Term Limits Debated

From The Colorado Freedom Report; originally from Grand Junction Free Press:

The debate over term limits continues

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

With the recent election, Mesa County will continue to term limit its sheriff. But should term limits for sheriffs be removed in the future? Should term limits for state legislature be repealed, or term limits for Congress be instituted?

Your authors usually agree on political principles, but the matter of term limits pertains more to optional political organization and strategy. We don't dispute the wisdom of George Washington's self-imposed limit, nor of term limits for president. We want to risk neither monarchy nor dictatorship. Yet for lower offices, the rationale for term limits is less obvious. Linn will present his case for term limits, while Ari will offer some notes of skepticism. ...

Linn: When "politician" becomes a professional class, politicians start to see themselves -- and the public tends to see them -- as elites. This is an affront to republicanism. When career politicians run things, voters tend to relinquish more power to the politicians and think of government as something by and for the politicians. Moreover, the longer politicians stay in office, the more they are tempted by power, prestige, and special-interest pandering.

Ari: I take seriously the argument about corruptibility. However, there's nothing inevitable about corruption. It's possible for a long-time politician to keep his or her moral bearings, as it is possible for a new politician to immediately sell out to special interests and abuse the power of the office. One problem with term limits is that they can serve to replace the first sort of politician with the second. ...

Read the rest!

Car Crash

On Tuesday night, my wife and I were involved in a car crash. The other driver ran a red light. While my wife was taken by ambulance to a hospital -- St. Joseph's, which admitted and released her amazingly quickly -- the move was more precautionary because she hit her head against the side window. We're both sore. We went in for massages on Wednesday, and our backs were full of knots. I'm also going to see a chiropractor. We can be thankful that the crash wasn't worse than it was. Because I was able to swerve a bit, the collision took place at an angle less than 90 degrees. Most of the energy of the crash went into car damage and tire friction; we were spun around about 180 degrees.

I'm grateful that the other driver and three witnesses provided accurate information to the police and to the insurance companies. So if you're a primary witness to a crash, please stop, not only to help if needed, but to affirm the basic facts of the case. I'm very thankful for the time of the three witnesses.

I'm also grateful that my insurance, American National, and the other driver's insurance, State Farm, have so far been very good about things. (I have yet to go through the claims process with State Farm, but I'm hopeful that it will go smoothly.) I've been impressed by the rapid responses and consideration shown by agents of both companies.

This is another reminder for us (and maybe for you, too) to keep our priorities straight.

Barbarians

Americans often take for granted the rule of law and a culture that values individual rights. Yet, for most of mankind's existence, violence and barbarism were the norm. In many parts of the world, they still are.

The New York Times reports:

86 Police Officers Hurt in Paris Riots
By Katrin Bennhold

VILLIERS-LE-BEL, France, Nov. 27 -- The number of police officers injured during clashes by French youths in a suburb north of Paris rose to 86 after a second bout of violence overnight in which 60 officers were hurt, including six who are in serious condition, police officials said.

Three more horror stories come from theocratic and totalitarian regimes.

ABC News reports:

Exclusive: Saudi Rape Victim Tells Her Story
Victim to Receive Whipping and Jail for Being in Nonrelative's Car When Attacked

By Lara Setrakian
Nov. 21, 2007

Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Justice is defending a sentence of 200 lashes for the victim of a gang rape, punished because she was in the car of a male who wasn't a relative when the two were attacked.

Fox News reports:

British Teacher Faces 40 Lashes for Naming Class Teddy Bear 'Muhammad'
Monday, November 26, 2007

A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at at Khartoum's Unity High School yesterday, and accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.

Her colleagues said that they feared for her safety after reports that groups of young men had gathered outside the Khartoum police station where she was taken and were shouting death threats.

Fox News also reports:

150,000 Witness North Korea Execution of Factory Boss Whose Crime Was Making International Phone Calls
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

SEOUL, South Korea -- A North Korean factory chief accused of making international phone calls was executed by a firing squad in a stadium before 150,000 spectators, a South Korean aid group reported. ...

Most North Koreans are banned from communicating with the outside world, part of the regime's authoritarian policies seeking to prevent any challenge to the iron-fisted rule of Kim Jong Il.

A culture of reason and individual rights is a gift neither of nature nor of God. It is the achievement of a society whose intellectual leaders adopt the right philosophy. The United States is a rare a precious accomplishment, made possible by the ideas of the Enlightenment and the courage of our Founding Fathers. It is possible for us to lose our liberty (to a greater degree than we have already), and, if we do not reverse trends toward welfare statism, centralized power, and faith-based politics, we will lose it, eventually.

Mark Udall Replies Regarding Church and State

Last month, I mailed a letter to candidates regarding the separation of church and state. The letter stated:

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.

To date, Mark Udall is the only candidate to reply. (Mitt Romney's campaign sent me a letter, but it was entirely nonresponsive to my letter.) Udall, currently in the U.S. House, is running for U.S. Senate next year. His letter, dated November 21, is "paid and authorized by Udall for Colorado, Inc." The letter lists http://markudall.org/ as the associated web page. Here's what Udall has to say:

First, I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country. As our founding fathers recognized when they made religious freedom a fundamental principle of our Constitution, our nation is home to people of a large variety of religious backgrounds and beliefs. Our government has no role to play in selecting those beliefs, in advocating for one religion over another religion, or in supporting the presence of religion in favor of no religion. I will continue to vote against legislation that compromises our country's ability to keep religion and government separate. That includes programs that discriminate against people based on their religious belief or that use government funds to support one religion over another.

Second, I am a firm believer in protecting an individual's right to make her own choices with regard to her reproductive health. Such decisions are deeply personal and involve the consideration of many factors within the realm of those held sacred under our constitutional right to privacy. In addition, as we saw when abortion was illegal, denying women their right to choose an option does not eliminate the need for it. That said, we must provide access to reproductive health education, adoption, and contraception to limit, as much as possible, the number of women forced to make the difficult choice of whether or not to have an abortion.

Third, I strongly oppose government bans on embryonic stem-cell research. My father suffered from Parkinson's disease and I have always wondered whether [his] life could have been saved if the incredible medical advancements now possible through stem-cell research had occurred just a few years earlier. I believe that it is our obligation to prevent future deaths from terminal diseases, like Parkinson's, if it is possible, and will continue to support stem-cell research.

While I could criticize several details of Udall's reply, I could hardly ask for a stronger endorsement of the separation of church and state. So far, I have seen no such statement from Udall's likely opponent, Bob Schaffer. Unless that changes, my vote will go to Udall. If Schaffer offers a similarly strong endorsement of the separation of church and state, then I will vote on other considerations. If I vote for Udall, my vote should not be taken as an endorsement of all of Udall's policies; I strongly disagree with his environmentalism and welfare statism.

I am impressed by Udall's answer for another reason: candidates and politicians rarely offer so detailed a reply to letters unaccompanied by checks with large figures. Merely the fact that Udall's letter responds to my letter in a detailed a thoughtful manner says something good about Udall.

Sales of Atlas Shrugged

In a previous post, I mentioned estimated sales of Ayn Rand's books. Now I have a better estimate for sales of Atlas Shrugged, Rand's most important work.

In a letter dated November 12, Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), reports, "More than six million copies of Atlas have been sold since 1957. Over the past five years, bookstore sales of Atlas have averaged more than 130,000 copies per year." Brook's letter is reproduced at ARI's web page; it discusses the organization's "Atlas Shrugged Initiative," a set of activities that capitalize on the 50th anniversary of the novel's publication and its continued success. I am continually impressed by ARI's programs and publications.

Abortion Left and Right

Thanks to a tip from Fox News, I found an article in the UK's Daily Mail titled, "Meet the women who won't have babies -- because they're not eco friendly," written by Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner. The article reports:

[W]hen Toni [Vernelli] terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. ...

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card. ...

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." ...

When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she... she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet -- and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

The Daily Mail article was published on November 21. Three days later, the Rocky Mountain News published Lisa Ryckman's article, "Prayer as teen led to campaign for unborn." Ryckman reports:

Kristi Burton was just 13 when she asked God for guidance and got it.

