John McCain on Religion

Now that it seems more likely that John McCain will become the Republican nominee, I thought it was a good time to see where McCain stands on religion in politics. The short answer is that he's all for it.

The official John McCain web page contains the document, "Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life."

McCain said, "To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all." He really means it. For example, he wishes to force women to sacrifice their lives to the Christian dogma against abortion. Here's what McCain's web page says on the issue:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. ...

McCain's ultimate goal, then, is "ending abortion." The web page lists no exceptions; I don't know whether McCain has mentioned possible exceptions elsewhere. However, it seems that his official web page should be taken at face value as the statement of his positions. If we take the goal of "ending abortion" seriously, that means a complete ban on the "morning after" pill. It means criminal penalties for women and/or doctors involved with abortion. It means that women who are raped will be forced to carry the child to term. It means that women whose lives are in danger will be forced to face death rather than get an abortion. It means that, from the moment the sperm enters the egg, that embryo is fully protected by law, regardless of the the health of the embryo, the cause of the embryo, or the health, choices, and welfare of the woman carrying the embryo. Even if McCain hastens to carve out exceptions, his policy would still subvert the health and autonomy of the woman to an embryo. McCain calls for sacrifice, and he means it. He literally means that women must sacrifice their lives to the "eminence" of the Christian doctrine that equates a fertilized egg with a human being. (Notably, the text about abortion appears on the web page right next to a video titled, "Faith.") That is what John McCain means by the term "human dignity."

Not surprisingly, then, McCain also wishes to potentially sacrifice the lives of sick people to embryos; he opposes stem-cell research. [February 6 update: McCain opposes some forms of stem-cell research but also believes, "Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases..."]

Back in October, I pledged to "vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state." Obviously McCain wishes to impose religious doctrine by force of law. Thus, I will not vote for John McCain for any political office, under any circumstances.

The Catholic Vote

Electa Draper, who wrote a story about why Christians should impose more "progressive" taxation, also wrote a story several weeks ago about the Catholic opposition to various civil liberties. The story begins:

Colo. churches fight "evil" in voting booth
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/05/2007 06:11:08 AM MST

Catholic voters can disagree on issues such as immigration policy and health-care reform, but when it comes to the fundamental right to life, church leaders allow no wiggle room in the voting booth.

All three Colorado dioceses and their lobbying arm, the Colorado Catholic Conference, are spelling out to more than 660,000 Catholics in the state what they believe faithful citizenship looks like.

The first thing to notice is that Draper, a news reporter, refers to "the fundamental right to life," which in this context refers to the alleged rights of a fertilized egg, as though that were just a noncontroversial news fact.

Here's the heart of the piece:

"Some things are intrinsically evil and must be opposed," said Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., at the Gospel of Life conference in Denver in October.

These evil acts, in a guide adopted by Colorado and Kansas Catholic bishops, include elective abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryos in stem-cell research, cloning humans and, though not an equivalent evil, same-sex marriage.

These things are "intrinsically evil" says Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is wrong.

The view that all "elective abortions" are evil arises from the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. The Catholic position would outlaw even the "morning after" pill, when the embryo consists of a bunch of undifferentiated cells. (Of course, many Catholics would also try to outlaw contraception, except that such an effort would never fly in a nation in which most Protestants find no problem with birth control.) The Catholic position would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape and incest. And what counts as an "elective abortion" likely would be narrowly restricted, resulting in more deaths of women.

The Catholic view on stem-cell research derives from the view on abortion. The position against euthanasia -- and, indeed, all suicide -- even when somebody is in horrific pain, arises from the Catholic view that God forbids suicide. (This doctrine is helpful in stopping Christians from killing themselves in order to enter into Heavenly bliss.) And of course the Catholic position against gay marriage arises from the Biblical claims that homosexuality is sinful.

In all of these cases, the attempt is to impose Christian theology through the political system. (Of course, various Catholics disagree with various aspects of these Catholic views.) The result would be the profound violation of the actual "fundamental right to life" of women and the ill, as well as the right to contract by homosexuals.

Forced Medicine and Parental Rights

Various agents of the government confront the problem of defining the line between parental rights and the protection of children from physical abuse. Agents in such cases might respond in one of four ways:

1. Not intervene when parents are within their rights.
2. Intervene to save a child from serious physical abuse and/or death.
3. Not intervene when the child suffers from serious physical abuse (that possibly results in death).
4. Intervene when parents are within their rights.

Even though the first two types are (I can only imagine) much more common, the second two types are the ones that end up in the newspapers, and that is worth bearing in mind. Nevertheless, such abuses result in serious violations of people's rights, so they rightly draw the extra attention.

On January 9, the Rocky Mountain News ran an article that describes a case that seems likely to fall within the fourth type of case. The author of the aricle, John Ensslin, begins:

A Garfield County man [Tom Shiflett] contends sheriff's deputies barged into his home and forcibly took his 11-year-old boy to a hospital after he refused to allow paramedics to examine a bump on the boy's head.

Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, said the deputies were acting on a warrant obtained out of concern about the boy's injuries, which he said also included an ankle injury, a contusion and swelling over his eye. ...

