Michael Rozeff argues that the dual sovereignty doctrine invoked by the Supreme Court in allowing a person to be tried for the same offense twice, once in a state court and once in a federal court, in violation of the 5th Amendment, is senseless:

To be sovereign is to have the final word. There is no appeal beyond a sovereign. Word over what? Over the matters, actions and areas of activity that the sovereign has been designated and allowed to wield authority over.

There simply cannot be two sovereigns over the very same realms of human action.

I agree: the 10th Amendment says that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively…”

The enumerated federal powers are denied to states; all non-enumerated Constitutional powers belong to states and are denied to the feds. Or they would be, if the Supreme Court cared about human rights other than abortion and homosexual marriage.

Socialism and the Leviathan feed on each other.

The enormous state wants to justify itself and to grow still further and so subsidizes socialist intellectuals.

On the other hand, socialists see the state and wonder, hey, it’s already huge, it already has full power to confiscate and expropriate all capital, so why can’t we use it to impose full-scale communism?

What a disgusting love affair.

In an eBook, I mention 3 insurmountable problems with classical utilitarianism (CU).

But they are hardly the only ones. For example, CU is the ultimate in moral rigor.

The 3 variables used in evaluating the morality of an action are intention, consequences, and essence of the act.

CU dissolves intention, because a utilitarian never seeks to hurt anyone; on the contrary, he aims precisely at the greatest good for the greatest number, and this is the only good worth pursuing. He is a perfect well-wisher. It’s true that he may murder one man to save two, for example. But his intentions are pure.

This implies that all non-utilitarians who wish for something other than best consequences overall, such as when a man simply pursues his own self-interest, are ill-intentioned. To aim at a lesser good for some lesser number is, according to CU, to will evil.

CU dissolves essence, too, because all acts that produce greatest happiness are lawful, and no act that fails to produce it is lawful. Again non-utilitarians are condemned.

Nor is there any room for supererogation. Utilitarians are required to be perfect, even Godlike; and all non-utilitarians are immoral. All this is hardly plausible, but such are the implications of CU.

In natural sciences, observing correlations assists in discovering causation.

But in economics, we already know the causation from the beginning a priori.

The global economy is a complex interconnected whole and resists attempts empirically to isolate causes and effects.

Nor do economic “experiments” establish constant relations between variables.

Scott Adams’ Dilbert comic postulates a sort of Marxist irreconcilable conflict between “labor” or technicians like Dilbert and Alice and “management,” such as Dilbert’s boss and the executives in charge of the company. The managers are, as one, stupid, incompetent, and apparently useless.

Adams never explains how the company Dilbert works for, run by such pathetic excuses for human beings, has been able to stay in business for the 30 years the comic has been in existence.

He does not explain how the company manages consistently to meet its payroll and pay Dilbert his salary if it fails to compete successfully and make sales.

Nor why Dilbert, who despises his boss, still has worked for him all this time and neither sought new employment nor gone into business for himself.

Globally, Dilbert is in the 1% of the most well-compensated workers. Yet still he resents the “system.” He resents it because he does not understand it. Maybe Adams should hit the books instead of plotting a revolution.

An airplane pilot flies with 300 people on board. There is a clear negative externality problem here. If he crashes the plane, the individual cost to the pilot is his own death. The social cost is the death of 300 people. Therefore, commercial pilots must undergo a rigorous training, testing, and certification process, much greater than a mere private pilot who flies solo.

Consider now nuclear deterrence. The US president is in control of the nuclear button. If he starts a war, he may lose his life. This is an individual cost to him. But the social cost is far greater: billions of people will die, and the world will be poisoned for the next 10,000 years, so that even future generations will suffer.

If the president has a death wish or feels like playing a game of chicken, he might do something very rash. If only he died as a result, no one would care. The president lived by the sword, and he died by the sword. It’s very fitting. But in so doing he’ll take the whole world into the grave with him.

The voters don’t vet presidents nearly as well as airlines vet pilots. The externality problem is enormous. We’re all hostages to the mental health of a single man. Mutually assured destruction is an untenable strategy for peace according even to an elementary economic analysis.

Integration is a bad idea, since blacks living among whites become dispirited when they realize they can’t possibly measure up to whites.

Let blacks stew in their own juices and “act black,” the way nature intended.