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

Ari Armstrong's Posts from 2007

by Ari Armstrong, Copyright © 2025
December 31, 2007; ported here June 10, 2025

[June 10, 2025: These posts originally were published in 2007 (October 2 to December 31) in a different iteration of AriArmstrong.com. I include some dated updates. The posts are in chronological order, except I moved one up because it continues discussion from the previous post.]

Welcome to AriArmstrong.com

October 2, 2007

Welcome to my blog. Even though the blog is new, I've been writing for the internet since 1998 via the Colorado Freedom Report [September 18, 2014 Update: From this date to the present, I've moved most of the contents from FreeColorado.com to AriArmstrong.com.] I'll continue to publish material on that page, as well, and I'll make a note on the blog about new material there. I literally predate blogs (which I guess makes me an old timer). According to Wikipedia's entry on blogs, the term "weblog" was coined in 1997, and the term was shortened to "blog" in 1999.

Yet I've never been that "up" on the technology. I'm more interested in the writing than in the presentation. It is with no shame that I admit to having learned HTML from one of the Dummies books. So my blog is simple. I'll improve it over time. I'm open to suggestions.

I started the blog because posting short comments is so easy. Otherwise, I have to load up a template in my word processor, save the file in the correct folder, load up the FTP software, and upload the file. Blogging services automate the process. I'll continue to use my traditional process with the Report for longer, more formal articles (especially regarding Colorado politics).

My goal is to use the labels to organize my blogs into broad categories. So far these are the categories I plan to cover: Colorado politics, national politics, movies, fiction, nonfiction, music, products, home, health, and blogging. My goal is to post at least one entry every day. So I hope you'll check back often.

Blog Evolution

October 3, 2007

September 18, 2014 Update: The contents of this post are out of date; I'm leaving the post up for archival purposes. -Ari

I've already made a few technical changes to the blog. I turned the column widths into percentages rather than fixed pixels. I added a link for comments. Note that comments will be moderated ruthlessly, as most unmoderated comments that I've seen are basically worthless (or worse).

More importantly, though, I've decided to narrow the scope of the blog. One of my friends persuaded me that a more focused blog is more useful than one with random comments. Now, the description says, "Notes on politics, religion, and culture." Granted, that's still extremely broad. However, I had been planning to include more notes about products, recipes, etc. Now, I'll include such personal matters only rarely.

The purpose of the blog is to advocate reason based on sensory experience; individual rights, liberty, and capitalism; and life-enhancing values. I will therefore criticize religion, political violations of rights, and cultural problems such as moral subjectivism and nihilism. I am most influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, though I continue to struggle with some of its tenets.

I'm going to try to use the "labels" function to its full effect. I'm going to label every post with one (or more) of five main tags: politics, religion, books, art, culture, and personal. Then I may add additional labels that are more specific. For example, a post about art might be further labeled as movies, music, or fine art. The category for culture is intended as a catch-all for culturally interesting items that don't seem to fit elsewhere.

So now I think my blog is on track. Perhaps it's worth mentioning my goals in blogging. First, writing a blog will help me formalize my thoughts about particular issues. Writing for an audience generally demands more rigor than merely mulling something over. Second, I'll be able to search my own blog as a way to help me remember particular things. Third, I hope to persuade readers. The point, after all, is to facilitate positive cultural change, not merely to complain about what's wrong. Fourth, I hope that the blog draws readers' attention to my other projects.

So I'm ready to take the dive. . .

The Coalition to "Do Something"

October 3, 2007

Chris Barge's story for today's Rocky Mountain News [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5713166,00.html] states:

Calling itself "Partnership for a Healthy Colorado," the group emphasized that reform is needed because the cost of caring for the uninsured and underinsured is passed on to Colorado's insured majority.

The group acknowledged that it had not arrived at any agreement on a proposal for reform, or how to pay for it.

But there was agreement that something must be done. . . .

"The members of this partnership are diverse and we don't always agree on everything," said Amy Fletcher, associate director of the Business Health Forum. "But we're here to say that, when it comes to health care, something must be done in Colorado."

Something, anything must be done—except to actually figure out what's wrong with medical policy and fix it. Various members of the "new" coalition, including the Service Employees International Union, the Colorado State Association of Health Underwriters, and the Colorado Medical Society, have already advocated more political control of medicine.

Yet political controls of medicine—tax distortions that entrench expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance, massive tax spending, and reams of federal and state mandates—are what have caused prices to skyrocket and quality to suffer.

In addition, the claim that "the cost of caring for the uninsured and underinsured is passed on to Colorado's insured majority," when taken as a broad assertion, is simply a lie. When my wife and I were uninsured, we paid for all of our own medical expenses out of pocket. The article's claim insults those who pay their own way.

To the extent that the the statement is true, it is true only because politicians have mandated treatment, forced insurance companies to guarantee coverage, subsidized costs, and made insurance so expensive that many workers cannot afford it. But will the "new" coalition advocate the repeal of the political controls that have caused the problem? Obviously not. Instead, I predict, it will urge politicians to force people to buy insurance. Because, in the eyes of such reformers, the solution for failed political controls is more political controls.

Doctors for Corporate Welfare

October 4, 2007

You wouldn't hire an accountant to fix your pipes, and you wouldn't hire a plumber to audit your financial records. When doctors start prescribing huge doses of corporate welfare, it's clear that they've strayed rather far from their calling.

April Washington's October 3 article for the Rocky Mountain News reports, "[A] commercial was created by the Physician Committee For Responsible Medicine [that] seeks to spotlight contributions from the agricultural industry's political action committees."

According to the article, Neal Barnard, president of the group, said, "Senators take millions from corporations that produce bacon, burgers, and other fatty foods. Then Congress buys up these unhealthy products and dumps them on our school lunch programs." (See the group's news release.)

The travesty! The injustice! The solution, then, is to roll back federal intrusion in our diet, right? Of course not.

Washington continues, "Between 1995 and 2004, more than $51 billion in federal agricultural subsidies went to producers of sugar, oil, meat, dairy, alcohol and feed crops to be used to fatten cows and other farm animals, according to the physicians group based in Washington, D.C. . . . The watchdog organization is urging Congress to overhaul the Farm Bill and shift more funding to producers of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables to help combat childhood obesity."

In other words, these doctors don't have any problem with federal elites determining people's diets; they just want to be the ones in control of the purse strings.

The group details the subsidies it doesn't like on its web page. However, the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing any agricultural crop or of buying food (excepting military use). The problem is not that the wrong elites are in charge; the problem is that elites are in charge. The money in question rightfully belongs to the people who earn it, and they have the right to decide what food to buy on a free market.

An "Animal Rights" Agenda

I began to suspect that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a broader agenda when I noticed that the group's web page states, "We promote alternatives to animal research." The group's archive of news releases includes the following entries:

The Secret to Long-Term Weight Loss Might Be a Vegan Diet, Research Finds: New Study in Obesity Shows a Vegan Diet with Social Support Helps People Lose More Weight Over Two-Year Period than Conventional Low-Fat Diet (Sept. 10, 2007)

Prostate Cancer Survival Improves with a Low-Fat Vegan Diet, New Study Shows: Levels of Hormones that Feed Tumors Are Lower in Men Who Consume Less Fat and More Fiber (Sept. 4, 2007)

Nesquik Commercial Voted Most Deceptive Ad in Online "Badvertisements" Poll: Voters Weight In on Dairy Commercials' Faulty Health and Beauty Claims (Aug. 16, 2007) . . .

Doctors Sue University of California Over Animal Welfare Act Violations: Dog and Monkey Experiments at U.C., San Francisco, Under Fire (July 31, 2007) . . .

Residents Sue City of Chandler Over Covance Animal-Testing Facility: Seven Local Plaintiffs and Physicians Group Accuse City Officials of Improper Collaboration with Covance, Violating State Open Meetings Act, Failing to Give Proper Notice of Hearings, and Violating City Zoning Ordinance (July 3, 2007)

Are you seeing any patterns here? PCRM is not exclusively an "animal rights" group, but it certainly is an "animal rights" group.

A quick Google of the group came up with Wikipedia's entry, which in turn pointed me to an article published August 1, 2004, by The Observer. That publication states:

Beauty and the beasts

Jamie Doward and Mark Townsend

Sunday August 1, 2004

Kevin Jonas understands the media. As well he should. Over the years the president of Shac USA, the American wing of the militant group campaigning to close down Britain's Huntingdon Life Sciences, has had a good tutor.

As Jonas, 26, himself pointed out at an animal rights conference in Washington recently: 'I come from the school of thought and from essentially the school of training of Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.' . . .

With such deep pockets Peta is able to disburse millions of dollars every year across a global network of interest groups, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which opposes animal experiments on scientific grounds and whose members (95 per cent of whom do not have medical degrees) have well documented links with Shac and other militant animal rights groups.

Over the years Peta has given more than $1.3m to the organisation whose research is regularly cited by Shac supporters as scientific proof that animal testing does not work. In 2001 Neil Barnard, the group's president, joined Shac's Jonas to co-sign hundreds of letters sent to the bosses of companies involved with Huntingdon, urging them to break their links with the firm.

(The Observer apparently misspells the name "Neil Barnard," while April Washington spells it "Neal Bernard." According to PCRM's web page, the correct spelling is "Neal Barnard.")

The left-wing SourceWatch also notes the relationship between PETA and PCRM, though SourceWatch downplays the connection:

PCRM does partner with PETA on some issues of common interest, including a campaign to reduce animal use in toxicity testing. However, PCRM has not received any monies from PETA or the PETA Foundation since 2001, and such funding has never been a significant part of PCRM's budget.

When Fat is Good

As an aside, the PCRM doctors ought not bash "fatty foods." Okay, they obviously mean foods with high levels of saturated fat. However, the amount of saturated fat in a burger depends on the quality of meat and the method of preparation. Besides, eating even bacon and burgers in moderation can be consistent with a basically healthy diet. And, as I learned, it's unhealthy to eat too little fat, though unsaturated fat generally is better. For example, almonds are half fat by weight, and they're listed among WebMD's "25 Heart-Healthy Foods." If you eat too little fat, you may suffer severe health problems or death.

Here's what the Mayo Clinic has to say about fat:

Your body needs fat to function properly. Besides being an energy source, fat is a nutrient used in the production of cell membranes, as well as in several hormone-like compounds called eicosanoids. These compounds help regulate blood pressure, heart rate, blood vessel constriction, blood clotting and the nervous system. In addition, dietary fat carries fat-soluble vitamins—vitamins A, D, E and K—from your food into your body. Fat also helps maintain healthy hair and skin, protects vital organs, keeps your body insulated, and provides a sense of fullness after meals.

But too much fat can be harmful. Eating large amounts of high-fat foods adds excess calories, which can lead to weight gain and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for several diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, gallstones, sleep apnea and osteoarthritis. And too much of certain types of fats—such as saturated fat or trans fat—can increase your blood cholesterol levels and your risk of coronary artery disease.

Serenity 2?

October 5, 2007

Paul Hsieh of Geek Press e-mailed me a story from Cinema Blend that discusses the possibility of a Serenity sequel.

For those of you who have never heard of Serenity, it's the spectacular sci-fi film by Joss Whedon (now on video) that follows the television show Firefly.

Unfortunately, even though the critics and the fans loved the movie, it performed poorly at the box office (despite my early predictions that it would do well).

Cinema Blend reports, "Serenity was a massive flop in theaters, but could big DVD sales for the box office bombed film be enough to resurrect the franchise? Alan Tudyk thinks so and he's excited about it, even if his character is dead. . . . With the film's box office numbers as bad as they were, it might make sense for the studio to push a sequel out the door as a direct-to-DVD sequel."

I think the studio should consider the possibility that a sequel could do far better at the box office. The sequel will build on the success of the first movie. More people will have heard about it. And, if the studio is smart, it will market the sequel far better than it marketed the first movie. (I discussed some of the marketing problems previously.) Here are my recommendations for the studio:

1. Take advantage of the enthusiastic fan base! Sell Serenity shirts, hats, etc. at or near cost so that fans will advertise the movie's release for you. I never was able to find a licensed shirt to purchase. I loved the pre-screenings. But there have got to be more ways to make it easy for fans to advertise for you.

2. Run competent newspaper ads this time. The print ads for the first movie failed to take advantage of the critical success and other selling points of the movie.

3. Pick a more exciting title. When you go to see, say, Star Wars, you pretty much know what you're in for. I think the title Serenity, as cool as it was for existing fans, turned off others because it sounds like a movie in which a bunch of old people take a boat out on the lake.

4. Bring back Wash, because we love him, and because, as the article points out, Tudyk is an increasingly successful actor. I know, Wash is dead. But how about a video that Wash left for Zoe? (Now if I can just figure something out for Ron Glass. . .)

5. Joss planned a trilogy. So film both sequels back-to-back. The up-front cost will be higher, but the cost per movie will be lower, meaning more yummy profits in the end.

6. Re-release the original a week or two before the sequel? Or on TV?

(And now I I see the problem with blogs; it's 3:00 a.m. But Serenity is worth it!)

McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech

[June 10, 2005: The contents of this post and the next originally were published on October 5 and October 8, 2007. In retrospect, I got a little overheated about this matter, and I misunderstood the comments of a couple of students, as marked with updates in the text. But I continue to think I'm basically right in my main arguments: A newspaper has a right to fire staff members over what they publish, and tax-funded speech inherently violates rights by forcing people to help finance it. In part I leave up this material for archival purposes so that I can see the sorts of things I used to write.

October 5, 2007

It would be pleasant if more journalists actually understood the concept of free speech. J. David McSwane, the editor of Colorado State University's Rocky Mountain Collegian, obviously does not understand it.

As a late October 4 article by Erika Gonzalez in the Rocky Mountain News [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5714837,00.html] reviews, McSwane published an "editorial" on September 21 that stated "Taser this? F-- Bush," " with the expletive spelled out," Gonzalez notes. (While I reserve the right to publish swear words, I choose not to do so as a general matter of policy, which is not to say that I'll never make an exception.) That's it—just four words.

If the story were only about a dumb college kid or swearing about Bush, I wouldn't care. (I've sworn about Bush plenty of times myself, though not in print.) But the important part of the story is much more important, as it gets to the heart of the First Amendment.

Gonzalez's story notes that a CSU board allowed McSwane to keep his job as editor. Here are the two relevant paragraphs from the article:

Although the board said it considered the opinion expressed in the editorial protected by the First Amendment, it also acknowledged the impact the piece has had. . . .

"We did not do this to capture headlines," McSwane said last week. "We did this to spark a discussion about free speech".

Of course the editorial is protected by the First Amendment. Nobody is questioning that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether McSwane should have been fired for publishing it.

If McSwane cares to check, here's what the First Amendment actually states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . ." A document by Cornell further explains:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. . . . Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Article II, Section 10, of Colorado's Constitution reiterates this protection:

No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

Has Congress passed a law censoring McSwane? Has any law been passed regarding the matter? Has any level of any government taken any action whatsoever regarding what McSwane can say or write?

No.

In fact, no one is trying to prevent McSwane from saying anything whatsoever. If he wants, he can start his own newspaper called Taser This? F-- Bush, "with the expletive spelled out." He can start a "F-- Bush" blog. He can run off flyers proclaiming "F-- Bush" and distribute them to willing takers (provided that he does not violate property rights in doing so). McSwane is perfectly free to wander the the sidewalks endlessly repeating "F-- Bush" if he wishes.

But whether any particular newspaper chooses to hire McSwane is simply not a matter of free speech or the First Amendment. There's just no connection. The fact that many professional journalists have failed to point out this simple fact does not change it.

Ayn Rand explains the matter with characteristic clarity:

Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government—and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one's own antagonists. A "right" does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort. Private citizens cannot [legally] use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone's views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action. (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, page 175)

For CSU's board even to mention the First Amendment in the context of McSwane keeping his job is bizarre. Apparently that board understands the First Amendment as well as McSwane does, which is to say not very well. (I wonder whether McSwane cried "free speech!" when Imus got fired.)

There is only one way in which free speech is at issue. If the state-subsidized college's newspaper is in any way subsidized by tax dollars, directly or indirectly, including related faculty salaries and costs of facilities, then McSwane's editorial violated the rights of free speech of those who were forced to subsidize it against their will. But this problem is inherent in any spending of tax dollars to advocate any idea or expression whatsoever.

And, arguably, when school administrators accept tax dollars, they effectively become agents of the government. Agents of government-funded institutions are subject to Constitutional limitations. So if administrators of a tax-subsidized college try to limit a student's expression using tax-subsidized facilities, that may indeed raise First Amendment concerns.

But does that mean, for example, that a student could parade around in class screaming "F- Bush?" Obviously not. The problem with any tax-subsidized expression of ideas is that it necessarily violates somebody's rights of free speech. Within the context of tax-subsidized speech, the problem is intractable. (An article by David Hudson illustrates the difficulties of defining rights of expression in the context of tax-subsidized institutions.)

The only solution—the only way to consistently protect free speech—is to stop funding schools via the forcible redistribution of resources. A fuller examination of this particular matter would take us rather far afield.

For our purposes, I need merely point out that firing McSwane for publishing a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial would not pose any serious First Amendment challenge. Otherwise, one might as well argue that students have the protected right not to be "censored" with low marks if they squawk like chickens in response to oral examinations. I mean, let's get serious.

It is no coincidence that some of the same people who invoke the First Amendment in cases where it doesn't apply also advocate laws that clearly violate the First Amendment. (I am not writing of McSwane here, as I don't know what his views are.) The "Fairness Doctrine," more accurately called the Censorship Doctrine, is an obvious example. Campaign laws that outlaw select political speech are another.

But let us leave the matter of free speech and consider whether McSwane should have been fired. Part of me thinks that he's just a stupid college kid who pulled off a stupid college prank and found himself in the national spotlight, so who cares. God knows I did far stupider things while in college. But, quite obviously, if he wrote such an editorial for any real newspaper in the country, he'd be immediately kicked out the door. I frankly don't care whether he edits a podunk paper that hardly anybody reads. But if he imagines that his treatment at CSU is remotely similar to what he'll face in the real world, then CSU is doing McSwane quite a disservice.

Here's a fun side-note: I went to Westword.com and searched for "f--" ("with the expletive spelled out"). I got 1,000 results. To read my own defense of the right to use the "f word," see my article of 2003.

Subverting Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech

October 8, 2007

A few days ago I wrote the entry, "McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech." J. David McSwane, editor of Colorado State University's Rocky Mountain Collegian, published what I described as "a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial"—"Taser this? F-- Bush," spelling out the F-bomb. (I've seen the punctuation between "this" and "F---" published three ways—a question mark, ellipses, and a dash—but that's an irrelevant detail.)

Unfortunately, various journalists and commentators continue to completely misunderstand the concept of free speech. Indeed, by setting up a false conception of "free speech," they are actively undermining real free speech.

Free speech, as I wrote in greater detail previously, means that you are free to say and write what you want, with your own resources, without suffering any force or threat of force from the government.

Free speech implies that you are free to start a newspaper and establish policy for that newspaper. It means that you are free to hire and fire writers at your discretion. If you are forcibly prevented from hiring and firing writers at your discretion, then your rights of free speech are being violated. If you choose to fire a writer, then you are certainly NOT violating the free-speech rights of that writer, who may continue to say and write whatever he or she wishes, only not with your resources.

There are three complications.

First, generally newspapers are owned by corporations. This just means that policy is set according to the legally established governors of the corporation (the voting stock holders acting through a management team).