The incident started Thursday at the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park south of New Castle when the son, Jon Shiflett, hit his head "real hard" on the pavement after he grabbed the door handle of a moving car driven by his sister, the father said.

Someone called for an ambulance, but before paramedics arrived, Tom Shiflett said he picked his son up, brought him inside, put him on a couch and applied an ice pack to his head.

When paramedics arrived at the home, Shiflett said he let them look at his son, but refused to let them treat the youngster.

It is likely that, had a wealthy parent in a posh neighborhood, rather than somebody living a a trailer, told the paramedics to take a hike, they would have taken a hike, and the story would have ended there. But our story continues:

That led to a visit on Friday morning from two social workers. Shiflett said when he rebuffed them, they vowed to come back with a court order.

Deputies returned to serve the order later that evening. Shiflett contends he would have let them in if they said they had a warrant.

He claims they gave no such notice and barged in with a battering ram.

Shiflett said deputies temporarily handcuffed him and his wife and their oldest daughter and left with the boy.

Did this violent assault result in better care for the boy? No, it did not:

They returned the boy around 2:30 a.m. Saturday along with a doctor's note advising them to make sure the youngster drank plenty of water, that he take some ibuprofen, that an antibiotic ointment be applied as needed and that a cold compress be put on his bruises.

"This is exactly what I was doing," Shiflett said. He accused deputies of overreacting.

Did the sheriff, Lou Vallario, respond appropriately? The article reports: "Vallario also said two deputies gave the father, Tom Shiflett, 62, ample opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully before a team of officers used force to enter the home."

The sheriff had a "court order," but did he have a responsibility to force the child into treatment? A warrant grants permission to an officer; it does not compel an officer to act. The sheriff had no way of knowing the severity of the injuries. Then again, neither did he have any reason to doubt the claims of the father. Were the paramedics consulted regarding the court order? At least they saw the boy. Was the judge too hasty in issuing the order?

The article continues:

Vallario said his office has had previous confrontations with Shiflett.

In 2005, he said deputies arrested Shiflett on a charge of felony menacing after he allegedly threatened someone with an ax.

That charge was dismissed, the sheriff said, but the case was a factor in the deputies' response. Shiflett said the charge was dropped because he was acting against a man who had threatened his family at his home.

If the charges were dismissed, then the case must be assumed to be lawful self-defense. Aren't people who live in trailers also innocent until proven guilty?

Vallario also questioned why the father would not let paramedics examine the child’s injuries, especially after human-services officials assured the father he would not incur any medical bills.

“Why is this guy being so uncooperative?” Vallario asked. “Where's the harm?”

However, parents -- even those who live in trailers -- have the right not be "cooperative" with paramedics regarding their children's health care, so long as the parents do not place their children in real physical danger. Shiflett sensibly responded: "What’s the harm of letting a parent care for his own child?”

The claim that Shiflett should have released his son to "human-service officials" because Shiflett "would not incur any medical bills" is quite astounding. According to this reasoning, any time that the government creates an entitlement, that implies that government agents can force people to subject themselves to the related services. That road ends in a frightening place.

Ah, but Shiflett is an odd duck, and everybody knows that odd ducks don't have the same rights as everybody else: "Shiflett has 10 children, ranging in age from 8 to 29 years old. All but one were born at home, he said. A remodeler, Shiflett said he has had trouble finding work since he rescinded his Social Security number."

I am suggesting that the courts and the sheriff's office forcibly intervened even though Shiflett was within his rights. However, consider a hypothetical case that begins the same way: a young boy falls, somebody calls an ambulance, the father lets the paramedics look at the boy but not treat him, and social services shows up. But then the judge tells social services to mind their own business, so the sheriff never breaks into the house. How would we evaluate the case if the boy died? Then the situation would seem to fall under type three as described above.

In this case, though, the father did seem to know that the boy's injuries weren't very serious, and he provided appropriate medical treatment. The sheriff's deputies violently assaulted the family members, subjecting them to serious emotional trauma. Here in America, one's home is one's castle, and the legal authorities ought not force their way into somebody's home without a very good reason supported by tangible evidence. In this case, it seems that the social workers, the judge, and the sheriff's office got carried away without sufficient reason to act. But who cares, because Shiflett's just some oddball living in a trailer, right?

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.

"Cost Shifting" in Medicine

Why do we supposedly need to socialize medicine? Here's the answer, according to one Colorado "reformer:"

Health care reform could span years
Lawmakers will begin to lay out a plan based on five proposals from a state panel, but a major package is unlikely this year.
By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/08/2008 12:38:14 AM MST

...Convincing voters to foot the bill for massive health care reform is a huge challenge.

For starters, 92 percent of voters are insured, said Rep. Anne McGihon, a Denver Democrat who chairs the House health committee.

Why would they support a tax increase to give poorer Coloradans health coverage? Lawmakers point to this statistic: Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance. ...

The first reply to the reporter's claim is that her figures seem to be way off. As Brian Schwartz comments beneath the article:

TAX US $400 TO SAVE $100?

...This figure [of $950] conflicts with the "Baseline Coverage and Spending" report* at the 208 Commission's website, which shows this cost to be less than $100.

