Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use

Ari Armstrong's 2016 Posts

Following are consolidated blog posts I wrote in 2016, republished here on August 18, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. I may not in every case still agree with my older positions. Some content consists of comments by others, as marked. 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 Ted Cruz, religion, ebooks, presidential politics, egalitarianism, Donald Trump, libertarianism, primaries, Islam, Alex Epstein, poverty, minimum wage, law ethics, liberalism, right to die, involuntary servitude, Colorado politics, the electoral college, the Amazon tax, Ayn Rand, environmentalism, and more.

Reason and Rights Republicans

January 16, 2016

Is political activism a total waste of time in today's context, or is there something that reasonable, liberty-loving, reality-oriented people can do that might actually make a difference in the political realm?

Minor-party politics in today's context is a total waste of time. You'd be better off doing practically anything else than squandering resources on minor-party activism.

So what is my alternative? First, let me point out that political activism is not a mandatory activity. It's far more important to educate people about individual rights and free markets than to engage in partisan politics. That said, I do think it's possible to accomplish real and significant political goals and to use party politics as an educational tool.

I loathe today's Republican Party—which is why I've recently rejoined it. I am sick and tired of theocratic conservatives and immigrant-hating, anti-market nativists ruining what used to be the party of Lincoln.

A big part of why the GOP has degenerated in recent decades is that many liberty advocates have abandoned it. Some joined the Libertarian Party (as I did), which is worse than useless, and some left politics altogether.

In today's context, I think there's really only one feasible political strategy for moving the country in a freer direction: Rejoin the Republican Party and turn it into the party of individual rights and free markets. No, this is not an easy task. But do not offer as an "alternative" a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that cannot possibly work (such as starting a new party without any resources or support by major political figures). There is no silver bullet. There is only hard work and countless hours of advocacy.

The alternative to my approach is to do nothing—or worse, to do nothing while pretending to do something. We are past the point in this country when self-delusion is an excusable political stance. We need to get serious, and we need to get serious now.

What I now call myself, having recently rejoined the Republican Party, is a "Reason and Rights Republican." I think that name aptly captures the essentials of my political position. I hope you will join me. We've got work to do.

My article from December on "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/the-needed-political-realignment/) The Needed Political Realignment" has more of my thoughts on these matters. (Note: I originally wrote this post for (https://www.facebook.com/AriArmstrongWriter/posts/1203273146369444) Facebook.

May 27, 2016, Update: Originally, before the phrase "minor party politics," I had included the sentence, "Recently I've been made aware of the so-called American Capitalist Party, which, so far as I can tell, is like the Libertarian Party in purpose except even more hopelessly inept and inconsequential." I included this note at bottom: "I'm aware that the Capitalist Party has a different ideological stance than the Libertarian Party, but the purpose is the same in terms of its basic political strategy of trying to create an alternative to the GOP." But I was wrong in my characterization of this effort. Through Twitter exchanges with one of its cofounders (Mark Pellegrino), I gleaned that it's more like a "model party," not with the purpose of running candidates or drawing liberty activists out of the Republican Party (at least at this point), but of helping to educate people about the nature of capitalism. That's an effort I can totally get behind; (http://theamericancapitalistparty.com) read about it online.

See also my follow-up articles "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) Why Liberty Advocates Should Join the Republican Party, Not Abandon It, Despite Trump" and "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/when-and-how-to-be-a-political-activist-for-liberty/) When and How to Be a Political Activist for Liberty."

Ted Cruz Touts Support of Anti-Gay Bigot Phil Robertson

February 4, 2016

"Bad company corrupts good character," the Greeks observed (and the apostle Paul quoted). It also corrupts a political campaign. And Ted Cruz, in his zeal to win the support of evangelical voters, has kept terrible company.

First Cruz actively participated in an event at which the lead pastor openly discussed possible future government executions of homosexuals (among others), after they've had time to "repent." At the same event, another pastor distributed literature advocating the death penalty for homosexuals. Then Cruz touted the endorsement of a man whose book sanctions government execution of abortion providers. (See my previous article, "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats.")

By comparison, Phil Robertson is a lightweight bigot and theocrat. Still, it is disturbing that Cruz openly courts Robertson's support and puts Robertson on stage at his political rallies to endorse him.

Robertson gained infamy in 2013 with his bigoted remarks about homosexuals in an (http://www.gq.com/story/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson) interview with GQ. In describing what he regards as sinful, Robertson said:

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

So, according to Robertson, homosexuals should be lumped in with people who have sex with animals, people who cheat on their spouses, drunks, swindlers, and the like.

He helpfully added,

We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job. We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus—whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?

So homosexuals are also morally akin to people who commit mass murder, according to Robertson.

Remember, that was in 2013. A sober, responsible candidate for the highest political office in the land might think to himself, "Robertson has proven himself to be a bigot and a loose canon. I don't think I want to actively associate with him for purposes of my political campaign."

But Ted Cruz is not a sober, responsible candidate, and apparently he places no boundaries on the company he keeps—if he thinks it will get him votes.

Rather than keep a respectful distance from Robertson, on January 13 (https://www.tedcruz.org/news/phil-robertson-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/) Cruz bragged that he had picked up his endorsement. Cruz even released a video of Robertson endorsing him, complete with the two duck hunting together. (Robertson is known for his role on the "reality" television show, Duck Dynasty.) Cruz said, "I am thrilled to have Phil's support for our campaign. The Robertson's [sic] are a strong family of great Christian faith and conservative values."

Robertson's "great Christian faith" was on full display on January 31, when he (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/31/politics/ted-cruz-phil-robertson-gay-marriage-iowa/) spoke at a Cruz rally, backdropped by a Ted Cruz campaign sign. Robertson said:

When a fellow like me looks at the landscape and sees the depravity, the perversion—redefining marriage and telling us that marriage is not between a man and a woman? Come on Iowa! It is nonsense. It is evil. It's wicked. It's sinful. They want us to swallow it, you say. We have to run this bunch out of Washington, D.C. We have to rid the earth of them. Get them out of there.

Now, it's one thing to oppose gay marriage in law or to oppose the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. But it's another thing to declare that gay marriage is "depravity," "perversion," "evil," and "wicked"; to declare that Christians should "rid the earth" of those who endorse gay marriage.

Given Robertson's previous comments, his vile remarks at Cruz's rally come as no surprise. Cruz knew the sorts of things that Robertson likely would say, and Cruz invited him to say them—because Cruz thought that Robertson saying them would attract a certain type of voter to Cruz's side.

Of course, I recognize that Cruz himself would never say the sort of things that Robertson says about homosexuals. By leaving it to others to rile up the worst elements of his evangelical base, Cruz apparently hopes to keep his hands clean for the general election.

I also recognize that Cruz has (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ellen-page-confronts-ted-cruz-iowa-state-fair-lgbt-issues-121615) come out strongly against Islamist regimes that execute homosexuals, calling that murder. (It's not like it's a hard sell among evangelicals to say that Islamic theocracies are bad.)

Cruz has a point about the the problem of drawing specious moral equivalencies, contrasting Christian bakers with murderous Islamist regimes. To extend his point, an Islamist theocrat who murders homosexuals certainly is orders of magnitude worse than a Christian theocrat who projects the possibility of a Christian government murdering homosexuals, who in turn is worse than a Christian theocrat who seeks to publicly shame homosexuals.

But the fact that the sort of people with whom Cruz chooses to associate politically are not nearly as bad as the worst scum now walking the earth is hardly a point in Cruz's favor.

Ted Cruz is running for president of the United States, the most powerful political office on the planet. As an ally and a spokesman at his political rally, Cruz chooses Phil Robertson, knowing full well that he will spew anti-gay bigotry. This sort of pandering is the political strategy by which Cruz hopes to become commander of the most awesome military force in human history. I suggest that the opportunity for gay couples to get married is not the real problem here.

April 27 Update: Following is my entire "Ted Cruz and Religion" cycle. Please note that my views about Cruz evolved considerably over time. Although I'm still very concerned about Cruz's positions on abortion (and related matters) and his alliances with theocratic-leaning conservatives, I've also come to appreciate more deeply his many virtues, including his partial endorsement of the principle of separation of church and state. I became active in Republican politics toward the end of 2015, and I came to support Cruz over Donald Trump for the nomination.

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/why-i-will-vote-for-any-democrat-over-ted-cruz/) Why I Will Vote for Any Democrat over Ted Cruz

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/voting-political-activism-and-taking-a-stand/) Voting, Political Activism, and Taking a Stand

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) Yes, Ted Cruz's Policies Would Outlaw Some Forms of Birth Control

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) Ted Cruz Would Ban Abortion Even for Rape Victims

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-touts-support-of-anti-gay-bigot-phil-robertson/) Ted Cruz Touts Support of Anti-Gay Bigot Phil Robertson

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/republican-religion-undermines-capitalism/) Republican Religion Undermines Capitalism

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/ted-cruzs-remarkable-nod-to-the-separation-of-church-and-state/) Ted Cruz's Remarkable Nod to the Separation of Church and State

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats
• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) Ted Cruz Would Ban Abortion Even for Rape Victims
• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) Yes, Ted Cruz's Policies Would Outlaw Some Forms of Birth Control

How Publishers Can Make Ebooks More Reader Friendly

February 5, 2016

I am now around twenty-five thousand words into a book project (details to come), and I've already given some thought to the book's packaging. In today's world, "packaging" includes ebook formatting as well as print design.

My goal is to format my book, both in print and in ebook, so that it is as reader-friendly as possible. Unfortunately, most other publishers fail miserably at that task. Here I offer my ideas for improving today's books as published in multiple formats.

First, as a point of contrast, I'll mention a bad experience I had recently with book formatting. I purchased Blackwell's (extremely expensive) A Companion to Ayn Rand, an excellent book in every way except for its ebook formatting. (I purchased the Kindle edition as the print version is even more outrageously expensive.)

So what's wrong with the book? It is sloppily formatted, for one thing; a number of the endnote markers do not properly link to the notes. That's not too big a deal, but you'd think that for an asking price of $43.99 the publisher would go out of its way to provide a clean text.

The book has two more important problems.

First, it provides parenthetical citations in the text along with a list of references. In the print version, running down a complete citation, then, means flipping back and forth from the parenthetical citations to the references section—which is annoying. Things are even worse when using the ebook, as it's not easy to flip back and forth to the references section. My solution to this—an imperfect solution—was to load the same book on my mobile device as well as on my desktop so that I could look at two sections at once. If an ebook requires the simultaneous use of two different devices to read it, that's an indication the ebook is badly formatted.

Second, the book does not indicate page numbers. I'm just not going to use Kindle "locations" for a citation; doing so would be ridiculous. There needs to be some standardized way to cite passages from a book—which means (usually) the use of real page numbers. Several years ago (http://ariarmstrong.com/2010/11/a-plea-for-book-publishers-to-include-page-numbers-in-digital-formats/) I outlined a very simple way for publishers to include real page numbers in ebooks, but, to my knowledge, no publisher (except me) has done this. (This is more relevant to nonfiction books.)

I want to emphasize here that Companion is a very good book as far as its contents go; my complaints here pertain only to the ebook formatting of it.

For my own project, I've already written a preliminary draft of a little section on formatting. I might revise this text for my purposes, but I thought the draft might offer some ideas to other publishers struggling to figure out how to produce a book that translates well from the printed page to a free-flowing ebook. Here's the relevant text:

Page Numbers: In free-flowing ebook versions (as opposed to the print version and the pdf), I have inserted page numbers in the text in subscripted brackets so as to allow for standardized citations. I find it extremely irritating that other publishers do not offer clear page breaks in ebooks. I realize that Kindle does offer a way to roughly track pages relative to the printed version; however, this does not clearly indicate where pages begin and end. (A representative from Amazon confirmed to me that this is the case; see (https://twitter.com/ariarmstrong/status/686932278153318400) our exchange.)

Citation Style: In all cases I include all of the relevant information (such as the publisher) in a citation. I realize this creates some redundancy; however, I find the alternatives even more annoying. I strongly dislike the practice of using abbreviated citations in the text and then listing all the works cited elsewhere. As a reader, that causes me to look in two different places to figure out how to run down a given reference—something that's especially hard to do when using an ebook. I also dislike using "ibid" or truncated citations after the first reference; again, that causes me to waste time looking through the notes for what I need.

Citation Placement: In a pdf or on a printed page, I strongly prefer that endnotes appear at the bottom of the page, so that I do not have to continually flip back and forth. (This doesn't work well for authors who run on in their notes.) However, with ebook versions in which text flows freely, it is not feasible to display the text and the citations simultaneously. My solution to this is to put the citations at the bottom of the page in print and in the pdf and at the back in free-flowing ebook versions. With free-flowing ebooks, then, readers can go back and forth between the text and the notes by using the internal links. In order to keep straight on which printed page an endnote appears, in the free-flowing ebooks I add the relevant page number in brackets next to the endnote. Again, this facilitates standardized citations.

Ebook Formats: This work is available for sale only through Amazon in print and Kindle. However, I recognize that some readers might prefer a pdf or epub version of the text. As a courtesy, when feasible and at my discretion, I will send purchasers of the print or Kindle version the other versions as well. If you would like me to consider emailing you a zipped file containing the various ebook versions, please email me at [omitted]; with your request, include proof of purchase from Amazon and a statement that you will not share the files with any other party without my explicit, written permission.

No Index: I am not including an index with this work, as I doubt indexes usually are useful given modern technology. As noted above, purchasers of the print book may request the ebook files as well, so they can use standard digital search functions to locate particular names and terms. Although I can imagine scenarios in which an index might be more useful than a simple digital search, I didn't think it would be more useful here. Another reason not to include an index is that indexes do not translate well to free-flowing ebooks.

A Note to Other Publishers: If you read the remarks above, you'll notice that I actually paid attention to the needs of ebook readers along with the needs of print readers and modified the text accordingly. I sincerely wish that other publishers would make similar efforts rather than waste my time (and other readers' time) with stupidly formatted texts. Most publishers seem not to have figured out yet that it's the Twenty-First Century.

September 30, 2016 Update: In my book (http://amzn.to/2dxpvc9) Reclaiming Liberalism and Other Essays on Personal and Economic Freedom, I offered a modified version of the plan described above, as described in the publication notes:

To facilitate standardized citations of this book, ebook editions include subscripted, bracketed numbers corresponding to the beginning of pages in the print edition. (The ebook is free-flowing, so of course a bracketed number may appear anywhere on a display screen.)

The print edition uses footnotes, so each note appears at the bottom of the page on which its note marker appears (and no note splits between pages). In ebook editions, the notes appear together near the end, and hyperlinks shuttle between note markers and notes. To reduce the need to flip pages, each note includes all of the relevant citation information, except where "ibid." or an abbreviated citation could be substituted on the same printed page.

Republican Religion Undermines Capitalism

February 23, 2016

Perhaps the most important thing Ted Cruz has done this political season is to solidify in many people's minds the supposed link between capitalism and religion. This is important—and bad—because, logically, capitalism is based not on religious faith, but on secular reason. By trying to defend free-market capitalism on religious grounds, Cruz and his fellow evangelical Republicans discredit capitalism in the minds of many (otherwise) pro-reason secularists. (Capitalism refers, not to cronyism, but to a political-economic system based on individual rights, including property rights, in which government bans the initiation of force.)

Of all the Republican presidential candidates this year, Cruz is the most pro-capitalist, at least on a number of important issues. Consider a few examples. In opposing ObamaCare, (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/ted-cruz-and-atlas-shrugged-against-obamacare/) Cruz quoted Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged on the floor of the senate. He (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429906/ted-cruzs-ethanol-stand-defies-industry-bipartisan-tradition) opposed ethanol subsidies while campaigning in Iowa, illustrating his opposition to cronyism. He (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/07/ted-cruz-champions-right-free-speech/) defended the right of free speech of individuals who participate in organizations, including corporations.

Cruz is also perhaps the most overtly religious of the candidates. In (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-ted-cruzs-speech-at-liberty-university/2015/03/23/41c4011a-d168-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html) announcing his candidacy at the evangelical Liberty University, Cruz said the "promise of America" is that "our rights don't come from man; they come from God Almighty"—ignoring the possibility that rights derive from facts of human existence. (He is hardly alone in expressing this sentiment; for example, Marco Rubio emphatically (https://marcorubio.com/videos/our-rights-come-from-god/) proclaims that "our rights come from God.") Cruz (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) openly allies himself with evangelical Christians who seriously discuss the possibility of government executing homosexuals and abortion providers. He campaigns with (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-touts-support-of-anti-gay-bigot-phil-robertson/) one after (http://www.newsweek.com/cruz-true-libertarian-only-first-glance-427707) another evangelical anti-gay bigots. On religious grounds, he would (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) outlaw abortion and even some forms of (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) birth control.

With his combination of views, Cruz strongly associates capitalist economics with religious faith. He is hardly alone in this. Thus, it should not be surprising that, today in America, neither religious conservatives nor secularists often question the alleged connection between religion and capitalism.

Consider an example from the secularist side. Evolutionary biologist and atheist Jerry Coyne, whom I respect for his work in biology, (https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/a-brief-note-on-equality/) writes, "[I]f I could do two things to make America a less religious society (which would in turn make it more accepting of evolution), it would be to have truly universal healthcare and to drastically reduce income inequality." In other words, in Coyne's view, capitalism buttresses America's religiosity, and dismantling aspects of capitalism would undermine America's religiosity.

Of course, Coyne's claims on this point are ridiculous. True, more-secular regions of Europe tend to have more of a welfare state than does the United States, but there's nothing about secularism per se that supports such politics. On the other hand, highly religious South America often embraces socialism—witness Venezuela. Here in the U.S., both leftists and conservatives routinely embrace the welfare state on religious grounds (although they often disagree over details).

Coyne doesn't actually offer any argument as to why a less capitalist society would become less religious; he, like religious conservatives, just blithely assumes that capitalism must be related to religion.

In fact, there is no reason to think that capitalism is based on religion. Certainly no such reason can be found in religious texts or moral teachings. For example, the Christian Old Testament sanctions (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/20.htm) bloody conquest and (http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-20.htm) slavery; the New Testament (http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm) rails against wealth and promotes (http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/8-13.htm) collectivist communes. Religious morality centers on altruism: self-sacrifice for the sake of promoting religion and serving others. That is why the Catholic Church, for example, routinely publishes texts condemning capitalism, the system sanctioning the pursuit of rational self-interest.

Capitalism, and the theories of individual rights on which it is based, came about not during eras when religion dominated politics, but when Enlightenment ideals of reason and earthly advance put religion on the defensive. Capitalism is rooted in the pursuit of individual happiness and well-being on earth, not in seeking rewards in a purported afterlife.

Increasingly, Americans see the major political divide, not as between individual rights and statism, but between theocracy and socialism (two forms of statism). (Donald Trump, a pragmatist concerned with "dealing" in power, offers yet another form of statism.) Ted Cruz, although not a theocrat himself (except when it comes to abortion), openly panders to outright theocrats. And Bernie Sanders openly calls himself a socialist, while 57 percent of Democratic primary (http://www.scribd.com/doc/300039118/AAN-Poll-of-Progressives-on-Socialism) voters think socialism has had a "positive impact on society"—despite the slaughter of scores of millions of people under socialism. These trends are extraordinarily dangerous—and they open the door not only to theocracy and to socialism but to a blend of the two.

Ayn Rand aptly summarizes the underlying problem:

[Conservatives] claim that mysticism—a belief in God—provides the justification for rights, freedom and capitalism. Nothing could be more disastrous to the cause of capitalism. . . . Tying capitalism to faith means that capitalism cannot be justified in reason. A conservative who claims that his case rests on faith declares that reason is on the side of his enemies—that one can oppose collectivism only on the grounds of mystical faith. To the extent that anyone accepts this argument, he is forced to reject capitalism—if he is a man who wants to be rational. Therefore, these alleged defenders of capitalism are pushing potential sympathizers to the exact opposite side. (Objectively Speaking, p. 16, emphasis removed)

Whenever Cruz, Rubio, and other evangelicals promote capitalism, such promotion is a double-edged sword—and the side cutting against capitalism is the sharper one. By tying capitalism to religious faith, they help break the link in people's minds between capitalism and reason, despite the logical and historical dependence of capitalism on philosophic ideas promoting reason. Pro-reason capitalists should be duly wary—and worried.

April 27 Update: Following is my entire "Ted Cruz and Religion" cycle. Please note that my views about Cruz evolved considerably over time. Although I'm still very concerned about Cruz's positions on abortion (and related matters) and his alliances with theocratic-leaning conservatives, I've also come to appreciate more deeply his many virtues, including his partial endorsement of the principle of separation of church and state. I became active in Republican politics toward the end of 2015, and I came to support Cruz over Donald Trump for the nomination.

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/why-i-will-vote-for-any-democrat-over-ted-cruz/) Why I Will Vote for Any Democrat over Ted Cruz

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/voting-political-activism-and-taking-a-stand/) Voting, Political Activism, and Taking a Stand

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) Yes, Ted Cruz's Policies Would Outlaw Some Forms of Birth Control

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) Ted Cruz Would Ban Abortion Even for Rape Victims

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-touts-support-of-anti-gay-bigot-phil-robertson/) Ted Cruz Touts Support of Anti-Gay Bigot Phil Robertson

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/republican-religion-undermines-capitalism/) Republican Religion Undermines Capitalism

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/ted-cruzs-remarkable-nod-to-the-separation-of-church-and-state/) Ted Cruz's Remarkable Nod to the Separation of Church and State

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats
• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-touts-support-of-anti-gay-bigot-phil-robertson/) Ted Cruz Touts Support of Anti-Gay Bigot Phil Robertson
• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) Yes, Ted Cruz's Policies Would Outlaw Some Forms of Birth Control
• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) Ted Cruz Would Ban Abortion Even for Rape Victims

Reflections on the Presidential Race after Super Tuesday

March 3, 2016

I long thought that Barack Obama would turn out to be the most destructive president in my lifetime (although George W. Bush in many ways set the stage for him). Obama weakened the United States around the world, took half-hearted measures to slow the rise of Islamic terrorism, strengthened Iran's nuclear ambitions, put health care on the path to total government control, stoked the fires of the politics of envy, and more.

I probably was wrong about Obama being the most destructive.

The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders indicates that Obama may be just the latest excursion down a long road of destruction. If neither Trump nor Sanders wins the presidency, as I suspect neither will, we may gain a few years of reprieve. We may even earn the chance to set America back on the path toward the realization of individual rights and toward unthrottled economic advance.

But, as I watch my infant son, I fear for his future. When he is my age roughly four decades from now, what will the United States look like? Will it look more like Greece does today, more like Putin's Russia, more like a Christian theocracy? Or will it look more like the land of liberty promised by the Declaration of Independence? The choices we make now will play a major role in determining the outcome.

Trump: The New Hoover

Start with Trump. Donald Trump is a fascist in roughly the same sense that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Trump is no more a Mussolini than Sanders is a Stalin. Yet Trump expresses watered-down national socialism just as Sanders expresses watered-down Marxism. As I recently Tweeted, the fact that Louis Farrakhan, Vladamir Putin, and David Duke all have nice things to say about Trump should make a reasonable person nervous about him.

I do get the appeal of Trump at a certain level. In a world of university "safe zones," adult cry-babies, and robotically delivered political talking points, Trump has an air of brash confidence that says to hell with political correctness.

Yet Trump's war against political correctness is superficial. He merely wants to trade one sort of political correctness for another. Recently (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/) Trump declared, "If I become president, oh do [media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post] have problems. . . . One of the things I'm going to do if I win . . . is I'm going to open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles [as judged by Trump], we can sue them and win lots of money." In other words, Trump calls for a new form of political correctness, backed by the guns of government, that cracks down on criticism of a Trump-controlled federal government. This tactic is no different, in principle, than the Obama administration using the IRS to crack down on conservative groups. (See (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-albatross-of-a-trump-endorsement/2016/02/28/0521c478-de54-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html) George Will's recent column for more about this and other matters.)

The other main argument for Trump is that he is a wealthy and successful businessman. Aside from the facts that (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house) Trump has used eminent domain to take people's property by force and that he has used the (http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/news/companies/donald-trump-bankruptcy/) bankruptcy laws four times to screw his creditors, Trump's business background does not qualify him for the presidency.

The last "great businessman" to become a Republican president was Herbert Hoover, and Hoover was one of the most destructive presidents in U.S. history. Yet no one could question Hoover's business acumen. As Amity Shlaes recounts in The Forgotten Man, "By the time he was twenty-five, Hoover," a mining engineer, "had brought a failing mine to fabulous profitability"; soon he "had turned around the production and the books of mines in the United States, Australia, and China" (p. 28).

Hoover's downfall as president is that he thought government could be managed like a business—just as Trump seems to think. Rather than see government as a tool to protect individuals' rights to pursue their own business, Hoover saw government as a tool to "manage" (i.e., control) business.

One of the most harmful things Hoover did was to fight for the passage of restrictive tariffs on foreign trade—similar to the "trade wars" Trump seems intent to start. In 1930, Shlaes recounts, over one thousand economists urged Hoover to oppose tariffs, pointing out that they would force consumers to pay higher prices and "to subsidize waste and inefficiency in industry" (p. 96). The European director of General Motors wired, "Passage [tariff] bill would spell economic isolation United States and most severe depression ever experienced" (p. 97). Shlaes argues that the stock market crash of 1929 was precipitated, in part, by Hoover's support for proposed tariff legislation (see p. 95).

Hoover's economic government "planning" and disastrous economic policies opened the door to the presidency and the big-government "New Deal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Hoover's ideology is of a piece with FDR's as a form of Marx-inspired economic "progressivism"—just like Trump's is. However much today's leftist "progressives" may decry Trump and rail against him, he will, in fact, advance their agenda in at least certain economic matters. And undoubtedly Trump will seek to extend Obama's legacy of seeking to bypass Congress to get done whatever he wants to get done.

Far from a free-market advocate, Trump is a cronyist who promotes cronyism. This takes nothing away from Trump's legitimate achievements in the business world; it does, however, indicate that Trump's business background hardly qualifies him for the presidency. He far more resembles the villains of Atlas Shrugged than the heroes—not that Trump's supporters care about such trifling things as ideas.

What Now?

Our single-candidate voting system^* (as opposed to something like (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/01/atwood-pitches-approval-voting/) approval voting) seems to have ensured a Trump nomination despite his inability to win majority support among Republican primary voters. The basic problem at this point is that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are splitting the non-Trump vote.

Consider the (http://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/super-tuesday-2016) Super Tuesday results. Trump won Georgia with 39 percent of the vote (rounded, preliminary results), Vermont with 33 percent, Virginia with 35 percent, Alabama with 43 percent, Massachusetts with 49 percent, Tennessee with 39 percent, and Arkansas with 33 percent. Rubio picked up Minnesota, while Cruz won Texas, Alaska, and Oklahoma.

In a two-way race (or with approval voting), Trump almost certainly would not be the Republican nominee.

If Cruz and Rubio cared more about the future of the country than about their own political ambitions, they would immediately join tickets (and obviously if Carson and Kasich cared about the same they would immediately drop out). But I don't expect this.

And a brokered convention seems unlikely. As political scientist (http://www.ibtimes.com/will-republicans-have-brokered-convention-rubio-kasich-have-slim-path-beat-trump-2328187) Harry Wessel told the Internatinal Business Times, a brokered convention is unlikely "after Super Tuesday, [because] more states are winner-take-all," meaning whoever wins the state—even without a majority of support—gets all the delegates.

So it seems extremely likely to me that Donald Trump will be the next Republican nominee for president.

UPDATE: (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/02/so-far-trump-wins-open-primaries-and-cruz-wins-closed-and-the-calendar-is-starting-to-change-toward-more-closed-primaries/) Todd Zywicki and (http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/02/super-tuesdays-results-prove-that-trump-can-be-beaten/) Sean Davis offer some reasons to think that a brokered convention might be a real possibility. Zywicki points out that some upcoming state contests are "closed" to Republican voters, which may favor Cruz. Davis thinks that if Rubio wins Florida that might help deprive Trump of a majority of delegates. Still, at best a brokered convention seems like a long shot.

In my view, Hillary Clinton is the lesser of evils—but that is debatable. It's easy to argue that Clinton and Trump, individually, are evil (by the standard of individual rights), but to say who is more evil may be splitting hairs. Both pose substantial and largely different dangers.

I think Clinton will trounce Trump. True, Trump will win some of Clinton's blue-collar base, but Clinton will win many of those Republican voters who have a shred of self-respect and decency left.

Many Republicans will simply sit home. Meanwhile, the leftist outrage machine will undoubtedly bring out the Democratic vote, not so much to support Clinton, but to beat Trump. (I expect that Obama's Supreme Court nomination will play into this.)

The outcome, I fear, is that Trump may cost the Republicans not only the presidency but other levels of government. Right now (http://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm) Republicans hold a 54 to 44 seat advantage in the U.S. Senate and a (http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/) 247 to 188 seat advantage in the U.S. House. I don't study the ins and outs of election cycles closely enough to know how many of these seats a Trump loss might put at risk. To my mind, the worst-case scenario is a federal government totally controlled by Democrats; Clinton checked by a Republican Congress might not be so bad. (On the other hand, Trump supported by a Republican Congress, if he could achieve it, could be a disaster.)

A Trump loss also could threaten Republican control of various state levels of governments. For example, right now in Colorado, Republicans hold a one-seat lead in the state senate, while Democrats hold the house and the governorship. If enough Colorado Republicans who are irritated with Trump stay home, Democrats easily could pick up the entire state government—which likely would lead to some disastrous policies in the state.

Given the facts about Trump and the likely electoral outcome, it's hard to see support for Trump as anything other than pure nihilism—hatred of "the establishment" (whatever that means) for hatred's sake, supplemented with hatred of foreigners seeking to immigrate or conduct global business.

On Strategy

It is no secret that I am very critical of Cruz's open pandering to theocrats, part of his broader campaign to garner support among evangelicals. (As Yaron Brook pointed out in a series of Tweets, Cruz's central campaign strategy seems not to have worked, as evangelicals support Trump in large numbers.) I summarize and link to my most important articles on the matter in (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/republican-religion-undermines-capitalism/) a recent post.

Back on November 25, I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/why-i-will-vote-for-any-democrat-over-ted-cruz/) declared that, because of Cruz's alliances with theocrats, I would vote for any candidate over him in the general election. However, it has been a long few weeks since then, and the context has changed substantially.

At the time, I thought the chances of Cruz or Trump taking the nomination were slim. Now it seems like Trump almost certainly will take it, and if he doesn't, Cruz will. So do I support Cruz over Trump in the nomination cycle? As Trump backer Sarah Palin might put it, you betcha.

I don't think Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee, so it looks like it will be Clinton against either Trump or Cruz (or maybe Rubio). The question, then, is what to do in the primary?

I think a strategic case can be made for voting for either of the major-party candidates, for a minor-party candidate (but what's the point?), or for no one. All of the likely candidates are horrible.

One thing has changed with respect to my own political strategy in the last few weeks: I've (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/01/reason-and-rights-republicans/) rejoined the Republican Party. I even went to my Colorado precinct caucus meeting March 1 and became an alternate to the county and state conventions. Because of this change in tactics, I'm not going to employ what I call (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/how-you-can-stop-voting-naively-and-start-voting-strategically/) "punishment voting" into the foreseeable future.

I do think a case can be made that voting for Clinton over Cruz would not only be a punishment vote but a lesser-of-evils vote. But I think there is enough about Cruz to like—despite his deep flaws—that if he is the nominee I will vote either for Cruz for no one.

I think an even stronger case can be made that Clinton is a lesser evil than Trump. I certainly will not vote for Trump. Either I will vote for no one or I will vote for Clinton. (Then, as I recently Tweeted, I will take a long, hot shower.)

I am extremely angry that my fellow Republicans have put me (and many others) in a position where I (we) cannot embrace the Republican candidate and must look at a lesser-of-evils vote or a vote for no one. Trump is treating this election like it is a cosmic joke. America's defenders of liberty—the ideological heirs of the Founders—deserve far better. And I will do what I can to see that we get better in future years.

* Originally I had "winner-take-all voting system" here, but that's ambiguous given that some states split delegates. The relevant point here is that voters must choose a single candidate from among a field larger than two, which opens the possibility of the candidate favored by fewer people winning, as seems to be happening with Trump. In other words, many voters probably prefer both Cruz and Rubio to Trump, yet the voting system lets Trump win with minority support.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/the-needed-political-realignment/) The Needed Political Realignment

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/01/reason-and-rights-republicans/) Reason and Rights Republicans

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/republican-religion-undermines-capitalism/) Republican Religion Undermines Capitalism

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a comment

Robert Garmong: Approval Voting

Your idea of approval voting is asking way too much of the American voting public. It might be a nice idea, but it can never be implemented as long as we have the (in my opinion misguided) idea that all and sundry can and should vote.

John Stuart Mill wrote a fascinating exploration of voting policy, called "Considerations on Representative Government." While I disagree with almost everything he said in that, as well as his other works, it is well worth a careful read. Like your idea of approval voting, none of it would ever actually be enacted—but it is interesting to consider how it would work if it were.

—Robert Garmong

Ari Armstrong: Approval Voting

Robert, I'm not convinced that approval voting cannot be implemented. It's separable from who "can and should vote." The main problem is that most people simply haven't considered it before. I think once they do consider it, it will seem pretty obviously better. Usually, I think most people will recognize, it is better to elect a candidate supported by more people rather than by fewer.

If Trump is nominated, there is already talk of forming a new party. So let's say there are three major parties in the near future. In this scenario, a candidate with only a third (plus one) of the support of voters could win, even if two-thirds (minus one) of the voters would prefer either of the other two candidates. That seems pretty obviously like a bad outcome.

—Ari Armstrong

Mike Spalding: Approval Voting

Thanks for mentioning Approval Voting. It is a simple system (vote for the ones you like) that would overcome the continuing lesser of two evils problem. The trend seems that the lesser of two evils is more and more evil. I think Approval Voting could break this trend by allowing voters to express approval of candidates who aren't expected to win.

—Mike Spalding, March 5, 2016

Trump, Cruz, and Freedom of Speech

March 13, 2016

On the evening of March 11, Donald Trump had planned to hold a rally at the UIC Pavilion arena, owned by the University of Illinois at Chicago and (http://chicagoist.com/2016/03/07/donald_trump_is_slated_to.php) rented to Trump for the purpose. Instead, Trump and his campaign team (http://www.npr.org/2016/03/11/470154065/donald-trump-rally-in-chicago-canceled-amid-widespread-protests) cancelled the rally "after chaos and clashes between protesters and attendees overtook the event."

This episode puts me in the position of disapproving of what Trump says—indeed, I loathe the man and nearly everything he says—while defending his right to speak ((http://www.themarysue.com/voltaire-beatrice-evelyn-hall/) a la Voltaire). The silver lining is that, once again, we as Americans have an opportunity to reflect on the meaning of freedom of speech and on its central importance to civic life and to liberty.

Let's begin with the basics. If someone wishes to hold a rally, he has a moral right to do so—on private property. (By contrast, you don't have a right to hold a rally in my back yard without my permission.) And he has a right to set the terms of behavior at the rally, on pain of ejection. Trump has a right to hold a rally just as everyone else does—and anyone who employs violence to stop Trump from speaking thereby violates his rights and the rights of everyone coming to hear him.

In this case there are a few complications. First, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC, as distinguished from the University of Chicago) is a tax-subsidized institution. That means that everyone forced to pay taxes to support the institution is thereby forced to help finance the many instances of speech on that campus—a violation of the taxpayer's right not to speak and not to support speech with which he disagrees.

However, the fact that government forces people to subsidize the university isn't Trump's fault. Given the widespread existence of "public" (i.e., tax-subsidized) property in America—including almost all colleges—we have to have some sensible rules governing the use of that property. We can't just say, "No one really owns it, so therefore anything goes"; that would be total chaos. And Constitutional provisions delimit the use of tax-financed property. In this case, when the university rents Trump a facility for the evening, Trump has the right to use the facility for lawful purposes during that period.

Another complication is that Trump himself has plausibly been accused of (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432729/chicago-trump-incitements-cruz-response) inciting people to violence. He's told his supporters he'd like to "knock the hell" out of protesters and punch a protester "in the face." In fact, some of Trump's supporters have assaulted protesters. (His campaign manager also allegedly roughed up a reporter.)

However, two crimes do not make a right. If Trump incites violence, the proper thing to do is call the police, not engage in more violence. Clearly these protesters' goal, as they (http://www.npr.org/2016/03/13/470237011/this-cant-go-on-in-chicago-says-anti-trump-protester) brag, was not to stop Trump from inciting violence; it was to "shut down" Trump's rally.

A third complication is that rallies are in some sense public events, in that people broadly are invited to attend, and rallies are by their nature raucous. So we don't expect people to be quiet at a rally as we would expect, say, at a classical piano concert. Unless a rally organizer explicitly and clearly announces beforehand that critical messages or remarks are forbidden, they're clearly expected. Indeed, Trump thrives on protesters at his rallies; he is codependent on protesters. So there's nothing wrong merely with protesting Trump at a Trump rally—just as there's nothing wrong if Trump or his team asks protesters to leave. Protesters cross the line when they seek to substantially disrupt a rally, as they did in Chicago. Sometimes these lines can be blurry, but obviously rushing the stage and the like crosses them.

Cruz on Trump

Ted Cruz clearly placed blame for the cancelled rally with the protesters; (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432729/chicago-trump-incitements-cruz-response) he said "the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands."

He then went on to say—correctly—that Trump himself fosters a climate inimical to freedom of speech. Cruz said that Trump's campaign "affirmatively encourages violence," that it faces "allegations of physical violence against members of the press," and therefore that it creates "an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse."

Ignoring the facts that Cruz blamed the protesters and that his remarks about Trump are correct, (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272773-coulter-fox-news-and-cruz-are-traitors) Ann Coulter called him a traitor. Obviously that's ridiculous (but this is Ann Coulter we're talking about). The fact that violent protesters violated the rights of Donald Trump and his supporters does not make Trump immune from criticism.

In fact, (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/07/ted-cruz-champions-right-free-speech/) Ted Cruz is a great champion of freedom of speech; indeed, in my view, that is his greatest strength as a candidate and as a statesman.

Donald Trump: Enemy of Free Speech

Coulter's claim about Cruz is especially ridiculous in light of the fact that Donald Trump himself is an enemy of the right to freedom of speech. As I've mentioned before, (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) Trump threatened to sue media outlets for criticizing him. He also appeared to praised the Chinese government's murderous crackdown at Tiananmen Square regarding the protest Trump called a "riot"; he has since (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/trump-calls-tiananmen-square-protests-riot-defends-calling-crackdown-strong-n536761) softened his rhetoric.

To my mind, Trump's biggest offense here is to blame the victims of Islamic terrorism for the violence with respect to a "Draw Mohammed" event. To review, last year Pamela Geller helped organize a "Draw Mohammed" event in Garland, Texas; two jihadis died in their assault of the event, thankfully with no other casualties. (http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2015/04/i-won-mohammad-cartoon-contests-peoples.html) Bosch Fawstin won the contest with his cartoon showing Mohammed saying, "You can't draw me!" and the illustrator responding, "That's why I draw you."

Far from rushing to defend freedom of speech here, Trump denounced Geller and the cartoonists, (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/04/trump-blames-geller-for-being-attacked-by-jihadis-what-is-she-doing-drawing-muhammad/) saying they were "taunting" the jihadists. As he rushed to blame the victims of the attack, Trump thereby echoed some of the sentiments of those who endorse violent jihad.

By Trump's "logic," Trump's critics are justified in violently shutting down his rallies because he "taunts" them by saying things they find offensive. Obviously Trump's stance here is dangerous nonsense. Trump fails to defend the right to freedom of speech and in some respects openly attacks it; that some of Trump's supporters so boldly project Trump's flaws onto other candidates is stunning.

Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment

The matter of Trump's rally has led to some interesting discussion regarding the relationship of the right to freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

Constitutional scholar (https://twitter.com/TimothySandefur/status/708669826269470721) Timothy Sandefur Tweets what I take to be the correct view (edited for clarity): "The First Amendment only bars government censorship. If private citizens shout down a speaker, they've committed a tort, not an unconstitutional act."

Conceptually, the right to freedom of speech is a claim against other people, including the people who constitute government. A person or organization (private or government) violates someone's freedom of speech by using force to prevent the person from speaking (using his own property or in voluntary association with others). The First Amendment specifically bars  government from violating citizens' right to freedom of speech. Other forms of violence that shuts down speech are still rights-violating; they just don't fall under the First Amendment.

Congressman Justin Amash—for whom I have a lot of respect—I think gets the legal point right but not the conceptual point. (https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/708735159567261697) He rightly holds that a private party who violently disrupts someone's speech thereby commits a crime but not a First Amendment violation. But I think (https://twitter.com/ariarmstrong/status/708905690106953728) Amash is wrong to suggest that private parties cannot violate others' right to freedom of speech.

Private parties cannot censor speech—censorship is a concept specific to government action—but certainly they can violate others' rights to freedom of speech. So, for example, if Jim threatens to beat Alex for giving a stump speech (where allowed by right), then Jim clearly violates Alex's right to freedom of speech; this just isn't a First Amendment issue.

I think Amash and I essentially agree in substance; he just makes a slight error in terminology. But it is an issue we need to clear up. The individual's right to freedom of speech posits a claim against all other people, in and out of government; the purpose of the Constitutional provision is specifically to check government.

Update: Amash (https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/709127646853124096) further clarifies: "I think the disagreement stems from my distinguishing between the natural right of 'speech' and 'freedom of speech,'" with the latter pertaining to the citizen's relation to government. Although I think that's unnecessarily complicated, I think it's fine to go either way with the terminology, so long as we clarify our intended meaning explicitly or at least contextually.

Return to Free Speech

Donald Trump has a moral and legal right to speak, even if what he says often is despicable. His critics have a right to speak out against him and to protest him—but not to forcibly shut down his events.

Regardless of our particular views, rationally we must defend freedom of speech to preserve a culture in which we can present our views and appeal to the minds of other people.

Shamefully, many Americans have flocked to candidates who treat the right to freedom of speech with contempt. On the Republican side, Trump threatens to persecute his critics in the media and condemns those taking a stand against violent, speech-silencing jihadists. On the Democratic side, both leading candidates take as a central campaign theme the effort to allow government to substantially censor political speech.

To preserve our liberty, we must do more than support the ability of this or that candidate to speak out; we must support the right to freedom of speech across the board, especially for those with whom we vehemently disagree.

To lower the bar on freedom of speech is to court eventual dictatorship—and those who think that's hyperbole are dangerously naive.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) Reflections on the Presidential Race after Super Tuesday

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/01/reason-and-rights-republicans/) Reason and Rights Republicans

Watkins and Brook Return with Book Challenging Inequality Narrative

March 23, 2016

Is there something immoral about the fact that such great creators and producers as author J. K. Rowling, business leader Steve Jobs, and football star Peyton Manning earned enormous wealth, or should their achievements and resulting wealth be celebrated?

Many leaders in politics and academia offer, at best, a mixed appraisal of those who earn great wealth, claiming (among other things) that their wealth isn't really earned, anyway.

Usually when Barack Obama mentions accumulated wealth it is to question its legitimacy. On March 22, (http://time.com/4267933/barack-obama-cuba-speech-transcript-full-text/) Obama gave a speech in Cuba, a nation whose people for decades have been subjected by their Communistic rulers to abject poverty and political oppression, largely in the name of economic equality.

In his remarks, Obama conceded that Cuba's leadership recognizes some of the "flaws in the American system," flaws including "economic inequality." Among the "enormous problems in our society," Obama said, is "the inequality that concentrates so much wealth at the top of our society." Unlike Marx and many of his followers, who call for violent revolution to strip (or kill) those with "so much wealth," Obama said "workers can organize" democratically to achieve greater economic equality.

Obama has made greater economic equality a centerpiece of his presidency, and now Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have made it a centerpiece of their campaigns for the presidency.

Whether we look to political debates or to academic discussions, many people these days take it for granted that inequality of wealth is a bad thing (or at least morally suspect) and that politicians should pass laws to take more wealth from the wealthy or to make it harder for people to earn great wealth in the first place.

Don Watkins and Yaron Brook—the team behind the 2013 book Free Market Revolution—do not take the common inequality narrative for granted. Instead, they challenge the notion that economic inequality in a free society is immoral, tackling the issue in the realms of philosophy, history, economics, and politics. The title of their new book indicates their thesis: Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight against Income Inequality.

Those wanting a taste of the authors' work can read the (https://campus.aynrand.org/~/media/pdf/equalisunfair_chp1.ashx) first chapter of their book, download their (https://campus.aynrand.org/~/media/pdf/turning_the_table_on_the_inequality_alarmists.ashx?la=en) ten-page summary of their case, or watch the video trailer for the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDvqK5X6LFg

In their first chapter ("Who Cares about Inequality?"), Watkins and Brook suggest that income inequality is a red herring. What really matters is not how much more income or wealth some people have than others, but "the opportunity to make a better life for ourselves," regardless of where we start or how high we rise (p. 4).

James Truslow Adams referred to "the American Dream" in a 1931 book, Watkins and Brook tell us; in Adams's words, this was "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" (p. 5). So the American Dream, properly understood, has nothing to do with achieving results equal to others; rather, it is about each person having the freedom to make the most of his own life.

Central to the authors' case is that, to the degree that people are free to do so, we produce wealth and trade goods and services by consent; we do not seize a fixed amount of stuff from others. Watkins and Brook summarize the typical stance of inequality critics: "There is only so much wealth to go around, and so inequality amounts to proof that someone has gained at someone else's expense." But that view is wrong; "because people are constantly creating more wealth," the mere existence of income inequality gives us no "reason to suspect that someone has been robbed or exploited or is even worse off" (p. 8).

One of the strengths of the book is its historical account of great producers, whose existence demonstrates that (where freedom exists) wealth truly is earned and either makes others better off or leaves them unharmed. Whether reviewing the rise of Apple Computer under Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (pp. 87—91), the great shipping enterprise of Cornelius Vanderbilt (pp. 148—149), or the productive work or numerous others, Watkins and Brook make clear that those who produce great wealth deserve their great rewards.

What, then, is all the fuss about income inequality? Critics of income inequality claim that, despite the apparent mutual gains of wealth production, the fact that some people earn much more than others does somehow harm others. How? Supposedly the fact that some people earn vast wealth somehow prevents others from advancing and suppresses general economic progress (pp. 5—6). But, as Watkins and Brook show, such claims are bunk.

Watkins and Brook summarize:

Some economic inequality critics . . . contend that there comes a point at which inequality undermines progress—and, by and large, they believe the United States has reached that point today.

What do they base that conclusion on? There is no theoretical reason why differences in income or wealth should slow human progress. . . . Instead, many inequality critics resort to statistically based empirical evidence that tries to draw correlations between high inequality and low growth and low inequality and high growth. (p. 110)

Watkins and Brook spend considerable effort reviewing and refuting many such empirical claims, showing that the critics of inequality misuse the data, ignore relevant data, or improperly interpret the data. In these sections the book becomes policy-wonkish, but the authors do a good job keeping the discussion lively and engaging for a general audience.

To take just one of many examples of these empirical studies: the authors address "a widely touted report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which suggest[s] that in underdeveloped countries, higher levels of inequality are correlated with lower rates of economic growth." Based on this study, one leftist referred to the United States as a "banana republic" (p. 110).

The authors reply:

The question is whether inequality lowers growth, and the mere fact that some low-growth economies also have high inequality doesn't answer that question. After all, these high-inequality, underdeveloped countries are also semi- or full-blown dictatorships, where the rulers use political power to exploit people for their own benefit and the benefit of their cronies. It would be ridiculous to draw conclusions about the merits of an economic inequality that emerges from freedom based on an economic inequality that emerges from theft. (p. 111)

Across the board, Watkins and Brook convincingly answer the inequality critics who invoke statistical studies to try to advance their agenda.

In their fifth chapter ("The War on Opportunity"), Watkins and Brook flesh out their argument that the real problem is not inequality of wealth but political impediments to opportunity. They argue that, although economic mobility remains much stronger in the United States than the critics of inequality typically allege,

opportunity is under attack today, and the culprit isn't successful people earning huge paychecks. It is the labyrinth of obstacles the government puts in the way of everyone's success—and virtually all of these obstacles are endorsed by the critics of inequality. (p. 123)

From outlawing jobs below a "minimum wage," to forcing entrepreneurs to jump through regulatory hoops to start a business, to monopolizing education and driving innovation from the field, to pushing up college costs through subsidies, to taxing away people's wealth, to punishing producers with arbitrary antitrust laws, to tying up health care in bureaucratic red tape, to imposing a motivation-stifling and dependence-inducing welfare state (to mention some of the main areas discussed), modern American government stifles economic opportunity, Watkins and Brook argue.

Although their treatment of these issues will not persuade hardcore critics of capitalism, their case is sufficiently detailed and strong to at least clarify their concerns and to prompt those open to argument to seriously consider their far-reaching proposals.

In their final chapter prior to the conclusion, ("Understanding the Campaign Against Inequality"), Watkins and Brook delve into the philosophic arguments for forcibly limiting income inequality.

Among other things, they critique the view, developed most forcefully by Thomas Nagel and John Rawls, that a person's success or failure is fundamentally a matter of luck. Even a person's "superior character that enables him to make the effort to cultivate his abilities" is a matter of luck, claims Rawls, for it "depends in large part upon fortunate family and social circumstances for which he can claim no credit" (p. 192).

