A fascinating report in The Atlantic tells of the upswing in “local currencies.” In the United Kingdom, the Brixton Pound is being floated, engraved on its paper notes the likes of “David Bowie in his Ziggy Stardust era.” Pegged to the British pound, it serves mainly as a scheme to promote local business and trade, though maybe it’s a tad more than mere boosterism.

Bavarians are also “enthusiastically using the local currency as a protest” — the local currency being the Chiemgauer. And “similar currencies have popped up around the world,” including in Canada and the United States.

The Atlantic story also mentions the idea of a “time bank,” a one-step-up-from-barter method based on labor hours and (in some cases) accounting for a variety of skill levels. Such “systems are in use all over the world . . . though the organizers are careful to make sure that the time is never given a specific value in a hard currency, which would open the door to taxation from governments.”

That caveat shows how barter and labor time exchanges might seem the more “revolutionary,” from, say, an establishment point of view. It’s worth noting that the idea’s greatest early proponent was Josiah Warren, America’s genius utopian experimenter and theoretician of “individual sovereignty.”

Less of a radical, Rep. Ron Paul echoes eminent monetary economist and Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek by promoting the “denationalization of money,” arguing that government policy should allow all currencies to float, getting rid of all taxation on trade amongst currencies as well as repealing all legal tender laws.

For my part, I would greatly enjoy spending a Ziggy Stardust banknote.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future.

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted.

The BBC puts Ron Paul’s delegate count at 104, with frontrunner Mitt Romney 178 short of a lock on the nomination — but that’s at present, before the upcoming primaries. As the BBC concisely summarized Dr. Paul’s campaign, he had some successes in “several contests, in states such as Maine and Nevada,” gaining “some delegates and sometimes a significant portion of the popular vote. But he was viewed by the Republican establishment as a candidate outside party orthodoxy, and he did not manage to win a single primary election.”

Talk to a Ron Paul organizer, and you can hear harrowing tales of how the Republican establishment treated Paul’s supporters as outsiders. Despite such ill treatment, chronicler Brian Doherty compares Ron Paul’s future influence on the party to that of the past influence of Barry Goldwater. “His fans understand that Ron Paul is not just out to win an election.”

Dr. Paul’s near-term influence, though, is less obvious. In his 2008 outing he was shut out, and held his own very successful parallel rally. What he hopes to accomplish at the upcoming nominating convention remains to be seen. He concludes his letter with promise of further elaboration of his campaign’s delegate strategy. But his main thrust, in this letter and elsewhere, has been to build a long-lasting movement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One of the organizers of the private-enterprise repair job, a local surfer, noted that the two years the state could take to do the job meant a summer or two without the attraction that local businesses depended upon, and that, “with the way they are cutting funds, we felt like they’d never get the money to do it.”

A businessman named Ivan Slack (no slacker, he) said his kayak business utterly depended upon the park — “tourism is our lifeblood; it’s what pays all our bills” — so he was more than willing to get the job going sans taxpayer dollars. His business’s survival depended upon it. He couldn’t just “wait around for a stimulus check.” So his company donated resources — as did others. The community provided its own stimulus.

And the job was completed in eight days.

This is what used to be the norm in America. When Alexis de Tocqueville toured the country, he noted the amazingly prolific community organizations and associations that abounded in what was then a “new country.” If the people saw a problem, the people fixed it.

If there’s a bright side to the current economic depression, surely it’s stories like this.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We should wear this freedom to ridicule like a badge.

Iranians, alas, can’t say the same.

Mahmoud Shokraye was tried and found guilty for insulting Nameye Amir, a member of parliament. Shokraye drew a mildly funny caricature of Amir, in a colorful post-Nastian style (the kind most major papers now fall back on), and for his trouble got 25 lashes.

Heroically, a number of cartoonists have upped the ante and created even less flattering caricatures, as you can see at the Cartoon Blog. (I sample some of them, here.) Amir got more than he bargained for. I hope it stings — more than 25 lashes’ worth.

There are several lessons to draw from this.

First, “taking offense” is not the basis of any legal action. Or any violent action. In the west, we’re centuries away from duels and other deadly fights of “honor.” The Islamic east is, alas, still embedded in old honor cultures. The faster they can shuffle off that obsession and move to a rule of law, instead, the better.

Second, as Thomas Jefferson put it, governments should fear the people, not the other way around. That’s part of what it means to live in a free society.

Politicians who don’t like it are free to seek a less public job. Really.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The elephant, crazy like a fox?

