The Morning News


What's your point about the social workers themselves protesting the cuts in Vancouver? Do you think their mere presence somehow makes the protests illegitimate?
RE: They Eyman Effect, the state (which, you should be reminded, is the agent of the people) owns those lands. There's no "presupposition" taking place.

You're not too bright, Luby.
Poor Canadians, they'll have to ditch the meritocracy and bring in affirmative action to help lazy white liberals, afro-amer studies departments and sociology majors like in the US.
RE: The Eyman Effect:

The State does own the state park land. Which is to say that Washington State citizens own it. If you'd rather live in a place where private citizens own all the land, move to Texas.
When a handful of wealthy elites own everything, I promise you'll see more fees, rules, and discriminatory practices in those parks, not fewer.
In general, protesters protest for their own benefit or the benefit of someone they care about. I imagine if Luby were reporting on gays' protesting DADT it would go like this, "People picketed the Department of Defense, angry over a policy discriminating against gays. And what do you know, some of the protesters were gay soldiers who stand to lose their jobs!"

So what is Luby's point, exactly? That the government shouldn't spend money on X, or that people shouldn't protest in defense of their own job? If it's the former, protesting and speaking out is how self-government works, and if it's the latter, well, I think it's obvious...
@4, they (being libertarians) would just say that, due to the free market, private developers' fees would be the optimal price one should pay to access the park.
Hey, Matt, usually you seem to be (or, your writing makes you seem to be) an all right guy with opinions that run counter to some held at The Stranger. Which is fine.

But today you're kind of coming off as a dick (at least to mey weary morning-clouded eyes).

Matt from Denver and Urgutha Forka have already made decent points, I don't think they bear repeating.

Referring to your commentary on MacLean's, I'd consider a news organization like the BBC, publicly funded and usually quality journalism, before you paint with too wide a brush concerning news sources. One alternative we can see is pandering to people's preconceptions in a race to capture the most eyeballs and make the most profit. Sometimes the news makes us uncomfortable. Sometimes people don't want to pay for news that makes them uncomfortable. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be funded.

@3: If you're still believing in a meritocracy then you have directly benefited from the social systems (formal or informal) that use the idea of meritocracy as an excuse to reward certain groups over others. And before you come up with a smarty-pants answer like "yeah, intelligent people", you should take some time to investigate "intelligence", what it means, and how it's culturally perceived and thus is culturally biased (even excepting issues like racial or gender bias).

Fuck, you should probably have at the perception of "merit" while you're at it.

@ the tastefully-named Matt in Denver -- But why does the state "own" those lands? How did they acquire them?

@ 3 -- I hope they stick with the meritocracy. It sounds badass.

@ Urgutha -- Why does it have to be a handful of wealthy elites? Why couldn't it be a bunch of small stockholders in a nature conservancy group?

@ opera cat -- The comparison to a DADT rally is pretty ludicrous. It isn't like DADT protesters are really trying to keep a seat on the gravy train. Well, I guess they sort of are, but in a very different way since the military is generally interested in adding as many soldiers to the ranks as possible.

With these social worker-protesters, of course they are going to think their jobs are sacrosanct, of course they are going to think their needs should come before the rest of the state budget, etc. That's what pisses me off--expecting everyone else to eat shit so they can still get their paycheck.

@ 7 -- I do like the BBC, and the CBC, too. I don't agree with the idea of government-funded media in principle, but that doesn't preclude them from producing good stuff. Even with an organization like PBS that only gets a small sum from the state, it probably does allow them to focus on issues that wouldn't otherwise get covered.

But it isn't like public funding of the media is the only way to do wonky stuff. I just read an interview in Reason with Brian Lamb, the CSPAN guy. They have never gotten a dime of public money because he would never allow it. CSPAN is uber-wonky, yet still commercially viable.

"it's culturally perceived and thus is culturally biased (even excepting issues like racial or gender bias)"

How's that sociologism degree working out? About as useful as getting a degree in witchcraft degree from Evergreen State these days, what with all the cut backs in state funding (or are there private sector jobs for sociologists?).

