Quick Roundup 349

Privatizing Roadways

Steven Malanga has once again penned an interesting article that at once indicates that capitalism could save our roadways by making them profitable -- and indirectly brings up why mere advocacy of "privatization" of a few random industries can not and will not lead us to lasting prosperity.

Today's use -- including by Malanga -- of the term "privatization" in the context of transportation infrastructure does not mean that the government has become fully disentangled from said infrastructure as it ought to be. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that even the introduction of some elements of the free market into that sector of the economy has yielded great benefit.

Some 3,400 miles of toll highways linking cities in France have been built with money from private investors. The United Kingdom has used so-called build-to-operate agreements with private companies and capital for 20 years to finance new roads, tunnels and bridges. Developing countries as different as Mexico, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia have followed suit to one degree or another. China is using private capital for a massive road building effort which involves linking its major cities with super highways.

This is good news, and in the very next paragraph, Malanga explains how this can occur.

One reason such efforts have been successful is that there is plenty of capital out there looking for the kind of solid, predictable long-term returns that this investing brings. Huge global pension funds with very long investing horizons have targeted this area, which is considerably less volatile than investing in equities (or mortgage-backed securities, it seems). In a typical deal, a bank or investment house managing pension money partners with a company that is experienced in operating roads or bridges, and the pair either build or take over an existing road with tolls on it, then contract to operate it for many years in exchange for the toll revenues. [bold added]

This sounds good -- except that governments are busily nationalizing other industries outright all over the place. This means that governments do not honor private property as a matter of principle, making the "predictability" of any long-term investment questionable. And that is how the article accidentally brings up the flaw in the prevailing notion of "privatization".

In sum, the privatization isn't really privatization. (You can get that from this article, too, but having discussed that already, I decided not to belabor it.) And, even if the companies really owned the roadways, the ability to plan long-term that comes from the government consistently respecting property rights isn't really there. The moment some statist sees roads as sweet, low-hanging fruit, they could be taken back -- for the "public good", of course!

Medical Innovation in Houston

How can one stop a virus that mutates, rendering the usual approach of vaccination useless?

By finding what part of the virus is invariant and creating a way to attack it!

[Sudhir] Paul and his team have zeroed in on a section of a key protein in HIV's structure that does not mutate.

"The virus needs at least one constant region, and that is the essence of calling it the Achilles heel," Paul said.

That Achilles heel is the doctors' way in. They take advantage of it with something called an abzyme. [link added]

This new therapy could prevent infection in those at risk and could more effectively control the disease in those who already have it.

Quiz Time!

Any past or present D&D aficionados should enjoy this one!

What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?

Via Armed and Dangerous, I learned that I am pretty much what I used to play back in college! (Well, actually, it was usually a Chaotic Neutral Magic User/Thief.) The part about alignment is predictably off, but still amusing.

I Am A: True Neutral Elf Wizard (6th Level)

Ability Scores:

• Strength-13
• Dexterity-13
• Constitution-13
• Intelligence-17
• Wisdom-14
• Charisma-14

Alignment:

True Neutral A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:

Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.

Class:

Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is his spells, everything else is secondary. He learns new spells as he experiments and grows in experience, and he can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate his spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar - a small, magical, animal companion that serves him. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells. [grammatical corrections, added link to familiar]

In the quiz, fellow Objectivists will notice the usual allotment of false moral/practical type dichotomies and find themselves pinching their noses till they bleed while having to decide -- more than once, for Christ's sake! -- which religion they "prefer"! On balance, however, it was a pretty fun quiz.

Now, I've got to get my wife to take this some weekend. She used to play D&D as well, and she's somewhat hobbit-like -- except that I do joke that she must wax her feet! It would be cute if she came out as a hobbit!

-- CAV

This post was composed in advance and scheduled for publication at 5:00 A.M. on July 31, 2008.

Updates

5-22-09: Added hypertext anchors.

Protection? For Whom? No One.

Allen Prather wrote me yesterday about a remarkable and inexcusable abuse of federal power by the Environmental Protection Agency against ordinary citizens minding their own business in our home state of Mississippi.

Wyatt Emmerich of the Greenwood Commonwealth has been following developments. His column from last week opens chillingly:

Robert Lucas, his daughter Robbie, and his engineer, [are] all in prison now for many years because they dared to fight the EPA's designation of their pine land as "wetlands."

Daughter Robbie is behind bars for seven years, separated from her 1-year-old son. Had they plea-bargained and pled guilty, they probably would be free now. Instead, they maintained their innocence and fought the EPA in court, where the feds brought the full force of their prosecutorial power on them. Judicial precedent forbade the court from even ruling on the key issue: whether or not their land really was "wetlands."

Emmerich, sounding a clarion call, states that, "Every landowner in Mississippi needs to understand this case and the threat to their property and freedom."

If anything, he understates the scope and magnitude of this danger. In addition to affecting citizens of every state, this threat serves as a particularly good example of the connection between our rights -- which the government is supposed to protect -- and our lives.

The Lucases had, as it turns out, depended on developing land for their livelihood, Robert having done so for half a century -- starting in high school, working his way through college, and building a spotless reputation along the way.

In the last 48 years, [Lucas] has developed over 2,000 lots, all by subdividing cutover timber land north of Pascagoula into two- and four-acre home sites with roads, electricity, water wells and septic tanks. He usually owner-financed the lots he sold and carried the loans for people who might not otherwise be able to buy a lot. Most of the housing built on the lots was of modest design.

Lucas never had any trouble with the law, criminal or civil. No lot owner ever sued him. His daughter, Robbie Lucas Wrigley, mother of a young child, followed her father into business and sold lots. They had a good reputation with lot sales to thousands of customers.

Their engineer, M.E. Thompson, 76, designed the septic systems, following Mississippi Health Department guidelines. The project which landed them all in jail is called Big Hill and is located 12 miles north of the coast in Jackson County. The land is 100 feet above sea level and is full of pine. The nearest creek where you could place a canoe is two and a half miles away. [bold added]

Or, more to the point, the Lucases and Thompson, never had trouble with proper, objective law. That changed when environmentalists perverted the law to protect the earth from human beings doing what nature itself requires us to do to survive: alter their environment. In this particular case, wetlands law doesn't just affect the freedom of these three in some minor aspect of their lives (which would still be inexcusable): It endangers their very livelihoods.

Note that the law concerning wetlands is bad enough in that its object -- the violation of man's right to property -- is improper to begin with. This impropriety is compounded a thousandfold, however, by its non-objective nature. As we follow Emmerich's narrative, this will become glaringly obvious.

On what rational basis would one conclude that a pine forest 100 feet above sea level and more than two miles away from even a small creek is a "wetland" and therefore have any reasonable hope of obeying such a law? None, and furthermore, Lucas was going out of his way to abide by the law!

After running afoul of Pansy Maddox, a state functionary in charge of septic permits, Lucas found himself suddenly having to fight tooth and nail to have nearly 100 arbitrarily rescinded septic permits for his Big Hill development reinstated. He won that battle fair and square, only to find that this bureaucrat was perfectly happy to use the apparatus of the federal government to empower her vindictive rage. (It is taking a great deal of self-control on my part to avoid using very filthy language to describe this person.)