"I was praying, what could I do to help people?" Burton said, thinking back on that December day, sick in bed and looking through library books about community service.

"And I really think God brought that to my mind and said, 'Save these people.' "

Unborn people, she means.

Seven years later, that's what Burton hopes to do, by amending the Colorado Constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person entitled to legal protection -- a concept that has the potential to outlaw abortion.

(See also Ryckman's article about the debate over the proposal and about voter demographics.)

At first glance, the positions of Vernelli and Burton seem to be diametrically opposed.

But the similarities of the women's positions are more revealing. Neither activist holds that a woman should choose to have a baby based on what the woman deems best for her own life. Both activists believe that the choice over having a baby should be made self-sacrificially, with the sacrifice directed either to the planet or to God.

The environmentalist case against having babies rests on a view of man as a blight on the planet. The fewer the people, the better, according to this view. The religious case against having abortions rests on the belief that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. (Of course, many Christians also believe that the use of birth control is wrong, because it thwarts God's control over the fertilization of eggs.) Neither view holds as significant the values, choices, and interests of the potential parents.

The religious and environmental movements seem to be converging, as Diana Hsieh reviews, though of course the basic motivations differ. However, while the Daily Mail finds "nothing in Toni's safe, middle-class upbringing" to offer "any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life," the article points out that Vernelli "excelled at her Roman Catholic school." The transition is unsurprising, because environmentalism is a form of secularized religion. Nor is Baptist Pastor Mike Huckabee's environmentalism surprising, given that the self-sacrifice demanded by environmentalism is so easily sublimated to the purported will of God.

Return from Thanksgiving

I'm back after a few days off for Thanksgiving. I intend to blog nearly every day, but I will take a day off now and then for holidays and the like.

Drug War Deaths

After writing my last post against libertarianism, I'm going to join many libertarians in criticizing the drug war. However, my criticism is not rooted in the standard libertarian argument that people should do whatever they feel like doing, such as using drugs. Instead, my argument rests on the moral and political theory of individual rights.

In brief, people survive by reason, and the sole legitimate function of government is to protect people's rights to control their own property and lives, as consistent with the rights of others, so that people can apply their minds to the tasks of living. It is true that drug abuse can impede a person's ability to reason, but this is not for the government to decide. After all, many drugs also have legitimate medical and personal uses, and all sorts of other objects and activities can also impede reason (television abuse comes to mind). The government cannot force people to reason, it can only stop people from using force against others. A government that acts beyond the protection of individual rights is not in principle bound by any constraints.

Moreover, most of the problems associated with illegal drugs are caused by the drug war, not by the drugs themselves. Problems ranging from black-market violence to poisonous drugs are caused by prohibition.

Radly Balko describes another problem with the drug war: it results in police corruption and the abuse of police powers. Balko writes:

It was one year ago this week that narcotics officers in Atlanta, Georgia broke into the home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston.

They had earlier arrested a man with a long rap sheet on drug charges. That man told the police officers that they'd find a large stash of cocaine in Johnston's home. When police forced their way into Johnston's home, she met them holding a rusty old revolver, fearing she was about to be robbed. The police opened fire, and killed her.

Shortly after the shooting, the police alleged that they had paid an informant to buy drugs from Ms. Johnston's home. They said she fired at them first, and wounded two officers. And they alleged they found marijuana in her home.

We now know that these were all lies. In fact, everything about the Kathryn Johnston murder was corrupt. The initial arrest of the ex-con came via trumped-up charges. The police then invented an informant for the search warrant, and lied about overseeing a drug buy from Johnston's home.

Ms. Johnston didn't actually wound any of the officers. They were wounded by fragments of ricochet from their own storm of bullets. And there was no marijuana. Once they realized their mistake, the officers handcuffed Ms. Johnston and left her to bleed and die on the floor of her own home while they planted marijuana in her basement.

We now know that it was routine for Atlanta's narcotics officers to lie on drug warrants. We know that judges in the city rather systematically approved those warrants with no scrutiny at all...

Will the murder of a 92-year-old woman at the hands of police cause the drug warriors to rethink their tactics or goals?

What's Wrong With Libertarianism

Craig Bolton left a comment beneath my post, "Recovering from Rationalism." While Bolton claims to defend libertarianism, his claims actually demonstrate what is wrong with libertarianism.

I do not wish to address Bolton's bizarre claim that "there is no such thing as 'induction'." I don't even know what he could possibly mean by such a statement. So let's move on to his politics.

Bolton wishes to separate voluntarist society from politics and political ideology. Opposed to "society" is government, which "is essentially about coercive force," even though government "may be useful" in suppressing violent individuals.

Thus, Bolton affirms that libertarianism is precisely what Objectivists say it is: a political or social goal explicitly detached from a moral theory.

However, it is impossible to define what properly falls within the bounds of voluntarism without a political ideology that flows from a moral ideology. Following are just a few examples.

* If a 10 year old boy "voluntarily" agrees to have sex with a 40 year old man, is that okay with libertarians? This issue has in fact been seriously debated in libertarian circles. Yet, apart from political and moral theory, libertarians have no way to resolve the issue. Objectivists, though, have a ready response that is consistent with the common view: the concept of voluntarism rests on the rationality of adult people. A child has not yet developed into a fully rational person. Therefore, a child is not in the position to consent to certain things, such as sex, marriage, business contracts, and the purchase of dangerous objects. The extent to which libertarians answer the question (in a non-crazy way) is the extent to which they abandon libertarianism.

* Let us say that you are throwing a barbecue party in your back yard, and either there is no fence or the gate is open. Then an uninvited religious nut comes into the yard and starts delivering a sermon. Is this "voluntary?" Did the nut initiate any force? If so, how? All he did is go on a walk and start talking. Where's the force? Is the answer property rights? But "Libertarianism is not about... asserting that 'people have rights'." A theory of property rights requires an overarching political theory that rests on a moral theory as to why people have a right to their property. And any reasonable person will call the police -- agents of the government -- if the nut refuses to leave.

* What about people who "voluntarily" offer copyrighted music for "free" downloading? The legitimacy of copyright is often debated among libertarians.

* Does abortion limit the voluntary behavior of an embryo, or does a ban on abortion limit the voluntary behavior of the mother? Libertarianism has no answer.

Bolton also shows that libertarianism, as I've argued, tends to descend into anti-state reactionism. For Bolton, coercive government is fundamentally at odds with voluntary society, even though he thinks that government can be useful. Because libertarians dismiss moral theory as the foundation for politics, they assume that everything would be fine, if only nasty government would leave people alone. Yet libertarians are inconsistent about this, because most of them realize at some level that we need a government to protect our rights, and that we do need a moral and political theory of rights. The reactionism of libertarianism manifests in a variety of ways, from conspiracy theories about 9/11 to anarchism. Libertarians who do not hate government tend to become pragmatists, for they have already dismissed moral principles as the basis for politics.

I understand that this post is brief, so any reader who does not follow my arguments here is encouraged to read my lengthier critiques, starting with "More Libertarians Against Liberty," which in turn links to additional articles.

A condensed version of Peter Schwartz's essay, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," is published in Ayn Rand's The Voice of Reason.

Post Opposes Blue Laws

I'm stunned. The Denver Post, which I've also heard called The Denver Pravda, has come out for repealing Colorado's ban on Sunday liquor sales.

We can buy liquor at bars on Sunday, but not at liquor stores, which are forced closed by law. Grocery stores can sell only "3.2" beer on any day of the week. How it was decided that beer purchased at grocery stores may can contain no more than 3.2 percent alcohol by mass, as opposed to, say, 3.1 percent or 3.3 percent, I'll leave the historians of political minutiae. There is one exception, as the Post points out: "Each grocery chain is allowed to sell full-strength beer and wine in only one of its stores in the state, according to Colorado law."

Regarding the Sunday ban, the Post argues:

...Colorado is among 16 states that still has blue laws prohibiting liquor sales on Sunday. ... It has remained the law largely due to efforts of liquor store owners... Their chief concern is that they'd have to pay to staff stores for an additional day but overall sales wouldn't increase. They argue the sales they get in six days would just end up being spread over seven.

