Springtime In Colorado

We met family today at Dillon Lake off I-70. The clouds were spectacular, but the rain held off for most of the day. Here are three photos:






Now if we could just get a political scene as pretty as the mountains...

Waiting Periods for Abortions?

The Colorado legislature will consider a bill to require waiting periods and ultrasound services before a woman can obtain an abortion:

Lawmaker seeking new requirements for abortions
By Mike Saccone
The Daily Sentinel
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Women in Colorado seeking to end their pregnancies would have to be offered an ultrasound before they undergo an abortion under legislation proposed by Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs. ...

Senate Bill 95, introduced Monday, would require abortion providers to give information about receiving ultrasounds to pregnant women who are considering abortion. The bill would require doctors to administer an ultrasound if the woman requests one. Women who are informed of their ultrasound rights and still choose to have the abortion would be required to wait 24 hours before having the procedure.

This bill would violate the rights of doctors and patients by putting political force between them. Mainly the bill would increase the costs -- of money and time -- of obtaining an abortion. Saccone continues:

Jody Berger, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said women often travel long distances to obtain abortions, and making them wait 24 hours to obtain one, after being advised of the availability of ultrasounds, could be a financial burden.

She said it could, for example, force the women to stay overnight at a hotel or make a second long drive to an abortion clinic.

Beyond the extra, needless expense of time and money, the bill treats women as though they were incapable of making their own decisions without the help of politicians. Women are already fully aware of the nature and implications of abortion, and they can already order an ultrasound if they want one. The bill likewise subjects doctors to the whims of political force.

Ironically, Schultheis answered yes to the following question: "Would you oppose legislation mandating a waiting period before the purchase of a firearm?" Apparently, Schultheis believes that women are responsible enough to decide to buy a gun when they want, but not to get an abortion when they want.

Just as the anti-gun lobby attempts to impose additional costs on gun owners in order to discourage gun ownership, so Schultheis wants to impose additional costs on women who want an abortion.

As women have the right to purchase tools of self-defense without political interference, so they have the right to get an abortion without political interference. Of course, Schultheis believes that women have no moral right, and should be striped of their legal right, to get an abortion. He's wrong, but rather than address the issue head-on, he undermines his other views in calling for costly and invasive political restrictions on legally permitted actions.

Tax Cutting for God

Perhaps I was being too optimistic. Earlier today I said that, if he had his act together, Douglas "Bruce could be a strong voice for economic liberty in the state legislature..." But then I remembered this line from The Denver Post:

The bottom line to explain Bruce's success [with the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] is that he would not be deterred.

He refused to give up, and he continues to fight because he believes the tax-and-spend-limit cause has an even higher calling than letting taxpayers keep their money.

"Why did I persist after two losses?" Bruce wrote in an e-mail after being interviewed for this story. "(Why do I now persist after 13 years of retribution, jailing, court intimidation, scores of bogus property citations, seizure of real property and vehicle, public attack and scorn, phony fines, etc. etc.?)

"Because I believe God wants us to be free."

That's it? That's his answer? As many evangelicals are discovering, apparently God wants higher taxes. I don't think Bruce's claim appeals to many Christians, and it certainly does not appeal to those looking for real-world answers to political questions.

Representative Douglas Bruce

I was not bothered by Douglas Bruce's delay in assuming his office; with the delay, Bruce is eligible for another term. Though some Democrats whined that he was "gaming the system," the Democrats are the ones who fought for the existing rules. But I figured that Bruce would count his blessings and save his vitriol for the issues that matter.

Unfortunately, Bruce got into a spat with House Speaker Andrew Romanoff over the timing of Bruce's swearing-in. Of all the conceivable issues for Bruce to contest, surely this was among the least important. As the Rocky Mountain News reported earlier today, even the Republicans tired of Bruce's tactics: Bruce "faced a 22-1 vote by the Republican Caucus to push for replacement of the appointed representative if he didn't take the oath by day's end." Bruce gave in.