Then one day federal officials appeared at Big Hill accompanied by [Mississippi Department of Health's (MDH)] Pansy Maddox. Involved were the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The big guns had arrived.

Shortly thereafter, the Corps informed Lucas that Big Hill may have a wetlands issue and directed him to hire experts to do a wetlands determination of the entire property.

Lucas hired the experts recommended by the Corps, and they drew up maps delineating areas that had wetlands features. The experts didn't determine that these areas were true wetlands, just that the areas warranted further study. The EPA took the study and ran with it, declaring the pine land was "jurisdictional wetlands," thus totally under the control of the EPA.

This is where the enormous irony exists. If the EPA says your land is "wetlands," then it is wetlands. The courts will not, as a matter of law, overrule a "scientific" determination by the EPA. You can own perfectly dry pine land with 100-foot trees and no standing water, but if some low-level EPA staffer declares your land "wetlands," then your land is essentially confiscated. You have no legal recourse. [bold added]

Lucas, considering his predicament and getting "the best legal advice in the state" -- from somoene who is now "a top EPA official", decided to fight in court.

He was demolished by federal officials who had decided to make an example of him in a process that makes my recent adventure in postmodern civics seem like a high school field trip by comparison:

The jurors were led along this fantasy trail by Jeremy Korzenik, senior trial attorney for the Department of Justice's environmental crimes division.

The seven-week trial was presided over by Judge Louis Guirola, a former federal prosecutor appointed to Mississippi's Southern District in 2003. Last year, Guirola led the entire nation in white collar criminal cases. Guirola made news when he hired Dickie Scruggs to represent him in a Katrina lawsuit over damage to his home.

One can imagine that professionals of higher education were either excluded from jury selection or begged off. Few successful people with significant jobs can sacrifice seven weeks of their lives on a trial that should never have taken place.

So you are left with less-educated jurors who are satisfied with the per diem jury duty compensation. These jurors know not to bite the hand that feeds them. They are easily led along by the overwhelming power of the prosecution, which has the entire array of the federal money and bureaucracy behind them. It was a kangaroo court.

...

Seeking ammo for the trial, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office and four environmental agencies began holding meetings in a local gym attended by the Big Hill homeowners. At these meetings, homeowners were told by six believable authorities that they had been defrauded by the Lucases. Despite the federal dog and pony show, the government persuaded only 10 percent of the Big Hill lot owners (36 out of 300) to join in their criminal case against the developer.

The local hearings were laying the groundwork for a federal lynching in the name of saving the environment. It made great PR, exemplified by the boastful press releases sent out immediately after the conviction. The bureaucrats, the prosecutors and the judges all jumped on board this gravy train of political correctness. There was just one small problem. The Lucases were innocent.

They were accused of building on wetlands, but they were never allowed in court to contest the validity of the wetlands designation. [Update: See Note 1. --ed] How can pine land be wetlands? In fact, when Lucas was selling some timber off the land, the Corps approved the sale stating in its report that "no waterway existed" and "no wetlands had been built" and "no action required." They were accused of not obtaining EPA septic permits. In fact, no such permit has ever been required or given anywhere in the U.S.A. [bold and link added]

Emmerich's list of false charges goes on and on, and he closes by noting how prophet-like our Founding Fathers were:

This is what John Adams and Thomas Jefferson feared -- an out-of-control, out-of-touch, unaccountable federal bureaucracy wreaking havoc on ordinary citizens. Their fears, first conceived 250 years ago, have proven to be remarkably on target.

And what accounts for their remarkable ability to foretell such tyranny? Their understanding that each man owns his own life, and that the proper purpose of the government is to protect the individual. This understanding, if only implicit, was much more common among the general public in their time than it is now. It must become much more common again before we will begin to stop hearing of such atrocities or, worse still, having them visited upon ourselves.

I strongly recommend reading both of Emmerich's columns soon, as his paper seems to remove them from open access after a couple of weeks.

-- CAV

Note 1: But see Qwertz's comment on how the court dealt with the EPA's designation of this property as a "wetland".

Updates

Today: Added Note 1 (HT: Qwertz).

You'll know we're winning when ...

... occurrences like this aren't even "blogworthy"!

And glad I'm not in college any more, that I could be an example of an adult-type person with a minivan and rugrats and still be into Objectivism. Such a sight would have floored me when I was in college. I always enjoyed meeting post-college-Objectivist-types back then, I think because I had a niggling suspicion that many people "dropped" Objectivism after a while (and perhaps that's true). But I never met a person with a family. In fact, I never even met a woman, now that I think about it!

Not that this isn't a nice, big step in the right direction!

The more often this sort of thing happens, the harder it will be for the sleazier religious conservatives to hide behind their standard assertion that Ayn Rand is merely an enthusiasm of youth, and that adults "outgrow" her ideas. Kudos to Rational Jenn!

That's it for this morning. Gotta finish getting ready for for an early teleconference....

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 348

HR 676 Update

I now know of at least four people who have written letters to the editor to the Houston Chronicle that were critical of the recent meeting about socialized medicine I described last week. Not only did Houston's only newspaper completely fail to cover the event, it has published, to my knowledge, only one letter (by Alex Redgrill) about HR 676, and it was in support. That writer, too, wondered why the "hearing" got no coverage.

That's too bad, because Sylvia Bokor submitted a letter that would serve to boil my lengthy account down to its essentials, most notably the fact that this "hearing" wasn't really one at all.

A "congressional hearing" is meant to find out what citizens think about a given subject. But the July 18 meeting was no hearing. It was a carefully orchestrated power-play presided over by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., to force socialized medicine down citizens' throats. [bold added]

Read the whole thing, and be glad that newspapers aren't the only way to get news. As Redgrill put it, "I hope that the Chronicle will cover future debates and the cycle of HR 676 in Congress with accuracy and vigor. Our democracy [sic] can survive with nothing less."

Indeed.

Sponsor John Conyers is now trying to add his bill to the Democratic platform. In the meantime, another Democrat is pitching a proposal that will appeal "to conservatives because it preserves the veneer of a 'marketplace' while introducing still more government controls," as Paul Hsieh puts it at We Stand FIRM.

The government did it.

That's the title of Yaron Brook's latest in Forbes, in which he discusses the financial perils of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

For too long, the refrain has gone, Congress and the administration have been asleep at the wheel when they should have been steering the economy by expanding government control over the housing and financial markets. Economist Paul Krugman slams the administration's "free-market ideology"; he urges Bush to "reverse course now" and "seek expanded regulation."

All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets--including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)--leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today. [bold added, parenthetical links dropped]

Brook also indicates how a truly free market could have averted this crisis. (HT: Myrhaf)

Another drop in the bucket ...

... of reasons not to support McCain:

"Wall Street is the villain in the things that happened in the subprime lending crisis and other areas where investigations and possible prosecution is going on," McCain said during a taped appearance on ABC's This Week program.

The Arizona Republican, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, said he supports the housing bill passed by Congress yesterday to stem foreclosures and aid Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest U.S. mortgage-finance companies, even though it may cost taxpayers as much as $25 billion.

...

"We should eliminate the pay and bonuses that these people rake in" McCain said. [format edits, bold added]

Yeah. Let's finish the job of decoupling rational effort from reward! And if you don't know what I mean, read the Brooks piece mentioned above.