Second, typically newspapers hire writers according to a contract. Most assuredly, newspapers do NOT offer contracts that allow writers to write whatever they want. If writers violate the terms of their contracts, then they may be fired before the contract (otherwise) expires.

Third, college newspapers are affiliated with tax-funded institutions, a condition that, as I discussed previously, generates all sorts of intractable problems, as the tax-funded advocacy of any idea automatically violates somebody's rights of free speech. Nevertheless, as I also discussed, this issue is irrelevant in the case of McSwane, because McSwane failed to uphold the clear, published policies of the paper that are in accordance with normal standards of professional journalism. The tax funding of colleges does not imply that all standards fly out the window.

With that context established, I'll take a look at a new article that was brought to my attention by a reader.

UCLA's Daily Bruin published an article on the matter today (October 8). The story is by Jessica Roy:

Since it ran, the [four-word] message has sparked a nationwide dialogue about freedom of speech and the rights of college newspapers.

"Even though I think that it was in bad taste, it's certainly their right to go ahead and express whatever views it is that they have," said Arthur Lechtholz-Zey, chief executive officer of L.O.G.I.C. (Liberty, Objectivity, Greed, Individualism and Capitalism), a UCLA student group associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, which promotes objectivism and the value of philosophy in general.

"Certainly I don't think anybody should be punished for this," he added.

The Board of Student Communications at Colorado State is an independent group that oversees the newspaper, which relies on advertising rather than student fees for its funding. . . .

But Ryan Dunn, a third-year law student at UCLA, said he believes the paper overstepped the boundaries of freedom of speech and the press.

"I think there's obviously a limit (to freedom of speech). They need to be aware of what their words can cause," Dunn said. . . .

Lechtholz-Zey said advertisers were well within their own freedom of speech rights to cancel any affiliation with the paper. . . .

What the article reveals is that these American college students have no idea what is the significance or meaning of the First Amendment or the right of free speech.

It is debatable whether the CSU paper is truly "independent" or a part of the tax-funded institution. However, if it is "independent," then any possible First Amendment concern about firing McSwane evaporates.

I was most disappointed to read the comments of Lechtholz-Zey; Objectivists should know better. Lechtholz-Zey makes two errors. First, he confuses the paper's right to publish what it wants with the paper's right to fire McSwane. Second, he conflates getting fired with government-backed punishment. Only the latter actually violates First Amendment rights. [June 10, 2025: This was unfair to Lechtholz-Zey. Just based on the quoted material, he wasn't commenting on whether the paper had the right to fire McSwane but was commenting on the paper's right to publish what it wants. Sorry about that.] At least Lechtholz-Zey gets it right when discussing the rights of advertisers.

But Dunn's comments are far worse. Dunn first suggests that firing McSwane would have somehow violated his rights of free speech. It would not have done so. [June 10, 2025: I don't think Dunn was actually saying that. Again, sorry.] More seriously, Dunn outright endorses the limitation of free speech. The right of free speech is absolute—within its context. For example, prohibiting somebody from yelling "fire!" in a theater, when there is no fire, is no limitation of that person's rights of free speech. The person has no such right. Instead, the prohibition protects the theater owners' rights of property and expression. When people start talking about limiting free speech, then actual abuses of free speech are just around the corner.

What is frightening is that many of tomorrow's journalists and lawyers—the people who should be most concerned with defending the First Amendment and the right of free speech—have no idea of what rights are.

Schwartz Advocates Free Market in Medicine

October 5, 2007

Brian Schwartz continues to speak out as voice for liberty and free markets in medicine.

David Montero quotes Schwartz in an October 5 article for the Rocky Mountain News.The subject is a meeting of October 4 sponsored by the 208 Healthcare Commission.

Montero closes his article:

And at least one speaker, Brian Schwartz, proposed getting government out of health care entirely - calling Medicaid a "failure" and an example of why single-payer won't work. Instead, he advocated the free-market system.

"Should we have single-payer food and housing?" he asked. "Didn't we settle that with Soviet Russia and North Korea? Why is health care different?"

Congratulations to Brian! And thank you for speaking out at a meeting stacked with advocates of political force in medicine.

More Serenity 2 Schemes

October 5, 2007

Late last night (actually early this morning), I posted an entry about the possibility of a sequel to Joss Whedon's magnificent film Serenity. I offered a few ideas for promoting the sequel.

Today I received the following comment:

Anonymous Universal Executive said. . .

Duly noted. Thanks for the tips.

October 5, 2007 8:42 AM

Now, I don't know if the author is actually a "Universal Executive"—hopefully so—but at least somebody managed to find the blog entry. And the comment renewed my excitement. If a sequel is a dream, at least it is a pleasant one. And it has to be a dream before it can become a movie.

I'd like to lay down a possible line of attack for getting the fan base more involved in marketing the second movie. Let us assume that Universal has approved back-to-back filming of Serenity parts two and three. Let us further assume that Universal has selected cool titles, hired outstanding print-ad designers, and planned the promotion of a slick preview. I think the way to go is to release the original movie to television a couple weeks or so before the second movie pops.

So here's where the fans come in. Universal should schedule major-city screenings of the original film (or maybe even the new film) about two months before the release of the second film. Send out the stars again, just like before. To the extent practical, hand out free tickets to known supporters of Serenity, and sell the rest of the tickets. But here's the big difference: print out something like a million slick, full-color postcards that feature the new film and its release date. Hand these cards out in stacks and encourage fans to mail or give them away to friends. Heck, I'd gladly spend $50 on stamps to mail out the postcard to my friends. It would be a good way to touch base with people as well as to promote the film. Also have available for sale T-shirts that feature the film and its release date. And make it easy for fans to buy (or download) these items.

So, Universal, as good as you've been about Serenity, "I'm asking more of you than I have before."

Human Health as a Pretext for Animal Rights

October 6, 2007

The ad from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) featuring Alicia Silverstone is an amazingly effective piece of propaganda that has earned enormous unpaid publicity. Featuring a nude but strategically concealed Silverstone emerging from a pool, the ad promotes a vegetarian diet. Silverstone says, "I feel so much better and have so much more energy. It's so amazing." The ad features the web page, GoVeg.com, which is run by PETA. So the hook is human health. But the motive is animal "rights."

But this is odd. Why doesn't PETA just make its case directly? The fact is that PETA would advocate a vegan diet even it were demonstrably less healthy for humans. PETA's main web page proclaims:

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way

If animals indeed have such rights, then human health is irrelevant. By way of comparison, did anti-slavery writers of the 1800s argue that the reason to end slavery is to make life better off for slave holders? No. They argued that people have rights, and slave holding is morally wrong. Whether the abolition of slavery hurt or helped particular slave owners was mostly beside the point.

On PETA's page, Silverstone is a little more explicit about her motives:

Like most people, I wasn't always a vegetarian, but I've always loved animals. If you ever have a chance to meet a cow, pig, turkey, or goat, you will see that they are just as cute and funny as your dogs and cats and that they, too, want to live and feel love. They don't like pain. Now when I see a steak, it makes me feel sad and sick because right away, I see my dog or the amazing cows I met at a sanctuary.

Then she goes on to discuss her health.

But even this discussion is too limited. If animals have rights, then why is Silverstone featuring only cute, fuzzy animals like cows? Why not rats? According to PETA's doctrine, setting a trap to kill a rat in the basement is just as immoral as eating a steak. By PETA's own standards, Silverstone is unfairly discriminating against less-popular animals.

So here is my theory. The folks at PETA are caught up in the post-modernist notion that language is a tool used for social control and manipulation, not a means of communicating objective truth.

Here's one of the lines from GoVeg.com:

Eating Chickens Is Bad for Your Health: According to a major 2006 Harvard study of 135,000 people, people who frequently ate grilled skinless chicken had a 52 percent higher chance of developing bladder cancer compared to people who didn't.

But is the problem the chicken, or is it the grilling? Grilling anything creates carcinogens. So I suspect that throwing a tofu dog on the grill is just as harmful.

Recently I wrote about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a group associated with PETA. Here's what a September 4 news release from the group claims:

Prostate Cancer Survival Improves with Low-Fat Vegan Diet, New Study Shows

Levels of Hormones That Feed Tumors Are Lower in Men Who Consume Less Fat and More Fiber

WASHINGTON—Men who increase consumption of cancer-fighting vegetarian foods and avoid foods that feed tumor growth, such as dairy products and meat, may significantly increase chances of living longer after prostate cancer diagnosis, say the authors of a new review in September's Nutrition Reviews.

According to lead author Susan Berkow, Ph.D., C.N.S., and her colleagues, high-fat, low-fiber diets raise circulating testosterone, estradiol, and insulin levels, which in turn may fuel prostate cancer cell growth. Among men with the highest intake of saturated fat, the risk of dying from prostate cancer is three times higher than among men with the lowest intake, the authors found. . . .

The 76 published studies analyzed for the current review include the groundbreaking work by Dr. Dean Ornish that shows serum from patients following a low-fat vegan diet inhibits the growth of cultured prostate cancer cells eight times more than serum from a standard diet group. Several studies, including Dr Ornish's, found that patients on a low-fat, plant-based diet experience a significant decrease in PSA levels, a marker for prostate cancer progression.

For a copy of the new study or an interview with one of the authors, journalists can contact Jeanne S. McVey at 202-686-2210, ext. 316, or jeannem@pcrm.org.

I requested "a copy of the new study" on the evening of October 4 but have yet to hear back. But, even without a copy of the full study it my hands, it's obvious that the release is manipulative.

Is a low-fat, high-fiber diet the same thing as a vegan diet? Obviously not. For example, one can purchase fat-free milk. According to NutritionData.com, a 71-gram serving of skinless chicken breast contains 0.2 grams of saturated fat.

Does Dr. Dean Ornish promote a vegan diet, as the news release implies? No, he does not. Instead, Ornish says, "Fish oil provides omega-3 fatty acids that are protective to the heart and have other significant benefits as well." Obviously, fish oil, which, it turns out, comes from fish, is not vegan.

Ornish continues: "The problem is that most doctors and dieticians recommend a 30% fat American Heart Association-type diet. In other words, less red meat, more fish and chicken, etc. This diet may be enough to prevent heart disease in some, but it's not sufficient to reverse it in most people." Ornish indeed recommends a low-fat, high-fiber diet, but he does not recommend a vegan diet.

In describing Ornish's diet, Anne Pearce writes:

Guidelines for both versions of Ornish's diet emphasize reducing your intake of high fat, high animal protein foods, such as red meat, pork, bacon, ice cream, etc., and increasing your consumption of complex carbohydrates, including fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in their natural forms, legumes, nonfat dairy, soy products, and egg whites. . . .

You may include moderate amounts of fish, skinless chicken, avocados, nuts, and seeds. However, if you are working toward losing weight and sustaining a healthier, target weight, these allowances could also be sources of unwanted calories and fat.

Apparently, some animal-rights activists do not believe that they can bring mainstream America over to their cause through honest argument.

How to Access Dental Care Without Insurance

October 8, 2007

Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., wrote the following comments for the October 7 Rocky Mountain News [dead link: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/speakout/2007/10/keep_good_oral_care_in_mind_wh.html]:

While 770,000 Coloradans are without health insurance, twice that number of citizens do not have dental insurance and, therefore, lack access for preventive and restorative services. They must wait until their dental problem becomes a medical emergency before they are likely to get service. . . .

Therefore, it is my hope that Colorado's Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform takes seriously the need to include dental care as part of an overall strategy in fixing our health-care system in Colorado.

Wiant's assertion is false. It is simply not true that people who lack dental insurance therefore "lack access for preventive and restorative services." They have all kinds of access. Since Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is apparently ignorant of this fact, I'll describe how people may access dental care.

Step One: Locate a phone book.

Step Two: Look up "dentist" in the phone book. It's under "D."

Step Three: Using a telephone, call a dentist in the phone book.

Step Four: Make an appointment to see the dentist.

Step Five: Go to see the dentist at the appointed time.

Step Six: Pay the bill.

As an alternative to the first two steps, look on-line—I found 2,080 dentists listed through DexKnows—or ask friends for a referral (which is what my wife and I did).

My wife and I do not have dental insurance. Indeed, we have never used our high-deductible insurance to cover any medical cost. We pay all of our medical and dental costs out of pocket (or out of our Health Savings Account, which is an extension of our "pocket"). And we like it that way.

My wife and I have both been very proactive in seeking out (and purchasing) "preventive and restorative" dental services." For example, just within the last few weeks, I had my first cavity filled (which was tiny because I went in as soon as I noticed it), and my wife had a filling replaced. Months ago I had a cracked molar repaired. We both get regular check-ups and cleanings.

Our dentist does an outstanding job. He is worth every cent that we've ever paid him—and much, much more. We get a spectacular value for our money with him, and I am proud to pay him for the services that he renders. Now that's "access."

We don't need Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., to force us to purchase dental insurance that we neither want nor need. And that's really what he's saying here. It is now common knowledge that the 208 Commission has endorsed an "individual mandate" for Colorado, meaning that the Commission wants to force people to buy "insurance" that's approved by politicians and bureaucrats (as opposed to, say, removing the political impediments that make insurance too expensive for some people to purchase).

But Wiant is concerned with the fraction of people lacking dental insurance who have trouble with Step Six. But they don't need "insurance" (i.e., government-managed, pre-paid care that others are forced to fund) in order to have "access." Those without funds to pay for dental services can and should set up payment plans or turn to voluntary charity.

Wiant's article is indicative of what we can look for if the political takeover of medicine advances. Special interests will continually lobby to have their favored services included in the politically-enforced mix. As people "access" more of the "free" (or nearly free) services, the result will be price controls and rationing. Real "access" will be reduced.

By the way, "Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is president and CEO of the Caring for Colorado Foundation." And what manner of group is that? According to its web page:

In November of 1999, Anthem Insurance, a for-profit company, purchased Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado, which had non-profit status. This sale yielded proceeds of $155 million. As mandated by Colorado state law, the profit from the sale was dedicated to benefit the health of the people of Colorado. Caring for Colorado Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(4), tax-exempt Foundation, was endowed to fulfill this responsibilty (sic).

Let us leave aside the absurdity of state laws stacked on federal tax codes micromanaging mergers. Chris J. Wiant, M.P.H., Ph.D., is, by advocating more political control of medicine, actively undermining " the health of the people of Colorado."

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

October 9, 2007

The signatories offer the following announcement as a non-exclusive letter to the editor.

As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed, Ari Armstrong, Westminster Tom Hall, Louisville Diana Hsieh, Sedalia Paul Hsieh, Sedalia Mike Williams, Denver Leonard Peikoff, Colorado Springs Richard Watts, Hayden Cara Thompson, Denver Hannah Krening, Larkspur Erika Hanson Brown, Denver Bill Faulkner, Broomfield Cameron Craig, Denver Bryan Armentrout, Erie

Version for Individual Voters

Note: Voters have permission to reproduce and distribute the following declaration. The document may be signed by individual voters and sent to the candidates for whom they will have an opportunity to vote. The names and addresses of candidates generally can be found through regional newspapers and Secretaries of State.

Dear Candidate,

I hereby add my name to the following declaration:

As an advocate of individual rights and free markets, I am deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, I also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, I will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state, whether on his or her web page or in direct correspondence. I ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed,

Shift Happens

October 10, 2007

Thanks to an article from the Rocky Mountain News, [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5718656,00.html] I found a short video created by Karl Fisch of Arapahoe High School in Centennial.

Fisch's first video was so popular that he created a second version. Both videos summarize various trends in education and the advance of technology. These videos brought tears to my eyes. Human achievements in the computer age are astounding.

I have two minor criticisms. First, the videos do not distinguish between "new information" and universal truths. It remains the job of philosophy to teach us how to organize information conceptually and hierarchically. Second, the videos make it seem as though the advance of technology is inevitable. It is not. Human productivity is inextricably linked to political freedom. Technology can be smashed much more easily than it can be created. A socialized economy will grind to a halt and then deteriorate. A virulent theocracy will systematically destroy the freedom of the mind and the technology that flows from it.

What Fisch's videos demonstrate is how much we humans have achieved—and how much there is worth fighting for.

Atlas Shrugged—The Game

October 11, 2007

Often I come across tidbits in the popular media and think, "Wow, that could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged." Indeed, Ayn Rand's ability to read and predict cultural trends can seem uncanny. So, as a fun way to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the publication of the novel, I'm suggesting Atlas Shrugged—The Game.

It's simple to play. Just blog the best example you can find from (let's say) the past eight weeks of commentary that sounds like it could have been lifted straight from the pages of Atlas Shrugged. I imagine that nearly all examples will sound like the voice of a villain, unfortunately. Edit out specifics and leave only the general points. Let's give it, say, till the end of October. Here's my entry for the sort of mealy-mouthed gibberish common among Atlas's political "reformers:"

It's heating up. The debate . . . is picking up speed . . . Unfortunately, this naturally leads to polarization of opposing views regarding a critically important issue for all of us. And this cheapens and oversimplifies the discussion.

Our [industry] can't be corrected with one liners and political scoring points.

We need cooperation. We need compromise. We don't need political hoopla.

Thankfully, the continued work of the . . . Commission is a good example of how a group of people with differing views can work together on a critical issue. It would be premature to grade their efforts. However, they are making progress and we all should support their endeavor.

Source: Dr. Michael J. Pramenko, "Time to find people 'medical homes'," Grand Junction Free Press, September 28, 2007, http://gjfreepress.com/article/20070928/COLUMNISTS/70927016/-1/OPINION.

The Dobson Divide

October 11, 2007

Two days ago I signed a letter stating: "In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state." The letter asks candidates to respond to five questions, one of which is about abortion.

Today I read an interview with James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Here's what he has to say:

[T]here was an informal meeting of about 50 pro-family and pro-life leaders that had come together [in Salt Lake City]. The purpose of it was to talk about what we would do if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate. . . .

There were about 50 people there and, to my count, 44 of them stood saying we will not vote for Rudy Giuliani or whoever it is we're talking about that's pro-abortion. And that got covered all over the nation and, as you can imagine, I was inundated.

So I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying why we would not do that—because you start with a moral principle. You have to make your decisions about who's going to lead you not on the basis of pragmatics—not on the basis of who can win or who's ahead in the polls or who has the most money or who's the most popular. You begin by saying what are the irreducible minimums that I believe in, that I care about; what are the biblical values I cannot compromise.

At least Dobson doesn't dodge the issue: he explicitly says he wants to base American politics on Christian doctrine.

Dobson wants to outlaw abortion and prevent marriage or domestic partnerships for homosexuals because that's what he believes is the will of God. If Dobson has his way, what other policies might Christians try to impose? I have not researched Dobson's particular views, but here are some policies that various Christians have proposed: censorship, criminal sanctions against homosexual acts among consenting adults, a ramped-up drug war including renewed alcohol prohibition, tax-funded religious education, tax-funded welfare, and bans on all sorts of medical research from cloning to stem cells. Certainly these policies, and many others involving a heavy hand of government, have found support in "biblical values."

Dobson poses the typical false choice between pragmatism and religion. For what it's worth, I agree with many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani's personal life. But Dobson's "principles" are not grounded on any objective morality; they are merely arbitrary constructs, ultimately as subjectivist as what he claims to criticize. Dobson wants to govern America by his reading of an inherently ambiguous book of popular mythology. Giuliani has his personal faults, but at least he seems to be somewhat oriented toward reality.

I think that the Republican Party remains in deep, deep trouble. On one side, the religious right threatens to work against any candidate who does not pledge to govern according to Christian doctrine (as interpreted by the religious right). On the other side, voters more concerned about economic liberty and limited government are increasingly alienated by the religious right. (This is essentially the issue that handed Colorado to the Democrats.) Various leaders within the GOP have called for a renewal of vows, but the wedding was always one born of a shotgun. I suppose that one eventual possibility is for the free marketeers to seek out the civil libertarians of the left, even as the religious right and religious left grow closer together.