Yet, before he took his oath, Bruce inexplicably grew angry with a photographer for -- get this -- taking photographs, and Bruce kicked the poor guy. A video recording of the kick is presented here. Bruce has a reputation as a jerk; everybody knows that. But didn't he realize that kicking a photographer is out of bounds? Here's the excuse (as reported by the Rocky):

Asked by reporters in his office about the incident, Bruce said his kick was warranted and that he had warned the photographers not to take his picture during the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance.

"In 21 years, I don't think there has ever been an instance where I had to do something to stop somebody from behaving in such a coarse and disgusting way," Bruce said.

Arguably, such a kick could be construed as criminal assault, though obviously I think that would be taking matters way too far. But doesn't the First Amendment apply in Colorado's Capitol? The idea that there's something wrong with taking photographs during a prayer at a political event is just silly. Yet regardless of whether such photographs are appropriate, doesn't the journalist have the right to make that call?

Bruce could be a strong voice for economic liberty in the state legislature, but he seems intent on squandering his political capital on foolishness.

Schwartz on Health Mandates

Brian Schwartz wrote an article titled, "The Collective Punishment Model," for today's TCS Daily:

Politicians peddle compulsory insurance under the guise of "personal responsibility." The story is that the uninsured receive medical care without paying for it. Their freeloading passes costs onto the insured, which increases premium costs. Compulsory insurance, say its supporters, can remedy this problem by forcing both the insured and uninsured to purchase medical insurance - as defined by politicians.

Schwartz offers three basic replies to this rationale for mandated insurance. "First, freeloading from the uninsured does not significantly increase insurance premiums." However, the various proposals to impose more political controls on medicine would cost far more.

Second, holding people responsible would mean punishing freeloaders themselves and allowing providers to prevent customers from skipping out on the bill. This is the exact opposite of compulsory insurance, which forces the innocent to purchase insurance policies determined by political interests, rather than their own needs.

I would point out here that, in a voluntary system, such "freeloaders" often would receive charity, either from health-care providers or from independent donors.

"Third, government controls already punish the innocent - insured and uninsured alike - by making medical care and insurance prohibitively expensive."

The biggest reason that some people lack health insurance is that political controls have dramatically increased the costs of health insurance. Now, because of the harm caused by those political controls, some "reformers" wish to impose still more political controls.

Hillman Praises Groff

This week, Peter Groff became the first black president of Colorado's Senate. I don't know him personally (though I've met him), yet everything I know about him suggests that he's a first-rate gentleman. Mark Hillman, who worked with Groff, speaks highly of him. Even though Hillman lost his last political race, he has kept up his political involvement through regular commentary. Hillman has this to say about Groff:

For three years, Groff and I served together in the Colorado Senate. We stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but his integrity, his well-considered principles and his unapologetic advocacy of those principles set him apart from even many of the most respected legislators.

Hillman recalls some of Groff's words:

"We’ve created cultures that run counter to the legacy of Dr. [Martin Luther] King," he said. "Cultures of death, disrespect, division and materialism; cultures resulting in a self-imposed genocide, where we are killing each other at an alarming rate, where you receive street credit for being shot and no credit for graduating from the finest universities in this country; a culture that embraces and glorifies mediocrity and anti-intellectualism."

Instead, he champions "a culture of hope and hard work" and "a culture of excellence," knowing that without these so many of his constituents will be enslaved in cycles of poverty, crime and dependency.

A culture of hope, hard work, and excellence. For all of us. Amen. I would add that, to maintain those values, we need also a culture of liberty, in which the rights of every individual are consistently protected.

New year's Resolutions for the Legislature

From the Colorado Freedom Report:

New year's resolutions for the Legislature

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The following article was originally published by Grand Junction Free Press on January 7, 2008.

Unfortunately, if legislators articulated their New Year's resolutions, some of them would go like this: "Pander to special-interest groups," "Tax the disorganized masses in order to reward the politically powerful," "Talk about freedom while increasing state power," and "Figure out how to spin my opponent's record so that I can win votes without having to debate the real issues."

If most legislators were not allergic to principles of liberty, we would suggest resolutions such as the following: dramatically reduce the level of state spending so that individuals can decide how to spend the money they earn, repeal the property-rights violation known as the smoking ban, and eliminate corporate welfare.

