Once again, last week's edition of the Libertarian Roundup proved to be quite popular among you internet aficionados; and I thank you for it! For those of you who are especially attentively challenged, you'll be delighted to know that this week's edition consists of only two stories. That's right, now with 33% LESS!
Now, in full disclosure, I am currently writing a rather ambitious piece, probably the first in a series, defending the Second Amendment argument by argument. I expect it to fill this space next week. Until then, enjoy a little light reading...
Conservatives (Still) Honor States Rights
In an attempt to get their stories straight, conservative leaders and activists converged on Washington, D.C. last week for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). While there, a handful were interviewed about such topics as gay marriage and marijuana legalization and whether they felt legislating these issues should be left up to the states to decide, even if those decisions were ultimately contrary to their personal views. Refreshingly, many respondents still favor the preservation of strong state's rights over the top down, national shoe-horning of Federalism.
The broadly held stance was, perhaps, most eloquently voiced by former U.S. Senator and actor, Fred Thompson:
"While I may not agree with what a particular state does on a particular issue, for the most part, unless it really does violate fundamental constitutional principles, they have a right to do what they see fit. Every solution doesn't have to be a Federal one."
Amen Fred, amen!
NYC Bureaucrats Closing Strip Clubs... With Bureaucracy!
It goes without saying that strip clubs are about as popular as they are easy to defend. While I don't personally favor the objectification of women, I do support their right to make a living as they see fit as well as the right of their employers to profit off of the desire to catch a buzz... While objectifying women.
They'd kick me out of the Ayn Rand Fan Club if I didn't!
So it should come as no surprise that the first step taken by the powers that be in New York City was to move such dens of iniquity to the outskirts; keeping them away from polite society. While it was somewhat effective at reducing the number of "adult enterprises" through relocation, the measure was also eventually found to be unconstitutional by the NY State Supreme Court.
That's when someone got the bright idea to use an unrelated bit of bureaucracy to hit strip clubs where it really hurt - in the liquor license.
“You go after their liquor license,” said Rafael Salamanca, the community activist and old-timey prude whose efforts have led to the closing of four clubs in the last two years. “They can’t make any money if they don’t have a liquor license.”
By citing a myriad of reasons ranging from noise pollution to minor technical quibbles, community leaders like Salamanca have successfully begun petitioning the State Liquor Authority to revoke the licenses of existing clubs while denying the issuance of licenses to new clubs.
In an odd twist, due to vagaries in NYC law, operating without a liquor license does allow dancers to "perform" completely in the nude. However it turns out strip club patrons prefer cheap light beer to the sight of exposed nipples. The resulting fallout has been effective at cutting the legs out from under the city's exotic dancers and proven, once again, that bureaucracy is bad for business.