So how can tools used to measure intelligence in people in Canada and the US be biased towards Asian cultures? Who made that mistake! Or is this another case of 'forward planning' being a white/Asian thang as explained to us by the Seattle Public Schools always hilarious 'Official of Racialistic Equity'.
Sure, wages are higher in Texas and cost of living is lower, and taxes are lower too. But god forbid you ever fall into misfortune there, because Texas' social services are garbage.

Living in states with few public services is like gambling with your well-being. And in some cases (like health care) it's like gambling with everyone's well being. If you play the no-health-insurance lottery and lose, everyone else has to pay for your misfortune AND at premium cost too.
"That's what pisses me off--expecting everyone else to eat shit so they can still get their paycheck."

How does this square with your personal choice to cross the picket line?

(I do enjoy the challenge of having you writing for Slog - it's like living with a bright 15 year old.)
@6 That's what cracks me up about libertarians. The invisible hand is invisible because it doesn't exist.

The Libertarians believe that the ruling elites will not commit conspiracies against the public. It's a blind faith that is proven wrong on a daily basis.

The private developers of the park would get together with other elites to fix prices, or one developer would monopolize all the parks and fix prices.

The free market only exists when the elites want to hire labor in countries that allow slavery. It doesn't and never will apply to the rich.

I recently got something new: a Nigerian 419 scam on paper. From Tanzania, actually, with a Tanzanian stamp, mysteriously uncancelled -- but the printed strip on the bottom proved it had moved through the postal system. No return address, of course. The letter was the usual "esteemed sir, help me move $165 million dollars out of the country" BS. Very bizarre to see one on paper. I actually don't mind all that much since with paper spam the spammer is buying his own paper, ink, and stamp, unlike with email.

Intern, if you're opposed to state or national parks, you need to run out into the street and get hit by a bus ASAP.
A small group of stockholders... who would eventually be gobbled up by Disney or some other massive corporation.

Libertarians have this unfortunate habit of ignoring human behavior. They believe if only the state would leave them be, they could craft the paradise they've always dreamed of. Forgetting, of course, that human greed is bottomless.

Every libertarian pictures him or herself as John Galt or Howard Roark or Hank Reardon, not as that lowly peon who shines John Galt's shoes. Yes, a paradise full of happy capitalists who see each other as friendly colleagues (rather than the reality: bitter rivals) and who each sees him/herself as the leader. Nobody pictures themselves losing the lottery, everyone only pictures themselves winning.

Of course, the reality is that there can be only one.
Luby needs to read up on where the land in the US comes from in the first place. Hint: all of it (aside from reservations) was owned by "the state" before it was owned by any non-Indian. Homestead Act? Ring a bell?

I would also be interested to hear how his juvenile theory that the state has no ownership rights to lands applies to, say, City Hall. Or schools. Or highways.

Anarchism is the stupidest philosophy.
@13 ftw
@11 - I wondered the same thing about Mudede for a long time.
Yeah, I'm really interested in your opinion of this line of work given that you've never done it (or required such services). Get the fuck out of my state and go back where you came from.
@ Urgutha -- Because social services are the only way to solve misfortune? I would not mind living in a place like Texas. The problem is that for some odd reason, I enjoy living with a bunch of odd lefties like you lot more than I enjoy the Texas set.

Oh, and your second comment is just a bunch of foundationless negative bile. You seem to have a deep hatred of humanity. I love humans. Given the chance, I think we are capable of great things. And no, this does not make me John Galt or Howard Roark. I would be perfectly happy to be a small business owner writing poorly circulated novels and obscure philosophical treatises far removed from the limelight.

@ jt -- Touche! This made me smirk.

@ Fish Wrench -- This "daily basis" you speak of is the unfortunate reality in our present crony capitalist economy, I agree. Large corporations are competition-hating clients of the state.

In a true free market, there would be no state from which to seek rent. Businessmen would be unable to use the collective force of government to lock out threats to their power.

@ Fnarf -- But how did the state acquire this land? It kicked out the only people who had any sort of claim to it and then wrote a new law establishing their "ownership." It is a bullshit scheme made possible only by people like you who still believe in the fantasy of the legitimacy of this criminal gang.

I don't believe in public property. The state only has ownership "rights" to the places you mention because they wrote laws proclaiming it.