Watkins and Brook respond to such claims:

Something is clearly wrong here. No honest person believes that Woz [Steve Wozniak] didn't earn the millions he made at Apple by pioneering the first personal computer, but instead just "got lucky" and "won the lottery." The key error in this argument is that it totally mischaracterizes what it means to earn something. For the egalitarians, the results of our actions don't merely have to be under our control, but entirely of our own making. (p. 193).

Citing Diana (Brickell) Hsieh's book, Moral Luck, Watkins and Brook continue, "In reality, responsibility doesn't require omniscience or omnipotence. It requires only that our actions be voluntary and that we know what we are doing."

Their remark about the meaning of the relevant concept is particularly apt: "We need the concept of 'earn,' not to distinguish people who earn their brains and parents and those who don't, but to distinguish those who use their abilities and resources to create something from those who don't" (pp. 193—194).

Ultimately, Watkins and Brook demonstrate, the egalitarian movement is not about defending the poor, achieving fairness, advancing economic progress, or any such positive goal; rather, it is about stoking envy, encouraging the victim mentality, and demeaning and punishing success. They show this from the realm of philosophy, where some theorists enthusiastically say egalitarianism allows us to "exploit [other people] for the common good" (p. 204), to the realm of popular culture, where some people talk about pulling other crabs back into the pot (p. 74), "chopping down the tall poppies" (p. 213), or getting "that bastard" with wealth (p. 210).

Of course, I have highlighted only a few of the many important elements of the book. Overall, Watkins and Brook have written a profoundly important book at just the right moment in history. If many people read and seriously contemplate this book, it can help save the nation from the morally and economically destructive agenda of the egalitarians.

I do think more work needs to be done, whether by this duo or by others, on the academic arguments for egalitarianism. Although Watkins and Brook adequately (if briefly) address Rawls's arguments about luck, they don't rebut his claims about the proper conditions for generating social policy (his famous "veil of ignorance"). Nor do they make much headway countering the claims that people with great wealth unduly influence the political system and threaten to undermine representative government. But we shouldn't obsess about what the book doesn't do when it does so much so well.

I end on a personal note. My son now is about eight months old. What will the future look like when he is twenty, thirty, sixty? Will his future be his to make of it what he can—or will his achievements be denied to him or taken away from him for the sake of envy masquerading as a moral theory?

I urge you, to help preserve the American Dream, this Land of Opportunity, to buy this book, read it, and share it. The future can be yours to achieve—if you fight for it.

Ted Cruz's Remarkable Nod to the Separation of Church and State

April 5, 2016

What Ted Cruz said about church and state during a March 29 town hall is remarkable—and very welcome to me as a secularist.

A student asked Cruz (see (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-sen-ted-cruz-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/) CNN's transcript; hat tip to (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/04/ted-cruz-for-president/) Craig Biddle):

[H]ow and why does your religion play a part in your political decision-making? Don't you think it should be more of a moral belief and not something that can interfere with your decision-making when you're making decisions for all religions in the United States?

In other words, the student asked about Cruz's stance on the separation of church and state: Should government impose by force the tenets of sectarian doctrine?

Cruz replied:

Listen, with me, as with many people in America, my faith is an integral part of who I am. I'm a Christian, and I'm not embarrassed to say that. I'm not going to hide that and treat it like it's something you can't admit publicly and acknowledge. It's an important part of who you are.

But I also think those in politics have an obligation not to wear their faith on their sleeve. There have been far too many politicians that run around behaving like they're holier than thou.

And I'll tell you, my attitude as a voter when some politician stands up and says, I'm running because God told me . . . to run, my reaction as a voter is, great, when God tells me to vote for you, we'll be on the same page.

And so, listen, I'm not asking you to vote for me because of my personal faith with Jesus Christ. I'm asking you to vote for me because I've spent a lifetime fighting to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fighting to defend the American free enterprise system, and we need a leader who will stand up every day and protect the rights of everyone, whether they're Christians or Jews or Muslims or anyone else.

The bill of rights protects all Americans. It protects atheists. That's the beauty of the bill of rights, is that we have the freedom to seek out God, to worship and to live according to our faith and our conscience, and I think the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a unifying principle that can bring us together across faiths, across races, across ethnicity. And we need to come together behind the unifying principles that built America.

Notably, Cruz specifically mentioned atheists as part of the American fabric whose rights are protected equally by the Bill of Rights. He said that people properly have "the freedom . . . to live according to . . . [their] conscience"—a crucially important idea. And Cruz openly mocked those who claim they have a mandate from God to run for president.

On their own terms, Cruz's remarks here constitute an endorsement—or at least approach an endorsement—of the separation of church and state as articulated by Thomas Jefferson (among others). They make me, a secularist advocate of free-market capitalism, more comfortable with the possibility of Cruz serving as president. Indeed, as a participant of Colorado's upcoming Republican convention, I will do what I can to support Cruz over Trump for the nomination, and I will probably vote for Cruz should he win the nomination.

Of course, Cruz's recent remarks on the issue of church and state do not erase his history of pandering to religious conservatives and even to outright theocrats, nor his history of endorsing faith-based policies in outright contradiction to his recent remarks.

To review briefly: Early in his campaign, Cruz made outreach to evangelical voters the centerpiece of his strategy. Cruz launched his campaign for the presidency at the evangelical Liberty University (which, incidentally, has its own "Center for Creation Studies" that promotes young-earth creationism).

Cruz actively campaigned with Kevin Swanson, who called for the eventual execution of unrepentant homosexuals. Cruz touted the support of Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, who called for the execution of abortion providers. (I detail these facts in "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats.") While sharing a stage with Swanson, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-atheists_us_5640b613e4b0411d30719f52) Cruz said that a nonreligious person is not "fit to be commander-in-chief of this country." Cruz also actively campaigned with (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-touts-support-of-anti-gay-bigot-phil-robertson/) anti-gay bigot Phil Robertson.

In terms of faith-based policy, Cruz endorsed a (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/ ) total ban on abortion—even in cases of rape and incest—and even a (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) ban on certain forms of birth control.

Obviously, although Cruz recently said that people have a right to live according to their conscience, he does not really believe that. If he could, he would impose at least some of the edicts of his religious faith by force of law.

So what are we to make of Cruz's recent comments that seem to endorse the separation of church and state? Cruz's shift from focusing his campaign on evangelical voters to explicitly appealing to nonsectarians and even atheists seems to suggest that Cruz's earlier outreach to evangelicals was at least as much tactical as it was ideological.

What happened to Cruz, put bluntly, is that his strategy of winning with evangelical support blew up in his face. Rather than back him, as Cruz expected, evangelicals (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431686/ted-cruz-evangelicals-churchgoers-back-him-non-churchgoers-dont) flocked to Trump in large numbers. Now that Cruz must play underdog with less evangelical support than he had hoped for, he needs to build up more support among other segments of the Republican Party, particularly those with free-market and "libertarian" views—people who are far more likely to be secularist in outlook.

Unfortunately for Cruz, if he does win the Republican nomination, his previous alliances with theocrats and his faith-based policy positions likely will haunt him and possibly will cost him the election. At some point, more journalists (not to mention PACs) are likely to seriously question Cruz about his alliances with Swanson and Newman, about whether he really wants to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest, about his views on the proper legal status of the copper IUD, about whether he wishes to legally punish women who get abortions or doctors who provide them, and so on.

If Cruz manages to win the Republican nomination as well as the presidency, he will seriously threaten to undermine the right to seek an abortion. Not only will Cruz almost certainly sign any abortion restriction sent to him by (a Republican) Congress, he will almost certainly choose Supreme Court justices comfortable with approving national and state restrictions on abortion. This is especially important given the spread of state restrictions, such as a law passed recently in Indiana that (among other things) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/03/24/indiana-just-banned-abortion-if-the-fetus-has-down-syndrome/) forbids women to get an abortion if the fetus has Down syndrome.

Unfortunately for voters, the choice is not between Cruz (if he wins the nomination) and an ideal candidate; it is between Cruz and Hillary Clinton (assuming she also wins). As Craig Biddle (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/04/ted-cruz-for-president/) points out, Cruz is quite good on a number of issues as judged from a secular capitalist perspective, especially the right to freedom of speech. Clinton, by contrast, has already promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who will allow censorship of paid political speech.

Given the dismal options this election cycle, I can see how a secular capitalist could support Cruz. But it is unwise to get too caught up in Cruz's rhetoric—especially given how adept Cruz is at telling people what they want to hear—and to downplay or ignore his serious problems in terms of bringing his faith into his politics.

In any case, I'm thrilled to see Cruz's recent statement supporting (at least to a substantial degree) the separation of church and state. Even though Cruz is far from consistent on the matter, the fact that he has expressed some support for the principle of separation sets a bar by which secularists can measure Cruz if and when he advances faith-based policies.

April 27 Update: Following is my entire "Ted Cruz and Religion" cycle. Please note that my views about Cruz evolved considerably over time. Although I'm still very concerned about Cruz's positions on abortion (and related matters) and his alliances with theocratic-leaning conservatives, I've also come to appreciate more deeply his many virtues, including his partial endorsement of the principle of separation of church and state. I became active in Republican politics toward the end of 2015, and I came to support Cruz over Donald Trump for the nomination.

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/why-i-will-vote-for-any-democrat-over-ted-cruz/) Why I Will Vote for Any Democrat over Ted Cruz

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/voting-political-activism-and-taking-a-stand/) Voting, Political Activism, and Taking a Stand

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) Yes, Ted Cruz's Policies Would Outlaw Some Forms of Birth Control

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) Ted Cruz Would Ban Abortion Even for Rape Victims

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-touts-support-of-anti-gay-bigot-phil-robertson/) Ted Cruz Touts Support of Anti-Gay Bigot Phil Robertson

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/republican-religion-undermines-capitalism/) Republican Religion Undermines Capitalism

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/ted-cruzs-remarkable-nod-to-the-separation-of-church-and-state/) Ted Cruz's Remarkable Nod to the Separation of Church and State

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/trump-cruz-and-freedom-of-speech/) Trump, Cruz, and Freedom of Speech

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) Reflections on the Presidential Race after Super Tuesday

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/republican-religion-undermines-capitalism/) Republican Religion Undermines Capitalism

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/02/ted-cruz-touts-support-of-anti-gay-bigot-phil-robertson/) Ted Cruz Touts Support of Anti-Gay Bigot Phil Robertson

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/01/reason-and-rights-republicans/) Reason and Rights Republicans

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/the-needed-political-realignment/) The Needed Political Realignment

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) Ted Cruz Would Ban Abortion Even for Rape Victims

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/yes-ted-cruzs-policies-would-outlaw-some-forms-of-birth-control/) Yes, Ted Cruz's Policies Would Outlaw Some Forms of Birth Control

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Ted Cruz's Dangerous Pandering to Theocrats

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a comment

Abortion Fear Is Overstated

I think the abortion fear is overstated. Cruz' first political ideology is to the originalist view of the constitution and the enumerated role of the federal government. This makes abortion a state, not a federal issue. He said as much last night on Megan Kelly's townhall—that the voters of the states should decide.

Additionally, it sounds a little like Republican derangement syndrome to suggest that a Republican controlled Congress would pass a federal anti-abortion bill. Abortion is a toxic issue. Only the most ardent supporters of the religious right would think it's worth the political capital, and self preservation keeps the majority of Republicans away from the issue. Possibly we could see a renewed initiative to ban third trimester abortion (as exists in many states) but it's such a wedge issue that it's profoundly stupid political move that would likely be spurned by those in congress who are politically astute.

Politics is about appealing to special interests and Cruz' attempt to appeal to theocrats should be no surprise. But his personal brand is as a defender of the Constitution, and as such it also makes sense that he would market to those of us who believe liberty means the freedom NOT to believe in Christianity. The Constitution and atheism are not mutually exclusive. While I can't say I like his preacher like style, Cruz is more committed to governing according to the Constitution than any other candidate. I would like to see America give that governing philosophy a chance.

—Tim Anderson

Separation of Church and State in Context

If you haven't already I recommend you google and read the correspondence between Jefferson and the Elders of the Danbury Baptist Church, which is the first time Jefferson uses that term "Wall of Separation". It becomes crystal clear that Jefferson imagined that wall not as one which we do today prevents from people from expressing their faith in the public sphere or even being informed by their faith in how they create law, but to protect the Churches from tyrannical government.

The historical context is ridiculously plain. The major nations of Europe all had "state religions" which citizens by default belonged to and supported regardless of their desire. Among the first to settle here were Pilgrims who fled Europe and religious persecution. This ethos was integral in the early nation and for this reason the freedom to practice a religion without infringement was in the very First Amendment. The framers specifically set out to create a nation where there was no official federal state religion at the same time guaranteeing citizens the right to worship (or not) as they saw fit without any interference from government. That is what Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptist Elders of. Today I believe the contemporary understanding of the Establishment Clause is a complete inversion of its actual meaning.

Somehow the very plain black letter law of the 1st Amendment has been twisted from no infringement to complete infringement. The First Amendment did not confine religious faith to the closed doors of Churches or temples or to ones conscience. It put no limits it.

Its not there to put Atheists from being offended. Nor does it restrict the Judeo Christian heritage from being an important foundation for the law, it was simply a recognition of the fact Western Civilization is built on this ethos.

Scholars resort to trying to know what was in the mind of the framers when they wrote the First Amendment. The acid test is how did the nation at the time put these beliefs into practice. Expressions of religious faith were literally everywhere in most if not aspects of public and private life, not because everyone was necessarily devout but because to the greatest extent religious and atheist saw the world and the problem of good and evil in the same way, differing only in what animates the universe.

Whatever one believes of the growing gulf between secular and faith society, there is no foundation whatever to believe the Founders meant the secular to always and everywhere triumph at the expense of the religious.

—Dan Scerpella

Ari Armstrong replies: That people have a right to freedom of speech regarding religion is not in question. However, the purpose of the Wall is not only to keep government off the backs of churches; it is to keep churches from overtaking government. Anyway, the concept of the separation of church and state is broader than the text of the First Amendment. The best discussion I know of is by (https://estore.aynrand.org/p/159/the-separation-of-church-and-state-mp3-download) Onkar Ghate.

Cruz Is No Theocrat

Thanks for this balanced consideration, Ari. I believe Cruz's earlier positioning has been mischaracterized. Essentially, he was talking churchy to churchy people, an important demographic for his strategy to win the nomination. He was not advocating an evangelical legislative agenda, whatever that might be. It's revealing that the closest you can come to assigning religion to any Cruz proposal is his strong anti-abortion position. Other than that, people mistakenly got the vapors about Cruz the Theocrat, simply because he knew how to talk faith with the faithful.

Well, as we move into the general election, I suspect he will also know how to talk jobs with the unemployed, and financial reform with opponents of cronyism, etc.

—Shawn Mitchell

Abortion Should Be a State Issue

In a recent town hall, Cruz was asked about abortion, and he said that he was opposed to it in a lot of cases, but he went on to say that the way this issue should be resolved is for Americans to try to convince their friends, their communities, and ultimately their states to go along with their view. He said he believed that Roe v. Wade was a bad judicial decision that was not in keeping with constitutional powers, and he would hope that the Supreme Court would overturn it, not to ban abortion federally, but to return the issue to the states where it belongs.

Pre-Roe, that's how it was. Different states had different rules about when abortion was allowed, and what procedures were allowed. He said that this way, there would be some states that would allow abortions under some circumstances, and others where it would be restricted more, according to what fits with what they believe are acceptable conditions. This is an endorsement of federalism. It's what I've come to believe is a better way to go with the issue.

As we've discovered in the years since Roe, it's a very divisive issue for us as a country. We're never going to get complete agreement on it. States should be allowed to decide the issue for themselves. Let the pro-life and pro-abortion advocates battle it out there. It should not be a federal issue, not least because the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to enforce rules on it.

—Mark Miller

Ari Armstrong replies: I agree that Roe was a flawed decision; however, I do think that the federal government properly protects rights broadly as authorized by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe that women do have a right to seek an abortion and that the federal government should intervene to prevent states from violating this right.

Comments about the Colorado Republican Convention

April 11, 2016

Note: These comments regarding the April 11, 2016, article, "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) Setting the Record Straight about Colorado's Republican Caucus," were submitted in the days following the publication date. I transferred them to this new post on May 30, 2017, to shorten the length of the original piece.—Ari Armstrong

Some Colorado Counties Had Informal Straw Polls

Thanks for your good article. I have one clarification for you and your readers: each county handled the straw poll differently. In Adams County, we had a straw poll which of course was non binding and it had nothing to do with choosing delegates. We had Trump supporters, Cruz supporters and others too. The caucus system worked really well even though most people there were new to the process.

It was a lively (and friendly) atmosphere for the most part and it was great to have engaged voters in their local precincts participate equally regardless of whom they supported.

—Nancy

Not All Can Attend Caucus Meetings

So I work 3PM-11PM in surgery at one of the main hospitals in Denver. I cannot take off work to go to a meeting. I guess my voice does not matter, I just need to be there in case someone you love gets hurt or injured? I will write in Trump once Cruz is shown to just be a puppet to get Rubio, Ryan, etc. as the nominee. Once this election is done I will never vote republican again. I have been R all my life casting my first vote for Reagan in 1980. Hopefully you all will learn not to disregard what the people want, if not have fun with Hillary, who is easily going to stomp anyone the RNC "chooses" over what the voters want.

—Richard Hutson

Ari Armstrong replies: To my mind, the fact that a lot of people have trouble attending the caucus meeting undergirds the strongest criticism of it. However, I would point out that it would be possible to add a binding or non-binding straw poll back to the caucus system, and extend this to absentee voters. Also, I find it a little humorous how many people assume I'm some sort of puppet-master within the Republican Party, even though I just (re)joined it a few months ago.

Biased against Trump

The whole caucus thing is new to me, having spent the first 40 years of my life in California. On primary day, we vote and delegates are awarded. Then I discovered the absentee ballot, which I mailed in two or three weeks before election day, and I never had to bother myself with standing in line or trying to find someone's garage/polling station.

For a number of reasons, including my reluctance to publicly state my voting preference for professional reasons, I haven't been to a caucus. It just doesn't make sense, especially in a country that has embraced the secret ballot for a couple of centuries.

The elimination of a popular vote—"straw poll," if you insist, but it's an actual popular vote—made the process even more mysterious. I again chose not to participate, partly because of a prior commitment that night but also because I didn't want to spend two or three hours merely casting a vote.

It's clear to me that the party leadership in Colorado saw this as an opportunity to prevent Donald Trump from collecting delegates for the national convention. Instead, actual voters should have had the opportunity to see to that. We in the Republican Party talk a lot about trusting the people. We could and should have done that this year, complete with a secret ballot.

—Anonymous

Ari Armstrong replies: Although many of Trump's supporters are quick to point to conspiracy theories to "explain" the results, I've seen no actual evidence that Colorado party leaders made any effort to bias the results one way or another. Notably, Trump's own supporters in party leadership joined in voting to suspend the straw poll. I absolutely think that, if there had been a non-binding poll again at caucus, Cruz would have won by a landslide. So I think it's too bad we didn't have one. Anyway, you certainly wouldn't have had to drive for two hours to attend your local precinct caucus; those are highly regional. The various conventions are another matter, of course; I had to get up at 5:00 am to make it from the Denver area to Colorado Springs on time for the state convention.

Political Parties are Private Organizations

The Colorado GOP is a private entity. Not public. Therefore, they get to make whatever rules they want.

—Dave Barnes

What About the Fee?

In this post Ari Armstrong said that if you want to be selected as a delegate you must pay a convention fee.

Is this legal? Having to pay to vote?

—Don

Ari Armstrong replies: See the comment above; political parties are private organizations. The fee goes toward funding the conventions, as is appropriate. However, I do think the GOP should have a "need" exemption for the fee.

What About the People?

I will make this more simple than your explanation of Colorado's republican caucus. For most Americans the system you have in place is far too complicated. Most Americans don't care nor understand the delegate process. The delegate system takes the voice of average American citizens away from outcomes that will effect their lives. Indeed the system is legal and was supported by you and your fellow caucus members/supporters. That said, I bet if you did "another pole" in Colorado or any state for that matter and asked the public this question, "If you were given a choice to vote for a candidate to represent your party for POTUS or let a small, very small group of people vote for you" you would find no support for the caucus. People want a vote. Should anyone or any group be allowed to decide for the masses? In my humble opinion, I think not. I have a funny feeling this system will be changed soon, maybe not soon enough though. I am a proud Republican but I'm loosing faith in our party by the day.

—D. Holmes

Ari Armstrong replies: For one thing, private organizations have no inherent moral or legal obligation to operate by pure democracy. For another, the Founders were extremely skeptical of pure democracy, which is why they instituted many checks to it. Whoever does not wish to participate in the Republican Party (or any other party) is free not to.

Many Trump Supporters Didn't Show Up

Thank you for your well written article about your personal experience of the Colorado Caucus system this year. I too, went to my precinct caucus, and was elected as a county delegate and as an alternate to the state. It was my first time investing this much time & energy and Saturday was a long 12 hour day and although some alternates in my county got to vote, I did not. I did not feel cheated, but I was ready to vote for the Cruz slate if I had the opportunity. At my precinct caucus I was one of only 3 people who showed (out of about 200 registered republicans). All 3 of us were Cruz supporters. Not sure where all the Trump supporters were, but they had an equal & fair chance to show up, but did not. Anyways, thanks again for taking the time to write honestly about your experience and accurately about our state's caucus system.

—Perriann

Caucuses Are Too Indirect

Your article correctly outlines the process and I have no hidden agenda with either of the remaining GOP presidential candidates. However, I do have a problem with the GOP primary process, in Colorado.

Here you vote for a delegate, who votes for a delegate, who is supposed to cast a vote for a candidate. It's too indirect of a process, designed to keep the existing structure in place. It not only discourages change, in actively inhibits it. I'd like for the Colorado GOP to go to a proportional primary, where a candidate who gets 40% of the vote gets 40% of the delegates.

As it is, the existing power brokers will remain in power, the Colorado GOP will continue to slot moderate candidates wherever possible and the conservative citizens of Colorado will feel disenfranchised and unrepresented. The Colorado GOP will lose it's base and eventually just be part of the Democratic party.

I can't wait. Then a party that represents its members (instead of a party that dictates to its members) will evolve, to take the GOP's place.

—Charles

Don't Complain If You Don't Get Involved

Thank you for the first-hand account of how Colorado's process works. I find it's usually the people too lazy to get involved in the process who complain the loudest. If you don't like the rules, get involved and work to change them.

—Melody Warbington

Cruz Had the Support at Caucus

Thanks Mr. Armstrong. This is great! I sent Drudge a message earlier and may forward him this link too. As a pro Cruz person I was sent to the county assembly. Everyone there from my district who wanted to attend the state convention was approved. 9 delegates and 9 alternates. 18 people volunteered. The Cruz supporters won the delegate slots and the few Trump supporters there were won the alternate slots. It was all very reasonable and involved at the local level and I too truly thanks those who involve themselves time after time with these details.

—Terri Goon

Feigned Outrage Over Results

Ari Armstrong, thank you for a calm and clear explanation in defense of our CO grassroots voice!

Hopefully, your detailed and patient explanation may put to rest some of the honest misconceptions. I'm a bit too cynical to believe there aren't many who will prefer to ignore the truth because whining and feigned outrage suits their purpose best.

—Denise E. Denny

Respect the Process

Thanks for writing about your experiences. I went to the Nevada caucuses and found it a good experience too. The fact that Trumpsters can't respect a legitimate process says a lot about them and their candidate.

—Jess Solomon

Caucus Participant Is No Insider

Ari, well written.Your experience was similar to mine and my feelings about caucus vs primary are similar to yours. I was also a delegate to the CD assembly and thought that process went better than expected. I also am no insider. Last time I was elected to represent our precinct was in 1996.

—Doug Drees

Hold a Vote of the People

I think you did a good job of explaining what goes one. I will always think that a vote of people should be held and the numbers speak for themselves. A lot of people will take time to go to the booth. Going through the caucus system myself I still would rather see a Vote of the People.

You did a good job.

—Douglas Rushing

Cruz Had Support at Caucus

I similarly went to the republican caucus this year. There were maybe twenty-five or so people there. You're completely right in that there were a majority of Cruz supporters there. In the end, we had an informal, non-reported straw poll and it was something like twenty Cruz to four Rubio and one Trump. The two delegates we sent to state were for Cruz and Rubio. The Trump supporter voted for themself, and the wishy-washy-whatever-the-room-wants establishment guy didn't win. There were plenty of new people, but I recognized at least eight people from four years ago.

—Kazriko Redclaw

Trump Backed Out of Convention

Thanks for making this so clear. I agree with you 100%. I had similar caucus experience and ended up at state. Trump was coming to the convention, then backed out. I didn't get one mailing from a Trump supporter. Seems he and his people want to be bottle fed and do no work. I've been called names too. People are so childish. Thanks again for a well thought out article.

—Theresa Sorenson

Most People Didn't Attend the Caucuses

You're wrong on a few points. Number one, most people didn't show up to caucus. In my precinct (446) we had forty out of how many thousands? Ours is one of the larger in El Paso county as we had 10 delegates for county and 3 for state. How can 40 people represent the will of the people in a large precinct?

Which brings me to the second point in that as a delegate your vote is not who you prefer, but rather who the people prefer. Most delegates, including you apparently, don't understand that and had picked "their guy" long before the caucus. In my precinct it was pretty much equally divided between Cruz and Trump with one for the third guy with only forty people. If this is at all representative of the other precincts your assertion that Trump just isn't popular in Colorado is totally speculative. Lastly, as a delegate that was actually at the State Assembly and El Paso County I can say it seemed there was again equally divided support for both Cruz and Trump on the floor with a very small group for the third candidate.

—Mark Whitaker

Ari Armstrong replies: I think registered Republicans in a precinct tend to number in the hundreds. The delegate in my precinct was elected explicitly on her anti-Trump platform. I similarly make my preferences quite clear, and was voted in. Obviously Trump did not have nearly the support that Cruz did at the state convention.

Trump Didn't Campaign in Colorado

My experience as well in my district caucus—we did take a poll informing our elected delegates of who our preferences were. In our poll Cruz was number one, Tramp two. Ben Carson received one vote I think. The fact that Trump did not even campaign in Colorado, instead relying upon staying in New York in a state where he's heavily favored, I just don't understand how he expects to receive support in Colorado.

—Bruce F. St. Peter

Primaries Don't Handle Large Fields Well

Thanks for your article! I have been a Sate Delegate in Utah. It is frustrating how many people don't take part in the process, then complain when the don't understand how it works. Could you imagine what a mess a regular primary single election would be like if we had sixteen candidates to choose from? The process we have helps cut down the field and still give everyone a chance. This year is a good example. Trump and his supporters brag about all their votes, yet still can't get past 37%. That isn't that popular. If it were just between Cruz and Trump from the beginning, my guess is Cruz would be winning. Therefore if he comes out the winner at the convention, then the voice of the people will have been heard.

—Stan Jackson

Media Fed False Narrative about Poll; County Organizers Miraculous

Thanks, Ari, excellent summary.

This was my fourth State Assembly. Your experience sounds much like mine. I was elected to State at Precinct 231, favoring Rubio. (As if this isn't complicated enough, El Paso County pushes election to State and CD down to the precinct level, bypassing County.)

We had two slots for State and two for [congressional district] CD5. Cruz supporters won three, and then there was me, a couple Cruzers defected to me out of sympathy, because I served as Chair when nobody else at all wanted the job, and felt I should be rewarded. At the end of the evening, we broke with the "no straw poll" rule and held our own private straw poll which we did not report—nine for Cruz, eight Rubio, four Carson, four Trump, one not voting. Only one of the Trump people wanted to go to State or CD, but he only got four votes.

I was disappointed with the turnout; it was lower than previous Presidential years, by half or even less (I was a Newt guy last time). Prior to the Caucus, there were many, many people saying "haven't you heard? Caucus doesn't matter this time, there's no poll. I had to correct dozens of people before March 1st. The Trump supporters were the most adamant that there was no reason to go to caucus, so sad. I blame the press for this, I'm so glad you actually got to CNN. I must have spent a dozen hours in the last six weeks trying to break into "Journalism World" and clarify the boatload of falsehoods and half-truths bandied about by the people who should be informing us and striving for accuracy. Such an incredibly frustrating experience. Some people lost faith in politics in the last couple months, I lost faith in the seriousness of American journalism.

Part of the problem we have in Colorado is that a primary election has to be conducted by the State with tax dollars. The caucus/precinct system is (miraculously) funded by the poverty-stricken party. All the spending regulations come down very, very hard on the Parties. It's impossible to keep money out of politics, money will find its way, but perversely, donors are very limited by law in how much they can give to candidates' campaigns and especially to the parties. Therefore the Super-Pacs, they are the only place to which money can freely flow.

El Paso County contains 31% of Colorado's registered Republicans, but has 1.5 paid employees (and my gosh, the paperwork is enormous). The office looks almost like a struggling body shop. That they can pull this off with volunteers at all is nothing short of miraculous. They are "the establishment," the despised, the sometimes hated, it really bothers me to hear all this abuse. Why was I Chair? Because I was at GOP HQ for a small open meeting with Senate candidate Darryl Glenn, and was persuaded by someone to put my name on a party "volunteer list." A few months later they called and begged me to chair the Caucus, as the previous Precinct Leaders had moved out of state. They did not know who I supported, they did not ask, for all they knew, I was a Communist three-headed purple hippopotamus. They just begged "please, please help us out, you're on the list, we have so many spots to fill."

Thanks for making things more clear for people, the current system is certainly too complicated, I would like to see a more streamlined caucus. And better communication, from the party and from the press.

—Phil Beckman

Republican National Committee Out to Get Trump

Hi, thanks for a very informative and even-handed explanation of the Colorado system. I have been following the various primaries and caucuses and was curious about what had happened in Colorado. The only thing I would say is in fairness to Trump and his supporters, even if everything in Colorado was completely fair and above-board, they have plenty of reason to mistrust the party and the media. The RNC has been out to get them since day one. There hasn't even been any secret about it. That sort of thing breeds the mistrust you are hearing now from the Trump supporters.

—Lou Filliger

Have a Vote of the People

The long meetings (I've heard between two to three hours just at the precinct level) are unpalatable to the average voter imho. I don't think that means they shouldn't get a vote. I also don't see the comparison between the electoral college and Colorado's current selection process. There are typically two candidate to vote for in a presidential election (regardless of who the actual electors are), not six-hundred people whom you know nothing about. As far as I know, there's nothing that compares to "an unpledged delegate" in the presidential election. We don't really vote for delegates in the national election (I understand that the electors' names are on some ballot, but it's just a name—we're voting for the candidate) so I don't get why the primaries would be any different. Seems like something to bring before all the people of Colorado for a vote at the next election—that's seems like a "We the people" kind of thing to do.

—Jason

Ari Armstrong replies: Actually, in the general election, you're "really" voting for members of the electoral college. My point about the electoral college is that politics in America is not, and never has been, about direct democracy. This is even more true for parties, which are private organizations. Participants in the caucus process have every opportunity to learn the views of the people they're selecting to represent them.

Washington State Politics Is Complex

First off, thanks for the great article. I am writing this comment because it sounds like you would be interested in more information about using primaries or caucuses for selecting nominees.

I live in Washington state, which has probably one of the most complicated systems for choosing a nominee: Caucuses by precinct, which select delegates and alternates to go to county conventions. The county convention includes caucuses by Legislative district to select delegates and alternates to go on to the State convention. At the state convention caucuses are held by Congressional district to select the delegates and alternates who will be sent to the national convention. We also have a primary a few days after the state convention, the result of which binds the national delegates, by Congressional district, for the first ballot.

The caucuses are closed, with a deadline set two to three weeks prior. The primary merely requires not having been a part of any democrat caucuses that year (the WA democrats do not hold primaries for presidential nominations.)

As addendum, two items: First, this is the first year when I have been old enough to engage in this process, and what a year to start! Second, and more interesting, is that Snohomish county, where I live, and where much of Seattle lives, managed to elect primarily Cruz delegates to go to state, and only one trump supporter got huffy.

Once again, thank you for your writing, and thank you for your time.

—Jeremy West

Vilified for Participating

I too was at the Colorado Assembly as a delegate. We went from a small town in southern Colorado. We had, from our district, about twenty that came, alternates and the delegates.

To become a delegate you had to go to meetings (oh dear) and find out what is going on. We had one Trump guy in our district and on the floor where we were. We voted him in to go so he could represent his thoughts.

The number of Trump voters was very small. They were not very vocal, since Trump himself did not even deem our state important enough to send a higher profile person to win over hearts and minds—nothing but a unknown. That was foolish in my view.

After it was all over, the Trump vote was small. Another non-establishment guy, Darryl Glenn, won hands down with this crowd. He had a powerful, faith-filled speech.

All in all we enjoyed the process. I hadn't even voted yet and posted I was at the convention and was vilified as a sellout—insanity, showing zero grasp of the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Not a wise, winning play. Now Trump and his supporters are whining about everything. Sour grapes I'd say; get better organized.

I will vote for Cruz or Trump if either wins. No Democrat, period.

—Karl

Shocked at No Binding Poll

As a recent registered Republican in Colorado, I also was unaffiliated but changed last year in order to participate in the nomination process. I was totally shocked to learn the Colorado Republicans would not have a binding poll at their caucus.

Yes I understand your reasons. But in considering caucus vs primaries please consider the following: On caucus day many may be traveling, hospitalized, serving in the military, attending to family, working, or have any number of other legitimate reasons that would prohibit them from attending a caucus. A primary with early voting ends that problem and equalized the playing field.

One other problem. Colorado includes mountain communities. I live in Nederland and would have had to travel over 25 miles to attend a caucus in a strange community. How is that fair? It certainly doesn't put me in touch with my community. Nor would I know anyone there. We do not have many Republicans in Nederland. So I had no say in anything.

Thanks for reading. Please consider others if you are in a position to help Colorado represent all Republican voters.

—Pat Everson

Ari Armstrong replies: It's silly to say you had no say; you got to vote for delegates to conventions and run for delegate yourself if you wanted. True, if you live in a lightly populated area, you probably have to drive further to meetings. To repeat: I think a caucus poll plus a mechanism for absentee votes would work well.

Taxpayers Shouldn't Have to Fund Primaries

I like your idea of eliminating primaries and just using the caucus system. As a former precinct captain, I found that the caucuses did a great job of representing the folks who bothered to attend. And I object to forcing taxpayers to pay for state run primaries. The parties should use their own funds to decide who to run for office.

—Mike

Cruz Favored at Caucus

Very good article. I'm in Mesa county precinct 10 and Mr. Trump got one of 12 votes. Mr. Cruz was clearly the favorite in our Precinct.

—Lynn Ensley

Trump Favors Controversy over Truth

I've become more convinced that whatever Trump says is designed to create controversy and attention for himself. He doesn't care about the truth.

I went to my precinct caucus in Boulder, CO. I hadn't been to one in 20 years. I felt like I'd put my two cents in this time. I was a delegate to the 2nd CD convention 20 years ago. I can't remember if I was eligible to go farther than that, but that's where I stopped. I wasn't interested in being a delegate this time, as I know that drill, and I have other goals I'm focused on right now. I was hoping to vote for at least one Cruz supporter at my precinct who could go on to be a delegate to another assembly, who would hopefully vote for Cruz delegates to the national. (None at the precinct level are committed to vote for anybody's delegates to the national. They just talk about their personal preferences.) I was the only Cruz supporter in my precinct. There were five of us. There were about ten-plus precincts in the caucus. Except for myself, I think there was only one other person in my precinct who had been to a caucus before, and he had participated in the IA caucuses four years ago.

I wasn't prepared to make a pitch for Cruz, but I did my best on the spot. Everyone except for myself in my precinct was for Rubio and Kasich. They didn't think Cruz was mainstream enough to win the general election. We were supposed to vote on two or three delegates (I forget how many now) from our precinct. I didn't vote on delegates, which was fine with me. I showed up, did what I could, which was vote on party resolutions, and left.

The Boulder County Republicans conducted an unofficial straw poll at their caucuses, and Rubio eked out a "win," with 32% of the vote. Cruz came in just behind at 31%. Trump had something like 23%, and Kasich got something like 14%. That was a surprising result, since Boulder is such a left-leaning county. Since Rubio dropped out of the race after the FL primary, I imagine most of the Rubio support went to Cruz and Kasich, though it's interesting that Kasich didn't appear to be a factor at all in the conventions. You'd think with Trump's charge of Establishment corruption, Kasich would've done great here, since he's their first choice. If they had their way, he'd be the clear leader in delegates by now.

[April 19 Update: I remembered later I left out votes for Carson when I talked about the straw poll. Rather than rely on my unreliable memory, I went back and checked the published results in my local paper (http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_29588088). They were Rubio 33%, Cruz 31%, Trump 19%, Kasich 10%, and Carson 7%.]

The thing about this is that every Coloradan who is registered Republican has an opportunity to be involved in the process. They won't make it all the way through the process, since it's designed to winnow down the group that gets to the state convention, but even if you don't make it all the way (or want to), you have an opportunity to influence the process by dealing with the people who are your neighbors, and are in your region. People like yourself, or them, get the opportunity to be involved at higher levels in the process, even becoming national delegates. It's not an insider clique that meets by itself, and selects delegates on its own. Another thing about the convention process is it doesn't exist just to select delegates to the national convention. Candidates for state office and Congress appeal to convention delegates for their votes, so they can either appear on the Republican primary ballot, or be nominated outright by the delegates in attendance to appear on the general election ballot, if there is no primary. The thing is, you have to be interested in the Republican Party, not just their candidates, and you have to at least consult a local party office to participate, so they can tell you how to do it, but that's all you need. You don't have to be a mover and shaker, winer and diner, muckety-muck.

—Mark Miller

Dirty Politics

People, in general, don't follow politics as a rule of thumb. They don't go to Drudge, don't typically follow pundits at all. They do note however, when they are supposed to vote, and generally who they are going to vote for. Regardless of "the rules" set out by the RNC, they are not expecting to have their vote not count. So while all of these shenanigans may be legal, the average voter dud not know that they could vote for their delegates, what that meant, or when the vote was taking place. So they are angered that they do not now have a voice and feel it has been stolen from them. Rightly so I might add. I see this as dirty politics. Something the democrats would do. This kind of behavior is why they want Trump in the White House. They're sick to death with politicians; that's why Americans from all parties with differing views on many things are all on the Trump Train together. The RNC should take note, because they feel, rightly or wrongly, if Trump loses the nomination because of tactics like these, Trump supporters will follow Trump wherever he goes. But they will not vote Cruz or Kasich. If they must, they will stay home.

—Shane Carroll

Ari Armstrong replies: I think if people join a private organization, such as a political party, they should expect to have to follow the rules of that organization. If you want to change the rules, get involved. Burning the house down isn't the answer.

A Primary Is More Accessible

Thank you for your explanation on caucus system. I see now that we need to change to a primary voting system where all people up to 100 yrs. old, the disabled and those in military, etc., can vote quickly and securely. Shouldn't have to convince a "delegate" to support our candidate choice.

—Lorain Kaiser

Process Needs Reform

You explanation of the process is pretty accurate. I have been going to caucus for more than twenty years and have been to several state assemblies. The problem we face as a party is how people are feeling about the way the process is working. Trump's campaign has brought people to the conversation that have never participated before. They just want to cast their vote and go home. They have no interest in playing the political game. They just want to pick a leader and go on about trying to survive the fallout from Obama's failed policies. The PERCEPTION is that their vote didn't count. You can not argue people out of how they feel. We have to respond to how they are feeling and correct the perceived injustice. Asking people to comprehend and participate in our arcane caucus system is not going to win over these folks, and we need them to win the white house and more importantly the SCOTUS. The GOP is getting hammered for not listening to its people; the Democrats have the same problem. The process needs to be refined so that its less like making sausage, and more like carving a steak.

—Marla

Losing Our Nation to Mob Rule

Your article concerning the Colorado Convention was great. I live in New York and have always taken my responsibility to be an informed voter very seriously. I value our constitution and understand the sacrifice made to protect our freedoms. I believe the caucus is what our founding fathers had in mind so that those who take the time to participate and not just shout like a mob will protect us from tyranny. I fear we are losing our nation to mob rule and people who have no understanding of our constitutional principles.

—Michael Dyckman

Politics Is Too Dirty

Ari, thank you for the very informative article. I am from Iowa, another caucus state, and although some like to criticize the caucus, it does work very well. I am also a Trump supporter and like many others, find myself disappointed that the Trump Campaign was not on top of this. I do agree that delegates chosen in this process should be binding.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, and my opinion is that Colorado was not the main issue going on that weekend, but has been used by the media to divert attention from other issues.

Just like Colorado, delegate conventions were being held in many states. As the day progressed, there were several reports of ballot irregularities. Delegate names being misspelled, names omitted, double delegate numbers, etc.

As informed voters, we see that it seems to be a pattern and our hearts actually ache that our country's core is constantly disrespected and trampled on.

Most of us feel the GOP is dead, but it is because of what they have become. Politics have pretty much always been dirty, many are finally deciding it has gotten too dirty to be able to wash and wear. It is time to throw it out, dirty water and all, and replace with brand new.

—Alice Cronin

Ari Armstrong replies: Any complex process, whether a caucus and convention system or a primary vote, will inevitably have a few errors. This is especially true when volunteer activists play a huge role, as they do in Colorado's caucuses. I am aware of a few minor errors, but nothing major, and nothing that would have changed the outcome. I believe these were all innocent. Trump's own campaign made numerous errors in promoting its slate of delegates. I encourage people not to fall into confirmation bias. If you think Republican "leadership" is out to get Trump, you're bound to see examples that seem to support that belief, and you may be tempted to ignore the many examples that run counter to it.

Show Up to Participate

Great job explaining the Colorado delegate selection process. I live in Illinois but can read the Green Papers and understand Colorado's rules. From what I heard approximately 65,000 people voted in this caucus system and many Trump supporters complain that the non-binding straw poll was eliminated. Cruz understood the process and his campaign had been working the ground for months ensuring Cruz supporters showed up to the Mar 1 caucuses. Trump didn't have permanent paid staff in the state until after the Mar 1 caucus.

For those complaining they were disenfranchised because the non-binding straw poll was removed, please see the 2012 results:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/colorado

Apparently they were disenfranchised then as well (sarcasm).

Bottom line is if you don't show up to the game, you can't say you were cheated.

—Travis Brown

Setting the Record Straight about Colorado's Republican Caucus

April 11, 2016

"All Colorado Republicans [(http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Candidates/FAQs/caucuses.html) registered more than a month] could vote in precinct caucuses, which chose delegates to congressional and state conventions, who voted for national delegates." That's my (unabbreviated) (https://twitter.com/ariarmstrong/status/719379594009153537) Tweet summarizing the way that Colorado Republicans chose delegates to the national Republican Convention. I should know; as a Colorado Republican I participated in the caucuses.

But apparently, for some Trump supporters, my experience participating in the caucus process is no match for a Drudge headline claiming it never happened. As of the evening of April 10, Drudge claimed on its main page, "Fury as Colorado has no primary or caucus; Cruz celebrates voterless victory."

So let's set the facts straight, beginning with my own experiences with the caucus system.

After long being an unaffiliated voter, I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/the-needed-political-realignment/) registered as a Republican voter late last year, in part so that I could participate in Colorado's Republican caucus system this year. (I plan to remain a Republican, barring an unforeseen major shift in the political scene.) I looked up how to participate in my precinct caucus on March 1, showed up, participated in the meeting, and successfully ran as an alternate delegate to the county convention on March 19 and to the state convention on April 9.

Interestingly, in my precinct, I'm pretty sure that not a single person had participated in the caucus system before. We were all "outsiders." We even had to ask one of the party organizers to step in for a while to help us figure out the process. But we worked it out and got along fine. We even had a very civil discussion about the presidential candidates; one fellow was strongly for Trump, while several of us were strongly against him. (I only know the views of those who expressed them.)

At the precinct caucus, a number of people—both Cruz supporters and Trump supporters—complained that Colorado did not have a "straw poll" for president this year. Indeed, my precinct voted on a resolution saying we want a binding vote by all members in the future. I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who voted against that resolution, on the grounds that we should further evaluate the pros and cons of the caucus system versus a primary or other system. I'm still not sure which is better (and frankly I don't think it matters very much). I think the caucus system works pretty well and that there are some good reasons to keep it. (For what it's worth, Justin Everett, a state legislator, (http://www.coloradostatesman.com/blessed-live-colorado-blessed-caucus-system/) favors it.)

That said, a lot of people seem to have some pretty wild misundertandings about what happened with the straw poll. So I'll do my best to summarize what happened. In previous years, Colorado Republicans held a non-binding straw poll at the precinct caucuses. This had nothing to do with the selection of delegates to the national Republican convention, but it expressed the preference of those Republicans who attended their caucuses.

But, for this year, the national party (for reasons unknown to me) said that we could not have a non-binding poll; if we had a poll it had to be binding. So the state party decided not to have a poll at all. People are welcome to read the explanation for all this by (https://www.facebook.com/cologop/posts/10153924198709491) Steve House, the state chair of the GOP (who, incidentally, won his position as an "outsider" who unseated the prior "establishment" chair). For what it's worth, I think House's reasons for dropping the poll are pretty good ones.

Anyway, without the non-binding poll—which didn't actually select any delegates—Colorado Republicans selected delegates to the national convention the same way they have before, through the caucus system. Incidentally, according to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Caucus) Wikipedia, Colorado's caucus system was first instituted in 1912 "as a way to limit the power of party bosses and to attract more grassroots involvement," then replaced by a primary in 1992, then restored in 2002 through 2004.

Unsurprisingly, (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29750206/angry-donald-trump-blasts-colorado-gop-results-totally) John Frank's articles about all this for the Denver Post are sensationalistic, designed more to inflame people and to draw eyes to the paper's web site than to enlighten readers with the relevant facts put in context. (I think it's a little humorous how many of Trump's supporters totally mistrust the media—except when it spins things their way.)

A completely fair headline of what happened this year would have been, "Colorado Republicans Select Presidential Delegates the Same Way They Did Last Time." But the reality of the situation is so much more boring than the trumped up version of it.

To return to my experiences with the caucuses: The woman elected in my precinct as a delegate to the state convention ran on an explicitly anti-Trump platform. She made this very clear, and she was elected by the rest of us with this understanding. Claims that the rest of us were somehow "disenfranchised" are ridiculous; we all got to vote for delegates, and everyone in the room had a chance to run to become a delegate (most didn't want to). It truly was a grass-roots process. I was elected as the alternate delegate to the state convention, also on an explicitly anti-Trump platform.

The simple fact is that the Republicans at my precinct caucus mostly disfavored Trump, and evidently that is true of most other precincts as well. Trump lost in Colorado because he's just not very popular here.

Indeed, some Cruz supporters I talked with wanted a binding poll precisely so that Coloradans could send the strongest possible anti-Trump message. I strongly suspect that a primary would have resulted in a Cruz victory, but I'm not aware of good polling data on this.

Should Colorado give up the caucuses in the future? As noted, I'm not totally sure, but I'd like to rebut one reason for saying we should. The claim basically is that, because people have to attend a meeting and then select delegates to conventions, who then select national delegates, the caucuses are not sufficiently democratic.

It is true that, to participate in the caucuses, you have to do more than mark an "x" on a piece of paper. You actually have to (gasp!) go to a meeting. If you want to become a delegate to a congressional or state convention, where national delegates are picked, you actually have to stand up and make your case to your fellow Republican voters (and pay a convention fee). I'm not convinced this is a problem. Arguably, it is a feature, not a bug.

Many Trump supporters seem shocked to learn that American government is primarily representative in nature, not a direct democracy. Have they never heard of the electoral college? The Founders were very careful to create levels of representation; indeed, it is part of the checks and balances of constitutionalism. All we do in Colorado is keep an extra layer of representation in the process; we choose state delegates who then chose national delegates. One can argue that the caucus system is not ideal for whatever reason, but the fact that it is based on the representative model of government isn't by itself a very good reason to oppose it.

For pointing out some of the basic facts about Colorado's caucus system on Twitter, I was deluged by comments from Trump's supporters, consisting mostly of insults, threats, and wild conspiracies. (For example, some people blamed me personally for the lack of a straw poll, even though I wasn't even a Republican when that decision was made.) It turns out that such tactics don't actually improve my opinion of Trump as a presidential candidate.

I'm glad I participated in Colorado's Republican caucus system. From what I saw, it worked well. I'll take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers who worked tirelessly to help organize and run the caucuses and conventions and the many thousands of Colorado voters who participated in the process. They are everyday heroes who take seriously their responsibility to participate in American governance.

Update 1: A fellow named Larry Lindsey claims that he was not allowed to vote at the state GOP convention because he was a Trump supporter. His claims (http://www.goodfellowllc.com/free-stock-market-content/curious-case-missing-colorado-delegate) seem to be fabricated in whole or in part. I was there, and I saw a number of Trump supporters in attendance. They participated just like everyone else did. They just didn't have enough support to win delegates. Also see a (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/04/11/did-larry-lindsey-not-understand-full-caucus-assembly-process/) media release from Douglas County Republicans about Lindsey. On further review: I've read the Douglas County rules, and apparently delegates to the state assembly are "nominated" at the precinct caucuses but elected at county assemblies. Lindsey did not attend the county assembly, so he was not elected as a delegate. Different counties have different rules; for example, in my county, Jefferson, we elected delegates to state directly from precinct caucuses. See also (http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/12/colorado-trump-voter-who-cried-foul-was-told-of-county-assembly-never-showed-up/) Mollie Hemingway's write-up about Lindsey in the Federalist.

