Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use
Ari Armstrong's 2012 Posts
Following are consolidated blog posts I wrote in 2012, republished here on August 18, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. I may not in every case still agree with my older positions. Paragraphs that begin "Comment" are notes by readers, unless marked otherwise. Because so many of the hyperlinks have since become "dead," I removed almost all of the hyperlinks and (usually) put the original url in parenthesis. Due to minor editing and formatting changes the material here may not exactly match how it originally appeared.
Major themes include John David Lewis, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, guns and gun policy, free speech and campaign finance, the Constitution, the Tea Party, the Cottage Food bill, news media, the Independence Institute, drug policy, the Monty Hall problem, Westminster's drug checkpoint, plea bargains, liberty in medicine and health policy, Obamacare, Rush, films, Liberty on the Rocks, the Aurora theater murders, the Jessica Ridgeway murder, and the anti-abortion personhood movement.
December 2011 In Review
January 2, 2012
December brought my 2011 to an ambitious close as I covered gun statistics from the Denver Post, reviewed the speech-infringing campaign laws, and more. (See also my (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/11/my-year-in-review_30.html) Year In Review through November.)
Gun Statistics
When I read a set of gun-related statistics in a December 28 Denver Poststory, the reported claims didn't seem right to me. So I started digging into the data and found very different figures. By the end of the day I had written two articles on the matter, the Denver Post had issued a correction to its online article, and Glenn Reynolds had linked to my main article through his (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/134359/) Instapundit.
Largely because of the Instapundit link, my article, (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/joey-bunch-misstates-gun-statistics-in.html) "Joey Bunch Misstates Gun Statistics in Denver Post," got 13,446 page views (as of this writing).
Originally the Post reported the following: "More than 500 children in the United States die in gun accidents each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a 2007 report, which estimated 1.7 million children live in homes where guns are kept."
But, I discovered, that single sentence contains three serious errors. First, in 2007, 112 minors (under age 18) died from unintentional shootings. Second, the "1.7 million" figure refers to the number of children who (based on unreliable survey data) live in homes where unlocked and loaded guns are kept. Third, there was no 2007 CDC report reporting those figures.
However, obviously it's a very bad thing when anyone dies of unintentional gun fire (or any other hazard); I wrote about that general problem in a follow-up article, (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/tragedy-of-fatal-hazards-for-children.html) "The Tragedy of Fatal Hazards for Children." I found, among other things, that children are more likely to die from drowning, falls, fire, poisoning, suffocation, or transportation than they are to die from unintentional gun fire.
Because of my write-up, I was invited on to the December 30 radio show for NRA News. I spent about ten minutes explaining the statistics and the positive trend lines in terms of reduced deaths due to unintentional gun fire.
My reporting even earned some praise from left-leaning blogger (http://bigmedia.org/) Jason Salzman, who wrote on his (https://twitter.com/#!/BigMediaBlog/status/153200820328996864) Twitter feed, "Some conservatives mindlessly slam The Post, but here's an example from @ariarmstrong of how to complain constructively." (Of course, I don't consider myself a conservative, though I am friendly with many conservatives.)
Articles for The Objective Standard
I also coauthored an article for The Objective Standard, wrote a book review, and wrote four posts for the journal's blog. (Of all the work listed in this write-up, I get paid directly only for my work for that journal, in addition to my work with Liberty In the Books).
Diana Hsieh and I wrote the following article:
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/abortion-rights.asp) The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties
I also submitted a book review on (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/andrew-bernstein.asp) Andrew Bernstein's Capitalist Solutions.
For the journal's blog I wrote the following:
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/contra-occupiers-profits-embody-justice/) Contra Occupiers, Profits Embody Justice
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/to-protect-rights-phase-out-payroll-tax-completely/) To Protect Rights, Phase Out Payroll Tax Completely
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/obamas-osawatomie-shakedown-critics-roundup/) Obama's Osawatomie Shakedown: Critics' Roundup
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/newt-sides-with-anti-abortion-zealots/) Newt Sides with Anti-Abortion Zealots
Op-Eds Published Elsewhere
On Denver 19 the Denver Post published my op-ed, (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19565147) "Tebowmania isn't just for Christians." On December 20 my op-ed was listed in the second spot for the paper's "Top Opinion Stories."
I also coauthored two articles for Grand Junction Free Press:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/gessler-emerges-as-free-speech.html) Gessler Emerges as the Free Speech Secretary of State
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/twas-night-before-they-occupied-north.html) 'Twas the night before they occupied the North Pole
Campaign Laws Vs. Free Speech
On December 15, I spoke at a Secretary of State hearing on Colorado's campaign laws. I also recorded the video testimony of others and published it on YouTube:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/campaign-finance-rules-collected.html) Campaign Finance Rules: Collected Testimony
I also wrote up extensive comments prior to the meeting:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/comments-regarding-secretary-of-states.html) Comments Regarding the Secretary of State's Dec. 15 Campaign Finance Rule Hearing
Earlier in the month I gave a talk at Liberty On the Rocks about the campaign laws, along with Diana Hsieh:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/reviewing-cos-campaign-laws.html) Reviewing CO's Campaign Laws
As mentioned, I coauthored an article on the matter for (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/gessler-emerges-as-free-speech.html) Grand Junction Free Press.
I was also quoted in the (http://durangoherald.com/article/20111216/NEWS01/712169934/-1/News01/Gessler-draws-fire-praise-for-campaign-finance-plans) Durango Herald on the campaign laws: "I think it's a travesty and a mockery of the First Amendment that Colorado citizens are being dragged into court for daring to engage in the political process." (Diana Hsieh also was quoted by the (http://www.chieftain.com/news/colorado-considering-big-campaign-finance-changes/article_b7230a20-27af-11e1-92a7-0019bb2963f4.html) AP on the matter.)
Also, Matt Arnold reported that an audio clip from my video (https://youtu.be/ILVokdDsPiE) of State Senator John Morse was used in a segment for 560 KLZ radio.
Social Media
I posted 442 Tweets on my (https://twitter.com/ariarmstrong/) Twitter feed (ending the month at 10,932 total Tweets), and I gained 51 new followers, moving from 1,168 to 1,219.
The "likes" on my (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ari-Armstrong/171928302837272) Facebook page grew from 211 to 238.
On my (http://www.youtube.com/ariarmstrong/) YouTube channel, I posted eight videos, all about the campaign laws except for one about Ayn Rand's We the Living. That brings my total to 173 videos. Following are two of the December offerings.
Other Major Blog posts
I posted 21 articles to the blog in December. The major ones include the following:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/nanny-statist-sullivan-arrested-for.html) Nanny Statist Sullivan Arrested for Consensual Crimes: My commentary on Sullivan informed an article by (http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/30/colorado-drug-warrior-busted-for-meth-di) Jacob Sullum for Reason magazine. Sullum also linked to my article in a (https://twitter.com/#!/jacobsullum/status/142667472254926848) Tweet, writing, "CO drug warrior accused of trading meth for sex also busted johns and opposed legal gambling."
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/paul-johnson-2012-libertarians-best.html) Paul-Johnson 2012: The Libertarians' Best-Case Scenario
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/delusional-gary-johnson.html) The Delusional Gary Johnson
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/what-about-colorados-millions-of-other.html) What About Colorado's Millions of Other Tax Scofflaws?
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/nrf-blames-banks-for-harms-of-federal.html) NRF Blames Banks for Harms of Federal Price Controls on Credit Cards
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/officials-wage-war-on-colorado.html) Officials Wage War on Colorado Businesses
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/belated-apology-to-littwin.html) Belated Apology to Littwin
Book Clubs
I moderated the December discussion for the Denver (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/libertybooks.html) Liberty In the Books.(I also participated in a book club for Longmont Objectivism.)
John David Lewis Fought for the Future
January 4, 2012
Historian (http://www.johndavidlewis.com/press/) John David Lewis passed away early Tuesday morning after fighting cancer. Lewis, who specialized in classical Greece, delivered several lectures in Colorado over the last few years for (http://frontrangeobjectivism.com/) Front Range Objectivism, a group that shares Lewis's appreciation for the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Rand once said, "Those who fight for the future live in it today." Lewis, a man who studied the past, applied the lessons of his scholarship to the matter of creating a better future. To me, he was a profoundly insightful scholar, a modern champion of liberty, and a friend.
Lewis wrote three books: (http://www.johndavidlewis.com/press/books/early-greek-lawgivers/) Early Greek Lawgivers, (http://www.johndavidlewis.com/press/books/nothing-less-than-victory-decisive-wars-and-the-lessons-of-history/) Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History, and (http://www.johndavidlewis.com/press/books/books/) Salon the Thinker.
In addition, Lewis wrote many articles about current events for such publications as (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/site-search.asp?q=john+lewis&s=search) The Objective Standard and (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/author/author42/) Capitalism Magazine.
Following is the material by or about Lewis that I have published:
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/01/lewis.html) Take War to the Enemy, Lewis Urges
Lewis discussed foreign policy at the University of Colorado, Boulder (as reviewed here).
(http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/020107.html) Renaissance Man
In 2007, Lewis gave three talks in Colorado. The topics were individualism, early Greek law, and individual rights in medicine. My article summarizes those talks.
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/02/lewis.html) Lewis Illuminates Solon's Political Thought
I further review one of Lewis's 2007 talks, then discuss his book about Solon.
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/john-lewis-at-tea-party.html) John Lewis At Tea Party
Lewis addressed a Tea Party event in Charlotte. See also his 2009 Tea Party talk (https://youtu.be/z-S-cbhmLjQ) Part I and (https://youtu.be/acUQRWGC_8U) Part II).
(http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/05/john-lewis-reflects-on-tea-parties.html) John Lewis Reflects on Tea Parties
While in town for a lecture on the Athenian Constitution, Lewis reflected on the Tea Party movement.
(http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/05/john-lewis-on-constitutions-athens-and.html) John Lewis on Constitutions, Athens and Now
Lewis briefly summarized the basic conflict, in ancient Greece and in modern America, between democracy (mob rule) and constitutional government.
Photos of John
Following are several photos from John's various trips to Colorado. Two of these photos show John talking with his former student, Joe Collins, now a teacher in Fort Collins. The photo of John and his wife Casey was taken by Kelly Valenzuela at the couple's Fifteenth Anniversary celebration in Las Vegas. I've put these photos in a (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/JohnDavidLewis) Picasa folder.
The John David Lewis Memorial Fund
The Ayn Rand Institute (https://www.facebook.com/ybrook/posts/308415572531058) relates: "It was Dr. Lewis's wish that in lieu of customary gestures of condolence, those wishing to honor his memory should send contributions to the John David Lewis Memorial Fund at the(http://anthemfoundation.org/about-anthem/support-anthem.html) Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship and/or the John David Lewis Memorial Fund at the (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=support_ways_to_contribute) Ayn Rand Institute."
In Remembrance of John
John will be deeply missed by friends and associates from around the country. (I'll post updates.)
(http://centerforindustrialprogress.com/2012/01/04/remembering-john-lewis/) Remembering John Lewis - Alex Epstein
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/john-david-lewis-a-man-who-lived/) John David Lewis: A Man Who Lived - Craig Biddle
(http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/john-lewis-hero-and-friend.html) John Lewis, Hero and Friend - Diana Hsieh
(http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=johnLewis) In Memoriam: John David Lewis, 1955-2012 - Ayn Rand Institute
(https://www.facebook.com/Peikoff/posts/281771211872289) John Lewis - Leonard Peikoff
Colorado Tributes to John
Following are some memories of John from his friends in Colorado. (Others in Colorado who knew John are welcome to send me their comments as well.)
Kelly and Santiago Valenzuala:
John was one of the people in this world that we admired most and his loss is a great one to mankind. Fortunately, he left many of us with wonderful ideas to not only live by, but share and pass along in our efforts to improve the culture. On a personal level, John and Casey, their love and the way they lived their lives together, during good times and bad, was an inspiration to us. I will never forget their 15th wedding anniversary in Las Vegas and the wonderful pictures I took of them that week. Santiago and I have decided that should our baby be a boy (which is what we're hoping for), his middle name will be Lewis, in honor of John.
Paul Hsieh:
I remember many things about John Lewis.
I remember his excellent lectures on ancient Greece at the OCON summer conferences. I remember a wonderful impromptu jazz piano performance he gave one evening at the Seaport Hotel in Boston. I remember when he was our house guest in Colorado raking horse manure, while telling fascinating tales about the battle tactics of the mounted Mongol archers.
But what I remember most about John was how he helped me regain my will to fight for my values back in 2009. At that time, the battle over ObamaCare health legislation was in full swing and I had become deeply discouraged. It seemed that despite all my blogging and letter writing, I wasn't getting anywhere. My efforts seemed futile and pointless, like someone trying to fight a raging forest fire armed only with a tiny squirt gun. I was on the verge of quitting health care activism altogether.
But then one of John's articles on ObamaCare got picked up by Rush Limbaugh.
Rush quoted extensively from John's piece on his radio show, sending John's words to millions of Americans. John's example showed me that a single man, armed with the right ideas—and willing to articulate them with clarity and conviction—can indeed make a difference.
Fans of Ayn Rand's book "The Fountainhead" may remember the scene when a young man is struggling to find his purpose in life after graduating from college. He finally finds his inspiration after seeing the recently completed Monadnock resort built by architect Howard Roark. For that young man, seeing another man's achievement gave him "the courage to face a lifetime".
John did the same for me. Seeing John's ideas reach millions of eager Americans helped rekindle my enthusiasm to continue my own personal activism. His success gave me a spiritually vital "shot in the arm" at a time I needed it the most. John helped me understand that one is most alive when one is working to make one's values real. In other words, John helped me understand what Ayn Rand meant when she said, "Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today."
Thank you, John, for helping me find my courage for my lifetime.
Betty Evans:
The world will be a less vibrant and exciting place without John Lewis. I was very privileged to know John and be the recipient of his knowledge and friendship. He was the best teacher that I ever had. I attended most of his lectures at Objectivist Conferences and had the pleasure to hear him in Denver and facilitate some of his Denver talks. I have always been envious of students who got to spend a whole semester with him, what a treat to spend that much time with him and learn so much. John had a true love of life and joy that was infectious. John was a fearless person who would tackle any battle and accept 'Nothing Less than Victory.' Unfortunately his last battle ended too quickly. I thank John for his knowledge, friendship and courage. He will be missed by me and many, many others but will be remembered often.
Richard Watts:
It's inspiring to see what a human being can be capable of. John was a high achiever. He used his mind and his time very well. He was honest, sincere, diligent, courageous.
I don't think John set any limit on how hard he would try. I think his first consideration was how important a thing was, not how much effort it would take. I think within the limits of whatever he had to work with, including however much energy he could generate, John considered only the value of one option vs. another.
He was also a friend of humanity, in the real way. He worked to make a better world, for himself and for Man. He did everything possible to him, toward this end, in large ways and in small. And he was quite generous. Though very busy, when asked for information or advice he would take a moment to help others to understand an issue or a needed course of action, the best he could. I think he did this for anyone he thought might have an honest, decent interest in trying to understand, as his time and priorities allowed.
John had an ability to get to the bottom of things, to identify what is important, to sweep aside the garbage and clutter, and to really understand the basic issues and their consequences. And then he would work to help others to understand too. I would not understand Objectivism nor political issues as well as I do, without John's words.
Along with John's great ability to understand, he had a great capacity to value. He loved good ideas, human achievement and good people.
John Lewis was just awesome.
Doug Krening:
I remember John Lewis as I first knew him. He was a brilliant lecturer whose passion for history was wickedly contagious. I remember the first lecture I attended; it became obvious during the question and answer session that this was a man who had all of the history of western civilization integrated in his mind and accessible in an instant.
I remember John Lewis as I came to know him. He was a friend whose love of life was almost tangible. I remember his love of music. I remember his love for his dear wife. I remember his love of his two puppies. I remember his concern for me as I dealt with what turned out to be minor health issues.
I remember John Lewis in his battle with cancer. He was a warrior who would accept "Nothing Less Than Victory". I will always remember the lesson he taught us in that battle; that it is possible to live life fully and flourish by relentlessly pursuing ones values, even in the face of death. He could not control the cards that he was dealt, but I remember the inspiration with which he played them.
I remember John Lewis victorious.
Joseph Collins:
John Lewis shall be widely remembered, to each for his own reason. Scholarship and the field of history is at a loss, for Dr. Lewis' reading and teaching history on principle was the oasis in an academic desert. Humanity too mourns at its loss, for Dr. Lewis, unlike so many intellectuals, never turned down an opportunity to discuss ideas and history with the up and coming. He treated his fellow students with dignity and made them feel visible.
What is generally unknown was that Dr. Lewis was a steadfast patron of our schools and education reform. He dedicated with tireless effort his time teaching summer institutes on classical history. His speeches and writings are and will be among education's great sources for the classics. In fact, among those jewels in his works was a speech which I hope is out there somewhere, an address to a group of high school seniors on Martianus Capella's The Seven Liberal Arts. His best? And to high school students? Whether walking with kings or with crowds, that was John Lewis.
On my first meeting Dr. Lewis, he invited me to walk with him, of all places, to the Post Office. It was our first walk of many, as he became my Socrates. On another of our walks he suddently broke into a shout and tossed me a sword, he taking another, and commenced to show me how a hoplite would thrust and slash. Onlookers were bewildered, a man in sandals swordfighting on campus.
I am deeply honored to have known this man, and am particularly indebted to C. Bradley Thompson for insisting over a decade ago that I go down the hall and meet a genuinely beautiful human being. And that was my friend. Teachers and intellectuals carry with them the DNA so to speak of the giants on whose shoulders they stand. For my own I shall carry his love for life, of ideas, of education, and of liberty into the field. In this way, as the Greeks said, Lewis has reached immortality. Reputation sufficeth. It's all we have. Continue, he would say to us. Be brave. He would ask us to continue to contemplate, write, advocate, and fellowship. And we shall.
Joseph E. Collins
James Madison Fellow
Ridgeview Classical Schools
Fort Collins, Colorado
Ari Armstrong:
I thought I'd add a few additional notes of a more personal nature. I wish to recount two stories.
In 2007, John Lewis was in town, and Lin Zinser organized a breakfast at a Denver restaurant to discuss health policy. A surprising number of people showed up for this event, something like 25 or 30. This was when Lin and Paul Hsieh were beginning their work in health policy in Colorado. One idea was to start a new group dedicated to promoting the ideas of liberty, free markets, and individual rights in medicine. We had tossed around a few possible ideas for a name for this group, but nothing seemed to work. At one point John blurted out (paraphrasing), "How about Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, or FIRM? As in 'We stand FIRM for freedom.'" And that's the name that (http://westandfirm.org/) stuck.
More recently, when John was pretty sick and his energy was sometimes low, he joined several us again at a Denver restaurant. Though, due to his surgeries, his voice was not as strong as it had once been, he spoke passionately about living. He said that, better than ever before, he understood the concrete meaning of the abstract fact that "life is the process of self-generated and self-sustaining action." He was self-consciously living even in dealing with his illness. I was awe-inspired by his courageous fight against the cancer that eventually overtook his body, but never his spirit. Most men never live as fully when they are healthy, as he lived when he was ill.
On a broader note, I cannot help but wonder whether, if the United States had gone in the direction of greater economic freedom over the past century and a half rather than in the direction of more stifling political controls, medical technology would have already advanced to such a state that John's cancer might have been curable or at least manageable for much longer. We cannot change the past, but we can still change the future. And John has emboldened me to fight for a future of Freedom and Individual Rights, not just in medicine, but in every area of life.
Hannah Krening:
Like so many who knew John, I will never forget his intensity, joy, and passion for everything he engaged in, and his brilliant mastery of all he took on.
But what I want to convey here is that John David Lewis was genuine to the core, and lived his last two years heroically. Though I knew him for years, I had a friendship with him that began in 2009 when he was first diagnosed with cancer. He knew I was a cancer survivor, and so he called me early one morning to share the news that "it is big and it is bad, but it is treatable." I listened in shock. But it was immediately apparent that he was going to address this with the vigor he addressed everything else. And he did.
In our wide ranging conversations his focus was, to the last conversation, laser sharp. It is a huge accomplishment that he lived beyond all expectations, both in time and in productiveness. Despite the best medicine available, he lived with profound, life altering consequences of the treatment, and eventually the disease. It had an effect on his spirit; the reality of this disease is ugly. But a life force and commitment to reason that he had cultivated long before I knew him made him victorious over it until the very end.
John would sparkle when he spoke of Casey, and for good reasons. It was a delight for Doug and me to get to know them as a couple. We loved the time we spent with them and we treasure Casey's friendship.
Santorum's Collectivism
January 5, 2012
The Objective Standard has published my latest article about the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/santorum-stands-for-big-government-because-he-stands-for-collectivism/) collectivist views of Rick Santorum.
Largely I discuss an (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zFTTqHScI) interview in which Santorum lambasts the "pursuit of happiness," one of the key principles of the Declaration of Independence. Santorum instead praises promotes a collectivist notion of the "common good." I conclude, "Obama and Santorum differ only on the kind of collectivism each hopes to impose on America."
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/santorum-stands-for-big-government-because-he-stands-for-collectivism/) Read the entire article.
Ayn Rand's Novels Continue to Change Lives
January 5, 2012
Last night at Denver Liberty On the Rocks, Stephen Bailey and Anders Ingemarson delivered talks on two of Ayn Rand's novels, Anthem and Atlas Shrugged.
These talks were part of a series I agreed to help organize in connection with a Fall (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/10/ayn-rands-novels-for-colorado-teachers.html) fundraiser for the Ayn Rand Institute's books for teachers program. Here I embed not only last night's talks, but previous talks by Hannah Krening and Kirk Barbera on Rand's other two novels.
Take Responsibility When Carrying a Gun
January 6, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published January 6 by Grand Junction Free Press.
Colorado residents suffered several horrific murders recently. In one case ,a man shot his ex-wife to death outside a restaurant in Parker as their two children sat inside. She was pregnant and engaged to be married. Besides the murders, two (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19628941) five-year-olds died from unintentional shootings.
In the wake of such horror, those with an aversion to guns may wonder why interest in gun ownership and concealed carry remains so high. Practically every day someone asks Linn (a National Rifle Association instructor) his opinion of various training programs required to obtain a concealed carry permit in Colorado.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57348612/more-and-more-women-embracing-gun-ownership/) CBS (of all sources) published a recent article, "More and more women embracing gun ownership." We especially enjoyed a quote from Deirdre Gailey: "I'm a yoga instructor, I work at a vegan bakery—and I also like to shoot guns."
Yes, some people do very bad things with guns. But stripping law-abiding citizens of their ability to keep and bear arms only further empowers the bad guys. Particularly in cases of domestic violence, attackers often can physically overpower their victims. Besides their sporting value, guns are extremely useful for self-defense.
Horrible stories get the most media attention. Often the defensive use of a gun results in the bad guy running away without a shot fired or a drop of blood spilled. Thus, while papers typically devote many follow-up stories to each murder, usually they give defensive gun uses little or no mention.
The ability to carry a concealed handgun constitutes an important part of the right of self-defense. It's worth reviewing the history and benefits of concealed carry (CCW) here in Colorado.
Mesa County gun owners and officials became important leaders in the effort to achieve a more fair and objective permit process.
Former Sheriff Riecke Claussen ran his first campaign in 1990 by promising to institute a concealed carry permit in the county. True to his word, Claussen worked with different training groups to develop a permit. One of these groups later evolved into the Grand Valley Training Club (which Linn cofounded).
Initially Grand Junction would not sign off on any city resident applying for a county permit. Linn and others pointed out the problem to then-Police Chief Gary Konzak. The city even denied a permit for a firearms instructor who had certified several Grand Junction police officers for a Utah CCW. The chief conferred with the sheriff to resolve this problem.
However, while the county permit was valid throughout Colorado, other states recognized only state-issued permits. When former Governor Bill Owens signed a state-wide CCW bill in 2003, that system looked remarkably like what Claussen had established years before. See (http://www.nraila.org/recmap/usrecmap.aspx) [the NRA's web page] for a description of states that offer CCW reciprocity. We think Bill Buvinger was the last local to offer classes for the Utah permit for its validity in other states; now the Colorado permit offers the same advantages.
Colorado's constitution strongly supports the right to keep and bear arms, though it is ambivalent about concealed carry. Denver outlaws open carry anyway. In some cities open carry may result in a conversation with law enforcement. Once you get a CCW permit, then, you're freer to carry a gun for self-defense.
Carrying concealed offers several tactical advantages. If you carry openly, not only might a criminal target you first, he might try to capture your weapon. Criminals often are deterred when they think somebody may be carrying a gun but they don't know whom.
Carrying a gun concealed offers protection outside the home (except where legally restricted). Moreover, if your handgun is secured to your hip, it cannot be picked up by a criminal, child, or irresponsible adult. Concealing a gun may be important especially for women, who tend to be smaller and who may have children and grandchildren to care for.
One of the debates over the CCW bill was whether to mandate training. Our attitude was that, while training should not be mandatory, if a mandate allowed the bill to pass it was an acceptable compromise. A relative asked Linn what he thought of classes that promised only four hours of instruction with no live shooting. To some surprise, Linn responded, "I do not have a problem with it."
Don't get us wrong: we're all for extensive firearms training. We agree with the NRA that those who own defensive guns should take the responsibility for getting trained. Grand Valley Training Club offers over 16 hours of instruction with numerous live-fire exercises. True, in an emergency, having a gun with little training usually trumps having no gun. But don't let it come to that: get your training before an emergency arises.
Ultimately, the goal is to prevent emergency situations. Thankfully, the more people carry guns for self-defense, the less often people need to use them. Criminals hate the thought of their intended victim pulling out a gun and knowing how to use it.
Read more about this issue:
(http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/joey-bunch-misstates-gun-statistics-in-denver-post/) Joey Bunch Misstates Gun Statistics in Denver Post
(The Post corrected the article in question.)
(http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/the-tragedy-of-fatal-hazards-for-children/) The Tragedy of Fatal Hazards for Children
First Look at the Independence Institute's New Building
January 9, 2012
This morning I walked around the Independence Institute's new downtown-Denver building. Jon Caldara briefly explained his hopes for the place.
The Book of Tebow
January 10, 2012
Quite obviously—and we know it's true because it was published by (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/09/tebows-biblical-game-316-yards-invokes-key-verse/?test=faces) Fox News -- Tim Tebow's 316 passing yards in yesterday's spectacular victory against the Steelers "Invokes Key Bible Verse," that being John 3:16. (See also my (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/who-deserves-credit-for-tebows-316-yards/) comments about this elsewhere.)
But what sports writers have not yet figured out is that God was sending us a message through all of Tebow's games, not just yesterday's game. If we look carefully enough at the numbers, we can divine God's complete message for us. Just take a look at (http://www.nfl.com/player/timtebow/497135/gamelogs) Tebow's stats for the entire season.
What is not commonly understood is that the reference to John comes from the number of passes completed. That number is 10. What is the tenth letter of the alphabet? It's "J," as in "John." Coincidence? I think not.
Clearly God was using Tim Tebow, in the course of a glorious football game, to communicate with mankind. (Clever technique, that, as opposed to, say, a burning bush.)
So let's look at God's complete message, using the stats from Tebow's entire season.
Game 5: Tebow completed 4 passes for 79 yards. Obviously, then, that refers to Daniel 7:9:
"As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire."
Prepare to have your mind blown. That week the Chargers beat the Broncos. Their "throne" a "fiery flame?" Well, it's the Chargers, and just look at the logo of their (http://www.nfl.com/teams/profile?team=SD) helmets! It's a flame! And the white hair? Check out the mane of Chargers general manager (http://www.bolthype.com/2009/03/aj-smith-sheds-some-light-on-chargers.html) A. J. Smith.
Game 7: 13 completions for 161 yards. Obviously the 13 can't refer to "Malachi," because that book doesn't contain enough chapters or versus. So the next logical book is Matthew, 16:1:
"And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show a sign from heaven."
Was Tebow tested? Did he show a sign? Well, the outcome speaks for itself: (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/story/2011-10-23/broncos-dolphins/50883888/1) "Tebow answers critics, rallies Denver to win vs. Miami."
Game 8: Tebow completed 18 passes for 172 yards. That can't be "Ruth" or "Romans," because they aren't not long enough. That takes us to Revelation 17:2. That starts off mid-sentence, so I'll include the first verse as well:
"Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, 'Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harolot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk."
Let me just point out that the Lions crushed the Broncos that game 45-10. How many "bowls?" 7. How many sacks? (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/30/lions-beat-broncos-45-10/) Again, 7. I'm not sure what the "fornication" bit means—perhaps it's metaphorical—but the Broncos sure played like they were drunk.
I could continue, but this is the sort of thing the reader can ably do for himself. I think the point is made well enough by now.
Image: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gutenberg_Bible,_Lenox_Copy,_New_York_Public_Library,_2009._Pic_01.jpg) NYC Wanderer (Kevin Eng) Hosted by (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/CreativeCommonsImages#5695805833541401458) Picasa
January 12 Update: (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/01/tim_tebow_passing_stats_bible_verses.php) Westword has outdone me. After reviewing the findings of this post, Michael Roberts predicts that, in his next game, Tebow will complete twelve passes for 263 yards, invoking Leviticus 26:3:
If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them.... you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none will make you afraid; I will rid the land of evil beasts, and the sword will not go through your land. You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.
Let us pray it comes to pass.
Gary Johnson Can't Save the Libertarian Party
January 10, 2012
The Objective Standard has released my latest article, (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/even-with-gary-johnson-the-libertarian-party-undermines-liberty/) "Even with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party Undermines Liberty." My main argument is that the libertarian movement is overrun with moral subjectivism and anarchism, and Johnson will not be able to escape that association. My fear is that, to the extent Johnson gets any traction, that will only serve to link free markets with libertarian kookiness in public debate.
As I have argued before, while the ideology of the LP is the main problem, strictly on grounds of electoral strategy supporting Johnson makes little sense. See my previous two articles about that:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/paul-johnson-2012-libertarians-best.html) Paul-Johnson 2012: The Libertarians' Best-Case Scenario
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/delusional-gary-johnson.html) The Delusional Gary Johnson
Save Internet Freedom
January 18, 2012
No, I'm not blacking out my web page today, but I certainly support those who do. As Diana Hsieh (http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/blackout-your-site-for-sopa.html) explains, bills recently considered by Congress threaten to subject the internet to pervasive government controls.
Yes, I support intellectual property rights. But the bills in question threaten intellectual property rights in the name of protecting them. Censorship is never the answer to any problem, real or imagined.
For more, see (http://sopastrike.com/strike) SOPAStrike.com.
True to their word, the folks at Wikipedia blacked out their site to protest the bills in question.
Common Cause Joins Pro-Censorship Rally
January 19, 2012
The bigotry follows a common pattern: dehumanize your opponents, then strip them of their rights.
Tomorrow, various leftist organizations will (https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/rg/ecreg.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=7948973&en=niJNJUOIJdLIKXNCI7LIK4NRJrJULWPBJaIRJ3OIKpI0J9MMIkJZJaNJJcISKdPYG) rally in Denver to advocate censorship to forcibly silence select individuals, on the pretext that "corporations aren't people." And never mind the fact that corporations are composed of people, as are all groups.
In the good ol' days, the left would denounce economic liberty but defend freedom of speech. Today the left's inner contradictions have led it to endorse censorship outright (though many leftists are too cowardly to openly name their goal).
Colorado Common Cause has openly endorsed the pro-censorship rally and will participate in it. Yesterday the organization (https://twitter.com/#!/CommonCauseCO/status/159700187177168896) Tweeted, "#SCOTUS got it wrong, only people are people. Join @Amend2012 to take back your democracy: twibbon.com/amend2012."
The (http://twibbon.com/amend2012) link Tweeted by Common Cause takes us to a web page for "Amend 2012," which states: "Corporations Are Not People. In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC gave corporations the same constitutional rights as everyday Americans, and said corporations could use their massive riches as free speech. Corporations have been doing just that, pouring money into our elections and drowning out the voices of real people."
Of course, Common Cause is itself a corporation, as Colorado records(http://www.sos.state.co.us/ccsa/ViewSummary.do?ceId=86826) show. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, Common Cause showed revenues of $6,318,706.
So does Common Cause think it should be censored, on the grounds that it is a corporation that "pours money" into the political process? Of course not. Because, you see, some corporations are more equal than others. The members of some groups are more equal than others. The members of some groups are "real people," who therefore retain their First Amendment rights, while the members of others groups are apparently subhumans, undeserving of the same legal protections. That is precisely the logic of Colorado Common Cause's position.
Ironically, Colorado Common Cause and others are simultaneously advocating free speech by opposing the SOPA internet restriction bill, and advocating censorship of corporate speech. For example, in a (https://twitter.com/#!/CommonCauseCO/status/160031476577091584) Tweet today Common Cause promoted a "Musical Attack on #SOPA & #CitizensUnited." See also the linked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiFH9986AsM) video.
And yet the voices against SOPA included many of America's most prominent corporations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?new=yes) Wikipedia led the charge—you know, the free online encyclopedia owned by (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation) Wikimedia Foundation, Incorporated. The for-profit corporations (https://www.facebook.com/FacebookDC?sk=app_329139750453932) Facebook and (http://volokh.com/2012/01/18/googles-protest-against-the-proposed-stop-online-piracy-act-protect-ip-act/) Google also came out strongly against SOPA. Even the (http://www.myfivefingers.com/vibram-and-sopa/) Vibram shoe company came out against SOPA.
Does the American left really want to get in the businesses of imposing government censorship on corporations? As (http://volokh.com/2012/01/18/the-google-anti-stop-online-piracy-act-statement-corporate-speech-and-the-first-amendment/) Eugene Volokh sensibly reasons: "Say that Congress concludes that it's unfair for Google to be able to speak so broadly, in a way that ordinary Americans (including ordinary Congressmen) generally can't. Congress therefore enacts a statute banning all corporations from spending their money—and therefore banning them from speaking—in support of or opposition to any statute. What would you say about such a statute?"
If censorship is "what democracy looks like," then I for one will fight for the preservation of the First Amendment and our Constitutional republic.
Image: (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/CreativeCommonsImages#5699386130509882034) Picasa via (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg) Wikipedia
Read also: (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-spring/citizens-united.asp) Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America, by Steve Simpson
Natelson Brings Original Constitution to Colorado Activists
January 20, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published January 20 by Grand Junction Free Press.
As Americans we live under the greatest Constitution ever devised. Unfortunately, few Americans know much about what our foundational legal document means or how it properly applies to modern life. And those who do study the Constitution often abuse (or artfully ignore) its text to advance a narrow political agenda.
Rob Natelson aims to remedy those problems. Natelson, one of the world's foremost scholars on the original meaning of the Constitution, taught law at the University of Montana for over two decades. Now he has returned to Colorado, where he once practiced law, to serve with the Independence Institute. In recent months Natelson has lectured on the Constitution in Denver and Colorado Springs, most recently attending a meeting of (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/libertybooks.html/) Liberty In the Books (which Ari moderates).
Recently Natelson's book "The Original Constitution" came out in a second edition. We encourage you to buy a copy and read it (search at Amazon), then share it with your friends. We are among the most fortunate people ever to walk the planet, because we have inherited the intellectual and legal traditions embodied in the Constitution. It is up to us to keep that heritage alive. We know of no better place to start than with Natelson's book.
"The Original Constitution" embodies Natelson's findings from years of research into stacks of documents, many in Latin, that informed the Founders. Yet the book is widely accessible and beautifully written. Natelson also offers a few hundred well-placed footnotes, as well as a descriptive bibliography, for those who wish to study further. The Constitution is a document for "We the People," and so is Natelson's book.
We especially admire the book's integrity: "Among other academics, law professors are notorious for writing works of special pleading and calling them 'scholarship'—a practice I actively resisted during my long career in legal academia. I can assure the reader that this book is not a work of special pleading, but a depiction of a slice of history: the legal force of a particular legal document at a particular time."
Natelson dismisses the notion, as expressed by Barack Obama, that it is "unrealistic" to "somehow discern the original intent of the Founders or ratifiers." Instead, Natelson writes, "Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitution's provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law."
To offer an example of how Constitutional clarity can resolve today's debates, consider what one writer (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/24/9-9-no-way/) claimed in the Washington Times: "Mr. [Herman] Cain's 9 percent national sales tax simply isn't constitutional." Wrong. While we think a national sales tax is a really bad idea, it passes Constitutional muster. The Constitution grants Congress the power to impose "indirect" taxes such as a sales tax, as Natelson makes clear. In an(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/10/yes-national-sales-tax-is.html) interview he confirmed, "A national sales tax is clearly constitutional, so long as uniform throughout the country."
During the Liberty In the Books meeting, Natelson debunked another view of the Constitution that we have expressed. The idea is that the "commerce clause" grants Congress the authority only to "make regular" (regulate) interstate commerce, not restrict commerce. Not so, says Natelson. Instead, that clause gives Congress power to restrict commerce. However, Natelson explains, the "commerce clause" was intended to grant much less power than is commonly assumed today. For example, properly interpreted it would not allow Congress to force people to buy insurance, as ObamaCare proposes.
We are not convinced, however, that original intent always should dictate Constitutional interpretation. The literal meaning of the text also matters, as do the logical implications of the text.
Natelson offers an example in his book that we think supports this line of reasoning. Originally, Article III established that the "judicial power of the United States" extended to "controversies… between a state and citizens of another state." Natelson convincingly argues that the Federalists thought this would not overturn "sovereign immunity," or the power of states not to be sued by individuals. But the Supreme Court decided to read the text literally and allowed a man from South Carolina to sue Georgia. This unpopular decision quickly led to the passage of the Eleventh Amendment, which affirmed that a state cannot be sued by "citizens of another state."
As Natelson pointed out, Chief Justice John Jay helped decide the Georgia decision. Jay, you'll recall, was an author of the Federalist Papers. If even Jay looked to literal meaning over original intent, might that justify us doing the same?
It matters very much whether we look strictly to original intent, or whether we also examine literal meaning and logical implications, in evaluating the significance of the First Amendment, "due process of law," and other key Constitutional provisions.
Yet, regardless of where we may ultimately end up in that debate, we acknowledge that it is critically important to understand the original intent of the Constitution. We thank Natelson for helping us do that.
Ideas of the Tea Party Survey
January 25, 2012
Self-identified Tea Partiers are welcome to reply to this survey. Readers are also encouraged to alert their Tea Party friends about it.
Ideas of the Tea Party Survey
The goal of this survey is to better understand where Tea Partiers get their ideas. If you are a self-identified Tea Partier, you are welcome to respond to this survey by February 10, 2012. By responding to this survey, you grant Ari Armstrong the right to publish your responses, in full or in part, without restrictions. However, you may request that your replies remain anonymous for publication purposes. Please email replies to ari (atsign) freecolorado (dot) com.
1. What is your name? Do you grant permission to publish your name with your survey responses, or do you prefer to remain anonymous for publication purposes?
2. What city and state do you live in?
3. What is your primary occupation?
4. If you have a Bachelor's degree or higher, please list your major(s) and degree(s).
5. Did you become politically active through the Tea Party movement? How long have you been active in politics?
6. Besides the Tea Party label, how do you usually describe yourself in terms of your political commitments? If any of the following apply, please list them: conservative, Republican, independent, Christian conservative, fiscal conservative, free-market activist, libertarian, classical liberal, Objectivist.
7. Through what channels do you share your ideas with others? If you use any of the following means, please briefly explain how: social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), electronic email list, radio show, podcast, blog, regular newspaper column, occasional letters to newspapers, organize or participate in politically-oriented meetings or discussion groups.
8. What (if any) ideological or political organizations do you contribute to financially or volunteer to support?
9. Were you exposed to free-market ideas in college? If so, please briefly explain how.
10. What are your main, regular sources of politically-related ideas and information? Please list the most significant radio shows, TV shows, publications, blogs, organizations, or writers that you turn to on a regular basis.
11. Have you read any books since the rise of the modern Tea Party movement that have strongly influenced your political ideas? If so, which ones?
12. For each of the following figures, please briefly explain whether you have heard of the figure, whether he or she has influenced you, and, if so, how:
a) Milton Friedman
b) Friedrich Hayek
c) Ayn Rand
d) Henry Hazlitt
e) Ludwig von Mises
f) Thomas Sowell
13. Besides the figures already listed, have any scholars, intellectuals, or religious leaders strongly influenced your political ideas? If so, please name them and briefly explain how they influenced you.
Thank you for your replies! Please feel free to forward this survey to others in the Tea Party movement.
Ari Armstrong
http://FreeColorado.com/
CO Cake Bill 1027: Let Them Eat Cake (No, Seriously)
January 27, 2012
If the Colorado legislature passes a "cake bill" (http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2012A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersHouse) (1027) to legalize cottage bakers, Mande Gabelson of (https://www.facebook.com/AvaSweetCakes) Ava Sweet Cakes can bake me a cake, just as fast as she can.
Otherwise, she'll get a $1,500 fine for it.
My dad and I are working up a column for (http://www.gjfreepress.com/) Grand Junction Free Press on the story. However, according to Mande, the bill may be heard as early as next week (it already passed through its first committee), and our column doesn't pop until Friday. Thus, I asked Mande if I could release her interview early here, and she said I could. (She also said I can release the images seen here, two of which were distributed in a Republican media release.)
Mande said she used to rent space at a commercial kitchen for $100 deposit, $135 monthly rental, and $12 per hour for usage. "I had to leave the commercial kitchen due to the cost."
But, she said, "I knew the law, I knew I could not sell out of my home, but I knew that other states would allow it with a cottage food law. I wanted to figure out a way to get it done."
And so she contacted her local legislators. "Rep [Laura] Bradford gave me a call over the summer, and we talked about cottage food bills in other states... and here we are."
Mande said that, while professional kitchens work great for large-scale caterers, "If you're someone like me, who just wants to make a cake every once or a while... it just doesn't work."
Right now, you "can't bake a cake and sell it to your neighbor. If the money goes to a school [at a bake sale], that's okay, but they [bakers] can't put the money in their back pocket. I couldn't even sell a cake to my mom. That would be against the law."
The bill, Mande said, "would let me sell from my home. So I could take orders, and people could pick it up at my home... I could sell at farmers markets and roadside stands."
I asked whether she could deliver cakes under the bill. "Yes, you can." But you "cannot sell to say a restaurant, it has to be sold directly to the consumer."
Under the bill, she said, counties can set up a registration process and charge a fee: "It's up to each county as to whether they want to enforce licensing. I'm suspecting that each county is going to go ahead and do that, because they get income from it." However, counties "cannot prohibit individuals from participating in this bill."
Mande said that the bill applies only to "nonhazardous foods" (as defined federally) "that can be left out at room temperature for several days without harboring any harmful microorganisms."
Mande opposes attempts to restrict the revenues of cottage bakers: "The reason there is no cap on that, if I make a wedding cake every weekend, a wedding cake typically sells for $2,000. Not that I would bake a wedding cake every weekend, but that's just an example. You have to think about the man hours that go into something like that. I'm an artist. The typical wedding cake takes between 15 and 20 hours, and I should be paid for my skills. People come to me because of my abilities, and they want to pay me that much, and I should be able to take that. If they put a cap on that, I'd be able to bake only one cake a year? Only two cakes a year? That doesn't make sense to me."
Why did she name her business "Ava Sweet Cakes?" "That's my daughter. When I was 7 months pregnant with her my husband got laid off from Halliburton." Mande took baking classes, and "that's when I discovered I have this talent. When Ava was six months old I decided to name it after her."
Update: Check out my 22-second video on the theme, in which I adapt "Patty Cake."
Update: Westword (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/01/cottage_food_bill_home_cooks.php) posted something about this and embedded a nice segment from 11News on it.
Update 8:23 pm: Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/homefood-business-bills-find-favor-in-first-hearin/) explains that there are two "cottage foods" bills in the works. The alternate bill would allow more types of foods but cap sales to $5,000 per year. In other news, Representative Laura Bradford has lost her position as committee chair after getting pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, (http://www.kdvr.com/news/politics/kdvr-lawmaker-suspended-after-skirting-dui-20120127,0,7243453.story) reports Fox31.
Braunlich: CO Campaign Laws Chill Speech of New Activists, Small Groups
January 30, 2012
Last month Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler hosted a hearing about proposed rules for Colorado's byzantine campaign finance laws. I supported (most of) his proposed rule changes, even while condemning the campaign laws as a violation of free speech. Please see the (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/campaign-finance-rules-collected-testimony/) videos of testimony by Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Matt Arnold, and me.
