Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (18511)	12/3/2003 2:05:30 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

Walter Williams Economic straight thinking newsandopinion.com \| A fortnight ago, I wrote "Harm's a two way street," a column that generated considerable reader response, some of it angry and nasty. The gist of the column was that the liberty-oriented solution to the smoking controversy was through the institution of private property, where the owner of a workplace, restaurant or bar decides whether there would be smoking or not. The totalitarian solution was to use the brute force of government. I argued that harm is a two-way street. Tobacco fumes might harm someone who is allergic or just finds the odor offensive. The person who smokes and is not permitted to do so is also harmed by being denied a pleasurable experience. Quite a few letters asserted, "Williams, you can't compare the health harm to a nonsmoker to the inconvenience harm that a smoker suffers just because he's not allowed to smoke." No, I can't and wouldn't even try. Why? Using economic jargon, it is impossible to make interpersonal utility comparisons. Let's try a few. A dollar will bring me more happiness than it will bring you. It's better to like opera music than hip-hop music. Human life is more important than money. There's no objective way to prove any of these statements simply because there is no objective standard for comparison. You might have an opinion, but an opinion is not proof. The same reasoning applies if you said, "The harm I suffer from your smoking is greater than the harm you suffer from not being permitted to smoke." Contrast these statements to: "You are taller than I." For such a statement there are indeed objective standards for falsifying or verifying it -- just get out the measuring instruments. > Another part of the column suggested that an owner of a restaurant, workplace or bar might post a sign indicating whether he permitted smoking or not. After all, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways he pleases so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property. Quite a few readers asked, "What if the owner wished to exclude blacks or some other race?" I value freedom of association. An important part of the right of association is the right not to associate for a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. That's not to say that I don't find some forms of association offensive. But the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows others to associate in ways he deems desirable. The true test of his commitment comes when he is willing to allow others to associate in ways he deems offensive. One might be tempted to think that if owners were free to reject customers by race, segregation would be widespread. But that's nonsense because there's a difference between what people can do and what they'll find in their interests to do. Think about it. During the United States' Jim Crow era and South Africa's apartheid era, there was an elaborate legal structure mandating and enforcing racial segregation. Whenever you see a law on the books, your best guess is that the law is on the books because not everyone left to their own devices would behave according to the specifications of the law. After all, why would there be a need for a law saying bars or theaters cannot admit blacks if no white bar or theater owner would admit blacks in the first place? jewishworldreview.com

To: greenspirit who wrote (18511)	12/3/2003 2:08:06 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793903

Warlords Hand Over Weapons to Afghan Army Tue Dec 2, 2:03 PM ET By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writer GONDI VOLGA, Afghanistan (news - web sites) — Afghanistan's two main northern warlords handed over dozens of tanks and heavy guns Tuesday, putting aside their personal hostility and placing a measure of trust in the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai. The action by Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammed, whose armies have been attacking each other for two years, is a small triumph for the fledgling government's attempts to gain control over the provinces. At Gondi Volga, a former Soviet military base about 19 miles east of the principal northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif, beaming government officials inspected an impressive arsenal collected from Mohammed's fighters. The weaponry was surrendered to the new Afghan National Army under a deal between the warlords brokered with the help of British peacekeepers. Soldiers posed on some of the dozens of tanks and troop carriers parked in a dusty field alongside anti-aircraft batteries. Gen. Ishaq Noori, leading a delegation from the Ministry of Defense in Kabul, said a similar compound west of Mazar was filled with heavy artillery and ammunition from Dostum. "Everything is calm. There have been no negative reactions," Noori said. "This is very important for the national army and for security and peace in this province." In October, clashes between the warlords' forces reportedly left dozens of civilians dead. Karzai then sent tough-talking Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali and enlisted the help of British peacekeepers and the United Nations (news - web sites) to bring the warlords into line. Under the resultant deal, the warlords agreed that a battalion from the new national army would guard the surrendered weapons until the Ministry of Defense decides what to do with them. Under a separate U.N.-sponsored disarmament program, hundreds of soldiers have also handed in guns, rockets and tanks in Kunduz, another northern city, and at Gardez near the Pakistani border. Eventually, the Ministry of Defense and its sponsors hope to disarm and decommission 100,000 Afghan militia members as it creates the new army and national police — which so far have only 6,000 forces. Karzai's government has little control outside the capital. Much of the country is controlled by warlords, and resurgent Taliban rebels have stepped up attacks in the south and east in recent months. Many officials believe that national elections scheduled for June will have to be postponed because of the security situation. In southern Uruzgan province, an Afghan soldier fighting alongside U.S. forces was killed Monday in a clash with unidentified gunmen in a former Taliban stronghold, the U.S. military said. Peace in the north also remains shaky. Both Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek who is also deputy defense minister, and Mohammed, a Tajik commander under the same ministry, are nominally loyal to Karzai's administration. But their mutual mistrust remains palpable. Gen. Abdul Sabur, a spokesman for Mohammed's side, claimed at the weapons handover that Dostum had surrendered only a few of his tanks. The British peacekeepers conceded that most weapons impounded were from Mohammed's faction, but said the next phase would take in more of Dostum's guns. Mazar-e-Sharif residents made it clear they wanted an end to warlord power. "We have seen a lot of fighting here and we are fed up," said Zulgai, a 52-year-old taxi driver who uses only one name. "We want the United States and the United Nations to disarm the whole of the north and to provide the people with jobs." news.yahoo.com