But Dobson is right about one thing. Politics is not primary. Ethics is primary. That is the real cultural battle today.

Reader Comment: Monica at Spark a Synapse points out that Dobson may not have been correct in all of his statements about Giuliani. Monica also reviews some of the trends in religious beliefs.

Claire Danes Shines

October 12, 2007

At first I resisted seeing the film Stardust because it looked like a fantasy movie geared to kids. Well, it is a fantasy movie, and it is the most delightful film I've seen this year. I'm grateful for my friends' recommendation. I notice that it's still playing on a few movie screens. I expect to see it a third time before it disappears, then wait expectantly for the DVD.

A young man, trying to win the heart of the local beauty, sees a falling star and pledges to fetch it in exchange for the girl's hand. But to retrieve the star, our hero must cross the wall that separates England from the magical world beyond. In that world, a fallen star is not a hunk of metal and ash—it is a lovely young lady, in this case portrayed by Claire Danes. Our hero must learn to become a man, save the star, and figure out whom he loves.

The entire cast of the film is spectacular, but the real, er, star of the film is Danes. Hers is a joyous performance.

By the way, my wife and I also saw Danes in Evening. I do not love the story, and Danes's character is not consistently drawn (perhaps because a screenwriter worked over the original novel). But the film has its rewarding moments, usually when Danes is on screen.

"He Went to Live with Two Homosexuals"

October 12, 2007

When criticizing James Dobson, I wrote, "I agree with many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani's personal life." But I don't want to leave the wrong impression. Many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani are positives in my book. And some of Dobson's criticisms are ridiculous:

Here's why I cannot vote for Rudy Giuliani. He's pro-abortion. He's never repudiated gay marriage in New York City or at least the civil unions in New York City. He's called a champion of gay rights. Rudy is opposed to school choice. He's in favor of open borders. He lived with a mistress in the mansion in New York while he was married to his wife—and she was in the same house. He's been married three times. When his second wife got sick of it she threw him out and he went to live with two homosexuals.

I don't want abortion outlawed, I support domestic partnerships for homosexuals, I oppose school vouchers (because I support real free markets in education), and I favor open immigration (except for criminals and those with contagious diseases). I agree that Giuliani ought not have had a mistress (assuming that Dobson's claims are correct); that was wrong of him.

But what is that last bit? "[H]e went to live with two homosexuals." That's the sort of line that gives me the surreal sense that somebody must be playing an elaborate practical joke. Why would it even occur to anyone to check to see whether Giuliani ever lived with two homosexuals? I mean, huh? When Dobson comes up with lines like that, parody is beside the point.

I keep having to remind myself that there are people in this country who take this guy seriously.

"An Extreme Free-Market View"

October 13, 2007

[As I write, sunrise is a few short hours away. But, as I was checking the papers for the baseball updates, I came across Jason Salzman's latest column for the Rocky Mountain News [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_5721465,00.html]. He writes:

In response to my last column documenting how Denver journalists love and embed the conservative/libertarian Independence Institute, some people asked whom I'd quote instead of institute President Jon Caldara. . . .

For an extreme free-market view, there's Ari Armstrong (ariarmstrong.com) [hey, that's me!] and Brian T. [Schwartz] (wakalix.com), among others.

So, before heading to bed, I wanted to welcome Salzman's readers who may have wandered this way. Because extreme exhaustion in defense of liberty is no vice! (Or something like that.)

Unlike most politicians and commentators these days, I don't get ruffled when somebody suggests that I'm "extreme." If this strikes you as odd, allow me to ask you a few questions.

Do you want to be extremely happy, or just sort of happy? (I'm not talking about a superficial giddiness, but a deep enjoyment of life.)

Would you like to live in an extremely just society, or a society that's just only some of the time?

Should we strive to be extremely good, extremely virtuous, extremely moral, or just pretty good?

The alternative to extreme happiness, justice, and goodness is some amount of unhappiness, injustice, and destructive vice. (Please don't confuse "vice" with activities that can be healthy in the right context, such as moderate drinking.)

Imagine yourself in the mid-1800s. The abolitionists called for the abolition—the complete abandonment—of slavery. They took the extreme position that slavery is morally wrong and should be completely outlawed. The moderates, on the other hand, argued that slavery should merely be restricted. Would you have been on the side of the abolitionists or the moderates?

Just as I would have been proud to call myself an abolitionist in the mid-1800s, so I am proud to advocate an "extreme free-market view" today.

What is a free market? An individual market is any space or network in which people can exchange goods or services. E-bay is a market. The market in the broader sense is the sum of such networks and transactions. A free market is one in which people interact voluntarily, free from the initiation of force. For example, if you and I agree to swap an apple for an egg, that's a free-market transaction. If one party takes something by force, threat of force, or fraud, then the market is no longer free. Force has replaced voluntary association. Buying groceries is an example of a free-market trade. Robbing a grocery store is an example of force.

The proper and necessary function of government is to protect each individual's right to control his or her own life, resources, and property, as consistent with the equal protection of the rights of others. You have the right to control your property and trade the fruits of your labor with others, so long as you don't violate the property rights of others in the process.

An extremely free market is one in which people's rights are consistently protected. The alternative is a society in which some people exert force against others.

Obviously I've given only the briefest overview of the basic theory. But that should give you a basic sense of where I'm coming from.

Here are some examples, again in brief, of how my "extreme free-market view" plays out with respect to particular issues. People have the right to control their own resources, so politicians should not force them to fund the health care of others. Voluntary charity is fine, but forced wealth transfers are not. People have the right to control their own property, so they should be left free to set smoking policy there. Company owners have the right to run their businesses and offer goods and services to willing customers, so businesses should not have to seek permission from the FTC or other bureaucracy to merge or otherwise operate. People own their homes, so local governments should not be able to take those homes away by force.

I realize that many of you have been trained since you could walk to compromise for the sake of compromise, reject any position that dares invoke a principle (except the "principle" that "there are not principles"), and always seek the centrist position, regardless of who defines the boundaries.

"Compromise." Even if you're compromising the good for the sake of the bad, the just for the sake of injustice?

"Be reasonable." But how can you reason apart from principles?

"Why go to extremes?" Do you wish to be moderate in pursuit of justice? Sanction the violation of only some rights?

A consistently or "extremely" free market means that individuals' rights are consistently protected, that people are free to control their own resources and associate voluntarily. The alternative is that some people control others by force.

I've written quite a lot more about political issues for the Colorado Freedom Report. For more about compromise, please see Ayn Rand's essay, "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" in The Virtue of Selfishness. See also Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which sees its fiftieth anniversary this month.

"Get the Hell Out of the Way"

October 14, 2007

In his October 12 article for The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction, Mike Saccone writes:

Dr. Jim Schroeder warned four members of a statewide health reform commission that over-involving government in doctor-patient relations could push a large number of physicians to leave the business.

"The role of government should be to get the hell out of the way and let the doctors meet with the patients," Schroeder said, his voice wavering with emotion.

Schroeder said any attempt from policymakers to expand existing government-managed health insurance programs or to create a single-payer, government-run health insurance program could allow the state to lower how much it pays physicians for their work.

"If you're not paid for what you're doing . . . you're not going to stay in the field," the local pediatric cardiologist said.

Schroeder's comments came as part of a Thursday evening forum the Senate Bill 208 Commission hosted in Grand Junction to receive feedback on its five possible health care reform proposals.

These meetings all seem to go about the same way. Those who seek "concentrated benefits" of government wealth transfers show up in large numbers, while those on whom the costs are dispersed mostly stay away. Yet, as I noted previously, Brian Schwartz spoke eloquently at one of the meetings of the hazards of government-controlled medicine. I was heartened to read Dr. Schroeder's comments. And Richard Watts tells me that he advocated liberty in medicine at a hearing in Craig.

Of course, the issue of payment discussed in the article is only one of many problems with government-run medicine. Medicaid and Medicare already pay doctors less than what services cost to provide. The bureaucracy and political meddling also induce especially the best doctors to leave the field. Political controls harm doctors as well as their patients, as both groups look to influence politicians and bureaucrats, rather than enter into voluntary, mutually beneficial relationships with each other.

Unfortunately, many who work in related fields are drawn by the siren song. Saccone continues:

Kristy Schmidt, director of community and consumer relations for the Marillac Clinic, said requirements for individuals to have their own health insurance are a good idea.

"Having everyone pay into the system will decrease costs for all," Schmidt said.

But Schmidt's statement is false. Forcing people to purchase health insurance violates their rights to control their own resources without addressing the underlying problems caused by existing political controls. Obviously, the point of the mandate is not to "decrease costs for all." The point is to force some people to subsidize others through insurance. Because politically-enforced insurance would act more like pre-paid medical care, it would encourage people to seek more care without regard for cost, thereby increasing average "costs for all," at least until price controls and rationing kicks in.

No, Dr. Schroeder offers the correct diagnosis and the correct remedy: "The role of government should be to get the hell out of the way and let the doctors meet with the patients."

Religious Right, Meet Religious Left

October 16, 2007

A few days ago, I wrote "that one eventual possibility is for the . . . religious right and religious left [to] grow closer together."

The future is now.

In his October 14 blog for the Rocky Mountain News, "Faith in the planet," M.E. Sprengelmeyer writes:

In American politics, we're used to hearing Republicans use the language of faith. And we're used to hearing Democrats talk tough on protecting the environment.

But this year, we're starting to notice candidates from both sides mixing the two, perhaps hoping that breaking that language barrier can win them cross-over support.

Sprengelmeyer offers quotes from two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.

Obama:

The Bible tells us that when God created the Earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that Earth—to exercise stewardship over His creation. . . . I don't believe that this separation [of church and state] means that we should leave our religion at the door before entering the public square.

Huckabee:

My faith is my life—it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.

The difference between the candidates is that Obama is losing out to a secularist, Hillary Clinton, who uses the language of religion strategically, while Huckabee is losing out to a dedicated religionist, Mitt Romney, who believes "we are a religious people." The left will rally behind Clinton, while the religious right is threatening to leave Giuliani at the altar should he manage to take the lead.

It is indeed interesting that, substantively, the quoted comments of Obama and Huckabee are identical. It is true that the religious left is more interested in expanding the welfare and environmentalist state, while the religious right is more interested in outlawing abortion and promoting religion through government. However, both sides care a lot more about attaining their pet goals than they do about stopping the religionists on the other side of the aisle. The tendency will be for both sides of the religious divide to "compromise" by tolerating the goals of the other side in order to promote their own agendas. Thus, it is not much of a surprise to see the religious right warming up to environmentalism or the religious left downplaying the separation of church and state. The religious right and the religious left are already united in their desire to use the force of government to advance their religious agendas.

Government Financing is Not "Private"

October 17, 2007

Here is yet another example of how advocates of individual rights and free markets must fight both "liberals" and "conservatives."

Diane Carman writes for the October 16 Denver Post:

For conservatives, the belief that private industry does everything better and at less cost than the evil government is the sacred 11th commandment of politics.

And, the debacle with Blackwater USA notwithstanding, there's no question that some jobs are done best by private contractors.

On that everyone can agree.

Trouble is, a whole back-slapping system of financial rewards has evolved to corrupt the process. . . .

Here in Colorado, private firms supply everything, even bus drivers and prisons. Former Gov. Bill Owens was a believer in the 11th commandment, so contracts for public services during his terms exploded.

One result was a $300 million computer system that never worked, Carman notes.

In Carman's world, then, you can either work directly for the government or indirectly for the government. If you work indirectly for the government, then that's "private" enterprise.

What's missing from this picture? Hmm. . . I know it's a toughie! How about the possibility of not working for the government at all?

Let's take the example of bus drivers. Is it true that bus drivers either have to work for the government directly or work for companies that contract with the government? Obviously not. The alternative is to get government out of the business of running busses and allow bussing companies to operate independently, with the ability to set their own rates and routes and compete on a free market.

Carman actually knows that it's possible not to work for the government—after all, she works for The Denver Post—yet she packages government contracting together with real free enterprise as "private." But a company that's paid by the government—i.e., by tax dollars taken forcibly from citizens—is not really "private" at all. A truly private enterprise earns its revenues from willing customers.

I'll take another example to drive home the point. Currently, book publishers decide which books to publish and then sell the books to readers who buy them. That's private enterprise. But what if the government published books? (In fact, the government publishes government reports already.) If the government pays a contractor to print and distribute books, is that "private" in the same sense? To take an extreme example, if the government taxed everyone at a rate of 100 percent, then hired contractors for every job, then, by Carman's reasoning, that would be an entirely "private" economy.

So it is rather important to maintain the distinction between a real free market—actual private enterprise—and government contracting, which relies on the forcible transfer of wealth.

Is there a legitimate role for government contracting? Yes—but only for tasks essential for the government to fulfill its job of protecting individual rights (which need not involve coercive taxation). For example, the government may properly hire contractors to build military equipment. However, when it comes to prisons, I think employees should work directly for the government, not for contractors, because of the perverse incentives created by indirect financing.

Carman makes another crucial mistake. She presumes that one must hold one of two views: either the government should finance bus drivers and all sorts of other occupations, or the government is "evil." What this leaves out is the view that government plays a crucial and essential role in protecting individual rights, but that government should be restricted to that role. The fact that government is not evil does not imply that government should restrict, compete with, or push out (actually) private enterprise.

Unfortunately, Carman draws her errors directly from the conservative movement. Conservatives often fail to distinguish between the proper and essential role of government and the misuse of governmental power. Conservatives usually endorse the forcible transfer of wealth, though for "conservative" aims. Conservatives also pretend that government contracting means the same thing as "private" enterprise.

Here's a recent example. A Colorado Republican release from October 16 states:

Leadership and members of House and Senate Republican caucuses gathered on the west steps of the Capitol today to unveil a comprehensive education package. . . .

Among the GOP proposals addressing those priorities: a uniform, statewide curriculum standard to graduate high school; a general proficiency exam before any student could graduate; a requirement to display English proficiency before a student could graduate, and a plan to reward and retain the best teachers through performance bonuses. . . .

Assistant Senate Republican Leader Nancy Spence . . . the ranking GOP member of the Senate Education Committee, showcased two of her education-reform bills at the conference. One of the bills would offer parents tuition assistance for special-needs children, and the other offered performance incentives to teachers.

She said that students with special needs are particularly vulnerable when their educational options are limited and that their parents ought to be able to choose a program, private or public, that addresses the unique challenges their children face.

There's that word "private" again, this time used by Republicans to mean government-financed schools for "students with special needs."

But what does a real "private" or free-market school look like? It does not accept any tax dollars. It earns its revenues from willing customers. It sets rates of tuition, perhaps including sliding scales to accommodate the poor, in cooperation with its customers. It might accept charitable donations or even (actually) private vouchers, meaning vouchers funded voluntarily, rather than through tax dollars.

But, with a few rare and quiet exceptions, conservatives will not endorse free markets in education. Government-run education is conservative orthodoxy. True, some conservatives want the government to control education via tax-funded vouchers, and they pretend that this is the same thing as "private" education, but this is merely a minor variation on the theme of government force.

Indeed, Colorado Republicans have proudly assumed the role of central planners. They want to micromanage every government-run school in the state. And why do government-run schools require such micromanagement? Because of the perverse incentives created by tax financing. Government-run schools face little incentive to serve their "customers." These Republicans have no problem with government-run schools; they just want the government to run the schools their way.

Here is another example. This evening, the El Pomar Foundation is hosting a talk with Thomas Krannawitter of Hillsdale College. Here's what Krannawitter has to say about government-run education:

In Ohio, as in the rest of America, taxpayers for years have poured billions of dollars into failing public schools. Dissatisfied with dismal results, the citizens of Cleveland decided to try something different. Parents would be given a voucher—tax dollars, that is—they could use to send their children to any school of their choice, public or private. By making choice available to more parents, schools would compete to attract students, providing a powerful incentive for all schools to strive for educational excellence. . . .

Contrary to the ACLU, the men who framed and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights rightly believed political freedom and good government require moral citizens capable of governing themselves. And they thought religion a powerful means of moral education that ought to be promoted by government.

Krannawitter confuses government-financed schools with "private" schools, thereby helping to obliterate the very idea of an actually "private," free-market school. He enthusiastically endorses tax-financed education. And he suggests that government should also spend tax dollars to promote religion.

The broader critique is that Krannawitter conflates religion and morality, when actually objective morality can only be derived independently of religion. Religion undermines morality. But that debate is too broad for this post. For now, I need merely point out that Krannawitter does not advocate the right to control one's own resources with respect to education or even religion; he believes the government should be in control.

The modern contest between "liberals" and "conservatives" is merely one to seize government control over our lives.

Religious Motivation: Reply to Jamelle Bouie

October 18, 2007

In reply to my post, "Religious Right, Meet Religious Left," Jamelle Bouie writes:

I'm not sure if you can equate religiously motivated politics with trying to "use the force of government to advance their religious agendas."

Having a theologically based political belief is no different then having a philosophically based one. So for example, there are Christians who believe that Jesus' admonitions about caring for the poor compel them to advocate—politically—on behalf of the poor.

They aren't necessarily trying to impose a religious belief, but their actions are motivated by said belief.

Bouie distinguishes between advocating a policy from religious motives and advocating a policy that advances religious doctrine. This can indeed be a useful distinction.

Here are some examples of advocating a policy from religious motives, when the policy itself does not explicitly promote a religious doctrine. Various Christians want to outlaw abortion, because they believe that abortion is forbidden by God's will, yet a law outlawing abortion need not explicitly mention any religious belief. Other Christians want to politically restrict the human emission of carbon dioxide, because they believe they have a religious duty to "save the earth" from such emissions, but those restrictions themselves do not necessarily promote Christian beliefs. Notably, many people who aren't Christians also want to politically restrict such emissions. Many theists want to forcibly redistribute wealth to the poor, because they believe such redistribution is demanded by their religious precepts, yet statutes enforcing such redistribution need not mention religion. Many atheists also advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor.

Here are some examples of "trying to impose a religious belief" in the sense of using politics to advance a religious doctrine. Many "conservatives" (as noted) want to divert tax funds to schools that teach particular religious doctrines. Many conservatives also want government-run schools to teach creationism as science. In times past, various countries have passed statutes requiring people to attend some particular church. In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition murdered people for expressing beliefs heretical to Christianity.

However, as useful as this distinction is, it does not accomplish what Bouie thinks it does. I am not concerned merely with criticizing instances of political force that advance particular religious doctrines. I am also concerned with criticizing those who would "use the force of government to advance their religious agendas" in the broader sense. For example, I oppose the outlawing of abortion because it involves the illegitimate use of governmental force. In other words, I oppose the (initiatory) use of governmental force across the board, not merely when that use of force advances some particular religious doctrine.

Those who wish to outlaw abortion are indeed "trying to impose a religious belief" in the sense that matters. No, those who want to outlaw abortion are not trying to force me to say, "I accept that God forbids abortion," but they are trying to interfere with the liberty of my wife and me to control our own lives. (As a side note, it turns out that my wife and I have discovered this wonderful invention called "birth control," but we would not rule out an abortion if, for example, a pregnancy threatened the life of my wife. Of course, some Christians also want to outlaw birth control.)

