Davidson Woods

February 22, 2008 – Huntington Beach, SC
Anne and Chuck submitted on January 14, 1970
We crossed into South Carolina today after five nights in Carolina Beach, NC. Our stay there was somewhat subdued after the exciting boat rides and weather at Hatteras. We departed there against squalls from a cold front and passed tornado-demolished houses as we worked our way south across the Coastal Plain. The cold front reached past Carolina Beach and we endured a cold wind the whole time we were there.
Anne and Chuck's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTWe crossed into South Carolina today after five nights in Carolina Beach, NC. Our stay there was somewhat subdued after the exciting boat rides and weather at Hatteras. We departed there against squalls from a cold front and passed tornado-demolished houses as we worked our way south across the Coastal Plain. The cold front reached past Carolina Beach and we endured a cold wind the whole time we were there. None-the-less, our visit was good. The peninsula south of Wilmington has experienced much development, and the park preserves a bit of coastal forest. Several different forests, actually. A fairy forest of long-leaf pine and turkey oak graces the drier sand dunes. The pine seedlings are candle-like with a clump of very long bright green leaves capped by a pure white bud atop a thick candelabra-like stalk. The robust adult trees tower over the small, grotesquely branched, turkey oaks, some still bearing last season’s large spiky leaves. A few of the oaks are bare and sprouting new pointy buds. Spring is arriving in Carolina. Down gradient a few inches on the sand slope is a forest of pond pine and live oak. Whereas the long-leaf pine has bold twelve-inch long needles and makes great ten-inch cones that adorn the ground below like cow pies, the pond pine has thread-thin eight-inch needles and small, irregular, but very spiny cones. A lesser tree certainly, but one that can survive an occasional dunking. The live oak with its small-cupped evergreen leaves is an icon of the Southeast Coastal Plain. Depressions of even lower ground host one of several plant communities, depending on how deep they are. The shallowest are somewhat sterile with only scattered grass and fetterbush rising among the water tolerant pond pines. These barrens, poor in nutrients and subject to drought, support some of the most interesting plants in the park; bizarre elves that manage to obtain nitrogen through predation. These include pitcher plants, sundews, and, one of the world’s most amazing plants, the Venus flytrap. The larger and deeper depressions host various “gums” (loblolly gum, sweet gum, and black gum), magnolia, red maple, red bay, and cypress. Here some of the broad-leaved trees are decidedly deciduous, others drop their leaves reluctantly, and a few are evergreen. Those with the most persistent leaves seem to have ranges centered to the south, the most naked have ranges centered to the north. Here neither habit provides a big advantage and so there is this curious mixture. The red maples are in full bloom and drawing insects and birds. No sign of leaves on them yet, but a few are already forming seeds. At Carolina Beach we were dry camping and had a hard time maintaining our “house” batteries with the winter cold and dark. We found only a few new birds there and moved on today. Tonight we are at a South Carolina State Park, but here the campsites have electricity and water. They also cost more, of course, but we can more easily stay warm. Our journey today took us by ferry across the Cape Fear River. A half-hour ride, we went upstairs to the lounge. The weather was awful, the rain poured and the wind made the bay choppy. The rain has continued into this evening. We don’t care for it, but the natives are rejoicing at what they hope will be a drought breaker. Rain is forecast for tomorrow morning as well, but then the weather should improve and even warm up. We look forward to that.
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

February 17, 2008 – Last Day on Hatteras Island
Anne and Chuck submitted on January 14, 1970
Our boat trip went out as scheduled yesterday, and as expected it was a bouncy ride. We thank the Lord for scopolamine patches. These pelagic birding voyages are humbling experiences. The some 22 passengers were all advanced or expert birders. Several had found more than 700 species in North America. Most had one species as a primary objective, the great skua. This is a Mack Truck of a bird, not really so large, but very thick and aggressive. These skua nest in the arctic of Greenland and Iceland and are on holiday in the winter.
Anne and Chuck's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTOur boat trip went out as scheduled yesterday, and as expected it was a bouncy ride. We thank the Lord for scopolamine patches. These pelagic birding voyages are humbling experiences. The some 22 passengers were all advanced or expert birders. Several had found more than 700 species in North America. Most had one species as a primary objective, the great skua. This is a Mack Truck of a bird, not really so large, but very thick and aggressive. These skua nest in the arctic of Greenland and Iceland and are on holiday in the winter. During this season they remain at sea and range as far south as Hatteras. To see one in North American territory, the birder must go to sea from December through March. So, here were a group of single-minded serious birders. All assembled at 6:00 a.m. in the dark to board the 61-foot Stormy Petrel II. Our guide and captain, Brian Patteson greeted and logged us in. He is quiet and speaks with a soft Carolina accent. He has been running pelagic birding trips from Carolina since 1986. At least four species of birds previously unknown from North America have been sighted from his boats and now grace our field guides. The boat pulled out into Pamlico Sound as the dawn broke gray. The sun rose as we passed through Hatteras Inlet and splashed out through the channel between Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. We scanned for shore birds, ducks, and geese before leaving the proximity of land. Then we watched the waves breaking furiously along the edges of the channel. We seemed as Moses passing through a narrow channel between mountains of water. After passing through almost a mile of turbulent channel, the boat raced into a less turbulent but still very wavy sea. The captain turned the boat northeast on a heading that would take us through the famous Diamond Shoals. In a few minutes we could see the flash of the Hatteras Lighthouse. The lamp’s slow rotation gave us warning of its position every six seconds. Those of us on deck could feel a fresh north wind already. A crew member was scooping cut fish chum from the stern and a cloud of gulls was trailing us. Herring, great black-backed, and lesser black-backed gulls also formed a long line of paddlers behind, and now northern gannets began to join them. The gannets seem as giant terns, flying, soaring, and plunge diving after the chum. Mostly white with black wing tips and a long gray bill, they are quite handsome. The adults have a cream colored neck and croak their dominance in the mixed flocks. Imagine the show when dozens dive for fish from thirty feet making lines of splashes that resemble those of projectiles striking the water. Just passing the lighthouse and crossing the shoals, the captain calls out a sighting of a skua at 11 o’clock. Everyone moves to port side and standing in the spray raises his or her binoculars and scans the sea ahead. Far ahead among the gulls and gannets is a dark long-winged bird flapping slowly but moving fast. It looks like a brown cement block with wings. Paying no heed to the boat it continues to move off and out of sight. Most of us saw it, but everyone would have liked a better view. Hours passed. We found and enjoyed seeing tiny dovekies buzzing over the waves and razorbills fly torpedo-like over the six-foot swells. The sea turned from green to blue and the water temperature went from 42 to 56. It is the influence of the Gulf Stream. Red phalaropes congregated at this meeting of waters. These are small sandpipers that nest in northern Canada and Alaska. In the fall they go to sea to sit and twirl on the broad ocean surface and pick crustaceans from the water below. They scatter and skitter among the waves when the boat approaches. A few of the birders sickened and lay down in the cabin. We too noticed the rolling ocean, but fortunately the patches worked for us. The sun vanished behind clouds and then returned. After traveling some fifty miles north and east, the Stormy Petrel II began a westward course back toward land. Chuck was sitting on portside when someone farther forward raised his binoculars. As we raised our own glasses he cried out, “skua, skua! 9 o’clock. Again a dark form flying past enchanted all. The captain turned the boat around and all looked to see a white flash on the wing, the mark of the skua. Now we got a closer and longer view, but again the bird continued on its own course and vanished among the waves. We settled down and the boat made its way to port. The wind had picked up and the swells were now pushing nine feet. The entrance of the channel was even more dramatic than during our departure, but as we shot through the seas fell rapidly. Soon we were cruising through the merely choppy waters of the Sound. The sun was setting and a group of very tired and happy birders scanned the shores for a last bird before landing.
