Don't Be A Dick.

The Irish Rover took to Facebook on Friday evening to shine a light on the 800-gorilla in the room.

Speaking personally, this sentence stands out: "We hate having to be the mask police."

No kidding. If local and state government possessed an iota of cojones, and they don't, then we'd have a bit of help via enforced mandates, and not have to take time from our own work to apply the government's toothless edicts for it.

But that's the reality of two-party political cowardice.

The Rover's testimony is first, and then a link to a very useful article titled, "Why the libertarians are foolish about face masks."

Business was pretty good today despite the weather, and we saw a lot of regulars, including some we hadn’t seen since the shutdown....a great day, right?

No. Today sucked.

Numerous guests ignored posted mask policy (including seating themselves without masks and creating a scene when asked to leave), and many refused to comply with polite requests to wear the masks when staff approached to serve them.

This isn’t about people who forget to put the masks on...we truly appreciate all of you who are trying to learn the new normal!

We’re talking about people who are openly defiant. Who stuff the mask into a pocket or zip it into a purse. Who laugh and say they’ll “try.”

We hate having to be the mask police. It’s exhausting (and costly...one table walked out cursing at us, and without paying for their drinks). But we are trying to protect the health of our staff and guests.

What’s really upsetting, though, is the complete lack of concern for the health of the people trying to serve you. It’s demoralizing and dehumanizing, and it’s really hurts.

We love the restaurant business, but this is soul crushing. And it has us wondering why we are working so hard to keep going.

There is an incident recounted on local social media that may or may not be true, but it perfectly captures the attitude we encountered so many times today:

A woman enters an empty coffee shop, and, when asked by the barista to put on a mask, she replies:

“Why? There’s no one here”

The article's from the Financial Times, and you may not be able to read it without registering. In the event, allow my sole excerpt to tell the tale.

Why the libertarians are foolish about face masks, by Henry Mance (FT)

Wearing coverings is finally mandatory in England in shops as well as on public transport

Wearing a mask is an act of trust. It does not protect you — it protects others, and their masks protect you. The effect is likely to be small, but it is a sign of shared endeavour, an essential part of getting through this crisis. Just as no one is an atheist in a foxhole, no one is a libertarian in a pandemic.

More dismal than Ayn Rand? "Meet the Hidden Architect Behind America's Racist Economics."

Photo credit: Slate.

Meet the man credited with public choice theory -- which means being given little real choice when it comes to oligarchs keeping you down for their further enrichment.

Meet the Hidden Architect Behind America's Racist Economics, by Lynn Parramore (Institute for New Economic Thinking)

Nobel laureate James Buchanan is the intellectual linchpin of the Koch-funded attack on democratic institutions, argues Duke historian Nancy MacLean

Ask people to name the key minds that have shaped America’s burst of radical right-wing attacks on working conditions, consumer rights and public services, and they will typically mention figures like free market-champion Milton Friedman, libertarian guru Ayn Rand, and laissez-faire economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

James McGill Buchanan is a name you will rarely hear unless you’ve taken several classes in economics. And if the Tennessee-born Nobel laureate were alive today, it would suit him just fine that most well-informed journalists, liberal politicians, and even many economics students have little understanding of his work.

The reason? Duke historian Nancy MacLean contends that his philosophy is so stark that even young libertarian acolytes are only introduced to it after they have accepted the relatively sunny perspective of Ayn Rand. (Yes, you read that correctly). If Americans really knew what Buchanan thought and promoted, and how destructively his vision is manifesting under their noses, it would dawn on them how close the country is to a transformation most would not even want to imagine, much less accept.

That is a dangerous blind spot, MacLean argues in a meticulously researched book, Democracy in Chains, a finalist for the National Book Award in Nonfiction. While Americans grapple with Donald Trump’s chaotic presidency, we may be missing the key to changes that are taking place far beyond the level of mere politics. Once these changes are locked into place, there may be no going back ...

Long read: Not Legoland, but Liborland.

If Liborland can achieve independence, then why not New Albany?

Thanks to W for the link.

Welcome to Liberland, the World’s Newest Country (Maybe): Travels with Vit Jedlicka, the would-be founding father of a libertarian paradise, by Gideon Lewis-Krausaug (New York Times)

Along the western bank of the Danube, more or less halfway between Zagreb and Belgrade, there rests in historic obscurity a three-square-mile teardrop of no man’s land. It is an artifact of a border dispute of long standing, and neither Serbia nor Croatia expresses a desire to rule over this unprepossessing Gibraltar-size property. The land, marshy and prone to seasonal inundation, is choked with unregulated scrub, with here and there the lone tongue of a poplar or the gentle shag of a willow. The only road is a rutted single-lane dirt track, the only existing dwelling a flimsy hunting hovel, its provenance unknown.