But we know that such "radical," "extreme" positions would never gain a hearing in the modern Capitol, where the only "principle" is that no principles are allowed. Therefore, we will offer a set of milder resolutions that even this year's legislature might consider.

1. Help restore freedom in medicine. Even though decades of political controls have wreaked havoc with health care in America, many of today's "reformers" call for even more political controls. Legislators should resist such demands. To address the problems in health care, legislators should not raise taxes, impose more controls on doctors or insurance companies, or force people to buy politically-approved insurance. Such measures will only make matters worse.

Instead, the legislature should do what it can to restore liberty in medicine, so that doctors, insurance companies, and patients can interact voluntarily to find solutions that work. The state imposes a variety of mandates that force up insurance costs; the legislature should repeal those. However, many of the most important reforms, such as fixing the tax distortions that drive up costs, must be made at the federal level. While the Colorado legislature cannot fix federal problems, at least it can resist "reforms" that would make those problems worse. It could also pass a resolution calling for the repeal of national controls.

To learn more about the causes of modern problems in health care, and how those problems can be solved, read "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," by Coloradans Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, available at TheObjectiveStandard.com.

2. Fight the expansion of the Nanny State. For now, we seem to be stuck with the rights-violating smoking ban. But at least the Democrats have mostly shied away from trying to push more controls on peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. We know that some Democrats sincerely want to put the screws to honest gun owners, but they are holding back for political reasons. Whatever their reasons, we hope that the Democratic leadership continues to resist the siren song of the victim-disarmament lobby.

It looks like some Democrats might actually try to roll back the Nanny State where alcohol laws are concerned. In Colorado, we still can't legally purchase alcoholic beverages at liquor stores on Sundays, which is ridiculous. Nor can grocery stores sell anything other than 3.2 beer. We call on the legislature to repeal those restrictions. Consumers and sellers have a right to conduct business on terms to which they agree, rather than terms forced on them by politicians.

3. Keep tax spending under control. The left is great at talking "on message," and already we are hearing calls to "fix" the state's Constitution. State Senator Bernie Buescher has joined this crowd, according to The Denver Post. Yet, as Douglas Bruce told the Post, "This is all a big smoke screen to go after the [Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] amendment... The way they want to fix the TABOR amendment is the way a veterinarian would fix your pet. They want to neuter it." This despite the fact that we're still paying for the multi-billion dollar net tax increase of Referendum C.

The problem, says the Post, is a set of "provisions limiting taxes and mandating spending." We're all for repealing provisions that mandate spending, such as Amendment 23, which automatically increases the flow of tax dollars to government-run schools. The only reason that the spending limits are a problem is that politicians can't get enough of other people's money. The lesson that politicians constantly forget is that people are able to spend their own money wisely, thank you very much. At least for most of the state's budget, political spending forcibly takes money from some people in order to give the money to others.

We also suggest a broader resolution: protect individual rights. We have the right to control our own bodies and property, so long as we don't interfere with the equal rights of others. We have the right to spend our income as we see fit. The sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights. With every vote, legislators should think about whether they are about to violate or protect individual rights.

Even legislators have been known to do the right thing.

Ref. C Costs Keep Rising

Referendum C is the net tax hike passed in Colorado in 2005. For background, see my "Referendum C Central."

In Colorado, tax dollars collected in excess of what may be legally spent must be returned to the taxpayers, under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. But Referendum C allowed the state government to keep all of the excess dollars for several years, regardless of the amount. (That is why I call it a net tax hike.) The amount has risen dramatically, as The Pueblo Chieftain recently pointed out:

When it was pitched to voters, supporters of the measure initially said it would raise an additional $3 billion over five years - then the figure quickly was raised to $3.75 billion.

We believed the figure would be closer to $7 billion, based on the additional bounty the federal Treasury was bringing in as a result of the economic boost from the Bush tax rate cuts. But we were being too conservative.

Last week the office of Gov. Bill Ritter released its quarterly economic and revenue forecast. That document admitted that our prediction was closer to the truth.

So now we will go boldly where no one has gone before and predict that Ref C will result in an increase in state revenues of $10 billion over the five-year period.