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

February 9, 2008 – Avon, North Carolina
Anne and Chuck submitted on January 14, 1970
Hatteras Island is one of those places dramatic without the influence of man. This afternoon we parked our car near the historic and lovely spiral-striped lighthouse and walked a few miles up the beach to a narrow finger of land protruding into a violet ocean. Made only of sand, the point is there only at the will of the sea. Here the Gulf Stream pushes hard by the point and the returning Newfoundland Current (or eddy) meet. Waves break on both sides of the peninsula and along a line extending another quarter mile out to sea.
Anne and Chuck's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTHatteras Island is one of those places dramatic without the influence of man. This afternoon we parked our car near the historic and lovely spiral-striped lighthouse and walked a few miles up the beach to a narrow finger of land protruding into a violet ocean. Made only of sand, the point is there only at the will of the sea. Here the Gulf Stream pushes hard by the point and the returning Newfoundland Current (or eddy) meet. Waves break on both sides of the peninsula and along a line extending another quarter mile out to sea. The surrounding ocean is turbulent with long streaks of brown. The energy extends for miles out to the Diamond Shoals where another light rises above a great platform to warn mariners of this ominous region. Good thing we think, but our captain told us yesterday that the lights might be abandoned completely within a few years. That would save a few dollars, but what would happen if the GIS system that keep ships on course were to fail? Our crossing to Hatteras Island was uneventful and the weather was good. We crossed the swamps and marshes of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and across the bay to the barrier islands at Manteo. As we checked in at the campground, our host, an astronomy buff, suggested we look south for the space shuttle blast off. We did, but the sky was too bright to make out the vapor trail. The weather was splendid with bright sunshine and a temperature of 65 degrees. We arrived a day early because our captain called to tell us that with gales forecast for today, he wanted to move the trip up to Friday. So, at 6:00 a.m. we were at the dock. The boat pushed off about 7:00 a.m. and bounced nicely through the Hatteras Inlet and into the Atlantic. Venus and Jupiter were setting in conjunction as the sky brightened. A crewmember shoveled chum off the stern and gulls and gannets began to gather around us. We rolled toward the Gulf Stream and began a lookout for pelagic birds. Some sixteen passengers wore great optics; a few carried cameras with long lenses. We followed the meeting of waters where the green flow from the north ran on one side and the blue current from the south on the other. We ah’ed for dovekies and ooh’ed for gannets and razorbills. We admired a loggerhead turtle floating high in the blue water and a giant ocean sunfish swimming horizontally just below the surface. We followed fishing boats whose efforts provided a bonanza for thousands of gulls and gannets. The latter dove for scraps from thirty feet in the air, many at a time. The lines of splashes seemed a result of gunfire. The birds crashed violently into the sea, yet shortly returned to the surface contentedly munching and swallowing their catch. The trip ran some twelve hours and the wind picked up as we returned the thirty miles back to the inlet. The seas built to five to eight feet and most of us retreated to the cabin as the deck became drenched with sea water. The sun set and darkness returned as we reached the dock. We returned to the motor home for dinner and relaxed after a great day on the water. We plan to stay here until next Sunday and make one more pelagic bird cruise next Saturday. Meanwhile we are enjoying the beach, the marshes behind the cape, and the small woods on the National Seashore. A few cold nights are forecast, but the weather is great for birding and walking. No bugs on Cape Hatteras in February.
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

January 23, 2008 – South Mountain: Report on Paris No. 2
Anne and Chuck submitted on January 14, 1970
The morning after our lovely but somewhat strenuous journey to Amsterdam we tried to relax but had a somewhat difficult morning doing the laundry. Chuck’s sister had only just moved into the hotel apartment and had been told that there was a laundromat not far away on its street. It should have been a breeze, but we made a few mistakes. We forgot our phrasebook and map. We didn’t look up the word for laundromat. We did ask in the lobby, but the clerk did not know of one. She asked someone else and told us to go to the next street.
Anne and Chuck's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTThe morning after our lovely but somewhat strenuous journey to Amsterdam we tried to relax but had a somewhat difficult morning doing the laundry. Chuck’s sister had only just moved into the hotel apartment and had been told that there was a laundromat not far away on its street. It should have been a breeze, but we made a few mistakes. We forgot our phrasebook and map. We didn’t look up the word for laundromat. We did ask in the lobby, but the clerk did not know of one. She asked someone else and told us to go to the next street. We reached the next street, but from there our search went downhill. We started asking directions and were led farther and farther a field. We did finally learn the word, “Lavarie” and eventually found one a half mile from the apartment. We figured out how to use the machines and the “central pay system”, but when we finished a hard rain was falling. We were tired and a bit soggy when we found our way back to our street and approached the hotel. There, less than two blocks away from our door, sat a fine Lavarie. We noted its location for Laurie. We had done her laundry with ours. She will have an easier time of it than we, next time. In the afternoon the weather improved slightly; the rain stopped but it became cold and breezy. Still, we elected to tour again, this time walking to the Arch of Triumph. We found it grand, but wind gusts drove us and other tourists from the plaza underneath. Laurie had obtained a car for the weekend, and with the weather forecast improving we decided to make a run to the area of the Normandy invasion beaches. We reserved a room at the Hotel de Bayeux on Friday night and were ready to breakfast at dawn. We elected to pick up the car in the suburbs Saturday morning rather than bring it into the City. This was a wise decision, but we had to take a train to get to it. Taking the car we had first to navigate to a highway. We accomplished this and followed the limited access road across the City of Caen before turning north on a rural road to the beach near St. Aubin-sur-Mer. We crossed a pastoral landscape and wound through tiny farm villages that appeared to date back for centuries. Most of the rural houses and barns are of stone masonry and unpainted. They are plain and fancy. The road is narrow and winding. Reaching the shore we found some modern vacation houses and apartments, but here too there are the old towns and the celebrated beaches, Sword, Juneau, Gold, Omaha, and Utah. Of course we knew of these beaches, but we really did not know the land. Chuck expected to find relatively flat terrain, much as along the Florida or New Jersey shores. Instead we found relatively short beaches in front of and between points of high ground. Ground on which very hardened fortifications of scientific German design had been fabricated and largely remain, massive and seemingly only slightly torn by thousands of pounds of high explosives on that date printed everywhere in high relief – June 6, 1944. We followed the highway along the “British Beaches” before turning south a few miles to the town of Bayeux, the “first liberated City” where we lodged. It was relatively quiet in the off-season, but still the shopping district was busy when we arrived. We enjoyed a fine dinner in a restaurant and found the sidewalks empty at nine o’clock. After marveling at a 16th Century townhouse and the Gothic cathedral, we attempted a chat with our French-speaking host, gave up, and slept well. He fed us breakfast and helped us navigate out of his narrow drive. We chatted with an Australian couple at breakfast. They left with us - the driveway was very narrow - and enjoyed hearing the rattle of a woodpecker. It was their first such experience. We drove back to the coast and found a narrow lane to a small beach near Arromanches les Bains. The road passed through a lovely wood where birds sang on this balmy if somewhat soggy morning and then by a small cluster of beach houses with a fine view of the beach below. Beyond them began the sacred ground. A grassy slope leads down to a narrow marsh and then the beach. The land is now a wildlife preserve. The beach sand is yellow, of shell and quartz. At the beach one car was parked and a couple walked across the sand as their dog ran ahead. Now