[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

-U.S.Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)

Here is a great segment from Reason.tv discussing the history and expansion of the federal power through more modern understandings of the interstate commerce clause.

The ultimate question here has more to do with how you view the Constitution. Is it a legal contract written specifically to limit the power of government – or was it just some basic guidelines for setting up a government system?

This is a fundamental question that American’s each must reconcile. It may not seem important, but rest assured – your rights and liberties will look very different, based on your answer.

For instance, I may choose not to drive a car, or purchase gasoline – but I may not choose not to pay my taxes, which are used to build and maintain our roads. (This is not an argument for privatizing roads, just an example of choice vs. force.). The principal is simple: If I am unable to simply say one word, “No” – then I am being forced to act, forced to work, forced to serve someone else with my mind.

A common criticism of this discussion is that it is too abstract or, for instance “doesn’t feature a single word about policy.” I would simply argue that a philosophical understanding of why government exists, how it functions, and what its role should be is far more essential than any policy discussion. In fact – it must pre-empt policy discussions. Policy is decided long after people have already made assumptions about what government can and should do.

Many people have written about the proper role of government in the past, but sadly, their ideas are substituted in favor of chatter about this or that policy. For the person who perhaps hasn’t taken a moment to think about the core issue, “What is the role of Government,” allow me to present two arguments about the proper, and improper use of force (Government being an institution of force).

The following is an excerpt from John Galt’s speech toward the end of Atlas Shrugged. It highlights some important points about the use of force that must be considered when talking about government functions, since (in America at least), Government is the only institution granted the monopoly use of force. This is a bit of a mild spoiler if you have not read the book – so if that is the case, you may wish to come back to this after reading the book. The video clip is just an excerpt, so be certain to skip to the text below. I have added emphasis.

“Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.

“To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.

“Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no ‘right’ to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

“To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

“Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: ‘Your money or your life,’ or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: ‘Your children’s education or your life,’ the meaning of that ultimatum is: ‘Your mind or your life’-and neither is possible to man without the other.

“If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer’s wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.

“It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.

“In the name of all the producers who had kept you alive and received your death ultimatums in payment, I now answer you with a single ultimatum of our own: Our work or your guns. You can choose either; you can’t have both. We do not initiate the use of force against others or submit to force at their hands. If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it Will be on our moral terms. Our terms and our motive power are the antithesis of yours. You have been using fear as your weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his reward for accepting ours.”

“This is John Galt speaking.” – Atlus Shrugged

Frederick Bastiat also illuminated this idea much earlier in The Law:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Clearly, Force in itself, is not an evil thing, just as guns in themselves, are not evil. However – applying force against an individual’s will is a violation of that individual’s basic human right to liberty. As Rand’s fictional character John Galt put it, to force someone to substitute their own will for yours or another’s, is to deprive that person of choice, or the proper use of their mind.

This brings us back to the core question: What is the proper role of Government? Or in other words – how can the collective force be used, in a manner than does not violate the rights of individuals? This question can be applied to all manner of topics: From National Defense, to Education, to Universal Health-care – the first question, the question that is more fundamental to every situation is – does this policy fall within the bounds of the proper application of force. How are we to determine this? Bastiat again helps with this quandary:

See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

As soon as government breaks out of its proper boundaries (its limits, which I believe were the very purpose of our Constitution), each individual’s mind is in grave danger. No – this isn’t some “black helicopters and tin-foil hats” nonsense, but you simply have to apply what you know about human nature, and add in the power of coercive force without proper function or limit. The bigger and more centralized a government program becomes, the greater number of individual wills are overrun by the relatively tiny will of the elected body. This is exactly the reason that conservatives favor smaller, more local initiatives (if they favor them at all). Programs and policies that claim to represent everyone, more accurately represent no-one. The closer a representative is to the people whom they represent (and the fewer people they represent), the more likely that their choices will align with the wills of the represented.

This is also the reason conservatives reject socialism and other collectivist philosophies. Not only do these philosophies have a history of mass atrocity, at their very core, they fundamentally act against the individual. Given human nature’s fatal tendency to dominate (by force) other human beings – it is easy to see the dangers of setting up systems which encourage and enable this ability.

