Israel Under Terrorism

The following article originally was published on March 31 by Grand Junction's Free Press. See also Part I and Part II.

For Israelis, risk of terrorist attacks alters everyday life

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

This article, written from Linn's perspective, is the third and final in a series based on Linn's February trip to Israel as part of the Ultimate Counter Terrorism Mission. Additional notes and photographs from the trip will be published at FreeColorado.com within a week or two.

Security in Israel is tight. When we were entering a restaurant, a guard approached my group, searched our purses and bags, and asked us to open our coats so that he could make sure we weren't wearing any extra belts.

Those not used to such measures might be surprised or uneasy to see guards carrying Uzi submachine guns, yet such guards and searches are the norm. Before any business can open its doors, it must have a business license. The license requires a security plan, which means many businesses will have an armed guard checking all bags and purses.

I had barely gotten past the guard when my cell phone rang. It was my wife Sharon, home in the States, with worry in her voice. She told me that a suicide bomber (known as a missile man to the locals) had detonated, killing two women. I assured her that the attack was many miles from where we were, and we were in no danger.

Everyone in Israel has a cell phone and the phones are always ringing. A general's phone may ring while he's giving a briefing; a bus driver will answer his phone while driving. Answering one's cell phone is not a sign of disrespect or a lack of courtesy. It is a way to assure worried family members and loved ones. Nearly everyone in Israel is directly or indirectly involved with the police or military. Everyone in Israel is fighting terrorism.

The man in charge of Israel's largest airport -- Ben Gurion International Airport -- had recently returned from the U.S. after reviewing the security of some of its airports, including Denver International. As gracious as our host was, he couldn't help but grimace when I asked him to rate the security of DIA. He politely refused to answer this question for reasons of politics as well as security. Many of the law enforcement personnel in our travel group agreed with our host when he suggested that, in the U.S., we are better prepared for picking up the pieces than for prevention.

Hebrew University is located at Mount Scopus in the eastern part of Jerusalem, between the predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem and various Arab villages. On July 31, 2002, a Palestinian construction worker exploded a bomb in the university's crowded cafeteria. A tree that was partially blown over by the blast is now part of a memorial for the students killed by the terrorist.

Today a sophisticated security fence surrounds the University. Everyone is required to enter the facility and pass through security, which includes metal detectors and bag checks similar to airport security. This is part of the idea in Israel of being proactive.

Entering the Jerusalem Central Bus Station is very much like entering any airport security system in the U.S. Security personnel profile the passengers as they do at airports. The major difference is that there are hundreds of bus stops in the inner city of Jerusalem. Both uniformed and undercover officers guard the busses and bus stops.

Some of the buses that travel dangerous routes are literally armored vehicles. These buses remind me of the old Clint Eastwood movie Gauntlet where the bus has to travel through sniper fire and bombs.

At least Eastwood did not have to worry about terrorists boarding the bus hoping to take it into Egypt to create an international incident. Such an event took place on Bus Line 300. Alon Stivi related this story because his father, a former paratrooper, was on board. Thinking quickly, the bus driver hit the brakes and opened the emergency doors, allowing Stivi's father to escape. The intelligence that his father provided allowed an Israeli commando unit trained in bus assaults to take the bus back with no additional Israeli casualties. This is one reason why Stivi's training of law enforcement in bus assaults has such an element of realism.

Healers also must prepare for terrorism. Prior to my trip, a terrorist, determined to detonate, was headed to the maternity ward of the Hadassa Hospital. Fortunately, he was intercepted before he reached his destination. Hadassa Hospital, which prides itself in providing services for Jews, Arabs, and Christians alike, stocks supplies to last for months, and it prepares for the potential of mass casualties.

In Israel, the struggle against terrorism affects everyone, every day. We would do well to remember the precarious situation of Israel, our ally, and the risk to ourselves if we continue to close our eyes to the state sponsors of terror in the Middle East.

Idiot Hour

I enjoyed my Productivity Hour very much. I thought about how much electricity benefits our lives and how the goal should be to produce dramatically more energy, not less.

I was pleased to read the following headline: "Denver hardly plugged into 'Earth Hour'." Downtown "most businesses remained brightly lit during a global effort to dim lights and raise awareness of climate change."

I especially appreciated the way that Denver Post reporter Kieran Nicholson interviewed critics of "Earth Hour." No, wait -- she didn't do that. Instead, she wrote a one-sided story that was basically a propaganda piece for the environmentalist religion. Nicholson presumed that those who refused to cow to this environmentalist nonsense were "operating in the metaphorical dark when it came to Earth Hour." It couldn't possibly be that some Coloradans realize that "Earth Hour" is insanity and intentionally turned on their lights in protest.

"Earth Hour" should have been called Idiot Hour, as the following passages from Nicholson's story illustrate:

Steve Hulsberg, 29, of Aurora... an information technology worker, attended the Denver International Auto Show at the Colorado Convention Center before walking over to the mall to see the lights dim. He's looking to buy a hybrid Ford Escape or Toyota Highlander, he said, in the interest of being "green." ...

Floridians Steven Darby and his son Rutland were spending spring break in Colorado to ski.

At the Hard Rock on Saturday, they were surprised -- but enthusiastic -- when the lights went low.

"I think it's a great concept," Steven Darby said.

It turns out that the Escape gets 22 to 28 miles per gallon, while the Highlander gets 18 to 24 miles per gallon. That's "green?" My non-hybrid car gets better gas mileage than that. But, hey, it's a "hybrid," so who cares about how much gas it actually burns! This is, after all, a cult, not anything that actually has anything to do with the real environment.

And how much energy did the Floridians consume traveling to Colorado? Or eating at a restaurant? Yes, anti-industrial environmentalism is a "great concept," so long as it's limited to an hour of a pleasant spring evening, and we can still sit in a plush, warm restaurant or contemplate gas-guzzling automobiles.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm happy that the participants of "Earth Hour" are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrites. If they actually took seriously this nonsense about turning out the lights and not using energy, they would be thoroughly morally corrupt, rather than merely hypocritical.