The Commission's proposed $1.1 billion annual tax increase would force everyone to buy politically-defined insurance. Since 2.8 million Coloradans have private insurance, the tax would cost each privately-insured Coloradan about $400 -- to save $100?

Out of the $1.4 billion annual medical spending for the uninsured, the uninsured themselves pay 45% out-of-pocket. Private philanthropy, workers compensation, and veterans benefits account for another 23%. Public programs, which taxpayers already are forced to fund, account for 15% of medical costs for the uninsured. Only the remaining 17% ($239 million) -- categorized as "free from provider" -- can directly contribute to higher premiums. That's less than $100 per insured Coloradan. ...

208 Commission report at: www.tinyurl.com/yuqkk8

Brian Schwartz, www.wakalix.com

Posted by Brian Schwartz (aka wakalix)
at 10:14 PM on Tuesday Jan 8

In other words, the socializers' "solution" to "cost shifting" is to massively expand cost shifting.

But the fundamental question is, why are hospitals forced to give people "free" care? After all, people who need food or clothes can't show up at the grocery store or the mall and demand free stuff. Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, explain the history in their article, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care':"

One reason for the overcrowding and overuse of ERs is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA). This law requires that hospitals that accept Medicare patients diagnose and treat anyone who comes within two hundred feet of an emergency room, regardless of whether the person can pay for the treatment. The effect of this law is that anyone can walk into an emergency room at any time and receive treatment -- without concern for payment.

That law should be repealed. Those who need medical care and cannot afford it should rely on payment plans or voluntary charity, whether provided by treatment centers or individual donors.

However, the "cost shifting" resulting from forced care is only a minor part of the problem; socializers use it as a pretext to deflect the debate away from the broader issues. A larger problem is the "cost shifting" that results from underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid. But the biggest problem is not "cost shifting" at all -- it is the transformation of insurance to pre-paid, tax-favored medical care, which results in more use without regard for cost and thus ever-higher costs. And that is precisely the problem that any of the schemes to expand political power over medicine would exacerbate -- to then be "solved" through political price-fixing and rationing.

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.

Yaron Brook on Health Policy

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote an outstanding article for yesterday's Forbes.com on health policy. One of the points he makes is that Republicans too have promoted political control of medicine:

...Republicans have been responsible for major expansions of government health care programs: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney oversaw the enactment of the nation's first "universal coverage" plan, initially estimated at $1.5 billion per year but already overrunning cost projections. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged not to raise any new taxes, has just pushed through his own "universal coverage" measure, projected to cost Californians more than $14 billion. And President Bush's colossal prescription drug entitlement--expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion over the next decade--was the largest expansion of government control over health care in 40 years.

Brook briefly reviews the rise of political controls of medicine that have created today's problems, then he outlines the proper approach rooted in individual rights.

Drugs, Health, and Rights

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

Drugs, Health, and Rights: An Exchange

The following exchange consists of e-mails sent yesterday by "Rafaela" of Brazil and me regarding drug prohibition, individual rights, and health policy. --Ari Armstrong, January 7, 2008

Hi Mr Armstrong,

I've recently read an old article of yours, about Dr. Jeffrey Schaler's book "Addiction is a Choice," ...and found many interesting points of view regarding drug use and the prohibition of it, but on a few portions of the article raised some doubts for me.

From what I understood, ultimately you are against drug prohibition, as it is an individual choice from the individual that does not affect others, and even compare today's drug war to an Inquisition of sorts, where people who defend prohibition are mostly driven by a misguided sense of morality.

Now, I don't really have a completely formed opinion on whether drugs should be legalized or not (which is one of the reasons why I enjoyed the opinions in your article). I'm a doctor from Brazil, and the main problem i had with this line of thought is that in my opinion, this is a choice that does affect others. I don't know much about the US medical system, but in Brazil, we have two types of systems: Health Plans (which work exactly like in your country, i'm sure), and the Unified Health System, financiated by the federal and local governments, which provides assistance to the less privileged in all complexities, to simple consults to complex surgeries. Now, wouldn't the increase of substance use bring on a variety of health problems (such as an increase in the incidence of Hep C, HIV and other illnessess not directly related to the use of IV drugs) on these individuals that would ultimately affect the collective health system? I strongly believe in the individual choice, but sometimes the State does interfere in matters of public health in ways that i don't find completely wrong (for example, there's a tropical disease transmitted trough mosquito bites, those were attracted to still waters, there was a strong State campain against reservatoires of stillwater in individuals homes).

Forgive me if I haven't made a lot of sense while writing this, or misunderstood your point, but English isn't my first language, and such mistakes often happen. And I'm also sorry for the length of this.

Thank you very much for your attention,
Rafaela

Ari Armstrong Replies

I'll start with the easiest, most empirical matter first. Would the re-legalization of drugs increase the use of infected needles, and thus increase the number of illnesses? My answer is no: the re-legalization of drugs (and clean needles) would reduce the use of infected needles in favor of clean needles. But there is a broader point: the prohibition of drugs has led to the use of more concentrated drugs, which are often smoked or injected. I believe that, with an end of prohibition, people who use drugs would tend to use them orally more often, which would reduce the number of needles used.