Paul Jacob • May 13, 2012

Republicans are under attack from the highest towers of official Washington — the gnashing of chattering-class teeth now even more pronounced following Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s decisive victory over 36-year incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Dick Lugar.

Two weeks ago, even before Mourdock’s triumph, the Washington Post published a column, entitled, “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.” Authors Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute are the resident scholars (read: apologists) of our nation’s capital or, as Post columnist Ezra Klein described them, “the two most respected, committed scholars — and defenders — of the U.S. Congress.”

That serves as both hoity-toity street cred for the national political class and, considering congressional approval ratings, an ugly black-eye before the American people.

“We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years,” wrote Mann and Ornstein, “and never have we seen them this dysfunctional,” adding, in phony non-partisanship, “Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.”

“Our advice to the press,” the pair generously offered, “Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views.” Put in layman’s terms: “When you do your reporting, slap a finger or five on the scale. Tell people to vote for the Democrat.”

What else can be done? Apparently, Republicans cause gridlock. Especially conservative Republicans…

to continue, read the full column.

You can read last week’s column, here.

A very concise and yet broad view of what the congressman from Texas has been up to, what he believes, and his significance in contemporary political debate.

Goldwater?

Noting that when Ronald Reagan captured the White House in 1980, George Will quipped, “It took 16 years to count the votes, and Goldwater won,” Mardell added that with Mourdock’s victory, “Goldwater has now won his campaign to purge his party of moderates; it has just taken him 48 years longer than he had hoped.”

Indeed, Goldwater helped define conservatism as favoring less government, and his 1964 presidential campaign led to a more pro-free market GOP. But Mardell’s implication is that those who want less government are inherently unreasonable, always and everywhere the cause of dreaded “gridlock” in Washington, while those who favor ever bigger government are just being reasonable.

Barry Goldwater, in his 1964 conservative presidential campaign, proclaimed, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

“Bipartisanship has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy,” Republican Senate nominee Mourdock said during his campaign. “We don’t need bipartisanship, we need application of principle.”

Being serious and committed to restoring fiscal sanity to Washington is no vice.

And even the dread gridlock would be a welcome change over out-of-control spending and debt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Regulation — licensing in particular.

At least when rating government, owners of small businesses surveyed by Thumbtack.com indicated that “licensing requirements were nearly twice as important as tax rates in determining their state or city government’s overall business-friendliness.”

Yes, taxes are a burden. But regulations and licensing can be amazingly arcane and costly in many communities. Their burdens often kick in before you’ve made a dime, and, despite that, they can sneak up on you, with the heavy weight of bureaucracy descending like the proverbial brick ton.

Thumbtack’s page allows you to see how your state rates. Idaho and Texas come out on top, and my state, Virginia, is surprisingly good. “Blue states” (horrible term: sorry) tend to come out much worse. California gets a big fat F, scoring abysmally low in most categories.

No surprise: The most politically unrepresentative state in the union over-regulates!

Distrust the survey? Just talk to the owner of a small business — you’ll likely get corroboration. Tim Sutinen, a businessman from southwest Washington State, noted in his campaign for state office a few years ago that there were only a handful of licensed occupations in the Evergreen State during the economic downturn in the early ’80s. Now, a few decades later, there’s over a thousand occupations you need a license to work in.

No wonder the recovery stalls.

That’s not progress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It wasn’t close, either — State Treasurer Richard Mourdock trounced Lugar, winning three of every five votes.

During the race, Sen. Lugar’s residency problem became clear: he hadn’t actually lived in Indiana since 1976. Voters tend to dislike the same person wielding power for four decades and only visiting, now and then, the people he represents.

Nor did it help being tagged “President Obama’s favorite Republican.”

But more substantial issues also mattered. Lugar voted for the TARP bailout. He opposed full Second Amendment rights. He voted to raise taxes and jack up the debt ceiling even further.

That’s what the so-called “outside groups” like the Club for Growth told voters in their ads.

An article in the Indianapolis Star, “Outside money flows in to state’s U.S. Senate race,” informed readers that $4 million was spent by political groups not controlled by the candidates, and that 70 percent backed challenger Mourdock. But Lugar, the powerful incumbent, was still able to raise enough “inside money” to outspend Mourdock by nearly two to one — running nasty attack ads against the challenger.

Without the independent groups and PACs, Lugar’s insider funding and incumbent edge would have been a whopping four to one.

The ability of more voices to speak out helped make the challenger competitive against the incumbent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights — all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.

But immediately prior to the above, he said this: “I am vice president of the United States of America; the president sets the policy.”