Oh, and as for state and national parks--I love them. I definitely think parks should exist, just not parks owned by the state.
Being only an occassional reader of Slog, I had no idea they had created this oppositional-defiant Luby character. I thought maybe it was Teabaggin' Saturday or such as.

And yes, we all need to demand our FREEDOM to purchase and consume death-cheese mixed up by some skeezix from Morton in his Tuff-Shed.
All internships must come to an end, thank goodness.
> Predictably, they are not selling booze because they don't want to deal with the Liquor Control Board

I would think it would be more due to the fact that strip clubs are not permitted to sell booze in WA.
Here in Alberta, the deep pockets are found in the oil companies and the timber industry, not the alpine ski clubs or the outdoorsy non-profits. If private industry ran our parks, they would soon look like downtown Calgary, or Ft. Mac. It's bad enough that the one closest to us, Kananaskis, is a "Provincial Area" rather than a National or Provincial park, and as such, allows logging and oil & gas activity. It would be a travesty if they were all like that.

Of course he's being a dick. His internship is ending soon, which means that in a few weeks he'll be relegated back to writing missive on his blog for all three of his occasional readers. Hell, I'd be pissed too if I'd wasted my internship at a major alt-weekly by alienating all my current readers and future employers. Only difference is that I'd self-flagellate instead of taking it out on my readers and Canadian health care workers.
Luby's really going to boil over with hate if he doesn't get a job soon. Today's performance sets a new low for viciousness and I don't know how much more mean he can get.
Matt: Being an anarchist (of the non-capitalist variety) I agree with you regarding the illegitimacy of state owned land. The problem you fail to see is that this same logic applies to "private" property as well. Private property has the same illegitimate origin and only by the power of the state does it exist to begin with. In fact, the modern nation-state only came about with the expanded privatization of land. The owning class NEEDS the state to maintain and defend it.
Right, I'm not a libertarian, that must mean I hate humanity. I probably also hate baseball, mom, and apple pie too.

Silly platitudes aside, sure humans are capable of great things - great things both positive and negative. Are you so idealistic that you fail to see the disaster that happens when you just let humans do whatever they want with no oversight? Look at countries with no real functioning government... are they libertarian paradises or violent ghettoes?

Do you know what Grand Canyon National Park would be if Roosevelt hadn't had the gov't protect it? It would be half landfill and half uranium mine... and it definitely wouldn't be open to the public. Would you ever like to see the Alaskan wilderness? If so, you'd better hope the government keeps it under tight control, because as soon as they let go, it'll turn into an oil field.

Social services are not the only way to handle misfortune (there's no way to solve it), but when handling misfortune isn't profitable, as it rarely is, then it's the best way.
@21, OK, so you want to give the land back to the Indians? Great. You're a boob, but whatever. What about the Mother Country? What about England? Where did that land come from? When you obtain a 900-year lease from the Duke of Buckinghamshire or whatever the hell (these leases are common in Britain), how did the Duke of Bucks get it?

Reading your handwaving BS is like watching a guy with a bag over his head denying vociferously that light exists.
By the way, many (myself included) would argue that due to the symbiotic relationship of capital and the state, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. Anything else is logically contradictory.
Canuck, thank heavens we have no oil reserves to speak of here in Washington - we issue limited permits to logging companies who "harvest" publicly-owned state forests as a routine way to raise state revenue. The national forests in Washington get harvested, too, and the feds share part of the proceeds with our local counties those forests are in. They prop up a lot of government services in our state full of tightwad voters.

Often our state and national parks here are surrounded by state and national forests, so that traveling to the remoter parks you can go past dispiriting clearcut after clearcut, before hitting the park and getting that jolt of lushness.

I can only imagine if there were oil wells on public land here, too. Shudder.
More out of touch with reality spew from Turd Luby. He'll only get it (actually, probably not since he is so dumb) when social services are gone, people have nothing to lose, and there will be violent rebellion. That's what that elite capitalist Franklin Roosevelt faced when he was in office. That's why he created the successful programs that he did.