Now for the deeper political issues. It is NOT my view that drugs should be re-legalized because drug use "does not affect others." That is not the correct political standard. Plenty of things that impact others should be outlawed, such as assault, rape, and homicide. Then again, plenty of things that impact others should not be outlawed. For example, if a father eats a poor diet and refuses to exercise, that will impact his children, but diet and exercise should not be matters of law.

The proper political standard is individual rights. We have the right to control our own bodies and resources, provided that we respect the equal rights of others. Quite simply, there is nothing about drug use per se that violates rights. Now, some people who use drugs (including the legal drug alcohol) also commit criminal acts, but they should be punished for those criminal acts, not for the drug use. Obviously, drugs, just like many other objects, can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. The use of marijuana or opiates to ease physical pain can be quite morally proper. Any drug addiction, just like any sort of psychological addiction, is harmful. The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not force people to otherwise behave as they should.

But don't irresponsible behaviors, such as drug abuse, cause more health problems? No doubt. But that is a political problem only under socialized medicine. If socialized medicine justifies drug prohibition (which, by the way, does not eliminate but increases related health problems), then it also justifies diet control, mandatory exercise, the violation of property rights (such as a ban on unhealthy restaurants), censorship, and compelled health education.

As Lin Zinser and Pual Hsieh, MD, write: "A final (and often unacknowledged) consequence of government interference in medicine is that it leads to violations of individual rights in other areas of life, such as violations of the right to free speech and mandates regarding what people may and may not eat. When the government pays our health care bills, in order to save money, it inevitably demands greater control in how we lead our daily lives."

The answer to the problems generated by socialized medicine is not to impose political controls on other parts of our lives, but rather to establish liberty in medicine (as Zinser and Hsieh eloquently argue).

Finally, I would like to address another example you offer in your e-mail. What about people who allow mosquito infestations on their property? As an aside, I am curious: I have often heard the claim that DDT bans have greatly exacerbated the problems of mosquito-born illnesses; do you know if this is the case in Brazil? But on to the example as it stands. A good argument could be made that allowing a mosquito infestation violates the rights of others by subjecting them to dangerous diseases, and thus government intervention of some sort is justified. But I fear that the problem requires the expertise of somebody who knows more about legal theory. Regardless of the legal issues, certainly a voluntary effort to eradicate mosquito infestations and educate people of their dangers would be appropriate. More broadly, what Brazil needs is economic freedom and secure property rights, so that its people can generate the wealth required to solve this and other life-threatening problems.

I hope that my response has been of some interest to you.

Regards,

Ari Armstrong

Voices for Liberty in Medicine

Wayne Laugesen, long a columnist for Boulder Weekly, now works for Colorado Springs's Gazette as "Editorial page editor." Congratulations, Wayne! Though Wayne comes at some issues (such as abortion) from a religious perspective, usually he's a dedicated "classical liberal" who cares first about individual rights. I'll be interested to track his work at The Gazette.

Not coincidentally, yesterday The Gazette ran a substantive editorial endorsing liberty in medicine:

...The Blue-Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform, appointed by legislative leaders and the governor, will present its recommendations to the Legislature on Jan. 31. ...

“The majority of the commission favors a government-heavy proposal,” says Dr. Paul Hsieh, a Denver physician who has studied the new Massachusetts system. “They’re crafting it similar to the Massachusetts model.”

A year old, the Massachusetts system is resulting in rationing and shortages of care, and higher costs to taxpayers than originally expected. ...

Government intervention, in fact, explains the failures of our current system. The IRS code drives most Americans to buy health insurance through employers. That means insurers don’t have to compete for consumers, because for most Americans, shopping around for a better deal involves a career change. And because health insurance has been packaged as a “free” benefit from employers, patients have spent the past half-century consuming health care without challenging the price. ...

State legislators can’t change the morass of federal regulation that has led to a health care system unrestrained by the conventional market forces that control other services and goods. But legislators can improve access to health care by eliminating most of the state controls that prohibit affordable coverage. ...

Brian Schwartz... proposed to the Blue Ribbon Commission a market-based health care reform package that mostly involved deregulation. ...

Hsieh and Schwartz have become leaders in Colorado for liberty in medicine. Hsieh wrote an article with Lin Zinser, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," that explains the problems with health policy and how to fix them.

And yesterday Schwartz also had a letter published in Boulder's Daily Camera:

...[W]e don't have a free market in medical care or insurance. ...Tax-exempt employer-provided insurance coddles insurers by tying us to our employer's plans. Insurers are committed to satisfying customers, which are employers, not you. Hence, they can afford to be stingy and deceptive: they know that losing your premium dollars requires that you change jobs.

What "powerful and wealthy forces" oppose changing this? Labor unions. ...[T]he AFL-CIO supports "single payer health care": politically controlled medicine with government as a monopolistic insurer. This is even worse than buying it through your employer. If you don't like what the government "health barons" offer, it's not enough to change jobs, you must move out of state to change providers.

If you like "single payer," don't worry that the 208 Commission on Healthcare Reform has not recommended it. They recommend an "individual mandate," which makes it a crime not to purchase politician-approved "insurance." Such compulsory insurance is essentially single-payer in disguise. Strict regulations on legal insurance plans severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.