I've decided that the issue is important enough to merit the release of additional video from that event. Here Mark Braunlich argues that the campaign laws chill the speech of new activists and small groups. He did praise Gessler for trying to make the related rules as comprehensible as possible.
Mises' Lessons for Gentlemanly Disputes
January 31, 2012
Many years after Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek visited Professor John Van Sickle in Boulder, I sat in the same living room where the two men had conversed.
Both Hayek and Van Sickle were friends and students of the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. Van Sickle had saved many letters to and from Hayek, Mises, and other free-market economists of their day. I got the chance to look through these letters and reproduce them. They now reside in the archives of the (http://www.fee.org/) Foundation for Economic Education. (I've told this story (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/06/misesletters.html) before; I've received permission from Jerry Van Sickle and FEE to reproduce those letters at my discretion.)
I was glancing through those letters for possible use in an upcoming presentation, and I happened upon a letter for Mises that I think admirably illustrates the gentleman's way of handling a dispute. (I read the letter during a time when a friend of mine was coming under some mean-spirited and frankly ridiculous attacks.) The letter is dated March 2, 1955.
Mises stuck to his principles and did not shy away from criticizing perceived errors and slights sharply and directly:
[M]y formulations are to be taken on the one side and should be opposed to the middle-of-the-road formulations of [Milton] Friedman... and others on the other side. To proceed in a different way is tantamount to the adoption of the official position of the New Deal philosophy. Then one does not discuss the economic meaning and function of inequality, but takes it for granted that inequality is bad and discusses whether it should be abolished altogether or whether some "loopholes" should be left. There is nothing that I could contribute to such a debate. ... If you assign my formulations a lower rank than to those of other participants, then please forget about them, set aside the letters I wrote you and do not expect me to attend the meeting.
Several things here are noteworthy. Mises did not refrain from blasting Friedman over fundamental disagreements. Yet he did not refrain from debating the matter with Friedman, so long as he could debate on equal footing.
Mises closed with an equally interesting paragraph:
I want to emphasize that my attitude on this question in no way reflects upon our long established friendly relations and does not at all affect the high esteem in which I hold you personally.
In other words, even though Mises thought Van Sickle was setting up a conference in such a way that slighted Mises in favor of the "middle-of-the-roaders," Mises maintained a remarkably cordial tone, even as he pointedly explained the reasons for his irritation. (Of course, that doesn't imply one must always deliver roses to one's ideological opponents.)
I think Mises's approach goes a long way in explaining why he was so widely loved, and why he remains so influential.
From (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/VanSickleDocuments?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite) Van Sickle Documents
January 2012 In Review
February 1, 2012
January was a busy month as I began to blog more frequently for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. I also coauthored two columns for Grand Junction Free Press, wrote several substantial blog posts, uploaded five videos to YouTube, maintained my social media work, and moderated the Denver(http://libertyinthebooks.com/) Liberty In the Books.
See also my (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/december-2011-in-review.html) December review.
Grand Junction Free Press
My dad Linn and I wrote our usual two columns for the Western Slope newspaper:
• (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/take-responsibility-when-carrying-gun.html) Take Responsibility When Carrying a Gun
• (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/natelson-brings-original-constitution.html) Natelson Brings Original Constitution to Colorado Activists
Major Blog Posts
I wrote the following substantial blog posts uniquely for my own web page:
• (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/mises-lessons-for-gentlemanly-disputes.html) Mises' Lessons for Gentlemanly Disputes
• (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/let-them-eat-cake-no-seriously.html) CO Cake Bill 1027: Let Them Eat Cake (No, Seriously)
• (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/common-cause-joins-pro-censorship-rally.html) Common Cause Joins Pro-Censorship Rally
This story was (https://twitter.com/#!/MelissaTweets/status/160059255179845632) Tweeted by (https://twitter.com/MelissaTweets/) MelissaTweets!
• (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/book-of-tebow.html) The Book of Tebow
Notably, (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/01/tim_tebow_passing_stats_bible_verses.php) Westword picked up this story about the football player's statistics in the context of numerological interpretations.
This story was also (https://twitter.com/#!/michaelshermer/status/157559119140757505) Tweeted by arch-skeptic (https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/) Michael Shermer!
• (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/john-david-lewis-fought-for-future.html) John David Lewis Fought for the Future
YouTube Videos
Here are the videos I posted for the month:
Free Speech: Braunlich Testifies Against CO Campaign Laws
Why I Support the Colorado "Cake Bill"
First Look at the Independence Institute's New Building
Anders Ingemarson: Friends and Foes of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged
Stephen Bailey: The Individualism of Ayn Rand's 'Anthem'
Objective Standard
I'm pleased to be writing more for the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php) Objective Standard blog. (Of the work listed in this post, these posts and my work with Liberty In the Books is the only work for which I am directly paid.)
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/santorum-stands-for-big-government-because-he-stands-for-collectivism/) Santorum Stands for Big Government because He Stands for Collectivism
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/who-deserves-credit-for-tebows-316-yards/) Who Deserves Credit for Tebow's 316 Yards?
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/even-with-gary-johnson-the-libertarian-party-undermines-liberty/) Even with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party Undermines Liberty
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/did-god-help-the-patriots-beat-the-broncos/) Did God Help the Patriots Beat the Broncos?
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/romney-should-call-for-property-rights-and-lower-taxes-for-everyone/) Romney Should Call for Property Rights and Lower Taxes for Everyone
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/to-give-americans-a-fair-shot-obama-should-stop-violating-our-rights/) To Give Americans a "Fair Shot," Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/double-taxation-means-double-injustice-for-romney/) Double-Taxation Means Double Injustice for Romney
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/great-producers-deserve-our-gratitude-not-obamas-tax-hikes/%3Cbr%20/%3E) Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama's Tax Hikes
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/warren-buffett-immorally-calls-for-tax-hikes-on-top-producers/) Warren Buffett Immorally Calls for Tax Hikes on Top Producers
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/obama-should-help-end-all-energy-subsidies-not-play-favorites/) Obama Should Help End All Energy Subsidies, Not Play Favorites
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/gingrich-seeks-to-violate-rights-of-women-and-doctors/) Gingrich Seeks to Violate Rights of Women and Doctors to Engage in Fertility Care
• (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/texas-anti-abortion-law-violates-rights-to-liberty-and-freedom-of-speech/) Texas Anti-Abortion Law Violates Rights to Liberty and Freedom of Speech
Some Back-Patting
Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor for the (http://www.gazette.com/) Colorado Springs Gazette, wrote the following comments on his Facebook page:
My very good friend—famous feminist-liberal Pamela White (author name "Pamela Clare")—has become a full-fledged gun nut. ... Pamela, as you will see by following the first link, used to be anti gun. Two vicious criminals broke into her Boulder home, and she was saved only by the timely and unlikely arrival of cops with guns. She remained anti gun until I and Ari Armstrong, a friend and great American, taught her about gun rights and guns. Ari sent her to the Western Slopes for firearms re-education camp.
Today, 10 years later, Pamela leaves this on my wall: "So, it's official. I may be a gun nut. Yesterday's shooting spree included my Mossberg, a Navy SEAL edition SIG Sauer P226, a Beretta, a Henry lever-action .22, an AR-15, a Winchester 3030, a SIG Mosquito, a Marlin .22 rifle, some kind of .45 (can't remember). It was a lot of fun... The SIG is just sexy."
And this, for which I am very proud: "I blame you and Ari Armstrong. ;-)"
Read Pam's (http://archive.boulderweekly.com/052903/uncensored.html) Boulder Weekly article on the matter.
And, if you're into that sort of thing, check out Pam's (http://pamelaclare.com/) romance novels!
I was also touched by this (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20120106/LETTERS/120109982&parentprofile=search) letter by Gladys Woynowskie published by Grand Junction Free Press:
I read an online article by Ari Armstrong relating his confrontation of a Denver Post journalist. I am impressed by his willingness to simply ask for verification of data. It seems like a simple and innocuous act, yet accuracy is powerful and significant.
I want to express my appreciation for Mr. Armstrong's regard for accuracy (especially valuable in a journalist), and his patient tenacity in expecting other journalists to value the same. Mr. Armstrong reflects well on the reputation of Grand Junction Free Press.
Thanks, Gladys!
And check out (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/joey-bunch-misstates-gun-statistics-in.html) that article if you haven't already seen it.
Cake Bill Advances
February 3, 2012
Update: Read the (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20120203/COLUMNISTS/120209980/1062&parentprofile=1062) Grand Junction Free Press column by my dad and me!
Westword's Melanie Asmar (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/02/cottage_food_bill_laura_bradford_troubles.php) reports that the Colorado "Cake Bill" (the "Cottage Food Bill") passed the House yesterday on an anonymous vote. (This was despite the troubles of the bill's sponsor, Laura Bradford.)
I wrote about the story a few (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/co-cake-bill-1027-let-them-eat-cake-no-seriously/) days ago.
The bill was amended, but none of those seem to seriously compromise the bill. Now the bill heads to the Senate.
Asmar even embedded my short video on the matter:
A Few Thoughts about Volunteer Search and Rescue
February 9, 2012
Recently I helped (a little) with a search and rescue effort in Utah. The upshot is that two Colorado men—including a family friend—crashed their vehicle off the side of a cliff northeast of Price, resulting in fatality on impact. Yet, because the vehicle was so hard to see and locate, it was not found until more than a week after the crash and several days after the men were reported missing, even though more than 100 friends and family members had traveled to Price to help with the search.
Here my goal is to offer a few reflections on the search in the hopes that, should others find themselves in a missing persons or search and rescue situation, they might have a little better idea of what to expect.
It has never been so clear to me the living hell created by not knowing what happened. We didn't know what happened to the men or whether they were still alive. That uncertainty leads to high emotions, hard feelings, exhaustion, and continuous speculation. In such a situation, one must make a special effort to remain civil and productive and not do anything that gets in the way of the search.
There are four basic scenarios for any missing persons case: either the person is lost, injured in an accident, the victim of foul play, or trying hard not to be found. In this case, the second scenario was most likely, but we could definitely rule out only the first scenario. But within each remaining scenario, there are a thousand, a million, possibilities.
The key is to add plausible scenarios to the list of possibilities, while not losing focus on the most obvious explanations. In this case, the most likely explanation was the correct one: the men drove their car off the road in rugged country on the way to their base camp.
One mistake I made was to assume that, since the area had been searched so thoroughly after a few days, both by air and by ground, there was little chance the vehicle was actually in that area off of a road. But the country was so rugged (check out the satellite imagery of the that the vehicle was impossible to see from the road. Because the vehicle was so mangled (see the video from (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=19131781) KSL Salt Lake), it was nearly impossible to identify from the air; it blended in with the surrounding rock features. (Finally the vehicle was found when a volunteer hiked down a rough incline to look down a cliff.)
Carbon County Deputy Sheriff Wally Hendricks told some members of the team that, during a search, you may need to look behind the same tree (or down the same cliff) six times before you see what's there. So don't assume that, just because an area has been searched once, it shouldn't be searched again. Focus on the most likely routes and devote multiple searches to those.
That said, keep the search as organized as possible to limit unnecessary passes of less-likely areas. The man who stepped up to organize the search kept a large map on the wall and copied more-detailed sections of that map for the searchers. His single-page maps contained several square miles and showed all the dirt roads; typically an assigned search grid was two miles square. (It took my team an unexpectedly long time to cover a grid, but then there were multiple roads, some of which we had to walk.)
One advantage to staying organized and searching by grids is that you minimize the number of tracks over an area. This increases the chances of seeing tracks that may be related to the missing persons.
Take plenty of time to cover a search grid. Be thorough. Get out, walk around, look off the side of drop offs. As the search's organizer pointed out, you may need to cut your engine and listen for the sound of a car's horn. Try to mark a particular grid off the list as definitively as possible.
Also, take detailed notes of the search grid. This will help the organizer determine whether to send additional teams through that grid. For example, while walking a rough road I saw a small pond, and somebody had cut a hole in that pond. It turns out the pond was irrelevant to our search, but the fact that I saw the hole caused me to spend more time there and report it to the organizer. Then another team returned the next day to check out the pond more thoroughly. I still don't know why somebody cut the hole in the pond. But it occurred to me that perhaps another searcher did it to check the pond; if that's the case, that's the sort of information that would have been useful in a search report.
All that said, people are going to make some mistakes. So don't accuse, and don't feel bad if you miss something. Recognize that tensions are high, people are extremely tired, and emotions are raw. Keep focused on the goal: find the missing people. Take what you have and work with that in a constructive way.
Be careful! You are not helping the situation by becoming lost or injured yourself. Stay rested, fed, and hydrated. Don't push your vehicle beyond its capacities. Make sure the search organizer knows where you are, who is in your party, and how to get ahold of you. As in medicine, first do no harm. (Again, if somebody does make a mistake, don't accuse, and don't feel bad; return to constructive action as quickly a possible.)
Recognize the leaders of the group, and support them. There will be (or should be) two key leaders. One is the organizer of the volunteer search. This person should be responsible for organizing the search pattern, handing out search assignments, collecting search reports, and processing that information. In our case, this person had a second-in-command, and that was vital to keeping the assignments going out and the reports coming in. That organizer (and only that organizer) should interact with the local authorities to coordinate the broader search effort.
The second key leader is the person who facilitates the flow of information. This person (or, in our case, two people) should make contact with the authorities, with the volunteer search organizer, with the family and searchers, and with the media. The media accounts regarding this search were basically accurate and thorough because somebody was assigned to send out official media releases. Obviously this person should have some familiarity with the media (or at least be a decent writer). In our case, a Facebook page facilitated the distribution of these releases and related information.
Thankfully, we had a very organized search. I could see how a disorganized search could result in a great deal of tension and counterproductive action. Do what you reasonably can to identify and assist the leaders (or to become one of the key leaders if you have the experience and demeanor for it).
It was a terrible time with a tragic outcome. The silver lining, as several pointed out, was seeing so many friends and family members stepping up so valiantly during this difficult time.
Be careful out there. Take every reasonable precaution not to become a missing person yourself and to keep loved ones safe. But if the worst happens, and you find yourself in a search for missing persons, get an idea of what to expect and focus on productive action toward finding your loved ones.
See also (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/integrating-aerial-photography-in.html) "Integrating Aerial Photography in Search and Rescue."
Integrating Aerial Photography in Search and Rescue
February 9, 2012
During the (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/a-few-thoughts-about-volunteer-search-and-rescue/) search and rescue effort in which I played a (very small) role, it occurred to me that it would have been nice to use aerial photography in the search.
Our group had aircraft available, but in the end ground teams found the vehicle. There are several obvious limitations to searching by eye out of an aircraft window. You can look away. You can fail to see something subtle. You can sneeze at just the wrong moment.
Far better would be to borrow a plan (or a drone) with aerial photography capabilities. Then the idea is to fly quickly in a grid pattern, snapping detailed photos of the ground as you go.
Once these photos are taken, they could be uploaded to the internet (as a friend of mine suggested), where dozens (or thousands) of eyes could pour [(https://twitter.com/ariarmstrong/status/1014527383573917696) pore] over them. (Alternately, they could be subject to digital processing.) What one person working alone might miss, one of a hundred might spot.
Our landscape was perfect for such aerial photography. The land was relatively barren, with stumpy desert trees. The weather was mostly perfect, with clear skies. Obviously in a dense forest or in fog the idea wouldn't work.
My understanding is that there are quite a number of planes throughout the country already equipped with aerial photography. It would be fantastic if one of these planes could be easily rented (or borrowed) in search and rescue efforts.
In our case, it turned out, the delay didn't matter (to the missing persons). But in other cases, rapid discovery could mean the difference between life and death.
Denver Post Publishes Two Misleading Headlines
February 17, 2012
The headline is part of the story. A misleading or factually incorrect headline is just as bad as an error in the text (if not worse, as it's more visible). Today, the Denver Post published one ridiculously misleading headline and another arguably misleading one.
The following headline, "(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19984126) Colorado hospitals warn legislators that push for pricing transparency would ruin finances," flatly contradicts the reporting by Michael Booth.
Booth explicitly writes that the fundamental concern is not "transparency," but rather price controls. He writes, "Hospital officials from across the state said that they agree with more transparency in their charges and charity policies but that Aguilar's bill amounts to price fixing that will ruin many facilities."
Booth confirmed in an email that he did not recommend the title.
I contacted John Ealy, an editor with the Post, to get a better sense of how headlines are produced. "Reporters don't have anything to do with it," he confirmed. He said that, after a reporter files a story, that story moves to a copy editor, who writes a "web headline," ideally "search-engine optimized." Then the same editor or possibly a different one writes a headline for print. (It's unclear to me how often a print headline varies from a web headline.)
In addition, Ealy said, "We have a copy chief. After the copy editor writes the headline and edits the story... it moves to another status, and a copy desk chiefs comes in and vets that headline, looks at it for accuracy." Then "another copy editor" looks at page proofs.
So it does seem to me that considerable oversight goes into a headline. I wonder, though, whether it might make sense for the Post to bring the writers back into the process at some point, say, by allowing reporters to authorize or flag headlines. After all, the reporter is most familiar with the facts and nuances of the story. My guess is, that had he been asked, Booth would have recommended something more accurate.
The second misleading headline is the following: "(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19986948) Anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce handcuffed, sent to jail." My complaint is about the description, "anti-tax." To my knowledge, Bruce has never voiced support for the abolition of taxation. As an activist, he has worked for lower taxes, not no taxes.
In this case, though, the headline corresponds to the reporter's text. The reporter, Jordan Steffen, describes Bruce as a "tax opponent."
It is true that Bruce has tried to eliminate certain types of minor taxes, and it is true that generally his goal is to cut taxes. Yet still I think the headline and the copy offer readers a distorted view of Bruce's activism. Ideologically, there is a huge difference between advocating lower taxes and advocating no taxes. I know true "anti-tax activists"—people who advocate the complete abolition of taxation (and I myself am interested in radical, long-term alternatives to financing government)—and their views ought not be confused with the views and activism of Bruce.
Certainly the Post should make every effort to avoid publishing blatantly misleading headlines, as in the case of Booth's article, but I think the Postshould make the extra effort to avoid publishing headlines that are even arguably misleading. The fact is that Bruce is a "tax-cut activists," not an "anti-tax activist." I don't think it's too much to ask that the Post make the extra effort to achieve accuracy and clarity in its reporting.
Perhaps some consider my complaints trivial; after all, don't the two headlines "sort of" get to the gist of what's going on? Indeed. But I think we should strive to clarify our thinking as much as possible, not rely on approximate "truths" and vague understanding. In fact, there's a difference between transparency and price controls. In fact, there's a difference between somebody who advocates lower taxes and somebody who advocates no taxes. No doubt I too have slipped on comparable matters, but I think it's worth stepping back sometimes and recommitting ourselves to pristine accuracy. (For example, for the headline of this piece, I added the word "Two" to clarify my meaning.)
One question I neglected to ask Ealy is whether the Post ever runs corrections for faulty headlines. Perhaps he will let me know.
Gessler Announces Reasonable Campaign Rule Changes
February 23, 2012
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has done to best he can to make the rules surrounding the state's campaign-finance laws more comprehensible and less oppressive. For daring to stand up for the free-speech rights of Coloradans to the degree his office permits, Gessler has earned the scorn of the pro-censorship left.
Contrary to the complaints of some of Gessler's critics, Gessler is required by the Colorado Constitution to "promulgate such rules... as may be necessary to administer and enforce any provision of" the campaign finance laws (see Article XXVIII, Section 9(1)(b)).
Given that federal courts have struck down some aspects of those laws, Gessler must therefore promulgate rules that take the relevant court decisions into account.
As the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20024329) reports, yesterday Gessler implemented rules based on those considered at a December 15 hearing.
I attended that hearing, and I spoke out in favor of Gessler's proposed rules. (I also harshly condemned the campaign laws as a violation of free speech, though obviously that broader issue lies outside of Gessler's administrative capacities.)
Today I release another video of that hearing in which three people—Allen Dickerson, Regina Thompson, and Natelie Menten—also voice their concerns about the campaign-finance laws but (at least mostly) support Gessler's efforts to clarify the rules and make them as unburdensome as possible. (Some of the meaning of their comments is fully clear only in light of the particular laws and rule changes under consideration at the hearing.) For more details about the campaign finance laws and about the rules Gessler helped to rewrite, please see the links below.
See also:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/campaign-finance-rules-collected.html) Campaign Finance Rules: Collected Testimony
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/braunlich-co-campaign-laws-chill-speech.html) Braunlich: CO Campaign Laws Chill Speech of New Activists, Small Groups
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/gessler-emerges-as-free-speech.html) Gessler Emerges as the Free Speech Secretary of State
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2011/05/sos-looks-to-mitigate-burden-of.html) SOS Looks to Mitigate Burden of Campaign Censorship Laws
Independence Institute Banquet
February 25, 2012
Last week the Independence Institute held its annual banquet; here is my short video about it. The organization honored businessman Jake Jabs. I'll release additional interviews from the event over the next few days.
Kopel: ObamaCare Mandates Unconstitutional
February 27, 2012
I caught up with Constitutional scholar Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute's annual banquet February 16. In these two short videos, he explains why the Medicaid mandate as the individual mandate (to purchase health insurance) under ObamaCare are unconstitutional.
First Kopel argues that the Medicaid mandate violates the principles of federalism:
Next he argues that the Constitution never granted Congress the power to compel people to purchase products.
See also the complete briefs against the (http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2012/01/Medicaid-brief-final.pdf) Medicaid mandate and the (http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2012/02/amicus-NAP-SCt-final.pdf) individual mandate.
With 'Cake Bill,' Have Your Freedom and Eat It, Too
February 27, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong was originally published February 3 by Grand Junction Free Press.
"Patty cake, patty cake, baker's man. Bake me a cake just as fast as you can!" But if you're a Colorado cottage baker: "They'll stop you and they'll fine you, and if you don't pay, they'll throw you in the pokey, that's the bureaucrats' way."
Thankfully local State Representative Laura Bradford sponsored a bill (1027) to legalize cottage bakeries. By the time you read this, the fate of the bill may have already been decided, so see Ari's web page FreeColorado.com for updates. (You an also find a video there of Ari performing the opening rhyme.)
We called Mande Gabelson of Ava Sweet Cakes to ask her why she supports the bill. (Ari released most of the interview early online.) She said that working out of a professional kitchen works great for large-scale caterers, but it isn't cost effective for smaller operations.
Gabelson said that, under current law, you "can't bake a cake and sell it to your neighbor." If you're running a bake sale and "the money goes to a school, that's okay," but bakers "can't put the money in their back pocket."
"I couldn't even sell a cake to my mom," she added; "That would be against the law."
And why shouldn't she be able to sell her gorgeous cakes? Gabelson said, "You have to think about the man hours that go into something like that. I'm an artist. The typical wedding cake takes between 15 and 20 hours, and I should be paid for my skills. People come to me because of my abilities, and they want to pay me... and I should be able to take that."
We asked her how she settled on a name for her business. She replied, "That's my daughter. When I was 7 months pregnant with her my husband got laid off from Halliburton." She took baking classes, and "that's when I discovered I have this talent. When Ava was six months old I decided to name it after her."
We first learned of the "Cake Bill" from a Republican release, which summarizes: "House Bill 1027 allows cottage industry food producers to directly sell nonpotentially hazardous foods to consumers at off-premise sites—like farmers markets and roadside stands—without being commercially licensed.
"Under the bill's guidelines, cottage food producers would still need to register with a county or district public health agency for a fee up to $100 and carry home baker liability insurance. Their products would also need to be labeled and include specific information, like the producer's name, ingredients and a disclaimer."
We agree with what Bradford said in the release: "This is a common sense bill. Freeing the cottage industry from regulatory burdens intended for large-scale producers helps them grow their businesses and helps their local economy."
This bill isn't perfect. People should be able to sell baked goods without registering with the county or paying fees. But on the whole this bill moves us closer to economic liberty and legal sanity.
We suspect that different groups might oppose the reform. Larger-scale bakers who want to forcibly limit their competition may try to keep the law in place. Frankly, we wouldn't trust any baker who needs to use political force to wipe out the competition. Any baker worth his salt will have enough pride to bake goods that people want to buy voluntarily in a free market.
David K. Williams, Jr., a liberty lobbyist with the Gadsden Society, said, "I think the opposition is going to come from the baker industry that wants to minimize their competition. They want to keep the consumer from buying from somebody else. From a liberty position, if someone bakes a cake, and someone else wants to buy it from them, they should be able to. A regulation preventing that kind of option is harmful to the consumer and the economy."
Some of the professional kitchens might oppose the reform, as the law would no longer compel small-scale bakers to use their facilities. Again, the law should protect people's rights, not give some businesses an unfair advantage.
Finally, the Nanny State whiners hate liberty and want to shackle everyone with bureaucratic controls.
Gabelson offered the appropriate answer to them: "If you don't want to eat cottage food, you don't have to."
Williams pointed out that consumers direct the market: "Obviously anybody selling bad cake isn't going to be in business anymore."
Today, far too many stupid laws impede entrepreneurs and give politically-connected businesses unfair advantages. Such laws squash economic progress and kill jobs.
The "cake bill" is a bit of welcomed yeast to help leaven the spirit of liberty here in Colorado.
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.
Update: See also my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/cake-bill-advances/) February 2 note, as well as today's article on the topic by (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20039957) the Independence Institute's Krista Kafer.
Also check out my sweet video:
Gessler Addresses Anonymous, Verifiable Voting
February 28, 2012
Secretary of State Scott Gessler discussed the standards of anonymous, verifiable voting when I interviewed him at the Independence Institute's annual banquet. He said that, while current practices are "solid," potential improvements in technology might further improve the system.
For additional videos from the II's banquet, see also:
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/kopel-obamacare-mandates.html) Kopel: ObamaCare Mandates Unconstitutional
(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/independence-institute-banquet.html) Independence Institute Banquet
Suit Seeks to Lobato-mize Colorado's Constitution
March 2, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published March 2 by Grand Junction Free Press.
Do "we the people" have a say in how politicians spend our money, or not? That is the basic issue at stake in a legal case currently winding its way through the courts.
(http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/120911%20District%20Court%20Order.pdf) Lobato vs. State of Colorado seeks to overturn Constitutional restraints on government spending so that judges can compel legislators to spend tax dollars on government schools to the teachers unions' satisfaction.
First some context: In 1992, the majority of Colorado voters passed the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to restrain government spending and better protect people's rights to keep and use the fruits of their labor. Last fall, an astounding 64 percent of voters rejected Prop. 103, a tax hike loosely tied to education funding.
On December 9 of last year, Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport spit in the faces of Colorado voters by essentially throwing out the fall vote and reinterpreting the state Constitution—throwing out the parts she doesn't like—to suit her own political agenda.
Colorado's Constitution (Article IX, Section 2) states: "The general assembly shall . . . provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state. . . . One or more public schools shall be maintained in each school district within the state, at least three months in each year. . . ."
Judge Rappaport fixated on the phrase "thorough and uniform" and ruled she gets to unilaterally decide what that means, the rest of the Constitution be damned. Of course she decided that the legislature must spend more tax dollars on education, regardless of what the people earning that money may think about it, and regardless of the fact that Colorado's government schools already spent $8.7 billion in 2009-10 for over $10,000 per student (as Ben DeGrow (http://education.i2i.org/2011/12/colorado-k-12-funding-follow-the-money/) reports for the Independence Institute).
Obviously the context of the phrase grants wide latitude to the legislature to decide what constitutes a "thorough and uniform" education. The language explicitly says three months of school each year would be perfectly fine; obviously the legislature provides far more than that.
But of course the Constitution contains not just that one section, but many others as well, including TABOR and other spending restraints. As is obvious to everyone except, apparently, Judge Rappaport, one must interpret each Constitutional provision in the light of the others.
For example, while the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states," the First Amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from doing so in a way that abridges "the freedom of speech, or of the press." Likewise, Colorado's Constitutional language regarding education must be interpreted in light of the provisions concerning other legislative responsibilities and spending restraints.
Judge Rappaport's biases showed through clearly in her viciously dishonest attack on John Andrews, the former state senator and now the director of the Centennial Institute. Andrews testified as to the meaning of the Constitutional language; Rappaport's decision summarizes that Andrews believes "a 'uniform' education means that any child in Colorado, regardless of his or her family background or geographic location, receives the same learning opportunities and is within reach of the same educational outcomes as any other child in the state." Fair enough, so far.
But then consider Rappaport's snarky editorializing: "Some of the State's witnesses hold extreme views on education. . . . Senator Andrews' vision for the future is a separation of schools and state similar to the separation of church and state in our nation. . . . He reveres the educational system we had in this country in the 1700s because there were few government operated schools. He fails to mention that our schools did not educate whole segments of the population, including women and people of color, at that time."
It is true that Andrews advocates the ultimate separation of school and state. So do we (and the comparison to the separation of church and state is apt). But that has no bearing on the meaning of the Constitutional phrase in question. Obviously Andrews recognizes that the Constitution imposes particular requirements that the legislature and the courts must meet. Obviously he wants every child to enjoy a superb education. For Rappaport to essentially call Andrews a sexist and a racist, despite his explicit comments to the contrary, is quite contemptible—and it illustrates the tenor of her politicized ruling.
Thankfully, on January 23, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/Notice%20of%20Appeal.pdf) announced his office's intent to appeal the ruling. He correctly said "the constitution, including TABOR, really is under attack in this case" (as DeGrow (http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2012/01/18/31417-suthers-lobato-appeal-could-take-a-year) reports). He further said, "We are going to suggest... the question of what's thorough and uniform has to be looked at in the context of subsequent constitutional amendments."
Let us hope that the next judge to hear the case puts Colorado's voters and Constitution ahead of the judge's personal political agenda.
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.
See also (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/06/spending-limits-protect-against-factions/) Spending Limits Protect Against Factions, regarding Kerr vs. State of Colorado.
Paul Jacob Advocates Ballot Initiatives
March 5, 2012
Last month Paul Jacob of (http://thisiscommonsense.com/) Common Sense spoke at Liberty On the Rocks in Denver. He argued that often the best way to advance the agenda of liberty is through ballot initiatives at the state and local level. He responded to my questions about financial constraints and the problem with anti-liberty groups using initiatives.
New Blog Domain with WordPress Setup
March 5, 2012
I'm changing my blog again.
I've used Google's Blogger for my blogging since 2008. In 2010, Blogger stopped posting content to independently hosted domains, which is why I switched my blog to blog.ariarmstrong.com (hosted by Google).
But I haven't been terribly happy with that. Because Blogger generates sloppy code, it doesn't play well with Facebook (specifically, FB doesn't properly pull in the image or lead text), and that is increasingly a problem. Also, I just don't like the "blog-dot" URL.
I've used WordPress over at (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard, and I've really liked it. And I very much like hosting my own material on a server that I pay independently.
For anybody getting going with a blog, I now strongly recommend using WordPress installed on your server. In my view, this is far better than going with Blogger or with WordPress's own hosting service. And, if anything, using installed WP is the easiest option if your hosting service already provides an install option.
For now, I'm just going to leave all my older stuff up where it now resides. I might slowly integrate it into the new WP blog. For now, my archives exist in four places:
- (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/) Blog.AriArmstrong.com, February 2010 to February 2012
- (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/index2.htm) AriArmtrong.com, October 2007 to February 2010
- (http://www.freecolorado.com/index2.htm) FreeColorado.com, January 2008 to February 2010
- (http://www.freecolorado.com/firstdecade.htm) FreeColorado.com, Pre-2008
I thought about again splitting the blog into two locations (AriArmstrong.com and FreeColorado.com) but ultimately I decided that it's much easier to have everything in one place, where I can control everything from a single interface.
I started my web page in late 1998, before the term "blog" had even been coined (if (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog) Wiki is to be believed on the matter). Back then, I hand-coded everything under the guidance of HTML for Dummies. I've struggled to figure out what to do with my blog, but now I think I finally have it where I want it. And with WordPress, I'm confident I'm using the best modern software to handle the job.
Did somebody call me an old dog?
October 5, 2012 Update: I have started the process of migrating all my archival material to this web page. I am dating that material according to its original publication date. Thus, everything dated prior to this post was migrated on or after October 4, 2012.
Paul Jacob Fights for Liberty
March 6, 2012
Last month Paul Jacob of (http://thisiscommonsense.com/) Common Sense discussed ballot initiatives with Liberty On the Rocks. In the course of his talk he discussed why he went to prison over the draft, and he passionately pled with his fellow activists to continue to fight for liberty. I've edited two short videos featuring those remarks.
Paul Jacob on going to prison:
Paul Jacob on our "very critical point" in history.
Related:
(http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/03/paul-jacob-advocates-ballot-initiatives/) Paul Jacob Advocates Ballot Initiatives
Manley Defends Campus Concealed Carry
March 7, 2012
Jim Manley, lead attorney in the suit to overturn the concealed-cary ban at the University of Colorado, discussed the cast last night at CU, Boulder.
Manley said that not only CU but every "public" campus in the state now needs to ensure it does not ban concealed carry. He also pointed out that Colorado's concealed carry law generally requires permit holders to be over 21 and go through fingerprinting and a background check.
Moreover, he said, Colorado State University has complied with state law for nearly a decade, and that example illustrates that campus concealed carry simply does not generate a problem.
Just One Thing: The Key to Regional, Focused Activism
March 8, 2012
Recently I delivered a talk at (http://liberty.toastmastersclubs.org/) Liberty Toastmasters about activism. I argued that, though our nation faces profound problems, we can be effective as liberty activists by focusing on regional activism and an individualized mission.
Search for Missing Friends Brought Out Heroes
March 9, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published February 17 by Grand Junction Free Press.
The Widegren family, with nine children and eight grandchildren ranging in age from a few months to over 40 years, has long been a pillar of the Palisade community, with connections spanning much of the west and beyond. That's one reason why, when Mark Widegren and his friend and coworker Brian Axe went missing near Price, Utah, dozens of people responded to the emergency, driving and flying in from around the country to meet in Price to help with the search. Family and friends of both men played key roles in the search.
When the young men's vehicle finally was found on February 5, the news was tragic: their vehicle had crashed down a steep cliff a week previously on Saturday night, and the sheriff's department deemed the crash "unsurvivable." Mark and Brian were driving through the treacherous Cottonwood Canyon, off of Nine Mile Canyon, northeast of Price on their way to their base camp. They worked for an energy company there.
The one silver lining to the horrible tragedy was seeing dozens of the men's family, friends, and coworkers heroically join the search. Todd Widegren, Mark's oldest brother, told reporters, "These guys were friends and family of a huge, huge number of people. And everybody that is here is here for the love of those guys."
Because Ari went to school with several of the Widegrens and has long known the family, he too traveled to Price to witness the search (and perhaps in some small way to help with it). In retrospect, the efforts of the searchers pay tribute to the memory of the lost friends. We won't mention their names here because we don't want to make anybody feel uncomfortable, but we wanted to describe their valiant efforts to the broader community.
Volunteer ground searchers first discovered the secluded vehicle and hiked to it, giving the family and friends at least the comfort of learning what happened. Obviously the hope had been to find the men alive and assist them. Finally we learned that had been impossible, but the fact that, at the time, we thought they might still be alive made it crucially important to find them as quickly as possible. As terrible as the news turned out to be, at least the news allowed the recovery effort to proceed, and it gave the family and searchers a bit of peace from the constant anxiety and stress of not knowing.
Two young men from Grand Junction first spotted the vehicle by scrambling down a steep, snowy decline and then peering down the face of the cliff. The vehicle had been difficult to see from the air because it was crumpled and it blended into the surrounding rocks. After those men called in the news, another group, consisting of two family friends from Denver and two family members, drove and hiked to the vehicle, again through heavy snow, to check for survivors and help guide the recovery effort.
For several days, other search teams had covered the area extensively by ground and by air. One group of friends and family searched throughout the night with spotlights.
At the Holiday Inn hotel in Price, which was very accommodating to the search parties, others organized the search, verified that everyone returned safely from searching, organized written reports from the searchers, reported to friends elsewhere and to the media, and worked with the local authorities.
Local law enforcement agents helped track down credit card receipts, cell phone data, and security camera footage that helped narrow down the search area. Carbon County Deputy Sheriff Wally Hendricks helped organize the search and bring updates to the family.
Of course the search took money and resources, and many people responded with donations of food or money. One local "cage" fighter even donated his fight purse to the recovery effort and raised additional funds from sponsors.
Plenty of others also helped out. The Abby and Jennifer Recovery Foundation sent representatives from Grand Junction to Price to help. Several Price locals also joined the search with their ATVs and other vehicles. The owner of a small air company paid for the hotel rooms of the searchers. Pizza Hut delivered an order of free pizzas to those involved. (No doubt we've inadvertently left some people out.)
When the emergency hit, many people from the Western Slope, Utah, and beyond answered the call. Their efforts are an inspiration and a credit to our communities.
We only wish the final outcome had been the one we had hoped for. Mark and Brian will be deeply missed.
Related:
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/integrating-aerial-photography-in-search-and-rescue/) Integrating Aerial Photography in Search and Rescue
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/a-few-thoughts-about-volunteer-search-and-rescue/) A Few Thoughts about Volunteer Search and Rescue
Films on Disk Might Survive (On Another Earth)
March 12, 2012
What is the future of movie rental?
My wife and I watched (http://www.foxsearchlight.com/anotherearth/) Another Earth this evening. I posted to Facebook: "Another Earth is basically a tragic drama set to a sci-fi premise. The premise of the drama is implausible; the premise of the sci-fi backdrop totally impossible. Still, we found the writing to be sharp, the acting to be fantastic, the directing to be interesting (though there's too much zooming!), and the story to be engaging throughout."
But my parenthetical comment about the business of movie rentals is perhaps more interesting: "Incidentally, Amazon has started running regular specials on streaming video rentals; I don't see how disks can possibly survive more than a few more years."
We rented Another Earth for 99 cents, and Amazon regularly puts movie rentals on sale for a buck or two. With online rentals at $3.99, I'll make the trek to Red Box to rent a disk, even though that requires two trips (one to pick up, another to drop off). But as the price of online rentals drops, I just don't see how movies on disk can survive, at least in the rental market. (There's some advantage to buying disks if you want to own a copy, as a disk can be loaned or sold.)
What struck me was that I watched a science-fiction movie in a way that shows the real world rapidly progressing beyond the world envisioned in a lot of older science fiction. Who needs to contemplate another earth when we've got this one?
How the Left Paints the Right as Anti-Woman
March 22, 2012
The following article originally was published March 16 by Grand Junction Free Press.
The birth-control mandate that forces insurance companies to provide "free" birth control is an extensive forced wealth transfer scheme, compelling everyone who doesn't use birth control to pay for others to use it. It is blatantly unjust, violating the rights of women and men as consumers as well as the rights of religious organizations that condemn the use of birth control. So how is it that Republicans are losing the issue so spectacularly? How is it that the left so successfully paints the right as "anti-woman?"
Some have suggested that the Obama administration shoved the birth-control mandate down the throats of religious institutions specifically to get a rise out of Republicans. It was a conscious political strategy, in this view. Whether or not Democrats intended that result, they achieved it. The Democrats left the animal skins and clubs lying about, and many Republicans gleefully dressed the part of troglodyte.
Rather than clearly and consistently answer, "Women have every right to purchase and use birth control, but they don't have the right to force others to pay for it," Republicans managed to come up with a rather different set of claims. Consider:
• Rick Santorum (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57378677-503544/santorum-hammered-for-opposing-birth-control/) said that birth control is "harmful to women" and "harmful to society." Birth control is "not okay," he (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/ignore-santorums-depraved-prescription-have-sex-for-pleasure/) added; it is "counter to how things are supposed to be" because sex should be "for purposes of procreation" and not "simply [for] pleasure."
• When law student Sandra Fluke publicly endorsed the birth-control mandate, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/santorum-says-limbaugh-comment-on-georgetown-students-contraception-and-sex-tape-absurd/2012/03/02/gIQASN6PnR_story.html) called her a "slut" and a "prostitute" and suggested that she make sex tapes available. (He later (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20095768) apologized.)
• Newt Gingrich (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/newt-sides-with-anti-abortion-zealots/) condemned "post conception birth control"—which notably can include the standard birth control pill—and endorsed banning it.
• Gingrich, Santorum, and Ron Paul all have (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/romney-rejects-personhood-group-again) supported the so-called "personhood" movement, which would totally ban all abortions from the moment of conception, ban the birth control pill, and ban standard types of in vitro fertility treatments.
The reason the left is able to paint the right as "anti-woman" is that there is more than a grain of truth to the claim.
The left successfully used the "anti-woman" tag in 2010 against Ken Buck, who lost the U.S. Senate race in Colorado. After Buck endorsed a "personhood" measure in Colorado (before backpedalling), Planned Parenthood ran ads (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2010/11/how-abortion-cost-ken-buck-us-senate.html) proclaiming, "Colorado women can't trust Ken Buck."
Given the background debates, many voters found it easier to interpret even Buck's innocuous comments in a sinister light. In response to the blatant gender-based attacks by his opponent Jane Norton, Buck (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013117-503544.html) joked that people should vote for him he doesn't "wear high heals." Attacking Buck over that comment was a cheap shot, but it was also a shot that Buck himself invited by entertaining the "personhood" agenda.
Now the Democrats are trying to beat the Republicans by "Ken Bucking" the lot of them. Democrats think that by winning the votes of independent women, they can win. And they're probably right. As Rachel Maddow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-maddow-the-gop-war-on-birth-control/2012/02/10/gIQAbZ734Q_story.html) writes for the Washington Post, "Today's Republican candidates are all Ken Buck now." If Democrats can make the charge stick—and Republicans are making that all too easy—the Democrats win.
Unfortunately, rather than focus on individual rights, distracted Republicans allow the left to get away with various absurd lies about the mandate. One lie is that birth control paid through insurance is "free." It is certainly not free for those forced to pay higher insurance premiums.
Another lie is that declining to force people who don't use birth control to pay for others to use it somehow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/its-democrats-who-are-putting-focus-on-birth-control/2012/02/21/gIQARV6ISR_blog.html) limits "access to birth control." We think (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-wine/HB00089) red wine is good for our hearts, but that doesn't mean we should be able to force others to stock our wine cellars or that our "access" to red wine is limited if they don't. There is a huge difference between having the freedom to buy something and having the "freedom" to help yourself to somebody else's cash.
Yet another (http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_20082009) creative lie is that not forcing religious institutions to provide birth control would somehow impose "theocracy." Every person, including those who join religious groups, properly has the freedom to voluntarily enter into contracts. Theocracy means imposing religious doctrines by force of law; the birth-control mandate imposes the comparable injustice of forcibly interfering with religious groups. (Of course, much of the controversy regarding religious groups arises from the phenomenon of employer-paid insurance, a relic of inane tax policies. But that is a separate discussion.)
The unfortunate fact is that neither the left nor the right defends the rights of individuals to control their own resources and bodies and contract by mutual consent. Where is the political leader who will take a pro-choice, pro-individual rights stand across the board?
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari blogs at AriArmstrong.com in the Denver area.
Why Presidential Politics Shouldn't Matter to You (Much)
March 23, 2012
Recently at (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/snowcon2012/) Snowcon I offered a short talk on why people shouldn't spend many resources on presidential politics, at least this year. There are plenty of other worthy causes to spend your time promoting!
Birth Control Mandate Violates Individual Rights, Muell Argues
March 25, 2012
At a recent talk at Liberty On the Rocks in Denver, Amanda Muell argued that the birth control insurance mandate violates individual rights. She compared it to a law forcing restaurants to offer more extravagant and more expensive meals that customers wish to buy. The mandate does not merely violate religious liberty, she said, but individual rights.
Voice of the Musical Saw: Interview with Natalia Paruz
March 27, 2012
My (http://player.vimeo.com/video/32468922) favorite scene from the film Another Earth involves the two main characters in a music hall; the composer plays the musical saw for his friend. The director skillfully weaves in scenes of space flight, and the friend (played by Brit Marling, who also cowrote the script) offers a moving response to the music. (I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/03/films-on-disk-might-survive-on-another-earth/) appreciated and enjoyed the quirky film overall despite its problems.)