In other cases, bad policies can be motivated by religious or secular ideologies. In such cases, does it really matter what the motivation is? Yes, it does, for two reasons. First, a full refutation of the case behind the policy is impossible without an understanding of what's motivating the policy. A Christian and a Marxist might both advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor, but they'll have different reasons for doing so (even though I agree with Leonard Peikoff that leftist collectivism is basically derived or borrowed from religious collectivism). Second, one cannot assess the potential cultural power of a particular policy proposal without knowing what's motivating it. For example, in his June 12 post, Peikoff argues that the "anti-industrial Greens" will have "short-lived" success, but that religion is capable of much stronger and longer-lasting cultural influence.

As a side note, I strongly discourage writers from using the construction "advocate on" or "advocate for." What does it mean to "advocate on behalf of the poor?" Advocate what? It is possible to advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor. It is possible to advocate Policy X. Let us stop this empty "advocating for" positions that are never specified. I oppose this egalitarianism of advocacy, this presumption that all forms of advocacy are created equal, regardless of what is being advocated. If you have the guts to advocate a particular policy or idea, then have the guts to name that policy or idea.

Belching Cows and Global Warming

October 18, 2007

The temperature fluctuates every day and every season by dozens of degrees. Average temperature has fluctuated many times between ice ages and warming trends over hundreds of thousands of years.

If humans continue their current emissions of greenhouse gasses, the temperature of the earth might increase by a few degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If humans destroy their modern industrial society and revert to barbarism, the temperature of the earth might increase by a few degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Is it conceivable that environmentalists are using global warming as a pretext to denigrate industrial society and socialize vast tracts of the economy? Rousseau managed to condemn technological achievements and promote statism even before industrialization really took off. If it were not for global warming, would environmentalists advocate free markets and praise industrial society, or would they continue to advocate political controls and reduced human use of resources?

Yet people can most effectively deal with changes of weather and other problems when they are free to innovate within a free market—i.e., within the context of private property rights, voluntary association, and economic liberty. The environmentalist "solution," to put politicians and bureaucrats in control of more of the economy, will waste vast resources and slow the rate of technological innovation. (Gus Van Horn discusses this issue.)

Keith Lockitch explains why some environmentalists blast even "green consumerism:" "the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched—to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes."

In his October 16 column for the Rocky Mountain News, [dead link: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/onpoint/archives/2007/10/carroll_dont_have_a_cow_man.html] Vincent Carroll discusses the latest environmentalist attack on human activity:

When an ultra-establishment voice such as the Los Angeles Times devotes a 1,600-word editorial to the perils of "Killer cow emissions," not as parody but as serious analysis, you know that concern over porterhouse steaks has elbowed its way into the mainstream.

After noting that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide, according to the U.N.—more than all the planes, trains and automobiles on the planet," the Times slogs through a variety of tactics that might reduce the impact of the methane gas that cattle produce (mostly through belching). It then concludes, however, that none of these measures would be enough.

The only alternative: "eating less meat." As a result, "the government should not only get out of the business of promoting unhealthful and environmentally destructive foods, it should be actively discouraging them."

Let's be clear what the Times is saying: The government should actively discourage eating beef in order to combat global warming.

The Times's October 15 editorial is worth quoting at greater length:

It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence. . . .

Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon dioxide, the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources—fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. . . . [I]t's estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day.

Now, I do agree that possible subsidies of beef production should be eliminated. And I'm fine with voluntary efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases through new technology.

But when environmentalists advocate expansive political controls of cows, they risk making themselves laughingstocks. I have no doubt that some environmentalists will continue to push the anti-cow line, though, in part because it fits so beautifully with the animal-rights agenda.

The environmentalist movement wants to tightly control human activity and reduce human energy use. The shame is that, if environmentalists are successful, they will destroy the market dynamism that would otherwise enable the rapid development of technology. In a truly free market, people would be free to produce and trade unshackled by government controls, capable of dramatic advances in energy production (and other fields) well before the year 2100. Does anyone really believe that politicians, bureaucrats, and political moochers are the ones capable of directing technological revolutions? But the path of liberty would enable people to use dramatically more energy and exploit many more resources (eventually off-world as well), and environmentalists can't have that.

Comment by Burgess Laughlin: "I have no doubt that some environmentalists will continue to push the anti-cow line, though, in part because it fits so beautifully with the animal-rights agenda." As well as the agenda of the "vegan" movement, the movement of individuals who want to rely only on plants—and never on animals—for all of their food, clothing, and other supplies. This means hemp sandals, as well as no foods drawn from animals, including dairy products. For strictly medical reasons (www.aristotleadventure.com/anti-itis/), I eat no animal products at all. In medical discussion sites, I have to defend myself against the unwanted welcome I receive from vegans. To the extent that Environmentalism is a religion for some individuals in the environmentalist movement, veganism is a sort of monastic offshoot wherein virtue arises from abstinence.

The ecology, so to speak, of aberrant ideologies is fascinating. Like real life-forms, they mutate and adapt to every niche in the (cultural) landscape. Their relationships are often symbiotic, even while they contend for a place in the sun.

Beauprez Battles Liberty in Medicine

October 19, 2007

Conservatives routinely use the rhetoric of free markets, free enterprise, liberty, and choice to impose political controls.

Bob Beauprez, the conservative whose campaign for governor self-destructed last year, published a new article this week titled, "Health Care Reform - The Battle is Joined." Not surprisingly, Beauprez has joined the wrong side.

First comes the rhetoric:

By some estimates as much as 30% of health care cost is administrative overhead, so undoubtedly savings could be realized by streamlining and consolidating paper work. But, where did all this paper work and regulation come from? Right! From the government with a big assist from trial lawyers hungry for a lawsuit. Do you think doctors and hospitals intentionally create more paper work for themselves?

And, now how do they propose to fix it? With more government! Remember that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Either they are crazy, or they believe we are to believe this stuff.

Then come the controls:

Required coverage: I reluctantly come to the conclusion that just as motorists are required to have auto insurance, and lenders require homeowners insurance, citizens should have to have health insurance.

My dad and I describe the basic problems with mandated health insurance in a recent column. In brief, such mandates violate the individual's right to control his or her own life and resources, put politicians in (greater) control of our insurance policies, and fail to fix the underlying problems that are caused by existing political controls.

Beauprez's many confusions and distortions call for a more detailed reply.

Beauprez's comparisons to auto insurance and homeowners insurance do not hold. The reason that "motorists are required to have auto insurance" if they wish to use government-run roads (even though many do not obey that law) is that the roads are socialized. It is telling that Beauprez holds up a socialized industry as the standard for medicine. Yet people are not forced to buy auto insurance if they do not use government-run roads. Beauprez wants to force everyone to buy health insurance.

If a lender requires the borrower to purchase homeowners insurance as a condition of the loan, that is properly a matter of voluntary contract, not political controls. But Beauprez is not talking about any sort of voluntary agreement with respect to health insurance: he is talking about legislating new political controls that force everyone to buy health insurance.

Beauprez continues:

Of the 15-17% of the population that is uninsured, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 56% are 18-34 year old young adults. It is impossible to know for certain, but many of these are no doubt uninsured by choice. Believing they are either permanently healthy, bullet proof, or both, they choose to spend their money on other things than health insurance. If they do get really sick or injured they know that they can go to any emergency room and get treatment whether they can pay or not because of federal law known as Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Some are certainly uninsured because they cannot afford the cost of insurance, but most could afford at least a portion of a monthly premium.

The reality is that when someone doesn't have insurance the cost of their health care is shifted to those that do in higher premiums, and to taxpayers who fund government programs. Cost shifting from the growing number of uninsured to the insured is a huge reality. The biggest challenge hospitals face is to adjust prices to insurance companies for paying customers to cover losses for services to non-paying uninsured patients they are required by law to treat. That invariably is reflected in higher insurance premiums.

It is simply not true that "when someone doesn't have insurance the cost of their health care is shifted to those that do in higher premiums, and to taxpayers who fund government programs."

Beauprez insults my wife and me, who were uninsured for several years. During that time, we paid for routine medical care out of pocket. Not once did we ask any other party to pay for our medical care. Yet Beauprez unjustly insinuates that we were freeloaders.

Why were we uninsured? Was it because, as Beauprez claims, we thought we "are either permanently healthy, bullet proof, or both?" No, Bob, it was not because we were stupid or deluded. I don't need some failed politician to inform me of my motives, thank you very much.

The reason that we chose not to purchase health insurance at that time was that employer-paid insurance was a horrible deal for us. Because of government controls, such insurance acts to transfer wealth away from healthier workers to those with higher costs. We were having a hard enough time paying bills without financing other people's health care to boot.

We made a calculated decision not to purchase health insurance. We looked at our realistic health risks given our age and state of health, took steps to independently maintain our health, planned to buy health care out of pocket, and considered how to handle possible (but unlikely) high-cost treatments.

In other words, our motive was the exact opposite of what Beauprez alleges. We were not trying to push our health-care costs onto others. Instead, we were paying our own way while refusing to finance the health care of others.

Here's how politicians have turned employer-paid insurance into a wealth-transfer scheme. Politicians have entrenched high-cost, non-portable, employer-paid health insurance through federal tax distortions. Because of the tax distortion, such insurance serves as pre-paid medical care, not actual insurance to cover unexpected, high-cost treatment. Our hope with term life insurance, auto insurance, and home insurance is to never need to make a claim. We happily pay our routine auto and home expenses out of pocket. Why, then, do most people expect health insurance to cover all or nearly all of their health costs? It is because of the tax distortion. That's fundamentally why health insurance is so bloody expensive.

And, of course, when practically every purchase of medical care goes through insurance, that adds a lot of processing costs.

When insurance acts as pre-paid medicine, it transfers wealth to insurance companies and to those who often visit the doctor (whether the visits are needed or not). It costs everyone who visits the doctor only occasionally.

Politicians have also required that employer-paid insurance accept all comers, regardless of health, within tightly controlled rates. That's the equivalent of forcing a life-insurance company to charge the same rate for the same policy for a healthy 25 year old and an 80 year old with cancer. What happens is that some people put off buying insurance until they get sick. This increases the rates for everyone (as Beauprez suggests).

In addition, politicians have added all sorts of additional controls that act to transfer health-insurance dollars to members of special interests. In a comment beneath Beauprez's article, Brian T. Schwartz writes:

The rationale for compulsory insurance is the "cost shift from uncompensated care" provided to the under- and uninsured, "which makes private insurance more expensive."

Yet, Health Affairs reports that such uncompensated care is "only 2.8 percent of total personal health care spending." . . .

Indeed, politicians have already succumbed to special interests by forcing insurance plans to cover many benefits that you may not need. These mandated benefits laws increase your premiums by 21 to 54 percent. (Council for Affordable Health Insurance, www.tinyurl.com/32ozs6)

So is the result of mandated health insurance to reduce "cost shifting?" On one hand, some people who would otherwise shift their costs onto others would be forced to instead purchase insurance. (However, those most likely to shift their costs onto others are also the ones most likely to avoid the mandate.) But on the other hand, insurance mandates increase "cost shifting" by forcing those with low medical costs to subsidize those with high medical costs. Notably, if some people pay only "a portion of a monthly premium," as Beauprez suggests, then that means somebody else must pick up the rest of the tab.

One result it to screw young, working families, at the very point in their lives when they're trying to pay off debts, keep up on bills, start families, and buy homes.

The only just way to reduce "cost shifting" is to remove the political controls that cause it. Beauprez's plan is to "solve" the cost-shifting caused by political controls by adding new political controls that will expand cost-shifting.

Beauprez also claims, "Insured are far more likely to avail themselves of preventative care, get treatment earlier, and avoid serious acuity and expense."

Beauprez's claim is false. When my wife and I were uninsured, we knew that if we didn't take care of ourselves, we'd face higher expenses down the road. We made sure that we ate healthy foods, exercised, avoided unnecessary risks, and checked up on our health. Now that we have high-deductible insurance that we hope never to need, our incentives are basically the same. On the other hand, when people are "insured" for everything, they have less incentive to minimize their long-term health costs.

Again, the problem is political force that allows the uninsured to demand medical care at the expense of others. The proper solution is to repeal those controls, not impose new controls that force people to buy insurance.

Some of Beauprez's proposals (none of which are original to him) are fine, such as reducing the tax distortion that has entrenched employer-paid insurance. But his call for mandatory health insurance overwhelms anything positive he might have to say. "Both Ways Bob" simply does not understand the nature of individual rights, the meaning of free markets, or the proper purpose of government.

It is typical for such conservatives as Beauprez to follow a call for more political force, more state interference in the market, with a sentence like this:

"Any objective observer with even minimal experience with our free market system understands that private competition with limited government interference works."

Dr. Pritchett on Freedom

October 21, 2007

Inspired by the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, I decided to read the great novel again. I'm nearly a third of the way through. The novel is a magnificent accomplishment—and it's as though I'm reading it for the first time. The first third focusses on the characters of Dagny Taggart, the great railroad executive; Hank Rearden, the steel producer; and Francisco d'Anconia, the copper owner who has apparently fallen to depravity. The dramatic tension, as when Dagny and Hank meet at a party or celebrate an accomplishment, is gripping.

I thought that I would include a few quotes on this web page. They're not necessarily the most central quotes; they're just what happen to grab me. Here's what Dr. Pritchett has to say about the Equalization of Opportunity Bill, which forces business owners to sell off all but one enterprise:

But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free. (page 129)

Ridiculous? Nobody would ever actually say that? But my previous entry quotes just such a statement.

Harry Potter's Success

October 21, 2007

The Harry Potter books have been phenomenally successful. CNN reports, "The last installment of the Harry Potter series sold a record-breaking 11.5 million copies in the U.S. in the first 10 days on sale. . . . To date, more than 350 million copies of the seven books in the Harry Potter series have been sold worldwide."

And Potter is very much an international phenomenon. The Guardian reports:

Publisher Bloomsbury [of Britain] revealed [on September 18, 2007] that its English-language version of the boy wizard's final tale has sold as many copies overseas as in the UK. In Germany alone [one million] copies were sold in the last month. Pre-orders in China were more than 200% higher than those of the previous book. . . . [T]he untranslated Harry Potters have seen huge demand from impatient fans who want the books as soon as they come out.

The books have sold so well in part because they are very well written fantasy stories with richly drawn characters. Even though Harry and his friends can do amazing things, it's easy to imagine living in their world while reading the books. But part of the reason the books have sold so well is that Rowling presents a strong moral message of courage and strong character that children are obviously hungry for.

Rowling's sales figures are indeed impressive. By way of comparison, Ayn Rand wrote some of the most influential novels of the 20th Century. Yet, according to a biography from 1995, "Every book by Ayn Rand published in her lifetime is still in print, and hundreds of thousands of copies are sold each year, so far totalling more than twenty million." Even assuming robust sales since then, Rand's books have sold less than ten percent the numbers of Rowling's books. (No doubt sales of Atlas Shrugged will get a boost when and if the movie ever reaches the screen.)

But numbers don't mean that much. What will be the lasting cultural influence of, for example, The Da Vinci Code? The reason that Rand's books have had such influence is that they present in dramatic form philosophic ideas of profound personal importance to the reader. The Harry Potter books present some important ideas, but they are not as profound, as original, or as integrated into the story.

The main reason that Rowling has had and will continue to have such profound cultural influence is that she is reaching millions of children when they are first exploring ideas and first thinking about moral choices. Harry and his best friends belong to the school house of Gryffindor, the house of the brave, and Rowling presents an inspiring image of moral courage. (I'll have more to say about Rowling's themes at a later time.)

But perhaps the best thing about Rowling's books is that they have encouraged children to grapple with a complex story and difficult themes. The children who have graduated from those books will be prepared to read—and eager to find—other great and inspiring works of literature, such as Rand's novels.

Commend by Valda Redfern: CDATA[You're undoubtedly right that part of the appeal of the HP books lies in their "moral message of courage and strong character" - but it's not just children who devour the message. Everyone who's read it remembers the line in one of the books about how its our choices that make us what we are, not our circumstances. I think another reason that these children's books are also enormously popular with adults is that we're all starving: there is almost no other popular fiction out there featuring entirely virtuous and truly heroic characters.

Return to Civility

October 22, 2007

I have no problem with knock-down, drag-out debate. But the key word is debate, which implies arguments invoking reason and evidence. For example, I let Bob Beauprez have it over his endorsement of health-insurance mandates. And I make a strong case against mandates. I don't even mind some good, old fashioned name-calling, so long as the name has some plausible justification given the evidence presented. For instance, I suggested that some of the arguments of animal rights groups are dishonest, but only after I subjected those arguments to a lengthy critique that demonstrates my conclusion.

But too many people, especially in comments on blogs, are just nasty, without any justification. (That's why I allow only moderated comments on my web pages.)

Consider the following e-mail that I received on October 21. It's not worth quoting, except to offer an example of the sort of comments not worth quoting. Crandallsaz**ATSIGN**msn**DOT**com writes regarding a 7News piece featuring my wife and me:

I am so sick of people going on t.v. and saying, "It's not enough, we cant live off food stamps".

It was NEVER intended to be the full budget for any family. Food Stamps is intended to HELP pay for groceries, not pay for ALL groceries. It is a subsidy.

On the other hand, I just saw the piece on 7 News, and I don't believe for a second that those two lived on their claimed budget. We don't get food stamps, and follow the ads & coupons carefully, never even considering buying higher end things like steak, etc. and there is no way in hell a couple could live off of less than $200 per month. I consider that claim a bold-faced lie. And one more thing, what an IDIOTIC statement that was, to eliminate food stamps all together and rely on hand outs. That moronic idiot needs to spend 12 months working at Social Services to get a grip of reality. That little man is FAR out of touch with reality. Like a spoiled child.

Brian in Evans.

I replied:

You are quite mistaken, and your rudeness is uncalled for.

You can see every single food receipt, and an itemized list of all food items purchased, for the month of August, at the following web page. http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/08/challenge.html

Please do not write to me again unless you can communicate civilly.

Thank you,
Ari Armstrong

Brian in Evans replied, "You are an ARROGANT IDIOT. You're Arrogance is sickening."

So, after calling me a liar without a shred of evidence, and after receiving from me overwhelming proof of the veracity of my claims, Brian accuses me of sickening arrogance. I mean, come on.

Unfortunately, gratuitous rudeness is not restricted to e-mails and blog commentary. Here are some choice quotes from Doug Giles from his recent column at Townhall.com:

How to Shut Up an Atheist if You Must
By Doug Giles
Saturday, October 20, 2007

. . . Suck, for you thick atheists, is a slang word which means to make or to be really, really crappy (kind of like how our culture becomes anytime you guys mess with it). . . .

. . . prissy anti-Christs. . . pissy God haters. . . no-God numb nuts. . . comfortable and cocky atheist. . .

[E]verywhere I go and speak—be it in conferences, on the radio, on television or in print—I'm going to encourage the tens of thousands of Christians I address that every time and everywhere they get crapped on by an atheist with unfounded arguments to open their mouths and slam dance them with facts found in these two new brilliant books from Regnery [by Dinesh D'Souza and Robert Hutchinson].

Yes, I can feel the love of Christ descend upon me through the words of Doug Giles.

At least Giles does offer some arguments presented by others. (They aren't very good arguments, but that's a subject of another post.) For Giles, though, these arguments become weapons of propaganda, intended not to win an honest and spirited debate, but to "shut up" the other side.

Leonard Peikoff's Podcast

October 22, 2007

Outstanding! Leonard Peikoff has just released his first podcast. He says he'll produce a new one every week or two. He does an excellent job answering difficult questions in a way accessible to a general audience. In his first podcast, he answers four questions sent to him via e-mail (in my wording):

1. Is "non-initiation of force" the main ethical principle?

2. What should one do if one's relatives are upset about one's atheism?

3. What is the theme of mystery and adventure novels?

4. Do religions as such tend to become militant? How should a country defend itself against terrorist states where good people live?

