Category: Libertarian

A glimmer of libertarianism

The (D) after his name suggests there are cases where Rep. Barney Frank has voted against the principle he states here about the anti-gambling bill, but for now, it’s useful to point out that at least one Representative in Congress has a clue about his role:

“If an adult in this country, with his or her own money, wants to engage in an activity that harms no one, how dare we prohibit it because it doesn’t add to the GDP or it has no macroeconomic benefit. Are we all to take home calculators and, until we have satisfied the gentleman from Iowa that we are being socially useful, we abstain from recreational activities that we choose?… People have said, What is the value of gambling ? Here is the value. Some human beings enjoy doing it. Shouldn’t that be our principle? If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we will allow them to do it, even if other people disapprove of what they do.

That’s 89% fantastic. I’d change only the last sentence, to something like this:

If individuals like doing something and they harm no one, we do not have the power to prohibit it, even if other people disapprove of what they do.

That gets to the true principle, based on the liberty guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Congress gets its powers from us. It does not grant us our rights. Kudos to Rep. Frank for stating what needs to be said.

Hat tip: Hit and Run

Predisposed to agreement does not dismiss reason

I haven’t read John Grisham’s new book, The Innocent Man, so I make no claims about its accuracy or value. As an opponent of capital punishment, though, I’m definitely biased to support Mr. Grisham’s goal. That sparked my interest for this review of the book. It’s not positive, mostly discussing how the book is a polemic. The review seems fair, so I’m willing to assume it’s accurate. Still, the conclusion reaches too far in its assumption:

The one-sidedness of “The Innocent Man” is a shame, for two reasons. First, because it feeds the popular perception–nurtured by Hollywood and the news media–that death rows are teeming with wrongfully convicted men who just await DNA testing to set them free. Second, by skewing his tale, Mr. Grisham missed an opportunity to tell a well-rounded and perhaps more interesting story than the one he delivers. The author is not a journalist, and it shows: He doesn’t maintain even a pretense of detached reporting. He didn’t attempt to get Mr. Peterson’s side of the story, though hearing from the supposedly irresponsible prosecutor might have been illuminating. Indeed, Mr. Grisham seems to have given a wide berth not only to prosecutors but also to the police and even to the judge in Mr. Williamson’s trial.

Opponents of capital punishment will point to “The Innocent Man” as vindication of their views, but it’s not clear that their cause, in the end, is well served by Mr. Grisham’s heavy-handed proselytizing. The freeing of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fritz was the result of the legal system’s checks and balances; it is characterized by Mr. Grisham as a lucky fluke in the never-ending battle between plucky defense attorneys and bloodthirsty prosecutors. While that outlook might make for fiction that readers just can’t put down, it misses the fact that in the real world of complicated heroes and villains, life does not imitate art.

I have faith in the justice system, as it’s designed. If I didn’t, the battle against capital punishment wouldn’t be worth fighting. It’s important to secure the foundation before decorating the penthouse. Nor do I believe that the death row is teeming with wrongfully convicted men. I do believe, however, that the possibility of one innocent man is enough to justify sparing everyone from the harshest punishment.

The reviewer is correct to scold anyone who reads too many generalizations into the story as told by Mr. Grisham. However, someone should make that generalization before being scolded. To imagine that capital punishment opponents will leap to that conclusion is to make the same generalization.

Congress could be where thinking began

Congratulations are in order to the United States Congress. In a bold move of understanding, it stripped a needless provision from the port security bill it passed over the weekend:

Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday. But the day before, a House-Senate conference committee stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs. Port security isn’t just about checking the contents of cargo containers, it also means checking the background of the 400,000 workers on our docks.

Felons will not be barred from crucial jobs where a reasonable person not using the wonderfully intuitive powers of deductions granted to our smartest leaders might believe that to be a Bad Idea&#153. But leadership involves understanding the full picture of society, those “unintended consequences,” if you will. When viewed together with this provision of the port security deal, the good senators (Sen. Frist, in particular) understood that we wouldn’t want to exclude a significant portion of American adults.

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement last night on legislation to tighten maritime and port security regulations and, in a last-minute move, added an unrelated measure that seeks to ban Internet gambling.
…

The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the Senate early today, as lawmakers rushed to leave Washington for their fall reelection campaigns. Senate Republican and Democratic leaders announced it would be passed by voice vote after the House’s late-night vote.

