Tag: posts

The Virginia governor’s race is being widely
viewed as a bellwether about…something. It pits the ultimate FOB
(does anyone still remember what that means?) Terry McAuliffe (D)
against the conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), with
a suprisingly popular Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, polling
near on in double digits (read Reason’s
inteview with him).

The latest poll, from Emerson College, has McAuliffe at 42
percent, Cuccinelli at 40 percent, and Sarvis at 13 percent. Not
long ago, McAuliffe was winning in a total rout. Other polls show
the race tightening before the election Tuesday, though nothing as
tight as Emerson’s.
RealClearPolitics’ average has McAuliffe up by about 8 points
and Sarvis just over 10 percent (important because cracking double
digits would guarantee the LP ballot access through 2016).

Depending on who you ask, it’s about how awful the GOP is
overall and their foolhardiness in shutting down the federal
government (which is hugely important to the Old Dominion’s
economy). Or it’s about just how disastrous the Obamacare debacle
really is, or how inexperienced and dirty McAuliffe really is; how
brave and stand-up Cuccinelli is (he was a leader in bringing legal
action against Obamacare) or how insanely socially conservative he
is; or how reckless the Libertarian Party is (depending on whom you
ask, the LP is either gifting the election to McAuliffe or showing
the deepening appetite for a third-party to the Dems and Reps.

I suspect that there’s a mix of all of the above at play in the
race. But this is certainly worth hammering home: The notion that a
third-party candidate, in this case a Libertarian, in any way,
shape, or form “costs” a Democrat or Republican an election is a
category error.

This type of argument was made most famously to
explain the outcome of the 2000 election, which was supposedly
thrown to George W. Bush by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. The
methodology to prove this is simple: You take the spread between
the major party players and then see if a third-party candidate
more votes than that, and blame them. Don’t you see that Nader
obviously tossed the election to Bush, because all of Nader’s
voters would have turned out even if he wasn’t running and would
have voted for Gore…?

There’s a basic logic that seems persuasive, but it glosses over
too many things to really be convincing. In the 2000 election, it
skims over the fact that if Al Gore had been a semi-decent
candidate, he should have won in a rout. He was the VP of a flawed
but effective administration that had overseen a massive and
general increase in wealth (even despite the tech bubble bust at
the very end of the 1990s). This was a guy who had various scandals
of his own on top of Bill Clinton’s and then made the bizarre
decision to show up in orange-face for a
presidential debate and also vaguely physically threaten
Bush at the end of one too. However close – and ultimately
arbitrary – the final vote tally was, Al Gore lost the election
because he was a rotten candidate that voters (and yes, ultimately
the Supreme Court) rejected.

The whole “third party are spoilers” presupposes that the
two major parties have a prior claim on votes and voters, which is
simply wrong. This sort of logic typically get
trotted out by conservatives around election time, when they
suddenly realize that small-L libertarians exist and vote on issues
that go beyond patently unconvincing promises to reduce the size,
scope, and spending of government at any given level. Candidates
such as Cuccinelli, who is by all accounts extremely socially
conservative, are a tough sell to libertarian-minded voters
(45
percent of whom say they identify with the Republican
Party). 

Which is another way of saying: If GOP candidates aren’t
convincing to libertarians, don’t blame libertarians. Don’t
conservatives believe in personal responsibility? Take a look at
the man in the mirror then. Blame a party that has never lived up
to its limited government rhetoric or its insistence that
government should leave people alone as much as possible (in
Virginia, this meant among other things, having Republican
legislators vote against a plan to get the government out
of the liquor business. Really).

Libertarians are incredibly consistent in what they
believe and getting their vote is pretty easy: All you have to do
is present a credible plan to cut the role of government across the
board. As leading libertarian Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

has concisely put it, you have to “embrace liberty in both the
economic and personal spheres.” As I noted in a recent
Time.com column, this isn’t complicated, but it has often
proved a bridge too far for Republicans. That’s their problem and
it may well spell their doom going forward, as libertarian-minded
voters gain numbers and influence:

If the Republicans can’t figure out a way to accommodate broadly
popular, socially tolerant libertarian policies on gay rights, drug
legalization, and more, they will not just lose the race for the
White House in 2016, but quite possibly their status as a major
party.

More here.

Related and highly relevant: Scott Shackford on
which candidate is “losing”
more votes to Sarvis.