Update 2: (http://cnn.it/1S1oxgw) I went on CNN for a few minutes to explain the basics of Colorado's caucus process. I want to clarify one point: Moving from a non-binding preference poll to no poll did not affect how national delegates are selected. Obviously moving to a hypothetical binding poll would affect that. At this point I lean in favor of keeping the caucus system but adding a binding poll to it (as opposed to moving to a primary system). There are pros and cons to caucuses and to primaries; to me the biggest advantage of caucuses is that Republicans in a neighborhood actually have a chance to meet and talk about the direction they want their party to take. That is totally lost with a primary system. April 16 Update: Now I think I actually favor a non-binding poll so that people take the selection process of delegates seriously.

Update 3: For more discussion about this issue, I suggest articles at the (http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/11/colorado-proves-donald-trump-cant-handle-the-rigors-of-a-campaign/) Federalist and (https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/yes-donald-colorado-did-vote-on-march-1) Conservative Review and (http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-interviews-cruz-colorado-chair-on-why-trump-is-wrong-about-disenfranchised-voters/) Mark Levin's interview with Ken Buck and (https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/levin-clears-up-the-colorado-controversy) further discussion (which mentions this article). See also (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/03/08/blake-caucuses-are-still-primary-to-coloradans-hearts/) Peter Blake's interesting article about the history of the caucuses and arguments for changing them.

Update 4: For other accounts of Colorado caucus participants, see write-ups by (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434046/colorado-caucus-results-victory-grassroots-conservatism) Laura Carno and (http://punditpete.blogspot.com/2016/04/colorado-gop-delegates-real-story.html) Pundit Pete.

Update 5: See also a short clip of my (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJ5dvOWyDk) interview with Dana Loesch and my radio (http://media.word1063.com/a/114619495/vince-coakley-4-12-hour-2.htm) interview with Vince Coakley.

Update 6: It is true that one of Trump's alternate delegates was left off of the ballot at the state convention. I believe this was an unintentional typo, and at any rate it did not affect the outcome in the slightest. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/cruz-sweeps-colorado-trump-campaign-issues-error-filled-ballots-n553586) NBC reports, "One Trump alternate, Jerome Parks, was not on the numbers-only ballot at #379—instead the ballot listed #378 twice." Trump's own campaign team made more significant errors in publishing its slate of delegates, as NBC relates.

Update 7: In an email, State Senator Laura Woods (who represents my area), aptly summarized the essential value of the caucus system: "My biggest concern about switching away from the caucus system is this:  when voters show up at caucus, they engage with the county party, and they become block workers, volunteers, precinct committee people, district captains, etc. They also are voted on to represent their precinct at the County, Congressional and State Assemblies."

Update 8: It's pretty amazing to me how many Trump supporters call Colorado's system unfair because it's not perfectly representative of voters, even as they ignore the many ways that Trump benefits from other states' systems because they are not perfectly representative. As I Tweeted, "Isn't it funny how Trump never complained about the 'undemocratic' result when he got 100% of Florida's delegates with 46% of the votes?" (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-right-that-the-gop-primary-is-unfair-it-favors-him/) FiveThirtyEight has more on this.

Update 9: See also my follow-up pieces,"(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/) Get Government Out of Political Parties: How to Resolve the Primary-Caucus Debate" and "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/breaking-jim-hoft-flubs-story-about-deny-trump-flyer/) Jim Hoft Flubs Story about 'Deny Trump' Flyer."

Update 10 (April 27): On April 23 (http://livestream.com/kmet1490/events/3829326/videos/120735802) Dave Levine had me on his radio show (1490 KMET) to further discuss Colorado's Republican caucus.

Update 11 (May 30, 2017): The comments that originally appeared below have been moved to a (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/comments-about-the-colorado-republican-convention/) new post.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) Reflections on the Presidential Race after Super Tuesday

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/ted-cruzs-remarkable-nod-to-the-separation-of-church-and-state/) Ted Cruz's Remarkable Nod to the Separation of Church and State

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/the-needed-political-realignment/) The Needed Political Realignment

Image: Ari's photo of the Colorado Republican Convention, April 9, 2016

BREAKING: Jim Hoft Flubs Story about "Deny Trump" Flyer

April 13, 2016

A lone Colorado Republican with nearly zero influence within the party handed out anti-Trump flyers at various Colorado Republican conventions, and, (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/colorado-republicans-passed-around-anti-trump-resolution-back-march-22/) according to the intimations of Jim Hoft and some of Donald Trump's supporters, this somehow counts as evidence of party corruption.

At issue is a flyer distributed by Robert Zubrin titled, "Resolution to Forbid Colorado Delegates from Voting for Donald Trump." As far as I can tell, I am the first person to report the existence of this flyer, which I photographed and (https://twitter.com/ariarmstrong/status/711204410148261890) posted to my Twitter feed on March 19, at the Jefferson County (Jeffco) Republican Convention.

At the Jeffco convention, to which I was an alternate delegate, Zubrin stood outside of the convention hall and passed out the flyer to people entering. In no way was this flyer part of official party business; it was just a flyer handed out by a lone activist. I realize that Trump and his supporters sometimes have a difficult time with the concept of freedom of speech, but Zubrin handing out his flyer was an expression of that.

Although the flyer claims to be a "resolution," it was never considered as an official resolution by the party. The county assembly did officially consider resolutions that had been submitted by precinct caucuses, but the language of the flyer was not among them.

I interviewed Zubrin at the convention about his flyer and his views about Trump:

https://youtu.be/MU1ygtu4s6s

As a bit of background, I have known Zubrin for several years, and I'm a big fan of his work. A former scientist with Lockheed Martin, he is the president of the Mars Society; indeed, Andy Weir—author of the novel The Martian (which inspired the blockbuster film)—(http://ablogaboutnothinginparticular.com/?p=3561) credits Zubrin for many of his ideas. Zubrin also works in the energy industry, and he is the author of Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism. Back in 2012 I (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/review-merchants-of-despair/) reviewed Zubrin's book and (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-fall/robert-zubrin/) interviewed Zubrin for The Objective Standard. He also writes occasional articles for (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/robert-zubrin) National Review.

Zubrin started a group Colorado Republicans for Liberty, which had nineteen members on Facebook as of April 12. I'm glad Zubrin started the group (and I was a Facebook member of it), but it has practically no traction within Republican circles. (Note: Apparently Zubrin deleted the other members following the publication of Hoft's article. Not that Trump's supporters would ever (http://therightscoop.com/colorado-gop-chairman-is-getting-death-threats-from-trump-supporters-3000-phone-calls/) threaten anyone or anything.)

At the state convention on April 9, Zubrin also ran for national delegate. As practically an unknown within the Republican Party, of course he lost. (I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if he picked up more than a handful of votes out of thousands.)

If Zubrin is from Mars, Hoft is from whatever planet inspires the most paranoia. It's not like Zubrin is a some political mastermind pulling the strings. At his tiny precinct caucus, he was elected as an alternate delegate to the state convention (as I was in my precinct). Because he was an alternate, I doubt he could even vote at the state convention; some alternates were able to step in for missing delegates, but only a small fraction. (I didn't get to.) At any rate, Zubrin had practically no impact on anything that happened within the Colorado Republican Party this year. Again, this is not to disparage Zubrin's efforts, which I applaud; merely to point out that he is far from a major player in state politics.

With that background in mind, let's review some of Hoft's claims about Zubrin's flyer and about the process generally.

Hoft: "Colorado Republicans Passed Around 'Resolution to Deny Trump Delegates' Back on March 22."

Reality: Actually it was March 19 (but who's counting).

Hoft: "There never was a vote—Party elites decided on who got the delegates."

Reality: The March 1 precinct caucuses were open to all Colorado voters who had been registered Republican at least a month. There, the participants voted on delegates for county, congressional, and state assemblies. The suggestion that people like Zubrin, me, and most of the other delegates and alternates are "Party elites" is laughable.

Hoft: "The anti-Trump politicians were passing around a 'Resolution to Forbid Colorado Delegates from Voting for Trump' for weeks before the convention."

Reality: Robert Zubrin was handing out the flyer, and he's not a politician.

Hoft: "After Cruz swept the Colorado delegates the Colorado Republican Party tweeted this out: [We did it. NeverTrump]."

Reality: Hoft and reality are actually in alignment on this one. Of course, Hoft neglects to mention that the state GOP chair was fiery mad about this unauthorized (and incredibly stupid) tweet.

Hoft: "The anti-Trump officials handed out this same resolution at the state convention on Saturday."

Reality: Well, I guess Zubrin is an "official" something. For instance, he's the official president of the Mars Society (and (http://www.marssociety.org/home/about/staff/steering-committee) Buzz Aldrin is on the Steering Committee!). So I guess Hoft's claim here is true in a certain respect.

UPDATE: Actually, Zubrin didn't even hand out the same flyer at the state convention. He tells me, "I did not pass out the 'no votes for trump' resolution at the convention. I passed out a flyer advocating my own candidacy for delegate." Here's that second flyer.

Hoft: "Here's the resolution [original flyer shown] passed around at the convention that instructed Colorado Republicans to not vote for Trump."

Reality: I saw Zubrin at the state convention and talked with him for a couple of minutes. I think he was handing out literature to people walking in (I didn't actually see copies of the flyer in question at the state convention [see the update above]); maybe he also handed out stuff inside the hall. Anyway, the flyer did not "instruct" anyone to do anything. It merely expressed Zubrin's opinions about what he thought should happen.

Hoft: "The resolution was created by Colorado Republicans for Liberty—a Cruz offshoot group."

Reality: Here Hoft seems to imply that Colorado Republicans for Liberty—which, again, is an informal group with a handful of (former) "members"—is somehow affiliated with Ted Cruz's campaign. It is not. It doesn't even directly support Cruz that I'm aware, except perhaps by implication by opposing Trump.

It's unclear to me whether Hoft actually believes his own nonsense or is merely spouting it to further inflame Trump's supporters—as if they needed the help. It's going to be a long year.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) Setting the Record Straight about Colorado's Republican Caucus

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2014/08/zubrin-aims-to-turn-waste-gas-into-profits/) Zubrin Aims to Turn Waste Gas into Profits

Get Government Out of Political Parties: How to Resolve the Primary-Caucus Debate

April 15, 2016

Imagine there's no party on government ballots; it's easy if you can (with apologies to Lennon).

Right now in Colorado and elsewhere in the nation, we are debating whether to use a caucus system (based on local meetings and assemblies) or a primary system (based on mailed ballots) to assign Republicans and Democrats to general-election ballots for various government offices. (Right now in Colorado we use a combination of systems for many offices, and we use a caucus system to select national delegates to the Republican national convention. By separate laws, third parties assign candidates at their conventions.)

Colorado's caucus system exploded in controversy after Ted Cruz won all of the state's delegates at the April 9 Republican state convention. Although Colorado Republicans elected delegates to the national convention exactly the same way as last time, Donald Trump played on widespread confusion about a cancelled, non-binding preference poll at caucus to claim that the system is "rigged" and that it "disenfranchised" people.

Having (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) participated in the Republican caucus system, I saw how grass-roots it really is—it begins with neighborhood meetings where local Republicans get together to discuss politics, conduct party business, and select delegates to various assemblies. I think there's a great deal of value to the caucus system that isn't obvious to people who don't participate in it (and even to some who do). That said, I also had some sympathy with arguments for moving to a primary system closed to party voters that splits delegates proportionally.

But then I started thinking, why is government involved in political parties in the first place? When government places a candidate's party affiliation on a ballot, it thereby sanctions and helps to entrench today's two major parties. And primary elections are funded by taxpayers. How is it moral to force people who disapprove of the parties (or of voting generally) to pay for the process of selecting Republican and Democratic candidates for the general ballot? Answer: It isn't.

What got me thinking along these lines was a remark by the great Colorado political analyst (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/03/08/blake-caucuses-are-still-primary-to-coloradans-hearts/) Peter Blake, who reminds us, "Parties, as the Supreme Court has affirmed numerous times, are private organizations."

But are they really? When government lists parties on ballots and pays for systems of selecting a party's candidates, political parties in reality are not purely private; they are instead quasi-governmental entities. And that ambiguous status generates all kinds of problems.

The reason that Trump's claims of "disenfranchisement" seem plausible to many people is that many people see today's two major parties as de facto arms of the government. If the Republican Party is part of the government, then it makes sense that it should follow "enfranchisement" rules appropriate to government.

On the other hand, if the Republican Party is truly a private organization, then it makes sense for the party to select candidates in a way best suited to the party's goals (and I think a caucus system is best for that). For comparison, if you join the Catholic Church, you don't think you're "disenfranchised" because you don't get to vote directly for the next Pope. You just understand that the church has a longstanding (and very elitist) selection process for that.

By way of background, this is the first year that I participated in the Republican caucus system. Before registering Republican late last year, I was an unaffiliated voter for many years. Before that, I was very active in the Libertarian Party of Colorado; I even ran for state representative once. At the time, I appreciated the easy access that Libertarians had to the ballot. Now I think it's absurdly easy for third parties to place candidates on the ballot relative to the major parties and to independent candidates. All third parties have to do in Colorado is hold a convention where members of the party select candidates to appear on the ballot. So I've been aware of some of the oddities of Colorado's candidate selection process for some time.

We Coloradans had a bizarre election for governor in 2010 that illustrates some of the problems with existing election laws. That year, Tom Tancredo, formerly a Republican member of Congress, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_gubernatorial_election,_2010) ran with the American Constitution Party. He did so well that his new party gained "major party" status—which was quite ridiculous.

Given the many problems of government involvement in political parties, here is what I now propose: Government should set simple rules for a candidate to get on the general-election ballot (presumably based on petition requirements); these rules should apply the same to everyone, regardless of party; and government should not be involved with promoting a party or selecting its candidates in any way.

Let me spin a hypothetical case to make clear what I'm talking about. Let's say government at all levels requires that petitions for candidates be submitted by September 1 of an election year. Anyone may get on the ballot, without party affiliation listed, by meeting the petition requirements. A political party, as a truly private organization, may select its favored candidates however it wants. Indeed, any private organization could select its favored candidates however it wants.

Let's say Alan Albertson, Barty Bernardo, and Chad Cox want to run as Republicans for U.S. Senate. They would join the Republican Party, and that party would institute a selection mechanism (such as a caucus and convention) to pick its candidate. Let's say Alan Albertson wins the Republican contest. Then Alan would get the petitions to be on the general-election ballot. But couldn't Barty and Chad also petition onto the ballot? Yes, they could. Presumably, the Republican Party in that scenario would have an honor system by which candidates pledged to petition onto the ballot only if they became their party's official designee.

Let's say that Barty promises not to petition onto the ballot if the Republicans consider backing him and he loses, but that he's a lying bastard. Barty loses the Republican contest, then petitions onto the ballot anyway. This would simply be none of the government's business. Voters could choose whether to sign petitions placing Barty on the ballot and whether to vote for Barty in the general election.

So where do parties come in, then, if they are not listed on the ballot for the general election? Presumably, parties would simply distribute and publicize slates of their candidates. For example, the Republican Party would send out a list of its selected candidates for the various offices in contention. A voter could then vote according to the Republican Party's slate—or not.

In short, what I am calling for is the separation of party and state. I think it makes no more sense for government to list "Republican" on a general-election ballot than it does for government to list "Catholic" or "Mormon" on a ballot. Tracking a person's private affiliations is simply none of the government's legitimate business.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that the system I describe is close to how politics actually was done long ago, but I don't know that history. (That would make an interesting topic for a future article.)

Another detail: I very much support (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/01/atwood-pitches-approval-voting/) approval voting to handle elections in which more than two candidates run. Approval voting basically means that voters can vote for as many candidates as they want. So if two similar candidates appear on the ballot, voters could select both, thereby reducing the chance of splitting their votes and electing a less-popular candidate. The candidate with the most votes overall wins. (Ranked voting achieves a similar outcome, but it's harder to implement.)

Although I very much enjoyed the Republican caucus process this year, something about the way that candidates end up on a general-election ballot has been bothering me. Now I think I know what it is—the inappropriate collusion of government and political parties. I think my proposal—to separate political parties from government—is the only morally and practically defensible move.

April 18 Update: Yesterday I posted the following remarks to Facebook; they reflect my latest thinking about caucuses, primaries, and the problems with government collusion with parties:

Thank you to those who have helped me clarify my thinking about these issues. Again, I think the fundamental is that government ought not collude with political parties, and such collusion is the key problem in this context.

Unfortunately, it looks likely that government soon will force the political parties to allow non-members to help select (some of) their candidates, by my lights the worst possible outcome and a grotesque violation of rights of association (which Republicans seem to occasionally defend).

In the context of political parties restored as (fully) private organizations, should they use a caucus or a primary system? It occurred to me that either system could use local meetings, mailed ballots, or some combination of those things (which I think would be the way to go). So the key difference is whether all members get to vote directly for all party offices and candidates, or whether they get to vote on delegates to choose (some or all of) those offices and candidates.

I still think the caucus is the best way to handle the process, because a caucus system creates a first-level, easy-access stage of activist. To run as a delegate (to assemblies), a person has to make an effort to win the support of neighbors. This necessarily encourages neighbors who are party members (who want to get involved) to get to know each other very well. Much of that dynamic is lost in a primary; there's no built-in incentive to get to know other activists in your area.

That said, I think if a party used a primary system, it could compensate pretty well in terms of developing activists by holding local events.

So I end up where I began: It doesn't really matter too much whether a party uses a caucus or a primary system. What really matters is that government not force parties to conduct business one way or another. Unfortunately, most Republicans seem perfectly content with government micromanaging and subsidizing private organizations, at least when they are political parties.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) Setting the Record Straight about Colorado's Republican Caucus

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/breaking-jim-hoft-flubs-story-about-deny-trump-flyer/) BREAKING: Jim Hoft Flubs Story about "Deny Trump" Flyer

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/01/atwood-pitches-approval-voting/) Atwood Pitches Approval Voting

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a comment

Primaries Rob Conventions of Meaning

I agree wholeheartedly that government should not be involved in or fund political party processes, but I would go further and state that the primary system specifically and the caucus system more generally rob the convention process of any real meaning.

Once upon a time, local and state parties caucused about policy more than candidates. Each state party selected delegates to represent their beliefs at the national convention. That is why the national conventions used to spend so much time debating and voting on platform planks. Then, and only then, once they had decided what they stood for this time around, did they select national candidates to promote and, hopefully, enact that platform.

Today, thanks to the primary system, the national candidates are usually a foregone conclusion by the time the convention rolls around. The convention is a media event and nothing more. The delegates will still spend time fussing over the platform, but it is mostly a useless exercise—the platform that gets enacted will be the candidate's platform, not the convention's, because the cart is now squarely in front of the horse and the candidate owes little to the delegates.

Good luck fixing this, though.

—John K. Berntson

Still, Never Trump

May 4, 2016

Donald Trump has won the Indiana primary—and with it, likely the Republican nomination. So, barring a miracle, it looks like the next president of the most powerful nation in world history will be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump—two of the people I'd least like to see as president.

No, I don't think the nomination of Donald Trump will be armageddon for the Republican Party. Nor do I think the election of Donald Trump (if by some miracle he can manage that) will be armageddon for the country.

But his nomination will be very bad for the party, and his election would be very bad for America. Which is why I for one will not be voting for him. Even if that means Hillary wins.

Now is a good time to run down some of the unpleasant facts about The Donald and then discuss some of the implications for this election and for the future of the country.

Trump as Enemy of Free Trade

Donald Trump wishes to "(http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/02/trump-can-throw-free-trade-window./) throw free trade out the window," an insane position totally at odds with individual rights and economic liberty.

True, the Republican Party used to be the party of economic protectionism, meaning its leaders favored "protective" tariffs and the like.

The term "protectionism" is misleading, however, as what tariffs actually do is prop up some industries at the expense of other industries and of consumers, who must pay higher prices, and make people poorer overall. Tariffs "protect" a country in roughly the same way that influenza viruses "protect" a person's body.

The previous "great" Republican president to run with protectionism was Herbert Hoover, who was, like Trump, a successful business leader. Hoover's anti-trade policies helped (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) push the country into the Great Depression, setting the stage for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409) disastrous New Deal.

To emphasize the point: A businessman Republican "protectionist" bears substantial responsibility for the rise of statism—bordering on (https://fee.org/articles/when-the-supreme-court-stopped-economic-fascism-in-america/) economic fascism—in 20th Century America. That this fact apparently gives so few modern Republicans pause is disturbing.

Thankfully, for the last few decades, the Republican Party, guided by such sensible free-market advocates as Milton Friedman, has largely embraced free trade (despite some obnoxious exceptions).

It's not like the principles of free trade are difficult to understand. Politically, people have a right to buy and sell goods and services to whomever they please (excepting some military items and the like). Economically, when people of different regions can specialize in what they're relatively good at and then trade, people overall grow wealthier.

Yes, free trade can result in some people having to find a new profession—as the introduction of the automobile caused many horse breeders to find new work. But consumers don't owe any particular person a given job. If American consumers prefer to purchase some goods from out-of-country, that's their right. (The same principle applies if people in one U.S. state wish to buy goods and services from people in another state).

Of course, insofar as U.S. tax and regulatory policy drives businesses overseas and punishes domestic producers, that is horribly unjust. The proper solution is to remove those government impediments to production, not to add more.

It is no accident that Trump and "Democratic Socialist" Bernie Sanders are now leading the political movement against free trade. Restrictions on trade are a logical extension of the statism that both Sanders and Trump endorse. Both men are enemies of economic liberty—and, by extension, of the prosperity that comes with it.

Trump as Enemy of Free Speech

As I've (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/trump-cruz-and-freedom-of-speech/) written, Trump is antagonistic toward freedom of speech. Consider a couple key examples:

Rather than stand in support of those drawing Mohammed—such as (http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2016/05/my-winning-mohammad-cartoon-is-for-sale.html) Bosch Fawstin, who nearly was murdered by jihadists in Texas—Trump said drawing Mohammed is (http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/donald_trump_slams_pam_geller_for_"taunting"_muslims_with_"draw_the_prophet"_contest_"what_the_hell_is_she_doing/) "taunting" jihadists. In other words, Trump joins the many leftists who essentially claimed they were asking for it.

And (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/26/media/donald-trump-libel-laws/) Trump said he wants to "open up the libel laws" so he can sue media outlets that criticize him. (He said he was discussing "false" articles—he said the New York Times and the Washington Post write such articles—but it's pretty clear that he wants to set a low bar for judging a critical article of him "false.")

Trump as Enemy of Freedom of Association

Obviously Trump cannot be trusted, ever, to maintain his positions from one day to the next. However, at one point, Trump insisted he'd deport some eleven million immigrants currently living in the United States without the proper paperwork.

In short, Trump threatened to turn the United States into a fascist police state for the purpose of forcibly removing millions of peaceable people. Yes, "Papers, please!" is now a rallying cry for many within the Republican Party.

Of course, Trump has also (https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/trump-tape) indicated that he didn't mean it.

Trump is right to criticize the government's soft treatment of illegal immigrants who have demonstrated a propensity for violence.

He is wrong to forcibly prevent Americans from hiring peaceable people who wish to work for them.

It's pathetic that many Republicans stand up for freedom of association only in the context of bigoted bakers declining to serve gay couples, not in the context of employers wanting to hire peaceable immigrants.

Trump as Cronyist

The most tragic aspect of this year's election is that many people will confuse wealthy Trump with an ideological defender of free-market capitalism. Trump is a businessman, but he is no capitalist. He is a cronyist, someone who uses government force to acquire wealth.

As (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house) David Boaz summarizes, "The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of 'the silent majority,' has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes."

And, as (http://capitalistpig.com/news-media/nevertrump/) Jonathan Hoenig points out, "Donald Trump is explicitly anti-capitalist on issues ranging from taxes to anti-trust to trade."

Trump as Latin-Style Cuadillo

Dave Kopel aptly (https://twitter.com/davekopel/status/727613817690030080) described Trump as a "Latin-style caudillo" (strongman). Consider some illustrations:

• (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trump-says-hed-force-us-military-commit-war/) Trump said he'd order members of the U.S. military to murder the families of terrorists and to engage in torture—both war crimes.
• When two of Trump's supporters mercilessly beat a homeless man from Mexico, (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/20/after-two-brothers-allegedly-beat-homeless-man-one-them-admiringly-quote-donald-trump-deporting-illegals/I4NXR3Dr7litLi2NB4f9TN/story.html) Trump described his supporters as "passionate."
• In response to a protester at his rally, (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-on-protester-id-like-to-punch-him-in-the-face/) Trump said he'd like to "punch him in the face" and see the protester "carried out on a stretcher."
• (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-brokered-convention/) Trump predicted that his supporters would riot (thereby promoting such action) if the Republican convention were contested.
• (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432655/trump-defends-praising-putin-chinas-strong-response-tiananmen-square) Trump said the Chinese government's murder of students at Tiananmen Square "shows you the power of strength," and he said "Putin has been a strong leader for Russia." (He said he wasn't "endorsing" such strength.)
• After Marlene Ricketts donated money to an anti-Trump PAC, (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/22/trump-ricketts-family-better-careful/80761060/) Trump threatened, "They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!"
• Back when a contested convention was a real possibility, Trump's ally threatened to (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/roger-stone-donald-trump-delegates-convention-hotel-221586) publish the hotel rooms of Cruz's delegates.

Trump as Conspiracy Loon

Trump has floated so many loony conspiracy theories it's hard to keep track. (This is the man to whom many Republicans wish to hand the U.S. nuclear codes.) Here are some examples:

• (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/03/trump-bizarrely-links-cruzs-father-jfk-assassin-cruz-goes-ballistic/83874972/) Trump claimed that Rafael Cruz (Ted's father) was "with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death [of John F. Kennedy], before the shooting." In reply, Ted Cruz sensibly called Trump a "pathological liar."
• Trump promoted the story that Barack Obama may have been born a Muslim in Kenya. (This example and those following are (http://www.dailywire.com/news/5399/5-trump-conspiracy-theories-and-why-trump-pushes-ben-shapiro#pq=PG4az6) via Ben Shapiro.)
• In defiance of the evidence, Trump claimed that vaccines cause autism.
• Trump suggested that the 9/11 terrorist bombing may have been carried out or invited by the U.S. government.
• Trump suggested that Antonin Scalia (who died at age 79) may have  been murdered.

Trump as Mean-Spirited Bigot

Again we can consider some well-known examples:

• Trump (http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn) mocked a reporter's disability. He (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-making-fun-reporters-disability/story?id=35463888) later claimed he wasn't doing what he appeared to be doing, but the video is pretty clear.
• (http://nypost.com/2015/08/08/trump-megyn-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/) Trump called Fox News reporter Megyn Kelly a "bimbo" with "blood coming out of her wherever."
• Trump's many other (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/18-real-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women_us_55d356a8e4b07addcb442023) derogatory remarks about women are well-documented.
• Oh, and Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b) insulted Jeb Bush's wife for being an immigrant.

Trump and the Supreme Court

Given the above, no thoughtful, self-respecting person can vote for Donald Trump for any office, much less the presidency. This is not a "reality" television show; this is the greatest republic in the history of humanity. At least it was.

I haven't decided whether I'll disgustedly vote for Hillary Clinton or vote for a minor-party candidate (bearing in mind that a single vote for president is never decisive).

(I will point out, though, that it is flatly untrue that not voting is the same thing as "voting for Hillary," as I've heard on the radio. Switching one's vote from the GOP to Clinton is effectively a two-vote difference.)

The most (potentially) compelling reason for voting for Trump, despite it all, is that the next president is likely to nominate several Supreme Court justices. Wouldn't it be better for Trump to do this rather than Clinton?

Someone on radio (I think Hugh Hewitt) suggested that Trump would name specific possible court nominees in order to win Republican support. That indeed would be a smart strategy.

Of course, there is the problem that it is impossible to trust anything Trump says. We can rely only on his presumed desire to win reelection (if he wins this time).

Then there is the question of whether Trump's nominees would actually be better than Clinton's. Trump probably would pick people more likely to uphold gun rights and less likely to permit censorship of political speech. But I'm not hopeful that Trump's selections would be very pro-liberty; undoubtedly in some ways they would be worse than Clinton's picks.

Constitutional scholar (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/02/indiana-primary-donald-trump-ted-cruz-republican-constitution-supreme-court-column/83820168/) Randy Barnett thinks that "either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will appoint justices who will stand aside and let them flout the constitutional limits on their powers."

But I want to make a broader point. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last line of defense for blocking abusive, rights-violating government actions. If Congress did its job properly, the Supreme Court would not have to consider bad laws, because they would never be passed.

The only reason the Supreme Court matters with respect to gun rights is that Congress and various state legislators pass anti-gun laws. The only reason the Supreme Court matters with respect the EPA regulations is that Congress has completely abnegated its responsibility to "regulate commerce" itself, rather than pass off this responsibility to unelected bureaucrats. The only reason the Supreme Court matters with respect to free speech is that Congress and state legislatures passed laws allowing censorship of political speech.

In other words, the primary reason the Supreme Court matters to conservatives (and to liberty advocates) is that conservatives (and liberty advocates) have been largely feckless in blocking rights-violating legislation. Indeed, conservatives (but not liberty advocates) have proactively supported much rights-violating legislation.

For example, Republicans elected John McCain (and company), who sponsored the censorship law (McCain-Feingold) that Hillary Clinton now complains was overturned by the Supreme Court.

So what matters more than the next Supreme Court justices is the future of a real pro-liberty movement that blocks bad legislation in Congress and in the state legislatures.

And what will Donald Trump, if elected, do for the future of such a pro-liberty movement? He may destroy it.

If Trump wins, the only way he will not destroy a pro-liberty movement is if advocates of liberty do not help him win, but instead stick to their principles.

It's obvious that, if Clinton wins, Republicans will rally against her rights-violating policies. It's equally obvious that, if Trump wins, Republicans who support Trump will rally around his rights-violating policies.

Then there is the matter that many down-ticket Republicans will have to distance themselves from Trump in order to win their elections. Other Republicans can't help them do that while they're busy collecting their thirty pieces of Trump's silver.

So, no, the Supreme Court is not a reason to vote for Trump, an anti-liberty buffoon.

Silver Linings of Trump's Success

As disappointed as I am that enough Republicans flocked to Trump to give him the nomination, I do see some silver linings to his success. In no particular order:

1. Trump represents the rejection of the hyper-sensitive "political correctness" now rampant in our culture. It's one thing to avoid gratuitously insulting comments in public (not that Trump does that); it's another to bow to the "safe space" thought-police.

2. Trump's trouncing of Cruz indicates that the evangelical movement is not the behemoth, focused ideological group I had feared. (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruzs-dangerous-pandering-to-theocrats/) Cruz's central strategy, at least early on, was to win with evangelicals. He failed. Instead, evangelicals flocked to Trump, despite his relatively moderate (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/12/ted-cruz-would-ban-abortion-even-for-rape-victims/) abortion stance (which no one even believes he believes). I continue to think the evangelical movement could gel into a powerful and frightening ideological movement in the future, but today it is scattered and largely unserious.

3. Trump's success sends a strong message that the GOP should stop running squishes such as McCain and Mitt "Father of ObamaCare" Romney for president.

4. In 2010, scholar Brad Thompson penned an obituary for neoconservatism. Trump's success (and Cruz's and Sanders's success for that matter) affirms that attempts at nation-building are over (at least for now).

5. The rise of the Never Trump movement hopefully will lead to a serious reevaluation of the conservative movement and of the Republican Party. I suggest they start by reading Stuart Hayashi's article, "(https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-anti-reason-essence-of-conservatism/) Donald Trump and the Anti-Reason Essence of Conservatism." In many ways, various conservative and Republican leaders set the stage for Trump for many years. He is the culmination of the worst aspects of today's conservative movement.

Concluding Remarks

It is dangerous to think that Trump is some sort of national savior, that he (and he alone) can "make America great again." As Cruz and others have suggested, he has hardly any idea what made America great in the first place.

But I think it's also dangerous to overstate the disaster of Trump's nomination and possible election. (The same is true of Clinton's possible election.)

As far as our nation has strayed from the Constitution, the basic structure of government with its checks and balances remains in place, and Trump cannot change that. Even if Trump manages to win the general election, which seems highly unlikely, he will have to contend with the rest of the executive, Congress, the Supreme Court, state governments, and—most importantly—the American people.

I have no doubt that, in a different era or in a different place, Trump could comfortably settle into the role of dictator. But this is America, still. And this will continue to be America long after Trump fades from the headlines—if we who champion liberty and Constitutional government hold strong now.

Please (http://eepurl.com/bZb7HX) join Ari's email list or (https://www.facebook.com/AriArmstrongWriter) Facebook page.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) Reflections on the Presidential Race after Super Tuesday

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/) Get Government Out of Political Parties: How to Resolve the Primary-Caucus Debate

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/ted-cruzs-remarkable-nod-to-the-separation-of-church-and-state/) Ted Cruz's Remarkable Nod to the Separation of Church and State

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/trump-cruz-and-freedom-of-speech/) Trump, Cruz, and Freedom of Speech

Why Liberty Advocates Should Join the Republican Party, Not Abandon It, Despite Trump

May 10, 2016

Disgusted with Donald Trump's success within the Republican Party, some Republicans are (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-05042016-some-republicans-burn-voter-registration-cards-le-1462387001-htmlstory.html) burning their party registration cards. More people are (http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/04/google-searches-for-libertarian-party-su) checking out Libertarian Gary Johnson, who is actively (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gary-johnson-2016-race-real-opportunity-libertarian-party/story?id=38956151) seeking the support of disgruntled Republicans.

I too am (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/still-never-trump/) disgusted with the state of the Republican Party. Although I (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/02/problem-of-gary-johnsons-libertarian-affiliation/) continue to disapprove of Johnson's Libertarian affiliation, this year it's hard to criticize any vote made in protest of the "choice" between Trump and Hillary Clinton. I've thought maybe people should start a write-in campaign for (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36225652) Boaty McBoatface. I've thought about putting up twin yard signs for (http://southpark.cc.com/clips/154582/debate-2004) Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. Absent a viable independent run (possibly (http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-4-a-the-election-of-1824-25-when-the-house-chose-the-president) throwing the race to the House of Representatives), it seems like this year the American people are just hosed.

But, paradoxically, the fact that the Republican Party is in such a sorry state is a reason for liberty advocates to stick with the Republican Party (or join or rejoin it), not abandon it.

Please note that I am calling on liberty activists to officially join the Republican Party and become active in it, not necessarily to always vote for Republican candidates. (Certainly I will not vote for Trump.)

Sometimes, the most effective way to participate in a party is to refuse to support its unworthy candidates, so as to encourage the selection of more-worthy candidates down the road.

More broadly, people have got to get off of the idea that voting counts as serious activism. How you vote matters barely or not at all. The ideas and strategies you publicly advocate matter; your participation in Republican caucuses and networking events matters; your beating the pavement and making phone calls for candidates you support matter. How you vote is irrelevant unless how you vote influences how many others vote.

I sympathize with the impulse to break up with the GOP. I did that myself, long ago. I first got involved in party politics by supporting George H. W. Bush (George I); I even adorned my truck with a Bush sign. At the time, I was part of a Reagan family, so it seemed natural to support Reagan's vice president.

But within a few years I abandoned the GOP and joined the Libertarian Party. I was even a board member for the Colorado LP, and I produced its newsletter for a few years. Eventually, I figured out that the Libertarian Party is even more dysfunctional than the Republican Party. For me, tensions came to a head when the state party nominated (http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/08/stanleyfiles.html) Rick Stanley for U.S. Senate in 2002. He was disastrously bad; Donald Trump looks sane and thoughtful by comparison. ((http://www.coloradoindependent.com/1704/libertarian-us-senate-candidates-conviction-for-threatening-judges-upheld) Stanley eventually went to prison for threatening a judge.)

The Libertarian Party is unsuccessful not only because America's electoral system favors a two-party setup, but because the LP is an ideological basket-case, an organization littered with anarchists, militia kooks, America haters, conspiracy theorists, and the like. There are also many good people in the LP, but the anti-government thrust of the party attracts plenty of crazies and always will do so.

The LP has never been successful, having (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#U.S._House_of_Representatives_results) never elected a single person to the U.S. Congress. Currently the (https://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials) LP boasts 144 office holders, only 38 of which are for partisan offices. These positions are for city councils and fire district boards and the like; hardly earth-shaking.

Johnson, having served as a governor (as a Republican), is probably the best, most viable candidate the LP has ever run for president. This year, he might even break double digits. But regardless of how well Johnson does, he will never win major office as a Libertarian, and the Libertarian Party will never build on whatever success he might have to become a serious political player.

In practice, the Libertarian Party has one and only one significant political result: It drains the Republican party of its liberty advocates, thereby leaving the GOP to the John McCains and Donald Trumps of the world.

Put simply, if you think that "voting your principles" means you should support candidates with zero chance of winning office or significantly influencing the political landscape, you don't understand what principles are or why they matter. It is not a betrayal of principles, but rather a manifestation of proper principles, to become politically active in a way that actually matters.

That is not to say that a new party can never be achieved. Even constitutional scholar Randy Barnett, who has "long vocally opposed third parties as irrational in our two-party system," (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/29/donald-trump-republican-party-elections-2016-third-party-column/81102918/) thinks that the Trump fiasco could lead to a viable new party.

America's original parties, the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican Parties, no longer survive. The Democrats came on the scene around 1828, with the now-defunct Whigs; the Republicans arrived with the national crisis over slavery. But today's major two parties, through their changes, have remained stable for well over a century. It's foolish to think that will change absent some major crisis or realignment.

I do not think the arrival of Trump will be an extinction-level event for the Republican Party. But it could mark a significant turn for the party; it could morph from the anti-slavery party of Lincoln and the free-market party of Reagan into the xenophobic protectionist party of Trump. If that happens, even more people will find themselves without a party home.

The alternative is to let Trump be a wake-up call to liberty advocates. Rather than sit on the Libertarian sidelines or the like or take the feckless "bitch and moan" approach, liberty advocates could begin the hard work of reshaping the Republican Party into their image.

But, as I've Tweeted, some people want to leave the Republican Party because it's hard to reform, to join a third party that is impossible to reform. It's like saying that passing the mountain is hard, so we're going to sit on the side of the trail play with pebbles.

What would a new party take even to have a chance of replacing the Republican Party? I'd say that, at a minimum, it would have to have a half-billion dollars in resources and three major Congressional leaders to come aboard. If you can't get at least that—and preferably more like a dozen Congressional leaders out of the gate—then all you're doing is diverting precious resources to make-believe politics.

Absent a real, truly viable new party, all available resources (starting with time) are far more effectively spent reforming the Republican Party.

It is too late in the game for liberty advocates to "play house" in the political arena. Libertarians and other minor-party activists are like preschoolers who "cook" prefabricated plastic "foods" in unworking plastic "stoves" as their mother bakes bread in adult-land nearby.

It's time to grow up and get serious about the future of our country—before it is too late.

May 12 Update: I discussed these ideas further with (http://vor.podbean.com/e/may-12th-2016/) Andy Hooser of 1480 KQAM; I'm on for the first eighteen minutes.

Please (http://eepurl.com/bZb7HX) join Ari's email list or (https://www.facebook.com/AriArmstrongWriter) Facebook page.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/still-never-trump/) Still, Never Trump

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/01/reason-and-rights-republicans/) Reason and Rights Republicans

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/how-you-can-stop-voting-naively-and-start-voting-strategically/) How You Can Stop Voting Naively and Start Voting Strategically

I've Given Up

After 19 years trying to pull the republican party in a more libertarian direction, I've mostly given up on the project. I've spent money going to their state conventions, and time going to the caucuses, and they just seem to keep getting further and further from both liberty and sanity. My confidence in ever being able to pull them in a liberty direction was shaken by the 2012 state convention where the Log Cabin Republicans were getting booed at the convention, but I stuck it out for another 4 years.

I'm out now though.

Those local offices may not seem like much, but that's really the only way to try and build a party. Trying to take the presidency without building up support locally is probably impossible.

Kazriko

May 10, 2016

Ari Armstrong replies (May 12): Again, I sympathize with the sentiment, but by giving up on the Republican Party absent a viable alternative, you are only helping to guarantee that the Republican Party will continue to get worse over time. I acknowledge that reforming the GOP is a monumental task, and one that requires extensive grass-roots activism. But I think that's the only viable path toward restoring a party that champions individual rights and constitutional government.

A Few People Can Make a Difference

Good article.

I learned several years ago (with your help) that a few people can make a difference at the state level in the Republican Party by taking one state issue and fighting for more liberty on that issue, be it health care (my issue in the years before ObamaCare), education, gun control, or whatever.

What if every state had a few good people fighting passionately for a handful of issues pushing for more freedom every year within the party?

I think the party platform could change for the better a lot faster than one might imagine. And we could have real advocates for liberty leading those changes.

—Lin Zinser

May 12, 2016

Actually Vote for Liberty

Can you avoid the voting for the lesser of two evils error? Some say you should vote for Trump because it would be worse to have Hillary. And this is repeated throughout all levels of political office. You vote for a anti-liberty Republican because you don't want the Democrat to win. The result is the current anti-liberty Republican party. Are you willing to let the Democrat win and actually vote for liberty? If there are more and more votes for Libertarian candidates, won't the Republicans (and the Democrats) try to court this vote? Voting for the status quo continues the status quo.

—Mike Spalding

May 13, 2016

Ari Armstrong replies (May 14): As I'm sure you know, I made essentially the same argument for years. But it's just a bad argument. First, I'm saying liberty advocates should get active in the GOP, not that they should vote for every Republican candidate. Second, consistently voting for Libertarians has the opposite effect of what you suggest. If a Republican (or a Democratic) candidate knows a voter will pull the LP lever no matter what, that candidate will pay zero attention to that voter. On the other hand, a GOP activist who strategically threatens to vote for no one or for a non-Republican can wield disproportionate influence (as I've (http://ariarmstrong.com/2015/11/how-you-can-stop-voting-naively-and-start-voting-strategically/) discussed).

Retrench and Continue the Fight

That was a very nice analysis of the state of the principles and practicalities involved in reforming the political landscape. It would be easy to throw up our hands in disgust at the current Republican Party, but I think it is more a reflection of the state of our culture than a problem with the party per se.

I also thought that the Republican Party was making progress before this year. Recently, there have have been a number of principled constitutional conservatives elected to Congress. Although I understand the impatience of voters with the Republican Congress, the fact of the matter is that with Obama is still in the White House coupled with the fact that a two thirds vote of both houses is required to overturn a presidential veto means that the Democrats actually retain more power in Washington than the Republicans have.

Some people have argued that Congress should have used the power of the purse more forcefully, but that is basically a game of brinkmanship which has trade-offs. House members serve for only two year terms, so anything that they do that is unpopular is going to subject them to the wrath of the voters almost immediately. Unfortunately, brinkmanship and gridlock are the only real tools that Congress has, absent a super-majority, to use as negotiating levers when the government is divided. I just hope people who are throwing in the towel understand that fact.

This could have been a very good year for Republicans, but the voters chose another course. Now is not the time to give up, but time to retrench and continue the fight.

—Darrell Hougen

May 13, 2016

When and How to Be a Political Activist for Liberty

May 16, 2016

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) Recently I argued that liberty advocates should remain or become active within the Republican Party rather than join a minor party (unless a viable new party can replace the GOP, which I doubt). This gave rise to a number of questions: Does that mean everyone should be a Republican? Should everyone be active at the level of party politics? Do people even need to be active in politics at all?

My answer is that most liberty advocates should indeed be active in politics at some level—not as some alleged moral duty, but as a means of protecting their values. Only for some people does this mean activism at the level of party politics.

My previous article addressed the choice of whether to be active in the GOP or in a minor party; the article took for granted that a person had chosen party activism. Now I want to back up and look at the broader questions. When should people become active in politics, and how should they do it in broad terms?

Liberty as a Value

The context here is people with the philosophic maturity to understand what liberty is and why it matters. Here Ayn Rand articulated the essential issues: To consistently pursue our values by our own judgment, we need to be free from the coercion of others, whether street crime or rights-violating government actions. Proper government exists to protect people's rights and morally may not seize their wealth, throttle their productive activities, or the like.

Liberty is critically important in an advanced economy such as ours, in which we rely on an intricate network of producers to trade the goods and services we need to live and prosper. Rights-violating government actions undermine the pursuit of values in a market economy and thereby threaten our prosperity, our health, and sometimes our very lives.

Consider just a few examples. When government forcibly restricts people from earning a living by offering car rides, they are less able to support themselves and travelers are less able to get where they need to go quickly, economically, and comfortably. When government forces parents to finance schools that serve their children poorly, they have fewer resources and fewer options for educating their children as they judge best. When government forcibly prevents doctors from offering and patients from trying path-breaking medicines and procedures, it undermines medical advances and takes many people's health decisions out of their hands. When government throttles reliable energy and subsidizes unreliable energy, consumers must sacrifice part of their wealth and pay higher energy prices.

Most people do not make politics part of their careers. But just because your profession does not involve political activism, doesn't mean that politics does not involve your profession. Whether you work in banking, health care, energy, auto repair, or any of countless other fields, you spend your professional time producing and trading the goods and services people need to live and thrive, not engaged in politics. But, given the alphabet-soup of federal regulatory agencies, the reams of federal and state regulations, and the massive tax burdens now imposed on producers, politics almost certainly has a major influence on how you spend your productive hours.

Politics even heavily controls your recreation, whether by forcing you to pay heavy taxes on beer or by regulating the ebooks you buy and the internet services by which you stream movies. A modern American simply cannot escape the pervasive economic influence of politics.

Regarding so-called "social" policy, government within the United States has in fact murdered people for selling the "wrong" drugs or doing so in the "wrong" way; locked countless people in cages for doing the same; threatened to punish doctors for offering medical services in a politically disapproved way; sought to punish people for speaking about politics in the "wrong" way or at the "wrong" times; and in countless other ways unleashed government force against those violating no one's rights.

Because government in the United States routinely violates people's rights and often fails to protect people from other sorts of violence, we are less prosperous, less wealthy, less healthy than we otherwise would be; less able to produce and use life-advancing goods and services; and more prone to suffer violence at the hands of government agents, criminals, and terrorists.

Obviously people who do not grasp the above will not become advocates for liberty and a government that consistently protects individual rights.

People who do grasp the nature and importance of liberty will thereby understand the value of protecting the liberties we still enjoy and working toward the expansion of liberty.

So should people who understand the value of liberty work to advance liberty? Put that way, the answer is obvious: Yes, except in unusual circumstances, such as when an individual suffers a crisis of finances or health (or the like) or works in a career (such as the military) that precludes political activism. Assuming you do value liberty and are willing and able to help advance it, how can you effectively do so?

There are, of course, many ways to actively promote liberty, and different individuals will find that different sorts of activism mesh better with their broader values. Here I will summarize some major forms of political activism. My ideas in these matters are drawn partly from Friedrich Hayek's essay, "The Intellectuals and Socialism," and Ayn Rand's essay, "For the New Intellectual." Incidentally, a few years ago I gave a talk based partly on those essays:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT32r8Tw3ek

Incorporate Intellectual Activism in a Career

Some people make intellectual activism an essential part of their careers. They become university professors in the humanities (who properly may advocate their views in appropriate ways), work for think tanks and legal groups, or work in advocacy journalism. Consider, as examples, the books of Thomas Sowell, the efforts of the Foundation for Economic Education and the Ayn Rand Institute, the legal suits of the Institute for Justice, and the columns of George Will.

Support Professional Liberty Advocates

If your career and other values leave little time for politics, you can still play a crucial role in political advocacy by financially supporting people you trust to work for liberty. To be effective in this, you need to discover the essentials of the types of political ideas and actions worth supporting, find people who effectively advocate your shared beliefs, and support those people when and how you can. You can contribute funds to university programs, think tanks, publishers, writers (ahem), and others who support your values in the realm of culture and politics.

Financially supporting professional liberty advocates is a little like investing in businesses. You don't engage in the primary activity yourself, but you do sufficient research to know your resources are used well. Just as you look for a financial return on your business investments, so you should look for a cultural-political return on your activist investments.

Advocate Liberty Part-Time

If you enjoy writing or speaking and want to take the time to master one or more areas of policy, you can write op-eds, issue papers, and letters to the editor, or produce podcasts or the like, on a part-time basis.

A great example of this sort of activist is Paul Hsieh, a full-time radiologist who writes about politics (and other cultural matters) on the side. Hsieh has a regular (http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/) column at Forbes, and he is now the main force behind (http://westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

If you want to write on a less-ambitious scale, you can write letters to newspapers and other publicans. (Some years ago I gave a talk on (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/10/activism-and-writing-letters-to-the-editor/) writing letters to the editor.) And of course you can advocate your ideas via social media (just avoid flame wars and the like).

Share Ideas with Peers

If you enjoy social engagement but want something less confrontational than party politics, you might consider starting or joining a liberty-oriented reading group, speaking group, or meeting group. The purpose of these, in terms of activism, is to help yourself and your allies better understand and advocate the principles of liberty.

Here are a few examples. I helped to lead an (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/08/atlas-shrugged-reading-groups-in-denver-longmont-colorado-springs/) Atlas Shrugged reading group near Denver (and Diana Hsieh later wrote up extensive study notes), and I ran (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/libertybooks.html) Liberty In the Books (and developed study notes) for several years. Quite a few Colorado activists are now involved in (http://liberty.toastmastersclubs.org) Liberty Toastmasters groups, (https://www.facebook.com/LOTRFlatirons/) Liberty on the Rocks groups, and other social networking and education groups.

Get Involved in a Party

All the political theorizing in the world makes no practical difference until it is reflected in public policy. In today's world, political parties are the primary way that political ideas make their way to legal application.

As a party activist, you have many opportunities to articulate your views to others in your party, influence your party's platform, seek to persuade office holders, support candidates who share your views, and network with other activists.