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

-Frederick Bastiat, The Fatal Tendency of Mankind -The Law

Back to the concept that conservatives being “short on policy.” There are people who believe that if only the “right policy” (the right application of force) were implemented, then everyone would benefit. This sounds like a nobel idea (and is classic among collectivists), but the ends do not justify the means. You cannot confiscate work, to encourage work. You cannot enslave, to set free. This is contradictory. Historian and Communist Howard Zinn penned the popular “A people’s History of the United States” (though I take huge issue with his use of Presentism) which catalogs the suffering and horrors of underdogs and people trampled by force throughout history. And yet – all the while, he supported the idea that “the right government” could wield force, or if “the right people” controlled the levers of power, it would benefit “the people.” Zinn spent his life demonstrating the destruction that the use of force wreaked on people, and yet never arrived at the idea that force cannot be initiated against the unwilling, even if done with noble intentions.

And this truth is the core of my argument. Firstly, I reject the group classification of “the people.” There is no such thing. There exist only totally unique individual human persons. Therefore, there is no way for any policy to be “right” for each individual person. Economist Thomas Sowell put it this way: “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.” To take this question away from a person, and hand it a third party, is to remove the choice from the person with the best knowledge to make it. I think each person needs to decide what is best for themselves, their family, their children, etc. Not some elected group of “experts” claiming to act in the individual’s best interest.

This is why true conservatives advocate ideas that increase liberty. We don’t believe that if we only had “the right government,” or the “right policy” every societal ill could be corrected. We believe that each human being is an individual person, and thus do not address nameless, faceless groups, and classes of people. We do not create political mascots out of groups, such as “the rich,” “the middle class,” or “the poor” so that we can pit them against one another. Nor do we have the audacity to proclaim ourselves so above society that we can fix their problems with our magical policies, if they would only surrender us the power.

By advocating more liberty, given the dismal history of the human condition, conservatives are the true progressives. Liberty is the only situation where each individual is truly a person, capable of making the maximum amount of choice about their own life. With Liberty, the individual has rights and is not demanded by threat of imprisonment or death to surrender his mind, his choices, or his work to the will of another. A free man offers the product of his choices (or his mind) in exchange for something else of value. He determines what he judges to be a fair trade – not a third party. He offers true charity out of his own desire to help another person, not by edict imposed from the desires of a politician. He is not forced to work for someone else, neither does he force another to work for his benefit. In doing so – his rights do not necessitate the destruction or sacrifice of anyone else’s. The choices in his mind, do not command the minds of others.

Thus, the proper and only role of government is to protect human rights, or men’s minds from being violated by force.

“…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Let us stop proposing policies which are destructive to this end. Let us not regress into soft-despotism and servitude. Let us progress, as a nation, with ideas that free individual’s minds.

Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband internet access a legal right for all citizens.

The legislation, which came into effect Thursday, forces telecom operators to provide a reasonably priced broadband connection with a downstream rate of at least one megabit per second (mbs) to every permanent residence and office, the Finnish government said in a statement.

“From now on a reasonably priced broadband connection will be everyone’s basic right in Finland,” said Finnish communications minister Suvi Linden. “This is absolutely one of the government’s most significant achievements in regional policy and I am proud of it.

via edition.cnn.com
“Reasonably priced” …That sounds like a really solid and objective base for just law…

Think of what is really going on here. Imagine if it were my legal right to force you to provide me a service at whatever price I determine is “reasonable?” You don’t have to imagine this if you live in Finland. The Law, better described as the collective force, is being directed by the vast majority of Fins, against a minority group (telecoms). The Law, which is supposed to be an instrument of justice and defense, is perverted into on offensive weapon of plunder.

And the Finnish government is an utter disgrace, promoting this concept as a “significant achievement.” It is a digression and perversion of the high concepts of Rule of Law, Individual Rights, and Justice for which generations of men have struggled and died to advance.

What is next? “Reasonably priced” computers? Automobiles and Fuel? Food? Clothing? As soon as the law ceases to be  just – where do you draw the line?

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.[...]

