Stand Up Economist

Yes! Finally a comedian for the rest of us. This guy -- Yarom Bauman, Ph.D. -- tells jokes about marginal choices and libertarians. His web page, StandUpEconomist.com, links to various video clips in exchange for your e-mail. But here are a couple of direct links:

Principles of economics, translated

Stand-up economist at Caroline's

GOP: Dems Spend Too Little

Recently I pointed out that Republicans want the government to spend more money. They really mean it. Just today Colorado Republicans blasted Democrat Bill Ritter, the governor, for proposing to spend too little more on higher education. The release states:

Senate Republican leaders said they were underwhelmed today after the governor proposed only a modest funding increase for higher education next year rather than the significant, long-term revenue stream that the state's campuses need.

The idea that Republicans support free markets or limited government is a laugh. They support spending more of other people's money on education and subjecting colleges to more government controls.

But do the Republicans really think they can out-Democrat the Democrats to win elections? I'm sure the state's Democrats will be only too happy to implement -- and take credit for -- the Republican schemes to expand the power of government.

Garry Wills on Paul

I picked up Garry Wills's What Paul Meant at Costco while I was waiting for my glasses to be repaired, and I soon returned to buy the book.

Wills reminds us that Thomas Jefferson regarded Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" (page 1). But Jefferson was wrong. Wills writes,

But scholarly enquiry has destroyed the idea that the Gospels have a simple biographical basis. They are sophisticated theological constructs, none written by their putative authors, all drawing on second- or third- or fourth-hand accounts -- and all written from a quarter of a century to half a century after Paul's letters. If we want to see what the original Jesus communities looked like, the first and best witness to this is Paul... (pages 9-10)

Wills also calls into question the account of Paul offered in Acts. That book claims that Paul participated in the murder of one Christian, threatened others, and dragged believers "back in chains to Jerusalem." That is highly unlikely, writes Wills (pages 34-5). Paul could not have had the authority to do such things, Wills writes, nor would the local authorities have let him get away with it.

Wills account makes for interesting history. But there is something odd going on here. Wills writes sincerely of Paul's encounter with the risen Jesus; clearly Wills's intent is to show how Christianity properly rests on Pauline doctrine. Yet at the same time, to defend Paul, Wills refutes the historical accuracy of other sections of the Bible. So the riddle is how the Bible is for Christians both inspired by God and filled with human errors and misunderstandings. But that is a riddle that will take me some time to fully answer (from a critical perspective). In the meantime, I may quote a few more interesting passages from Wills's book as I finish reading it.

Hillman Opposes Health-Insurance Mandates

Recently I've mocked The Denver Post for its stance on Halloween, and I've criticized Republicans over health policy, tax spending, and investment controls.

But on October 26, The Denver Post published an outstanding op-ed by Republican Mark Hillman that criticizes health-insurance mandates. The article is part of the "Colorado Voices" series, which often produces duds, but on this occasion the Post has found somebody who writes very well and who has something interesting to say. (Note: the publication dates noted on the Post's web page sometimes precede the dates of print publication.)

Hillman writes, "Ironically, despite the abysmal record of lawmakers and bureaucrats to produce lower prices or create greater choice, the public still clamors for government to 'do something.' Perhaps the more logical outcry should be: 'undo something'."

Hillman offers the following main reasons to oppose health-insurance mandates:

* "[A]nother law won't produce universal coverage," because some people won't obey the mandate or will be exempted.

* Mandated insurance would be a bad deal for many consumers, because "special interests perennially lobby the legislature to require you to buy things you don't need, don't want or can't afford."

* Politicians tend to require insurance to pay for care that "you could more easily and less expensively pay for... yourself..."

Hillman summarizes, "The end result is that you and I are no longer allowed to choose the insurance coverage that best fits our needs, and insurance companies can't respond to what we want."

Hillman perfectly captures the state of today's health-care "reform" movement: "[L]awmakers and lobbyists control the health care market, as they have increasingly for the past 40 years; then they react in amazement when the product is something you and I either do not want or cannot afford."

Hillman's article demonstrates that both The Denver Post and Republicans can produce good work.

I do have one criticism of Hillman. I recognize that short newspaper articles cannot cover every aspect of the issue. Sometimes the moral argument is not the focus. But Republicans often seem to be allergic to pronouncements that hint of the morality of rights in property and income -- probably because most Republicans are so busy violating those rights. To date, and as far as I can remember, I have not heard any Republican other than my dad (who I'm pretty sure is a Republican) endorse the argument: "Insurance mandates are morally wrong because they violate the rights of individuals to control their own lives and resources."

The World Series and Scalpers

A few days ago I discussed ticket scalping. Today Grand Junction Free Press published an article by my dad and me that looks at the economics of scalping: "World Series ticket meltdown a boon for scalpers."

"... What would happen if, absent any other change, every grocer suddenly cut the price of oranges in half? Or what if everybody suddenly fell in love with oranges, but grocers barely raised prices? More people would buy oranges, until the oranges ran out. Maybe some of those lucky enough to buy oranges early in the day would 'scalp' their oranges for more than 'face value.' Or maybe grocers would institute a lottery system, so that shoppers could have a fair shot at buying cheap oranges.

"But why don't the grocers simply raise the price of oranges until shoppers choose to limit their purchases to existing supplies? ..."

Craig Biddle Coming to CO for Atlas Shrugged Talk

I just got this announcement: Craig Biddle, author of Loving Life and editor of The Objective Standard, will speak in Boulder on November 15.

"In this talk, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, Craig Biddle presents the basic principles of rational egoism, contrasts them with the alternatives, and shows why everyone who wants to live happily and freely needs to understand and embrace them."

Thursday, November 15 2007, 6:30pm - 7:30pm
Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law Building, University of Colorado at Boulder (Campus Map)

Happy Halloween!

How dare people throw parties and enjoy themselves on Halloween? The Denver Post, whose editorials could use a good wake-up scare, is upset that people are spending a few dollars to celebrate the holiday. The sub-head of an October 26 editorial complains that, while Halloween "used to be a simple, fun holiday," now people spend (gasp!) $5 billion to celebrate. "That's right, 5 billion," the editorial repeats. The Post laments:

These days, you're likely to see yards turned into horror movie sets, with orange lights, talking skeletons and smoke machines. The parties start days before the holiday and frequently involve printed invitations and catered food.

Stop the madness! ...

It would be a shame to see this once-simple holiday turn into yet another commercial extravaganza with the potential to linger on your credit card bill for months.

Just imagine how Labor Day through New Year's could turn into one blurry buy-fest, filled with obligatory parties and gifts purchased out of desperation.

The Denver Post should take a chill potion.

If the editorial writers at the Post can't enjoy themselves without going into debt, and if they can't attend parties and buy gifts for some reason other than a sense of duty, that's their problem. They should stop projecting their pathologies onto the rest of us.

Let's see. The population of the United States is about 300 million. So Halloween costs about $17 per person. That's a pretty good deal, considering how much fun most of us have.

In our family, Halloween is a pretty big deal. Partly that's because, with so large a family spread out over so large a distance, it's impossible to see everybody on every holiday. My wife's parents have claimed Halloween as their own. The holiday fits with my (step) father-in-law's interests: he's a huge sci-fi and horror buff. So my parents-in-law throw a huge party every year, complete with food, costumes, elaborate and mostly hand-made props, and, yes, a talking skeleton (at least in previous years) that tells ghost stories. They even send out "printed invitations," which my wife designs and prints on our trusty HP ink jet.

This year, the party features a magic show. My father-in-law hand-built a stage prop so that his friend and my sister-in-law could re-create one of Houdini's tricks. I heard children literally scream with delight during the show. If the sticks in the mud at the Post can't manage to similarly enjoy themselves on the holiday, fine, but leave the rest of us alone.

My wife and I spent about $65 on Halloween costumes (that we can use again in future years), plus some extra money for clothes that can also be worn in regular wear. We spent $48 on DeVotchKa tickets, which allowed us to enjoyed Colorado's best band and the many spectacular costumes among the crowd. We spent additional money for food and drinks, including pie pumpkins and Jello shooters in Halloween molds. Oh, and we spent $14 to see The Nightmare Before Christmas, 3D. We've thoroughly enjoyed every penny.

Yes, people often celebrate Halloween on the Saturday before. So what? We enjoyed the events on Saturday, and we look forward to the events on Wednesday. The writers for the Post are more than welcome to stay home and watch television or clip their toenails on both nights.

The Post got the $5 billion figure -- that's right, $5 billion -- from the National Retail Federation. Here's what the release says:

With the year's spookiest holiday approaching, consumers are looking to celebrate. According to the National Retail Federation's Halloween Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey, conducted by BIGresearch, consumers are expected to spend more on Halloween this year than last year, with the average person planning to spend $64.82 on the holiday compared to $59.06 one year ago. Total Halloween spending for 2007 is estimated to reach $5.07 billion. ...

Halloween party-goers are bobbing for more than just apples. They'll also be on the lookout for candy, costumes and decorations. The average person will spend $23.33 on Halloween costumes (including children's and pet's costumes), though young adults will spend far more. In fact, according to the survey, 18-24 year-olds plan to be the most festive, spending $34.06 on costumes, nearly twice as much as they plan to spend on candy ($19.65). According to the survey, average spending will rise in all categories, including candy ($19.84, decorations ($17.73) and greeting cards ($3.92). ...

The most popular activity on Halloween this year will be handing out candy, with nearly three-fourths (72.9%) of consumers planning to stay home to hand out treats. Other popular activities will include pumpkin carving (43.3%), decorating a home and/or yard (47.8%), and throwing or attending a Halloween party (28.3%).

This is just way too much fun for The Denver Post. What are people thinking, dressing up, putting up decorations, and enjoying time with friends?

I must have missed the Post's editorial complaining about how much money people spend on baseball, which mostly comes down to hitting a ball with a stick. And is the Post next going to come out against parties in general? After all, they also often involve special dress, decorations, and food. And Christmas trees! I bet all kinds of people will buy trees and decorations later this year. Christmas sweaters, candies, cakes... too much fun! Just stop it, already!

Or could it be that people get more value for their Halloween dollars than The Denver Post gets for its incessantly whining editorials? Be sure to put the paper's editorials to their best use: spread them out on the counter or the floor to capture your pumpkin guts.

Happy Halloween!

Thanks, Rockies!

The bad news is that the Colorado Rockies got swept in the World Series. The good news is that they made it to the World Series! Who'd have predicted that during the regular season? Moreover, two of the games were very competitive, with the Red Sox beating the Rockies by a single run. Indeed, tonight in game four in the final inning, I thought the tying ball was on its way over the fence, at least for a couple happy seconds. But, for the first time, I got to watch a World Series to root for the home team. Thanks, guys.

"Plan Five" from the 208 Commission

The Rocky Mountain News is rightly skeptical about the "208" Healthcare Commission's plan to "reform" health care by expanding government control of it. The News writes in an October 28 editorial:

Is the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform going to lay an egg in January, when by law it must offer its recommendations to the legislature?

It's too early to say, but prospects for the commission's success dimmed somewhat the other day when the price tag was announced for the panel's own proposal - we'll call it Plan Five because the commission will submit four others, too, written by outside groups.

Plan Five's cost: between $1.4 billion and $2.1 billion a year, according to the Virginia-based Lewin Group.

The News continues to explain why such a hefty tax hike is unlikely in Colorado.

I particularly like the title, "Plan Five." For some reason, it reminded me of Plan 9 from Outer Space. The comparison is doubly fitting, because the movie is about the goofy plans of extraterrestrials, and the movie is one of the worst ones ever made. But at least it's funny. Not so with "Plan Five" from the 208 Commission.

DeVotchKa!

On Saturday night, my wife and I went with some friends to DeVotchka's Halloween concert in Denver. Amazing. The show opened with a Day of the Dead procession. After some opening music, giant ribbons descended from the ceiling, and three women climbed them to perform acrobatic dance routines. Most people were dressed in stylish costumes. And the music was up to DeVotchKa's usual standards. The band, filled out by three extra strings and another trumpet player, in addition to the four core members, alternated between the group's sorrowful tunes and heavier beats. They started playing around 10:00 p.m., and the next thing I knew it was after midnight.

We became fans with the album SuperMelodrama, though I like the next albums, Una Volta and How it Ends, even more. You can sample the band's music at its web page or through iTunes. One of my personal favorites is "The enemy guns" from How it Ends.

Ayn Rand Lexicon Online

This is spectacular! The Ayn Rand Institute just announced that the Ayn Rand Lexicon is now available online, appropriately enough at AynRandLexicon.com. You can search by key words or explore the alphabetical listing. So, if you ever wanted to know what Rand thought about something, this may well give you the answer.

Just for fun, I clicked on a topic at random. I came up with "Isolationism." Rand describes one "view of foreign policy which is wrecking the United States to this day: the suicidal view that our foreign policy must be guided, not by considerations of national self-interest, but by concern for the interests and welfare of the world, that is, of all countries except our own." Her description continues to hold for the foreign policy of the United States.

Investment by Force

Americans don't save very much. According to a 2006 article, "The number-crunching folks at the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis dished out some discouraging news recently, saying that Americans spent more than they earned in 2005 -- a negative savings rate of 0.5 percent for the year. That's the first time that's happened since the Great Depression."