After I posted my initial remarks, (http://www.SawLady.com/) Natalia Paruz—the "Saw Lady"—mentioned to me via (https://twitter.com/sawlady) Twitter that she played the music of that scene. I'd already seen her perform the "(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPvTTc7jAVQ) Star Trek" theme on a YouTube video. And, when I was younger, a friend of mine played musical saw. So I figured I'd ask Paruz for an interview. She agreed, and the exchange follows. My questions are in italics.
How did you come to participate in the film Another Earth?
Director Mike Cahill saw me performing in the NYC subway and that gave him the idea to incorporate a musical saw into the film. He asked me if I would help choose music for the saw to play, and then record it for the soundtrack. He also asked me if I would coach William Mapother, the actor who was to act as if playing a saw, to do that.
Did you record the piece specifically for this film? How long of a process was it?
The piece was composed for the film by composer (http://www.ScottMunsonMusic.com/) Scott Munson, who is probably the most prolific composer for the musical saw, inspired by the way Mike (the director) described the movie and the feel of the scene in an e-mail. I recorded what was to be a demo of the piece for Mike to hear—I was basically sight-reading the piece. We were certain we would re-record it properly later (if the piece met with Mike's approval). It turned out that Mike loved the piece so much that he wanted to keep it exactly as is—so we never re-recorded it—what you hear in the movie is the demo! I later recorded the piece again, for my second album.
What was it like working with an actor to teach him to look like he's playing the saw? Did he end up actually being able to play it a bit?
Working with William was a lot of fun for me because it was different from what I usually do, which is teach people how to actually play. It was challenging to come up with a system of signs that would map out the moves the music requires, for a person who doesn't read music.
At the shoot I stood in front of William and mimed directions for him while he was "playing." In the scene it looks as if William is looking as Brit Marling watching him play, but in actuality she wasn't even there when we shot William "playing." He was looking at my miming. Later, we shot Brit sitting in the audience. William wasn't there for that—the director had me play on stage, so that the sound would inspire emotions on Brit's face.
There is an instant when all one sees is the saw (a shot from behind)—that shot was done with me actually holding the blade. William did an excellent job pretending to play a saw—he never made a sound (he didn't learn how to actually play) but he looks very convincing. During the shoot I had to give marks to each take, letting the director know which part of which take looked realistic and which didn't. Editing that scene is a masterpiece of its own—it couldn't have been easy to assemble all this separate footage, and Mike did such an amazing job!
Can you actually "tune" a saw, as the actor suggests in the film, or was that just made up for the performance?
In actuality one doesn't "tune" the saw but rather "warms it up" before playing. That is done by bending the blade repeatedly up and down. If the air is cold (say, because of strong AC in an auditorium)—the saw wouldn't sound good on the first try, and bending it up and down warms the metal to a temperature where it would vibrate more readily. That is what the "tuning" bit is based on.
How big of a deal was the film in terms of advancing your career?
Having a Fox Searchlight film on my bio certainly looks nice next to the other films I played for (Dummy with actor Adrien Brody, American Carny, I Sell the Dead, etc.). Also, the majority of the "Likes" on my (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Natalia-Saw-Lady-Paruz-musical-saw-player/129253832734?sk=app_155326481208883) Facebook Page are from people who saw Another Earth, so I would say the film certainly helped spread word about musical saw playing in general and myself as well.
As I watched the scene from Another Earth, I was struck by how much the musical saw sounds like a human voice. Usually the violin is described as close to the human voice; is the musical saw the closest to it?
It is amazing how a piece of steel can sound so human. So many times when people hear me playing before seeing me play, they come looking for a singer . . . and when they realize the sound is coming from the saw they find it hard to believe. They put their ears close to the blade to verify the sound is actually coming from there!
The saw's sound is so much like that of a soprano voice that it was used in a recording of some choir, to do the high notes their sopranos couldn't reach. I perform with opera singers often. Audience members often remark on how sometimes they cannot tell what sound is coming from the singer and what sound is coming from the saw! I recorded track #13 of my (http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/i-saw-the-future/id452776215) second album especially in order to show the similarity of a soprano voice to that of the saw's.
I assume one can buy specialty "saws" for music that can't actually saw anything. What's the business of producing musical saws like?
About 100 years ago there were many manufacturers of saws made especially for music (see my (http://www.sawlady.com/DifferentSaws.htm) detailed list of them). Today there are only three manufacturers of musical saws in the USA and some overseas, led by Mussehl & Westphal, which is the only manufacturer who lasted over the years. They have been selling musical saws since 1921. For a few years during the 1920s, sales averaged approximately 25,000 per year! However sales dropped significantly during the late 1930s as the art of playing music on a saw almost disappeared, especially after WWII.
So how did you get involved in this unusual pursuit? How long did it take you to become proficient?
I was introduced to the art of playing music on a saw by chance (or fate). I had mapped out my life as a dancer (I was a trainee with the Martha Graham Dance Company, and I performed with many smaller companies, in musicals, taught dance, etc.) but being run over by a car put an end to that. I searched for an alternate career, but nothing I tried filled the void the lack of dance left in my spirit. To cheer me up, my parents took me to Europe. We went to a show for tourists and part of it was a guy playing a saw, and for the first time since the accident I felt excited about something. It was as if providence pointed its finger to tell me what I was meant to do in life.
Since there was no musical saw teacher to be found, I taught myself, through trial & error (no internet tutorials back then either) how to play. At first I only thought of it as a hobby, but an invitation from a local Salvation Army Center (which heard about my playing from a neighbor of mine who could hear me practicing) changed that. When my phone kept ringing with invitations to perform, I realized that I could turn this into a career.
Anything else?
About 10 years ago I founded the NYC (http://musicalsawfestival.org/) Musical Saw Festival which aims to promote the art form of playing music with a saw. When I started there were only five other saw players, but our numbers grew and we even established a new Guinness World Record for the "Largest Musical Saw Ensemble," with 53 people playing saws together!
Thank you for the great questions, Ari!
Readers are invited to visit my (http://www.SawLady.com/) website, where people can download my music, and my (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Natalia-Saw-Lady-Paruz-musical-saw-player/129253832734?sk=app_155326481208883) Facebook Page, where people may ask me questions about the musical saw or the movie.
Thank you very much,
all the best,
Natalia
Ideas of the Tea Party Survey
March 27, 2012
I distributed this survey earlier this year; its goal is to better understand where Tea Partiers get their ideas. Replies follow the questions. (Obviously, I do not necessarily agree with all the replies.)
1. What is your name?
2. What city and state do you live in? [Answers omitted.]
3. What is your primary occupation?
4. If you have a Bachelor's degree or higher, please list your major(s) and degree(s).
5. Did you become politically active through the Tea Party movement? How long have you been active in politics?
6. Besides the Tea Party label, how do you usually describe yourself in terms of your political commitments? If any of the following apply, please list them: conservative, Republican, independent, Christian conservative, fiscal conservative, free-market activist, libertarian, classical liberal, Objectivist.
7. Through what channels do you share your ideas with others? If you use any of the following means, please briefly explain how: social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), electronic email list, radio show, podcast, blog, regular newspaper column, occasional letters to newspapers, organize or participate in politically-oriented meetings or discussion groups.
8. What (if any) ideological or political organizations do you contribute to financially or volunteer to support?
9. Were you exposed to free-market ideas in college? If so, please briefly explain how.
10. What are your main, regular sources of politically-related ideas and information? Please list the most significant radio shows, TV shows, publications, blogs, organizations, or writers that you turn to on a regular basis.
11. Have you read any books since the rise of the modern Tea Party movement that have strongly influenced your political ideas? If so, which ones?
12. For each of the following figures, please briefly explain whether you have heard of the figure, whether he or she has influenced you, and, if so, how:
a) Milton Friedman
b) Friedrich Hayek
c) Ayn Rand
d) Henry Hazlitt
e) Ludwig von Mises
f) Thomas Sowell
13. Besides the figures already listed, have any scholars, intellectuals, or religious leaders strongly influenced your political ideas? If so, please name them and briefly explain how they influenced you.
Keith Peterson
3. RF Engineer (part-time)/All things computer the rest of the time
4. NA
5. No. 20 years
6. Conservative (Social and fiscal). However, I am becoming more Libertarian with each passing second.
7. Organize meetings (Legislative reviews with state Senators/Reps, Tea Party gatherings, guest speakers on issues). Facebook, Google+, website, assisting with radio program (not a host).
8. individual campaigns/candidates. Have in the past been a contributing member of Heritage and similar organizations.
9. No
10. Talk radio/podcasts (Glenn Beck, CATO, Coffee and Markets, Reason Magazine podcast, and others). Imprimis, Reason Magazine, PPC, I2I, Complete Colorado, Gasden Society of Colorado, Big Government, Daily KOS, MoveOn, Occupy sites. Too many to list all. Mostly Right leaning and Libertarian sites and publications, with a healthy sprinkling from the Left as well.
11. No
12. Ayn Rand, Hayek, and Mises. Mises mostly in helping me better understand how an economy should, and can, function.
13. The person who has maybe influenced me the most since the Tea Party came along is not well known outside of Colorado (so far as I know he isn't), that would likely be David K. Williams. Ravi Zacharias, even though he rarely touches on the political in an in depth way, has influenced me politically for well over a decade now.
Anonymous
3. Software Development
4. Almost. I got a job in my field while still in school, and have enough major specific credits in Computer Science to graduate, but I make more than average for people with my degree already and don't have all of the general education credits I need to graduate.
5. Tea party movement, I'm not terribly active in it, though I agree with its original intent and still talk to people about it. I've been voting since I could (2000) and have discussed politics with my friends since about 1992. My ideas didn't really solidify until 2002 to 2003.
6. Libertarian primarily. Republican secondary. (It used to be reversed.) Classical Liberal, Fiscal conservative, and Objectivist are all things that I agree with at least partially.
7. Twitter, Tumblr, and my own blog (socia.arkaic.com), I comment on Facebook and Google+ posts by others, but rarely start those myself. I comment regularly on the blogs of others as well. I used to use Google Reader to share, discuss, and read articles, but Google neutered it, so now I use Newsblur with Tumblr and Disqus to do the same thing.
8. I have contributed to Freedomworks and the Fairtax foundation before.
9. To an extent, though the professor didn't directly espouse it. Macroeconomics class had the building blocks for free market ideas, but I had to put them together myself. Microeconomics wasn't very useful for free market ideas.
10. Reason.com, BigGovernment, John Stossel, Penn Jillette, South Park, The Blaze, The Jerry Doyle show, The Neal Boortz program and Free Colorado, to name a few. I have friends that cull interesting articles from sites like The Huffington Post and others, so I get a subset of those as well.
11. Actually very few, given my job I haven't had as much time to read political books since the Tea party was founded.
12. A. Definitely, the sense of optimism combined with concrete examples of how the market works was very helpful in solidifying my ideas.
b. Indirectly, I've read a number of things from people who cite Hayek and I find these second hand bits to be quite insightful, but haven't yet gone to read his stuff directly.
c. Yes, though not always in the direction she intends. Still good fodder to bring up new directions of thinking to problems I'm already looking at.
d. Sadly, no.
e. Another person I've read things indirectly from.
f. Some stuff here and there. Mostly articles rather than books. I've shared a number of them to better explain to others why I take the positions I do.
13. Walter E Williams' writing has helped me with some of the concepts of free markets.
Earl Allen
3. Flight Instructor
4. M.A. English Literature
5. No. Since 1993, when I moved to CO.
6. libertarian/Libertarian/free-market activist/classical liberal in that order.
7. Twitter, Facebook, various email lists, blog http://flypro.blogspot.com , LTE's, Boulder Libertarians.
8. Cato, downsizedc.org , Libertarian Party, theadvocates.org , ij.org
9. Yes. But not by teachers or classes. Read Milton Friedman's "Free To Choose" when I was a college teacher.
10. wattsupwiththat.com , sppiblog.org , joannenova.com.au , news.google.com , Drudge Report , peoplespresscollective.org
11. "The Most Dangerous Superstition" http://larkenrose.com/store.html
12. a) Milton Friedman read "Free To Choose"
b) Friedrich Hayek read "Road To Serfdom"
c) Ayn Rand read "everything I could get my hands on" and own three copies of "Atlas Shrugged", one of which is falling apart at the seams due to overuse.
d) Henry Hazlitt read "Economics in One Lesson"
e) Ludwig von Mises have read parts of "Human Action" and many of his essays
f) Thomas Sowell read "Inside American Education" and "The Vision of the Anointed"
13. Ari Armstrong for his untiring efforts to promote liberty in my home State. David Kopel for his articulate defense of self-defense rights. Jon Caldara for his articulation of liberty and free markets everywhere. Ron Paul for having the guts to stand up to the Repellicant status quo. Harry Browne for his gentlemanly articulation of free-market politics. Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il for being the perfect illustrations of what happens when authoritarians are in control. Trey Parker and Matt Stone for their Galt's Gulch of humor at Comedy Central and for "The Book of Mormon", which has a chance to change history (away from a Mormon Prez candidate).
Howard Towt
3. Internet Service Provider.
4. Engineering: BS, MS; Business Administration: MBA.
5. No; Since 2004.
6. Republican.
7. Blog: http://anti-republicanculture.com.
8. None.
9. Yes; Courses in political science and economics.
10. Radio: Rush Limbaugh; Blogs: Instapundit, Power Line, The Other McCain, Ricochet, Urgent Agenda, Black Five.
11. Breitbart's "Righteous Indignation;" Bolton's "Surrender is not an Option."
12. a) Milton Friedman—Monetary policy vs. fiscal policy.
b) Friedrich Hayek—The role of intellectuals.
c) Ayn Rand—"The Fountainhead" is the best novel written.
d) Henry Hazlitt—(Don't know.)
e) Ludwig von Mises—I need to know more about the Austrian economists...
f) Thomas Sowell—Great respect for his economic pragmatism and courage.
13. Ron Radosh, Victor Davis Hanson, Sarah Palin: people with the courage to promote the U.S. Constitution as a unique and important philosophical document.
Anonymous
3. Computer programmer
4. BSEE
5. No. 30 years.
6. Libertarian
7. Electronic email list
Blog
Occasional LTE's
Organize and participate in meetings and discussion groups.
8. Libertarian Party
9. Once in 1972 when a Libertarian Party sympathizer came to speak. I was also heavily involved with free market economists at Columbia University and the University of Chicago
10. Ari and Linn Armstrong, John Stossel
11. No
12. a) Milton Friedman—Free to choose
c) Ayn Rand—Yes. I thought she was prescient when I first read her in high school.
d) Yes.
e) Yes.
f) Yes. I read his articles in Townhall
13. James Heckman, Nobel Laureate. I worked for him for 5 years before he got his Nobel.
Anonymous
3. Computer Modeler for Smart Grid and Direct Marketing applications
4. Bachelor in Chemistry, Bachelor in Physics
5. Not explicitly through the Tea party movement. I have been active since returning to the US from Thailand, though my disillusionment of late had caused me to be less active then initially on my
return. The gestation and birth of the Tea Party may change that.
6. Libertarian, with Nationalist tendencies.
7. Email and discussions
8. I have helped the Libertarian party in the past.
9. not really-- but that was the 1970s
10. Fox news, KCOL600, Glenn Beck, CNN (yuck), 760 radio in Boulder (yuck, keep your enemies closer), Mark Steyn, National Review
11. A great many... Mark Steyn-- America Alone, After America
Glenn Beck—Common Sense, Broke, Arguing with Idiots
Politically incorrect guide to Socialism,
Politically incorrect guide to Islam and the Crusades
12. a) Milton Friedman—Yes, blessed be his name-- Rational economic
analysis
b) Friedrich Hayek—Yes, blessed be his name—argued Keynes into a
corner
c) Ayn Rand—Yes, Blessed be her name (though she wouldn't appreciate it) A great deal of VERY good writing about our world and how it might get corrected and/or go wrong.... In defense of Selfishness is GREAT
d) Henry Hazlitt—no?
e) Ludwig von Mises—Yes, blessed be his name—I get stuff from the institute every day...
f) Thomas Sowell—I've read a number of his pieces and enjoy them immensely... solid...
13. Mark Steyn, how much fun is that? GREAT writing about important subjects
"How Civilizations Die"—I don't' know author--treatise on impact of demographics on society and civilization actually
"Guns, Germs and Steel"—jared Diamond-- rational explanations and a clarity of analysis of history everyone could use
"Clash of Civilizations"—Huntington?—Another necessary read in this world.
"Wisdom of Crowds"—again, forget author—about how bodies of people are proven to make better decision then individual "experts"
Jonah Goldberg—Liberal Fascism... MUST READ
3. Unemployed
4. BSBA Business; MBA Business
5. NO. How long have you been active in politics? 25 years
6.
7. Active in Republican organizations, occasional letters to newspapers, organize and participate in politically-oriented meetings, lobby state legislature.
8. Colorado Union of Taxpayers, Republican Party
9. NO
10.
11. Read Atlas Shrugged for the fourth time.
12. a) Milton Friedman yes, yes
b) Friedrich Hayek yes, yes
c) Ayn Rand yes, yes
d) Henry Hazlitt yes, yes
e) Ludwig von Mises yes, yes
f) Thomas Sowell yes, yes
13.
Kyle Haight
3. I am a software engineer.
4. I hold a BS in Cognitive Science from the University of California, San Diego. I took a year and a half of graduate study in philosophy from San Jose State but left the program without obtaining a degree.
5. It depends on what you mean by 'politically active'. I have been politically aware since I was a teenager in the mid-to-late 1980's, in the sense of paying attention to political developments, voting regularly and discussing political issues with friends and co-workers. The Tea Party movement was the first time I have moved beyond that to such actions as attending public rallies, holding sign-making events and the like.
6. I am an Objectivist and will describe myself as such when appropriate. In contexts where "Objectivist" would be uninformative I usually describe myself as a "secular pro-freedom advocate" or "pro-free market".
7. I'm a regular participant in the Objectivism Seminar, an on-line book discussion forum which explores books by Objectivists. I have blogged in the past but have not done so actively for a few years. I make political posts to Facebook occasionally.
8. I support the Ayn Rand Institute and the Anthem Foundation. I also make targeted contributions to specific political campaigns, e.g. I made a contribution to Scott Brown's campaign in early 2010 and contributed to the Wisconsin Club for Growth in support of Justice David Prosser's reelection campaign. I will probably make a similar donation in support of Governor Walker to help him fight the recall campaign the left has pushed him into.
9. I was an active member of the UCSD Objectivist club for two years; I also read a variety of pro-free-market books from the university library. This activity was largely self-motivated, not something I encountered in the classroom.
10. I get a lot of information from blogs: Instapundit, Dailypundit, Power Line, RedState, Vodkapundit and the PJ Tatler are the main ones. I also read other PJ Media more broadly. I don't listen to talk radio or watch TV news. Too bombastic, and anything they push hard will work its way into the blogosphere fairly quickly.
I also read the Objective Standard for longer-form analysis.
11. Influenced in the sense of changing my political ideas? Not particularly; I've been an Objectivist for over two decades. I did find Angelo Codevilla's essay on the ruling class to be insightful and I've used the categories he set up to help with my analysis of shorter-term political trends and conflicts particularly within the Republican party.
12. a) Milton Friedman
Yes, I've heard of him, but I haven't read any of his major works. (I did go to an 'anarchist party' thrown by his son David back in the 1990's.) I wouldn't consider him influential on my thinking.
b) Friedrich Hayek
I've heard of him. I tried reading his book "The Constitution of Liberty" when I was in college but bounced off. I've made use of his insights regarding the so-called 'knowledge problem'.
c) Ayn Rand
Obviously a major influence.
d) Henry Hazlitt
I read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" when I was in high school and it provided a very useful foundation for my understanding of how to analyze the operations of a mixed economy.
e) Ludwig von Mises
I read a large chunk of Mises' "Human Action" in high school while researching a term paper for an economic class. I was very impressed, but too young to really understand it. I consider Mises' 'Calculation Argument' to be the definitive economic refutation of socialism. Rand shows why socialism is immoral; Mises shows why it can't work in practice.
f) Thomas Sowell
I read Sowell's "Race and Culture" and "The Vision of the Anointed" in the 1990's. I found them flawed but insightful; the former provides great ammunition for arguments over discrimination, race relations and affirmative action while the latter provides excellent insights into the liberal and conservative worldviews.
His short essays are also very much worth reading in my opinion, not so much for their theoretical content (which his often flawed by his conservatism) but for the facts and the way he ties them together.
13. I'm defining 'political ideas' somewhat broadly here.
Other Objectivist intellectuals, obviously: Leonard Peikoff and Tara Smith stand out for special notice.
I learned a lot of useful economics from George Reisman and Murray Rothbard (pity the latter is such a nutcase on other issues).
Angelo Codevilla on foreign policy.
Strauss and Howe's "Generations" and "The Fourth Turning" have influenced my view of history and the nature of the crisis in which the country is currently embroiled.
Yochelson and Samenow's "The Criminal Personality" has been a major influence on my view of criminal psychology and how the government should deal with criminals.
David Horowitz's "The Politics of Bad Faith" has significantly shaped my understanding of the psychology and goals of the left.
I also have to give a nod to Bill Whittle. While he isn't an intellectual he's probably about as good a cultural commentator as you can find these days who isn't an Objectivist.
Martin Buchanan
3. Software engineer and technical writer.
4. Four years of college with no degree. Many computer science and electrical engineering courses along with physics, math, medical laboratory courses, and a variety of other subjects. Attended MIT and George Washington University and have credits from four other institutions as well.
5. No.
In a major way from 1980 through the early 1990s in Oregon, including a 1988 run for Secretary of State as the LP candidate, creating the first major school choice organization in Oregon, writing the 1990 school choice initiative and heading the campaign, and writing other initiatives for tax limits and term limits (where others did the vast majority of the real work on those other initiative; the term limits were enacted by voters and are in the Oregon constitution). Occasionally active in Colorado, including a 2008 run in the First Congressional District, though mainly active by writing letters to the editor and giving money. Wrote and published a book in 2007 that anticipated our current federal budget crisis and provided appropriate solutions (cut spending and entitlements). Have set aside another book project, about the sovereign default of the United States, as I'm working two jobs.
6. Have identified as a libertarian since 1970, am a life member of the LP, was very active in the Oregon LP, and am somewhat active in the Colorado LP. First read Ayn Rand in 1967 and am still reading her works today. I share all of her major premises while disagreeing with some specific interpretations or applications of Objectivist ideas by Ms. Rand or by those in the movement. As a libertarian I avoid the "Objectivist" label, though I could fairly be described as an Objectivist sympathizer/someone who often finds value in the Objectivist movement. "Fiscal conservative" is another fair label. I abhor deficit and debts as government policy and strongly support a balanced budget amendment. Free market activist: yes. Classical liberal: yes.
7. Occasional letters to the editors, posting to email lists, or runs for office. When my book came out, did some radio and TV appearances for it. Once I really retire I may want to run initiative campaigns again. Can imagine blogging but do not want to Facebook nor tweet, nor podcast.
8. Ayn Rand Institute, Libertarian Party national and state and candidates, Cato Institute, ISIL, and occasionally other organizations as well.
9. At MIT was active in the Radicals for Capitalism and was a reporter for Ergo, an Objectivist student newspaper. A fellow worker at Ergo was Dan Karlan who introduced me to many other libertarian writers and thinkers including Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Roy Childs, Morris and Linda Tannehill, and David Friedman. I personally accept the argument for limited government put forth by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but found and still find considerable value in the writings of the anarchocapitalists.
10. Internet each day check the Washington Post, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Drudge, Wired, New Scientist, and Slashdot. Listen to PBS, Fox, ABC, and CNN on TV.
11. None with a strong influence, though I liked the Dirty Dozen that Ari Armstrong gave me about Supreme Court cases. The last book I read was Handbook of Floating-Point Arithmetic.
12. a) Milton Friedman—middling, read Free to Choose
b) Friedrich Hayek—minor, nas been on my "ought to read" list
c) Ayn Rand—strong influence, power and clarity of her writing and philosophy
d) Henry Hazlitt—strong influence via Economics in One Lesson and other books including Thinking as a Science and Time Will Run Back
e) Ludwig von Mises—middling, read some of his books years ago but never finished Human Action
f) Thomas Sowell—minor
13. Was moved by the power of C.S. Lewis's writing and reasoning as well when I was a young man, and pondered the interesting problem of reconciling Lewis and Rand. That may be part of the reason I've generally been a deist for decades, putting me at odds with both thinkers. Was raised in the Presbyterian church as the grandson and great grandson of Presbyterian ministers by parents who valued parts of the Bible, reasoned about religion, and oscillated between liberal Christianity and agnosticism. My family background and my parents influenced me strongly and still do. As noted above, read and still value the work of several anarchocapitalist writers.
Jim McKindles
3. Retired Lucent Technologies installer/ Residential Builder
4. School of hard knocks!
5. Politically active since 1996, the year of my discovery of Dr Paul and Lew Rockwell.
6. Libertarian
7. My own email list.
8. Ron Paul and other Liberty minded candidates locally.
9. No college, just riding home with my Uncle from the construction jobsite listening to him carry on about Roosevelt and how crooked he and the unions were back in the mid sixties as a 20 year old.
10) Lew Rockwell, "Freedom Watch" on FBN
11-13) I have read each of these authors and all have influenced my way of living up here in [Michigan].
John Zaugg
3. Construction
4. Architecture-Bachelor Degree
5. No I'm not active in politics.
6. Objectivist
7. [Rarely write letters to papers; no on everything else.]
8. None
9. No
10. News commentary and books. Link TV, Democracy Now, Broadcast news commentary is shallow and bias.
11. No
12. a) Milton Friedman I have read some of his works
b) Friedrich Hayek I have read some of his works
c) Ayn Rand I have read all her works and I met Ayn Rand at a presentation in New York
d) Henry Hazlitt I have read some of his works
e) Ludwig von Mises I have read some of his works
f) Thomas Sowell I have read some of his works
Mary Lee Harsha
3. Retired IT professional
4. Theatre major
5. Three years
7. Letters to the Editor—occasionally
Facebook—post to Agenda 21 sites as well as my own. It is linked to a one year World Wide Amplified show about Objectivism that I led.
Twitter—only comments on political events, debates, etc.
The Objectivist Living blog—occassional
Electronic e-mail list: to friends in the Tea Party and 912 movements about everything I think is important to our politics and economics as well as a list of members of the Des Moines Objectivists about all things related to Objectivism.
8. 912, Tea Party, support through subscriptions The Objective Standard and The New Individualist at the Atlas Society.
9. No. I discovered them through Ayn Rand's writings which led me to the Austrian economists.
10. Ayn Rand Institute, Objectivist presentations, Tara Smith, Glenn Beck TV (GBTV), Stossel, Freedom Watch, Varney and Company, general Fox Business news all day long, The Objectivist Standard, The New Individualist, Pajama T.V., Dianne Hsieh's blog, George Reisman's Blog, Facebook Agenda 21 groups, www.mises.org, WSJ Online, Reuters, American Thinker, and what ever comes up when I Google a particular subject.
11. Helpful Books:
Amity Shlaes—The Forgotten Man
Tara Smith—Moral Rights and Political Freedom
Ayn Rand—Atlas Shrugged—again and again
Ayn Rand—Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology again
Ayn Rand—Philosophy—Who Needs it again
Nathaniel Branden's lectures—The Vision of Ayn Rand—Intro to Objectivist Philosophy
Barbara Branden's audio book—The Principles of Efficient Thinking
Leonard Peikoff—Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
Leonard Peikoff—The Ominous Parallels
Andrew Bernstein—The Capitalist Manifesto
David Harriman—The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics
Ludwig von Mises—Human Nature and Epistemological Problems of Economics
Murray Rothbard—read in Man, Economy and State and Conceived in Liberty
Frederic Bastiat—Law, Unintended Consequences and selections from the complete works of
Saul Alinsky—Rules for Radicals
Karl Marx—The Communist Manifesto
Eugen von Bohm Bawerk—Karl Marx and the Close of his System
Glenn Beck—The Overton Window, How to Talk to Idiots, Broke
Jonah Goldberg—Liberal Fascism
Charles Beard—read in History of the United States
Stephen R.C. Hicks—Explaining Post-Modernism
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison—The Federalist Papers
Helpful for understanding Communitarianism and Agenda 21
Rosa Koire—Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21
Amitai Etzioni—The Communitarian Reader
Amitai Etzioni—New Common Ground
Jay Walljasper—All That We Share
Helpful for Understanding the somewhat poor thinking of Conservatives:
Mark Levin—Liberty and Tyranny
Newt Gingrich—To Save the Country
Sarah Palin—Going Rogue
Helpful for Understanding Islam and Sharia Law
Barry Rubin—The Muslim Brotherhood
Brigiette Gabriel—Because They Hate
Brigiette Gabriel—They Must be Stopped
12. a) Milton Friedman—Yes, somewhat of an influence, though not as much as the Austrians (because his philosophy is not slid all the way down).
b) Friedrich Hayek—Yes, helped with understanding politcs and economics with his Road to Serfdom
c) Ayn Rand—Yes. Probably the most influential public figure in my life.
d) Henry Hazlitt—Yes—haven't read him yet, but he's on my list
e) Ludwig von Mises—Yes—big influence on understanding Austrian economics
f) Thomas Sowell—Yes—like to read his articles on the Atlas Society web site, have him on my book list.
13. Tara Smith—her philosophical articles in a variety of journals have taught me how to think about issues like judicial activism, how the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, Objective and non-objective law, Zero Sum thinking in Environmentalism and the welfare state.
Yaron Brook—his excellent arguments for Objectivism at debates and on P.J. T.V. and other lectures have been a source of good cheer in the face of insane politics.
Jacob Bronowski—author of the Ascent of Man—did a beautiful job of making sense of the history of science. Led me to pursue more education in that field.
Richard Dawkins—his "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Magic of Reality" have helped clarify my thinking on Evolution and the nature of reality.
Todd Walton
3. System Administrator
4. N/A
5. Yes, I became politically active through the Tea Party movement. I was not before. I got involved in second half of 2010.
6. Objectivist.
7. Google+, Meetup group, Tea Party meetings, mailing lists, Republican Party committee meetings, I used to have a radio show, occasional letters to newspapers.
8. Local tea party activities, Ron Paul campaign, ARI.
9. No. Wasn't really the point of my education.
10. Cato, Reason, ARI of course.
11. No.
12. I've heard of them all. Mises and Ayn Rand have influenced me. Mises
a little, Rand a lot.
13. No. I have other ideas, but my political philosophy is pretty much Ayn Rand 90% and then 10% from this and that and what I've cooked up myself.
Gladys Woynowskie
My primary occupation was "mother."
4. BA in Humanities, AS in Early Childhood Education, I hold an Elementary Teacher's license (in the state of CO).
5. I'm not sure I'm active yet. I have always had some interest as I see it as a citizen's responsibility. In April of 2008 I went to Lincoln Park. I was motivated by the incredible disregard for the law and for political procedure (as set forth in the constitution) which was being demonstrated by the executive branch and the democratically controlled congress.
7. On facebook, I promote unity and mutual respect with all my communications. There is one group: Free Agent Diaz within which I freely communicate because we all recognize the failure of the judicial system to protect this man and we recognize the near futility of finding justice for him.
I also make occasional comments on blogs, etc. I write to my congressmen about once every two months. Mostly I talk with my friends.
I do not see myself as an activist and I resist activist techniques. I guess I am looking for a better definition and a more productive method of participation.
8. Parental Rights.org, NRA, Freedom Center (Horowitz), Judicial Watch, United American Patriots, Wounded Warriors Project.org
9. 2 classes: Economics, Retail Marketing
10. Local: blog.ariarmstrong.com/ gjresult.com junctiondailyblog.com livingthegrandlife.blogspot.com/ waronwrong.blogspot.com coloradoindependent.com/
completecolorado.com
National: Drudge Report, The Blaze, Huffington Post, Reuters, Politico, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck
11. The Coming Insurrection by unknown, You Don't Need a Weatherman. . . by Ayers, A Point in Time by Horowitz, Chaplins and Clergy of the Revolution by JT Headley.
12. a) Milton Friedman : recognize as free market economist-never read
b) Friedrich Hayek: recognize as support of capitalism-never read
c) Ayn Rand: first read Atlas Shrugged in 1969 (give or take a year) Have re-read it at least 3 times since, have read all of her books. Her promotion of personal rights and responsibilities was irresistible.
d) Henry Hazlitt : no idea
e) Ludwig von Mises: no idea
f) Thomas Sowell: I know this name, seems linked to economics
13. The greatest influence on my political thought is the Bible. When I can understand how God wants me to interact with my fellowman, then I will know how act as a political entity. When I understand the constitution and the environment in which it developed, then I know how to act as an American. I am a self-educated historian with focus on ancient history and early American history
I have read most of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations . I have read both of Thomas Paine's books (Rights of Man and Common Sense). Both of these men have been read more than once. This effort helped to build my understanding of the context from which our country came to be. Along with this would be the writings of Bradford and the Mayflower compact, and the biographies and writings of the founding fathers. Of the latter, my knowledge is not exhaustive but is varied. I seem to be lacking great scholars and intellectuals (living) who have influenced me. I find no suitable explanation for that.
Bill Setser
3. Director at Damon Runyon Repertory Theater
5. No. 32 years
6. I am an individualist with a mix of the following: conservative, Republican, fiscal conservative, free-market activist, libertarian, classical liberal.
7. I talk politics with friends and family, and read and comment frequently on libertarian and
conservative blogs, and occasionally write letters to the Pueblo Chieftain.
8. RNC, Colorado Republican Party, NRA, and ISP through Outdoors Unlimited
9. No
10. Pueblo Chieftain, Mike Rosen, Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Cafe Hayek, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Don
Surber blog, Rossputin, Black and Right blog, National Review Online.
11. a) The Discovery of Freedom, by Rose Wilder Lane
b) Our Enemy The State, by Albert Jay Nock
12. All of these people have greatly influenced my individualist philosophy. Hazlitt the least so,
simply because I've not seen enough of his work.
13. Walter E Williams, Don Boudreaux, and Russ Roberts have all helped give an economic foundation
to my individualist philosophies.
H.L. Mencken, Robert A Heinlein, and Mark Twain help reinforce a distrust of government (no matter
who is running the show)
Karl Schwols
3. Own my own small retail business in Boulder CO
4. Double Major BS in Engineering Science and BA in Social Science
5. 2 years, yes Tea Party Inspired
6. Libertarian leaning conservative.
7. Facebook mostly
8. not much yet
9. Always have been somewhat conservative, but I have been inspired and have read a great deal lately
10. Mike Rosen, America's Morning News, Laura Ingram, The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen, CK Prahalad, ICECAP.US
11. The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen, CK Prahalad, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers
12. a) Milton Friedman...Heard of, read some of his books, watched many of his videos, agree with
b) Friedrich Hayek....Heard of, tried to read but a bit cumbersome
c) Ayn Rand....Heard of, read some, agree with some, disagree with some
d) Henry Hazlitt ...not familiar enough with
e) Ludwig von Mises...not super familiar with, but I believe he inspired Hayek and is a strict libertarian.
f) Thomas Sowell ...great writer, makes things very clear. agree with.
13. William F Buckly, Mark Levin,
Anonymous
3. IT.
4. No. Currently attending Front Range for A.A.S. in Comp Sci.
5. I have been "active" to some degree since age 16 or so. I am 22 at present so this predates the Tea Party.
6. Fiscal Conservative but social centrist.
7. Facebook, occasional letters to public officials. Caucuses every 2 years.
8. I have volunteered to help candidates for a state house campaign, a school board race, and as a county assembly delegate.
9. I am in college and no, college is not the source of my views.
10. Mike Rosen's radio show on 850 KOA, the Denver Post Spot Blog, and Devil's Advocate on PBS. I periodically watch news and political talk TV shows and track a substantial number of political websites and think tanks via RSS feeds.
11. Few that would have been influenced by the Tea Party per se. A Monetary History of the United States and Free To Choose, both by Milton Friedman influence me. A Conflict Of Visions by Thomas Sowell was also influential. I am presently reading through Bush's memoirs and a book on political campaigning. I am also reading Machiavelli's "The Prince".
12. I've heard of all of them except Hazlitt but I only care for the ideas of Sowell and Friedman.
13. I also sort of like Krauthammer to some extent, though I often disagree with him.
Kathy Peterson
3. Sales/Activism/Social Media
4. BS in Business Administration (dual majors: Marketing/Organizational Management)
5. Mike Rosen/Rush Limbaugh listener since 1991, County Election Judge since 1998, attended first caucus in 2008, became truly active in politics as of 2/19/09 when Rick Santelli went "Tea Party" on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's trading floor in a righteous rant against President Obama's proposal to help foreclosure "occupiers" refinance their mortgages.
6. I am a pro-choice, agnostic, strong national defense, fiscal conservative, and registered Republican. I also identify myself as a conservative, and free-market activist.
7. I communicate in person, through social media (Facebook: personal profile, non-profit org page, candidates pages, public and private groups, fan pages, private messages; Twitter: tweets; LinkedIn: private messages, status updates), emails incoming/outgoing, call-ins to radio shows, suggesting guests for radio programs, listening to and recommending podcasts, reading and recommending/sharing blogs and websites, attending/organizing/teaching at politically oriented events and activities.
8. R Block Party, Independence Institute, Colorado Christian University, Act! For America, Leadership Program of the Rockies, American Majority, Americans For Prosperity, various local candidate campaigns
9. I took both Macro and Micro Economics in High School, but do not recall taking these courses in college for my Business Degree.
10. Grassroots Radio Colorado (radio program on 560KLZ), Mike Rosen, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Caldara, Michael Brown (radio programs on 850KOA), various FOX News clips seen on Facebook, blogs: ColoradoPeakPolitics, PeoplesPressCollective, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Breitbart, Pamela Geller, etc., organizations: Centennial Institute, Independence Institute, PJTV (Pajamas Media), among others
11. Atlas Shrugged, Economics in One Lesson, The Law by Frederic Bastiat, Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, America Alone by Mark Steyn, The Political Zoo by Michael Savage, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin, etc.
On a related topic, various movies have also strongly influenced my political ideas:
Waiting For Superman, Agenda: Driving America Down, Obsession, The Cartel, Kids Aren't Cars, spOILed, Runaway Slave, I Want Your Money, America at Risk, Fitna, Commanding Heights (pbs), Atlas Shrugged the Movie, Iranium
12. a) Milton Friedman—Free to Choose video seen at his birthday party at the Independence Institute, great video on Greed during a 1979 interview with lefty Phil Donahue
b) Friedrich Hayek—Road to Serfdom (on my bedside table)
c) Ayn Rand—attended Diana Hsieh's Atlas Shrugged discussion group, promoted Atlas Shrugged The Movie Part 1 premiere
d) Henry Hazlitt—Economics in One Lesson (Broken Window concept, Spread the Work scam, reality of unions)
e) Ludwig von Mises—Austrian School of Economic Thought
f) Thomas Sowell—Basic Economics (textbook of Penn Pfiffner's Free People, Free Markets: Principles of Liberty class in which I am currently attending)
13. Columnist and Radio Talk Show Host Mike Rosen is the best economics and political science professor I have ever had, and I have been his grateful student since 1991.
Congressman Bob Schaffer is the most articulate, rational, prepared, and persuasive debater I have supported as a political candidate.
Colorado Senator Shawn Mitchell is a radiating mentor of liberty principles, social media mastery, and commitment to conservative ideals of smaller government, less regulation, lower tax rates, and individual responsibility.
Centennial Institute and Independence Institute founder John Andrews has a photographic memory of names and faces, is an uber-networker, and whose quick wit is the most effective un-ruffler of heated feathers.
Ayn Rand Institute's Yaron Brook is a personable, thoughtful, and well-versed advocate for oftentimes disregarded non-religous conservatives.
Brigitte Gabriel and John Guandolo are brave, compelling, and informative educators on the realities of the threat of Shariah vs. our Constitution.
Governor Jan Brewer has exhibited strength, courage, and persistence in her fight to protect her Arizona constituents, as well as all Americans from our dangerously porous southern border.
On a local level, a personal hero, dedicated volunteer, and committed school board member Laura Boggs alerted, inspired, and recruited me to the current state of our non-tran$parent, top heavy, corrupt education system.
Anonymous
3. Retired airline pilot
4. BA, Colgate, English lit
Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, Aviation Safety Officer
5. Yes, my political activity began with the Tea Party. I've been active in Tea Party and Republican Party over 2 years.
6. Fiscal conservative, free-market activist, objectivist.
7. Leader of the Evergreen Tea Party. We have a website, Facebook, Twitter.
8. Evergreen Tea Party, Republican Party, Independence Institute, Leadership of the Rockies
9. Yes, senior level core course in American values.
10. Victor Davis Hansen blogs, National Review Uncommon Knowledge video interviews, Thomas Sowell editorials, Dr Hurd Daily Dose of Reason
Rosen, Limbaugh, etc on radio
FOX Business News and to a lesser extent, Fox News
11. The 1000 Year Leap, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Bastiat's The Law, Rob Natelson's The Original Constitution: What it Said and Meant, John Bolton's Surrender is Not an Option, Daniel Hannan's The New Road to Serfdom, Adam Ferguson's When Money Dies
12. a) Milton Friedman—know him, have read various articles by him.
b) Friedrich Hayek—know him, have read various articles by him.
c) Ayn Rand—a fan, though I learned of her late in life. Have read Atlas Shrugged and various essays.
d) Henry Hazlitt—know him, have read various articles by him.
e) Ludwig von Mises—know him, have read various articles by him. Regular reader of the Mises Daily.
f) Thomas Sowell—a fan. I try to read every editorial he publishes. I've read Basic Economics and the recently published Thomas Sowell Reader. Consider him a NATIONAL TREASURE.
13. Ayn Rand for her individualistic philosophy and sense of life.
Victor Davis Hansen for his observations to today world and his ability to relate it to ancient times.
Also, David McAlvany's Weekly Commentary podcast is great on economics and financial topics from a big picture point of view.
I also enjoy Tammy Bruce and Michelle Malkin. And I read The Objective Standard and The Intellectual Activist Daily.
Drug Reform Bill Favors Treatment Over Felonies
March 31, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published March 30 by Grand Junction Free Press.
Politicians trying to save people from the consequences of their own stupidity is itself stupid. The effort breeds invasive, Nanny State laws that undermine individual responsibility. The ultimate effect is to encourage stupidity rather than curb it.
Whether we care about personal health, responsible living, or responsible governance, what we need above all is a people capable of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for their own actions. A government that attempts to do people's thinking for them undermines responsible action.
Politicians trying to save people from the consequences of their own stupidity by threatening to destroy their lives with felony convictions is outright insanity. Yet that is precisely how Colorado law currently treats low-level drug offenders.
Thankfully, Senate Bill 163 would bring a touch of sanity to Colorado's drug laws. Fox31 (http://kdvr.com/2012/03/21/lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-lessen-penalties-for-drug-users/) reports that the bill would "reduce the crime of possession of 4 grams or less of a schedule I or II controlled substance or 2 grams or less of methamphetamine from a felony to a misdemeanor." The bill pertains to possession only, not distribution.
Christie Donner, executive director of the (http://www.ccjrc.org/) Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (CCJRC) and a supporter of the bill, explained the measure would alter criminal penalties for "everything from heroin and cocaine to methamphetamines," drugs whose abuse often involves serious addictions. The bill would not impact marijuana, she added.
Those tempted to think of this as a weepy leftist "soft on crime" bill should consider that two of the bill's sponsors, Shawn Mitchell and Don Beezley, are perhaps the legislature's two most stalwart defenders of economic liberty.
In a remarkably personal moment, Mitchell said during a media conference (as reported by Fox31): "My younger brother has been a meth addict for nearly a decade. He's has been in jail in more than one state, he has a felony conviction. He got a treatment program in a county jail in Utah that helped him see things differently and my family is filled with love and hope for his turnaround."
Representative Claire Levy, a Boulder Democrat (if we may repeat ourselves), also talked sense: "Going to prison does not help someone with a drug problem. They don't get treatment in prison, and it's a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources. This bill is not only about being smarter on crime, but it's about saving taxpayer money and devoting those resources to better purposes."
In an email alert, CCJRC added, "A felony conviction is a lifetime punishment, resulting in significantly reduced ability to obtain housing and employment, the basics of productive life. Low-level drug possession does not warrant a lifetime of diminished opportunity."