Update: Someone suggested that critics of "Earth Hour" ought not be so harsh in their condemnations. So I'll grant here that, also for the most part, those who participated in "Earth Hour" (by turning off lights and other "non-essential" appliances) are well-intentioned, in that they want to maintain an industrial society, only one that reduces "greenhouse" emissions. Furthermore, these people can point to evidence (or at least widely purported evidence) that human activity significantly contributes to global warming (despite the fact that global warming is, historically, cyclical).

Nevertheless, I do maintain that pro-industrial participants of "Earth Hour" aren't noticing the implications of turning out the lights. "Earth Hour" suggests that the proper way to deal with global warming is to reduce human consumption of energy. Even if global warming is likely to continue over coming decades, even if it is significantly caused by human activity, and even if it would significantly harm people by century's end -- and in my view each of those propositions is shakier than the last -- the proper solution is not to reduce the production of energy. Reducing the production of energy implies less productivity overall, and fewer life-enhancing goods and services in the U.S. and more poverty globally. Forcibly reducing energy production would impose high human costs and yet fail to seriously address global warming. Such a move would hamper economic advancement, including potential advancements in energy production.

Instead, the proper solution is to allow people to act in an unfettered free market -- rather than in a political arena dominated by special interests and political favoritism -- to discover better ways to use and produce energy. Notably, nuclear power is clean and safe, yet many environmentalists continue to oppose it. I don't know whether nuclear power would win in a market over the coming decades, or whether some other source of energy would prove more effective and economical. But I do know that the political process has brought us such things as corn gas, which is essentially worthless in terms of addressing global warming (but great for enriching special interests and raising food prices). Thus I conclude where I began: the goal should be to produce dramatically more energy, not less.

Productivity Hour

Tonight I'll be celebrating Productivity Hour by enjoying as many electric-powered items as possible. Unfortunately, as The Denver Post reported,

Saturday at 8 p.m., residents of Denver will join environmentally-conscious people around the world in switching off lights and non-essential appliances, to give the Earth's energy resources a break. "Earth Hour," will be observed across six continents, with as many as 370 cities officially pledged to take part.

The event, created by the World Wildlife Fund, asks for volunteers to unplug for for one hour as a symbolic gesture in support of action on climate change.

Nicholas Provenzo points out, "As shown by [a] composite satellite image of the Earth at night, North Korean support for 'Earth Hour'... is near universal and extends throughout the year."

The Republican Schism

Colorado is a Republican state run by Democrats. Why is that? David Kirby of America's Future Foundation (AFF) organized a debate in Denver to figure it out. Brad Jones of FaceTheState (shown in the photo) moderated the event, held March 26 at the Oxford Hotel. AFF described the event as follows:

Democrats' Strategy to turn the Mountain West Blue, and What Libertarians and Conservatives Can Do About It

It's no mistake that Democrats will be hosting their national convention in Denver. Liberal funders have invested heavily in Colorado as part of a multi-cycle strategy to turn traditionally red states in the mountain west blue. But have Republicans and the Religious Right put more libertarian-leaning mountain states up for grabs? Looking at the primaries, does Huckabee's success indicate the growing or waning influence of evangelicals in the Republican Party? Does Ron Paul's fundraising success indicating a growing influence of libertarians? And what to make of McCain? Join our panelists as we discuss the future of libertarians, conservatives, and evangelicals in the West.

Featuring Jon Caldara, president, Independence Institute; Jim Pfaff, president, Colorado Family Council Ryan Sager, author, Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party; Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute and author, Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power; moderated by Brad Jones, Facethestate.com.

The four main speakers offered four different takes on the GOP and the problems arising from the "fusionism" of the last few decades between social conservatives (the religious right) and fiscal conservatives. (Caldara and Healy are shown in the photo at left; Sager and Pfaff are shown below.)

1. Sager believes that social conservatives, with their emphasis on outlawing abortion and disparaging homosexuals, along with their increasing friendliness toward big-government programs, have alienated both socially-tolerant fiscal conservatives and younger voters. Sager said that he's sorry to lose social conservatives as political allies, but he didn't express much hope for a renewal of fusionism. Instead, pointing to polling data and demographic trends, Sager predicted continued Democratic success in the Interior West.

2. Pfaff, whose organization is friendly with James Dobson's Focus on the Family, argued that fusionism continues to be a sound basis for an alliance, and that many on the religious right continue to share concerns about limiting the power of the federal government.

3. Caldara suggested that the main problem is that Republicans aren't acting like Republicans; that is, they are promoting higher taxes, expanded political programs, and more government controls generally. This has dispirited the Republican base and made possible Democratic victories. He thinks that Republican "differences... are actually pretty small" and that they can be bridged.

4. Healy said basically that fusionism doesn't matter. Whether Republicans or Democrats have controlled the national government, its power has steadily expanded. However, while Clinton supported free trade, got the deficit under control, and helped reform welfare, Bush expanded welfare and launched a nation-building expedition. "If what you really care about" is limited government, Healy said, then partisanship is the wrong strategy. Instead, our best hope in the near future is divided government.

I suggest that a fifth explanation is the best one. Fusionism is inherently unstable, the conservative split was destined to happen, and a deepening schism is both inevitable and desirable.

Today's liberals of a classical bent, whom Sager calls the libertarians, are primarily concerned with individual rights. Thus, they care deeply about property rights and economic liberty, and they also care deeply about individual freedom. Their concern is fundamentally with the well-being of individual people and the society that they comprise; their basic value is earthly flourishing. Thus, the "fiscal conservatives" are dominantly secularists, even though many of them also hold religious views.

The religious right, on the other hand, is fundamentally concerned with success in the afterlife and with obeying the (alleged) commandments of God. The Bible doesn't lend much support to a politics of economic liberty; it is instead dominated by the ideal of giving away one's money to help the less-fortunate. Most Christians, even most "conservative" ones, endorse a robust welfare state. To the extent that Christians endorse relatively free markets, they usually do so on essentially collectivist grounds: free markets harness capitalist vice to enrich the masses. Capitalism does enrich the masses, but the key political question is whether the rights of the individual to pursue earthly happiness remain inviolable.