Hmm... Why might that be? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the federal government lops off 15 percent of every single paycheck? And that's before income tax, property tax, and state and local taxes. I once saw a documentary about African tribes that keep cattle, not for the milk or the beef, but for the blood. They stick bamboo shoots into the cows' neck arteries for a warm drink. The payroll and other taxes are the bamboo shoots in the necks of American workers. My wife and I are "saving," but only in the sense that we're climbing our way out of debt. We would have had a positive net worth years ago but for the fact that our life's blood -- our labor -- is siphoned off to feed the welfare state. And the only reason we've been able to make progress is that we've put off having children, purchased a tiny condo rather than a house, and kept our spending low. It's hard to save when so much of our labor is lost to taxation.

Our society punishes the responsible in order to reward the irresponsible, taxes productive effort in order to subsidize vice. What's the point of saving when your welfare check is proportional to your irresponsibility? If you earn less, save less, learn less, waste more, and have more children you can't afford, you get more welfare. And what's the point of saving for old age when the federal government promises to continually transfer ever more wealth from workers to the retired?

Hillary Clinton's answer to the deep social pathologies generated by the welfare state is, of course, to expand the welfare state. An October 9 article from The New York Times reports:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York unveiled the second biggest domestic policy idea of her Democratic presidential campaign today, proposing to spend $20 billion to $25 billion a year to create 401(k)-style retirement accounts for all Americans and provide federal matching money of up to $1,000 to middle-income people.

Under the plan, the government would give a dollar-to-dollar match for the first $1,000 saved by Americans who earn up to $60,000 annually. For those who earn $60,000 to $100,000, the government would provide a 50 percent match, or $500 for the first $1,000 saved.

Mrs. Clinton said she would pay for the program by freezing the estate tax at its 2009 level of $7 million per couple. A campaign analysis of the plan said that the freeze would affect about 10,000 of “the wealthiest estates” in the United States and provide a new retirement savings systems for an estimated tens of millions of families. ...

As with her biggest policy plan for universal health insurance, Mrs. Clinton cast her savings proposal in terms of choice...

Reduce the payroll tax on working Americans? Not a chance. Instead, Hillary wants to forcibly take more wealth away from the people who earned it in order to give it to others who did not earn it. But this is not just a straight subsidy: it is meant to "encourage" people to do what federal politicians know is best for them. It is social engineering.

Where might Hillary have picked up such an outlandish, unjust, and anti-American idea?

Donald Lambro complains for the conservative TownHall.com: "The lure of a refundable federal tax credit from general revenues is a government subsidy, pure and simple. The worker who receives it doesn't have to work for that matching money in order to save it."

Yet Lambro continues: "President Bush offered a bipartisan plan to provide private-investment accounts that would let workers invest a small percentage of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds and build wealth." Never mind the fact that this does nothing to address the spending side, at least for several decades.

When did we get to the point when the alleged opponents of subsidies for savings are talking about the federal government "letting" workers invest their own money? You're going to "let" my wife and me save some small portion of the money that we earned? Gee, thanks.

The simple fact is that Republicans, conservatives, and the Cato Institute are the ones who long advocated the idea of using federal force to socially engineer more "private" (read, government-controlled) investment. Hillary's plan is merely a variation of the conservative plan.

Thankfully, at least some people are actually talking about restoring economic liberty by reducing the payroll tax. Yaron Brook said in a recent press release from the Ayn Rand Institute:

The basic principle behind Social Security is that individuals have a right to unearned retirement income. To pay for these unearned benefits, the government seizes money from workers and transfers it to the elderly. This is a perverse injustice. Why should a twenty year old who is struggling to make ends meet have to finance someone else's retirement? Why is it parasitical for a young person to live on the dole, but an inalienable right if he waits until he's 65? Why should those who conscientiously save for retirement be forced to sacrifice a chunk of their income to support those who were not as responsible?

There is no such thing as a 'right' to someone else's labor or money. The 'needs' of the elderly do not justify turning the young into part-time slaves. Instead of looking for ways to save Social Security, we should be designing a plan to phase it out entirely.

Some claim that without Social Security the streets would be lined with senior citizens unable to pay for their homes or their food. But this fantasy ignores the fact that, before Social Security, there was no epidemic of starving old people. Individuals planned and saved for their own retirement. Those few who genuinely couldn't support themselves relied on their families and on private charity -- they did not demand the government reach into other people's pockets to provide them with goodies.

We don't need the federal government to "encourage," subsidize, force, or micromanage our investments. We need the federal government to leave us the hell alone so that we can invest our own money as we see fit.

D'Anconia Warns Against Repression

Recently I read Francisco d'Anconia's monumental speech about the virtue of money in Atlas Shrugged (pages 387-391 in my Signet 35th Anniversary Edition). In answer to someone who quips that "money is the root of all evil," d'Anconia argues that the root of money is production, and the root of production is the reasoning mind. It is a speech well worth perusing, and it is often discussed.

On this reading, I was equally struck by the discussion that d'Anconia holds with Hank Rearden immediately after the speech. I have heard the claim that Atlas Shrugged encourages emotional repression. However, Ayn Rand presents some of her heros as emotionally repressed precisely to point out why that's a problem. Rearden mentions some "fool woman." D'Anconia replies:

That woman and all those like her keep evading the thoughts which they know to be good. You keep pushing out of your mind the thoughts which you believe to be evil. They do it, because they want to avoid effort. You do it, because you won't permit yourself to consider anything that would spare you. They indulge their emotions at any cost. You sacrifice your emotions as the first cost of any problem. They are willing to bear nothing. You are willing to bear anything. They keep evading responsibility. You keep assuming it. But don't you see that the essential error is the same? Any refusal to recognize reality, for any reason whatever, has disastrous consequences. There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think. Don't ignore your own desires, Mr. Rearden. Don't sacrifice them. Examine their cause. There is a limit to how much you should have to bear. (page 394)

So, Rand points out, emotionalism, letting one's emotions guide one's life without rational oversight, stems from essentially the same error as emotional repression. That error is evasion, the pushing out of one's mind relevant knowledge or questions. Because Rearden tends to evade certain types of facts, he becomes emotionally repressed. This leads him to actively help those who are trying to tear him down and to damn his own desire for romantic sex. In presenting emotional repression in certain characters, Rand is exploring the roots of such repression so that it can be overcome.

7News Features Food-Stamp Debate

FreeColorado.com Update -- I just posted a new article, "7News Features Food-Stamp Debate, at FreeColorado.com. Here are some quotes:

"Denver's 7News featured a substantive if brief debate over food stamps in a story that aired October 14. My wife and I took the position that food-stamp subsidies should not be increased and that voluntary charity is a better alternative to food stamps. The station also interviewed a woman who takes food stamps and who argues that the payments are not enough. ...

"The main reason that my wife and I have put off consideration of children (and denied my mother the possibility of additional grandchildren) is that we cannot afford them. And the main reason that we cannot afford them is that we are forced to pay considerably over $10,000 per year in federal taxes, most of which goes to subsidize other people. So, while we're sitting with a negative net worth, slowly and painfully paying our way out of debt, pinching pennies for our own food budget, we are forced to pay for other people's children, while we are prevented from responsibly having children of our own."

CU's Brown Offends with "Ghetto" Remark

Republicans support more tax spending. Republicans support political control of education. They brag about it.

We begin with a very strange article from the Associated Press (dated October 19):

CU President Hank Brown warned today that the way the state allocates college and university funding could "ghettoize" some programs, upsetting the only black member of the Higher Education Commission.

Brown said inadequate funding for expensive research institutions like CU could mean that only rich families and low-income students who qualify for grants and scholarships can afford them.

"You ghettoize them in effect, because you make it impossible for middle-income kids to make it," Brown told the commission. ...

Brown's spokesman, Ken McConnellogue, said Brown was referring to the middle class students who were left out and not the low-income students who were left in the programs.

Offensive indeed!

Unfortunately, the AP article never explains why Brown's remark might be offensive. The article intimates that Jim Stewart, "the only black member" of the Commission, took offense because the term "ghettoize" is somehow offensive to blacks. But that's ridiculous.

The word "ghetto" was around long before it was used to describe poor black neighborhoods. The top definition from Oxford's dictionary says, "The quarter in a city, chiefly in Italy, to which the Jews were restricted." Maybe we can check to see whether there were any Jews on the Commission who also took offense. The second definition includes the generic meaning, "an area, etc., occupied by an isolated group; an isolated or segregated group, community, or area." As a verb, "ghetto" means, "To put or keep (people) in a ghetto." Obviously, Brown meant that he doesn't want to see middle-income students kept out of better schools. It has nothing to do with race.

Brown's comment is actually offensive because it's not true that "you make it impossible for middle-income kids to make it" by failing to increase tax subsidies. Middle-income students, and not only poor students, can qualify for grants and scholarships. They can also save their own money, work part time and attend school part time, ask their parents for money, and/or take out loans.

The people who should be offended are those of middle incomes who believe they can make it without government handouts. (It would help, of course, if such large portions of their paychecks weren't forcibly taken from them in order to subsidize still others.)

In theory, a college education is valuable to the student. If that's not the case, then there's no point in attending college. If it is the case, then there's no reason why the student shouldn't pay for it. Indeed, there's no reason why the government should play any role whatsoever.

It is possible, of course, that uneven tax subsidies make some programs artificially appealing to some students. But then the proper solution is not to increase select subsidies, it is to eliminate all the subsidies.

But it is no surprise that Brown, a former Republican Senator (and my one-time boss) endorses tax subsidies for education; i.e., forcing some people to pay for the education of other people.

Seriously, Republicans love spending taxes. It's like they're in their own little tax-spending ghetto. Consider an October 23 release from Colorado Republicans, titled, "GOP to bolster higher ed with more funding, greater accountability." Republicans wish to "establish a reliable funding stream for higher ed by drawing on surging revenue from oil and gas development." The money comes from leasing fees, "mineral royalties and state and local energy taxes." Because Republicans see that money as theirs to spend by right, never mind what the people who produce the wealth might think about it.

Republican Mike May says, "We are using a carrot-and-stick approach" toward colleges. The carrot is other people's money, taken from them by force. The stick is legislative control.

Yet how many students simultaneously bitch about "academic freedom" and too little state funding? What politicians fund, politicians control. Real academic freedom means getting politicians out of the education business. And that means getting politicians out of the business of funding education with other people's money.

Baseball Brings "External Malicious Attack" and Scalping

Never mind the fact that "all of California is burning." We have real problems in Colorado: we can't buy World Series tickets!

(Seriously, I offer my deepest sympathies to Californians who have lost property in the fires.)

Here's the extraordinary story, as told by 9News:

The Colorado Rockies say tickets for the World Series will again be sold online starting Tuesday at noon after an attack brought down the Web site on Monday.

Rockies Spokesperson Jay Alves said on Monday night that ColoradoRockies.com was the victim of an "external malicious attack" that caused a system-wide outage with Paciolan.

Paciolan is Major League Baseball's ticket vendor. The outage impacted all of its North American customers.

The Rockies suspended the sale of tickets on Monday after noon because of the system outage. ...

The Rockies initially said the system went down because of the heavy traffic to the Web site. They said there were 8.5 million hits on the Rockies Web site after the tickets went on sale.

I was one of the people unable to purchase tickets at 10:00 a.m. on Monday.

But talk about some bitter fans! Sheesh! I read some of the stories in the papers and listened to some of the comments on the radio. More than a few people were outraged.

We might draw a couple lessons from this incident.

First, look at the context. The Colorado Rockies -- whom a roommate of mine once mocked as the "Rookies" -- are in the World Series! Even if you are forced to watch it on a big-screen TV with surround sound while sitting on a couch drinking beer and eating pizza, which, admittedly, is a sorrowful existence, it's still pretty darn cool.

Second, be a little slower to cast blame. I assume the Rockies have good evidence about an "external malicious attack," given that they've announced it to the media. So it turns out not to be the fault of the Rockies or of Paciolan. Indeed, the story could get even more interesting if legal action is pursued against the attacker.

That said, I do like the idea of an on-line lottery. The problem with physical lines is that they waste time. A lottery would be easy to enter and easy to decide, and it would give everybody a fair shake. Next time the Rockies get to the World Series, I'm sure the organization will consider such alternatives.

But isn't it strange that a large percentage of the final ticket sales will go to scalpers? The baseball teams have created this value, yet millions of dollars will go into the pockets of ticket redistributers. Moreover, the process of redistributing tickets costs additional time, which could otherwise be spent in other work. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against scalpers, given the current system of ticketing. But why is that system set up to benefit scalpers?

If the Rockies sold tickets for what scalpers will eventually get for many of them, the Rockies would be accused of greed. So, apparently, it's less greedy to knowingly redistribute millions of dollars to scalpers. (I assume that ticket prices are in some way regulated by Major League Baseball.) But, if the Rockies wanted to price out scalpers without seeming "greedy," there's another solution: they could sell tickets at market value and donate the "excess" proceeds to charity.

What about the fans who "deserve" to buy cheap tickets? The Rockies have already made tickets available to season ticket holders, so those fans are taken care of. But the Rockies could also, for example, hold a "spirit contest" to make true fans show their dedication before they're allowed to buy less-expensive tickets. Or they could donate tickets to hard cases.