If you follow that logic, then why shouldn't the government prohibit the sale of say, auto parts on Mondays so those businesses can save a day's worth of overhead? It's an argument that is at cross purposes with the basic tenets of capitalism.

The Denver Post endorses capitalism? Of course, the paper is rather selective about this. For example, the paper has endorsed a wide variety of tax hikes, subsidies, and economic controls. But for the paper even to mention the term "capitalism" in a positive light counts as progress, I suppose, however slight.

The Post rightly points out that the ban

is out of step with the lives of Coloradans. ... Sunday has become the second-busiest shopping day of the week, and many folks rely on that day to get their personal business done. It makes no sense in this day and age to shackle the consumer for the convenience of liquor store owners.

However, capitalism is not about making the laws "in step" with the majority of the populace at a given time. Capitalism is about protecting the rights of every individual, all the time. If even one person wants to buy liquor on Sunday, and if even one person wants to sell it, then the ban violates their rights and is for that reason immoral.

If the legislature considers repealing the ban on Sunday liquor sales, no doubt some will argue that the ban prevents some instances of irresponsible drinking on that day. But, if that argument were valid, it would also justify a ban for every other day of the week. The large majority of people who buy liquor do so responsibly, and they should not be punished for the vices of a few. Similarly, sales of books should never be banned or restricted, even if some buyers find in certain books inspiration to commit crimes. In all cases, the proper principle is to punish the criminals, not the innocent.

I hope the Post's editorial writers are careful. If they keep sticking up for people's rights, they may find that consistency guides them to overturn many of their past recommendations. But, then again, another fitting name for the paper is The Denver Pragmatist, or, "Principles, Schminciples."

Abolish the FCC

Alex Epstein recently wrote a fine article for the Ayn Rand Institute titled, "'Open Access' and the Tyranny of the FCC." Epstein argues:

In today's discussions of FCC policy, it is taken for granted that airwaves are "public." But it shouldn't be. As philosopher Ayn Rand argued in a landmark 1964 essay, "The Property Status of Airwaves," airwaves should be private property. ... Under the "public" airwaves regime, businesses do not own but merely "license" portions of spectrum--which the government has total authority to control in the "public interest."

Epstein explains that the government is going to license the 700 MHz spectrum with strings attached. He argues that Americans should "demand the abolition of the FCC."

The Rocky Mountain News recently discussed another way that the FCC violates free speech and property rights: it imposes "a dated legal prohibition on ownership of a newspaper and a television station in the same city by the same company or individual..." The News points out that the FCC is considering only trivial changes to this rule, and the rule may result in newspapers disappearing altogether in some communities.

Unfortunately, the News suggests that the rule was once valid, in the days before cable TV and the internet, but that now it should be repealed. But the rule was never valid. It was always a violation of the rights of free speech and property. The rule never should have been passed. The FCC never should have been given such power. And, by the way, how does the perverse doctrine that radio waves are public property justify the FCC's control of newspapers? Are those public property, too?

The religious right wants to ban whatever it deems pornographic. The left wants to politically control radio, television, newspapers, the internet, and political campaigns. Sometimes the left and the right defend those aspects of free speech that they find useful, but neither the left nor the right consistently defends free speech.

Health Care and Swallowing Flies

Here's my take on the old song, "There Was an Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly."

There Were Politicians Who Made Prices Fly

There were politicians who made prices fly.
They feared wages too, would travel sky high.
Perhaps we'll die.

There were politicians who set wages tighter.
Biz wiggled and jiggled and set health pay sweeter.
They set wages tighter for prices did fly.
They feared wages too, would travel sky high.
Perhaps we'll die.

There were politicians who made tax exempt
employer-payed health, showed for markets contempt.
They made health exempt because wages were tighter.
Biz wiggled and jiggled and set health pay sweeter.
They set wages tighter for prices did fly.
They feared wages too, would travel sky high.
Perhaps we'll die.

There were politicians who raised a health tax.
So medical costs, they climbed to the max.
They raised a health tax and they made health exempt.
They made health exempt because wages were tighter.
Biz wiggled and jiggled and set health pay sweeter.
They set wages tighter for prices did fly.
They feared wages too, would travel sky high.
Perhaps we'll die.

There were politicians who set more controls
on doctors and patients and insurance tolls.
They set more controls on top of the tax.
They raised a health tax and they made health exempt.
They made health exempt because wages were tighter.
Biz wiggled and jiggled and set health pay sweeter.
They set wages tighter for prices did fly.
They feared wages too, would travel sky high.
Perhaps we'll die.

There were politicians who finally mandated
that people buy "coverage" at cost quite inflated.
They want a mandate because of controls.
They set more controls on top of the tax.
They raised a health tax and they made health exempt.
They made health exempt because wages were tighter.
Biz wiggled and jiggled and set health pay sweeter.
They set wages tighter for prices did fly.
They feared wages too, would travel sky high.
Perhaps we'll die.

There are politicians who want to take over;
they think bureaucrats can on health care deliver.
They want to take over and have it mandated.
They want a mandate because of controls.
They set more controls on top of the tax.
They raised a health tax and they made health exempt.
They made health exempt because wages were tighter.
Biz wiggled and jiggled and set health pay sweeter.
They set wages tighter for prices did fly.
They feared wages too, would travel sky high.
Perhaps we'll die.

Layout of the Denver Shootout

The Denver Post published a photo that adds some detail to the story about the recent Denver shootout.

While the Post does not explain the photo, which shows the layout of the restaurant where the confrontation took place, the general idea seems clear. The circles marked "O" appear to be the officers, while the circles marked "C" appear to be customers. That would make "X" the bad guy.

Previously, I theorized that one of the officers may have shot a bystander in the ankle because the officer shot prematurely because he had his finger on the trigger too early. The distance between the officer and the bystander was about 30 feet, and the hight of a gun in a normal stance is about 5 feet. That makes the downward angle from the gun to the ankle about 10 degrees. My wife held a string that ran from her gun position past me (standing at point "X" relatively) to approximately point "C;" the string passed my thigh. (That squares with the geometric calculations.) So the officer definitely shot low.

Why is this? I can think of three possible reasons. First, the officer shot prematurely because his finger was on the trigger as he brought his gun up. Second, the officer lowered the gun after the recoil from a previous shot. Third, the officer shot after suffering "shards of glass in his eye," making his aim low. Denver Police Chief Gerry Whitman said, "That officer was shooting and was being shot at, almost simultaneously," according to the Post. However, there's a lot I don't know here, such as the positions from which the officers fired and which officer shot the bystander in the ankle.

But the photo brings up another obvious point: the officers were shooting directly in the direction of five innocent bystanders. Obviously, that is extremely dangerous. Such action is justified only in the most dire circumstances. However, the criminal "was pointing the shotgun at restaurant patrons and two plainclothes officers in an attempt to rob them." I don't know what he said or how he acted. But, obviously, he posed an extreme danger himself. Whitman said that two of the bystanders who were shot were "very supportive of the officers' actions." Here's another point: the officers may not have been able to comply with the robber's commands without revealing their identity as officers. And the bystanders probably weren't able to duck for cover without drawing the attention of the criminal. I for one am not in a position to second-guess the officers' decision in that very messy, very dangerous situation. Even if, in light of more complete information, the officers were judged to have acted rashly, that wouldn't change the fact that the ultimate responsibility for the danger and for the injuries rests with the criminal.

Here's another important part of the story reported by the Post:

The gunman, Phuong Van Dang, 26, was a halfway-house inmate who had served a portion of a prison sentence for assault with a deadly weapon, court documents revealed.

Dang was convicted of the felony charge in Jefferson County in 1998 and sentenced to 18 years, according to Colorado court records. But he was released from prison and placed in a community corrections program. ...

Dang, 26, was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in Jefferson County in 1998 and sentenced to 18 years. The conviction was for shooting a victim in the back at the Penny Lane Arcade.

At that time, he was awaiting trial for robbing a fellow high school student at gunpoint in 1997. He received a 10-year sentence for robbery.

The Rocky Mountain News adds that Dang, age 16 when he shot "an arcade worker in the back," "was in a violent gang, facing multiple felonies."

