Tag: Brian Doherty

Categories
crime and punishment

Crazed Killers, Columnist

Following the recent Navy yard shooting . . . much talk of gun control.

But the more “clever” and “sophisticated” response is to advocate cracking down on crazy people. You know, “put away” people who are a danger to themselves and others. So argues Charles Krauthammer, the psychiatrist-turned-columnist.

Not so fast, writes Brian Doherty at Reason: “No, Arbitrarily Locking Up People Instead of Restricting Guns Isn’t a Good Option Either.”

There are all sorts of things we could do . . . to violate the rights of citizens because they are in a class that sometimes but really hardly ever goes on to commit a crime. Of course, it’s best, as Krauthammer does, to say it’s not just for our (possibly presumed) good that we do it: it’s for theirs.

Wanting a quick cure for the problem of mass shootings is not the same thing as having one.* Doherty notes that, “like most gun control solutions offered,” the idea of locking up the mentally ill is “just one more thing to say that pretends on the surface to be a solution” but that “would not necessarily have prevented the particular problem.”

Science has come a long way, but studies show, as fellow Reason writer Jacob Sullum recently put it, that even “mental health professionals are notoriously bad at predicting which of the world’s many misfits, cranks, and oddballs will become violent.”

An easy fix? Science fictional, not scientific. And we know what science fiction says about locking people up for institutional convenience.

That’s truly crazy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Wanting a quick cure for the broader problems of the mentally disturbed is also not the same thing as having one.

Categories
political challengers

Send in the Clones

As scientists spend grant money attempting to bring into modern times the extinct Woolly Mammoth, conscientious citizens should be concerned about a more pressing matter: cloning our few good leaders before they go extinct. Ron Paul in particular.

The mammoth is a hard thing to clone: DNA breaks down over time.

Leadership requires candidates of good character combined with the right ideas.

The ideas are the DNA. Ron Paul’s have been nicely identified by Nassim Taleb as “The Big Four”: opposition to (1) deficits and metastatic government, (2) Federal Reserve flirting with hyperinflation, (3) self-feeding militarism, and (4) bailouts that undermine economic resilience (“what is fragile should break early and not too late”).Ron Paul's Revolution

Such notions have been available to Americans since the Founding.

But folks with the right character?

That’s more difficult, because each of us is embedded in the institutions we grow up in, and accepting those institutions is natural. This isn’t a problem for leadership to maintain the current system. It is, however, a bit of a snag for producing leaders to help greatly alter the system. The rewards for bucking the system are less immediate than for supporting it.

Ron Paul has been running for the presidency largely to promote real, substantial change. His son, Rand Paul, has taken his ideas and added some successful and politic twists.

There are other, younger leaders emerging in the Ron Paul mode. A few are discussed in the current book, Ron Paul’s Revolution, by Brian Doherty.

But consider: Maybe we don’t want to “send in the clones” — maybe you want to take up the mission. Don’t dismiss the idea out of hand.

Or laugh in a friend’s face if he or she indicates interest, a calling.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Ron Paul Switches Gears

The day before the official debut of Brian Doherty’s Ron Paul’s Revolution — the new book on the man, his crusade and his many enthusiastic supporters — Ron Paul slipped his 2012 presidential campaign into neutral:

Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted.

Ron Paul Revolution
The BBC puts Ron Paul’s delegate count at 104, with frontrunner Mitt Romney 178 short of a lock on the nomination — but that’s at present, before the upcoming primaries. As the BBC concisely summarized Dr. Paul’s campaign, he had some successes in “several contests, in states such as Maine and Nevada,” gaining “some delegates and sometimes a significant portion of the popular vote. But he was viewed by the Republican establishment as a candidate outside party orthodoxy, and he did not manage to win a single primary election.”

Talk to a Ron Paul organizer, and you can hear harrowing tales of how the Republican establishment treated Paul’s supporters as outsiders. Despite such ill treatment, chronicler Brian Doherty compares Ron Paul’s future influence on the party to that of the past influence of Barry Goldwater. “His fans understand that Ron Paul is not just out to win an election.”

Dr. Paul’s near-term influence, though, is less obvious. In his 2008 outing he was shut out, and held his own very successful parallel rally. What he hopes to accomplish at the upcoming nominating convention remains to be seen. He concludes his letter with promise of further elaboration of his campaign’s delegate strategy. But his main thrust, in this letter and elsewhere, has been to build a long-lasting movement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
video

Video: Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement

Brian Doherty, author of a new book on Ron Paul, talks about Ron Paul’s transpartisan political movement:

A very concise and yet broad view of what the congressman from Texas has been up to, what he believes, and his significance in contemporary political debate.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Censoring a Diet

North Carolina, like many states, licenses all sorts of businesses activity, especially enterprises related to medicine. That’s why the state’s Board of Dietetics and Nutrition is gearing up to jail a blogger. According to the Carolina Journal Online,

Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.”

Steve Cooksey has learned that the definition, at least in the eyes of the state board, is expansive.

Cooksey had been hospitalized for diabetes in February 2009, and decided to take a major, independent step towards his health, beginning a low-carb, high-protein diet dubbed the paleo (or “cave man”) diet. Within 30 days, he claims, he was off insulin; within a few months he had shed off 45 pounds.

He started his blog, Diabetes-Warrior.net, to chronicle his progress and help others achieve similar success. But after he challenged a local, certified nutrition expert at his local church, the state board went after him, especially objecting to his Q&A section: “If people are writing you with diabetic specific questions and you are responding, you are no longer just providing information — you are counseling.”

Need a license for that!

Journalist Brian Doherty wittily asserts “that someone should be able to describe his experiences . . . and advocate for his own good results should go without saying, though my saying that may well contradict a directive of the California Board of Going Without Saying.”

We don’t need another bureau.

Getting rid of some that we have might be the best policy diet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.