Offhand, though, I can think of no reason why baseball clubs should not simply sell tickets at their market value, and keep the proceeds. If they wanted, clubs could literally auction every single ticket, sort of like ebay (with unsold tickets available at gametime for the minimum price). But baseball involves many complex relationships between clubs, players, and fans that I do not pretend to understand.

Leonard Peikoff's Podcast

Outstanding! Leonard Peikoff has just released his first podcast. He says he'll produce a new one every week or two. He does an excellent job answering difficult questions in a way accessible to a general audience. In his first podcast, he answers four questions sent to him via e-mail (in my wording):

1. Is "non-initiation of force" the main ethical principle?

2. What should one do if one's relatives are upset about one's atheism?

3. What is the theme of mystery and adventure novels?

4. Do religions as such tend to become militant? How should a country defend itself against terrorist states where good people live?

Return to Civility

I have no problem with knock-down, drag-out debate. But the key word is debate, which implies arguments invoking reason and evidence. For example, I let Bob Beauprez have it over his endorsement of health-insurance mandates. And I make a strong case against mandates. I don't even mind some good, old fashioned name-calling, so long as the name has some plausible justification given the evidence presented. For instance, I suggested that some of the arguments of animal rights groups are dishonest, but only after I subjected those arguments to a lengthy critique that demonstrates my conclusion.

But too many people, especially in comments on blogs, are just nasty, without any justification. (That's why I allow only moderated comments on my web pages.)

Consider the following e-mail that I received on October 21. It's not worth quoting, except to offer an example of the sort of comments not worth quoting. Crandallsaz**ATSIGN**msn**DOT**com writes regarding a 7News piece featuring my wife and me:

I am so sick of people going on t.v. and saying, "It's not enough, we cant live off food stamps".

It was NEVER intended to be the full budget for any family. Food Stamps is intended to HELP pay for groceries, not pay for ALL groceries. It is a subsidy.

On the other hand, I just saw the piece on 7 News, and I don't believe for a second that those two lived on their claimed budget. We don't get food stamps, and follow the ads & coupons carefully, never even considering buying higher end things like steak, etc. and there is no way in hell a couple could live off of less than $200 per month. I consider that claim a bold-faced lie. And one more thing, what an IDIOTIC statement that was, to eliminate food stamps all together and rely on hand outs. That moronic idiot needs to spend 12 months working at Social Services to get a grip of reality. That little man is FAR out of touch with reality. Like a spoiled child.

Brian in Evans.

I replied:

You are quite mistaken, and your rudeness is uncalled for.

You can see every single food receipt, and an itemized list of all food items purchased, for the month of August, at the following web page.
http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/08/challenge.html

Please do not write to me again unless you can communicate civilly.

Thank you,
Ari Armstrong

Brian in Evans replied, "You are an ARROGANT IDIOT. You're Arrogance is sickening."

So, after calling me a liar without a shred of evidence, and after receiving from me overwhelming proof of the veracity of my claims, Brian accuses me of sickening arrogance. I mean, come on.

Unfortunately, gratuitous rudeness is not restricted to e-mails and blog commentary. Here are some choice quotes from Doug Giles from his recent column at Townhall.com:

How to Shut Up an Atheist if You Must
By Doug Giles
Saturday, October 20, 2007

... Suck, for you thick atheists, is a slang word which means to make or to be really, really crappy (kind of like how our culture becomes anytime you guys mess with it). ...

...prissy anti-Christs... pissy God haters... no-God numb nuts... comfortable and cocky atheist...

[E]verywhere I go and speak -- be it in conferences, on the radio, on television or in print -- I'm going to encourage the tens of thousands of Christians I address that every time and everywhere they get crapped on by an atheist with unfounded arguments to open their mouths and slam dance them with facts found in these two new brilliant books from Regnery [by Dinesh D'Souza and Robert Hutchinson].

Yes, I can feel the love of Christ descend upon me through the words of Doug Giles.

At least Giles does offer some arguments presented by others. (They aren't very good arguments, but that's a subject of another post.) For Giles, though, these arguments become weapons of propaganda, intended not to win an honest and spirited debate, but to "shut up" the other side.

Harry Potter's Success

The Harry Potter books have been phenomenally successful. CNN reports, "The last installment of the Harry Potter series sold a record-breaking 11.5 million copies in the U.S. in the first 10 days on sale... To date, more than 350 million copies of the seven books in the Harry Potter series have been sold worldwide."

And Potter is very much an international phenomenon. The Guardian reports:

Publisher Bloomsbury [of Britain] revealed [on September 18, 2007] that its English-language version of the boy wizard's final tale has sold as many copies overseas as in the UK. In Germany alone [one million] copies were sold in the last month. Pre-orders in China were more than 200% higher than those of the previous book.... [T]he untranslated Harry Potters have seen huge demand from impatient fans who want the books as soon as they come out.

The books have sold so well in part because they are very well written fantasy stories with richly drawn characters. Even though Harry and his friends can do amazing things, it's easy to imagine living in their world while reading the books. But part of the reason the books have sold so well is that Rowling presents a strong moral message of courage and strong character that children are obviously hungry for.

Rowling's sales figures are indeed impressive. By way of comparison, Ayn Rand wrote some of the most influential novels of the 20th Century. Yet, according to a biography from 1995, "Every book by Ayn Rand published in her lifetime is still in print, and hundreds of thousands of copies are sold each year, so far totalling more than twenty million." Even assuming robust sales since then, Rand's books have sold less than ten percent the numbers of Rowling's books. (No doubt sales of Atlas Shrugged will get a boost when and if the movie ever reaches the screen.)

But numbers don't mean that much. What will be the lasting cultural influence of, for example, The Da Vinci Code? The reason that Rand's books have had such influence is that they present in dramatic form philosophic ideas of profound personal importance to the reader. The Harry Potter books present some important ideas, but they are not as profound, as original, or as integrated into the story.

The main reason that Rowling has had and will continue to have such profound cultural influence is that she is reaching millions of children when they are first exploring ideas and first thinking about moral choices. Harry and his best friends belong to the school house of Gryffindor, the house of the brave, and Rowling presents an inspiring image of moral courage. (I'll have more to say about Rowling's themes at a later time.)

But perhaps the best thing about Rowling's books is that they have encouraged children to grapple with a complex story and difficult themes. The children who have graduated from those books will be prepared to read -- and eager to find -- other great and inspiring works of literature, such as Rand's novels.

Dr. Pritchett on Freedom

Inspired by the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, I decided to read the great novel again. I'm nearly a third of the way through. The novel is a magnificent accomplishment -- and it's as though I'm reading it for the first time. The first third focusses on the characters of Dagny Taggart, the great railroad executive; Hank Rearden, the steel producer; and Francisco d'Anconia, the copper owner who has apparently fallen to depravity. The dramatic tension, as when Dagny and Hank meet at a party or celebrate an accomplishment, is gripping.

I thought that I would include a few quotes on this web page. They're not necessarily the most central quotes; they're just what happen to grab me. Here's what Dr. Pritchett has to say about the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, which forces business owners to sell off all but one enterprise:

But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free. (page 129)

Ridiculous? Nobody would ever actually say that? But my previous entry quotes just such a statement.

Beauprez Battles Liberty in Medicine

Conservatives routinely use the rhetoric of free markets, free enterprise, liberty, and choice to impose political controls.

Bob Beauprez, the conservative whose campaign for governor self-destructed last year, published a new article this week titled, "Health Care Reform - The Battle is Joined." Not surprisingly, Beauprez has joined the wrong side.

First comes the rhetoric:

By some estimates as much as 30% of health care cost is administrative overhead, so undoubtedly savings could be realized by streamlining and consolidating paper work. But, where did all this paper work and regulation come from? Right! From the government with a big assist from trial lawyers hungry for a lawsuit. Do you think doctors and hospitals intentionally create more paper work for themselves?

And, now how do they propose to fix it? With more government! Remember that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Either they are crazy, or they believe we are to believe this stuff.

Then come the controls:

Required coverage: I reluctantly come to the conclusion that just as motorists are required to have auto insurance, and lenders require homeowners insurance, citizens should have to have health insurance.

My dad and I describe the basic problems with mandated health insurance in a recent column. In brief, such mandates violate the individual's right to control his or her own life and resources, put politicians in (greater) control of our insurance policies, and fail to fix the underlying problems that are caused by existing political controls.

Beauprez's many confusions and distortions call for a more detailed reply.

Beauprez's comparisons to auto insurance and homeowners insurance do not hold. The reason that "motorists are required to have auto insurance" if they wish to use government-run roads (even though many do not obey that law) is that the roads are socialized. It is telling that Beauprez holds up a socialized industry as the standard for medicine. Yet people are not forced to buy auto insurance if they do not use government-run roads. Beauprez wants to force everyone to buy health insurance.

If a lender requires the borrower to purchase homeowners insurance as a condition of the loan, that is properly a matter of voluntary contract, not political controls. But Beauprez is not talking about any sort of voluntary agreement with respect to health insurance: he is talking about legislating new political controls that force everyone to buy health insurance.

Beauprez continues:

Of the 15-17% of the population that is uninsured, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 56% are 18-34 year old young adults. It is impossible to know for certain, but many of these are no doubt uninsured by choice. Believing they are either permanently healthy, bullet proof, or both, they choose to spend their money on other things than health insurance. If they do get really sick or injured they know that they can go to any emergency room and get treatment whether they can pay or not because of federal law known as Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Some are certainly uninsured because they cannot afford the cost of insurance, but most could afford at least a portion of a monthly premium.

The reality is that when someone doesn't have insurance the cost of their health care is shifted to those that do in higher premiums, and to taxpayers who fund government programs. Cost shifting from the growing number of uninsured to the insured is a huge reality. The biggest challenge hospitals face is to adjust prices to insurance companies for paying customers to cover losses for services to non-paying uninsured patients they are required by law to treat. That invariably is reflected in higher insurance premiums.

It is simply not true that "when someone doesn't have insurance the cost of their health care is shifted to those that do in higher premiums, and to taxpayers who fund government programs."

Beauprez insults my wife and me, who were uninsured for several years. During that time, we paid for routine medical care out of pocket. Not once did we ask any other party to pay for our medical care. Yet Beauprez unjustly insinuates that we were freeloaders.

Why were we uninsured? Was it because, as Beauprez claims, we thought we "are either permanently healthy, bullet proof, or both?" No, Bob, it was not because we were stupid or deluded. I don't need some failed politician to inform me of my motives, thank you very much.

The reason that we chose not to purchase health insurance at that time was that employer-paid insurance was a horrible deal for us. Because of government controls, such insurance acts to transfer wealth away from healthier workers to those with higher costs. We were having a hard enough time paying bills without financing other people's health care to boot.

We made a calculated decision not to purchase health insurance. We looked at our realistic health risks given our age and state of health, took steps to independently maintain our health, planned to buy health care out of pocket, and considered how to handle possible (but unlikely) high-cost treatments.

In other words, our motive was the exact opposite of what Beauprez alleges. We were not trying to push our health-care costs onto others. Instead, we were paying our own way while refusing to finance the health care of others.

Here's how politicians have turned employer-paid insurance into a wealth-transfer scheme. Politicians have entrenched high-cost, non-portable, employer-paid health insurance through federal tax distortions. Because of the tax distortion, such insurance serves as pre-paid medical care, not actual insurance to cover unexpected, high-cost treatment. Our hope with term life insurance, auto insurance, and home insurance is to never need to make a claim. We happily pay our routine auto and home expenses out of pocket. Why, then, do most people expect health insurance to cover all or nearly all of their health costs? It is because of the tax distortion. That's fundamentally why health insurance is so bloody expensive.

And, of course, when practically every purchase of medical care goes through insurance, that adds a lot of processing costs.

When insurance acts as pre-paid medicine, it transfers wealth to insurance companies and to those who often visit the doctor (whether the visits are needed or not). It costs everyone who visits the doctor only occasionally.

Politicians have also required that employer-paid insurance accept all comers, regardless of health, within tightly controlled rates. That's the equivalent of forcing a life-insurance company to charge the same rate for the same policy for a healthy 25 year old and an 80 year old with cancer. What happens is that some people put off buying insurance until they get sick. This increases the rates for everyone (as Beauprez suggests).

In addition, politicians have added all sorts of additional controls that act to transfer health-insurance dollars to members of special interests. In a comment beneath Beauprez's article, Brian T. Schwartz writes:

The rationale for compulsory insurance is the "cost shift from uncompensated care" provided to the under- and uninsured, "which makes private insurance more expensive."

Yet, Health Affairs reports that such uncompensated care is "only 2.8 percent of total personal health care spending." ...

Indeed, politicians have already succumbed to special interests by forcing insurance plans to cover many benefits that you may not need. These mandated benefits laws increase your premiums by 21 to 54 percent. (Council for Affordable Health Insurance, www.tinyurl.com/32ozs6)

So is the result of mandated health insurance to reduce "cost shifting?" On one hand, some people who would otherwise shift their costs onto others would be forced to instead purchase insurance. (However, those most likely to shift their costs onto others are also the ones most likely to avoid the mandate.) But on the other hand, insurance mandates increase "cost shifting" by forcing those with low medical costs to subsidize those with high medical costs. Notably, if some people pay only "a portion of a monthly premium," as Beauprez suggests, then that means somebody else must pick up the rest of the tab.