To be sure, the bill is not perfect. While the bill would pay for drug treatment out of savings from reduced incarceration, we're not convinced the government should be in the business of financing drug treatment with dollars forcibly taken from taxpayers. We'd rather see voluntary efforts to fund drug treatment. But the bill wouldn't spend any additional taxes, and its positive effects far outweighs our concern here.
Of course, the bill will do nothing directly to reduce the problems of criminal violence, toxically tainted drugs, and property damage associated with the criminal distribution of drugs. The simple fact is that all the worst problems associated with drugs result directly from the prohibition of those drugs, not the drugs themselves.
The largest and most obvious problem is all the gang violence surrounding the drug trade. As during the prohibition of alcohol, drug prohibition confers enormous wealth to violent criminal gangsters.
Moreover, we think it's very likely that the nasty methamphetamines of today never even would have been invented but for the prohibition of milder amphetamines that pharmacists sold over the counter until a few decades ago.
But we don't expect the legislature to embrace our radical views for at least a few more years. As a matter of practical politics, Bill 163 represents a good-faith effort by the bill's sponsors to bring incremental but meaningful reform to the state's drug laws.
We should not confuse a reduction in criminal penalties for possessing these drugs with any sort of sanction of the drugs' abuse. Obviously these drugs can be extremely harmful to those abusing them. We personally know people who have seriously harmed their lives by abusing these drugs. Chances are good that you do, too.
But we're not doing people with drug problems any favors by locking them up with hardened criminals or slapping them with a felony record. As Mitchell said, "If we're trying to stop people from ruining their life with poison, it doesn't make sense to ruin their life legally with the permanent consequences of a felony conviction."
Those with drug problems deserve the chance to straighten out their lives, get on a good career path, and move on. For many, Bill 163 would give them that chance.
Amazon Considering Renewal of Colorado Associates Program
April 6, 2012
I was furious when Colorado's idiot legislators imposed the so-called "(http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2010/03/stop-amazon-tax.html) Amazon tax" in 2010, forcing the company to drop the Associates program for all Colorado residents. The basic problem is that the Associates program, which incentivizes people to link to Amazon products by paying out a percentage of the resulting sales, arguably created a "nexus" that expanded the state's power to impose tax-collection obligations on out-of-state companies.
Now that a district court has (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/court-tosses-colorados-amazon-tax-injustice-remains/) tossed Colorado's "Amazon Tax," what does that mean for the Associates program? I just received the following correspondence from Amazon: "Thank you for contacting us regarding rejoining the Associates program. At this point, we're evaluating the decision from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. We'd welcome the opportunity to re-open our Associates Program to Colorado residents. We'll contact you if we are able to re-open the program in the future."
Hopefully, the Associates program will again become available. Now will the legislature kindly leave us the hell alone to earn money?
The Renaissance of Liberty Begins in Colorado
April 13, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published April 13 by Grand Junction Free Press.
Over the last century the federal government has claimed sweeping powers over our lives. It has spent the nation into debt that races past yearly productive output, continued its decades-long march to nationalize health care, and seized control of our economic and personal lives far beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the typical individual can exercise little if any meaningful control over national politics. Sure, we can try to elect better people to Congress and then hold them accountable. But congressional districts are large, the District of Columbia is far away, and national politics is dominated by special-interest groups seeking political favors. What, then, is the alternative?
Citizens of the original states created the federal government to handle national defense, prevent the states from imposing economically damaging protectionism, and handle a few other jobs beyond the capabilities of the state governments. The federal government was never supposed to turn into the monolithic power it has become. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves "powers not delegated" to the federal government "to the states respectively, or to the people."
Every school child learns that the Founders separated powers among the branches of the federal government, but, just as importantly, they separated powers among levels of government. Federalism—the separation of state and federal powers—is a central doctrine of American government. It is high time we fought to restore American federalism, not as an end in itself, but as an important means to protecting individual rights. We in Colorado can and should play a pivotal role in that fight.
A good indicator of the loss of federalism is the role of federal spending in state budgets. Colorado's Joint Budget Committee (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/FY11-12apprept.pdf) reports that, for fiscal year 2011-12, federal funding accounts for over $5 billion of the total $19.6 billion budget, or 26 percent. Over half of that federal spending goes for health care.
But why should we in Colorado have to beg the federal government to hand over a portion of our own money to our state government? Such federal spending turns federalism on its head. Every year we witness the grotesque spectacle of Colorado's elected officials dancing like marionettes to the demands of federal politicians who hold the purse strings.
Imagine a league of independent state governments that stood up to such federal tyranny. Imagine state legislators who grew a spine and said enough is enough. We look forward to the day when state legislatures routinely pass resolutions condemning federal abuses, then start passing laws to the reaches of their authority to stop those abuses.
To take one possible strategy, Colorado could pass a law saying that we will turn down all federal funding in our state, once a certain number of other states have passed a comparable law.* Then we can demand that the federal government reduce its tax burdens and simply let citizens keep their own money.
Of course, the goal is not to replace federal tyranny with state-level tyranny, but rather to turn all governmental entities into protectors of individual rights rather than the biggest threat to our rights. The same state governments that would stand up against federal abuses of individual rights would also be more amenable to protecting rights themselves. So how do we achieve that?
We must continue to develop a culture of liberty in Colorado. We must stand up for individual rights to life, liberty, property, and voluntary contract and association. We must unflinchingly defend freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and religious worship, and freedom to use the fruits of our labor as each individual decides. We must demand that government act to protect individuals from the coercion of others, from murder, theft, assault, fraud, and every form of force that one person might initiate against another. At the same time, government must cease acting as the primary instigator of coercion, stripping us of our wealth and our liberties.
Many of the seeds of our future liberty renaissance have already been sown. Many new liberty-oriented groups have arisen in the last few years, and older groups have gained a new vitality. As a single illustration, last week over fifty people gathered at Denver Liberty On the Rocks to listen to philosopher Diana Hsieh explain why, yes, people deserve what they earn, contrary to the nonsense of John Rawls. We are starting to return to the tavern-style, take-it-to-the-streets, energetic and principled activism that marked the work of such American legends as Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine.
We must make the principle of individual rights a living force in the minds of our countrymen. We must make coercion—the initiation of force—something that the people denounce, despise, and reject. Then we must elect pro-liberty state legislatures that protect our rights and stand up to federal abuses.
As F. A. Hayek wrote, "We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage."
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari blogs at AriArmstrong.com in the Denver area.
* Obviously we're talking about federal funding funneled through state legislatures, not federal funding for legitimate federal programs that happen to have a presence in Colorado. Here is a related (http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org/2012/04/11/when-taxpayer-dollars-are-used-to-advocate-for-moretaxpayer-dollars/) tidbit I came across: "[F]or every $1.00 the feds send to the states, states increase their own future taxes between $0.33 and $0.42." —AA
My TOS Articles (So Far)
April 18, 2012
No doubt many of my readers have noticed that I've been writing for the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/author/aarmstrong/) blog of The Objective Standard. A lot.
It occurred to me that I should be tracking my work for that publication here at my own web page. So I just created a "TOS" category specifically for that purpose.
Eventually, I want to include a weekly update of all my new posts, in addition to a summary of each new print article. But I'm behind, so I plan to spend the next few days catching up. I begin with my print articles to date:
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/abortion-rights.asp) The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties
This article, coauthored with (http://www.dianahsieh.com/) Diana Hsieh, offers a robust argument as to why rights begin at birth, and not before.
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/amity-shlaes.asp) Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It
Subtitled "A Survey of Amity Shlaes's History of the Great Depression," this article reviews Shlaes's book The Forgotten Man and highlights its major themes.
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/andrew-bernstein.asp) Capitalist Solutions: A Philosophy of American Moral Dilemmas by Andrew Bernstein
I review Bernstein's book, which covers a variety of issues ranging from environmentalism to gun rights.
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-spring/andrew-bernstein.asp) Capitalism Unbound: The Incontestable Moral Case for Individual Rights by Andrew Bernstein
I also reviewed Bernstein's earlier book. Note that I also selected this book for (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/bernstein.html) Liberty In the Books, and everybody in that group really enjoyed reading and discussing it.
My 2011 TOS Blog Posts
April 20, 2012
Following are all my Objective Standard blog posts for 2011. I've put an asterisk by my personal favorites. See also my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/04/my-tos-articles-so-far/) TOS print articles (so far). My plan is to post this year's posts in monthly batches until I catch up, then include each week's new posts in regular updates. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for the complete list.
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/fair-tax-looks-ugly-in-the-details/) "Fair Tax" Looks Ugly in the Details
October 1, 2011
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/fuel-controls-violate-rights-and-stifle-markets/) Fuel Controls Violate Rights and Stifle Markets
October 7, 2011
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/how-to-actually-separate-government-from-the-corporations/) How to Actually "Separate Government from the Corporations"
October 11, 2011
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/fair-tax-offers-neither-fairness-nor-simplicity/) "Fair Tax Offers Neither Fairness Nor Simplicity
October 12, 2011
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/the-justice-of-income-inequality-under-capitalism/) The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
October 19, 2011
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/yes-president-obama-we-cant-wait/) Yes, President Obama, We Can't Wait...
October 25, 2011
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/student-loan-scheme-just-another-rights-violating-bailout/) Student Loan Scheme Just Another Rights-Violating Bailout
October 28, 2011
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/11/call-it-exuberant-friday/) Call It Exuberant Friday, Not "Black Friday"
November 23, 2011
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/contra-occupiers-profits-embody-justice/) Contra Occupiers, Profits Embody Justice
December 2, 2011
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/to-protect-rights-phase-out-payroll-tax-completely/) To Protect Rights, Phase Out Payroll Tax Completely
December 9, 2011
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/obamas-osawatomie-shakedown-critics-roundup/) Obama's Osawatomie Shakedown: Critics' Roundup
December 15, 2011
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/newt-sides-with-anti-abortion-zealots/) Newt Sides with Anti-Abortion Zealots
December 22, 2011
My January 2012 TOS Blog Posts
April 25, 2012
Following are links to all of my Objective Standard blog posts for January of this year. Once I catch up, I plan to publish updates every week or two. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing.
January 4, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/santorum-stands-for-big-government-because-he-stands-for-collectivism/) Santorum Stands for Big Government because He Stands for Collectivism
January 9, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/who-deserves-credit-for-tebows-316-yards/) Who Deserves Credit for Tebow's 316 Yards?
January 9, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/even-with-gary-johnson-the-libertarian-party-undermines-liberty/) Even with Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party Undermines Liberty
January 15, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/did-god-help-the-patriots-beat-the-broncos/) Did God Help the Patriots Beat the Broncos?
January 24, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/romney-should-call-for-property-rights-and-lower-taxes-for-everyone/) Romney Should Call for Property Rights and Lower Taxes for Everyone
January 25, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/to-give-americans-a-fair-shot-obama-should-stop-violating-our-rights/) To Give Americans a "Fair Shot," Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights
January 25, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/double-taxation-means-double-injustice-for-romney/) Double-Taxation Means Double Injustice for Romney
January 26, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/great-producers-deserve-our-gratitude-not-obamas-tax-hikes/) Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama's Tax Hikes
January 27, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/warren-buffett-immorally-calls-for-tax-hikes-on-top-producers/) Warren Buffett Immorally Calls for Tax Hikes on Top Producers
January 28, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/obama-should-help-end-all-energy-subsidies-not-play-favorites/) Obama Should Help End All Energy Subsidies, Not Play Favorites
January 30, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/gingrich-seeks-to-violate-rights-of-women-and-doctors/) Gingrich Seeks to Violate Rights of Women and Doctors to Engage in Fertility Care
January 31, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/01/texas-anti-abortion-law-violates-rights-to-liberty-and-freedom-of-speech/) Texas Anti-Abortion Law Violates Rights to Liberty and Freedom of Speech
Progress Means Respecting People's Rights
April 27, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published April 27 by Grand Junction Free Press.
Last week self-proclaimed "progressives" (http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/04/17/tax-day-rally-support-taxes/67935/) rallied at the state capitol for higher taxes. But there's nothing progressive about forcibly confiscating other people's wealth. Real progress comes from respecting people's rights and banning coercion—the initiation of force—from social relationships.
The tax-hikers build their case on obfuscation. Consider an email distributed on Tax Day by the absurdly named ProgressNow Colorado, more accurately identified as CoercionNow. This group led a "proud to pay" taxes campaign, claiming that taxes produce "smart, educated kids," fix "potholes and shaky bridges," leave the state better than we found it, and affirm that "we're all in this together."
Somehow CoercionNow failed to mention that its members are "proud to pay" taxes to finance corporate welfare, bail out banks and auto unions, finance "nation building" exercises around the world at fantastic cost to U.S. life and productivity, incarcerate fellow citizens for actions that violate nobody's rights, persecute ebook publishers, enforce wage controls that devastate employment opportunities for the poor, stop grocery stores from selling regular-strength beer (and enforce thousands of similarly absurd "regulations"), and create widespread dependency.
But let us focus on the more positive tax expenditures that CoercionNow cherry picks. The idea that government-run schools produce especially "smart, educated kids" is laughable, especially in relation to the enormous cost. What we're really producing are rich, politically powerful "public" unions that back the "progressive" agenda.
True, some teachers in government schools are excellent, and some classes help students learn what they need. But U.S. schools regularly lag behind those of other nations, and often they utterly fail the poorest students. If we want to see education thrive and effectively serve the needs of students, we must introduce free markets in education. Then parents, who normally will finance their own children's education (rather than pay a lifetime of taxes to educate other people's children), will have both the ability and incentive to ensure their children end up in great schools. And individuals can contribute to voluntary charity programs to expand the opportunities available to the poor.
As for roads, the gasoline tax is supposed to link use of the roads with their financing. Insofar as the government operates various services (and the matter of whether it should operate roads lies outside the scope of today's column), it should finance them through use taxes. Those are far different from the redistributionist schemes of the "progressives." CoercionNow's reference to roads is merely a bait-and-switch: the group advertises the paving of roads for the purpose of expanding the welfare state.
Beyond education and roads, CoercionNow turns to bromides and vague generalities. "I want to leave Colorado better than I found it." Who doesn't? The best way to do that is to expand liberty. "We're all in this together." Does the "this" refer to a free republic or to the Greek-style socialist hellhole the "progressives" wish to create?
Notice CoercionNow's biggest lie: they claim to be "proud" to pay their own taxes, but what they're really after is to force others to pay more taxes. After all, nothing is stopping members of CoercionNow from paying as much of their own money as they want to the government. Nor is anything stopping them from financing any private charity.
Let us return to fundamentals. The source of all significant human progress has been the growing recognition of the rights of the individual, however sporadic that has been. Unfortunately, no government anywhere on earth has ever fully protected individual rights—though the United States, grounded on the individual's "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," has come the closest. It is time for us to complete the task our Founders started.
The protection of individual rights and the banishment of coercion are flip sides of the same coin. In order to protect individual rights, we must keep the individual safe from the initiatory force of others. In a proper society, no one may murder another, rob from another, claim the property of another through fraud or broken contract, bind or restrict anyone except to lawfully protect others' rights, or damage another's property.
When government protects individual rights, prosperous civil society can thrive. Individuals can live their own lives by their own judgment. They can remain alone when they want and join others when they want. They can work and produce as they deem best, using their own resources and those others grant them through voluntary contract. They can keep the fruits of their labor to spend, save, invest, or give away as they deem best. The only legal restriction is that no individual may initiate force against another.
We'll know we've made real progress when no one dares express "pride" in calling for the initiation of force against others. True champions of progress, prosperity, and peaceful human relations proudly advocate the abolition of coercion and the consistent protection of individual rights.
In Appreciation of Diana Hsieh
April 30, 2012
As (http://www.dianahsieh.com/) Diana Hsieh turns the primary leadership of (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/) Front Range Objectivism (a group devoted to studying and applying the ideas of Ayn Rand) over to the capable hands of Santiago Valenzuela, it is a great time to pause to appreciate all the great things Diana has accomplished in recent years.
• After undergoing the rigors of graduate school at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Diana completed her dissertation on the problem of "moral luck." Essentially, she demonstrated that people are responsible for their own choices, luck notwithstanding.
• Diana has become an accomplished public speaker, and she has helped others in the area (including me) improve their speaking skills. As an example of her efforts, earlier this month Diana spoke to over 50 people at (http://denver.libertyontherocks.org/2012/04/13/whats-luck-got-to-do-with-it-not-much/) Liberty On the Rocks in Denver. Drawing from her dissertation, she argued that people deserve what they earn, contrary to John Rawls's claims that people get what they have through luck. And last month Diana gave a "(http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/think.shtml) Think!" talk at CU about Rand's conception of moral perfection.
• Diana helped create several Atlas Shrugged reading groups in the Denver area, groups that have have developed into regular monthly reading groups.
• Diana developed the "(http://www.exploreaynrand.com/1957/) Explore Atlas Shrugged" podcast series, an excellent companion to the novel.
• In other ways, Diana has helped to expand Front Range Objectivism, as by developing its web page and running the "Snowcon" conference for the past two years.
• Diana formulated the most rigorous case for abortion rights ever written from an Objectivist perspective. She also put substantial effort into defeating the so-called "personhood" anti-abortion ballot measures in Colorado. Diana and I coauthored papers on the subject for the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a62.shtml) Coalition for Secular Government and for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/abortion-rights.asp) The Objective Standard.
• Diana created the "(http://www.olist.com/) OLists" to promote Objectivist activism and community.
• Amidst all this other work, Diana developed her "(http://www.philosophyinaction.com/wp/) Philosophy In Action" weekly webcast, which focuses on applying philosophy to the challenges of daily living. She plans to focus her efforts on expanding this.
Diana has done far more than most to promote important ideas over the past few years, and she deserves our gratitude and appreciation.
My February 2012 TOS Blog Posts
May 2, 2012
Following are links to all of my Objective Standard blog posts for February of this year. I've put an asterisk by my personal favorites. Once I catch up, I plan to publish updates every week or two. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing.
February 1, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/there-is-no-right-to-work-against-an-employers-consent/) There is No 'Right to Work' Against an Employer's Consent
February 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/liability-reform-shouldnt-be-limited-to-space-industry/) Liability Reform Shouldn't Be Limited to Space Industry
February 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/end-tax-favoritism-for-wind-energy/) End Tax Favoritism for Wind Energy
February 8, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/not-only-catholics-should-be-angered-by-birth-control-mandates/) Not Only Catholics Should be Angered by Birth Control Mandates
February 11, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/in-birth-control-fight-planned-parenthood-is-anti-choice/) In Birth-Control Insurance Fight, Planned Parenthood is Anti-Choice
February 12, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/remember-the-genius-of-george-eastman/) As Kodak Exits Camera Business, Remember the Genius of George Eastman
February 13, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/oil-shale-politics-points-to-problems-of-federal-land-ownership/) Oil Shale Politics Points to Problems of Federal Land Ownership
February 13, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/modern-greeks-destroy-foundations-of-justice/) Modern Greeks Destroy 'Foundations of Justice'
February 14, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/facebook-provides-an-enormous-value/) Facebook Provides an Enormous Value
February 14, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/ignore-santorums-depraved-prescription-have-sex-for-pleasure/) Ignore Santorum's Depraved Prescription: Have Sex for Pleasure this Valentine's Day
February 15, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/keep-your-eyelids-up-dr-seuss-implores/) 'Keep Your Eyelids Up,' Dr. Seuss Implores
February 16, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/government-school-steams-parents-over-lunch-controls/) Government School Steams Parents Over Lunch Controls
February 17, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/problem-of-gary-johnsons-libertarian-affiliation/) The Problem of Gary Johnson's Libertarian Affiliation
February 19, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/mysticism-claims-more-victims/) Mysticism Claims More Victims
February 20, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/washington-guided-the-constitutional-convention/) Washington Guided the Constitutional Convention
Februrary 21, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/education-stimulus-thwarts-education/) Education "Stimulus" Thwarts Education
February 22, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/fear-not-satan-but-santorum/) Fear Not "Satan" but Santorum
February 23, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/moral-justice-requires-not-shuffling-but-eliminating-corporate-taxes/) Moral Justice Requires not Shuffling but Eliminating Corporate Taxes
February 24, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/happy-birthday-steve-jobs-and-thank-you/) Happy Birthday, Steve Jobs—and Thank You
February 24, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/why-greeces-and-americas-economies-stink/) Why Greece's and America's Economies Stink
February 26, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/pope-immorally-condemns-artificial-fertility/) Pope Immorally Condemns "Artificial Fertility"
February 26, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/afghan-riots-indicate-deadly-consequences-of-loving-our-enemies/) Afghan Riots Indicate Deadly Consequences of Loving Our Enemies
February 27, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/independent-reasoning-not-prayer-or-groupthink-guides-fight-against-ravages-of-ms/) Independent Reasoning, Not Prayer or Groupthink, Guides Fight Against Ravages of MS
February 28, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/zombie-mohammed-case-shows-western-capitulation-to-islamist-barbarism/) "Zombie Mohammed" Case Shows Western Capitulation to Islamist Barbarism
February 29, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/santorum-throws-up-on-separation-of-church-and-state/) Santorum "Throws Up" on Separation of Church and State
My March 2012 TOS Blog Posts
May 7, 2012
Following are links to all of my Objective Standard blog posts for March of this year. I've put an asterisk by my personal favorites. Once I catch up, I plan to publish updates every week or two. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing.
March 1, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/judge-tosses-rights-violating-cigarette-labels/) Judge Tosses Rights-Violating Cigarette Labels
March 1, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/geithner-and-progressives-favor-expanded-involuntary-servitude/) Geithner and "Progressives" Favor Expanded Involuntary Servitude
March 2, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/happy-birthday-dr-seuss-and-thanks-for-my-love-of-reading/) Happy Birthday, Dr. Seuss—And Thanks for My Love of Reading
March 2, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/limbaughs-slut-comment-typifies-the-wrongs-of-the-right/) Limbaugh's "Slut" Comment Typifies the Wrongs of the Right
March 4, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/oscar-winning-hugo-celebrates-creative-genius-of-melies/) Oscar-Winning Hugo Celebrates Creative Genius of Méliès
March 4, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/in-fight-for-property-rights-institute-for-justice-tops-pyramid-of-moral-endurance/) In Fight for Property Rights, Institute for Justice Tops "Pyramid of Moral Endurance"
March 5, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/why-the-outrage-over-welfare-for-strip-clubs/) Why the Outrage Over Welfare for Strip Clubs?
March 6, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/judge-nixes-marylands-rights-violating-handgun-restrictions/) Judge Nixes Maryland's Rights-Violating Handgun Restrictions
March 7, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/write-us-a-song-and-thats-lucky-too/) Write Us a Song, and That's Lucky Too
March 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/absurd-bill-sought-to-ban-discrimination-against-raunchy-biker-attire/) Absurd Bill Sought to Ban "Discrimination" Against Raunchy Biker Attire
March 9, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/temple-grandin-justly-awarded-and-profoundly-inspiring/) Temple Grandin, Justly Awarded and Profoundly Inspiring
March 10, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/hope-and-help-for-africa-rests-with-embrace-and-example-of-rights/) Hope and Help for Africa Rests with Embrace and Example of Rights
March 11, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/justice-department-unjustly-attacks-apple/) Justice Department Unjustly Attacks Apple
March 11, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/kudos-to-the-colorado-supreme-court-for-upholding-concealed-carry-on-public-campuses/) Kudos to the Colorado Supreme Court for Upholding Concealed Carry On "Public" Campuses
March 12, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/obama-administration-cuts-illegitimate-program-conservatives-complain/) Obama Administration Cuts Illegitimate Program, Conservatives Complain
March 13, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/anticapitalist-lorax-succeeds-thanks-to-capitalism/) Anticapitalist Lorax Succeeds . . . Thanks to Capitalism
March 14, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/fondas-call-to-censor-limbaugh-stems-from-government-control-of-airwaves/) Fonda's Call to Censor Limbaugh Stems from Government Control of Airwaves
March 15, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/encyclopaedia-britannica-ceases-printing-marks-advance/) Encyclopaedia Britannica Ceases Printing, Marks Advance
March 16, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/what-do-rick-santorum-and-jane-fonda-have-in-common/) What do Rick Santorum and Jane Fonda Have in Common?
March 18, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/african-slavery-highlights-evil-of-involuntary-servitude/) African Slavery Highlights Evil of Involuntary Servitude
March 19, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/scientists-need-not-study-psychic-nonsense-to-reject-it/) Scientists Need Not "Study" Psychic Nonsense to Reject It
March 20, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/amazons-robots-raising-the-productivity-of-your-time/) Amazon's Robots: "Raising the Productivity of Your Time"
March 22, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/supreme-court-properly-slaps-down-epas-assault-on-property-owners-but/) Supreme Court Properly Slaps Down EPA's Assault on Property Owners, But . . .
March 23, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/bernanke-defends-fed-policy-that-turned-dollar-into-four-cents/) Bernanke Defends Fed Policy that Turned Dollar Into Four Cents
March 24, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/best-friends-ban-in-uk-schools-mirrors-ayn-rands-anthem/) "Best Friends" Ban in UK Schools Mirrors Ayn Rand's Anthem
March 25, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/hunger-games-a-worthy-addition-to-dystopian-corpus/) Hunger Games a Worthy Addition to Dystopian Corpus
March 27, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/from-morning-brew-to-space-exploration-good-news-is-all-around/) From Morning Brew to Space Exploration, Good News Is All Around
March 29, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/force-begets-force-under-health-mandates/) Force Begets Force Under Health Mandates
March 29, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/proposed-ban-on-words-assaults-reason-and-life/) Proposed Ban on Words Assaults Reason and Life
March 30, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/memo-to-justice-kagan-taxes-are-coercive/) Memo to Justice Kagan: Taxes Are Coercive
My April 2012 TOS Blog Posts
May 9, 2012
Following are links to all of my Objective Standard blog posts for April of this year. I've put an asterisk by my personal favorites. Henceforth, I plan to publish updates every week or two. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing.
April 2, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/reason-ralliers-need-the-how-of-reason-based-rights/) Reason Ralliers Need the "How" of Reason-Based Rights
April 5, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/freedom-loving-americans-must-condemn-dojs-bullying-of-book-sellers/) Freedom-Loving Americans Must Condemn DOJ's Bullying of Book Sellers
April 6, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/court-tosses-colorados-amazon-tax-injustice-remains/) Court Tosses Colorado's "Amazon Tax," Injustice Remains
April 6, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/penn-teller-merge-entertainment-with-big-ideas/) Penn & Teller Merge Entertainment with Big Ideas
April 7, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/president-obama-the-preeminent-social-darwinist/) President Obama: The Preeminent "Social Darwinist"
April 9, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/new-jersey-government-begins-outright-theft-of-gift-cards/) New Jersey Government Begins Outright Theft of Gift Cards
April 10, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/the-evolution-of-the-tea-party/) The Evolution of the Tea Party
April 11, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/freedom-rises-in-guatemala/) Freedom Rises in Guatemala
April 12, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/states-join-extortion-racket-against-book-publishers/) States Join Extortion Racket Against Book Publishers
April 13, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/kibbe-tea-party-aims-for-hostile-takeover/) Kibbe: Tea Party Aims for "Hostile Takeover"
April 14, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/henderson-shows-how-property-rights-solve-problems/) Henderson Shows "How Property Rights Solve Problems"
April 15, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/soviet-mass-murder-for-fun-and-games/) Soviet Mass Murder for Fun and Games?
April 16, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/pull-peddling-intensifies-in-washington/) Pull Peddling Intensifies in Washington
April 18, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/stop-the-fracking-controls/) Stop the Fracking Controls
April 21, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/week-in-review-for-april-21-2012/) Week in Review for April 21, 2012
The Antritrust Assault on Apple
Colombian Hookers, Las Vegas Clowns, and Your Tax Dollars
The Intensifying Assault on Free Speech
Food Stamp Program Stomps Harder on Rights
A Feckless Effort to Strip Stripper Welfare
A Call to Lift the Prohibition on Drugs
Increasingly Ominous Tax Day
April 22, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/marxism-begins-with-theft-and-ends-with-murder/) Marxism "Begins with Theft and Ends with Murder," Shows C. Bradley Thompson
April 23, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/reflections-on-earth-day-2012-americans-begin-to-wake-up/) Reflections on "Earth Day" 2012: Americans Begin to Wake Up
April 25, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/is-the-next-era-of-big-stuff-upon-us/) Is the Next Era of "Big Stuff" Upon Us?
April 26, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/crucify-energy-producers-epa-administrator-confesses-agencys-goal/) "Crucify" Energy Producers: EPA Administrator Confesses Agency's Goal
April 28, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/washingtons-spending-problem-and-other-matters-toss-week-in-review-for-april-28/) Washington's Spending Problem and Other Matters: TOS's Week in Review for April 28
Washington's Spending Problem
America Deploys its Most Advanced Fighter Jets Near Iran
Obama's Hit List
Judges Should Actively Uphold the Constitution
Marxist Surprisingly Surprised by Marxist Evil
So Long, Hotel California
April 30, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/will-bork-convince-romney-to-select-anti-liberty-judges/) Will Bork Convince Romney to Select Anti-Liberty Judges?
Hayek and the Tea Party
May 10, 2012
On April 2, I participated in a panel organized by Matt Kibbe of (http://www.freedomworks.org/) FreedomWorks for the (http://www.apee.org/) Association of Private Enterprise Education. (FreedomWorks paid my way to the event.) I filmed the talks, and now I release them with Kibbe's permission.
First, Matt Kibbe discussed the decentralized nature of the Tea Party movement:
Second, Trey Fleisher, an economist at Metro State, offered a somewhat pessimistic take on the Tea Party, noting that individuals often lack the incentive to take up political causes:
Third, Wayne Brough, an economist with FreedomWorks, argued that new technologies make it increasingly easier for individuals to participate in politics:
Finally, I reviewed Hayek's 1949 essay, "(http://mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf) The Intellectuals and Socialism," talking about how ideas spread through a culture generally and how they spread to and throughout the modern Tea Party:
What Skeptics and Conservatives Can Learn from Each Other
May 11, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published May 11 by Grand Junction Free Press.
What do skeptics from Denver and conservatives from the (http://www.heritage.org/) Heritage Foundation have in common? More than you might initially guess.
We suppose Ari is one of the few people to have attended both a Heritage event and a (http://www.skepticamp.org/wiki/SkeptiCamp_Denver_2012) Skepticamp (a day filled with talks critical of mysticism and the paranormal). He may be the only one to have done so on back-to-back weekends.
During the last weekend of April, Heritage sponsored a two-day event in Colorado Springs for free-market activists. On May 5, Denver-area skeptics organized a Skepticamp in Parker. Ari attended both events, and the juxtaposition of ideas merits some discussion.
Of course the huge disagreement between the conservatives and the skeptics concerns the reasonableness of believing in a supernatural entity. Most of those who attended the Heritage event believe in the Christian God. Probably everyone at Skepticamp, on the other hand, believes that no god exists, and that neither the evidence nor any rational argument supports a belief in God's existence.
That is a huge debate, and one's beliefs on the matter impact one's entire worldview. By the time people reach adulthood, they usually settle their beliefs on the matter; we doubt that anyone who attended either event will seriously consider changing positions.
While we cannot understate the importance of the debate over God's existence, nevertheless beyond that issue many conservatives share much in common with many skeptics. And we think the similarities are just as interesting.
We hope the skeptics would have been impressed by much of what Heritage historian Matthew Spalding had to say. Spalding sees America's founding as rooted in the Enlightenment, a movement that recognized the power of human reason to advance science and governments. Spalding described the core principles of America—equality under the law, a recognition of the facts of human nature, and government rooted in the consent of the governed—and argued that everyone, whether pagan or Christian, can discover these truths through reason.
True, skeptics would disagree with Spalding's view that "reason and revelation agree" about such things. Nevertheless, Spalding resisted the views of some that American principles flow only from the Christian tradition. Spalding pointed out that the Constitution is not a sectarian document, and that Jefferson and other Founders drew on the ideas of Aristotle, Cicero, and other pre-Christian thinkers.
Spalding also spoke about the profound importance of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, ideals many skeptics also support. For example, Spalding praised George Washington's "Letter to the Jews of Newport," written early in the great man's term as president.
Washington wrote, "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship."
We are proud to call ourselves liberals in this Washingtonian tradition. And both conservatives and skeptics who follow Washington in supporting freedom of conscience are to that degree liberals in the truest sense.
Many skeptics could learn a thing or two from Spalding about the profound importance of economic liberty. While skeptics claim to be critical thinkers, some unthinkingly embrace leftist political goals emanating from the disturbed mind of Karl Marx and the so-called "Progressive" movement that he inspired. To take but one example, some skeptics seemed to support censorship of political speech by individuals interacting voluntarily in groups ("corporations").
Spalding spoke eloquently of the Founders' respect for property rights, economic liberty, and the rule of law that protects equality under the law, not "equality" of resources that others produce. As Spalding argued, such liberties flow from natural facts about people and the use of reason to recognize those facts and their proper political implementation.
Unfortunately, sometimes skeptics and American Christians make a comparable error. Some skeptics see the cause of economic liberty as bound up with the religious right and reject both. Some Christians think that the problem with Communism was its atheism, rather than its reliance on a secularized version of religion that treats the collective as a mystical superentity. Capitalism—the system of individual rights (including economic liberty)—finds its defense in reason based on the evidence of the natural world.
But many skeptics do indeed endorse economic liberty. Last year Barry Fagin, a free-market writer for the Independence Institute, spoke at Skepticamp. This year, Robert Zubrin spoke about his new book, "Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism." Strikingly, while some of the conservatives made disparaging remarks about Charles Darwin, the greatest biologist of human history, Zubrin explained how leftists misapplied Darwin's ideas to promote programs involving eugenics and population control.
If every conservative would attend a Skepticamp, and every skeptic would attend a lecture by the likes of Spalding, the world would be a much more interesting place—and we think a much better one.
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari blogs at AriArmstrong.com in the Denver area.
Note: Heritage paid most of Ari's expenses for the event in question (not that that made any difference to the contents of this article); see (http://ariarmstrong.com/disclosures/) Ari Armtrong's Disclosures Unjustly Compelled by the FTC.
Beating the Monty Hall Problem
May 13, 2012
A couple friends of mine described the so-called "Monty Hall Problem" to me a few weeks ago. (I'd probably heard about this long ago, but if so I'd forgotten about it.) The problem, named after "Let's Make a Deal" host Monty Hall ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monty_hall_abc_tv.JPG) pictured here), is a puzzle of logic and statistics.
Here's the problem (in my own terms): Imagine a game show where you're trying to win a car. The game works as follows. There are three doors on stage. Behind one door is the car. Behind the other two doors are goats. (Or you can imagine whatever other prize and booby prize you like.) You get to make an initial selection of one of the doors, but you can't see what's behind it. Then the host shows you which of the other two doors opens to the goat. Then you get to stay with your initial choice or switch to the other unopened door. What should you do?
When my friends suggested to me that the correct move is to always change your selection to the other door, I thought they were nuts. I thought they had fallen for a logical trick. After all, once we know that one of the doors opens to a goat, we're left with only two choices: our original choice or the other unopened door. There's a fifty-fifty chance of guessing correctly.
I couldn't quite put my finger on the error that I thought was behind the advice to always switch, but I thought it had something do to with confusing the two time sequences (the initial versus the final choice of doors).
But then I was reading through Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape, and he uses the Monty Hall Problem to illustrate the dangers of always going with our "gut" reaction. How, I wondered, could an intelligent neuroscientist fall for this same trick?
So I decided that, by God, I was going to figure out what was wrong with the standard Monty Hall analysis. What better way to do that, I thought, than by running my own trials? (The Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem) entry on the matter suggests that others have run simulations and even let pigeons have a go. Apparently the pigeons tend to switch to the third door.)
I rolled a die to determine which door hid the car and which door I initially selected. Then it's easy to figure out if, by switching, you get the car or the goat. By always switching, I ended up selecting the car 17 times out of 30 trials, which was not very helpful given it's about halfway between 15 (fifty-fifty odds) and 20 (two-thirds odds).
But running the trial quickly gave me the idea of what's going on. In my first trial, I selected Door 1, while the car was behind Door 2. That means that "Monty" reveals a goat behind Door 3. By switching from Door 1 to Door 2, I get the car.
In my third trial, I selected Door 1, and the car was behind Door 1 as well. Thus, when "Monty" reveals a goat behind Door 2 (or Door 3), I switch to the other door and end up with the other goat.
Here's the general idea. Every time you initially select the door that happens to hide the car, you switch to another door and get a goat. Every time you initially select a door that hides a goat, you switch to the door that reveals the car.
Or, in other words, by switching, one-third of the time you'll end up with a goat, and two-thirds of the time you'll end up with the car. (If this is not now obvious to you, I suggest you run your own trials to get the hang of how it works. In rolling the die, I assigned sides 1 and 2 to Door 1, sides 3 and 4 to Door 2, and sides 5 and 6 to Door 3. Or you could set up actual doors if you want to get fancier and more concrete.)
So what's going on here? When "Monty" reveals one of the remaining doors to contain a goat, he is introducing new information into the process.
To make this more obvious, we can imagine a game with more doors. (Wikipedia suggests this.) What you're really doing in making your initial selection is forcing "Monty" to reveal additional information about the remaining doors. So let's say there are more doors, and "Monty" has to reveal the rest of the doors except for one.
Let's say there are six doors, and you initially select Door 1. Let's say "Monty" reveals goats behind Doors 2 through 5. The car, then, is behind either Door 1 or Door 6. What do you do?
Your three basic choices are these. Always stick with your initial selection, which, in this case, gives you a one-in-six chance of getting the car. Or you can choose randomly between the remaining two doors, which gives you a fifty-fifty chance of getting the car. Or you can always switch to the remaining door, which is the prudent move.
I actually ran a new trial with six doors (using a six-sided die to determine the door with the car and the initial selection). Out of 18 trials, I got the car 17 times by always switching (which is even better than the statistical prediction). (I didn't really need to run the trials at this point, but I figured I'd follow through with it.)
Or you can imagine 100 doors. If you want to run trials for this, you might use the (http://www.random.org/) real random number generator. The outcome follows the same pattern. If you always stick with your initial selection, you'll end up with the car about one out of a hundred times. If you always pick randomly between the final two doors, you'll increase your odds to fifty-fifty. If you always switch to the other door, you'll increase your odds to 99-in-100. The only time you'll lose out is if by luck you happen to pick the door with the car in your initial selection, then switch.
Realizing that you can increase your odds by moving away from the strategy of always sticking with your initial selection, to picking randomly between the final two doors, to always switching, should disrupt your initial "intuition" (if you had it) that the odds are always fifty-fifty.
Of course, I'm pretty sure the game shows have figured this sort of thing out by now.
Why We Don't Need Avengers
May 25, 2012
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published May 25 by Grand Junction Free Press.
There's a great scene in the Avengers film where the villain demands that a group of people kneel before him. One elderly gentleman refuses, saying he remembers what happened last time a dictator demanded the people kneel. Just as the villain prepares to kill the man, Captain America intervenes with his protective shield. The symbolism is moving.
But in the real world we don't need magical shields and hammers, super strength born in a laboratory, or super-powered suits of armor to protect us from those who would do us harm. For we have the firearm.
Because we remain largely free, our society has the wealth to outfit our military with the best tanks, airplanes, rockets, and other machinery to protect us from foreign aggressors. Still, the basic tool of the soldier remains the rifle. The men and women in uniform serve as our real-life "avengers," not in the sense of taking revenge, but of protecting the innocent from aggression. And they do an amazing job; the real Captain America walks among us. (Indeed, our military's biggest obstacle is not the enemy but Washington's policies and rules of engagement that often prevent soldiers from acting in America's self-defense.)
Domestically, firearms allow civilians to defend themselves against burglars, rapists, and would-be murderers. Guns are the great equalizer, empowering the smallest women and those with disabilities to successfully defend themselves against the strongest criminals.
Even if superheroes existed, they could respond only to a small fraction of crimes in progress, as is the case with the police. Those at risk of attack don't need Thor's hammer if they have a reliable Glock 9 mm or Colt .45 and know how to use it. Notably, the mere possibility that a potential victim might carry a gun deters many criminals. And, once a criminal realizes his intended victim carries a gun, usually the criminal flees without a shot fired.
If we were to plan our own movie featuring these tools of self-defense, we might include a couple scenes based on real-life events.
Picture a lonely agricultural road on a beautiful spring day. Our heroine enjoys a lovely walk. But as she rounds a street corner, two large pit bulls come within feet of her. Just that morning she had seen the news that a pit bull had mauled a woman to death in a neighboring city. The dogs become aggressive. Our heroine draws her pistol and aims it toward the dogs.
Later she recounts, "I don't know if they smelled the gun oil or could smell that I was fearful but determined to defeat them, but they backed off. I was shook up, and I don't know how I would have reacted if I hadn't had the pistol. I knew that if I had tried to run the dogs likely would have pursued me."
Next picture a dark moonless night in the Colorado mountains. A couple pulls their car into a lonely restroom at the top of Vail Pass. As the husband walks out of the restroom, he encounters three terrified young women. They say young men in another car had been harassing them as they drove along the interstate, and they had stopped seeking help. The husband tells the women to go into the women's restroom and come out with his wife. While they are in the restroom, three hot-headed men park at the facility and storm out of their car.
The husband later recalls, "The three men eyeballed me up and down, but I just stood there against the wall calmly. I had my pistol safely concealed, so I knew I had the ability to protect myself and the others if I needed to. My wife and the three young women came out of the restroom. My wife and I never so much as mentioned that we were armed. We escorted the young ladies to the next town, and that was that."
If our movie were a documentary, we might interview John Lott, author of the book More Guns, Less Crime. His findings suggest that the high rates of gun purchases in recent years is nothing to fear but rather something to welcome, as armed civilians deter crime. Moreover, he finds that minorities and women tend to benefit the most when legally allowed to own guns for self-defense.
We also might interview Alan Gottlieb, author of Politically Correct Guns. He reports a variety of interesting facts. For example, gun-banner Dianne Feinstein got her own permit to carry a .38-caliber revolver. Nancy Reagan sometimes slept with a .25-caliber handgun on her bedside table. Other famous Americans to have obtained gun permits include Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, Howard Stern, and Joan Rivers.
Thankfully, civil arms are not fantasy but reality. Guns are not restricted to an elite few with special powers; rather, any peaceful citizen may obtain one (though some American cities continue to make that extraordinarily difficult). So go and enjoy the movies, but then appreciate the real-life tools of self-defense.
The Progressive Gas Guzzler
May 31, 2012
ProgressNowColorado just launched an awesome new fundraiser offering a "Progressive" bumper sticker for the low, low price of $5 (or, for the real bargain shoppers out there, two for $10).
My favorite aspect of the campaign is that the featured image shows one of the "Progressive" bumper stickers on the back of a V8 Toyota Tundra. (See my (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/lK-0UlhmF9TGq2UGrEO7kNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0) screen capture on Picasa.)
Talk about a carbon footprint! This glorious gas guzzler gets an impressively low (http://www.toyota.com/tundra/specs.html) 16 miles to the gallon for city driving. (The figure varies slightly by model.) I definitely have some energy envy; my Honda Civic gets (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/4256.shtml) 50 percent more miles to the gallon. Foiled by the progressives again! I may have to take some extra leisure drives up to Boulder just to keep up the pace.
Can I trust that Colorado's so-called progressives will now stop haranguing people for their gasoline consumption? Now that would be progress.
My May 2012 TOS Blog Posts
June 4, 2012
Following are links to all of my Objective Standard blog posts for May of this year. I've put an asterisk by my personal favorites. Henceforth, I plan to publish updates every week or two. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing.