The absence of governmental authority on this land is due to the manipulated course of the Danube itself. By the late 19th century, the Danube was accepted as the natural border between the regions — at that point still under Austro-Hungarian control — that would become Croatia and Serbia. There, however, the river’s path was tortuous and difficult for larger boats to navigate, so engineering work was undertaken to smooth the snaking flow. The straightened Danube was a vast improvement for international riverine transport, but in the process, four large uncontiguous bulges of Croatia became stranded alone on the Serbian side, and one small pocket of Serbia, on what was now the far bank, became attached to the Croatian mass.

This latter pocket, which local residents call Gornja Siga, is the no man’s land in question.

Piketty: "(Blowing up) libertarian fantasies one by one."

Parramore's essay goes into greater detail than my previous posting on the topic of Pinketty's book, leading me to the unprecedented likelihood of my actually reading a book about economics -- which, in turn, probably disqualifies me from holding political office in New Albany until the end of time, or until CeeSaw's Bicentennial Crutchfield paving stones are sold, whichever comes first.

Piketty shrugged: How the French economist dashed libertarians’ Ayn Randian fantasies; "Capital in the 21st Century" reveals once and for all that the invisible hand of the market can't solve inequality, by Lynn Stuart Parramore (Alternet via Salon)

Libertarians have always been flummoxed by inequality, tending either to deny that it’s a problem or pretend that the invisible hand of the market will wave a magic wand to cure it. Then everybody gets properly rewarded for what he or she does with brains and effort, and things are peachy keen.

Except that they aren’t, as exhaustively demonstrated by French economist Thomas Piketty, whose 700-page treatise on the long-term trends in inequality, Capital In the 21st Century, has blown up libertarian fantasies one by one.

One Rand, two reactions.

The bizarre fetish of Reardon Metal was reprised in yesterday's C-J.

Libertarian candidate for Senate urges Hoosier voters to think small

Credit Ayn Rand. As a senior at Warren Central High School, Rebecca Sink-Burris devoured a copy of Rand's “Atlas Shrugged.” Young eyes were opened. A political foundation was formed.

Ms. Sink-Burris read "Atlas Shrugged" as a senior in high school, and the experience led her down a lifelong pathway to libertarianism.

I read "Atlas Shrugged" as a senior in high school, and the experience led me to ask aloud, "Is this Rand woman certifiably looney, or what?"

C'mon, folks: Erotic attractions to metal bracelets? That's just plain weird.

Schansberg: " ... Nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night."

With the Libertarian candidate's permission, here is Eric Schansberg's unedited response to my post on Sunday, Indiana's 9th district contest: A million miles on a set of retreads? Are you kidding?

---

In a word: an eloquent beat-down of Sodrel; "palpable resignation" in choosing Hill; and considerable respect with disagreement on some issues for me.

Thanks for your kind words!

Thoughts on two of the labels you used...

You refer to my "fundamentalist religious orientation". As an aside: is this a good time for a reference to "choice" vs. "was I born that way"? ;-) In any case, I'd be more careful throwing around a label like that.

First, it's not true about me in general terms. Anyone who knows me in terms of my theology and Christian walk would be hard-pressed to make that pejorative stick.

Second, you connect my fundamentalism to my views on abortion. Again, I'd take care with that assertion as well-- if one's views are based on a bizarre view of a sacred text (the Constitution) and decades-old science (on when life begins).

More broadly, and I don't know you well enough to say this about you, but many in your crowd suffer from various forms of fundamentalism with respect to the State, Nature, and so on.

And then there's the term "progressive". You might want to check the Progressive Handbook on this. But I don't think you're allowed to claim the label when you publicly support a candidate who does nothing substantive to get us out of Iraq, says nothing about the 15.3% tax on every dollar earned by the working poor, nothing about the negative rate-of-return on Social Security for African-Americans, and so on. I'll admit that Hill seems quite strong on keeping our kids away from porn and supporting our veterans. But that hardly seems like enough for a "progressive" to actively promote the status quo.

Instead of progressive, I think you mean "pragmatist". Of course, I need voters to be more principled. And with Hill cruising to victory with a 11-15% lead, nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night.

I'd love to win. That said, assuming a second-tier miracle is not in the offing, reaching 10% is within reach. (We were at 7% in the last poll.) Reaching double-digits would hopefully lead to a national discussion of third-party candidates (including various types of "progressives")-- something all of us, presumably, want to see.

Don't waste your vote this time. Vote Schansberg for Congress on November 4th.

More on religion, libertarianism ... and candidate Schansberg.

Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel aren’t the only repeat candidates in this fall’s Indiana 9th district congressional race. Just as in 2006, university professor Eric Schansberg will be running for the seat under the Libertarian banner.

A few days ago, I received a Schansberg e-mailing setting forth the themes for his campaign. It is repeated here verbatim, with my thoughts to follow.

----

In case you hadn't heard already, I've decided to run for U.S. Congress again -- in Indiana's 9th District, opposing Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel in their fourth race against each other.

We'll emphasize similar themes in this campaign:

-fiscal conservatism (I'm the only fiscal conservative in the race)
-bring our troops home (the other two support the status quo in Iraq)
-no taxpayer money for corporations or Planned Parenthood (the other two have voted for both)
-attention to over-looked issues like payroll/FICA taxes and Social Security
-increase the supply of oil to reduce the price of gasoline

We started much earlier this time and already had a lot of stuff done -- so we're much further along this time. For example:

-the website is up-and-running
-we have our printed materials in hand
-I've been in the newspapers and on TV and radio
-I've started to walk the business districts; and
-we have more cash-on-hand than we raised from individuals from the entire 2006 campaign.

If you're getting this email, you're probably a friend or acquaintance who didn't help explicitly in the last campaign.

-We'd love to have your help this time-- to donate (even $5 will buy ads) or volunteer or just to spread the word (if you know people in the district).

-If so, drop me a line or work through the website.
-If not, I won't bother you anymore with this!

Grace to you, Eric

p.s. If you haven't checked out my personal blog, SchansBlog, you might get a kick out of it!

----

If you follow the links above, you’ll find literally hundreds of words written by Schansberg about each of the highlighted platform points, and whether the reader agrees or disagrees, it must be readily conceded that there is a tangible effort throughout to deploy logic and reasoned argumentation. Speaking personally, it’s the very least I’d expect from a highly educated man, a teacher, an economist and a thinker. Surely a good many of Schansberg’s criticisms of the two major party candidates ring true.

And yet, again speaking personally, there’s a profound deal breaker in it for me, just one sentence among the many, but one that makes this longtime heretic cringe. The topic is Planned Parenthood, and Schanberg’s credo is, “Pro-life, Pro-adoption, and no taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood.” He writes:

“Given 21st-century science and my religious views, I am unabashedly pro-life.”

I find this reference fascinating even if it ensures that I’ll not vote for Schansberg this fall, because nowhere else in the candidate’s lengthy policy explications does he feel the need to cite his personal religious belief as justification for a position. However, when it comes to the “pro-life” argument, evidently Schansberg finds insufficient certitude that 21st-century science provide enough “evidence” to rule on the issue … and an appeal to his personal religious perspective is offered as something approximating insurance.

It strikes me that either this is intentional pandering to those for whom science is by far the least compelling reason to render an opinion on abortion (these being the same voters who visit the creationism museum in the northern Kentucky intellectual desert, Schansberg’s opinion of which may or may not be on record), or Schansberg himself explicitly recognizes that the same proof-based worldview used to make his other cases isn’t enough to make the pro-life one.

I’ve always liked the candidate personally and will continue to like him, and (not “but”) he is a rather extreme fundamentalist, albeit of an uncommonly erudite variety. Given this fact, shouldn’t we be asking him to explain the implications of his personal religious (read: apocalyptic) beliefs on those other issues that he has reserved the calculatedly public coolness of logic to expound?

I’ll readily confess to a measure of personal confusion here. How does the conceptual basis of the Libertarian position lend itself to this blatant appeal to religious authority v.v. Planned Parenthood and the “sanctity” of life? Does candidate Schansberg offer specific religious testimony that might clarify Libertarian planks on broader issues of fairness as they apply to health care, immigration and the war in Iraq … or is human reason sufficient to help us understand those policy conundrums? Why one and not the other?

I’m just curious.

Libertarians oppose the notion that government is the most efficient way to solve problems, while I tend to feel that the same shoe better fits religion. Then again, I’m an atheist who sees in the Libertarian’s presumed disestablishment the seeds of future persecution on religious grounds … a state of affairs that has been the norm throughout the history of Christianity. Perhaps I can be persuaded not to be concerned. Can Schansberg make his “pro-life” case without recourse to religious belief?