Certainly the likes of George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney advocate massive state intrusion in the market, often on explicitly religious grounds. Moreover, many on the religious right believe that God wants them to outlaw abortion, gay marriage (if not homosexuality), and pornography. Thus, even social conservatives who endorse relatively free markets -- and they seem to be a dying breed -- typically advocate censorship and highly intrusive state powers. To take but one example, the effort in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person would, if enforced, impose severe state controls over our sexual and reproductive lives.

Democrats in Colorado have not won; Republicans have lost. Republicans have pushed for such measures as waiting periods for abortions and controls of book-store displays. They have resisted efforts to moderate the drug war, even for medical marijuana, and it took a Democratic government to repeal the Prohibition-era ban on Sunday liquor sales. So Republicans have certainly been unfriendly toward "socially tolerant" fiscal conservatives -- a large group in the Interior West, as Sager has found. Meanwhile, Republicans have also given us massive tax hikes, the smoking ban, and corporate welfare. While some Republicans do actually push for free markets, Republicans on the whole are only modestly better than Democrats at defending economic liberty, and often Republicans are leading the charge to violate economic liberty.

I myself have renounced "fusionism." The religious right is no friend of liberty. I voted for Democrat Bill Ritter for governor, I have indicated my likely support for Mark Udall over Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate, and I have pledged not to vote for John McCain, who has trampled the First Amendment as well as pushed for faith-based politics.

Fusionism is dead. Good riddance.

As far as I can see, the only real hope for liberty (beyond the necessary philosophical foundation) is for the civil-libertarian left, the free-trade Democrats, and the free-market right to form a new alliance. The religious right has already started to merge with the religious left, and that process will continue. The ultimate battle is between reason and liberty on one side and faith and force on the other. Of course, some non-Christians, such as rabid environmentalists, will join the side of socialism, their natural home, while various Christians will join the side of liberty. Social tolerance insists on freedom of religion (including freedom from religion) and naturally includes tolerance for religious differences -- so long as religionists don't try to impose their religious dogmas by force.

But on with the discussion.

Pfaff argued that there "really isn't a divide at all;" he called himself a "Christian libertarian" and a member of the "Reagan coalition." He said that, while he is concerned with the politics of "life" and "marriage" (i.e., banning abortion and preventing homosexual unions), social conservatives are "not just animated by family / life issues." They also care about freedom in the economy.

"I have no desire to live in a pro-life, socialist state," Pfaff said. For one thing, under socialism he'd lose the "pro-life" issue, too. (I don't think that point is correct, as Christian socialism is possible.) He added, "To understand social conservatives, you have to understand that life issue." He said the matters of abortion and marriage, as well as fiscal issues, are "rooted in the principles of liberty." By my lights, that only demonstrates that the meaning of liberty depends crucially on underlying principles.

Caldara tried to sprinkle some water on burning bridges. "For the most part, I love social conservatives," he said. However, Caldara made perhaps the most devastating critique of fusionism, even if he didn't intend his comments as such. He pointed out that, in the good ol' days of fusionism, God loved guns and low taxes, so fusionism worked. But now "God is having second thoughts on both issues," and the religious right seems more concerned with telling people how to live. The problem that Caldara points to is that of faith-based politics: Christians who try to justify capitalism through religion ultimately fail to do so, while other Christians successfully sacrifice capitalism to religion (consider, for instance, the rise of Jim Wallis.)

But the GOP has other problems, Caldara noted, such as the "business-development Republicans," whose idea of business development is a combination of corporate-welfare, discriminatory taxation, and political favoritism. I would describe the broader problem here as pragmatism: many Republicans don't even know what principles are, much less seek to apply them in politics.

Healy offered perhaps the most painfully funny talk. "Is it really a shame" if "our side" loses, he asked? Bush has hardly represented a victory for conservatives. He also suggested that, with a Democratic president, at least Republicans might oppose some expansions of federal power.

In line with his new book, Healy offered a more fundamental critique of the American presidency. The modern president has become "the living embodiment of America's hopes and dreams," he said. He quoted Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Bush about controlling the economy, creating an American "kingdom," following Teddy Roosevelt, and having "a heart big enough to love those who hurt."

In other words, the president is supposed to be "America's shrink and social worker and talk-show host," as well as the protector of the entire earth, all in one person. "The president is supposed to be a superhero." However, Healy warned, "With great responsibility comes great power."

Sager began by reviewing the history of fusionism. Bush, he argued, abandoned fusionism in favor of so-called "compassionate conservatism." Sager blasted McCain's campaign censorship law. Citing recent history, he asked, if you are socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, "why on earth would you vote Republican?" The Democratic Party is increasingly the home of free trade plus social tolerance, he suggested.

Sager places the blame for fusionism's demise squarely with the religious right, which seems to care most about "denying civil rights to gay people." Such a position alienates young voters as well as civil libertarians, he added. The message of the GOP insofar as it is dominated by the religious right is, "We are the party of bigotry."

In the question period, Healy noted that, even though he is sympathetic with the "pro-life" position, he no longer sees a basis for a broad coalition. Social conservatives are "no longer part of the leave-me-alone coalition," he said. Instead, they seem to be following the ideals of the Great Society. Pfaff said that he supported Huckabee, whom Healy particularly criticized, despite concerns with Huckabee's economic pronouncements.

Pfaff was obviously feeling a little bit beat up. I think that's because, ultimately, Pfaff cannot establish a basis for fusionism, even though he obviously wants to. To me, Pfaff's support for Huckabee indicates where his priorities rest. While I appreciate Pfaff's concern for economic liberty, he's half-heartedly fighting a battle within the religious right that he simply cannot win.

As the old alliances crumble, people are going to have to make some hard choices. Democrats will have to decide whether they care more about class warfare or a sound economy. Civil-libertarians of the left will have to decide whether they can live with civil liberties such as gun ownership and property rights. Christians of the right will need to decide whether they care more about abortion and homosexuality or economic liberty -- and pick their allies accordingly.

Meanwhile, those who consistently advocate individual rights must fight for their principles and try to bring others on board.