Yes, the state owns the parks, and the state is we the people. Referring to the state as though it is an enemy is just a cynical Reaganesque bullshit attempt to alienate and disenfranchise the public from the political process that is rightfully ours, so that the wealthy few can run it.
It's so ironic, isn't it gus, when these areas of stunning beauty also happen to have pockets of oil, or natural gas under them? And we're so foolish with what we do have: Not charging adequate royalties on the oil sands up north, selling our timber as cheaply as possible in forms like pulp. There's an area south of here called the Porcupine Hills, it's gorgeous. It also happens to have huge natural gas reserves, which can only be accessed through the same process that created all that ruined salinized land in Wyoming. It'll be interesting to see how our natural lands fare as our fuel sources become increasingly limited. Yay for DADT, or today would be shaping up to be a bummer!

"Oh, and as for state and national parks--I love them. I definitely think parks should exist, just not parks owned by the state. "

Name one major park or significant publicly accessible space that is privately owned and operated, available for free or at low-cost to the public, and whose attraction doesn't consist primarily of amusement rides, cartoon mascots, or tits.

Also, in the absence of any public spaces, how would you go about exercising any of your first amendment rights? You have no right to free speech or assembly on private property.

What about the freedom to move around your country, to travel and visit other places beyond whatever limited property you yourself own?

Seems to me you have some serious cognitive issues.
Luby's dream state would actually be a disaster not only for you and me but for everyone, including the ultra-rich. We'd ALL be sitting around campfires eating bugs off of sticks.

Luby's problem, of course, isn't philosophical or intellectual; it's emotional. The quest for the ideal is driven by a profound but buried sense of frustration with the real. Emotional cripples find it easier to construct imaginary worlds and economic structures than to address their own real-world problems and inadequacies. It's not MY fault I'm stunted; it's the world's! This was Ayn Rand's problem, of course, and it's his as well. Not to say that their philosophies are the same, oh no, I wouldn't want to do that. All prescriptive idealist philosophers in the modern world are like this. Hitler, Mao, Ron Paul and most CEOs have the same disease.
Glad I made you smirk, darling. Now answer the question.
I would be perfectly happy to be a small business owner writing poorly circulated novels and obscure philosophical treatises far removed from the limelight.

I don't believe in public property. The state only has ownership "rights" to the places you mention because they wrote laws proclaiming it.

Ha ha! You believe in private property but not public property? That's rich! I hate to break it to you, but that insane political fiat that guarantees state property is also the same thing that guarantees your private property.

The reason your posts are full of bile and fury is not because the world refuses to make sense. It's because what you've decided is sensible is not the way the world works. Like other pure idealists, you principled libertarians (as opposed to libertarians of convenience) are destined to disappointment, because the world will not cooperate with your notions of how things should be. The reason human history hasn't produced a non-tribal society that obeys your principles (and you might be surprised how few tribal societies do, too) is because it's not possible.

You disclosed the beautiful ideal at the heart of your philosophy when you replied to Urgutha Forka:

I love humans. Given the chance, I think we are capable of great things.

It's funny to reflect that this rather charming notion is the source of all the fury and anger that you pour into your coverage. It's a tiny but precious irony that your love for humans causes you to pour so much vitriol out over them.

People are capable of great things, but if you're building a system that relies on them doing so consistently and reliably, then you're going to be disappointed. That disappointment is why we have the world we do. It must be agonizing to want to dwell in a world of ideals but have a job that forces you to report on the world of truth. I encourage you to set aside the glorious architecture in your mind and join us here in the real world.
For another perspective on why some Canadians might get upset about the magazine article, please see UBC professor Henry Yu:…

Here is a choice quote: "One of the problems with the Maclean's article is that it represents for so many Canadians those often arbitrary moments when their race suddenly matters. They are reminded that despite whatever they do to fit in, they will be considered an Asian."
Canuck - I looked up your referenced Porcupine HIlls and learned it's the location of the amazing World Heritage Site "Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump".

Which reminds me of my darling David Wojnarowicz, the removal of whose video A Fire in My Belly from the Smithsonian Jen Graves is covering so beautifully here.

David was lofted into posthumous worldwide fame by the band U2's use, in the cover art, video and live performance of their single "One", of his staggering buffalo jump image.

Not bad Six Degrees of Separation work for a Saturday, Canuck.
Regarding State Parks:

Many of Washington's most cherished parks were gifted to the state by wealthy landowners. Others used to be military institutions. Like fnarf said, I don't understand why a private landowner would be "better" in terms of respecting the interests of First People.