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

-The Law, Frederick Bastiat

Whenever you read Paul Krugman, it is always helpful to remember that this man won a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics. It might as well have been for Pushing Water Uphill. Here are a couple remarkable statements from his latest New York times column. That’s right…THE New York Times – where The Vision of the Anointed is valued above any rational thought:

Beyond that, this is a story that could happen only in America. In every other advanced nation, insurance coverage is available to everyone regardless of medical history. Our system is unique in its cruelty.

[...]

So you end up with a tripartite policy: elimination of medical discrimination, mandated coverage, and premium subsidies.

Above, Krugman is referencing the much lauded “pre-existing conditions” angle. Now, in a tiny way, I actually agree that often insurance companies can be extremely harsh in their restrictions regarding people who have pre-existing conditions. However, the problem here is the screwy way some companies define “pre-existing.” That should draw Krugman’s ire – not the fact that any pre-existing condition must be ignored. The latter concept is lunacy. What would be the incentive to purchase insurance, if you were guaranteed coverage regardless of any pre-existing conditions? The whole point of insurance being that you are paying someone else to pool the risk that you may or may not require healthcare. It is not “discrimination” to willfully take on exorbitant risk.

So what of Krugman’s solution: 1) Force insurance providers not to “discriminate.” Coercing and removing the risk for mortgage lenders to make less “discriminatory” loans sure worked out really well for the mortgage industry. 2) Mandate everyone purchase insurance to increase the risk pool. Good idea…except that the poor are immediately and totally screwed. His solution for that – subsidize the poor. His solution to pay for that subsidy – you guessed it – taxing other groups of people. This is a fine strategy, if you endorse using the law to plunder various arbitrary groups of individuals. Since the law’s sole purpose is to provide justice by defending a man’s life, liberty, and property, you should be able to see the obvious contradiction. In short – Krugman solution is practicing injustice to promote justice.

Also, with regard to his, “every other advanced nation…,” statement; massive entitlement programs are exactly why most of these nations are going broke. Apparently, in Krugman’s mind, it is considered “advanced” to not only be fiscally irresponsible, but also to proclaim that A is not A.

Next quote:

Can you imagine a better reform? Sure. If Harry Truman had managed to add health care to Social Security back in 1947, we’d have a better, cheaper system than the one whose fate now hangs in the balance.

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Posted via web from Andrew Colclough

This is a rare, but great piece by Ayn Rand, originally published in Reader’s Digest, January, 1944.

===========

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing “the common good.´´ Napoleon “served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is “serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by “altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man’s right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man’s happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians’ first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen’s rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage’s whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the “New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

===

Posted via web from Andrew Colclough

First of all – to whoever reads this, I could care less which way you decide to vote on these measures. I think that assumptions of ill intent by anyone on either side of Measures 66 and 67 are foolish, and distract people from carefully weighing the issues logically. 

As anyone who knows me might have guessed – I’m not exactly enthralled with the two ballot measures, 66 and 67, which are currently facing Oregon’s voters. I have been trying to think them over for a while now, but I tend to think most clearly when I force myself to write my thoughts. Of course – before you read any further – you should read the actual bills yourself. Here is Measure 66, and here is Measure 67.

At this point, you have probably heard the talking point arguments from either side of the issue. Namely, that your choice is between hurting schools, teachers, and students (by voting against 66 and 67) or hurting corporations, jobs, and the rich (passing 66 and 67). Both arguments may be true, but I think there are some deeper concepts to consider.

“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”

 -Thomas Sowell

In my opinion, all political and legislative ideas should be judged by two key factors.

1. The vision they are built on
2. Their practical seen and unseen results

In this post – I am going to discuss the vision behind Measure 66. It is important to understand that by ‘vision,’ I do not mean the stated goals or intent of the policies. In fact – whatever the stated goal of policy happens to be, is almost entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is a good policy which would achieve that goal. When I say ‘vision,’ I am referring to the actual fundamental assumptions about society, law, and justice that the policy is built on.

Measure 66

Measure 66 raises taxes on a certain group of people who earn above a specified amount of income. In my view, there are several problems with the vision behind this bill, primarily, the vision of Law. Firstly, this tax is progressive in nature, as it singles out a specific group of people to be taxed at a higher rate than another group. From the way I view law, I believe progressive taxes are unjust.

