Steven Yates writes about a libertarian point of view on Affirmative Action.
Consider a basketball season in which certain teams play by all the familiar rules and others are compelled to play with each player having one arm tied behind his back.
No one, of course, would consider such games fair.
Now suppose someone proposed that for the next several seasons those teams whose players had been untied, were now to play all their games with an arm tied behind their backs, while those who had been tied up, now had both arms free.
Would turnabout be fair play?
Before answering, let’s improve the analogy. Let’s observe that there has been a complete turnover of players. All those who played in the first set of games have retired. The current players, therefore, are newcomers none of whom were involved with the original practice.
Now let’s ask again: would turnabout be fair?
For me this article had a “jaw hits floor” quality. How about legislation saying that no composer can lose blood, sweat, and tears over a masterwork? Bach, after all, wrote the equivalent of twenty pages of music a day. He likely had some form of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Note that private solutions can alleviate the noise problem. Some orchestras increase the spacing between players. Some musicians use earplugs. Sometimes an orchestra will put plexiglass screens in front of the trombones. Or you don’t have to join an orchestra in the first place.
The Binary Circumstance comments on The Death of Politics.
The role of government has grown substantially since 1969 and their is no sign of that growth slowing down any time soon. It is my firm conviction that this is because government almost literally breeds government by creating an environment that is hostile to humans who are best adapted to live in freedom while providing a selective genetic advantage to those who are well-adapted to live in a politically predatory environment.
JD Roth writes about Democracy in America, a book that is sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be read.
For example, you’ve heard that “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”? Here’s Tocqueville’s slightly different take:
Men are not corrupted by the exercise of power or debased by the habits of obedience, but by the exercise of a power which they believe to be illegal and by obedience to a rule which they consider to be usurped and oppressive.
That nugget made me set the book aside and cogitate for several minutes. I don’t agree. I think that power itselfdoes tend to corrupt, though perhaps not always. And how many people believe that whatever power they might possess is illegal? Doesn’t everyone in power believe that they deserve their power, have earned the right to be in their position? His point regarding obedience makes more sense