The exact figure will not be known till after the fact, but obviously it will be billions of dollars more than Referendum C's supporters originally predicted.

Dave Kopel writes about this for the recently created Colorado Union of Taxpayers Weblog. Kopel argues:

Although the ref C advocates dishonestly described ref C as as “temporary” “five-year” “time-out” from the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, the effect of ref C will be a permanent increase in state government taxing and spending levels allowed under the state Constitution. And yet, $10 billion extra dollars, over five years, plus billions and billions more in perpetuity, is not enough for the tax consumer lobby, which is gearing up to push another tax increase on the 2008 ballot.

It's not clear exactly when or how the tax-hikers will make their move, but they obviously want to figure out a way to take even more of other people's money by force. Apparently, to them the refrain, "just a few billion more," never gets old.

Anonymous, Verifiable Voting

Very often I agree with Vincent Carroll. But not this time. In his December 27 column for the Rocky Mountain News, Carroll claims that paper ballots are "18th century technology." He points out that mail ballots are also problematic, as "[e]very unwanted ballot is an invitation to attempted fraud." He concludes the section:

The point is not that mail balloting or paper ballots are rife with fraud and error (although mail balloting is clearly the sloppiest system of all), but that we should weigh relative risks before stampeding out of the electronic arena. After all, if I can buy stock electronically without worry, why should I still have to use a pencil on Election Day?

I agree with Carroll's criticisms of voting by mail, which is why I oppose the practice. Of course, nobody is arguing that we must "use a pencil" to vote; that's just a straw man. The issue is whether the vote should be recorded and counted purely digitally, or whether the vote should be recorded and counted via physical records, such as printed or punched paper. (See my earlier post.)

Following is a quick e-mail that I sent to Carroll:

"After all, if I can buy stock electronically without worry, why should I still have to use a pencil on Election Day?"

The answer to your question is simple. When you buy stock electronically, you can verify the transaction online. You can verify the transaction by phone and by regular mail, if you need to. If somebody steals your stock, you will become aware of this, and you will be prompted to take corrective action.

When I vote electronically with no paper record, I have absolutely no way to know whether my vote was counted at all. Nor do I have any way to know whether my vote was counted as I cast it. What if one or more machines malfunctioned? What if somebody tampered with one or more machines? It's quite possible that absolutely no physical evidence would exist regarding such problems.

True, paper ballots can be "lost," miscounted, or altered. But at least there's a much better chance that such problems will yield physical evidence. Assuming that multiple parties always watch the paper ballots, it's much harder for a single person to change or destroy some of them.

I'm all for modern, mechanical, computerized voting systems. But I also want reliable, verifiable results. And that requires a physical record.

The problem is that voting must be anonymous. Sure, if each voter could cast a digital vote that recorded the identity of the voter, these records could be verified. But nobody doubts the logic behind anonymous voting: it is required to prevent coercion. We don't want union bosses, gang leaders, employers, politicians, or bureaucrats to know how people voted. Yet voting totals must be made public. (On the other hand, Vincent Carroll's stock transactions need not be made public.)

So how do we verify vote totals when each vote must be anonymous? The only way to do it is to allow voters to generate a physical record. It's totally fine for a computer to assist in the process. But, ultimately, the output must be something more tangible than a magnetized blip of a hard drive (or the equivalent). (Has Carroll never suffered a computer error, failure, or virus?) Then, the physical records must be carefully monitored by multiple parties, transported to counting centers (again while monitored and protected), and then counted. Machines can do the counting, so long as the process and the results may be verified by human beings. These physical records must be accessible to legitimately interested parties, subject to proper security.

No form of voting is absolutely fail-safe. But a system of protected and monitored physical records is difficult to abuse, and the magnitude of abuse is bound to be minimized. A purely digital system, on the other hand, allows no method of verifying the vote. Such a system will prove a constant temptation for those clever with machines. Abuse of such a system is virtually guaranteed. And we are unlikely even to learn of abuse when it happens.