If this is going to be the man in the bully pulpit for what most people see as the pro-capitalist political party, we're better off having an open socialist in office so such foolishness gets the label it deserves.

Too Cuil to Google?

Via Matt Drudge, I learned of a new search engine that some former Google employees recently launched. Of course, I immediately googled myself -- I mean, looked for myself with Cuil. It does pass the crucial test of providing results for searches of "Gus Van Horn", so I've taken a mental note to try this the next time I come up empty with Google. If Cuil really is better, that's the time to try it, right?

I am otherwise lukewarm. The search results are presented in a multi-columnar format cluttered with images not necessarily found on the pages. I find that distracting. Just give me a list free of cognitive clutter, please.

And while I'm on the subject of search engines, a commenter recently put in a plug for GoodSearch. The links to GoodSearch I have on my sidebar and here are set up to donate to the Ayn Rand Institute each time they're used.

In Other Words, TWO Debates

Glenn Reynolds accidentally comes very close to nailing what's wrong with the global warming debate:

I dunno. But maybe we should figure this out before we turn our economy upside down?

Were we -- properly -- discussing the issues of whether there is warming and whether the government ought to do anything about it, the scientists would be discussing whether the climate is warming and why, and the government would enter the picture at all only if overwhelming evidence came to light that identifiable individuals were demonstrably harming others by their actions. And the level of harm would have to be on a level comparable to, say, poisoning a well through negligently dumping poison. And the remedies would not involve massive government violations of individual rights, such as those that will, "turn our economy upside down".

In short, this scientific debate should not even be a blip on the political radar.

Instead, since everyone agrees that the government exists to issue orders rather than protect our freedom to act on our own judgement, we're on the threshold of self-imposed economic ruin, not to mention tyranny.

-- CAV

Randy Pausch, RIP

Randy Pausch, the professor at Carnegie-Mellon famous for his stirring "last lecture", has died. From his obituary in the Houston Chronicle, we see again that this was someone who knew how to live:

The book The Last Lecture leaped to the top of the nonfiction best-seller lists after its publication in April and remains there this week. The book deal was reported to be worth more than $6 million.

Pausch said he dictated the book to Zaslow by cell phone as he took his daily bike ride, and Zaslow recalled Friday that he was "strong and funny" during their collaboration.

"It was the most fun 53 days of my life because it was like a performance," Zaslow said. "It was like getting 53 extra lectures." He recalled that Pausch became emotional when they worked on the last chapter, though, because that to him was the "end of the lecture, the book, his life." [bold added]

I knew the man only from that lecture, but I am richer for having met him even as briefly as that.

Thank you, Professor Pausch!

-- CAV

NPV vs. Your Vote

Mike recently discussed the latest effort to abolish the Electoral College, noting among other things that John F. Kennedy saved it from oblivion at the hands of the Republicans half a century ago. He excerpts the following from Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe:

In 1956, a Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College was defeated after a vigorous defense by Sen. John F. Kennedy, who declared that "direct election would break down the federal system under which most states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power."

Nearly four years ago, I considered the question of whether the Electoral College still serves a useful role, after my wife and I talked about it.

Given that electors usually rubber stamp the popular election results of their respective states, this is a fair question. What I found was that a mathematician by the name of Alan Natapoff actually published a mathematical proof that a system of corralling votes into districts (as the Electoral College does) serves -- contrary to popular misconception -- to preserve the power of the individual vote.

An article about the proof, "Math against Tyranny", puts the gist of it into laymen's terms in this way:

The same logic that governs our electoral system, [Natapoff] saw, also applies to many sports--which Americans do, intuitively, understand. In baseball's World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become champion, that team must win the most games.

...

Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states. The Yankees won three blowouts (16-3, 10-0, 12-0), but they couldn’t come up with the runs they needed in the other four games, which were close. "And that’s exactly how Cleveland lost the series of 1888," Natapoff continues. "Grover Cleveland. He lost the five largest states by a close margin, though he carried Texas, which was a thinly populated state then, by a large margin. So he scored more runs, but he lost the five biggies." And that was fair, too. In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the 1960 Yankees. A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available--bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field--and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers. A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.

In the sense that it protects our ability to cast effective votes, then, the Electoral College is valuable and worth preserving. But, as the saying goes, "A republic, if you can keep it." As valuable as the Electoral College and many of our other institutions of government are, they cannot guarantee that we will even have a choice. That is a function of what the broader culture is looking for in a President, as reflected by who gets nominated.

Four years ago, I said, "We are at war and the Electoral College might some day save us from choosing a bad commander-in-chief." Too late for that this time, I am afraid. To ensure better choices in the future, we who value individual rights must work to change the culture.

We should fight to preserve the Electoral College, yes. But we must also fight the cultural trends of which such efforts as National Popular Vote are a symptom.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 347

David Allen Speaks to Google

I'm posting this here in part to remind myself to finish watching this video of personal productivity guru David Allen speaking to some Google employees. It is about 45 minutes long.

From what I have seen of it so far, it is certainly going to live up to Craig Ceely's assessment as a "great talk".

Medved Going Full Circle?

When I was in college back in the late eighties, the conservative movement was just beginning to break the left's stranglehold on politics and academia. One thing I recall was how common it used to be for leftists to attempt to marginalize conservatives by various smears, including implying that, like John Birchers, they were all nutty conspiracy theorists.

Now conservatism is somewhat entrenched and, amusingly in a way, many leftists will shamelessly spout conspiracy theories. And now -- if I read this Michael Medved column correctly -- some conservatives are attempting to marginalize their ideological opponents by painting them as conspiracy theorists!

I am not a libertarian, but I am often confused with one by people like Medved. Note that he lumps Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Libertarian Bob Barr together, and places them in a long line of "fringe parties and paranoia", "usually blam[ing] their own lack of power or influence on the diabolical plots of some secretive group or another." He then discusses a real example of such, the anti-Masonic Party, at great length.

Not to defend libertarianism or to deny that Barr and McKinney don't have some important similarities, but....

There are quite a few good reasons for people interested in political change not to form political parties (among them being that doing so is a sure path to political self-marginalization), and those are compounded for libertarians by their own foolhardy "big tent" approach. But Medved isn't addressing any of this, nor does he address whatever issue he might have with "libertarians". He just smears them (and people like me) and hides the dishonesty behind an interesting bit of American history.

What he is also hiding, like the leftists before him, is an inability to effectively answer some difference of opinion he has with his opponents.

He should know. He served the drinks.

Myrhaf thought the same thing I did upon hearing that Bush recently said "Wall Street got drunk," but he blogged it first!

So if Wall Street got drunk, it's because the Bush administration kept serving drinks on the house -- long after closing time.

Very good post. Read it all. I am especially envious of the following zinger: "[Bush] just speaks, like his favorite political philosopher, in woozy metaphors that can mean anything."

Jesus!

A Must-Read at Amazon!

Rational Jenn posted about it a few days ago, but if you haven't read the review she mentioned then, go there post haste and read it. I laughed out loud at the end.

-- CAV

Memo to GOP: Give us a choice.