Baseball Brings "External Malicious Attack" and Scalping

October 23, 2007

Never mind the fact that "all of California is burning." We have real problems in Colorado: we can't buy World Series tickets!

(Seriously, I offer my deepest sympathies to Californians who have lost property in the fires.)

Here's the extraordinary story, as told by 9News:

The Colorado Rockies say tickets for the World Series will again be sold online starting Tuesday at noon after an attack brought down the Web site on Monday.

Rockies Spokesperson Jay Alves said on Monday night that ColoradoRockies.com was the victim of an "external malicious attack" that caused a system-wide outage with Paciolan.

Paciolan is Major League Baseball's ticket vendor. The outage impacted all of its North American customers.

The Rockies suspended the sale of tickets on Monday after noon because of the system outage. . . .

The Rockies initially said the system went down because of the heavy traffic to the Web site. They said there were 8.5 million hits on the Rockies Web site after the tickets went on sale.

I was one of the people unable to purchase tickets at 10:00 a.m. on Monday.

But talk about some bitter fans! Sheesh! I read some of the stories in the papers and listened to some of the comments on the radio. More than a few people were outraged.

We might draw a couple lessons from this incident.

First, look at the context. The Colorado Rockies—whom a roommate of mine once mocked as the "Rookies"—are in the World Series! Even if you are forced to watch it on a big-screen TV with surround sound while sitting on a couch drinking beer and eating pizza, which, admittedly, is a sorrowful existence, it's still pretty darn cool.

Second, be a little slower to cast blame. I assume the Rockies have good evidence about an "external malicious attack," given that they've announced it to the media. So it turns out not to be the fault of the Rockies or of Paciolan. Indeed, the story could get even more interesting if legal action is pursued against the attacker.

That said, I do like the idea of an on-line lottery. The problem with physical lines is that they waste time. A lottery would be easy to enter and easy to decide, and it would give everybody a fair shake. Next time the Rockies get to the World Series, I'm sure the organization will consider such alternatives.

But isn't it strange that a large percentage of the final ticket sales will go to scalpers? The baseball teams have created this value, yet millions of dollars will go into the pockets of ticket redistributers. Moreover, the process of redistributing tickets costs additional time, which could otherwise be spent in other work. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against scalpers, given the current system of ticketing. But why is that system set up to benefit scalpers?

If the Rockies sold tickets for what scalpers will eventually get for many of them, the Rockies would be accused of greed. So, apparently, it's less greedy to knowingly redistribute millions of dollars to scalpers. (I assume that ticket prices are in some way regulated by Major League Baseball.) But, if the Rockies wanted to price out scalpers without seeming "greedy," there's another solution: they could sell tickets at market value and donate the "excess" proceeds to charity.

What about the fans who "deserve" to buy cheap tickets? The Rockies have already made tickets available to season ticket holders, so those fans are taken care of. But the Rockies could also, for example, hold a "spirit contest" to make true fans show their dedication before they're allowed to buy less-expensive tickets. Or they could donate tickets to hard cases.

Offhand, though, I can think of no reason why baseball clubs should not simply sell tickets at their market value, and keep the proceeds. If they wanted, clubs could literally auction every single ticket, sort of like ebay (with unsold tickets available at gametime for the minimum price). But baseball involves many complex relationships between clubs, players, and fans that I do not pretend to understand.

CU's Brown Offends with "Ghetto" Remark

October 24, 2007

Republicans support more tax spending. Republicans support political control of education. They brag about it.

We begin with a very strange article from the Associated Press (dated October 19 [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5726961,00.html]:

CU President Hank Brown warned today that the way the state allocates college and university funding could "ghettoize" some programs, upsetting the only black member of the Higher Education Commission.

Brown said inadequate funding for expensive research institutions like CU could mean that only rich families and low-income students who qualify for grants and scholarships can afford them.

"You ghettoize them in effect, because you make it impossible for middle-income kids to make it," Brown told the commission. . . .

Brown's spokesman, Ken McConnellogue, said Brown was referring to the middle class students who were left out and not the low-income students who were left in the programs.

Offensive indeed!

Unfortunately, the AP article never explains why Brown's remark might be offensive. The article intimates that Jim Stewart, "the only black member" of the Commission, took offense because the term "ghettoize" is somehow offensive to blacks. But that's ridiculous.

The word "ghetto" was around long before it was used to describe poor black neighborhoods. The top definition from Oxford's dictionary says, "The quarter in a city, chiefly in Italy, to which the Jews were restricted." Maybe we can check to see whether there were any Jews on the Commission who also took offense. The second definition includes the generic meaning, "an area, etc., occupied by an isolated group; an isolated or segregated group, community, or area." As a verb, "ghetto" means, "To put or keep (people) in a ghetto." Obviously, Brown meant that he doesn't want to see middle-income students kept out of better schools. It has nothing to do with race.

Brown's comment is actually offensive because it's not true that "you make it impossible for middle-income kids to make it" by failing to increase tax subsidies. Middle-income students, and not only poor students, can qualify for grants and scholarships. They can also save their own money, work part time and attend school part time, ask their parents for money, and/or take out loans.

The people who should be offended are those of middle incomes who believe they can make it without government handouts. (It would help, of course, if such large portions of their paychecks weren't forcibly taken from them in order to subsidize still others.)

In theory, a college education is valuable to the student. If that's not the case, then there's no point in attending college. If it is the case, then there's no reason why the student shouldn't pay for it. Indeed, there's no reason why the government should play any role whatsoever.

It is possible, of course, that uneven tax subsidies make some programs artificially appealing to some students. But then the proper solution is not to increase select subsidies, it is to eliminate all the subsidies.

But it is no surprise that Brown, a former Republican Senator (and my one-time boss) endorses tax subsidies for education; i.e., forcing some people to pay for the education of other people.

Seriously, Republicans love spending taxes. It's like they're in their own little tax-spending ghetto. Consider an October 23 release from Colorado Republicans, titled, "GOP to bolster higher ed with more funding, greater accountability." Republicans wish to "establish a reliable funding stream for higher ed by drawing on surging revenue from oil and gas development." The money comes from leasing fees, "mineral royalties and state and local energy taxes." Because Republicans see that money as theirs to spend by right, never mind what the people who produce the wealth might think about it.

Republican Mike May says, "We are using a carrot-and-stick approach" toward colleges. The carrot is other people's money, taken from them by force. The stick is legislative control.

Yet how many students simultaneously bitch about "academic freedom" and too little state funding? What politicians fund, politicians control. Real academic freedom means getting politicians out of the education business. And that means getting politicians out of the business of funding education with other people's money.

D'Anconia Warns Against Repression

October 25, 2007

Recently I read Francisco d'Anconia's monumental speech about the virtue of money in Atlas Shrugged (pages 387-391 in my Signet 35th Anniversary Edition). In answer to someone who quips that "money is the root of all evil," d'Anconia argues that the root of money is production, and the root of production is the reasoning mind. It is a speech well worth perusing, and it is often discussed.

On this reading, I was equally struck by the discussion that d'Anconia holds with Hank Rearden immediately after the speech. I have heard the claim that Atlas Shrugged encourages emotional repression. However, Ayn Rand presents some of her heros as emotionally repressed precisely to point out why that's a problem. Rearden mentions some "fool woman." D'Anconia replies:

That woman and all those like her keep evading the thoughts which they know to be good. You keep pushing out of your mind the thoughts which you believe to be evil. They do it, because they want to avoid effort. You do it, because you won't permit yourself to consider anything that would spare you. They indulge their emotions at any cost. You sacrifice your emotions as the first cost of any problem. They are willing to bear nothing. You are willing to bear anything. They keep evading responsibility. You keep assuming it. But don't you see that the essential error is the same? Any refusal to recognize reality, for any reason whatever, has disastrous consequences. There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think. Don't ignore your own desires, Mr. Rearden. Don't sacrifice them. Examine their cause. There is a limit to how much you should have to bear. (page 394)

So, Rand points out, emotionalism, letting one's emotions guide one's life without rational oversight, stems from essentially the same error as emotional repression. That error is evasion, the pushing out of one's mind relevant knowledge or questions. Because Rearden tends to evade certain types of facts, he becomes emotionally repressed. This leads him to actively help those who are trying to tear him down and to damn his own desire for romantic sex. In presenting emotional repression in certain characters, Rand is exploring the roots of such repression so that it can be overcome.

Reader Comment: Yes. From Rand's article on stamp collecting, one can read between the lines to see that she did not ask "should I feel this way?" as her starting point, but rather "why do I feel this way?" Assuming a (vital) bedrock of self-esteem, and intellectual honesty, one can then approach one's positive feelings by tentatively assuming something is right about the subject of one's feeling, and trying to ferret out the nature of the values in more precise conceptual terms; the opposite with negative ones. The contrary policy—like Rearden's—is to start by doubting the rightness of one's feelings.

Investment by Force

October 26, 2007

Americans don't save very much. According to a 2006 article, "The number-crunching folks at the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis dished out some discouraging news recently, saying that Americans spent more than they earned in 2005—a negative savings rate of 0.5 percent for the year. That's the first time that's happened since the Great Depression."

Hmm. . . Why might that be? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the federal government lops off 15 percent of every single paycheck? And that's before income tax, property tax, and state and local taxes. I once saw a documentary about African tribes that keep cattle, not for the milk or the beef, but for the blood. They stick bamboo shoots into the cows' neck arteries for a warm drink. The payroll and other taxes are the bamboo shoots in the necks of American workers. My wife and I are "saving," but only in the sense that we're climbing our way out of debt. We would have had a positive net worth years ago but for the fact that our life's blood—our labor—is siphoned off to feed the welfare state. And the only reason we've been able to make progress is that we've put off having children, purchased a tiny condo rather than a house, and kept our spending low. It's hard to save when so much of our labor is lost to taxation.

Our society punishes the responsible in order to reward the irresponsible, taxes productive effort in order to subsidize vice. What's the point of saving when your welfare check is proportional to your irresponsibility? If you earn less, save less, learn less, waste more, and have more children you can't afford, you get more welfare. And what's the point of saving for old age when the federal government promises to continually transfer ever more wealth from workers to the retired?

Hillary Clinton's answer to the deep social pathologies generated by the welfare state is, of course, to expand the welfare state. An October 9 article from The New York Times reports:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York unveiled the second biggest domestic policy idea of her Democratic presidential campaign today, proposing to spend $20 billion to $25 billion a year to create 401(k)-style retirement accounts for all Americans and provide federal matching money of up to $1,000 to middle-income people.

Under the plan, the government would give a dollar-to-dollar match for the first $1,000 saved by Americans who earn up to $60,000 annually. For those who earn $60,000 to $100,000, the government would provide a 50 percent match, or $500 for the first $1,000 saved.

Mrs. Clinton said she would pay for the program by freezing the estate tax at its 2009 level of $7 million per couple. A campaign analysis of the plan said that the freeze would affect about 10,000 of "the wealthiest estates" in the United States and provide a new retirement savings systems for an estimated tens of millions of families. . . .

As with her biggest policy plan for universal health insurance, Mrs. Clinton cast her savings proposal in terms of choice. . . .

Reduce the payroll tax on working Americans? Not a chance. Instead, Hillary wants to forcibly take more wealth away from the people who earned it in order to give it to others who did not earn it. But this is not just a straight subsidy: it is meant to "encourage" people to do what federal politicians know is best for them. It is social engineering.

Where might Hillary have picked up such an outlandish, unjust, and anti-American idea?

Donald Lambro complains for the conservative TownHall.com: "The lure of a refundable federal tax credit from general revenues is a government subsidy, pure and simple. The worker who receives it doesn't have to work for that matching money in order to save it."

Yet Lambro continues: "President Bush offered a bipartisan plan to provide private-investment accounts that would let workers invest a small percentage of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds and build wealth." Never mind the fact that this does nothing to address the spending side, at least for several decades.

When did we get to the point when the alleged opponents of subsidies for savings are talking about the federal government "letting" workers invest their own money? You're going to "let" my wife and me save some small portion of the money that we earned? Gee, thanks.

The simple fact is that Republicans, conservatives, and the Cato Institute are the ones who long advocated the idea of using federal force to socially engineer more "private" (read, government-controlled) investment. Hillary's plan is merely a variation of the conservative plan.

Thankfully, at least some people are actually talking about restoring economic liberty by reducing the payroll tax. Yaron Brook said in a recent press release from the Ayn Rand Institute:

The basic principle behind Social Security is that individuals have a right to unearned retirement income. To pay for these unearned benefits, the government seizes money from workers and transfers it to the elderly. This is a perverse injustice. Why should a twenty year old who is struggling to make ends meet have to finance someone else's retirement? Why is it parasitical for a young person to live on the dole, but an inalienable right if he waits until he's 65? Why should those who conscientiously save for retirement be forced to sacrifice a chunk of their income to support those who were not as responsible?

There is no such thing as a 'right' to someone else's labor or money. The 'needs' of the elderly do not justify turning the young into part-time slaves. Instead of looking for ways to save Social Security, we should be designing a plan to phase it out entirely.

Some claim that without Social Security the streets would be lined with senior citizens unable to pay for their homes or their food. But this fantasy ignores the fact that, before Social Security, there was no epidemic of starving old people. Individuals planned and saved for their own retirement. Those few who genuinely couldn't support themselves relied on their families and on private charity—they did not demand the government reach into other people's pockets to provide them with goodies.

We don't need the federal government to "encourage," subsidize, force, or micromanage our investments. We need the federal government to leave us the hell alone so that we can invest our own money as we see fit.

Ayn Rand Lexicon Online

October 27, 2007

This is spectacular! The Ayn Rand Institute just announced that the Ayn Rand Lexicon is now available online, appropriately enough at AynRandLexicon.com. You can search by key words or explore the alphabetical listing. So, if you ever wanted to know what Rand thought about something, this may well give you the answer.

Just for fun, I clicked on a topic at random. I came up with "Isolationism." Rand describes one "view of foreign policy which is wrecking the United States to this day: the suicidal view that our foreign policy must be guided, not by considerations of national self-interest, but by concern for the interests and welfare of the world, that is, of all countries except our own." Her description continues to hold for the foreign policy of the United States.

DeVotchKa!

October 28, 2007

On Saturday night, my wife and I went with some friends to DeVotchka's Halloween concert in Denver. Amazing. The show opened with a Day of the Dead procession. After some opening music, giant ribbons descended from the ceiling, and three women climbed them to perform acrobatic dance routines. Most people were dressed in stylish costumes. And the music was up to DeVotchKa's usual standards. The band, filled out by three extra strings and another trumpet player, in addition to the four core members, alternated between the group's sorrowful tunes and heavier beats. They started playing around 10:00 p.m., and the next thing I knew it was after midnight.

We became fans with the album SuperMelodrama, though I like the next albums, Una Volta and How it Ends, even more. You can sample the band's music at its web page or through iTunes. One of my personal favorites is "The enemy guns" from How it Ends.

"Plan Five" from the 208 Commission

October 28, 2007

The Rocky Mountain News is rightly skeptical about the "208" Healthcare Commission's plan to "reform" health care by expanding government control of it. The News writes in an October 28 editorial [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_5733471,00.html]:

Is the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform going to lay an egg in January, when by law it must offer its recommendations to the legislature?

It's too early to say, but prospects for the commission's success dimmed somewhat the other day when the price tag was announced for the panel's own proposal—we'll call it Plan Five because the commission will submit four others, too, written by outside groups.

Plan Five's cost: between $1.4 billion and $2.1 billion a year, according to the Virginia-based Lewin Group.

The News continues to explain why such a hefty tax hike is unlikely in Colorado.

I particularly like the title, "Plan Five." For some reason, it reminded me of Plan 9 from Outer Space. The comparison is doubly fitting, because the movie is about the goofy plans of extraterrestrials, and the movie is one of the worst ones ever made. But at least it's funny. Not so with "Plan Five" from the 208 Commission.

Thanks, Rockies!

October 29, 2007

The bad news is that the Colorado Rockies got swept in the World Series. The good news is that they made it to the World Series! Who'd have predicted that during the regular season? Moreover, two of the games were very competitive, with the Red Sox beating the Rockies by a single run. Indeed, tonight in game four in the final inning, I thought the tying ball was on its way over the fence, at least for a couple happy seconds. But, for the first time, I got to watch a World Series to root for the home team. Thanks, guys.

Happy Halloween!

October 29, 2007

How dare people throw parties and enjoy themselves on Halloween? The Denver Post, whose editorials could use a good wake-up scare, is upset that people are spending a few dollars to celebrate the holiday. The sub-head of an October 26 editorial complains that, while Halloween "used to be a simple, fun holiday," now people spend (gasp!) $5 billion to celebrate. "That's right, 5 billion," the editorial repeats. The Post laments:

These days, you're likely to see yards turned into horror movie sets, with orange lights, talking skeletons and smoke machines. The parties start days before the holiday and frequently involve printed invitations and catered food.

Stop the madness! . . .

It would be a shame to see this once-simple holiday turn into yet another commercial extravaganza with the potential to linger on your credit card bill for months.

Just imagine how Labor Day through New Year's could turn into one blurry buy-fest, filled with obligatory parties and gifts purchased out of desperation.

The Denver Post should take a chill potion.

If the editorial writers at the Post can't enjoy themselves without going into debt, and if they can't attend parties and buy gifts for some reason other than a sense of duty, that's their problem. They should stop projecting their pathologies onto the rest of us.

Let's see. The population of the United States is about 300 million. So Halloween costs about $17 per person. That's a pretty good deal, considering how much fun most of us have.

In our family, Halloween is a pretty big deal. Partly that's because, with so large a family spread out over so large a distance, it's impossible to see everybody on every holiday. My wife's parents have claimed Halloween as their own. The holiday fits with my (step) father-in-law's interests: he's a huge sci-fi and horror buff. So my parents-in-law throw a huge party every year, complete with food, costumes, elaborate and mostly hand-made props, and, yes, a talking skeleton (at least in previous years) that tells ghost stories. They even send out "printed invitations," which my wife designs and prints on our trusty HP ink jet.

This year, the party features a magic show. My father-in-law hand-built a stage prop so that his friend and my sister-in-law could re-create one of Houdini's tricks. I heard children literally scream with delight during the show. If the sticks in the mud at the Post can't manage to similarly enjoy themselves on the holiday, fine, but leave the rest of us alone.

My wife and I spent about $65 on Halloween costumes (that we can use again in future years), plus some extra money for clothes that can also be worn in regular wear. We spent $48 on DeVotchKa tickets, which allowed us to enjoyed Colorado's best band and the many spectacular costumes among the crowd. We spent additional money for food and drinks, including pie pumpkins and Jello shooters in Halloween molds. Oh, and we spent $14 to see The Nightmare Before Christmas, 3D. We've thoroughly enjoyed every penny.

Yes, people often celebrate Halloween on the Saturday before. So what? We enjoyed the events on Saturday, and we look forward to the events on Wednesday. The writers for the Post are more than welcome to stay home and watch television or clip their toenails on both nights.

The Post got the $5 billion figure—that's right, $5 billion—from the National Retail Federation. Here's what the release says:

With the year's spookiest holiday approaching, consumers are looking to celebrate. According to the National Retail Federation's Halloween Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey, conducted by BIGresearch, consumers are expected to spend more on Halloween this year than last year, with the average person planning to spend $64.82 on the holiday compared to $59.06 one year ago. Total Halloween spending for 2007 is estimated to reach $5.07 billion. . . .