at the beach we looked up the slope to see a few monuments, mostly simply columns with engravings, and the formidable and clearly broken defensive boxes that had made the landings so difficult. We walked on the beach and about the slope, finally climbing to “the American Cemetery.” We had expected the American Memorial to be significant, and we found it to be a beautiful and powerfully moving monument to America’s warriors and especially those who died in the endeavor of achieving victory in Europe and freeing the continent of the Nazi menace. France provided the land for the memorial, and the American Battle Monuments Commission created the cemetery and memorial. The site includes a museum and several monuments as well as gardens, woodlots, and a large neat interspersed lawn with rows upon rows of crosses and posts with stars of David. Each is polished and inscribed with a name and date for soldiers, sailors, and airmen who died in the Battle for Europe. The cemetery is above and not far from the sea. Some views out show tree-lined corridors rising from the waves and seem to represent the opening of this land to the world provided by the fallen troops. Needless to say the memorial is a spectacularly lovely park regardless of its purpose as a monument. The ground must be crowded at times in summer, but in January it was relatively quiet. A small French memorial unit appeared to be engaged in some tribute and small numbers of French and foreign tourists strolled along the walks and among the graves. We heard American spoken here. In this quiet season birds, blackbirds, robins, wagtails, finches, and even a kestrel hopped among the crosses and reflected the current peace. It was afternoon before we dragged ourselves away and started back toward Paris. We were certainly glad to have had such a fitting finale to our tour. We stopped for lunch at the beach town of Port-en-Bessin where we found a brazier open and braved the weather to dine on a covered patio watching the ocean and the gulls. Our return drive to the parking lot was successful after a few wrong turns, and we caught a train into Paris and made supper in the apartment. On Monday we visited with an old friend of Elley’s whom we had not seen since she was in high school. We met her at the Cathedral of Notre Dam and toured it with her. She showed us through her neighborhood and we wandered back to the hotel, our tour of Paris complete. On yesterday, Tuesday morning, we breakfasted with Laurie and caught an early train to the airport. We returned on Lufthansa – note: the European airlines provide better food and beverage than do the American ones – and landed at Philadelphia after circling it for almost an hour. We were bleary-eyed when we arrived home at ten p.m. (four a.m. Paris time) and went to bed. We were home!
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

January 23, 2008 - South Mountain – Report on Amsterdam
Anne and Chuck submitted on January 14, 1970
Some five years ago the Amsterdam Van Gogh Museum was being renovated and expanded, and about a third of its collection went on tour. We drove to Washington very early on a Saturday morning and arrived at the ticket line in front of the National Gallery at 6:00 a.m. There in the cold and dark, we joined a party, chatted, drank coffee, and read the Washington Post until the door opened and we could enter and get a pair of the limited tickets. We enjoyed the exhibit immensely and have talked since then of some day following the paintings to Amsterdam and seeing the entire collection.
Anne and Chuck's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTSome five years ago the Amsterdam Van Gogh Museum was being renovated and expanded, and about a third of its collection went on tour. We drove to Washington very early on a Saturday morning and arrived at the ticket line in front of the National Gallery at 6:00 a.m. There in the cold and dark, we joined a party, chatted, drank coffee, and read the Washington Post until the door opened and we could enter and get a pair of the limited tickets. We enjoyed the exhibit immensely and have talked since then of some day following the paintings to Amsterdam and seeing the entire collection. Our trip to Paris provided the opportunity. It is four and one-half hours by train, downtown to downtown, from Paris to Amsterdam. We decided to catch an early train on Wednesday and return Thursday evening. We had made our hotel reservation before leaving for Paris and found a good off-season price of 55 Euro including a tiny room and a lovely breakfast. Crossing borders within the European Union by rail today is accomplished without border stops. We brought our passports and never had to pull them out. Leaving early, we saw dawn break over a very wet Belgium countryside. We admired the canal-bordered farms in the low country and even saw a few interesting birds in the fields. The train arrived at Amsterdam about Noon. We bought a pair of “I-Amsterdam Passes” and then caught a tram to the museum district. We found our hotel to be very satisfactory, left our bags there, and walked a block to the Van Gogh Museum. We rented an audio tour that was supposed to last an hour and a half. We spent five hours at it and drank luxuriously of that rich elixir of color and form that make up the paintings of the famous Dutch artist. Some two hundred Van Goghs – portraits, landscapes, and still-life’s - make up the heart of the collection that also includes other period art that reflect influences on and the influence of the master of color. We left not exhausted but refreshed by the glory of the exhibition. Today Amsterdam has a strong Indonesian influence, and our host recommended a nearby restaurant famous for its “rice table” dinner. We were there treated to a fulfilling and spicy island style dinner. Afterward, still early by European standards, we decided to go back downtown and tour the shopping district, Chinatown, and the famous red-light district. Oh my, but we certainly were not in Kansas anymore. We also stopped at a couple of “head shops” and admired the legal assortment of wares. Staying for only one night we found the City strange and thrilling enough without a smoke in a café, but Chuck commented that he would not have gone two nights there without a visit to one. None-the-less, it was edifying to see a City where marijuana is legal without any obvious breakdown of community, and saddening to know that here the law makes it necessary for criminal organizations with their associated problems to provide it. Certainly people have difficulty knowing what is good or bad for them, but then how can people or their government imagine that they can prescribe what is good or bad for everyone? Clearly, with regard to this drug, the good has for so many of us been enormous, and the bad, if there is any, been so little. The morning was cold and damp, and we started our day at the Rijksmuseum. Whereas we had seen works of French masters in Paris, here we found works of the Dutch Masters. Sadly this museum is undergoing renovation and only a small part of the collection was on display. Gladly, what is on display is the crème de la crème. Vermeer, Rembrandt, and Hals were among familiar names we found under the paintings. The Night Watch is indeed fabulous, but there are other equally grand scenes that we had never heard of there. After the museum visit we found smoked salmon sandwiches at a street stand and relaxed on a boat ride through the famous canals. The cabin was heated and had a glass ceiling. We made a quick stop at the Hermitage Museum of Amsterdam and lastly crossed town to the Anne Frank House. This remains a simple place, one of many formally business houses – now mostly residences – that line the Prince’s Canal. The scene is very peaceful, liberal, and prosperous today. As elsewhere in Amsterdam commuters furiously pedal up and down the tree lined street. As safe as the scene is now, we know that 63 years ago two families hid in the attic, were discovered, and treated horribly; all in accordance with someone’s idea of right. A young girl who perished left only a diary of a typical adolescent struggling to mature under difficult circumstances. That she was given no opportunity to find her way is a tragedy we can relate to without difficulty. Let us hope that this house will not loose its meaning until injustice has been removed from this world. That is likely to be a very long time. Being late afternoon it was time to find our way to the station. We had forgotten how Europe works and found fine sandwiches only with difficulty before going to the station. There, not being able to find a warm place to sit down and eat them, we asked and were sent upstairs into a beer bar where we bought two mugs of brew and enjoyed our dinner before winding our way through the rush hour crowd to our platform. We arrived in Paris at 10:30 and expertly found our way through the underground to the Metro station. Shortly after eleven we walked into the apartment. Laurie said she was just starting to worry about us. We told her that Amsterdam had been wonderful, and we went to bed after a glass of French red wine.
