Categories
Thought

C. S. Lewis

It essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. That is how it can deceive men of good will. The error began, with Shelley’s statement that the distinction between mercy and justice was invented in the courts of tyrants. It sounds noble, and was indeed the error of a noble mind. But the distinction is essential. The older view was that mercy ‘tempered’ justice, or (on the highest level of all) that mercy and justice had met and kissed. The essential act of mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient. If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a gumboil or a club foot? But the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. This means that you start being ‘kind’ to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which no on but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties. You have overshot the mark. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. That is the important paradox. As there are plants which will flourish only in mountain soil, so it appears that Mercy will flower only when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice; transplanted to the marshlands of mere Humanitarianism, it becomes a man-eating weed, all the more dangerous because it is still called by the same name as the mountain variety.

Categories
national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Let’s Jump!

When I was a kid, my mother would rhetorically ask, “If your friends jumped off a cliff, Paul, would you?”

Moot question now. My friends don’t dare jump, nor do my political enemies. Face it, Ma, nobody wants to do a swan dive off the fiscal cliff.

Except for me.

It now appears that enough House Republicans will join Democrats in voting to raise taxes on the so-called “wealthy,” thus hiking up taxes on some of my countrymen. It will do little to raise revenue, and nothing to control spending.

We taxpayers should stand together. I oppose being divided and conquered. And when they ask us to turn over Spartacus — er, the wealthy — we should each declare, “I am wealthy!”

Debt-delivering, big-spending politicians relentlessly provide us with pious pronouncements to the effect that, though we simply must stop piling up such debt and cut wasteful and out-of-control spending, because such fiscal responsibility remains unthinkable, at present, we must postpone responsibility till later.

They see the fiscal cliff and insist we climb higher.

Let’s face this fiscal cliff honestly, let’s not pretend that the acme of responsibility is funding government on the backs of the few. Besides, if there is no political will to make spending cuts today or tomorrow, why would anyone expect such backbone to miraculous appear . . . later?

I see the cliff and say, “Let’s jump!” While we can still land safely.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom U.S. Constitution

Equally Unequal

Two court cases come to our attention, courtesy of Cato’s Ilya Shapiro. Both involve the favoring of members of one group over another.

The Sixth Circuit ruled that a voter-approved amendment to the Michigan state constitution outlawing racial preferences in college admissions would violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The amendment states in part that Michigan public colleges and universities shall “not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. . . .”

In his dissent, Judge Richard Griffin writes: “The post-Civil War amendment that guarantees equal protection to persons of all races has now been construed as barring a state from prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race.” Shapiro calls the decision Orwellian.

The other case involves California law banning sellers of eyewear who are not state-licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists from conducting eye exams and selling glasses at the same place of business. The law prevents national eyewear chains from competing effectively in California (since customers prefer to get their glasses and eye exams in one shop).

Cato joins an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the California case. Shapiro also says that because there are two conflicting lower-court decisions on the Michigan question, the Supreme Court is likely to add that case to its docket.

Let’s hope all further rulings are based on a clear-sighted respect for equal rights under the law.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Thought

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall video

On the Road in South America, Part Three

Last Friday, at the 2012 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy in Montevideo, Uruguay, Paul interviewed Daniela Bozhinova, a Bulgarian Green Party and direct democracy activist. Daniela spent the better part of a year studying initiative & referendum in the United States as a Fulbright scholar and you might be surprised by what she has to say.

Paul returns from his South American travels today.

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall video

Video: On the Road in South America, Part Two

Taking a few moments away from the main events of the Global Conference on Direct Democracy, an interview:

More to come.

Categories
Today

Nov 16 US recognized

On November 16, 1776, the Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Netherlands) recognized the independence of the United States of America. The date in 1811 marks the birth of free trade advocate and British politician John Bright.

Categories
term limits

No a la Reelección

Her name is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and she’s Argentina’s president. She is apparently chafing under the country’s presidential term limits.

The last time I wrote about Mrs. Kirchner, five years ago, I had some advice: “Don’t cheer for Cristina, Argentina.” Thankfully, the Argentines aren’t cheering. In Beunos Aires, “Throngs of people banged pots and pans Thursday, as they protested government policies in Argentina,” relates a CNN report:

The massive march was the latest in a series of “cacerolazos,” protests named for the cooking pots participants hit to draw attention to problems they say are growing in the South American nation, including crime rates, inflation and political corruption.

Many demonstrators said a key issue drove them to the streets: the possibility that President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner could push through changes to the country’s constitution and run for re-election.

Term limits. The people want them, and if the signs at the protest rallies are any indication, Argentines are against “Corrupcion,” oppose Kirchner’s “Reelección,” and are for “Libertad.”

And here in the putative Land of Liberty, a Miami, Florida, neighborhood known as Little Buenos Aires heard pots and pans clanging, too, as marchers expressed sympathy with friends and relatives in the Southern Hemisphere: “We are not afraid” and “We don’t want a communist Argentina.”

The full story of the protests, which have been going on since June, echo some of the issues and criticisms that were pushed for and charged against both Tea Party and Occupier protests in past years here in America. There’s talk of secret partisanship, even “astro-turf.”

But fear of dynastic rule isn’t confined to any party, or require any special organization.

For Argentines, I wish only the best: “Libertad.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

P.S. I will be in Buenos Aires later today — this evening, actually — and if I find anything to modify or amplify this story, you can be sure I’ll do so at thisiscommonsense.com.

Categories
crime and punishment

When It’s Smart to Play Dumb

In 1993, I was in Russia to witness Boris Yeltsin’s first referendums, which was perhaps the high point of Russian democracy.

Along with the sweep of history, I also remember boarding a midnight train from Moscow to St. Petersburg and being accosted by some kind of Russian gendarme. This fellow berated me in words none of which I understood. I could tell he wanted something from me (money, probably). So I stood there looking bewildered and playing dumb — my specialty — until the guy finally lapsed into frustrated silence and I could walk away. Another Russian later told me that it was indeed a shakedown attempt.

The incident came to mind when I heard about a recent attempted robbery down in Tampa. Three masked thugs spilled into a Chinese restaurant and demanded the contents of the cash register. According to a brief report, the trio “left empty-handed after the restaurant workers who only spoke Cantonese couldn’t understand what the English-speaking suspects were saying.” At one point, a gun went off when the would-be robbers banged the cash register with it.

The report states that the “botched robbery” was caused by a “failure to understand English.” Well, maybe the workers knew little English. But they knew what the robbers wanted. The workers played dumb. More basically, they refused to cooperate.

Risky. I’m not saying you should try this at home. But sometimes being too dumb to be victimized is the smartest thing you can do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall video

On the Road in South America, Part One

This week Paul Jacob is traveling down south — way down south. Here he reports from the Lima, Peru, airport, explaining what he’s up to:

If all goes according to plan, he’ll report a few more times while in South America, and after.

You can view this video in HD, here.