Links for May 31, 2011

  • A glimpse into our future?

  • I’d like to follow the Gary Johnson campaign.

  • Naturally, any fan of the 4th Amendment can look at this scenario and wonder what’s to stop police from “smelling” marijuana and “hearing” evidence being destroyed any time they have an urge to enter a particular dwelling. What does destruction of evidence sound like anyway, and what doesn’t it sound like? Doesn’t someone jumping up to destroy evidence sound the same as someone jumping up to answer the door before police kick it down?

    I have not yet read the full opinion, but a flushing toilet is probably sufficient. If you have to doo-doo, you should wait until the police leave the premises.

  • But the correctness of Austrian theory is beside the point. Because if it was ever applied in practice by actual politicians, the voting public would become more than just annoyed.

    Reality is apparently too inconvenient for the voting public.  Tom Woods responds.

  • Jeffrey Tucker decries government bans on including phosphates in dishwasher detergent. A wise and trusted friend of mine dismissed this article as mere crybaby whining. He writes:

    Each person is not an island. Their actions have direct and indirect effects on others. Some of these effects aren’t known yet, some may never be known. I don’t know if phosphorus or water or the chlorine we use to purify municipal water, it doesn’t matter; once a link, even a potential one is is identified we should take action to mitigate. If people have to deal with gritty dishes so be it.

    There has to be a limit to this. I would not forego substantial present benefits to avoid speculative, theoretical future harms. Moreover, if people actually are mistakenly spending hundreds of dollars on repairmen and new dishwashing equipment because they are unaware of the government’s ban, I would describe that as a legitimate grievance that rises above the level of crybaby whining.

  • It’s amazing how cavalierly Heather dismisses the former Comptroller General as engaging in “hackery”. My concern with Heather’s reasoning is that she conflates “the full faith and credit of the United states” and “money”. Heather believes that if a thing has “the backing” of Federal government, then it must therefore be fully funded. I don’t find these ideas to be interchangeable.

  • I can’t eat an ipad

  • Say hello to back-alley abortions by the score, Mr. LaBruzzo. I hope you love ’em! Well, either that or people will get their abortions elsewhere.

  • My one-liner answer is that a good job is a job that both parties, employer and employee, agree to.

  • The singing is not so great.

  • Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    %d bloggers like this: