http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/…

Penn Jillette phoned On Call recently to clarify that he’s “probably” backing Libertarian candidate Bob Barr for president but not as enthusiastically as he would, say, Ron Paul. Barr, Jilette said, “took a little bit long to get on board” with Libertarian social positions, which broadly support the legalization of drugs and gay rights.

Jillette, a longtime Libertarian whose endorsement-ish Web video about Barr we ran earlier this month, said he “supports Barr more than Oprah supports Obama.” But, he cautioned: “If you said to me right now, ‘Penn, you have superpowers under a yellow sun because you were born on Krypton, we can make Ron Paul president. Is that gonna piss you off because you’re behind Bob Barr?’ I hate to insult Bob Barr, but I wouldn’t have to think about that.”

Perhaps wisely, Jillette downplayed the affect of his endorsement.

“Let’s say we’re in some crazy world where people listen to me - where I’m as big as Oprah, if I endorse Bob Barr, I destroy Bob Barr instantly,” he said. “Because when they ask me the question, ‘What do you think should be done about medical marijuana?’ My answer is: ‘Heroin should be legal.’”

I generally don’t care much when famous people give their political views. Mostly because they are almost always socialist. However, as I’ve thought about it more perhaps it’s not that bad if more famous libertarians speak out too. Even though I don’t like the reasoning many people will give some weight to the fact that a famous individual has a particular viewpoint. It makes it look like the idea is more popular then it in fact may be and can give people the feeling that the belief is one socially acceptable to have. So Penn Jillette, Teller, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Kurt Russell, Drew Carey, Clint Eastwood, John Stossel, Russell Means, Jimmie Vaughan… make some noise.

Part 2

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-07-24-swedenschools_N.htm

Schools run by private enterprise? Free iPods and laptop computers to attract students?

It may sound out of place in Sweden, that paragon of taxpayer-funded cradle-to-grave welfare. But a sweeping reform of the school system has survived the critics and 16 years later is spreading and attracting interest abroad.

“I think most people, parents and children, appreciate the choice,” said Bertil Ostberg, from the Ministry of Education. “You can decide what school you want to attend and that appeals to people.”

Since the change was introduced in 1992 by a center-right government that briefly replaced the long-governing Social Democrats, the numbers have shot up. In 1992, 1.7% of high schoolers and 1% of elementary schoolchildren were privately educated. Now the figures are 17% and 9%.

Before the reform, most families depended on state-run schools following a uniform national curriculum. Now they can turn to the “friskolor,” or “independent schools,” which choose their own teaching methods and staff, and manage their own buildings.

They remain completely government-financed and are not allowed to charge tuition fees. The difference is that their government funding goes to private companies which then try to run the schools more cost-effectively and keep whatever taxpayer money they save.

Bure Equity, listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange, is the largest private school operator in Sweden and is expanding rapidly. In the first quarter of this year, net profit for its education portfolio rose 33% to about $3 million.

Such profit-making troubles Swedes who don’t think taxpayers should be enriching corporations.

The Social Democrats strongly opposed the change as anti-egalitarian, but when they were re-elected to power in 1994, they found it was so popular that they left it in place, though they imposed a lid on fees.

People like freedom and choice?! Can’t let that stay. Gotta make everyone the same. A good army of serfs to support the oligarchy.

This system of theirs has been talked about for years by the likes of John Stossel but it’s nice to see more agencies pick it up. While it seems to be little more then corporatism it sounds like it creates more competition and therefore a more efficient education system.

As for their last component of the article where they try to show that private schools can’t do everything… it’s a pretty pathetic example. Some kid wants to be a musician. A field which pays little generally because of the large pool of laborers and relative ease of entering. Apparently he can’t find a private school that provides the education so he’s going to attend a public school. So, because he doesn’t want to really take the risk and attend a private school he’s relying on the violence of the state to do what he ‘wants’ to do instead of non-violently doing what he ‘needs’ to do to survive. Great, I hope this kid ends up as a street mime in Paris.

http://www.townhall.com/…

The other day, reading the New York Post’s popular Page Six gossip page, I was surprised to find a picture of me, followed by the lines: “ABC’S John Stossel wants the government to stop interfering with your right to get high. The crowd went silent at his call to legalize hard drugs”.