Voting Machines

Some of us have worried about "black box" voting by which a voter touches a screen and the data are stored on a hard drive only. This digital-only voting creates two potential problems. First, a system error or breakdown could result in lost or altered data, and the alteration might not ever be detected. Second, digital-only voting opens the door to abuse by hackers.

I favor a system in which the voter leaves a "hard" (paper) record that the voter verifies, and then the vote is taken from the hard records. (Alternately, the vote may be taken from a digital copy of the records, so long as interested parties are able to access the paper records to verify the vote count.) No system is totally immune from abuse; paper records can be stolen and altered. But at least there's a better chance that physical evidence of the act will remain.

Yesterday (December 17) State Senator Ken Gordon forwarded a news release from Mike Coffman about Colorado's voting machines. While Coffman's office has not, so far as I can tell, addressed the basic concerns about all-digital voting, at least it has subjected the state's voting machines to more testing:

News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Rich Coolidge

Dec. 17, 2007 (303) 860-6903

Coffman completes electronic voting equipment tests

Premier Voting Systems - only system certified completely by state

Denver, Colorado – Today, Secretary of State Mike Coffman issued his findings from a court-mandated retesting of electronic voting equipment often referred to as "recertification." In September 2006, a district court judge had ruled, in Conroy vs. Dennis, that the certification process used by the Secretary of State's office was inadequate and that the voting equipment had to be retested before the 2008 primary election. Under state law, all electronic voting equipment purchased after May 2004 has to be tested and certified by the Secretary of State’s office after being federally certified.

"My job, as the Secretary of State, is to follow the law and the law requires my office to test the electronic voting equipment used in Colorado to make sure that these systems are secure and can accurately count every vote as set forth by the standards established in state law and mandated by a court order," said Coffman.

Under state law, the clerks and the vendors of decertified equipment will have up to 30 days to formally "Request a Reconsideration" of Coffman’s decisions. The legislature, when it convenes next month, can also decide to modify the requirements set forth in the state’s certification law to allow decertified equipment to be used in the 2008 election. On Wednesday and Thursday, Coffman’s staff will meet with the clerks and the vendors who have decertified equipment for a detailed technical briefing of the testing results and the factors leading to decertification.

"I had to strictly follow the law along with the court order," said Coffman. "If I’m too lenient in determining what passes then I risk having the state taken to court by activists groups who will ask for an injunction on the use of electronic voting machines for the 2008 election, and if I exceed the requirements of state law and the court order, then I will be sued by the vendors who manufacture and sell the equipment."

Coffman carefully reviewed the process for certifying electronic voting equipment used in 2006 and made dramatic changes, which include three additional layers of technical experts reviewing the tests results. He instituted a testing board composed of four technical experts to decide the passage or failure of individual tests, and an outside audit of technical experts to review the testing process, as well as making sure that the results matched the tests. He also engaged the cyber security experts from state government to also review and comment on the security testing.

Coffman’s decisions:

Premier (formally known as Diebold) All voting equipment submitted for recertification passed.

Sequoia The optical scan devices, Insight and 400-C, used to count paper ballots both passed, but the electronic voting machines, the Edge II and the Edge II Plus, both failed due to a variety of security risk factors, including that the system is not password protected, has exposed controls potentially giving voters unauthorized access, and lacks an audit trail to detect security violations.

Hart The optical scan devices, eScan and BallotNow, both failed because test results showed that they could not accurately count ballots. The electronic voting machine, eSlate, passed.

ES&S The optical scan devices (M 100 and the M650) both failed because of an inability to determine if the devices work correctly and an inability to complete the testing threshold of 10,000 ballots due to vendor programming errors. The electronic voting machine (iVotronic) failed because it is easily disabled by voters activating the device interface, and the system lacks an audit trail to detect security violations.

Gordon added:

Today the Secretary of State announced the result of his electronic voting machine testing. ... He decertified electronic voting machines from three of the four national vendors affecting dozens of Colorado counties including Denver, Jefferson, Arapahoe, Mesa and Pueblo.

Tomorrow I am going to hold a legislative hearing where the Secretary of State will present his findings and recommendations. This is the first step toward legislation to ensure that all Coloradans can vote and that their votes are counted accurately.