For most liberty advocates, I think (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) getting involved with the Republican Party is the way to go. Recently I discussed my participation in this year's (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) Republican caucus system in Colorado.

If you think you will have an immediate and large impact on a political party, you are setting yourself up for failure. The idea here is to join with other like-minded activists and slowly push your party in a more liberty-oriented direction. This is not an easy task, but it is, I think, a necessary one.

Joining a political party is not for everyone. If you enjoy public meetings, debates, and the thrill of the campaign, you'll fit right in. If not, you'll probably want to migrate toward other forms of activism.

Incidentally, I do think that some people might do better in the Democratic Party, especially if they live in an area dominated by Democrats or are most concerned about issues (such as abortion) where Democrats tend to be better. By contrast, I think third-party participation is a complete waste of time.

Look to the Future

Regardless of how you get involved, if you hold liberty as a value, it is probably in your interests to take action to support it. How you do so depends on your other interests and values. If you enjoy writing in solitude, perhaps you should consider writing op-eds or blog posts over joining a political party. If you have little time to spare, you might focus on finding worthy recipients of your financial support.

You might long for an imaginary world in which you didn't have to devote much time to politics in order to protect your values from rights-violating policies. But we don't live in that world.

Even if in the future we achieve a world in which government consistently protects people's rights, it will still be important to keep advocating the right ideas and fighting the wrong ones.

Unfortunately, the fact that previous Americans in many cases did not do their "due vigilance" means that we have to pick up the slack now. We have to fight for everything we're worth to keep our nation from sliding into the muck of Venezuelan-style or nationalist-style socialism.

Imagine the future we can have if we achieve a government that protects the rights of producers rather than continually assaults them, that spends its resources checking initiatory violence rather than fanning it, that offers individuals true security to pursue their values rather than security theater and the surveillance state, that protects what you earn rather than loots it.

Imagine a future in which individuals consistently interact and trade by consent, not force.

Imagine a future in which the political ideal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is fully realized.

I hope you agree this is a future worth fighting for.

Please (http://eepurl.com/bZb7HX) join Ari's email list or (https://www.facebook.com/AriArmstrongWriter) Facebook page.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) Why Liberty Advocates Should Join the Republican Party, Not Abandon It, Despite Trump

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/01/reason-and-rights-republicans/) Reason and Rights Republicans

Donald Trump Would Be the Least-Qualified Person Ever to Be Elected President

May 23, 2016

Donald Trump's leading competitors for the presidency during the last few months in both major parties—with the exceptions of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina—are far better-qualified than Trump for the position.

Even more remarkable, for the first time in its history, the Libertarian Party is set to nominate a candidate for president more qualified—and eminently so—for the office than the Republican. Gary Johnson, the likely LP candidate, served eight years as governor of New Mexico after building a successful construction company. Trump has never served in public office, although he has operated a largely successful real estate business.

This got me wondering: Has any major candidate for the office ever been less qualified than Donald Trump?

Certainly voters are skeptical about his qualifications; although Trump has taken a two-point lead against Hillary Clinton in a recent (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html) Washington Post-ABC News poll, 65 percent of registered voters think Clinton has the "experience to be president," versus 26 percent who think Trump does. The question of presidential qualifications is worth exploring.

Presidential Qualifications

We should start with the question of what qualifies a person to be president. This in turn depends on what it is the president is called on to do.

As Article II of the Constitution lays out, the president's main responsibilities are to serve as chief executor of the laws, to be commander in chief of the military, to "make treaties" with the Senate's approval, and to appoint Supreme Court justices and the like (again with the Senate's approval). In a way the president serves as the nexus between Congress and the courts; the president not only appoints various judges but provides the "state of the union" to Congress.

The president's job, then, largely involves knowledge of the law, particularly the Constitution; familiarity with the military; familiarity with foreign policy; and a working knowledge of how federal government operates. Nothing in Trump's background indicates that he has mastered any of these fields. Indeed, in myriad ways Trump has demonstrated that he is largely ignorant about all of them; for example, (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/trump-talks-about-judges-signing-bills-video/) he recently suggested that Supreme Court justices sign "bills."

Johnson, to continue with the contrasting example, although weak on military and foreign policy experience, has held an important executive position in government (albeit in a low-population state). Holding a governorship typically is considered good experience for the presidency. In our federalist system, successful governors must be intimately familiar with federal policy and how it affects state governments. As the president interacts with Congress and with federal courts, so a governor interacts with state legislatures and with state courts.

Trump as Businessman

The one area in which Trump arguably outshines Johnson and many major-party candidates for president is in business. Certainly running a successful business should be counted a qualification for the presidency, as it involves managing many other people—a skill important to the presidency. And the negotiation skills involved with running a business presumably carry over in some ways to matters of domestic and foreign policy.

But Trump's business experience is not a very good qualification for the office of the presidency, for several reasons.

Although Trump does not seem to understand this point, government is fundamentally different from private enterprise. Government necessarily and always involves the use or threat of force. Private enterprise, when it is not marred by the cronyism of government controls and subsidies, involves consensual relationships. Treating government as a business is disastrous (as is treating a business as a government). So while experience in a governorship or a Senate committee involving foreign policy (for example) obviously is relevant experience for the office of the presidency, running a business, however successful, is far less relevant.

Besides, Trump is hardly the only person to succeed in running a business. At least hundreds of people now living have been more successful or about as successful in business; many thousands have been successful at a level that would similarly qualify them for the office of the presidency. (I think even Johnson fits this category; he's worth millions compared to Trump's billions, but Johnson built a large business without the family money and ties that Trump had.)

Then there is the problem of the quality of Trump's business dealings. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house) Trump's use of eminent domain illustrates his cronyism and indifference to individual rights. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/) Trump's businesses also have declared bankruptcy four times. Whether or not Trump abused the bankruptcy laws, Trump's views about bankruptcy in business seem to taint his views about how to (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435226/trump-national-debt) handled the U.S. debt—Trump has suggested government might partly stiff its holders.

The Economist makes a couple of relevant points about (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21693230-enigma-presidential-candidates-business-affairs-tower-white) Trump's business success. For one thing, "Trump's performance has been mediocre compared with the stockmarket and property in New York." For another, Trump's "clannish management style suggests he might be out of his depth if he ran a larger organisation." No doubt he would be out of his depth trying to run the executive branch of the federal government.

Still, it would be a mistake to dismiss Trump's business experience as a qualification for the presidency. For a while I wondered whether we'd be better off just choosing a president randomly from among all registered voters, rather than electing Trump or Hillary Clinton. I think Trump really is a better pick for president than the average person. My best guess is that Trump is in something like the top five percent of registered voters in terms of capacity to serve as president. I guess that ain't bad, but it still means I think something like fifteen million people could do a better job. So I have to wonder how in the hell we ended up with two leading candidates that most Americans despise and rightly distrust to serve as president.

Does Experience Really Matter?

It is worth pausing to note that many Americans these days see experience in government as a disqualifier, not a qualifier, for the office of the presidency. Have our "experienced" presidents really done such a great job? Have our other "experienced" elected officials?

I am very sympathetic with the view that the "political elite"—here meaning the officeholders of high rank within the Democratic and Republican parties—largely have failed the American people. Republicans talk about blocking or reforming such things as ObamaCare and the Obama administration's dangerous deal with Iran, but they don't seem very serious about making headway on such issues. Leaders of both parties have failed to address such large, long-standing problems as the national debt and entitlement spending. It feels very much like the country is off the rails and our supposed leaders are playing power games in the tax-funded luxury of the dining car.

But experience does matter, especially for the office of the presidency. Relative to a member of Congress, the president has enormous power. And an executive position is inherently different from a legislative one. For legislative offices, ideology matters much more than background experience, I think. Not so with the presidency. It's pretty hard to desperately screw up the job of legislating (many of our legislators especially at the state level are not exactly the brightest bulbs).

But someone with an ideology I regarded as perfect could still be a disastrously bad president. The president is commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the history of the world, for God's sake, and a lot of people are treating this year's election like a joke.

Trump Would Be the Least-Experienced President of All Time

If you review the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States) list of United States Presidents, you will observe that everyone who has become president served as governor of a state, a member of the U.S. Congress, a high-ranking member of the federal executive, or a military leader.

Many presidents had experience in two or more of those areas and then some; for example, Teddy Roosevelt was a state assemblyman in New York, a police commissioner, a distinguished military veteran, an Assistant Secretary of the Navy under McKinley, governor of New York, and Vice President under McKinley. I disapprove of many of Roosevelt's political stances, but I can't argue that he lacked experience to serve as president.

Donald Trump, by contrast, has accomplishments in none of those broad categories. He has never held political office, never served in the federal government's (or in a state government's) executive branch, and never served in the military. If elected he would be the least-qualified person ever to hold the office.

Perhaps the least-qualified person ever to serve as president was Herbert Hoover (incidentally, a (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) Republican and successful businessman who played a major role in tanking the economy). Yet Hoover was vastly more qualified for the position than is Trump. Hoover headed the U.S. Food Administration during World War I and served as Secretary of Commerce under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. So at least he had some experience in the federal executive branch.

I reviewed the major candidates for the presidency going back to 1892, and I couldn't find even a major losing candidate for the office with less relevant experience than Trump.

The only two losing candidates to stand out, in terms of lack of qualifications, are Wendell Willkie (who lost to FDR in 1940) and Ross Perot (who came in a distant third in 1992 and 1996). But even Willkie and Perot were far more qualified for the office of the president than is Trump.

Willkie was a lawyer and successful business executive, so in that way comparable to Trump. Unlike Trump, Willkie had at least a little military experience, having volunteered for World War I (he made it to France, but the war ended before he saw action). Although Willkie had no experience in elected or appointed government office, he had extensive experience interacting with government as a political activist; as the leader of an electric utility, he (unsuccessfully) led the fight against the federal takeover of part of the electric-generation industry. Willkie got trounced by ten points, by the way; essentially he was the Republicans' sacrificial lamb to go against the mighty FDR.

Ross Perot doesn't count as a major candidate; at best he was a spoiler in 1992. Even so, he was far more qualified for the office of the presidency than is Trump. Perot's success in business is comparable to that of Trump. Unlike Trump, Perot had some military experience, having attended the Naval Academy and served in the Navy.

Given the above, it's shocking that enough Republican primary voters supported Trump to turn him into the presumptive nominee. The idea of Donald Trump as president rightly should be considered a joke, and nothing more. Yet here we are.

I keep expecting Ashton Kutcher to show up with a video camera and tell us we've all been "Pun'k."

Beyond Experience

So far I have focused on the sort of qualifications that one might expect a candidate to list at the top of a resume—positions in government or in business. Obviously if we consider qualifications more broadly, then other, less-tangible qualities matter very much. How does Trump fare under such review?

The four things that most matter in a president, I think, are these: experience, integrity, competence, and ideology.

Clinton definitely has the experience, having been an active First Lady, a U.S. Senator, and a Secretary of State under Obama. But she totally fails on the other three standards, by my lights. The events in Benghazi, Clinton's mishandling of her official emails, and the events revealed by (http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-clinton-cash-by-peter-schweizer-1430952794) Clinton Cash are, to me, more than adequate to show that Clinton lacks both the competence and the integrity to ably serve as president. Ideologically, Clinton wants to gut the First and Second Amendments to the Bill of Rights, impose higher taxes, impose more regulations, and in general move the country further away from the principles of individual rights. My only hope is that she'd be somewhat better than Trump on matters of trade and immigration.

Bernie Sanders has the integrity in some sense (at least he takes his ideas seriously and is true to them), but he doesn't have much relevant experience regarding the military or foreign policy. I don't think his legislative experience would translate to competent handling of the executive branch, and his ideology is largely the opposite of mine. (At a deeper level, I think Sanders lacks integrity, too, because he promotes socialism while ignoring or downplaying its horrific history and ideological failures.)

What about Trump? I have already (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/still-never-trump/) outlined the reasons why I think Trump largely fails in the matter of experience and totally fails with regard to integrity and ideology. To summarize briefly, Trump is an enemy of free trade, free speech, and freedom of association; a cronyist; an aspiring strong-man; a conspiracy loon; and a mean-spirited bigot. I'd say Clinton is the more despicable human being, but Trump is a strong competitor.

What about competence? As is obvious from Trump's handling of most American media, he is a master manipulator of media and of (some) public sentiment. The fact that he beat far more qualified candidates for the Republican nomination and is now in a position to give Clinton a serious run speaks to his competence in certain areas.

Trump definitely has the gravitas to serve as president. Of course, lots of political leaders have had plenty of gravitas and, largely because of that quality, have led their nations to complete disaster.

So, although I think Trump is masterfully competent in certain ways, I don't think most of the things he is competent at doing would make him a good president—quite the opposite. "Quiet Cal" Coolidge is far closer to a model president for me. Trump's competency in demagoguery is not a point in his favor.

Barring something close to a miracle, it appears that January 20, 2017, will be a very bad day for either of two reasons. On that day, either the deeply flawed Donald Trump, the least-qualified person to be elected president in the nation's history, will begin his term—or else Hillary Clinton will begin hers.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/still-never-trump/) Still, Never Trump

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) Why Liberty Advocates Should Join the Republican Party, Not Abandon It, Despite Trump

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/when-and-how-to-be-a-political-activist-for-liberty/) When and How to Be a Political Activist for Liberty

Trump Might be Influenced by Better Minds

Good summary of the two candidates remaining. Perhaps overlooked is the following.

Hillary is a known quantity: She has always been after power and will continue as president in the worst of Statist ways.

Trump, despite being such a pragmatist and lacking qualifications, could be influenced by better minds and develop somewhat of an ideology by end-of-year that he would be bound by. And he and would lead to much less harm to our economy and foreign relations than would Clinton.

Some focus on Supreme Court appointments might favor Trump. In the worst case for each of them, I think I would rather take my chances with overturning Roe v. Wade than with the banning of guns.

—Tom DeChaine

May 24, 2016

Ari Armstrong replies: The article speaks specifically to the qualifications of the candidates; it is not a definitive answer to which candidate one should support. Certainly I think it would be very bad to have a president who is basically unqualified for the position; however, arguably other possibilities would be even worse.

I don't believe that Trump is capable of changing his ideology at this point. He is driven by a combination of nationalism, pragmatism, and self-promotion. Because of that, he cannot be trusted to keep any promise or adhere to any stated position for longer than five minutes. That Trump would be a bad president I have no doubt; but what exactly he would do, and how bad he would be, is anyone's guess. He's a crap-shoot.

I do think the possibility that Trump might choose less-bad, and maybe even good, Supreme Court Justices is, to my mind, the best reason to consider voting for him. But no one knows whom he'll actually nominate. At any rate, the Court will not overturn Roe v. Wade nor ban guns into the indefinite future; however, it might allow much more restrictives laws on abortion or guns.

Donald Trump: Anti-Capitalist

May 31, 2016

One of the great dangers of the 2016 election is that many Americans will mistake Donald Trump for an advocate of capitalism. Although he is a wealthy businessman, Trump is anti-capitalist in ideology.

The Democrats often are explicitly anti-capitalist; they represent the soft-socialism of so-called progressivism—the "democratic socialism" that Bernie Sanders loudly trumpets and that Hillary Clinton defensively parrots. This camp advocates redistributive taxation and heavy regulations on businesses to fight income inequality and other alleged economic injustices.

It is convenient for leftists to brand Trump's racially tinged, nationalistic policies as "capitalist." In reality, Trump's proposals are diametrically opposed to capitalism. The "debate" between the democratic socialism of the left and Trump's nationalism is really one between two forms of statism. Indeed, in many ways Sanders's brand of statism and Trump's brand of statism converge; consider, for example, the two candidates' advocacy of restraints on international trade.

Before reflecting on some of the ways that Trump is an anti-capitalist, we should review briefly what capitalism is, so that we can tell what it is not.

In its narrow economic sense, capitalism refers to the development of capital—tools, factories, ships, software, and so on—that vastly expands people's productivity and makes possible unlimited increases in standards of living. In this sense capitalists are those who invest the resources on which capital formation depends.

Here we are interested in the broader meaning of capitalism, as a political-economic system of liberty, including rule of law and property rights, that enables individuals to pursue their own values by their own judgment and, consequently, to pursue the heights of economic prosperity. In this sense, capitalism has never existed in pure form; where it has existed it has always been mixed to a lesser or greater degree with rights-violating practices; it is, as Ayn Rand puts it, an "unknown ideal."

It is possible for someone to invest in capital, and to be a capitalist in that narrow sense, but to be ideologically mixed or antagonistic with respect to capitalism as the political-economic system of liberty. Rand dramatized the worst sort of such "capitalists" as many of her villains in Atlas Shrugged. In our world, people such as Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and George Soros have been enormously successful in business and yet have supported rights-violating, statist policies to various degrees.

Ideologically, Trump is nearly as antagonistic to capitalism as is Sanders. At least in some ways (and arguably on net), he is even more stridently anti-capitalist than is Clinton. Trump occasionally mouths rhetoric somewhat friendly to capitalism only when he praises individuals and nations for achieving great wealth or picks up free-market-leaning talking points from conservatives (which he almost certainly does not genuinely understand or embrace). In almost all of his rhetoric, in all of the policies that animate him, and even in some of his business practices, Trump stands opposed to capitalism. Let us count some of the ways.

1. Trump threatened Amazon with political reprisals via tax and antitrust enforcement.

This point shows Trump's anti-capitalism in three distinct ways: He threatened a business owner with political reprisals; he threatened to use the tax code specifically for this purpose, thereby sanctioning the existence of such tax laws; and he threatened to use antitrust law for this purpose, thereby sanctioning the existence of antitrust laws.

Here is (http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/13/technology/donald-trump-jeff-bezos-amazon/) what Trump said:

[The Washington Post] is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder tax-wise. He's using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don't tax Amazon like they should be taxed. [Bezos is] worried about me . . . [because] he thinks I would go after him for antitrust because he's got a huge antitrust problem. Amazon is controlling so much of what they're doing. . . . What he's got is a monopoly and he wants to make sure I don't get in.

Obviously threatening to unleash government force against political opponents is anti-capitalistic; capitalism is based on individual rights and a government based on rule of just law.

Just as obvious, seizing producers' wealth by government force is anti-capitalistic; producers have a moral right to their wealth, and it is a violation of their rights to confiscate it.

Perhaps less obvious to some but just as important, passing or enforcing antitrust laws is also anti-capitalistic, because such laws interfere with consensual relationships on a free market, instead imposing government dictates for how businesses must operate. (Antitrust is a complex topic; for more information see (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html) Rand's remarks and the books The Abolition of Antitrust and The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust.)

2. Trump praises eminent domain, and his businesses have threatened to use it.

In capitalism, property rights are inviolate; no one may seize the property of another. But Trump does not believe in private property rights; he believes in government power to redistribute property via eminent domain.

As (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-love-nearly-cost-widow-her-house) David Boaz relates, not only have Trump's business concerns threatened to pursue eminent domain on at least two occasions, Trump has explicitly praised the use of government force to take property from some people and transfer it to others.

Government does play a proper role in resolving property disputes over abandoned properties and in addressing property uses that harm others' enjoyment of their property. But that's not what Trump advocates; he advocates taking people's houses so that developers can build "beautiful fountains" and the like.

3. Trump has threatened a "trade war" with other nations.

Donald Trump has called for tariffs on goods from other nations, and he has (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangers-of-a-trade-war/2016/05/23/ac977b80-2120-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html) explicitly threatened a "trade war."

Trump's policies would increase costs for U.S. producers and consumers and risk throwing the U.S. economy into recession.

Here, too, Trump is anti-capitalist. In capitalism, producers and consumers may buy and sell goods and services with whomever they please, anywhere in the world, excepting only some highly delimited cases (such as the selling of military goods to hostile nations).

Notably, Trump treats trade essentially as collectivistic, rather than as something to which individuals have a right. He talks about national trade as though it were something above and beyond the trade of all the individuals here. He talks about "American jobs," as though the jobs an employer creates somehow belong to the nation and its government. He talks about the nation "losing" in trade, regardless of the individual choices that traders and investors voluntarily make.

Trump deserves a little credit for allowing his handlers to add language to his web site about (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform) cutting U.S. corporate tax rates, which indeed would partly unshackle U.S. producers, but on the whole Trump is strongly anti-capitalist with respect to international trade.

4. Trump wants to restrict immigration on explicitly protectionist grounds.

It's one thing to say the U.S. government should more proactively screen immigrants for violent tendencies and more proactively deport or imprison violent immigrants. It's quite another to say, (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform) as Trump does, that the U.S. government should forcibly restrict U.S. employers from hiring peaceable immigrants.

In capitalism, employers may hire any peaceable persons they choose; they have no obligation to hire someone just because they were born in one place rather than another. Similarly, under capitalism, property owners may invite any peaceable person onto their property that they choose.

Dangerously, Trump scapegoats immigrants, wrongly blaming them for high unemployment rates among certain segments of American workers and other for ills—even though rights-violating U.S. policies, not immigrants, demonstrably are to blame for those problems. For example, minimum wage laws, laws that interfere with employer-union contracts, licensing laws, and many other sorts of interventions drive many Americans into the unemployment lines.

At one point, Trump promised to forcibly deport some eleven million peaceable immigrants who are in the country illegally. (Trump seems (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/02/29/telling-donald-trump-doesnt-believe-can-actually-deport-11-million-people/) not to really believe his own statements in this regard, as he seems not to really believe many things he says, but nevertheless he said it.) Not only would such a policy blatantly violate the rights of U.S. employers to hire immigrants and of peaceable people to live and work where they want, it would require the creation of a full-blown fascist police state to implement.

5. Trump relied on subsidies and discriminatory taxation to get ahead in business.

In capitalism, producers bear their own costs and operate on a level legal playing field. Trump operated his businesses by securing government subsidies and tax favoritism—thereby counting on government to throttle his competitors by taxing them more.

As the (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/11/nation/la-na-trump-20110511) Los Angeles Times reported in 2011, Trump "built his empire in part through government largesse and connections." The article continues: "In New York, Trump was the first developer to receive a public subsidy for commercial projects under programs initially reserved for improving slum neighborhoods." Trump also benefitted from generous "tax abatement" programs, meaning that government taxed him at much lower rates than it taxed his competitors.

This is a tricky issue because, as (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-moral-integrity-of-condemning-social-security-while-collecting-it/) I've explained elsewhere, business leaders morally may take advantage of certain government programs which they did not create and which they explicitly oppose, if for the sake of partial restitution for government seizing their wealth elsewhere.

But Trump did not take advantage of subsidies and tax favoritism for the explicit purpose of mitigating his long-term tax burden, nor did he explicitly call for an end to subsidies and for equitable tax cuts for all. Rather, he actively sought subsidies and tax favoritism and sanctioned their existence, as the Times's article makes clear.

6. Trump financed anti-gambling campaigns in New York to protect his gambling operations in Atlantic City.

In capitalism, business leaders must compete in a free market; they may not use government force to harm competitors. Trump intentionally advocated government action to throttle his potential business competitors.

As the (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/06/nyregion/trump-and-others-accept-fines-for-ads-in-opposition-to-casinos.html) New York Times reported in 2000, "Donald J. Trump and his associates . . . secretly financed newspaper advertisements opposing casino gambling in the Catskills." Why? "Trump has long feared that competition in the Catskills would undermine the gambling industry in Atlantic City, where he owns three casinos." (I first learned of this story from (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910?paginate=false) Politico. Note that I don't approve of the lobbying regulations or fines discussed by the Times.)

This is a perfect case of what Bruce Yandle calls the "bootleggers and baptists" phenomenon, when supposed do-gooders (in this case members of an anti-gambling group) team up with interests who do the very thing the supposed do-gooders oppose, to forcibly restrict competition in the field.

Although hardly the worst of Trump's offenses, this case clearly illustrates Trump's antagonism toward capitalism.

* * *

Here I have outlined only some of the major ways that Trump is by practice and by ideology anti-capitalist. But mine is not too difficult a case to make. Trump has never pretended to advocate capitalism; it's not as though he punctuates his public speeches with references to individual rights and free markets. Nor do Trump's supporters pretend that he advocates capitalism.

No honest, informed person can reflect on the matter for more than a few minutes and conclude that Trump is anything other than anti-capitalist in basic orientation.

But I do think there is value in drawing attention to this fact and in reviewing some of the relevant details. After all, leaders of the Republican Party especially since Reagan often have voiced support at least for aspects of capitalism, even when Republican politicians often have acted by statist rather than capitalist principles.

With Trump now at the top of the Republican ticket, no one may now pretend that the GOP is any longer or in any way the party of capitalism—at least for now. Some Republicans continue to advocate capitalism, and many more unseriously mouth support for aspects of capitalism, but they are now outcasts riding in the box cars of the Trump Train.

Those of us who understand and advocate capitalism would do well not to let others forget that Trump is anti-capitalist—this goes for the left, Trump's supporters, and other members of the Republican Party. Under Trump, the Republican Party even more than before stands for statism, not capitalism, and hence is competing with the Democrats merely over which brand of statism to impose.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/donald-trump-would-be-the-least-qualified-person-ever-to-be-elected-president/) Donald Trump Would Be the Least-Qualified Person Ever to Be Elected President

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) Why Liberty Advocates Should Join the Republican Party, Not Abandon It, Despite Trump

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/still-never-trump/) Still, Never Trump

I Came to the Same Conclusion

Great article, Ari. Your evaluation of Trump as anti-capitalist is very similar to my own, though expressed much more clearly. I do think that a significant portion of the population are unlikely to take the few moments necessary to see that he is not a capitalist. After all, many will think, he is rich so he must be a capitalist.

It is this mistaken attribution of him as a capitalist which puts Trump at the top of my "people I will not vote for" list. To be fair, Hillary and Bernie are on the same list.

Again, I very much enjoyed your article.

—Patrick L. Black

May 31, 2016

Should Liberty Advocates Support Gary Johnson for President?

June 8, 2016

For those who advocate liberty, this is a frightening election year. The next president is likely to be Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html) played fast and loose with sensitive government information, who seems to have used her official position to generate "Clinton cash," who parrots the anti-producer rhetoric of "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders, and who wants to radically weaken the First and Second Amendments—or Donald Trump, whose (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/still-never-trump/) loutish, (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/donald-trump-anti-capitalist/) anti-capitalist nativism almost makes Clinton seem like the voice of reason by contrast.

Given the sorry state of the major parties, and given that the Libertarian Party has nominated someone (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/donald-trump-would-be-the-least-qualified-person-ever-to-be-elected-president/) eminently more qualified than Trump for the presidency, the question naturally arises: Should liberty advocates support the Libertarian, Gary Johnson? We begin to answer this question by evaluating the candidates in terms of policy.

The Candidates on Foreign Policy

In my view, Johnson is the strongest candidate now in the race for the presidency in terms of qualifications and platform. Trump has almost no relevant qualifications and a largely horrid platform. Johnson, a two-term governor from New Mexico, has the only serious executive-level experience of any of the candidates.

On paper, Clinton looks highly qualified, with experience in the Senate and as Barack Obama's Secretary of State. Obviously Clinton beats out Johnson in terms of experience dealing with foreign policy; there Johnson has no relevant experience.

Clinton's experience in foreign policy, however, cuts against her, too. I'm extremely skeptical of the Obama administration's deal with Iran, which Clinton strongly supported. And Clinton's work in Libya hardly counts in her favor. As the (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html) New York Times reported earlier this year, the Obama administration's 2011 intervention in Libya, promoted primarily by Clinton, went disastrously wrong, destabilizing the region and empowering terrorists. And Clinton's handling of the 2012 attack on the Benghazi diplomatic compound and its aftermath are extremely troubling. That Clinton blamed the attack on an "internet video" is shameful.

If Johnson has no accomplishments to speak of regarding foreign policy, at least he hasn't left any foreign policy situation FUBAR.

How Johnson might govern with respect to foreign policy is largely a matter of guesswork. Obviously he would be much less inclined than Clinton to intervene militarily in affairs of foreign nations. How he would govern would depend largely on the military experts with whom he surrounded himself, and I have no idea who those people might be.

Johnson has said mainly what he is against regarding foreign policy—nation-building and the like—not what he is for. For example, his web page states:

As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists' coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of "more boots on the ground" and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded.

So he's going to be "strategic" and "thoughtful"; how insightful. What would his strategies be? How would he "repair" alliances, and what good would that do? How would he "neuter" Islamic State and other terrorist organizations without using military force? How would he keep potential aggression of Russia and China in check?

With respect to the potential of a Johnson presidency, my fear is the same as it is with Bernie Sanders. I worry that, with a president perceived as inexperienced and slow to act, America's enemies and antagonists quickly would step up to the lines in the sand and see how fast those lines can be redrawn. Paradoxically, the candidates who least want to deal with foreign policy might, by virtue of that fact, turn foreign policy into an explosively dangerous situation and become consumed by it. I think the candidate in the race most likely to give Vladimir Putin and his ilk a moment's pause is Clinton.

My sense of Johnson is that he does have the mental and emotional maturity to handle foreign policy. I think that, if he immediately surrounded himself with serious people and communicated that he's serious about commanding the military might of the United States, he could potentially move America's foreign policy in a better direction.

Contrast Johnson with Trump, to whom no sane person would entrust leadership of the most powerful military force in human history. Seriously, who the hell knows what Trump might do with respect to foreign policy? (http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/) Clinton's evaluation of Trump is exactly right: "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes—because it's not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." I'm not sure there has ever been a president who has been more spectacularly out of his depth with respect to foreign policy than Trump would be.

The most notable thing about (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html) Trump's speech on foreign policy is how much of it is rambling, incoherent nonsense—in a speech written down for him by others. Anyway, we always have to doubt how many of the talking points delivered to him by advisors Trump actually believes or even cares to understand.

It's worth noting that, ideologically, Clinton, Johnson, and Trump are closer regarding foreign policy than might be immediately apparent. Essentially, they are all of a pragmatic bent, with Clinton more likely to intervene for the sake of (hoped for) global stability, Trump more likely to intervene because his taco salad was too spicy, and Johnson less likely to intervene than the others. No candidate advocates the sort of aggressively pro-American foreign policy that, say, (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/09/jihad-america-end/) Craig Biddle advocates. Whereas Clinton wanted to cut a deal with Iran and Johnson wants to (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/03/libertarian-gary-johnson-clarifies-forei) freeze Iran's assets, Biddle would "eliminate the Iranian regime" with an all-out military assault. Arguably, Johnson's foreign policy would be most similar to Obama's of any of the candidates.

Given that former Republican Johnson is on the Libertarian ticket, we can ask how he reacts to the usual Libertarian stance of non-intervention. (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/03/libertarian-gary-johnson-clarifies-forei) Brian Doherty's review gives us some indication. Doherty notes that Johnson strays from "the general 'no intervention outside the national borders ever' Libertarian consensus." Although Johnson will not sanction the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, neither will he condemn it, as many Libertarians do. Johnson says he's not sure whether the United States should have entered either World War. In short, Johnson is out of his depth when it comes to foreign policy but not a hardline Libertarian.

Johnson's Domestic Policy

I think most people have a pretty good idea of what the domestic policies of Clinton and Trump would look like. Clinton would try to raise taxes, expand social programs, pass whatever anti-gun laws she could manage, and enable censorship of political speech. Trump would try to build a wall along the boarder of Mexico, restrict trade, restrict immigration, maybe lower taxes here or there while increasing spending (but who the hell really knows), maybe nominate "conservative" Supreme Court justices (and (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/02/why-constitutional/) maybe not), and (in case you forgot) build a wall, an absolutely yuge wall, to be financed by the Mexican government (yeah, right).

Johnson likely would accomplish very little regarding domestic policy with zero Libertarian members of Congress to work with him. He could wield his veto pen to stop or hinder legislation he doesn't like. He could rescind executive orders and issue new ones. Importantly, he could nominate various judges and fill various bureaucratic positions. Johnson's Supreme Court picks very likely would be genuine constitutionalists who would stand up to abuses of government power.

I think Johnson's suggestion to (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/off-message-transcript-gary-johnson-223918) replace the income tax with a consumption tax is dangerously naive; almost certainly the consumption tax would be added to an income tax.

Oddly, Johnson (https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-religious-liberty-problem) fails to defend liberty on just the issue that might have gotten him a second look from religious conservatives: discrimination by private businesses against homosexuals. I think Johnson can be partly excused for this stance because, first, it's not anything over which a president has control and, second, the so-called "religious liberty" laws in question give a specific group (the religious) special legal protection, rather than protect every business owner's rights equally.

In general, I agree with maybe 90 percent of (https://garyjohnson2016.com/issues/) Johnson's domestic agenda. He has described himself as fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and I think that's exactly how he'd govern. What you see is what you get: He'll seek to lower taxes, cut regulations, scale back the drug war, and generally try to refasten the chains of the Constitution to the federal government.

There's a decent chance that, if elected, Johnson would easily become the best president in my lifetime.

An Unelectable Libertarian

Johnson is in my view clearly the superior candidate now in the race. He's a decent person, which puts him head and shoulders above his competitors; his foreign policy would be certainly better than Trump's and likely no worse than Clinton's; and his domestic policy would be dramatically more pro-liberty.

But none of this indicates that a liberty advocate should support Johnson for president.

The first fact with which we must grapple is that Johnson is unelectable. It's sad, but the best candidate in the race will come in third, and a very distant third. But might he have momentum? After all, he is (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/07/poll-gary-johnson-largely-unknown-and-polling-in-double-digits/) polling at 10 percent. True, this year Johnson might pick up quite a few discontented Republicans. But, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2012#National) judging from 2012, when Johnson polled as high as 5.1% yet earned only 1 percent of the final vote, he likely will pull fewer votes than what he is polling.

If Johnson manages to get himself into the debates by polling more than 15 percent, which I doubt he can do, he might start to earn some serious media attention and become a widespread protest vote. But even if that happens, the final result will be the same: a distant third-place finish, only slightly less distant. (It has occurred to me that Clinton might do well to shun Trump and offer to debate only Johnson, but surely that won't happen.)

A second important fact here is that Johnson is a Libertarian. If he were running as an independent, I'd have no problem whatsoever voting for him as a protest.

But, because he is running as a Libertarian, to the extent that Johnson is successful, he will advance that party. And that's a bad thing.

The Libertarian Party should be allowed to die off, hopefully with its better members joining liberty groups within the major parties. Indeed, if true liberty advocates had abandoned the Libertarian Party years ago and become active in the Republican Party, maybe today we'd be talking about someone like Johnson or Ted Cruz (who at least is pro-liberty on economic issues) leading the party, rather than Trump.

Besides being a minor party in a two-party system, the Libertarian Party is now and always has been deeply influenced by horrible ideas, most importantly moral subjectivism and political anarchism. This is the party, for example, that not once but twice ran an anarchist (Harry Browne) for president.

As (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/01/even-with-gary-johnson-the-libertarian-party-undermines-liberty/) I summarized in 2012:

[I]t is impossible to support Johnson as a Libertarian candidate without promoting the Libertarian Party itself, and that party undermines the very foundation of individual rights. . . . By lending his credibility to a party that often tolerates (or even glorifies) anarchism, blames America for Islamist assaults against us, and embraces moral subjectivism and outright craziness, Johnson sullies the case for liberty by muddying it with antithetical ideas.

Although many Libertarians (including Johnson) favor the existence of government (how odd to have to write those words), the pervasive sentiment coming out of the Libertarian Party (and the broader libertarian movement) is that government is always bad, to be restrained wherever possible if it cannot be abolished. That is why, for example, Libertarians can so rarely find an example of military action of which they approve. It is no exaggeration to say that Libertarians frequently sound exactly like the Ward Churchill left, blaming the United States for jihadist attacks on Americans (and the like).

Because Libertarians tend to see and describe government as inherently evil, they open themselves up to all sorts of legitimate attacks by their critics. On issues including intellectual property and the use of military force, Libertarians seem either crazy in rejecting government or defensive in accepting it piecemeal. That's the essence of why I think the Libertarian Party in the main never will be anything other than a party of kooks and cranks.

The fact that Johnson is an unelectable Libertarian raises important questions about whether liberty advocates should support him, even though otherwise he is far and away the best candidate in the race from a liberty perspective.

To Support or Not to Support

Unless something near-miraculous happens, Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States—and she will win by a large margin. Trump piles fiasco on fiasco—the latest is him calling a judge in the case of Trump University a "Mexican"—and I think this will sink his candidacy. So I don't think it really matters, at least in terms of the outcome in November, which candidate liberty advocates support or whether they support any candidate.

What matters, then, is the future influence of one's current political activism.

Arguably, this year Johnson is bigger than the Libertarian Party such that he largely escapes its problems. I think a liberty advocate can reasonably argue, "I'm voting for Johnson because of his record and policy positions, not because he's a Libertarian, and voting for him this year as a protest will send a strong message to the Republican Party that it needs to shape up—or be replaced by a viable liberty party."

But I think voting for Clinton, voting for another minor-party or independent candidate, or not voting in the presidential race would send a similar message.

The key is for people who cast a protest vote, whatever its form, to clearly and publicly articulate why they are casting a protest vote. It is the public articulation, not the vote itself, that is most important in terms of influencing the future direction of American politics.

Of course, some liberty advocates will hold their noses and vote for Trump, because "Hillary!" and "Supreme Court!" I don't think such a vote is defensible, but such voters can mostly expiate their sins by declaring publicly that they condemn Trump and are pulling the lever for him only to avoid (they think) even worse problems.

A Missed Opportunity

(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/liberated-gary-johnson-seeks-libertarian-nomination/) On December 28, 2011, after flailing in the Republican race for the presidency, Johnson announced he was leaving the GOP to run for president as a Libertarian. Imagine if instead he had joined or formed an independent or Republican-affiliated pro-liberty organization to promote the sort of policies that made Johnson a successful Republican governor. He might have been able to help push the GOP in a better direction such that it avoided this year's catastrophe. He could have threatened an independent run and pursued it assuming Trump still got the nomination.

In that scenario, Johnson still would not have positioned himself to become president of the United States. But he would have been able to seriously influence the future of the Republican Party for the better, rather than continue to help drain liberty activists out of it.

But the past cannot be changed, and Johnson apparently sees no problem with riding the Libertarian horse.

The rest of us must play with the cards dealt. Regardless of how and whether one votes and otherwise participates in party politics this year, Johnson's run offers a good opportunity to point out the serious defects of Clinton and Trump, to discuss what genuinely pro-liberty policies would look like, and to advocate a new direction for the Republican Party (or else its replacement).

I suspect it will be a long five months until the election, and then a long four years until the Republicans have an opportunity to do better. For liberty advocates, the only solace to be found is that crisis is opportunity.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/donald-trump-anti-capitalist/) Donald Trump: Anti-Capitalist

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) Why Liberty Advocates Should Join the Republican Party, Not Abandon It, Despite Trump

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/05/why-im-not-a-libertarian/) Why I'm Not a Libertarian

An Open Letter to the Colorado Elections Study Group

June 10, 2016

Dear Members of the Elections Study Group,

Thank you for taking up the important matter of how to properly handle the caucus-primary season for major parties in Colorado.

Due to time constraints in juggling career and family, I do not plan to attend your July 11 meeting. (Other readers may note that the (http://www.coloradosenaterepublicans.com/work_on_election_issue_to_continue_post_session) meeting is at 1:00 pm at the Capitol's Old Supreme Court Chambers. The Jefferson County Republican Party reports that citizens will be allowed three minutes each to offer comments.)

However, I wanted to make my views known to you in this open letter. I hope you will seriously consider my distinctive views on the matter.

The main question on the table is whether to keep the caucus system for nominating presidential delegates to national conventions (possibly with modifications) or to adopt a primary system (presumably with mailed ballots).

I suggest to you that that question, although important, is not the fundamental question we should be asking. The fundamental question, in my view, is whether government should be involved in the business of political parties, which at least nominally are private organizations. I think the answer to that clearly is "no," and I don't see how any limited-government conservative could logically reach any other conclusion.

Before detailing my views on the fundamental question of government involvement, I do want to briefly outline my views on the question of caucuses versus primaries. I (re)joined the Republican Party last year so that I could be involved in this year's caucus system. I saw first-hand how useful the caucus is for bringing together Republicans for face-to-face discussions and fostering networks of activists. I think it would be a big mistake to give up or undermine that process. I do think the caucuses can be better marketed and otherwise made more inviting to members. I think it would be okay (but not ideal) to implement a primary system for presidential races (to bind delegates), so long as it is open only to party members, with the proviso described below.

Whether the Republican Party adopts a caucus or primary system properly is up to the Republican Party, not the Colorado government. (As with all my related points, the same goes for the Democratic Party.) By the same token, whichever system the Republican Party embraces, it should have to organize and finance.

Quite simply, it is morally wrong to force taxpayers to fund the primaries of the major parties, especially given that many taxpayers are not even members of those parties and do not wish to participate in them.

More broadly, it is morally wrong and contrary to the principle of equal protection of the law for state government to regulate parties in any way that benefits some private organizations (namely, the two major parties) over others.

Ultimately, I do not think government should even place party affiliation on general-election ballots (which properly are organized and financed by government). When government decides to list party affiliation, it inevitably sets the rules for which parties may be included and by what terms—thereby improperly interfering with the operation of private organizations.

Meanwhile, independent candidates face very different—and I think unjustifiably disparate—legal hurdles to obtain ballot access. I say let every candidate get on the ballot in the exact same way (by petition), don't list affiliations, and let every organization (including political parties) endorse candidates as they see fit. (For example, a party could distribute its endorsed list of candidates prior to an election.)

Although this is not fundamental to the issue, a side-benefit of my proposal would be that voters could no longer blindly vote party line based only on ballot-listed affiliations. Rather, voters would have to make some minimal effort, even if only to look up a party's endorsements online before voting, to learn something about the candidates. I see this as a benefit, not a bug.

I appreciate you taking the time to think more carefully about the fundamental issues involved in the rules surrounding caucuses and primaries.

Sincerely,

Ari Armstrong

CC Laura Woods, Ray Scott, Jerry Sonnenberg, Kevin Grantham, Kevin Lundberg, Sean Paige

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/) Get Government Out of Political Parties: How to Resolve the Primary-Caucus Debate

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) Setting the Record Straight about Colorado's Republican Caucus

Debate over "Radical Islam" Misses the Key Distinction between Theocratic and Secularized Islam

June 15, 2016

Donald Trump is wrong about nearly everything, but he is right about this: America's political leaders properly may refer to the movement motivating terrorists to act in the name of Muslim beliefs as "radical Islam." However, as we'll see, Trump misses the key distinction between theocratic Islam and substantially secularized Islam, and he therefore draws the wrong policy conclusions related to Muslims.

First let's briefly review recent discussion on the matter. On June 12, following the murderous jihadist assault on the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j-trump-statement-regarding-tragic-terrorist-attacks) Trump said:

In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam.' For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency. . . .

We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism—which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans.

In response, Clinton essentially agreed with Trump, (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-orlando-attacks-reaction/) saying "you [can] call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I'm happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing."

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/14/president-obamas-remarks-after-national-security-council-meeting-on-islamic-state/?postshare=2291465925368066&tid=ss_tw) Obama struck a similar note as Clinton regarding the significance of the terminology, although he used the phrase "radical Islam" only to discuss why he normally does not use it (or the related term "radical Islamist"). After describing the various concrete actions his administration has taken against Islamic State (he uses the acronym ISIL), Obama directly confronts Trump's criticism and explains why he doesn't use the term "radical Islam":

What exactly would using this label . . . accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?

The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.

Since before I was president, I have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions. . . .

Groups like ISIL and Al Qaida want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.

They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people, that they speak for Islam. That's their propaganda, that's how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims as a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with the entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists' work for them.

Where Trump and Obama agree (and where Clinton disagrees) is that there is a substantive issue at stake with whether we refer to terrorists who claim to be motivated by their Muslim beliefs as "radical Islamists."

For Obama, Islam properly understood is a "great religion" that does not inspire terrorism. He sees a sharp dividing line between Muslims and terrorists; once a person becomes a terrorist, he no longer acts on genuinely Muslim beliefs, whatever his claims. If Obama drew a Venn diagram, the circles of "Islam inspired actions" and "terrorism" would not overlap. Thus, he concludes, it makes no sense to equate (Muslim) terrorism with Islam, "radical" or otherwise.

For Trump, Islam can be "moderate" or it can be "radical," but it is still Islam. If Trump drew a Venn Diagram, the circle of "radical Islam" would be inside the circle of "Islam." Thus, he implies, terrorists who claim to be motivated by their Muslim beliefs are part of "radical Islam" and therefore part of Islam, and to avoid the phrase is to avoid the essential nature of what motivates these terrorists. (Please, no one ask Clinton to try to come up with a Venn diagram here.)

As Clinton might ask, what difference does it make?

Whether one sees "radical" jihadism as an aspect of Islam or a perversion of it very much influences how one evaluates the religion as a whole and how one views America's "moderate" Muslim allies.

In Obama's view, Islam is a fundamentally wholesome and peaceful religion, and generally we should consider Muslims and Muslim-led nations as trusted allies of the West. Moreover, we need to go out of our way to build bridges with "true" Muslims so that fewer Muslims jump the wall between Islam (properly understood) and terrorism (which is antithetical to Islam). I think this view helps explain Obama's attempts to make nice with the Iranian regime, for example.

In Trump's view (at least the view his statements seem to imply), Islam is a fundamentally troublesome religion, and the difference between nonviolent and violent Muslims is one of degree, not category. In this view, a Muslim is more likely to be nonviolent the less Islamic he is, and a "radical" Muslim is violent precisely because he takes his religion very seriously.

Notice that the terms "radical" and "extremist" in this context imply that Islam can be embraced to various degrees. The idea that terrorists are "radical" and "extreme" implies that they embrace their religion in a full-throttled way; they are "extremely" religious as opposed to "moderately" religious.

What is Obama doing, then, when he uses the term "extremist" to refer to terrorists who say that they are Muslim but who (in his view) are not truly Islamic? What is it that they are "extreme" about, in Obama's view? It can't be their religion, because an "extremely" Islamic person is an extremely good one, in Obama's view. (By the same token, an "extremely" Christian person is an extremely good one.)

What are the premises that seem to underly Obama's choice of terms? When Obama talks about an "extremist," he is not thinking about religion at all. Rather, he seems to be thinking something along the lines that many people around the world are pissed off at the West (and at America in particular), and the people who are "extremely" pissed off tend to resort to "extreme" measures and become terrorists. Thus, the term "extreme" as Obama uses it seems to refer to a person's level of anger (or something like that), not to a person's level of religiosity.

Back to Trump—not only does Trump see "radical Islam" as part of Islam, he sees the lines between them as very porous. That explains, for example, why he wants to restrict all immigration from Muslim nations, irrespective of the background and expressed beliefs of particular potential immigrants.

I think Trump is right, and Obama is wrong, about the relationship between violent jihad and Islam: The former is an authentic expression of the latter (although obviously not the only possible expression). It is no accident (for example) that the Islamic regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia promote violent jihad around the world.

But something clearly is missing from Trump's account. (Partly I'm using Trump here as a proxy for the beliefs of many conservatives, particularly evangelical conservatives.) As is obvious to anyone who has actually read the published comments of Muslims in the West (and even in the Middle East), there is a vast difference between Muslims to whom terrorist violence is unthinkable and Muslims to whom it is thinkable. So what is the essential difference that Trump misses?

Consider an example that points to the relevant distinction. A recent (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su) article at Reason reviews polls indicating that American Muslims are more likely to support gay marriage than are American Protestants. Of course, most people who do not support gay marriage never would become terrorists. Yet it seems glaringly obvious that support for gay marriage is the sort of commitment indicating that a (psychologically normal) person could not possibly do anything other that consider religiously motivated terrorist acts with revulsion.

The key difference is not between Islam and "radical Islam," but between theocratic (or traditional) Islam and secularized (or Enlightened) Islam. Theocratic Islam and secularized Islam are different in kind, not in degree.

This is odd terminology in a way; "secular" means non-religious, so no religious person can be considered fully secular. Yet religious beliefs can be relatively secularized when they are subverted to the universal liberal (Enlightenment) values of individual liberty and the separation of church and state.

Roughly, secularized Islam is comparable to the sort of secularized Christianity prominent during America's founding. Sure, Thomas Jefferson admired Christian teachings—and he also felt at liberty to cut apart the Bible and throw out the parts he didn't like. Today, most Christians in America and around the world are secularized to a substantial degree—which is why (as examples) hardly any American Christians call for laws to punish homosexuality and no Christian nation executes people for their sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

I am not claiming here that religion and secularism ultimately are logically compatible; they are not. Yet people seldom are logically consistent, and billions of people in our world manage to hold ultimately incompatible beliefs.

For a given person, the break between theocratic Islam and secularized Islam may not be a clear line. Undoubtedly lots of people have some theocratic tendencies and some secular tendencies, and they may go back and forth in the relative strength of their loyalties.

Yet, even if we cannot exactly place the line, there is a vast difference between a fundamentally theocratic Muslim (or Christian) and a fundamentally secularized one.

So what difference does all this make in terms of policy? Consider three examples involving major debates.

1. Obama, self-blinded to the dangers of theocratic Islam, appeases the Iranian regime; Trump distrusts Iran because it is Islamic; I distrust it because it is theocratic.

2. Obama thinks America should accept immigrants regardless of their religious beliefs; Trump wants to ban Muslim immigrants because (he thinks) they might be or become violent; I want to distinguish between theocratic Muslims who sanction terrorist violence and secularized Muslims—many of whom are brutally victimized by the theocratic regimes under which they survive—who do not.

