David McElroy

It was big news in Alabama Thursday when federal prosecutors in Montgomery suffered a humiliating defeat in a public corruption trial. A jury returned not guilty verdicts on many of the charges, but were split on the remainder. There wasn’t a single guilty verdict.

It was a mix of gambling industry tycoons — including Milton McGregor, the guy on the right in this picture — plus state legislators and lobbyists who were accused of trying to give bribes or take bribes to influence legislation that would have legalized new forms of gambling in the state. (The legislation had passed one chamber of the Legislature, but the arrests spooked the politicians and the bill died.)

During the trial, federal prosecutors played tapes of conversations in which politicians, businessmen and lobbyists talked about what it would take to get the bill passed. The lobbyists and gambling people promised campaign contributions to legislators who supported their position.

But here’s the big question. If you can show that certain people wanted legislation passed and were willing to give money to support the politicians who were favorable to what they wanted, how is that any different from anything else in politics? Do people think that campaign contributions are given out of the goodness of people’s hearts? Of course not. Contributions are made to candidates who support whatever you want, whether you’re a business or union or representative of any other narrow interest. How else would you expect people to decide who to contribute to?

I’m not saying that I don’t believe the gambling industry was buying votes. I’m merely saying that’s the way the majoritarian system works.

Keep Reading

I don’t watch presidential candidate “debates” anymore, and last night was no exception. You can usually predict the winner by figuring out which candidate has the lowest IQ and is willing to pander the most. That’s a good fit for the average voter. I don’t have a strong enough stomach to watch that.

I have a lot of friends, though, who are getting excited about Ron Paul‘s chances of winning the Republican nomination. His fundraising is kicking into high gear and his message is starting to catch on with younger people. The momentum is building for a grassroots campaign. Oh, wait. That was 2008, wasn’t it?

I’m having deja vu as I observe my excited libertarian (and some conservative) friends throw their efforts into a new Ron Paul campaign, because it really does feel a lot like 2008. I’m hearing the same things from his supporters. I’m hearing the same vague sense of irrational optimism. I’m having trouble figuring out why such bright people — many of whom I love and respect — are being sucked into a campaign that has no chance of winning. I frequently tell people that it would be easier for me to get my dog, Lucy, elected president than Paul — partly because Lucy never ran for president on a party platform that supported illegal drugs. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Keep Reading

How are folks on the political left reacting to the London riots? Are they horrified to think that this might represent the logical conclusion of teaching people that private property isn’t legitimate? On the contrary, I’d say that the ones I’ve been able to sample are pretty delighted at this “legitimate political act.” They say they want nonviolence, but many of them seem perfectly willing to claim these hooligans as their own.

At the website of the anti-consumerist group, AdBusters, there’s an article right now that’s very clear about where these people stand:

“When we always see looting as nothing but thieving and refuse to grant to it the status of a conscious political act, an outburst of ‘popular justice’ against a corrupt and corrupting capitalist system, we are assuming the point of view of the very forces we are trying to overthrow.”

I want to be equally clear. These aren’t revolutionaries of any political stripe. They’re amoral thugs and looters who want to steal what’s not theirs — simply because they can get away with it. They are the logical consequence of where the welfare state has been gradually leading us for close to a hundred years. It’s going to get worse.

The state does exactly what these looters do. The state has simply learned to do it with bureaucrats and forms in triplicate instead of breaking windows. Despite the nicer face, the state’s demands are always backed with the threat of a gun.