The Virginia governor’s race is being widely
viewed as a bellwether about…something. It pits the ultimate FOB
(does anyone still remember what that means?) Terry McAuliffe (D)
against the conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), with
a suprisingly popular Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, polling
near on in double digits (read Reason’s
inteview with him).

The latest poll, from Emerson College, has McAuliffe at 42
percent, Cuccinelli at 40 percent, and Sarvis at 13 percent. Not
long ago, McAuliffe was winning in a total rout. Other polls show
the race tightening before the election Tuesday, though nothing as
tight as Emerson’s.
RealClearPolitics’ average has McAuliffe up by about 8 points
and Sarvis just over 10 percent (important because cracking double
digits would guarantee the LP ballot access through 2016).

Depending on who you ask, it’s about how awful the GOP is
overall and their foolhardiness in shutting down the federal
government (which is hugely important to the Old Dominion’s
economy). Or it’s about just how disastrous the Obamacare debacle
really is, or how inexperienced and dirty McAuliffe really is; how
brave and stand-up Cuccinelli is (he was a leader in bringing legal
action against Obamacare) or how insanely socially conservative he
is; or how reckless the Libertarian Party is (depending on whom you
ask, the LP is either gifting the election to McAuliffe or showing
the deepening appetite for a third-party to the Dems and Reps.

I suspect that there’s a mix of all of the above at play in the
race. But this is certainly worth hammering home: The notion that a
third-party candidate, in this case a Libertarian, in any way,
shape, or form “costs” a Democrat or Republican an election is a
category error.

This type of argument was made most famously to
explain the outcome of the 2000 election, which was supposedly
thrown to George W. Bush by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. The
methodology to prove this is simple: You take the spread between
the major party players and then see if a third-party candidate
more votes than that, and blame them. Don’t you see that Nader
obviously tossed the election to Bush, because all of Nader’s
voters would have turned out even if he wasn’t running and would
have voted for Gore…?

There’s a basic logic that seems persuasive, but it glosses over
too many things to really be convincing. In the 2000 election, it
skims over the fact that if Al Gore had been a semi-decent
candidate, he should have won in a rout. He was the VP of a flawed
but effective administration that had overseen a massive and
general increase in wealth (even despite the tech bubble bust at
the very end of the 1990s). This was a guy who had various scandals
of his own on top of Bill Clinton’s and then made the bizarre
decision to show up in orange-face for a
presidential debate and also vaguely physically threaten
Bush at the end of one too. However close – and ultimately
arbitrary – the final vote tally was, Al Gore lost the election
because he was a rotten candidate that voters (and yes, ultimately
the Supreme Court) rejected.

The whole “third party are spoilers” presupposes that the
two major parties have a prior claim on votes and voters, which is
simply wrong. This sort of logic typically get
trotted out by conservatives around election time, when they
suddenly realize that small-L libertarians exist and vote on issues
that go beyond patently unconvincing promises to reduce the size,
scope, and spending of government at any given level. Candidates
such as Cuccinelli, who is by all accounts extremely socially
conservative, are a tough sell to libertarian-minded voters
(45
percent of whom say they identify with the Republican
Party). 

Which is another way of saying: If GOP candidates aren’t
convincing to libertarians, don’t blame libertarians. Don’t
conservatives believe in personal responsibility? Take a look at
the man in the mirror then. Blame a party that has never lived up
to its limited government rhetoric or its insistence that
government should leave people alone as much as possible (in
Virginia, this meant among other things, having Republican
legislators vote against a plan to get the government out
of the liquor business. Really).

Libertarians are incredibly consistent in what they
believe and getting their vote is pretty easy: All you have to do
is present a credible plan to cut the role of government across the
board. As leading libertarian Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

has concisely put it, you have to “embrace liberty in both the
economic and personal spheres.” As I noted in a recent
Time.com column, this isn’t complicated, but it has often
proved a bridge too far for Republicans. That’s their problem and
it may well spell their doom going forward, as libertarian-minded
voters gain numbers and influence:

If the Republicans can’t figure out a way to accommodate broadly
popular, socially tolerant libertarian policies on gay rights, drug
legalization, and more, they will not just lose the race for the
White House in 2016, but quite possibly their status as a major
party.

More here.

Related and highly relevant: Scott Shackford on
which candidate is “losing”
more votes to Sarvis.

Watch the latest Reason TV collaboration with Remy!

Originally released on October 30, this video is now over the
100,000-view mark at YouTube, a testament to Remy and producer Sean
Malone’s talents – and the ongoing trainwreck that is
Obamacare.