Colorado was supposed to be one of the national testing grounds for socialized medicine. Now, thanks to the work of people like Laugesen, Hsieh, Zinser, and Schwartz, the idea that we need more liberty in medicine, rather than more political controls, has become part of the public debate. While we still face a real and serious threat of more political interference in medicine, at least now liberty has a fighting chance.

God Wins in Iowa

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

The big winner in the Iowan caucuses is Jesus Christ. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are the two most religious -- politically religious -- candidates of their parties. I'm surprised that those candidates came in first. However, I don't believe that they'll win the nominations (though I think it likely that Obama joins somebody else's ticket). Indeed, I would be stunned if either candidate made it to the general election. If both make it, that will demonstrate that this country is in worse shape than I thought, and that we are likely headed toward more expansive religious-based politics.

Here's why I don't think Huckabee or Obama will last. In late 2006, Time published a map titled, "Denomination Nation." If you select for "Mainline Protestants," you will find that Iowa is among the states most heavily populated by such Christians. West of Nebraska, the numbers drop off dramatically.

Huckabee's motto is "Faith. Family. Freedom." -- in that order. Huckabee leaves no doubt that he will interpret "freedom" through the lens of faith, which means that he will sacrifice genuine freedom to faith.

Under his "Issues" page "Faith and Politics," Huckabee writes, "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth."

On the issue of abortion, Huckabee writes,

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. ... I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage. ... With respect to stem cells, I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.

However, if Huckabee passes an amendment outlawing abortion, this will necessarily impose criminal penalties on women and/or their doctors. (I do not imagine that the amendment will read, "Pretty please don't have abortions; Congress shall pass no law enforcing this amendment.") Then real police with real guns will arrest real people and throw them into real jails, Huckabee's disingenuous "desires" notwithstanding.

It is unclear to me what exceptions Huckabee might allow. Would he outlaw all abortions from the moment the sperm enters the egg? What about cases of rape, incest, or dangers to the life of the mother? And who gets to make such calls? How many doctors will be called before the Inquisition to prove that an abortion was necessary to protect the woman's life? And how many women will be called to prove that their miscarriages were accidental?

However, even an abortion ban with numerous exceptions and light enforcement would severely violate the rights of pregnant women who do not wish to have a child. (The fact that many abortions result from irresponsible sex does not change this fact.) The sort of abortion ban that many Christians favor would outlaw abortions of fertilized eggs. Thus, the "morning after" pill would be outlawed, and, presumably, manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of such a pill would bring criminal penalties. Yet the position that a fertilized egg or a cluster of cells should be granted the same rights that you have is grounded on the Christian dogma that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Such a policy imposes religion by political force.

Huckabee also wishes to outlaw certain types of medical research based on his religious beliefs. I don't know where Huckabee stands on issues of censorship and "faith-based" tax subsidies. (For further discussion on religion in politics, see my blog post on Fred Thompson and then link back from there.)

Aside from his rejection of the separation of church and state, Huckabee is a typical "moderate" left-wing statist. He endorses environmentalism through political force and better health through federal controls, as examples. Mark Joseph's December 31 column about Huckabee is telling:

The stunning and rapid ascendence of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has shocked prominent old-guard Washington Republicans and conservatives, leaving them shaking their heads, wondering how a social conservative with a fairly liberal record on issues like immigration, education, taxes and spending can possibly be commanding the allegiance of so many Christian conservative voters. ...

For Huckabee is an unreconstructed and unapologetic pre-1980 Republican who has more in common with William Jennings Bryan than Ronald Reagan and whose views expose the deep rift that has always existed between social and economic conservatives. ...

[T]he emergence of Huckabee and his hybrid conservative/liberal style may finally produce the much ballyhooed conservative crackup that so many commentators have been predicting.

Obama would expand national controls over virtually every aspect of our lives. Yet at least he talks about the separation of church and state. Yet he clearly believes that God has called him to use the power of the national government to carry out religious goals. The document, "Barack Obama on Faith," states that "God is constantly present in our lives..." And Obama wants to make sure of it. "Faith is a source of action for justice." In this context, "justice" is a euphemism for political controls to force people to obey Obama's version of Christian "charity." For some examples, see Obama's proposals on poverty. He wants to expand "career" subsidies, "create a green jobs corps," expand subsidies for "urban planning initiatives," increase the forced wage rate, etc. Obama also wants to impose "a new national health plan."

Obama is thus in tune with the socialist tradition. The difference is that he justifies his socialism by faith.

The election of Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama as President of the United States would constitute a national disaster. Fortunately, that's not likely to happen.

Health-Care "Reform"

Yesterday John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, sent out an email pointing out some of the absurdities coming out of today's health-care "reform" movement:

Exhibit A: Critics who complain that the US health care system outspends every other country and gets nothing in return and then advocate...(can it be?)...more spending! For Sen. Obama, it's $60 billion more every year. For Sens. Clinton and Edwards, it's $120 billion - more than $1,000 per year for every household in America.

Exhibit B: Critics who complain that the error rate in US hospitals is way above anything that is tolerable in any other industry and then advocate more rules and regulations that would...(surprise!)...make it more difficult for hospitals to operate like other businesses.