One result it to screw young, working families, at the very point in their lives when they're trying to pay off debts, keep up on bills, start families, and buy homes.

The only just way to reduce "cost shifting" is to remove the political controls that cause it. Beauprez's plan is to "solve" the cost-shifting caused by political controls by adding new political controls that will expand cost-shifting.

Beauprez also claims, "Insured are far more likely to avail themselves of preventative care, get treatment earlier, and avoid serious acuity and expense."

Beauprez's claim is false. When my wife and I were uninsured, we knew that if we didn't take care of ourselves, we'd face higher expenses down the road. We made sure that we ate healthy foods, exercised, avoided unnecessary risks, and checked up on our health. Now that we have high-deductible insurance that we hope never to need, our incentives are basically the same. On the other hand, when people are "insured" for everything, they have less incentive to minimize their long-term health costs.

Again, the problem is political force that allows the uninsured to demand medical care at the expense of others. The proper solution is to repeal those controls, not impose new controls that force people to buy insurance.

Some of Beauprez's proposals (none of which are original to him) are fine, such as reducing the tax distortion that has entrenched employer-paid insurance. But his call for mandatory health insurance overwhelms anything positive he might have to say. "Both Ways Bob" simply does not understand the nature of individual rights, the meaning of free markets, or the proper purpose of government.

It is typical for such conservatives as Beauprez to follow a call for more political force, more state interference in the market, with a sentence like this:

"Any objective observer with even minimal experience with our free market system understands that private competition with limited government interference works."

Belching Cows and Global Warming

The temperature fluctuates every day and every season by dozens of degrees. Average temperature has fluctuated many times between ice ages and warming trends over hundreds of thousands of years.

If humans continue their current emissions of greenhouse gasses, the temperature of the earth might increase by a few degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If humans destroy their modern industrial society and revert to barbarism, the temperature of the earth might increase by a few degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Is it conceivable that environmentalists are using global warming as a pretext to denigrate industrial society and socialize vast tracts of the economy? Rousseau managed to condemn technological achievements and promote statism even before industrialization really took off. If it were not for global warming, would environmentalists advocate free markets and praise industrial society, or would they continue to advocate political controls and reduced human use of resources?

Yet people can most effectively deal with changes of weather and other problems when they are free to innovate within a free market -- i.e., within the context of private property rights, voluntary association, and economic liberty. The environmentalist "solution," to put politicians and bureaucrats in control of more of the economy, will waste vast resources and slow the rate of technological innovation. (Gus Van Horn discusses this issue.)

Keith Lockitch explains why some environmentalists blast even "green consumerism:" "the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched -- to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes."

In his October 16 column for the Rocky Mountain News, Vincent Carroll discusses the latest environmentalist attack on human activity:

When an ultra-establishment voice such as the Los Angeles Times devotes a 1,600-word editorial to the perils of “Killer cow emissions,” not as parody but as serious analysis, you know that concern over porterhouse steaks has elbowed its way into the mainstream.

After noting that “livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide, according to the U.N. — more than all the planes, trains and automobiles on the planet,” the Times slogs through a variety of tactics that might reduce the impact of the methane gas that cattle produce (mostly through belching). It then concludes, however, that none of these measures would be enough.

The only alternative: “eating less meat.” As a result, “the government should not only get out of the business of promoting unhealthful and environmentally destructive foods, it should be actively discouraging them.”

Let’s be clear what the Times is saying: The government should actively discourage eating beef in order to combat global warming.

The Times's October 15 editorial is worth quoting at greater length:

It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence. ...

Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon dioxide, the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources -- fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. ... [I]t's estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day.

Now, I do agree that possible subsidies of beef production should be eliminated. And I'm fine with voluntary efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases through new technology.

But when environmentalists advocate expansive political controls of cows, they risk making themselves laughingstocks. I have no doubt that some environmentalists will continue to push the anti-cow line, though, in part because it fits so beautifully with the animal-rights agenda.

The environmentalist movement wants to tightly control human activity and reduce human energy use. The shame is that, if environmentalists are successful, they will destroy the market dynamism that would otherwise enable the rapid development of technology. In a truly free market, people would be free to produce and trade unshackled by government controls, capable of dramatic advances in energy production (and other fields) well before the year 2100. Does anyone really believe that politicians, bureaucrats, and political moochers are the ones capable of directing technological revolutions? But the path of liberty would enable people to use dramatically more energy and exploit many more resources (eventually off-world as well), and environmentalists can't have that.

Religious Motivation: Reply to Jamelle Bouie

In reply to my post, "Religious Right, Meet Religious Left," Jamelle Bouie writes:

I'm not sure if you can equate religiously motivated politics with trying to "use the force of government to advance their religious agendas."

Having a theologically based political belief is no different then having a philosophically based one. So for example, there are Christians who believe that Jesus' admonitions about caring for the poor compel them to advocate -- politically -- on behalf of the poor.

They aren't necessarily trying to impose a religious belief, but their actions are motivated by said belief.

Bouie distinguishes between advocating a policy from religious motives and advocating a policy that advances religious doctrine. This can indeed be a useful distinction.

Here are some examples of advocating a policy from religious motives, when the policy itself does not explicitly promote a religious doctrine. Various Christians want to outlaw abortion, because they believe that abortion is forbidden by God's will, yet a law outlawing abortion need not explicitly mention any religious belief. Other Christians want to politically restrict the human emission of carbon dioxide, because they believe they have a religious duty to "save the earth" from such emissions, but those restrictions themselves do not necessarily promote Christian beliefs. Notably, many people who aren't Christians also want to politically restrict such emissions. Many theists want to forcibly redistribute wealth to the poor, because they believe such redistribution is demanded by their religious precepts, yet statutes enforcing such redistribution need not mention religion. Many atheists also advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor.

Here are some examples of "trying to impose a religious belief" in the sense of using politics to advance a religious doctrine. Many "conservatives" (as noted) want to divert tax funds to schools that teach particular religious doctrines. Many conservatives also want government-run schools to teach creationism as science. In times past, various countries have passed statutes requiring people to attend some particular church. In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition murdered people for expressing beliefs heretical to Christianity.

However, as useful as this distinction is, it does not accomplish what Bouie thinks it does. I am not concerned merely with criticizing instances of political force that advance particular religious doctrines. I am also concerned with criticizing those who would "use the force of government to advance their religious agendas" in the broader sense. For example, I oppose the outlawing of abortion because it involves the illegitimate use of governmental force. In other words, I oppose the (initiatory) use of governmental force across the board, not merely when that use of force advances some particular religious doctrine.

Those who wish to outlaw abortion are indeed "trying to impose a religious belief" in the sense that matters. No, those who want to outlaw abortion are not trying to force me to say, "I accept that God forbids abortion," but they are trying to interfere with the liberty of my wife and me to control our own lives. (As a side note, it turns out that my wife and I have discovered this wonderful invention called "birth control," but we would not rule out an abortion if, for example, a pregnancy threatened the life of my wife. Of course, some Christians also want to outlaw birth control.)

In other cases, bad policies can be motivated by religious or secular ideologies. In such cases, does it really matter what the motivation is? Yes, it does, for two reasons. First, a full refutation of the case behind the policy is impossible without an understanding of what's motivating the policy. A Christian and a Marxist might both advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor, but they'll have different reasons for doing so (even though I agree with Leonard Peikoff that leftist collectivism is basically derived or borrowed from religious collectivism). Second, one cannot assess the potential cultural power of a particular policy proposal without knowing what's motivating it. For example, in his June 12 post, Peikoff argues that the "anti-industrial Greens" will have "short-lived" success, but that religion is capable of much stronger and longer-lasting cultural influence.

As a side note, I strongly discourage writers from using the construction "advocate on" or "advocate for." What does it mean to "advocate on behalf of the poor?" Advocate what? It is possible to advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor. It is possible to advocate Policy X. Let us stop this empty "advocating for" positions that are never specified. I oppose this egalitarianism of advocacy, this presumption that all forms of advocacy are created equal, regardless of what is being advocated. If you have the guts to advocate a particular policy or idea, then have the guts to name that policy or idea.

Government Financing is Not "Private"

Here is yet another example of how advocates of individual rights and free markets must fight both "liberals" and "conservatives."

Diane Carman writes for the October 16 Denver Post:

For conservatives, the belief that private industry does everything better and at less cost than the evil government is the sacred 11th commandment of politics.

And, the debacle with Blackwater USA notwithstanding, there's no question that some jobs are done best by private contractors.

On that everyone can agree.

Trouble is, a whole back-slapping system of financial rewards has evolved to corrupt the process. ...

Here in Colorado, private firms supply everything, even bus drivers and prisons. Former Gov. Bill Owens was a believer in the 11th commandment, so contracts for public services during his terms exploded.

One result was a $300 million computer system that never worked, Carman notes.

In Carman's world, then, you can either work directly for the government or indirectly for the government. If you work indirectly for the government, then that's "private" enterprise.

What's missing from this picture? Hmm... I know it's a toughie! How about the possibility of not working for the government at all?

Let's take the example of bus drivers. Is it true that bus drivers either have to work for the government directly or work for companies that contract with the government? Obviously not. The alternative is to get government out of the business of running busses and allow bussing companies to operate independently, with the ability to set their own rates and routes and compete on a free market.

Carman actually knows that it's possible not to work for the government -- after all, she works for The Denver Post -- yet she packages government contracting together with real free enterprise as "private." But a company that's paid by the government -- i.e., by tax dollars taken forcibly from citizens -- is not really "private" at all. A truly private enterprise earns its revenues from willing customers.

I'll take another example to drive home the point. Currently, book publishers decide which books to publish and then sell the books to readers who buy them. That's private enterprise. But what if the government published books? (In fact, the government publishes government reports already.) If the government pays a contractor to print and distribute books, is that "private" in the same sense? To take an extreme example, if the government taxed everyone at a rate of 100 percent, then hired contractors for every job, then, by Carman's reasoning, that would be an entirely "private" economy.

So it is rather important to maintain the distinction between a real free market -- actual private enterprise -- and government contracting, which relies on the forcible transfer of wealth.

Is there a legitimate role for government contracting? Yes -- but only for tasks essential for the government to fulfill its job of protecting individual rights (which need not involve coercive taxation). For example, the government may properly hire contractors to build military equipment. However, when it comes to prisons, I think employees should work directly for the government, not for contractors, because of the perverse incentives created by indirect financing.

Carman makes another crucial mistake. She presumes that one must hold one of two views: either the government should finance bus drivers and all sorts of other occupations, or the government is "evil." What this leaves out is the view that government plays a crucial and essential role in protecting individual rights, but that government should be restricted to that role. The fact that government is not evil does not imply that government should restrict, compete with, or push out (actually) private enterprise.

Unfortunately, Carman draws her errors directly from the conservative movement. Conservatives often fail to distinguish between the proper and essential role of government and the misuse of governmental power. Conservatives usually endorse the forcible transfer of wealth, though for "conservative" aims. Conservatives also pretend that government contracting means the same thing as "private" enterprise.

Here's a recent example. A Colorado Republican release from October 16 states:

Leadership and members of House and Senate Republican caucuses gathered on the west steps of the Capitol today to unveil a comprehensive education package...

Among the GOP proposals addressing those priorities: a uniform, statewide curriculum standard to graduate high school; a general proficiency exam before any student could graduate; a requirement to display English proficiency before a student could graduate, and a plan to reward and retain the best teachers through performance bonuses. ...

Assistant Senate Republican Leader Nancy Spence... the ranking GOP member of the Senate Education Committee, showcased two of her education-reform bills at the conference. One of the bills would offer parents tuition assistance for special-needs children, and the other offered performance incentives to teachers.

She said that students with special needs are particularly vulnerable when their educational options are limited and that their parents ought to be able to choose a program, private or public, that addresses the unique challenges their children face.

There's that word "private" again, this time used by Republicans to mean government-financed schools for "students with special needs."

But what does a real "private" or free-market school look like? It does not accept any tax dollars. It earns its revenues from willing customers. It sets rates of tuition, perhaps including sliding scales to accommodate the poor, in cooperation with its customers. It might accept charitable donations or even (actually) private vouchers, meaning vouchers funded voluntarily, rather than through tax dollars.

But, with a few rare and quiet exceptions, conservatives will not endorse free markets in education. Government-run education is conservative orthodoxy. True, some conservatives want the government to control education via tax-funded vouchers, and they pretend that this is the same thing as "private" education, but this is merely a minor variation on the theme of government force.

Indeed, Colorado Republicans have proudly assumed the role of central planners. They want to micromanage every government-run school in the state. And why do government-run schools require such micromanagement? Because of the perverse incentives created by tax financing. Government-run schools face little incentive to serve their "customers." These Republicans have no problem with government-run schools; they just want the government to run the schools their way.