May 1, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/institute-for-justice-fights-theft-by-police/) Institute for Justice Fights Theft by Police
May 1, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/on-may-day-remember-the-victims-of-communism/) On May Day, Remember the Victims of Communism—and Condemn the Evil Ideology
May 2, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/occupiers-celebrate-communism-socialism-and-anarchism-for-may-day/) Occupiers Celebrate Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism for May Day
May 5, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/who-the-hell-is-julia-tos-week-in-review-for-may-5/) "Who the Hell Is Julia?" TOS's Week in Review for May 5
May 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/congress-should-reject-obamas-to-do-list-and-remind-the-president-of-his-proper-role/) Congress Should Reject Obama's "To Do List" and Remind the President of his Proper Role
May 11, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/europe-needs-real-liberty-not-fake-austerity/) Europe Needs Real Liberty, Not Fake "Austerity"
May 12, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/frances-real-problem-tos-week-in-review-for-may-12/) France's Real Problem—TOS's Week in Review for May 12
May 17, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/sam-harris-couldnt-help-but-smear-ayn-rand/) Sam Harris Couldn't Help But Smear Ayn Rand
May 19, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/greek-crisis-deepens-tos-week-in-review-for-may-19/) Greek Crisis Deepens—TOS's Week in Review for May 19
May 22, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/congratulations-spacex/) Congratulations, SpaceX!
May 23, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/gaiman-live-as-only-you-can/) Gaiman: "Live as Only You Can"
May 29, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/obama-should-defend-doc-who-located-bin-laden/) Obama Should Defend Doc Who Located bin Laden, Not Feed Him to Pakistan's Wolves
May 31, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/arnold-klings-free-enterprise-plan-for-american-fascism/) Arnold Kling's "Free Enterprise" Plan for American Fascism
Liberty Is the Greatest Inheritance
June 8, 2012
The following article originally was published June 8 by Grand Junction Free Press.
When I was a small child I always thought my grandpa was nuts for saying the older you get the faster time goes. But it's true. My dad Linn [shown in the photo] and I started writing this twice-monthly column for the Free Press back in July of 2005. For seven yearns we've written about free markets, free speech, political races, taxes, gun rights, and a host of other topics. Our main goal has been to advocate individual rights and political liberty.
The time has gone fast. Now it's time for us to move on to other projects. Now that my dad is in semi-retirement, he's busier than ever; among other things, he teaches classes on workplace safety and emergency response to violence. I've started writing more for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard, where you can read my (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/author/aarmstrong/) blog posts and occasional (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/contributors/ari-armstrong.asp) article for the print journal.
I wanted to take this opportunity to say farewell to our Free Press readers. But we're not going anywhere geographically; we'll continue to advocate the ideas we believe in (though some of our critics might wish we'd simply shut up). See my web page at AriArmstrong.com for ways to stay in touch. Perhaps you'll see my dad around town.
My dad and I considered writing a farewell column together but decided against it. However, with father's day coming up, I thought this would be a good opportunity to write a solo column about my dad. I mulled it over, and it strikes me that my dad taught me five main things in my life.
First, my dad gave me an appreciation of history. He has always been something of an amateur historian; for example, he's done a fair amount of research about the old stagecoach trail near Mt. Garfield. Though it took me a while to pick up this interest in history—for years I didn't see much point in studying the past—finally I caught on to its importance.
Even my name carries historical significance. "Ari," a common Jewish name, in my case comes from Leon Uris's book Exodus, a novelization of the founding of the modern state of Israel. Of course I read this novel, along with another historical novel of Uris's, Mila 18, which pays tribute to the resistance fighters in Poland who struggled against Nazi oppression.
So my dad taught me that we can't really understand ourselves unless we understand those who came before us.
Second, my dad always encouraged my healthy respect for the U.S. military. My dad served in Vietnam (and you can find (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/01/vietnam-vet-linn-armstrong-discusses-service/) video interviews about this if you Google "Linn Armstrong Vietnam"). [See also my dad's article about (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/06/independenceday.html) July 4 in Vietnam.] My dad was not my only influence in this regard; both of my biological grandfathers served in World War II, so I consider myself lucky even to have been born, with all the warfare in my family's past. (A great-grandfather of mine also served in WWI.) I did not have to fight in any wars, but through my elders' stories I am aware of the dangers and heartaches of war.
This respect for the military was important for me ideologically because it helped me resist the worst impulses of libertarianism, which at its worst becomes indistinguishable from the "blame America first" left, so far as foreign policy goes. Now I reject both the "nation building" of the neoconservatives and the strict noninterventionism of the libertarians, advocating instead a robust military defense of American lives and liberties.
Third, my dad gave me an appreciation for philosophy. When I was a kid he read Ayn Rand's Anthem to me, and the story of individualism stayed with me and influenced my development. My dad also handed me Atlas Shrugged when I was in high school. I continue to take an interest in Rand's philosophy (as well as in other schools of thought), and as I matured so did my understanding of those ideas.
Fourth, my dad also helped me develop an interest in economics. In addition to giving me Atlas Shrugged (which itself contains some interesting insights into economics), my dad handed me Milton Friedman's Free to Choose. Though I have since come to disagree with some of Friedman's positions, he introduced me to the basics of economic reasoning.
Fifth, my dad helped give me a lasting appreciation for liberty. Not only did he give me various pro-liberty books that strongly influenced me, he led by example by staying active in politics and helping to build up a great gun training program.
My father shared with me the ideas of liberty, as many fathers before him shared them. That is the reason why America's founding principles remain a living force in our culture, whatever insults and setbacks those ideas have endured. Other fathers could learn something important from my father: the greatest inheritance you can bestow to your children is the living tradition of liberty.
Ari Armstrong writes for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard as well as for his web page at AriArmstrong.com. For seven years he coauthored a column for Grand Junction Free Press with his father Linn.
Drug Checkpoint Outrage
June 13, 2012
I was shocked and outraged to see two "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" signs this evening along Highway 36 northbound ahead of the Church Ranch exit (in Westminster, Colorado). Even worse, the police had pulled over two vehicles along Highway 36, and another four vehicles along Church Ranch, and were in the process of searching those vehicles.
I do not know which police agency or agencies were involved in this frankly fascistic violation of the civil rights of the citizens. I called the "Administration" and "Desk Officer" lines of the Westminster Police Department but got a recording. (This was at 10:21 pm; I doubted that those at dispatch would be in a position to answer my questions on the subject.)
Apparently the police were pulling over cars totally at random; they did not pull me over (as they all seemed to be occupied searching others' vehicles).
What is especially angering about this is that the police are spending MY tax dollars for the purpose of violating people's rights.
Ironically, I witnessed this travesty as I returned from Liberty In the Books, where we had just reviewed an extraordinary set of (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2395) lectures by Ludwig von Mises on the importance of limiting government to the protection of rights. In those lectures Mises criticizes America's first "experiment" with Prohibition; I will conclude with his commentary:
[T]he notion that a capitalist form of government can prevent people from hurting themselves by controlling their consumption is false. The idea of government as a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody, is the idea of those who favor socialism. In the United States some years ago, the government tried what was called "a noble experiment." This noble experiment was a law making it illegal to buy or sell intoxicating beverages. It is certainly true that many people drink too much brandy and whiskey, and that they may hurt themselves by doing so. . . . This raises a question which goes far beyond economic discussion: it shows what freedom really means. . . .
[O]nce you have admitted [that government should stop people from drinking too much], other people will say: Is the body everything? Is not the mind of man much more important? Is not the mind of man the real human endowment, the real human quality? If you give the government the right to determine the consumption of the human body, to determine whether one should smoke or not smoke, drink or not drink, there is no good reply you can give to people who say: "More important than the body is the mind and the soul, and man hurts himself much more by reading bad books, by listening to bad music and looking at bad movies. Therefore it is the duty of the government to prevent people from committing these faults."
Westminster's "Drug Checkpoint" Fishing Expedition
June 14, 2012
June 17 Update: (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/06/15/westminster-polices-fishing-expedition/) Vincent Carroll wrote about this issue Friday for the Denver Post. He hopes these sorts of checkpoints don't become a policing habit, and he agrees I make "a number of compelling arguments" in the post below:
On Tuesday night, my wife and I passed two signs stating "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" as we drove northwest on Highway 36, just before the Church Ranch exit. (See yesterday's initial (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/drug-checkpoint-outrage/) report.)
Here's the statement my wife sent to Cory Lamz of the Daily Camera on the matter (a bit of which was quoted in the paper):
Here's what I saw. We were heading westbound on Highway 36, and we saw two signs that said 'drug checkpoint ahead.' We exited on Church Ranch to head home, and there were two cop cars that had two civilian cars pulled over on the shoulder of the highway, just past the exist. They had orange cones flagged out for those cars. The trunks and doors were all open, so they were obviously doing a search. Then we were on Church Ranch, heading west, and we got to the Eagle Landing apartment complex—there's a traffic light there—and to the left of the traffic light (by the apartment complex), there were four cop cars and four civilian cars. There were two cop cars paired with two civilian cars on each side of that road. There were cops mulling about, trunks open, people standing nearby.
The (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_20852880) reporting of Lamz and Joe Rubino adds some important details about what happened:
Westminster police stopped 23 cars and made one arrest at a high-profile drug checkpoint in the Boulder-bound lanes of U.S. 36 on Tuesday night. . . . [T]hree traffic tickets were issued, and one man was arrested on suspicion of felony marijuana possession, [Westminster police investigator Trevor] Materasso said.
Materasso told the reporters that the cars were pulled over "for some identified violation," but that's obvious nonsense. If the cars had been pulled over for real violations, the police would have issued 22 citations rather than three. Quite obviously, the police pulled over these vehicles on mere pretexts in order to search the cars for drugs. This was a fishing expedition, pure and simple. Or, to put the matter another way, Westminster police used tax dollars to flagrantly violate the rights of Colorado citizens. (And please let nobody claim that these rights violations are fine just because the police can get away with them in court.)
Moreover, assuming that three of the drivers were in fact violating traffic laws, the police could have pulled them over and cited them without the "Drug Checkpoint" setup.
The police, then, pulled over 23 vehicles at a "Drug Checkpoint" and made one arrest. That's a four percent success rate. And apparently the guy arrested didn't actually have large amounts of marijuana, or Materasso surely would have trumpeted that fact.
To state these facts a different way, the police pulled over 19 drivers for no significant reason. For the "crime" of going about their business, they were harassed and intimidated by the police. That's wrong. (And this is (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/08/drug_enforcement_checkpoint_i_25.php) not the first time the Westminster police have employed this tactic.)
And how much did this cost taxpayers? Clearly the Westminster Police Department needs a budget cut, if they best way the police can spend a Tuesday night is to harass and intimidate innocent drivers.
Know Your Rights
The silver lining to this incident is that at least it has prompted many Coloradans to talk about police actions and abuses.
Mark Silverstein of the Colorado ACLU told the Camera:
One of the disappointing facts about the state of people's awareness of civil liberties is many, many, many people don't know they have the right to say "no" to a search. If a cop stops you and says, "Mind if I look in your trunk?" it's your choice.
The ACLU offers some good material on the subject. The ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you) advises:
Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel. Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. If an officer. . . asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent. Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.
The state ACLU also published a multi-part video; here's the (http://youtu.be/MJeGTn5KoOQ) first part.
The group Flex Your Rights offers the video, (http://youtu.be/yqMjMPlXzdA) Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters.
Of course the problem of overzealous policing is a concern to citizens on the right as well. (http://www.560thesource.com/pages/11471128) Grassroots Radio invited me on Wednesday from 5:30 to 6:30 to discuss the issue; I joined host Ken Clark and Randy Corporon, a defense attorney sitting in for Jason Worley. Listen to (http://grrc.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-06-13T19_47_38-07_00) Part I (starting at minute 23) and (http://grrc.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-06-13T19_48_03-07_00) Part II.
I argued the following (starting at minute 33 in the first hour):
Here's my concern. With these quasi-random checkpoints, either for drugs or alcohol, without any other . . . serious cause of wrongdoing, or reason for the police to think you've done something wrong; with things like no-knock raids (which, as we know here in Denver, sometimes the police don't even get the right address for those); with things like TSA doing these invasive types of searches, even for young children—my fear is that Americans are being conditioned to a state in which, instead of the police officers working for the citizens, and protecting our rights, and being our servants, instead we're in a state where usually we're afraid of the police officers, and afraid that we're going to be intimidated or harassed, even when we're doing nothing wrong. . . . While I dislike the checkpoint that I witnessed last night, in and of itself, I worry about this growing trend toward—it seems like police have control over the citizens, instead of vice versa.
Corporon, a (http://www.corporonlaw.com/) defense attorney, added some excellent points about asserting one's rights.
His main advice was to "shut up" if the police are questioning you without the presence of your attorney. He said his biggest headache is when clients call him after they've already gone down to the police station and given a statement, without legal representation.
A related video I've seen advises, (http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc) Don't Talk to the Police. See also my write-up of Boston T. Party's talk at the University of Colorado about "(http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/04/boston.html) You and the Police."
Corporon also advised people never to voluntarily consent to a police search of one's vehicle. He pointed out that consenting, when the officer has neither cause nor a warrant, only encourages abusive practices.
"Be polite," Corporon urged.
He pointed out a great reason to roll your window only part-way down: in addition to protecting the driver from overly-intrusive policing, it offers the officer assurance that the driver can't reach out the window aggressively.
Clark added that his personal practice, as a holder of a concealed carry permit, is to always have his permit in hand with his other paperwork—with his hands on the steering wheel—and to tell the officer right away that he has a permit. (Please note that I'm not an attorney and am not offering legal advice, but merely reporting what others said.)
The upshot is this. As a citizen, you need to assert your rights. By asserting your rights, you encourage decent policing and remind police officers that they work for us, not the other way around. You also need to defend your rights, to speak out against rights violations and injustices. Finally, we need to think seriously about the sort of political system that fosters rights-protecting government activity—and the sort of political system that fosters oppression and systematic rights violations by government agents. Yes, it is a large task, but it is a necessary one if we wish to continue to live in the Land of the Free.
Homeland Security Trained Westminster Police for "Drug Checkpoints"
June 20, 2012
What is Homeland Security doing training local police to operate "drug checkpoints"?
Today the Denver Post published an editorial (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20893137/editorial-dubious-random-drug-checks-by-westminster-police) condemning the Westminster Police "drug checkpoints" that I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/westminsters-drug-checkpoint-fishing-expedition/) wrote about last week. The editorial follows Vincent Carroll's June 15 (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/06/15/westminster-polices-fishing-expedition/) piece on the same topic for the Post's opinion blog.
The Daily Camera, which the Post cites, published the first (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_20852880) newspaper account (to my knowledge) of the "drug checkpoints":
Westminster police stopped 23 cars and made one arrest at a high-profile drug checkpoint in the Boulder-bound lanes of U.S. 36. . . .
Of the 23 stopped, it's unclear how many were searched for drugs, but three traffic tickets were issued, and one man was arrested on suspicion of felony marijuana possession, [police investigator Trevor] Materasso said.
The Post also cites a Colorado Independent (http://coloradoindependent.com/122246/westminster-highway-drug-stop-legal-and-unconstitutional) story that contains the information about Homeland Security:
In a Friday email to the Independent, Materasso added that the drug stop operations have not been designed by the Westminster force in isolation but are a product of interactions with federal agencies.
"The operation [was] established based on training provided by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and Homeland Security, which has guidelines, protocols and procedures to ensure Constitutional rights are not violated. These govern how we conduct this type of operation."
The Post rightly retorts, "[J]ust because a policy does not, strictly speaking [and according to the courts], violate constitutional rights hardly means it earns an A-plus for respecting civil liberties."
I checked in with Cory Lamz, one of the two Camera reporters who covered the story, and he said his paper got a news tip about the "drug checkpoints" and that multiple staff members also saw the signs as they drove by on Highway 36. Once he started working on the story, he said, he saw my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/drug-checkpoint-outrage/) initial post on the subject and then asked my wife and me for a statement.
What I want to know is this: What does training local police to search innocent people's cars for drugs without substantial reason have to do with "Protecting the Homeland"? In this case, the threats against which Americans need protection are the police abuses encouraged by the Department of Homeland Security and the other agencies involved.
Flatirons Liberty On the Rocks Takes Off
June 21, 2012
Over 40 people attended the June 18 meeting of the new (http://www.libertyontherocks.org/) Liberty On the Rocks chapter in the Boulder area. (See my Picasa (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/LibertyOnTheRocksFlatironsJune2012) album.)
Founders of the group, Mike Shelton and Bryan Cutsinger, discuss their goals in a short video:
Brad Beck, founder of Liberty Toastmasters, discussed principles of effective communication.
New Group Seeks Voter Integrity
June 22, 2012
At Monday's Liberty On the Rocks Flatirons event, Jeff Kelly discussed his new group, "Colorado Voter Protection."
Kelly said his group's goals are three-fold: first, to clean up the voter rolls; second, to "recruit and deploy honest, trained poll watchers"; and, third, to prevent voter fraud.
Regarding that last point, Kelly said he'd like to see legislation requiring the verification of citizenship, minimizing mailed ballots, and requiring voter identification.
Westminster Police Used Dog for "Drug Checkpoint"
June 23, 2012
My wife and I drove past signs stating "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" on the night of June 12 as we headed northwest on Highway 36; the signs were placed before the Church Ranch exit, which we use on our route home.
Here are the basic facts already established about the incident based on direct observation and news accounts (see also my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/drug-checkpoint-outrage/) first, (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/westminsters-drug-checkpoint-fishing-expedition/) second, and (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/homeland-security-trained-westminster-police-for-drug-checkpoints/) third reports):
- The police pulled over 23 vehicles, arrested one man for felony marijuana possession, and issued three citations.
- The police did not stop every passing vehicle; rather, they pulled over people for an alleged "identified violation" (and yet, again, they issued only three citations).
- My wife witnessed the police in the process of searching six vehicles, two along Highway 36, and four more along Church Ranch. I do not know how many vehicles in total the police searched.
- The Department of Homeland Security was involved in training the Westminster police to conduct these sorts of "drug checkpoints."
The new information is that the Westminster police used at least one police dog in the course of the "drug checkpoint," and Randy Corporon, a defense attorney and fill-in host for Grassroots Radio, had a conversation with Trevor Materasso of the Westminster Police.
There's a humorous aside regarding the bit about the drug dogs. (http://www.completecolorado.com/) Complete Colorado features a headline, "Homeland Security trained police dogs for HWY 36 checkpoints?!?" Accompanying this headline is a photo of a police dog. However, the link goes to my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/homeland-security-trained-westminster-police-for-drug-checkpoints/) article about Homeland Security; there is no mention of a dog. So yesterday Ken Clark invited me on to Grassroots Radio to discuss the police dogs, and I had nothing for him on that topic. (Clark is one of the show's two regular hosts.)
But it turns out Westminster Police did use a police dog, though my wife and I didn't see it.
In the June 22 North Jeffco Westsider (front page, "Police enforce drug checkpoint"), Ashley Reimers cites Materasso: "One of the biggest resources we use in these checkpoints is K-9 units. We have a dog on scene that alerts us as to whether or not . . . drugs are in the vehicle, and then we search the vehicle."
But that must not be much a police dog, given the police searched six vehicles that we saw and made only one arrest for drugs.
Today I went back on Grassroots radio to discuss this detail and hear Corporon's additional insights.
Mostly Corporon verified previously reported facts, including Materasso's claim that police pulled people over for "identified violations." One example Corporon gave of an alleged violation was an illegal u-turn.
However, it seemed to me that Corporon was overly credulous regarding Materasso's claims. My wife and I witnessed no cars pulled over on the other side of Highway 36, as would have been the case for an illegal u-turn. Moreover, as previously noted, the police issued only three citations (and made one arrest) out of 23 stops. These alleged "violations" were evidently mere pretexts, for the most part.
Again, the issue is not whether such police activity passes muster in court, but whether these "drug checkpoints" inappropriately harass citizens "guilty" of nothing more than going about their business.
"Inviolate" Right to Jury Trials Undermined by High Plea Rate
June 24, 2012
Colorado's Constitution states, "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases" (Article II, Section 23).
How does that square with the fact that 97.6 percent of all Colorado felony convictions result from plea bargains, not jury trials?
Today's Colorado Springs Gazette features my (http://www.gazette.com/articles/banks-140734-prison-instead.html) article on the subject. My thesis is this: "By threatening the accused with drastically more severe potential penalties if they exercise their right to a trial by jury, prosecutors undermine that right and sometimes compel the innocent to plead guilty."
The statistics on which my article was based come from a document requested by the Independence Institute under the Colorado Open Records Act. I've put the entire (http://ariarmstrong.com/aadocs/pleabargains.xlsx) Excel document on my web page.
I summarize some of the major findings as follows:
Colorado criminal statistics for the years 2006 through 2011 show that Colorado prosecutors rely on plea bargains to reach convictions an overwhelming 97.6 percent of the time, according to documents obtained by the Independence Institute through a Colorado Open Records Act request.
According to those documents, only 4,241 felony convictions resulted from a jury trial, or 2.4 percent of the total of 175,015 felony convictions. A total of 6,101 felony cases went to trial, so the conviction rate at trial was 70 percent.
Drug cases accounted for 54,321 felony filings (23 percent) of 238,987 total filings. In terms of convictions, drug cases accounted for 43,034 (25 percent) of the total. Of the 790 drug cases that went to trial, 611 resulted in a conviction, meaning that only 1.4 percent of drug convictions resulted from a jury trial.
In the article, I cite an ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/rising-football-star-brian-banks-exonerated-rape-case/story?id=16424770#.T-c2QI7TxeR) report as well as a New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all) article.
My hope is that the report will spur other journalists and researchers to examine the figures for previous years in Colorado as well as for other states, and then to dig deeper into long-term trends and modern practices.
Land-Use Restrictions Set Stage for Mortgage Crisis, O'Toole Argues
June 25, 2012
Randal O'Toole recently visited the (http://www.i2i.org/) Independence Institute to discuss his new book, (http://www.cato.org/store/books/american-nightmare-how-government-undermines-dream-homeownership) American Nightmare: How Government Undermines The Dream of Homeownership.
In an interview, he argues:
I looked at the financial crisis [in the book] and showed that the crisis wasn't caused by things that people often attribute it to, such as low interest rates, subprime mortgages, or other national features. They really were only housing bubbles in some states: California, Oregon, Washington, Florida. A few other states had housing bubbles, but the other states didn't have bubbles. And all of the states that had bubbles had one thing in common. They had land-use restrictions that prevented homebuilders from meeting the demand for housing. And that caused housing prices to shoot way up.
My view is that these regional restrictions worked in conjunction with federal policies to create the bubble.
Contra Gasland Deception, Colorado Water Always Featured Natural Methane
June 26, 2012
A couple of years ago the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf) debunked major claims of the Gasland anti-industrial propaganda film:
Gasland features three Weld County landowners, Mike Markham, Renee McClure, and Aimee Ellsworth, whose water wells were allegedly contaminated by oil and gas development. The COGCC investigated complaints from all three landowners in 2008 and 2009, and we issued written reports summarizing our findings on each. We concluded that Aimee Ellsworth's well contained a mixture of biogenic and thermogenic methane that was in part attributable to oil and gas development, and Mrs. Ellsworth and an operator reached a settlement in that case.
However, using the same investigative techniques, we concluded that Mike Markham's and Renee McClure's wells contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity. Unfortunately, Gasland does not mention our McClure finding and dismisses our Markham finding out of hand. . . .
Laboratory analysis confirmed that the Markham and McClure wells contained biogenic methane typical of gas that is naturally found in the coals of the Laramie—Fox Hills Aquifer. This determination was based on a stable isotope analysis, which effectively "finger-printed" the gas as biogenic, as well as a gas composition analysis, which indicated that heavier hydrocarbons associated with thermogenic gas were absent. In addition, water samples from the wells were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), which are constituents of the hydrocarbons produced by oil and gas wells in the area. The absence of any BTEX compounds in these water samples provided additional evidence that oil and gas activity did not contaminate the Markham and McClure wells.
I have not researched what "part" of the contamination of the Ellsworth well was allegedly "attributable to oil and gas development," nor what sort of development that was, nor what the settlement was. In general, if there is objective evidence of a tort, the government properly intervenes to protect property rights (in light of any contractual relationships) and ensure just compensation for damages.
To me what is most interesting about the document, though, is that it demonstrates that usually methane in water is attributable to natural causes, not industrial development.
Recently I was talking with my father Linn about this, and he shared some anecdotes buttressing this fact:
Your great-grandfather Glenn Linn owned land south of Collbran, Colorado, until around 1963. As a child I spent many summers on this ranch. Of course, I have many fond memories spent in the mountains and one of the exciting memories is when we crossed the small stream running in front of the cabin Glenn would throw a match into the stream. A loud roar would ensue from the surface gas exploding.
In the 1960s the surface gas near The DeBeque bridge was very useful to the ranchers. In the cold winter the ice would freeze on the river which would force the ranchers to chop ice in order for the livestock to drink. Those lucky ranchers who had access to the river near the surface gas simply had to light the gas which kept the water clear of ice. Ranchers and cattle were both happy.
Your grandfather Otto Armstrong related that the train would stop just past the town of DeBeque so that the passengers see a geyser raise several feet into the air caused by surface gas. This must have been a great spectacle with the train engines of the 1920s and 30s bellowing smoke and a geyser spouting water feet into the air.
But we all know what's going on here. The anti-industrial environmentalists will damn any sort of energy development that alters the natural environment in any way, no matter how much energy production contributes to human life and flourishing. And they're not about to let the facts get in the way.
Coloradans Lead the Fight for Liberty in Medicine
June 28, 2012
Yes, I'm disappointed by today's ObamaCare ruling by the Supreme Court. (You can find my further (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/supremes-obamacare-ruling-altruism-in-politics/) remarks over at The Objective Standard blog.) I am not terribly surprised by the ruling; John Roberts was merely following today's common conservative legal theory to the effect that the Supreme Court should do whatever backflips are necessary to jam congressional legislation into the framework of the Constitution. (I'll have more to say about this later.)
Here, I wanted to first point out that this is hardly the end of the fight, and second thank those Coloradans who have played such an important part in the fight to establish liberty in healthy care.
This is not the time for defeatism, for disillusionment, for pessimism, or for sulking. This is the time to stoke one's motivation and help rally the lovers of liberty to the cause of freedom in medicine.
I think the Supreme Court erred in its judgment today. But the Supreme Court defines the limits of Congressional action, not its ideal state. Just because the Court allows it, doesn't mean Congress must enact it.
Now the battle must move to the cultural arena—where it has always been fought at the most fundamental level. In a way, today's ruling brings a certain clarity to the issue, for who can deny that we face a basic choice between liberty in medicine and government-controlled medicine? Either the individual is in control of his own life, his own health, his own choices, his own body, or the government is.
The fight to bring about liberty and free markets in medicine is just beginning.
And the side of liberty already has tremendous momentum, thanks in large part to the work of scholars and activists here in Colorado. I want to take this opportunity to thank some of them and link to some of their work.
Dave Kopel and Rob Natelson
Legal scholars Kopel (shown in the (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Qt5RoCyGp84we1H7we288NMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink) photo) and Natelson did tremendous (http://davekopel.com/Briefs/11-398bsacAuthorsLawsonetal.pdf) work explaining the limits of the "necessary and proper clause." Notably, the Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is not permissible under that clause (but rather under Congress's taxing authority).
Kopel has also written extensively about the implications of ObamaCare, as in an (http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/29/nearing-the-end-of-the-search-for-the-non-existent-limiting-principles/) article for the Volokh Conspiracy.
Earlier this year I (http://youtu.be/G1QwEJTnQXg) interviewed Kopel about the mandate.
Paul Hsieh
Radiologist Paul Hsieh cofounded (http://westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. He coauthored an (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) article chronicling the history of government intervention in medicine, and he continually writes blog posts and articles on health policy.
Hsieh wrote an (http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-should-americans-do-after-the-supreme-court-obamacare-ruling/?singlepage=true) article for today's PJ Media in which he argues:
Ultimately, the political fight against ObamaCare must be part of a broader fight for limited government that respects our freedoms. The proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to free speech, property, and contract. Only those who initiate physical force or fraud can violate our rights. A properly limited government protects us from criminals who steal, murder, etc., as well as from foreign aggressors. But it should otherwise leave honest people alone to live peacefully, not deprive us of our freedoms in the name of "universal health care."
Jill Vecchio
Vecchio, another medical doctor, has delivered numerous talks on health policy. She recorded a multi-part video (http://youtu.be/U_O7XV3OpmU) commentary on ObamaCare.
Linda Gorman
Gorman, an economist with the (http://www.i2i.org/hpchomepage.php) Independence Institute, has written about health policy for many years. I have benefited enormously from her detailed and technical understanding of health laws and their implications.
Brian Schwartz
Schwartz writes for the Institute's (http://www.i2i.org/hpchomepage.php) Patient Power Now blog. He keeps abreast of the latest news related to health care, and he shares this news with the wider community.
Thanks to the amazing work of these scholars, doctors, and activists—and many other Coloradans who have made the case for liberty in medicine—much of the public is aware of the dangers posed by ObamaCare and open to serious discussions about replacing today's government-controlled health care with a free market.
That is the cause for which we must continue to fight.
Coloradans Rally Against ObamaCare, SCOTUS Ruling
June 29, 2012
Today around two hundred Coloradans rallied at the state capitol in Denver to protest ObamaCare and the Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate under the Congressional taxing authority.
Read Tim Hoover's (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20973904/obamacare-must-be-repealed-say-speakers-at-conservative) article over at the Denver Post—then check back here for the most important information (which Hoover ignored). I refer to the talks by Dr. Jill Vecchio (shown in the (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/f-HDWmgxKlEDSQqOSIGbztMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink) photo) and constitutional scholar Rob Natelson, the video of which is embedded below.
Vecchio explained that ObamaCare forces doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath:
Natelson, one of the leading experts on the original meaning of the Constitution, argued that the Supreme Court's ruling constitutes sophistry:
Below are a few additional images from the rally; see my (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/AFPJune29RallyAgainstObamaCare?authuser=0&feat=directlink) Picasa album for more. (You'll notice that I posted the photos as Creative Commons.)
Bob Beauprez meets Vecchio:
Bill Faulkner and Jason Letman:
Felix Diawuoh, an immigrant from Ghana:
Jeff Crank, Colorado director for Americans for Prosperity (the group hosting the rally):
More soon!
Coloradans React to the ObamaCare Ruling
June 30, 2012
At yesterday's rally (see my previous (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/06/coloradans-rally-against-obamacare-scotus-ruling/) post), I interviewed several participants. Here's what they had to say:
Getting the Cling of Word Press
June 30, 2012
I'm thrilled that I switched to Word Press (installed on the server I use) to run my web page. It's truly remarkable software. I would recommend it, and nothing else, to those starting a new blog. It is such a different online world from when I started "blogging" in 1998! (It wasn't actually "blogging" back then, because the term hadn't yet been invented, assuming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog) Wikipedia correctly reviews the matter.)
Soon after switching to Word Press, I got deluged with spam comments. So I turned on moderation. (Others I know installed Disqus to handle comments, but I dislike adding anything that requires users to set up yet another account.)
So now I get "only" a handful of spam comments each day. Still, it's a little odd, given that I moderate all comments and don't find it remarkably difficult to weed out the spam.
I must wonder who it is presenting these comments for my moderation. Consider the following:
You actually make it seem really easy along with your presentation however I in finding this matter to be really one thing that I feel I would by no means understand. It kind of feels too complicated and extremely broad for me. I'm having a look ahead to your subsequent publish, I will attempt to get the cling of it!
I'm afraid I don't quite get the cling of what these spammers hope to accomplish. But perhaps I need merely look ahead to the spammers' subsequent comment. Will it be submitted to this very post?
My June 2012 TOS Blog Posts and Interview
July 1, 2012
Following are links to all of my Objective Standard blog posts for June, plus a print interview. I've put an asterisk by my personal favorites. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing.
I conducted an interview for the Summer 2012 print edition of TOS:
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-summer/steve-simpson.asp) Steve Simpson on Continuing Threats to Corporate Free Speech
In this interview, Simpson, a senior attorney with the (http://www.ij.org/) Institute for Justice, defends the Citizens United decision, explains why people who participate in corporations properly retain their rights to free speech, and discusses the root problems of modern American government (starting with the fact that it is a "spoils system").
Here are the blog items:
June 1, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/for-genuine-economic-recovery-ask-what-would-mises-do/) For Genuine Economic Recovery, Ask "What Would Mises Do?"
June 4, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/morality-and-sanity-demand-an-end-to-drug-prohibition/) Morality and Sanity Demand an End to Drug Prohibition
June 5, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/hats-off-to-mcdonalds-and-coca-cola-for-protesting-soda-ban/) Hats Off to McDonald's and Coca-Cola for Protesting Soda Ban
June 6, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/why-walkers-victory-matters/) Why Walker's Victory Matters
June 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/laws-against-human-life-and-the-heroes-who-fight-them/) Laws Against Human Life and the Heroes Who Fight Them
June 9, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/gladwell-cos-monstrous-injustice-against-businessmen/) Gladwell & Co.'s Monstrous Injustice Against Businessmen
June 11, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/the-morality-of-unequal-pay-for-unequal-work/) The Morality of Unequal Pay for Unequal Work
June 13, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/clockwork-angels-showcases-rushs-pride/) Clockwork Angels Showcases Rush's Pride
June 15, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/mises-on-government-size-doesnt-matter/) Mises on Government: Size Doesn't Matter
June 19, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/arthur-c-brooks-missing-moral-case-for-capitalism/) Arthur C. Brooks's Missing Moral Case for Capitalism
June 20, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/governments-proper-role-regarding-tuition-rates-for-illegal-immigrants/) Government's Proper Role Regarding Tuition Rates for "Illegal" Immigrants
June 21, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/the-indecency-of-fcc-censorship/) The Indecency of FCC Censorship
June 23, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/marxist-inspired-occupy-movement-seeks-freedomfrom-reality/) Marxist-Inspired Occupy Movement Seeks Freedom—From Reality
June 24, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/linux-creator-linus-torvalds-celebrates-rational-selfishness/) Linux Creator Linus Torvalds Celebrates Rational Selfishness
June 26, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/in-montana-case-supreme-court-protects-free-speech-again/) In Montana Case, Supreme Court Protects Free Speech, Again
June 27, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/institute-for-justice-wins-victory-in-bone-marrow-compensation-case/) Institute for Justice Wins Victory in Bone-Marrow Compensation Case
June 28, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/supremes-obamacare-ruling-altruism-in-politics/) Supremes' ObamaCare Ruling: Altruism In Politics
June 29, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/the-aftermath-of-the-scotus-obamacare-ruling/) The Aftermath of the SCOTUS ObamaCare Ruling
June 30, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/obamacare-tax-a-sophistic-assault-on-the-rule-of-law/) ObamaCare Tax: A Sophistic Assault on the Rule of Law
Track Review of Rush's Clockwork Angels
July 5, 2012
Finally I am ready to offer my track-by-track review of Rush's new album, Clockwork Angels.
For my general take on on the album, see my (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/clockwork-angels-showcases-rushs-pride/) review for The Objective Standard. I think this is a terrific album, perhaps the best of Rush's career. Anybody who's remotely a Rush fan should buy it and give it a listen, and then another.
However, I recognize that Rush's music is not as accessible to non-fans as is the typical rock album. Most hot singles today come and go. They have a fun riff, some fun lyrics, and people enjoy it, for about three months. And then it disappears, nobody cares about it, and few listen to it again.
Rush's music is different. It's more sophisticated, lyrically and compositionally. It requires multiple listening sessions to even fully "hear" a track, to notice its structure and texture. Not as many people will spend the time to listen to Rush's music, but those who do often fall in love with it, and keep listening to it year after year.
In a hundred years, most rock bands of today will be forgotten. A few will be remembered. Rush will be among them.
That said, as with any album (by Rush or anybody else), I like some of the tracks more than others. My goal here is to rate the tracks. Those who just want a taste might want to purchase the best tracks individually.
As I discussed in my TOS review, this is a "concept album" in the sense that the songs tell a story, chronologically, of a man's life in an alternate "steampunk" universe. You can't understand the significance of some of the lyrics outside the context of that story. However, as Geddy Lee has said, each song is meant to stand on its own musically. Thus, while I strongly suggest that you buy the entire album and listen to it as an album, you can also enjoy tracks singly. Here my purpose is to suggest which are the strongest tracks.
Best Song: "Clockwork Angels"
I regard the title track, "Clockwork Angels" (the third track on the album), as the best song on the album. At 7:31 minutes, it's the longest track, and it offers a range of styles within it.
Lyrically, the setting of the song is the Crown City. The protagonist of the story, a simple farm boy, is visiting the city for the for the first time, and he is dazzled by what he sees. The description that accompanies the lyrics offers his perspective: "I had seen many images of the city before, and Chronos Square, but nothing could convey the immensity—the heaven-reaching towers of the Cathedral of the Timekeepers, or the radiant glory of the Angels. . . bathed in the brilliant glow of the floating globes."
In the beginning we hear chants and some vapory-sounding guitar. I imagine the cart rolling into the city. Then some really bold, rhythmic guitar takes over.
At the minute-eight mark, the song takes a slow turn. When I first heard this, I was disappointed; I was hoping for a more rocking track. But I think the idea is that the protagonist is a little taken aback by what he sees, and he's trying to take it all in. The lyrics accompany: "High above the city square / Globes of light float in mid-air / Higher still, against the night / Clockwork angels bathed in light."
Then at a minute-twenty-nine the song takes off, and this is where I start to really love the track. It is glorious, it is pounding, it is intense. Geddly Lee drives with the bass.
At two-sixteen, the song relaxes into the the refrain, ending, "The people raise their hands [toward the Angels]—As if to fly." That takes us close to the three-minute mark. From there the song mostly builds on variations of the same material.
But then at the four-fifty mark, the song takes a very different turn, sounding loose, almost drunken. This lasts for nearly a minute. It's a peculiar section, and I don't love it musically, but I think what's going on is that the protagonist is starting to let some of his disillusionment show through. The lyrics go, "Lean not upon your own understanding" / Ignorance is well and truly blessed"—hardly an inspiring thought.
But then the song recaptures its positive, uplifting spirit, its spirit of wonder. It is quintessential Rush. And I love it.
Best Tracks
Several other tracks join "Clockwork Angels" in comprising the album's best.
"Caravan" opens the album with the clanging of train bells. The opening lasts for nearly forty seconds, and then the song takes off with a bass-driven, off-beat riff. It's great. Then at a minute-ten, the song offers its powerful refrain to the lyrics, "To the distant dream of the city / The caravan carries me onward / On my way at last." It's some of Rush's best music.
"The Anarchist" is great, rollicking rock. To get an idea of why I think it tops the list, listen in at the 2:50 mark. The interplay here between Lifeson's guitar and Peart's pulsing drums is just magical. And then at 3:05 Lee's bass joins the conversation more strongly.
"Carnies" begins as just another hard-rock song. But then at 0:57 it sprouts wings, and then at 1:22 it soars into this airy, contemplative space. I love the song's mix of pounding rock and sweet melody.
"The Wreckers" has a pretty weak opening, but at sixteen seconds it begins an intriguing interplay between strummed guitar and bass. My understanding is that, in recording this, Lee and Lifeson switched instruments. This is followed by a wonderful, soul-wrenching refrain at fifty-eight seconds: "All I know is that sometimes you have to be wary / 'Cause sometimes the target is you."
For pure, driving hard-rock genius, "Headlong Flight" is a must-purchase. Plus, I love this song lyrically: "Some days were dark . . . / Some nights were bright / I wish that I could live it all again."
"The Garden" closes the album perfectly. It is far and away Rush's best "slow song," carried by acoustic guitar and Lee's soulful voice. The refrain (at a minute-twelve) is beautiful musically and lyrically: "The measure of a life is a measure of love and respect. . ."
Second-Tier Tracks
Look, don't get me wrong, I love all the tracks. But these are relatively weak ones, in my book. Of course, Rush's weaker tracks are still loads better than most bands' best tracks, so this is relative.
I enjoy "BU2B," and it's a good hard-rock song, but to me the music just isn't quite as compelling and interesting as with other tracks.
"Halo Effect" is a fine slower song, but nothing about it makes me want to tag it as top-tier.
You can tell right away that "Seven Cities of Gold" is going to be a groovy song. I like it quite a lot, but it seems too repetitive to me, and little about it stands out. I have to say, though, that there's some fantastic bass work starting at the four-minute mark; Lee grooves out.
"BU2B2" is more of an interlude than a song. It ably conveys the protagonist's sense of anguish at this point in his life.
I quite like "Wish Them Well" musically and lyrically, but it's not a stand-out to me. The theme is that you can't get caught up with those who wish to tear you down.
The Album
By my reckoning, then, a person could get the "best of Clockwork Angels" by purchasing seven of the tracks.
But, as noted, even the relatively "weaker" tracks are still pretty good.
Plus, the album artwork is exceptional for this album, and it also tells more of the story than is revealed in the lyrics.
So there are several good reasons to get the entire album, even if you're not a lifelong Rush fan.
On a personal note, I'd like to thank the guys of Rush for making this album. It's amazing, and arguably Rush's best album ever. I'm impressed by their long-lasting passion and drive to make the best music they possibly can.
Melissa Clouthier Talks Twitter Activism
July 6, 2012
Melissa Clouthier, better known as (https://twitter.com/melissatweets/) @MelissaTweets on Twitter, is responsible for getting me onto Twitter. Now I love it. Indeed, Twitter has become my primary way to track news and opinions. Here Melissa explains how and why she became one of the most important right-leaners on the social media site.
First, though, I must offer my apologies to Melissa; I've been sitting on this interview for months. Originally, I had the idea of including it in a short book on activism, but my schedule got quite out of hand, so now I'll publish this interview (and others ) on my web page as part of a series on activism.
Disclaimer: Those I interview do not necessarily endorse any of my views or writings.
Ari: What do you see as the basic value of Twitter and other social media, in terms of political activism?
Melissa: Social media is made up of people who create the stories. People are now the content creators and through group involvement, help create the narrative. Stories that used to be ignored and buried by the mainstream press . . . well, they can't be anymore. I love fighting the narrative. Even better, I like shaping it and framing it. Common people, working together, have power. It's wonderful.
Ari: How did you become such a force on Twitter?
Melissa: Hmmm... I don't really view myself as a force on Twitter. I view myself as a news aggregator and information-sharer. I only have influence to the extent that what I share people find valuable. The people, they're the force. I am just using the medium to share information that I hope informs, entertains, motivates, etc. If I cease to share valuable information, I'll cease to be helpful and cease to be relevant.
Ari: What other sorts of activism do you pursue, and how does Twitter fit into that?
Melissa: Well, I have reported from all sorts of Tea Parties. I've wanted to understand the movement, observe it, and share it honestly with people. I also try to teach as many people as possible how to do this. We need more bloggers, more Twitterers, more citizen journalists to keep our local, state and federal government honest. So, equipping the workers is a big part of my activism too. I love to teach.
Ari: What tips do you have for the new Twitter activist?
Decide who you want to influence. Do you want to be a thorn in the flesh of your local city council or school board? Follow those people and anyone in your community (follow by location) and then expose.
Be loud, fearless, direct, kind (don't ever say anything online you wouldn't say in person), fair and truthful and most of all, relentless. Don't give up. Public officials will change their behavior. They'll challenge you (I've fought with elected officials). They'll get frustrated. Oh well. They're public servants.
Carve out a niche. Maybe you only want to share information. That's wonderful. Maybe you want to create a parody account to torment the corrupt Mayor or something. There are really no right or wrongs. The key is to have a goal, pursue it and be truthful.
Ari: How do you blend activism with your professional and family life?
Melissa: I couldn't do this without buy-in. I've taken my family to Tea Parties. I've taken my kids to political rallies. I've introduced them to politicians and activists. They know they can change the country with involvement. Because I travel a bit, they need to know that I go because it's important. We talk through the issues and what's at stake. Still, it's a challenge. I'm a mom first, and so they'll get irritated with me if I miss something. Still, I want them to be idealistic and involved and realize they can make a difference. Kids learn by example.
Thankfully, as a chiropractor, I can work when and how I want to. My patients have to be flexible too, but they're loyal to me and I am to them. So, I go in a morning or two a week and see as many folks as possible. It's a wonderful profession and it keeps me in touch with real life—real worries, real priorities. For a long time, I could separate my online life from my patients. Not now. Now, they know what I'm up to. Still, it's okay. I love all people, even people who believe differently politically. Everyone has the same concerns, ultimately.
Ari: Why do you do it?
Melissa:I've blogged for over six years. It started out as something to do, something I was interested in that could keep my mind busy while I had a baby. And then there was the bank implosion and I researched it and discovered that horrendous public policy by Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank resulted in this horrible, horrible mess. And then the bailouts and the debacle of the McCain campaign. I was absolutely disgusted with the Republican party. I was horrified by what I saw was our first socialist President—Barack Obama. And then, against my hopes, Obama was far worse and more destructive than I could imagine. I'm still profoundly distressed about the effects of Obamacare. It's going to be the long term destroyer of America if let go.