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

January 23, 2008 – South Mountain – Paris Report No. 1
Anne and Chuck submitted on January 14, 1970
We have returned from our Parisian experience and can report that the City is lovely even in January. The weather moderated upon our arrival and, while not balmy, was at least not frigid. Most days were cloudy and some rain dampened our visit, but a little adjustment of our plans allowed us to mostly avoid the rain drops. The rain scarcely dampens a day in the Louvre.
Anne and Chuck's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTWe have returned from our Parisian experience and can report that the City is lovely even in January. The weather moderated upon our arrival and, while not balmy, was at least not frigid. Most days were cloudy and some rain dampened our visit, but a little adjustment of our plans allowed us to mostly avoid the rain drops. The rain scarcely dampens a day in the Louvre. Travel is always an adventure. We flew from Philadelphia and by the strange magic of Internet travel arrangements were supposed to arrive in Paris via a Chicago connection. Our plane was at the gate in Philadelphia when we arrived, but we were to learn “there were mechanical problems.” With a tight connection in Chicago we immediately called United which changed us from our U.S. Air connector to Chicago to a U.S. Air direct flight to Paris. This was great except that our luggage was already aboard the airplane. We were unable to retrieve it and were also told that Chicago was backed up because of weather. Because our departure was a couple of hours later we were even given meal vouchers. One problem remained. Chuck’s sister Laurie had arranged and given us a limosine ride to her apartment. We had to call her and let her know about the change in flight and arrival time. We discovered that a international debit card we had purchased in Canada last year expired after six months. It was in the fine print. We also found that our AT&T card would not work for international calls. We finally purchased another call debit card and successfully dialed through. The process took almost two hours. The dinner in the airport was very nice however. Our flight was good, but the seats inclined so slightly it was difficult to sleep well. Morning found us over the French countryside and provided fine views of pastoral lands on our approach to the Charles DeGaul Aiport. Of course our luggage was still in Chicago and we had to arrange for delivery. We met our driver and enjoyed the adventure of driving through a City that was laid out before the automobile was even a glimmer in an inventor’s eye. Finally the GPS told the driver that we were there and we had arrived at the apartment at Rue de Richelieau across from the Palais Royal and separated by only the Theatre Comedie and the Hotel Louvre from the Musee Louvre. Location. Location. Location. After freshening up we grabbed the shopping list and explored the Avenue Opera. Laurie had been in Ireland up until the day before our arrival and had no chance to shop, so we went to bring home the bacon. First we walked the length of the Avenue to the old opera house and enjoyed some Parisian architecture and ambiance. It was very nice. A glance told us we were not in Kansas anymore. We found lunch in a deli and managed a bit of French and finance a la Euro. The grocery was a challenge. The downtown store was on two levels and included clothing and some housewares as well as food. The bakery was outside of the grocery section and each section had separate payment. So we had to visit three registers, one for most of the food, one for the bread, and one for tissues that were in the housewares part of the store. We dared not tackle the deli counter yet and found cold cuts and cheese on a shelf. Leaving, we loaded one backpack and carried the balance in bags. We celebrated back in the apartment after unpacking. Laurie called and told us when she would return from work. Anne prepared a fine beef stew from ingredients we had brought home. At dinner we shared a bottle of wine and made plans for the weekend. On Saturday we took a subway and walking tour first to Montmartre and the Parvis (basilica) du Sacre-Coeur on a hill overlooking much of the City. Being “soldes” (solda) sales time in Paris, the ladies spent some change and we returned to the apartment. As evening approached we walked along the Seine then turned and crossed at the Tour Eiffel (Too Eiffel) or Eiffel Tower. It is a noble erector set. Crossing back we climbed in a riverside park and waited for the hourly light show to begin. This Y2K addition to the tower is a series of strobes that flash at the beginning of each evening hour. After our walk we went to a dinner party where we enjoyed the English and struggled with the French, but loved all the food. We enjoyed the famous pate de fois gras, the soft cheeses, the wine, and French beef bourgonion. Beef stew twice in two days, but we didn’t care. The weather forecast for Sunday was promising so we went to bed planning to wander to Versailles the next day. We went to bed at 12:30 a.m. on our second night and were in a bit of a jet-lag fog. We still woke at about 7:00 a.m. to make an early departure for Paris. We took the train to the town of Versailles and walked up the hill to the palace. Our walk through the museum gave a glimpse of the wealth of the French monarchy and a pause to reflect on the consequences of executive greed on a scale almost unimaginable today. The Hall of Mirrors remains one of the grandest halls in existence. We finished our visit with a cold walk through some of the gardens that were hibernating in January. On Monday Laurie went to work and we crossed the street to enter the Louvre. We had reviewed its plan the night before and decided to rent audio headsets and take the “French Tour” first. It was supposed to take two and a half hours. Mastering the tour program and finding our way about proved a challenge and we spent more than five hours on this tour. But that was not bad. Nothing is bad about this museum. As at Versailles, the place was once a palace and the buildings are wonders even without the art within. Once during our tour Anne glimpsed the Venus de Milo to one side. She stopped Chuck and we walked around it admiringly. Not being French it was not on our tour, but how can one just walk by such a thing. We also detoured to catch an early view of the Mona Lisa and a few of the other famous Italian paintings. We left the museum for lunch but went back and stayed until almost six o’clock before returning to the apartment to start dinner. We had so much to report to Laurie. On Tuesday we walked to the Museum D’Orsay which houses more modern art including that of the Impressionist School in an elegant but retired railroad station. Unlike the Lourve with its ornately finished halls, the Orsay houses its collection in the open under a broad half cylinder of glass that once covered the tracks. There we saw 19 Van Goghs, numerous Monets, Manets, Gaugans, and Renoirs. We even found the portrait of an artist’s (Whistler’s) mother. So much fun. The weather was not with us on this day, but we walked on through a windy rain to the Musee de Quai Branly which houses “primitive arts” brightly lit within a dark interior. We finished our day with a subway trip to the train station to buy tickets to Amsterdam. Our navigation and language skills were tested, and we passed. See the next blog for a report on Amsterdam.
