Libertarian Man of Mystery

Was the Armanious family beheaded?

I previously blogged about the Armanious family, Coptic Christians from New Jersey murdered under mysterious circumstances, with some evidence suggesting that they were killed by Muslims seeking revenge for Hossam Armanious' anti-Muslim writings in internet bulletin boards and chat rooms.

It immediately seemed suspect to me that the mainstream media, except for Fox, was ignoring the story. Muslim religious violence on American soil seems like a very newsworthy story to me.

Now, I see rumors on the internet that the family wasn't just stabbed to death, but they were beheaded.

According to the AP story about the funeral:

As the coffins were carried through the streets to St. George & St. Shenouda Coptic Orthodox Church, one protester's sign, above a photograph of the smiling Armanious family read: "American Family Beheaded on American Soil. Welcome Bin Laden."

Did the signmaker know something we don't? Then, a few days later at Jihadwatch, there appeared a translation from an Islamic bulletin board:

The heads of the family have been separated from their bodies (they have been beheaded) at their home at Jersey.

The next day, Jihad Watch posted again about the incident.

Obviously, if the beheading story is true, we would have little doubt that the incident was an Islamic slaying. Is it believable that law enforcement, possibly with media collaboration, would hide evidence that they were beheaded so that the passions of the community would not become inflamed? Unfortunately, I have to answer "yes."

Andrew Sullivan on natural human inequality

Andrew Sullivan writes:

Of course, discussion of human natural inequality will always be sensitive. It's a hard fact to absorb that some people will never be as intelligent as some others, or as musically gifted, or as mathematically skilled. Americans in particular hate the notion that there is some natural limit on what people can and cannot achieve. But there is a distinction between moral and political equality for all - the fundament of a liberal society - and unavoidable natural inequalities between human beings and, in a few narrow areas, even between social groups. This cannot and shouldn't mean that any individual should be prejudged, or denied any viable opportunity. But it does mean that some imbalances in certain professions might not be entirely a function of prejudice or bigotry.

The official liberal view is that all humans are born with identical mental capabilities, and if some people achieve success while others don't, they blame it on inequality of education or discrimination. Liberals have made it taboo to even talk about the topic, but I am happy that the taboos are breaking down and semi-well known people like Andrew Sullivan can write what common sense, if not science, tells us, that we aren't all born with the same abilities.

Girls in China

According to today’s NY Times, China is beginning to examine ways to fix the sexual imbalance of its population.

China has 119 boys for every 100 girls, while the average for the rest of the world is 105 boys for 100 girls. In the rural Fujian Province there are 134 boys for every 100 girls.

Presumably, the reason why China has a problem with the imbalance is because “demographers predict that in a few decades China could have up to 40 million bachelors unable to find mates.” The article doesn’t go into any details regarding why that’s a problem. I guess you just have to use your imagination.

I find the following really disgusting:

In the rural Fujian Mountains, the pressure on families to have a boy as a second child is enormous. On what should have been one of the happiest days of her life, the birth of her second child, Liao Yanqing said she instead contemplated suicide because the baby was another girl.

I’m glad I don’t live in China.

Put a Sitemeter on your blog

Sitemeter has become the standard stat counter in the blogosphere. It’s endorsed by Glenn Reynolds himself, and open Sitemeters can be found on all of the top blogs like Daily Kos and Wonkette. In fact, without Sitemeter, how would we even know they’re on top?

With Sitemeter’s seal of approval by top bloggers, you would think that all of the smaller blogs would emulate them and have an open Sitemeter so visitors can see their traffic stats. Yet I visit so many smaller blogs that are hiding their stats. Either they have no stat counter at all, or they’re using a protected stat counter that visitors can’t look at. Some blogs, accidentally or on purpose, did not implement referrals tracking in Sitemeter, preventing you from seeing where their traffic is coming from.