The Law (including tax law) is meant to be an instrument of justice. Here the definition of “just” is especially helpful: 

“Equitable: fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience; “equitable treatment of all citizens.”  

A just Law then is the application of force against the inequitable treatment of citizens, or the violation of individual natural rights, such as life, liberty, or in this case, property. Friederic Bastiat wrote far more eloquently about this concept in the 1800s (Please excuse the long quote):

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

- Frederick Bastiat, The Law

I can think of many rationalizations for a certain group of people to be forced to turn over a greater percentage of their earnings to the State, but not one which is just. Some people argue that the wealthy actually live on a different percentage of their income, than say, a poorer middle-class person, and are less affected by higher taxes. Whether or not this is factually accurate, it hardly justifies the majority deciding what percentage they actually need to live on, or what shall be taken.

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”  

-Ayn Rand

Essentially, Measure 66 and all progressive taxes, agree that it is right for third parties (lawmakers or the majority of voters) to determine for other individuals (first parties) what constitutes ‘enough’ income to be taxed at a higher rate. Of course I believe in representative government, but only one which represents the whole equally as individuals, and not one group of citizens vs. another based on class criteria.

Furthermore, I cannot think of a real justification for choosing $250,000, other than the assumption that this amount of money is high enough that a) the taxed party doesn’t need the money, or can ‘afford it’, and b) it won’t effect the majority of people voting to pass the Measure. The first reason subtly agrees that a progressive tax is unjust – but then attempts to rationalize it. And the second is nothing more than shrewd politicking.

The unfortunate consequences of Measure 66 passing or failing are real, and shouldn’t be minimized. If it passes – I believe that it will have an unseen negative effect on jobs (which are already in terrible shape) throughout the state. But there is no doubt – if it fails, it will certainly have a seen negative effect on teachers and schools. As with most government policy – we are left to vote on a loose-loose measure. If anything – this illustrates another simple truth about life:

“There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.”

-Thomas Sowell

As I mentioned in the beginning – in no way could I judge anyone for voting one way or the other on this measure.  The trade-offs of Measure 66 (as well as 67) are difficult to judge, but neither are without negative consequences. I can only state my own judgment and reasoning. Personally, I think 66 represents a deeply flawed vision of society and law. I am not arguing that people who vote for 66 are necessarily approving this vision. However, I believe that American society should be ‘progressing,’ or moving away from laws which divide citizens by class and set up one group against another. I think Bastiat again rightly illuminates this issue:

“But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”

- Frederick Bastiat, The Law

I realize that this opinion may seem grandiose and/or ideological. But I simply believe that the greater trade-off in the long-run is not just “education vs. jobs”, but a free people, and a system of just laws. And I think it is a serious problem that we have lawmakers who write policy of this nature. 

I’m always appreciative when a fellow says what he really means. Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December’s UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”

Hold that thought: “They deal with every aspect of our life.” Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen? But in a good way! So no need to worry. After all, we all care about the environment, don’t we? So we ought to do something about it, right? And, since “the environment” isn’t just in your town or county but spreads across the entire planet, we can only really do something at the planetary level. But what to do? According to paragraph 38 on page 18 of the latest negotiating text, the convention will set up a “government” to manage the “new funds” and the “related facilitative processes.”

Tim Flannery’s disarmingly honest characterization passed almost without notice, reported as far as I can tell only by Brian Lilley of CFRB Toronto and CJAD Montreal. But professor Flannery has it right. Government transport policy is about transport, and government education policy is about education, but environmental policy is about everything, because everything’s part of “the environment”: your town, your county, your planet—and you. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” declared another renowned expert, David Suzuki, last year. And just as the government now monitors air and water quality so it’s increasingly happy to regulate your quality.

In the name of “the environment,” the state gets to regulate everything you do. The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving national “energy efficiency” standards, starting with a 50 per cent reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer.

Hey, but who would ever find out?