A brief tour of the Cascades will convey to you what happens when the state is not there to protect the land for future generations. Private interests own land to make money; operating parks in the State Park mold is a giant money suck, so no one would operate parks on them. They would operate tree farms on them.

So, what would better respect the original inhabitants: land preserved for future generations, or clear cuts and monoculture tree farms?
These long debates about property rights are intellectually thrilling, but UI is still working on having his actions match his intentions. It's a process.

I guess I have some sympathy because my stepmother was sweet enough to engage me in this debate when I was 15 or so: Why shouldn't the Metropolitan Museum of Art open its Great Hall to house the homeless on a cold night? All it'd take are some cots!
Wow, wish I could claim it had been intentional, gus! I had no idea there was a connection with U2, although "one" is one of my favourite songs. It took me awhile to get used to the rather colourful place names around here, in addition to the one you mentioned, there is Many Berries, Dogpound, and tiny Kingman, pop 312, which doesn't stop it from claiming to be "The Lutefisk Capital of the World!" Strange times these days, with censorship at our national galleries, DADT's repeal...the people we should be able to count on reacting to one vocal fundie loon, and republicans supporting repeal...colour me confused!
Re Macleans article.
Unlike you americans, Canadians do read the full articles, (actually unlike you americans, we read). If you would like to do so as well you can at…

Macleans, much the like the stranger, is often poorly written.

Also state funded news helps countries have unbiased news. Yes I know this comes as a shock to you, as you probably think that if the gov't is involved then they some how control the news. But compare CBC or BBC to any american news channel and you'll find that not only is the state paid news channel less bias but covers actual news instead of gossip and covers world news as well.

Also, no one in Canada cares what our senators think, it's not the same position as an American senator, but I wouldn't expect you to have any knowledge of how gov'ts other than the american gov't works.
UI, I think that what irked many non-white Canadians about the MacLean's article was that it confirms what I suspect many of them suspect - that "multiculturalism" is a concept completely defined by white Canadians. When it starts to look different than they like it, they say it is failing. As to the magazine itself, you can't really compare it to the CBC/BBC, which are wholly public broadcasters (plus ad revenue). MacLean's is a private company that is propped up with government money due to the difficulty of running a profitable paper magazine in our huge country (with a smaller population than California). There are all kinds of those kinds of cultural subsidies here ( don't ever look into the CanCon rules or your libertarian head might just explode).

Obviously we should give England back to the Druids.
@ lilzilla -- I learned during my ride-along last Friday that there is supposedly a booze-selling strip club-type establishment in Spokane. I guess it can be done, but there are all sorts of weird restrictions on the distance from the peformers and the height of the stage, etc.

@ trstr -- Nice try. What have I taken out on my readers? I try to have an honest debate with you guys. Believe it or not, there are even some people who like my writing.

@ bhowie -- I see your point, but I should also point out that a lot of the market anarchists I know think that all anarchists must by necessity be market anarchists. It goes both ways. And I would say you are wrong about nation-states--one of the worst things about nation-states is the cultish idea propagated by the criminal gangsters running them that the "nation" has a right to certain things simply by virtue of its existence. Only the State can manage the resources of the People. That whole thing.

@ Urgutha -- This stuff about the Grand Canyon is just pure speculative rot. The idea that oversight somehow makes humans responsible is crazy, too. We have tons of oversight now. How is that working out? Are we responsible yet?

Or is it that regulations neuter our innate sense of personal responsibility? Hmmm...

@ Fnarf -- I'm not trying to hand the land back to the Native Americans. What I'm trying to get you to do is recognize the fact that the idea of the state "owning" the land is just a fiction of their own design.

But hey, thanks for calling me an emotional cripple. I am sure my family, girlfriend, and many friends would certainly agree with you! O Great Fnarf, when can I ever become so old, wise, and emotionally aware as you?

@ Smell -- "the state is we the peope." Oh, that is rich. That's what democracy is all about. Making the peons like you believe they can eventually be part of the self-enriching, self-perpetuating criminal gang that is the professional management class.
@ Ken Mehlman -- Of course the free market would create disparities in wealth. Would it give the rich undue power over the poor? I don't believe so. The poor could always leave a bad community and move to another one. Or just arm themselves and protect their rights.