Prostitution: Reply to Shane Fookes

While Shane Fookes at least offers an argument in favor of the prohibition of prostitution (unlike my last critic), that argument is weak. Moreover, Fookes fails to respond to my arguments in favor of legal prostitution, and he misrepresents some of my views.

Fookes argues that, in addition to protecting people's rights, government must "restrain evil." The problem is that Fookes never explains which evils the government ought to restrain, or why. Nor does he consider that, to forcibly "restrain evil" beyond the violation of rights, government must itself violate rights.

The evils that I think government should restrain are the evils of initiating force and fraud; that is, the evils of violating people's rights. Fookes thinks that the government should prohibit vices ("evils") that do not violate rights. He never says whether he believes that the government should ban all such vices, or just some of them, or how to decide.

Following are some vices that are currently legal (taken from my Speakout and additional commentary):

* Drinking too much alcohol.
* Smoking (in one's home and outside).
* Overeating.
* Engaging in indiscriminate sex among consenting adults.
* Cheating on one's spouse.
* Indirectly exchanging expensive dinners and trips for sex.
* Not working when one's children need the income.

If Fookes believes that the government must "restrain evil," then does he believe that the government should impose criminal penalties for each of the vices listed above? Many of the vices listed above can be at least as harmful as engaging in prostitution; for example, failing to support one's children can severely harm those children yet fall short of criminal abuse. Does Fookes believe that the police should arrest, and the courts should imprison, people for all of the vices listed above? If not, then why does Fookes believe that only some vices (such as prostitution) should carry criminal penalties? Until and unless Fookes can provide a plausible answer to this question, he has not made his case.

Fookes is wrong to conclude that the government should "restrain evil" beyond the violation of rights. The first problem is that even restraining actual vices tends to foster abusive government that invades our privacy and causes unintended social harms. (For example, the legal prohibition of prostitution results in more disease and more violence against prostitutes.) The second problem is that, while rights violations can be clearly defined, "evil" is the subject of vast disagreement. Many Americans believe that blasphemy, atheism, pornography, and homosexuality are evil. Other Americans believe that eating meat, wearing leather, and building large houses are evil. Does Fookes believe that all of those things should also be banned? If not, then how does he propose to distinguish actual evils from pretend ones? Who gets to make those decisions? Once the machinery of "restraining evil" is in place, what's to stop it from falling into the wrong hands? After all, Islamic totalitarians act to "restrain evil" by their understanding.

Fookes claims, "Based on [Armstrong's] logic, all drug use should be legalized, and all forms of indecency laws, traffic safety laws, etc., should be eliminated."

I have indeed argued that drug use, by consenting adults when the operation of heavy machinery or similar circumstances are not involved, should be legal. I have written many thousands of words arguing my case, and if Fookes can't be bothered to consider my case, I don't see why I should recapitulate it here.

I don't know what Fookes means by "indecency laws." Does he mean laws requiring clothes? If so, then I would point out that nudity is legal on private property and properly illegal on tax-funded property. The problem with banning all alleged "indecency" is that, first, not every indecent act violates rights, and, second, "indecency" is ambiguous and subjective.

Fookes is wrong that my position entails the elimination of traffic safety laws. So long as roads are tax-funded (and I don't concede that they should be), the government must set the policies for using those roads. However, I would note, if you build your own road, you may properly establish the policies for using that road.

So Fookes has not established that the government should "restrain evil" beyond the violation of rights. Nor has he explained how any reasonable limits can be established once government gets into the business of forcibly "restraining evil" beyond the context of rights, whether the evil is real or based on some dogma.

Smoking Ban (Still) Violates Rights

The Denver Post reported on March 22:

A Colorado appeals court ruled last week that smoking by an actor on stage, while possibly important to character and theatrical message, is still banned by the state's 2-year-old indoor smoking law.

"The smoking ban was not intended to prevent actors from expressing emotion, setting a mood, illustrating a character trait, emphasizing a plot twist or making a political statement," a three-member panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals said in its unanimous ruling, upholding a lower court's verdict.

However, the court added, "smoking, by itself, is not sufficiently expressive to qualify for First Amendment protection."

The smoking ban does violate the right of free speech, but more fundamentally it violates the right to property. (See my earlier comments about the smoking ban.)

Colorado's Bill of Rights (Article II, Section 3) states: "All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

If Colorado's courts took seriously Colorado's Constitution, they would reject the smoking ban before even getting to the federal Bill of Rights.

Gazette Reviews Income Calculator

I was quoted in a March 20 story written by Perry Swanson for the Colorado Springs Gazette:

The financial picture is getting worse for Colorado's working poor families, according to a study issued Wednesday. ...

[T]he Colorado Center on Law and Policy... runs the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, a Denver-based think tank that sponsored the study, which examines the cost to get by in each of the state's 64 counties.

The study is called "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado 2008: A Family Needs Budget." ... The institute Wednesday also unveiled an online Colorado Self-Sufficiency Calculator...

Advocates say the calculator should guide policymakers as they ponder changes to tax laws and welfare programs. They recommend more support for programs designed to help people keep working, such as child-care assistance, food stamps and restoring Colorado's Earned Income Tax Credit. ...

Ari Armstrong, a Denver area resident who writes online about political issues, said the calculator -- at least for him and his wife -- is flawed.

"The calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing," Armstrong said. "We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less."

Armstrong took issue with other estimated monthly costs, including $358 for food and $453 for transportation -- too high -- and $317 in taxes -- much lower than reality.

"I'm all for reducing taxes across the board, and especially for the poor," he said. "If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful. Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency."

Swanson did good job of reporting the basic story while including both perspectives.

You can view the calculator and the report yourself.

However, because Swanson did not include my comments about Social Security, my point about taxes is a bit unclear in the article. Following are my complete, unedited comments to Swanson:

There are two issues here. First, is the calculator legitimate? Second, what are appropriate measures for helping the poor?

Clearly, the "Self-Sufficiency Calculator" is misleading in that it does not actually measure the minimum income needed to live in self-sufficiency.

For example, the calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing. We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less.