Exhibit C: Critics who complain that poor people have inadequate access to health care and then advocate enrolling them in health plans where...(you guessed it)...they will have even less access than they have today.

Under ordinary circumstances this would all be laughable, but in health care - hey, they might get away with it.

Goodman points to his article, "Applying the 'Do No Harm' Principle to Health Policy," as well as to a health plan from his organization. However, for a clear account of the problems with American health care and a principled solution rooted in liberty, I suggest the article by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'."

Peikoff's Fifth Podcast

Leonard Peikoff's podcasts are interesting enough that I want to alert my readers to new installments. Peikoff published his fifth podcast on December 23. Most of his comments relate to politics.

The first question may seem obscure to people unfamiliar with debates within Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand). Peikoff is working on a new book about "DIM," or Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration. Peikoff argues that Objectivism promotes the proper integration of the facts of reality. An example of disintegration is skepticism; the most common form of "misintegration" -- or system building apart from reality -- is religion. As an application of his work, Peikoff has argued that, today, religion is the larger threat. The question asks whether one must accept Peikoff's theory of DIM in order to be an Objectivist; Peikoff answers no.

The second question concerns the significance of political parties. Peikoff argues that, in today's mixed economy in which parties are affiliated with pressure groups, parties are "very influential." The problem that Peikoff finds with today's Republican party is that it has been promoting "medieval Christian fundamentalism." Peikoff further argues that, today, the main conflict is not the individual versus the collective, but rather reason versus religion.

For the third question, regarding Ron Paul (a Republican presidential candidate), Peikoff asked Yaron Brook for his view. Brook replied that Paul's foreign policy is essentially libertarian in that it blames America for Islamic attacks. Paul also wants to return abortion to the states rather than ensure its legality. For these reasons, Paul strikes out with Peikoff. (I agree with the analysis of Brook and Peikoff.)

Should the United States government rescue slaves who aren't American citizens? Peikoff replies that, while the U.S. government must rescue its citizens from slavery, it shouldn't try to save non-citizens. After all, the government is funded by its citizens in order to protect the rights of its citizens. However, a voluntary charity to help other slaves is fine. Peikoff argues that the best way for the U.S. government to help spread freedom around the world is to establish genuine freedom here at home.

Finally, Peikoff discusses the moral status of accepting the unearned.

My review should be considered a summary only; my purpose is merely to alert readers to some of the issues covered by Peikoff in his podcasts (which are not searchable). Please don't take my word for it -- listen to Peikoff's podcast yourself.

Christianity Versus Liberty

Many Christians proclaim that their religion is responsible for the rise of liberty in the West. They make this claim despite the fact that Christians ruled over centuries of stifling (and sometimes murderous) oppression, despite the fact that liberty did not gain traction until the Enlightenment, an era that seriously challenged religious dogma. Today, some Christians fight to control the economy, while others fight to control our personal lives. Increasingly, these two camps are finding common cause.

In a December 30 column for the conservative Townhall.com, Ken Connor, "a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case," argues that the Christian right and the Christian left should come together. He argues that the Christian right should be more sensitive to the egalitarian left's plans to forcibly transfer wealth:

Perhaps liberal evangelicals will help remind the body of Christ that our greatest obligation is not to be financially successful or politically triumphant, but to love our Lord and our neighbor, even in public life. Perhaps they will also encourage us to develop new political solutions to the timeless problem of material poverty. As conservatives, our policy proposals probably won't include lots of major Federal programs because our experience shows that solutions rooted in the expansion of governmental bureaucracy often do more harm than good. However, we must not fall prey to the rhetoric of secular conservatives who put worldly financial concerns above all else. As Christians, we have a duty to address the needs of the poor, and it would be wrong for us to fall prey to a radically individualistic mentality. "Dog eat dog" is not a biblical phrase and "the survival of the fittest" is not a Christian concept. Our priority is the common good, with a special concern for those who have the least.

Note here that Connor finds no principled reason for the national government to refrain from forcibly transferring wealth; he thinks the activity is just fine, so long as it can be shown to do more good than harm (by what standard he does not mention). Apparently, Conner has even fewer reservations about using state and local force to transfer wealth.

Connor explicitly denounces individualism in favor of "the common good," and he associates a system of liberty, in which people interact voluntarily rather than by force and in which the rights of each individual are consistently protected, with a "dog eat dog... survival of the fittest." In other words, in his political goals and his evaluation of liberty, Connor's views are indistinguishable from those of socialists.

Connor also hopes to bring the Christian left on board with the Christian right's social agenda:

At the same time, perhaps there are ways in which we can help progressives look at things differently. ... Al Sharpton... criticized the black church for being too worried about what he called "bedroom issues": marriage and abortion. He thinks they should mobilize on social justice issues rather than be distracted by abortion. On something like this, we have an obligation to vigorously defend the unborn. Perhaps we can help progressive Christians like Al Sharpton understand that abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time.

In other words, Connor wants to convince the left that it's a great idea to subject women and/or the doctors who serve them to criminal penalties for aborting a fertilized egg, based on the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. And this is just one example for Connor; no doubt he could think of many additional reasons to send out men with guns to arrest and imprison people.