Here is another example. This evening, the El Pomar Foundation is hosting a talk with Thomas Krannawitter of Hillsdale College. Here's what Krannawitter has to say about government-run education:

In Ohio, as in the rest of America, taxpayers for years have poured billions of dollars into failing public schools. Dissatisfied with dismal results, the citizens of Cleveland decided to try something different. Parents would be given a voucher -- tax dollars, that is -- they could use to send their children to any school of their choice, public or private. By making choice available to more parents, schools would compete to attract students, providing a powerful incentive for all schools to strive for educational excellence. ...

Contrary to the ACLU, the men who framed and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights rightly believed political freedom and good government require moral citizens capable of governing themselves. And they thought religion a powerful means of moral education that ought to be promoted by government.

Krannawitter confuses government-financed schools with "private" schools, thereby helping to obliterate the very idea of an actually "private," free-market school. He enthusiastically endorses tax-financed education. And he suggests that government should also spend tax dollars to promote religion.

The broader critique is that Krannawitter conflates religion and morality, when actually objective morality can only be derived independently of religion. Religion undermines morality. But that debate is too broad for this post. For now, I need merely point out that Krannawitter does not advocate the right to control one's own resources with respect to education or even religion; he believes the government should be in control.

The modern contest between "liberals" and "conservatives" is merely one to seize government control over our lives.

Religious Right, Meet Religious Left

A few days ago, I wrote "that one eventual possibility is for the... religious right and religious left [to] grow closer together."

The future is now.

In his October 14 blog for the Rocky Mountain News, "Faith in the planet," M.E. Sprengelmeyer writes:

In American politics, we're used to hearing Republicans use the language of faith. And we're used to hearing Democrats talk tough on protecting the environment.

But this year, we're starting to notice candidates from both sides mixing the two, perhaps hoping that breaking that language barrier can win them cross-over support.

Sprengelmeyer offers quotes from two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.

Obama:

The Bible tells us that when God created the Earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that Earth -- to exercise stewardship over His creation. ... I don't believe that this separation [of church and state] means that we should leave our religion at the door before entering the public square.

Huckabee:

My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.

The difference between the candidates is that Obama is losing out to a secularist, Hillary Clinton, who uses the language of religion strategically, while Huckabee is losing out to a dedicated religionist, Mitt Romney, who believes "we are a religious people." The left will rally behind Clinton, while the religious right is threatening to leave Giuliani at the altar should he manage to take the lead.

It is indeed interesting that, substantively, the quoted comments of Obama and Huckabee are identical. It is true that the religious left is more interested in expanding the welfare and environmentalist state, while the religious right is more interested in outlawing abortion and promoting religion through government. However, both sides care a lot more about attaining their pet goals than they do about stopping the religionists on the other side of the aisle. The tendency will be for both sides of the religious divide to "compromise" by tolerating the goals of the other side in order to promote their own agendas. Thus, it is not much of a surprise to see the religious right warming up to environmentalism or the religious left downplaying the separation of church and state. The religious right and the religious left are already united in their desire to use the force of government to advance their religious agendas.

FreeColorado.com Update -- Health Policy

Here's the latest from the Colorado Freedom Report:

Insurance mandates threaten your health
"Insurance mandates are morally wrong because they violate the rights of individuals to control their own lives and resources. The government has no more right to force us to buy health insurance than it does to force us to buy shoes, houses, hamburgers, or Bibles. ... Instead of trying to force people to buy health insurance, why doesn't Dr. Pramenko take a look at why health insurance is too expensive for some people to afford?" (by Linn and Ari Armstrong)

Restore Liberty in Health Care in Colorado
"The role of government in regard to health care should be to cease and desist. The proper role of government is not to force anyone to do anything. Government's proper role is to protect every person's right to liberty. But subsidies, tax distortions, insurance mandates, employer mandates and individual mandates violate this right and wreck the market." (by Richard Watts)

"Get the Hell Out of the Way"

In his October 12 article for The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction, Mike Saccone writes:

Dr. Jim Schroeder warned four members of a statewide health reform commission that over-involving government in doctor-patient relations could push a large number of physicians to leave the business.

“The role of government should be to get the hell out of the way and let the doctors meet with the patients,” Schroeder said, his voice wavering with emotion.

Schroeder said any attempt from policymakers to expand existing government-managed health insurance programs or to create a single-payer, government-run health insurance program could allow the state to lower how much it pays physicians for their work.

"If you're not paid for what you’re doing... you're not going to stay in the field," the local pediatric cardiologist said.

Schroeder's comments came as part of a Thursday evening forum the Senate Bill 208 Commission hosted in Grand Junction to receive feedback on its five possible health care reform proposals.

These meetings all seem to go about the same way. Those who seek "concentrated benefits" of government wealth transfers show up in large numbers, while those on whom the costs are dispersed mostly stay away. Yet, as I noted previously, Brian Schwartz spoke eloquently at one of the meetings of the hazards of government-controlled medicine. I was heartened to read Dr. Schroeder's comments. And Richard Watts tells me that he advocated liberty in medicine at a hearing in Craig.

Of course, the issue of payment discussed in the article is only one of many problems with government-run medicine. Medicaid and Medicare already pay doctors less than what services cost to provide. The bureaucracy and political meddling also induce especially the best doctors to leave the field. Political controls harm doctors as well as their patients, as both groups look to influence politicians and bureaucrats, rather than enter into voluntary, mutually beneficial relationships with each other.

Unfortunately, many who work in related fields are drawn by the siren song. Saccone continues:

Kristy Schmidt, director of community and consumer relations for the Marillac Clinic, said requirements for individuals to have their own health insurance are a good idea.

“Having everyone pay into the system will decrease costs for all,” Schmidt said.

But Schmidt's statement is false. Forcing people to purchase health insurance violates their rights to control their own resources without addressing the underlying problems caused by existing political controls. Obviously, the point of the mandate is not to "decrease costs for all." The point is to force some people to subsidize others through insurance. Because politically-enforced insurance would act more like pre-paid medical care, it would encourage people to seek more care without regard for cost, thereby increasing average "costs for all," at least until price controls and rationing kicks in.

No, Dr. Schroeder offers the correct diagnosis and the correct remedy: "The role of government should be to get the hell out of the way and let the doctors meet with the patients."

"An Extreme Free-Market View"

As I write, sunrise is a few short hours away. But, as I was checking the papers for the baseball updates, I came across Jason Salzman's latest column for the Rocky Mountain News. He writes:

In response to my last column documenting how Denver journalists love and embed the conservative/libertarian Independence Institute, some people asked whom I'd quote instead of institute President Jon Caldara. ...

For an extreme free-market view, there's Ari Armstrong (ariarmstrong.com) [hey, that's me!] and Brian T. [Schwartz] (wakalix.com), among others.

So, before heading to bed, I wanted to welcome Salzman's readers who may have wandered this way. Because extreme exhaustion in defense of liberty is no vice! (Or something like that.)

Unlike most politicians and commentators these days, I don't get ruffled when somebody suggests that I'm "extreme." If this strikes you as odd, allow me to ask you a few questions.

Do you want to be extremely happy, or just sort of happy? (I'm not talking about a superficial giddiness, but a deep enjoyment of life.)

Would you like to live in an extremely just society, or a society that's just only some of the time?

Should we strive to be extremely good, extremely virtuous, extremely moral, or just pretty good?

The alternative to extreme happiness, justice, and goodness is some amount of unhappiness, injustice, and destructive vice. (Please don't confuse "vice" with activities that can be healthy in the right context, such as moderate drinking.)

Imagine yourself in the mid-1800s. The abolitionists called for the abolition -- the complete abandonment -- of slavery. They took the extreme position that slavery is morally wrong and should be completely outlawed. The moderates, on the other hand, argued that slavery should merely be restricted. Would you have been on the side of the abolitionists or the moderates?

Just as I would have been proud to call myself an abolitionist in the mid-1800s, so I am proud to advocate an "extreme free-market view" today.

What is a free market? An individual market is any space or network in which people can exchange goods or services. E-bay is a market. The market in the broader sense is the sum of such networks and transactions. A free market is one in which people interact voluntarily, free from the initiation of force. For example, if you and I agree to swap an apple for an egg, that's a free-market transaction. If one party takes something by force, threat of force, or fraud, then the market is no longer free. Force has replaced voluntary association. Buying groceries is an example of a free-market trade. Robbing a grocery store is an example of force.

The proper and necessary function of government is to protect each individual's right to control his or her own life, resources, and property, as consistent with the equal protection of the rights of others. You have the right to control your property and trade the fruits of your labor with others, so long as you don't violate the property rights of others in the process.

An extremely free market is one in which people's rights are consistently protected. The alternative is a society in which some people exert force against others.

Obviously I've given only the briefest overview of the basic theory. But that should give you a basic sense of where I'm coming from.

Here are some examples, again in brief, of how my "extreme free-market view" plays out with respect to particular issues. People have the right to control their own resources, so politicians should not force them to fund the health care of others. Voluntary charity is fine, but forced wealth transfers are not. People have the right to control their own property, so they should be left free to set smoking policy there. Company owners have the right to run their businesses and offer goods and services to willing customers, so businesses should not have to seek permission from the FTC or other bureaucracy to merge or otherwise operate. People own their homes, so local governments should not be able to take those homes away by force.

I realize that many of you have been trained since you could walk to compromise for the sake of compromise, reject any position that dares invoke a principle (except the "principle" that "there are not principles"), and always seek the centrist position, regardless of who defines the boundaries.

"Compromise." Even if you're compromising the good for the sake of the bad, the just for the sake of injustice?

"Be reasonable." But how can you reason apart from principles?

"Why go to extremes?" Do you wish to be moderate in pursuit of justice? Sanction the violation of only some rights?

A consistently or "extremely" free market means that individuals' rights are consistently protected, that people are free to control their own resources and associate voluntarily. The alternative is that some people control others by force.

I've written quite a lot more about political issues for the Colorado Freedom Report. For more about compromise, please see Ayn Rand's essay, "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" in The Virtue of Selfishness. See also Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which sees its fiftieth anniversary this month.

Claire Danes Shines

At first I resisted seeing the film Stardust because it looked like a fantasy movie geared to kids. Well, it is a fantasy movie, and it is the most delightful film I've seen this year. I'm grateful for my friends' recommendation. I notice that it's still playing on a few movie screens. I expect to see it a third time before it disappears, then wait expectantly for the DVD.

A young man, trying to win the heart of the local beauty, sees a falling star and pledges to fetch it in exchange for the girl's hand. But to retrieve the star, our hero must cross the wall that separates England from the magical world beyond. In that world, a fallen star is not a hunk of metal and ash -- it is a lovely young lady, in this case portrayed by Claire Danes. Our hero must learn to become a man, save the star, and figure out whom he loves.

The entire cast of the film is spectacular, but the real, er, star of the film is Danes. Hers is a joyous performance.

By the way, my wife and I also saw Danes in Evening. I do not love the story, and Danes's character is not consistently drawn (perhaps because a screenwriter worked over the original novel). But the film has its rewarding moments, usually when Danes is on screen.

"He Went to Live with Two Homosexuals"

When criticizing James Dobson, I wrote, "I agree with many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani's personal life." But I don't want to leave the wrong impression. Many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani are positives in my book. And some of Dobson's criticisms are ridiculous:

Here's why I cannot vote for Rudy Giuliani. He’s pro-abortion. He's never repudiated gay marriage in New York City or at least the civil unions in New York City. He's called a champion of gay rights. Rudy is opposed to school choice. He's in favor of open borders. He lived with a mistress in the mansion in New York while he was married to his wife -- and she was in the same house. He's been married three times. When his second wife got sick of it she threw him out and he went to live with two homosexuals.

I don't want abortion outlawed, I support domestic partnerships for homosexuals, I oppose school vouchers (because I support real free markets in education), and I favor open immigration (except for criminals and those with contagious diseases). I agree that Giuliani ought not have had a mistress (assuming that Dobson's claims are correct); that was wrong of him.

But what is that last bit? "[H]e went to live with two homosexuals." That's the sort of line that gives me the surreal sense that somebody must be playing an elaborate practical joke. Why would it even occur to anyone to check to see whether Giuliani ever lived with two homosexuals? I mean, huh? When Dobson comes up with lines like that, parody is beside the point.

I keep having to remind myself that there are people in this country who take this guy seriously.

Candidates' Mailing Addresses

So I'm sending a copy of the letter, "Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters," to candidates at the national and state level. Since I'm looking up the addresses, I'd thought I'd pass them along (even though only some of them will be relevant to most voters).

Of course, the 2008 elections are still more than a year away. But I wanted to introduce the letter early in the political season. There's not much activity in the state legislative races at this point, but next year I'll mail a copy of the letter to those candidates, too.

President

It turns out that there are a ridiculous number of people who think they're running for president. The number just for Republicans approaches 100. So I'm going to send the letter only to candidates who are leading. I'm working from Vote Smart.

Rudolph W. Giuliani
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036

Mike Huckabee
Carter Wamp
Policy
Post Office Box 2008
Little Rock, AR 72203

John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109

Fred Thompson
Friends of Fred Thompson
Incorporated Post Office Box 128349
Nashville, TN 37212-8349

Joe Biden
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

John Edwards
1201 Old Greensboro Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Bill Richardson
490 Old Santa Fe Trail Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501

U.S. Senate for Colorado

Bob Schaffer (I couldn't easily find a mailing address.)
team@BobSchaffer.org

Mark Udall
8690 Wolff Court, #200
Westminster, CO 80031

U.S. Congress for Colorado's Second District

(The following two candidates are Democrats, as Democrats always win this Boulder-centered race.)