The calculator suggests that we need to spend $358 per month on food. But we just made out our monthly budget, and, based on past expenses, we allocated $350 per month for food and household items combined. We could spend far less if we needed to. Last year, we spent a month eating a nutritious but economical diet, and we spent only $159 combined for food. Such a diet wouldn't be much fun over the long haul, but it is adequate.

The calculator also claims that we need to spend $453 per month on transportation. Nonsense. Running an economical car for modest commutes costs less than that. We in fact lived without a car for about two years and took the bus. An RTD monthly pass costs between $60 and $144.

One thing that the calculator underestimates is taxes. The calculator estimates $317 in taxes for us for a "self-sufficiency" income of $2,195, or about 15 percent of the total. But the real tax burden is much higher. All wages are subject to an employer-employee combined tax of about 15 percent off the top, and that doesn't even include any income taxes. Add to that property taxes (which renters pay indirectly), sales tax, and a multitude of minor taxes, and the total tax burden is substantial.

I'm all for reducing taxes across the board and especially for the poor. For example, exempting lower-income earners from the Social Security tax alone would be the equivalent of a pay increase of nearly 15 percent. If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful.

Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency. Moreover, forcing some people to transfer money to others violates rights and pushes out more effective, voluntary charity programs.

If the goal is self-sufficiency, we need more economic liberty and lower taxes, not more political programs backed up ultimately by physical force.

Support in Prostitution Debate

I had little interest in debating the legality of prostitution, but then a well-known governor was brought down largely because of the issue, and I had an opportunity to discuss the case in a public forum. Since last I wrote about the debate, several people have added some good comments in my defense. The quotes below are taken from the comments section following a letter that criticized me.

In her critical letter, Susan Williams wrote, "If Speakout writer Ari Armstrong thinks he is purchasing his wife's favors when he pays for groceries or dinner out, I'll bet my hat that is an opinion he has not yet shared with his wife." Brian Schwartz sensibly pointed out that Williams's statement is "a blatant personal attack on Mr. Armstrong's character."

Lin adds:

Susan Williams completely missed the point of Ari Armstrong's Speakout. He stated that prostitution is a vice, is degrading and should be morally condemned. On this they agree.

Instead of responding to his reasons for advocating that prostitution should be illegal, she viciously attacked him, making an ad hominen argument, and claimed that no one wants their daughters to be prostitutes. No similar statement about the sons.

The question remains: Why should a moral vice like prostitution be illegal when infidelity, indiscriminate sex, lying to achieve a personal advantage, and other vices are not illegal? To this question Ms. Williams has no answer except she doesn't like it. That's no answer.

She should re-read the Speakout, apologize to Mr. Armstrong for her attack, and give reasons if she has them. If not, she should keep quiet.

N. Provenso chimes in:

Susan Williams' letter is grossly unfair and personally insulting to Ari Armstrong. Armstrong clearly articulated the reasons why prostitution is vice but ought to be legal; in reply, Williams' shows she didn't even consider Armstrong's argument and instead chose to lob an inappropriate personal attack and straw man his position.

Should everything that is a vice but does not violate the rights of others be made illegal? Too much fast food? Smoking? Excessive alcohol consumption? Responding to an op-ed you haven't read?

Paul Hsieh writes, in part, "[O]one of the best virtues of America is the fact that we are able to distinguish between immoral acts that should *not* be illegal (such as prostitution) and immoral acts that *should* be illegal (such as rape or theft). The first does not involve any initiation of force or fraud, whereas the second does. And that makes all the difference."

Diana Hsieh adds, "Ms. Williams' letter exemplifies so much of what is wrong with political discourse in America today. It's bad enough that she grossly misrepresents Ari Armstrong's views by claiming that he endorses prostitution, but the personal attack on him (and his wife) should have qualified this letter for the circular file."

I appreciate this support.

To date, I have seen no reply to my original article that attempts to rebut my arguments.

There are a couple of points still worth pursuing. First, I offered only a hint of why prostitution is a vice; much more can be said on that matter. (I was not surprised that some libertarian critics took issue with my claim that prostitution is a vice.) Second, I didn't make clear in my original article what the laws should be regarding the trade of prostitution on "public" property. The ultimate answer is that the property should not be public. But, so long as it is, I think the law may properly prevent people from offering and soliciting prostitution there, for the same reasons that people cannot sell alcohol or guns on the street corners. But the main issue is whether prostitution should be legal among consenting adults on private property.

No Country for Good Movies

That's not true, of course; this country produces a few great movies. For instance, recently I praised the films Waitress and Stardust. And my wife and I watched Enchanted on DVD a couple of days ago and loved it. It's the story of a cartoon princess who falls into the real world and has to cope with New York while she waits for her prince to rescue her. It's Disney winking; what is superficially self-parody is actually a defense of fairy tales.

We also watched No Country for Old Men. Yes, the acting is great, though I thought Tommy Lee Jones's performance was the more memorable one. Artistically the film is amazing. But the story is terrible. The theme, if there is one, is that there are vicious, brutal people in the world who do vicious, brutal things -- and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Yet that's one of the movies that got the Oscar attention. I guess it's just not culturally sophisticated to praise movies with a decent theme or a bright spirit.

I'll take the fairy tales.

McCain's War on Liberty

Yaron Brook has written the single best critique of campaign censorship (for that's what it is) that I've read. Writing for Forbes, Brook argues that laws such as McCain-Feingold "subject political speech to the corrupting influence of government control."

Brook explains why campaign censorship is harmful; why it shuts out true outsider candidates. But what Brook brings home especially powerfully is the end-game of campaign censorship: campaigns funded -- and thus controlled -- exclusively by the political powerful:

[C]ampaign finance advocates have not been appeased by McCain-Feingold, and are calling for complete public financing of political elections. Under such a system, candidates would no longer have to financially earn the platform from which they speak; instead, the government would furnish candidates with your tax dollars. Of course, not every potential candidate could receive public funding under such a system: Only "serious" candidates would.

Who decides which candidate is serious? Those presently holding government power. There is no surer way to create a political aristocracy in America.

John McCain betrayed our First Amendment liberties. He should immediately and strongly advocate legislation to repeal his abominable law. I imagine that will happen around the same time that Barack Obama endorses liberty in medicine.