I agree with Paul Hsieh, who writes more generally and in more depth at Noodlefood about an issue I ran across here just yesterday as I went through some comments to my recent post on a shady "single payer" socialized medicine meeting held recently here in Houston. That issue is why the Republican Party does not deserve the support of individuals who understand the proper role of government.

John Faulk (or someone claiming to be him) -- a Republican who plans to run against Sheila Jackson-Lee -- stopped by to offer a comment in support of my view that this latest attempt to have the government run our medical clinics and hospitals must be stopped. Indeed, he even offered that "Sheila Jackson Lee has to be defeated...."

What I wouldn't give for a real ally, for someone who would stand up for my rights as an individual! Sadly, on checking out his campaign's web site, I almost instantly learned that he is not such an ally. Upon learning this, I thanked him for stopping by and explained why I cannot support him.

Thank you for stopping by, Mr. Faulk.

Not only does Sheila Jackson-Lee need to be defeated, but [so must] the whole idea that the state exists to do anything EXCEPT protect individual rights. Sadly, I see that you wish to misuse the apparatus of the state to enforce Christian morality. From your web site:

"As your Representative from the Texas 18th Congressional District, I would support an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that ignores the personhood of an unborn child. However, since amending the Constitution is an extremely lengthy process, I would introduce and co-sponsor the Federal Right to Life Act. This act would define 'personhood' as the moment of conception. Therefore, all unborn children would be protected without the need of amending the U. S. Constitution."

There is no earthly basis for considering an embryo a human life, and imposing this belief on others through the power of the state violates individual rights just as much as socialized medicine does.

I will not choose between a socialist and a theocrat. Both place other considerations above protecting individual rights.

I doubt this will change Faulk's mind, but if more people who want neither socialism nor theocracy would stand up and be counted whenever the opportunity presents itself, others like us will know that they are not alone (and feel more inclined to speak up themselves), and politicians will eventually begin to notice, as history has shown. (This is not to say that we don't also need work to change the culture in ways that will result in the concept of individual rights being properly understood by more people.)

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 346

Electric Cars

Via HBL and Joseph Kellard comes what I agree is, for a change, an "honest report" about the viability of electric car technology. Joseph posts a few key excerpts at his blog.

I have always found the idea of an electric car interesting, but have been frustrated by the impression that the Greens want to cram this technology down my throat whether it really works or not. The answer from this more level-headed article is along these lines: The technology, promising, but still young, could soon help you save money on gasoline if applied properly. Interestingly enough, General Motors -- and not Toyota -- seems to have adopted the approach best-suited to the current state of the art:

[W]here should we look, realistically, for a mass-market electric vehicle? Believe it or not, Detroit. In fact, the quick-fix approach that strikes me as the most promising comes from -- surprise! -- General Motors, the chief villain of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The Chevy Volt, which the company wants to bring to market in 2010, is a plug-in hybrid that aspires to be able to travel 40 miles before switching to gasoline power. But the best part is that the combustion engine will automatically recharge the battery -- so it can switch back even while you're driving.

Forty miles is within the range of current battery technology and would work very well for short drives in the city. Were this car on the market now and I weren't facing the prospect of remaining poor because of my impending relocation to the insanely expensive Northeast, I'd seriously look at one of these. I hate throwing money away.

Live Free (as in Beer) or and Die

New Hampshire, whose state motto I have always loved, has tossed aside the principles that give it meaning to accept foreign aid from a tin pot dictator.

Two years ago, New Hampshire refused to accept heating oil from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the pro-Castro U.S. critic who once called President Bush "the devil." But with fuel prices rising, well, free oil is free oil.

With the state's blessing, New Hampshire residents will be receiving some of the fuel this winter.

New Hampshire becomes the last state in the Northeast to embrace the offer.

...

But the idea galled some New Hampshire Republicans, including Sen. John Sununu, who called the it a "disgrace" and an attempt at grandstanding by Chavez, and Democratic Gov. John Lynch squelched the effort.

This year, though, "the state's role is to make sure people are aware of the program," Lynch spokesman Colin Manning said.

A lot has changed over the past two years. Back then, heating oil sold for about $2.50 per gallon in the Northeast. Last month, the average price was $4.61, with predictions of $5 per gallon oil by winter.

No. The only thing that changed was the price of oil. I doubt that New Hampshire's state officials ever really understood the deeper issues here beyond the level of paying them lip service in order to grandstand.

Taking the oil is understandable, but it would be acceptable only if the customers, businessmen, and state officials involved vigorously called for the United States government to act (at a minimum) to recover from Venezuela the assets of American companies stolen by the Chavez regime.

There are similar moral issues for two kinds of parties to consider here. First, there is the moral question for each businessman and customer to consider when thinking about whether to accept the oil. Second, there is the question for the government officials of granting official state sanction to a foreign leader pandering to American citizens by offering them loot stolen in part from other Americans.

This is a very disappointing development.

Groveling and Pandering

Brian Phillips, who also attended John Conyers' farcical single payer testimonial meeting in Houston last Friday addresses an aspect of the proceedings I hadn't:

The participants were unanimously in favor of universal health care. Individually their testimony took one of two different paths.

The first path was one of overwhelming praise for the bill and its authors. America's health care system is in crisis, the witnesses said, and HR676 will address it. This was nothing more than blatant pandering to the egos of the politicians who were present. One in fact, pointed out that Lee was an excellent leader of a Boy Scout troop.

The second path was even more disgusting. While praising the bill, these witnesses said that it didn't go far enough. We need more money for training nurses, for mental health care, and for a number of other areas. These groveling witnesses wanted more for their particular pet projects. They weren't content to merely praise Lee and her cohorts, they wanted more public money thrown into their trough. [bold added]

People this scummy have no business dictating to you or me the terms under which we are to protect our health. This is pure evil.

You Have to Start Somewhere

Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors, and after recently watching The Bucket List, I remembered that among his first acting jobs was the role of "Easy Reader" on the PBS series, The Electric Company, a role he thought he played for too long.

It was my idea to just do The Electric Company for a couple of years and go on. But, you get trapped by that money thing. It's golden handcuffs. It gets a lot of people, including soap opera actors and commercial actors. Then, they don't want to see you in serious work. That was going to be me, having people come up to me saying "My kids love you!" I was there three years too long.

Be that as it may, I remember smiling when, as an adult, I realized that I was watching Easy Reader.

If you're old enough, you may wax nostalgic. If not, try not to laugh too hard. This was, after all, the seventies!

-- CAV

HR 676

Surprise Meeting, Surprise Attack

You may not be aware of this, but in January 2007, John Conyers (D-MI) introduced legislation (HR 676) which will, for all practical purposes, nationalize the medical sector. Last Friday, after having attended a meeting I had heard nothing about until two nights before it was to occur, I was horrified and angered to learn not only that fact, but that a sizable contingent of Congressmen are working feverishly to build support for this bill among various pressure groups while deliberately keeping the voting public -- supporters and opponents alike -- in the dark about its nature.

According to the OpenCongress web site, the bill has 90 co-sponsors. (The Library of Congress lists 78.) Literature passed out on behalf of Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), further claims that HR 676 has the support of 14 "national/international" labor unions, 33 state AFL-CIO federations, 19 "national/state" organizations (ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to the American Medical Students Association), and thousands of physicians and nurses.

Unofficial Meeting, Official Testimony?