Joan Fitz-Gerald
9975 Wadsworth Parkway - Unit K2 #401
Westminster, CO 80021-6814

Jared Polis
PO Box 4572
Boulder, CO 80306

Colorado Republicans and Democrats

Republican Party of Colorado
5950 S. Willow Drive, Suite 220
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Democratic Party of Colorado
777 Santa Fe Drive
Denver, CO 80204

The Dobson Divide

Two days ago I signed a letter stating: "In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state." The letter asks candidates to respond to five questions, one of which is about abortion.

Today I read an interview with James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Here's what he has to say:

[T]here was an informal meeting of about 50 pro-family and pro-life leaders that had come together [in Salt Lake City]. The purpose of it was to talk about what we would do if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate...

There were about 50 people there and, to my count, 44 of them stood saying we will not vote for Rudy Giuliani or whoever it is we're talking about that's pro-abortion. And that got covered all over the nation and, as you can imagine, I was inundated.

So I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying why we would not do that -- because you start with a moral principle. You have to make your decisions about who's going to lead you not on the basis of pragmatics -- not on the basis of who can win or who's ahead in the polls or who has the most money or who's the most popular. You begin by saying what are the irreducible minimums that I believe in, that I care about; what are the biblical values I cannot compromise.

At least Dobson doesn't dodge the issue: he explicitly says he wants to base American politics on Christian doctrine.

Dobson wants to outlaw abortion and prevent marriage or domestic partnerships for homosexuals because that's what he believes is the will of God. If Dobson has his way, what other policies might Christians try to impose? I have not researched Dobson's particular views, but here are some policies that various Christians have proposed: censorship, criminal sanctions against homosexual acts among consenting adults, a ramped-up drug war including renewed alcohol prohibition, tax-funded religious education, tax-funded welfare, and bans on all sorts of medical research from cloning to stem cells. Certainly these policies, and many others involving a heavy hand of government, have found support in "biblical values."

Dobson poses the typical false choice between pragmatism and religion. For what it's worth, I agree with many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani's personal life. But Dobson's "principles" are not grounded on any objective morality; they are merely arbitrary constructs, ultimately as subjectivist as what he claims to criticize. Dobson wants to govern America by his reading of an inherently ambiguous book of popular mythology. Giuliani has his personal faults, but at least he seems to be somewhat oriented toward reality.

I think that the Republican Party remains in deep, deep trouble. On one side, the religious right threatens to work against any candidate who does not pledge to govern according to Christian doctrine (as interpreted by the religious right). On the other side, voters more concerned about economic liberty and limited government are increasingly alienated by the religious right. (This is essentially the issue that handed Colorado to the Democrats.) Various leaders within the GOP have called for a renewal of vows, but the wedding was always one born of a shotgun. I suppose that one eventual possibility is for the free marketeers to seek out the civil libertarians of the left, even as the religious right and religious left grow closer together.

But Dobson is right about one thing. Politics is not primary. Ethics is primary. That is the real cultural battle today.

Atlas Shrugged -- The Game

Often I come across tidbits in the popular media and think, "Wow, that could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged." Indeed, Ayn Rand's ability to read and predict cultural trends can seem uncanny. So, as a fun way to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the publication of the novel, I'm suggesting Atlas Shrugged -- The Game.

It's simple to play. Just blog the best example you can find from (let's say) the past eight weeks of commentary that sounds like it could have been lifted straight from the pages of Atlas Shrugged. I imagine that nearly all examples will sound like the voice of a villain, unfortunately. Edit out specifics and leave only the general points. Let's give it, say, till the end of October. Here's my entry for the sort of mealy-mouthed gibberish common among Atlas's political "reformers:"

It's heating up. The debate... is picking up speed... Unfortunately, this naturally leads to polarization of opposing views regarding a critically important issue for all of us. And this cheapens and oversimplifies the discussion.

Our [industry] can't be corrected with one liners and political scoring points.

We need cooperation. We need compromise. We don't need political hoopla.

Thankfully, the continued work of the... Commission is a good example of how a group of people with differing views can work together on a critical issue. It would be premature to grade their efforts. However, they are making progress and we all should support their endeavor.

Source: Dr. Michael J. Pramenko, "Time to find people 'medical homes'," Grand Junction Free Press, September 28, 2007.

Celebrating Atlas Shrugged

From the Colorado Freedom Report:

"Today marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's seminal novel about producers who go on strike to oppose their treatment at the hands of political plunderers. The novel celebrates the greatness possible to the freed human mind in pursuit of life-enhancing values. The work unabashedly endorses the moral doctrine of rational self-interest. ...

"Atlas Shrugged lays out the vision of heroic people who refuse to compromise their principles -- and thereby refuse to compromise their happiness. Such people realize the full value of life on earth, and they therefore apply their reason and efforts to the goal of living. They hold productiveness as a moral virtue, and they seek to protect the political liberty that allows individuals to act, create, and trade according to their own judgment."

Shift Happens

Thanks to an article from the Rocky Mountain News, I found a short video created by Karl Fisch of Arapahoe High School in Centennial.

Fisch's first video was so popular that he created a second version. Both videos summarize various trends in education and the advance of technology. These videos brought tears to my eyes. Human achievements in the computer age are astounding.

I have two minor criticisms. First, the videos do not distinguish between "new information" and universal truths. It remains the job of philosophy to teach us how to organize information conceptually and hierarchically. Second, the videos make it seem as though the advance of technology is inevitable. It is not. Human productivity is inextricably linked to political freedom. Technology can be smashed much more easily than it can be created. A socialized economy will grind to a halt and then deteriorate. A virulent theocracy will systematically destroy the freedom of the mind and the technology that flows from it.

What Fisch's videos demonstrate is how much we humans have achieved -- and how much there is worth fighting for.

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

The signatories offer the following announcement as a non-exclusive letter to the editor.

As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed,
Ari Armstrong, Westminster
Tom Hall, Louisville
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia
Mike Williams, Denver
Leonard Peikoff, Colorado Springs
Richard Watts, Hayden
Cara Thompson, Denver
Hannah Krening, Larkspur
Erika Hanson Brown, Denver
Bill Faulkner, Broomfield
Cameron Craig, Denver
Bryan Armentrout, Erie

Version for Individual Voters

Note: Voters have permission to reproduce and distribute the following declaration. The document may be signed by individual voters and sent to the candidates for whom they will have an opportunity to vote. The names and addresses of candidates generally can be found through regional newspapers and Secretaries of State.

Dear Candidate,

I hereby add my name to the following declaration:

As an advocate of individual rights and free markets, I am deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, I also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, I will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state, whether on his or her web page or in direct correspondence. I ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed,

Subverting Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech

A few days ago I wrote the entry, "McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech." J. David McSwane, editor of Colorado State University's Rocky Mountain Collegian, published what I described as "a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial" -- "Taser this? F-- Bush," spelling out the F-bomb. (I've seen the punctuation between "this" and "F---" published three ways -- a question mark, ellipses, and a dash -- but that's an irrelevant detail.)

Unfortunately, various journalists and commentators continue to completely misunderstand the concept of free speech. Indeed, by setting up a false conception of "free speech," they are actively undermining real free speech.

Free speech, as I wrote in greater detail previously, means that you are free to say and write what you want, with your own resources, without suffering any force or threat of force from the government.

Free speech implies that you are free to start a newspaper and establish policy for that newspaper. It means that you are free to hire and fire writers at your discretion. If you are forcibly prevented from hiring and firing writers at your discretion, then your rights of free speech are being violated. If you choose to fire a writer, then you are certainly NOT violating the free-speech rights of that writer, who may continue to say and write whatever he or she wishes, only not with your resources.

There are three complications.

First, generally newspapers are owned by corporations. This just means that policy is set according to the legally established governors of the corporation (the voting stock holders acting through a management team).

Second, typically newspapers hire writers according to a contract. Most assuredly, newspapers do NOT offer contracts that allow writers to write whatever they want. If writers violate the terms of their contracts, then they may be fired before the contract (otherwise) expires.

Third, college newspapers are affiliated with tax-funded institutions, a condition that, as I discussed previously, generates all sorts of intractable problems, as the tax-funded advocacy of any idea automatically violates somebody's rights of free speech. Nevertheless, as I also discussed, this issue is irrelevant in the case of McSwane, because McSwane failed to uphold the clear, published policies of the paper that are in accordance with normal standards of professional journalism. The tax funding of colleges does not imply that all standards fly out the window.

With that context established, I'll take a look at a new article that was brought to my attention by a reader.

UCLA's Daily Bruin published an article on the matter today (October 8). The story is by Jessica Roy:

Since it ran, the [four-word] message has sparked a nationwide dialogue about freedom of speech and the rights of college newspapers.

“Even though I think that it was in bad taste, it’s certainly their right to go ahead and express whatever views it is that they have,” said Arthur Lechtholz-Zey, chief executive officer of L.O.G.I.C. (Liberty, Objectivity, Greed, Individualism and Capitalism), a UCLA student group associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, which promotes objectivism and the value of philosophy in general.

“Certainly I don’t think anybody should be punished for this,” he added.

The Board of Student Communications at Colorado State is an independent group that oversees the newspaper, which relies on advertising rather than student fees for its funding. ...

But Ryan Dunn, a third-year law student at UCLA, said he believes the paper overstepped the boundaries of freedom of speech and the press.

“I think there’s obviously a limit (to freedom of speech). They need to be aware of what their words can cause,” Dunn said. ...

Lechtholz-Zey said advertisers were well within their own freedom of speech rights to cancel any affiliation with the paper. ...

What the article reveals is that these American college students have no idea what is the significance or meaning of the First Amendment or the right of free speech.

It is debatable whether the CSU paper is truly "independent" or a part of the tax-funded institution. However, if it is "independent," then any possible First Amendment concern about firing McSwane evaporates.

I was most disappointed to read the comments of Lechtholz-Zey; Objectivists should know better. Lechtholz-Zey makes two errors. First, he confuses the paper's right to publish what it wants with the paper's right to fire McSwane. Second, he conflates getting fired with government-backed punishment. Only the latter actually violates First Amendment rights. At least Lechtholz-Zey gets it right when discussing the rights of advertisers.

But Dunn's comments are far worse. Dunn first suggests that firing McSwane would have somehow violated his rights of free speech. It would not have done so. More seriously, Dunn outright endorses the limitation of free speech. The right of free speech is absolute -- within its context. For example, prohibiting somebody from yelling "fire!" in a theater, when there is no fire, is no limitation of that person's rights of free speech. The person has no such right. Instead, the prohibition protects the theater owners' rights of property and expression. When people start talking about limiting free speech, then actual abuses of free speech are just around the corner.

What is frightening is that many of tomorrow's journalists and lawyers -- the people who should be most concerned with defending the First Amendment and the right of free speech -- have no idea of what rights are.

How to Access Dental Care Without Insurance

Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., wrote the following comments for the October 7 Rocky Mountain News:

While 770,000 Coloradans are without health insurance, twice that number of citizens do not have dental insurance and, therefore, lack access for preventive and restorative services. They must wait until their dental problem becomes a medical emergency before they are likely to get service. ...

Therefore, it is my hope that Colorado’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform takes seriously the need to include dental care as part of an overall strategy in fixing our health-care system in Colorado.

Wiant's assertion is false. It is simply not true that people who lack dental insurance therefore "lack access for preventive and restorative services." They have all kinds of access. Since Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is apparently ignorant of this fact, I'll describe how people may access dental care.

Step One: Locate a phone book.

Step Two: Look up "dentist" in the phone book. It's under "D."

Step Three: Using a telephone, call a dentist in the phone book.

Step Four: Make an appointment to see the dentist.

Step Five: Go to see the dentist at the appointed time.

Step Six: Pay the bill.

As an alternative to the first two steps, look on-line -- I found 2,080 dentists listed through DexKnows -- or ask friends for a referral (which is what my wife and I did).

My wife and I do not have dental insurance. Indeed, we have never used our high-deductible insurance to cover any medical cost. We pay all of our medical and dental costs out of pocket (or out of our Health Savings Account, which is an extension of our "pocket"). And we like it that way.

My wife and I have both been very proactive in seeking out (and purchasing) "preventive and restorative" dental services. For example, just within the last few weeks, I had my first cavity filled (which was tiny because I went in as soon as I noticed it), and my wife had a filling replaced. Months ago I had a cracked molar repaired. We both get regular check-ups and cleanings.

Our dentist does an outstanding job. He is worth every cent that we've ever paid him -- and much, much more. We get a spectacular value for our money with him, and I am proud to pay him for the services that he renders. Now that's "access."

We don't need Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., to force us to purchase dental insurance that we neither want nor need. And that's really what he's saying here. It is now common knowledge that the 208 Commission has endorsed an "individual mandate" for Colorado, meaning that the Commission wants to force people to buy "insurance" that's approved by politicians and bureaucrats (as opposed to, say, removing the political impediments that make insurance too expensive for some people to purchase).