@ Captain Wiggette -- You are thinking, even if it is wrong. Yes, you do not have a definite right to free speech on all private property. It's up to the private property owner! If you want free speech, then only hang out on private property that guarantees your free speech. Simple. As far as moving around goes, I guess your movement could be restricted, but it would not make a whole lot of sense since people allowing you to move across their property would probably mean income for them. And the private park conjecture is a classic "it doesn't exist, so therefore it can never exist" (forget the Latin) sort of fallacy.

@ jt -- To answer your question, crossing a picket line is fundamentally different because those people were not being fired and were in fact choosing not to work under certain conditions.

@ Mike -- Your notion that only the state can defend private property is insane. Give me a gun and I can defend my private property. As far as loving humanity and still pouring out vitriol on them, don't forget what Dostoevsky wrote in Bros Karamazov--"The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular." Rings quite true.

@ sahara -- Don't read Yu, read the actual article. The authors makes the bigots in the article look FUCKING DUMB. And hell, it closes by having the empty-headed party girl who went to Western to avoid the Asian invasion transferring back home to the rather Asian U of T and loving it. People who think an observational article that reports on demographics is racist need to have their heads examined.

@ emor -- If you had even an elementary understanding of time preference, you would probably understand that clear-cutting is a great way to destroy the value of an asset and makes basically no sense.

@ j2patter -- Way to be an asshole, dude. I've been presenting pro-Canada news in the Morning News for months now and you come shit on me. I know plenty about the (appointed) Canadian senate. I read the Globe & Mail and the National Post online every day. I would love to move to Canada. Oh, and before you go patting yourself on the back for being such a smart little reader, maybe you should go back to the original post and see that I already linked to the fucking article.

@ teamcanada -- My girlfriend is an Asian-Canadian and a UBC student. We talked about this article a lot, with her even telling me about the public discussions of it on campus. It was an honest debate. I was not suggesting MacLean's was fully publicly funded which is why I said "public funding contribution" in my original post. Oh, and I don't know about all of the cultural subsidies, but I do know something about the crazy restrictions on free speech that have been used against at least one comedian and the generally odious Mark Steyn. I do not like those at all.
@37, excellent points.
I still think you fail to see the relationship between the state and capital.

Do yourself a favor and read some Berkman:…
@48, no, I'm working class, and have no intention of becoming one of the employing class, although if that happens, so be it (I'm successful enough in my line of work, so it could happen). I'm happy and secure in myself and my place in life. You don't seem to be, though.
I am reporting what I have seen. A single trip in the mountains will reveal thousands of acres of clearcuts. An elevator trip to the top of a building in downtown Seattle will reveal many patches of clearcuts on the western face of the Cascades. Have you ever spent time in the forests just a few minutes from Seattle?

So, instead of calling me an idiot, why don't you actually explain to me why the people who own land clearcut it (and they do, maybe because they have failed to "acquire an elementary sense of time preference"), if their owning it is better than the public trust?

You, know, I don't even know what point you are trying to make. My reading of your rebuttal is that I am clear-cutting and am an idiot for doing it. Is this true?

I am awaiting your clear explanation why private ownership is better than the public trust for preserving lands. I would like you to work in some history as well -- why, if private ownership is so great, did the National Park Service and other public organizations get created? What reasons for their creation were provided, and are any of those reasons still a concern today? Thanks.
Also Matt, I don't see how this:
"one of the worst things about nation-states is the cultish idea propagated by the criminal gangsters running them that the "nation" has a right to certain things simply by virtue of its existence. Only the State can manage the resources of the People. That whole thing."
...disputs anything I said. Of course I agree with you. What I am saying is that the notion of property is ALSO a cultish idea propagated by criminal gangsters. Furthermore, these cultish ideas evolved at the same time for the same reasons. The state apparatus is designed to defend property. THAT is why propertarian anarchism is a contradiction.
When Roosevelt first proposed turning the Grand Canyon into a protected park, the most voiciferous opponents were mining companies. Further, uranium was discovered there in the 50's and there's been fighting ever since by people who want to open more uranium mines there. You think they'll let tourists wander around uranium mines? So I guess what I wrote was speculative, just like saying "Seattle is gonna have some gloomy weather soon" is also speculative.