The leftists never stop. They are always pushing. They have made incrementalism a high art form. And now, nearly half of American households receive a check from the government every month. This is a disaster. I'm not sure if we're past the point of no return, but if not we are very close. We're already a debtor nation. It's appalling.
So, we have to work to restore American greatness and that's an individual proposition. People need to believe in themselves again. People need to know that there are consequences for behavior both personally and for big banks and for everyone. So, we have many fights—not just politically or policy-wise, but for the hearts and minds of Americans.
I'm just one small person, but I'm not going down without a fight. I'm a mother. My children deserve better and I'll fight to the death for them. And that's what I'm fighting for—for their survival. But more than that, I'm fighting for their future greatness. I know, sounds idealistic and maybe silly. But I'm not cynical about this political world. Together we can make a difference, we ARE making a difference. And that's why I fight.
Ari: Thank you for being such an inspiring activist!
An Open Letter to Krista Broussard of Hewlett-Packard's ISB Team
July 6, 2012
Update: On July 9, Keith from Hewlett-Packard contacted me through Twitter and provided me with his number. I did have to provide additional details about my printer model, but Keith promptly facilitated the exchange and restored my faith in Hewlett-Packard's commitment to its customers.
Dear Ms. Broussard of Hewlett-Packard Company's ISB Team,
I have been a loyal HP customer since the early '90s, when I purchased my first serious printer (my actual first was a dot-matrix), a glorious HP laser printer. I ran many thousands of pieces of paper through that workhorse.
It saddened me, then, to read the many news stories all indicating that your once-glorious company has been heading down the toilet. For example, just today the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hp-turnaround-20120705,0,4110370.story) refers to HP's "faltering business."
Your letter to me dated June 27 hints to me why your company is faltering. You obviously don't take any pride whatsoever in your products, nor do you care anything about making your customers happy. Instead, you harangue me for daring to politely ask HP to replace a faulty HP product that I paid good money to purchase.
On June 4, I drafted the following letter to Hewlett-Packard. I sent the letter with a defective ink cartridge to the company, hoping for a timely and satisfactory reply:
Hewlett-Packard Company
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA
94304-1185
Ari Armstrong
9975 Wadsworth Pkwy. #K2-111
Westminster, CO 80021
Dear HP,
We purchased the enclosed Color 61 ink cartridge, but unfortunately it is defective. (Our printer gave us an error message, and the next cartridge we tried worked fine.)
I request a replacement cartridge or a certificate for the same.
Thanks,
Ari Armstrong
P.S. I tried your customer service phone line, but after an absurdly long hold time I gave up.
Rather than send me a timely and satisfactory reply—with a replacement cartridge—you instead sent me the following huffy (https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/fPkLJ7RviDlVMNy5HNPdW9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink) note asking me for information a) that I had already provided to Hewlett-Packard or b) that was entirely irrelevant to the company for replacing the defective cartridge [omitted].
So please allow me to take this opportunity to reply to your letter.
First, I was shocked to read that HP does not normally replace defective products, that you deign to "make a one time exception" in my case to do right by your customers.
So let the buyer beware: Hewlett-Packard does not stand behind its products, judging by Broussard's reply.
Second, I found it ludicrous that you requested my "valid shipping address" in the very letter that contains a copy of my valid shipping address. Obviously you are not seriously attempting to get the relevant information from me to make a good-faith effort to replace your defective product; instead, you are merely hassling me.
I therefore take this opportunity to beg your forgiveness for purchasing HP products.
Finally, no, I will not provide you with my telephone number, my printer model number, or my printer serial number in order to process the replacement. Perhaps in your ineptitude you missed this detail, but I sent you the defective cartridge. That provides quite sufficient information, I think, for you to send me a replacement! (Moreover, it seems to me your crack "ISB Team"—whatever that is—should have embraced the opportunity to check out the defective cartridge in an attempt to avoid such manufacturing defects in the future.)
It seems to me that the obviously right move in your position would have been to promptly and cheerfully send me the replacement cartridge. That's what good companies do, companies that do not wish to suffer "faltering business." Well, obviously you blew your first chance. Please consider this your second.
Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong
How About a Tester Store?
July 9, 2012
Recently I bought a Canon camera from Costco. (It's an Elph 110 HS, and so far I'm quite happy with it.) I bought the Canon after buying and returning a Nikon to the store; I didn't like the Nikon's video abilities.
After my experience with the return, I thought I'd try to avoid that with the second purchase. Returns are costly for me (as I have to box up the item and drive it back), costly for the store (which at a minimum has to process the return), and costly for the producer, which has to repackage or perhaps eat the item.
So I asked the Costco team to unhook the display camera from the board to which it had been wired (for security), give me the battery and flash card, and let me play around with it for a while. The staff was happy (or at least willing) to accommodate my strange request.
So I shot some stills, took some video, then uploaded that content to my laptop (which I'd brought along for the purpose) to check out the results. I bought the camera much more confident I'd be happy with it. (It has only a 5x zoom, but, while I'd wanted more, I'd also read numerous reviews claiming that longer zooms tend to have problems with sticking.)
This got me thinking. While in my youth it seemed like catalog buying would become a thing of the past, today it is back in a serious way, with Amazon leading the way. I buy a lot of stuff online simply because I can't find it locally—or because the local prices are significantly higher.
But internet buying creates a problem for brick-and-mortar stores: people come into the stores to try out products, but then they buy the products online—often on their mobile devices in the store itself.
So I thought to myself, why doesn't somebody try separating out the service of letting customers try stuff out from the service of delivering the product?
What I envision is a "Tester Store." It's a large, warehouse-type "store," filled with display models of loads of products, only the "store" doesn't actually sell any of the products. You just try stuff out, then buy the stuff online.
Why would anybody do such a thing? Where's the profit? When I mentioned this idea to a friend, he pointed out that such store could potentially become the world's largest Amazon affiliate. (I mean, not in Colorado at this time, because our idiot legislators imposed an "Amazon tax," but in other parts of the country where the legislators aren't quite so painfully stupid and destructive.) The whole point of the "store" would be to actively encourage shoppers to order stuff online.
There is a range of products for which this would be useful. Obviously books are out, because you can just read previews digitally. But anything you want to handle before you buy it, such as cameras, clothing, air conditioners, cookware, etcetera. The whole point would be to make the stuff easy for people to check out, try on, put through the wringer.
I envision something like an Ikea, someplace with food, that's sort of like a playground for adults (and kids, too).
Other than the "Amazon affiliate" strategy, there are a variety of ways such a store could make money. Perhaps many or all manufacturers would provide free floor samples to keep costs down. The store could sell old floor models, or not, depending on their condition and on agreements with manufacturers.
Think of how much better this would be than today's typical model. Often I'll look at products online at various stores (Walmart, Home Depot, Costco), but the local store won't cary something. So I have no ability to try out that stuff before I buy it. Instead, why don't stores just carry one or two copies of an item for people to check out, then ship from a central location?
Obviously this eliminates the "instant gratification" of real-store shopping. But usually I don't want something right now; I want something I know will work for me. (Here's another idea: the store could sell limited items at a premium to those who have got to have it now.)
I don't know whether this idea would work (and I certainly don't want to spend the effort to try it out). But it seemed interesting enough to me to blog about. If somebody else wants to run with it, be my guest.
How Consumer Reports Could Get My Money
July 9, 2012
I've used (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm) Consumer Reports exactly once in my life, several years ago when researching used cars. It's too bad I haven't used it more often—the organization features reviews of several products I've recently purchased, including cameras and air conditioners.
So what's the problem? The unfortunate fact is that Consumer Reports makes it too hard for me to pay money to read the research relevant to me. It's especially ironic that Consumer Reports sucks at making its material available to consumers, given that helping consumers is supposed to be what the organization is all about.
Let's take the example of (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/air-conditioners.htm) air conditioners. To get the relevant information, I'm told that I need to "Subscribe now" at a (https://ec.consumerreports.org/ec/cro/order.htm?INTKEY=I61ILT0) rate of $30 per year or $6.95 per month.
Well, screw that. I'm not going to sign up for a long-term subscription that I then have to think about and manage just to spend five minutes to learn about air conditioners.
What I did instead is just rely on whatever free reviews I could scrounge up through Google searches and from Amazon customers.
It would be extremely easy for Consumer Reports to get money from me in exchange for research. Just sell me individual reports in pdf format for a few dollars. I would have happily paid five bucks for the latest Consumer Reports information on cameras and air conditioners. But apparently Consumer Reports thinks its more important to unsuccessfully attempt to bilk me out of $30 per year than to actually get $10 right now for specific reports. That's just bad business.
I really want to pay you my hard-earned money, Consumer Reports! You need merely make it easy for me to do that.
TOS Blog Update: Prometheus, China, Higgs Boson
July 10, 2012
So far for the month of July I've written three blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
July 2, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/prometheus-and-the-black-goo-of-altruism/) Prometheus and the Black Goo of Altruism
". . . Notice that Prometheus sees the two basic alternatives as self-sacrificial, life-giving selflessness, and other-sacrificing, life-harming selfishness. This ignores the possibility of a rationally self-interested person who (as Ayn Rand formulates the matter) neither sacrifices himself to others nor others to himself. . . ."
July 6, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/chinas-one-child-policy-illustrates-rights-violating-horror-of-collectivism/) China's One-Child Policy Illustrates Rights-Violating Horror of Collectivism
". . . Communism sacrifices individuals and their liberties for the alleged benefit of 'society.' An individualist society, by contrast, protects the rights of each individual to pursue his own life, liberty, and happiness in accordance with his own judgment, provided that he does not violate the rights of others. In an individualist society, couples are free to have children, or not, at their discretion. . . ."
July 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/higgs-boson-research-testament-to-the-power-or-the-crudeness-of-the-human-mind/) Higgs Boson Research: Testament to the Power—or the Crudeness—of the Human Mind?
"The recent announcement that scientists found evidence consistent with the existence of the Higgs boson (a type of particle thought to give mass to other particles) is a testament to the efficacy of the human mind to discover the nature of reality. Why, then, do some describe the discovery in the language of mystics or claim it shows the feebleness of human reason? . . ."
Kopel on ObamaCare SCOTUS Ruling
July 11, 2012
Constitutional scholar Dave Kopel discussed the ObamaCare SCOTUS ruling July 9 at Liberty On the Rocks, Flatirons. He argued that, despite the court's troubling ruling on the taxing power, in other ways the ruling provides important Constitutional protections of our liberties.
Kopel spoke for about an hour to a crowd of around fifty people; I extracted a series of ten videos encompassing most of his remarks.
Kopel began by discussing the commerce clause, noting that the ruling offers a relatively restrained reading of that clause more consistent with original understanding:
Next Kopel addressed the meaning of the "necessary and proper" clause, noting that the court's ruling moved interpretation of that clause closer to original understanding:
What about Medicaid spending? Kopel points out that the Court's ruling has profound implications for states' ability to manage their own budgets.
Of course, the Court dramatically expanded the Congressional taxing authority, and that part of the ruling is the most problematic. Kopel discusses ObamaCare's "Seinfeld tax on nothing."
Did Justice Roberts make a "switch in time" because of political pressure? Kopel discusses the possibility:
What is the state of legal academia? Kopel argues that it was bad but that it is getting much better.
Is the Tenth Amendment meaningless? Hardly, argues Kopel.
Ultimately, the Constitution lives in the hearts and minds of the American people. "It is up to the American people to maintain our political system of constitutional liberty," Kopel argues.
Judicial review is proper, Kopel argues, but not sufficient to maintain liberty.
Finally, Kopel discusses other possible legal challenges to ObamaCare.
See also Randy Barnett's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/randy-barnett-we-lost-on-health-care-but-the-constitution-won/2012/06/29/gJQAzJuJCW_story.html) op-ed and (http://youtu.be/ghk7mmSR1Jo) interview about the decision.
Congressman Jared Polis Discusses Political Activism
July 16, 2012
Last year I asked Congressman (http://jaredpolis.com/) Jared Polis to answer some questions about politics and activism, and he was kind enough to reply. Unfortunately, I got behind on my projects and kept delaying the publication of the interview. I am pleased to make it available now. Obviously, I am aware of the fact that Polis is now locked into his next reelection campaign, so, I will pursue the possibility of asking Polis's opponent, (http://www.kevinlundberg.com/) Kevin Lundberg, a comparable set of questions. (Incidentally, with the recent redistricting, I was drawn out of Polis's district and into that of Ed Perlmutter.)
Over the next few days I'll release several other interviews about activism. I have already published an (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/melissa-clouthier-talks-twitter-activism/) interview with Melissa Clouthier about Twitter activism. Please see my "(http://ariarmstrong.com/category/activism/) activism" category for more.
Disclaimer: Those I interview do not necessarily endorse any of my views or writings. (Nor does this interview imply I agree with Polis's positions.)
Ari: While you're a "Boulder Democrat," you also show an independent streak, in that you criticized the auto bailout, you've attended free-market events, and you've suggested liberty-oriented solutions to immigration and drug policy. But obviously there's a lot of pressure to conform to the party line in DC. In general, how much do members of Congress tend to bow to party politics, and how much to they tend to make up their own minds based on their independent research and ideological convictions?
Jared: Currently, all members of Congress are nominated by parties in their districts. In most districts, selection by the majority party is tantamount to election due to the gerrymandering. In more competitive seats, the champions of both parties battle it out in a general election.
Most behavior I see is less about towing the "party line" than it is about the fact that members of Congress are products of the districts that elect them. Members are a product of the communities they hail from, and have similar values to most members of those communities.
With resources like the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, my staff and I have access to a significant amount of independent research to help us inform decisions, but we are also avid consumers of media, as well as students of public opinion.
Ari: By the time somebody gets to Congress, many of his or her views and commitments are already set. To what degree is it worthwhile for somebody trying to advocate a set of ideas and policies to interact with members of Congress? Should they instead focus on educating other activists, the general electorate, and lower-level candidates still formulating their worldviews?
Jared: We are far from experts on every topic, so most likely if a constituent approaches us about a policy or idea it will be one worth considering. I sign onto bills frequently that are brought to my attention by constituents and that I might not know about otherwise. Obviously a visit with a member of Congress will not likely result in them changing their value system, but try to pitch the policy based on their existing value system. For instance, if the member is extremely religious, theological arguments may be most effective. If the member makes decisions based on science, use science and data in your presentation. It always helps to show how an issue directly affects a member's constituents.
On most issues, politicians are followers of the general electorate so surely moving the general electorate is the most effective way to move elected officials.
Ari: How many letters do you receive on average during a month? How many of those does a typical member of Congress actually personally read?
Jared: I have received anywhere from 100 (slow month) to over 1,000 (in the midst of health care debate) per month. A summary of what the letters are about is prepared including a tally on each issue and presented to me weekly (including phone calls to the office and emails from constituents). If the letter has a new legislative idea or relates to something important in the district, I generally see it.
Ari: What are the best forums for somebody to interact with a member of Congress? Town halls? Letters? Phone calls? Fundraising events?
Jared: All of the above. Activists shouldn't limit themselves. Most members will schedule a meeting with constituents who are visiting DC. Showing up at town halls and other public events can also be effective but not as much if the same person shows up at five town halls. For it to look like a movement it has got to involve different faces and voices.
Ari: What approaches and arguments work best with a member of Congress? Which ones prove ineffective?
Jared: It is best to research the member of Congress you are approaching so you understand their values and decision-making process. The wrong approach can backfire and move the member in the opposite direction.
Ari: "Public Choice" economics talks about the problem of "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs." How do you and other members of Congress distinguish between special-interest appeals (at the cost of everyone else) and policies truly in the best interests of the country as a whole? Or is the problem intractable?
Jared: Let me know if you figure this out! One example is tax reform. The vision is that a revenue neutral reform that eliminates loopholes and limits deductions could bring would create a substantially lower, flatter and simpler income tax rate for individuals and corporations. The difficulty in getting there is that, while most people would appreciate a lower rate and not having their decisions centrally incentivized out of Washington, each one of those loopholes and deductions has its own constituency that tries to preserve it. Thus the only likely approach is all or none, once some exceptions are made for tax expenditures then it is harder to make excuses about why others are not included. Tax reform was successfully accomplished in 1986 but the tax code has grown by leaps and bounds since then.
The challenge to free market conservatives is to attack tax expenditures—the loopholes and deductions—as vociferously as they do traditional spending. Whether you're giving someone a special benefit through the tax code or through a direct flow of cash, they're both spending. They both come with a cost to the Treasury. Yet many conservatives insist that there's a distinction.
Congressional Challenger Kevin Lundberg Discusses Political Activism
July 17, 2012
Months ago I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/congressman-jared-polis-discusses-political-activism/) interviewed Congressman (http://jaredpolis.com/) Jared Polis about activism related to congressional politics. Although he replied promptly, I delayed in publishing his answers until yesterday. (Sorry!) Because Polis now faces a challenger for his seat, (http://www.kevinlundberg.com/) Kevin Lundberg, I thought it was appropriate to ask Lundberg a comparable set of questions. His answers follow.
Disclaimer: Those I interview do not necessarily endorse any of my views or writings. (Nor does this interview imply I agree with Lundberg's positions.)
Please see my "(http://ariarmstrong.com/category/activism/) activism" category for additional interviews and discussions about political activism.
Ari: In general, how much do members of Congress tend to bow to party politics, and how much to they tend to make up their own minds based on their independent research and ideological convictions? How do you intent to deal with party pressures should you win the seat?
Kevin: My experience is at the state legislative level, and that is enough to know that the normal trend is for legislators to go with most of the flow. I have spent ten years resisting that trend. It is not a good idea to be a lone ranger, for all legislative issues require a lot of group effort, but one must find likeminded people to help withstand the pressures of establishment politics. In Colorado I helped found and run the Republican Study Committee of Colorado to provide a viable alternative to the establishment trends that inevitably grow more government. In Washington I intend on joining the Republican Study Committee, and similar alliances. I also have learned that it is essential to know what is negotiable, and what are non-negotiable principles, and stick with those principles.
Ari: By the time somebody gets to Congress, many of his or her views and commitments are already set. To what degree is it worthwhile for somebody trying to advocate a set of ideas and policies to interact with members of Congress? Should they instead focus on educating other activists, the general electorate, and lower-level candidates still formulating their worldviews? Obviously you have expressed strong convictions on various matters. How to do plan to weigh the views and advice of constituents in light of your established views?
Kevin: It is always a balance between one's personal ideals and the district's overall needs and opinions.
The best way to influence elected officials is before the election. I am honest and forthright with the voters before and after the election, but that is not always the case for every candidate. Before this election is over I trust careful voters will examine my principles for good government and weigh it against the values of my opponent. Remember, now is the time for this conversation.
After the election I will not change my tune. I intend to listen as carefully as I can and then cast my votes according to that information I have gathered and the principles of good government I have clearly outlined during the campaign season.
Ari: How do you plan to interact with constituents?
Kevin: Even as I have tried to do in Larimer county with my state legislative duties, I need to spend as much time here in the district and not in D.C.. I also will make constituent services a high priority for my staff.
Ari: What are the best forums for somebody to interact with a member of Congress? Town halls? Letters? Phone calls? Fundraising events? What are the best ways to interact with you now and should you win the seat?
Kevin: Town halls, and other public meetings are the most effective, but letters, calls, and to a lesser extent, emails all have an impact. I have attended a Monday morning breakfast in Larimer county just about every week of the year for all of my legislative career. It was the event Congressman Bob Schaffer started when he ran for Congress. He attended most weeks while in Congress. I hope to continue that tradition. In addition, I know I must conduct town halls all around the district, and keep an open door policy, even as I have as a state representative and state senator.
Ari: What approaches and arguments work best with a member of Congress? Which ones prove ineffective?
Kevin: For me the most effective arguments are: Is it constitutional? Will it really be in the best interest of the people in the district? Will it reduce government and enhance liberty? Telling me that some big contributor wants something is about the last thing I want to hear and has little effect on my opinion.
Ari: "Public Choice" economics talks about the problem of "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs." How will you distinguish between special-interest appeals (at the cost of everyone else) and policies truly in the best interests of the country as a whole? How do you hope other members of Congress do that? Or is the problem intractable?
Kevin: From my vantage point I cannot judge other members of Congress, but, as I answered in question five, special-interest appeals do not hold much weight with me. Ask any full-time lobbyist in Denver, they can confirm that I do not bend to accommodate some special interest if it is not first, and foremost, the best choice for the people in my district.
Dr. Hsieh Stays Active for Liberty in Medicine
July 18, 2012
For his regular job, Paul Hsieh works as a radiologist. In addition to pursuing a demanding career in medicine, Dr. Hsieh has also become one of the nation's foremost advocates of free markets in medicine. He blogs daily for (http://blog.westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, and he contributes articles to (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/contributors/paul-hsieh.asp) The Objective Standard and other publications.
Last year I conducted several interviews on political activism, including one with Dr. Hsieh. I am publishing those now. Please see my "(http://ariarmstrong.com/category/activism/) activism" category for additional interviews and discussions about political activism.
Ari: Briefly, how did you get into free-market activism?
Paul: I began in January 2007 in response the Colorado state legislature's decision to appoint a special commission to create a "universal health care" plan for our state. A group of local free market advocates decided to organize the "Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine" (FIRM) project to speak out against government-run "universal" health care, and to support genuine free-market health reforms.
Our founder, Lin Zinser, attended and spoke out at numerous meetings of that state commission. She also participated in several panel discussions, town hall meetings, community groups, radio shows—all to discuss and promote free-market health reforms.
For my part, I wrote several letters to the editor and op-eds on health care policy for local and regional newspapers. After this particular issue died in the 2008 state legislature, we've continued working on this topic when health care policy heated up as a national-level issue following the election of President Obama.
Ari: Will you please summarize what your activities entail, and how specifically you became interested in health policy?
Paul: I mostly write letters to the editor, op-eds, and articles for various venues. My op-eds have appeared in outlets including the (http://www.csmonitor.com/content/search?SearchText=%22paul+hsieh%22&SearchButton=Search) Christian Science Monitor, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/5/best-health-care-political-pull-can-buy/) Washington Times, (http://washingtonexaminer.com/search?search=%22paul+hsieh%22) Washington Examiner, (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14741971) Denver Post, and (http://pjmedia.com/blog/author/paulhsieh/) PajamasMedia. Some of my longer articles have appeared in (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/contributors/paul-hsieh.asp) The Objective Standard, which is a quarterly journal of culture, arts, and politics.
Some of my work has also been cited by Investor's Business Daily and major political blogs such as Instapundit and Real Clear Politics.
Our web page offers a summary of our published (http://www.westandfirm.org/articles.html) op-eds and articles.
My interest in health policy was driven initially by a specific state-level political initiative. But since then, I've found that topic of health policy (including what constitutes genuine health care "reform"), encompasses some more important fundamental issues—such as the nature of individual rights, the propriety (or lack thereof) of government "entitlement" programs, and the proper role of government in our lives.
Because of my tight work schedule (and personal inclination), I've mostly concentrated on writing. I do relatively little public speaking. Nor have I chosen to accept invitations to appear on TV or radio. Of course this may change in the future as my own personal goals and circumstances change.
Ari: What personal rewards and benefits do you find come with free-market activism?
Paul: Some of the key benefits include:
1) I've gain a much better understanding of some of the fundamental ideas (such as the nature of individual rights and the proper role of government) by having to think about and articulate them to others.
2) I've met some truly fine people who are also interested in free-market health care reform (and more broadly in the restoration and preservation of American freedoms in general).
3) I've become a better writer.
4) I've gained a greater sense of rational optimism about our future. Although I recognize that the battles ahead will be difficult, my activism has helped give me hope that the fight can be won. By being active, one is helping to steer the debate in the right direction, rather than being a helpless passenger at the mercy of others driving the discussion.
Ari: How do you mesh your professional life with your activist life?
Paul: I do all of this writing on my own time, typically during evenings, weekends, and vacation time.
My employers are fine with my activist work, provided that I don't presume to speak for them on any political issues—a perfectly reasonable and understandable position. Hence, my author byline always states that I'm a co-founder of FIRM, but does not mention my professional practice affiliation.
My physician colleagues at work know of my views. But my various medical practice partners encompass an extremely wide range of political views, varying from religious conservative to libertarian to mainstream Republican and Democrat to socialist. So I'm merely another person in a politically diverse group and it doesn't affect our professional relationships with one another.
Ari: What tips do you have for the budding free-market activist? Why should others get involved?
Paul: Budding activists should get involved for personal, selfish reasons. They shouldn't view activism as grim painful "duty" where they are "taking one for the team."
Instead, they should find ways to make activism a positive enhancement to their lives. This will include finding areas of interest (perhaps specializing by topic or geographic region) and finding vehicles that suit their time and personality (writing vs speaking vs. technical or support activities).
It also requires a realistic approach to one's goals. You can't expect to publish columns in the Wall Street Journal after a month. Rather, one should start small and work your way up. A budding writer might start with blogging, then move up to letters to the editor, then op-eds, then longer articles. A budding speaker might start with small community groups or local Rotary Clubs, then try local radio and TV, etc.
Also, one should network with other potential allies and find ways to provide mutual intellectual and emotional support for each others' projects.
Finally, be patient and persistent. And savor the small victories when they arise!
These tips will go a long way towards helping budding activists preserve their "staying power," rather than burning out too quickly and quitting from frustration.
Brian Schwartz Blogs for Freedom in Health Care
July 19, 2012
(http://wakalix.wordpress.com/) Brian Schwartz works as a scientist, and in his off hours he blogs for the Independence Institute's free-market (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) Patient Power Now site. By focusing his intellectual activism on health policy, he has become an expert in that area, excelling at analyzing complex reports and incorporating that material into popular articles.
My interview with Brian is one of several I've recently released. Please see my "(http://ariarmstrong.com/category/activism/) activism" category for additional interviews and discussions about political activism.
Ari: What originally inspired you to take an interest in political liberty?
Brian: After my freshman year of college I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, and Frédéric Bastiat's The Law. From these I realized the injustice and harmful effects of government policies that violate people's rights.
As a student as a small liberal arts school, I was surrounded by students who considered their left-wing political views to be "tolerant." It was really an "emperor has no clothes" revelation for me that their "tolerance" for voluntary exchange and relationship ended when money entered the picture. To me this was an arbitrary and meaningless distinction in terms of whether or not to recognize the right to freely associate, or not associate, with others.
My primary outlet for developing my ideas were columns for the school newspaper and other publications. A friend pointed out how rare it was that I had articles published in campus publications that various people called "Common Sense" (conservative) and "The L-Word" (liberal).
Ari: How did you get into blogging for a think tank about health policy? How's that going?
Brian: In 2006 the Colorado Senate Bill 208 became law. This bill established a "Blue Ribbon Commission" on health care reform that would evaluate reform proposals from citizens and organizations.
When the Commission solicited proposals in 2007, I had recently read David R. Henderson's excellent book, The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey. The chapter on health care policy was my first real introduction to the topic. In short, my response was "Health care and insurance in this country are really messed up, and bad government policies are responsible. This is just wrong!"
I had recently returned to Colorado from a fellowship Washington, D.C., where I frequented Cato Institute and Reason magazine events. Working as an engineer, I still had an appetite to for free-market activism. When I heard about the health care Commission, I remember having the fleeting thought that I could become "a free-market health care guy."
At this point, early in 2007, the Commission's activities were in the news, and I wrote my first op-ed about health care. Before submitting it anywhere, I ran it by Linda Gorman, Director of the Independence Institute's Health Care Policy Center. She liked it made some suggestions, and the Boulder Daily Camera published it. Looking at the article now, I can see how my current deeper understanding of health care policy would allow me to make the same points in a more concise and effective manner.
In early March I asked Linda if anyone was writing a free-market health care reform proposal for the Commission's consideration, and said that if there was one, I'd like to contribute to it. Linda said she didn't know of anyone. By the next week, after some prodding from you [Ari], I decided to submit a free-market proposal myself.
At that point I didn't know what the proposal would consist of, as problems with health care policy involve a tangled web of federal and state legislation and regulations. Figuring out which issues to focus on was certainly a "drinking from a fire hose" process. I spent much of my evenings and weekends educating myself and writing, and eventually took a couple of vacation days off from work to finish the proposal.
By the end of April the (now defunct) Rocky Mountain News published an op-ed of mine summarizing the proposal. By the end of the year I'd had health care articles published in the Denver Post, and again in the Rocky Mountain News and Daily Camera.
In late June Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, arranged a lunch with me, you [Ari], and Linda Gorman to discuss (then) Governor Bill Ritter's plans for health care policy in Colorado. I don't think I'd met Jon before, or if I had it was very briefly. So I wasn't prepared for Jon's onslaught of crude jokes directed at me. I thought it prudent not to reply in kind with a "mom joke" of some sort, though he might have appreciated my playing along. But I think I "passed" in Jon's eyes by merely being surprised and amused, rather than hurt or offended.
Anyway, by the end of the lunch Jon agreed to have my published health care articles posted on the Independence Institute site. They have been ever since. Jon also suggested that the II would support a blogger to follow and critique Colorado health care policy developments.
At the time I suggested that you do it, but eventually I changed my mind, and you had your own projects going on. In February 2009 at the Leadership Program of the Rockies retreat I asked Jon if the offer was still open. He said he'd think about it.
About a month later I saw Jon at a Americas Future Foundation event in Denver, and he asked me if I would do the health care blog. I called him soon after, suggested a monthly pay rate, and he accepted. The rate was probably less than he had in mind. (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) PatientPowerNow.org went on-line in April 2008.
Ari: How do you mesh your professional and personal life with your activist life?
Brian: My main profession is in physics and engineering, so I keep my activism out of the office. To bring politics into the office is just not wise professionally. While "water cooler" conversations about policy issues are tempting to contribute to, I either refrain from participating or limit myself to a quick comment and then get back to work.
Ari: What tips do you have for the budding free-market activist? Why should others get involved?
Brian: If you value political and economic liberty, then integrity requires that you act to promote them. This does not necessarily mean that you must personally become an activist. Rather, you can donate money to organizations and causes that you think effectively promote liberty.
One reason for doing this is that, if you don't enjoy any forms of activism, you probably won't be good at them anyway. Related to this is your comparative advantage. Say you love your full time job, and it pays well. Or that you can make money freelancing in something you like more than activism. The extra time doing what you like can translate into extra income, which you can then donate to a free-market organization.
For example, say you're good at computer programming—as a disproportionate fraction of free-marketers are—and are excited by your idea for an iPhone app. But free-market activism drains your energy. Then it's certainly better to enjoy working on what you like, the iPhone app, and donate some of the revenue from it to an organization you like.
If you do get involved in free-market activism, I recommend that you:
Utilize your strengths. Think of your local community (or national community) of free-market activists as a sports team. Not everyone can, or should, play the same position. So figure out what position or positions you'd like to play. For example, you could write op-eds, blog, be on talk radio, talk to local groups, organize talks and other events, attend events and video the opposition doing silly things (e.g., (http://whosaidyousaid.com/) WhoSaidYoSaid.com), or design websites.
Get to know people in your local free-market community. If there are local activists that you admire and would like to emulate, then figure out how to meet them so you can pick their brain. If there's a Liberty on the Rocks chapter near you, attend. Even if you want to be active, but are not sure how specifically, then getting out to meet people is a good way to figure it out, too. You might start out by helping out on someone else's project.
Being part of your local or state level free-market community also makes activism less solitary. Speaking for myself, this helps me stay motivated. It's good to provide and receive positive feedback to others.
Specialize. It's easier than you think to become a local expert on a specific topic influenced by state and local policy, such as education, energy policy, transportation issues, or health care. If you do this, you can quickly become a "go to" person for interviews on local talk radio shows or newspapers.
Once you know one policy area very well, you'll realize how little you know about other ones. It takes a while to know the nuances of a specific policy issue, how to respond to common arguments against freedom, how current policies the interfere with free-markets cause problems, and how more market-oriented solutions work elsewhere or have worked in the past.
If you can, choose a field that is somewhat related to your profession. You'll have more credibility that way. For example, Paul Hsieh, MD [read the (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/dr-hsieh-stays-active-for-liberty-in-medicine/) interview] specializes in health care policy and heads (http://westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. But be careful not to mention your employer when advocating policy. Whatever your views, your employer mostly likely doesn't want to be associated with them.
Learn persuasion techniques. I'm not talking about psychological tricks, but ways to communicate your ideas more effectively. I highly recommend Michael Cloud's CDs and book on the matter.
On writing in general, I recommend On Writing Well by William Zinsser.
Write about topics that irritate you. On a recent EconTalk podcast, George Will explained how he chose topics to write about by quoting William F. Buckley: "The world irritates me three times a week." Okay, I admit that this is kind of negative, but I find that if something irritates me enough, it's more difficult not to write about it than to write about it.
Evil
July 20, 2012
Though the last thing we needed was another reminder, yes, some people are capable of committing (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21118201/unknown-number-people-shot-at-aurora-movie-theater) horrific evil.
But we are Colorado. We will reach out to our neighbors. We will become a stronger community. We will build our lives and our values and oppose those who hate and destroy human values.
Sorrow quickly gave way to anger as I read the news accounts this morning. The new Batman movie is a global event and, because of that, a global discussion and shared experience. And the killer targeted that event specifically as an intentionally symbolic act of pure nihilism, pure destruction for destruction's sake.
Undoubtedly we will now hear endless speculation about motives and influences. But, whatever the pretext, the killer chose to commit these atrocities against innocent and defenseless victims. The "reasons" why make no difference; there can be no reasons why, ultimately, except that he chose depravity.
We choose to live.
Go See Dark Knight Rises
July 21, 2012
Christopher Nolan's latest film, (http://www.thedarkknightrises.com/) Dark Knight Rises, is extraordinary, showing that a "comic book" movie is capable of intellectual and adult themes as well as stunning action sequences. These are real people, some of whom happen to wear masks, not caricatures. I highly recommend it; indeed, I intend to see it at least one more time in theaters.
I do recommend that you watch the first two films first, as the final film continues aspects of those stories. Particularly, the first film, Batman Begins, sets up the "League of Shadows" conspiracy, while the second film, The Dark Knight, explains why Batman took the blame for another's evil. (I'm very glad that the third film rectifies that injustice.)
I am glad to see that many have resisted naming the recent atrocity in Aurora in a way that invokes the film. Neither the film nor any of its creators deserve that association. Indeed, one little way of giving the perpetrator what he wants is to make that association; he obviously targeted the release of the film for symbolic purposes. We ought not fulfill any of that thug's wishes.
I'd like to thank the Westminster Police Department for having an officer at the local theater. "We want people to know they can come out and have a good time," in safety, one officer said.
Christopher Nolan, director of the film, writes on the web page for the film:
Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises, I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families.
Thank you for the sentiment, Mr. Nolan, and thank you for your fine works of art. Please keep doing what you do best: make great art.
Civilian Responses to Active Attackers
July 21, 2012
It has been a horrible day in Colorado. All we can do is hope for physical and emotional healing for those who lived through the atrocity.
There have been a few rays of hope. (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21125778/wounded-teen-helped-victim-theater-shooting) Many at the scene acted courageously. Even while some in the national media disgraced themselves, as far as I've observed, the Colorado media has so far handled reporting of the story with sober responsibility. As far as I've observed, local officials and police officers handled the matter with bravery and professionalism.
The one constructive thing I thought of to do this evening was interview my dad Linn (shown in the (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/AriSCreativeCommonsImages#5759205669144936482) photo), who happens to be visiting, about his thoughts on civilian responses to active attackers. My dad has assisted Alon Stivi of (https://actcert.com/default.aspx) Attack Countermeasures Training in various training events in Colorado, the point of which is precisely to teach people how to respond to active attackers.
I thought hard about waiting a few days to release the interview; after all, right now the focus should be on the victims and their families, and doing what we can to help those directly harmed. But then I thought about the possibility of copy-cat crimes, so I decided to release the video now.
A comparison I considered is to flights after 9/11. After that, Americans just decided that they weren't going to let hijackers have their way, anymore. I frankly think that mindset has done far more than anything TSA has done to deter would-be hijackers. Everybody knows the story of Flight 93. Now that Americans expect hijackers to try to kill them, rather than negotiate for political goals, I think we've pretty much decided to do whatever it takes to take down hijackers as quickly as possible.
But there doesn't seem to have been a similar widespread mental change when it comes to on-the-ground terror. A message at the ACT web site currently states, "Duck and cover does not work. A theater full of people CAN take down a shooter and save lives. More people need to know how to prevent and respond to Active Shooters to prevent future tragedies." That approach makes a lot of sense to me, and I hope it's something that individual citizens, as well as law-enforcement agencies, seriously consider over the coming weeks and months. (Please note that ACT has not endorsed or approved the video of my interview with my dad.)
My dad makes several points, including these:
* Obviously if it's possible to safely leave a dangerous area, do so (as a civilian).
* A group of people can disorient an attacker by pummeling him with objects at hand.
* With appropriate training, a few people near an attacker can take him to the ground and incapacitate him.
None of this is meant as next-day quarterbacking, but rather as an invitation to spend a few moments thinking about possible ways to respond to an active attacker, and perhaps possible ways to obtain additional training on the subject. For a given individual in the normal American context, the chances of ever encountering an active attacker are remote—and this context is worth bearing in mind—but obviously they are not zero.
Amanda Muell Founded Networking Group Liberty On the Rocks
July 24, 2012
When Amanda Muell (see (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/AriSCreativeCommonsImages#5759205798684979042) photo) founded (http://www.libertyontherocks.org/) Liberty On the Rocks, I didn't think it would become be very important. I was very wrong. Chapters of the group have become key places for free-market activists to network, share ideas, and listen to outstanding speakers. (Note that I run (http://LibertyInTheBooks.com/) Liberty In the Books, a project of Liberty On the Rocks.)
Here, as part of a series on free-market activism, Amanda discusses her activism. (As always, an interview does not imply agreement.) Please see my "(http://ariarmstrong.com/category/activism/) activism" category for additional interviews and discussions about political activism.
Ari: What inspired you to start Liberty On the Rocks?
Amanda: My initial inspiration for starting the happy hours was to meet other people who were interested in free markets and liberty. When I saw the success of the model (i.e., meeting in pubs and taverns) and recognized the benefits of getting people together socially, I decided it was necessary to set up similar groups across the country.
Ari: What is the value in liberty activists meeting socially?
Amanda: When liberty activists and enthusiasts meet regularly in a social atmosphere, it makes it much easier for them to stay informed on current issues and up-to-date on how they affect our liberties. From these interactions, attendees become better informed, better versed in discussing the issues, and more motivated to defend liberty than they were before they were thinking about it on a continual basis. Also, by getting together socially, liberty activists can connect with enthusiasts who are looking to volunteer, learn, or take on a bigger role. This in turn helps to increase the size and effectiveness of the movement for liberty.
Ari: What tips do you have for the budding free-market activist? Why should others get involved?
Amanda: My first tip is to encourage people to do what they are passionate about. Doing something out of "duty" is much more difficult than doing something because you want to do it.
Secondly, it's important to always consider your audience when discussing issues related to free markets and liberty. Attempt to tailor your message depending on the individual you are speaking with—and always ask lots of questions! Be sure to refrain from insults (it won't get you anywhere), be respectful, listen and never claim to know something you truly don't. Try to discuss these subjects from an angle that suits the other party. They may not be interested in the same topics as you, but they will care about making their own decisions for their family, maintaining a healthy bank account, etc.
Tip number three is never cease to learn! Join an economics book club or a liberty-oriented discussion group. Watch videos on Youtube and/or read books on relevant subjects from sources you trust. Join or start a Toastmasters club to increase your ability to persuade. But always continue to learn and challenge your opinions and understanding of liberty.
Lastly, it's important to focus on the bright side as much as possible. The road to freedom will be long and arduous, but the end goal is worth the continued fight, even if it takes many years and doesn't happen as quickly as you'd like it to. So don't give up, no matter what you do, and always celebrate the victories, no matter how small.
I encourage anyone passionate about his or her freedom, family, wealth or future to get involved in the fight for liberty in whichever way suits them. Because we live in society we have no choice but to accept the desires of those around us, or attempt to affect change by influencing their opinion toward freedom. So if you are unhappy with the direction which we are headed (and you should be), educating yourself and those around you is the only sure fire way to ensure that change ensues. This can be effectively accomplished through peaceful parenting, which will help raise the next generations in a manner unfit with our system of government, which uses force, violence and intimidation to get its way.
In addition, other experiments such as the Free State Project and the Seasteading Institute will likely have dramatic impacts on the movement, as they attempt to experiment with different systems than the one we have today. This can be tremendously more effective than simply talking with others, as any successes will prove how effective and just a free society can be. And just as immigrants have flocked to the rich and opportunistic United States, they too will flood the borders of any society producing jobs, financial safety, and freedom. If this seems like a dream too big to accomplish, remember that anything can be done if the people will it. So never stop believing, and without a doubt, don't give up!
Correcting the Denver Post's Errors About Guns
July 25, 2012
On the whole, the Denver Post—along with the Colorado media in general—has done a valiant job covering the difficult and horrifying story of the Aurora murders. Honestly, I'd have a very hard time reporting a story like that on location due to the emotional trauma of it all.
Yet, while most of the Denver Post's reporting on the Aurora murders has been good, its writers have made a couple factual errors related to guns and offered some imprecise commentary. Here my aim is to correct those problems.
Please note that this article is quite limited in scope; for my general discussion of gun policy, see my (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) article published by The Objective Standard.
The "High-Capacity" Magazine "Ban"
A July 23 Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21140197/editorial-restrict-access-mass-killing-tools) editorial states:
We also know the high-capacity magazine [the murderer] is accused of using would have been covered under the federal assault weapons ban. Had the ban remained in place, that magazine would not legally be available. . . . A handful of states have laws placing limits on the number of rounds that magazines can hold. Under the assault weapons ban, such magazines were limited to 10 rounds.
The Denver Post's statement is factually misleading. The ban pertained to the manufacture and sale of new "high-capacity" magazines (excepting police), and to the possession of illegally manufactured magazines. Pre-ban magazines remained available, though granted, they were less available and more expensive.
The ATF (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html) explains:
The LCAFD [Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device] ban was enacted along with the SAW [semiautomatic assault weapon] ban on September 13, 1994. The ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess LCAFDs. The law generally defined a LCAFD as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994, that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. (emphasis added)
To state the point differently, two identical magazines, one manufactured on September 12, 1994, and the other on September 14, 1994, were treated totally differently under the law; it was perfectly legal to sell, buy, or possess the former, but not the latter.
Apparently federal politicians did not savor the idea of attempting to confiscate factory-standard magazines from millions of Americans. The Post, on the other hand, thinks "federal lawmakers ought to outlaw . . . high-capacity magazines," apparently completely. How the Post envisions the enforcement of such a law—door-to-door sweeps of the homes of the hundreds of thousands of Coloradans who possess such magazines?—the paper does not mention.
The Post editorial also neglects to mention that the murderer first opened fire with a pump-action shotgun. If a future criminal uses only pump-action shotguns, will the Post then call for their abolition as well?
The Type of Semiautomatic Rifle
The Post's David Olinger, along with the paper's editorialists and many other reporters, (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21124763/aurora-gunman-carried-semi-automatic-arsenal-theater) refers to the semiautomatic rifle in question as an "AR-15."
Actually, the rifle is a (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757785_-1_757784_757784_image) Smith & Wesson M&P15, as the Post's Danielle Kess (http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=4534162) points out. The (http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/Products/ColtTacticalCarbine.aspx) AR-15 is manufactured by Colt. This is a minor confusion; they are different brands of comparable guns.
Update: James Dao (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html) writes for the New York Times that the Smith & Wesson "belongs to a class of weapons broadly known as AR-15s, after the original civilian version of the rifle." Wikipedia, on the other hand, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15) claims, "The name 'AR-15' is a Colt registered trademark, which refers only to the semi-automatic rifle." So this seems to be a case of applying a particular brand to a general category of item. As I noted, it's a minor issue.
The Theater's Gun Policies
Olinger writes:
On its website, Gun Owners of America, a group opposed to stricter gun laws, blamed Holmes' ability to shoot so many people on the absence of guns in the audience.