Don’t be so sure. In 2006, to comply with the “European Landfill Directive,” various municipal councils in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland introduced “smart” trash cans—“wheelie bins” with a penny-sized electronic chip embedded within that helpfully monitors and records your garbage as it’s tossed into the truck. Once upon a time, you had to be a double-0 agent with Her Majesty’s Secret Service to be able to install that level of high-tech spy gadgetry. But now any old low-level apparatchik from the municipal council can do it, all in the cause of a sustainable planet. So where’s the harm?

And once Big Brother’s in your trash can, why stop there? Our wheelie-bin sensors are detecting an awful lot of junk-food packaging in your garbage. Maybe you should be eating healthier. In Tokyo, Matsushita engineers have created a “smart toilet”: you sit down, and the seat sends a mild electric charge through your bottom that calculates your body/fat ratio, and then transmits the information to your doctors. Japan has a fast-aging population imposing unsustainable costs on its health system, so the state has an interest in tracking your looming health problems, and nipping them in the butt. In England, meanwhile, Twyford’s, whose founder invented the modern ceramic toilet in the 19th century, has developed an advanced model—the VIP (Versatile Interactive Pan)—that examines your urine and stools for medical problems and dietary content: if you’re not getting enough roughage, it automatically sends a signal to the nearest supermarket requesting a delivery of beans. All you have to do is sit there as your VIP toilet orders à la carte and prescribes your medication.

[...]

At their Monday night poker game in hell, I’ll bet Stalin, Hitler and Mao are kicking themselves: “ ‘It’s about leaving a better planet to our children?’ Why didn’t I think of that?” This is Two-Ply Totalitarianism—no jackboots, no goose steps, just soft and gentle all the way. Nevertheless, occasionally the mask drops and the totalitarian underpinnings become explicit. Take Elizabeth May’s latest promotional poster: “Your parents f*cked up the planet. It’s time to do something about it. Live Green. Vote Green.” As Saskatchewan blogger Kate McMillan pointed out, the tactic of “convincing youth to reject their parents in favour of The Party” is a time-honoured tradition.

The problem, alas, is that, for the moment, there’s still more than one party. But why? Last year, David Suzuki suggested that denialist politicians should be thrown in jail. And only last month the New York Times’s Great Thinker Thomas Friedman channelled his inner Walter Duranty and decided that democracy has f*cked up the planet. Why, in Beijing, where they don’t have that disadvantage, they banned the environmentally destructive plastic bag! In one day! Just like that! “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks,” wrote Friedman. “But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

Forward to where?

Well, fortunately the Copenhagen convention’s embryo “government” appears immune to such outmoded concepts as democratic accountability.

Don’t take my word. Listen to what the activists are saying: it’s about every aspect of your life.

PS: Just to be safe, after reading this column, tear into pieces and flush down your toilet.

Oh, no, wait, don’t

Be certain not to misunderstand my intent in posting this article. It isn’t environmentalism I reject — rather, that idea that environmental concerns are so dire that they justify Statism. It is a wonderful thing when people realize that it is in their own best interest to make prudent environmental decisions. However, this is a choice that must be made freely.

If the State removes this choice, it likewise removes the responsibility for making it. This is what creates the destructive notion that, “It’s not my problem – the government (or someone else) will take deal with it.”

The true environmentalist – the one who loves Liberty and does not use the environment as just another excuse for collectivism – seeks to change individual people’s minds about how they deal with the environment, who they buy products from, how they live. They do not seek the power to force people into compliance with their worldview, through governmental legislation and coercion.

Here’s to true environmentalists.

“I don’t want to be made dictator. I don’t believe in dictators. I believe we want to bring about change by the agreement of the citizens. I don’t believe in arbitrary rule.If I can’t persuade, if we can’t persuade the public that it’s desirable to do these things, we have no right to impose them, even if we have the power to do it.”

-Milton Friedman

Posted via web from Andrew Colclough

I certainly agree with the idea that we deserve the government that we get. If we, as a society, feel that the decisions and responsibility concerning our own health are things that our government should be shouldering, rather than us – then we deserve socialized medicine.

If this is our choice, then we must also acknowledge we will be necessarily handing our own choice over to a third party – and be willing to live with this decision. We also must be willing to accept that in the future, removing this government program will be impossible – given that it provides citizens with something they perceive as ‘free,’ in exchange for their votes and loyalty to keep that program going. Mark Steyn points writes about this change in rolls:

“The problem isn’t the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They’re wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal.”