More links, videos, and downloadable versions at Reason.tv.

Here’s the original writeup for the vid:

Remy channels Bobby “Boris”
Pickett for this Healthcare.gov-Halloween
mash-up. 

Written and performed by Remy. Video by Sean Malone. 

About 1.50 minutes. Scroll below for lyrics and and downloadable
versions.

Subscribe to Reason
TV’s YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when
new material go live. Follow Reason on Twitter at @reason.

Follow Remy on Twitter at @goremy and on You Tube here.

For all of Remy and Reason’s collaborations, go
here.

Lyrics:

He was working on his laptop late one night
when his eyes beheld a ghoulish site
He could not log in despite several tries
then suddenly to no one’s surprise

(he did the Mash)
He did the Healthcare Mash
(the Healthcare Mash)
it was a keyboard smash
(he did the Mash)
the website was trash
(he did the Mash)
He did the Healthcare mash

Who could design such a site so flawed and so sloppy?
The code is so ancient, perhaps it was Hammurabi
He’d try to apply but the site would suspend
I’ve seen a eunuch with a more functional front end

(he did the Mash)
He did the Healthcare Mash
(the Healthcare Mash)
it was a keyboard smash
(he did the Mash)
He tried to clear his cache
(he did the Mash)
He did the Healthcare mash

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent
for a website that has trouble loading
How could the government’s web designers
create a site with such awful coding?

(they did the Mash)
Ahh, they did the Healthcare Mash
(the Healthcare Mash)
it was a keyboard smash
(they did the Mash)
they spent all of our cash
(they did the Mash)
They did the Healthcare Mash

Much of the labeling fight that’s going on these days is not so
much about a consumer’s right to adequate information as it is
about a select group forcing the government to unfairly stigmatize
foods they don’t like and that they’re competing against. Take
Washington State’s mandatory GMO labeling ballot initiative, I-522,
which goes before voters in the state next week. A recent report by
Washington State’s independent Academy of Sciences concluded that
I-522 would likely raise grocery prices in the state. Instead of
mandatory labeling, writes Baylen Linnekin, consumers who support
GMO farming or don’t care about GMOs should be free to seek out
foods they want. And if there’s enough support among those
consumers for private “Contains GMO” labeling, then those labels
will likely appear.

View this article.

Much of the labeling fight that’s going on these days is not so
much about a consumer’s right to adequate information as it is
about a select group forcing the government to unfairly stigmatize
foods they don’t like and that they’re competing against. Take
Washington State’s mandatory GMO labeling ballot initiative, I-522,
which goes before voters in the state next week. A recent report by
Washington State’s independent Academy of Sciences concluded that
I-522 would likely raise grocery prices in the state. Instead of
mandatory labeling, writes Baylen Linnekin, consumers who support
GMO farming or don’t care about GMOs should be free to seek out
foods they want. And if there’s enough support among those
consumers for private “Contains GMO” labeling, then those labels
will likely appear.

View this article.

Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard
Kerik served three years in federal prison for tax fraud. Upon
release he gave an interview to the Today show as he
embarked on a new crusade informed by his experiences:
Fighting against mandatory minimums. Politico breaks down the
interview:

“These young men, they come into the prison system. First-time,
non-violent offense, a low-level drug offense: The system is
supposed to help them. Not destroy them,” Kerik said in an
interview on NBC’s “Today” show that aired on Friday.

Kerik criticized the federal mandatory minimum system for
putting people away for 10 years for 5 grams of cocaine, handing
NBC’s Matt Lauer a nickel.

“When I came into the system, I didn’t realize it’s a nickel.
Hold it. Do you feel the weight of it? Feel it?” Kerik said. “I had
no idea that for 5 grams of cocaine, which is what that nickel
weighs, you could be sentenced to 10 years in prison. … That’s
insane.”

As a former police commissioner, Kerik said “no one in the
history of our country” has served prison time with his background,
and that you have to be behind bars to understand what it’s
like “to be a victim of the system.”

That’s a brilliant idea! We should put more law enforcement
officials and politicians behind bars for a couple of years.