This meeting started an hour and fifteen minutes late and ended after only one question from the audience. It was, in the words of Sheila Jackson-Lee, who ran it, an "unofficial hearing of the House Judiciary Committee". She even complained at the beginning of being "without a gavel" to call it to order. The proceedings were recorded, presumably for future use when the bill is debated in Congress.

Two sets of "witnesses" ("not panelists") were seated and offered their testimony as to why this bill should be passed. (On that, there was no dissent.) The atmosphere was somewhat informal, with lots of back-slapping ("Sheila Jackson-Lee [who was an official in the local Boy Scouts at one time] was a great Boy Scout.") and humor for show among the participants. At one point, Jackson-Lee demanded -- like an emcee at a variety show -- that the audience "give it up" more (i.e., applaud again, more loudly) for one of the witnesses after she finished speaking.

It was very quickly apparent that, contrary to its billing as an "examination" of the medical insurance crisis for all "healthcare stakeholders", this meeting was to be a selective gathering of endorsements for this bill from among prominent locals. All of these were involved in some way with medicine, group medical coverage, or egalitarian activism. The meeting was open to the public, but the lack of publicity and the small seating capacity of the venue indicated that there was no serious interest in obtaining feedback from the supposed beneficiaries of this legislation.

To my knowledge, there was absolutely no local media coverage of this event. (Contrast this to the nine results for Conyers and Jackson-Lee's other meeting here.) If this bill is such a great idea -- if we will all benefit so greatly from it -- would not two experienced professional politicians have managed to attract some publicity for this event? The media silence speaks volumes, all of it about why Conyers and Jackson-Lee would want to fly under the radar about their great plan. What possible harm could enormous gratitude and legions of adoring fans bring to a politician?

The secrecy will begin to make more sense when we consider the bill itself, and the meeting, in which Conyers (if I recall correctly) said he wanted to "frame" this legislation. Indeed it does, but not in the way he intended.

Warning Signs

Here are a few highlights taken from my notes on the meeting:

About 50-60 people attended, including about ten witnesses. In addition to Conyers and Jackson-Lee, Donna Christian-Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended. She served as a sort of opening act for Conyers and Jackson-Lee, speaking for a few minutes, starting just before they arrived.

Jackson-Lee indicated that we were "blessed" by Christensen's presence due to the fact that she is not just a female physician, but a black physician. Christensen stated one of the main themes of this meeting early on: She sees the medical insurance crisis as a racial issue. ("This system is discriminatory.") This idea, whether explicitly tied to race or implied by associating race with poverty, was frequently echoed during the remainder of the meeting.

(During the testimony, the audience was "blessed" with the sight of Christensen texting -- and not even pretending to try to be discreet about it. To her credit, however, she was awake. Conyers, self-appointed guardian of the public health, dozed off at one point.)

Christensen eventually brought up at least one of the two other bills (HR 6212 and HR 3014) touted as companions to HR 676. I have not yet looked into either of these in any detail, but I gather from various remarks that they are to include various measures to increase the number of minorities in the medical professions, start loan forgiveness programs, institute "health empowerment zones" (whatever that means), and train more American nurses. (Every time that came up, there were words to the Seinfeldian effect of "not that there's anything wrong with" immigration.) Christensen also expressed a desire for "culturally competent" care. I don't know about you, but when I'm sick, I want medically competent care.

Conyers, presiding over the meeting as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered some long-winded opening remarks to the effect that he is interested in "correcting disparities", and wants to "improve healthcare" on the way to its eventual government takeover. (If more government control equals "improvement", we have been doing this for decades already.)

Most notably to me, Conyers attempted to portray his proposal as noncontroversial and practical, saying that this effort is not "theoretical", "philosophical", "idealistic", or "ivory towerish". I disagree with all but the last. The idea that someone else can dictate to me and my physician the terms under which we can do business is the political application (collectivism) of an objectively wrong theory of morality (altruism) that can have very negative practical results when applied.

Conyers also noted that many labor unions, after having initially expressed satisfaction with their medical coverage, have begun defecting to his plan after encountering the prospect of having coverage reduced in the face of the souring economy. In addition, and most notably, I got the impression that he thinks that Hillary Clinton, who made the last serious effort to nationalize medicine, failed tactically in her efforts to take over the medical sector of the economy.

Straight out of Atlas Shrugged

The format of the rest of the meeting was that a panel of witnesses was seated, with each in turn being allowed nominally three minutes to speak. Conyers could then solicit additional remarks after all were finished. After both panels, I think there was to have been a public Q&A, but this was cut short after only one question since Conyers and Jackson-Lee were leaving. Below are some highlights from the rest of the meeting, not all necessarily in order. Some names may not be correct due to the fact that my eyeglasses had broken that morning and for some reason, I hadn't yet been handed a new pair by my state caretakers in time for the meeting.

• One Dr. Hamilton noted that several physicians from his former practice who had specialized in internal medicine quit 5-10 years early. He cited this and the unprofitability of that practice as a good reason for passing HR 676. He was neither asked for nor volunteered whether he thought extensive state interference with the medical sector might have had anything to do with that.
• A young, black, handsome pediatrician, Dr. Raphael, brought up another recurrent theme of the proceedings: the poor or ignorant as "gatekeepers" of medical care, in this case, for their children. (More on that later.) He claimed to "speak for all pediatricians" in wanting greater "access" for children to good medical care. He also claimed that 60% of physicians want a single-payer plan.
  
• Local AFL-CIO President Dale Wortham, big, blustering, and wearing a Hawaiian shirt, expressed outrage at the medical insurance crisis. He seemed like the only person at the meeting with a clue about how much a national insurance plan would cost. Meaning that money for NASA to send men to the moon was wasteful and could be spent on medicine instead, he said, "We have the rocks." (Even a valid argument against government waste does not constitute a valid argument for the government taking over a sector of the economy.)
• In the first Q&A, Conyers, yanking words out of context to manufacture unintended insults like the best of 'em, called Wortham on the carpet for using the phrase "worst of the worst" to describe some of the people both were allegedly there to help. It was plainly obvious that Wortham meant, "worst off of the worst off", and yet Conyers demanded and got an apology from Wortham.
  
• Sheila Jackson-Lee again states that, "These are not panelists. They are witnesses." For whose benefit is she saying this?
• The second panel includes (1) a RESULTS.org activist who says she wants "equal opportunity for healthcare" (2) Dr. Jones, whom Jackson-Lee called "Mr. Disparities in Healthcare". He's part of the "Intercultural Cancer Caucus".
• Jones related a story of how a rich, rural man faced a medical facility with its closed emergency room on "drive-by" status -- What might EMTALA have had to do with that? -- had to try to fly his kid to one. His kid died in flight. Jones' point is that "access" "disparities" don't just affect the poor. No mention is made of the state's possible role in causing this needless death or how an even greater state role will not cause other kinds of "access problems" to become much more common.
• Dr. Bob (?) of Physicians for a National Health Program testifies that he is here to "debunk" the "myth" that state control of medicine will end health care as we know it. He is not an economist or a political philosopher, but a clinical psychologist.
  
