Quick Roundup 519

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Call this morning's roundup my "catching up with the O-Bloggers" edition...

Three Noodles

1. I'm not on Facebook, but Diana Hsieh's recent announcement of her "ogre"-like decision to stop taking messages there strikes a chord with this time-strapped blogger. Add major introversion on my part to the fact that I often have only about two hours in the morning to blog these days, and you'll understand why, some time ago, I toggled off GMail chat or whatever that thing is called.

I like hearing from people, but not being interrupted while I'm trying to concentrate. Email is best for that.

2. Pursuant to a recent post here on the impossibility of "cooperating" with the government, Michael Bahr reminded me that there is a NoodleFood post on that very subject titled, "Damned if You Do..."

Amit Ghate also looks at the Democrats' obvious framing-in-advance of the private sector for the inevitable failings of ObamaCare over at Thrutch.

3. John Lewis was recently interviewed by U.S.News and World Report about his latest book, Nothing Less than Victory.

Essay Contest

The Objective Standard is holding an essay contest with a $2,000 first prize. This year's topic will be: the moral foundation for capitalism.


Brian Phillips pens the best April Fool's Day post I've seen in a long time.

In an effort to reduce the city's budget deficit, Mayor Ma Parker wants to sell the facility formerly known as the Summit to Lakewood Church for $7.5 million. The Chronicle has endorsed the deal, and for that reason alone I am opposed.
Even knowing the date and being familiar with the blog, I had to read the rest of this to see where it was going after this preposterous beginning. And that's what I hope you'll do, too.

Human Achievement Hour ...

...in a Picture.

Qwertz on Snyder vs. Phelps

Discussing the 4th Circuit Court's reversal of a decision against Fred Phelps for his group's abominable actions during the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder in 2006, Qwertz notes that:
This would have never happened if the government didn’t own the streets and sidewalks near St. John’s Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. If such property were privately owned, Phelps would be stuck spewing his nauseating bile from his own property back in Kansas. Rational people would decline to permit him to use their property for his pontificating (a word I’m sure he’d never use himself, given its papal reference). But since the government owns the roads and sidewalks, it must make the rules necessary for their use, and those rules must comport as closely as possible with the protection of individual rights. In the context of speech from public property, this means that government can only place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. This has led many (40, according to the 4th Circuit panel) states to attempt to enact restrictions on picketing near funerals (specifically to combat Phelps), and Phelps has been successful in having some of these statutes thrown out where they were not drafted properly and discriminated on the basis of content.
Towards the end, Qwertz also raises a question about a topic I raised incidentally during a recent post.

More by the O-Bloggers

If you missed last week's Objectivist Roundup, you can find it at Reepicheep's Coracle. This weeks' will show up at The Playful Spirit.

-- CAV


Neil Parille said...

I understand the argument for private roads and the like, but consider the fact that there are still rural counties with one or two roads in and out.

What if these roads were privately owned and I (as the owner) decide not to let you use them for some petty reason? What are you supposed to do? Get a helicopter?

Anyone who lives in a condo complex knows that private organizations can be just as petty as the government.

Gus Van Horn said...

One solution I can think of right off the bat is to get an easement before you buy in such a bad location.

Ditto for silly home owners' associations. If you don't like them, don't move in to one.

In either case, objective laws would restrict what such owners could do to someone in the sense that they could not violate their rights.