet-point campaign. He's talked about Constitutional government, which is better than his opponents, but there's little depth to his position; he hasn't managed to convey why respecting Constitutional limits is better than letting the government do whatever it wants. And he's glad to throw the Constitution away when it doesn't suit him: he's promised to end birthright citizenship, even though it's guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In today's political atmosphere, expending energy on electing candidates is a waste of time. If there's any hope, it's to be found in changing ideas. Whoever is elected, the prevailing political philosophy will limit or encourage them more than any campaign promises they made. Changing the ideas on which the government operates is the key.

There really has been progress on some points, though it's been painfully slow. During World War I, criticism of the war could get you a long jail sentence. During World War II, having Japanese ancestors could get you removed from your home and placed in a camp. The Nixon administration froze prices and wages in an attempt to suppress the visible effects of inflation, and price controls meant that people had to wait in long lines for gas if they could find a station that was open at all. None of these things were changed by political campaigns. They don't happen today because better ideas now prevail, particularly in economic and legal circles.

Other things have gotten worse. "National security" has become an excuse for abuse of power. Mainstream conservatism has abandoned limited government. Hatred of immigrants has exploded, and many people are willing to give up liberty in order to block competition for their jobs.

Many of the best speakers for liberty are old or gone. What's needed, more than anything else, is new people to capture the imaginations of new generations with ideas of liberty. All who make the attempt and have something reasonable to say, to the extent of their ability, help out. I can only hope that some will be able to make a really significant difference in 2008 and beyond.

Reply from Columbus police

I received the following response from the Columbus Police Department to an email I sent concerning the entrapment story I blogged about yesterday. The response came from a generic e-mail address and was not signed with any name, but clearly was a reply to the message I sent, so it came from somewhere within the Columbus police. It also doesn't explain what the woman was if she wasn't an officer of or working with the police. Take it for whatever you think it's worth.

The story that was posted on abcnews.com Friday, December 28, 2007, misrepresented the Columbus Division of Police. The female that was topless in the park has no association with the Columbus Division of Police. She was NOT an officer nor was she working with the Columbus Division of Police.
 
We feel that it is important for citizens to the have the facts. We do NOT place officers topless in parks to lure men in. In Columbus it is legal for individuals to be topless in public places. It is a matter of opinion if you feel it is appropriate or not. Our Vice undercover officers work in the parks due to complaints that families make after taking their children there to play. Our parks have become a place where individuals go to expose themselves and have sexual relations. It is unfortunate that families are faced with these activities when they are out enjoying time as a family. It is our job to see that this doesn't happen.
 
We hope that your comments and concerns about the Division have been addressed. It is our job to protect the citizens from ALL crime and we take that job serious.

Rotenberg Center: One problem down, many to go

My earlier post on the Rotenberg Center apparently had an effect! Their staff login page now requires users to enter their badge number and password. Previously the page had a pulldown list of hundreds of user names, making life far too easy for intruders.

However, there are still serious privacy issues concerning the site. Kate Gladstone has pointed out to me that the site has a page full of letters from parents of students at Rotenberg, with full names in many cases, as well as past histories including previous institutions and medications. I don't know what standard practices and legal requirements in Massachusetts are concerning the privacy of institutionalized minors, but disclosing so much information about them could easily expose them to danger.

Kate also pointed me at a blog comment which makes some horrifying charges against the Rotenberg Center; the commenter claims to have been in its program for over two years. Go to this link and scroll down to comment #39. The commenter doesn't give a full name but does give a contact e-mail address.

Huckabee fans immigrant phobia

Huckabee lied in order to stir up fear of Muslim immigrants:

While seeking to tap into anti-immigration sentiment, Mr. Huckabee may also have sown new doubts about his expertise on global issues. He said incorrectly that more Pakistanis entered the U.S. illegally last year than did nationals of any other nation, save those from countries south of the U.S. In fact, the government apprehended more people from Canada, India and Poland than from Pakistan, the Congressional Research Service found.

The disgrace of the Columbus police

In Columbus, Ohio, the police pay a woman to entrap men in order to collect revenues for the city.

[Name omitted], an off-duty 42-year-old [profession], was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a woman sunbathing topless under a tree.
 
He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point.
 
Eventually, she asked to see [his] penis; he unzipped his pants and complied.
 
Seconds later, undercover police officers pulled up in a van and arrested [the man]; he was later charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor, based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park. While topless sunbathing is legal in the city's parks, exposing more than that is against the law.

I've omitted the victim's name out of respect for the innocent. Not that it does any good; the ABC News article named him, said where he worked, and called him a "pervert" in the top headline. ABC News, however, gave full privacy to the name of the government woman who lured him into this situation. The man is a government employee who does a genuinely useful job, and his employer has been forced to put him on restricted duty while "investigating" him, so public safety is reduced as a result.

That is entrapment of the most vicious kind. But ABC News says it merely "veer[s] dangerously close to entrapment," and only in the view of "lawyers, civil libertarians and defendants who've been caught in sting operations."

I wonder what the government woman's reaction was when she saw that ABC News named her victim and called him a "pervert" on its website. She probably had an orgasm on the spot. But how does she live with knowing that a run-of-the-mill burglar or pickpocket has the moral right to spit in her face and call her a bitch?

(See also update with police response.)