You see, foresight! The Congress knew that many Americans could now become felons for operating a financial institution that offers customers a service they want violating Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s morality funding drugs and terrorism¹! That’s bad, and they should pay the price, but we still need secure ports. We don’t want no stinkin’ foreigners handling that job.

¹ From the Washington Post’s article:

Proponents of the crackdown said the industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, some of it by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts. Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, accounting for half the worldwide market, according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Am I going too far out on a limb to request that the reporter investigate this claim rather than accepting spoon-fed horseshit from some political hack? I don’t think so.

Can I steal a MINI if I spend $25,000 on football cards?

I don’t have much to say on Hollywood’s economic assertions about intellectual property piracy, other than to say that I’m sure it’s overstated, it will result in destructive legislation, and it will delay the industry’s entrance into the 21st Century of electronic distribution. In other words, it’s the typical nonsense from a dinosaur. However, this quote countering Hollywood’s nonsense is bogus:

It’s important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said.

“In other words, let’s say people are forgoing paying for $6 billion in movies by downloading or consuming illegal goods but end up spending that $6 billion on iPods, computers and HDTV sets on which to watch the movies, which leads to $25 billion in job creation in the computer/software/consumer electronics field,” Jason Shultz, staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote in an e-mail.

The net economic effect of piracy is irrelevant to the intellectual property discussion. It does not matter that consumers spend their $350 on an iPod instead of movies. What matters is that $350 is not going to the company that created something of value to the consumer. There are many theories on how best to protect intellectual property and guarantee payment, most of them interesting. But the basic formulation of the problem does not include a community approach to evaluating economic spending. He who takes the risk should reap the reward.

Repeating a talking point lie does not make it true

Witness today’s Opinion Journal piece by Fred Barnes:

[Senator George] Allen’s campaign has seemed unprepared for the way that presidential races, with their high visibility, draw out personal information. His two previous statewide races (for governor in 1993 and the Senate in 2000) were largely uneventful and revealed little besides that he’s a likeable conservative with a libertarian streak and without the slightest hint of racism. The perils, I suppose, of a possibly premature coronation.

I am, of course, referring to his “libertarian” streak, but you could also point to the idea that he is likeable.

On a side note:

Virginia no longer votes like a Southern state, but it’s still more conservative than not.

No one told the General Assembly when it passed the “voter demanded” amendment attacking gays. So maybe we should wait until we have the proposed amendment’s final tally on November 7th to decide whether or not Virginia “no longer votes like a Southern state.” Of course, if Sen. Allen has a libertarian streak, it’s possible that Virginia’s progressive conservatism could include inserting bigotry into the Virginia Bill of Rights.

The Central Planner’s Handbook for Protecting the Ignorant and Ungrateful

Libertarians understand the stupidity of this action by the New York City Board of Health:

The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with plans to prohibit the city’s 20,000 restaurants from serving food that contains more than a minute amount of artificial trans fats, the chemically modified ingredients considered by doctors and nutritionists to increase the risk of heart disease.

This is absurd, because the eventual “logical” step is banning the sale of packaged foods with trans fats within the city limits. At what point do citizens stand up and demand that government not turn a city into an institution where permission for every decision must be granted by some small group of public officials claiming to be experts? This is lunacy, although not a surprise.

Chicago is considering a similar prohibition affecting restaurants with less than $20 million in annual sales.

Why only restaurants with less than $20 million in sales? Even if this type of policy made sense, it’s counter-intuitive to impose this regulation on the smallest members of the group while leaving the largest free to attack its customers’ arteries offer any menu item its customers desire. The restaurant industry is a small-margin business, so those with lower sales have less fiscal cushion in their budgets. I’m most amused that Chicago loves big restaurants while it hates big stores. But government knows best.

Lynne D. Richardson, a member of the Board of Health and a professor of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said yesterday that restaurant owners might still see an advantage in the long shelf life of trans fat products.

“But human life is much more important than shelf life,” she said. “I would expect to see fewer people showing up in the emergency room with heart attacks if this policy is enacted.”

Expects? Obviously the greedy restaurant owners don’t care about their customers (repeat business is insignificant in restaurants, right? No?), but should she support public policy based on hopes rather than logic? If diners want foods with trans fat, and restaurants can’t serve it, diners will stay home and eat their bad oils and margarines and whatever else will no longer be allowed. If When that happens, I’m fairly certain the same people will show up in the emergency room with heart attacks. That gets back to the likelihood that the planners will admit that the policy isn’t having the intended effect, thus justifying the need to ban trans fat products from grocery stores.