I'm all for encouraging people who commit less-serious crimes to rehabilitate themselves. But when you threaten people with guns and then shoot somebody in the back, you have demonstrated that you are incapable of living in civilized society. The perpetrator's actions certainly do not bolster the case for leniency for highly violent minors of sufficient age to know better.

Details on the Denver Shootout

More details are in about the recent shootout in Denver.

Ivan Moreno, who has some clue when it comes to firearms, writes for the November 16 Rocky Mountain News, "Police said the suspect, 26-year-old Phuong Van Dang, walked from table to table at the Ha Noi restaurant, masked and carrying [a] black 12-gauge shotgun and a duffel."

So the criminal carried a shotgun, not a rifle, as I'd thought previously. And the three customers were shot by the officers.

Police Chief Gerry Whitman defended the officers' actions, notes Moreno: "They had to do something. It wasn't a situation were they could say, 'Stop! Police!' because it could turn into a hostage situation. They're trained to stop a threat, and they did exactly that."

However, some of the details of the story raise questions about the officers' training:

The detectives were about 12 to 15 feet from the suspect when each fired six shots, hitting Dang five times, said Division Chief David Fisher. Four of those bullets passed through Dang's body, according to the preliminary investigation, Fisher said.

A couple and their son, who were behind Dang, were each shot once by the detectives' gunfire. One was shot in the ankle, and another on the side. A bullet grazed the third's leg.

So, at twelve to fifteen feet, the officers hit a large target five of twelve rounds. That's not so unusual; police officers generally miss most of the time at close range in a real shootout. It's harder than most people imagine to shoot accurately in a high-stress situation. Still, you don't want seven bullets flying off-target in a restaurant. Did each officer empty his gun?

I wonder what sort of ammunition the officers were carrying. Given that four of five rounds passed through the suspect's body, I have to wonder if the bullets were fully jacketed. If so, I'd be interested to hear the rationale for carrying jacketed rounds as opposed to hollow-points (which tend to mushroom on impact, slowing their progression). Of course, it may have been better for the bystanders to be hit with jacketed bullets, but it's better yet for bystanders not to be hit.

To me, this is the big point: one of the officers hit a bystander in the ankle. What that suggests is that the officer may have had his finger on the trigger as he pulled his gun from the holster, causing him to shoot prematurely toward the ground. If this was the case, then that reflects poor training. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

I'm no expert in this, but I'd like to hear a discussion about whether it's a good idea to drop as quickly as possible to a knee when firing at an armed criminal in a crowded area. My reasoning is that, if bystanders drop to the ground, and responsive fire is headed upward, bystanders are less likely to be hit. Of course, dropping to a knee might also limit mobility.

Still, given the details that have so far emerged, the officers deserve the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't there, so I don't know the demeanor and actions of the criminal. It seems likely, though, that the officers seriously believed that the armed criminal posed a substantial threat to their own lives and the lives of others. It is fortunate that no innocent person was killed.

In general, people carrying concealed guns, whether they are officers or civilians, have a responsibility to draw and fire only if somebody's life is in real danger. Civilians have more of an incentive to fire in fewer situations -- and to shoot more accurately -- because officers generally are protected from both criminal and civil action. If police officers get sued, ultimately tax payers pick up the tab. If a civilian fires irresponsibly, he or she can get into big trouble.

Nevertheless, in this case, a masked, armed robber obviously poses a serious threat to the lives of others. The ultimate responsibility for the injuries to the bystanders rests with the criminal.

Good Objectivist Sources

"Justin" asks:

Ari,

Could you point me to a good source for answers regarding the length versus strength, etc., in regards to life being a standard of value? I get asked this question a lot when I try to defend my position, and I don't think my retorts are satisfactory.

If you know of good discussions of this issue, other than Dr. Piekoff's Understanding Objectivism, please let me know. ( I am going to borrow that series from a friend, but I am currently away on an internship and don't have access to it).

The name of the course by Darryl Wright (that I couldn't remember before) is "Advanced Topics in Ethics." (Diana Hsieh reminded me of this, and she also recommends the lecture.) Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's available for sale.

I'm working my way through three sets of Leonard Peikoff's lectures: "Understanding Objectivism," "Objectivism Through Induction," and "Advanced Seminars on Objectivism." I'm in the middle of the middle course, and I've found the material to be extremely illuminating. Not only did Peikoff make me aware of the problem of rationalism, he made me aware of some of the specific ways that I had become a rationalist. More importantly, he offers excellent guidance for how to overcome rationalism with an inductive, reality-based approach. Of course, the basic text to accompany these lectures is Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The book is easy to get and to afford; the lectures are not. But, again, those who have trouble with the cost of the lectures can look for a loaner copy or buy a copy to share.

Since the work of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, the best work on ethics is that of Tara Smith. Her book Viable Values covers the foundations of ethics; her follow-up book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics reviews the main arguments of the first book before launching into a detailed treatment of the virtues. Smith also helped me to understand the significance of life as the standard of value. And her latest book is invaluable for reaching a better understanding of why we need the specific virtues, what they entail, and how they should be lived. If I had read her book at a young age, and taken the trouble to understand and apply it, I would have saved myself a great deal of trouble and achieved my values with greater ability.

So, if you read one book over the next few months, make it Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. It is a wonderful, clearly written, and amazingly useful book.

Cofree Update: Ingraham, Corporate Welfare

New from the Colorado Freedom Report:

Laura Ingraham Supports Iraq War, Religious Values

... After urging Republicans to offer a populist message to appeal to "the little person," Ingraham promoted religious values. She worried that people are "numb and dumb to the pornification of our culture." She said that, without virtue, "you can kiss the free market goodbye." Unfortunately, the "free love generation" continues to influence the culture, she said.

Ingraham suggested that Republicans can win in 2008 with five issues: restraining taxes, fighting terrorism, promoting ethics, fighting illegal immigration, and promoting "life," by which she meant opposing abortion.

Ingraham said that religious practice is paramount. She quoted George Washington to the effect that religion is necessary to the nation's morality. ...


New administration promotes same old corporate welfare

... To fund corporate welfare, politicians and the bureaucrats they empower take money by force from some people in order to give the money to others who have not earned it. The practice is immoral because people have the right to decide how to spend their own resources. You have the right to spend your income with the business of your choice, rather than the business that politicians force you to subsidize. Each taxpayer is made a bit worse off so that the favored few can collect the extorted wealth. ...

What Happens When Victims Fight Back

John C. Ensslin, Jeff Kass, and Alan Gathright wrote an article for the Rocky Mountain News November 14 about a Denver shooting.

A masked man with a high-caliber, long-barreled gun and really bad timing picked the wrong Denver Vietnamese restaurant to try and rob over Wednesday's lunch hour.

With his car parked in the back alley, the suspect barged in through the back door of Ha Noi restaurant at 1033 S. Federal Blvd. and ordered the cook to lie on the floor.

What he didn't know was that just outside the kitchen door two plainclothes Denver undercover narcotics officers had stopped by to grab some lunch.

Within seconds, bullets and shards of glass were flying over the green vinyl chairs. ...

When the shooting stopped, five people were wounded. The suspect, slumped in the front doorway, was critically injured. Three people who were caught in the crossfire, a middle-aged couple and their adult son, were also injured.

And one of the officers was cut around his eyes by the shards of glass.

The article clarifies, "One of the bystanders also underwent surgery. A third person remained in the hospital in fair condition. The officer and the third bystander were treated and released."

Now, if it's obvious that somebody with a weapon is only after cash and nothing else, the situation is highly dangerous, but in many circumstances the best bet is to hand over the money so that the criminal will leave as soon as possible. But, in this case, when a masked man with a rifle barges into a restaurant, it's reasonable to suspect the worst. So, from the limited details available, its seems like the officers -- "Sgt. John Pindar and Det. Jesse Avendano." -- made the right call.

The article reports that Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said of the officers, "Having them in there may have saved people's lives today... I think we were fortunate these two officers were there."

(Incidentally, the reporters don't mention how they know the caliber of the gun, but, judging from the photo that accompanies the article, it doesn't look like a very high caliber to me, though it's hard to tell from the photo. Nor does the Denver Post article shed light on that matter. Instead, the Post reports that "an automatic weapon could be seen inside the restaurant, Jackson said," which I highly doubt, as automatics are rare and very expensive.)