And that’s where I begin to wonder.

It could be he’s only saying that he’s second banana in the administration (if even that high in the banana tree), and that he can’t speak for the top banana.

But too often, these days, when people talk about the president “setting the policy” or “making decisions” (remember George W. Bush’s self-description as “The Decider”?) they seem to suggest something approaching a dictatorship by the president. What the head man says goes.

That’s what Biden’s statement does more than imply.

According to the Constitution, on the other hand, Congress sets policy. Not the president. The legislative power is concentrated in the House and the Senate.

Biden’s kind of loose talk is an artifact of what’s called the “imperial presidency.” Leadership (and followership) of both parties have pushed it. It has a long history.

I don’t know about you, but it gives me a lot more concern than the idea of two dudes marrying.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy got ousted, as French voters put in a self-declared socialist for the second time since World War II.

Meanwhile, in beleaguered Greece, elections gave no clear majority to any party.

Since the new French president, François Hollande, has pledged to fight back against German “austerity” measures, and since Greece, too, resists those “bailout” procedures, it looks like the collapse of the European Union may be at hand.

On one level, Greek and French voters seem to prefer to live in that special fantasy land where you can grow government and debt indefinitely and expect good times to roll on forever. On another, they are reacting, at least in part, to the idea that austerity is being pushed by foreigners, that they have been forced not by reality to reform, but by . . . Germans!

Americans wouldn’t be happy about having a policy shoved down their throat by France. Or Germany. Or (more likely) Beijing.

It’s not easy accepting less than one is used to.

Which is why, here in America, neither Obama nor Romney talk seriously about measures to balance the budget. Obama lives in la-la land, and Romney thinks that Rep. Ryan’s plan — which allegedly would balance the budget scores of years from now — is a responsible fix for the irresponsible reality of the day.

Only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are really taking reality seriously. Perhaps that’s why they are still in the race.

Thus it is, in interesting times.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

• “Reading List for the End of an Age” (on what and whom to blame for our continuing financial crisis)
• “Is More Regulation the Answer?” (Common Sense, Steve Chapman, and the eternal question)
• “March to Bankruptcy” (Common Sense … the politics of never-ending bad policy)
• “In Need of Bankruptcy?” (life under “too big to fail”)
• “A Barney Frank Appraisal” (Common Sense … on praising the wrong prophet)
• “Why I Vote, and How” (Common Sense … my personal strategy)

Note: These links are thematically related to this weekend’s Townhall column, not (like usual) source material upon which the column was based. The source material can easily be found by scrolling back through last week’s Common Sense.

Oh, and not covered in the Townhall column was Gary Johnson’s winning the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Reason? The column was written in advance of Johnson’s Saturday win.

Electoral politics, on the other hand, is always fraught with dangers: compromise and betrayal are the norm.

And the voter, when observant, often gets the feeling he’s being “played.” And he (and she) is.

This week I argued that Romney not being elected might be a good thing. I piled on to this notion by supporting Gary Johnson’s Libertarian Party run. Most of my readers who commented disagreed. Vociferously. Their main point? Obama must be stopped.

I note that my readers addressed almost none of the actual reasons I floated for equanimity in the face of a Romney defeat. Instead, they reiterate: Obama must be stopped. I agree, his policies must be stopped; but, in turn, reiterate my point: Romney will do little to reverse course.

Let’s not forget that George W. Bush and the united GOP Congress significantly increased the size and scope of government, and its debt . . . in effect, paving the way for Obama. Too few of us dubbed it “socialism” back then.

Romney seems all too likely to repeat this performance.

We certainly don’t need another president praising free markets and limited government while moving us step-by-step closer to a quasi-socialist serfdom.

I suggest we concentrate on Congress — especially new blood in the old institution — and on Court action, for the most effective resistance to the Democrats’ (and Republicans’) insane lust for spending and debt.

And we need creative initiative action in the states.

By resting hope on a Romney “victory,” I fear conservatives are walking straight into a trap, a familiar trap.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Mr. Johnson didn’t garner enough support in public opinion polls, debate organizers said. But his name didn’t even appear in many of those media-designed polls. Catch-2012.

But his campaign continues. He’s in Las Vegas this weekend, seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party. Most observers expect Johnson to become the minor party’s presidential nominee . . . and to wind up on as many as 49 state ballots this fall.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul — who is also still in the race, betting long odds on a brokered Republican convention — polls 17 percent in a hypothetical three-way race with Obama and Romney. Admittedly, Johnson doesn’t have Congressman Paul’s following, but given the commitment of Paul’s supporters to civil liberties, a non-interventionist foreign policy and ending the drug war, they are far more likely to opt for Johnson than Romney . . . or Obama.