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

Norma McCorvey, or Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade endorses Ron Paul
Dan submitted on January 14, 1970
in 1995 McCorvey changed her mind on abortion and became a pro-life activist. Yesterday in an official press release she endorsed Presidential candidate Ron Paul. http://reason.com/blog/show/124542.html
Dan's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTin 1995 McCorvey changed her mind on abortion and became a pro-life activist. Yesterday in an official press release she endorsed Presidential candidate Ron Paul. http://reason.com/blog/show/124542.html
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

A new kind of doctor
Dan submitted on January 14, 1970
http://www.jayparkinsonmd.com/index.html He focuses on preventive medicine and therefore can do most of his advising and treatment via video chats over the internet.
Dan's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENThttp://www.jayparkinsonmd.com/index.html He focuses on preventive medicine and therefore can do most of his advising and treatment via video chats over the internet.
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

A great article
Patty submitted on January 14, 1970
Patty's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTLibertarians in the Mainstream Media: Reply to Michael Kinsley by Walter Block DIGG THIS Part A. I. Introduction Something strange is going on. Usually, when mainstream media journalists write about libertarianism, they can barely spell the word correctly. Often, in terms of their understanding, they seem to think of it as "libertoonianism" or, perhaps, "librarianism"; sometimes they actually confuse it with libertinism or conservatism (Block, Walter. 2007. "Plumb Line Libertarianism: A Critique of Hoppe." Reason Papers, Vol. 29, Fall, pp. 151–163). Typically, at least in surveys, leading pollsters do not even include the philosophy of liberty as an option, along with the alternatives they do offer: socialism, liberalism, on the left, a category for moderates, and then on the right conservatism and fascism. It is, then, with great appreciation that we must welcome a series of two articles written by Michael Kinsley on this subject (here and here). This journalist certainly qualifies as a leader of his profession; but, amazingly, his understanding of our philosophy is not the typical hopeless mishmash of misunderstanding to which we have become accustomed. He actually gets more than just a few things right. Were he a student of mine, I would have to award him as high as a B–. It is in the hope of raising his grade even further that I offer the present reaction to his two essays. There will be reading homework for Mr. Kinsley embedded in it; I hope and trust he will react to these bibliographical suggestions in a manner far different to Rudy Giuliani’s (non)response to Ron Paul’s request that he read some material on "blowback." II. Rising libertarians Mr. Kinsley’s first effort to wrestle with our philosophy is entitled "Libertarians Rising," and was published on 10/18/07 in Time Magazine. In it, he starts off by demonstrating keen understanding of the views of Democrats and Republicans regarding government. Neither wishes to greatly reduce its size overall. He notes, correctly, that the former support civil liberties to a greater degree than the latter. I have a slight quarrel with his view that "War in general and Iraq in particular – certainly Big Government exercises – are projects Republicans tend to be more enthusiastic about (than Democrats)." This certainly ignores the views of Dr. Ron Paul, a ten-term Republican candidate for his party’s nomination for President. It also fails to reckon with the fact that the Viet Nam "police action" as well as World Wars I and II were started by Democrats. When it comes to libertarians, our author is certainly on solid ground when he avers "Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending." I’ll let that crack about "as they see it" pass under poetic license. If this was meant seriously, Mr. Kinsley would have indicated in what manner the libertarian notion of self-reliance was faulty. III. Isolationists? But then he says "Internationally, they are isolationists. Like George Washington, they loathe "foreign entanglements," and they think the rest of the world can go to hell without America's help." Now, it is time to take out the red pen and penalize him a few points. Libertarians in general, and Ron Paul in particular (he will do just fine as an exemplar of this perspective), are not at all "isolationists." Rather, they, and he, are non-interventionists. What, pray tell, is the difference? This is a distinction beyond the ability to comprehend of virtually all non-libertarian journalists, so we do well to carefully spell it out. An isolationist is one who wishes to hide behind his national boundaries, and close out the entire world behind them. North Korea is a reasonable case in point. Wishing that "the rest of the world can go to hell" is indeed a good characterization of this viewpoint. In very sharp contrast, a non-interventionist desires to eschew one and only one means of international interaction: gunboat "diplomacy," imperialism, forcing our will upon foreign nations at the point of a gun when they pose no threat to us whatsoever. It is entirely compatible with this stance to wish the rest of the world well, and to act so as to attain it. How would a non-interventionist accomplish this task, if he is precluded from utilizing military force? Why through trade, investment, cultural and intellectual exchanges, competing in sports programs with other countries, etc. By serving as a disinterested judge, to resolve foreign disputes, if we are called upon to do so. Congressman Paul is the only true internationalist now running for the Republican nomination for President since he enthusiastically embraces all of these modes of interaction. But all is not lost. Mr. Kinsley’s next characterization of the libertarian philosophy shows great acuity: "… they don't think the government should care – about what people are reading, thinking, drinking, smoking or doing in bed," that is, if we interpret this sympathetically: not "people," but rather "adults." Libertarians, like most other people, favor paternalist laws that apply to children; just not to consenting adults. In the felicitous statement of Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia (p. 163), libertarians oppose the prohibition of any "capitalist acts between consenting adults." Sex, drugs, earning a profit, it does not matter; liberty is a seamless web. IV. Communitarians? But then comes the next logical howler: "And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism. The term is not as familiar, and communitarians are far less organized as a movement than libertarians, ironically enough. But in general communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights." Not so, not so. Libertarians do not oppose communities, no matter how ostensibly coercive and totalitarian they are, provided, only, that membership in them is voluntary. For example, the nunnery, the monastery, the commune, the kibbutz, the volunteer army, all believe that (in very different ways) the desires of the group should take precedence over those of the individual. But as long as no one is forced to join, libertarians have no problem with any of these organizations. Take the orchestra as perhaps the ultimate in communitarianism. Here, the individual will is so subservient to the needs of the group that members (wind players) are told when to breathe. If a flutist so much as gasps for air at the wrong time, the conductor will stop the entire rehearsal and glare at him. One can hardly be more totalitarian than that. No, the polar opposite of libertarianism is communism and fascism. Libertarians believe in freedom in economics, in civil liberties and also in freedom from imperialism. These others tolerate none of these liberties. Mr. Kinsley is quite correct to criticize as hypocritical those who "advocate(e) mandatory so-called voluntary national service by people younger than whoever is doing the advocating." Here, he sounds almost like a libertarian. But what are we to make of this: "Libertarians … are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical – eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they're fine with that. It's a free country." Part of this is correct. If and to the degree that libertarians are indeed selfish, it is in the spirit of Adam Smith’s "invisible hand," where the public good is best attained by everyone seeking to maximize profits, and thus coordinate their economic activities with each other. And, libertarians are amongst the most easy-going people on the entire planet. But the plan to deal with global warming in particular, and with the environmental crisis in general, has nothing to do with "old refrigerators." Rather, it is predicated upon the notion of "free market environmentalism." See on this here and here. As to privatizing stoplights, I will deal