[...]

“Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place.”

This idea of cultural infantilism is much more fully discussed in Steyn’s article: Live Free, or Die.

You are probably wondering, if I am against a socialized or nationalized plan – what alternative would I suggest? Well, I am certainly no expert on health care – however, I do have several guiding principals and questions that we should ask or consider when we talk about health care:

First, Thomas Sowell’s famous three questions:

1. How much does it cost?
2. Who pays for it?
3. Does it work?

Now, several of my own:

1. Does the new plan increase – or decrease personal liberty?
2. If the new plan isn’t initially in conflict with personal liberty (question 1), can it easily be made to be so (for instance, by a future corrupt government)?
3. Why does any plan need to be created at the National or Federal level? Why not let the states figure out their own plans, especially since they are much closer and more knowledgeable about their own peoples and situations?
4. What evidence can you point to that our government can afford such a program, given the state of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?
5. Does the new plan increase personal choice? In other words, under any proposed plan, would an individual have more choices overall, or less?
6. Does the plan encourage competition? Historically, industries that have free and tough competition, have to find ways to entice the customer to their service – or they will cease to be. Usually they do this through innovation, providing cheaper services, or providing better services for similar prices. Would whatever new plan we are considering create  competition, favor one business over another (such as one provider teaming up with the government, similar to lobbying), or eliminate competition?

Those are just a start, so I will probably return to this post and add additional questions. Feel free to add your own in the comments. In the mean time, here’s John Stossel’s take also:

And here are ten facts about the U.S. health care system you might not know (via The Hoover Institute – follow the link for in-depth explanations):

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

The president is making sense
Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias both catch President Obama making sense on the public option:

QUESTION: Wouldn’t that drive private insurance out of business?

OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.

Making Sense? I respectfully disagree. Obama’s answer conveniently leaves out some important economic factors.

President Obama asks, “Why would it drive private insurance out of business?”

The answer is simple:

1. Because the government operates outside the market and price system and therefore has the unique ability to artificially set their price below the competitive market (something private insurers do not have the power to do, because their price is determined by supply and demand). Contrary to popular belief, Prices in the free market are not set arbitrarily. This is easily demonstrated by Craigslist. I recently tried to sell a rather ugly southwestern style kitchen table for $200. I actually figured that it probably wasn’t worth that, but I thought I would try it and see if I got any bites. No Response.
   Soon – I lowered the price to $150. Nothing.
   Finally, I lowered it to $100 and I sold it fairly quickly. You can see that I could not sell the table for more than it’s actual real-world perceived value. I didn’t really set the price at $100, rather, low demand for the ugly table did.
2. Also – the government is funded through non-voluntary trading – by taxation, thus has no competition, no bottom line, no incentive, nor any reason whatsoever to function efficiently. Nor do they have any real incentive to provide ‘better health care’ (In a public system – someone in an office, who knows nothing about you, will determine the policy of what is considered ‘adequate’ healthcare based on what – Statistical data?) since you don’t get to choose to pay (essentially, vote with your dollars) for their service. Only the government has the power to force you to pay for their service, whether you want it or not. Private industry has to offer you something you value more than your own money, to earn your business.
3. Finally, the fact that most people falsely perceive government options as “free,” basically guarantees overwhelming popular and political capital for an idea that you cannot choose not to pay for. Even if the actual outcome of such a program is poor, the majority of voters will subscribe to the nice sounding idea that everyone should receive health care. It is, after all, a noble sounding ideal – but unfortunately, when measured against history, or any kind of actual economic cost/benefit results – it fails.

I would expect Paul Krugman, Ezra Klien, Matthew Yglesis, and President Obama to know better, but political capital is so much easier to get excited about, than the, rather, wet blanket that is economic reality. It’s time (yet again) for one of my favorite quotes:

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
-Thomas Sowell

You cannot buck economic forces. In my view – they are as consistent and absolute as the laws of Mathematics. Yet they seem to be the first to be disregarded in the face of an idea that sounds really satisfying.

I have written much more extensively on this here: Healthcare: Economic Reality vs. Political Capital