If people wanted strictly healthy diets, everyone would be vegans who eat only raw, organic food and exercise every day. They aren’t those people. We can cry about that, but statist public health policies won’t make it any more our reality than it already isn’t.

Update: Based on information provided in by Chris in the comments, the New York Times report about Chicago considering a trans-fat ban affecting restaurants with less than $20 million in sales is wrong. The ban under consideration involves restaurants with greater than $20 million in sales. My analysis is now worthless for the facts, but that doesn’t make the ban any wiser. Screw the poor, screw the rich. It’s still the same stupidity. Regardless, I should’ve checked those facts first.

Principles may have precise definitions

While listening to Howard Stern this morning, a woman called in claiming that she drinks a 12-pack of beer per day while she’s pregnant. She believes that she should be able to indulge herself because she’s doing the work to carry the child. I won’t discuss either statement because, if true, her selfish irresponsibility is obvious. I found the entire discussion nauseating.

What was interesting is the point about she tried to make about being served alcohol. The woman said bars and restaurants serve her without question, which makes sense to her because “her money is as good anyone else’s.” Perhaps, but if I owned a bar or restaurant and a pregnant woman ordered alcohol for herself, I’d refuse to sell it to her. She can do what she wants, but I don’t have to accommodate her decision. I suspect I’m not unique in my stance.

Plenty of people would smear me as a greedy, profit-driven capitalist pig because I believe in free markets over government control. This scenario demonstrates that thinking in generalizations can lead an individual to incomplete conclusions without basis in fact. Those who would label libertarians as heartless and greedy without exception need to learn that libertarian and unscrupulous are not synonyms.

Rethinking parental rights

This is more than a week old, but I’ve finally figured out how I want to make my point. Two unrelated stories demonstrate how I believe we should view parental rights. First, here’s a useful ruling from Nebraska:

A federal judge has refused to throw out Nebraska’s one-of-a-kind newborn blood screening law. Ray and Louise Spiering of Saunders County filed a lawsuit challenging the law in 2004, arguing that the mandatory blood test would violate a tenet of their religious beliefs as members of the Church of Scientology.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said the law is constitutional.
…

In Tuesday’s ruling, Kopf said “Nebraska’s program is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.”

“It is true that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the `fundamental right’ of parents to make decisions as to the care, custody and control of their children,” Kopf said. “But it is equally true that a state is not without constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized.”

Then there is this story about the parents who allegedly kidnapped their pregnant 19-year-old daughter, took her to another state, and tried to force to abort her fetus because the baby’s father is black. I won’t examine the parental right aspect of that crime because it’s obvious. This case and the Nebraska ruling have an impact on the parental rights discussion in relation to circumcision.

Defenders of parental choice for non-medically indicated infant circumcision discuss the surgery’s potential benefits. Whether it’s urinary tract infections, penile cancer, or HIV, few claims are insufficient to allow parents the right to alter their children sons. I’ve argued the opposite side of that debate, stating that the inherent risks and potential complications are enough to protect boys from unnecessary surgery. We expect one standard for every surgery on girls and every surgery but circumcision for boys, but we grant parents virtually unlimited choice in reasons for male infant circumcision. There is no medical validity required. Parents don’t have to concern themselves with that in today’s medical/legal environment.

Anything beyond the medical non-necessity of most circumcisions shouldn’t be required in the discussion. Once that’s established as the default biological scenario for boys, his right to bodily integrity would be enough. Yet, I’ve heard libertarians debate parental choice for circumcision, with the conclusion by some that parents do have the right to impose it for their own reason(s). As a libertarian it makes me angry to hear this logic. My understanding of libertarianism focuses on individual rights. Children have those rights, with parents acting as guardians of those rights. This guardianship does not transform parents into property owners. To permit surgery, the child must need circumcision. Parental preference for any reason is not sufficient, given his right to bodily integrity.

The bits of Judge Kopf’s ruling I’ve highlighted demonstrate why I’m content with demanding the force of law to protect boys from unnecessary circumcision. Surgical amputation of an individual’s healthy tissue is harmful. There is a legitimate government interest in protecting individuals from harm. Libertarian principles as I understand them demand the protection of boys from unnecessary surgery, just as we protect girls. Surprisingly, I’m in the minority in my opinion. A comment on the second story at Hit and Run clarified for me what I believe is the key distinction necessary for parental rights:

I marvel that two people could have the foresight to take their daughter to a state with more liberal abortion laws while completely missing the fact you can’t force an adult to undergo unwanted surgical procedures.