3. Obama thinks American Muslims, as practitioners of a "great religion" comparable to Christianity, should receive no greater police scrutiny; Trump thinks Muslims automatically should receive greater police scrutiny; I think only those Muslims who express support for the tenets of theocracy (particularly violent jihad) should receive greater police scrutiny. (I point out here that the Orlando murderer gave out all sorts of warning signs that he sanctioned violence in the name of religion; here the problem is that he was not investigated intensively enough.)

In terms of cultural activism, how one views the relationship between Islam and violent jihad greatly affects how one approaches the religion. Obama thinks that Islam is great and that Muslims should be encouraged to celebrate their faith; Trump thinks that Islam is inherently suspect and that all non-Muslims can do is try to keep Muslims from radicalizing; I think that theocratic Islam is inherently evil and that Muslims should be encouraged to abandon it in favor of secularized Islam (if they will not abandon their faith outright).

Ultimately, I see the secularization of religion as an important step on the pathway to the eventual cultural abandonment of religion. But the secularization is critically important even if the full abandonment never takes place.

So, yes, call it "radical Islam" when Muslims turn to violent jihad. But remember that distinguishing between "moderate" Islam and radical Islam isn't what most matters. What matters for the future of human civilization is the difference between theocratic Islam and secularized Islam.

When the worst that homosexuals worldwide have to fear from Muslims is that they may resist baking a cake for a gay wedding, that will be a good indicator that the shift among Muslims from theocracy to Enlightenment is well under way. Frighteningly, at least in many parts of the world, that seems a very long way off.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2010/04/why-james-taranto-is-clueless-on-mohammed-drawings/) Why James Taranto is Clueless on Mohammed Drawings

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/04/only-90-million-islamic-supporters-of-911/) 'Only' 90 Million Islamic Supporters of 9/11?

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/trump-cruz-and-freedom-of-speech/) Trump, Cruz, and Freedom of Speech

Fossil Fuels Advocate Alex Epstein Denounces AG Subpoena: "F**K Off, Fascist"

June 18, 2016

When fossil fuels advocate Alex Epstein learned that his organization, the (http://industrialprogress.com/) Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), was listed in a subpoena to Exxon from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey demanding forty years of communications regarding climate change, Epstein sent Healey's office a terse reply: "F**k off, fascist."

CIP was one of "a dozen free market groups and universities" listed in the April 19 subpoena, the (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/exxon-fights-mass-ags-probe-climate-dissent/) Washington Times reports.

That article continues:

ExxonMobil released a copy of the subpoena Wednesday [June 15] as part of its motion for an injunction filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in which the fossil fuel giant accused Ms. Healey of waging a politically motivated fishing expedition aimed at muzzling her ideological foes. . . . The investigation centers on whether Exxon committed consumer and securities fraud stemming from the company's challenging of the catastrophic climate change narrative.

Healey's subpoena is part of an overtly political attack on Exxon and other energy producers in which "former vice president Al Gore and a coalition of attorneys general from across the country announce[d] historic state-based effort to combat climate change," a March 29 news release from the office of (http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president-al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across) New York AG Eric T. Schneiderman stated.

This "unprecedented coalition vows to defend climate change progress made under President Obama and to push the next president for even more aggressive action," the release continues.

The organization exists not only to legally hound energy companies but to promote and defend new federal regulations of fossil fuel industries. Schneiderman's release states:

Many of the states in the coalition have worked together on previous multi-state environmental efforts, including pressing the EPA to limit climate change pollution from fossil-fueled electric power plants, defending federal rules controlling climate change emissions from large industrial facilities, and pushing for federal controls on emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry.

The action by attorneys general coincides with a broader political movement seeking to publicly shame Exxon and other oil producers and to (https://twitter.com/350/status/743895262767255552) advocate that (http://gofossilfree.org/the-decarbonizer-and-the-moral-case-for-divestment/) universities and pension funds divest from fossil fuel companies. Many of the related views have been expressed via the "#ExxonKnew" hashtag.

Epstein, author of the 2014 book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (which I have (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2015-spring/the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein/) reviewed positively), responded angrily to the news that his private, for-profit business had been named in the subpoena. On June 15, Epstein emailed Healey's office, including the terse message "F**k off, fascist" in an email with the subject, "Your demand to seize my emails."

The next day, Epstein also (https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/743591930060226560) directly challenged Al Gore, Tweeting: ".@algore for 10 years you refuse to debate opponents. Now you prosecute us?? Enough. I will pay you $100,000 to publicly debate me. Deal?"

Epstein explained via email why he felt such a provocative message to Healey's office was warranted:

Persecutors get away with violating rights in large part because the victims treat them as civilized. The Massachusetts Attorney General is demanding my emails at gunpoint because I have prominently voiced opinions that are contrary to hers. She is a fascist, acting profanely. "F**k off, fascist" was therefore the response she deserved.

For the general public, who may innocently misunderstand the issues regarding ExxonMobil, I explained them fully in a (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2016/06/16/first-the-government-went-after-exxonmobil-now-theyre-going-after-me/#45cbe1f369a1) Forbes article. But I'm not responding to that thug (who calls herself an Attorney General) with an article.

Epstein also explained what he hopes will come of his efforts to criticize the attorneys general in question and to debate Gore:

Everyone involved in the persecution should be publicly shamed and resign. The climate fascists' willingness to destroy free speech should be taken as evidence of their invalid position.

There should be massive public pressure for Al Gore to accept my $100,000 challenge to debate him, to the point where he actually accepts.

Once that debate occurs it will be clear that the benefits of using fossil fuels are incomparably larger and more important than the mild warming effects of CO2. More people will want to learn about the moral, pro-human case for fossil fuels and they will discover that the climate catastrophists have already been definitely refuted. Then the debate will be over—in the proper sense.

Once people understand how to think about the benefits and risks of fossil fuels in a careful, big-picture way, the catastrophists will keep losing and eventually move on to their next anti-industrial scare scenario. But they will be discredited from their previous sophistry and thus be unable to do anywhere near the damage they have done by demonizing CO2. Relieved of the burden of the anti-industrial movement, human progress will accelerate and human flourishing will proliferate.

How should we evaluate the related facts and claims?

The issue at hand is whether Exxon engaged in legally actionable fraud. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/exxon-fights-mass-ags-probe-climate-dissent/) Healey said, "Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be held accountable." She referred to the "troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew, what industry folks knew and what the company and industry chose to share with investors and with the American public."

In response to the fraud allegations, (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2016/06/16/first-the-government-went-after-exxonmobil-now-theyre-going-after-me/) Epstein offers two basic counterarguments.

First, Epstein writes, fraud involves material misstatement or omission of demonstrated facts. But at issue are opinions:

The government has no right to demand a single email of mine or Exxon's unless it has evidence that we are committing fraud by concealing or fabricating evidence. In the case of the climate impact of CO2, this is impossible—because all the evidence about CO2 and climate is in the public domain, largely collected and disseminated by government agencies or government-funded educational institutions.

What ExxonMobil is being prosecuted for is expressing an opinion about the evidence that the government disagrees with. Or, in the case of the #ExxonKnew meme, they are being prosecuted for failing to express an opinion the government agrees with. . . . There is a fundamental distinction in civilized society between fraud and opinion.

Second, Epstein argues, claims about catastrophic climate change are simply false, so Exxon cannot have committed fraud if the company expressed skepticism about impending catastrophe:

The "knew" in #ExxonKnew refers to the fact that certain Exxon employees, like anyone else who followed climate science, knew about and discussed the existence of speculative claims that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to runaway global warming and catastrophic climate change. As I document in "The Secret History of Fossil Fuels," chapter 1 of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, many of these claims asserted that we would be experiencing catastrophic climate change today.

Apparently, Exxon was (rightly) suspicious of these claims and the Al Gore-led funding bonanza of scientists who agreed with them. Exxon refused to endorse climate catastrophism and funded alternative research—which they had every right to do even if they ended up being wrong.

But they ended up being right. The speculative claims turned out to be false. We have experienced mild (not runaway) warming that is only loosely correlated with CO2—and global fossil fueled development has helped bring climate-related deaths to an all-time low. How can you say #ExxonKnew about an imminent climate catastrophe that wasn't real?

The fundamental issue is that fraud involves specific sorts of willful omissions or misstatements of demonstrated facts that specifically affect consumers' decisions to buy or use a product or service. For example, if you roll back your car's mileage and lie about it to sell the car for more, that's fraud. If you say that your cigarettes are healthy but you know they cause cancer, that's fraud.

Fraud does not encompass any possible statement that is or might be false. As Epstein says, fraud does not encompass the expression of opinions. And fraud involves clearly demonstrated facts, not speculative claims that might turn out to be true or false. Although the legal lines are not always obvious in a given case, properly these lines do and must exist. It is improper for government (or other parties) to claim fraud after the fact, if a once-speculative claim later is disproved.

(https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2862197-AG-Coalition-Resp-Letter-2016-06-15.html) A June 15 letter signed by thirteen attorneys general, led by Luther Strange of Alabama, outlines the key problems with the legal effort led by Schneiderman and Healey (see the original for references):

We routinely investigate fraud, and have done so with many of the states present at the press conference. But this investigation is far from routine. We are unaware of any fraud case combining the following three characteristics: 1) the investigation targets a particular type of market participant; 2) the Attorneys General identify themselves with the competitors of their investigative targets; and 3) the investigation implicates an ongoing public policy debate. . . .

[T]his fraud investigation targets only "fossil fuel companies" and only statements minimizing climate change risks. If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration. If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud. Some have indicated that Exxon Mobil's securities disclosures regarding climate change may be inadequate. We do not know the accuracy of these charges. We do know that Exxon Mobil discloses climate change and its possible implications as a business risk. See Exxon Mobil Corporation SEC Form 10-k, FY 2014 (listing "Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions" as an item 1A risk factor). If Exxon's disclosure is deficient, what of the failure of renewable energy companies to list climate change as a risk? See, e.g., SolarCity Corporation SEC Form 10-k, FY 2014 (omitting from item 1A risk factors any mention of climate change or global warming). If climate change is perceived to be slowing or becoming less of a risk, many "clean energy" companies may become less valuable and some may be altogether worthless. Therefore, any fraud theory requiring more disclosure of Exxon would surely require more disclosure by "clean energy" companies.

Similarly, it has been asserted that "fossil fuel companies" may have funded nonprofits who minimized the risks of climate change. Does anyone doubt that "clean energy" companies have funded non-profits who exaggerated the risks of climate change? Under the stated theory for fraud, consumers and investors could suffer harm from misstatements by all energy-market participants and the non-profits they support. Yet only companies and non-profits allegedly espousing a particular viewpoint have been chosen for investigation. . . .

[Next], this investigation inescapably implicates a public policy debate and raises substantial First Amendment concerns. As our colleagues must know, a vigorous debate exists in this country regarding the risks of climate change and the appropriate response to those risks. Both sides are well-funded and sophisticated public policy participants. Whatever our country's response, it will affect people, communities, and businesses that all have a right to participate in this debate. Actions indicating that one side of the climate change debate should fear prosecution chills speech in violation of a formerly bi-partisan First Amendment consensus. As expressed by Justice Brandeis, it has been a foundational principle that when faced with "danger flowing from speech . . . the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Here, the remedy chosen is silence through threat of subpoena. This threat distorts the debate and impoverishes consumers and the general public who may wish to better educate themselves by hearing and evaluating both sides.

Once the government begins policing viewpoints, two solutions exist. The first solution is to police all viewpoints equally. Another group of Attorneys General could use the precedent established by the "AGs United for Clean Power" to investigate fraudulent statements associated with competing interests. The subpoenas currently directed at some market participants could be met with a barrage of subpoenas directed at other market participants. No doubt a reasonable suspicion exists regarding a number of statements relating to the risks of climate change. Even in the press conference, a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers ("Kleiner Perkins") identified "manmade global warming pollution" as "the reason" for 2015 temperatures, the spread of Zika, flooding in Louisiana and Arkansas, Super Storm Sandy, and Super Typhoon Haiyan. Some evidence may support these statements. Other evidence may refute them. Do these statements increase the value of clean energy investments offered for sale by Kleiner Perkins? Should these statements justify an investigation into all contributions to environmental non-profits by Kleiner Perkins's partners? Should these questions be settled by our state courts under penalty of RICO charges? May it never be.

Epstein's colleague Eric Dennis offers similar arguments in an (http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/the-climate-science-inquisition-continues/) article for the Daily Caller:

[T]he AG [Healey] has authored a novel constitutional theory: "The First Amendment does not protect false and misleading statements in the marketplace."

Like hell it doesn't. Let us momentarily ignore the fact that Exxon's stated position is actually true. . . .

Imagine a world in which someone could be convicted for simply making a false statement in the course of marketing his product. The History Channel (producers of "Ancient Aliens")—in jail [as one example]. . . .

Every judge in every court in the United States could be consumed 24 hours a day for a century by all the abstract, philosophical, political statements made by businessmen and disagreed with by someone else. Fraud is not any false statement. It is the knowingly false assertion of specific, concrete things about one's product on which the seller can be reasonably assumed to have special expertise.

The only sensible conclusion is that the sorts of views allegedly expressed by Exxon simply are not the sorts of views relevant to any possible, legitimate claim of fraud.

(All that said, Exxon hardly argues that global warming isn't real, anyway; one (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/exxon-fights-mass-ags-probe-climate-dissent/) Exxon spokesman said, "[W]e've acknowledged the risks of climate change for more than a decade, have supported a carbon tax as the better policy option and spent more than $7 billion on research and technologies to reduce emissions." I disapprove of a carbon tax, but that's an issue for another day.)

There is yet another problem with the persecution of Exxon: Even if Exxon's disclosures could in any context be deemed fraudulent, action by attorneys general is not an appropriate way to address the matter.

Consider this statement from Schneiderman's release:

The participating states are exploring working together on key climate change-related initiatives, such as ongoing and potential investigations into whether fossil fuel companies misled investors and the public on the impact of climate change on their businesses. In 2015, New York State reached a historic settlement with Peabody Energy—the world's largest publicly traded coal company—concerning the company's misleading financial statements and disclosures. New York is also investigating ExxonMobil for similar alleged conduct.

The (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/business/energy-environment/peabody-energy-agrees-to-greater-disclosures-of-financial-risks.html) New York Times reports about the Peabody case:

Peabody Energy . . . has agreed to make more robust disclosures to its investors about the financial risks it faces from future government policies and regulations related to climate change and other environmental issues that could reduce demand for its product.

The coal giant's concessions came in response to a two-year investigation by the New York attorney general that found that Peabody had not been forthright with investors and regulators about threats to its business that the company projected in private.

There is no possible reason why regulators would need to know about potential threats to Peabody's business, so that's a red herring.

Schneiderman's core claim, then, is that his office needed to protect Peabody's investors from Peabody's misstatements or omissions of relevant facts.

Even if fraud were at play, the proper legal mechanism to address it would be for Peabody's investors to demand changes in the company's leadership or to sue the company in regular court proceedings. Interfering in contractually established interactions among a corporation's participants is not normally a proper function of an attorney general's office.

More significantly, Schneiderman's position is laughable on its face: Obviously he wishes to destroy Peabody's business, not protect its investors. This attorney general misused the fraud laws—the purpose of which is to protect a business's participants and customers from material deceit—for the political purpose of subjecting Peabody to two years of legal proceedings, which Schneiderman got to pursue with taxpayers' funds while Peabody defended itself out of its earnings.

And the allegation, in large part (as the Times article reveals), was that Peabody failed to adequately state the possible future impacts of regulations on its business—as though any business leader could predict the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.

Regarding potential investors, they have the same access to the facts and claims about climate change and regulatory conditions as do Peabody's leaders. Obviously the legal action was about legally damaging Peabody, not about making a good-faith effort to assist investors.

As Schneiderman feigns concern for Peabody's investors, consider the impact that the sorts of regulatory burdens actively supported by Schneiderman's alliance have had on Peabody: "Shares of Peabody, which is based in St. Louis, have lost more than 90 percent of their value over the last year as the entire industry has been overwhelmed by crippling debts and more stringent regulations on coal burning by electric utilities," the Times reports.

I suspect that many of Peabody's investors have some well-developed attitudes regarding Schneiderman's efforts to "help" them.

Of course, the issues at stake are much broader regarding the case of Exxon and the wider effort by these attorneys general to target producers of fossil fuels.

If any parties should now be under legal investigation in this matter, they are the attorneys general who abused their offices and violated citizens' civil rights in the pursuit of politically-motivated witch hunts designed to publicly shame and financially drain their ideological adversaries. Epstein should be applauded for standing up to these bullies—as he rightly calls them, these fascists.

(http://ariarmstrong.com) Latest Updates | (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/politics/energy-environmentalism/) Energy & Environmentalism

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a comment

Seeking Justice after the Racist Murders in Dallas

July 10, 2016

Terrorism is violence perpetrated against peaceable people to foment social or political change. The murder of police officers in Dallas was an act of terrorism.

On the evening of Thursday, July 7, at the location of an otherwise peaceful protest of recent troubling police killings of black men, Micah Xavier Johnson murdered five Dallas police officers and shot seven more for explicitly racist reasons.

Although "officials at first speculated about multiple shooters," apparently Johnson acted alone, the (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.html) New York Times reports. During a standoff Johnson (who was black) told police that his aim was to murder white police officers, and "his Facebook page showed that he supported the New Black Panther Party, a group that has advocated violence against whites, and Jews in particular," the Times reports. This was an act of terror motivated by racism.

We can have pointless debates about whether racism pertains to institutions and so "black people can't be racist." Those who wish to pretend that "racism" means something other than what its root term indicates, that we cannot distinguish personal racism from institutional racism, and that we must substitute the term "color prejudice" to refer to personal bigotry are free to do so. Such a debate will not change the fact that the Dallas murderer marked police officers for death because of the color of their skin. Racism is just as ugly whatever you call it.

Like all decent people who heard the news, I was heartbroken to hear of this horrific crime—heartbroken and angry. Dallas officers were protecting the protesters, sometimes even (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/07/07/before-gunfire-dallas-officers-blm-protesters-were-posing-for-photos-together/H6IuZVB9uDUdTcGvDSfjdP/story.html) posing with them for friendly photos, and someone started killing them in irrational, bigoted rage. Sickening.

Don't Blame Obama

One type of claim I saw in my Twitter feed after the murders is that Barack Obama somehow had something to do with inflaming passions against the police, and therefore he shares moral culpability for the Dallas murders. Such claims are wrong.

For example, the Colorado Senate GOP (https://twitter.com/iansilverii/status/751435613610450945) referred to "the division, fear, lawlessness and almost total lack of 'domestic tranquility' he [Obama] leaves in his wake." I've heard conservative radio hosts make similar claims.

The evidence supposedly behind such claims remains fuzzy. What I find is a mostly-responsible handling of these troubling issues. In (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/07/07/president-obama-fatal-shootings-alton-sterling-and-philando-castile) discussing the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, black men recently shot to death by police officers for questionable reasons, Obama talks about investigating the evidence in the cases at hand, reducing "the appearance or reality of racial bias in law enforcement," and maintaining "respect and appreciation for the vast majority of police officers who put their lives on the line to protect us." Admirably, he closes by calling for "a future where all of our children know that their lives matter."

If Obama deserves criticism for these remarks, it is for seeming to prematurely conclude that the police shootings of Castile and Sterling were unjustified. Certainly available video raises serious questions about those deaths; however, the more I read about the cases, the less certain I am about essential facts surrounding them. (What conclusions I might ultimately draw about these two cases, if any, have no bearing on my broader belief that, yes, African Americans often suffer injustice at the hands of police.)

As (http://nypost.com/2016/07/08/obama-should-stop-smearing-cops-by-calling-them-racist/) John Lott points out, Obama also wrongly infers racist motives "whenever there is any disparity in outcomes, no matter what the cause." Lott notes that "higher arrest rates or prison-sentence lengths" are probably due to more criminal activity, particularly by gangs. But it's not like misstating the implications of statistics is an uncommon error. Certainly I don't think Obama's mistakes put "cops' lives in danger," as the article's headline blares.

At any rate, I haven't seen anything that would support attributing any blame to Obama for the murders in Dallas.

Those eager to point the finger at Obama might remember how upsetting and unjust it is when leftists blame peaceable gun owners and the National Rifle Association for violent crimes.

Do Blame Violence-Inspiring Rhetoric

Obviously primary moral culpability for the atrocity in Dallas lies with the man who pulled the trigger.

Yet we can talk about lesser moral culpability for those who actively promote violence.

Consider the (http://therightscoop.com/if-they-dont-do-somethin-we-gonna-start-killing-cops-princeton-prof-gives-insight-to-whites/) remarks of Eddie Glaude Jr., chair of African American Studies at Princeton: "[My father] said a long time ago . . . , 'If they don't do something, we're going to start killing them. Somebody's going to start killing cops. . . . ' That conversation has been had, and it's been had before."

The idea here is that, if some police officers treat African Americans unjustly, police officers will be targeted by some for indiscriminate violence. Never mind that the victims might be the best members of their forces who work hard to justly enforce the law in order to protect people's rights.

Yes, those who publicly sanction violence against the police, those who carry signs reading "F**k the Police" or "Put Wings on Pigs" or the like, bear some moral culpability if others act on that advice.

Victimizing the Best

As Radley Balko, long a critic of police violence, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/07/08/what-dallas-pd-does-right-and-why-doing-those-things-could-now-be-more-difficult/) explains, Dallas's "police department is a national model for community policing." He goes on to explain that Chief David Brown has instituted serious reforms regarding the use of force, overseen a drop in officer-involved shootings, "fired more than 70 Dallas cops" for abusive behavior, and "implemented a policy of collecting and releasing data on all use-of-force incidents" (among other things).

Balko summarizes, "In 2014, murders in the city hit a 50-year low. At the same time, both use of force and citizen complaints about excessive force dropped dramatically." It is Brown who had to watch five of his officers gunned down.

Those who do not discriminate between good cops and abusive cops are no better, morally, than those who treat all black people as criminals. Those who say "f**k the police" and the like, because some officers violate others' rights, are no better, morally, than those who say "f**k black people" because some black people violate others' rights. Bigotry does not somehow become excusable because it targets a different group.

Yes, Racism Is Real

On July 9 I listened to a police officer on NPR talk about how, on the job, he had to deal with racism of people he interacted with. Imagine how much worse it is for a black man who has to interact with a racist cop.

Consider what former Santa Fe police chief Donald Grady II (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/black-police-chief-on-the-dallas-attacks/490496/) relates to the Atlantic:

As a police chief, I have been stopped numerous times by police officers claiming that there was some violation with my car until they realized that I'm just a law-abiding citizen. I don't identify myself as a cop when I'm in those circumstances, I just let them do what they are going to do. And like so many other African Americans I just say "yes, sir," "no, sir" and let it go at that. But after a while you get tired of being stopped for doing nothing. After a while, even as a police chief, you get really tired of being put upon. There's a thing that we call freedom of movement which is really revered in this country—that we should have the right to move freely without impingement from the police simply because.

Darryl Glenn, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Colorado, (https://www.facebook.com/CommitteeToElectDarrylGlenn/posts/10154248425126635) shared similar views:

[N]o single group of people does more to protect black Americans on a daily basis than our police. That's the truth that we hardly ever hear.

At the same time, we must also admit that racism in America is real, and that there is a reason the relationship between police and the black community is so damaged. If you are a black person growing up in America, chances are pretty good that you have experienced the police pulling you over in front of your mother's house because you "had a headlight out." (This kind of thing has happened to me more than once.) You've probably been pulled over because you were driving a nice car in the wrong neighborhood. You've probably been asked to step out of your car for awhile and then released without being given a reason.

Unless you have lived through an experience like this, you cannot understand how violating it feels, or what it does to your ability to feel safe in your city—to trust the people who are supposed to protect you. Think about what this does to our children: if you're a black child watching CNN this week and you see video like the one in Minnesota, how are you not supposed to wonder if you are safe around police when you see them?

Yes, racism in law enforcement is a real phenomenon. At the same time, racism is not the norm in law enforcement—at least today in most areas. And it is not the main threat to African Americans.

Fatal Police Shootings: The Numbers

It is obvious to anyone who bothers to look that, by and large, police in America do not single out African Americans for lethal violence.

As the (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/) Washington Post reports, in 2015 police fatally shot some 990 people. Of these, 258 were black. One might argue that blacks are disproportionately involved in lethal police shootings, but one might also respond that blacks are disproportionately involved in violent crime.

In the large majority of these cases, the victim had a deadly weapon, and, at least according to officers, an attack was in progress.

It's impossible to say, without independently and carefully evaluating the facts in each case, what fraction of these cases involved a justified shooting versus an unjustified one. My guess is that in the overwhelming majority of cases a reasonable person would judge the shooting justified.

Of course, the goal should be to minimize the use of lethal force by officers while preserving or improving the safety of officers. But, in the real world, there are some very bad people who will do very bad things to others unless a police officer stops the person with potentially lethal force. In these cases, officers deserve our support and sympathy, not our condemnation.

Racism Is Mostly Not Why Black People Die

Recall that, in 2015, some 258 black people died at the hands of police. In most of those cases, the shootings were justified.

In 2014, the (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf) CDC reports (see Table 12), of 15,809 total homicides, blacks accounted for 7,876 of those—about half, which is shocking. We (http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2015/may/21/updated-look-statistics-black-black-murders/) know that in the large majority of cases (in the neighborhood of 90+ percent) black victims of homicide were killed by other blacks (just as whites were killed by whites).

An average black man's greatest danger (in terms of homicide) is not the police—it is, by a multiple of several hundred, other black men. (Obviously the problem is mostly limited to a small subset of the black population associated with violent crime and gang violence.)

Yes, there is something particularly egregious about a police officer abusing his authority, whether out of racism or some other motive. Yes, we need to take every reasonable step to get bad cops off the force and to improve training and accountability for police.

Yet it also seems that some people use police abuses as an excuse to avoid addressing the rampant problem of violent crime within a subset of the African American population.

Concluding Thoughts

Here are a few things I wish people would keep in mind after this heart-wrenching week:

* It is as senseless to presume that police officers are always in the wrong as it is to presume they're always in the right. Judge the facts of each case independently.

* The fact that many African Americans have suffered injustice at the hands of police does not prove that, in a particular case, the officer is in the wrong.

* It is wrong to jump to conclusions about the facts in a given case to promote a social or political agenda.

* People who wish to live in a civilized society support the rule of law and the painstakingly objective evaluation of the relevant facts.

* Good video of violent episodes protects the good guys on both sides of the blue line. The problem with the video of Castile's death is that we can't see the shooting itself and what led up to it. Had the officer been wearing a body camera, we'd probably know with reasonable certainly who is telling the truth and who is not. And officers who know they are being filmed are more likely to avoid abusive behavior in the first place.

* If a questionable police shooting turns out to be justified, that does not indicate that serious reforms of the criminal justice system are somehow not important. Likewise, the fact that five Dallas cops were brutally murdered should not distract from such reforms. One injustice does not excuse another, in any direction.

This has been a hell of a year in many ways, and the murders in Dallas have traumatized the entire nation. This strikes me as a good time to remember the ideals that bring us together as Americas, most importantly the ideals of individual rights and equality under the law. I don't care what color your hands are; I care that we join hands in the pursuit of a fuller realization of those ideals.

Require Police Body Cams

Maybe the most valuable role of body cams will be to make police officers less likely to abuse their authority. The close second is to exonerate police officers who are in an incident. And a close third is to get rid of bad cops. If I were a police officer that last item would be important to me. Bad cops make my job harder and make it more likely that I'll be shot by a civilian.

—Mike Spalding

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a Comment

FDA Deserves Some Blame for Unnecessary Teeth Drilling

July 13, 2016

Recently my wife had to pay $1,500 out of pocket to crown a molar. This was necessary because, years ago, a dentist over-drilled a cavity in the tooth and then packed it badly, resulting in the tooth eventually cracking.

It turns out that the drilling probably wasn't even necessary. A dentist could have simply brushed a treatment on the cavity, and that would have been that—except that the treatment, used widely elsewhere, was illegal in the United States, thanks to the onerous medical approval processes Congress imposed via the Food and Drug Administration.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/health/silver-diamine-fluoride-dentist-cavities.html?_r=0) reports:

Now there's an alternative [to dilling and filling]: an antimicrobial liquid that can be brushed on cavities to stop tooth decay—painlessly.

The liquid is called silver diamine fluoride, or S.D.F. It's been used for decades in Japan, but it's been available in the United States, under the brand name Advantage Arrest, for just about a year.

The Food and Drug Administration cleared silver diamine fluoride for use as a tooth desensitizer for adults 21 and older. But studies show it can halt the progression of cavities and prevent them, and dentists are increasingly using it off-label for those purposes.

So the Japanese have been using this drill-free treatment for "decades," yet we in the United States have had to wait until last year to get it. And the only reason we can get it now to treat cavities is that it happens to be allowed as on "off-label" use for what the FDA officially approved it for.

There is a downside to the treatment: It turns the infected part of the tooth black, the Times reports. But in cases of molars, children's teeth, and the teeth of the physically frail (among others), it can be a great alternative.

One dental site carried a (http://www.dentistryiq.com/articles/2015/06/advantage-arrest-silver-diamine-fluoride-38-available-in-the-united-states.html) news release last year about Advantage Arrest:

Elevate Oral Care LLC and Advantage Silver Dental Arrest LLC recently introduced Advantage Arrest Silver Diamine Fluoride 38%, the only silver diamine fluoride cleared for use in the United States by the FDA.

After more than eight years of research to assess safety and efficacy, Advantage Arrest recently received clearance from the Food and Drug Administration to be marketed, said Dr. Peter Milgrom, scientific director for Advantage Silver in the US. . . . In a 2010 two-site clinical study, Advantage Arrest was found to significantly reduce dental hypersensitivity.

So, despite being used for "decades" in Japan, despite proving its worth for one purpose in 2010, we've had to needlessly get our teeth drilled until just last year. Unbelievable.

But the story gets even crazier: American dentists first started using similar silver-based treatments in the early 1900s. The FDA is literally over a century behind the times.

Dentist John Frachella (http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=317334) relates:

Dr. G. V. Black, the "Father of Modern Dentistry," described how to arrest cavities in children using a precise silver nitrate protocol in 1908. Silver nitrate was used successfully to treat tooth decay in troops being deployed to the front lines in World War I. Dr. Percy Howe, president of the ADA from 1928 to 1929, the first research director of the Forsyth Institute, and a professor at Harvard Dental School) used silver nitrate to stop the growth of decay so routinely between 1917 and 1950 that it became known as "Howe's solution." Dentists used to buy it from a catalogue of dental materials published by the ADA.

Here's how Frachella learned first-hand the value of silver-based treatments:

I first learned about the magic of silver solutions not from a professor in dental school, but from my family dentist, my dad. In 1962, he applied silver nitrate to a small cavity between my permanent lower front teeth. I was 12 years old. The decay never grew, the teeth were never drilled or filled, and now more than 50 years later, there's a small, unnoticeable black dot there.

Frachella says that trends in dentistry made silver-based treatments unpopular:

Most dentists stopped using silver nitrate more than 50 years ago. Today, confusion, controversy, and misinformation dominate debates among dentists for and against silver's use. That's because silver doesn't fit very neatly into the modern, popular standard of dental care. Dentists are trained in school to be surgeons who cut out decayed tooth structure and replace it with synthetic materials.

However, undoubtedly the FDA's blockage of the use of various treatments also hindered dentists' use of them. Dentists cannot use something that is illegal for drug suppliers to sell to them.

V. Kim Kutsch is another dentist who has long used other silver-based treatments and has now switched to silver diamine fluoride:

I have personal experience with using silver nitrate in a technique modified by Dr. Steve Duffin. He immediately covered the lesion with fluoride varnish following the silver nitrate solution. I have used this technique for years with excellent outcomes. . . .

Silver diamine fluoride has been used extensively for years in other countries with similar outcomes to silver nitrate. . . . I am now also using silver diamine fluoride for the same types of patients that I have used silver nitrate with in the past. . . . For the right patient, this offers another option to their care.

At least the FDA's long delay of silver diamine fluoride hasn't killed anyone—it has "merely" caused countless collective hours of needless suffering at great expense. Horribly, people with more serious sorts of medical problems often fare much worse.

As economists Daniel B. Klein and Alexander Tabarrok (http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php) review:

The delay and large reduction in the total number of new drugs has had terrible consequences. It is difficult to estimate how many lives the post-1962 FDA controls have cost, but the number is likely to be substantial; [Dale H.] Gieringer (1985) estimates the loss of life from delay alone to be in the hundreds of thousands (not to mention millions of patients who endured unnecessary morbidity).

Last year at Marginal Revolution Tabarrock also discussed a (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/08/is-the-fda-too-conservative-or-too-aggressive.html) paper and an (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/the-fda-and-magical-thinking.html) article about the FDA.

Of course, government properly intervenes to protect people's rights, as by outlawing fraud and criminal negligence and by adjudicating tort claims. But the current medical approval process—more accurately called a medical delay process—does not protect people's rights; it violates the rights of doctors and patients to seek drugs and medical devices that they judge best in their circumstances. Dr. Black never would have been able to get modern dentistry off the ground under today's regulatory burdens.

It is impossible to accurately estimate how many dentists would have used—and how many patients would have asked for—silver diamine fluoride over drilling had it been legally available. I think a safe guess is that the government-caused delay has resulted in at least hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of unnecessary tooth drillings.

Getting your teeth drilled is certainly not the end of the world. But, as my wife and I try to adjust to the expenses of a new baby and of ever-higher health insurance (our older, far less expensive policy got cancelled thanks to ObamaCare), that $1,500 resulting from a bad drill is a pretty painful loss. Chances are good that, but for legal hurdles, my wife could have avoided the pain and expense not only of the original drilling but of the capping as well.

Fifteen-hundred bucks will buy a lot of toothpaste, not to mention diapers and baby food.

Note: The author is not a medical professional and nothing in this article is intended as medical advice.

You Might Be Outraged at Ted Cruz If . . .

July 21, 2016

Sore loser. Snake. Self-absorbed. Traitor. These are just a few of the stones cast at Ted Cruz following his Republican National Convention speech of July 20.

After congratulating Donald Trump for winning the nomination, Cruz nevertheless noticeably did not endorse Trump or ask people to vote for him. Instead, nearly twenty minutes into his speech, Cruz told those assembled to "vote your conscience"—eliciting noticeable boos.

What reasons might Trump's supporters have to turn on Cruz? Here are a few. You might be outraged at Ted Cruz if . . .

• You think that (http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/transcript-ted-cruz-convention-speech) Cruz's exhortations to "vote your conscience" to elect leaders who recognize that "freedom matters," who "stand for principle," and who are "faithful to the Constitution" cannot possibly refer to Trump.

• You, personally, would endorse a candidate who (http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-posts-meme-of-heidi-cruz) publicly mocked your spouse.

• You, personally, would endorse a candidate who (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730) accused your father of conspiring to assassinate a U.S. president.

• It is unthinkable to you that Trump might have publicly apologized to Cruz for mocking his wife and slandering his father, prior to Cruz's speech, in a bid to win Cruz's endorsement.

• You blame Cruz for delivering a speech that (http://www.dailywire.com/news/7663/heres-everything-you-need-know-about-cruzs-vote-ben-shapiro) Trump's team pre-approved and for which it whipped up a booing crowd, thereby guaranteeing major media attention.

• You think Cruz was wrong to rethink his pledge to support the nominee but (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/) Trump was right to rethink his.

• You think a candidate with (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html) less than half of the primary vote, who is (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/donald-trump-would-be-the-least-qualified-person-ever-to-be-elected-president/) unqualified for the presidency, who has slandered and demeaned countless people, who has expressed support or sympathy for various tyrants, and who is (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/donald-trump-anti-capitalist/) ideologically anti-capitalist deserves the automatic endorsement of every Republican.

Yes, I can see why Trump's supporters are outraged at Ted Cruz. Every person with any decency can see it all too clearly.

We can also see what Cruz said during his speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhqM9ZnVmI

And what Cruz said in response to a critic of his speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPYM5umq8Lk

Still, you might be outraged at Ted Cruz.

Cruz Outlined Basic Principles

Well said and I agree 100 percent. Cruz didn't say anything irrational or make the speech about him, his statement laid out very basic conservative principles that a candidate should meet and requested people vote their conscience based on those principles.

Why is that such a scandal to Trump supporters? Do they not think Trump can meet the standards of a Republican candidate? If so, that is the problem of those supporters, not Cruz.

As you say I wouldn't endorse someone that verbally attacked my wife and slandered me and my family in the most horrible ways.

His showing up was more than I would have given Trump, especially since all promises to endorse or support were off the table as soon as (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/30/trump-rescinds-pledge-to-back-republican-nominee-cruz-kasich-refuse-to-commit-support.html) Trump rescinded his promise to the other candidates back in March.

—Steve Shook

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a Comment

The Statist Convergence of Trump and Clinton

July 27, 2016

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are vastly different in terms of style, background, and platform. But, at a more fundamental level, the candidates are remarkably similar: Each embraces policies to violate people's freedom of contract and, more broadly, their freedom of association. Both candidates are essentially statist in orientation: They want to employ government force to achieve perceived benefits for some at the cost of others' wealth and liberty.

Trump's Statism

Start with Trump. His two signature issues are restricting immigration and restricting international free trade.

Regarding immigration, Trump does not merely wish government to keep out known and suspected jihadists, to deport non-citizen immigrants who commit violent crimes, and to refrain from subsidizing immigrants—policies consistent with protecting the rights of Americans.

Instead, Trump wishes to severely restrict immigration even of people known to be peaceable and productive, for the express purpose of "protecting American jobs." Trump thus begins with the statist and collectivist premise that jobs somehow belong to the nation-state and that the national government, rather than the employers who create jobs, rightly decides how to fill those jobs.

(https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform) Trump also parrots socialist "fixed pie" presumptions along the lines that one person's employment necessitates another person's loss, and he wrongly blames the employment of immigrants for the unemployment of others. In reality such problems are caused by myriad statist programs including minimum wage laws and failing inner-city schools.

Some of Trump's immigration policies are outright fascist in nature. He insists that employers ask the national government's permission for every person they hire—a Republican policy that the Founders would find repugnant. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284910-trump-shifts-tone-no-mass-deportations) In the past he's said government should violently round up and deport millions of peaceable immigrants for lacking the legally required paperwork—an action that would require the imposition of a police state. At least Trump seems to have changed his mind on this latter point.

A job does not belong to the national government. It belongs to the person who created the job—and to the person who contracts consensually with the employer to perform the job. An employer has a moral right to hire the peaceable person of his choice who agrees to the terms of the position. But Trump cares nothing about the rights of employers and prospective employees to contract by mutual consent. Trump is essentially a nationalist, and his attitude is essentially "All your jobs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us) are belong to us."

It's a little unclear precisely how Trump wishes to interfere with international free trade—what "deals" he wishes to make—but it is obvious that he does wish to do so. So Trump would violate the rights of American citizens to contract freely with foreign sellers of goods and, by extension, the rights of American consumers to buy those goods. It is telling that Trump joins the self-described socialist Bernie Sanders in opposing free trade.

Trump obscures the issue by damning international trade agreements such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership—without specifying what about those agreements he finds objectionable or what he would try to do about it.

Free market advocates are split on the legitimacy of such agreements. Some argue that they actually restrict trade and reward cronyists; others argue that they are good even if imperfect mechanisms for binding nations to freer trade. But obviously Trump is not arguing that the United States should dump such agreements in favor of unilaterally free trade; he is saying that the United States should dump or modify such agreements to achieve greater restrictions on trade. Trump is fundamentally antagonistic to people's rights to contract freely in this realm.

Clinton's Statism

All of Clinton's major policies can be summarized as "forcibly restrict how people may associate" or "give people free (tax-funded) stuff."

Clinton joins Trump in opposing people's right to contract freely for employment; she differs in the details of what restrictions she'd impose. Among other things, (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/) Clinton would:

• Prevent people from negotiating a salary below a higher, legally mandated "minimum" wage, thereby ensuring that more people, particularly the young and inexperienced, get the actual minimum wage—zero—along with zero work experience.
• Force businesses to either scale back their operations, replace staff with machines, or scale back long-term expansion plans in order to cope with government-mandated higher labor costs.
• Prevent women from negotiating lower wages in exchange for such benefits as more-flexible work hours.
• Force businesses to comply with, and absorb the costs of, more bureaucratic oversight of employment contracts and additional litigation risks.
• Interfere with employment contracts to force employees to accept lower wages in exchange for politically-defined "benefits" they may not want or need.

In short, Clinton cares nothing about the rights of employers and prospective employees to contract by mutual consent. Her essential view is that the American people are just too stupid to negotiate their terms of employment without the "help" of national politicians and bureaucrats.

Trump's response is to "me-too" Clinton regarding so-called (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chelsea-clinton-challenges-ivanka-trump-on-equal-pay-for-women/) "equal pay" and the (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/07/27/3802419/donald-trump-changing-minimum-wage/) minimum wage, to agree with her essential policies and perhaps demur in a few details.

In other important ways Clinton wishes to restrict people's freedom of association. As examples, she wishes to violate people's freedom of speech when it comes to financing certain forms of political speech (such as certain films critical of her), and she wishes to violate people's right to self-defense when it involves purchasing politically-disapproved firearms.

Of course, any time Clinton promises to provide some people with "free" stuff, such as a debt-free college education, she does so only by threatening to violate other individuals' moral right to dispose of their wealth as they judge best. To the degree that people are forcibly stripped of their wealth, they cannot enter into consensual relationships with others to exchange that wealth for goods and services.

Meanwhile, Trump has expressed no serious interest in cutting government spending, even though he'd try to cut taxes and consequently boost deficit spending.

The Liberty Alternative

The full case for liberty in employment contracts and other associations requires much more than a short article such as this. Here the point is that the liberty alternative is not even part of the national debate, as far as the presidential candidates of the two major parties are concerned.

Instead, Trump and Clinton offer two variants of more statism, one more focused on racial nationalism, the other on supposed class conflicts. Both candidates think the solution to our problems is to have government intervene more forcefully in our lives, not to have government more-consistently protect our rights to associate freely and choose how to spend our money.

Regardless of who wins in November, liberty will have an active foe rather than a champion in the White House. Those who fight for the rights of the individual will need to bring their case directly to the American people and to such lower-office politicians who may remain open to it.

Hurting the World's Poor in the Name of Helping Them—Poverty, Inc.

July 29, 2016

The vast sums of money transferred by the governments of wealthy nations to the governments of poor nations do not help the world's poor, for the most part. Rather, such foreign aid serves to prop up corrupt dictators, finance a giant network of Western nonprofits, disrupt local markets, and keep many of the intended beneficiaries dependent and poor. Even private aid often has deleterious effects. Or at least (http://www.povertyinc.org) Poverty, Inc., a 2014 film by Michael Matheson Miller of the Christian, free-market Acton Institute, plausibly argues those points.

A major theme of the film is that today's system of foreign aid is deeply paternalistic—indeed, in some respects colonialist—based on the idea that the world's poor are helpless and dependent and always will be so. One person interviewed for the film responds to such premises, "The people here are not stupid, just disconnected from global trade, that's all."

What enables people to lift themselves out of poverty, argues the film, is not the perpetual transfer of wealth, but good legal institutions. What people really need for long-term success is "legal protection from violence," access to just courts, legally recognized ownership of property, the "freedom to start a business," and links to wider markets, the film summarizes. In short, people need the rule of just law.

Tragically, the film shows, the existing system of foreign aid often inhibits the creation of such institutions and instead entrenches bad governments. Magatte Wade of Senegal summarizes for the film, "When people support more foreign aid for Africa, . . . they are condemning us in Africa to live under dictators, who will not respect our right to access of rule of law."

The film focuses much of its attention on Haiti. According to the film, cheap, subsidized rice from the United States flooded the Haitian market, devastating local rice production and driving many people into shoddily built slums. Then the earthquake came, and in the wake of its destruction, the nonprofit aid groups came too. As someone comments in the film, the "short-term natural disaster" of the earthquake "turned into a long-term unnatural disaster" of counterproductive aid efforts.

One Haitian refers to his country as the "Republic of NGOs," or non-government organizations. "They keep giving away free stuff as if they didn't want the Haitians to stand up for themselves," he says.

The film offers the example of Enersa, a small Haitian business that builds solar-powered street lights. When NGOs shipped a huge amount of "free" solar equipment to Haiti, Enersa's business took a big hit.

Sometimes private charity efforts also create more problems than they solve, the film shows. For example, when a church shipped a bunch of eggs to a region in Africa, if effectively destroyed the local egg production market—then pulled out.

Poverty, Inc. makes its main points convincingly. However, the film is fuzzy at times about the nature of the problems at hand and about the appropriate solutions.

One open question is whether, leaving aside cases of catastrophic emergencies, institutional reform is enough. For me, a student of free-market economics, the film's case for rights-oriented legal institutions is easy to accept. But is the creation of such institutions sufficient to solve the problem of global poverty? And what are the barriers to the creation of such institutions, besides foreign aid? The film leaves such questions largely unanswered.

I suspect that many viewers of the film will conclude that governments conduct foreign aid badly, and that they (along with private aid groups) should conduct it more intelligently, to support local markets rather than upend them.

My view is that governments have no legitimate business forcing people to aid others, but that private charity efforts have played and can continue to play a big role in alleviating global poverty. I get the idea that Miller may agree with me, but his film left me wondering.

Another shortcoming of the film is that it complains about aid disrupting local markets, then argues for access to open markets—without commenting on how free trade, too, can disrupt local markets. For example, the film discusses hand-made shoes, low-tech farming, and local textiles—types of production likely to be altered or displaced as a region's economy develops. I'm all for free trade, but I recognize that factory-made Chinese shoes may put a local shoemaker out of that job. I see the "creative destruction" of markets as necessary for a growing and innovative economy.

Miller seems to cast the economic disruption of aid as uniquely sinister, but is that right? I think where he's headed is that long-term aid disrupts production and creates dependency, whereas market development disrupts some forms of production by creating new forms. I wish the film had been more clear about such matters, and I fear some viewers may come away from the film thinking third-world governments should restrict imports. In fact such economic "protectionism" is harmful or even disastrous for development.

I don't want to make too much of these problems with the film. My advice is to watch this fascinating, bold, and thoughtful film, absorb and share its major lessons, and leave its unresolved issues on the back burner.

On the whole, Poverty, Inc. is a powerful and important film about the limits of good intentions, the evils of propping up corrupt regimes, and the self-empowerment of individuals entering the market as producers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqGQ1IRhdzg

(http://ariarmstrong.com) Latest Updates | (http://ariarmstrong.com/category/politics/welfare-subsidies/) Welfare & Subsidies

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a Comment

The Irrationality of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Rationalia

August 11, 2016

If only society could be governed by a rational elite, what a wonderful world it would be. Or at least various theorists have speculated since Plato penned the Republic.

Astrophysicist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson is the latest in a long line of utopian theorists. He set off a spirited debate when, on June 29, (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157273789300736) he Tweeted: "Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence."

Apparently at least some people found the idea appealing; over ten thousand people retweeted the remark, and over twenty-four thousand "liked" it. Of course, Tyson's remark also drew pointed criticism. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-07-18/neil-degrasse-tyson-may-dream-of-a-rationalia-society-but-its-a-fallacy) Robert F. Graboyes, (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/07/neil_degrasse_tyson_wants_a_nation_ruled_by_evidence_but_evidence_explains.html) Jeffrey Guhin, (http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/01/neil-degrasse-tysons-rationalia-would-be-a-terrible-country/) S. Shane Morris, (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437324/neil-degrasse-tysons-rationality-pipe-dream) Kevin D. Williamson, (http://www.popsci.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-just-proposed-government-that-doesnt-work) Kelsey D. Atherton (see also the(http://www.popsci.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-doubles-down-on-rationalia) follow-up), (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/06/neil-degrasse-tysons-viral-tweet-about-starting-a-new-country-is-bad-and-useful.html) Jesse Singal, and (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson) David Roberts are among those who criticized Tyson.

The main thrust of the criticisms of Tyson, with which I heartily agree, is that self-proclaimed "rational" people very often, in fact, are not rational. Just consider how widespread eugenics was among the scientific elite not too many decades ago.

Another problem is that the natural sciences that Tyson invokes do not, by themselves, generally imply particular political conclusions, and thinking they do is hubris. For example, biology can tell us many interesting things about the fetus at various stages of development; it cannot, however, tell us whether or how to restrict abortion. And, as Roberts points out, the scientific facts about climate change do not, by themselves, tell us what we should do about it. Alex Epstein plausibly argues we should respond to climate change by using more fossil fuels.)

Then there is the critical problem of who gets to decide who is sufficiently rational to be in charge. Who watches the watchers, who guards the guardians? People tried to create real-world Rationalias in the Twentieth Century, several times. Communism was supposed to be about rationally and scientifically planning the economy. Not only did this lead to allegedly rational planners governing by profound ignorance, causing widespread devastation; it led to despicable people taking charge. The Communists committed the (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/03/giving-historys-greatest-mass-murderer-his-due/?utm_term=.ac9ac4e09f80) worst mass murders in history in terms of number of victims, followed by the (allegedly also rational) National-Socialist German Workers' Party. Socialist versions of Rationalia failed repeatedly and spectacularly.

Arch-skeptic Michael Shermer suggests the obvious cure for the problem of guarding the guardians: Set up government institutions that foster rational outcomes. Shermer is much more sensitive to the importance of government institutions than Tyson seems to be. (https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/762470609414529024) He claims that "Rationalia already exists"; it is "the Enlightenment experiment running here since 1776." It is the experiment of representative democracy, (https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/763118324230217728) he adds, which further allows policy experimentation.

Certainly the Founders strove to be rational in setting up the United States government, looking to the guide of history and to the requirements of human nature. For example, as (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-51) Federalist 51 points out, "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions"—mainly involving constitutional government with checks and balances.