Yes, a man used a gun to injure several people. And two men with guns stopped the criminal. It appears that the criminal sustained the most serious injuries. If "we were fortunate" that those two armed men were there, if "they may have saved people's lives," then wouldn't it be even better if more responsible, trained people carried concealed weapons in public places?

Get Ready for Forced "Energy Efficiency"

P. Solomon Banda writes for the AP: "Despite Colorado's drive to develop renewable energy, the state will still need the equivalent of 13 new 350-megawatt plants to satisfy its power needs by 2025, according to a report by... [the] Colorado Energy Forum."

The article reports that "Matt Baker, executive director of Environment Colorado," said, "We don't believe we will need that much electricity. We think it's totally doable to meet the (new) demand through an investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy."

As noted previously, new plants powered by coal or nuclear reaction are unlikely in this state. "Renewable energy" is not going to close the gap. So we are left with "investment in energy efficiency." What does that mean? It means that we're going to have to spend more resources (time included) to use less electricity. And the amount of energy that we're able to use will be determined by what Matt Baker and his ilk deem that we "need."

Cat Care Society

This afternoon I was out for a walk, and I saw a cat in a field of open space. I had seen the cat several times before, and, suspecting that it is a stray, I had brought some cat food in a bag. The cat voraciously consumed the food, then whined for more, confirming my suspicions that it's a stray. It's also quite slender. It's not really that much effort to get your cats fixed or take them to a shelter, so it annoys me when people abandon cats, in most cases leaving them to die of starvation, exposure, or predators.

I went home and called the Cat Care Society, the wonderful shelter where we adopted our cat. Unfortunately, that shelter is full. So, if you've ever thought about getting a cat, now is the time! You'll have a fun time seeing all of the cats, and you'll be able to pick from a large selection.

Fortunately, the Boulder Humane Society said that it's willing to accept a cat. If the cat is behaviorally fit for adoption (i.e., not feral), as I think it is, and free from serious illness, it will be put up for adoption.

If I can find the cat! I went back with my cat box, and instead of a cat I found a fox prowling the area. I don't know if the fox was after the cat or the cat food (which was gone). So I hope the cat doesn't get eaten before I manage to get it to the shelter.

False Definition of 'Personhood'

Electa Draper writes for The Denver Post today:

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the go-ahead to proponents of a ballot initiative seeking to amend the state constitution in 2008 to define personhood as a fertilized egg. ...

The amendment, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protections from the moment of conception, guaranteeing every fertilized egg the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

Kathryn Wittenben, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, argued that the measure is misleading, reports Draper: "Proponents of this initiative have publicly stated that the goal is to make all abortion illegal, but nothing in the language of the initiative or its title even mentions abortion."

But the "initiative's 20-year-old proponent, Kristi Burton, founder of Colorado for Equal Rights," was undeterred: "This is a very simple petition. That's all we need... The people of Colorado will support protecting human life at every stage. More than that, we have God. And he is enough."

And Dinesh D'Souza wonders why atheists bother to criticize Christianity and its politics?

Diana Hsieh points out the inevitable consequences, should the measure pass (which is highly unlikely). Hsieh mentions a "horrifying story of a woman allowed to die of a totally non-viable ectopic pregnancy due to Nigaragua's strict anti-abortion law."

Here is a summary from the original article:

Two weeks after Olga Reyes danced at her wedding, her bloated and disfigured body was laid to rest in an open coffin -- the victim, her husband and some experts say, of Nicaragua's new no-exceptions ban on abortion.

Reyes, a 22-year-old law student, suffered an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus develops outside the uterus, cannot survive and causes bleeding that endangers the mother. But doctors seemed afraid to treat her because of the anti-abortion law, said husband Agustin Perez. By the time they took action, it was too late.

And this is what is called the "culture of life."

Is More Government the Answer to Global Warming?

John Stossel points out that central economic controls don't work.

There are good reasons to begin with a presumption against government action. As coercive monopolies that spend other people's money taken by force, governments are uniquely unqualified to solve problems. They are riddled by ignorance, perverse incentives, incompetence and self-serving. The synthetic-fuels program during the Carter years consumed billions of dollars and was finally disbanded as a failure. The push for ethanol today is more driven by special interests than good sense -- it's boosting food prices while producing a fuel of dubious environmental quality. ...

[E]ven drastic plans to cut the use of carbon-based energy would make only a negligible difference. As John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal:

"Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10 percent of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent."

Bill Ritter wants to reduce Colorado's emissions by 20 percent by 2020. True, he also wants to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050, but there are four main problems with his "plan." First, Ritter's plan is fantasy. Neither he nor any of his advisers have the faintest idea of how that goal might be achieved. Second, if Ritter's plan results in merely pushing people out of Colorado to avoid the high taxes and expenses, Ritter won't have accomplished much by way of "solving" global warming. Third, Colorado contains a tiny fraction of the world's population. Fourth, even if Ritter could seriously reduce emissions through political controls, the benefits would be miniscule, while the costs would be astronomical.

"No Clash of Interests"

In Atlas Shrugged, the government puts Hank Rearden on trial for the "crime" of selling his metal to a willing buyer. Part of the courtroom exchange sheds light on Ayn Rand's view that, in a free and virtuous society, people's interests do not clash in any fundamental way.

"Are we to understand," asked the judge, "that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?"

"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."

"What... what do you mean?"

"I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices."

"Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognize its right to do so?"

"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes -- by refusing to buy my products."

This is signature Ayn Rand. And the idea conveyed in the passage is central to her philosophy. Rand holds that people normally produce the values they need to live. One person's productive achievement is not another person's loss; it is another person's potential gain. Rearden produces metal, creating wealth from the goods and labor that he purchases from others. Then he trades his metal for the goods and services produced by others so that he can live and enjoy his life. In a free society, Rearden's interests align with the interests of "the public," which is taken only to mean the counting of particular individuals. In a free exchange, both parties benefit. But if some people are able to loot others, the consequence is to reward the looters at the cost of the producers and encourage others to get in on the looting.

Welfare for All

One might think that the welfare state started out soaking the rich in order to subsidize the poor. Yet the Social Security payroll tax, a regressive tax in its collection, has always redistributed wealth from the young to the elderly, regardless of income, though the distribution does favor the poor somewhat. Increasingly, the welfare state is about soaking the middle class in order to subsidize the middle class.

Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation provided some scary numbers in a recent editorial. He writes, "Today, almost half of America's children -- 45 percent -- have their health care paid for by taxpayers. The children's health bill (SCHIP) now before Congress would boost this to 55 percent." SCHIP stands for "State Children's Health Insurance Program," which is (obviously) mostly funded by federal tax dollars, Istook notes. Istook calls the jump from 45 to 55 percent "the tipping point." However, not only could SCHIP put most children in government-run health care, it could increase tax-funding of all health care from "almost half" to "the majority of all health care." Istook predicts, "Eventually, the whole country would be under Washington-run health care, using tax dollars to pay the bills."

The SCHIP bill claims to cover kids in families earning three times the level of poverty -- $62,000 for a family of four -- but it goes further, because states are free to disregard huge chunks of income to make more people eligible. This "free" health care for the middle class mostly substitutes government coverage for existing private insurance, because more than three-quarters (77 percent) of the kids who would be newly eligible are already covered by private policies.

Yes, SCHIP would redistribute wealth from from those with more money to those with less -- on average. However, SCHIP would also redistribute more money from people like my wife and me, who have put off having children because of our insane tax burden, to people who choose to have children but not financially support them. The main problem with the welfare state is not that it punishes productivity to reward poverty. Its problem is that it punishes the responsible in order to reward the irresponsible.

Let me say this. It is likely that, when my wife and I finally manage to crawl our way out of debt despite handing over many thousands of dollars every year in taxes, we will make less than $62,000 per year as a household, primarily because we've decided to raise our (potential) children ourselves, rather than let government employees raise them. All of you pathetic vote buyers and faux social do-gooders can keep your goddamn "socialism for the children." We want no part of it. We don't want the government to force other people to pay for the health care of our children. No self-respecting parent wants that. But, as the welfare state expands, our culture does not value self-respecting parents; it values political nannies.