The interview can be watched
here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

In their
2012 book Marijuana
Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jonathan
Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars identify the impact
of repealing pot prohibition on alcohol consumption as the most
important thing no one knows. Are cannabis and alcohol complements,
so that drinking can be expected to increase along with pot
smoking? Or are they substitutes, implying that more pot smoking
will mean less drinking? For analysts attempting to calculate the
costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana, the question matters a
lot, because alcohol is considerably more dangerous than marijuana
by most measures. If the two products are complements, states that
legalize marijuana can expect to see more consumption of both,
exacerbating existing health and safety problems. But if the two
products are substitutes, legalizing marijuana can alleviate those
problems by reducing alcohol consumption.

Reviewing the evidence in the Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Montana State University economist D. Mark
Anderson and University of Colorado economist Daniel Rees find
that “studies based on clearly defined natural experiments
generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are
substitutes.” Increasing the drinking age seems to result in more
marijuana consumption, for instance, and pot smoking drops off
sharply at age 21, “suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and
marijuana as substitutes.” Another study found that legalizing
marijuana for medical use is associated with a drop in beer sales
and a decrease in heavy drinking. These results, Anderson and Rees
say, “suggest that, as marijuana becomes more available, young
adults in Colorado and Washington will respond by drinking less,
not more.”

That conclusion is consistent with earlier research
in which Anderson and Rees found that enacting medical marijuana
laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities.
That effect could be due to the fact that marijuana impairs driving
ability much less dramatically than alcohol does, although the fact
that alcohol is more likely to be consumed outside the home
(resulting in more driving under its influence) may play a role as
well.

Anderson and Rees also consider the impact of legalization on
pot smoking by teenagers. Looking at data from the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey from 1993 through 2011, they see “little evidence
of a relationship between legalizing medical marijuana and the use
of marijuana among high school students.” Narrowing the focus to
California after medical marijuana dispensaries began
proliferating, they find “little evidence that marijuana use among
Los Angeles high school students increased in the mid-2000s.” It
actually went down from 2007 and 2009, then rose from 2009 to 2011,
but that increase was mirrored in three comparison cities (Boston,
Chicago, and Dallas) without dispensaries.

Anderson and Rees note that UCLA drug policy expert Mark
Kleiman, who co-wrote Marijuana Legalization and has
been advising Washington’s cannabis regulators, recently
described a worst-case scenario for legalization featuring an
increase in heavy drinking, “carnage on our highways,” and a
“massive” increase in marijuana consumption among teenagers.
“Kleiman’s worst-case scenario is possible, but not likely,” they
conclude. “Based on existing empirical evidence, we expect that the
legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington
will lead to increased marijuana consumption coupled with decreased
alcohol consumption. As a consequence, these states will experience
a reduction in the social harms resulting from alcohol use. While
it is more than likely that marijuana produced by state-sanctioned
growers will end up in the hands of minors, we predict that overall
youth consumption will remain stable. On net, we predict the
public-health benefits of legalization to be positive.”

I noted
Rees and Anderson’s research on marijuana legalization and car
crashes in Reason last year.

In their
2012 book Marijuana
Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jonathan
Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars identify the impact
of repealing pot prohibition on alcohol consumption as the most
important thing no one knows. Are cannabis and alcohol complements,
so that drinking can be expected to increase along with pot
smoking? Or are they substitutes, implying that more pot smoking
will mean less drinking? For analysts attempting to calculate the
costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana, the question matters a
lot, because alcohol is considerably more dangerous than marijuana
by most measures. If the two products are complements, states that
legalize marijuana can expect to see more consumption of both,
exacerbating existing health and safety problems. But if the two
products are substitutes, legalizing marijuana can alleviate those
problems by reducing alcohol consumption.

Reviewing the evidence in the Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Montana State University economist D. Mark
Anderson and University of Colorado economist Daniel Rees find
that “studies based on clearly defined natural experiments
generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are
substitutes.” Increasing the drinking age seems to result in more
marijuana consumption, for instance, and pot smoking drops off
sharply at age 21, “suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and
marijuana as substitutes.” Another study found that legalizing
marijuana for medical use is associated with a drop in beer sales
and a decrease in heavy drinking. These results, Anderson and Rees
say, “suggest that, as marijuana becomes more available, young
adults in Colorado and Washington will respond by drinking less,
not more.”

That conclusion is consistent with earlier research
in which Anderson and Rees found that enacting medical marijuana
laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities.
That effect could be due to the fact that marijuana impairs driving
ability much less dramatically than alcohol does, although the fact
that alcohol is more likely to be consumed outside the home
(resulting in more driving under its influence) may play a role as
well.