with this charge in my comments on Mr. Kinsley’s next essay, which centrally features this fallacious charge. V. Conclusion This author ends on a splendid note: "But the party that does well in the future will be the one that makes the better guess about where to place its bets. My money's on the libertarians. People were shocked a couple of weeks ago when Ron Paul – one of those mysterious Republicans who seem to be running for President because everyone needs a hobby – raised $5 million from July through September, mostly on the Internet. Paul is a libertarian. In fact, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988. The computer revolution has bred a generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don't need society – nor should anyone else. They are going to be an increasingly powerful force in politics." Well, let me temper that a little bit. What’s with this "convinced that they don't need society – nor should anyone else?" This bespeaks a confusion between society and the state. Not good, not good. Libertarians are as social as anyone else. More so than most, perhaps, as witness the vast number of Ron Paul Meetup groups, the Ron Paul blimp, the money bomb days that have garnered for the Paul campaign in the tens of millions, and LewRockwell.com, all of which are supported by voluntary, that is, social efforts. Most libertarians do not at all oppose society, but rather the state, at least when it grows larger than constitutional limits. All in all, this was not a bad essay. I would rate it a B+, maybe, even, were I in a generous mood, an A–. Why, then, the overall rating of a B–? It is because I am grading both essays as one package, and if the first was pretty good, the second is anything but. Let us now turn to it. Part B. I. Introduction This second one is entitled "The Church Doctrines of Pope Ron Paul, What's wrong with libertarianism?" and appeared in the Saturday, January 12, 2008 edition of the Washington Post. Even the title is problematic. Pope Ron Paul? Dr. Paul is a practicing Baptist (although he does not use his private faith as a means of garnering votes as do some of his competitors for the presidency, who are trying to out Christianize each other). Thus, this title is at least extremely insensitive on religious grounds. But more. It also implies that Congressman Paul is a bit of a fanatic for attempting to import religious dogma into a context where it does not belong. As a matter of fact, Mr. Paul bases his political views, and defends them, on grounds of the Constitution, logic and fact, not faith. But if the title is off-putting, the same applies to the opening salvo: "Libertarians get patronized a lot. Chipmunky and earnest, always pursuing logical consistency down wacky paths, they pose no real threat to the established order. But the modest success of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas in the presidential campaign entitles them to some answers to the questions they raise. They say: People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people." Yes, libertarians do indeed "get patronized a lot." And Mr. Kinsley is guilty of doing just that right here. Chipmunk? Okay, yes, I can see it. My friend of 40 years Ron Paul, maybe, looks a little like a chipmunk. If you had to pick an animal, that might do it. Or, maybe, a raccoon. He can’t help looking like that. Mr. Kinsley is here guilty of "lookism." This doesn’t bother me one bit, nor would it Dr. Paul, but what pray tell will Mr. Kinsley’s employers think of such rampant non-political correctness? While we are on this topic, why does no mainstream journalist opine that Mick Huckabee and Fred Thompson look like basset hounds, that Rudy Giuliani looks like a weasel, that John McCain looks like a prune, or maybe a bowling ball, that Mitt Romney and John Edwards look like Ken (of Ken and Barbie fame) and that Hillary looks like a shrew. (I dare not speculate as to which animal Obama resembles, such is the parlous state of our society nowadays, none of it due to "kooky" libertarians.) "No threat to the established order?" C’mon, give us a break. If Ron Paul were "no threat," why would he raise so much money? Cure an entire younger generation of their political apathy? Inspire a modern-day tea party? A blimp? Why, when he is interviewed by the likes of Hanratty, and Russert, do they not allow him a moment to answer their questions, before interrupting him, lecturing him, trying to browbeat him? Why would Fox choose to exclude him from their debates? Why is a man who beat out Giuliani in Iowa, and Thompson in New Hampshire, given so little time in these debates? Why do pollsters stick to land telephones and those who voted in Republican primaries? What is it with those "focus groups?" Why has there never been a supporter of Mr. Paul in any of them? It seems to me that he is "a threat" alright. It is a mistaken interpretation of libertarianism, albeit it a common one, to attribute to it this: "People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people." Not at all. The correct rendition of this is: "People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people." This is not mere semantics. If I open up a bakery across the street from yours and attract half your customers, or alienate your girl friend’s affections away from you and in my direction, I can indeed be said to have "hurt" you. But in so doing I have not violated your rights. Others might (anti-trust regulations might call the former predatory pricing, or monopolizing) deny this, but libertarians would not. All is not lost, however. There are some good bits in this essay: "The libertarian perspective is useful, and undervalued. Why does the government pay farmers not to grow food? Why are medications for fatal diseases sometimes held off the market in case they aren't safe? (Compared to death?) Legislators and regulators should ask themselves far more often than they do whether some government activity or other expands freedom or contracts it. "Furthermore, democracy and majority rule are no answers. Tyranny of the majority is a constant danger. How would you like a law requiring that people with odd Social Security numbers have to give $1,000 to people with even Social Security numbers? To libertarians, much of what the government does is essentially like that. Good bits? No. These are excellent! II. Public Goods But now comes material unworthy of the person who just wrote those great insights: "So what is wrong with the libertarian case for extremely limited government? Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are ‘public goods.’ We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together. Then there are ‘externalities,’ which are costs (or, sometimes, benefits) that your decisions impose on me. Pollution is the classic example. Without government involvement of some sort to override our individual judgments, we will produce more pollution than most of us want." Before poking holes in this, let me say the following. Erroneous as it is, this criticism is at least an intellectually able one. Most journalists, when criticizing libertarianism, will resort to ad hominem arguments and name-calling. We are greedy. We do not care about the poor. We are racists. We are in the pay of Wall Street. We are Nazis. Say what you will about Mr. Kinsley’s criticisms, none of them deserve to be placed in the gutter, like these others. Now, back to the point. Our journalist friend is entirely correct when he attributes his criticisms of libertarianism to "Economics 101." The problem is that there is more to economics than "Economics 101." There are also advanced courses; even graduate studies in the dismal science. The American people deserve better than "Economics 101" from their top journalists. First of all, national defense is not a public good, mainstream economists to the contrary notwithstanding. In order for a good to be considered a good in the first place, people must be willing to pay for it. But, based on the neoclassical story, no one would freely pay for this service; each person would wait for others to do so, and then "free ride" off of them. But if so, then public goods, all of them, are not "goods." Secondly, for a "good" to be considered a public "good" two criteria must be met: a. it must be non-rivalrous, and b. it must be non-excludable. The first means that if one person consumes this service, it does not leave any the less for anyone else. Air qualifies: if I breathe heavily, there is still plenty for you. But this is clearly false in the case of defense: if the U.S. defends the East Coast, there will be just that many fewer resources left over to do so for the West Coast. The second means that non-payers cannot be excluded from receiving the benefits of protection. But if, say, Taxachussets becomes filled with pacifists, who refuse to pay taxes for defense, the Federal Government can say to our enemy, the "Hitler" of the day, whoever he is: "That state is no longer under our protection. If you kick their butts, we will not retaliate." Thus, they could be excluded. No one is saying that Washington D.C. would or should say any such thing. Only that national defense, strictly speaking, does not qualify as a public good, despite serving as the very paradigm case thereof in "Economics 101." For more on this see here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here and here. For a refutation of the claim that the lighthouse qualifies as the second paradigm case of the public good, see this material: Barnett, William II and Walter Block. 