Halloween party-goers are bobbing for more than just apples. They'll also be on the lookout for candy, costumes and decorations. The average person will spend $23.33 on Halloween costumes (including children's and pet's costumes), though young adults will spend far more. In fact, according to the survey, 18-24 year-olds plan to be the most festive, spending $34.06 on costumes, nearly twice as much as they plan to spend on candy ($19.65). According to the survey, average spending will rise in all categories, including candy ($19.84, decorations ($17.73) and greeting cards ($3.92). . . .

The most popular activity on Halloween this year will be handing out candy, with nearly three-fourths (72.9%) of consumers planning to stay home to hand out treats. Other popular activities will include pumpkin carving (43.3%), decorating a home and/or yard (47.8%), and throwing or attending a Halloween party (28.3%).

This is just way too much fun for The Denver Post. What are people thinking, dressing up, putting up decorations, and enjoying time with friends?

I must have missed the Post's editorial complaining about how much money people spend on baseball, which mostly comes down to hitting a ball with a stick. And is the Post next going to come out against parties in general? After all, they also often involve special dress, decorations, and food. And Christmas trees! I bet all kinds of people will buy trees and decorations later this year. Christmas sweaters, candies, cakes . . . too much fun! Just stop it, already!

Or could it be that people get more value for their Halloween dollars than The Denver Post gets for its incessantly whining editorials? Be sure to put the paper's editorials to their best use: spread them out on the counter or the floor to capture your pumpkin guts.

Happy Halloween!

Craig Biddle Coming to CO for Atlas Shrugged Talk

October 29, 2007

I just got this announcement: Craig Biddle, author of Loving Life and editor of The Objective Standard, will speak in Boulder on November 15.

"In this talk, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, Craig Biddle presents the basic principles of rational egoism, contrasts them with the alternatives, and shows why everyone who wants to live happily and freely needs to understand and embrace them."

Thursday, November 15 2007, 6:30pm - 7:30pm
Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law Building, University of Colorado at Boulder (Campus Map)

Hillman Opposes Health-Insurance Mandates

October 30, 2007

Recently I've mocked The Denver Post for its stance on Halloween, and I've criticized Republicans over health policy, tax spending, and investment controls.

But on October 26, The Denver Post published an outstanding op-ed by Republican Mark Hillman that criticizes health-insurance mandates. The article is part of the "Colorado Voices" series, which often produces duds, but on this occasion the Post has found somebody who writes very well and who has something interesting to say. (Note: the publication dates noted on the Post's web page sometimes precede the dates of print publication.)

Hillman writes, "Ironically, despite the abysmal record of lawmakers and bureaucrats to produce lower prices or create greater choice, the public still clamors for government to 'do something.' Perhaps the more logical outcry should be: 'undo something'."

Hillman offers the following main reasons to oppose health-insurance mandates:

* "[A]nother law won't produce universal coverage," because some people won't obey the mandate or will be exempted.

* Mandated insurance would be a bad deal for many consumers, because "special interests perennially lobby the legislature to require you to buy things you don't need, don't want or can't afford."

* Politicians tend to require insurance to pay for care that "you could more easily and less expensively pay for . . . yourself. . ."

Hillman summarizes, "The end result is that you and I are no longer allowed to choose the insurance coverage that best fits our needs, and insurance companies can't respond to what we want."

Hillman perfectly captures the state of today's health-care "reform" movement: "[L]awmakers and lobbyists control the health care market, as they have increasingly for the past 40 years; then they react in amazement when the product is something you and I either do not want or cannot afford."

Hillman's article demonstrates that both The Denver Post and Republicans can produce good work.

I do have one criticism of Hillman. I recognize that short newspaper articles cannot cover every aspect of the issue. Sometimes the moral argument is not the focus. But Republicans often seem to be allergic to pronouncements that hint of the morality of rights in property and income—probably because most Republicans are so busy violating those rights. To date, and as far as I can remember, I have not heard any Republican other than my dad (who I'm pretty sure is a Republican) endorse the argument: "Insurance mandates are morally wrong because they violate the rights of individuals to control their own lives and resources."

Garry Wills on Paul

October 31, 2007

I picked up Garry Wills's What Paul Meant at Costco while I was waiting for my glasses to be repaired, and I soon returned to buy the book.

Wills reminds us that Thomas Jefferson regarded Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" (page 1). But Jefferson was wrong. Wills writes,

But scholarly enquiry has destroyed the idea that the Gospels have a simple biographical basis. They are sophisticated theological constructs, none written by their putative authors, all drawing on second- or third- or fourth-hand accounts—and all written from a quarter of a century to half a century after Paul's letters. If we want to see what the original Jesus communities looked like, the first and best witness to this is Paul. . . . (pages 9-10)

Wills also calls into question the account of Paul offered in Acts. That book claims that Paul participated in the murder of one Christian, threatened others, and dragged believers "back in chains to Jerusalem." That is highly unlikely, writes Wills (pages 34-5). Paul could not have had the authority to do such things, Wills writes, nor would the local authorities have let him get away with it.

Wills account makes for interesting history. But there is something odd going on here. Wills writes sincerely of Paul's encounter with the risen Jesus; clearly Wills's intent is to show how Christianity properly rests on Pauline doctrine. Yet at the same time, to defend Paul, Wills refutes the historical accuracy of other sections of the Bible. So the riddle is how the Bible is for Christians both inspired by God and filled with human errors and misunderstandings. But that is a riddle that will take me some time to fully answer (from a critical perspective). In the meantime, I may quote a few more interesting passages from Wills's book as I finish reading it.

Reader Comment: If you are interested in the first two centuries of Christian history I recommend that you visit the site of Early Doherty and read many of his articles relating to the "Jesus Puzzle". http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Comment by Bill Visconti: I suggest that you read the Jesus Puzzle in a nutshell which he has a link for near the top of the page. Its a short 12 part explanation. Doherty's basic thesis is that Christianity did not develop from a historical Jesus; ie an actual man. But rather it developed from a mythical Jesus; a cult like belief in a salvation figure which was part and parcel of the ancient world. As such Christianity borrows heavily from the Jewish Salvation model, Platonic philosophy, other Greek philosophy such as Stoic wisdom, and many other pagan religious practices. There is nothing new in Christianity. It is a composite of much of the thinking of the ancient world. The bottom line regarding Paul is that the Jesus he worshiped was not a human man but a mythical demi-god who lived and was crucified in *another* realm, not on Earth! The historical Jesus really starts to develop with the Synoptic traditions 40 or 50 years after the alleged Christ's death. Read Doherty's site for more. If you are interested in this sort of thing then you will get a lot out of it as Doherty is a well researched and intelligent skeptic who pretty much shows that Christianity anything but the "word of God" but rather a tradition that borrowed from many elements of the Greco-Roman world.

Reader Comment: There is plenty new in Christianity. There is no comparable figure to Jesus. He was crucified in shame while most of his followers abandoned him. Yet his followers emerged believing in his message and that he was still alive. There was no one like Jesus. Unfortunately, too many of his followers did the very things he criticized.

GOP: Dems Spend Too Little

October 31, 2007

Recently I pointed out that Republicans want the government to spend more money. They really mean it. Just today Colorado Republicans blasted Democrat Bill Ritter, the governor, for proposing to spend too little more on higher education. The release states:

Senate Republican leaders said they were underwhelmed today after the governor proposed only a modest funding increase for higher education next year rather than the significant, long-term revenue stream that the state's campuses need.

The idea that Republicans support free markets or limited government is a laugh. They support spending more of other people's money on education and subjecting colleges to more government controls.

But do the Republicans really think they can out-Democrat the Democrats to win elections? I'm sure the state's Democrats will be only too happy to implement—and take credit for—the Republican schemes to expand the power of government.

Stand Up Economist

November 1, 2007

Yes! Finally a comedian for the rest of us. This guy—Yarom Bauman, Ph.D.—tells jokes about marginal choices and libertarians. His web page, StandUpEconomist.com, links to various video clips in exchange for your e-mail. But here are a couple of direct links:

Principles of economics, translated

Stand-up economist at Caroline's

The Power of Moral Suasion

November 1, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

D'Souza's Unicorn Analogy

November 2, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Godfearers

November 3, 2007

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

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

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

And Gerd Theissen argues (notes Wills):

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

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

Doctors Need Freedom

November 4, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conversion of Antony Flew

November 5, 2007

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

Mark Oppenheimer writes:

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

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

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

Recovering from Rationalism

November 6, 2007

[June 9, 2025: After I wrote this, I wrote the book, What's Wrong with Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics (see the landing page). How does that fit with what I wrote here? I continue to think that it's important to look at what life actually is. When you do that, you see that what Rand writes about biology, in terms of an organism's values normally always aiming at its "life" in terms of survival, are wrong. Once we recognize life for what it is in all its richness, we have to reject Rand's formal metaethical theory. I think it is actually Rand's formal metaethics that is an example of rationalism in the sense under consideration, of trying to force the facts to fit the theory. More broadly, I continue to agree with Peikoff that rationalism in the sense described is a problem, and I think that it's a trap that Peikoff sometimes falls into. You might consider this period my "second Objectivist phase."]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Neil Parille: There are a fair number of kooks in the libertarian movement (which is part of the reason I won't join the LP), but Schwartz and others exaggerate their numbers. And I still hear Objectivists implying that most or all libertarians are anarchists, which I don't think is the case.

Comment by Jennifer Snow: The problem isn't that most or all libertarians are this or that. The problem is that libertarianism qua libertarianism has no fundamental ideological base, so it can only serve to destroy the necessary foundations of liberty and empower the kooks, however small in numbers they may be. Statistics are not the same thing as thinking in terms of essentials.

Reader Comment: Ari, did the Libertarian reaction to the war help you clarify your thinking?

Ari Replies: Myrhaf asks, "Ari, did the Libertarian reaction to the war help you clarify your thinking?" Yes. I agree with Libertarians that the war in Iraq was a bad move. I disagree with their reasons. Many Libertarians immediately joined the "blame America first" crowd. Some Libertarians got into the conspiracy movements about 9/11. I think both responses basically stemmed from reaction against government as such.

Comment by Craig J. Bolton:

On most issues I am more of a Wittgensteinian than an essentialist. Since there is no such thing as "induction," or, at least, "inductive logic," that alternative doesn't really exist. On this topic, however, I think that a bright line test separating the sheep from the goats is possible, even desirable. Here is my first stab at such a separation:

What is libertarianism?

Somehow, since those dim days in the 60s when former classical liberals and traditional Americans were looking for a new label to describe their political outlook, we have lost our way. We have lost our way, I believe, partly because the original vision was never crystal clear. It was distorted, at the beginning, by what Hayek once called "Individualism: True and False." But it also has become more distorted over time by the success, such as it is, of the "libertarian ideology." A popular ideology is one that people want to associate themselves with, no matter how different their own views may be.

So the purpose of this little essay is simple. It is to "set the record straight." It is not to establish a "bright line," not to establish a new dogma, for there are always grays at the margin, but it is to say something about what libertarians must, at a minimum, believe if they are, in fact, libertarians.

First of all, libertarians acknowledge that society is bigger than a political ideology, or, at least, it should be. A society is the many many ways that peaceable human beings interact with one another for what they believe to be their mutual benefit. There is no "political issue" in a society, qua society, since a society is simply about peaceable and voluntary interactions between individuals. Some of these interactions may turn out to be in fact mutually beneficial, some will not, but they are all initially voluntary and peaceable.

As opposed to voluntary and peaceable interactions, government is essentially about coercive force. It is the agency or institutionalization of approved or sanctioned coercive force. Now since coercive force is antithetical to peaceable and voluntary social interaction, the use of government in a society is, or should be, a last resort. Government may be useful (or it may not be) to suppress those individuals who are themselves persistently violent in their dealings with other persons. It may be useful in thwarting a military invasion of a society by a different, aggressive and hostile society. But it is never useful in promoting "good morals" or "spreading freedom" or any of the other fine sounding goals that we may desire for our society and others, but which we cannot effectively promote through the use of coercive force.

The foregoing is libertarianism. That is all there is to libertarianism — this distinction between society and government, and the associated understanding of what government is suited to accomplish and not suited to accomplish. Libertarianism is not about having a "free spirit," or thinking independently or asserting that "people have rights," although all those things may be good things in themselves. Libertarianism is simply about a fundamental understanding of the nature of society and the nature of government. If you have and consistently apply this understanding then you are a libertarian, regardless of your other views on other topics. If you have views contradictory to that core understanding, then you are not a libertarian.

"Freedom Has Failed"

November 8, 2007

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

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

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

Sure-Fire Plan to Reduce Emissions by 80 Percent

November 8, 2007

Vincent Carroll wrote a very nice critique of Bill Ritter's "Climate Action Plan" [dead link: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/onpoint/archives/2007/11/carroll_clearing_the_air.html].

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

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

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

What future awaits us if Colorado politicians prevent the building of new electrical plants? Kevin R. Collins, "president and CEO of Evergreen Energy Inc., a Denver-based refined coal producer," rushes to assure readers that he's on the side of fighting global warming in an article for the Rocky Mountain News [dead link: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/speakout/2007/11/the_path_to_affordable_energy.html]. Yet he offers an uncomfortable warning: "Yale professor Charles Perrow, who follows power-supply shortfalls, says 'I'm prepared to see many more blackouts occurring. . . . it's really going to be a freight train running into disaster'."

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

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

Notes on the Harry Potter Movies

November 9, 2007

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

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

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

Ritter the Leader

November 9, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Morality of Force

November 10, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brutality as Entertainment

November 11, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reader Comment: "What does that say about the state of our culture that a sport like that gains in popularity?" That's a good question. It doesn't say anything good, I feel. Of course, there's that bit about the Romans putting people in an ampitheater against lions and whatnot. At least we can say that senseless brutal sports were and are not confined to Europe or America. I recently read a forensic entomology book in which the author was asked his opinion on whether crimes were becoming more pointless and unintelligible, i.e., that people commit crimes simply for the sake of the crime, rather than for a motive. He concluded that these sensless types of crimes are on the rise. I also agree. Fifty years ago, it would have been almost unheard of for teenagers from well to do families to beat a homeless person to death simply because he is homeless. They did it because they said they were bored. I think one of the reasons for this is that many people growing up are not taught to value anything. They're essentially nihilistic. I don't know whether the root cause of these sorts of activities was the same in previous eras or not.

Welfare for All

November 12, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No Clash of Interests"

November 13, 2007

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

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

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

"What. . . what do you mean?"

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

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

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

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

Is More Government the Answer to Global Warming?

November 14, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

Reader Comment: Furthermore, even though nuclear power is safe and non-CO2 emitting, environmentalists don't view it as a solution because they claim it's not safe. Here's a great source of energy right in front of us, yet Gore poo poos its worth. He says it's not clean or safe. That tells you what this is all really about. I'd like to see more nuclear power for a variety of reasons. First, it's safe. France supplies 70% of their power by nuclear, and their population density is far higher than ours is, so I think it's a great option that enviros have killed here in the US. Second, it's very clean (the waste disposal issues aside, which I actually don't think are that big a deal) compared to coal, oil, etc. Third, even if 1000 new nuke plants were built in the US, that's an average of only 20 more per state. That's really not that many. However, I don't think central controls are necessary to have a largely nuclear powered country. For that, we simply need less government interference. If you take away government interference, the ethanol industry will collapse immediately.

False Definition of 'Personhood'

November 14, 2007

Electa Draper writes for The Denver Post today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a summary from the original article:

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

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

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

Cat Care Society

November 15, 2007

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

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

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

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

Get Ready for Forced "Energy Efficiency"

November 15, 2007

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

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

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

What Happens When Victims Fight Back

November 15, 2007

John C. Ensslin, Jeff Kass, and Alan Gathright wrote an article for the Rocky Mountain News November 14 about a Denver shooting [dead link: href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5747233,00.html].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Objectivist Sources

November 16, 2007

"Justin" asks:

Ari,

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

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

The name of the course by Darryl Wright (that I couldn't remember before) is "Advanced Topics in Ethics." (Diana Hsieh reminded me of this, and she also recommends the lecture [dead link: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/02/on-studying-objectivism.html].) Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's available for sale.

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

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

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

Reader Comment: Though it doesn't address the length/strength confusion directly, Wright's "Ayn Rand and the History of Ethics" is a fantastic (and affordable!) discussion of the inductive basis of Rand's derivation of value from life. It is a must have.

Details on the Denver Shootout

November 16, 2007

More details are in about the recent shootout in Denver.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Layout of the Denver Shootout

November 17, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rocky Mountain News [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/16/suspect-termed-nice-kid/] adds that Dang, age 16 when he shot "an arcade worker in the back," "was in a violent gang, facing multiple felonies."

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

Comment by Tony B.: They had to let this guy out early to make room for all those dangerous marijuana smokers.

Comment by Cedar Bristol: I think TonyB's point is the most important aspect of the story. It would be interesting to know how many non-violent drug dealers were denied early release when this repeat violent offender was turned loose on the public. Questions as to whether the police department's training is adequate are also important. My view is that they should be trained to shoot in situations like that regardless of the risk of hitting innocent bystanders. I say this because letting a crminial like that go poses a greater risk of death or injury to innocent people than shooting at the perpetrator and hopefully getting all bullets in the bad guy.

Reader Comment: Be responsible for your own safety.
1. The shooter is responsible for the bullet wherever it goes and it doesn't matter if they are a LEO.
2. Did the bystanders have a plan, did the cops have a plan, or were they just riding along thinking that nothing was going to happen?
3. Always have a plan. Address possible threats, cover, and where your bullets will go.
4. If you think that is being paranoid, then don't look both ways before you cross a street.

Health Care and Swallowing Flies

November 18, 2007

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

There Were Politicians Who Made Prices Fly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abolish the FCC

November 19, 2007

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

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

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

The Rocky Mountain News recently discussed another way that the FCC violates free speech and property rights: it imposes "a dated legal prohibition on ownership of a newspaper and a television station in the same city by the same company or individual. . ." [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/17/fcc-chief-misfires-media-ownership/] The News points out that the FCC is considering only trivial changes to this rule, and the rule may result in newspapers disappearing altogether in some communities.

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

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

Post Opposes Blue Laws

November 20, 2007

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

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

Regarding the Sunday ban, the Post argues:

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

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

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

The Post rightly points out:

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

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

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

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

Reader Comment: The blue laws are clearly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the 1961 SCOTUS decided that they were just fine, and Bush's SCOTUS would probably do the same. Someone like Scalia would see that throwing such laws out as unconstitutional would immediately undermine restrictions on abortion.

What's Wrong With Libertarianism

November 21, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drug War Deaths

November 21, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Neil Parille: "However, my criticism is not rooted in the standard libertarian argument that people should do whatever they feel like doing, such as using drugs." I've read a fair amount of libertarian writings and I find it hard to believe that this is the "standard" libertarian argument. In fact, I don't know of a single libertarian who takes this position.

Comment by Walter: "In brief, people survive by reason, and the sole legitimate function of government is to protect people's rights to control their own property and lives, as consistent with the rights of others, so that people can apply their minds to the tasks of living." Your view of government's proper role is similar to mine. However, your criticism of libertarianism irks me. Libertarianism is a loose collection of limited-government philosophies; there is no single libertarian orthodoxy, even though some will claim one. I think I'm mostly familiar with your politics, Ari, and I would still call you a libertarian except for your renunciation of the term. It seems the problem is one of definition. I think of myself as a libertarian, and as I read your criticism I don't see it applying to me.

Comment by Patrick Sperry: [My reasons for being against the drug war are simple ones. I am sick and tired of making murdering thugs into millionaires.