We're more responsible with oversight than without it. Deregulating the banks sure made them responsible, right? There's no reason for labor laws because no company would dream of hiring a child, right? And the FDA is just sitting around twiddling their thumbs all day because the food and drug industries never sell tainted products. Are we perfectly responsible with oversight? Of course not. But you think people would be more responsible with NO oversight, regulation, and government??? History suggests otherwise. Take a trip to Somalia if you'd like some experience living in a country with no elected government and all the freedom you can imagine.
Oh look, the anarcho-capital-whateverist troll is trolling again. Look at him go!
FYI, Jiggles is a chain of strip clubs in Portland, and none of the franchises I've been to serve booze. They end up cornering the under-21 crowd (and the into-strippers-under-21 crowd). I doubt the decision not to serve booze has anything to do with the liquor control board.
"It's up to the private property owner! If you want free speech, then only hang out on private property that guarantees your free speech. Simple."

Let me know how free your speech is living in Seattle where nobody agrees with your dumbshit 'simple' ideas.

This is the dumbest 'idea' I've seen in the last 20 minutes.

"As far as moving around goes, I guess your movement could be restricted, but it would not make a whole lot of sense since people allowing you to move across their property would probably mean income for them."

This is fucking brilliant. Totally brilliant. I would LOVE to stop every 40 feet on my way to work in the morning to pay a toll to the owned of each unique parcel of land I crossed on my way downtown.

"And the private park conjecture is a classic "it doesn't exist, so therefore it can never exist" (forget the Latin) sort of fallacy."

Really? I thought the free market did everything better and more efficient than the government? Why don't we have OODLES of pristine land to visit all held and managed by private companies out of the goodness and love of their philanthropic mission.

I thought for a long time you were an amusing post-modernist Stranger joke, a ploy on Slog to mix things up a little bit. But I really don't think there is anyone at The Stranger imaginative enough to create such a colossally fucktarded character.

I hope if you ever draw any kind of compensation from The Stranger that they pay you in trinkets and other non-fungible, non-monetary assets. Then maybe you can barter your chickens for healthcare.
@48 Your proposed sarcastic anecdotal evidence that you're not an emotional cripple is just that, anecdotal evidence, evidence that you seem unwilling to honestly investigate. I highly suggest you stop by the corner of Pine and 3rd for a personality test.
@24 , and Rob touched on this... Read that article; the deal is that they're licensed as a restaurant and a nightclub, not as a cabaret. The cabaret (strip club) license has a legal requirement to be a "dry club", and obviously the license they do have isn't that.
There's a couple guesses we could make about why the owner has no liquor sales, and the ST mentioned what Luby paraphrased: That he's keeping the State out of it. Maybe this way he'll fight one war at a time (for now the city is coming down on him pretty hard). He also never applied for a liquor license. Maybe he just procrastinated or something.
this makes me miss that french guy who wrote about croissants
@ 62, NOTHING could make me miss that guy. At least Luby is succeeding at being entertaining. I like, for example, how he seems to think that public ownership is nothing more than a philosophical idea that can be argued away; I'd LOVE to see him act on this belief and find out what happens.
@61, or maybe he knows he couldn't get a liquor license. Just sayin'.
5280, our vestigial blue law on liquor here forbids selling booze and strips in the same place. The owner had a liquor license for the comedy club, and left it behind to follow the tassels and strings of his longtime dream.
Could we get someone who doesn't live with his mom to write these??
Say why you will about Luby, but 66 comments on the morning news? Well done, UI.

He reminds me of a sci-fi geek who views Star Trek as the perfect model for society and wishes it was real. The best is when he actually describes how his society would "work." The Wiki replacing restaurant inspections is a classic, but I think privately owned parks beats it. Please, Luby, elaborate some more!

What exactly do you plan on doing as a career?
Of course the free market would create disparities in wealth. Would it give the rich undue power over the poor? I don't believe so. The poor could always leave a bad community and move to another one. Or just arm themselves and protect their rights.

I lol-ed. I did.
Re: state ownership of lands: Louisiana Purchase.