• Oddly enough, Dr. Bob sees coverage limits on outpatient visits as evidence that, "The system routinely discriminates against my patients." Even more oddly, although this bill is being called "Medicare for All", he seems not to realize that the government, as the single payer, will have to make similar calls. Even the nation's resources are not unlimited. He also claims that the free market is limited in achieving "socially desirable [by whom? --ed] goals".
  
• Dr. Bob claims, contrary to Dr. Leonard Peikoff, that, "Health Care is a right."
• Dr. Bob also calls single-payer the "gold standard of administrative efficiency". Much of the rhetoric was focused on the large amount of money being spent to administer payment for medical care, as if the much wiser government could redirect most or all of it towards medical care. It seems like nobody in this room regards money as private property.
  
• A nurse from a Harris County hospital claims that the average age of a nurse has increased over her career from 32 to 50. This sounds plausible to me. It does not, however, follow that the state should take over the medical sector,.
  
• She also puts the family as "gatekeeper" this way or something like it:"Do I pay my electric bill or medical?" She fails to notice that Conyers' plan will take this decision out of our hands and put it in the hands of the government. I, for one, do not often agree with how the government spends the money it is already taking from me!
• She complains that only 5% of nurses are bilingual. Note that this bill intends to treat everyone in America. Mighty generous of us. And hell, we're not even going to ask our foreign "guests" to pick up a smattering of English, first!
  
• Betty Lewis, immediate past president of National Black Nurses Association, is also fixated on training "American" nurses. If this plan can magically fix nurse's compensation, which I believe came up at one point, why not magically declare all of us millionaires and solve the whole "access" problem once and for all?
  
• The token "capitalist" (TC) on the panel -- of witnesses -- runs a physician-owned facility that takes in a total of 80% of its revenue from Medicare and Medicaid, but that ends up writing off $20 million (per annum?) due to inability of its patients to pay. In my notes, I write, "This guy thinks he'll make out like a bandit."
• TC cites agreement with Milton Friedman as if to establish that he's a capitalist and then says there exist private, as opposed to public goods. He sees medicine as a "public good". Memo to Conyers, who dozed off during this (and I can see why): There's your "theory".
• One non-empaneled person (whose comment is obviously wanted) grovels for money to research various alleged "causes" of poor health among minorities. These generally sounded hokey to me.

So people, mostly poor, but sometimes including the rich, have to make sometimes painful decisions about how to spend their own money -- I mean, act as "gatekeepers". Sometimes, after hospitals (which also have bills to pay) close their emergency rooms to staunch the financial hemorrhaging of uninsured patients the government tells them they must treat if they show up, patients who could pay don't receive treatment and die -- I mean people don't have unlimited "access" to the time and resources of physicians. There remains a shred or two of freedom in the medical sector, so we have, in the words of some talking points that came with the bill, "had a market-run health care system for the last several decades". And, oh yeah, since the poor have the hardest time "accessing" adequate medical care and many of them are also members of minority groups, this whole state of affairs is not an object lesson on the evils of government interference in the economy, but a racist conspiracy! QED.

The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

As for the bill itself, just covering this meeting has already taken me far longer than I planned this morning. I urge you to read it, though. As just an example, consider that this bill will make it illegal for private insurers to duplicate coverage allegedly provided by the state. This will require patients to either pay for all of their own medical care (unless this is construed as "self-insurance") or accept whatever the government -- as the new "gatekeeper" -- decides you will get.

And, while Conyers et al. claim that single-payer will permit you to choose your physician, recall that he is going to set the rate your physician receives for services. What will free choice even mean when demand skyrockets for "free" medical care and the "gatekeeper" has to decide whether to cut services, raise taxes, or reduce physician compensation? And what if the government disagrees with your physician over whether treating you is "medically necessary"? What criteria will it use? What if you no longer contribute income to the public coffers? Just because the national budget is bigger than a family's budget does not mean that it is limitless. Sooner or later, choices based on money will have to be made. If you -- rather than a government bureaucrat -- want to be the one making such choices, you should fight this plan.

Just this provision -- and it is only the tip of the government-takeover iceberg -- illustrates what is wrong with government interference in the economy in general and this plan in particular: The personal judgement of physician and patient alike can be nullified by government regulation or trampled at the whim of any government functionary entrusted with enforcing those regulations.

Conyers and his supporters are busy telling each other that this proposal will accomplish what Hillary Clinton's set out to do. At the same time, they are getting ready to tell its potential opponents that it differs greatly from Clinton's plan in substantive ways. (It does not. Consider the question of choice more fully. See above.) They are clearly planning to use the worsening insurance crisis as "evidence" that the free market cannot work. I suspect that they want to spring this proposal on a confused public and attempt to pass it rapidly, before it can be examined critically. Notice that much of their focus involves "answering" objections to Clinton's old plan (e.g., physician choice, it won't "end healthcare as we know it", the market has allegedly been tried and failed).

The time is now to get up to speed on this bill, digest the arguments against state control of medicine, and apply those arguments to this new variant. And if you do not have time to do so, or to work against this bill, then I urge you to support the Foundation for Individual Rights in Medicine, the Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, and the Ayn Rand Institute (which recently put out an op-ed debunking the free market facade of Medicare.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Corrected an error. (2) Corrected typos.

Quick Roundup 345

Excellent Satire

This Onion story would be funnier if it didn't so well characterize the dominant Keynesian view of economics held by our politicians and chattering classes, as well as the Pragmatism that is effectively lobotomizing our culture:

"What America needs right now is not more talk and long-term strategy, but a concrete way to create more imaginary wealth in the very immediate future," said Thomas Jenkins, CFO of the Boston-area Jenkins Financial Group, a bubble-based investment firm. "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution." [bold added]

Or the idea that the truth is what most people feel that it is:

"Little pieces of paper are the next big thing," speculator Joanna Nadir, of Falls Church, VA said. "Just keep telling yourself that. If enough people can be talked into thinking it's legitimate, it will become temporarily true."

And that punchline at the end is also a nice bit of inadvertent philosophical journalism....

And the Next Government-Financed Scam Is...

... Wind Power.

In what experts say is the biggest investment in the clean and renewable energy in U.S. history, utility officials in the Lone Star State gave preliminary approval Thursday to a $4.9 billion plan to build new transmission lines to carry wind-generated electricity from gusty West Texas to urban areas like Dallas.

...

Texas electric customers will bear the cost of construction over the next several years, paying about $3 or $4 more per month on their bills, according to Tom Smith, state director of the consumer group Public Citizen. But he predicted that increase would easily be offset by lower energy prices.

Oilman T. Boone Pickens has been lobbying hard for this, but his project will power only "1.3 million homes" if he completes it and it delivers as promised, while everyone in Texas who buys electricity will be paying an estimated $3-4 per month for it for the "next several years". (The $4.9 billion price tag amounts to $233 for each of the 21 million men, women, and children currently residing here.)

If wind power were really such a great cash cow, why can't or won't Pickens finance this himself? Why insulate him from losses if he's wrong, while guaranteeing that everyone in Texas will subsidize his next fortune at best or take his bath at worst?

Whatever he may have accomplished in the past, Pickens, with government help, has now become a looter of fabulous proportions.