National Health Care Systems

The Cato Institute has released Michael Tanner's March 18 Policy Analysis titled, "The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World." The summary states:

...[N]early all health care systems worldwide are wrestling with problems of rising costs and lack of access to care. There is no single international model for national health care, of course. Countries vary dramatically in the degree of central control, regulation, and cost sharing they impose, and in the role of private insurance. Still, overall trends from national health care systems around the world suggest the following:

* Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.

* Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.

* In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.

* Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control. ...

After Tanner discusses meaningful and bogus ways to compare health care across nations, he takes a detailed look at specific countries, including France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. While I have not yet read the entire report, it promises to provide crucial information for Americans trying to grapple with existing problems with U.S. health care.

Prostitution: Reply to Susan Williams

Susan Williams should have read my March 15 Speakout ("Should prostitution be legal?") prior to criticizing it in her March 20 letter ("Degradation is why prostitution illegal"). Rather than consider my arguments and respond to them, Williams insulted both me and my wife by wondering "if... Ari Armstrong thinks he is purchasing his wife's favors when he pays for groceries or dinner out." Williams's insinuation about our marriage is vicious and dishonest.

In the Speakout, I argued that prostitution is a moral vice, along with infidelity and indiscriminate sex. Furthermore, I wrote, "[S]ex properly involves a connection of consciousness as well as bodies between two people who genuinely admire one another. Purely physical sex undermines the distinctly human dimension of it..." Williams ignored all of this.

Williams instead misrepresented my observation that paying indirectly for sex via expensive dinners or trips is legal, while paying directly for sex is a crime. I made this point in the context of discussing various other vices, such as infidelity, that are legal. My point was that, while we should condemn and discourage vices involving consensual behavior, we ought not criminalize them. For example, while Eliot Spitzer fully deserved the public censure he got, neither he nor the prostitutes he hired deserve to go to prison.

Williams wrote, "The reason we don't legalize prostitution in the United States is that it is wrong and degrading to buy and sell women..." I quite agree that it is wrong and degrading to hire prostitutes, and I argued as much in my Speakout. However, prostitution is not akin to slavery, as Williams suggests. Prostitutes, along with those who hire them, agree to the arrangement. (I noted in the Speakout that "involuntary prostitution and sexual abuse of children must be outlawed.")

Williams asked how I would react if my (hypothetical) daughter decided to take up prostitution. I would react the same way I would if she decided to take up indiscriminate sex, infidelity, or any other serious vice. If she were a minor (for whom prostitution would properly remain illegal), I would prevent it. If she were an adult, I would passionately plead with her to make wiser choices.

I've answered Williams's question; now it is only fair that she answer mine. Does Williams think that people should be sent to prison for infidelity or indiscriminate sex? If not, doesn't she still grant that those things are "wrong and degrading?" How can she justify criminalizing some vices but not others? Finally, assuming that there are any vices that Williams thinks should remain legal, would she appreciate it if I insinuated that she therefore participates in those vices?

* * *

I have asked that the Rocky Mountain News publish the first three paragraphs of the reply above.

While the point is a minor one, I did find it humorous that Williams assumed that I'm the one buying groceries and dinner out. My wife makes way more money than I do.

My previous notes on the matter are also available.

Finally, I do agree with Williams's statement, "Men who think that all exchanges between them and women are negotiations for the price of sex are doomed to loneliness in the midst of company," though there is a sense in which the "price of sex" is properly one's character. And Williams's paragraph about Spitzer makes a good point.

Everwood

Based on a friend's recommendation, my wife and I rented a disk from the first season of the television serious Everwood, and we liked it so much we purchased the set. The title is based on the name of the fictitious Colorado town where the story develops. The premise is that a talented New York doctor -- among the finest brain surgeons in the world -- loses his wife and, in his grief, resettles his family (he has a young daughter and teenage boy) in Everwood, a town in the mountains a tolerable drive away from Denver.

The central character of the show, Dr. Andrew Brown, portrayed by a wonderful Treat Williams, is a glowing figure. Obviously he suffers from the loss of his wife, and he fights with his son and faces various other problems. But he reveals magnificent force of character and an underlying benevolence. The writing of the show is both sweet and moving, despite a few oblique religious themes and the fact that Brown works without compensation for reasons that are not entirely convincing.

The show treads lightly into politics, and it does so with particular poignancy in the twelfth episode of the first season. When an elderly florist dies, the town discovers that she was growing marijuana in the back room. A debate about medical marijuana erupts. Even though the setting of the debate is artificial -- the town government holds a public meeting to decide the fate of the florist's marijuana, which is not how things work in real-world Colorado -- the discussion is thoughtful and rounded. Ultimately the show leans toward toleration. Yet none of this seems like a political sermon; it is part of a thoughtful story that contains another significant plot development. In the funniest line of the show, a daughter tells her father (something like), "I thought marijuana was only supposed to make you paranoid after you smoke it."

But I don't wish to scare away opponents of medical marijuana; I love the show even though it presents some ideas with which I disagree, and I think you will enjoy it, too.

Prostitution Article Now Online

My article in the Rocky Mountain News arguing that prostitution should be legal is now available online. I've also written some additional notes about the subject. Also, in 2001 (during my libertarian days), I reviewed a debate on the matter featuring Wendy McElroy.

Israel and the Law

The following article originally was published on March 17 by Grand Junction's Free Press. Read also Part I from March 3.

Israel trip sheds light on law under terror

by Linn and Ari Armstrong
March 17, 2008

This article, written from Linn's perspective, is the second in a series based on Linn's February trip to Israel as part of the Ultimate Counter Terrorism Mission.

During my trip to Israel I observed the nation's concern with law, the legality of its military operations, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.

One of the organizations that has had success countering terrorism is the Shurat HaDin Israel Law center (IsraelLawCenter.org), a non-profit, independent body unaffiliated with the Israeli government or any political party. One main function of Shurat HaDin is to take the perpetrators and supporters of Islamic terror to court to strip them of their resources in order to compensate victims.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, sometimes known as the "warrior for justice" (and who was very pregnant when I met her) directs the organization. Darshan-Leitner has assisted hundreds of Israeli terror victims in filing civil suits against Palestinian terrorist groups and their financial patrons. She said, "My clients are innocent people who were made to suffer, and this is the only way they have to fight back."