I had attended a Marijuana Policy Project event celebrating the New York State Assembly’s passage of a medical-marijuana bill. (The bill hasn’t passed the Senate.) I told the audience I thought it pathetic that the mere half passage of a bill to allow sick people to try a possible remedy would merit such a celebration. Of course medical marijuana should be legal. For adults, everything should be legal. I’m amazed that the health police are so smug in their opposition.

After years of reporting on the drug war, I’m convinced that this “war” does more harm than any drug.

Independent of that harm, adults ought to own our own bodies, so it’s not intellectually honest to argue that “only marijuana” should be legal — and only for certain sick people approved by the state. Every drug should be legal.

“How could you say such a ridiculous thing?” asked my assistant. “Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect. If you do crack just once, you are automatically hooked. Legal hard drugs would create many more addicts. And that leads to more violence, homelessness, out-of-wedlock births, etc!”

Her diatribe is a good summary of the drug warriors’ arguments. Most Americans probably agree with what she said.

But what most Americans believe is wrong.

Myth No. 1: Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect.

Truth: There is no evidence of that.

In the 1980s, the press reported that “crack babies” were “permanently damaged.” Rolling Stone, citing one study of just 23 babies, claimed that crack babies “were oblivious to affection, automatons.”

It simply wasn’t true. There is no proof that crack babies do worse than anyone else in later life.

Myth No. 2: If you do crack once, you are hooked.

Truth: Look at the numbers — 15 percent of young adults have tried crack, but only 2 percent used it in the last month. If crack is so addictive, why do most people who’ve tried it no longer use it?

People once said heroin was nearly impossible to quit, but during the Vietnam War, thousands of soldiers became addicted, and when they returned home, 85 percent quit within one year.

People have free will. Most who use drugs eventually wise up and stop.

And most people who use drugs habitually live perfectly responsible lives, as Jacob Sullum pointed out in “Saying Yes”.

Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high. Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property.

In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive, and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone and the Mafia. Drug prohibition is worse. It’s corrupting whole countries and financing terrorism.

The Post wrote, “Stossel admitted his own 22-year-old daughter doesn’t think [legalization] is a good idea.”

But that’s not what she said. My daughter argued that legal cocaine would probably lead to more cocaine use. And therefore probably abuse.

I’m not so sure.

Banning drugs certainly hasn’t kept young people from getting them. We can’t even keep these drugs out of prisons. How do we expect to keep them out of America?

But let’s assume my daughter is right, that legalization would lead to more experimentation and more addiction. I still say: Legal is better.

While drugs harm many, the drug war’s black market harms more.

And most importantly, in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves.

He may be preaching to the choir but it’s still nice to have a man like him in his position. I nearly went to the MPP event last week and it saddens me that those who did go paused when he advocated full drug re-legalization. Must not have been many libertarians there.

I’m on the 1 train heading to Times Square when at Franklin a woman with a large Hillary button gets on the car and sits across from me. 1 or 2 stops later a guy sits next to me and after a minute pulls out the Mises Institutes Scholarly Edition of Ludwig von Mises Human Action. I start talking to him about it since 1) seeing a person reading Mises on a NYC subway car is fairly uncommon and 2) I’m also currently reading it but had picked up and was reading the latest John Stossel book as a break from HA. He says soming about Stossel and the Hillary supporter looks up with evil eyes and just stares at us. Ron Paul gets mentioned and she looks angry.Turns out he’s a long time libertarian but never bothered with the party. I invited him to come to a Manhattan LP meeting and to check out our website.

I should have invited the Hillary supporter too.