Commercial Art

A newspaper flier has alerted me to a commercial art exhibition taking place in Houston. Each whimsical piece --which you can view in the on-line gallery -- is made entirely from Red Bull cans. I don't drink it myself, but I really like the creativity here, and the color scheme of the cans lends itself well to this activity.

One criticism I have is that my favorite piece, "Unbridled", is very hard to see with the Adobe Flash viewer they are using to show the pieces. "Zoom" really ought to let you zoom out. Not to knock "A Wish Granted", which I also like, but that's why you can't see the bull here.

Chavez Passes out Bush Bulbs in Houston

There was an Ayn Rand Institute press release awhile back that correctly called President Bush and Hugo Chavez the "Two Amigos".

How fitting is it, then, that now that President Bush signed into law the statutory obsolescence of incandescent "Edison" bulbs in favor of mercury-laden compact fluorescent "Bush" bulbs, his amigo, Hugo Chavez, has taken that as his cue to start passing them out among the poor in Houston?

Citgo Petroleum, the Houston-based refiner owned by the Venezuelan government, will distribute 460,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs to consumers in 11 U.S. cities in the coming months.

It's an expansion of a program Citgo has done through the Boston-based nonprofit Citizens Energy, which has provided $100 million in heating oil to low-income households the past three winters. [link added]

True, Edison bulbs are still legal for now, but in addition to violating our property rights and dictating how we will light our homes in the future, the bill was a sweeping moral capitualation by the United States government to global warming hysteria.

Without the help of that great "Second Messiah", Hugo Chavez, how, how, O Lord, will the poor be able to join the great crusade against global warming climate change? Bush may be a failure as a President, but he's doing a superb job of helping the likes of Chavez to come in and look like a hero to people who don't know any better. Thanks for less than nothing, presidente.

-- CAV

Socialists vs. Your Health in Houston

Paul Hsieh has emailed me concerning an event to be held in Houston this Friday, July 18. Quoting the flier its organizers have been distributing:

• What: Examination of the Healthcare crisis in America and offering Universal Healthcare as the solution with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
• When: Friday, July 18, 2008 from 1:30 - 3:30pm
• Where: The John P. McGovern Theater, The Health Museum, 1515 Hermann Drive, Houston, TX
• Why: Approximately 47 million Americans lack health insurance coverage and it is believed that another 50 million are underinsured. Healthcare costs in the United States are increasing about 7 percent a year, twice the rate of inflation. In Texas alone it has been estimated that we waste $98 billion on administrative health costs. Administrative costs constitute 31 percent of health care expenditures. The deteriorating U.S. health care system is not only harming patients, but also businesses, and the economy with healthcare costs consuming over 15 percent of GDP
• Invited Guests: Healthcare stakeholders, including: hospital administration physicians, nurses, the uninsured and underinsured of Harris County

One "stakeholder", an employee of a nearby medical school, who was completely blindsided by this wrote:

As far as I can tell, there have been no fliers posted about it [here] and it was [also] absent from [the] last newsletter.... I suppose that if our future physicians are going to be slaves, why treat them as equals by bothering to get their input?

And apart from the obviously specious notion of a welfare-state politician actually "examining" the "Healthcare [sic] crisis", an honest and thorough appraisal of the situation would show that government interference is to blame, and that instituting even more government interference is not going to do anything but make matters worse.

For anyone from Houston (or there on business or for care at the world's largest medical center) and who might want to attend it on this short notice -- or who may wish to prepare himself to help defend the freedom of physicians the next time it comes under attack -- I provide the following list of resources on Paul's recommendation.

• "Health Care is Not A Right" by Leonard Peikoff
• "Ted Kennedy vs. Universal Healthcare: A Double Irony" by Richard Parker, MD
• "The Right Vision of Health Care" by Yaron Brook
• "FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance" by Paul Hsieh, MD
• "Moral Health Care Vs. 'Universal Health Care'" by Lin Zinser, JD and Hsieh, MD
• "The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World" Michael Tanner, March 18, 2008, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 613.
• "Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance" John Goodman, January 27, 2005, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 532.

Of the last two, he states that, "[T]hey are fairly useful for concrete factual information, but ... don't go all the way in making the full moral argument for free market medicine."

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 344

You can't fix what is inherently broken.

Jim Woods has a couple of posts up about something I've been mulling off and on lately: The silly premise, increasingly evident among Republicans, that we can make government violations of individual rights "work" if we only tweak them enough.

At the first link, we have a Republican congressman calling for "reform" of government entitlement programs. At the second, we have Newt Gingrich leading the charge, not to abolish all restrictions on production and trade, but merely to tap into proven oil reserves presently kept off-limits, arbitrarily, by federal law (while leaving federal power to continue doing so intact). Given Gingrich's new enthusiasm for Green causes, this smacks of little else than Clintonian triangulation.

The Republicans failed as advocates of capitalism decades ago, when they refused to identify and get behind the full government protection of individual rights (on which capitalism depends) and its moral basis, the fact that every man's life is an end in itself.

In the past, when the Republicansy did more often seem to want a freer economy, they were still easily thwarted by altruists who protested that others "depended" on various government programs. Since they avoided the moral high ground, even when you'd initially hear talk of abolishing a government program or a cabinet post, it never materialized.

Now, Republicans rarely talk about capitalism, but usually focus on making government programs "work". But what does "work" mean coming from the mouth of someone who does not understand that the proper purpose of the government is to protect individual rights? Your guess is as good as mine. What becomes clear when one does understand the proper purpose of government, however, is that any reform of a program whose entire purpose is to violate individual rights is merely a cosmetic change.

There is only one way to "fix" government interference in the economy, and that is to abolish it altogether.

Oh, and speaking of the Republicans and individual rights, here's a chance to remind that party of that idea.

A Movie Scene Worth Watching

This smolders and smokes -- and I'm saying that even after having to hold the speaker up to my ear while the cat rubbed his head against it the whole time. The volume problem, I suspect is on my end, so don't let that stop you....

Two Different Uses of the Word "Power"

A Republican or two could stand to read Brian Phillips' short outline of the difference between political power and economic power.

The difference between political power and economic power is the difference between the coerced and the voluntary, between the choices of political officials and the choices of individuals.The difference between political power and economic power is the difference between the coerced and the voluntary, between the choices of political officials and the choices of individuals.

The reaction of your audience upon learning (or being reminded of) this may be friendly or hostile, but in either case, you are discouraging the evil and encouraging the good when you make this clear. Sometimes, you will succeed in changing minds, and sometimes, your words will even encourage someone else already on the side of freedom.

-- CAV

Prager's False Equation

Dennis Prager, whom I have criticized here on several occasions for dishonestly equating secularism with leftism, has just penned a column against gay marriage in which he claims that it is wrong to equate opposition to gay marriage with opposition to interracial marriage. On top of this -- and much more important -- his whole argument rests on yet another false equation of his own.

Prager, like the vast majority of society and most moral thinkers before him, equates altruism, the belief that man exists to serve others, with morality, the practice of the rules for proper conduct. In fact, altruism is only a type of morality and it is detrimental to man's life at that. Ironically, Prager's own argument, as much surface plausibility as it will have to most people, can help us see that last point, so let's consider it briefly.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not. [bold added]

Men and women, unlike, say whites and blacks, differ in fundamental ways that make accommodation of those differences moral and practical. So far so good. But it is important to keep in the back of one's mind the following question: "What has this to do with how two consenting adults choose to lead their own lives?"