"The gunman used a movie gunfight to cover his actions and further surprise the innocent patrons. Worse, the theater in Aurora reportedly has a 'no guns' policy," the group stated. "Despite gun control's obvious failure, the calls for more restrictions have already begun."
According to (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-guns-policy-at-cinemark-theaters.html) various (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Ebert-Gun-Free-Theater-Proves-Concealed-Carry-Doesnt-Work) reports, theaters in the same chain as the one in Aurora prohibit people from carrying concealed handguns on their premises. But I have as yet seen no definitive evidence regarding the Aurora theater's policies.
Perhaps somebody at the Post (or someone else) can track down the answer definitively.
The "Gun Lobby"
Twice the Post editorial refers to "the gun lobby" as that which "Congress [needs] to beat back" in order to pass more gun restrictions. Obviously, that's not an error, but it is a cheap shot intended to demean rather than illuminate. A more accurate term is "gun-rights advocates" or "civil arms advocates."
By referring to a "lobby," the Post hopes to draw readers' attention away from the fact that that "lobby" is quite simply the millions of Americans who support the right of gun ownership. It is also the millions of Americans who would have to live under the gun laws that editorial writers and disarmament advocates wish to arbitrarily concoct.
Those who wish to restrict the gun ownership of peaceable Americans often refer to "the gun lobby" in order to bring to mind some money-driven conspiracy (about which those on the left tend to obsess). No doubt gun manufacturers and sellers enjoy their profits, as they should. But "the gun lobby" in the sense of those who defend the right to own guns is, overwhelmingly, the mass of Americans who own guns or support that right.
But I will happily don the term "gun lobbyist" if the Denver Post editorial board will concede to being part of "the gun-restriction lobby"—or to state it more negatively, "the victim disarmament lobby."
With such an overwhelming amount of detail to sort out quickly, it is understandable that a reporter might miss a detail or two. The editorial is just sloppy; my TOS (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) article addresses the matter of "high capacity" magazines in more detail.
I want to end on a positive note and offer my sincere gratitude to the law enforcement officers who responded to the call, the medical teams who treated the wounded, and the reporters who keep the community informed about this horrible crime and its victims.
Notes About the Aurora Murders, Guns, and the Political Aftermath
July 26, 2012
Here I offer assorted reflections about the political discussions involving guns that followed the horrific Aurora murders.
I've written a couple other pieces on the general topic. My major article is "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) Thoughts on the Aurora Murders and Armed Citizens," in which I argue that citizens with guns stop and deter many crimes and that both "assault rifle" bans and magazine restrictions do little to impede criminals but limit people's ability to defend themselves from criminals.
In a (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/correcting-the-denver-posts-errors-about-guns/) follow-up for my own web page, I further discuss magazine restrictions, and I answer some of the Denver Post's claims and arguments.
I've had a variety of other thoughts on the general subject, so I figured I'd round them up.
Standard Gun Magazines
As I've noted, the term "high capacity magazine" is nonsense, at least when applied to every magazine that holds more than ten rounds. (I will grant that a 100 round magazine is "high capacity.")
Generally, the appropriate size of magazine is the one that fits the gun. Whereas a 20 or 30 round magazine often works great in a rifle, usually a pistol functions best with a 10 to 17 round magazine, depending on the size of the gun and its ammunition. Every semiautomatic that accepts detachable magazines comes with factory standard magazines. Such magazines should not be called "high capacity"; they should be called "factory standard." And you can know that anybody who refers to a factory standard magazine as a "high capacity magazine" is trying to score political points by clouding the issue.
It occurred to me that it might be useful to describe typical magazines for the benefit of ignoramuses who presume to write the nation's gun laws. The standard (http://us.glock.com/products/model/g22) Glock .40 comes standard with a magazine that holds 15 rounds; an "optional" magazine holds 17. The standard (http://us.glock.com/products/model/g17) Glock 9 mm comes standard with a magazine of 17 rounds; I will concede that the optional 33-round magazine is "high capacity" relative to that type of gun. A standard (http://www.glock.com/english/glock21_tech.htm) Glock .45 comes standard with a 13-round magazine.
As I've (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) explained, if we care about people's ability to defend themselves from criminal attack, then it is very important that we protect their right to buy magazines with the optimal number of rounds, as evaluated by the gun owner. (A peaceable person should have the legal right to buy a 33-round magazine, even though that typically isn't very useful for self-defense.)
The (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757785_-1_757784_757784_image) Smith & Wesson M&P15 semiautomatic rifle comes standard with a 30-round magazine. A rifle is larger and built for carrying around on a sling or against one's shoulder, so it can typically handle larger magazines. Plus, this particular rifle shoots the relatively small .223 cartridge (or 5.56 mm cartridge), so more rounds can fit in a magazine.
The crew on the Denver Post's editorial board might ask themselves if they'd rather criminals shot a much more powerful .30-06 round, because, after all, fewer fit into a magazine.
The reasons why it's a good thing to protect people's rights to buy rifles that come standard with 30-round magazines lies beyond the scope of this post. Here I wanted to convey the fact that is obvious to any gun owner: an eleven-round magazine is in no reasonable sense a "high capacity magazine." It is a low capacity magazine for most guns typically used for self-defense.
As stupid as it is to ban truly high capacity magazines, it is even more stupid—even more damaging to the right of self-defense—to ban low capacity magazines, which is precisely what the Denver Post advocates.
My note to journalists is this: if you refer to an eleven-round magazine as a "high capacity magazine," then you are either a moron or a hack dishonestly pushing your political agenda.
Obama's Dishonest Campaign
Our Glorious Leader (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/25/obama-talks-limiting-some-gun-use-in-wake-colorado-massacre/) referred to an AK-47 in order to argue that citizens should not be legally allowed to own semiautomatic rifles.
What's wrong with his remarks? As Wikipedia points out, the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47) AK-47 is typically a fully-automatic rifle (though semiautomatic versions exist). Perhaps Obama hasn't noticed this, but full autos are subject to a special restrictive tax courtesy of the 1934 National Firearms Act.
But perhaps we should excuse the President for this; after all, he seems not to be able to keep track of guns very well.
About that .40 Caliber. . .
Jacob Sullum (http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/25/outrage-is-not-an-argument) claims the murderer had a 40-round magazine for his .40 caliber gun. That factoid seems suspect to me.
Sullum cites a (http://kdvr.com/2012/07/23/suspects-gun-jammed-during-aurora-theater-shooting/) KDVR article claiming that an unnamed "law enforcement source" said that the "handgun also had an extended magazine that held 40 rounds."
Until a reliable, named source verifies that, I'll remain skeptical. I checked around the internet, and even called up one gun supplier, and the largest magazine I found for the Glock .40 holds 31 rounds. But maybe there's something on the market I'm not aware of.
The Jammed Magazine
It's a little ironic that, because the murderer chose such a large magazine for his rifle, that caused his gun to (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ap-source-assault-rifle-used-in-colo-theater-shooting-jammed-forced-suspect-to-use-gun/2012/07/22/gJQAFEMZ1W_story.html) malfunction. If he'd used only ten-round magazines, he likely would have caused even more mayhem and death.
Every gun enthusiast I've talked to says magazines that are actually "high capacity" tend to frequently fail. For more, see discussions by (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/07/some-notes-on-colorado-shooting.html) John Lott and (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/455124/clifford-davis/2012-07-23/thankfully-100-round-magazines-known-jam) Clifford Davis.
A Victim Disarmament Guide for All Occasions
If you advocate gun restrictions—more realistically called victim disarmament laws or criminal empowerment laws—then I have created a handy guide to help you respond to a variety of scenarios.
If a criminal uses small caliber rounds in relatively large magazines, you say:
"We must ban high capacity magazines!"
If a criminal uses large caliber rounds in relatively small magazines, you say:
"We must ban large-caliber guns!"
If a criminal uses a pump-action shotgun and a semiautomatic to perpetrate a crime, you say:
"We must ban high capacity magazines!"
If a criminal uses a gun that you happen not to like, you say:
"It's an assault gun! Ban it!"
However many restrictions fail to stop a particular criminal, you say:
"Obviously that proves we need more such laws!"
If an armed citizen uses a gun to save lives, you say:
"My the weather is pleasant today!"
If a woman without a gun is raped and murdered by a criminal with a knife, you say:
"My the weather is pleasant today!"
Alternate response, "Hmm... Maybe we should (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm) ban knives."
A Modest Proposal for Theater Security (That Would Actually Work)
July 27, 2012
There is a very easy way that movie theaters—and other public venues, for that matter—could radically increase their security for extremely little cost.
They could place a large, obvious sign right outside the entrance with the following text:
Armed, off-duty police officers who carry their guns into this theater get unlimited complimentary movie entry and concessions. Please see management for details.
The marginal cost of filling an extra seat in a movie theater is zero. The marginal cost of giving the armed officer free popcorn is what—a quarter?
Theaters could make the same offer to those holding concealed carry licenses who have undergone adequate training, but that would be tricker to verify and more controversial.
Who could possibly argue with giving cops free movie tickets and concessions?
Not only could armed officers quickly respond to any threat that arose, their presence—and the huge sign announcing it—would create a serious deterrent to would-be violent scumbags.
I think it's about time criminals understand that if they start attacking innocent people, some of those people are going to start shooting back.
Guns, the Media, and Contributing Factors to the Aurora Murders
July 29, 2012
While the moral guilt for the Aurora murders lies with the murderer himself, obviously with any crime it's worth looking at contributing factors.
To take an example related to a different crime, consider that drunk driver Gary Sheats (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21078186/sheats-driver-accused-killing-child-arrested-often-rarely) injured a woman and killed her child-to-be in an auto wreck after creating a "DUI history spanning three decades." While obviously the moral fault is his, the fact that the justice system treated his previous drunk-driving crimes leniently increased the likelihood of him causing a disastrous wreck, and we might want to consider legislative reforms.
At the same time, we should avoid making unwarranted accusations or demonizing the innocent. Recently The Objective Standard published my article, "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/condemn-scapegoating-in-aftermath-of-atrocities/) Condemn Scapegoating in Aftermath of Atrocities," in which I point out the foolishness and injustice of blaming abortion, the Batman films, or the National Rifle Association for the Aurora murders. I will be disappointed, but not surprised, if others think of many new targets to scapegoat.
A contributing factor is anything with a causal bearing on the incident in question. The fact that Colorado legalized abortion obviously has no causal bearing on the Aurora murderers, so abortion is not a contributing factor. The fact that somebody sold alcoholic beverages to Sheats clearly is a contributing factor to his crime; it's impossible to drive drunk without consuming alcohol.
Of all the factors that contribute to crimes, we knowingly and rationally accept some of them, whereas we rationally seek to mitigate or eliminate others.
First consider a couple of obvious things that we rationally accept, though they are contributing factors to crimes.
A contributing factor to drunk driving is driving itself, or, to narrow the example, driving for entertainment-related purposes (such as driving to a movie theater). Yet no one seriously proposes that we stop driving for purposes of entertainment, or that the government limit driving to only certain, politically approved purposes. Obviously we accept all the risks of driving as well worth the rewards.
The most obvious contributing factor to mass murders is the fact that people often meet in public. They meet in theaters, businesses, churches, restaurants, sporting events, concerts, and so on. Yet no one seriously proposes that we stop meeting in public, or that the government restrict public meetings. Obviously, the benefits of mass public meetings far overshadow the risks.
Now consider a contributing factor to drunk driving that Americans have actually tried to outlaw in the past.
Despite the fact that the sale of alcoholic beverages is a contributing factor to drunk-driving crimes, some of which kill the innocent, we'd be foolish to outlaw the sale of alcoholic beverages in order to try to stop such crimes. Americans tried that before (for broader reasons), and the resulting ignoble disaster was Prohibition.
Many people consume alcoholic beverages responsibly, and such beverages are quite important to many people's lives; consider how enthusiastic some people are about wine, beer, Scotch, and so on. Prohibiting alcoholic beverages would constitute a large-scale violation of people's rights to enjoy liberty, control their bodies and their property, trade freely, and pursue their happiness.
Prohibiting alcohol is not necessary or even very useful for curbing alcohol-related crimes. Regarding drunk driving, the police can and should pull over and, where appropriate, arrest dangerous drivers. Of course, this cannot prevent all drunk-driving crimes, but it can prevent many of them.
Another problem with the prohibition of alcohol is that it cannot possibly eliminate its production and sale. Millions of Americans (myself included) would manufacture or trade alcoholic beverages illegally. Prohibition would turn loose the police state on those millions of Americans, thereby violating their rights, and radically expand the violent black market. My guess is that the number of deaths and injuries resulting from prohibition would exceed those associated with drunk driving.
The upshot of these considerations is that we rationally accept the sale of alcoholic beverages, though it is a contributing factor to drunk driving.
Consider a broader example: the Fourth Amendment. No doubt certain crimes could be prevented if the police had the power to randomly search houses, cars, and bodily cavities at any police officer's discretion. But we should never allow such a thing, because it would turn America into a police state and turn the police into the primary violators of rights. Thus, we rationally embrace civil rights and restraints on the police, even though such protections certainly contribute to the perpetration of some crimes.
Obviously the proper focus is on those contributing factors that we rationally should seek to mitigate or eliminate. We should remember that living entails risks. The only way to eliminate all risks in your life is to stop living. It is important, then, to figure out which risks we reasonably can mitigate or eliminate, and which we cannot, and then to mitigate risks appropriately. With that background, let us proceed.
The Government and Risk Management
The surest path to the destruction of a prosperous and free society is for its members to demand "there ought to be a law" for every real or imagined evil.
The proper purpose of government is not to micromanage our lives, not to decide for us what risks we may accept, not to enact controls based on "cost-benefit" considerations that ignore the nature of government.
The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights. When government accomplishes that, it mitigates the risk of crime and enables us, as individuals, to make our own decisions about our lives.
If you want to invite lung cancer by smoking, you should be perfectly free to do so (consistent with property rights). If you wish to die young as a drunk, that is your right.
But if you try to criminally harm others or their property, then the government should seek to stop you.
Obviously the government cannot stop all crime. That is why the government properly recognizes and protects the fundamental human right of self-defense. And that is why we, as individuals, take numerous precautions to try to protect ourselves from crime; for example, we lock our doors and refrain from walking down dark alleys at night in dangerous neighborhoods.
As the rivers of blood flowing through human history illustrate, governments are not metaphysically restricted to the mitigation of harms; very often governments commit horrific atrocities. So it is obviously a foolish mistake to look on government as an agent capable only of mitigating risks; we must look on government as an agent capable of imposing overwhelming risks to our lives, our liberties, and our safety. It is the principle of individual rights that properly defines the ways in which government should act to mitigate risks, and the ways in which we as citizens should act to mitigate the risks of abusive government.
Thus, when seeking to mitigate risks in our lives, we must ask not only which risks we rationally can mitigate, but how those risks should properly be mitigated. Specifically, we must establish whether a particular risk should be managed by private individuals or by government agents.
The Media and the Publicity of Criminals
One of the "reasons" the Aurora murderer chose to attack people at the opening of one of the most popular movies in history is obvious. He knew doing so would cause his name and photograph to be plastered across practically every news-related web page in the world for months on end. He wanted to achieve global infamy, and he did.
Round-the-clock media coverage of mass murders give some murderers precisely what they want—publicity and attention.
Don Lindley, a former Denver police officer who teaches as Regis University, (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21168563/colorado-copycats-seek-attention-and-payback-experts-say) told the Denver Post: "The media [have] an awful lot to do with this. A lot of these offenders are driven by the exposure they will get. That's what they want, in addition to payback for some hurt they think they've suffered."
In an article for USA Today, Dave Kopel (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-07-20/aurora-colorado-batman-movie-murder/56376566/1) urges, "Don't turn Aurora killer into [a] celebrity." J. J. Gould writes a similar (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/disrupting-the-infamy-game-how-to-change-the-coverage-of-mass-shootings/260165/) piece for The Atlantic.
That sensationalist media coverage of mass murders encourages more mass murders is obvious.
Hopefully it is equally obvious that it is not a problem for the government to try to solve, for that would violate rights of free speech, a pillar of a free society.
But journalists can take care how they report a story, and we as consumers of media can pay attention to what we promote and encourage.
Guns
The fact that the Aurora murderer was able to obtain firearms obviously allowed him to use those guns to kill and injure others.
It does not therefore follow that the government should ban certain guns or all guns.
As I've (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) written, people own and use guns for self-defense, and doing so is their right. Moreover, as philosopher Michael Huemer (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/guncontrol.htm) argues, people benefit from gun ownership in other ways, as from their value in recreation.
Generally, gun restrictions impose harms on the law-abiding—especially by diminishing people's ability to defend themselves from criminals—without doing much if anything to impede criminals. Everyone knows that it's relatively easy to obtain every sort of illegal drug, and the same would be true of guns under a regime of gun prohibition. Moreover, murderers can cause mayhem in (http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/07/non-firearm-mass-murders.html) other ways, as by setting off bombs, lighting fires, and plowing vehicles into crowds of people.
The idea that attempting to control the gun ownership of millions of law-abiding Americans will somehow significantly cut crime is ludicrous.
What we need instead are laws and enforcement actions that target criminal activities and threats of such, and that leave peaceable citizens unmolested.
Other Contributing Factors
We know the Aurora murderer was seeing a psychiatrist. Was he taking prescribed drugs for emotional problems? Did he in fact send a package to his psychiatrist describing his criminals plans before he carried them out? These are important matters to investigate.
What about violent video games and movies? I have seen a video game in which the user plays a criminal who shoots and maims others and steals their belongings—that's the point of the game. Such a "game" is disgusting, and it should not be sold. Nor should it be censored.
Many violent video games and movies, on the other hand, portray good people fighting evil people. Not all violence means the same thing. There is a profound moral difference between initiatory violence that violates the rights of others, and defensive violence.
Only a tiny fraction of those who play violent video games or watch violent movies commit acts of violence, and if a causal connection exists at all it is extremely weak. People have free will! A basic principle of a free society is that we do not punish or restrain the innocent on account of the guilty.
No doubt contributing factors to the Aurora murders can and will be discussed at mind-numbing length. Let's remember some important points. The moral fault lies with the murderer. Scapegoating is wrong and counterproductive. We knowingly and rationally accept many things that contribute to crimes because we benefit from those things. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, just because something contributes to crime, doesn't mean the government should ban it. If we wish to mitigate our risks of suffering harm, the most important thing we can do is restrain government to its purpose of protecting individual rights.
Related:
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/a-modest-proposal-for-theater-security-that-would-actually-work/) A Modest Proposal for Theater Security (That Would Actually Work)
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/notes-about-the-aurora-murders-guns-and-the-political-aftermath/) Notes About the Aurora Murders, Guns, and the Political Aftermath
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/correcting-the-denver-posts-errors-about-guns/) Correcting the Denver Post's Errors About Guns
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/go-see-dark-knight-rises/) Go See Dark Knight Rises
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/civilian-responses-to-active-attackers/) Civilian Responses to Active Attackers
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/evil/) Evil
- (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/condemn-scapegoating-in-aftermath-of-atrocities/) Condemn Scapegoating in Aftermath of Atrocities
- (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) Thoughts on the Aurora Murders and Armed Citizens
- (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/the-dark-knight-rises-and-asks-us-to-rise-as-well/) The Dark Knight Rises—And Asks Us to Rise As Well
TOS Blog Update: Aurora Murders, Batman, "You Didn't Build That"
August 1, 2012
Here I catalog my blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard from July 11 through today. I've put an asterisk by my favorites. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
July 11, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/sword-enthusiasts-kickstart-clang-with-cool-half-mil/) Sword Enthusiasts Kickstart Clang with Cool Half-Mil
July 13, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/islamist-ideology-leads-to-murder-again/) Islamist Ideology Leads to Murder—Again
July 15, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/pacific-legal-foundation-scores-moving-victory/) Pacific Legal Foundation Scores Moving Victory
July 16, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/no-edolphus-health-care-is-not-a-right-or-a-privilege/) No, Edolphus, Health Care is Not a "Right" or a "Privilege"
July 17, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/legalized-looting-on-the-rise/) Legalized Looting on the Rise
July 19, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/hands-off-uber-car-service-tells-d-c-politicians/) Hands Off, Uber Car Service Tells D.C. Politicians
July 20, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-obamas-ode-to-envy/) "You Didn't Build That"—Obama's Ode to Envy
July 22, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/the-dark-knight-rises-and-asks-us-to-rise-as-well/) The Dark Knight Rises—And Asks Us to Rise As Well
July 23, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/government-spending-keeps-growing-and-growing/) Government Spending Keeps Growing, and Growing . . .
July 25, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) Thoughts on the Aurora Murders and Armed Citizens
July 26, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/spotlight-on-art/) Spotlight on Art
July 27, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/condemn-scapegoating-in-aftermath-of-atrocities/) Condemn Scapegoating in Aftermath of Atrocities
July 29, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/celebrate-the-cinema/) Celebrate the Cinema
July 31, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/end-u-s-extortion-payments-to-egypt/) End U.S. Extortion Payments to Egypt
August 1, 2012
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/keeping-crime-risks-in-perspective/) Keeping Crime Risks in Perspective
Articles on the Aurora Theater Murders
August 1, 2012
Here I collect the links to my notes pertaining to the Aurora theater murders, drawn both from this web site and from The Objective Standard.
Yesterday I visited the site of the memorial. See my (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/AuroraTheaterMemorial?authuser=0&feat=directlink) Creative Commons photos hosted by Picasa. Needless to say, it is a solemn and sad place.
I also uploaded a short (http://youtu.be/zybsZZMxiM8) video of the memorial to YouTube under Creative Commons.
Incidentally, I was not able to capture clear images of possible signage at the theater, because the police have the area taped off far from the entrance. (Also, there was significant window glare, and my 10x zoom was not nearly adequate.) So I cannot offer definitive answers about that matter.
First, let us not lose sight of who's at fault or what the perpetrator is: (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/evil/) Evil.
In "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/keeping-crime-risks-in-perspective/) Keeping Crime Risks in Perspective," I argue that "it is counterproductive to obsess about crime or to make decisions based on irrational fears about crime." I point out, "Of the 2.5 million deaths in 2010, around 118,000 were from unintentional injuries, 38,000 were by suicides, and 16,000 were by homicide." Although we should recognize violent crime as horrific and try to stop it, we should also keep our risks in perspective.
In "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/condemn-scapegoating-in-aftermath-of-atrocities/) Condemn Scapegoating in Aftermath of Atrocities," I point out the foolishness and injustice of blaming legal abortion, the Batman movies, or the National Rifle Association for the murders.
A couple of my articles pertain to general matters of public safety:
* (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/a-modest-proposal-for-theater-security-that-would-actually-work/) A Modest Proposal for Theater Security (That Would Actually Work)
I propose that theaters place the following sign prominently near the entrance: "Armed, off-duty police officers who carry their guns into this theater get unlimited complimentary movie entry and concessions. Please see management for details."
* (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/civilian-responses-to-active-attackers/) Civilian Responses to Active Attackers
I interview my father Linn about what regular citizens can do to effectively respond to active attackers.
Several of my posts focus on firearms:
* (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) Thoughts on the Aurora Murders and Armed Citizens
I argue that gun restrictions generally have little impact on criminals, yet they make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. I specifically address proposals regarding so-called "assault weapons" and the capacity of magazines.
* (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/guns-the-media-and-contributing-factors-to-the-aurora-murders/) Guns, the Media, and Contributing Factors to the Aurora Murders
I discuss what it means for something to be a "contributing factor" to a crime, and what, if anything, the government should do about it.
* (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/notes-about-the-aurora-murders-guns-and-the-political-aftermath/) Notes About the Aurora Murders, Guns, and the Political Aftermath
I discuss gun magazines at greater length, and I address a few other details pertaining to firearms.
* (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/correcting-the-denver-posts-errors-about-guns/) Correcting the Denver Post's Errors About Guns
I respond to a Denver Post editorial regarding so-called "high capacity magazines." I also respond to a few other matters concerning the Post's coverage of the murders.
Finally, while it is a mistake to strongly tie the murders to the latest Batman film, obviously the two are historically linked. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/07/go-see-dark-knight-rises/) initial thoughts about the movie and my longer review of it, "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/the-dark-knight-rises-and-asks-us-to-rise-as-well/) The Dark Knight Rises—And Asks Us to Rise As Well."
Dr. Hsieh Makes the Case Against Medical Licensing
August 2, 2012
In a July 31 talk hosted by Liberty On the Rocks, Dr. Paul Hsieh made the case against medical licensing. The event was held on what would have been Milton Friedman's 100th birthday, and Hsieh drew on Friedman's work on licensing. (Hsieh noted that he does not agree with all of Friedman's other positions.)
Hsieh argued that, far from guaranteeing the competency of doctors, medical licenses tend to lull patients into a false sense of security.
Moreover, Hsieh argued, licenses put doctors under the thumb of politicians, who in some cases have already tried to use threats of license revocation to force doctors to behave in ways that politicians deem best.
Watch the entire, 20-minute talk:
End the Drug War, David Williams Argues
August 3, 2012
To celebrate the 100th anniversary of Milton Friedman's birth, David K. Williams of the (http://www.gadsdensoc.com) Gadsden Society drew on Friedman's work to make the case against modern drug prohibition. He spoke at a July 31 event in Denver hosted by Liberty On the Rocks.
Watch his 18-minute talk:
A Conversation with State Senator Nancy Spence
August 7, 2012
Last week I saw State Senator Nancy Spence at an Independence Institute event. She agreed to sit down for a video interview. Mostly we discussed "public" education and Colorado politics.
Obviously I don't always agree with Spence—and there are quite a few tough questions I did not ask during this interview—yet I appreciate Spence's long-standing commitment to Colorado politics. I wish her well as she leaves the legislature and begins new projects.
TOS Blog Update: Flukenomics, Mars, Posture, Iran
August 10, 2012
Here I catalog my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
August 3, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/iran-calls-yet-again-for-annihilation-of-israel/) Iran Calls Yet Again for Annihilation of Israel
August 6, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/an-olympian-congratulations-to-kirani-james-oscar-pistorius-and-ossur-kristinsson/) An Olympian Congratulations to Kirani James, Oscar Pistorius—and Össur Kristinsson
Advances in prosthetics.
August 7, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/curiosity-drives-exploration-of-mars/) Curiosity Drives Exploration of Mars
August 9, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/the-posture-of-self-esteem/) The Posture of Self-Esteem
August 10, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/two-questions-for-advocates-of-obamas-flukenomics/) Two Questions for Advocates of Obama's Flukenomics
The government ought not force people to finance others' contraceptives.
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Party 2012
August 13, 2012
The Independence Institute sponsored its tenth annual Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms party August 11, bringing in speaker David Martosko from the (http://dailycaller.com) Daily Caller.
The event, held at (http://www.kiowacreek.com) Kiowa Creek Sporting Club, features a morning of shooting clay pigeons with shotguns followed by a barbecue with beer, mixed drinks, and cigars. See Patricia Calhoun's (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/08/independence_institute_alcohol_tobacco_firearms.php) write-up.
Following are my video and some (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/ATFParty2012) photographs.
Tom Tancredo and Jon Caldara:
David Martosko:
Mike Krause:
Bobbie Ross, Brittany Zajic, and Dave Kopel:
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Party 2012: Complete Video
August 14, 2012
Following is all the video I captured at the Independence Institute's tenth annual Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms party. See also my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/08/alcohol-tobacco-and-firearms-party-2012/) previous post and my (https://picasaweb.google.com/107156101927327309509/ATFParty2012?authuser=0&feat=directlink) photographs.
I edited together some video of people shooting clay pigeons along with interviews with various participants.
Jon Caldara explains the purpose of the event. He says, "Freedom is not allowing people to do things that you approve of, freedom is about protecting people's rights to do things you find distasteful."
Dave Kopel defends the right to bear arms.
David Martosko of (http://dailycaller.com) The Daily Caller offered the main talk of the day.
https://youtu.be/embed/JOpVQpl1MeQ
Given that Mitt Romney had just selected Paul Ryan as his running mate, I asked people what they thought about that.
Finally, Constitutional scholar Robert Natelson discusses the likely impact of the upcoming election on the course of the Supreme Court. He also says, "There's already been a tremendous resurgence of popular understanding of the Constitution."
Mental Illness and Violence
August 15, 2012
Clearly, some individuals are prone to committing acts of violence, whereas other individuals (in modern civilizations, the overwhelming majority of individuals) are not.
I see three important conditions that can predispose a person to committing an act of violence: mental illness, psychopathy, and dangerous ideology. (A fourth condition, while more important, is fairly obvious: some people, through mental habit and irresponsible choices, turn themselves into criminals.)
Mental Illness
The mentally ill person suffers paranoid delusions, hears demonic "voices" or the like, etc.
We know, for example, that the Aurora murderer was seeing a psychiatrist, and she was so disturbed by his behavior that she (http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858#.UCvW7ELTxeQ) contacted the police "several weeks" prior to his murderous rampage. (Please note that mental illness does not automatically negate moral and legal culpability.)
Regarding the recent murders near Texas A&M, the murderer's mother (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEXAS_AM_SHOOTER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) regarded her son as seriously mentally ill.
A (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018883141_apuscongresswomanshotsuspect.html) psychological report about the Tucson murderer notes his mental illness.
Apparently, the mentally are are not getting the help they need.
Last year, the Denver Post published an (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17367464) article titled, "Mental health services in a fragile state in Colorado."
Following the Aurora murders, the Denver Post published the following (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21168555/we-should-focus-attention-help-mentally-ill) comments by Clayton Cramer:
In most states in 1960, involuntary commitment required only a preponderance of evidence that a mentally ill person would benefit from treatment. If you were exhibiting evidence of mental illness, there was a good chance that you would be hospitalized, perhaps for a few months, perhaps longer.
The primary reason was for your own safety, but a side effect was that the society as a whole was safer.
As stricter due-process standards for commitment became public policy in the 1970s, state mental hospitals first emptied, then closed. (We now have as many mental hospital beds in this country per capita as we did in 1850—and we did not have enough then.)
Murder rates rose. Random acts of mass murder, usually committed by people with mental illness histories (and not always with guns) became depressingly common. . . .
There were hundreds of lesser-known mass murders. Over the last 40 years, there have also been tens of thousands of almost unknown individual murders committed by the deinstitutionalized mentally ill.
In a recent talk, Dave Kopel (http://youtu.be/uTvvO2txadw) argued that the government should fund more mental health services.
I am very sympathetic with the idea that it's important to get appropriate help for the mentally ill. I am also deeply concerned about the civil liberties issues involved.
As for methods of financing, I do not have a well-developed theory on the proper relationship of government to mental health services. On one hand, clearly there is a relationship between mental health and public safety. On the other hand, most of what constitutes mental health services has little if anything to do with public safety. To me, this is not a central issue in today's context, though it would be an interesting research project for somebody.
Of more immediate concern is the problem of forcibly locking up people because of an alleged mental illness. Recently Cato published a (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/cato-unbound-mental-health-and-law) series of articles on this very topic.
Most mentally ill people do not harm others. Basic principles of justice demand that we not punish people for crimes they might commit. Surely involuntary confinement constitutes the most serious form of coercion (short of torture and execution).
Yet providing treatment for the mentally ill need not involve involuntary confinement. It could involve proactively offering help to those who need it.
Those who decline institutionalization might reasonably be subject to additional police scrutiny, if they pose a threat to others. As to whether and how the freedom of the severely mentally ill to, for example, purchase drugs and firearms should be legally restricted, I have no well-developed opinion.
The huge problem, as usual, is, who watches the watchers? Who evaluates the evaluators? Once the government gets in the business of forcibly restricting the freedoms of the mentally ill, what's to stop government agents from abusing this power?
Indeed, what's to stop government agents from arbitrarily declaring any political enemy or pesky critic to be "mentally ill?"
Yes, I fear murderers—though, as I've (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/keeping-crime-risks-in-perspective/) suggested, many people have a wildly disproportionate fear of the risks of homicide relative to other causes of death. But I fear a tyrannical government much more than I fear murderers. By my evaluation of the future, I'm more likely to be unjustly confined or physically harmed by the government than I am to face somebody trying to kill me.
My tentative conclusion, then, is this. Offer help to the mentally ill, but forcibly limit the freedoms of the mentally ill only in the case of a person who, by word and deed, poses a clear and present danger to the safety of others. (For example, if somebody threatens to shoot up a school or a movie theater, that should definitely raise a red flag with law enforcement.)
Psychopathy
Michael Shermer (http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/07/31/gun-control-and-the-law-of-large-numbers/) argues that a small but nontrivial portion of the population consists of psychopaths, who are disproportionately likely to commit acts of violence.
Therefore, Shermer argues, the government should ban all semi-automatic "assault" rifles.
There are many problems with Shermer's position.
The most important problem is that Shermer would violate the civil rights of millions of Americans in a futile effort to stop a tiny number of psychopaths.
Shermer has no idea what an "assault rifle" even is, he ignores other guns of comparable capacity (pump-action shotguns, semi-automatic handguns), he ignores the usefulness of guns in self-defense, and he ignores the ability of would-be criminals to obtain illegal guns. See my longer (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) post on the issue of firearms.
Shermer also here ignores the other two factors that often lead to violence: mental illness (or, if we count psychopathy as a type of mental illness, other types of mental illness), and dangerous ideology.
The problem of dealing with psychopaths is comparable to that of dealing with the mentally ill: How can we justify restricting the freedoms of those who might commit a crime in the future? The film Minority Report was intended as a warning, not a road map.
Whatever is done regarding the mentally ill and the psychopathic, clearly it is wrong—outrageously wrong—to restrict the freedoms of those who are not mentally ill and not psychopathic, in order to try to prevent harm by members of those two groups.
Dangerous Ideology
Far and away the greatest cause of violence, historically and today, is dangerous ideology. That is the cause of all religious wars, the Nazi holocaust, the Communist holocaust, the fascist Japanese war machine, and the modern Islamist assaults that now plague many regions of the world.
The Columbine murders seem to have been motivated by a nihilist ideology, not by mental illness or psychopathy (formally defined).
Notice that Michael Shermer does not call for prior restraint of free speech, even though expression is what spreads these dangerous ideologies.
The way to defeat dangerous ideologies, qua ideologies, is to argue against them. The way to defeat those who, motivated by dangerous ideologies, pose a specific and demonstrable danger to others, is to take police action against them at the civilian level, and military action against them at the regional or national level.
I would also note in this context that the danger of homicidal ideologies is a good reason (but hardly the only reason) to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Summary
The central issue here is protecting the innocent against those who would do them harm. Part of that means protecting the innocent from the mentally ill, the psychopathic, and the homicidally zealous. An equally important goal—or, arguably, a far more important goal—is protecting peaceable citizens from the abuses of government.
TOS Blog Update: Paul Ryan, Free-Market Liberalism, Rob Lowe
August 17, 2012
Here I catalog my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
August 11, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/why-im-a-free-market-liberal/) Why I'm a Free-Market Liberal
August 12, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/paul-ryan-rejects-ayn-rands-ideas-in-word-and-deed/) Paul Ryan Rejects Ayn Rand's Ideas—In Word and Deed
April 14, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/nonlinear-ideas-apps-for-a-linear-life/) Nonlinear Ideas: Apps for a Linear Life
August 15, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/rob-lowe-admirably-defends-ayn-rands-atlas-shrugged/) Rob Lowe Admirably Defends Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
TOS Blog Update: Paul Ryan, Abortion, Atheism, Poker, Phonak
August 27, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
August 19, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/hold-paul-ryan-to-his-word/) Hold Paul Ryan to His Word
August 21, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/todd-akin-and-the-gops-abortion-problem/) Todd Akin and the GOP's Abortion Problem
August 24, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/rand-supported-legal-abortion-and-other-rights-burns-notes/) Rand Supported Legal Abortion and Other Rights, Burns Notes
August 25, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/atheism-rises-in-u-s-but-what-about-reason/) Atheism Rises in U.S.—But What About Reason?
August 26, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/life-lessons-of-poker/) Life Lessons of Poker
August 27, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/phonak-brings-mozart-to-once-deaf-man/) Phonak Brings Mozart to Once-Deaf Man
TOS Blog Update: Cronyism, Paul Ryan, "You Didn't Build That"
September 4, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
August 28, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/indian-patients-wait-weeks-for-treatment-can-you-guess-why/) Indian Patients Wait Weeks for Treatment—Can You Guess Why?
August 29, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/cronyism-for-the-children/) Cronyism for the Children?
August 30, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/ryans-pro-freedom-rhetoric-clashes-with-his-promise-of-government-controls/) Ryan's Pro-Freedom Rhetoric Clashes with His Promise of Government Controls
August 31, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/paul-ryans-altruism-leads-to-his-statist-measures/) Paul Ryan's Altruism Leads to His Statist Measures
September 1, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/rice-and-republicans-condemn-politics-of-envy/) Rice and Republicans Condemn Politics of Envy
September 4, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/you-didnt-build-that-elementary-school-edition/) "You Didn't Build That"—Elementary School Edition
TOS Blog Update: Clint, DNC
September 9, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
September 6, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/eastwood-reminds-us-whose-country-this-is/) Eastwood Reminds Us Whose Country This Is
September 7, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/democrats-show-their-anti-choice-colors/) Democrats Show Their Anti-Choice Colors
September 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/schiff-exposes-the-nihilistic-anti-profit-left/) Schiff Exposes the Nihilistic, Anti-Profit Left
September 9, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/clintons-choice/) Clinton's Choice
Gun Ownership and Personal Responsibility
September 12, 2012
How does the right to own a gun fit in with the general program for liberty? I discussed the matter September 10 at an event hosted by the (http://www.evergreenteaparty.com/) Evergreen Tea Party.
I really enjoyed talking with members of the group; around 40 people attended.
Some of the material I covered I also wrote about in a (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/) first and (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/keeping-crime-risks-in-perspective/) second article for TOS blog. I also referenced several other articles.
See the Cato report, "(http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens) Tough Targets," concerning defensive gun use.
I also quoted from the (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now) Christian Science Monitor:
In the past 20 years . . . the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.
ABC carries one of the many (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gun-sales-booming-doomsday-obama-zombies/story?id=16073797#.UFDFXELTxeR) stories on the fast pace of gun sales.
Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx) reports:
Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993. . . .
Finally, NPR (http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151526930/korean-store-owner-on-arming-himself-for-riots) reports:
The Los Angeles riots stunned the nation in 1992, claiming more than 50 lives in that city. As the unrest approached Koreatown, store owner Kee Whan Ha mobilized his fellow business owners to arm themselves and defend their property.
Check out the entire talk for these points in context.
TOS Fall Articles
September 24, 2012
I wrote two book reviews and conducted two interviews for the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/index.asp) Fall 2012 edition of The Objective Standard.
Yaron Brook and Don Watkins wrote the just-published Free Market Revolution. I (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/review-free-market-revolution.asp) conclude:
Free Market Revolution could not have come at a better time. Given America's continued economic troubles and ballooning debt, President Obama's continuous calls for "spreading the wealth around" and controlling businesses, and Paul Ryan's injection of Ayn Rand's ideas into popular discourse (however much Ryan strays from those ideas), Americans are both desperately in need of a principled defense of capitalism and, in many cases, eager to hear it.
Free Market Revolution is well worth buying and reading—and more, it is worth promoting among Tea Party activists, business leaders, students, and anyone concerned with freedom and open to reason.
John Allison, former CEO of BB&T, wrote The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure. Allison, I (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/review-financial-crisis.asp) review, offers a detailed account of how failed government regulations led to and worsened the mortgage meltdown.
In my first interview, (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/curt-levey.asp) Curt Levey discusses the future of the Supreme Court in the context of the presidential race.
In the other interview, (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/robert-zubrin.asp) Robert Zubrin discusses his book on the "antihumanist" movement of Malthus and the modern environmentalists.
Both interviews are available only by subscription or direct purchase, but I found both to be very enlightening.
TOS Blog Update: Islamist Violence, Obama and FDR, the 47 Percent
September 24, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
September 10, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/obamas-forward-politics-of-the-1930s/) Obama's "Forward" Politics of the 1930s
September 12, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/islamists-celebrate-911-by-murdering-more-americans/) Islamists Celebrate 9/11 by Murdering More Americans; U.S. Embassy Demands "Respect" for Islam
September 14, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/islamists-embrace-universal-rights-violations/) Islamists Embrace Universal Rights Violations
September 15, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/blame-not-american-speech-but-islamist-acts-of-war/) Blame Not American Speech But Islamist Acts of War
September 18, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/la-times-writer-calls-for-end-of-first-amendment/) LA Times Writer Calls for End of First Amendment
September 19, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/romney-addresses-entitlement-mentality-misses-fundamental/) Romney Addresses Entitlement Mentality, Misses Fundamental
September 22, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/sam-harris-pointedly-defends-free-speech/) Sam Harris Pointedly Defends Free Speech
The Debate Over Public Choice Misdefines "Self Interest" and "Public Interest"
September 26, 2012
Are political actors (politicians, voters, and bureaucrats) motivated by "self interest" or "public interest?" That is the central question as it is posed in the academic debate over the Public Choice school of economics. However, it is the wrong question.
Public Choice economists and their critics agree that, at least sometimes, political actors pursue financial gain and power at the expense of others, and obviously that is true. To take a few examples, recall the (http://youtu.be/P36x8rTb3jI) Youtube video in which a woman recites her reasons for supporting Barack Obama: "I won't have to work [to] put gas in my car, I won't have to work [to] pay my mortgage." Does anyone doubt that political actions over the last few years to expand food stamps, expand unemployment benefits, increase subsidies for students loans, bail out auto unions, subsidize solar and wind companies, and expand Medicare coverage were calculated to gain political support? The typical member of congress today sees it as his primary responsibility to (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/02/lobby.html) bring home the pork to (select voters within) his district.
The problem lies in describing the issue as "self interest" versus "public interest." Before addressing that issue, though, let us first look in more detail at the debate surrounding Public Choice.
In his book (http://www.cato.org/government-failure/Government-Failure.pdf) Government Failure, Gordon Tullock (one of the founders of Public Choice) describes what he sees as the problem with the traditional view of politics, as well as his alternative:
Throughout the 19th and well into the 20th century, economists assumed that individuals are primarily concerned with their own interest and worked out the consequences of that assumption. In contrast, during this same period political science largely assumed that political actors are mainly concerned with the public interest. . . .
Economists changed this bifurcated view of human behavior by developing the theory of public choice, which amounts, in essence, to transplanting the general analytical framework of economics into political science. The statement that the voter in the voting booth is the same person as the customer in the supermarket does not seem radical, but it is nevertheless a very dramatic change from the political science literature. (pp. 4—5)
While Tullock grants that political actors do not necessarily act in a "self interested" way (as he uses the term), he thinks they ordinarily do:
Of course, empirical confirmation of any theoretical proposition is more important than analytical elegance. When considering the behavior of any individual politician, most people realize that the politician behaves in a self-interested way; similarly, when considering the factors that affect votes, most people assume that personal gain is certainly an aspect. (p. 6)
The critics of Public Choice, on the other hand, argue that political actors tend to act in the "public interest." Jeffrey Friedman, editor of (http://www.criticalreview.com/) Critical Review, describes the debate in the Winter-Spring 1995 issue (Vol. 9, Nos. 1—2) of his journal:
[A] distinction should be drawn between two terms that are often used imprecisely or synonymously: rational choice and public choice. One understanding of the difference holds that public choice theory applies economic analysis to political (i.e., "public") decision making, while rational choice theory goes even farther, applying economics to other nonmarket realms, such as family life. This distinction, to adopt John Ferejohn's [citation omitted] terminology, attributes to both public and rational choice theory a "thin" understanding of the economists' rationality postulate: individuals are assumed to have only the inclination to satisfy their stable and ordered preferences, whether these are selfish or not. But outside the academy, public choice theory has a decidedly "thick" connotation, referring to the alleged propensity of political actors to pursue their material self-interest. . . .
Like most important ideas . . . public choice theory is liable to polemical oversimplification. The main danger is that the possibility that people are as self-interested in their political as their economic behavior may be treated as the assumption that self-interest is always and everywhere the real fountainhead of politics. . . .