Comment by: QuietReaderGirl at September 19, 2006 02:24 PM

But you can force a child to undergo unwanted surgical procedures. That’s too blunt, since strict enforcement of that as a rule would eliminate medically necessary surgery if the child decided against it. I’m arguing for sane interpretation of what a reasonable person would want. A sane person would choose life over death. But I contend that a sane person would choose a healthy foreskin over no foreskin, which is the right way to assess infant circumcision. (If he doesn’t, he still has the choice, but intact men don’t generally rush to undergo circumcision. My default assumption.) Routine circumcision is prevention without thought. It’s maddening.

The context of the second story provides a useful scenario. What would we think of parents who force their underage daughter to undergo an abortion she doesn’t want? Would a reasonable doctor perform it? Should a doctor perform it, if her parents deem it to be in her best interest based on statistics concerning teenage mothers or for any other reason they choose?

The idea is preposterous. Unwanted and unneeded surgery on boys is equally preposterous. Parental rights are not unlimited.

First link via Hit and Run.

Majoritarian pleas should consider the actual majority

I suppose Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts, is now the preferred religious candidate for president in 2008. For evidence, witness John Fund’s glowing review following the Family Research Council’s weekend Values Voters Summit:

FRC officials says they invited Mr. McCain to speak, but he declined. But another potential candidate benefited greatly from showing up. Surprisingly, it was Massachusetts’ Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon with a Harvard M.B.A who governs the nation’s most liberal state. The 1,800 delegates applauded him frequently during his Friday speech and gave him a standing ovation afterward. Mr. Romney detailed his efforts to block court-imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State and noted that the liberal Legislature has failed to place a citizen-initiated referendum on the ballot. He excoriated liberals for supporting democracy only when they think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion that favors their views. He certainly picked up fans at the summit. “I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008,” says Maggie Gallagher, author of a book defending traditional marriage.

I’m left wondering what role Gov. Romney imagines for the judicial branch. Court-imposed seems to predict four more years of “activist judges” nonsense should Gov. Romney be our next president. Me, I’ll pass. I’ve heard the term enough. Court’s interpret the Constitution and the laws that supposedly flow from it. This is not a hard concept, even in disagreement with the decisions.

The “activist judges” is understandable, if not forgivable. Worse, though, is the clear indication that majoritarianism is a reasonable standard for Gov. Romney. The legislature disrespected the will of the minority people. Big deal. This is representative government in our Republic. This is surprising?

The “liberals” restrained government from acting to subordinate the rights of one group of citizens at the whim of another group. That sounds more like responsible government than failure. That it’s also the conservative (i.e., limited government) position in this debate indicates that Gov. Romney has no taste for principle. See Exhibit B

There’s much more worth reviewing, but I enjoy this. It’s where I’ll end:

But Mr. Romney also has many advantages. He is perhaps the only candidate who can plausibly claim a base in several states. He has a contributor base in Massachusetts; a large reservoir of political goodwill in Michigan, where he was born and his father served as governor in the 1960s; and the loyalty of many Mormons in Utah and neighboring states. He has a built-in corps of volunteers and contributors in any state where Mormons, the fastest-growing religion in America, have a real presence.

Contributor base and shared religion. Those sound like the two finest qualifications for the presidency, I wonder why we don’t just anoint Gov. Romney Presidential Apprentice when his term as governor is finished. That way he can learn from the current president, who also happens to be endowed with those two brilliant qualifications.

Why do some people refuse to take their head out of the political sand?

Can you tell I’m going to Blacksburg this weekend?

Looking back at an entry from the archives, I thought I’d update something I said about the Hardee’s Monster Thickburger™:

That’s the effect of consumer choice. If the people don’t like it, they’ll stop buying the burger. No amount of public bitching about corporate responsibility or heart disease or obesity, no matter how tender and earnest, is going to change a consumer’s behavior until the consumer wants to change. The progress might be slow, but it’ll happen. And that change becomes more lasting and permanent when it’s a choice, just like the lasting effect of the quality of Hardee’s food at Squires Student Center. That Hardee’s is now an A&W franchise.

That A&W franchise is now an Au Bon Pain, thanks to the painfully awful food served by that A&W, a fact to which I can unfortunately attest. Despite the obesity “crisis” we’re now facing, I stand by my original assessment that choice is sufficient and essential. People aren’t stupid and do not need the government’s help to make them better. Experience is a much more powerful motivator.