2007. "Coase and Van Zandt on Lighthouses," Public Finance Review, Vol. 35, No. 6, November, pp. 710–733; Barnett, William and Walter Block. Unpublished. "Coase and Bertrand on Lighthouses." Third point. This entire discussion is irrelevant to Ron Paul, presumably the focus of Michael Kinsley’s entire article. For Representative Paul fully supports not only a U.S. national defense, but astrong national defense. Indeed, that is one of the primary reasons he objects to our country operating some 700 foreign military bases in some 130 countries. In his view, these do not at all serve to defend ourselves. Rather, their effect is to make enemies out of people who would otherwise not bear us any ill will, and encourage them to attack us. Anyone ever hear of 9/11 and blowback out there? States Mr. Kinsley: "Libertarians have a fondness for complex arrangements to make markets work in situations where the textbooks say they can't. Hey, let's issue stamps, y'see, and use the revenues to form a corporation that sells stock to buy military equipment, then the government leases the equipment and the stockholders vote on whether to user (sic) it – and so on. The point becomes proving a point, not economic or government efficiency." I have no doubt that some person calling himself a libertarian said this, or something like it (however, it would have been nice to have been furnished specifics). But no sensible libertarian did so. In any case, this is certainly not Dr. Paul’s view. In logic, this is called setting up a straw man and knocking it down. Not really cricket. III. Pollution Now consider the "externality" of pollution. The truth of this matter is almost the diametrical opposite of Mr. Kinsley’s view. Pollution is not a market failure. Rather, it is a government failure. Consider this finding from the Supreme Court of Georgia, which serves as the basis of U.S. government policy: "The pollution of the air, so far as reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indispensable to the progress of society, is not actionable" (Holman v. Athens Empire Laundry Co. [1919]). When government takes upon itself the role of protecting property rights (pollution is nothing but a trespass in the libertarian legal code), but then abrogates this responsibility with court findings of this sort, to characterize the situation as the market failure of externalities as is commonly done not only in "Economics 101" but all throughout the profession of economics, is highly problematic. See here for a further analysis along these lines. But Mr. Tinsley is not yet finished bashing the free enterprise philosophy on the issue of pollution. He continues: "Libertarians also have a tendency to see too many issues in terms of property rights… Pollution, libertarians say, is simply theft: you are stealing my clean air. Settle it in court. This is a really terrible idea: inexpert judges, lawyers and juries using the most elaborate and expensive decision-making process known to humankind – litigation – to make inconsistent decisions in different cases. And usually there is no one ‘right’ answer: There is a spectrum of acceptable answers, involving tradeoffs (dirty air versus fewer jobs, etc.) that ought to be made democratically – that is, through government." This is more than passing curious. If we read this literally, and how else are we to interpret it, he is saying that government courts are not part of government. Surely, he would acknowledge that the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts, indeed all government courts, are, well, government courts. His way of putting the problem, perhaps leads to his error here. He says, "Pollution, libertarians say, is simply theft: you are stealing my clean air." Not so. In our view, pollution is not a theft of clean air. Rather, it is a trespass of dust and other particles onto the property (and lungs) of other people. IV. Private roadways At last we arrive at what is for me the crux of Mr. Tinsley’s argument against libertarians. We are kooky because we want to privatize highways. Let us allow him to speak for himself on this matter: "Sometimes libertarians end up reinventing the wheel. My favorite example is an article I read years ago advocating privatization of highways. This is a classic libertarian fantasy: government auctions off the land, private enterprise pays for construction and maintenance, tolls cover the cost, competition with other routes keeps it all efficient. And what about, um, intersections? Well, markets would recognize that it is more efficient for one company to own both roads at major intersections, and when that happened the company would have an incentive to strike the right balance between customers on each highway. And stoplights? Ultimately, the author had worked his way up to a giant monopoly that would build, own, and maintain all the roads, and charge an annual fee to people who wanted to use them. None dare call it government." There is more wrong here than you can shake a stick at. There is enough to write an entire book about the errors here. As a matter of fact, I have written a book on it: Block, Walter. Forthcoming, 2008. Privatize The Highways. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute. (I strongly suspect that the "article he read years ago was one of mine, since I have written so much about this topic; but who knows?) Let us, however, before analyzing the problems, ask, why is it that libertarians so vociferously reject the present institutional arrangements that govern highways and streets? In a word, it is because some 40,000 people in the U.S. bite the dust, are slaughtered, are dying like flies, on the nation’s thoroughfares. I know, I know, it is weird and kooky to be concerned with so much needless death, but, bear with me gentle reader, while I explain further. To put this into context, "only" some 3,000 people perished in the tragedy of 9/11. A similar number of U.S. military have so far been given a one-way ride home in a casket from Iraq. "Only" some 50,000 of our servicemen died in quagmire of Viet Nam in all the years we were engaged in our imperialist initiatives in that country. Compared to these, the 40,000 deaths per year on our roadways is a national shame. A disgrace. The death toll includes women, children, black people, old people, gays, the groups usually in the public eye whenever something untoward occurs to them. Why is it not in the news? Because journalist such as Mr. Kinsley are too busy trying to embarrass libertarians, the only ones concerned with the problem, and who are offering realistic solutions. Why are there no governmental commissions studying this problem? Why is there no public outrage? Again, this is due to the undoubted power of the Fourth Estate. They have lulled the populace into accepting the notion that like death and taxes, massive highway fatalities are inevitable. It is only to be expected that people of the perspicacity of Mr. Michael Tinsley will object at this point: the fault for these deaths lies not with the state. Rather, responsibility for these tragic killings can be laid at the door of excessive speed, drunken driving, vehicle malfunction, driver error, bad weather, the litany goes on and on. No. These phenomena are but proximate causes. They are not the ultimate causes of the problem. The deaths are the responsibility of the managers of the highways. It is as if we were to blame for a restaurant bankruptcy cold food, poor service, dirty conditions, bad location. No, no, no, these are the fault of the restaurant manager. In like manner, the "buck" stops with the statist bureaucrats in charge. It is they who have failed to confront the problems of excessive speed, drunken driving, vehicle malfunction, driver error, bad weather, etc. Why privatization, then? This is because competition brings about better products at lower prices. It does so for every good and service in the private economy. We have reasonably good pizza, for example, because those who cannot satisfy customer demands in this regard fall by the wayside. Imagine if government were placed in charge of providing this foodstuff. We would have Sovietized piazza. Well, we now suffer under the yoke of Sovietized highways and streets. Let us now consider Mr. Tinsley’s puerile objections to privatization. First, he calls it "a classic libertarian fantasy." But this is mere name-calling. Any student of mine guilty of this sort of "arguing" would soon enough feel the wrath of my red pen. Every new idea, in any case, starts out as a "fantasy." This applies to the horseless carriage, the computer, pizza, bubble gum, the airplane. Second, our