Comment by Neil Parille:

Libertarians agree on a common philosophical principle (non initiation of force) but disagree on the ultimate justification for that principle and certain applications.

But of course the same could be said of most other political movements. Even with respect to Objectivism there is a fair amount of disagreement. What do Objectivists think about compulsory subpeonas, the rights of children, same sex marriages or some other things? I've heard some Objectivists say that marriage should be a contractual agreement and not given special recognition by the state. I've heard others support same sex marriage. (I doubt Rand would have supported either of these things.) Rand said that she wouldn't vote for a woman president, but Peikoff says Objectivists should vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the Democratic nomination.

Unfortunately, with the exception of referrendums, there is always some sort of compromise in politics. Would an Objectivist living in 1776 refused to support the US revolution on the ground that it was an ecelctic group of people that included slave holders, conservative Calvinists and Enlightenment liberals?

I do agree with Ari that some libertarians go off the deep end with anti-state rhetoric (and conspiracy theories and the like).

Mark Udall Replies Regarding Church and State

November 27, 2007

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

As an advocate of individual rights and free markets, I am deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, I also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, I will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state, whether on his or her web page or in direct correspondence. I ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reader Comment:

I think you know where Schaffer is coming from on most of these points. Nevertheless, I would dispute how the issue was presented on several points. In lieu of more time to reply, here goes:

1. Your description of issues surrounding separation of church and state seems vague enough that I could agree with you and so could the ACLU. However, I frequently disagree with the ACLU.

2. Essentially a restatement of your description of #1. And I agree with you.

3. What about school vouchers that parents could use to choose a school that teaches creationism or intelligent design? A consistent devotion to freedom requires a clarification of this point, the rhetoric of which sounds like it came from education unions or bureaucrats.

4. This issue is what it is, and I disagree with you about Roe v Wade. But I think it's a distortion to try to fit it under the heading of "separation of church and state."

5. A misrepresentation again. I'm not aware of any proposals to ban embryonic stem-cell research, which I would oppose. But I do oppose the use of federal government dollars to subsidize one brand of research that even in recent weeks we're seeing is a less fruitful and productive line of research. Let the free market prevail, unlike the corporate kickbacks that were used to buy the close campaign to sanction public funding of human cloning in Missouri.

Keep up the great writing!

Abortion Left and Right

November 27, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Mail article was published on November 21. Three days later, the Rocky Mountain News published Lisa Ryckman's article, "Prayer as teen led to campaign for unborn" [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/24/prayer-as-teen-led-to-campaign-for-unborn/]. Ryckman reports:

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

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

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

Unborn people, she means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sales of Atlas Shrugged

November 27, 2007

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

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

Barbarians

November 28, 2007

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

The New York Times reports:

86 Police Officers Hurt in Paris Riots
By Katrin Bennhold

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

Three more horror stories come from theocratic and totalitarian regimes.

ABC News reports:

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

By Lara Setrakian
Nov. 21, 2007

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

Fox News reports:

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

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

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

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

Fox News also reports:

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

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

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

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

Car Crash

November 29, 2007

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

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

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

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

Reader Comment: I am glad to hear that neither you, nor your wife were seriously hurt.

Reader Comment: I too am glad to hear that for getting in an accident like that you aren't suffering horribly. Keep seeing your chiropractor - you probably haven't yet felt the full effects. Speaking as someone who's experienced a bit of whiplash in an over-40 body, I thought I was fine until about four to five days later, when it was bad enough that I was scared that life might have changed forever. It hadn't - my body did just what it was supposed to. But I was very uncomfortable for a while. Lord be with you through this!

Comment by Mike Spalding: Ari, don't take a settlement for a while. My neighbor was in a crash and it wasn't until 6 months later that her doctor realized that her jaw needed to be reset because of hidden damage from the crash. It had been causing multi-hour headaches that began three months after the crash. You have a year—wait to see what else pops up.

Religious Mountain News

December 1, 2007

Diana Hsieh writes that "tithing [as] a subject of public discussion in a well-respected national newspaper still floors me." Yet at least a letter to the editor is in the editorial section. The Rocky Mountain News, whether by design or by accident, seems to be pandering to religious readers more often in news articles.

For example, I recently quoted a News article that begins, "Kristi Burton was just 13 when she asked God for guidance and got it." Whether or not the author of the article actually believes that Burton received guidance from God, the line taken at face value presumes that she did.

Here's another example: [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/27/lotto-win-heads-off-possible-foreclosure/]:

Lotto win forestalls foreclosure
The Gazette
Originally published 12:30 a.m., November 27, 2007
Updated 11:50 a.m., November 27, 2007

As the Bible says: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Gloria Aguda, of Fountain, said she prayed to God for help, facing foreclosure and mounting bills. She won the jackpot in the Nov. 21 Lotto drawing, worth approximately $9 million.

The article, credited to the Gazette, appeared on the Rocky's web page (though I'm not sure whether it also appeared in print). Again, taken at face value, the opening suggests that God played some role in the jackpot (which is ridiculous even from a religious perspective).

The Rocky has also reported on various occasions that victims of various accidents and tragedies thanked God for a relatively good outcome. However, the Rocky has not once mentioned why God allowed the tragedies in the first place, nor why others who pray to God nevertheless suffer worse outcomes.

I for one read the news to learn about the news—not to read gratuitous and frankly silly references to God.

What Welfare Encourages

December 3, 2007

In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart hears the story of a man who lived through a localized scheme of pure collectivism, in which the doctrine, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was the rule. The man tells her:

It didn't take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure. . . . He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat. . . . [H]e couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and the irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies . . . they got more sickness than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, "the family" was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in "need" than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed. (pages 619-20)

Or, in economic terms, "You get more of what you subsidize."

We do not live under pure collectivism; we live under a welfare state, in which a minority of our income is forcibly redistributed to others. But, to the extent that we live under the same principle, do we see the same effects? As I've suggested, we do indeed.

Another Look at Blue Laws

December 4, 2007

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

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

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Randall Tierney
Turtles Wine & Spirits
Pueblo, CO

Following is my reply:

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

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

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

Reader Comment: Just yesterday (Dec 3rd,2007), the International Herald Tribune ran an article about such laws in France. There too, small business want the laws to remain, because it gives them an advantage, by crippling larger stores. Small stores often find it uneconomical to work the long hours that larger stores keep. The large store can go from having 50 people at peak hours to having 10 late at night. The small guy can't go below 1 person, so he's not able to scale down. The laws cripple the big stores (to some extent), thus removing their competitive advantage by fiat. Personally, I would empathize with this guy if he were to make the right principled argument. Suppose he were to say that he realizes that these laws are incorrect, and should be abolished, but that businessmen who have invested money, based on the current rules should be given some time to adjust. At least that would be an argument from principle.

Comment by Severin:If the politicians have the power to say no liquor sales on Sunday, then what would stop them from saying no liquor sales on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, then what side would Mr. Tierney be on? I don't think the government should regulate what hours any business is allowed to be open, because once you let the government dictate something like that simply because in the current instance it works in your favor, from that point forward you are dependant on the whims of the politicians to continue to act in your favor. Personally, I don't want my fate in the hands of politicians and if I were in his position I would be approaching the politicians not to say "protect me", but rather to say "what gives you the right to tell me when I can and cannot have my business open? What gives you the right to tell me what I can and cannot sell?". He may be able to compete if the government were to remove all regulation as right now they limit the times he is allowed to be open, the days he is allowed to be open, what other products he is allowed to sell in his store, who is allowed to purchase his products, etc. I could think of a lot of innovative business models that might work, but are currently prohibited by law.

Stranger than Fiction

December 5, 2007

Recently my wife and I put Babel in the DVD player. We were treated to a preview of another movie, I think called Perfume, in which the main character murders women and turns them into perfume. Lovely. So I was already psyched for Babel. In the early scenes of that movie, a young boy in a desolate land masturbates on a cliff, then shoots a bus with his family's new rifle. That was enough for me. We popped out the video. I had already seen the preview, so I got the idea that the next two hours of the film are devoted to the husband of the shooting victim trying to find help for his wife. No thank you, and again I thank you.

Thankfully, we had also rented Stranger than Fiction, which I thoroughly enjoyed even more than I had on a previous viewing. Will Farrell is a genius actor of physical comedy. In this film, Farrell plays an IRS agent who initially leads an entirely routine life devoid of meaningful values. Then, one day, he begins to hear a narrator describing his life. As he anxiously tries to figure out what's going on, he begins to reevaluate his life and do the meaningful things that he truly wants to do. I like the movie because it is bright and positive and caring and funny—all of the things banned from so many other Hollywood movies these days.

We also watched an old film called Executive Suite. I forget who recommended it. It is another film we truly appreciated. Yes, it's a bit dated; all the executives are white males (and all served by female secretaries) and the title sequence is quite jarring. Yet it is spectacularly acted and well written. It's the story of the struggle to replace the head executive of a furniture company after he dies. Contrary to Oliver Stone's commentary—and I have no idea why his commentary appears on the video, as he had nothing to do with the film—the film is not a critique of business profits. (I listened only to a few minutes of his commentary.) Instead, the film is about producing something of quality, something you can believe in and sell with pride, and something that will serve the company's long-term success, not just its short-sighted balance sheet of the month. There are a some problems with the ideas conveyed by the writing. For example, three of the seven executives are quite horrible, which is more than any business could plausibly sustain, and the other four are overly tolerant of their behavior. Nevertheless, the climactic speech is among the most rousing and morally inspiring conclusions to any movie I've seen. Furniture boring? Not in this film.

Government Property

December 5, 2007

Yesterday FaceTheState.com, which sends out a useful list of Colorado news articles every day, linked to two stories that caught my eye. FaceTheState.com described the stories this way: CU students and faculty no fan of freedom - most favor ban on smoking, outside, and Mesa libraries take heat for atheist display.

Here's some of the language from those articles, published by the Rocky Mountain News (originally by Boulder's Daily Camera) and Grand Junction's Daily Sentinel, respectively:

According to the results of an unscientific survey conducted across CU's campuses and administrative offices, a narrow majority - 51.5 percent - of respondents said they think the school should ban all tobacco use on the campuses. Smoking indoors already is prohibited.

The survey was in response to CU Regent Michael Carrigan's proposal to ban smoking altogether. Results were released Thursday.

***

State of disbelief
Atheists say display shows different concept; library patron upset at having to wait to present rebuttal

By BOBBY MAGILL
The Daily Sentinel
Saturday, December 01, 2007

"We imagine a world without religion," declares a display posted by Western Colorado Atheists on Saturday in the back stairwell of the Mesa County Public Library. . . .

The atheists' display is simple, composed of mostly letter-sized sheets of paper answering questions about atheism, quoting dead presidents about the virtues of questioning faith and outlining what the group views as the pitfalls of religion: hate, corruption, scandal and violence. . . .

The atheists' display was approved by the library earlier this year and assigned the entire month of December for posting. . . .

Anderson, who posted a display in the same space last February criticizing gay people, same-sex families and others as hell-bound if they don't make right with God, said the library is getting itself into trouble by not allowing her to post her poster-sized Christian display the same day the atheists posted theirs.

My position on these issues, given the existence of tax-funded colleges and libraries, is that smoking ought not be banned outside and that all comers should have the same opportunity to display their message at the library.

However, my deeper position is that neither colleges nor libraries should be funded with taxes—that is, funded with money forcibly taken by those who may not wish to fund those institutions or their particular projects.

Whether smoking is banned on a property, either inside or outside, should be entirely up to the property owners. But who are the property owners at a state-funded college? Everyone and no one. Banning smoking violates the rights of people who want to smoke, while allowing smoking violates the rights of those who find the smoke irritating. FaceTheState.com is wrong to claim that the issue is about "freedom." Don't the writers of FaceTheState.com believe they have the right to ban smoking in their own back yards? The problem is that freedom has already been violated. Specifically, people's freedom to control their own income is violated when they are forced to fund the college. The violation of rights has already occurred. An outdoor smoking ban would not constitute an additional violation of rights. If the owners of a private school wish to ban smoking outside on their property, that is their right.

Should a tax-funded library open up display areas to Islamists who praise the bombing of the World Trade Center? Should Satanists also get a turn? If a tax-funded institution forcibly takes money from Islamists and Satanists, then those groups (arguably) should be granted equal footing with Christians and atheists. Absurd? If so, then the absurdity is created by the nature of tax funding, which inherently violates people's rights. In a library that obtained all it's money from voluntary contributions, this problem would not arise. People would give their money on the understanding that some person or board makes the decisions as the legitimate property holder. If the library offends people, then they are free to withdraw their funding. Such a library might decide to allow no religious displays or only religious displays within certain boundaries. For example, a library might allow Christian, atheist, and peace-promoting Muslim displays, but ban America-hating Islamist and Satanic displays. The point is that the property owner, whether an individual, a corporation, or a non-profit entity, has the right to control the property. When "the public" funds an enterprise through political force, that means that "the public" owns it, which means that rights can never be clearly decided.

Harsanyi Moves to Editorial

December 6, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral Health Care

December 7, 2007

Colorado's own Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, have written an article for The Objective Standard titled, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'." The journal has made the article available at no cost to all comers.

Hsieh summarizes [dead link: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2007/12/moral-health-care-vs-health-care.html]:

Lin Zinser and I have written an article on health care history and policy that will be appearing in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of The Objective Standard. . . .

We argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. Hence the solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries.

Also, Yaron Brook and Keith Lockitch have written an article on the same theme for Modern Health Care. The article argues:

The notion that America has a private, free-market medical system is a widespread misconception. More than 45% of total spending on healthcare in 2004 was government spending. Our semisocialist blend of Medicare, Medicaid and government-controlled, employer-sponsored health plans-with its onerous system of regulations and controls on medical providers-is the opposite of a free market.

To date, I have not heard a single defender of politically-controlled medicine even attempt to counter the arguments of Zinser, Hsieh, Brook, Lockitch, and fellow travelers. Instead, those whining for more political interference in medicine simple ignore the fact that political interference is the cause of modern problems in American health care. Let us work to assure that the articles proving the point are widely read.

Romney's Religion

December 9, 2007

Recently Mark Udall, candidate for U.S. Senate, sent me a letter in which he endorsed the separation of church and state. Now Mitt Romney has given a speech on the subject of faith. At a superficial level, Romney also endorses the separation of church and state:

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."

However, generic endorsements of the separation of church and state are inadequate. Just as anyone can proclaim support for a contentless version of "freedom," so can everyone but an out-and-out theocrat generically proclaim support for the separation of church and state. That is why, in my letter to candidates, I asked for replies to specific questions regarding abortion, stem cell research, and tax funding of religious groups and doctrine.

In his speech, Romney explicitly calls for tax funding of religious teaching:

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders—in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty" (emphasis added).

In other words, Romney does not wish to spend tax funds to promote the particular doctrines of, say, Mormonism or Catholicism; he merely wishes to spend tax funds to teach children in "the public square" about the God common to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition.

This reminds me of the speech delivered by Leonard Peikoff in 1986 (and published as "Religion Versus America" in Ayn Rand's The Voice of Reason.) Peikoff said:

"If prayer is said aloud [in tax-funded schools]," [Jack Kemp] explains, "it need be no more than a general acknowledgment of the existence, power, authority, and love of God, the Creator." That's all—nothing controversial or indoctrinating about that! (page 78)

Romney said, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." For a refutation of Romney's claim, see Peikoff's article.

Romney's comment reminded me of something that Laura Ingraham said at a recent banquet. She said that without a particularly religious virtue, "you can kiss the free market goodbye." It is obvious that Romney and Ingraham think that religion must come before freedom. Will it then surprise anyone when they and their fellow travelers decide it's okay to sacrifice "just a little" freedom for the cause of religion?

Elsewhere Romney states that he wishes to outlaw nearly all abortions, restrict medical research, expand censorship of (ambiguously defined) "obscenity," and spend tax dollars on "faithbased groups." Various religious leaders in this country have advocated the complete ban of all abortions, more spending of tax dollars on religious groups and instruction, censorship of "pornography," and so forth.

Romney's claim that "religion requires freedom" is obviously false; for example, religion thrived for century after century in the brutally oppressive Egyptian empires and Middle Ages. Freedom does not require religion, though it defends freedom of religion—and freedom from religion. What freedom requires is that religious leaders abstain from forcing their theology onto others. Despite his generic statement to the contrary, Romney has demonstrated that he wishes to sacrifice freedom to religion. And that is why I will never cast a vote for Mitt Romney for any office, under any circumstances.

Yesterday's Hero

December 10, 2007

One difference between the recent shooting at the mall in Omaha and the religious facilities in Colorado is that, in Omaha, the murderer stopped himself (before the police could reach him). As Laura Bauer reports for the December 8 Kansas City Star, the murderer "opened fire at the mall, killing eight before taking his own life."

Yesterday's murderous rampage ended differently. Kieran Nicholson reports for today's Denver Post:

The two killed at [New Life Church] are sisters Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16, police said. . . . Also shot at the church Sunday were David Works, 51, Judy Purcell, 40, and Larry Bourbannais, 59, police said. . . .

The shooter was shot and killed by a volunteer security guard at the church, said [Pastor Brady] Boyd.

Boyd said the security guard, a woman with a law enforcement background, and his personal bodyguard, encountered the gunman in a hallway at the church and fired on him, saving many lives.

"He had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage," Boyd said.

The security guard's name has not yet been released.

Whatever else can and will be said about the murders, that woman, the volunteer security guard, is a true, courageous hero who deserves our thanks and praise.

I'm also impressed that Nicholson and the Post fairly reported the facts. However, it is odd that Nicholson refers to the murderer as "gunman," but she does not refer to the security guard as a "gunwoman." (Indeed, while the media are filled with references to "gunmen," I do not remember every reading the term, "gunwoman.") Bauer also refers to "a gunman." But the relevant fact is not that the man carried a gun, but that he used it to murder people. Thus, he is properly called a killer or a murderer. The bare fact that a man carries a gun—is a "gunman"—is legally and morally neutral. Police officers, security guards, and numerous civilians, both male and female, carry guns legally and responsibly.

But of course the means of murder is the minor issue. The big question is this: why are moral monsters running around murdering innocent people they don't even know? Any murder is a heinous crime, the ultimate evil. But a murder of strangers adds an additional level of senselessness. Some will find symbolism in the fact that the murderer attacked a church; they will see the murders as a symptom of our (allegedly) Godless culture (though religion is on the rise). The religionists are correct that the murders are a symptom of cultural nihilism, the destruction of human reason, values, and morality. But the antidote to nihilism is not religion, which sacrifices human reason to faith and human values to the whims of a mythological being. A culture of human reason, values, and morality rejects both nihilism and religion.

Rocky Mountain Sense

December 11, 2007

The editorial writers of the Rocky Mountain News wrote an especially touching piece for today's paper titled, "Lethal rage" [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/11/lethal-rage/]. The editorial mourns the victims, sympathizes with their families, and praises Jeanne Assam, the volunteer, armed security guard who stopped the murderer. The Rocky even managed to close with appropriate advice about keeping perspective:

[V]iolence in our society can sometimes seem to be pervasive. Yet while that is true, as Sunday's events prove, it's important that we not exaggerate its frequency. During this decade, the homicide rate in the United States (per 100,000 people) has actually been lower than at any time since the early and mid-1960s - and far lower than the 25 years between 1970 to 1995.

Such dry statistics are no consolation to anyone remotely near to this weekend's tragedies, but they offer perspective the rest of us should bear in mind.

While The Denver Post's editorial is predictably cliche, it does include the following important detail:

Larry Bourbonnais, a Vietnam veteran who was at the church as the incident unfolded, heard the shots and ran toward the gunfire.