Of course, the "Rationalia" of representative and constitutionally limited government hardly guarantees that rational people will run government—our experiences with this year's presidential election should prove that beyond any doubt. Yet Shermer can sensibly claim (and I agree) that the general sort of government we have is the best we can rationally hope for (it allows for internal improvements, which we need), and that it gives us the best hope for rational outcomes. As the saying goes, constitutional democracy is terrible, but it is less terrible than other forms of governance.

We should keep in mind that Tyson is talking about a "virtual" country, not a real one. Yet he clearly means his virtual world to be in some respects a model for the real world. It is unclear (to me) whether and to what degree Tyson buys into the rational requirement of representative, constitutionally limited government. Without a means of real-world implementation, Tyson's version of Rationalia remains purely utopian.

If Tyson is saying that a "rational" elite should run society—and his remarks can easily be interpreted that way—then he's obviously and dangerously wrong.

Yet in a deeper sense I take Tyson's side. Some of Tyson's critics essentially argue that people cannot be fully rational, therefore Rationalia (in the real world) won't work. I agree with Tyson that we can be rational, and we can, in fact, build a society on rational principles.

Tyson's problem is that he doesn't know which principles are rational in the realm of politics. His main error is smuggling in false philosophic premises as his standard for what counts as "rational" policy. Thus, my central criticism of Tyson is not that Rationalia is impossible—I think it is possible, in the sense outlined by Shermer—it is that Tyson's particular version of Rationalia is fundamentally irrational.

Tyson offers a much more detailed account of his Rationalia in an (https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/reflections-on-rationalia/10154399608556613/) August 7 Facebook post. Here we can see Tyson's underlying fallacies at work.

I want to walk through Tyson's key remarks and make some first-round criticisms, then step back and draw some broader conclusions.

Tyson says he uses the term "policy" broadly:

Examples of Policy would be a government's choice to invest in R&D, and if so, by how much. Or whether a government should help the poor, and if so, in what ways. Or how much a municipality should support equal access to education. Or whether or not tariffs should be levied on goods and services from one country or another. Or what tax rate should be established, and on what kinds of income.

Clearly Tyson envisions a powerful government. He does not question whether government should impose taxation—that it should is a given in Tyson's world—he allows room only for debating the nature of taxation. Government "investing" in scientific research is automatically neither in nor out on moral grounds; it depends on the "evidence" about it.

Tyson continues, "In Rationalia, since weight of evidence is built into the Constitution, everyone would be trained from an early age how to obtain and analyze evidence, and how to draw conclusions from it."

Trained . . . by whom? Obviously Tyson has the government in mind. And if a parent does not wish his child to be "trained" by Tyson's educators "from an early age," what then? If Tyson really means "everyone," then he means government should send agents with guns to forcibly remove children from noncompliant parents. I suspect Tyson would walk back some of his remarks if pressed; he doesn't seem to have thought through some of them very carefully.

Next: "In Rationalia, you would have complete freedom to be irrational. You just don't have the freedom to base policy on your ideas if the weight of evidence does not support it."

Obviously Tyson does not really mean "complete freedom"; for example, people wouldn't be free to murder others or (presumably) to engage in female genital mutilation. But what else would Tyson forbid? He's not clear. Would religious parents have "complete freedom" to educate their children as they see fit?

A bit later in his piece, Tyson renegotiates his promise of "complete freedom" for the individual. Instead, he writes, "In Rationalia, research in psychology and neuroscience would establish what level risks we are all willing to take, and how much freedom we might need to forfeit, in exchange for comfort, health, wealth and security." Hello, 1984.

Note here that Tyson seems to presume that an individual is automatically irrational if he demands freedoms that clash with the risk-aversion, "comfort, health, wealth [or] security" of others. Does Tyson mean a majority? Does he think some utilitarian collective happiness calculation is possible and desirable? He is entirely unclear. Obviously we are not "all" going to agree about appropriate levels of risk, "comfort," and the like—so what is the standard by which the freedom of dissenters will be squashed?

Then there's this: "In Rationalia, you could create an Office of Morality, where moral codes are proposed and debated"—and, presumably, imposed by force. Sort of like what the "rational" Communists did. (The practitioners of totalitarian Islam also have their Offices of Morality, which they'd claim are perfectly rational.)

I'm sure that Tyson does not intend a totalitarian outcome. I am equally sure that a future "scientific" totalitarian could plausibly claim to be in complete compliance with the terms for Rationalia that Tyson lays out.

That Tyson is deeply statist in political orientation is beyond reasonable doubt: He wants a powerful government to substantially control key aspects of each person's life, including each person's wealth, education, and morals. What is the source of this statism?

Undergirding Tyson's statist vision of Rationalia is a philosophic presumption of collectivism, the view that society as a whole is the basic standard of value, and that individuals, their values, and their proclaimed rights may be sacrificed for the sake of society.

Does an individual not wish to subject his children to the government's "training" regimen? Not wish to finance government-approved R&D or "art in schools" or government research into "the sciences that study human behavior" or whatever else the "rational" class might concoct? Not wish to surrender his freedoms for the proclaimed "comfort, health, wealth and [or] security" of others? Not wish to obey the dictates of the Office of Morality? Too bad. The individual, his values, his rights (not that Tyson seems to recognize the existence of rights), his liberties, his wealth, his children, presumably his very life, all may be demanded by the self-proclaimed "rational" rulers.

What is the rational basis of Tyson's collectivism? He offers none. His entire "rational" structure is built on an irrational, unjustified (and unjustifiable) philosophic presumption.

Of course, in the scope of a short article such as this, I cannot justify the moral theory that an individual rightly pursues his own life and values, nor the political theory that individuals have rights. The point here is that, to establish that your politics are rational, you have to actually recognize the moral underpinnings of your politics and, ultimately, show that they, too, are rational. Tyson doesn't even seem to realize that he's presuming unjustified collectivist moral premises.

Some might deem my criticisms of Tyson overly harsh. Isn't Tyson in important ways just arguing for the status quo? Obviously government today confiscates people's wealth, runs schools, finances R&D, prohibits various "immoral" behaviors, and so on—in important ways Tyson follows convention, not reason. Yes, I decry the collectivism at work in today's politics. But at least the (often implicit) collectivism of today is mixed with an (often explicit) individualism, and at least it does not formally bear the mantle of rationality. By claiming to base a society on rationality, and by grounding that society on collectivist premises, Tyson gives collectivism a dangerously broader sanction and potential. Quite simply, collectivism taken to its "rational" conclusions results in totalitarianism, always and necessarily.

I'll pick up the fundamental moral debate another day. Here I will conclude by pointing out that Shermer's version of Rationalia—the Founders' version—is compatible with individualism: The view that each person morally pursues his own values and happiness, consonant with the rights of others. (I don't agree with all of Shermer's particular political conclusions.) The project of American governance is, at its core, based on people's "unalienable Rights," chiefly each person's rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Tyson includes this gem in his discussion: "In Rationalia, . . . [e]veryone would have a heightened capacity to spot bullshit wherever and whenever it arose." Thankfully, we don't need to live in Tyson's Orwellian version of Rationalia to spot his bullshit collectivist moral premises.

Comment

Tyson Speaking Outside His Expertise

The problem Tyson exhibits is a common one among scientists, particularly celebrity scientists: they believe that their work in one area grants them expertise in ALL areas, even areas well outside any training they may have received. Gould did that fairly often (see his NOMA essay for a popular example), and Dawkins attempted to construct a career out of this error. This is one reason why virtually every book or essay on rhetoric and logic specifically points out that experts speaking outside their area of expertise are not to be trusted.

If it comes to an astronomy question, Tyson is a fantastic resource. When it comes to politics, he's got no more chance of being correct than a hog farmer, and (due to the isolated nature of academic science and the fact that the majority is funded by federal grants) likely a lot less.

The fact that Tyson fails to realize this basic principle of logic is one reason I have never been impressed by him. Along with other statements he's made, this paints the picture of someone who believes himself to be above the rules of logic and reason—while at the same time posing as their champion.

—James

Ari Armstrong replies: We shouldn't necessarily trust someone speaking outside his or her area of expertise, but, then again, we shouldn't necessarily trust someone speaking inside his or her area of expertise. I needn't provide a list of past "experts" who were dead wrong within their area of expertise, nor of non-"experts" who were right about something important. The key is to evaluate whether a person is talking sense, building carefully from existing evidence, avoiding bias, and applying expertise appropriately. I often disagree with Dawkins's politics, but overall I think he does outstanding work.

James replies: I disagree regarding Dawkins's work. His work on evolutionary biology has some pretty serious flaws. That said, I studied under one of Gould's students. Plus, there's a history of disagreement between biologists (particularly molecular biologists) and paleontologists. Dawkins's presentation of fossil evidence is pretty poor, and that tends to color his discussion of evolutionary history as such.

Getting back to my point: I didn't mean to imply that we should trust people speaking within their area of expertise without doing our own fact-checking. There is a division of intellectual labor, so the issue is a bit complicated-—I trust my electrician a great deal, but still run what he says against what I know.

The problem is, when experts speak about topics outside their area of expertise they tend to do VERY badly. There are numerous reasons for this. Most obviously, the methods used in one area (say, astronomy) may not be applicable to another (say, politics). Experts often spend a decade or so learning how to work within a field, and very frequently have trouble breaking out of that mold. Experts also typically lack data in fields outside their area of expertise--they properly focus on their field of study, which necessarily reduces the amount of time they have to devote to other areas of study. And so on.

The thing is, one of the first things scientists learn is to distrust experts speaking outside their area of expertise. It's built into our training—and we are warned to be VERY careful when we do it. It's not that we're necessarily wrong to do it, but rather that there are numerous pitfalls. One CAN tapdance in a mine field; one just needs to know where all the mines are.

Tyson is increasingly ignoring those pitfalls, and this basic warning. He increasingly seems to be of the belief that because he's accepted as an expert in one field, and the current media darling of the scientific world, he can expect to be taken as an expert on any topic he wishes to expound upon. He currently keeps it within certain limits, but the trend is there, and it can only end badly for him. And since a significant portion of the population accepts that he speaks for science as such (at least, if the people I associate with are typical) this could have very serious consequences for the rest of us. If people start realizing that Tyson is talking nonsense, and the rest of the scientific community doesn't do enough to point out that he's making some pretty basic errors, the public perception of scientists could easily become viewing us as folks with ridiculous notions cut off from reality. We're seeing that often enough as it is.

The Importance of Intellectual Honesty

Tyson's notion that "All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence," depends on the intellectual honesty of those deciding.

The U.S. Constitution attempts just that with the U.S. Supreme Court set up to decide whether laws are constitutional. The Federalist Papers indicate an intention that the Supreme Court would actually have the last word. As long as the justices showed some intellectual honesty, it worked just fine. With intellectually dishonest justices on the Court, all the protections unraveled.

—Jim Austin

Ari Armstrong replies: The Supreme Court is intended to change slowly relative to the elected offices, but it is ultimately answerable to the people via the presidential appointment process, and it can overturn previous rulings. Intellectual honesty is important, but I think the more specific issue here is the problem of falling into false ideologies. Intellectuals tend to be very prone to ideological fads. In the Twentieth Century, the Supreme Court followed the intellectual trend of Progressivism. That Tyson doesn't even seem to be aware of some of his philosophic presuppositions is a troubling indicator of the sorts of problems that would plague his "Rationalia." Particularly in the realm of politics, the "rational" can quickly become the rationalization.

Publications

August 20, 2016

This is a partial list of Ari Armstrong's outside publications, in reverse order. See also Ari's articles at (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/category/ari-armstrong/) Complete Colorado and the (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/author/aarmstrong/) Objective Standard.

"(http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2017/02/23/bill-would-let-veterinarians-snoop-in-peoples-medical-records/) Bill would let veterinarians snoop in people's medical records," Complete Colorado, February 23, 2017, http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2017/02/23/bill-would-let-veterinarians-snoop-in-peoples-medical-records/.

"(http://gazette.com/guest-column-time-to-rethink-our-basic-political-ideas/article/1590251) Time to rethink our basic political ideas," Colorado Springs Gazette, November 15, 2016, http://gazette.com/guest-column-time-to-rethink-our-basic-political-ideas/article/1590251. The op-ed is a summary version of the longer essay, "(http://amzn.to/2dxpvc9) Reclaiming Liberalism."

"(http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/opinion/23592873-113/armstrong-the-unseen-consequences-of-colorados-minimum-wage) The unseen consequences of Colorado's minimum wage hike measure," Greeley Tribune, August 24, 2016, http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/opinion/23592873-113/armstrong-the-unseen-consequences-of-colorados-minimum-wage. This piece (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/08/19/beware-unintended-consequences-of-minimum-wage-hike/) originally appeared at Complete Colorado, August 19, 2016, http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/08/19/beware-unintended-consequences-of-minimum-wage-hike/.

"(https://pjmedia.com/blog/elizabeth-warrens-social-contract-an-ideological-fantasy/?singlepage=true) Elizabeth Warren's 'Social Contract' an Ideological Fantasy," PJ Media, September 28, 2011, https://pjmedia.com/blog/elizabeth-warrens-social-contract-an-ideological-fantasy/?singlepage=true.

"(https://web.archive.org/web/20080321173506/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/) Should Prostitution Be Legal?" Rocky Mountain News, March 15, 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20080321173506/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/.

The Moral Case Against Minimum Wage Laws

September 1, 2016

The legally mandated minimum wage is an economic issue, of course; but it is more fundamentally a moral issue. Unfortunately, usually only the left, with its claims about the alleged fairness of higher minimum wages, talks about the moral dimensions of the policy. That needs to change.

Obviously minimum wage laws are a big deal politically. Various (http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-tracker/) states and localities have higher minimum wages than the national level. In Colorado, we're looking at a (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/11/minimum-wage-colorado-ballot-initiative-101/) ballot measure to raise the hourly minimum wage to $12 by 2020. We already have a higher minimum wage than federal law mandates, and it's indexed to inflation. One of the big fights between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton was whether to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 or "only" $12. Donald Trump, as we might expect, has (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/03/a-guide-to-all-of-donald-trumps-flip-flops-on-the-minimum-wage/) flip-flopped over whether he wants to increase the federal minimum wage or leave it the same.

I can think of no politician today who vocally advocates the repeal of minimum wage laws, even though that is still a fairly common position among free-market economists. The reason for this, I think, is that advocates of economic liberty have largely ceded the moral high ground on the issue. Today the usual view is to see anyone who calls for the repeal of minimum wage laws as a cold-hearted bastard who wants to see children starve in the streets. But that's all wrong.

What are the moral issues at stake? I see three main ones.

1. It is wrong to forcibly prevent someone from negotiating a salary at which he or she can find a job and is willing to work.

The moral debate is, of course, bounded by economic realities. If we could pass a magic law that would result in everyone getting paid at least $15 per hour (or $100 per hour) without making anyone worse off, no one would oppose it. For people who live in reality, the debate is a little more complicated.

No sane economist would claim that a sufficiently low minimum wage (say, $3 per hour) would increase unemployment. At the same time, no sane economist would deny that a sufficiently high minimum wage (say, $30 per hour) would cause dramatic job loss.

The academic debate largely revolves around the employment effects of relatively modest changes in minimum wage laws. Minimum wage-change deniers aside, this much is clear: Any increase large enough to substantially boost many people's wages is also large enough to throw some people out of work and to chill future creation of certain jobs.

Ultimately, almost no employer is going to keep an employee around who loses money for the business. If Alison, a business owner, can make more money by laying off Benjamin than by paying him $12 per hour (or whatever the law says), then Benjamin goes to the unemployment lines. For each employee and each job, there is an upper pay boundary beyond which an employer will not go. (I'm assuming here that no one is crazy enough to suggest that government force employers to hire people at a loss.)

If the minimum wage is set at $12 per hour, then a person who can contribute only $11 per hour to a business will not find work. The (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080101.asp) real minimum wage is zero, and minimum wage laws force people to accept zero rather than even a penny below the legal minimum.

Nor is such legally mandated unemployment justified by utilitarian concerns. One could argue, for example, that if total wage gains surpass total wage losses due to cut jobs, then that would be a net benefit. Or one could argue that total wage increases would have to outweigh losses by some multiple. But such calculations do not justify forcibly harming some people by outlawing their employment.

People are individuals, not averages, and individuals have rights—including the right to engage with others by mutual consent.

2. Minimum wage laws treat entry-level, unskilled, and other low-paid workers as incompetent to manage their own affairs and negotiate their own contracts without the intervention of politicians and bureaucrats.

For many people, a minimum wage job is an entry-level job, the first step on a long path of career advancement. As the (http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2015/home.htm) Bureau of Labor Statistics reports for 2015, "Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less."

A person does not earn only money on the first job; he or she earns invaluable experience. One critical skill that people need to learn is how to negotiate employment contracts with employers. Minimum wage laws essentially communicate, "Don't worry about thinking carefully about what you can contribute to a business and what your time is worth to employers, and don't worry about standing up for yourself at work; we the elites will take care of your pay negotiations for you."

In some cases, the compensation is the work experience, which is why many people sign up to work for free as interns when they are legally allowed to do so.

Some people seek out a side-job, sometimes with low pay, to supplement a family's income. This group can include teens and young adults living at home who want extra pocket money while going to school, spouses who split time between kids and work, and people in semi-retirement. Around (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/) two-thirds of all minimum wage workers are part-time (although not always by preference). (http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/reducing-poverty-via-minimum-wages-tax-credit/) David Neumark finds that many minimum wage workers contribute to greater household income, one reason why, at a $10.10 minimum wage, around half of the financial gains would go to families over twice the poverty line, while around a third of the gains go to families over triple the poverty line.

In the name of fighting poverty, minimum wage laws can interfere with the job choices of people who are not poor. Some employers respond to a higher minimum wage by eliminating or never offering certain jobs; some demand that employees become more productive during each paid hour. Minimum wage laws communicate, "We're from government, and we know best: You may not negotiate a lower wage based on the expectation of assuming fewer responsibilities, having more flexibility, or enjoying less stress while at work."

Then there are some people who really are trying to support a family on a single minimum wage income. That's a tough situation, no doubt. The best path out of that situation is not to work the same entry-level job for a little more pay; it is to build more-marketable skills and get a better job.

Bear in mind that the main problem is not that some heads of households make only the minimum wage; it is that, in most poor families, (http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/reducing-poverty-via-minimum-wages-tax-credit/) no one works at all.

Rather than "help" struggling families by violating people's rights and throwing some people out of work, government should respect people's rights to cooperate consensually with others and to decide how to dispose of their own wealth. For example, government should repeal job-killing (http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/licensetowork1.pdf) licensure laws starting with the most obviously irrational ones, such as laws requiring (http://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/braiding/) hair braiders to undergo hundreds of hours of pointless instruction.

Forced wealth transfers violate people's rights (a large issue to pursue further elsewhere); however, even momentarily granting the assumptions of welfare statists, minimum wage laws are a bad approach. (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/04/the-minimum-wage-is-a-bad-tool-for-fighting-poverty/.) Targeted welfare addresses the problem it's intended to solve (at least superficially) without directly disrupting the labor market.

It is telling that some people would rather increase the minimum wage than, say, repeal the 15.3 percent federal payroll tax, which is extremely damaging to the poor. For such activists, government taking more control of people's lives seems to be the point.

Of course, private efforts to help the poor can be morally appropriate and economically sensible; for example, people who wish to do so can contribute to charities that help people on low incomes get on their feet and improve their job skills.

So far, we have focused on the employee and job seeker. Next we turn to the other side of the employment relationship and our third reason why minimum wage laws are immoral.^*

3. It's wrong to force employers to pay more than they can negotiate on a free market.

The employer often is the "forgotten man" or woman in policy debates about the minimum wage, but let's not forget who actually creates the jobs in question. It ain't the politicians or the street activists.

The premise of the "fairness" argument for minimum wage hikes seems to be that employers easily could afford to pay their employees more, but they just refuse. Most people with such presumptions have never actually tried to run a business or make payroll. In the real world, (http://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm) most businesses fail within ten years. In the real world, many business owners run losses some years. Those who think it's easy to run a business and pay low-skilled employees high wages are welcome to try.

Employers are not society's beasts of burden, to create higher-paying jobs out of thin air as demanded by those who create no jobs. (Even politically subsidized projects are funded ultimately by private-sector producers.) Employers, no less than employees, have rights—including the right to engage with others by mutual consent.

Every dollar a business pays in expenses has to come from somewhere. If a business owner pays one employee more, that money has to come out of others' pay, facility expansion, job training, computer upgrades, higher prices paid by customers, or the like. A business owner has a moral right to negotiate freely with the various suppliers, employees, and customers of the business in ways the owner judges best for the business overall.

Employers do not create the problem that some people can demand only a (relatively) low wage. Employers help solve that problem by helping employees develop marketable skills.

When people have more marketable skills, employers have to pay them more, or employees quickly find better terms elsewhere. That's why only a (http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2015/home.htm) small fraction of people earn the federal minimum wage and why only about (http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-the-minimum-wage-to-12-by-2020-would-lift-wages-for-35-million-american-workers/) one in five employees would be directly affected by a $12 minimum wage.

In the main, people don't make more money because government says they must; they make more money because they become more productive. People become more productive primarily with better capital—the best-educated person in the world with access only to a shovel will produce very little. Capitalists, not politicians, are why people on average increased their earnings from (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/american-labor-in-the-20th-century.pdf) $4,200 in 1900 to $33,700 in 1999 (both figures using 1999 dollars). At a given time, some people earn relatively more than others because they can persuade employers that they can produce relatively more wealth for the business.

Minimum wage laws scapegoat employers for problems that they did not cause. And those laws forcibly interfere with employers' efforts to address the problems, as an indirect consequence of running their businesses, by offering people the opportunity to gain work experience.

In short, minimum wage laws treat low-wage employees as though they needed a government nanny and employers as though they deserved a government yoke. These laws violate the rights of employers and employees alike. On moral grounds, minimum wage laws should be repealed, not expanded.

* This paragraph and the previous four were updated on September 3, 2016.

When It's Wrong for Lawyers to Help Guilty Clients Go Free

September 14, 2016

Philosopher Michael Huemer makes a claim that will surprise many attorneys and observers of the legal system: With some important exceptions, lawyers should not help a clearly guilty client go free or otherwise evade justice. This runs counter to the common notion that attorneys can or even should help their guilty clients go free (within the boundaries of the law). Huemer presented his case, based on his (http://philpapers.org/archive/HUEDAO.pdf) 2014 paper on the subject, at a September 12 meeting of (https://www.facebook.com/LOTRFlatirons) Liberty on the Rocks in Westminster, Colorado.

Huemer's basic argument is simple: Just as it is wrong for a murderer's friend to help him "elude the police" (all direct quotes from Huemer come from the paper), so it is wrong for an attorney to knowingly help the murderer go free. The same analysis applies to other violent criminals. Huemer considers various counter-arguments to his position and finds them wanting.

At least at first glance, Huemer's position seems obviously right. Normally if a lawyer knows a client is guilty of a serious crime, it is wrong for the lawyer to seek an outcome in which the client goes unpunished.

Some important caveats are in order. I'll list four in no particular order:

1. Huemer carefully distinguished serious rights-violating crimes from actions that, while legally considered crimes, violate no one's rights (such as drug use). In the latter sort of cases, Huemer said, lawyers morally may try to help their clients go free. (Huemer's paper on (http://philpapers.org/archive/HUETDT.pdf) jury nullification bears on this matter.)

2. Huemer pointed out that an attorney would have a responsibility to disclose his practices—his refusal to help guilty clients evade justice—to potential clients.

3. Huemer is not suggesting that lawyers be legally "censured for defending the obviously guilty." He is talking only about what attorneys, individually, should choose to do.

4. Huemer said that a lawyer rightly tries to keep a guilty client from being punished too severely for the crime. Huemer said that the injustice of overpunishment potentially can outweigh the injustice of underpunishment. He writes, "In some cases, where the expected punishment for a crime is excessive, it may be less unjust for the defendant to be acquitted than for the defendant to be convicted, even though the defendant is guilty."

Although I think Huemer essentially is on the right track, I worry that he has not adequately considered some relevant issues.

For one, I think Huemer may overestimate the frequency with which lawyers know whether their clients are guilty. As one defense lawyer present at the talk said, "When someone walks into my office admitting guilt, I'll let you know."

Consider just two common examples. Allegations of assault often involve claims of self-defense, where the evidence often comes down to conflicting testimony. Allegations of rape, particularly involving people of previous acquaintance, often involve claims of consent (explicit or otherwise); again, evidence often comes down to conflicting testimony.

Given the biases often present in the accused (and even in the accusers), and given the well-known tricks that memory can play, I think defense attorneys probably often are genuinely uncertain about the guilt of their clients. (By often I do not mean usually; the high percentage of (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/devils-bargain-how-plea-agreements-never-contemplated-framers-undermine-justice) plea bargains may indicate that lawyers usually think their clients are guilty.)

Thinking about the talk afterward, I worried that Huemer might in effect be reducing the criminal legal standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to the preponderance of the evidence. But he accounts for this in the paper: "[C]onviction of the innocent is much more unjust than acquittal of the guilty. Because of this, it is ethically justifiable to attempt to secure acquittal for such a defendant [who is 75% likely to be guilty]. This point applies as long as the lawyer has reasonable doubts as to the guilt of his client."

So I take it that Huemer's full stance can be summarized: "If a lawyer knows with a high degree of certainty that someone is guilty of a serious crime, then it is wrong for the lawyer to try to free the person from punishment, unless the only alternative is severe overpunishment."

During the question period of the talk, I described a hypothetical case that I'm not sure Huemer has adequately addressed. Let's say a lawyer knows that a person accused of murder is guilty, but to ensure a conviction the police planted evidence (say, the victim's blood in the car of the accused).

To me, it is plausible that the lawyer should seek an acquittal, as a way to demonstrate to the police and the prosecution that tampering with evidence will not be tolerated. Maintaining the integrity of the legal system as a whole is more important than the outcome of a given case.

Huemer sensibly replied that the best outcome would be for the lawyer to ensure a conviction both of the accused criminal and of the corrupt police. The problem is that police abuse often goes unpunished.

One wrinkle here is that different criminals have different chances of reoffending. A serial killer has demonstrated a propensity to reoffend, but some other sorts of criminals are unlikely to commit another crime. So how does a conscientious defense attorney weigh such things as chances of reoffense, potential for future police and prosecutorial corruption, and so on? I'm not sure.

Besides such egregious abuses as planting evidence, police and prosecutors can also fail to follow proper procedure. For example, police might obtain evidence from someone's house without a proper warrant. In such cases, surely defense attorneys properly have that evidence excluded in court. Again, a defense attorney should not reward government agents for violating people's rights or duly established legal procedure. Importantly, Huemer is concerned with "unjust advocacy" in his paper; to me, acting to ensure the integrity of the legal system is just advocacy. I'm not quite sure how Huemer would address this point.^*

Yet another problem involves public defenders. Whether there should even be public defenders is a complex matter. So long as there are, I'm not sure that the government entity paying for their services could justly allow the sort of practice that Huemer outlines or that public defenders could justly act that way. (Practically speaking, this may not matter much; my impression is that the problem with public defenders is that they radically underrepresent the accused, not represent them too enthusiastically.)

Incidentally, it occurs to me that a possible alternative to government hiring public defenders is for government to provide poor people accused of crimes with legal vouchers. Then I see no problem with attorneys who accept such vouchers acting in the way Huemer describes.

I'll leave it to interested readers to explore the details of Huemer's case more carefully. His basic position seems pretty obvious to me, so I don't see much need in further banging my head against the usual rebuttals.

I'll close with a point about economics. During his talk, Huemer worried that ethical lawyers would suffer financially as many accused parties sought out the services of less scrupulous attorneys.

But, I countered (after the talk), an attorney who acted the way that Huemer outlined might do very well financially. If I were wrongly accused of a crime, that is precisely the sort of attorney I would seek out. Such an attorney likely would develop a reputation among prosecutors as a straight shooter, so a prosecutor might be more open to reevaluating criminal charges for that lawyer's clients. I think a lot of guilty parties would seek out such an attorney, too, out of concern with overpunishment.

I hope attorneys on both sides of the courtroom carefully consider Huemer's case. Otherwise, they may find that, in playing devil's advocate, they have helped a devil kill or maim again.

* This paragraph was added on September 15. In addition, the word "why" was changed to "when" in the headline, and the text "With some important exceptions" was added to the first paragraph.

(http://ariarmstrong.com) Latest Updates | Photograph of Michael Huemer by Ari Armstrong

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a Comment

New Book: Reclaiming Liberalism and Other Essays on Personal and Economic Freedom

September 30, 2016

From the media release: Ari Armstrong's new book, (http://amzn.to/2dxpvc9) Reclaiming Liberalism and Other Essays on Personal and Economic Freedom, is now available in paperback and Kindle:

(http://amzn.to/2dxpvc9) http://amzn.to/2dxpvc9

The book brings together the title essay plus thirty-two others. "Reclaiming Liberalism" examines the meaning of the term liberal, linking it to the tradition of individual rights; explains why genuine liberals should not let statists steal their rightful title; and distinguishes liberalism from conservatism and libertarianism. Other essays, published over previous years, explore the lure of utopia; defend equality before the law, not of outcomes; champion freedom of speech; defend capitalism; critique the nanny state; and address other critical issues of our times.

The title essay "Reclaiming Liberalism" argues: "To effectively advance their cause, true liberals—people who in fact advocate liberty in all affairs, personal and economic—must reclaim the mantle of liberalism. The authoritarians, the statists, the collectivists who stole the term liberalism from its rightful heirs must be stripped of their rhetorical masks and exposed for what they are: enemies of human freedom."

Armstrong said, "In these interesting political times, I'm excited to offer this collection bringing together some of my personal favorites. I hope the new title essay helps promote the view that liberalism, properly understood, is not about government intervening in all areas of our lives, as some people seem to think; rather, it is about advancing human liberty and rights-respecting government."

Timothy Sandefur, attorney and author of The Permission Society, remarked, "Ari Armstrong stands in the best tradition of classical liberalism: firm in his convictions, open to rational persuasion, willing to admit when he doesn't know, willing to insist on what he does know, and willing to defend to the death his right—and the right of every person—to know and understand through reason. In a climate of pervasive irrationality, Armstrong's writing is a glimpse of a better world, a world of reason and freedom, that's open to all of us if we're willing."

Following are the contents:

1. Reclaiming Liberalism

Liberalism Pertains to Liberty

The Incoherence of Conservatism

Conservatism, Utopianism, and Liberalism

Liberalism as Radical and Rational

The Problem with Left and Right

The Long-Term Reclamation of Liberalism

Why Not Libertarianism?

Renewing the Fight for Liberty

2. Utopia and Totalitarianism

The Irrationality of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Rationalia

Sam Harris's Collectivist Politics

3. Liberty and Equality

"You Didn't Build That"—Obama's Ode to Envy

The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism

Egalitarianism versus Rational Morality on Income Inequality

Challenging the Inequality Narrative

An Aristotelian Account of Responsibility and Luck

A Parable for Thomas Piketty

4. Capitalism

Contra Occupiers, Profits Embody Justice

Sparking a Free Market Revolution

The Fruits of Capitalism Are All Around Us

5. Freedom of Speech

A Lesson on Censorship

When Politics Corrupts Money

Why Forcibly Limiting Campaign Spending is Censorship

The Egalitarian Assault on Free Speech

Campaign Laws Throw Common Sense Out the Window

Ruling Furthers Free Speech

6. Welfare and Taxes

Questioning the Welfare State

The Integrity of Condemning Social Security While Collecting It

Nation Needs Shared Liberty, Not Sacrifice

The Crucial Distinction Between Subsidies and Tax Cuts

7. Liberty for Producers

The Moral Case Against Minimum Wage Laws

The Morality of Unequal Pay for Unequal Work

Hobby Lobby and Equal Rights

On the Right Not to Bake a Cake

Businessmen Should Never "Put Moral Judgments Aside"

Religious Freedom Laws vs. Equal Protection of Rights

8. Immigration

Amnesty for Rights-Respecting Illegal Immigrants

A Rights-Respecting Immigration Policy

9. The Nanny State

Government Destroys Buckyballs, Assaults the Mind

Should Prostitution Be legal?

Morality and Sanity Demand an End to Drug Prohibition

10. Coda

Clinton and Trump Should Both Drop Out for the Good of the Country

October 5, 2016

After the vice-presidential debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, it is even more painfully obvious that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump is fit to be the next president of the United States. As I Tweeted, I'd vote for either Kaine or Pence over either Clinton or Trump. I even found myself wishing for a Pence-Kaine ticket. And I have substantial disagreements with the policies of both men.

When Kaine asked Pence how he could defend Trump's many reprehensible actions and statements—statements about Mexicans, women, war heroes, Obama's birth, Vladimir Putin, and nuclear weapons—it was obvious that Pence could not defend them. Instead, Pence shook his head, pretended that Kaine was mistaken (even though mostly Kaine was right about Trump), and changed the subject.

Meanwhile, when Pence asked Kaine to defend Clinton's foreign-policy fiascos, budget-busting tax-and-spend policies, email server scandal, and political pay-to-play schemes, about all Kaine could do was say (very plausibly) that Trump would be even worse.

Both Kaine and Pence have the experience and integrity to ably serve as president of the United States, whatever mistakes they might make and bad policies they might pursue. Neither Clinton nor Trump does.

This election cycle has been nauseating, for me quite literally, as I've laid in bed with my stomach churning over the thought of Clinton or Trump as president. I think most Americans are in the same boat. If we had a national referendum tomorrow on the question, "Shall Clinton and Trump be removed from consideration for the presidency, to be replaced by Kaine and Pence," the measure would pass overwhelmingly.

And yet, despite the fact that most Americans absolutely do not want either Clinton or Trump for president, almost certainly either Clinton or Trump will become the next president.

There is only one remaining Hail Mary that I see: Both Clinton and Trump could agree to drop out on the condition that the other drop out. Of course, this almost certainly will not happen, not only because each would have to figure out how not to lose the game of chicken, but because neither Clinton nor Trump could imagine putting the interests of the country ahead of their own narcissistic impulses.

Yet, if Clinton and Trump took seriously their own claims about their competitor, they would both seriously try to mutually drop out. According to both Clinton and Trump, it would be an utter disaster if the other were elected. I heartily agree. The surest way for Clinton and Trump to guarantee that the other won't win is to guarantee that neither will win. But, again, I realize this is wishful thinking on my part, precisely because each is basically right about the other.

So, absent something close to divine intervention, what is the voter to do?

Clinton truly would be a disaster for the country. Not only would her tax-and-spend policies continue to inflate the debt and weaken the economy, but she has promised to censor political speech and disarm American citizens by bureaucratic fiat. And her foreign policy "experience" has been to destabilize Libya, empower Islamic State, embolden Iran, and watch idly as Russia expands its international power.

Trump, too, would be a disaster for the country. He would cut taxes but not spending. His ignorant, mercantilist trade policies would threaten to throw the country into a major recession. His immigration policies would terrorize and brutalize millions of peaceable people. Vladimir Putin, on whom Trump obviously has a man-crush, would play Trump like a fiddle. And we simply cannot predict when and if Trump's mean-spirited narcissism would land us in a major international conflict.

Then there's Gary Johnson. The joke is there's a socialist, a Democrat, and a Republican in the race—and Johnson is the Republican. But we all know that Johnson will never be president. Anyway, Johnson is now tainted by nutty Libertarianism, and, when it comes to foreign policy, he is further out of his depth than an insect trapped in Trump's hair.

How did we get into this mess? Joe Biden for whatever reason didn't run, and Clinton was the only alternative to the "democratic socialist" wing of her party represented by Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. I'd almost vote for Sarah Palin over Sanders or Warren. I'd almost vote for the Libertarian convention stripper over Sanders or Warren.

On the Republican side, we got stung by the "winner take all" voting system in which strong (and bull-headed) candidates wiped each other out, leaving the ignorant lout (but outstanding media manipulator) standing. And apparently millions of Democrats were only too happy to help push Trump through the primaries.

We're in the mess we're in. What's my advice? It is simply this: "Never Trump; down ticket vote Republican."

I'm in Colorado, where apparently Clinton has (at least for now) regained her commanding lead. I see no hope of any Republican pick ups in Congress (and no real danger of Democratic pick ups). The real threat is two more years of a state government controlled totally by Democrats. The last time that happened, we ended up with a plethora of new taxes (such as the idiotic "Amazon tax") and inane gun restrictions. So please, Coloradans, whatever you think about the presidency, vote Republican for state legislative races. Even if you dislike Republicans, remember that the governor is a Democrat, and he and a Republican legislative body (presumably the state senate) can keep each other in check.

If Clinton can avoid a complete foreign policy meltdown—which I'm not sure is possible—at least she could not accomplish too much damage domestically if checked by a Republican legislative body.

True, Clinton can and probably will royally screw up the Supreme Court, putting in rubber-stampers of statist policies. But the fact that Republicans make such a big deal of this only shows that Republicans know that Republican legislators generally are feckless. The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as a check on legislative abuses, not be our only bulwark against bad government. If Congress would do its job and abide by the Constitution, the Supreme Court wouldn't have to do it for them.

Even though I say "Never Trump," certainly I am not pro-Clinton. I think reasonable voters are in a no-win situation. Neither candidate is worth voting for, but either candidate is potentially so disastrously bad that voting for the other candidate might seem like the only non-insane move.

My problem is that I can envision plausible scenarios in which either Clinton or Trump could do irreparable harm. Clinton could let Islamic totalitarian terrorism get even more dangerously out of control, or she could err in the other direction and involve the country in a military quagmire. Seriously, who in the hell knows what Trump might do as commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the history of the world—that's the problem. Either person could throw the economy (further) into chaos.

With either Clinton or Trump, I can imagine a perfect storm of global problems and presidential failures that could leave the country seriously weakened in four or eight years and ripe for a malicious demagogue. (By contrast, Trump is a petty demagogue who would harm the nation mostly by accident of his narcissistic impulsiveness.)

I can't fault someone this cycle for how they vote in the presidential race—so long as a voter articulates the problems with both candidates and makes a real effort to mitigate the damage and preserve liberty. (Trump cheerleaders, on the other hand, are either delusional, dishonest, or drawn to Trump precisely because of the man's worst attributes.)

I disagree with one thing Yaron Brook said on his recent radio show—he suggested that to vote for a given candidate is to assume some moral responsibility for what that candidate does. I think that's true only if one explicitly supports the candidate's policies. Sometimes, I think, a voter is in such a tough spot that voting for a really bad candidate can plausibly help stop an even worse one. By comparison, if a mugger demands your money or your life, we can't fault someone for turning over their money.

In this case, my problem is that it's not obvious to me which candidate might be more destructive; I could make a case for either Clinton or Trump fitting that bill. But I do personally find Trump to be more frightening; I think it's his combination of haughty ignorance, petty meanness, and pervasive lying. I think Clinton at least basically knows when she's lying and realizes the difference between her lies and reality; Trump seems to think reality is bound by his pronouncements.

Barring an almost-impossible turn of events, either Clinton or Trump soon will be elected the next president of the United States. It is now too late to change that.

What lovers of liberty can do is a) brace for the impact and prepare to fight like hell for better policies, whoever wins, b) resolve to push for better choices next time, and c) keep pushing the philosophic case for individual rights and rights-respecting government. As always, that last point is most important, long term, by far.

Personally, I'm going to try to stop worrying about this election, which I can do nothing else to alter, and start working now toward the longer term goal of a more fully just and free America.

Legatum's Mismeasure of Freedom in the United States

October 6, 2016

"The U.S. isn't one of the top 10 most free countries in the world, study says." So blares the (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article105618381.html) headline of a recent McClatchyDC story. If a "study" says it, it must be true, right? Well, not exactly. But, even though the study in question is deeply flawed, clearly people in the United States are not fully free by the standard of individual rights. How free are we, really?

I'll focus on the study in question, the (http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking) 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index, which ranks the United States fifteenth in the world for personal freedom. A summary of key data is offered in a forty-one page (http://media.prosperity.com/2015/pdf/publications/PI2015Brochure_WEB.pdf) pdf document. (I'm not sure why this is in the news in October of 2016, given the pdf is marked with a 2015 copyright. I heard of the news headlines when a radio station out of Houston called me for (http://ktrh.iheart.com/articles/houston-news-121300/study-us-not-in-top-ten-15176138/) comment, based on a (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/12/the-flawed-yet-revealing-legatum-prosperity-index-and-the-path-to-prosperity/) 2012 article I wrote about a previous version of the study.)

Personal freedom is one of the eight things the study purports to measure. But, as Legatum's (http://media.prosperity.com/2013/pdf/publications/methodology_2013_finalweb.pdf) methodology report reveals, the study makes some pretty ridiculous assumptions.

A good tip-off that the study is essentially bogus comes when Legatum claims the United States is less free than Uruguay and Costa Rica. That doesn't pass the laugh test. Although other higher-ranking countries (including Canada, Sweden, and Germany) do have a high degree of freedom, it's hard to believe that people in those countries really enjoy a higher degree of personal freedom by any objective standard.

Objective standards are precisely what Legatum rejects. Instead, the study is driven largely by subjective survey results, and those results are only tangentially related to personal freedom, anyway.

Oz's curtain comes down with the description of the five variables the study uses to calculate personal freedom (see page 50 of the methodology report). Four of these five variables depend explicitly on subjective survey data. For the fifth variable, "civil liberties," Legatum relies on a report from Freedom House.

So does Freedom House offer an objective analysis of personal freedom? Hardly (although it offers a wealth of interesting information). I'll offer just one indication of the problems.

Freedom Houses's (https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016) 2016 Freedom in the World report (see the pdf download) claims that the United States is docked in its scoring system, in part, because of "a disturbing increase in the role of private money in election campaigns." In other words, Freedom House deems us less free because we have a robust First Amendment that protects freedom of speech. Presumably Freedom House would score us "freer" if politicians instead censored political speech.

"Censorship is freedom" would fit well in 1984, but it hardly makes for a sound estimation of personal freedom. (Readers who may be confused about this issue should see (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-spring/citizens-united/) Steve Simpson's excellent discussion.)

The survey-dependent "variables" are also deeply problematic. One question asks people, "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your life?" Others ask, "Is the city or area where you live a good place or not a good place to live for immigrants" or "racial and ethnic minorities?"

Obviously, the results of such subjective questions cannot possibly lead to accurate international comparisons. Consider a few of the resulting absurdities:

• If a religious zealot living under sharia law reports that he is "very satisfied" with his "freedom to choose what to do with [his] life," the study counts that as an indication of high personal freedom. So, for example, if people are well-satisfied with their "freedom" to "choose" to live under Islamic totalitarianism, or to hang homosexuals or beat their wives, then that increases their country's score on the "freedom" index.
• If people in one country express extreme dissatisfaction with a relatively modest amount of police abuses against minorities—because they demand a consistently rights-respecting police force—they are deemed by this study as less free than people who express satisfaction with a much higher degree of police abuses.
• People in an area with severe restrictions on immigration might report that their area is a great place for immigrants to live, whereas people who welcome many more immigrants might report their area is only a modestly good place for immigrants to live. But obviously the second place, on net, offers many more opportunities for immigrants.
• If people in a nation with a large welfare state report that they are well-satisfied with their ability to "choose" to quit work and go on the dole, this study takes that to indicate a high degree of personal freedom. But of course the "freedom" to become a moocher is not what some of us have in mind when we talk about personal freedom.

It's almost comical to read the Legatum study, with all its variables, data, and regression analyses, and then realize the study is built largely on the nonsense assumption that subjective survey results can lead to meaningful international comparisons. What a sham. Yet many supposed journalists lap up this nonsense.

Of course, the Legatum study is not totally meaningless; what it reveals (largely) is how people in different parts of the world answer subjective survey questions. That's not useless information; it's just not very useful in determining actual levels of personal freedom. At best, how satisfied people say they are about their "freedom" is a very poor proxy for how free they truly are.

Another problem with the Legatum results is that its questions only tangentially relate to personal freedom, and the study underplays many things that are directly related to personal freedom—such as oppressive laws on the books of a nation's government.

I want to clarify something I said to (http://ktrh.iheart.com/articles/houston-news-121300/study-us-not-in-top-ten-15176138/) KTRH radio. I pointed out that Legatum's "personal freedom" index does not (directly) include anything about economic liberty. It is true that Legatum acccounts for aspects of economic liberty in other sections. But part of my point is that economic freedom is essential to "personal freedom" and an aspect of it, so it's misleading to artificially segregate the two.

So how free are people in the United States, really?

I have a couple of preliminary observations about this. First, figuring out whether we are more free or less free than others is not very helpful. The proper goal is to achieve a consistently rights-respecting society; that's what freedom means in a political context. That other governments violate people's rights is no excuse for our government to do so.

Second, any objective international comparison would be very hard to come by. We'd have to look not only at how different countries protect or violate rights, but how consistently they do so. So, for example, until relatively recently, many U.S. states had anti-sodomy laws on the books. Yet, in most places, these laws were rarely if ever enforced (at least after a certain point). So how should those laws have been evaluated in terms of personal freedom?

Here's a good illustration of the sorts of problems involved. Canada, according to Legatum the freest nation on earth, has on its books (http://centreforinquiry.ca/canadas-blasphemy-law/) blasphemy laws, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada) "hate speech" laws, and restrictive (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/23/why-canadas-gun-culture-is-different-and-why-its-shootings-shock-america/) gun laws. In these ways, Canadians enjoy less personal freedom than do people in the United States. Yet, to Legatum, such facts are irrelevant.

Obviously we in the United States are not perfectly free. Consider just a few examples. Government violently assaults people in their homes and locks people in cages for consuming the "wrong" drugs. Sometimes police officers harass or physically harm people for no good reason. In many ways government violates people's freedom of association, especially regarding business relationships. Government forcibly confiscates vast amounts of people's wealth. Government sometimes takes people's property by force. Prosecutors regularly effectively deny the right to a jury trial by inflating charges and threatening severe overpunishment. We have a very long way to go to achieve a consistently rights-respecting society.

At the same time, by historical and global standards, we in the United States enjoy an almost unprecedented level of freedom. To a substantial degree, we can can come and go as we please, believe and say what we want, associate with others by consent, pursue the work we want, and choose how to live our lives.

So how does the United States rank relative to other nations in terms of personal freedom? Obviously we rank at or near the top. In some ways we're more free than others; in other ways, less free. Beyond that, I cannot say with much certainty. (The Heritage Foundation offers some good leads regarding (http://www.heritage.org/index/) economic freedom.)

What I can say with certainty is that the Legatum Institute has little idea what freedom is or how to measure it.

Why I Oppose the Colorado End-of-Life Options Act, Proposition 106

October 9, 2016

In principle, I support an individual's moral right to choose whether to commit suicide for the purpose of alleviating profound suffering, as may be caused by a terminal illness.

I oppose Colorado's end-of-life ballot measure, Proposition 106, primarily because it flagrantly violates people's moral rights to freely associate, to dispose of their property as they see fit, and to operate their businesses as they see fit. Whatever one's views about other aspects of the measure, it is clear that in the ways mentioned the measure violates rights and undermines liberty.

Proposition 106 seeks to add a (https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/145Final.pdf) new article to the Colorado Revised Statutes consisting of some eleven pages of text.

One of the sections (25-48-116) specifically dictates to private organizations what they may and may not do with respect to end-of-life practices. The section states that a "professional organization or association shall not subject an individual" to censure, discipline, suspension, loss of membership, etc., "for participating or refusing to participate in good-faith compliance under this article."

This provision is an egregious violation of people's rights to associate voluntarily. Consider a couple of illustrations.

Say a group formed called the "Catholic Doctors Association," and this organization explicitly condemned the prescription of end-of-life drugs. Under the proposal, this organization could not revoke the membership of a member who actively practiced the prescription of end-of-life drugs.

Or say a group formed called "Doctors for End-of Life Options," and it explicitly endorsed the prescription of end-of-life drugs in cases of consenting adults with terminal illness. Under the proposal, this organization could not revoke the membership of a member who refused to prescribe end-of-life drugs.

Generally, private organizations have a moral right and a First Amendment right to set its conditions for participation and membership.

Another section (25-48-118) says that a "health care facility may [in writing] prohibit a physician employed or under contract" from participating in the end-of-life procedures laid out. However, it also says that a health care facility or provider may take no action against a physician who prescribes end-of-life drugs or who fails to do so. That's just ridiculous. A Catholic hospital has every moral right to refuse to participate in the measure's end-of-life procedures and to fire or sanction any doctor who defies the hospital's policy. And a secular hospital has every moral right to fire or sanction a doctor who refuses (say on religious grounds) to consider end-of-life drug prescriptions.

Yet another section (25-48-114) states that no contract, will, or "other agreement" may take into consideration a person's request for end-of-life drugs. In other words, the measure would prohibit a Catholic man from writing into his will any condition that recipients of his estate not request end-of-life drugs. That's just a flat-out violation of property rights. (Someone would be a jerk for writing something like that into a will, but it's not government's proper role to prevent people from being jerks insofar as they don't violate others' rights.)

Finally, section 25-48-115 states that insurance policies may not take into account requests for end-of-life medication. Now, as a practical matter, this probably wouldn't make much difference. For example, a life insurance company is going to take into account the terminal illness in deciding whether to offer a policy, so the additional factor of a request for end-of-life drugs probably wouldn't matter. (No insurer of right mind would offer a life insurance policy to someone with a terminal illness.) Still, the ballot measure improperly seeks to interfere in private contractual relationships.