[N]o religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage. Whereas advocating interracial marriage was advocating something approved of by every religious and secular moral tradition of America and the West, advocating same-sex marriage does the very opposite -- it advocates something that defies every religious and secular moral tradition. Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived. [bold added]

Let's set aside, for the sake of argument, the question, important though it be, of whether a moral code accepted absent (or even contrary to) evidence and logic even can provide meaningful opposition to bigotry, racial or otherwise. The supposed merits of "Judeo-Christian values" are merely a smokescreen for an even greater crime against the truth.

Prager's argument here boils down to something like, "Everybody else opposes same-sex marriage. Who are you to say otherwise." Or: " You are immoral if you hold that two consenting adults who happen to be gay and wish to form an exclusive, life-long legal commitment to one another should be able to do so."

This is despicable. This is dishonest. And this is an example of what one great moral thinker, Ayn Rand, named the argument from intimidation. Rand describes the argument from intimidation as follows.

[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false." (The Virtue of Selfishness, 139)

You will note further, from the book title, that Ayn Rand was a rare moral thinker: She opposed the idea that man is a sacrificial animal and upheld the idea that one's life is, properly, an end in itself. Not only that, she proposed a viable, rational alternative to altruism: Egoism. (She often referred to it as "selfishness", a word she frequently noted was almost always misused by altruists.)

Even if we grant most moral thinkers the benefit of the doubt as specialists in their field, the question remains: "What if they were wrong?" The Judeo-Christian values Prager squawks about like a parrot didn't save Galileo from persecution when he dared to defy all the past "experts" on the question of whether the Earth or the Sun was at the center of the Solar System. Not only that, but that historical episode shows the true worth of subordinating one's own judgement to the wisdom of the crowd, as Prager would have us do here. Where would we be without rare, independent individuals like Galileo?

So much for that part of Prager's "argument".

But so far, Prager's altruism has only been implicit in the sense that his moral authorities all profess altruism. That's okay, though, because Prager makes sure to remind us that he feels that we don't own our own lives:

[T]o oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us -- society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage." [bold added]

Really? I was laboring under the delusion that my life was my own and your life your own, and that we could both benefit by trade so long as we each respected one another's right to live the other's life as he best sees fit -- that we could enhance our lives by participating in a society. But I see that we are really just pieces of a machine! Thanks for clearing that one up, Dennis my boy!

Although Ayn Rand, as far as I know, never explicitly stood up for gay marriage, she was an uncompromising advocate of the individual's right to live his own life by his own lights. From Dennis Prager's argument -- and every other argument I have ever seen against gay marriage -- I see that the fundamental issue is this: Does an individual have the freedom to live his life as he sees fit, so long as he does not violate the rights of other individuals? Prager's answer is, "No!"

This -- individual rights -- is the essential similarity (or "true equation" if you will) between gay marriage, racial equality before the law, and the relevance to the daily lives of this issue to everyone. Jim Crow laws violated the individual rights of nonwhites. Preventing committed gay couples by law from enjoying the same legal benefits enjoyed by straight couples violates the individual rights of gay couples. Both types of law set the very bad precedent that -- contrary to the proper purpose of government -- individual rights can be trumped by other considerations. There is no place in the law for the enforcement of any form of discrimination against the individual.

So, "society" calls for no gay marriage, according to Dennis Prager. I'm not gay, but if I don't stand up for this, who knows what Prager and his ilk will decide "society is predicated on" its members doing next? And when will he start issuing marching orders that do directly apply to me?

I reject the idea that I exist to serve others and to its enforcement by law. I will work for the day that that my inalienable right to live a proper life, as a free man, is protected by law.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 343

Bull Moose? Bull Something, Anyway.

I agree with Andrew Dalton that putting the animated corpse of Theodore Roosevelt into office isn't such a great idea. But this news is really just gilding the lily.

Senator John McCain in a wide-ranging interview called for a government that is frugal but more active than many conservatives might prefer. He said government should play an important "those in America who cannot take care of themselves."

...

He also expressed a willingness to deploy government power and influence where free-market purists might hesitate to do so and to consider unleashing military force for moral reasons.


...

"I believe less governance is the best governance, and that government should not do what the free enterprise and private enterprise and individual entrepreneurship and the states can do, but I also believe there is a role for government." [minor edits]

Hah! Given what McCain -- who admits to knowing diddly squat about economics -- considers "free enterprise" (Page search "Cap and Trade".), I find his last sentence morbidly amusing.

Blizzard of Hatred

Myrhaf discusses the spewing forth of venom from the left following Tony Snow's death due to cancer.

If you ever heard Tony Snow do a radio talk show, you know he was one of the most sweet-natured hosts ever. He never mocked or insulted anyone. You might disagree with him, but any fair person would have to judge him as a genuinely nice guy.

I agree with that, and the appalling things that are being said about him say much more about the people saying them than about Tony Snow.

I wonder how many of these same people drive around with bumper stickers like the one pictured?

Emotions such as hatred reflect how one subconsciously evaluates the facts of reality based on his implicitly-held philosophical premises. Hatred, being merely the opposite of love, can be a psychologically healthy emotion. For example, if something or someone (e.g., a vandal) threatens or harms a passionately-held rational value (e.g., a favorite painting), it would be bizarre not to feel hatred. On the other hand, wishing someone sick with cancer had suffered simply because one disagrees with him is to open a window to a very dark soul indeed. I agree with Myrhaf on this:

The people capable of writing this stuff are totalitarians in waiting. Like the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, all judgment, all morality must report to their collectivist politics. If someone can wish more suffering on a political enemy who died of cancer, do you think he would bat an eye at consigning his enemies to concentration camps?

Such slogans as "Hate is not a family value," may appeal to some with legitimate worries about religious fundamentalism or bigotry, but they also serve to smear people who do not accept left-wing orthodoxy, a fact which, as Myrhaf indicates, excuses the worst nihilistic behavior. Disagreeing with the left is not the same thing as irrationally hating everyone different from oneself.

Can we say, "Projection"? I knew you could!

The Lighter Side

Dismuke discusses the work of a favorite cartoonist and has embedded an example of his work as a YouTube video at his blog. Not only is it worth watching, it's an advertisement! Brilliant! (Pun intended.)

Hmmm. They're finally noticing?

This is news?

Democrat Obama and Republican McCain agree on a range of issues that have divided the parties under Bush.

On immigration, faith-based social services, expanded government wiretapping, global warming and more, Obama and McCain have arrived at similar stances -- even as they have spent weeks trying to amplify the differences between them on other issues, such as healthcare and taxes.

Even on Iraq, a signature issue for both candidates, McCain and Obama have edged toward each other.

The result is that in many areas of policy, the general direction of the next White House seems already set, even if the details are not.

And that direction is away from freedom, as Kyle Haight once pointed out very well. I have already lost in this election.

I was about to make a flippant remark about how the only thing up for a vote this year is what color socialist we'd get, but I remain undecided for now on whether I'll vote for Obama or abstain. (Just to be completely clear: One can vote for a candidate without supporting him. If I vote for President this year, that is definitely what I'd be doing.)

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Several corrections in second section.