libertarian critic comes up with this gem: "And what about, um, intersections?" I love that "um." Any discerning economist would. The implication is that no long thin things, like roads, which necessarily overlap, could be privatized. But what about railroads? At least in this country, we have private entities in that industry. How, ever, do they solve the horrendous challenge of the, um, intersection? There really is no difficulty. In libertarian property rights theory, based on the concept of homesteading as outlined by Locke, Rothbard and Hoppe, one railroad or highway, would privatize, say, 500 miles in a north–south direction (the earliest roads in our nation were created by private turnpike companies). When a second owner wanted to build an east–west thoroughfare, he would have to purchase the rights (or else tunnel under or bridge over) from the owner. The initial company would have every incentive to deal reasonably with the second, since a crossroad would enhance the value of his own installation. But Mr. Tinsley is having none of this. The only "solution" he sees to this "problem" of intersections, and, also "stoplights," is "a giant monopoly that would build, own, and maintain all the roads, and charge an annual fee to people who wanted to use them," which in his view would be equivalent to "government." But there is no reason for one private company to own all the nation’s roads, any more than there is for railroads, autos, steel, oil or computers. And, even if there were, that is, one big firm owned an entire industry, it would still not be governmental. If Wal-Mart took over all the groceries, or McDonald’s all the fast-food emporiums, they would still be private entities. There is an old joke: "Do you know the difference between a bathroom and a living room?" If the reply is "no," the rejoinder is, "Well, then, don’t come to my home." In like manner I say to Mr. Tinsley, if you don’t know the difference between a large private enterprise, and a government enterprise, then don’t get into political economy, for this is the single most basic distinction to be made in that entire field. For the libertarian case in favor of private highways and streets, see here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here and here. Also, google the following libertarian scholars: David Beito, Dan Klein, Gabriel Roth, John Semmens all of whom have done important work in this crucial field. V. Paternalism Let us accord Mr. Tinsley the opportunity to speak out, without interruption, on this issue (a privilege rarely accorded to libertarians in the mass media, nor to Ron Paul): "Something similar goes on when the government forbids or requires people to do something for their own good. Why shouldn't people, at least adult people, have the right to decide for themselves? Libertarian thinking has been useful, for example, in making it easier to get prescription drugs through the maze at the FDA. The Terry Shiavo case of 2005 was libertarianism's greatest moment so far, as the entire nation rose up in defense of her right to die." Let us pause for a moment. Much as I hate to reject accolades from eminent journalists, the correct libertarian position on Terry Schiavo was to support her life (Block, Walter. Forthcoming. "Terri Schiavo: A Libertarian Analysisl," Journal of Libertarian Studies)not her death. (I wonder if Mr. Tinsley’s unconcern with the life of this unfortunate woman has anything to do with his unconcern for highway fatalities.) Her husband was ruled to be her guardian. Well and good, as long as he kept "guarding" her life. But when he wished to do away with her, something akin to child abuse given that she was in a helpless vegetative state, this guardianship should have passed on to someone, her parents for example, who wanted to protect her, as a good guardian should. To return to Mr. Tinsley’s attack on libertarians for being insufficiently paternalistic, to adults that is: "The trouble here is that libertarians tend to analogize everything to a right to die. If you have the right to end your own life, you must have the right to do anything else you wish, short of that. If you're allowed to shoot yourself through the head, why aren't you allowed to drive without a seat belt? "The answer is that it's a bad analogy. When you drive without a seat belt, you are not motivated by a desire to die, or even a desire to take a small risk of dying. Why should your motive matter? Because your death – especially your death in a car crash – does impose externalities on others. I would pay good money not to have to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam, or pay the emergency room costs. A serious right like the right to die may be worth the cost, while a right to be careless or irresponsible is not." No, it is not a matter of costs or benefits. It is solely a matter of rights, something with which Mr. Tinsley seems unfamiliar. If the private road owner is concerned with "a bloody carcass" negatively impacting his other customers, he can insist on seatbelts, if he thinks that the best means to this end (studies have shown, however, that the more safe the motorist feels, the more chances he will take). In some jurisdictions in Canada bicyclists are compelled to wear helmets. This bit of nannyism is "justified" on the ground that if a bicycle user gets hurt, he will constitute an external diseconomy, others will have to pay his medical bills due to that nation’s socialized medical system. The proper answer to the charge of "imposing externalities" on others is pr
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

Poem from "Alice in Wonderland"--"You Are Old, Father William"
Tom submitted on January 14, 1970
When I was young we had a recording of actors doing excerpts from "Alice in Wonderland'. I can still hear this poem, recited by Alice, in my head. Once I became a lawyer, I always liked the sixth parapraph. I found this on-line--its amusing. From Chapter 5: Alice thought she might as well wait, as she had nothing else to do, and perhaps after all it might tell her something worth hearing. For some minutes it puffed away without speaking, but at last it unfolded its arms, took the hookah out of its mouth again, and said, 'So you think you're changed, do you?'
Tom's blogLoginto post comments Read More
🎨 Blog Cover Photo Helper
BLOG TITLEBLOG CONTENTWhen I was young we had a recording of actors doing excerpts from "Alice in Wonderland'. I can still hear this poem, recited by Alice, in my head. Once I became a lawyer, I always liked the sixth parapraph. I found this on-line--its amusing. From Chapter 5: Alice thought she might as well wait, as she had nothing else to do, and perhaps after all it might tell her something worth hearing. For some minutes it puffed away without speaking, but at last it unfolded its arms, took the hookah out of its mouth again, and said, 'So you think you're changed, do you?' 'I'm afraid I am, sir,' said Alice; 'I can't remember things as I used - and I don't keep the same size for ten minutes together!' 'Can't remember what things?' said the Caterpillar. 'Well, I've tried to say "How doth the little busy bee," but it all came different!' Alice replied in a very melancholy voice. 'Repeat, "You are old, Father William,"' said the Caterpillar. Alice folded her hands, and began: - 'You are old, Father William,' the young man said, 'And your hair has become very white; And yet you incessantly stand on your head - Do you think, at your age, it is right?' 'In my youth,' Father William replied to his son, 'I feared it might injure the brain; But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none, Why, I do it again and again.' 'You are old,' said the youth, 'as I mentioned before, And have grown most uncommonly fat; Yet you turned a back-somersault in at the door - Pray, what is the reason of that?' 'In my youth,' said the sage, as he shook his grey locks, 'I kept all my limbs very supple By the use of this ointment - one shilling the box - Allow me to sell you a couple?' 'You are old,' said the youth, 'and your jaws are too weak For anything tougher than suet; Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak - Pray how did you manage to do it?' 'In my youth,' said his father, 'I took to the law, And argued each case with my wife; And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw, Has lasted the rest of my life.' 'You are old,' said the youth, 'one would hardly suppose That your eye was as steady as ever; Yet you balanced an eel on the end of your nose - What made you so awfully clever?' 'I have answered three questions, and that is enough,' Said his father; 'don't give yourself airs! Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff? Be off, or I'll kick you down stairs!' 'That is not said right,' said the Caterpillar. 'Not quite right, I'm afraid,' said Alice, timidly; 'some of the words have got altered.' 'It is wrong from beginning to end,' said the Caterpillar decidedly, and there was silence for some minutes.
⏳ Gemini is analyzing...
Select Search Source
AI Suggested Keywords
Manual Keywords

1...27 282930 31...58

Go to