To me, it doesn't even matter what else the ballot measure says; the sections reviewed here should independently disqualify it. If the measure passes, I sincerely hope that the legislature eliminates the problems under review. If the measure fails, then in the future we can talk about whether and how to move forward with an improved end-of-life proposal.

See also "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-im-ambivalent-about-right-to-die-laws/) Why I'm Ambivalent about Right-to-Die Laws," a detailed look at the laws in question.

Why I'm Ambivalent about Right-to-Die Laws

October 12, 2016

I agree that people facing a very painful end of life have a moral right to choose whether or not to take their own lives. (This is an emotionally difficult topic, obviously.)

However, recently (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-i-oppose-the-colorado-end-of-life-options-act-proposition-106/) I came out against a Colorado ballot measure, the End-of-Life Options Act (Proposition 106), because some of its secondary language violates rights of property, contract, and association.

What about right-to-die laws more generally? If the language of the Colorado ballot measure were cleaned up, would I support it then? At one point I would have said yes without hesitation. See my (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/11/popes-sin-brittany-maynards-choice-die/) first, (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/11/conservatives-collectivist-case-assisted-suicide/) second, and (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/12/answering-objections-assisted-suicide-laws/) third articles for the Objective Standard on the matter.

Now I think there are very good arguments against typical right-to-die laws. Such laws do not properly solve the problems they seek to address, and they create new problems.

Let's first review the major provisions of Proposition 106 (not counting the troublesome language I critiqued previously), which was modeled on the end-of-life law in Oregon. For additional information, see the (https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/145Final.pdf) proposed statutory language, the state's (http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1516initrefr.nsf/b74b3fc5d676cdc987257ad8005bce6a/99fbc3387156ab5c87257fae00748890/$FILE/2015-2016%20145bb.pdf) Blue Book analysis of the measure, and a supportive group's (http://coendoflifeoptions.fastercampaigns.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/YoCO-End-of_Life-Options-Fact-Sheet_9.21.pdf) summary of it.

• It applies only to adults diagnosed by two doctors to have a terminal illness likely to result in death within six months.
• Explicit language grants that doctors "may choose whether to participate" in the process.
• To obtain a prescription for drugs that would cause death, a person must make three requests, one after a fifteen day waiting period and one in writing.
• Either doctor can order a psychiatric evaluation to ensure informed consent.
• Two additional people must sign a statement to the effect that the person making the request is of sound mind; at least one of those people must not be related to the person making the request or have any financial stake in that person's passing.
• Those who participate in the proceedings defined by the statute are absolved of civil and criminal liability.
• Anyone who "knowingly or intentionally coerces or exerts undue influence on an individual" to request "aid-in-dying medication" (or who commits similar offenses) is subject to felony penalties.
• Importantly, the person making the request must self-administer the drugs.

For the most part these provisions are thoughtfully drafted (again, not counting language that I critiqued in my previous article). The only additional issue with the language that I see is that "undue influence" is a subjective term, but I think the measure builds in ample precautions to prevent (actual) undue influence.

Why am I ambivalent about right-to-die legislation generally rather than highly supportive of it? I am not convinced that it is proper or necessarily to permit doctors to prescribe drugs specifically for suicide or to formalize witnesses' role in signing end-of-life documentation.

Here are the specific problems that I see:

1. Permission: If I wish to end my own life in the relevant circumstances, I should not have to ask anyone's permission to do so. Practically speaking, under current law, suicide is already legal. And for most people, it is not too difficult to carry out in any of a variety of ways. It's not like government threatens criminal penalties against people who attempt suicide. If I decided to kill myself (if I were unfortunate enough to contract a dreadful and terminal disease), I would just do it. The idea of having to ask someone's permission for this is frankly offensive, and I probably wouldn't do it even if the ballot measure passes.

2. Sanction: Right-to-die laws needlessly involve doctors and witnesses in the decision to end one's life. I just wouldn't want to lay that decision on anyone else. It's not appropriate for anyone else to formally sanction my decision to commit suicide (if ever I made it). Properly, it's my decision, and mine alone.

3. Drug Availability: The problem of drug availability should be solved by removing existing barriers. The basic problem is that, although I am a rational adult capable of making my own decisions, government forcibly prohibits me from seeking to purchase the drugs I might want. If someone wants to sell me drugs that in a large enough dose will kill me, I have a moral right to buy those drugs—just as I have a moral right to buy a rope at a hardware store, a super-sized bottle of Vodka at a liquor store, or a box of ammunition at a gun store (any of which can be lethal).

Notably, drugs that can be used for suicide generally also can also be used for other things. For example, Wikipedia notes that pentobarbital is also used as a sedative, to control convulsions, and for veterinary anesthetics.

4. Involuntary Commitment: Any problem of involuntary commitment to a mental health facility (if any exists) should be solved by tweaking existing law. Generally, government is right to sanction the involuntary commitment of a person who is suicidal because of depression or mental illness. That's not the context at issue here. Practically speaking, I don't think government agents would try to commit someone who contemplates suicide because of a terminal illness. But, if that is a problem, an exception could be written into existing law.

5. Liability: Any problems involving criminal or civil liability for third parties also should be solved by tweaking existing law. The main concern is for providers of drugs and health care. Legislators could absolve such actors of liability in the relevant cases without asking them to positively sanction a person's suicide. For example, a doctor could be absolved of liability if he diagnoses a terminal illness with a likely survival period, if the person diagnosed then commits suicide.

What about friends and family members who witness a suicide? I had a lengthy discussion about this with attorney and former state legislator Shawn Mitchell, and in his view (please note that this is not legal advice to readers), a person's family cannot be legally charged for watching a person with a terminal illness take life-ending drugs or even for handing those drugs to the person. (Physically administering the drugs is a different story.)

"That doesn't mean a crazy prosecutor wouldn't overreach and charge you with something," Mitchell added—that's a much wider issue—but current law provides no grounds for prosecution. Assuming Mitchell is right, then that alleviates most or all of the liability concerns regarding friends and family. (By the way, Mitchell opposes the Colorado ballot measure.)

I think the sensible thing to do if a person decides to commit suicide (again, in no way should any of my remarks be taken as legal advice) is to make sure that intentions are very clearly stated in writing. In my view, it would be sensible to have three sorts of documentation: medical records clearly indicating the medical condition, a clear statement of intent to commit suicide, and witness statements affirming soundness of mind. Note that nothing about this asks witnesses to sign specifically end-of-life paperwork, only to attest to a person's soundness of mind. (A notary public could witness a person's signature to a document of intent to commit suicide, but such a mark verifies identity and is not a formal sanction of the contents of the document.)

With the sort of documentation outlined, I can't imagine that any prosecutor would try to pursue charges. Of course, individual prosecutors do things that I regard as idiotic and unjust on practically a daily basis, so I would like to see some explicit statutory relief from liability in the relevant cases. (Note that this is relevant only if the person who wants to commit suicide wants to have family and friends around at the end.)

What I would really like to see, then, is a package of legislation that addressed the problems discussed above without doing the other things that typical end-of-life proposals do. Of course, we can include my proposal within the family of end-of-life measures, with the understanding that my proposal varies substantially from others.

Unfortunately, as is often the case in politics, the ideal solution is not practically an option at this time. Given that the choices immediately before us (in Colorado) are between the status quo and Proposition 106, is it better to vote for or against the measure?

As I've argued above and in my earlier piece, I think there's enough wrong with Proposition 106 to warrant opposition to it. If the offending secondary language were cleaned up, I'm not sure whether the measure would then merit support. I think a reasonable case could be made either way. At least Proposition 106 is a proposed change to statutes, not the state constitution, so the legislature could easily intervene if it wished to do so.

There is one very thorny issue that I have not yet addressed and that is not addressed by Proposition 106: cases of near-total paralysis. At least such cases are rare. Obviously a paralyzed person who wanted to could not easily self-administer life-ending drugs. What should the law say about such cases?

My tentative view is that a paralyzed person should be able to request that a health care professional set up a system to administer life-ending drugs, triggered by an action by the paralyzed person, even if just something like a movement of the head. The obvious difficulty is ensuring that the process follows the patient's deliberative wishes and is not abused. But it seems possible to meet those burdens.

It seems obvious that the law never should allow someone other than the patient to administer life-ending drugs (or any other life-ending measure), even if the patient requests that. Such a practice—technically euthanasia—would make it too hard to verify consent and to prevent potential abuses.

I think that actually taking the final deliberative act (of taking the drugs or whatever) is the final element demonstrating consent, without which consent cannot fully be ascertained. Killing yourself is far different from saying you want to kill yourself. Hence, as I understand the case, I do think Jack Kevorkian stepped over a moral line when he administered a lethal injection to a man in 1998.

Let me emphasize, though, that cases of paralysis do not bear upon the more numerous cases of people with terminal illness who want to self-administer, and are readily capable of self-administering, drugs to end their own lives.

People suffering from a terminal illness have a moral right to decide whether to bear it until the natural end or to intentionally end their lives first. But typical end-of-life laws treat this right as a state permission, inappropriately involve third parties in the choice, and miss more straightforward ways to address the real problems at hand. I appreciate the goals of those who advocate such laws, but I question their legal means of accomplishing those goals.

Reply to the Denver Post on Open Presidential Primaries

October 14, 2016

To expand "choice," the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/04/vote-yes-on-propositions-107-and-108-give-colorado-voters-more-choice/) supports Proposition 107 on the Colorado ballot to create a presidential primary in which unaffiliated voters help pick the major parties' nominees.

But open primaries let nominally independent voters try to sabotage the party they hope will lose. Countless Democratic supporters voted for Donald Trump in other states' primaries because they judged him a weak candidate.

What about the choice of people who would be forced to help finance the primaries? What about the choice of members of private organizations—as the major parties remain—to assemble freely and run their groups as they see fit? If parties wish to organize and finance a primary, great—but government should not get involved.

The proper purpose of government is to protect rights, not expand choice outside that context. Similarly, just because Protestants would have more choice if they helped pick the Pope, doesn't mean they should. Let private groups run their own affairs.

Related:

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/06/an-open-letter-to-the-colorado-elections-study-group/) An Open Letter to the Colorado Elections Study Group

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/) Get Government Out of Political Parties: How to Resolve the Primary-Caucus Debate

• (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) Setting the Record Straight about Colorado's Republican Caucus

• (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwzZQ57RtHE) Discussion on Devil's Advocate

Colorado's Amendment T and the Meaning of Involuntary Servitude

October 21, 2016

How did slavery and involuntary servitude become active issues in the 2016 Colorado election? What is the significance of Amendment T, the ballot measure that addresses slavery and involuntary servitude with respect to criminals? Would Amendment T affect current criminal justice practices regarding in-prison work, work release, community service, or mandatory employment for parolees?

My take, in brief, is that Amendment T would remove troublesome language sanctioning the enslavement of prisoners without affecting today's work-related programs for convicted criminals. Below I explore the background and implications of the measure in more detail.

No one needs reminding of America's history of slavery. Almost immediately after the Civil War, in 1865, the federal Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. It states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." This is among the most important pieces of anti-slavery legislation in world history.

The state of Colorado was formed a few years later, and its constitution was approved in 1876 (hence the "Centennial State"). Unsurprisingly, the state's constitution often mirrors the language of the federal constitution. Colorado's Bill of Rights, Article II, includes Section 26, titled "Slavery Prohibited." It states, "There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

Although the language in the federal and state constitutions is in the main profoundly anti-slavery, obviously it admits an exception for convicted criminals.

It is an exception that Will Dickerson of the nonprofit group Together Colorado sought to remove. Dickerson said (by phone) that, while reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, he and his then-colleague Jukome Emery-Brown became inspired to look more closely at Colorado's constitutional language.

Together Colorado brought the idea for a constitutional change to state senator Jessie Ulibarri, who introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 006 during this year's legislative session. Remarkably, the resolution passed both houses unanimously, sending to the Colorado ballot the measure now called Amendment T. The measure, quite simply, strikes out the slavery and involuntary servitude exception for criminals.

By most accounts—including the favorable argument for the measure included in the legislatively prepared (https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cga-legislativecouncil/ballotblue-book) Blue Book, Amendment T is a "symbolic statement" against slavery.

Voters can reasonably ask, though, what purpose would be served by passing the measure and whether it would have any impacts on existing criminal justice practices.

Historically, the enslavement of criminals was a meaningful issue. In The New Jim Crow, Alexander points to the 1871 Virginia case Ruffin v. Commonwealth, in which the state's Supreme Court declared a criminal "a slave of the State."

The (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/) Atlantic reports:

[T]he proliferation of prison labor camps grew during the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, a time when southern states established large prisons throughout the region that they quickly filled, primarily with black men. Many of these prisons had very recently been slave plantations, Angola and Mississippi State Penitentiary (known as Parchman Farm) among them. Other prisons began convict-leasing programs, where, for a leasing fee, the state would lease out the labor of incarcerated workers as hired work crews. Convict leasing was cheaper than slavery, since farm owners and companies did not have to worry at all about the health of their workers.

(http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/14/slavery-legal-exception-prisoners-drugs-reform-column/14086227/) Jim Liske points out in USA Today that, following the Civil War, black men could be convicted of such vague and arbitrary crimes as "vagrancy" and then effectively sold by government into slavery.

Liske quotes Frederick Douglass on the problem:

[States] claim to be too poor to maintain state convicts within prison walls. Hence the convicts are leased out to work for railway contractors, mining companies and those who farm large plantations. These companies assume charge of the convicts, work them as cheap labor and pay the states a handsome revenue for their labor. Nine-tenths of these convicts are negroes.

Today courts presumably would rule out flagrantly abusive punishments because of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" and because of equal protection concerns. But obviously the slavery exception for criminals was abused in America's history—although I am not aware of any abuse in Colorado.

It's easy to see how the slavery exception for criminals could create a perverse incentive for governments to wrongfully convict people of crimes and to overpunish criminals. Generally it's a bad idea to turn government's criminal justice system into a money-making venture for the government and its cronies.

On these grounds, I think Amendment T is a worthy statement, if a symbolic one, against such corruption of the criminal justice system.

The puzzle about Amendment T, and the controversial aspect of it, pertains to the difference between slavery and involuntary servitude. How broadly should involuntary servitude be interpreted, and would a change in the constitutional language affect current legal practices in Colorado?

The Blue Book's "Argument Against" mentions potential "legal uncertainty around current offender work practices in the state." The Blue Book outlines the main ways that prisoners may be subjected to "work requirements": Prisoners can be compelled to work on pain of "loss of privileges or a delayed parole eligibility date"; judges may impose community service; and judges may require that parolees "maintain suitable employment" or the like. Are such practices properly included under the umbrella of involuntary servitude?

John W. Odenheimer summarizes an important aspect of the concern in a (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/17/as-drafted-colorados-amendment-t-has-a-fatal-flaw/) letter to the Denver Post:

Tens of thousands of people are court-ordered every year to perform community service as part of their sentence to various crimes. That's involuntary servitude. Amendment T would jeopardize that process and those tens of thousands of defendants could be subject to jail time if the option of community service were not available.

Is that right? Is any sort of work involving a criminal conviction a form of involuntary servitude?

I think the answer is that the narrow legal meaning of involuntary servitude should not be confused with the much broader category of what we might call "involuntary service." In the legal sense, things like community service and work release normally are not involuntary servitude.

Think of it this way. If someone commits a crime worthy of a jail or prison sentence, then in-prison work, work release, community service, or court-mandated employment for parolees constitutes an alternative to the basic sentence. Essentially, the courts offer people a choice: work or sit in a cage. In that sense, the work is voluntary and not servitude; most people would rather do the work than sit in the cage.

In a broader sense the criminal is forced into a decision he'd rather not make—he'd rather just go free—so the work is involuntary. But it isn't servitude.

If we were to to conflate involuntary servitude with involuntary service, then things like paying taxes and answering a jury summons would be included. Yet no one thinks Article II, Section 26 bans taxation or the like.

Involuntary servitude in the legal sense does not mean anything that a government compels a person to do; it means treating a person in a meaningful sense like a slave.

The (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=servitude) etymology of the term servitude supports this narrow interpretation; the Latin servitudo means slavery.

Nathan Woodliff-Stanley of the state ACLU dismisses the fear that Amendment T might affect criminal sentencing. (http://aclu-co.org/blog/take-slavery-vote-yes-amendment-t/) He writes:

It is fair to ask what Amendment T will accomplish, although it is a statement worth making even if it has no practical effect. States have a variety of language around slavery and involuntary servitude, and all states have similar criminal justice systems with work programs and community service programs, so there is no reason to believe Amendment T would affect those programs. Courts have defined slavery and involuntary servitude narrowly enough that typical work programs or community service would not fall under those definitions.

Woodliff-Stanley pointed me (by phone) to the 1998 Supreme Court case United States v. Kozminski. That decision discusses "physical or legal coercion" used to compel someone to work, which is fairly broad. Yet the decision also cites another case (Butler v. Perry) that describes involuntary servitude as "compulsory labor akin to African slavery." (As an aside, it seems insane to me that the (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/05/how_could_the_d.html) Supreme Court ruled that the military draft is not involuntary servitude; the draft is strikingly like slavery.)

Ulibarri, the measure's lead legislative backer, is also confident that Amendment T would leave intact current criminal justice practices:

I did research through our legislative drafters, with our Department of Corrections, and with community partners, and we could not find any examples of existing practices that would be modified by Amendment T. Twenty-five states do not have this type of exception clause in their state constitution, and the federal case law is clear in this regard.

My reading is that, without an exception for criminal punishment, a prohibition of involuntary servitude would permit governments to offer work as an alternative to a default sentence of incarceration, but it would prohibit governments from creating punishments specifically to compel work.

Of course, as Woodliff-Stanley granted, working out the legal details might involve some legal challenges under the modified law.

I would be surprised if any current practices in Colorado had to be changed as a result of Amendment T (if it passed). That said, I am not too familiar with the details of in-prison work programs and the like.

I do think the language of Amendment T would ban certain practices of other states. For example, the Atlantic reports that, in Angola Prison in Louisiana, inmates "can be forced to work under threat of punishment as severe as solitary confinement."

I regard solitary confinement as a form of psychological torture properly barred by the Eighth Amendment. Certainly the threat of it to force people to work constitutes involuntary servitude. So, if this practice from Louisiana were employed in Colorado, I suspect that lawyers would successfully challenge it under Amendment T. And I think that's a good thing.

It is worth noting here, as Woodliff-Stanley pointed out to me, that the legislature included explicit language in drafts of the resolution concerning current sentencing practices. The (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/2FB3B2DFD1B1FF6A87257F240064FAC2?open&file=SCR006_rr2.pdf) May 4 draft sates:

The state recognizes that allowing persons convicted of a crime to perform work incident to such convictions, including labor at penal institutions or pursuant to work-release programs, assists in such persons' rehabilitations, teaches practical and interpersonal skills that may be useful upon their reintegration with society, and contributes to healthier and safer penal environments. . . . Because work provides myriad individual and collective benefits, it is not the intent to withdraw legitimate opportunities for persons convicted of a crime to work, but merely to prevent compulsory labor from such persons. . . .

I suspect that, if courts take up challenges under Amendment T, they will consider this explicit legislative intent behind the measure proffered for voter consideration.

My mind is put at ease that Amendment T would not wreak havoc on existing legal practices in Colorado concerning the treatment of criminals. Most likely the passage of Amendment T would have no effect; if it did have a minor effect it would probably be a good one. And Amendment T would safeguard against potential future abuses.

My 2016 Colorado Ballot

October 25, 2016

I originally composed these notes for Facebook. -AA

What to do about the Colorado ballot? I had a request to reveal how I'm voting. I'm happy to oblige, with links to my articles where relevant. (I'd appreciate no comments here, as those quickly could get unruly. Yes, I realize there are people in the world, as strange as it may seem, who do not always agree with me.)

All tax and debt increases: No.

We should be talking about reducing government spending at all levels, not increasing it. (These mostly are regional issues, so ballots vary.)

Amendment T: Yes.

Slavery and involuntary servitude are wrong even for criminals. I actually changed my mind about this over the course of researching and writing a lengthy article about it:

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/colorados-amendment-t-and-the-meaning-of-involuntary-servitude/) http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/colorados-amendment-t-and-the-meaning-of-involuntary-servitude/

[Note: I voted early and didn't change my mind about T until later, so here my notes reflect how I wish I'd voted.]

Amendment U: Yes.

The purpose seems to be to to eliminate what amounts to a nuisance tax.

Amendment 69: No.

We need to move toward a free market in health care, not toward socialized health care.

Amendment 70: No.

Minimum wage laws are immoral and economically harmful to many. My case:

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/09/the-moral-case-against-minimum-wage-laws/) http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/09/the-moral-case-against-minimum-wage-laws/

Amendment 71: No.

Generally I'm sympathetic to the idea that it should be harder for voters to pass a constitutional measure than a statutory one. There's a great deal of nonsense in the Colorado constitution, thanks largely to voter-approved measures. However, by requiring signatures from all state senate districts, Amendment 71 would turn the process even more completely into a game for the wealthy, as it usually costs a fortune to gather signatures. I'm open to reforms here, but I don't think this is the way to go. The Denver Post has a pretty good editorial about it:

(http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/17/colorados-raise-the-bar-initiative-gets-it-wrong/) http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/17/colorados-raise-the-bar-initiative-gets-it-wrong/

Amendment 72: No.

Not only does government have no proper business imposing "sin" taxes, but this measure could lead to a black market in cigarettes in Colorado. Google "Eric Garner" if it's not clear to you why that would be bad.

Proposition 106: No.

This is a tough one, with some good and bad elements. I think the bad outweighs the good, and we should hold out for a better measure. I have two articles about this:

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-i-oppose-the-colorado-end-of-life-options-act-proposition-106/) http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-i-oppose-the-colorado-end-of-life-options-act-proposition-106/

and

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-im-ambivalent-about-right-to-die-laws/) http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/10/why-im-ambivalent-about-right-to-die-laws/

Propositions 107 and 108: No.

It is not the proper role of government to intervene in the affairs of private organizations, nor to finance the selection of candidates. I recommend two of my recent articles on this:

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/06/an-open-letter-to-the-colorado-elections-study-group/) http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/06/an-open-letter-to-the-colorado-elections-study-group/

and

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/) http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/

That leaves the elected officials and judges (and I have no opinion about the judges).

State legislature: Please for God's sake vote for every Republican at this level. We are in real danger of Democrats having complete control of state government again. Remember last time that happened? We ended up with a bunch of new taxes (including the idiotic "Amazon tax") and pointless gun restrictions. If you're worried about Republicans pushing their crazy anti-abortion agenda, take comfort in the fact that we'll have a Democratic governor for at least two years. Gridlock is good in this context.

Congress: I didn't vote either for U.S. House or for U.S. Senate, because both of the Republicans in those races (where I live) are Trump cheerleaders (who had no real chance of winning anyway), and I didn't want to support the Libertarians. I don't think we'll see any turnover in the state here, unless Mike Coffman or Scott Tipton happen to lose (which I'd be surprised to see).

President: Look, I did everything I reasonably could to try to get a decent Republican nominee. That effort failed. I can't vote for Donald Trump; I can't vote for Hillary Clinton. I voted for Evan McMullin as the strongest possible protest meaning "Never do anything like that again, Republican Party." It looks like the nihilists who pushed Trump into the nomination will end up turning the presidency over to Clinton, in a year when any of the other major Republican candidates probably could have easily won. I heartily agree it is time to "drain the swamp"—and purge the Republican Party of the racist "alt-right" and their ilk. It's going to be a rough four years. I have a number of articles about presidential politics this year at my main page:

(http://ariarmstrong.com) http://ariarmstrong.com

Amendment 71 and Colorado's Constitutional Mess

November 3, 2016

Colorado thought leaders that I deeply respect are at loggerheads over Amendment 71, the ballot measure to make it harder to amend the state constitution by voter-driven initiative.

On one side, Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute is (https://www.i2i.org/announcing-the-political-right-coalition-against-amendment-71/) leading a coalition against the measure. On the other side, people such as former state senator Mark Hillman, a rock-solid conservative, (http://markhillman.com/heres-why-im-voting-yes-on-amendment-71-raise-the-bar/) support the measure.

What's going on here? How can people with similar political views reach the opposite conclusions about this ballot measure?

Part of the answer is that it's hard to predict precisely what the impacts will be if Amendment 71 passes. Undoubtedly it would block some petition efforts proposing anti-liberty constitutional changes. But it also could block some pro-liberty reforms and even encourage some anti-liberty ones.

Another part of the answer is that conservatives and (classical) liberals, although broadly republican in orientation, disagree about what role voters should play—if any—in directly influencing legal changes. Some people, such as Paul Jacob and Caldara, think it's very important that voters have a way to bypass the legislature. Others worry about direct democracy and want to tightly restrict it.

I am "softly" against Amendment 71, meaning that I think a reasonable, liberty-oriented person (as Hillman is) can make a plausible case for supporting it. By contrast, I am firmly against such proposals as government-payer health care (Amendment 69) and the minimum wage hike (Amendment 70). Whereas 69 and 70 clearly run contrary to liberty, it's not obvious whether 71 would on net favor or diminish liberty.

It's hard to argue from a liberty standpoint that the voter-driven amendment process is working well at this point. As John Elway points out in a television commercial funded by Amendment 71's supporters, the language of such measures as 69 and 70, whatever else we might say about it, simply doesn't belong in the constitution.

Yet Amendment 71 has some subtle but important problems in its language that I think many voters don't fully appreciate.

Amendment 71 would require backers of a voter-driven constitutional amendment to distribute petitions in all areas of the state, and it would require a supermajority (55 percent) to pass such an amendment.

So what are the problems?

Although the stated aim of Amendment 71 is to require support throughout the state in the petition process, the practical result would be to increase the cost of running constitutional measures and to more completely lock out all but the wealthiest players.

Amendment 71 requires that, to make the ballot, a petition for a constitutional change must be signed by "at least two percent of the total registered electors" in each of the state's thirty-five senate districts. This is in addition to the current requirement that, statewide, "at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office of secretary of state at the previous general election shall be required to propose any measure by petition."

Two percent may not sound like much, but notice that this is based on the number of registered voters, a much larger number than active voters. Many registered voters don't vote or otherwise actively engage in politics, and the official registration rolls contain some people who have died or moved away.

Moreover, in the more rural parts of the state, people are more spread out than they are in the metro areas and therefore harder to approach with a petition. And the rules say that people must sign a paper petition in person.

Why did the authors of Amendment 71 set the new requirement as a percent of registered voters rather than as a percent of past voters for Secretary of State, as current requirements lay out? The answer, I think, is that Amendment 71's backers cynically wanted to obscure the true cost of gaining signatures and to impose a troublesome duel standard.

As a side note, the number of registered voters per district is much more open to legal challenge than is the number of past voters for Secretary of State. As Caldara's group points out, Amendment 71 is a make-work program for election attorneys.

As a practical matter, the regional requirement would serve only to increase costs to get a measure on the ballot; it would not actually indicate much greater regional support. In the wistful imaginings of some, voters carefully read and reflect upon proposed ballot language before signing a petition. In the real world, I could get two percent of registered voters to sign on to trade regulations for Martians, if I spent enough time standing out in the sun wearing my pitchman's hat. True, for some issues (such as guns) regional differences would matter somewhat, but usually the only relevant barrier would be financial resources.

The idea behind petitioning seems to be that only true grassroots efforts will be able to get enough support to place a measure on the ballot. The reality is that gathering signatures has become an industry, with backers of most measures paying people to collect names. For the most part, signature gatherers are in it for the money, not because they care anything about the causes at hand. And, for the most part, people who sign petitions spend little if any time reading and analyzing the proposed legal language.

The upshot is that the regional requirement of Amendment 71 would not actually improve regional support or empower grassroots movements; instead, it would serve to put constitutional amendments more squarely into the hands of the ultra-wealthy. Granted, the ultra-wealthy would also have a harder time getting constitutional changes passed, but I take a dim view of a system that so strongly favors the ultra-wealthy.

What about Amendment 71's requirement that 55 percent of voters approve a voter-driven constitutional amendment?

There are two oddities about this. First, Amendment 71's backers did not see fit to hold themselves accountable to the standard they wish to implement; the measure could pass with 50 percent of the vote. (Apparently the backers (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/10/06/amendment-71-fails-to-clear-its-own-bar/) didn't meet the regional signature requirement, either.) This flagrant double standard again reveals the cynical attitude of Amendment 71's backers.

The second oddity is that only some voter-driven constitutional amendments would require the 55 percent majority; those "limited to repealing, in whole or in part, any provision of this constitution" would still require only 50 percent. So, for example, voters could repeal the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) one election with 50 percent of the vote, then regret the move and be unable to repass TABOR with 54 percent of the vote. Under Amendment 71, it would also be easier to repeal TABOR outright than to pass a minor reform of it.

I understand the idea here: Other things equal, a shorter, cleaner constitution is better. But other things would never be equal in this regard, and Amendment 71 would invite quirky political moves that exploit the double standard.

Unfortunately, at least in the short term, we will be stuck either with the imperfect status quo or with the imperfect language of Amendment 71. For what it's worth, a (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3213243-225-Crossley-Survey-Results-Media.html) University of Denver poll indicates that Amendment 71 is likely to pass, with 53 percent—an ironic number—expressing support.

Whether or not Amendment 71 passes, I'd like to see a different set of reforms discussed at some future time.

A petition process that makes it practically impossible for all but wealthy interests to participate is a bad system. Perhaps one way out is to dump paper petitions signed in person in favor of a mail-in or online system to weigh support.

Generally I do think it should be harder to change the constitution than to change the statutes. The only reason that things like the minimum wage law are in the constitution, where they clearly do not belong, is that their supporters can change the constitution as easily as they can change the statutes. And a constitutional change cannot be altered by the legislature.

One possibility, following an aspect of the federal model, is that a constitutional change could require passage by an overall majority as well as by a majority of voters in at least three-fourths of the counties. Such a reform would ensure that a measure had broad support throughout most of the state.

Unfortunately, the battle over Amendment 71 illustrates one of the major problems with politics: The options among which we must choose hardly ever include the best possible options.

It's easy to get bogged down in in the often-noxious weeds of politics. But, whatever rules we end up with, advocates of liberty can continue to fight for their cause and work toward rights-respecting governance.

Comments

Don't Hamstring Citizen Action

The motivation behind Amendment 71 is to hamstring the citizen initiative process, and if you trust elected politicians to pass wise laws more than you trust the people who elect the politicians, your logic baffles me.

Legislators and their supporters don't want citizens to be able to write and enact constitutional measures, as they now can—because that bypasses the legislators. They chafe at their inability to repeal citizen initiated constitutional measures. That's really all this is about.

The idea that Colorado's constitution should be preserved in its present form, and made harder to amend, is ridiculous. It is already riddled with trivial and inconsistent and offensive provisions. Enacting Amendment 71 would help preserve the nonsense that we now have.

I oppose Amendment 71 because citizen initiatives threaten the legislators' monopoly power.

—Paul Grant

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a Comment

Cubs Victory Illustrates the Difference between Reasonable Rules and a Rigged System

November 3, 2016

As millions saw last night, the Chicago Cubs beat "the curse" and won their first World Series since 1908. Congratulations to the Cubs as well as to the Cleveland Indians, who despite their amazing performance come up a run short.

There's an interesting lesson to be gleaned from this series about how the rules of the game affect the outcome and about the dangers of casting reasonable rules as "rigged."

In various sports, the championship team must win four games in a series of seven possible games. But sometimes sports championships involves a best-of-five series or some other scenario.

We expect that a longer series usually allows the overall best team to win in the end. But there's nothing magic about best-of-seven. The main reason we don't see best-of-nine series is that they'd drag on for too long. There's nothing inherently wrong with best-of-five series, as long as the rules of the game are set in advance so everyone knows what they are. Of course the National Football League championship involves a single game.

Obviously different rules can yield different outcomes. Cleveland would have won a best-of-one series (they won the first game) or a best-of-five series (Chicago won the final three games of seven). But no one claims the World Series was "rigged" because of this.

Cleveland also would have won by a system that tallied total runs over seven games. In terms of total runs scored, Cleveland was actually ahead by the end of the ninth inning in Game 7, 26 to 25. Is it fair that Chicago had the opportunity to go to extra innings, score two additional runs to Cleveland's one, and win despite an overall tie of 27 runs per team? Of course it was fair—because best-of-seven series weigh game-to-game consistency and don't count overall runs toward victory.

As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/11/sox36.html) pointed out in 2004, the Red Sox beat the Yankees in the American League Championship despite being outscored overall 45 to 41.

I have heard exactly zero people carping about the "rigged" World Series, despite the fact that different systems of rules would generate different outcomes.

Yet, in the realm of politics, we regularly hear claims that the system is "rigged" when it clearly is not.

Consider the Electoral College. The federal constitution intentionally gives a little extra weight to low-population states, and tossup states that hold winner-take-all elections draw relatively more political attention. This pushes candidates to strive for consistency in more states rather than just for the biggest overall popular vote—comparable to how the World Series pushes teams to strive for consistency over games rather than just the biggest overall run count.

Yet, every four years, we hear cries about how the system is "rigged" because of the Electoral College. (The complaining was especially loud in 2000 when Al Gore lost the Electoral College but won the popular vote.) But the Electoral College isn't "rigged" just because it allows a candidate to win without the popular vote, any more than the World Series is rigged because Cleveland didn't win 26 to 25 after the ninth inning of Game 7. The Constitution lays out the rules, and everyone knows them in advance and participates accordingly.

We've also heard Donald Trump complain about a "rigged system" that isn't actually rigged in the ways he claims. For example, Trump claimed that Colorado's caucus system was "rigged" (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) when it wasn't, and he claimed our mail-in system is flawed in ways that (http://www.salon.com/2016/10/31/donald-trump-colorados-mail-in-voting-system-is-rigged/) it isn't. (I do think that some of the election rules really are unfair—a topic for another article—but in ways that actually benefitted Trump.)

So, please, stop complaining about a "rigged" political system when really at issue are reasonable rules set up in advance and known by all. Cranks who groundlessly complain about a "rigged system" should be taken no more seriously than someone who complains the World Series is rigged because Chicago won playing by the established and reasonable rules of the game.

The Political System is Rigged—But That's Not Our Main Problem

November 8, 2016

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each have their cheerleaders. Most of us, though, regard these candidates as horrid and this year's presidential race as an "international embarrassment," as (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/05/an-excess-of-democracy-in-america-unfortunately-just-the-opposite/) Vincent Carroll puts it. How did we get here?

Part of the problem is that our political system really is substantially "rigged," meaning that the rules are inherently unfair in certain ways. (By contrast, various rules, including those of the Electoral College, are perfectly sensible, as (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/11/cubs-victory-illustrates-the-difference-between-reasonable-rules-and-a-rigged-system/) I've argued.)

The rigged system is not our main problem—I'll get to that—but I do want to briefly address the major ways that the rules are unfair.

As we go through the list, note the irony that Trump, the main person complaining about the "rigged system," is the primary beneficiary of it. But Trump has no idea how the system actually is rigged; to him claiming the system is rigged is just a way to deflect criticism and to work his supporters into a blind rage. But the fact that Trump's claims of a rigged system are groundless doesn't change the fact that the system really is rigged in certain ways. How so?

• Ballot access: State governments give preferential treatment to the major political parties (and sometimes to established minor parties) when it comes to ballot access. (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/) As I've written, governments should set standard rules for everyone and give no special standing to parties. With fairer rules, we'd probably see a stronger alternative to Trump (Evan McMullin is on the ballot in only eleven states).
• Party welfare: The federal government (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml) helps finance major-party presidential candidates. Not only is such political welfare a flagrant violation of people's rights—as many people would not voluntarily choose to contribute—it gives certain candidates preferential treatment and helps shut out alternatives.
• Open primaries: When government isn't giving preferential treatment to certain political parties, it is meddling in their activities. One way some governments do this is by forcing parties to participate in primaries open to unaffiliated voters, which opens to the door wider to sabotage voting. A sabotage vote is when someone votes for a weak candidate of the party that person hopes will lose. How many people voted "for" Trump in the primaries thinking he'd be the weakest candidate for the Republicans? We (http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/) know via Wikileaks that Camp Clinton actively promoted Trump.
• Hamstrung party spending: Another way that governments meddle in parties is by restricting their campaign spending. This weakens parties and encourages outside groups to exert more influence over parties. Other government rules regarding campaign spending make it harder for upstart independents to gain traction.
• Winner take all: Political parties, as private organizations, should be able to select candidates however they want. I personally prefer the (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/) caucus system. If parties want to have winner-take-all voting so be it, but I think that's a very stupid system when there are more than two strong candidates. Other Republicans—led by Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio—(http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/jul/08/donald-trump/donald-trump-set-record-most-gop-primary-votes-eve/) split the anti-Trump vote, letting Trump win the nomination with the support of a minority of his party. I do think that, for general elections, governments should institute (http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/01/atwood-pitches-approval-voting/) approval voting—meaning people may vote for multiple candidates if they wish—so that voters can better express their preferences and support upstarts without fear of "wasting their vote."
• Long lines: Waiting in line to vote can be extremely expensive for voters missing work or paying for babysitting. It looks like the problem of long lines disproportionately (https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/long-voting-lines-explained) affects minority communities. Obviously it's not fair to make voting harder for some people than it is for others. With Colorado's mostly-mail voting, I worry about the possibility of stolen ballots and pressured votes, but at least we don't have to wait in line.

But for the rigged political system, Trump almost certainly would not be this year's Republican nominee. If state governments didn't meddle in party affairs, Republicans probably would have instituted more sensible rules through which they would have picked someone else.

Even if Trump had won the Republican nomination under fair rules, an outsider would have had a much better chance of taking on Trump if state governments didn't discriminate with respect to ballot access or insist on winner-take-all voting.

Trump's nomination is a real shame, not only because the nod for Trump made a Clinton victory likely, but because almost any elected legislative or executive Republican officeholder in the country would have made a better president.

But, as I said, as important as the problem of rigged rules is, that's not the main problem we face. Existing rules are good enough such that, usually, they do not generate two horrifically bad major-party candidates for president, as they did this year. Something else is going on.

The main problem is cultural and, more deeply, philosophical.

The Democrats are locked in a contest between pragmatists who basically favor free trade and are open to streamlining the welfare state—think of Bill Clinton's welfare reforms—and hard-core egalitarian and anti-industrial "democratic socialists" in the vein of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. (Barack Obama rides the fence between those camps.) Clinton was the strongest candidate on the pragmatist bench (although I found myself wishing Joe Biden had run). If the egalitarian socialists overrun the Democratic Party, that party will deservedly die throughout huge swaths of the country.

What about the Republicans? Sure, the better Republicans look down their noses at Trump or even openly condemn him. But for years leading Republicans have been running nationalistic anti-immigration nonsense. Is it really such a surprise that this movement has now taken on an openly racist tinge among the "alt-righters" supporting Trump?

Many conservatives just don't have any real ideas to run on anymore. The Communists are gone. Neoconservative foreign policy was a complete disaster under George W. Bush. Practically every conservative has now swallowed the welfare state and could not imagine criticizing it (aside from its "waste and fraud").

So what have they got left? They've got old-time religion with the homophobes and the anti-abortion zealots (though now the gay marriage ship has sailed), and they've got the "we hate brown people" brigade. That is much of today's conservative movement in a nutshell.

I do realize that the best conservatives out there still do genuinely care about free markets, economic liberty (at least in some contexts), and Constitutionally limited government. But those are no longer the conservatives leading the conservative movement.

Donald Trump represents not a revolt against today's dominate conservative ideology but a fulfillment of it.

Because the 2016 presidential election is merely a symptom of deeper cultural and philosophical problems, we will continue to live with these problems into the foreseeable future.

What can we do about these problems?

Obviously, we should try to fix the unfair and stupid political rules that now bind us. At least with better rules there would be less chance for the worst manifestations of today's socialist and nationalist trends to show up in major elections.

The deeper problems can be addressed only at the level of ideas—mainly the ideas of philosophy but also of economics and other social sciences.

I've made my pitch for (http://amzn.to/2dxpvc9) reclaiming liberalism for liberty, and I've made my pitch for (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/why-liberty-advocates-should-join-the-republican-party-not-abandon-it-despite-trump/) (classical) liberals to take over the Republican Party.

To get traction, advocates of liberty must dust off their books (and write new ones), study their issues, find their allies and fellow travelers, and speak and write and keep fighting. The ideas of liberty are too important to surrender.

If we do our jobs, some day the "contest" between Trump and Clinton will be seen as nothing but a sick joke—and a blaring wake-up call.

12 Reasons Trump Won

November 9, 2016

I get it. I didn't support Donald Trump's presidential bid, and I was as surprised as most by the outcome. But I get why so many voters supported Trump—and a part of me is happy they did.

Now, the same people who wrapped up Hillary Clinton for the electorate, then totally screwed up the polling, want to wax apocalyptic and explain why Trump's victory represents the worst of America. Van Jones says a "white-lash" is beneath the red tide. The New York Times—which put Trump at around a 15 percent chance of winning—says Trump's supporters followed a "heedless desire for change" that puts "America on a precipice."

Heedless, say the people who helped give us Clinton, the Iran deal, ObamaCare . . .

I acknowledge that Trump appealed to economically unsound theories of trade (old-style mercantilism), and he winked long and often at those who really are bigoted against Jews, blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims (the so-called "alt-right"). I get the ways in which Trump's victory is a problem.

But I also see the ways in which Trump's victory is not a problem, and I sympathize with the most important reasons that most of Trump's supporters went with him. Here I'll list in no particular order a dozen reasons why Trump won.

1. Overreaching Elites

In a certain way I am an elitist—I believe that there are objective truths that some people know and others don't, that some cultures are better than others, that the experts often are right (I'm looking at you, anti-vaxers), that Economics 101 gets it right when it comes to such issues as trade and wage controls.

Yet I am also anti-elitist in the Hayekian sense that I think intellectuals, particularly when opining on the construction of society, often labor under a "fatal conceit."

Such intellectuals, whose hubris brought us the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, now smear the many good and sensible people who voted for Trump for good and sensible reasons.

Consider the much-discussed split between voters who are college educated and those who are not. (Recall that Trump "love[s] the poorly educated.") Then look at what the highly educated have brought to our college campuses. The elite has created tax-subsidized universities in which insecure students wail for "safe spaces," the PC Police hunt down noncompliant students and professors, and self-righteous thugs scream down speakers with the "wrong" views. Many of today's universities are in important respects bastions of pigmy fascism.

College educated elites brought us ObamaCare. College educated elites brought us the mortgage meltdown—and then the corporate bailouts that rewarded (some of) the villains.

And it is to these elites that hardworking Americans—the very people who pay the taxes that support college students and the political class—are supposed to bow down?

2. Progressives for Trump

Yes, people in the television news networks wanted Trump to lose—but only after he created a sensational election cycle. They got half a loaf.

(http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/) Remember when the Democratic National Committee conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote Trump to "muddy the waters"? Mission accomplished.

(http://robertreich.org/post/139677457615) Remember when Robert Reich actively campaigned for Trump to beat out Ted Cruz? Mission accomplished.

(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html) Remember when Jonathan Chait wrote that leftists should "earnestly and patriotically support a Trump Republican nomination," partly because he'd surely lose?

The simple fact is that many of the people now screaming loudest about Trump's victory did everything they could to prop up Trump's campaign during the primaries. Well, surprise, surprise. And now people who voted for Trump in the end are supposed to feel guilty about it?

3. Identity Politics

I saw a graphic somewhere that turned a drawing of a woman's vagina into the "v" for "voted." Democrats often treat not only women but members of various minority groups, not as thinking individuals, but as parts of a collective driven fundamentally by their genes.

A lot of people are getting tired of the postmodern left's relentless emphasis of people's skin color and body parts.

Yes, the racism of the so-called "alt-right" is wrong and frightening. But it is of the same cloth as the highbrow racism now rampant in universities.

Thankfully, many of the people who voted for Trump reject both strands of racism.

4. PC Nonsense on Terror

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the greatest feminist heroes of our age and an advocate of Muslim reform, recently was smeared by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an "anti-Muslim extremist." This treatment of Ali by overeducated fools is shameful.

It is also deeply stupid. And "flyover" Americans, for the most part, get that.

That Islamic jihadist terrorists are motivated fundamentally by a particular interpretation of Islam—one seeking global theocratic totalitarianism imposed by violence—is undeniable to all but the most self-delusional.

Of course most Muslims are not terrorists. Countless Muslims interpret their religion in a way amenable to peace and human rights. Peaceable Muslims are the ones most often victimized by jihadist terrorists. That doesn't change the fact that some Muslims are motivated by their particular religious beliefs to commit atrocities.

Donald Trump was ineloquent and sometimes gratuitously hurtful, but at least he recognized the basic facts about terrorism that many of today's elites refuse to see.

5. Clinton Cash

Hillary Clinton is corrupt as hell.

Yes, the late-breaking FBI letter regarding Clinton's emails hurt Clinton's chances. But what were Clinton's official emails doing on Anthony Weiner's computer in the first place?

The email scandal, important in its own right, was an outgrowth of Clinton's pay-to-play Secretary of State scandal. Why did Clinton want to keep her emails off the books? She has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules for her own enrichment.

Meanwhile, Regular Joes and Sallies in country-road America get hammered by the federal government for violating whatever nonsense "wetlands" rules (or the like) that college-educated elites who know nothing about life in "flyover country" care to enact.

Then the pundit class wonders why "lock her up" works as a chant.

6. Thirteen Hours

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

What difference does it make that Clinton flagrantly lied and said, ridiculously, that the assault on Benghazi was caused by an internet video?

The death of American personnel in Benghazi was part of the much broader fiasco in Libya that Clinton's policies created. Incidentally, this was a fiasco detailed by the New York Times. And those who neglected the Times's material could watch 13 Hours for the same basic story.

The broader problem is that people like Clinton order people not like Clinton to fight and risk their health and lives, often for stupid reasons and with suicidal rules of engagement.

And the fact that Trump was himself an elitist draft dodger (technically draft deferrer) just didn't matter as much as Clinton's proven failures.

Oh, yeah, and Clinton also capitulated to Iranian tyrants and (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/) "reset" Russian relations in a way that involved Russia gaining control of a U.S. uranium company.

7. Gun Owners Matter

Sure, Hillary Clinton is for the Second Amendment—so long as it doesn't actually mean anything. Clinton declared war with the National Rifle Association and with its millions of members. Guess what: she lost.

Peaceable gun owners especially in rural areas are tired of being demonized for the crimes that occur mostly in Democrat-run cities with strict gun laws and major gang problems. Maybe someday Democrats will learn this lesson.

8. ObamaCare

Hillary Clinton started the ObamaCare train rolling long ago. Then Republican Mitt Romney pushed it down the tracks. Then Barack Obama and the Congress pushed it right over the wary American people.

And then my insurance rates roughly quadrupled. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Yeah, except for when my insurance company sent their cancellation notice to my wife and me.

ObamaCare is a train wreck. Americans are more tied than ever to employer-based insurance. The rising costs are pushing some families over the edge financially.

And Clinton's strategy is to double down.

9. Energy

Obama boasted that he'd put coal companies out of business. Mission accomplished.

Hillary's answer is to put out-of-work energy workers on welfare.

Look, most Americans realize that "climate change" is not a Chinese conspiracy. But they also realize that Al Gore's apocalyptic hyperventilating is just as detached from reality.

Other things equal, most Americans would prefer that carbon dioxide emissions didn't raise average global temperatures. But how about a little cost-benefit analysis here? Almost everything we love about our lives—indeed, the fact that most of us are even alive—we owe substantially to energy production.

The great irony is that fracking, which Democrats love to demonize, is largely responsible for the recovery—and the reductions in carbon emissions—that Obama likes to take credit for.

Meanwhile, environmentalists, for the most part, won't even talk about the possibility of nuclear power, which we know works, because they're so concerned with imposing new taxes and regulations on today's energy industry to prop up utopian energy schemes.

10. The Supreme Court

Clinton essentially promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would permit censorship of political speech, permit extensive controls of people's guns, and not take too seriously Constitutional constraints of government.

Trump, by contrast, put out a list of mostly decent, Constitutionally-minded potential nominees.

The prospect of maybe getting some decent Supreme Court justices who don't toe the "living Constitution" Progressive line is, to me, the single most hopeful silver lining of Trump's victory.

Here's another silver lining (pointed out by Yaron Brook): Clinton, by losing after vastly outspending Trump, just destroyed her own case for overturning Citizens United. It turns out that money is not the trump card Clinton pretends.

11. Stronger Together

Trump ran on a simple and effective slogan: "Make America Great Again." Clinton's slogan was "stronger together"—by which, everyone knows, she means stronger government.

We really are often stronger together—when we choose to interact by mutual consent. What Clinton obviously wants is for government to strongly force us to work together for the aims of politicians. Well, that message just doesn't play well throughout middle America.

Trump's victory is not only a repudiation of Clinton; it is (as Jeffrey Tucker observes) a repudiation of the egalitarian Progressive wing of the Democratic Party that pulled Clinton so far from the mainstream.

12. The New World Order

Remember George H. W. Bush's "new world order?" It turns out a lot of Republican voters remember that.

It is not the fault of Republican voters that leading Democrats and Republicans have linked global trade to a global "world policeman" foreign policy and to crony-friendly trade deals.

Now many of Trump's voters rail against "globalism" without bothering to disentangle trade—which on net benefits Americans enormously—from international statism. They simply commit the flip side of the error of the New World Order types.

Trump's supporters are hardly alone in rejecting the classical liberal ideal of free trade combined with a modest foreign policy focused on national defense rather than nation building abroad or playing global cop.

Regarding trade, I believe the big international trade deals have on net been pretty good despite their elements of cronyism. But genuine free trade does not depend on treaties or reams of bureaucratic regulations. It just depends on us eliminating (or at least minimizing) protective tariffs and encouraging others to do likewise.