[T]he effort of comparing public choice hypotheses against alternatives frequently falls to non-public choice scholars. One such effort is Leif Lewin's Self-Interest and Public Interest in Western Democracies, published by Oxford University Press in 1991. Reviewing in detail the empirical literature on a variety of public choice claims—almost all of which was written by non-public choice researchers—Lewin found that in no case does public choice theory withstand scrutiny as a general hypothesis about the ubiquity of self-interest in politics. (pp. 1—3)
Friedman goes on to explain that, according to Lewin's findings, voters tend to select politicians they deem "likeliest to benefit the economy of their society as a whole," and bureaucrats too frequently act outside the boundaries of what the Public Choicers predict for them (pp. 3—4).
Notably, a recent issue of Critical Review (Vol. 23, No. 3 from 2011) explores Lewin's work in more detail, featuring an essay by Lewin himself.
Lewin writes that, today, even many Public Choicers agree "that voters, politicians, and bureaucrats are much more public spirited than public-choice theorists originally maintained" (p. 361). However, Lewin acknowledges the problem of interest groups in politics. He writes, "[I]t is hardly unexpected that people pursue their self-interest when they enroll in interest groups. That is the whole rationale for membership."
Public Choice economists and their critics, then, agree that sometimes political actors act in their "self interest" and sometimes in the "public interest." They disagree over how prevalent one is over the other.
The huge problem with this debate is that neither of the sides presented offers a coherent definition of "self interest" or "public interest."
As the scholars quoted above use the term, "self interest" applies to political practices of taking others' wealth by force, forcibly blocking or harming competitors, gaining special political favors, and the like. The opposite of "self interest," goes this line of thinking, is "public interest," which means acting for the general well-being of society as a whole. Neither of those definitions withstands scrutiny.
Begin with "self interest." One's actual, long-term, selfish interests consist substantially in achieving and supporting a government that protects individual rights, not one that forcibly transfers wealth and doles out favors. It is only within a rights-respecting society that an individual is free to act consistently for his own purposes and in accordance with his own, unhindered judgment. If one holds that the "public interest" consists in establishing a rights-protecting government—the only sensible use of the term—then there is no clash between pursuing the "public interest" and pursuing one's "self interest," properly conceived.
With the sloppy treatment of "public interest" within the debate over Public Choice theory, however, the "public interest" can be conceived in any number of contradictory ways, ranging from the American Founders' support for a rights-respecting government to the communists' support for collectivism and mass slavery. What matters is the content of one's ideology, and referring to some undefined "public interest" only obfuscates that issue.
History shows that what we have to fear are not primarily the petty politicians who act to advance their narrow interests of wealth and power by abusing their positions, as annoying and destructive as they are. What we should fear are those politicians who sincerely act in the "public interest" conceived apart from individual rights—and who stop at nothing to achieve it.
DA Candidate Weir Shares Goals, Views of Drug Policy
September 28, 2012
Pete Weir, district attorney candidate for Colorado's First Judicial district (Jefferson and Gilpin counties), discusses the balance between helping low-level offenders rehabilitate and cracking down on hardened criminals. He also discusses drug offenses and proposals to legalize marijuana.
Weir spoke September 27 at the (http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?aid=1247) Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods Election Preview Forum.
Am. 65 Versus Free Speech
September 28, 2012
Yes, free speech can sometimes be annoying, but the only alternative to free speech is censorship, letting politicians and bureaucrats decide who may speak, how they may speak, and what they may say.
Colorado's Amendment 65 calls for political control of campaign speech. Last night I delivered a short talk against it at the (http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?aid=1247) Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods Election Preview Forum.
Colorado Amendment 65: An Assault of Free Speech
October 2, 2012
I regard the Colorado ballot measure Amendment 65 as a threat to freedom of speech. Here I collect my writings, talks, and videos on the matter. See also the information about Amendment 65 at the (http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballotContactList.html) Secretary of State's web page or in the Legislative Council's "(http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536134742) Blue Book."
On September 30, the Denver Post published my op-ed, "(http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21647818/no-it-intrudes-our-right-free-speech) Amendment 65: An Intrusion On Our Right to Free Speech." Following are some excerpts:
Amendment 65 . . . asks the foxes to guard the hen house. It asks incumbent politicians and their appointed bureaucrats to restrict the very speech that criticizes them. . . .
You have no right of free speech if you cannot spend your resources how you want on speech. With the possible exception of shouting over panhandlers on a street corner, every form of speech requires the expenditure of resources. . . .
Amendment 65 claims that, somehow, censorship will establish "a level playing field" for speech. But small groups are the ones that tend to get ensnared in speech restrictions, while big groups pay legions of attorneys to guide them through the inevitable loopholes. . . .
It is the government's proper job to protect each individual's right to speak freely, whether alone or as part of a group, not to forcibly silence some voices so that others face less competition.
On September 27, I spoke briefly at a forum in Wheat Ridge:
On October 2, I joined (http://www.1310kfka.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=41&Itemid=59) Amy Oliver on 1310 am to discuss Amendment 65. The complete (http://www.1310kfka.com/audio/amy100212hr2.mp3) audio file is available. One of the points I make is that, based on the premise that money corrupts politics, the last thing we should want to do is put corrupt politicians in charge of censoring speech.
Also on October 2, (http://www.850koa.com/pages/mikerosen.html?article=10463144) Mike Rosen spent his first hour discussing Amendment 65. He mentioned my Denver Post op-ed but spent most of his time discussing why the measure has no legal force.
(http://www.joncaldara.com/2012/09/21/dave-kopel-v-ken-gordon-on-amendment-65/) Dave Kopel and Ken Gordon debated Amendment 65 on September 19; their hour-long discussion is well worth listening to.
I debated Gordon October 4 at an event hosted by AFGE 3607 Union. (My presentation begins at minute 16:56.) One lady asked about my views of mandatory disclosure. I answered her in brief following the formal presentation; you may read my more complete statement in an (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/right-118120-free-speak.html) op-ed I wrote for the Colorado Springs Gazette last year. Here is the entire 44 minute debate:
October 6: Although overall I was pleased with my case when debating Ken Gordon, I decided that, on one point, I needed to further clarify my position. So I wrote an article for The Objective Standard blog, "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/when-politics-corrupts-money/) When Politics Corrupts Money." Here is an excerpt:
In hindsight, I should not have conceded, as I did, that "money corrupts politics" in some cases. True, some interest groups spend money on campaigns in the hope of receiving special government privileges, such as corporate welfare subsidies or coercive "protections" against their competitors. However, to concede that "money corrupts politics" wrongly implies that the modern political system is pure and noble until it is corrupted by money.
The proper way to describe the problem is that, within modern government, politics corrupts money.
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/when-politics-corrupts-money/) Read the entire piece.
October 7: The Denver Post published three (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2012/10/07/colorado-amendment-65-corporate-personhood-3-letters/19629/) letters, two critical of me. Neither of those letters is remotely responsive to the arguments I made in my Post op-ed. Near the end of the first hour of his radio (http://www.850koa.com/pages/mikerosen.html?article=10477611) show on October 8, Mike Rosen discussed these letters and reiterated his reasons for opposing Amendment 65. Also, on October 11 the Post ran (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21743568/amendment-65-absurd-ineffectual) Rosen's column criticizing the measure as "absurd and ineffectual."
October 10: The Colorado Social Legislation Committee and the League of Women Voters of Colorado hosted a Denver forum on state ballot issues. As part of this forum, Elena Nunez of Colorado Common Cause and I debated Amendment 65:
October 11: I might mention a couple other Denver Post op-eds that support Amendment 65, one by (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/09/28/amendment-65/26184/) Stephen Justino and another by (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21647821/yes-voters-not-money-should-drive-elections) Elena Nunez and Danny Katz, the primary sponsors of the measure. They do not raise any arguments that I do not address in my talks and articles. Luis Torro writes a tangentially related (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-toro/joe-coors-ad_b_1933387.html) article in which he asks why the government should not impose "a consumer protection law for campaign ads." The basic answer is three-fold. First, there are many ways to combat campaign deception, such as the newspaper article Torro cites. Second, libel law already does (or should) provide the legal remedy for egregious lies. Third, and perhaps most important, putting politicians and bureaucrats in charge of deciding which speech about politicians and bureaucrats is "truthful" is incredibly dangerous and inherently prone to abuse.
October 12: I had jotted down the link to Shawn Mitchell's excellent article of a few weeks ago, "(http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/shawnmitchell/2012/08/27/progressive_war_on_speech_and_liberty_continues) Progressive War on Speech and Liberty Continues."
October 15: The October 12 edition of Westsider features a column by Andrea Doray, who contrasts free speech in America with oppression in various other nations. She writes:
When I tire of hearing the ads, especially the negative ones, I try to remind myself that free speech and freedom of the press make this knowledge available to me, and that I am able to make my own decisions and vote for the candidate of my eventual choice.
On October 13 I had the opportunity to debate Danny Katz of COPirg, one of the sponsors of Amendment 65, in front of the Jefferson County Democrats. I'm not sure the audio turned out well enough for me to release the video; but, anyway, I didn't really cover any issue I haven't covered elsewhere.
On October 14 I wrote an article for The Objective Standard, "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/why-forcibly-limiting-campaign-spending-is-censorship/) Why Forcibly Limiting Campaign Spending is Censorship—And Why it Matters." I focus on the expansive nature of the censorship laws in question.
I released a short video (2:45 minutes) summarizing my case against Amendment 65, "(http://youtu.be/XiUrmLxW17U) Top Ten Reasons Why Colorado Amendment 65 Is a Truly Horrible Idea."
October 16: Watch (http://youtu.be/zzqKNrzuc9Y) Dave Kopel debates Elena Nunez. Kopel argues: "The fundamental point is that the First Amendment protects the right of everyone to freedom of speech. Whenever the government gets in the business of limiting freedom of speech, it will be to the benefit of the incumbent politicians."
October 18: Today The Objective Standard published my article, "(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/the-egalitarian-assault-on-free-speech/) The Egalitarian Assault on Free Speech." I explain why the left's egalitarianism in the realm of economics has led it to advocate censorship in the realm of political speech.
Also, my debate with Ken Gordon about money in politics and Amendment 65 is now online:
October 21: This is a secondary issue, but I do think it's an interesting detail that two main groups, the Fair Share Alliance and Common Cause, have dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into their campaign to "get big money out of politics." See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/the-secret-big-money-behind-amendment-65/) write-up.
October 31: The Denver Post's (http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_21890220/false-promises-colorados-amendment-65) Vincent Carroll offers an excellent critique of Amendment 65, pointing out it could also lead to restricting how much money individuals may spend on their own races. He writes, "Amendment 65 is a quixotic attempt to take politics out of politics by trampling on our freedom."
November 1: In preparation for discussing campaign finance with a University of Denver class taught by Andrew Romanoff, I prepared some (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/11/notes-on-money-in-politics/) notes. Also, the New York Times has compiled the basic statistics about spending on the (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance) presidential race this year. Honestly I was surprised to find that the overwhelming amount of spending came from the campaigns themselves, while PACs played a relatively small role.
Also, I thought Dave Kopel aptly summarized the nature of Amendment 65 for a Collegian (http://www.collegian.com/2012/10/03/amendment-65-could-limit-colorado-campaign-spending/) article: "Amendment 65 is a blank check for government censorship of political speech."
November 2: Please watch this excellent video from Learn Liberty on campaign spending restrictions:
TOS Blog Update: Presidential Debates, Middle East, ObamaCare Rationing
October 5, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
September 24, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/the-meaning-of-appeasement-in-the-middle-east/) The Meaning of Appeasement in the Middle East
September 25, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/richard-salsman-religion-of-democracy-undermines-rights/) Richard Salsman: Religion of Democracy Undermines Rights
September 28, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/government-control-of-medicine-necessitates-rationing/) Government Control of Medicine Necessitates Rationing
September 29, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/global-wealth-redistribution-for-equal-poverty-the-egalitarian-ideal/) Global Wealth "Redistribution" for Equal Poverty: The Egalitarian Ideal
October 1, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/the-meaning-of-obamas-government-investments/) The Meaning of Obama's Government "Investments"
October 3, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/the-question-that-matters-in-this-presidential-election/) The Question that Matters in this Presidential Election
October 4, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/trickle-down-government-obamas-economic-vision/) "Trickle Down Government": Obama's Economic Vision
Top Ten Reasons Why Colorado Amendment 65 Is a Truly Horrible Idea
October 15, 2012
I just released a short (2:45 minute) video summarizing my case against Amendment 65. The transcript, from which I strayed only slightly, follows. See also my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/colorado-amendment-65-an-assault-on-free-speech/) main document on Amendment 65.
Colorado Amendment 65 asks politicians to support "an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows Congress and the states to limit campaign contributions and spending."
Why is this a truly horrible idea?
1. Amendment 65 would impose censorship, giving government power to forcibly restrict who may speak, how they may speak, or what they may say.
2. Amendment 65 would, for the first time in the nation's history, repeal a portion of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law" restricting free speech. Amendment 65 says Congress should make such laws.
3. Amendment 65 threatens to violate people's right to speak out on political issues, whether alone or as part of a group, such as a corporation or a union.
4. Any censorship law will leave so-called "loopholes," leading to calls for additional restrictions. The logical and inevitable result is the censorship of documentaries, books, and newspapers, in addition to flyers and television ads.
5. Amendment 65 would give incumbent politicians the power to silence their critics. That is inherently corrupt.
6. Amendment 65 would give powerful interest groups a means to silence their opponents with less political power.
7. Amendment 65 would create bureaucratic hurdles for small groups to speak out, while large groups with tons of money would just hire more attorneys to find the loopholes and comply with the bureaucratic rules.
8. Although it is true that "money isn't speech," we must spend resources to publicly advocate our ideas. Censorship by restricting how people may spend resources on speech is still censorship.
9. It is not true that people who spend more "drown out" others' voices. For example, Pat Stryker, who is worth $1.4 billion, has spend millions on Colorado politics, yet she has not restricted my ability to speak at all. The only party who can restrict my ability to speak is the government censor.
10. You have a brain! We have the ability to think independently about political ads. We don't need to forcibly restrict them. I'm as annoyed as anyone by these political ads, but the price of free speech is that we have to put up with speech we find annoying or even abhorrent.
For more about why Colorado Amendment 65 is a truly horrible idea, please see my web page at AriArmstrong.com. See particularly "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/colorado-amendment-65-an-assault-on-free-speech/) Colorado Amendment 65: An Assault of Free Speech."
TOS Blog Update: Free Speech, Big Bird, Unemployment
October 18, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
October 6, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/when-politics-corrupts-money/) When Politics Corrupts Money
October 7, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/sesame-street-to-pbs-dont-be-a-bully/) Sesame Street to PBS: "Don't Be a Bully"
October 8, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/so-7-8-percent-unemployment-is-good-news/) So 7.8 Percent Unemployment is Good News?
October 10, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/latest-islamist-attacks-and-u-s-appeasement/) Latest Islamist Attacks and U.S. Appeasement
October 12, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/laughing-joes-egalitarian-aim/) Laughing Joe's Egalitarian Aim
October 14, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/why-forcibly-limiting-campaign-spending-is-censorship/) Why Forcibly Limiting Campaign Spending is Censorship—And Why it Matters
October 17, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/obamas-doctrine-of-fairness-has-been-tried-elsewhere/) Obama's Doctrine of "Fairness" has been Tried Elsewhere
The Secret Big Money Behind Amendment 65
October 22, 2012
Does it strike anyone but me as ironic that those wanting to "get big money out of politics" are spending big money to promote their political agenda?
Three groups are (http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballotContactList.html) registered "Issue Committees" to promote Amendment 65, the Colorado ballot measure seeking a U.S. amendment allowing politicians to restrict campaign spending (i.e., censor political speech).
Those groups (and their leaders) are Coloradans For Equal Opportunity (Mary Phillips), Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics (Elena Nunez), and Fair Share Committee to Get Big Money Out of Politics (Kirsten Schatz). (There is no group registered against the measure; obviously a few individuals, including me, have spoken against it.)
The first group hasn't raised much money. The other two groups, however, have raised and spent significant funds. Following are the amounts raised, as reported by the Secretary of State:
(http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?OrgID=24989) Fair Share Committee to Get Big Money Out of Politics
October 1: $175,000 monetary contributions. Interestingly, that entire amount came from the Fair Share Alliance in Washington, DC.
September 17: $2,691 non-monetary contributions. Can you guess the source? Yes, the Fair Share Alliance.
September 4: $41,197.90 non-monetary contributions, all from Fair Share Alliance.
August 1: $365,689.96 non-monetary contributions, mostly from Fair Share Alliance (mostly for signature gathering).
(http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?OrgID=24957) Coloradans Get Big Money Out of Politics
October 15: $930 monetary contributions plus $7,469.60 non-monetary contributions, mostly from Common Cause. (Note that Elena Nunez is the (http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=3508243) Executive Director of Colorado Common Cause.)
October 1: $5,300 monetary contributions plust $6,799.14 non-monetary contributions, mostly from Common Cause. (A number of individuals made monetary contributions.)
September 17: $4,795.48 non-monetary contributions, mostly from Common Cause.
September 4: $35,371.04 monetary contributions plus $1,002.15 non-monetary contributions. This includes $12,921.04 in monetary contributions from Common Cause and $15,000 from People for the American Way of Washington, DC.
August 1 (amended): $81,881.96 monetary contributions plus $31,867.77 non-monetary contributions, mostly from Common Cause.
July 2: $165 non-monetary contribution from Colorado Common Cause.
* * *
In sum, two main groups, Fair Share Alliance and Common Cause, have dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars—mostly "secret" money funneled from one group to another—into the Amendment 65 campaign to "get big money out of politics." Interesting tactic, that.
Related:
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/colorado-amendment-65-an-assault-on-free-speech/) Colorado Amendment 65: An Assault of Free Speech
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/top-ten-reasons-why-colorado-amendment-65-is-a-truly-horrible-idea/) Top Ten Reasons Why Colorado Amendment 65 Is a Truly Horrible Idea
An Open Letter to My Westminster Neighbors
October 24, 2012
Update: The police have (http://www.9news.com/news/article/295910/339/Arrest-made-in-Jessica-Ridgeway-case) made an arrest in the Jessica Ridgeway murder. Remember that due process matters, the evidence matters, and suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the possibility that this may be the guy, and that the perpetrator might now be off the streets, is a huge relief. Thank you, law enforcement, for your diligence.
Dear Westminter Neighbors,
The murder of Jessica Ridgeway has horrified the residents of the city.
Although we read about horrific crimes daily in the paper, this crime struck close to home. I have taken my nephews to play at Witt Elementary, the very school that Jessica attended. My wife and I vote at that school. My wife has walked alone on the very trails where a man tried to abduct a woman earlier in the year—the same man police suspect is responsible for Jessica's murder.
We all want the perpetrator caught.
But not all means are justified toward that end.
When a neighbor told me that police asked to search her house, without cause, merely as part of a fishing expedition, I was surprised. I was proud of her for respectfully declining.
When I saw a claim on Facebook that police were swabbing people for DNA, I was shocked. (http://www.9news.com/news/article/295798/339/Murder-investigators-gather-500-DNA-samples) And yet, "Investigators have gathered DNA samples from about 500 people as they search for Jessica Ridgeway's killer, 9Wants to Know has confirmed."
I hate to state the obvious here, but if the police have 500 "suspects," that means the police have no suspects.
Although it is a reasonable guess that the perpetrator of this heinous crime is still in the area, apparently the police have no idea where the perpetrator lives, whether he ever resided in the area, or whether he is still in the area.
Now, I suspect that the real value to the police in asking for DNA samples is simply in observing how people respond to the request. (I don't know whether the police actually have DNA from the perpetrator collected from the crime scene; I hope so.) Honestly, I have a hard time thinking badly of police officers who resort to this tactic; the desperation to arrest the perpetrator is palpable.
However, I do urge my neighbors—including members of the Westminster Police Department—to remember their Fourth Amendment rights and responsibilities. This is an excellent time to review the language of that important amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If the police ask to swab your cheek for a DNA sample, or to search your house without cause, the only appropriate answer by any self-respecting citizen is "no."
We are citizens of a free republic, not subjects of a police state.
If the price of capturing a heinous murderer is to surrender our basic rights, then the price is too high.
However, as a practical matter, generally the police do far better to conduct a real criminal investigation rather than to go on fishing expeditions. Seriously, how many hours have the police wasted swabbing and testing (if the testing is even done, which I doubt) essentially random men in the area? Police officers could have spent that same time employing other, and likely more effective, means of investigation.
I am fully aware of the danger posed to the community by a callous and cowardly murderer—a man who brutalizes innocent and defenseless children—who may still be in the area. However, a far greater threat to our lives and safety would be the creation of a police state. America's Founders hardly were ignorant of the evils of which men are capable. And yet they learned, by the examples of history as well as by their own hard experiences, that the police powers must be restricted. The Fourth Amendment is not some utopian scheme that prevents the police from doing their jobs; it is a needful recognition of our basic rights and of appropriate limits of police power.
In a previous article I used the term "civilian" to distinguish those who are not police. Someone appropriately corrected me. The police too are "civilians." They are civil servants. Properly their job is to protect people's rights, to act as peace officers. For the most part, based on what I've read in the media, I've been impressed by the way the police have approached this difficult and painful case. These police officers are our neighbors, too. We respect the rights-protecting work you do. I ask the police, as their neighbor and fellow citizen, that you stay focused on your mission of protecting individual rights, and not lose sight of the letter or the sprit of the Fourth Amendment.
If by some chance the perpetrator of this heinous crime reads this post, I say to you this: We are not your neighbor, we are your sworn enemy. We are watching, and we will do what we can to bring you down. Now, I cannot speak for the prosecutor, but I suspect that, if you voluntarily turn yourself in and throw yourself on the mercy of the court, you will have a better chance of avoiding the death penalty, as richly as you deserve it.
I do hope my neighbors remember that nearly everyone around us is a good, hard-working, family-loving person. It's easy to be overwhelmed by the horror of a crime such as this one. But the goodness of humanity is revealed all around us, every day. Let's remember that.
Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong
TOS Blog Update: Free Speech, Obama on Rand, the Islamist Threat
October 26, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
October 18, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/the-egalitarian-assault-on-free-speech/) The Egalitarian Assault on Free Speech
I believe this is one of the more important articles I've written. I explain how the egalitarian left, as a logical extension of its assault on property rights, is now seeking to censor political speech. Please also see my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/colorado-amendment-65-an-assault-on-free-speech/) collected commentary on Colorado Amendment 65, the local effort to move toward censorship.
October 23, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/romney-pays-scant-attention-to-islamist-threat-obama-pays-none/) Romney Pays Scant Attention to Islamist Threat; Obama Pays None
October 25, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/obama-unsurprisingly-gets-ayn-rand-wrong/) Obama, Unsurprisingly, Gets Ayn Rand Wrong
I respond to Obama's comments about Rand published by Rolling Stone.
Notes on Money in Politics
November 1, 2012
This evening I'm scheduled to talk about money in politics with a local college class. As I'm looking up some articles for this purpose, I thought I might as well provide some links and discussion here.
The main point of this evening's discussion is to debate Amendment 65, about which I have written and spoken at length. Please see my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/colorado-amendment-65-an-assault-on-free-speech/) collected commentary and links. However, my hope is to take the conversation in a broader direction tonight. The main question I want to examine here is how much "big money" actually influences politics. Of course, this issue represents only a small slice of the discussion, but a relevant one.
The main thesis in this regard is a simple one: People have brains. We are not mindless automatons, zombies passively influenced by whatever advertisements impinge on our senses. Rather, we have the capacity for reason, for thinking critically about the messages we see. When we're talking about money in politics, we're talking about people spending resources in an effort to persuade others (voters) to behave in a certain way. Because people have reasoning minds, the impact of money in politics is necessarily limited.
Let's begin with some comments from (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-summer/steve-simpson.asp) Steve Simpson (shown in the photo), whom I interviewed this summer:
There are too many examples of expensive advertising flops or rich candidates who lost elections to take seriously the claim that money buys elections. Ross Perot, Michael Huffington, Meg Whitman, Jon Corzine—the list of candidates who have spent huge amounts of money and lost goes on and on. A certain amount of money is necessary to be a contender in an election. Beyond that, candidates win or lose because they have messages and support policies that the voters like.
To take a Colorado example, last year, Colorado voters rejected Prop. 103, a school tax measure, by a margin of (http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/2011/Proposition103.html) 63 to 37 percent—an overwhelming defeat by any measure. And yet, as the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19243074) reported, "Supporters raised more than $600,000 in the effort to pass 103, while opponents raised less than a tenth of that."
In 2003, Colorado voters rejected Referendum A, concerning water bonds, by even bigger margins: (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Water_Projects_Bond,_Referendum_A_(2003)) 67 to 33 percent.
A Denver Post article from November 5, 2003 ("Colorado In 'No' Mood," by Joey Bunch) reviews:
Referendum A appeared headed for easy passage. Owens put his campaign aces on Referendum A and helped raise more than $750,000 to promote its passage.
He collected huge donations from corporations and residential developers.
The opposition group Vote No on A raised less than half that. High-profile opponents included Attorney General Ken Salazar and former governors Dick Lamm, Roy Romer and John Vanderhoof.
Moving to broader studies, Stephen Dubner (http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/) summarizes a paper by his Freakonomics coauthor Steve Livitt finding that a candidate can double or halve campaign spending and impact the outcome only by a point in either direction.
Dubner continues:
What Levitt's study suggests is that money doesn't necessarily cause a candidate to win—but, rather, that the kind of candidate who's attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot of money. So winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go together. But umbrellas don't cause the rain. And it doesn't seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says. For every well-funded candidate who seems to confirm that money buys elections (paging Michael Bloomberg), you can find counterexamples like Meg Whitman, Linda McMahon, Steve Forbes, and Tom Golisano.
Dubner also (http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/) rounds up the views of other economists, including Jeff Milyo, who writes:
[L]arge shocks to campaign spending from changes in campaign finance regulations do not produce concomitant impacts on electoral success, nor do candidates with vast personal wealth to spend on their campaigns fare better than other candidates.
These findings may be surprising at first blush, but the intuition isn't that hard to grasp. After all, how many people do you know who ever change their minds on something important like their political beliefs (well, other than liberal Republicans who find themselves running for national office)? People just aren't that malleable; and for that reason, campaign spending is far less important in determining election outcomes than many people believe (or fear).
But what of the left's endless incantation, "Corporations aren't people!" Besides the obvious fact that corporations are composed of individual people, each of whom with rights, it just ain't true that corporate spending dominates politics.
Steve Chapman (http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/28/corporate-electioneering-dont-believe-th) writes for Reason: "Of the $96 million donated to these political operations [Super PACs], 86 percent has come from individuals and less than 1 percent from publicly traded corporations. Major companies almost unanimously have concluded that they have more to lose than gain by wading into polarizing political campaigns."
"But what about the rich people?!" The advocates of Amendment 65 explicitly call for the censorship of "the rich"—so apparently the wealthy aren't people, either.
The problem of money in politics is not much of problem. But the "solution" of censoring political speech is extraordinarily dangerous. Liberty can survive stupid campaign ads. It cannot survive censorship.
Related:
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/colorado-amendment-65-an-assault-on-free-speech/) Colorado Amendment 65: An Assault of Free Speech
- (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/10/the-secret-big-money-behind-amendment-65/) The Secret Big Money Behind Amendment 65
TOS Blog Update: Sandy, Smears of Rand, Social Security
November 5, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
October 30, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/does-a-big-storm-require-big-government/) Does a Big Storm Require Big Government?
Reply to the New York Times.
October 31, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/huffpos-sanghoee-uses-tragedy-of-sandy-to-smear-ayn-rand/) HuffPo's Sanghoee Uses Tragedy of Sandy to Smear Ayn Rand
Another day, another smear against Ayn Rand.
November 3, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/the-moral-integrity-of-condemning-social-security-while-collecting-it/) The Moral Integrity of Condemning Social Security While Collecting It
Taking the examples of Social Security, a tax-funded stadium, and a government-backed loan, I explain, "The victims of right-violating government programs should proudly and righteously condemn those programs—and seek to minimize the injustice of the programs by recouping whatever value they can from them."
Colorado's "Personhood" Candidates Take a Beating
November 7, 2012
In the previous two election cycles, Colorado voters defeated so-called "personhood" measures—intended to outlaw all abortion from the moment of conception and also restrict birth control and in vitro fertility treatments—by overwhelming margins. In 2010 the measure (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Fetal_Personhood,_Amendment_62_(2010)) went down 71-29; in 2008 it (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Definition_of_Person_Initiative,_Amendment_48_(2008)) lost 73-27. If failed to make the ballot this year, but it was still very much a live issue in the 2012 elections. Democrats used the issue effectively to push its allegations that the GOP wages a "war on women."
Paul Ryan took continual heat for his support for "personhood"; for but one example see an (http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/18286/ryan-propersonhood-antireprodutive-rights) article by Colorado Pols. And Democrats hammered down-ticket Republicans relentlessly on the issue.
Joe Coors, who challenged incumbent Democrat Ed Perlmutter, got (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/us-house/2012/district-7/) badly beat, 53-41 percent. Now, I don't think Coors would have won even had the "personhood" issue not been on the table, and elsewhere Mike Coffman (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/us-house/2012/district-6/) won despite his support for "personhood." Nevertheless, the Democratic Party distributed the following mailer knowing it would move votes:
In my state house district, the Democratic challenger (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/state-house/2012/) trounced the incumbent, Robert Ramirez, 51-43 percent. The left hit Ramirez with a relentless onslaught of mailers hammering him for supporting "personhood," of which the following, distributed by an outfit called Fight Back Colorado, is an example:
There is no doubt that "personhood" shifted votes to Democrats up and down the ticket in Colorado, though of course it's hard to say if that one issue made the difference in any given race.
Democrats honed this campaign strategy in 2010, when it (http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2010/11/how-abortion-cost-ken-buck-us-senate.html) defeated Ken Buck in the U.S. Senate race by attacking his abortion-banning stance.
As I've been (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado.html) pointing out for some time, Colorado demographically tends to be the type of place where people want government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms. Unfortunately, the Republican Party in this state is dominated by a religious right that wants to outlaw all abortion and discriminate against gays—and that explains to a large degree why (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21941887/all-65-seats-up-state-house-key-ones) Democrats now control the entire state government, again.
Related:
- (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/if-republicans-want-to-win-they-must-embrace-individual-rights/) If Republicans Want to Win, They Must Embrace Individual Rights
- (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/abortion-rights.asp) The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties
- (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a62.shtml) The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life
Denver Post Publishes Bologne About Food Stamps
November 23, 2012
It's a little discouraging that, after I conducted two separate "food stamp diets"—spending less on food than is available from food stamps—the Denver Post is still publishing nonsense about food stamps.
A coule days ago the Post published the following (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/11/21/days-cory-booker-challenges-tweeter-food-stamps/29350/) commentary:
[Newark Mayor Cory] Booker suggested they both [he and a critic] live on food stamps for a short time and see how they fare. The woman, known as TwitWit, reportedly has agreed.
Given that the average monthly food stamp benefit per person in New Jersey is somewhere around $133 a month, they'll have their work cut out for them.
We see a lot of ramen noodles in their near future.
However, as I wrote (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/08/challenge.html) back in 2007, the "average" figure is NOT the amount of funds available for food.
The (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269) current information is as follows. Perhaps this time the Denver Post will actually attend to the relevant facts:
SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] expects families receiving benefits to spend 30 percent of their net income on food. Families with no net income receive the maximum benefit, which equals the cost of the USDA Thrifty Food Plan (a diet plan intended to provide adequate nutrition at a minimal cost). For all other households, the monthly SNAP benefit equals the maximum benefit for that household size minus the household's expected contribution.
The maximum amount available for a single person is $200 per month, or $6.67 per day.
Now, whether the government should actually provide food stamps is a much broader debate. That it provides food stamps to (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/food-stamps-thanksgiving-record_n_2170779.html) 42.4 million Americans is a disquieting reminder that the American economy remains weak as the welfare state expands.
TOS Blog Update: Mars, Carbon Tax, Hostess, and More
November 30, 2012
Here I link to my recent blog entries for (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) The Objective Standard. See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/tos/) TOS category for a complete listing of my work for TOS.
November 7, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/if-republicans-want-to-win-they-must-embrace-individual-rights/) If Republicans Want to Win, They Must Embrace Individual Rights
November 10, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/virginians-vote-to-defend-property-rights/) Virginians Vote to Defend Property Rights
November 12, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/ijs-mcnamara-defends-rights-of-cab-companies-to-do-business/) IJ's McNamara Defends Rights of Cab Companies to do Business
November 20, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/rights-violating-union-laws-threaten-to-kill-hostess/) Rights-Violating Union Laws Threaten to Kill Hostess
November 23, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/) The Crucial Distinction Between Subsidies and Tax Cuts
November 25, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/does-reason-support-a-carbon-tax/) Does Reason Support a Carbon Tax?
November 27, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/stem-cell-research-offers-new-hope-for-repairing-brain-damage/) Stem Cell Research Offers New Hope for Repairing Brain Damage
November 29, 2012
(http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/spacex-founder-musk-envisions-mars-colony-potential-value-is-immense/) SpaceX Founder Musk Envisions Mars Colony: Potential Value is Immense
In Sandy Hook's Wake, We All Agree…
December 17, 2012
Obviously Americans are going to debate various laws following the horrific mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary. But before I get into that, I thought it would be useful to briefly review some of those things about which we all agree.
We agree we should seek to aid and comfort, in whatever ways we can, the families and friends of the victims. The nation mourns the loss of these innocent children and adults. The mass murder at Sandy Hook was horrific. Those murdered lost the rest of their lives. The families and friends of the victims have suffered, and will continue to suffer, unspeakable pain. We cannot take that pain away, but we can try to comfort those afflicted.
We all agree that, whatever the surrounding circumstances, this evil act was perpetrated by a single individual. He could have made different choices than the ones he made, but he did not.
We all agree that the government should take appropriate steps to prosecute criminals and try to prevent crimes. (Many of us will disagree about what constitutes appropriate action.) We agree the government should pay special attention to those who have committed violent crimes in the past—and to those who have signaled an interest in committing violent crimes in the future.
We agree that we love America, and we love living in America, whatever problems the nation faces, and whatever disputes arise among her citizens.
When I saw various newspapers, prominent web pages, and political leaders laying out their political agendas within hours (and in some cases within minutes) of the atrocity at Sandy Creek, I knew we were in for some contentious debates. I thought it was important at the outset to remember those important things about which we agree.
Entering the Gun Debate
December 19, 2012
Note: The following commentary originally was included in the article, "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/12/denver-post-publishes-misleading-assault/) Denver Post Publishes Misleading 'Assault Weapons' Story."
The mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary horrified the nation. The pain of that loss of innocent life is immediate and overwhelming, for everyone in the country, and most especially for the community hit by the violence. There is not a light heart or a dry eye in the country.
In my view, this is the absolute worst time to hold political debates invoking that atrocity, for two reasons. First, we should be focusing on grieving the loss of the victims and, as best we can, comforting their friends and family. Second, policy decisions should be based on calm deliberation, not raw emotions. This just isn't the right time for politics.
And yet that ship has sailed. Within hours—indeed, within minutes—of the murders, activists and media outlets around the nation began calling for stricter gun laws. Various leftist commentators indignantly rejected the idea that we should wait to hold the debate about guns until the dead are buried and we've all had some time to emotionally process these horrific murders.
And now the one-sided "debate" about gun laws is ubiquitous. I heard it on NPR this evening. I saw it on the cover of USA Today this morning. Certainly those advocating more-restrictive gun laws are raring to go. Frankly, I find their politicization of these horrific murders troubling.
And yet what I am to do? Obviously I am not going to stop the debate by refraining from entering it. Right now, gun owners and gun-rights advocates are being tried in absentia, in a kangaroo court created by the mass media. So I see little choice but to enter the debate.
I begin by (http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/12/denver-post-publishes-misleading-assault/) criticizing an article penned by Allison Sherry of the Denver Post. My reply is in the form of an open letter.
Denver Post Publishes Misleading "Assault Weapons" Story
December 19, 2012
Note: Commentary originally preceding the article below now appears in a separate post, "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2012/12/entering-the-gun-debate/) Entering the Gun Debate."
Dear Ms. Sherry,
Readers of the Denver Post are well aware of your newspaper's political agenda to pass more restrictive gun laws.
However, I would hope that the news pages would refrain from editorializing, offer relevant context, and seek to inform rather than mislead the reader.
I read with interest your article of today (December 18), "(http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/12/18/perlmutter-lead-assault-weapons-ban-effort-house-congress/87360/) Perlmutter to lead assault-weapons ban effort in the House in next Congress." Congressman Ed Perlmutter represents my district, so I am keen to hear what he is up to.
Unfortunately, your article was misleading in two important ways, and biased in an additional way.
First, although you discuss "assault weapons," you give no indication of what that means. Traditionally, the term "assault weapon" applied to fully-automatic guns. Now advocates of restrictive gun laws use that term to refer to semi-automatic guns with arbitrarily defined cosmetic features that are irrelevant to the gun's basic operation. A rifle arbitrarily categorized as an "assault" rifle functions the same basic way as any semi-automatic rifle. It is unfortunate that your article gave no indication of this context.
Second, although you mention Perlmutter's proposed "assault-weapons ban," you offer no direct indication that what he has in mind is a ban on the sale and importation, rather than the possession, of so-called "assault" guns. You indicate this only by referencing the expired "assault weapons ban" that banned sale and importation, but many readers are unaware of what that expired law covered. As should be obvious, there is an enormous difference between banning the sale and importation of "assault" guns, and banning their possession. The latter involves the confiscation by police agents (probably themselves armed with "assault weapons") of people's guns.
Third, you use biased language with respect to Representative Diana DeGette's proposed "ban on high capacity ammunition clips." (This is aside from the fact that that what you actually mean to refer to here is a "magazine," which is very different from a "clip.") What Ms. DeGette regards as a "high capacity" magazine, I usually regard as a "normal capacity" magazine. For example, many semi-automatic handguns owned for self-defense readily and naturally (due to their size) accept a magazine that holds more than ten rounds (which is the arbitrary cut-off I presume DeGette has in mind). The appropriate term for a magazine that fits naturally and easily into a given gun is "normal capacity." I suggest that, rather than use the evaluative terms "high" or "normal" with respect to the size of gun magazines, you simply report what the law in question proposes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong
Three Debate Tips for Those Calling for More Gun Restrictions
December 20, 2012
If you think politicians should pass (and law enforcement agents and bureaucrats should enforce) more laws restricting the sale and/or possession of guns among the general population, then you and I are on opposite sides of that debate. However, my goal here is to help you to more effectively argue your position.
Why would I do that? I'm tired of the irrationality and ignorance surrounding the issue. I believe that, given a reasoned debate, my side will prevail. I grant to you the courtesy of presuming that you believe the same thing about your side. So, if we both want a reasoned debate, what can you do to present reasonable arguments in support of your position?
1. Stop demonizing America's millions of gun owners.
Not only is the tactic of demonizing (and scapegoating) gun owners unjust and intellectually dishonest, it is strategically stupid on your part. Gun owners tend to be wealthier and more politically active. If you really want to mobilize millions of people against your position, the best thing you can do is subject them to vicious name-calling and unjust character attacks.
To offer a personal example of how this works, after I read some idiot on Twitter call the National Rifle Association a "terrorist" organization, I purchased a (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp) five-year membership to the NRA. (I was a member many years ago but let my membership lapse mostly due to disagreements over political strategy.) I regard the NRA as the nation's oldest civil-rights organization, and if its critics persist on maligning it, I'll seriously consider upgrading to the $1,000 lifetime membership.
2. Don't confuse faux self-righteousness with an argument.
Many advocates of restrictive gun laws have thought very carefully about the relevant issues. Unfortunately, many have not.
I understand that people get emotional over guns. But don't expect your rage to persuade me that your policy proposals are a good idea.
Consider the following argument: "If the perpetrator of a mass shooting had not had a gun, he would not have been able to commit the mass murder (with a gun); therefore, the government should restrict everyone's access to a gun." If, without further reasoning or evidence, you find that argument compelling, I suggest that you are not thinking at all seriously about the issues at stake. You are instead grasping at pretexts to rationalize your emotionalist commitment.
At a minimum, to seriously grapple with the issues at hand, you need to seriously consider the following questions:
- What will proposed gun restrictions mean for the many thousands of (http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens) Americans who use a gun in self defense each year?
- If criminals have no fear (or less fear) that their potential victims might be armed, won't criminals be more likely to commit more crimes?
- Is it a good idea to expend police resources enforcing laws impacting every existing or potential gun owner, rather than use those resources to target actual or likely criminals?
- How will you prevent criminals from buying guns on the black market or switching to other weapons?
- Even if you can prevent (some) criminals from obtaining guns, if you also prevent their intended victims (who tend to be physically smaller) from obtaining guns, are you not giving the advantage to the criminals in many contexts?
- Is it a good idea to create what William Burroughs (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/) warned against, "a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military?" If that's not your goal, what is?
Please understand that what I am asking for here is not an unresponsive or fact-free sound-bite. I've heard plenty of those. I'm asking that you seriously grapple with questions such as these and formulate your arguments (and your policy proposals) accordingly.
3. Learn something about guns.
I understand that many advocates of restrictive gun laws know a great deal about guns. Unfortunately, many know nothing or close to nothing about guns.
If you have little or no idea what are the answers to such questions as the following, then why should I believe that you are remotely competent to help craft the nation's gun laws?
- What's the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic gun?
- Are automatic guns currently legal in the United States?
- What's the difference between a rifle and a shotgun?
- What is a revolver?
- What is a magazine as used in a semi-automatic gun?
- With respect to guns, to what does "9 mm" and ".223 caliber" refer?
If you have never fired a gun, I suggest that you find a competent instructor and actually go shoot a gun. You might learn something useful about guns—and about gun owners. And you might even learn something useful about yourself.
If you take my three tips to heart, you will more effectively argue for your position in favor of more restrictive gun laws (for the general population). As someone who opposes that agenda, I'm okay with that. Because I believe that, the more reasonable your position becomes, the more it will shift to look like my position. At least we'll each be able to see more clearly where the other side is coming from. And may the best case win.
The $40 Security Solution for Colorado Schools—That Would Actually Work
December 22, 2012
We don't need Wayne LaPierre's crazy and expensive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/remarks-from-the-nra-press-conference-on-sandy-hook-school-shooting-delivered-on-dec-21-2012-transcript/2012/12/21/bd1841fe-4b88-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html) idea for Congress "to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation."
Colorado law already allows schools to invite those with lawfully permitted concealed handguns into their halls—if schools do it the right way.
Statute 18-12-214 (in Part 2 of Article 12) states:
(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. . . .
(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:
(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty . . .
Obviously this law does not apply to private schools, only to "public" ones. So private schools may already invite armed administrators, teachers, parents, and guests to carry concealed handguns on campus. What about "public" schools?
Colorado law allows "public" schools to bring in "security officers" "retained by contract" by the district. The law is non-specific as to how much a security officer must be paid. So my plan is simply for a school to hire 40 (or so) concealed-carry permit holders—parents, retired police officers, military veterans, etc.—at a dollar each per year, to take shifts patrolling the school. I pulled 40 out of the air because that would enable two people to take a shift for a single day each month. Essentially this would be a volunteer service, but the participants would be officially declared "contracted security officers" for purposes of complying with the law.
A better solution would be to revise the law giving individual "public" schools the authority to allow those with concealed carry permits to carry their handguns into schools. Even better would be to allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to carry their handgun into any "public" school—as Utah already (http://www.defenseactions.com/utahconcealedcarry/cfp-faqs) allows.
Of course, I am a big advocate of good training (such as my father Linn provides in Grand Junction) for everyone who carries a concealed handgun.
We all know that allowing more responsible adults to carry their concealed handguns into the schools would make schools safer. Even leftists who decry the idea know that it would work. (That said, we ought not lose context about this; the chances of being victimized by a mass murderer at a school remain extremely low, despite the high-profile atrocities.) We all also know that Colorado's "public" schools probably will not allow more responsible adults to carry their guns inside the schools. The politics simply won't allow it—even though it would obviously improve safety at minimal cost.
Update: As has become evident in the comments, obviously willing and trained teachers and administrators could be declared "security officers" as well. Indeed, if ONLY teachers and administrators were allowed to carry concealed handguns in their schools, that would be a huge help, again for minimal expense.