I do not expect a quick convergence of Christian left and right. Instead, what is likely to happen is that the Christian right will become less and less interested in defending any vestige of economic liberty, while the Christian left will show less resistance to social controls. Both sides will "compromise" by allowing the other side its favored controls.

Dempsey Challenges Unreasonable Alcohol Laws

Bob Dempsey, the coroner of San Miguel County, wrote a critique of two of MADD's policies, the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol limit for driving and the 21-year age restriction. Dempsey's article was published on December 29 in The Telluride Watch. Regarding the blood-alcohol limit, Dempsey writes:

... Among coroners who I have talked to, most believe problems don't begin until about 0.12, which would be a more realistic legal level. ... At 0.08 there is little probability of causing an accident. Because of MADD's low-limit success, the fight against drunk driving has shifted from serious abusers to responsible drinkers. Law enforcement has become less selective, less prepared to ferret out drunk drivers and is losing focus on the real threat, namely, habitually drunk drivers. ...

Karolyn Nunnallee, president of MADD, predicted in 2000 that a nationwide 0.08 standard "will save 600 lives every year."

It hasn't worked that way. The July 2007 issue of Contemporary Economic Policy examined data by Sam Houston State University and concluded, "There's no evidence that lowering the legal level reduced fatality rates."

Regarding laws that raise the legal drinking age to 21 -- laws that I have long opposed on grounds of fairness -- Dempsey writes:

This 21-year-old law has helped the "forbidden fruit" reputation of alcohol, and is linked to an astonishing increase in binge drinking among adolescents and young adults. Drinking to intoxication is the norm for 18-20 year olds, which significantly impairs one's ability to make safe decisions, including the choice to get behind the wheel of an automobile.

When I went to college with an 18-year age-limit on drinking, there was no thought of binge drinking. We had too much fun socializing at lounges, behaving as responsible young adults. We would have been stigmatized otherwise. It could be the same today if we gave our youth a chance. This approach works in the rest of the world.

Our youth are better prepared today because MADD has done a superb job of educating the public of the dangers of drunk driving. But, they are unrelenting and refuse to admit that prohibition never works, causes more reckless drinking and worse, it forces it underground and breeds disrespect for the law.

Dempsey notes that Canadian provinces successfully lowered their drinking ages from 21 to 18 or 19. He notes that the organization "Choose Responsibly" is working to lower the drinking age in the United States.

Taipei Times

Congratulations to Coloradan Mike Williams, whose letter appeared on December 22 in Taipei Times, a publication in English about Taiwan. Williams writes:

...US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen... continues the Washington realpolitik tradition of preserving the "status quo" at all costs in warning against the dangers of Taiwan's UN referendum.

Even as the US rightly continues to sell advanced weapons systems to Taiwan, it also follows a pragmatic course that protects its financial interests in "one China."

However, Washington's insistence on continuing the current stalemate in cross-strait relations only ensures temporary security for Taiwanese. Tragically, such a policy fails to deal with the long-term, and increasingly severe, consequences of delaying official US and world recognition of the reality that the Republic of China on Taiwan exists as a self-governing country and has a right to do so.

The continuing US foreign policy charade not only leads to Taiwan's acceptance of questionable "friends" such as Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, but also allows Communist China to deploy ever more sophisticated military, economic and political threats against Taiwan, emboldening it to think that it can take such action with the acquiescence of other world powers.

A principled foreign policy would lead the US to openly ally itself with other rights-respecting governments, which would clearly include Taiwan. Of course, such a principled stance is unlikely to emerge out of Washington (or almost any other national capital) today.

In the meantime, the spectacle of Western Europe's condemnation of Taiwan's UN referendum should be carefully considered and not long forgotten by Taiwanese or Americans alike.

Williams recommends Taipei Times as a source of international news.

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.

Green by Force

The sort of green of which Ayn Rand approved was the honest earning of money. (Actually, she favored gold, but she would accept greenbacks that actually served as certificates of gold holdings.) But Rand would have had little patience with today's "green" environmentalist movement.

Interestingly, Alternative Energy Retailer published an article based on the comments of Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute. The basic point of the article is that government ought not subsidize or mandate "alternative" energy. I also found Epstein's following quote interesting:

The purpose of government is the protection of the individual rights of all to their lives, liberty and property. For government action to be justified in response to claims of global warming -- the cause of today's alternative energy infatuation -- it must be scientifically demonstrable, in a court of law, that individuals' burning of carbon fuels will do demonstrable harm to specific individuals through some sort of catastrophic change in weather. The state of evidence regarding global warming today is not even close to that. Even the highly politicized, highly speculative United Nations projections of a gradual, 8-degree-average warming over the next 100 years would be easily dealt with by industrialized people, who have sturdy houses, air conditioners, and sunscreen to cope with heat or bad weather, and ample time to migrate if necessary.