He yelled to divert the gunman's attention and was shot in the arm.

Then, Jeanne Assam, a female security guard, came around the corner with a handgun drawn, yelling, "Surrender!" She walked toward the shooter, firing one round after another until he went down.

And some sentiments never seem cliche in such circumstances: "[T]he only way to pull through these trying times is by coming together as a well-knit community."

Larry Bourbonnais

December 12, 2007

We now know that the church murderer "was shot multiple times by church security officer Jeanne Assam before he fired a single, fatal round at himself, the autopsy showed" [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/11/coroner-murray-killed-himself/].

We also know that the murderer drew inspiration from the Columbine killers: "My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law. If you don't like it, you die." This is moral subjectivism taken to its most nihilistic and murderous conclusions.

We also have the comments of Larry Bourbonnais, another person who showed great courage at the scene [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/11/in-his-own-words-larry-bourbonnais/]. The words of Bourbonnais, a Vietnam veteran, are recorded by the Rocky Mountain News:

After Columbine, I promised my daughters that if I'm ever in that kind of situation, that I would do something. Instead of standing by while people are being slaughtered, people need to take action.

There were two other armed guards, but they weren't doing anything. I asked one of them to give me their gun so I could take the guy out. I thought, I've got to take this guy out. I stepped out from behind a pillar so he could see me, then I saw a female come from outside.

I was either being heroic or stupid. But I was afraid the guy would shoot me from the back. I just kept thinking I wanted to take him out.

After she shot him dead, I took a 9 millimeter gun out of his right hand. It was jammed. There was a round stuck.

He was bleeding from his back. The guy was an idiot. He was standing along a wall of plate glass. She took him out. It all happened so fast.

They made me go outside because I was a key witness. I saw a male victim. The EMT had taken his clothes off. He was cold and in a lot of pain.

Two of my daughters, Stacey and Sherry, met me at the hospital. They brought me a coat and a shirt. I told them about the promise I made to them and that I tried. They were crying.

If he had killed me, I would have gone to heaven.

I haven't read elsewhere about two other armed guards. Yet, assuming that the account is basically accurate, it demonstrates a couple of things. First, the shadow of Columbine is very long. Second, people reacted to that horror in dramatically different ways. One deranged individual committed a copy-cat crime. Others resolved to rise to heroism, should the situation call for it. The names that deserve to be remembered in this case are those of Jeanne Assam and Larry Bourbonnais.

Hamstringing Security Guards

December 12, 2007

I could hardly believe this [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/12/springs-consider-new-gun-law]:

Springs to consider new gun law
Pam Zubeck and Perry Swanson, The Gazette
Originally published 08:12 a.m., December 12, 2007
Updated 08:12 a.m., December 12, 2007

Colorado Springs City Council members will consider a law next month to allow security guards to carry semiautomatic weapons.

Although the change has been in the works for months, the revision is sure to draw added interest in light of Sunday's shootings at New Life Church.

City Clerk Kathryn Young . . . said the proposed measure would allow semiautomatic weapons; the current ordinance limits security guards to revolvers.

Should we say that security guards also don't have to work with one hand tied behind their back? Revolvers are fine firearms, but I know of few gun enthusiast who would choose to enter a scrape with a revolver over a quality semiauto with a couple of spare magazines. That said, given a quality firearm, skill counts more than the type of gun (within limits); a good shooter can get shots on target with a revolver much faster than a poor shooter can with a semiautomatic.

Does anyone know what kind of gun Jeanne Assam used?

Assam's Semiautomatic Baretta

December 13, 2007

Yesterday, I noted that security guards are forbidden by Colorado Springs ordinance from carrying semiautomatic guns. Yet "Police investigators also said Wednesday that Jeanne Assam, the church security officer who shot and wounded [the murderer], fired a total of 10 rounds from her Beretta 9 mm semiautomatic handgun." Presumably, had she been a security guard for hire, rather than a volunteer, she would have been breaking the law. (I haven't read the ordinance, but I assume it applies only to guards for hire. I did check the map, and New Life Church is within Colorado Springs boundaries.)

Predictably, Democrats are already demanding bans of politically incorrect, ambiguously defined "assault weapons." Gail Shoettler displays her ignorance in confusing semiautomatic guns with "automatic weapons." She does not bother to define an "assault weapon." She does not consider the fact that many criminals acquire guns illegally. And she does not bother to mention that Assam stopped the murderer with her semiautomatic gun.

Meanwhile, Mike Littwin opines, "Any fair reading of the small minority of people who use guns violently shows that they are rarely deterred by other guns" [dead link: "http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/13/littwin-columbine-connection-informs-church/]. In other words, Littwin looks only at cases of people who are not "deterred by other guns" to conclude that no criminal is so deterred. (He does not mention the fact that some criminals are not "deterred by other guns" because in some areas armed self-defense is outlawed.) And this is what sometimes passes for journalism in Colorado.

Yet the fact remains that the murderer was not able to fully carry out his plans because he met armed resistance. Otherwise, he might have killed many more. Even people bent on suicidal mass murder may think twice knowing they may be taken out by a petite woman with a gun.

Electa Draper writes for The Denver Post,

Many large churches have taken up arms. . . . Like New Life, which has a volunteer plainclothes security force of about a dozen, other area megachurches also employ security to respond to trouble in places where as many as 7,000 might be on campus at any time. . . . American Jews have long recognized the need for security at their synagogues, schools and community centers.

Obviously, criminals are not "deterred by other guns" that the do not suspect exist. Now, would-be criminals know that attacking people in a house of religious worship may not be quite as easy as they might have imagined.

Islamist Violence Against Women

December 14, 2007

The UK's Independent published the following report:

'Westernised' women being killed in Basra
By Sinan Salaheddin in Baghdad
Published: 11 December 2007

Religious extremists have killed at least 40 women this year in Basra because of their "un-Islamic" dress, according to Iraqi police.

The police said women were being apprehended by men patrolling on motorbikes or in cars with tinted windows before being murdered and dumped in piles of rubbish with notes saying they were killed for "un-Islamic behaviour". He said men had been victims of similar attacks.

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the rise of Iraq's Shia-dominated government, armed men have forced women to cover their heads or face punishment. In parts of the predominantly Shia south, even Christian women have been forced to wear headscarves. In some areas of Basra, graffiti warns women that forgoing the headscarf and wearing make-up "will bring you death".

Where to begin? Such religiously motivated behavior is disgusting, reprehensible, horrible. And the story serves as a reminder that Bush's "forward strategy for freedom" hasn't worked out so well.

Vet Seeks Return of Medical Marijuana

December 15, 2007

I thought this was a fun media release:

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2007

*****MEDIA ADVISORY*****

DESERT STORM VET TO SEEK RETURN OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA

CENTENNIAL, COLORADO—Today the Arapahoe District Attorney dismissed criminal charges against Kevin Dickes, a State-certified medical marijuana patient and Desert Storm vet. The case had garnered widespread media attention. Monday, Mr. Dickes and his lawyer Robert J. Corry, Jr. will file a motion for return of medical marijuana after today's dismissal of felony charges. The motion will be filed on December 17, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in Arapahoe District Court. The Colorado Constitution provides an exception to criminal laws regarding marijuana for registered Medical Marijuana patients.

"This is a victory for compassion and for the voters of Colorado," said Mr. Corry, "We commend the District Attorney for doing the right thing and dismissing criminal charges, now Mr. Dickes needs his medicine back unharmed as the Colorado Constitution requires, or just compensation thereof."

Dickes, who suffers from chronic vascular disease and extreme pain from combat injuries suffered during the first Gulf War in 1991, had a physician's recommendation and a State-issued registry card for medical marijuana.

WHAT: Kevin Dickes and his attorney, Robert Corry, Jr., will file a motion for return of medical marijuana.

WHEN: 11:00 a.m., Monday, December 17, 2007.

WHERE: Arapahoe District Court, 7325 S. Potomac Street, Centennial, CO

Kopel on Media-Inspired Copy-Cats

December 15, 2007

Dave Kopel's article for the Rocky Mountain News, "Reducing the risk of copycat killers: How papers can avoid glorifying perpetrators," deserves a wide audience [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/15/kopel-reducing-the-risk-of-copycat-killers/]. Here are his five main suggestions:

1. If a killer was seeking infamy, neither his picture nor his words should ever appear on the front page. . . .

2. . . . [If] photos help readers understand that people who do terrible things are often very ordinary-looking . . . a single photo on a single day is sufficient.

3. Never run a photo or video which the killer has chosen for his own publicity. . . .

4. Do publish a photo showing the disgusting post-mortem condition of the killer, with half his face blown off after he has killed himself or been shot by a good citizen. The photo should appear, not in the printed paper, but on the newspaper's Web site and behind a warning page. Such photos would deglamourize the perpetrators.

5. Although there is some news value in reporting the killer's name initially, there is no need to use the name incessantly. . . .

Corn Gas

December 17, 2007

This video has its silly moments, but it makes its point: corn gas—i.e., ethanol—isn't a very good idea, except by the "standard" of rewarding special interests. The link takes you to YouTube.

Corn in the Tank
by Patrick Reasonover, Molly Thrasher, and John Thrasher

Hsieh on Moral Responsibility

December 17, 2007

["I couldn't help it." We hear that a lot, but it's rarely true in those cases in which it's invoked.

Diana Hsieh has placed her prospectus, "Moral Responsibility and Moral Luck," on her web page [dead link: http://www.dianahsieh.com/docs/mrml.pdf]. (You can also read it in pieces through her blog starting with December 10.) The paper is basically a proposal for her doctoral dissertation, so it does not necessarily present her arguments in their final form.

Hsieh lays out the conditions under which a person should be held morally accountable for his or her actions. She also explains why various factors, such as most childhood experiences, do not absolve an adult of responsibility. If you're not as concerned with the academic debate, you might want to jump to page 22, "Moral Responsibility." In this section, Hsieh outlines the basic requirements for moral responsibility, drawing upon the theories of Aristotle.

Smoking Ban Violates Rights

December 18, 2007

Colorado's smoking ban has created a number of problems. Stage performers tried to fight to ban because it prohibits them from smoking as part of a dramatic act. (What happened to the First Amendment?) Various venues fought for exceptions, and the now-infamous "cigar bar" exception has proved particularly difficult to define. The Rocky Mountain News offers the latest example with an AP article by Ivan Moreno [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/18/regulators-at-loss-over-how-to-handle-smoking/]:

State gambling regulators are at a loss about what to do with a Black Hawk casino that claims it's exempt from the statewide smoking ban.

The Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission said Thursday it wants to hear from its attorney on whether it has any authority to enforce the smoking ban, and whether the Wild Card Casino is violating the law. The casino claims it qualifies as a cigar bar, making it exempt from the smoking ban.

Critics claim the casino is exploiting a legal loophole. They told commissioners they have the power to enforce the ban and should revoke or suspend the casino's gaming license.

"We're not sure why this has continued to go on," said Stephanie Steinberg of Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado. "It's your duty and responsibility to enforce this law."

Okay: there's a group called "Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado?" I wonder if the founders and staff of the organization are among those who actually frequent the casinos. And why in the hell does Stephanie Steinberg care so much whether other people smoke on private property that she is free to avoid? Is it really her job to impose her will on everybody else?

I don't know whether the casino in question technically meets the definition of a "cigar bar" as defined by the statute; I don't even know whether the matter has a real answer. But that's not really the point. (See my pprevious commentaryon the issue.)

The owners of the Wild Card Casino have the right to allow smoking within the casino, or to ban smoking there. Properly, it's none of Stephanie Steinberg's business. If she doesn't wish to see other people smoking in the Wild Card Casino or breath their smoke, nobody is forcing her to walk through the doors. Alternately, she could lawfully purchase the establishment on an open market, and then set whatever smoking policy she pleases. But leaving other people alone to control their own property is not good enough for Stephanie Steinberg of Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado. She wants to send in the men with guns to "enforce this law" in violation of the rights of the property owners.

Comment by Severin: During the summer months I tend to go to the casinos on a regular basis, and prior to this ban the deadest areas of the casino were the non-smoking sections. To me this indicates that most non- smokers didn't care if they were sitting near a smoker while playing. I don't smoke and it never bothered me, most of the casinos were well ventilated.

Reader Comment: Stephanie Steinberg needs to understand what the word democracy means. I hope that you are reading these, Stephanie, and stay out of the lives of those who do not share your point of view. Bans are not constitutional. Stop harming the lives of those who don't share your witch hunt.

Voting Machines

December 18, 2007

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

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

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

News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Rich Coolidge

Dec. 17, 2007 (303) 860-6903

Coffman completes electronic voting equipment tests

Premier Voting Systems - only system certified completely by state

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

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

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

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

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

Coffman's decisions:

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

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

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

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

Gordon added:

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

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

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

Computer History Museum

December 19, 2007

Those who created the computer technology that now helps us in virtually every aspect of our lives are heroes of production. The Computer History Museum is dedicated to preserving and telling the history of that development. Thanks to a reader of GeekPress.com, I found a video that introduces the museum.

My first computer was a Commodore 128, with twice the capacity of the popular Commodore 64. The "128" refers to the 128 kilobytes of RAM packed into the then-amazing machine. The computer on which I am now typing contains two gigabytes of memory. If I'm doing the math right, that means that my current machine has around 15,000 times the memory capacity of my first machine.

My first experience with digital storage was a tape drive—as in a regular ol' cassette tape recorder. Then we went to 5.25 inch floppies, then 3.5 inch floppies, then "zip" floppies. Now new computers don't even come with floppy drives. Some 5.25 disks held 1.2 megabytes of material. The DVD drive that I now own uses disks that hold 4.7 gigabytes of material. Again, if I'm doing the math right, the new laser disks hold about 4,000 times as much material as the old magnetic disks held.

My first experiment with computer communications involved stringing a phone line from the kitchen phone to my bedroom so that I could call a local server with my 300 baud modem. A couple of times I even called a computer in California, but that meant long-distance telephone charges. Now I'm blogging at connection speeds so fast that only video seems slow.

To the men and women who have made my life so much better by improving computer technology, I offer my thanks.

Peikoff's Fourth Podcast

December 19, 2007

On December 11, Leonard Peikoff issued his fourth podcast, in which he answers questions about Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Peikoff takes on four questions in that installment. First, what does Objectivism have to say about having and raising children? Peikoff briefly describes how parents can help their children develop physically, morally, and intellectually. Second, what is the moral status of labor unions, and, more generally, how should one function in a world with widespread government controls? Third, what is the relationship between the alleviation of pain and moral standards? Finally, are individual preferences in music subjective?

Those unfamiliar with the ideas of Rand and Peikoff will likely find the podcasts an accessible source for some basic applications of the philosophy.

The Bulb Ban

December 20, 2007

Paul Hsieh wrote an especially good (if depressing) post December 19 titled, "Outlawing the Traditional Incandescent Light Bulb" [dead link: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2007/12/us-outlaws-traditional-incandescant.html]. He quotes four news articles and offers his own comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Reader Comment:

A parenthetical comment about those new light bulbs. We bought a few of them too. Those bulbs save on monthly bills, and are also supposed ot last longer. I haven't found the latter to be true. They seem to burn out just like regular bulbs. I haven't kept records, so they might last a little longer; but, definitely nowhere near the 7-years that are typically advertised on them. Since their life-span is a significant part of the cost-benefit calculation, I'm not sure they've saved me money. Perhaps the 7-year claim is based on some type of laboratory condition that does not reflect the fluctuations of power in my area, or my usage of the bulbs.

Some negatives of these new bulbs:
- one does not get them in smaller-thread sizes. This rules out many fixtures in our home
- they have a larger than normal circumference above the threads, when compared to incandescent bulbs that have an identical thread-circumference; so, they do not fit into certain fixtures. In our home, this means they do not fit into some of our fan-light fixtures, nor can they fit into some torcherie-style lamps
- they cannot be used on dimmers. Our basement has a whole array of recessed lights, ideally a great place to save by using low-cost illumination; but, half of them are on a dimmer, so these new bulbs cannot be used
- they take a while to light up to full capcacity, so even in the recessed-light array where I use them, I've had to retain a few regular floodlights, so that we get enough light during the first 10 minutes. I'm fine with paying a little more for that convenience

I've seen some articles about LED fixtures, that I think can be made to look real cool . . . and can be morphed into all sorts of styles; but, I haven't seen them in the stores yet. Perhaps they're still too expensive.

Of course, if the thesis of "The Bottomless Well" is true then we will see the apparent paradox that more energy efficient devices will cause us to use more total energy per capita in the long run.

Comment by Charles Henrikson:I heard, over one holiday dinner, they they have a huge mercury content due to the gas inside; and if you break one in a room there is a large chance that the room will then fail the EPA's environmental guidelines for mercury.

Fred Thompson on Religion

December 21, 2007

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

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

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

The web page states:

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

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

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

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

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

Green by Force

December 22, 2007

[June 10, 2025: I now think that it would be possible to treat global warming as a tort.]

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

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

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

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

In a December 21 release from the Institute, Keith Lockitch criticizes the new fuel "economy" mandates [dead link: http://www.aynrand.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=38803.0]:

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

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

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

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

Broken Trail

December 27, 2007

Over the Christmas holiday, I watched the film Broken Trail with family members. It's a two-disk, three-hour movie that was made for television. I get the idea that it was filmed mostly or entirely in Canada, and the scenery is spectacular. The movie, starring Robert Duvall and Thomas Haden Church, is surprisingly good. (I was surprised because I'd never heard of it before.)

It's a classic Western. The two cowboys—Duvall plays the uncle of Church's character—leverage the family ranch in order to buy a herd of horses. Their purpose is to move the herd from Oregon to Wyoming, where the horses are in demand for military use. (A major buyer works out of Wyoming.) Along the way, the cowboys must overcome obstacles natural and man-made. Early in their travels, they come across a man who is transporting five young Chinese girls, whose families sold them into slavery. They are on their way to a brothel in a mean town. Needless to say, our heroes do not get on well with the slave runner. But what are a couple of cowboys supposed to do with five girls in a vast wilderness while running horses? Unfortunately, the owner of the brothel wants the seize the girls, and she knows some unsavory characters.

Such a movie easily could have been routine. But interesting dialogue and heartfelt, edgy acting from Duvall and Church make it memorable. It is a movie of strong heroes and dastardly villains, and I like that. But the heroes, with all of their financial resources tied up in the horses, have to struggle with their fears, tempers, and difficult pasts to stick together and find the strength to be towering men. Nicely done.

The movie is available at Netflix and Amazon, I noticed. I plan to buy a copy.

Anonymous, Verifiable Voting

December 28, 2007

[June 10, 2025: Coloradans now have been voting by mail for many years without substantial problems. One benefit is paper ballots.]

Very often I agree with Vincent Carroll. But not this time. In his December 27 column for the Rocky Mountain News, Carroll claims that paper ballots are "18th century technology" [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/27/carroll-outdated-thinking/]. He points out that mail ballots are also problematic, as "[e]very unwanted ballot is an invitation to attempted fraud." He concludes the section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taipei Times

December 30, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Williams recommends Taipei Times as a source of international news.

Dempsey Challenges Unreasonable Alcohol Laws

December 31, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year—Be Safe!

December 31, 2007

As we contemplate changes in some of our alcohol laws, we can't afford to forget the very real dangers of drunk driving. This New Years, please be safe! If you're going to be drinking too much for safe driving this evening, stay overnight, choose a designated driver, or call a cab. If you're on the roads, watch out for reckless drivers and report them. Defensive driving works.

I wish you a free and prosperous New Year as we discover new opportunities to fight for liberty in 2008.

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