Trade is good for us; cutting off trade would be disastrously harmful. Obviously Trump is mercantilist in his thinking, but hopefully wiser heads can talk him out of the worst foolishness he might consider—lest he reprise the role of Herbert Hoover.

I urge Trump's supporters to take a much closer look at the the classical economic case for trade. At the same time, I completely understand and support their stance against global statism.

***

As I've written elsewhere at length, Trump's victory brings with it huge potential problems. If Trump lives down to his worst impulses on immigration, on trade, on vindictive use of power, he could be a very destructive president.

Hopefully Trump will live up to his better tendencies and listen to sensible advisors. And hopefully the Republicans in Congress will push him to do so.

I do have to give Trump credit for working very hard during this election season and, whether by luck or by uncanny skill, reading the electorate perfectly and becoming the candidate who could win over voters. Obviously I was wrong in my early assessment that Trump would severely damage down-ticket races; overall Republicans did very well anyway. This election cycle truly was a crushing defeat for Democrats.

As much as I worry about a Trump presidency, I do understand many of the reasons that millions of voters went for Trump over Clinton. To a substantial degree, Trump's supporters were motivated by valid concerns.

Now it is up to classical liberals, libertarians, Constitutional conservatives, and free-trade Democrats who opposed Trump or who supported him as the lesser evil to check Trump when he threatens liberty and to cheer him on when it furthers it. This is the same basic task that liberty activists always face. This time the stakes are especially high—let's hope we're up to the challenge.

Comment: Reflects My Hopes and Concerns

Ari, loved the article. I'm a conservative who voted for Trump. Your article articulated my thoughts (and hopes, and concerns) better than anything I've read to this point. Well said, Thank you.

—Robert Palmer

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a Comment

Trump's Enablers

November 11, 2016

Some people find it strange that so many Americans voted for Donald Trump. As I've argued, that's (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/11/12-reasons-trump-won/) not as strange as it might seem. But what is truly bizarre is that so many people who saw Trump as a deeply flawed candidate—including people who were horrified by the prospect of him winning—worked so hard to keep him in the race.

Trump would not have won the presidency but for these enablers, the people who disliked or opposed Trump but who actively promoted his campaign. If, at various points along the campaign, Trump's enablers had withdrawn their support, Trump's candidacy probably would have collapsed. I see five main groups of these enablers.

1. The Media

Trump was the candidate many in the media—especially the television media—loved to hate. News media gave Trump vastly greater coverage both during the primaries and during the head-to-head race with Hillary Clinton. The reason for this is simple: Trump is the most (morbidly) entertaining political candidate of all time. Trump attracted viewers; viewers attracted advertisers.

The perfect scenario for many in the media was to see Trump run a strong campaign all the way to the end—and then lose. Nothing sells better than a tight race with an underdog alternately revered and despised.

True, most media coverage of Trump cast him in a negative light. But the coverage did two unanticipated things. First, it convinced the electorate that Trump was a man to be taken seriously. After all, you couldn't look at a newspaper or television screen without seeing his name. Second, the negative coverage played right into Trump's strategy of running against "the media." Trump could claim to his supporters that the "system is rigged," that the elites are out to get them, and so on. Plus, if the despised media hate Trump so much, he must not be so bad after all, right?

The media fed their Godzilla his daily soup of radioactive coverage, and he grew big and strong. But, in the end, Clinton was no Mothra.

2. Progressives

As I've (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/11/12-reasons-trump-won/) pointed out, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign wanted Trump to succeed in the primaries—because they thought he was beatable. People such as Robert Reich and Jonathan Chait actively promoted Trump.

Especially in open-primary states, countless supporters of the Democratic Party voted for Trump on the assumption that he'd be weaker than the likes of Marco Rubio. As (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/why-trump-wins-open-primaries-maybe.html) Mark Fahey pointed out for CNBC back in March, Trump won a lot more open-primary states than closed-primary ones.

Of course, Trump chalked up such cross-voting to him winning over disgruntled Democrats. No doubt that's part of what happened. But obviously some people cast sabotage votes for Trump thinking Clinton would beat him.

I have no idea whether Trump would have lost the Republican nomination but for sabotage voting. It sure didn't hurt his chances.

(By the way, thanks for nothing to the Colorado voters who passed ballot measures making sabotage voting vastly more likely in our state.)

3. Republican Power-Seekers

But for Trump's early adopters among key Republican leaders and radio hosts, Trump almost certainly would have lost. No doubt some of these supporters genuinely thought Trump would make a pretty good president. But I suspect that some of these supporters (Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie) thought that, if they bet on the right horse, they'd end up with substantial power. I imagine they assuaged their pangs of conscience by telling themselves they could keep Trump in check if he actually won. Maybe they can.

Well, Newt is relevant again, no doubt about that.

4. Trump's Primary Competitors

As (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/11/are-those-worried-about-third-party-spoilers-ready-to-consider-approval-voting-yet/) I've noted, Trump won the primaries with minority support as his major rivals split voter blocks.

The heavies—Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and (initially) Jeb! Bush—thought it was safer to destroy each other and let Trump eventually implode. You can't tell me that Cruz and Kasich weren't secretly applauding as (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0WUtNJAo9k) Christie destroyed Rubio in one of the debates.

If (say) Cruz and Rubio had joined forces to create a unified ticket—hell, they could have flipped a coin for placement—they almost certainly would be president and vice president come January 20.

If the major Republican candidates had gone after Trump harder with solid opposition research, Trump probably would have lost.

But it was convenient for Trump's major challengers to keep him in the ring. In the end, he was the last person standing.

5. The God Squad

I don't believe that Mike Pence joined Trump's ticket—thereby giving Trump enormous credibility, especially among evangelical voters—for love of power. I think that Pence sincerely prayed about the decision to join and, in the aftermath of the tapes of Trump and Billy Bush, to stand by Trump.

Obviously I can't know what God told Pence, but I suspect it was something on the order of "God works in mysterious ways."

Evangelicals hold two doctrines that made it easy for many of them to support Trump. First, they hold that all of mankind is fallen and sinful, so really Trump isn't that much worse than the rest of us. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Second, they hold that God can use flawed individuals to accomplish God's larger plans.

As (https://www.facebook.com/FranklinGraham/posts/1304046609651517) Franklin Graham put it, "I believe that God's hand intervened Tuesday night to stop the godless, atheistic progressive agenda from taking control of our country."

Part of the idea here seems to be that God would not have let Trump come to power if God didn't have a plan to use Trump to, uh, make America great again.

Of course, this sort of thinking is extraordinarily dangerous, because there's not really some entity behind the curtain pulling the strings. In many contexts, such rationalizations can enable very dangerous people to do extremely damaging things.

But, in this case, I think that America's institutions and traditions, in important ways still alive in many people's thinking, will actually keep Trump in check. For that, don't thank God; thank Madison and his compatriots.

To the degree that evangelicals supported Trump as the lesser evil, I wouldn't count them as enablers, just people faced with a very tough choice. They had to pit their policy goals against Trump's obviously flawed character. So my claim is not that all evangelicals were exclusively enablers; it is that some evangelicals were at least partly enablers.

* * *

I think it's likely that Trump would not have won the presidency if any one of these groups of enablers had withdrawn support. If all of them had withdrawn support, he certainly never would have made it past the primaries. But all of Trump's enablers supported Trump when it most mattered.

It's a lot of fun to have your very own pet monster—until it's not.

Are Those Worried about Third-Party Spoilers Ready to Consider Approval Voting Yet?

November 11, 2016

Consider a couple of basic facts about the presidential election.

First, Donald Trump won the primaries with around 45 percent of the vote—and that includes votes taken after he'd effectively secured the nomination. Through the primaries, Trump's opponents destroyed each other by splitting similar constituencies, while Trump skated through with minority support.

Second, minor parties won more votes than Trump's margin of victory in some key states, including Florida, as (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/gary-johnson-jill-stein-spoiler/index.html) Eli Watkins reviews for CNN. Watkins thinks third parties may have cost Clinton the election, but he may be wrong about what voters otherwise would have done. (Update: Sasha Volokh thinks (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/11/gary-johnson-helped-hillary-not-by-enough-but-he-did/) Gary Johnson helped Clinton in the end.)

If it's true either that Trump would have lost the primaries against a single amalgam of his opponents, or that Hillary Clinton would have won various key states and thus the electoral college in a two-way race, then Trump owes his victory to America's system of winner-take-all plurality voting.

The way we vote is not a law of nature. It can be changed. I think there are good reasons to move to approval voting, meaning that voters can select multiple candidates. The main case for approval voting is that voters can better express their preferences. So, for example, in the primaries, a voter could have selected both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (or even everyone but Trump), and in the general election a voter could have selected both Stein and Clinton.

Absent approval voting, all we can do is make educated guesses about what might have happened in hypothetical two-way match-ups. I think it's a good guess that Trump would have lost the primaries under approval voting and that Clinton would have won the general election under it, but we can't be sure.

One reason I like approval voting is that we'd be more sure about people's preferences. If, under approval voting, someone still voted for Stein only, that would mean the person really didn't want to help Clinton win. I can even imagine some people voting both for Stein and Trump. Some people who voted for Gary Johnson would have also voted for Clinton, others would have also voted for Trump, and still others would have voted only for Johnson. People who voted for Evan McMullin—who did well in Utah—could have opted to vote also for Trump or Clinton. All of this is useful information that our voting system now misses.

Of course approval voting is only relevant with more than two candidates on the ballot, and it works especially well with two major candidates plus minor ones. In such cases, approval voting eliminates the "wasted vote" problem.

No doubt there would be losers under approval voting relative to the status quo. Trump probably would have lost with it. I have heard the argument that the current system is superior precisely because it allows candidates with minority support to sometimes win. But I think that's an extremely dangerous game to play. In a three-way race, a dangerous demagogue would potentially need only a third of the votes (plus one) to win, and the percent goes down with more competitors.

Other things equal, a candidate with broader popular support is likely to be a better leader than a candidate with minority support. True, I other things aren't always are equal. For example, I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/11/cubs-victory-illustrates-the-difference-between-reasonable-rules-and-a-rigged-system/) support the electoral college because it requires support across more states, even though it sometimes allows a candidate to lose with a higher popular vote, as Clinton did. (Generally if this happens the popular vote will be close.) But, in the case of approval voting, I think it assures broader popular support without bringing any important negative consequences.

All voter systems have their quirks, and this is true of approval voting in certain situations, such as a tight three-way race. Then voters would have to navigate tricky voting strategies. Let's say you prefer Alice to Betty and Betty to Carl. Do you vote for Alice and Betty to stop Carl, or do you vote only for Alice in the hopes of blocking Betty but in the fear that you might help Carl win? But strategy can be at least as tricky for voters under the status quo.

The main alternative to approval voting (so far as I'm aware), besides the status quo, is ranked voting, in which a voter expresses a first choice, second choice, and so on. I prefer approval voting simply because it's much easier to implement and understand. I grant that ranked voting can have advantages in certain cases, as in tight three-way races. Practically speaking, though, our main problem is minor parties "spoiling" elections, and approval voting solves that problem perfectly.

The main technical objection to approval voting that I've heard is that ballots might be prone to manipulation. It might be easy for someone handling a ballot to "sneeze" and put an additional mark on the ballot. If that's really a potential problem, there's an easy fix for it: Let voters mark yes or no for each candidate.

Even under approval voting, a candidate might win with less than majority support, say in a tight three-way race in which most people vote only for a single candidate. I don't see any inherent problem with that, and I don't think it's a likely scenario anyway. But there is an interesting possible add-on to approval voting: Require that the winner receive a majority, else a new election is called with different candidates. Such a rule would encourage voters to err on the side of voting for multiple candidates when considering strategy. Again, I just don't think this is much of a practical concern; I think simple approval voting generally would lead to winners with majority support.

At stake are not only the presidential elections, in which people have worried about Ross Perot and Ralph Nader "stealing" votes, but elections all the way down the ballot. For example, this year a Libertarian probably cost Colorado Republicans a state senate seat. The Republican incumbent in my area, Laura Woods, (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/legislature/2016/) narrowly lost to Democratic challenger Rachel Zenzinger by 35,310 to 36,616 votes. The Libertarian got 4,573 votes—3.5 times the margin of victory. It's a good bet that, under approval voting, Woods would have won because a lot of Libertarian voters would have picked her, too. Incidentally, Colorado Republicans maintained a single-seat majority in the state senate despite Woods's loss. I discussed some (http://ariarmstrong.com/2014/11/libertarians-nearly-cost-colorado-republicans-the-state-senate/) other examples in 2014.

A note about primaries versus general elections: I think political parties, as private organizations, properly (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/get-government-out-of-political-parties-how-to-resolve-the-primary-caucus-debate/) run their own affairs. I think parties would be wise to institute approval voting (or else use a caucus system with delegates), but government shouldn't force them to. On the other hand, governments properly are responsible for general elections, so governments would need to institute approval voting in those elections.

I'm a little surprised that alternative systems of voting have not gained more attention given the obvious problems of "spoilers" every two years. Perhaps Trump's surprising ascendency to the White House will encourage more people to take a look at approval voting, which probably would have led to a different outcome.

Update: Someone on Facebook reminded me that Maine voters considered ranked voting this year, and I see that the (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/11/10/maine-became-the-first-state-in-the-country-to-pass-ranked-choice-voting) measure in question passed. I reiterate the point that ranked voting is complicated. In Colorado we had twenty-two candidates for president. Do we really expect people to keep their ballots straight with the complexity created by ranking? By contrast, it would be trivially easy to go through and "approve" or not each candidate individually. Regardless, hopefully the Maine measure will generate more attention for alternate voting systems.

Comments

The Trouble with Ranked Voting

Ranked voting violates Arrow's impossibility theorem, just as our current system does. (Our current system actually is ranked voting, with the proviso that we rank one candidate first and don't bother with the others.) All fair systems (range voting, approval voting) discard the requirement that each voter make exactly one first-ranked choice. See (http://skep.us/4281) http://skep.us/4281.

—Brian Dunning

Approval Voting Is Simple

I'm impressed that you got a comment from Skeptoid's Brian Dunning. I agree that approval voting seems to be the simplest system. And it would do a better job of expressing the voter's preferences. It would be easy to implement. When I worked as an election judge our most common error was people "over voting." If the check for too many votes was removed from the tally machines, we could do approval voting now.

—Mike Spalding

(http://ariarmstrong.com/comment/) Leave a Comment

Welcome to Freedom Outlook

December 7, 2016

May 14, 2017 Update: Freedom Outlook is no longer active. This page appears here as an archive.

Freedom Outlook is an online publication advocating a politics of individual rights. It will feature reflections on the issues of the day, book reviews, and the occasional piece on political theory.

Here individual rights is understood in the "classical" liberal tradition of constitutional governance, free markets, and freedom of choice, as opposed to the statist Progressive tradition now often (wrongly) called liberalism. At issue is the freedom to live one's own life by one's own judgment, to produce, and to trade peaceably with others—not the "freedom" to control others or to help yourself to others' wealth.

I'm the publisher, (http://ariarmstrong.com/about/) Ari Armstrong. A bit of personal background: I read Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman back in high school in the late 1980s, and their work helped frame my intellectual path. I started the (http://www.freecolorado.com/) Colorado Freedom Report online back in late 1998 (it's no longer active), right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog#History) before the term "blog" had been coined and years before WordPress. (I hand coded the page using HTML for Dummies.)

Since then, I've written for various regional newspapers, helped edit the (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) Objective Standard, and written numerous articles for my (http://ariarmstrong.com) personal page. I'm also the author of two books: Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles and Reclaiming Liberalism and Other Essays on Personal and Economic Freedom.

To receive the free Freedom Outlook Letter, (http://eepurl.com/bZb7HX) join the email list. The Letter, sent out every week or so, is filled with exclusive insights into current events and controversies, activism, book and film reviews, and more.

Then please head over to Facebook and Twitter and connect.

To help support this work (https://www.patreon.com/ariarmstrong/) please join me at Patreon.

I believe that the struggle toward human liberty is the greatest and and most important movement in history at the political level. I hope you'll join me at Freedom Outlook to explore the ideas of liberty, to refine them, and to push them forward.

Crony Fallacies and Trump's Carrier Deal

December 8, 2016

Recently President-Elect Donald Trump (http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461) intervened in the business of Carrier, an Indiana manufacturer of furnace and air conditioner units, by cajoling the Indiana government to offer the company $7 million in tax breaks to keep hundreds of jobs in the state rather than move that work to Mexico.

Trump's Carrier deal is cronyist in nature, not capitalist. But what are the ways in which it is cronyist? Here I seek to cut through widespread confusion about this. I begin with a basic review of the key concepts, then discuss two main fallacies pertaining to cronyism.

Capitalism, properly understood, is when people associate voluntarily to produce and trade goods and services. People can choose not to associate; an aspect of capitalism is that businesses compete for employees and for customers. To protect people's rights to produce and trade by consent, government defends property rights; acts against violence, theft, and fraud; enforces contracts; and the like.

Under capitalism, government does not choose favorites, hamper the productive efforts of some, or subsidize the business of others. Cronyism is when government does play favorites.

So what are the two major fallacies that some people commit when discussing cronyism?

Fallacy #1: Suggesting Cronyism Is a Type of Capitalism

There is a no such thing as "crony capitalism." Capitalism means that government consistently protects people's rights to produce and trade by consent; cronyism means that government violates people's rights to do so in a way that plays favorites.

"Crony capitalism," then, is a contradiction in terms. It makes as much sense as "voluntary slavery" or "bright darkness." If it's capitalist, then it's not cronyist; if it's cronyist, then it's not capitalist.

The problem with imagining cronyism as a type of capitalism is that doing so obscures or obliterates the fundamental distinction between voluntary exchange and force. Those who see no difference between free markets and government coercion tend to support government intervention in trade—including cronyism—as the "solution" to the abuses supposedly inherent in capitalism. After all, if capitalism is on par with using force, then government should shackle or manipulate capitalists—but such action is the root of cronyism.

Imagining cronyism as a type of capitalism, then, becomes a mental trap that reinforces cronyism.

A second fallacy reflects a similar mistake, and it's just as insidious . . .

Fallacy #2: Treating Tax Breaks as the Equivalent of Subsidies

Just as confusing cronyism with capitalism entrenches cronyism, so does confusing two different types of potential cronyism: subsidies and tax breaks.

After the Carrier deal hit the news, various news outlets reported that Indiana had offered "incentives" to Carrier. But what does that mean? Is an "incentive" an outright subsidy or is it a tax break? In this case it's a tax break—although some people referred to it as a subsidy.

Confusing tax breaks with subsidies is a huge mistake; they are fundamentally different things. A subsidy is when government hands out taxpayers' money to a business; a tax break is when government confiscates less money from a business.

To illustrate the importance of the distinction, consider that, if giving someone money is the equivalent of not taking as much of a person's money, then a street thug is "subsidizing" every passerby he chooses not to rob, and he deserves a medal for his generosity. Likewise, if a criminal with a gun demands your wallet but then graciously gives half your cash back, the portion returned counts as a "subsidy." (See also my (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/) article about this for the Objective Standard.)

Often those who suggest that tax breaks are no different from subsidies claim that any tax break is a sort of cronyism, regardless of context. It is true that tax breaks can be cronyist in a certain respect—but not because they involve forcibly seizing less money from a company. What is cronyist is not when government seizes less money from a given company, but when government seizes more money from other companies. In that way, government harms some businesses more than it harms others.

To make this clear, imagine that government taxed one business double what it taxed everyone else. That's a cronyist system, in that government harms one business more than it harms the others. Now say government gives the company in question a tax break, such that it now pays the same taxes as everyone else. Obviously, such a tax break is not a "subsidy," nor it is it cronyist; rather, it is the elimination of a sort of cronyism. Likewise, if government lowers taxes for all businesses equally, such a tax cut is neither a subsidy nor cronyist.

Of course, none of this justifies across-the-board tax hikes. If government raises taxes on everyone equally, that's not cronyism (at least with respect to business), but neither is it consistent with liberty. Cronyism refers to a particular sort of statism—one that favors some businesses over others—not to any possible statist policy. By the standard of liberty, the appropriate remedy if one business gets a special tax break is not to raise that business's taxes; rather, it is to lower everyone else's taxes comparably.

Given that "subsidy" is the wrong term for an unequal tax break, what is the right term? We can call higher taxes for some cronyist, as indicated; we can also call this discriminatory taxation or the like. Business owners deserve equal treatment under the law, and discriminatory taxes violate that principle by harming some businesses more severely.

In sum, cronyism is not a type of capitalism, and tax breaks are not a type of subsidy. By keeping clear what cronyism is and isn't, we can better identify it—and work to eliminate it.

The Trouble with Donald Trump's Nationalism

December 12, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump is explicitly an "America first" nationalist. Stephen Bannon, one of Trump's key advisers, (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-neo-nationalists-1479774129) calls himself an "economic nationalist." But what does nationalism mean? Is it compatible with American liberty or inimical to it?

A source of confusion is that "nationalism" can mean very different things. Trump mashes together two essentially conflicting versions of nationalism, making his views and policies hard to sort out.

One sort of nationalism—let's call it liberty-oriented nationalism or individualist nationalism—sees a national government as a means to protect the rights of the people living within its boundaries. In this view, the nation exists for the sake of the individuals in it, not the other way around. A nation is good insofar as it protects individual rights and bad insofar as it violates rights.

This sort of benign nationalism holds that political organization on too grand a scale—as with hypothetical global government—invites tyranny. When many sovereign nations exist, some nations might go bad at a given time (Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany in the Twentieth Century, North Korea and Venezuela today), but other nations can check the aggressive ones and remain relatively free and prosperous. On the other hand, political organization on too small a scale cannot effectively protect people from outside aggressors.

America's Founders for the most part saw no contradiction between the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the formation of a national government; indeed, they saw the latter as a way to implement the former.

A clashing form of nationalism sees the nation, not as a means to protect the rights of individuals, but as an end-in-itself to which people and their liberties must be sacrificed. We can call this collectivist nationalism, because it views individuals as part of and subordinate to a collective entity.

Very often nationalists of the collectivist variety see themselves as superior to outsiders and seek to expand their national borders by conquest. Such nationalism tends to focus on ethnic differences between regions, and it tends to become socialistic in its (internal) politics. This was true of Italy's National Fascist Party and of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, as key examples.

Given that nationalism can carry such different and contradictory meanings, the term is basically meaningless unless it is carefully qualified.

Trump's sort of nationalism is what Ayn Rand would call a (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-dealing,_fallacy_of.html) package deal; it combines fundamentally dissimilar ideas about the nation and the proper role of its government. One result is that the better, more liberty-oriented aspects of Trump's nationalism can serve to obscure the collectivist, anti-liberty aspects.

Consider the various ways in which Trump or some of his supporters are nationalists:

• Trump advocates an America-first foreign policy that focuses on defense of Americans and that eschews "nation building" abroad and altruistic military interventions.
• He emphasizes America's sovereignty and often criticizes treaties that subject Americans to international governmental actions.
• He wants to rein in regulations and cut tax rates to make American businesses more competitive.
• He wants tight controls of America's borders, complete with a wall along the Mexican border.
• He wants tight restrictions on immigration because he sees immigrants as "taking" American jobs.
• He thinks the national government should take action against American companies that move operations to other countries. Recently Trump (https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158226484895725) threatened companies that do so with "retribution" in the form of a 35 percent tariff on goods coming back into the United States.
• He wants the federal government to spend a trillion dollars (or thereabouts) to improve government controlled infrastructure—highways, bridges, airports, and the like—and he sees this as a way both to showcase America's greatness and to "stimulate" the economy.
• Although Trump has denounced the so-called "alt-right," some of Trump's "alt-right" supporters see Trump's success as a way to promote white nationalism.

We can find some traces of individualism within Trump's nationalism, but in important respects Trump's nationalism is collectivist.

The most prominent way that Trump is collectivist is in seeing jobs as somehow owned by the nation and its citizens jointly. Trump does not talk about a job as created by a particular productive business to be filled by mutual agreement between someone offering and someone seeking a job. Rather, Trump talks about "American jobs" as though jobs were somehow national property to be doled out by politicians and bureaucrats.

So, in Trump's collectivist view, a business owner has no moral right to hire an employee from Mexico or Asia (or wherever). Rather, that job is properly controlled by the national government and can be offered only in accordance with political dictates. In this view, business owners have no moral right to run their businesses by their own judgment; rather, they have a moral duty to run their businesses in line with "national interests" (however defined). A business owner may hire someone from outside the country only if the national government grants permission. In Trump's America, businesses operate fundamentally not by right, but by permission.

The same holds with Trump's threats against businesses that move some of their operations to other countries. Trump's view again is that producers have no moral right to run their businesses as they see fit; rather, they have a moral duty to run their businesses as the national government commands, else they will be punished. Likewise, in Trump's view, customers have no moral right to seek less-expensive products from companies that economize by manufacturing elsewhere.

In economic terms, Trump's collectivism manifests zero-sum thinking in which one person gains only when another person loses. If an American loses a job to a Mexican, by this thinking, America is worse off—never mind that gains of trade increase overall wealth and open up new avenues for production. Hence, Trump's collectivism tends to regurgitate old-school mercantilist ideas debunked by free-market economists long ago. Like all forms of collectivist statism, Trump's brand of it will cause (http://cafehayek.com/2016/12/an-open-letter-to-generalissimo-trump.html) economic damage.

Trump's collectivism also informs his views and policies regarding border control and the finance of infrastructure. Clearly Trump wants a wall on the Mexican border, not primarily to protect Americans from foreign aggressors, but to "protect" some Americans from other Americans who wish to hire people from south of the border. And Trump favors infrastructure spending, not (only) because he thinks only government can finance such things (a presumption I dispute), but because he wants American infrastructure to show up the government projects of other countries and because he thinks of prosperity largely as emanating from the national state.

In sum, Trump's nationalism runs counter to liberty and to a politics of individual rights insofar as it reflects Trump's deeper collectivist ideas. Let's hope that advocates of individual rights and free markets successfully push back against collectivist nationalism—whether it is advocated by Progressive leftists (such as Bernie Sanders) or by "populist" conservative Republicans.

Kill the Amazon Tax

December 14, 2016

Should state governments be able to force out-of-state retailers to aid in the collection of taxes on goods purchased by state residents? On December 12, the Supreme Court (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/12/supreme-court-colorado-internet-sales-tax-law/) declined to review a (https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-1175.pdf) circuit court ruling that let stand Colorado's 2010 "Amazon tax"—so nicknamed because its main goal was to capture revenue from online sales. By implication, other states are now free to pass similar measures.

The 2010 law, House Bill 10-1193, passed when Democrats controlled the legislature, requires out-of-state retailers that don't collect Colorado sales tax to instead issue use-tax reports to Colorado customers and to state tax collectors.

By law, Coloradans who don't pay sales tax on an item are required to pay an equivalent use tax, although the use-tax law is (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/03/08/are-you-about-to-become-a-colorado-use-tax-felon/) widely flouted. The idea behind the reporting requirement was that it would help the state enforce the use tax, which residents would still have to pay themselves. Although the 2010 law has been (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/12/supreme-court-colorado-internet-sales-tax-law/) tied up in state court actions, the federal courts now seem to have cleared the path for its enforcement.

But Amazon tax measures are unjust. Even if the courts continue to allow states to enact them—the Supreme Court (http://gazette.com/colorado-internet-tax-case-could-change-online-shopping/article/1592184) may revisit the issue in the future—state governments should decline to do so. States that have Amazon tax statutes should repeal them. And federal schemes to facilitate the Amazon tax should be scrapped.

What's wrong with the Amazon tax? In brief, state governments should not conscript out-of-state businesses to serve as tax agents, and the compliance costs are onerous and anti-competitive. Consider the relevant issues in more detail.

For a state government to interfere with the operations of out-of-state businesses goes against federalist principles at the heart of American governance. It also imposes burdens on business owners who have no vote in the matter and no representative in that government.

Under the Amazon tax, state governments essentially tell out-of-state businesses, "To sell goods to people in our state, you must collect, or help us collect, a cut of the proceeds—and we're not even going to pretend to offer you commensurate services in return."

What of the argument that the Amazon tax "levels the playing field" between local shops that must collect sales taxes and online retailers? This is an issue only because state governments have found it inconvenient to enforce use tax laws. But if the purpose of the use tax is to finance government services to benefit the people paying the tax, then state governments should take up the matter with those paying the tax and (allegedly) benefitting from it—not farm out tax enforcement to out-of-state businesses. Notably, to better enforce the use tax, this year the Colorado Department of Revenue (http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2016/03/08/are-you-about-to-become-a-colorado-use-tax-felon/) started listing the use tax on income tax forms; I've seen no word about whether that has increased compliance.

Another possibility is that state governments could do away with sales and use taxes and either cut spending or increase other taxes (which in Colorado would require a popular vote). After all, Colorado's sales tax was passed in 1935 as an (http://ariarmstrong.com/2010/04/dump-emergency-sales-tax/) "emergency" measure, but given that hardly anyone today has any recollection of that emergency, perhaps it's time to declare the emergency over. At any rate, the fact that state governments harm in-state businesses by imposing a sales tax is hardly a good reason for state governments to also harm out-of-state businesses.

The Amazon tax does not create a level playing field, anyway; rather, it imposes onerous compliance costs on online retailers that local shops don't face. Store-front businesses have to deal only with their state and local governments. If the Amazon tax spreads, online retailers would have to deal with as many as (http://www.salestaxinstitute.com/resources/rates) forty-five state governments (five states have no sales tax). Depending on how Amazon tax legislation plays out, online retailers also could have to deal with a multitude of local, county, and regional governments. Amazon, which already has a physical presence in many states anyway, can handle the additional compliance costs; smaller outfits will have a much harder time.

The irony of the Colorado "Amazon tax" is that Amazon itself has already started charging Colorado sales tax. Apparently Amazon began to do so because in June it opened an in-state (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/17/amazons-first-colorado-employees-start-work-at-aurora-facility/) warehouse in Aurora; retailers with a physical in-state presence must collect state sales taxes. However, I've noticed that Amazon does not collect sales tax for goods sold via Amazon by (at least some) third-party sellers, so those items still are subject to use tax. And of course goods from other out-of-state sellers are subject to use tax.

Advocates of the Amazon tax should stop pretending that it's about fairness for local businesses. It's about generating more revenue for state governments and pushing the compliance costs onto distant business owners, and fairness be damned.

Ayn Rand Is the Anti-Trump

December 15, 2016

Recently the Washington Post has published numerous stories that worry about "fake news" (see a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/14/menace-of-fake-news-is-rattling-politicians-in-austria-and-germany/) first, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-fake-news-is-an-indictment-of-americas-real-newsrooms/2016/12/12/9ccd7ac2-be52-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html) second, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/18/this-is-how-the-internets-fake-news-writers-make-money/) third, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/11/21/fake-news-is-just-the-beginning/) fourth, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/12/07/how-the-war-against-fake-news-backfired/) fifth, and (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-all-news-is-fake-whom-do-we-trust/2016/12/12/b2203898-c081-11e6-afd9-f038f753dc29_story.html) sixth example out of many articles on the subject). It seems odd, then, that the paper also published the (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/13/daily-202-ayn-rand-acolyte-donald-trump-stacks-his-cabinet-with-fellow-objectivists/584f5cdfe9b69b36fcfeaf3b/) ludicrous claim that Donald Trump is an "Ayn Rand-acolyte" and an "objectivist" who follows Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. In fact, there is zero evidence that Trump understands any aspect of Rand's ideas and much evidence that in the main he flatly rejects them.

The above quotes come from the article's headline; the text of the article, by James Hohmann, is in some respects closer to reality although still deeply flawed. Hohmann claims that Trump and Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick for Secretary of State, share an "affection for the works of Ayn Rand, the libertarian heroine who celebrated laissez-faire capitalism."

What evidence does Hohmann cite for his claim about Trump? Earlier this year, (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/11/donald-trump-interview-elections-2016-ayn-rand-vp-pick-politics-column/82899566/) Trump told Kirsten Powers, a writer for USA Today, that he liked one of Rand's novels, (https://www.aynrand.org/novels/the-fountainhead) The Fountainhead. Here's what Powers had to say:

Trump described himself as an Ayn Rand fan. He said of her novel The Fountainhead, "It relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to . . . everything." He identified with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment.

Assuming that Trump actually finished the 753 page novel given his (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-doesnt-read-much-being-president-probably-wouldnt-change-that/2016/07/17/d2ddf2bc-4932-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html) aversion to (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/133566/donald-trump-doesnt-read-books) reading entire books, Trump's remarks do not suggest that he remembers anything substantial about it. What novel ever written doesn't relate in some way to business, beauty, life, and inner emotions?

Beyond the superficial similarity of an interest in buildings, Roark and Trump have nothing in common; the functionalist architect Roark would have hated Trump's ostentatious displays as well as his political "deal making." (If anything, Trump shares some of the worst characteristics of Gail Wynand, another character in the book, and few if any of the better ones.) And the suggestion that "rage" equally well describes Roark's usually-calm and articulate demeanor and Trump's boisterous tantrums, conspiracy-theory mongering, and scapegoating is beyond ridiculous.

It's (http://tracinskiletter.com/2016/12/13/the-objectivist-conspiracy/) no surprise that Trump has heard of The Fountainhead and perhaps even read it at some point. The novel has sold some 6.5 million copies since it was first published in 1943, and it continues to be a favorite among business leaders, tech developers, creative artists, and free-market advocates. Even Hillary Clinton had "(http://observer.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-ayn-rand-atlas-shrugged/) an Ayn Rand phase."

Obviously reading and praising a novel does not make a person an "acolyte" of the novel's author, much less a follower of the author's philosophy. I love the Harry Potter novels—so much so that I wrote a criticism of them that, in part, argues against some of the books' central ideas. I love Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov even though my world view is very different from that of the author. Generally, most people who read novels love some of them without embracing the philosophies of the novels' authors. So the claims of the headline of Hohmann's article are just bizarre.

That said, Hohmann does offer some useful information in his article, such as the fact that Tillerson, Andy Puzder (Trump's choice for Labor), and Mike Pompeo (CIA) also have praised Rand's novels. Hohmann tells us that Puzder has also praised the work of Christian apologist C. S. Lewis—a writer whom Rand (https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/ayn-rand-really-really-hated-c-s-lewis) harshly criticized. And, Hohmann adds, Stephen Bannon, one of Trump's key advisors, has explicitly condemned Rand's ideas (grotesquely misrepresenting them in the process).

Hohmann also misrepresents Ayn Rand's works and ideas at various points:

• Hohmann calls Rand a libertarian even though Rand (http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-libertarianism.html) condemned libertarianism.
• Hohmann says that, in The Fountainhead, Roark "dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints." In fact, Roark dynamites the vacant housing project after bureaucrats grotesquely disfigure it in blatant violation of the architect's conditions; later he rebuilds the development according to the original plans.
• Hohmann claims that Roark "rapes a woman"—a claim that is either flatly false or, at a minimum, in need of serious qualification [see Andrew Bernstein's essay in Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead]. (I think the scene in question, involving the extremely complex character who falls in love with Roark and eventually marries him, clearly involves consent, although it is a tacit form of consent that would not withstand legal scrutiny. Certainly the scene is not a model for real-life behavior.)
• Hohmann suggests that a correct interpretation of The Fountainhead is "some people count, and some people don't." But Hohmann offers his own rebuttal when elsewhere he quotes Rand saying that each person "exists for his own sake [and] that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."
• Hohmann claims that Rand's novels "celebrate individuals who consistently put themselves before others." It is true that Rand is a (rational, rights-respecting, friendship-valuing) egoist, but Hohmann's remark is highly misleading. Hohmann is talking specifically about people who serve in government. Certainly Rand advocated government officials serving with integrity and honesty to uphold the rule of just law; she strongly denounced abuses of government power for perceived short-term personal advantage (such as the abuses behind Hillary Clinton's corruption scandals). Here the key example from Rand's work is Judge Narragansett of Atlas Shrugged, a paragon of integrity.

In sum, Hohmann's article contains a lot of useful facts and insights, but it (with its headline) is also in many respects the sort of fake news that the Washington Post elsewhere rails against. Perhaps if Hohmann would care to seriously read Rand's works for himself he would learn something about Rand's ideas.

It is obvious to anyone who has read and understood Rand's works that Donald Trump is not an "acolyte" of Rand nor a follower of her philosophy. Moreover, Rand and Trump are not merely different; in important respects they are diametric opposites.

A caveat: Rand would not have disapproved of everything Trump does or says. For example, she too called for scaling back regulations on business. (Actually she called for ending bureaucratic regulations and going to a system of torts and contracts.) And she likely would have found something to like about some of Trump's selections for top government positions. (No one disputes that banker John Allison, whom Trump considered and then rejected for Treasury, is an Objectivist.) Certainly Rand would not have approved of most of Hillary Clinton's policies, so she probably would have considered her loss a silver lining of Trump's victory. But the differences between Rand and Trump are far more pronounced than any minor similarity. Consider just a few of the relevant issues:

Reason

Rand called her philosophy Objectivism in part because she held that there is an (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html) objective reality apart from human consciousness and that people can learn about reality insofar as they embrace objective principles of knowledge. Rand embraced (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html) reason and logical consistency, rejected arbitrary assertions, and (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pragmatism.html) condemned philosophic pragmatism.

Trump, on the other hand, contradicts himself nearly on a moment-by-moment basis. I'd say that he is a pathological liar, except I'm not convinced he knows the difference between reality and his lies. This is a man who smeared a political opponent by citing National Enquirer. To modify the common saying, you can take Trump seriously only if you take nothing he says literally. To say merely that Trump has no principles is not enough; he is profoundly anti-principle, a range-of-the-moment pragmatist looking for the next "deal"—and never mind what he might have said yesterday or might say tomorrow.

Political Pull

Rand advocated the rule of just law applied equally to all and a government tightly bound by objective law, including a rights-protecting constitution. She condemned what she called the (https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1962/09/01/the-pull-peddlers/page1) politics of pull—using government power for special treatment such as subsidies and rules harming competitors.

Trump, on the other hand, is an archetype pull peddler. (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/05/donald-trump-anti-capitalist/) Trump has threatened to go after Jeff Bezos and Amazon with tax and (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html) antitrust laws; praised and pursued eminent domain to seize private property from some to give to others; and promoted laws to hurt his competitors (among other things). Trump advocates punishing tariffs, he (http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/12/crony-fallacies-and-trumps-carrier-deal/) threatened businesses thinking of moving operations to Mexico, and he cajoled Indiana government to give a business special treatment. Rand advocated free market capitalism; Trump advocates cronyism. As Craig Biddle (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/11/americas-next-leftist-president-donald-trump/) writes for the Objective Standard, Trump in the main "advocates policies that violate individual rights."

Authoritarianism

Rand fled Communist Russia, later set her anti-authoritarian novel We the Living there, and continually denounced the regime. Rand spent her life advocating a culture of reason and a political system based on objective law for the purpose of protecting individual rights. She vociferously condemned all forms of authoritarianism, including socialism and fascism. (Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand Institute offers a (https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2016/12/15/attacking-ayn-rand-is-easy-if-you-distort-her-ideas-jonathan-chait-edition) good discussion of Rand's opposition to authoritarianism.)

(http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432655/trump-defends-praising-putin-chinas-strong-response-tiananmen-square) Trump has called the Chinese government "strong" and "powerful" for its crackdown at Tiananmen Square (although he also called that crackdown "a horrible thing"). He has described Vladimir Putin—the former KGB operative suspected of (http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-people-putin-is-suspected-of-assassinating-2016-3) murdering various political opponents—as "a strong leader for Russia" (although Trump said his remarks weren't an endorsement). Far from encouraging rational discussion about politics, Trump has promoted (https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/One-Small-Step-for-Dictatorship#filter-bar) rage against scapegoats and blind trust in his leadership. And Trump said that media outlets critical of him would "(http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/03/reflections-on-the-presidential-race-after-super-tuesday/) have problems" once he became president.

Immigration

Trump initially said he wanted to forcibly round up and expel all illegal immigrants; then he said he only wanted to throw out "criminal" illegal immigrants. Trump advocates restricting immigration even for peaceable people whom American companies want to hire.

Rand was an immigrant herself—(http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/14/ayn-rand-was-an-illegal-immigrant) perhaps an illegal one. She explicitly denounced "protectionist" arguments for restricting immigration [Ayn Rand Answers], and she said there is "no right to close the borders" to (peaceable) immigrants. She said, "How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn't be alive today if our borders had been closed?"

Abortion

At one point, (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/politics/donald-trump-abortion.html) Trump said government should punish women who get abortions. His current position is that the Supreme Court should overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and return abortion law to the states.

Rand (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html) advocated legal abortion. In 1975, Rand (http://dangerousminds.net/comments/ayn_rand_absolutely_hated_ronald_reagan) condemned Ronald Reagan mainly because "he opposes the right to abortion."

***

Ayn Rand would have disapproved of Donald Trump for many other reasons, including his narcissistic bragging, his demeaning and shallow remarks about women, and on and on. In many ways, Trump is remarkably like the smarmy, shifty, manipulative villains who populate Rand's novels.

That said, I hope that Trump reveals his better qualities while in office and listens to sound advice. If he does, he could become one of the less-bad presidents of my lifetime—which granted isn't saying much. If he doesn't, he could substantially damage the economy, undermine the rule of law, and compromise national security.

Perhaps Hohmann's fake news for the Washington Post about Ayn Rand will have the silver lining of encouraging more people to check out Rand's works and ideas for themselves. If they do, they will find that Rand is far different from the caricature of her often portrayed in the media.

Comments

A Concession

I will happily concede this point: Trump does share with Rand a genuine appreciation for successful business leaders, and that is no small thing. For example, Trump recently (http://theweek.com/business-briefing/667564/daily-business-briefing-december-15-2016) praised leaders of technology firms for their "incredible innovation."

—Ari Armstrong

December 15, 2016

Trump Is No Objectivist

No Objectivist would consider jailing women for having an abortion; oppose immigration; condone stripping one's citizenship for flag burning; strong-arm anyone, let alone a CEO. I could do this all day; Trump is no Objectivist. Hohmann's article is an insult to Ayn Rand and all Objectivists. His misrepresentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy is indeed a form of fake news as it in no way a dipiction of reality.

—Bill Sekerak

December 16, 2016

"Let the Human Species Die Out"—Colorado Students React to Environmentalist English Class

December 19, 2016

Benjamin Dancer (http://www.cpr.org/news/story/these-jeffco-students-are-learning-about-climate-change-by-taking-on-the-sixth-extinction) believes "the most important issue we have to tackle as a species" is "the unintended consequences of continued population growth." And that's a lesson he taught to his English class at Jefferson County Open School, a public "(http://www.jeffcopublicschools.org/schools/index.html) option" school. (See update at end.)

Dancer selected for class the book The Sixth Extinction, a work by journalist Elizabeth Kolbert about the history of species extinction, as (http://www.cpr.org/news/story/these-jeffco-students-are-learning-about-climate-change-by-taking-on-the-sixth-extinction) Colorado Public Radio (CPR) reported in an article and podcast by Jenny Brundin. (Brundin did not quote any critics of the course.)

Dancer also is the author of the novel Patriarch Run, which, (http://www.benjamindancer.com/praise) Dancer advertises, environmentalist Paul Ehrlich praised on the grounds that "Dancer has illustrated that our greatest villain is overpopulation." Notably, Ehrlich once wrongly predicted (among other things) that "carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." [quoted in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels]

Unsurprisingly, some of Dancer's students picked up the apocalyptic, people-are-the-problem perspective of Dancer's class. One student, effectively renewing Ehrlich's old prediction, told CPR that "agriculture could be devastated by the end of the century," something that "starts to look apocalyptic." The student wants "to be in nature before it's almost gone." Another student said the main problem "is that there [are] just too many" people. Another predicted that we're on track to "run ourselves into the ground and potentially destroy the earth" unless we reduce our "carbon footprint."

Another student said we should "let the human species die out when it's supposed to die" (CPR paraphrase) and "not try to escape to Mars" (direct quote).

Dancer's teaching is oriented toward promoting student activism. CPR reports:

Dancer helped guide the students toward projects where they can make a difference: setting up sustainable food systems at school, or organizing a school-wide day of dialog on the unintended consequences of continued population growth.

What should taxpayers and other observers make of all of this? I have a number of questions and concerns.

For starters, is Dancer's curriculum appropriate for English class? Call me a traditionalist, but I always thought the purpose of English class was to help students improve their English and engage with important works of literature, not to turn students into activist ideologues.

It can be perfectly reasonable to assign well-written nonfiction works in English class, especially different works with conflicting views. So I'm not against assigning The Sixth Extinction, but it seems odd to focus on one book in order to promote a particular point of view about population and climate change.

I do not know whether Dancer assigned other readings to his class—because he declined to answer my question about that. (The CPR story does not mention any other readings.)

Dancer also declined to say how the acquisition of the books was financed, how he used the text to help develop his students' English skills, and how he'd respond to critics who might claim that the class amounted to indoctrination (as (http://www.completecolorado.com) Complete Colorado described it).

Dancer suggested he wouldn't answer such questions because I was not asking them in "good faith," and answering them would deny his (and my) "humanity" by playing into "gotcha politics." (We exchanged emails on December 18.) Obviously I dispute Dancer's characterization of my questions. I'll update this article with Dancer's answers should he decide to provide them after all.

Dancer did offer insights into an aspect of his class that was not reflected by the CPR story:

The basic question the class pursued was: could liberty be the solution to many of the world's problems and could the universal respect of human rights help to create a healthier world for people and the species on which we depend? The whole curriculum revolved around the concept of liberty.

Elsewhere, (http://www.benjamindancer.com/discussion-guide/) Dancer claims that population growth is a threat to personal freedom. Dancer did not respond to my further inquiry about how he related the concept of liberty to the class readings.

My other main concern, aside from the questionable appropriateness of the material for English class, is that Dancer's presumptions are disputed (to put it mildly). It's an open question how population levels will change over the next century; population is in decline in some regions.

More fundamentally, I reject the idea that population growth per se is a problem. Rather, the problems as I see them—regardless of population trends—come when institutions fail to protect (or when they outright assault) freedom of production in a context of property rights and rule of law. As examples, North Korea and Venezuela are impoverished hell-holes because of their socialist governments, not because of their population sizes.

(http://www.benjamindancer.com/discussion-guide/) Dancer thinks growing population necessarily leads to running "out of resources"; I counter that what matters is the human ability to technologically take advantage of new resources, which are practically unlimited. Consider, as examples, the expansion of known oil reserves, the potential of nuclear energy to produce unlimited electricity, and the vast resources bound up in the asteroid belt. I've seen no indication that Dancer has exposed his students to such complex discussions; rather, his presentation seems to have been one-sided.

Certainly if Dancer did not include additional readings with alternative points of view, he easily could have found such material. Here I'll list just a few possibilities:

• Ronald Bailey's The End of Doom offers a chapter specifically about species extinction. Bailey also (http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/01/predictions-of-a-man-made-sixth-mass-ext) writes on the issue for Reason magazine.
• Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, although not specifically about species extinction, discusses the long history of environmentalist fearmongering. More fundamentally, Epstein discusses the "antihumanist" assumptions he sees as undergirding certain environmentalist claims about the natural world and people's place in it. Regarding carbon emissions, Epstein argues that "the greenhouse effect of CO2 is . . . a logarithmically decreasing effect," meaning that "the heating effect of each additional increment of CO2 is smaller and smaller" (a controversial claim, obviously). Epstein, whom I contacted about this story, offered any student in Dancer's class a free copy of his book; interested students should contact Epstein at support[atsign]industrialprogress[dot]net.
• Johan Norberg's new book Progress contains a chapter on the environment.
• Locally, energy scientist, political writer, and Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin penned Merchants of Despair, a critique of "radical environmentalists" and "the fatal cult of antihumanism." In an email, Zubrin referred to Dancer's class as Malthusian "brainwashing."
• The Property and Environment Research Center has published (http://www.perc.org/search/topics/endangered-species-854?search_api_views_fulltext=extinction) many articles on endangered species and other issues from a free-market perspective.

Notably, in reply to a critical (https://twitter.com/ariarmstrong/status/809499482895192064) Tweet of mine about the class, Dancer said in email:

I'd listen hard if you thought the book I taught contained factual or logical errors. And it would be good to present students with as many sides to an issue as there are so they can learn to think critically and have the skills to seek the truth.

It is indeed good that, after the CPR article and the resulting concerns raised about the class, Dancer is soliciting alternative points of view.

To date at least, though, I think taxpayers and other observers may reasonably wonder whether Dancer has used his position as an English teacher to inappropriately proselytize his views concerning population and the environment.

December 19 Update: Alex Epstein has (https://www.facebook.com/thepursuitofenergy/posts/1381738095178062) noted on Facebook that Dancer agreed to accept free copies of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels for himself and his twenty students. Although Epstein's book does not specifically address species extinction, it does address some key moral issues as well as carbon emissions and related matters. Dancer deserves a lot of credit for taking Epstein up on his offer, and hopefully all parties—myself included—will come away from the exchange with some new intellectual avenues to explore.

Comment: Diminishing Carbon Effects Widely Accepted

You said, "Regarding carbon emissions, Epstein argues that 'the greenhouse effect of CO2 is . . . a logarithmically decreasing effect,' meaning that 'the heating effect of each additional increment of CO2 is smaller and smaller' (a controversial claim, obviously)." Actually, that is totally uncontroversial. All climate scientists agree with it.

Many say that there is a positive feedback such that warming begets more warming. But diminishing effect of increased co2 is well known.

—Tony K.

December 20, 2016

Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use