It is too early to know what legislation will be necessary. ...

Harsanyi Moves to Editorial

I don't know whether David Harsanyi is happy about the move or not, but I hope it works to his advantage. The Denver Post announced today that Harsanyi, who has been writing columns for the paper's news section, will join the editorial team. The article announces:

... David Harsanyi... will move to the Post's op-ed pages. ...

Harsanyi, who joined The Post's staff in May 2004, in part to provide some ideological balance to [former columnist Diane] Carman and then-columnist Jim Spencer, has done his job well, Moore said. Often offering a libertarian "live and let live" take on the policies and practices emanating from city hall and the statehouse, he also has roamed the city for interesting tales of regular folks rubbing up against unforgiving bureaucracies or just plain silliness, Moore said.

His new book, "Nanny State," is a critique of efforts by local, state and federal governments to regulate numerous aspects of our lives.

I am a bit worried about the phrase, "op-ed pages." Does that mean that Harsanyi will have no input in the paper's editorials? Whether or not he helps decide and write the content of editorials, will he write frequent articles under his own name? If the purpose of the move is to balance out the Post's often-shrill left-wing politics, then that's great. But I hope the point is not to limit Harsanyi's voice on the paper.

Meanwhile, William Porter will write a column for the news side. He promises, "I plan to write slice-of-life columns about Denver and the state. No screeds. No term papers. Stories." In other words, he plans to write non-ideological soap-opera-style stories. That's great -- that means that I can safely ignore yet another section of the paper. But we'll see if his columns in fact become ideological pitches that pretend not to be.

Another Look at Blue Laws

David Harsanyi of The Denver Post wrote a fine article for today calling for the repeal of the blue laws -- the prohibition of Sunday liquor sales at stores -- as well as the restrictions on grocery-store sales of liquor and liquor-store sales of food.

But not everybody is convinced. On November 30 I received the following e-mail:

Dear Sir,

I recently opened a liquor store (March 2007) in Pueblo, CO. I am not a rich man. I have my life savings and a 2nd mortgage on my home invested in my modest, one employee (me) store. I have been working 6 days a week 13hrs a day for 8.5 months to make this place a success. It will be another year before I recoup all of my start-up losses.

Wine accounts for 50% of my sales, Beer accounts for about 35%. I am in a plaza with a King Soopers 100' from my door. I had to sign a 5yr lease to get this location. I started this store under existing laws. I've staked my future on it. I'm 53 years old.

If the Blue Laws are repealed and Grocer's are allowed to sell wine and beer that is not 3.2%, I will be ruined. I could not compete with their buying power and and their employee base that would allow them to stay open 16hrs/7days. I will lose my life's savings and my house.

Can you explain to me how your desire to buy wine on Sunday in a grocery store, justifies ruining my life?

Sincerely,
Randall Tierney
Turtles Wine & Spirits
Pueblo, CO

Following is my reply:

The simple fact is that, by sanctioning the blue laws and related statutes, you are violating the individual rights of other store owners and customers in this state. Whether or not the repeal of the blue laws and related liquor laws inconveniences you, those laws are morally wrong. According to the logic of your excuses, no protectionist law (or any unjust law) may ever be repealed, for those protected by political force would lose their unjust advantage over others. Your argument amounts to the claim that the unjust redistribution of wealth in the past warrants unjust redistribution of wealth in the future.

Moreover, you went into business knowing about the existing blue (and related) laws, and if you performed due diligence then you also know that people have been trying to repeal those laws for years. If you did not plan for the possibility of a change in those laws, then you simply didn't do your homework, and you should not force others to suffer continued injustice to pay for your lack of foresight.

Nevertheless, I simply do not believe your claim that the repeal of the blue (and related) laws will necessarily ruin you financially. Can't you compete on service and selection to fill a niche market? If you cannot compete on an open market -- if you do require the force of politicians to harm your would-be competitors -- then you do not deserve to be in business. On the other hand, if you can persuade customers to do businesses with you even when they are free to do business with all other stores willing to sell to them, then -- and only then -- will you have earned your success.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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."

"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.

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."

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.

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."

"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.

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."

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.

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.

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.