Anderson and Rees also consider the impact of legalization on
pot smoking by teenagers. Looking at data from the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey from 1993 through 2011, they see “little evidence
of a relationship between legalizing medical marijuana and the use
of marijuana among high school students.” Narrowing the focus to
California after medical marijuana dispensaries began
proliferating, they find “little evidence that marijuana use among
Los Angeles high school students increased in the mid-2000s.” It
actually went down from 2007 and 2009, then rose from 2009 to 2011,
but that increase was mirrored in three comparison cities (Boston,
Chicago, and Dallas) without dispensaries.

Anderson and Rees note that UCLA drug policy expert Mark
Kleiman, who co-wrote Marijuana Legalization and has
been advising Washington’s cannabis regulators, recently
described a worst-case scenario for legalization featuring an
increase in heavy drinking, “carnage on our highways,” and a
“massive” increase in marijuana consumption among teenagers.
“Kleiman’s worst-case scenario is possible, but not likely,” they
conclude. “Based on existing empirical evidence, we expect that the
legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington
will lead to increased marijuana consumption coupled with decreased
alcohol consumption. As a consequence, these states will experience
a reduction in the social harms resulting from alcohol use. While
it is more than likely that marijuana produced by state-sanctioned
growers will end up in the hands of minors, we predict that overall
youth consumption will remain stable. On net, we predict the
public-health benefits of legalization to be positive.”

I noted
Rees and Anderson’s research on marijuana legalization and car
crashes in Reason last year.

Belgian lawmakers are
considering a bill that, if made law, would allow children under 18
to end their own lives.

According to
kirotv the bill, which has popular support, would require the
parents of the child who wants to end their life to consent and for
an expert to deem the child capable of understanding their decision
before being helped to die.

The Washington Post explains some of the arguments put
forward by advocates of the bill and the current status of adult
euthanasia in Belgium:

Advocates argue that euthanasia for children, with the consent
of their parents, is necessary to give families an option in a
desperately painful situation. But opponents have questioned
whether children can reasonably decide to end their own lives.

Belgium is already a euthanasia pioneer; it legalized the
practice for adults in 2002. In the last decade, the number of
reported cases per year has risen from 235 deaths in 2003 to 1,432
in 2012, the last year for which statistics are available. Doctors
typically give patients a powerful sedative before injecting
another drug to stop their heart.

Carine Boucher of the European Center for Bio-ethics, believes
that children lack the maturity to request euthanasia.

From
UPI:

Two thirds of Belgians reportedly favor the euthanasia
expansion. Euthanasia deaths in Belgium rose to 1,432 in 2012
compared to 235 in 2003.

But critics think the proposal goes too far.

“The child does not have the maturity to get married or to buy
alcohol or to buy cigarettes if he is 14. Now we are saying that
because he is suffering, he might have the possibility to ask for
euthanasia,” said Carine Boucher of the European Center for
Bio-ethics in Brussels. “Who will give the suggestion to the child
that one of the solutions is euthanasia? A child doesn’t know what
euthanasia is. A child doesn’t know what death is.”

The Post’s reporting on the proposed bill comes after a

transsexual was helped to die in Belgium last month after
failed sex-change operations.

Children are a difficult subject for libertarians, who put a lot
of value in an individual’s ability to know what is best for them
and in their ability to make choices about what to do with their
body. In many jurisdictions some people under the age of 18 are
deemed mature enough to drive, sign up for organ donation,
join
the military (with
parental consent), and have sex, but are not deemed mature enough
to vote or smoke.

Below is a discussion between Prof. David Friedman and Stefan
Molyneux on libertarian parenting:

So, readers, what
should those under 18 be prohibited from doing, and how should this
be decided? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

• A
  gunman opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport.
  Information is still sketchy in the media, but reports say a TSA
  agent was killed. The gunman has been reported both in custody and
  dead and several others were injured.
• A federal appeals court has struck down the mandate that health
  insurance provided by employers must cover
  birth control.
• Nasdaq is having more
  tech problems, which shut down trading today.
• A U.S. drone strike in Pakistan has
  killed a Taliban leader, which may well sabotage peace efforts
  between Pakistan and the terrorist group.
• More
  part-time college professors are joining unions, which will
  help inflate that education bubble quite nicely.
• 
  Turn your clocks back an hour on Sunday because the government
  told you to.

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7
content widgets for your
websites.

Follow us on Facebook
and Twitter,
and don’t forget to sign
up for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.