What do people think they’re hiding? If the big blogs can let people see their traffic, why do small bloggers feel that their stats are some kind of big top secret affair?

I have a negative view of any blog that doesn’t have an open stat counter, preferably Sitemeter.

UPDATE

I've written more about this topic: Sitemeter and libertarianism.

Thoughts on the Iraqi election

I haven’t blogged about the Iraqi elections before. I thought all along that the election would not be any kind of disaster, because the insurgents just aren’t organized enough to pull off something significant enough to ruin the elections. I wish I had written such a post before the elections, because now you probably won’t believe me when I say I predicted this outcome.

Gregory Djereijian writes today about how the insurgents suffered a major blow (via Instapundit):

[T]he insurgents suffered a major blow today--because Iraqis courageously came out in droves to vote and because there were far fewer insurgent attacks than anyone dared hope.

I think the post by Juan Cole that Gregory disproves of actually makes a valid point:

[I]f the turnout is as light in the Sunni Arab areas as it now appears, the parliament/ constitutional assembly is going to be extremely lopsided.

This AP article offers some commentary along the same lines.

I previously wrote why I supported the invasion of Iraq, but have also expressed doubts that the peace is working. If the peace is not working, it's not the fault of George W. Bush; he is trying hard to make the peace work. Maybe too hard.

I think that we should have partitioned Iraq into three countries, one for Kurds, one for Sunnis, and one for Shiites. I don’t trust the Shiites to be in charge of the whole country because they are a bunch if Islamic religious fanatics.

UPDATE

The Moderate Voice has a nice roundup of Iraqi election posts.

Just say no to Sudafed

We read in the NY Times today that states are planning to restict sales of pseudophedrine (the decongestant often known by the name brand Sudafed). The reason is that home chemists can use it as an ingrediant to manufacture their own methamphetamine.

This seems like an especially useless way to fight the war on drugs. The NY Times article points out that 80% of meth comes from “superlabs” in Mexico or California. Organized crime groups will continue to supply meth to those who desire it, and in fact make even more money if sales of cold medicine are restricted because then they will have a monopoly on supply. I’d rather have some loser in a trailer park making the profits.

The drug war is clearly a case where the costs (direct and indirect) of fighting the war far outweigh any dubious benefit we might get out of it.

One blogger offers an anecdote about what a pain it was to buy Sudafed at a Rite Aid pharmacy because of restrictions on its sale.

Kelson complains about having to show ID:

Y’know, I have no problem with limiting the quantities purchased (as long as the limits are reasonable), and I can live with standing in line at the pharmacy if I have to—but some of the suggestions are to require you to “show identification—and even enter [your] addresses in a law enforcement database.” Excuse me? What do the police care if I have a cold? New! More government scrutiny of your life, brought to you by the War on Drugs™!

Do libertarians have a problem?

The Unrepentant Individual (aka Brad) writes about the problem with libertarians:

The problem with being a fringe party, however, is that we tend to attract a large number of the wackos and misfits. That, coupled with the radical idealism found in any fringe party, tends to turn people off.

I think he's writing about the kind of people who leave comments on my posts outraged that I might have said something that disagrees slightly with their own view of libertarianism.

He offers some great advice in his conclusion (minus the part about Rand):

As a libertarian, I look for ways to further our agenda. But I realize that the world I want to see is a long-term goal. We, as a party, need to be realistic about that as well. We need to position ourselves in such a manner to affect real change, not spout Randian platitudes. And we need to realize that the Republicans are our teammates, not our enemies. When applicable, we need to stand with the Republicans to fight the left.

And now let me add in a comment about right and left. Brad says that libertarians are like Republicans except further to the right. I don't believe that's exactly the case. In my post the liberal mind, I explained how the left (also called liberals in the United States) has a goal of making everyone equal, and that liberals feel guilty about living in a strong and powerful nation.

