Archives for May 2004

Being a complete sucker for good sci-fi special effects, I went to see The Day After Tomorrow. Unbelievably well done, and in that respect alone, it’s an entertaining movie. As for the subject matter, well, there’s not much to say. Anyone who cares to spend only the briefest space of time gathering their own information will plainly see that the science of global warming and massive climate change are not nearly as settled as one-half of the circus vying for political power (and their media soul mates) would have you believe. In fact, even if you accept that the earth is warming, you still are left with showing that man’s industrial and consumption activities cause anything more than negligible effects on such global events. From there, you need to show that such warming will cause net harm to civilization rather than net benefit.

A lot of dots to connect, which is why most real scientists hold the only tenable position on the matter: inconclusive.

Returning to the film, it was only after a few minutes that I was gratified to realize that the Church of the Environment had relegated itself to the same level as those who have been predicting the return of Jesus Christ for centuries, along with all the comparable cataclysmic ends.

The story and pictures. And here’s the official page for the two guys who put it together.

Joshua Holmes at No Treason sure opened the flood gates in a post about how libertarians, normally allied against statism, are quite divided in their positions on The War.

…the War on Terror and the War on Iraq have separated the libertarians who mean it and the libertarians who are faking it.

He concludes:

Really, what separates we libertarians from market-oriented conservatives is that radical critique of the power of the state. More than empty small government conservative promises, the libertarian critique says the power of the state is so immoral that it must either be drastically limited or completely abolished. Saying, “Boy, I hope the Bushies get their act together in Iraq!” isn’t a critique a libertarian makes. A libertarian goes right to the heart of the problem: the state.

When I first read it a few days ago, I really didn’t think much of it. While I regret that we are at war, as any sane person would, I also understand that there are a lot of things in play. Sometimes in life, you are not able to get to a place you want [or have] to be without going through a place you’d rather not traverse. Running a very complex company, I’m confronted with these sorts of scenarios every day. While age and maturity bring clarity of principles, the added responsibility and accountability that goes along with it can complicate matters beyond easy reconciliation. It’s a “real-life thing.”

So, I was meandering about this morning and discovered that Holmes’ post had spurred quite a regalia of libertarian dissent. Here’s a money quote from Greg Swann:

What argument are you making? That pretend-libertarian vigilante assholes are bad guys? I agree. That Batman is insane? I agree. That people can make mistakes? There’s a revelation. Is it your claim that doing nothing in response to Islamism will have happy consequences? That would be incorrect. We are lucky that libertarians on either side of this debate are mere ballast. I would that my position with respect to Western Civilization were better understood by Bush and Blair, et alia, but the contrary strategy, cavil and cower, is absurd on its face. A radical critique of the state is a fine thing, just as much as a radical critique of a restaurant. But we shouldn’t confuse them with freedom or dinner. The libertarian argument will be no less true when our granddaughters are forced to wear burqas. But that is a fate that mere argument will not forestall.

To get what Greg means about “Batman,” above, see this post. At any rate, going through all the comments, as well as all the references linked to in the comments is a worthwhile experience. After going through all of it, I’ve got to say “advantage Swann,” although I’d have to credit John Lopez with at least a wound in his comment about Swann embracing utilitarianism.

After many years of having a minimalist website for my company, and now that we’re getting to be upwards of 40 employees, it was time to do a complete redesign.

You can view it here.

In the May ’04 issue of Reason, in an article entitled It’s So Simple, It’s Ridiculous, Brian Doherty gives a pretty comprehensive account of the current tax protest movement in America. Brian also posts a piece to Hit & Run that references his Reason article, as well as one in the New York Times. What sparked my interest here, more than the article in Reason, which I had already read, were the comments to Brian’s post. I suggest you look them over.

The comment I posted pretty much sums up the nature of what I read:

In reviewing the comments, it appears to me that there are two separate issues being conflated. The first issue is whether taxation, as administered, is legal. The second issue is whether taxation, as administered, is moral. The key to differentiating these issues lies in first asking oneself the question: “are laws necessarily moral?” Slavery was legal, but was it moral?

I think that tax protesters miss the boat entirely. Taxation is clearly legal. But, since I believe that all rights are individual rights, which means that associations of individuals (as in “governments”) possess no more rights than individuals possess, then the government has no more right to rob me than you do.

But the real rub is contained in the realization that it doesn’t matter whether the tax protesters are correct or not in their claims that there is no law requiring persons to file or pay income tax. Observe this excerpt from the Reason article, cited above:

Most significantly, a tax honesty true believer named Vernice Kuglin, a vivacious and attractive Federal Express pilot who has a crowd of admirers following her everywhere during the conference, was slammed with criminal charges for failure to file and for tax evasion. She beat the rap in August, acquitted of all charges by a federal jury in Memphis.

Also last year, Texas plastics manufacturer Dick Simkanin was finally brought to trial for failure to withhold income taxes for his dozens of employees. Simkanin had been a poster child in We The People-sponsored ads in USA Today, featured as a businessman who honestly believes it is his right under law not to withhold. Two grand juries who had gotten to speak to Simkanin failed even to indict him. Finally a third grand jury, whom he didn’t get to speak to, did indict. But at the end of his first trial in November, the jurors could not reach a verdict, with 11 out of 12 favoring acquittal.

Both these events occasioned great rejoicing in the tax honesty community. But both had grimmer denouements. Kuglin stayed out of jail, but she was slapped with civil liens for past taxes due and penalties. These days she’s only collecting around $290 per pay period from her FedEx job, with the rest snatched by the IRS. Simkanin was promptly retried and found guilty in January, and he now faces a potential 129 years in prison.

How the Simkanin case played out should give the tax honesty movement pause. Judge John McBryde was not entirely fair to his client, says Simkanin’s lawyer, Arch McColl, who spoke at the conference. Schulz and other movement heroes testified on Simkanin’s behalf in vain. McBryde prevented McColl from mounting a real defense, the attorney complains, sustaining the prosecutors’ objections almost every time he tried to raise tax honesty arguments.

The jury sent back a question to the judge asking to see the codes that directly stated Simkanin was required to withhold. (Some of the defendant’s ideas clearly had gotten through.) The judge told them simply to trust him when he said the law required Simkanin to withhold — essentially directing the verdict, since Simkanin never denied not withholding. (McColl has strong expectations that this response, among other things, will help guarantee a successful appeal.)

I really hate to have to keep pointing this out, but this is what happens whenever you concede the premise, particularly to a totalitarian thug who is prepared to crush you no matter what. In this regard, the tax protester movement actually does far more harm that good. These bunch of well-meaning nitwits go around telling the lawmakers, courts, media and everyone else what amounts to: “it’s perfectly fine to rob me, but please make it legal, first.”

It’s sad. When you can’t even count on people whom the article calls “staunch exemplars of America’s glorious Protestant heritage” to differentiate between “legalities” and moral principles, who can you count on?