We ask for only one thing. We ask for you to leave us the hell alone. If you'd just leave us alone -- leave us alone, for Christ's sake! -- we'd have no problem affording children or their health care.

Brutality as Entertainment

A while back I picked up Will In the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare,by Stephen Greenblatt. It is filled with vivid descriptions of the world in which the bard lived. I was particularly struck -- and horrified -- by the cruelty of his society. For example, Shakespeare was caught in the middle of the Christian strife in which Catholics tried to kill the queen and the queen had traitors executed in the most barbaric of ways.

For example, here is Greenblatt's description of the torture and execution of Thomas Cottam:

[T]he scavenger's hoop... was a hoop of iron that slowly closed around the prisoner's spine, bending it almost in two. ... On May 30, 1582, he was executed in the grisly way designed to demonstrate the full rage of the state: he was dragged on a hurdle through the muddy streets of Tyburn, past jeering crowds, and then hanged, taken down again while he was still alive, and castrated; his stomach was then split open and his intestines pulled out to be burned before his dying eyes, whereupon he was beheaded and his body cut in quarters, the pieces displayed as a warning. (page 98)

You know it's a bad day when getting your head chopped off is the good part.

Chapter 6 is titled, "Life in the Suburbs." In the sport of "baiting," a bull or bear is "penned up in a ring or chained to a stake and set upon by fierce dogs." Greenblatt writes:

In a popular variation, an ape was tied to the back of a pony, which was then attacked by the dogs: "To see the animal kicking amongst the dogs, with the screams of the ape," wrote one observer, "beholding the curs hanging from the ears and neck of the pony, is very laughable." (page 177)

Why might people find such a sickening spectacle funny? Greenblatt notes that this violence against animals mirrored the routine violence against people:

[P]arents frequently whipped children, teachers whipped students, masters whipped servants, beadles whipped whores, sheriffs whipped vagrants... Almost daily [Shakespeare] could have watched the state brand, cut, and kill those it deemed offenders. (page 178)

It was, in short, a nasty time to live.

Obviously, we moderns gasp at these "very laughable" deeds. Yet looking at the horrific violence of the past might give us pause about certain practices of the present. Here are a few examples:

* Should modern laws protect animals from abuse? If so, what is the basis of such laws, and what should be their limits?

* The Supermax prison of Colorado, recently featured on 60 Minutes, keeps inmates isolated for 23 hours per day. Does that drive people insane? Does that matter?

* We have modernized our punishments; should we also see the death penalty as outdated because of the horribleness of putting somebody to death?

* On the other hand, rape is common in American prisons. People on TV and in the movies often joke about prison rape or suggest that rape is part of the expected punishment of prison.

* Let us say that we have overwhelming evidence that a nuclear bomb is planted in a U.S. city, and we also have overwhelming evidence that the suspect in custody knows where it is. Do you consider the use of torture? But there's torture, and then there's torture. There's the "scavenger's hoop," and then there's waterboarding. Would you rather be Thomas Cottam or a prisoner in Abu Ghraib (after the fall of Saddam Hussein)? But should anyone have to contemplate either horror? At what point does interrogation become torture? Are there any circumstances in which any sort of torture is justified?

* On two occasions, I have accidentally gone to a bar during "fight night." People pay money to watch "Ultimate Fighting" on television. The idea is that two contestants are locked in a cage, where they proceed to beat each other to bloody pulps, often until one gets beaten to unconsciousness. There are various rules to protect contestants, but it's perfectly legal to pound somebody in the face with a knee, for example. Boxing seems quite civilized by comparison. Should this be legal? Assuming that it should be, should people watch it? And why do they watch it? What does that say about the state of our culture that a sport like that gains in popularity?

The Morality of Force

Yesterday I discussed Governor Bill Ritter's plans to ask for more tax dollars -- for a goal yet to be decided.

The Rocky Mountain News article that I cited contains another telling line:

Ritter appeared before the committee to present his first proposed budget, which was received warmly, signaling it has a good chance of being adopted mostly intact.

Ritter told the committee that his "moral document" would boost funding for higher education and children's health care...

In other words, Ritter believes that it is moral to take wealth by force from some people in order to give it to others. Thus, it is no surprise that Ritter wants to increase tax spending even more than it has already been increased in recent years. Yesterday I asked, "And how much will he ask for?" The answer is, "As much as he can get away with." That is, as much as Coloradans will tolerate. According to Ritter's explicit moral premises, there is no "moral" limit to increases in tax spending, so long as some people have wealth that other people "need." According to Ritter's philosophy, people who earn wealth have no right to it. In times past, Ritter's "moral" philosophy at its most consistent was summed up by the principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Yet Ritter is not content merely to forcibly transfer wealth and allow the recipients to define their needs. Instead, he wants to tell people what they need, then redistribute wealth accordingly. For example, Ritter's administration thinks that children "need" to be taught more rigorously how to be good little environmentalists -- at taxpayer's expense, of course. As David Harsanyi writes for The Denver Post:

Not long ago, Ritter assembled the P-20 Education Coordinating Council to foster a "seamless education system from pre-school to grad- school."

Nowhere in the literature of the P-20 Education Coordinating Council -- and I've looked far and wide -- does it mention anything about the educational system being used to politically indoctrinate children.

Yet, the Climate Action Plan [proposed by Ritter] says that "the state will work through the Governor's P-20 Education Council and others to make sustainability curricula become standard fare in K-12 classrooms throughout the state."

Why doesn't Ritter "think big" and "be bold" and propose using the tax-funded "seamless education system from pre-school to grad-school" to teach endless classes on the theme, "Why Politicians Should Run Your Life?"

Ritter the Leader

Chris Barge wrote an amusing article November 8 for the Rocky Mountain News. He reports:

Gov. Bill Ritter said Thursday he may ask voters to approve a tax increase next year to pay for either health care, transportation or higher education.

But he emphasized that while all three priorities need extra funding, only one of them should wind up on the ballot. Colorado voters are too fiscally conservative to approve more than one tax increase at a time, he said.

Barge reports that Ritter told the Joint Budget Committee, "I don't think we can go for all three. That would be unfair to voters and would demonstrate a lack of leadership on my part and on the part of the legislature."

We wouldn't want a lack of leadership! Because, you know, promoting a tax increase for an unspecified goal, that's real leadership. Especially when we're still in the initial phase of the spending hikes from Referendum C. And, assuming that Ritter can figure out which tax hike to promote next year, when can we expect requests for the other two items? And how much will he ask for? The "208" Commission promotes health controls that will cost over a billion dollars of new taxes every year (and those are according to the figures bought by the Commission). Is that the end of the list? Even if Ritter got more tax dollars for health care, transportation, and higher education, would he be satisfied, or would he ask for still more?

Apparently, Ritter thinks that leadership consists of expanding the power, scope, and spending of government. The particulars of how that happens are of secondary concern.

Notes on the Harry Potter Movies

I just watched the third Harry Potter film again. While the fifth book (The Order of the Phoenix) remains my favorite, the third movie (The Prisoner of Azkaban) is the finest of the series so far. The first two films are enjoyable companions to the books. But the third movie is a stand-alone artwork. The timing in the first two films is awkward and distracting. The third movie is impeccably timed. Moreover, the the use of lighting, camera movement, and transitions, as well as the creative visual interpretations of the book, place the third movie a step above. I was thrilled to find that the fifth movie is also quite good; it takes a close second, in my book.

I see that the sixth film is "in production." The director is David Yates, who also directed Phoenix. So that's encouraging.

I hope that the producers of the films consider splitting the seventh book -- The Deathly Hallows -- into two movies. There is simply too much material in the book to allow for a single movie of reasonable length. Besides, there's a perfect place the split the movie: Chapter 24. Specifically, page 481. I think readers of the book will understand what I mean. Ending the movie there would be a fitting tribute to the character who fills that page. Then the eighth movie could be called, Harry Potter and the Battle of Hogwarts. Obviously, they should film both movies during the same period to save costs and maintain better continuity. Splitting the final book into two movies would make the studio a lot more money as well as please fans.