Darshan-Leitner also represents Palestinian clients, usually when they are accused of collaborating with Israel. She applied to the Palestinian Minister of Justice for permission to represent some of these clients in West Bank courts. She said in Striking Back magazine that she heard back only after the suspects had been convicted and executed.

One of the cases that Darshan-Leitner passionately related involved three Israeli army reservists who took a wrong turn and an ended up in the city of Ramallah. The three reservists went to a police station for help. The station was surrounded, and the police did nothing to protect the men. The reservists were dragged out and hanged by the mob. Shurat HaDin filed a lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority for about $15 million.

Another interesting individual was Brigadier General Shaul Gordon, who is currently providing legal advice on matters of administration and operation for the Israeli Police. Gordon also spent over fifteen years in the army, had a private law practice for five years, and is the former Chief Justice of the military Court of Appeals for Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip. As a judge in 2002, Gordon heard over 3,500 administrative detention cases involving suspected terrorists.

Israel has a legal system for those who commit or are suspected of committing terrorist acts. Israel faces difficult questions regarding the legal treatment of suspected terrorists: how does a country advance a rights-respecting democracy and at the same time protect itself from terrorists seeking to destroy it and its institutions?

The conflicts in the Middle East can seem intractable, as Gordon indicated in a story. Leonid Brezhnev, Jimmy Carter, and Menachem Begin are all standing before God, and God tells them that they can each ask one question. Brezhnev asks if he will see the end of Communism. God answers, "Yes my son, you will, but not in your administration." Carter asks if he will see the end of the cold war. God answers, "Yes, my son, you will, but not in your administration." Begin asks if he will see the end of the Arab-Israel conflict. God answers, "Yes, my son, you will." But then God hesitates and adds, "But not in my administration."

The military base Machane Ofer sits ten minutes from Jerusalem. This is the base where terrorist detainees are taken and security trials of Hamas terrorists are held. Judge Menachm Liberman took time out of busy schedule to show us around the military courts and brief us about a pending a trial of a suspected terrorist.

Haim Ben-Ami briefed us about the interrogation tactics of the Shabak, or General Security Service. Ben-Ami, an intense figure, discussed the techniques, methods, strategies, and legal challenges to law enforcement and intelligence forces' struggle to lawfully extract information about terrorist activities.

Ben-Ami began by noting that he himself had been the victim of a terrorist attack; a hand grenade was thrown into a vehicle in which he was riding. He then tapped a table with his artificial leg. He said, "You need to balance the human rights of a terrorist versus the human rights of the twenty or thirty victims." He also noted that, in fighting terrorism, one must separate how one deals with criminals and terrorists.

Some American critics of Israel deride the tiny nation for taking the steps it does to preserve itself and its people in a region where many of Israel's neighbors would as soon see the nation utterly destroyed. Most Americans do not know friends and family members who have been blown up by terrorist bombs. Yet Americans should remember the destructive force of terrorism the next time the U.S. government is tempted to coddle state sponsors of terror in the Middle East.

Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Tupa on Adverse Possession

State Senator Ron Tupa sent out an e-mail about a bill regarding adverse possession, the legal doctrine by which non-owners of land can claim ownership of the land after a certain length of use. Clearly such a doctrine has its place, but, equally clearly, it was abused in a recent Boulder case. From what I can tell, the bill that Tupa describes would provide a good corrective to the doctrine. Following are some of Tupa's remarks:

Most of you know that HB-1148 is a HOUSE bill that I am proudly carrying in the senate... my interest goes beyond simply correcting a glaring injustice... I would support the legislation in any case, but the Kirlin case which brought the issue to the public's attention also happened in my senate district (and Rep. Levy's house district) , so I feel somewhat more attached to the issue than most legislators...

Obviously, [adverse possession has] been around for hundreds of years and has worked well both in the past and present in the overwhelming majority of property / boundary disputes between parties... clearly, adverse possession has a place where (typically) one neighbor unwittingly used or encroached upon an adjacent neighbor's property for many years without objection and, once the error was discovered , a legal mechanism needed to be used to transfer the property from the title owner (the owner of record) to the owner who was actually in possession of the property and using it (in this case, the adverse possessor).... other instances abound where one property owner places a fence or other structure on what he/she thought was their property and used the land for years thinking it was their property only to find out many years later the fence or structure was, in fact, mistakenly placed on someone else's property, etc....

These types of cases or instances really don't rise to the level of public interest... no one gets angry when these types of title transfers occur... if mistakes are made, allowances address the mistakes... usually amicably...

The REAL PROBLEM the public takes issue with, and the reason for HB-1148, are instances where a neighbor or someone else (a trespasser) KNOWINGLY uses someone else's property for years (18 in our state) and can somehow gain title to the land... the law allows this... and if you delve into the history of adverse possession, the law in fact encourages this to happen... its based on theory that is now hundreds of years old, to "use it or lose it"... the whole idea was to encourage the cultivation/use/productivity of the land - and if the original / true property owner does not and YOU do, then you (the trespasser) should be awarded the land after 18 years of open and continual use (despite the fact that the land is someone else's)... some citizens have called this law "outdated" or "archaic"... back in the day, there may have been a good reason to do this.

In this day and age, however, when simply owning property is seen as a good thing - an investment that gains value over time - the whole idea of having to put it to use or be fearful it could be taken from you by someone else who will, is a foreign, if not truly outdated concept that most of the general public would disagree with...

As it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, after July 1 of this year, HB-1148 will do 3 main things:

1. When satisfying the elements of a claim for adverse possession, it will RAISE THE BURDEN OF PROOF for the person asserting the adverse possession claim from a preponderance of the evidence to the higher clear and convincing standard... (I understand this higher standard was in place for many decades prior to a change in 1972... our bill just goes back to the higher standard...)

2. HB-1148 adds as an additional element in an adverse possession case, the requirement that the claimant (the adverse possessor) had a 'GOOD FAITH BELIEF' that they were the actual owner of the property... this is the most important change to law we are making, and should go a long way towards reducing the likelihood another Kirlin case will be repeated... 5 other states have a 'good faith' standard... Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Oregon, and Louisiana.