The left is unified but the right is basically anything that's not left. Thus Nazi Germany was a rightist movement because they glorified living in a strong and powerful nation and felt no guilt at all for those less fortunate. Yet Nazi Germany was also a socialist and statist movement that was not friendly to freedom--in some ways opposite of libertarianism but also opposite of leftism.

Because the Republican party is the American party that's not left, it's the only party a libertarian can be a part of. But it's not simply a matter of moving the Republicans to the right. We also have to move the Republicans towards libertarianism. Part of this process will require us to move the Republican Party away from the Christian Right.

Virginia Postrel on free trade

Economists argue for free trade. They have two centuries of theory and experience to back them up. And they have recent empirical studies of how the liberalization of trade has increased productivity in less-developed countries like Chile and India. Lowering trade barriers, they maintain, not only cuts costs for consumers but aids economic growth and makes the general public better off.

So begins a NY Times article from yesterday written by Virginia Postrel.

The problem I have with the article is that it documents how free trade between the U.S. and Canada benefitted Canada. I'm sure it benefitted the U.S. as well. But there is a big difference between free trade with a rich developed nation like Canada and undeveloped nations like India or Chile where people get paid a small fraction of what they make in the United States.

I am sure that free trade with developing nations benefits the developing nations, but it harms us. Maybe it's a net benefit for the world as a whole--the developing nation gains 3 and we lose 2. But it hurts for us, and as a nation we have the right and duty to look out for our own interests.

Furthermore, I take exception to Postrel's backward glance to "two centuries of...experience." We live today in a new world. In the past, even where governments didn't erect barriers to trade, trade was never close to being free because there existed significant physical and technological barriers to trade. When modern transportation eroded the barriers to trade of manufactured goods, that's when the United States saw its manufacturing move overseas. Today, technology allows an ever increasing variety of jobs to be exported overseas, causing the value of American labor to decline, and ultimately threatens our way of life as we know it.

Looking around the blogosphere, I notice that the Glitter Eye also sees the problems with Postrel's article:

In Glenn's citing of Virginia Postrel's NYT article he talks about the "surprisingly high benefits of free trade." I certainly believe that's true but there isn't a great deal in Ms. Postrel's article to support it.

And Paul Tuns writes:

What I don't understand is why conservatives -- and Conservatives -- don't do a better job explaining that the benefits of free trade are a result of policies that they fought for and implemented and that the Liberals initially opposed.

Canadian politicans who implemented free trade with the United States have every right to be proud and claim credit, although I can't say that I understand Canadian politics.

Proctor and Gamble to buy Gillette

"Procter & Gamble, the consumer products company, reached an agreement yesterday to acquire the Gillette Company, the shaving-products and battery maker, for about $57 billion in stock, the companies said last night." NY Times.

This big deal raises two questions. (1) Is the deal good for shareholders? (2) Is the deal good for society?

We need to remember that management doesn't necessarily act in the best interest of shareholders. Shareholders only want their stock price to go up. Management may be motivated by (1) a contest to see who has the biggest cajones on Wall Street; (2) boredom (overseeing an historically sized mega-merger is more exciting for management than their regular jobs); (3) making a quick buck in order to cash in on their options, choosing a short term price spike over long term performance; or (4) increasing in their own compensation.

The theoretical synergy behind the deal is to increase the combined company's bargaining power with respect to its customers. This is a motivation that's not in the best interests of society because it's merely a zero sum game. The new company wins at the expense of its customers. Perhaps stores wind up carrying a P&G/Gillette product instead of a superior product manufactured by a smaller company locked out of distribution channels. Society is harmed.

Did lawmakers read my breast implant post?

"Lawmakers trying to plump up the bottom line are considering a 'vanity tax' on cosmetic surgery and Botox injections in Washington, Illinois and other states." ABC News. (Hat tip: Truck and Barter - includes lengthy discussion.)

Maybe the lawmakers read my classic post about taxing breast implants. Or maybe, like Ian at Truck and Barter says, I'm just "prescient."