David McElroy

In Egypt, there’s a lot of conflict right now about what is going to take the place of the previous dictatorship. There’s a new constitution, but the real question is whether the Muslim majority will find a way to impose conservative religious rule. And for those who believe so passionately in democracy, shouldn’t that be good enough if it’s what the majority want?

It would be entirely too easy to just write about the (completely expected) irony of westerners believing that the people of Egypt wanted a secular free state — the way we understand it — when they were in the streets opposing Hosni Mubarak, only to see them impose another form of repressive rule. But that’s sort of like shooting fish in a barrel, so I’m going in another direction.

I’m going to suggest that those demanding a strict Islamic nation should be able to have their way. That might surprise you until I add that they should be able to set up their city/state/enclave and the people who want different systems should be able to set up somewhere else.

Keep Reading

It appears that Democrats and Republicans have reached a deal that’s going to let them happily lock arms and express solidarity in their resolve to “take care of The People.”

I’m disgusted, of course.

For decades, politicians of both parties have periodically gone on spending sprees that would make drunken sailors blush with embarrassment. While each accuses the other of irresponsibility — and each has charts and selective memory to prove its point — they’re both willing to spend when it’s politically expedient with whatever group they want support from.

Republican voters think it’s a sin to cut military spending. The fact that the United States spends more on war than the rest of the world combined doesn’t seem to faze them. The only thing that could make them happy is if every last square inch of the country were turned into a military base or weapons system (except their homes, of course).

Democratic voters think it’s a sin to cut social spending or spending that’s somehow, some way supposed to “help” people. Never mind the fact that every responsible, rational and fair piece of evidence shows that their economic approach to the world doesn’t work. (We’ve been fighting the War on Poverty since the ’60s. Is it time to declare victory and go home?)

Keep Reading

What do you do if you want to buy vegetables? If you’re like most people, you head to the grocery store to buy food grown far away from where you live by people you don’t know under conditions you aren’t sure about. What if you had a choice to buy veggies from somebody around the block instead?

Shamefully, I don’t eat vegetables the way I should, so I can’t remember the last time I’ve been in the vegetable section of a grocery store unless I was on my way to the meat counter. But if I did suddenly become a healthy eater, I’d have a choice that a lot of people don’t have. I could walk two blocks to the house you see above and buy fresh vegetables grown in their yard — all without any licensing or health permits.

I feel pretty certain that this must be against city vending ordinances to do it in a residential area, but this older couple have been doing this ever since before I moved to the neighborhood 20 years ago. They’ve lived there in their modest little house since long before an affluent suburb grew up around them. The mayor of this little suburb lives within 50 yards of the house where these folks live, so I’m sure the city knows about it. Even though my little suburb likes to see itself as progressive and upscale these days, it leaves these people alone. Why? I assume it’s because they’ve been doing it for so long and because the people who live nearby actually like it.

This older couple aren’t going to win any awards for marketing or merchandising displays, but there’s something reassuring and honest about their little operation. I was thinking last night — not for the first time — that what they do is a perfect example of how commerce works when the state doesn’t give orders.

Keep Reading