Sure-Fire Plan to Reduce Emissions by 80 Percent

Vincent Carroll wrote a very nice critique of Bill Ritter's "Climate Action Plan."

[F]rom Page 20: "We are not prepared today to address what the state's position should be with respect to permitting new conventional coal-fired power plants that would serve Colorado consumers." But they promise a verdict within 12 months.

Permit me to puncture the suspense: Under this administration, the state's position will be to oppose the permitting of any new conventional coal-fired power plants -- or to impose so many conditions that the end result is the same.

Carroll also notes that the plan discusses the possibility of nuclear power, though the "plan seems to dismiss current technology as inadequate while implying that it's unsafe." Carroll notes that nuclear plants successfully provide large amounts of electricity in many regions of the world.

What future awaits us if Colorado politicians prevent the building of new electrical plants? Kevin R. Collins, "president and CEO of Evergreen Energy Inc., a Denver-based refined coal producer," rushes to assure readers that he's on the side of fighting global warming in an article for the Rocky Mountain News. Yet he offers an uncomfortable warning: "Yale professor Charles Perrow, who follows power-supply shortfalls, says 'I'm prepared to see many more blackouts occurring. ... it's really going to be a freight train running into disaster'."

But then it struck me: there is a sure-fire way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses in Colorado by 80 percent! If the state's politicians keep jacking up taxes, putting the screws to business owners, and imposing higher costs through economic controls, they might eventually succeed in driving out 80 percent of the state's population. Then emissions will go down by 80 percent! Problem solved.

Colorado has been a growth state. One government agency predicts that the state's population will increase to 6.3 million by 2025 -- around a 35 percent increase. So we're supposed to increase population by 35 percent and reduce emissions by over 20 percent. Obviously, something's got to give here.

"Freedom Has Failed"

This quote from Atlas Shrugged, from the villain Wesley Mouch, chilled me. The context is that Mouch and his gang have passed directive after directive, slowly strangling the economy. Mouch is considering the imposition of new, more expansive controls:

Freedom has been given a chance and has failed. Therefore, more stringent controls are necessary. Since men are unable and unwilling to solve their problems voluntarily, they must be forced to do it. (page 503, 35th Anniversary Edition)

This quote immediately made me think of the health-policy debate in Colorado. How many times have "reformers" blamed the allegedly "free market" in medicine -- for the problems caused by decades of federal and state political controls? Since men are unable and unwilling to purchase "comprehensive" health insurance "voluntarily," they must be forced to do it.

FreeColorado.com -- Gov. Ritter's "Climate Action"

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

Doubts About Ritter's "Climate Action"

"Yesterday Governor Bill Ritter released a press release titled, "Gov. Ritter Releases Climate Action Plan." But I wonder whether Ritter's "ambitious call to action" will accomplish much, other than to force Coloradans to spend more money for cars and electric bills. ...

"[T]he only way that we could reduce our emissions by '80% by 2050,' assuming that we are not prepared to descend into mass poverty, is to take advantage of yet-to-be-invented technology and/or nuclear power that is able to mass produce cleaner energy that is less expensive than the energy we now use. ...

"If there is no technological revolution in energy, then how does Ritter know that the best response is to reduce greenhouse emissions, rather than simply adjust to the slightly warmer temperatures? ...

"Ritter's plan will have essentially no impact on global warming, yet it could prove deeply destructive to the state's economy. Realistically, the only way that global emissions of greenhouse gases will be dramatically reduced is if productive advances allow the mass production of cleaner, cheaper energy. To facilitate that goal, the best thing that Ritter and all politicians can do is stay out of the way and stop interfering with the economy."

Recovering from Rationalism

I am a recovering rationalist. I thought I was pretty smart, back in 1992 (it must have been), when I first got my copy of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I read it, understood it, and was even ready to start correcting it. Or so I thought. In fact, I did not understand Objectivism, at all. Or, rather, I understood only a few of its tenets, and those poorly. I was certainly not prepared to apply Objectivist principles consistently in my own life. My main problem was rationalism. I understood the philosophy as an interconnected system of ideas, but I did not understand how those ideas were related to the real world.

Take, for instance, my (lack of) understanding of "life" as the standard of value. I wrote thousands of words over the internet explaining the problems with that position. For example, how is one to choose between length of life and strength of life? I created long, rationalistic chains of arguments that (I thought) demonstrated the absurdities of holding "life" as the standard. Of course, what I was not doing is looking at what life really is. I was not drawing the principles from the facts; I was trying to derive principles from floating deductions.

Another example may be found in my interaction with libertarianism. Within a few years, I went from enthusiastically promoting libertarianism to denouncing libertarianism. In 2002, I was still defending libertarianism, though I was starting to pay more attention to certain of its problems. I made two basic arguments in defense of libertarianism. First, "If libertarianism is roughly wanting government only to protect property rights, then Objectivism is a type of libertarianism..." In other words, I was starting with (dubious) definitions and then proceeding deductively, rather than looking at the content of libertarianism. Second, I argued that the Objectivist case against libertarianism makes little sense, because Objectivists interact with others who are not principled. I was attempting a reductio ad absurdum, rather than looking at the relevant facts about libertarianism.

I revisited the issue in 2004. I was becoming much more aware of the problems within the libertarian movement, but I still tied myself to libertarianism using rationalistic arguments. I again tried to point out the internal contradictions of criticisms of libertarianism, to reduce those criticisms to absurdity. And I remained stuck on definitions as a starting point: "a single term can[not] be used to name only a single concept. ... [W]e frequently assign the same word to multiple concepts, and we rely upon context and explicit definitions to make clear our meaning." In short, I thought I could re-define libertarianism into respectability. A bit later I wrote of "two libertarianisms" and declared that, by the correct "definition, I am a libertarian, I have been a libertarian for many years, and I anticipate I will always be a libertarian."

By 2005, I was deeply alarmed by goings on in the libertarian movement, and I was beginning to look at what libertarianism is, rather than attempt to reconstruct it according to my prior definition. A month later, I declared, "I am not a libertarian." I summarized my reasons: "For I do not want to be lumped together with the pragmatists, reactionaries, tribalists, nihilists, hedonists, rationalists, subjectivists, idealists (of the Platonic variety), propagandists, utopians, and kooks of the libertarian movement." This was a big development for me. I had finally beat my head against enough concrete problems to begin to abandon my rationalistic view of libertarianism. However, I did not at that point explicitly understand that what I was starting to do is replace rationalism with an inductive approach. I continue to struggle with overcoming rationalism.

Unfortunately, the best Objectivist material about using induction to learn philosophy is not easy to access. A lecture by Darryl Wright helped me to understand the ethical significance of "life." (Unfortunately, I cannot at this point recall the title of that lecture.) Far and away the most helpful material for me has been Leonard Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" lectures. This outstanding material explicitly deals with the problems of rationalism. It is quite expensive; those who have a problem with the cost might consider finding a loaner copy or buying a copy to share. I've started Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction," which so far is also quite good. He discusses how to inductively approach issues such as causality, reason as man's means of survival, egoism, and other critical topics.

I am thrilled that Peikoff is making available on his web page a podcast in which he answers questions. He has not so far dealt explicitly with the topic of rationalism versus induction in philosophy, but his answers explode the rationalistic premises of various questions. For example, in his new podcast, he explains why the possibility of human instincts cannot be derived from evolutionary history. Instead, he suggests, we should look to see whether people in fact have instincts. So those trying to overcome rationalistic tendencies can listen to Peikoff's answers at the level of how they treat rationalism versus induction.

The Conversion of Antony Flew

Recently I picked up the new book, There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, by Antony Flew, "with Roy Abraham Varghese" (though I haven't had a chance to read it yet). But you don't need to buy the book to get the gist of its claims. The New York Times Magazine has published an article about Flew and his book.

Mark Oppenheimer writes:

[Flew's] greatest contribution remains his first, a short paper from 1950 called "Theology and Falsification." ... In a masterfully terse thousand words, Flew argues that "God" is too vague a concept to be meaningful. For if God's greatness entails being invisible, intangible and inscrutable, then he can’t be disproved -- but nor can he be proved.