Moreover, on the biggest issue facing the country, out-of-control federal spending, Johnson has the best resumé of any candidate. He pledges to submit a balanced budget and to veto any congressional spending that we can’t afford without more borrowing.

Believe him. Johnson issued 750 vetoes in his eight years as New Mexico’s governor — more than the other 49 governors combined.

So, in all likelihood, it’s a choice between Romney or Obama . . . or a guy who would veto Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Shikha Dalmia, at reason.com, offers five reasons why conservatives should root for a Romney defeat. They are:

1. Romney won’t man up and dismantle the worst element of RomneyC — oops, ObamaCare.
2. Romney’s hard line against Pentagon cuts means he won’t be able to bargain with Democrats on making any other kind of cuts. Federal spending will increase under Romney.
3. Romney, the “ultimate Wall Street insider,” will do nothing substantive against crony capitalism.
4. A Romney win now would preclude a better candidate four years from now.
5. “Four years of Romneyisms, all of which smack of elitism, will cement the image of the GOP as the out-of-touch party of the rich.”

All good reasons to blanch at supporting Mr. Romney. But I have another reason, a sixth: It’s highly likely that in the next four years we’re going to hit a major crisis that will make the current “recession” look like a weekend vacation. Romney will flub the response, as would nearly any mainstream politician — perhaps any politician. But because Romney pretends to be “for” free markets and such, “free market capitalism” would almost certainly take the blame for the debacle to come, even though its actual parentage will be the government.

I’d rather blame — and have others blame — Obama, who almost personifies government as we now know it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The moral aspects of the issue convince me that good people do not use torture. But, apart from concerns of justice and principle, there’s a big hurdle: unreliability. Torturers rarely retrieve good information.

Under torture, victims will say almost anything; even the innocent fabricate confessions to stop the pain.

Economist David D. Friedman recently discussed one “ingenious, if imperfect, solution to the problem in what is apparently the oldest surviving Germanic law code,” that of the Visigoths: The judge compels the accuser to describe the crime in detail and in writing, and makes sure this information is not told to the person about to be tortured. If, under torture, the victim confesses with the appropriate detail, then he’s considered guilty. But if he confesses without the appropriate detail, then the accuser is himself tortured.

What’s good for the goose. . . .

On Sunday, viewers of CBS’s 60 Minutes took a gander at Jose Rodriguez, the CIA official who says he’s proud of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” he oversaw, and not ashamed of his destruction of the 92 tapes of those interrogations. It was a bizarre interview, at the very least not “enhanced.”

Amy Davidson, writing for The New Yorker’s online site, argues, “There is much evidence to suggest that Rodriguez and others are simply lying when they claim that the torture produced reliable intelligence.”

I’m no expert, but I’d bet a solidus she’s right.

The solidus, in case you were wondering, was a coin used by the Visigoths.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ryan undoubtedly laughed off the Darwinism charge, but Georgetown U. is Catholic, and so is Ryan, making his response especially interesting:

“I suppose that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church,” Mr Ryan said, adding: “There can be differences among faithful Catholics on this.”

He also argued that a “preferential option for the poor,” a tenet of Catholic teaching, means that people should not become “dependent on the government so they stay stuck at their station in life.”

The latter point is especially telling, for upward social mobility is surely a prime goal of all who are truly concerned about improving the lot of the less well-off.

Interestingly, social mobility and improvement via voluntary co-operation were also major concerns of the two 19th century liberals who have since been labelled the Social Darwinists Nos. 1 and 2: Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. But then, careless charges regarding “social Darwinism” have never had much intellectual substance, and are, almost certainly, irrelevant to Ryan’s actually quite modest plan, which spends 50 percent more than Clinton’s 2000 budget. This fact led Reason’s Nick Gillespie to quip, “If that’s what passes for ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ . . . the English language is as broke as the federal treasury.”

I think that’s pretty clear, at this point.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

• Speaker John Boehner protests against all the fight talk
• Anderson Cooper interviews Carolyn Maloney
• Harvard Shrugs

This video, brought to public attention by Sen. James Inhofe, has received no small amount of attention:

• Inhofe on EPA official’s apology
• EPA: Hey, sorry about that whole ‘crucify’ thing
• IER’s Thomas Pyle Talks EPA ‘Crucifixion’ Strategy on FOX
• It’s just an analogy