David McElroy

If you needed evidence that Michele Bachmann is just another opportunistic demagogue — and not a very bright one at that — you need look no further than her promise to bring gasoline prices down to $2 a gallon.

There are two ways for the price of gasoline to fall that far right now. One would be if the economy plummeted further and demand fell dramatically. The other is if the government artificially imposed price controls. Let’s be very clear about this. A president cannot control gasoline prices — unless that president is going to use coercion.

Bachmann claims she will achieve her populist miracle by opening up new areas to drilling. I think that’s a good idea, but the amount of oil that can be taken from those areas is a drop in the bucket compared to world demand and U.S. demand. It’s not enough to shave prices at all, much less as much as she’s claiming.

Keep Reading

It’s time for the liberty movement and some people loosely associated with us to take a hard look at something that’s been ignored for too long. We have some vile bigots among us — and it’s time to speak the truth about it.

I tend to be very open-minded about the discussion that I’ll allow in forums that I control, whether it’s in the comments here or on Facebook. There are very, very few reasons for which I’ll block people or delete comments, but wholesale, outright bigotry is one of them.

Earlier today on Facebook, I posted a question for discussion that concerned where the concept of majoritarian superiority came from. Is it somehow a natural part of human psychology or did it come about at some point in history? (My guess was that it probably started somewhere during the Enlightenment.) One of my recently acquired acquaintances on there had this to say in response:

“It stems from the Jews. The Jews have manipulated history to advance their own worldview, whether to create sympathy or world domination.”

I want to make one this very clear. If you’re going to blame “the Jews” for random things and talk about their alleged worldview of “world domination,” you’re not a friend of mine. Period. No exceptions. If you don’t understand why that’s unacceptable, there’s no way I could possibly explain it to you. I’ll defend your right to set up your own enclave of bigots and live the way you choose, but we’re not really friends. That’s evil, and it goes too far for me to be able to ignore.

For too long, I think some of us have sat by uncomfortably and failed to confront things that need confronting among those who claim to stand for individual freedom. We’ve generally done it in the name of tolerance and accepting a person’s freedom to hold his or her own beliefs. But just because a person is legally and otherwise entitled to his own beliefs, that’s no reason for us to remain silent in the face of evil.

Keep Reading

Some people believe that seasteading is a crazy idea. For instance, Dr. Margaret Crawford, a prominent expert on urban planning (who’s also an architecture professor at Berkley) says it’s “a silly idea without any urban-planning implications whatsoever.” Isn’t that the reaction of the establishment anytime anyone suggests something that might upset the status quo?

I don’t think I want to live on the ocean. You might not, either. But even those of us who don’t want to go this route should benefit from the project being successful, so I’m a big cheerleader for it. I’ve covered this before, but there are new things going on, so this is a bit of an update.

Seasteading is simply the radical idea that we can build places to live out in the ocean. Think of it as a cruise ship that never calls at a port. Away from the jurisdiction of existing states, there’s nothing to stop independent groups from setting up their own independent entities — with their own rules. In other words, it has the possibility of putting a lot of pressure on the nation-states if productive people take up residence outside of their ability to tax them and control them.

Keep Reading