The book offers elegant, user-friendly descriptions of the arguments that persuaded Flew, arguments familiar to anyone who has heard evangelical Christians' "scientific proof" of God. From the "fine tuning" argument that the laws of nature are too perfect to have been accidents to the "intelligent design" argument that human biology cannot be explained by evolution to various computations meant to show that probability favors a divine creator, "There Is a God" is perhaps the handiest primer ever written on the science (many would say pseudoscience) of religious belief.

In other words, Flew converted from a silly form of atheism to a silly form of religion. I mean, anyone who buys the analysist/positivist argument against God deserves to believe the argument from design. By the way, Flew's early essay is also available. (I guess I'm just not sophisticated enough to write a line like the following: "For if the utterance is indeed an assertion, it will necessarily be equivalent to a denial of the negation of the assertion.")

Doctors Need Freedom

What's up with The Denver Post? At least in the Sunday edition of the paper that appeared on Saturday -- I haven't yet seen the paper as printed for Sunday -- the paper published another front page editorial. (It also published a front page editorial in favor of Referendum C.) I don't mean an editorial masquerading as a news story; I mean an editorial labeled as such, on the front page. A disclaimer appeared at the bottom: "The Denver Post's editorial board operates independently of the paper's news coverage." But who approved a front-page editorial? Wasn't it the same guy who manages the "paper's news coverage?" So the front page editorial is odd, but, hey, it's The Denver Post.

After calling Governor Bill Ritter "Jimmy Hoffa" for giving unions of state employees more power, the Post laments that Ritter's move might alienate "business". (Not particular businesses, just "business.") The Post fears:

Without business in his corner, we fear Ritter won't be able to effectively shepherd a comprehensive health care solution through the statehouse. And any plans he may have for a new revenue stream for higher education are dangling by a thread, too.

Perhaps more importantly, we're concerned he's lost whatever business support he had to reform Colorado's budget process. ... Ritter will be rudderless if he tries to convince voters to approve an extension of Referendum C.

So the Post (or at least its independently operated editorial board) is worried that, if Ritter favors unions too much, he won't be able to spend more tax dollars and impose new government controls on medicine. Wow. That's definitely worthy of the front page of The Denver Post. (I do agree that Ritter's favoritism toward unions was bad.)

For now, though, I want only to reflect on the Post's call for "a comprehensive health care solution." What does that mean? It means that state legislators would spend more of other people's money in order to expand the political control of medicine. Leading plans call for an expansion of health welfare and for health-insurance mandates. Who will decide how these welfare dollars are spent? Who will decide what the mandated insurance must cover? Some combination of politicians and bureaucrats, no doubt with plenty of input from special interests.

"A comprehensive health care solution" would further erode the ability of patients and doctors to associate voluntarily. It would further replace the judgment of doctors with the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. It would expand the political controls that have created current problems in American medicine.

A recent release from the Ayn Rand Institute makes clear the fundamental importance of restoring liberty in medicine. The release quotes a doctor from Atlas Shrugged:

Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything -- except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the "welfare" of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only "to serve." ... I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind -- yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

The Godfearers

I had not realized that, by the time of Paul, Judaism had attracted a large Gentile following. Garry Wills writes in What Paul Meant that Paul probably had much success preaching to these "Godfearers."

[They] were inquiring and sympathetic non-Jews welcomed in synagogues... The Romans of the first century were out on quest for spiritual knowledge... [A]mong the exotic beliefs being entertained, the Jews had, for some, a special appeal, based on their monotheism (in a polytheistic world), their purity of life, and their ancient learning. (page 64-5)

Wills cites historian Robert Tannenbaum, who points out that Judaism was "therefore a more powerful rival to Christianity in the race for the Roman world" than used to be assumed. (page 66)

And Gerd Theissen argues (notes Wills):

Christianity... offered them the possibility of acknowledging monotheism and high moral principles and at the same time attaining full religious equality without circumcision, without ritual demands, [etc.]... [T]he Christian mission was luring away the very Gentiles who were Judaism's patrons... (page 67).

This is interesting for two reasons. First, it indicates that Christianity benefitted from the prior appeal of Judaism to a segment of Romans. Second, it reveals additional causes of tension between Jews and Christians.

D'Souza's Unicorn Analogy

Recently I watched part of a recorded debate between Dinesh D'Souza, author of What' So Great About Christianity, and Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great. (I couldn't get the entire debate to download, for some reason.) Obviously, in this post I do not wish to address all or even most of the points raised in the discussion. I wish to address only the following statement by D'Souza:

We're living in a very unusual time in which atheism has emerged as a kind of militant phenomenon. On the face of that, that's a little bit odd. Because if you are an unbeliever, why be militant? I don't believe in unicorns, but I haven't written any books on the subject. I don't spend a lot of time denouncing unicorns; I live my life as if unicorns did not exist. But what we have from the atheist side is a belligerent attack on theism, and specifically on Christianity.

D'Souza should not refer to spirited argument as "militant" or "belligerent." Both of those terms derive from military usage, and both suggest a violent demeanor. Yes, both terms do have secondary meanings that suggest any sort of aggressiveness, and argument can be aggressive. But there is a very big difference between a so-called "militant" atheist who writes a book and a militant atheist who vandalizes a church. Similarly, there is a huge difference between a Christian who argues against abortion and one who murders doctors who perform abortions. I am bothered by the rhetorical blurring of these lines. I suggest that all parties use terms like "militant" and "belligerent" according to their primary usage, and use better-fitted terms to describe speech. For example, a "militant environmentalist" is one who torches buildings or spikes trees, not one who merely writes pamphlets.

But the more important point is D'Souza's use of the unicorn analogy, which is just silly. Of course nobody spends time writing against unicorns, because nobody seriously believes that unicorns exist. On the other hand, most Americans believe that Christianity is true, and that belief profoundly impacts their lives. Moreover, many Christians wish to impose their beliefs on non-Christians. For instance, many Christians want to outlaw all abortions, impose censorship, ban certain types of medical research, spend tax dollars to promote theology, direct U.S. foreign policy according to theological beliefs, and so on. I guarantee that if a unicorn cult advocated similar policies, critics would soon emerge to oppose unicornists, too. Then unicornists would denounce as militant and belligerent the a-unicornists.

Of course, Christians have never shied away from criticizing beliefs that they think are false. Sometimes, Christians have grown militant and belligerent in the literal sense of threatening, harming, torturing, or murdering those with contrary beliefs.

What I like about D'Souza's approach is that he explicitly bases his case for Christianity on reason and evidence. I hope he successfully persuades other Christians to sincerely do likewise.

(Note: after writing the text above, I Googled "D'Souza+unicorns" and discovered that other commentators have made criticisms similar to mine.)

The Power of Moral Suasion

C. Bradley Thompson's sixteen page history of the abolitionist movement -- comprising the introduction to Antislavery Political Writings, 1833-1860, which Thompson edited -- makes for fascinating reading.

Prior to the 1830s, Thompson points out, arguments against slavery tended toward pessimism and compromise. "Like most Americans at the time, [Thomas] Jefferson favored gradual emancipation and the expatriation of the slaves to Africa" (page xv).

During the early 1830s, antislavery thought took a radical turn. Inspired by the Enlightenment natural-rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the religious revivals of the Second Great Awakening, a new moral sensibility -- indeed, a moral revolution -- swept over the American landscape that promoted an uncompromising vision of good and evil. (page xv)

However, within the decade, the abolitionist movement fell into schisms. Is political action necessary to achieve results, or does it compromise and water down the core principles? Thompson reviews the history of the Liberty Party, founded in 1840, and the continued debate over political strategy. Thompson also summarizes the debate over the Constitution: was it fundamentally a proslavery or antislavery document?

What emerges from Thompson's overview is that abolition inspired various tactics, from apoliticism to electoral politics to outright violence. In the end, historical circumstances determined what tactics won out. But those circumstances were made possible only because of the fundamental moral vision of the abolitionists: slavery is immoral and a great evil, and it should be done away with. And it was done away with, within just a few decades of the inception of the movement.