But Wiant is concerned with the fraction of people lacking dental insurance who have trouble with Step Six. But they don't need "insurance" (i.e., government-managed, pre-paid care that others are forced to fund) in order to have "access." Those without funds to pay for dental services can and should set up payment plans or turn to voluntary charity.

Wiant's article is indicative of what we can look for if the political takeover of medicine advances. Special interests will continually lobby to have their favored services included in the politically-enforced mix. As people "access" more of the "free" (or nearly free) services, the result will be price controls and rationing. Real "access" will be reduced.

By the way, "Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is president and CEO of the Caring for Colorado Foundation." And what manner of group is that? According to its web page:

In November of 1999, Anthem Insurance, a for-profit company, purchased Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado, which had non-profit status. This sale yielded proceeds of $155 million. As mandated by Colorado state law, the profit from the sale was dedicated to benefit the health of the people of Colorado. Caring for Colorado Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(4), tax-exempt Foundation, was endowed to fulfill this responsibilty (sic).

Let us leave aside the absurdity of state laws stacked on federal tax codes micromanaging mergers. Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is, by advocating more political control of medicine, actively undermining " the health of the people of Colorado."

Human Health as a Pretext for Animal Rights

The ad from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) featuring Alicia Silverstone is an amazingly effective piece of propaganda that has earned enormous unpaid publicity. Featuring a nude but strategically concealed Silverstone emerging from a pool, the ad promotes a vegetarian diet. Silverstone says, "I feel so much better and have so much more energy. It's so amazing." The ad features the web page, GoVeg.com, which is run by PETA. So the hook is human health. But the motive is animal "rights."

But this is odd. Why doesn't PETA just make its case directly? The fact is that PETA would advocate a vegan diet even it were demonstrably less healthy for humans. PETA's main web page proclaims:

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

If animals indeed have such rights, then human health is irrelevant. By way of comparison, did anti-slavery writers of the 1800s argue that the reason to end slavery is to make life better off for slave holders? No. They argued that people have rights, and slave holding is morally wrong. Whether the abolition of slavery hurt or helped particular slave owners was mostly beside the point.

On PETA's page, Silverstone is a little more explicit about her motives:

Like most people, I wasn’t always a vegetarian, but I’ve always loved animals. If you ever have a chance to meet a cow, pig, turkey, or goat, you will see that they are just as cute and funny as your dogs and cats and that they, too, want to live and feel love. They don’t like pain. Now when I see a steak, it makes me feel sad and sick because right away, I see my dog or the amazing cows I met at a sanctuary.

Then she goes on to discuss her health.

But even this discussion is too limited. If animals have rights, then why is Silverstone featuring only cute, fuzzy animals like cows? Why not rats? According to PETA's doctrine, setting a trap to kill a rat in the basement is just as immoral as eating a steak. By PETA's own standards, Silverstone is unfairly discriminating against less-popular animals.

So here is my theory. The folks at PETA are caught up in the post-modernist notion that language is a tool used for social control and manipulation, not a means of communicating objective truth.

Here's one of the lines from GoVeg.com:

Eating Chickens Is Bad for Your Health
According to a major 2006 Harvard study of 135,000 people, people who frequently ate grilled skinless chicken had a 52 percent higher chance of developing bladder cancer compared to people who didn't.

But is the problem the chicken, or is it the grilling? Grilling anything creates carcinogens. So I suspect that throwing a tofu dog on the grill is just as harmful.

Recently I wrote about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a group associated with PETA. Here's what a September 4 news release from the group claims:

Prostate Cancer Survival Improves with Low-Fat Vegan Diet, New Study Shows

Levels of Hormones That Feed Tumors Are Lower in Men Who Consume Less Fat and More Fiber

WASHINGTON—Men who increase consumption of cancer-fighting vegetarian foods and avoid foods that feed tumor growth, such as dairy products and meat, may significantly increase chances of living longer after prostate cancer diagnosis, say the authors of a new review in September’s Nutrition Reviews.

According to lead author Susan Berkow, Ph.D., C.N.S., and her colleagues, high-fat, low-fiber diets raise circulating testosterone, estradiol, and insulin levels, which in turn may fuel prostate cancer cell growth. Among men with the highest intake of saturated fat, the risk of dying from prostate cancer is three times higher than among men with the lowest intake, the authors found. ...

The 76 published studies analyzed for the current review include the groundbreaking work by Dr. Dean Ornish that shows serum from patients following a low-fat vegan diet inhibits the growth of cultured prostate cancer cells eight times more than serum from a standard diet group. Several studies, including Dr Ornish’s, found that patients on a low-fat, plant-based diet experience a significant decrease in PSA levels, a marker for prostate cancer progression.

For a copy of the new study or an interview with one of the authors, journalists can contact Jeanne S. McVey at 202-686-2210, ext. 316, or jeannem@pcrm.org.

I requested "a copy of the new study" on the evening of October 4 but have yet to hear back. But, even without a copy of the full study it my hands, it's obvious that the release is manipulative.

Is a low-fat, high-fiber diet the same thing as a vegan diet? Obviously not. For example, one can purchase fat-free milk. According to NutritionData.com, a 71-gram serving of skinless chicken breast contains 0.2 grams of saturated fat.

Does Dr. Dean Ornish promote a vegan diet, as the news release implies? No, he does not. Instead, Ornish says, "Fish oil provides omega-3 fatty acids that are protective to the heart and have other significant benefits as well." Obviously, fish oil, which, it turns out, comes from fish, is not vegan.

Ornish continues: "The problem is that most doctors and dieticians recommend a 30% fat American Heart Association-type diet. In other words, less red meat, more fish and chicken, etc. This diet may be enough to prevent heart disease in some, but it's not sufficient to reverse it in most people." Ornish indeed recommends a low-fat, high-fiber diet, but he does not recommend a vegan diet.

In describing Ornish's diet, Anne Pearce writes:

Guidelines for both versions of Ornish's diet emphasize reducing your intake of high fat, high animal protein foods, such as red meat, pork, bacon, ice cream, etc., and increasing your consumption of complex carbohydrates, including fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in their natural forms, legumes, nonfat dairy, soy products, and egg whites. ...

You may include moderate amounts of fish, skinless chicken, avocados, nuts, and seeds. However, if you are working toward losing weight and sustaining a healthier, target weight, these allowances could also be sources of unwanted calories and fat.

Apparently, some animal-rights activists do not believe that they can bring mainstream America over to their cause through honest argument.

More Serenity 2 Schemes

Late last night (actually early this morning), I posted an entry about the possibility of a sequel to Joss Whedon's magnificent film Serenity. I offered a few ideas for promoting the sequel.

Today I received the following comment:

Anonymous Universal Executive said...
Duly noted. Thanks for the tips.

October 5, 2007 8:42 AM

Now, I don't know if the author is actually a "Universal Executive" -- hopefully so -- but at least somebody managed to find the blog entry. And the comment renewed my excitement. If a sequel is a dream, at least it is a pleasant one. And it has to be a dream before it can become a movie.

I'd like to lay down a possible line of attack for getting the fan base more involved in marketing the second movie. Let us assume that Universal has approved back-to-back filming of Serenity parts two and three. Let us further assume that Universal has selected cool titles, hired outstanding print-ad designers, and planned the promotion of a slick preview. I think the way to go is to release the original movie to television a couple weeks or so before the second movie pops.

So here's where the fans come in. Universal should schedule major-city screenings of the original film (or maybe even the new film) about two months before the release of the second film. Send out the stars again, just like before. To the extent practical, hand out free tickets to known supporters of Serenity, and sell the rest of the tickets. But here's the big difference: print out something like a million slick, full-color postcards that feature the new film and its release date. Hand these cards out in stacks and encourage fans to mail or give them away to friends. Heck, I'd gladly spend $50 on stamps to mail out the postcard to my friends. It would be a good way to touch base with people as well as to promote the film. Also have available for sale T-shirts that feature the film and its release date. And make it easy for fans to buy (or download) these items.

So, Universal, as good as you've been about Serenity, "I'm asking more of you than I have before."

Schwartz Advocates Free Market in Medicine

Brian Schwartz continues to speak out as voice for liberty and free markets in medicine.

David Montero quotes Schwartz in an October 5 article for the Rocky Mountain News.The subject is a meeting of October 4 sponsored by the 208 Healthcare Commission.

Montero closes his article:

And at least one speaker, Brian Schwartz, proposed getting government out of health care entirely - calling Medicaid a "failure" and an example of why single-payer won't work. Instead, he advocated the free-market system.

"Should we have single-payer food and housing?" he asked. "Didn't we settle that with Soviet Russia and North Korea? Why is health care different?"

Congratulations to Brian! And thank you for speaking out at a meeting stacked with advocates of political force in medicine.

Serenity 2?

Paul Hsieh of Geek Press e-mailed me a story from Cinema Blend that discusses the possibility of a Serenity sequel.

For those of you who have never heard of Serenity, it's the spectacular sci-fi film by Joss Whedon (now on video) that follows the television show Firefly.

Unfortunately, even though the critics and the fans loved the movie, it performed poorly at the box office (despite my early predictions that it would do well).

Cinema Blend reports, "Serenity was a massive flop in theaters, but could big DVD sales for the box office bombed film be enough to resurrect the franchise? Alan Tudyk thinks so and he's excited about it, even if his character is dead. ... With the film's box office numbers as bad as they were, it might make sense for the studio to push a sequel out the door as a direct-to-DVD sequel."

I think the studio should consider the possibility that a sequel could do far better at the box office. The sequel will build on the success of the first movie. More people will have heard about it. And, if the studio is smart, it will market the sequel far better than it marketed the first movie. (I discussed some of the marketing problems previously.) Here are my recommendations for the studio:

1. Take advantage of the enthusiastic fan base! Sell Serenity shirts, hats, etc. at or near cost so that fans will advertise the movie's release for you. I never was able to find a licensed shirt to purchase. I loved the pre-screenings. But there have got to be more ways to make it easy for fans to advertise for you.

2. Run competent newspaper ads this time. The print ads for the first movie failed to take advantage of the critical success and other selling points of the movie.

3. Pick a more exciting title. When you go to see, say, Star Wars, you pretty much know what you're in for. I think the title Serenity, as cool as it was for existing fans, turned off others because it sounds like a movie in which a bunch of old people take a boat out on the lake.

4. Bring back Wash, because we love him, and because, as the article points out, Tudyk is an increasingly successful actor. I know, Wash is dead. But how about a video that Wash left for Zoe? (Now if I can just figure something out for Ron Glass...)

5. Joss planned a trilogy. So film both sequels back-to-back. The up-front cost will be higher, but the cost per movie will be lower, meaning more yummy profits in the end.

6. Re-release the original a week or two before the sequel? Or on TV?

(And now I I see the problem with blogs; it's 3:00 a.m. But Serenity is worth it!)

McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech

It would be pleasant if more journalists actually understood the concept of free speech. J. David McSwane, the editor of Colorado State University's Rocky Mountain Collegian, obviously does not understand it.

As a late October 4 article by Erika Gonzalez in the Rocky Mountain News reviews, McSwane published an "editorial" on September 21 that stated "Taser this? F-- Bush," " with the expletive spelled out," Gonzalez notes. (While I reserve the right to publish swear words, I choose not to do so as a general matter of policy, which is not to say that I'll never make an exception.) That's it -- just four words.

If the story were only about a dumb college kid or swearing about Bush, I wouldn't care. (I've sworn about Bush plenty of times myself, though not in print.) But the important part of the story is much more important, as it gets to the heart of the First Amendment.

Gonzalez's story notes that a CSU board allowed McSwane to keep his job as editor. Here are the two relevant paragraphs from the article:

Although the board said it considered the opinion expressed in the editorial protected by the First Amendment, it also acknowledged the impact the piece has had. ...

"We did not do this to capture headlines," McSwane said last week. "We did this to spark a discussion about free speech".

Of course the editorial is protected by the First Amendment. Nobody is questioning that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether McSwane should have been fired for publishing it.

If McSwane cares to check, here's what the First Amendment actually states: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." A document by Cornell further explains:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. ... Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Article II, Section 10, of Colorado's Constitution reiterates this protection:

No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

Has Congress passed a law censoring McSwane? Has any law been passed regarding the matter? Has any level of any government taken any action whatsoever regarding what McSwane can say or write?

No.

In fact, no one is trying to prevent McSwane from saying anything whatsoever. If he wants, he can start his own newspaper called Taser This? F-- Bush, "with the expletive spelled out." He can start a "F-- Bush" blog. He can run off flyers proclaiming "F-- Bush" and distribute them to willing takers (provided that he does not violate property rights in doing so). McSwane is perfectly free to wander the the sidewalks endlessly repeating "F-- Bush" if he wishes.

But whether any particular newspaper chooses to hire McSwane is simply not a matter of free speech or the First Amendment. There's just no connection. The fact that many professional journalists have failed to point out this simple fact does not change it.

Ayn Rand explains the matter with characteristic clarity:

Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government -- and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one's own antagonists. A "right" does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort. Private citizens cannot [legally] use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone's views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action. (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, page 175)

For CSU's board even to mention the First Amendment in the context of McSwane keeping his job is bizarre. Apparently that board understands the First Amendment as well as McSwane does, which is to say not very well. (I wonder whether McSwane cried "free speech!" when Imus got fired.)

