Getting the Great Depression Right

The Great Depression was one of the toughest economic times in US history, and we should be clear that we should never want it to happen again.

Sadly, most of us have taken away the completely wrong lessons from the Great Depression. Most of us think that FDR's New Deal had a positive effect on the economy... that continued to crash for nine years after he got into office. The Washington Post has a wonderful article describing five ways that government interventionism worsened the Depression and prevented a recovery--and why we must now be weary of getting into a similarly suicidal mindset.

In short:
1) Protectionism won't make it better, promise. See: China of the 1950's-1978, Argentina and Venezuela now. Also, when you raise tariffs, so will everyone else, and your paltry exports will drop to zero.
2) Punishing the stock market whenever it turns down scares companies away from risk-taking (that is: investment).
3) Jacking up taxes during a downturn doesn't stimulate the economy, seriously.
4) When the government tries to run the economy, the rich retreat and sip martinis, watching it all crash down.
5) "Bold, persistent experimentation" will scare the crap out of anyone trying to invest capital. Companies like environments that are going to stay the same, markets that are going to stick around, regulations that are not going to come out of the woodwork and make their operations arbitrarily difficult without warning.

The Artistic Value of the Cum Shot

So, I came across this fairly amusing article about a porn star who is also working on a law degree. Apparently the reason she has embarked on this unusual career path is because she wants to campaign for worker protection- specifically for STDs:

According to a recent study Traci cites, for example, the rates of Chlamydia infections alone among adult film actors are about fifty-seven times higher than what state officials consider epidemic proportions. And she can vouch for the problem firsthand. “I haven’t seen a dick with no bumps on it in a long time. It’s gross.”

Fighting for increased health and safety rights and other legal protections for adult film performers has been a major part of Traci’s life for the past few years, and is part of the reason she decided to go to law school in the first place.

I've run across the idea of condom-only porn before, but objections have included (mostly jokingly) the artistic value of the cum shot. And again, I reveal myself to be a libertarian of convenience... I wouldn't be that averse to porn producers having to screen their actors for STDs/using condoms if it meant that the mastrubatory fantasies of teenage boys would no longer have to include a strange burning sensation after the act...

:)

Though I think part of the problem is that the actors in the porn industry don't have that much power. Would this be less of an issue if porn production were legal in more states? If the whole thing weren't questionably legal in many places?

I hope so, because I prefer my porn herpes free. And angry kitten friendly.

What do You Know About Drinking?

Apparently our lawmakers are under the impression that our college professors are wholly inept at being able to decide whether or not students are ready to drink at 18--or whether it might help our binge drinking problem. After all, they're stuffy professors in ivory university towers.

Want an Awesome President?

Want someone that would be willing to call the Europeans "girly men?" A Republican that will carry California? Looking to laugh at a presidential campaign instead of cry?

Arnold Schwarzenneger for President.

Seriously: the "Native-born only" clause in the US Constitution is actually pretty silly for a country built by the tired, sick, and downtrodden immigrants of Europe (even, perhaps, its bodybuilders) and other illustrious regions of the world. I understand the point in the past was that European nobles couldn't show up and take power in the US, even if the US people were foolish enough to want it, but it's a rather antiquated piece of supreme legislation that we could really do without.

Back to our humble roots

Exciting news- LA has decided that banning new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods is an awesome idea. This is such a silly idea that even William Saletan, the hopelessly bleeding heart liberal who writes Slate's Human Nature blog, thinks it's a terrible idea. Somewhat adorably, he says:

I assumed this idea would go nowhere because we Americans don't like government restrictions on what we eat. You can nag us. You can regulate what our kids eat in school. But you'll get our burgers when you pry them from our cold, dead hands.

How did the L.A. City Council get around this resistance? By spinning the moratorium as a way to create more food choices, not fewer. And by depicting poor people, like children, as less capable of free choice.

The thing that actually made me angry, like a kitten denied a cheeseburger, though, was the response one of Slate's XX Factor bloggers, Amaka Maduka had to say in response-

Shouldn't a poorer neighborhood have the option of an actual organic market or a restaurant that offers fresh ingredients? The higher cost of these healthier foods isn't necessarily prohibitive either; it may just mean that families will be exchanging quantity for quality. That means smaller portion sizes and a healthier meal.

(Luckily, at least her colleague has a bit of sense) But it's exactly this kind of condescending and rather misguided attitude that makes me glad I don't identify as liberal. Do people honestly think that at a time where businesses like Whole Foods are struggling to make a profit because their food is so expensive, organic markets are suddenly going to set up shop in poor neighborhoods? Seems highly unlikely. I mean, I eat like a hippie*, and I still try to avoid shopping at Whole Foods. I hardly think people who lack parental lifestyle subsidies would make a decision different from mine.

*No, really. My favorite food these days is Greek Quinoa and Avocado Salad. And I never eat fast food.

Now for something more exciting than budget balancing

As you may have read in the Volokh Conspiracy, the Fifth Circuit is holding its ground in maintaining that banning the sale of dildos in Texas is totally unconstitutional. Luckily for us (or not), the Seventh Circuit thinks that Alabama's ban on them is all good, so presumably the Supreme Court will be hearing it sometime soon. I look forward to hearing what Scalia has to say on sex toys. Perhaps that the Founders felt no need for sex toys, because they were virile and manly?

On a more serious note, though. I can't quite understand what kind of stick you would have to have up your ass to want to ban sex toys, but it bothers me slightly that substantive due process is what we turn to when we try to justify some libertarian ideas as constitutional. I do think that people have a broad right to sexual privacy, but I feel like substantive due process is just a random phrase for whatever the Supreme Court thinks are "rights that you should probably have that the writers of the Constitution didn't really envision." I mean, on one level I know that amending the constitution is probably just a little harder than it should be, but this seems like a pretty silly hack to fix that problem.

Worried About High Taxes Under Obama?

If you're middle class, you don't need to worry! He'll give you more tax rebates to offset the cost of your energy bill. So, how are we paying for his massive spending campaign?

We'll tax the rich more, of course. I'm sure they can handle it. It's not like they have as much of a right to their property as you do, so don't worry about anything like that.

Budget Fail

Well, Mr. Bush announced today that we'd have the biggest dollar-by-dollar defecit in history in 2009 (although as a % of GDP, it's 3.3%, compared to 6% in 1983). If the Bush presidency has done one thing for the Libertarian party, it's been that small-government fiscal conservatives have grown so upset with the Republican party that many have fled--some becoming independents, and some Libertarians.

But the Libertarians aren't going to win, and the Republicans are going to lose even more seats than in 2006, so they won't have any chance to fiscally redeem themselves for a long time. Luckily, Mr. Obama (who's likely to win the election), has a concrete plan of domestic policies in line with smart government and balancing the budget.

Oh, he doesn't? Well, we're fucked.

Calling All Angry Kittens

Fellow Libertarians,

Unlike my mostly-private foreign policy blog, I'm hoping Angry Kitten Blog will be a place for fellow Libertarians to be able to post and discuss the stuff that interests and angers them. We're looking for a few good Angry Kittens; but nothing too serious is required.

Feel free to email me (follow the "profile" link) if you're interested.

Meow.

--Erik