I fear that Epstein is considering a hypothetical without looking at the facts of "greenhouse" gas emissions. If it were the case that some limited number of companies or individuals were emitting most of the emissions, and if those emissions demonstrably harmed others, then the matter would be actionable. However, every single person in the industrialized and semi-industrialized world is contributing to the emissions of "greenhouse" gasses. Any lawsuit would necessarily target some tiny and arbitrarily selected minority of those who emit such gasses. And anyone who might bring such a suit would be a party to the alleged harms. Every person and company that emits "greenhouse" gasses (and every person and company that could possibly file suit) contributes only a miniscule portion of total emissions. Thus, the matter is not properly actionable. That criticism aside, Epstein eloquently states his main point that government force is wrong.

In a December 21 release from the Institute, Keith Lockitch criticizes the new fuel "economy" mandates:

Compelling automakers to achieve higher mileage forces them to compromise automobile safety. To achieve fuel economy, they are forced to make vehicles lighter and smaller. But lighter, smaller vehicles are much more dangerous in an accident. ...

The original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, imposed in 1975, have already led to a substantial increase in traffic fatalities -- an additional two thousand traffic deaths per year, according to a 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences. With the new standard, manufacturers will be forced to downsize even further all cars, as well as SUVs and light trucks. ... Nevertheless, environmentalists have continued to fight for higher fuel economy requirements, consistently and cavalierly dismissing the risks and the tragic consequences.

Despite the drumbeat of constant assertions to the contrary, it is far from a settled scientific fact that we face catastrophic dangers from climate change. Yet, under the guise of protecting us from the alleged dangers of global warming, environmentalists force upon us the very real, provable dangers of increased auto injuries and deaths. Clearly, what they value is something other than human well-being.

I'm glad to see that the Institute is offering astute commentary about these issues.

Fred Thompson on Religion

Even though Mitt Romney has lost his momentum and Mike Huckabee seems to have improved his position, I would still be surprised if Huckabee came away with the Republican nomination. It's obvious, though, that Romney's Mormonism is hurting him with some of the Protestants of the right. (His statism, the issue that matters, is hurting him with some.) However, I don't think that Huckabee will find much success in the relatively secular Interior West or on the coasts.

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson's campaign has sputtered out. Nevertheless, his campaign did send me a letter that mentions church and state. (I last recorded Mitt Romney's positions on church and state; link back from there to find additional commentary.) Thompson's letter, dated November 24, offered no details: "I know one challenge that concerns you is about church and state issues. [Or, fill in the blank.] For more information on my policy views, please visit my website at www.Fred08.com." So I did.

Thompson believes (see "Principles"), "A healthy society is predicated on belief in God..." Unsurprisingly, then, Thompson wishes to impose Christian doctrine through politics. Even though he claims (see "On the Issues: Building Strong Families") that he wishes to "advance freedom of religion," elsewhere he makes it clear that what he really wants to advance is religion itself, via political force.

The web page states:

Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act... While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.

So Thompson wants to outlaw at least most abortions. I don't know whether Thompson would make exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, but his commitment to "every life" seems to include every fertilized egg, regardless of circumstances. Thompson would also forcibly ban some medical research, according to his religious dogma.

Under "Protecting our Kids," Thompson writes, "While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced." Unfortunately, nobody has ever offered an objective definition of "obscenity," because there is none. Does anyone wonder where religious conservatives would draw the line, if they controlled prosecutors and the courts? Thompson also writes, "Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer." But parents are already so "empowered," simply by virtue of being parents. What more does Thompson have in mind? I'm not sure, but it seems to involve more federal controls.

I could not find whether Thompson supports the spending of tax dollars for religiously-affiliated groups. He does express support for vouchers, which presumably would direct some tax dollars to religious schools.

Obviously, Fred Thompson holds no serious commitment to the separation of church and state -- he instead seeks to forcibly impose religious doctrine. Therefore, I will not vote for Fred Thompson for any office, under any circumstances.

The Bulb Ban

Paul Hsieh wrote an especially good (if depressing) post December 19 titled, "Outlawing the Traditional Incandescent Light Bulb." He quotes four news articles and offers his own comments:

The new energy bill (passed by Congress and just signed into law by President Bush) will outlaw the traditional incandescent light bulbs over the next several years, requiring instead more expensive "energy efficient" bulbs as part of the fight against global warming. Of course, if these new bulbs are more cost-effective in the long run, then there's no need to mandate their use. And if they aren't, then this is just another burden on consumers. Either way, it's a violation of the individual rights of producers and consumers of those products.

This is on top of the recent shameful capitulation by the US on global warming policy at the recent international Bali conference, in which the US gave into the demands of the rest of the world.

Those who think that the Republicans and/or the religious conservatives will provide any kind of principled defense against the anti-reason and anti-human views of the environmentalists are in for a rude awakening. ...

Although I'm sure it's unintentional, I find it ironic that the environmentalists and the evangelicals are teaming up to extinguish Thomas Edison's incandescent light bulb, the long-time symbol of reason and thought.

By the way, I have purchased the energy-efficient bulbs for my house. Costco sells them for a reasonable price, and I believe that they cost me a little less to operate. But the idea of the federal government dictating to us what sort of light bulbs we may buy is ridiculous and offensive. If the federal government can force us to buy the bulbs that politicians decide are good for us, then there is, in principle, hardly anything that the federal government cannot force us to do.

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 th