There is only one way in which free speech is at issue. If the state-subsidized college's newspaper is in any way subsidized by tax dollars, directly or indirectly, including related faculty salaries and costs of facilities, then McSwane's editorial violated the rights of free speech of those who were forced to subsidize it against their will. But this problem is inherent in any spending of tax dollars to advocate any idea or expression whatsoever.

And, arguably, when school administrators accept tax dollars, they effectively become agents of the government. Agents of government-funded institutions are subject to Constitutional limitations. So if administrators of a tax-subsidized college try to limit a student's expression using tax-subsidized facilities, that may indeed raise First Amendment concerns. But does that mean, for example, that a student could parade around in class screaming "F- Bush?" Obviously not. The problem with any tax-subsidized expression of ideas is that it necessarily violates somebody's rights of free speech. Within the context of tax-subsidized speech, the problem is intractable. (An article by David Hudson illustrates the difficulties of defining rights of expression in the context of tax-subsidized institutions.) The only solution -- the only way to consistently protect free speech -- is to stop funding schools via the forcible redistribution of resources. A fuller examination of this particular matter would take us rather far afield. For our purposes, I need merely point out that firing McSwane for publishing a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial would not pose any serious First Amendment challenge. Otherwise, one might as well argue that students have the protected right not to be "censored" with low marks if they squawk like chickens in response to oral examinations. I mean, let's get serious.

It is no coincidence that some of the same people who invoke the First Amendment in cases where it doesn't apply also advocate laws that clearly violate the First Amendment. (I am not writing of McSwane here, as I don't know what his views are.) The "Fairness Doctrine," more accurately called the Censorship Doctrine, is an obvious example. Campaign laws that outlaw select political speech are another.

But let us leave the matter of free speech and consider whether McSwane should have been fired. Part of me thinks that he's just a stupid college kid who pulled off a stupid college prank and found himself in the national spotlight, so who cares. God knows I did far stupider things while in college. But, quite obviously, if he wrote such an editorial for any real newspaper in the country, he'd be immediately kicked out the door. I frankly don't care whether he edits a podunk paper that hardly anybody reads. But if he imagines that his treatment at CSU is remotely similar to what he'll face in the real world, then CSU is doing McSwane quite a disservice.

Here's a fun side-note: I went to Westword.com and searched for "f--" ("with the expletive spelled out"). I got 1,000 results. To read my own defense of the right to use the "f word," see my article of 2003.

Doctors for Corporate Welfare

You wouldn't hire an accountant to fix your pipes, and you wouldn't hire a plumber to audit your financial records. When doctors start prescribing huge doses of corporate welfare, it's clear that they've strayed rather far from their calling.

April Washington's October 3 article for the Rocky Mountain News reports, "[A] commercial was created by the Physician Committee For Responsible Medicine [that] seeks to spotlight contributions from the agricultural industry's political action committees."

According to the article, Neal Barnard, president of the group, said, "Senators take millions from corporations that produce bacon, burgers, and other fatty foods. Then Congress buys up these unhealthy products and dumps them on our school lunch programs." (See the group's news release.)

The travesty! The injustice! The solution, then, is to roll back federal intrusion in our diet, right? Of course not.

Washington continues, "Between 1995 and 2004, more than $51 billion in federal agricultural subsidies went to producers of sugar, oil, meat, dairy, alcohol and feed crops to be used to fatten cows and other farm animals, according to the physicians group based in Washington, D.C. ... The watchdog organization is urging Congress to overhaul the Farm Bill and shift more funding to producers of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables to help combat childhood obesity."

In other words, these doctors don't have any problem with federal elites determining people's diets; they just want to be the ones in control of the purse strings.

The group details the subsidies it doesn't like on its web page. However, the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing any agricultural crop or of buying food (excepting military use). The problem is not that the wrong elites are in charge; the problem is that elites are in charge. The money in question rightfully belongs to the people who earn it, and they have the right to decide what food to buy on a free market.

An "Animal Rights" Agenda

I began to suspect that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a broader agenda when I noticed that the group's web page states, "We promote alternatives to animal research." The group's archive of news releases includes the following entries:

The Secret to Long-Term Weight Loss Might Be a Vegan Diet, Research Finds: New Study in Obesity Shows a Vegan Diet with Social Support Helps People Lose More Weight Over Two-Year Period than Conventional Low-Fat Diet
(Sept. 10, 2007)

Prostate Cancer Survival Improves with a Low-Fat Vegan Diet, New Study Shows: Levels of Hormones that Feed Tumors Are Lower in Men Who Consume Less Fat and More Fiber
(Sept. 4, 2007)

Nesquik Commercial Voted Most Deceptive Ad in Online "Badvertisements" Poll: Voters Weight In on Dairy Commercials' Faulty Health and Beauty Claims
(Aug. 16, 2007) ...

Doctors Sue University of California Over Animal Welfare Act Violations: Dog and Monkey Experiments at U.C., San Francisco, Under Fire
(July 31, 2007) ...

Residents Sue City of Chandler Over Covance Animal-Testing Facility: Seven Local Plaintiffs and Physicians Group Accuse City Officials of Improper Collaboration with Covance, Violating State Open Meetings Act, Failing to Give Proper Notice of Hearings, and Violating City Zoning Ordinance
(July 3, 2007)

Are you seeing any patterns here? PCRM is not exclusively an "animal rights" group, but it certainly is an "animal rights" group.

A quick Google of the group came up with Wikipedia's entry, which in turn pointed me to an article published August 1, 2004, by The Observer. That publication states:

Beauty and the beasts

Jamie Doward and Mark Townsend
Sunday August 1, 2004

Kevin Jonas understands the media. As well he should. Over the years the president of Shac USA, the American wing of the militant group campaigning to close down Britain's Huntingdon Life Sciences, has had a good tutor.

As Jonas, 26, himself pointed out at an animal rights conference in Washington recently: 'I come from the school of thought and from essentially the school of training of Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.' ...

With such deep pockets Peta is able to disburse millions of dollars every year across a global network of interest groups, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which opposes animal experiments on scientific grounds and whose members (95 per cent of whom do not have medical degrees) have well documented links with Shac and other militant animal rights groups.

Over the years Peta has given more than $1.3m to the organisation whose research is regularly cited by Shac supporters as scientific proof that animal testing does not work. In 2001 Neil Barnard, the group's president, joined Shac's Jonas to co-sign hundreds of letters sent to the bosses of companies involved with Huntingdon, urging them to break their links with the firm.

(The Observer apparently misspells the name "Neil Barnard," while April Washington spells it "Neal Bernard." According to PCRM's web page, the correct spelling is "Neal Barnard.")

The left-wing SourceWatch also notes the relationship between PETA and PCRM, though SourceWatch downplays the connection:

PCRM does partner with PETA on some issues of common interest, including a campaign to reduce animal use in toxicity testing. However, PCRM has not received any monies from PETA or the PETA Foundation since 2001, and such funding has never been a significant part of PCRM’s budget.

When Fat is Good

As an aside, the PCRM doctors ought not bash "fatty foods." Okay, they obviously mean foods with high levels of saturated fat. However, the amount of saturated fat in a burger depends on the quality of meat and the method of preparation. Besides, eating even bacon and burgers in moderation can be consistent with a basically healthy diet. And, as I learned, it's unhealthy to eat too little fat, though unsaturated fat generally is better. For example, almonds are half fat by weight, and they're listed among WebMD's "25 Heart-Healthy Foods." If you eat too little fat, you may suffer severe health problems or death.

Here's what the Mayo Clinic has to say about fat:

Your body needs fat to function properly. Besides being an energy source, fat is a nutrient used in the production of cell membranes, as well as in several hormone-like compounds called eicosanoids. These compounds help regulate blood pressure, heart rate, blood vessel constriction, blood clotting and the nervous system. In addition, dietary fat carries fat-soluble vitamins — vitamins A, D, E and K — from your food into your body. Fat also helps maintain healthy hair and skin, protects vital organs, keeps your body insulated, and provides a sense of fullness after meals.

But too much fat can be harmful. Eating large amounts of high-fat foods adds excess calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for several diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, gallstones, sleep apnea and osteoarthritis. And too much of certain types of fats — such as saturated fat or trans fat — can increase your blood cholesterol levels and your risk of coronary artery disease.

FreeColorado.com Update

I've just updated the Colorado Freedom Report with three new links:

People can pick a mover without city force
Mayor Jim Doody wants to bring Robert Redford's "people-mover" to Grand Junction. But Henry Rustler Rhone built a toll road without city force.

$2.57 a day buys food, perspective
My wife and I spent the month of August eating for $159.04, or $2.57 per person per day. Welfare -- the forcible transfer of wealth -- should be phased out and replaced with voluntary charity.

To help the poor, preserve capitalism

I hope you enjoy the complete articles.

The Coalition to "Do Something"

Chris Barge's story for today's Rocky Mountain News states:

Calling itself "Partnership for a Healthy Colorado," the group emphasized that reform is needed because the cost of caring for the uninsured and underinsured is passed on to Colorado's insured majority.

The group acknowledged that it had not arrived at any agreement on a proposal for reform, or how to pay for it.

But there was agreement that something must be done. ...

"The members of this partnership are diverse and we don't always agree on everything," said Amy Fletcher, associate director of the Business Health Forum. "But we're here to say that, when it comes to health care, something must be done in Colorado."

Something, anything must be done -- except to actually figure out what's wrong with medical policy and fix it. Various members of the "new" coalition, including the Service Employees International Union, the Colorado State Association of Health Underwriters, and the Colorado Medical Society, have already advocated more political control of medicine.

Yet political controls of medicine -- tax distortions that entrench expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance, massive tax spending, and reams of federal and state mandates -- are what have caused prices to skyrocket and quality to suffer.

In addition, the claim that "the cost of caring for the uninsured and underinsured is passed on to Colorado's insured majority," when taken as a broad assertion, is simply a lie. When my wife and I were uninsured, we paid for all of our own medical expenses out of pocket. The article's claim insults those who pay their own way.

To the extent that the the statement is true, it is true only because politicians have mandated treatment, forced insurance companies to guarantee coverage, subsidized costs, and made insurance so expensive that many workers cannot afford it. But will the "new" coalition advocate the repeal of the political controls that have caused the problem? Obviously not. Instead, I predict, it will urge politicians to force people to buy insurance. Because, in the eyes of such reformers, the solution for failed political controls is more political controls.

Blog Evolution

I've already made a few technical changes to the blog. I turned the column widths into percentages rather than fixed pixels. I added a link for comments. Note that comments will be moderated ruthlessly, as most unmoderated comments that I've seen are basically worthless (or worse).

More importantly, though, I've decided to narrow the scope of the blog. One of my friends persuaded me that a more focused blog is more useful than one with random comments. Now, the description says, "Notes on politics, religion, and culture." Granted, that's still extremely broad. However, I had been planning to include more notes about products, recipes, etc. Now, I'll include such personal matters only rarely.

The purpose of the blog is to advocate reason based on sensory experience; individual rights, liberty, and capitalism; and life-enhancing values. I will therefore criticize religion, political violations of rights, and cultural problems such as moral subjectivism and nihilism. I am most influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, though I continue to struggle with some of its tenets.

I'm going to try to use the "labels" function to its full effect. I'm going to label every post with one (or more) of five main tags: politics, religion, books, art, culture, and personal. Then I may add additional labels that are more specific. For example, a post about art might be further labeled as movies, music, or fine art. The category for culture is intended as a catch-all for culturally interesting items that don't seem to fit elsewhere.

So now I think my blog is on track. Perhaps it's worth mentioning my goals in blogging. First, writing a blog will help me formalize my thoughts about particular issues. Writing for an audience generally demands more rigor than merely mulling something over. Second, I'll be able to search my own blog as a way to help me remember particular things. Third, I hope to persuade readers. The point, after all, is to facilitate positive cultural change, not merely to complain about what's wrong. Fourth, I hope that the blog draws readers' attention to my other projects.

So I'm ready to take the dive...

Welcome to AriArmstrong.com

Welcome to my blog. Even though the blog is new, I've been writing for the internet since 1998 via the Colorado Freedom Report. I'll continue to publish material on that page, as well, and I'll make a note on the blog about new material there. I literally predate blogs (which I guess makes me an old timer). According to Wikipedia's entry on blogs, the term "weblog" was coined in 1997, and the term was shortened to "blog" in 1999.

Yet I've never been that "up" on the technology. I'm more interested in the writing than in the presentation. It is with no shame that I admit to having learned HTML from one of the Dummies books. So my blog is simple. I'll improve it over time. I'm open to suggestions.

I started the blog because posting short comments is so easy. Otherwise, I have to load up a template in my word processor, save the file in the correct folder, load up the FTP software, and upload the file. Blogging services automate the process. I'll continue to use my traditional process with the Report for longer, more formal articles (especially regarding Colorado politics).

My goal is to use the labels to organize my blogs into broad categories. So far these are the categories I plan to cover: Colorado politics, national politics, movies, fiction, nonfiction, music, products, home, health, and blogging. My goal is to post at least one entry every day. So I hope you'll check back often.