3. Finally, HB-1148 ALLOWS, but doesn't require, THE COURT TO AWARD COMPENSATION / DAMAGES to the losing party / owner of record for the loss of the property... the compensation may include a mixture of a percentage of the actual assessed value of the property lost as well as back taxes paid on the property...

The bill passed out of Senate Judiciary yesterday with unanimous support...I am hopeful it will have broad support in the full senate as well...

It looks to me like the legislature is doing the right thing in this case.

Legal Prostitution: Article in Rocky Mountain News

Subscribers to the Rocky Mountain News may notice an article of mine today on page 26 (in the second news section). It's titled, "Should prostitution be legal?" Unfortunately, the News has not made the text of the article available on its web page at this point (a matter that I'll try to resolve).

[March 17 Update: The article is now available online.]

After discussing some non-vices that are sometimes banned and some vices that are not banned, I describe prostitution as a vice that should not be banned. Here is my central claim: "The proper purpose of government is to protect people's rights, not prevent vice beyond that context." I add that prostitution (between consenting adults) should not be banned because it does not violate anyone's rights.

Notice that I do not use the phrase, "victimless crime." Opponents of legal prostitution (and legal drugs) argue that the activity harms third parties. However, that's not the relevant distinction when defining legitimate crimes. Instead, the relevant factor is whether someone initiated physical force (or fraud). Without that element, no action should be considered a crime. Take the following example. A father who doesn't work, but who lays around on the couch all day watching television while his wife works a low-income job, thereby harms his children. But should laziness be banned? Clearly not. Obviously, Eliot Spitzer harmed his family by hiring prostitutes. But he did not initiate physical force. Single people have no family to harm, though arguably they still harm third parties, but again no initiation of force is involved.

The final two-thirds of the article considers four objections to legal prostitution (see the text).

Here I want to add several qualifications based on the comments of various readers. (The article has fewer than 650 words, so it is highly essentialized.)

Thanks to the advice (and reference) of Brian Schwartz, I did not use the phrase "legalized prostitution" in an effort to try to avoid the sort of definitional issues that Wendy McElroy addresses:

Legalization (or regulation): government has registered prostitutes with the police and subjected them to rules meant to protect health and public decency. Legalization refers to some form of state controlled prostitution. It often includes mandatory medical exams, special taxes, licensing, or the creation of red light districts. It always includes a government record of who is a prostitute, information which is commonly used for other government purposes. For example, some countries in Europe indicate whether a person is a prostitute on his or her passport. This restricts that person's ability to travel since many countries will automatically refuse entry on that basis. Controlling legalized prostitution usually falls to the police. ...

Decriminalization (or tolerance): all laws against prostitution have been abolished. It refers to the removal of all laws against prostitution, including laws against pimping. Almost all prostitutes' rights groups in North America call for the decriminalization of consensual adult sex on the grounds that laws against such sex violate civil liberties, such as the freedom of association.

The individualist feminist approach to prostitution is to advocate decriminalization: that is, the abolition of all laws against selling sex.

My goal with the article was to argue for legal prostitution, without getting into the debate that McElroy reviews.

However, I may need to clarify the following sentence in my article: "On a legal market, both prostitutes and their solicitors would be screened and monitored much more carefully..." What I had in mind is that both houses of prostitution and independent prostitutes would have the ability to screen clients more carefully, and houses of prostitution and and other parties would have a greater incentive and ability to screen and monitor prostitutes. Of course knowingly putting someone at risk of a sexually-transmitted disease (without disclosure) should be illegal across the board, for prostitutes and everyone else.

In discussing the legality of prostitution in the article, I mean to address only criminal law. Obviously any sort of infidelity violates the typical marital contract, but contract is a matter of civil law.

Hopefully the entire text of the article will become available for online readers soon.

[March 17 Update: The article is now available online.]

Team Hsieh

Congratulations to Coloradans Paul and Diana Hsieh, who each had letters published recently in big papers.

Paul's letter to The Christian Science Monitor states:

... National healthcare programs violate the rights of consumers and healthcare providers to contract freely for medical services according to their best judgment. Such programs inevitably lead to rising costs and rationing, as demonstrated repeatedly in Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

In contrast, the free market consistently lowers costs and increases availability. Those sectors of medicine that are least regulated by the government (such as LASIK and cosmetic surgery) have shown the typical pattern over time of falling prices and rising quality that we take for granted in the rest of the US economy. Because the free market respects individual rights, it is the only practical and moral solution for the problem of rising healthcare costs.

Diana's reply to a column by Dick Armey states:

Thanks to Dick Armey... for defending intellectual property in broadcast radio as a matter of justice to the creators.

Today's producers of music artists, management and record companies offer consumers around the world a vast array of music for all tastes. Those producers deserve to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts, not cheated of royalties by legal loopholes for broadcast radio or online file sharing.

While the Hsiehs cover quite different topics in these letters, both letters uphold the principle of individual rights.

Tanner Defends Liberty in Medicine

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute spoke at the Independence Institute March 6 about health policy. (He is shown with Lin Zinser of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine and Brian Schwartz.)

The bulk of Tanner's speech (around 37 minutes) is available here in mp3 format.

Tanner began by noting that the U.S. has the best health care in the world, despite its problems. While life span is not an appropriate basis for comparison because many other important factors impact it, the U.S. performs well in terms of outcomes for diseases.

While some complain that the U.S. spends "too much" for health care, Tanner noted that reducing costs is not an end in itself. "It's very cheap not to provide health care," he said. The problem is that American health care often is not subject to market pricing.

Another problem is that "too many people... are uninsured." However, Tanner added, often-cited measures of the problem are misleading. Because insurance is tied to employment, people often lose their insurance for a short time as they change jobs.

Tanner then reviewed harmful policies and proposals in Britain, Canada, and the U.S., such as the attempt by some to force employers to provide insurance for all employees. That proposal "flunks Econ 101," Tanner said, because it would reduce wages elsewhere and/or result in more unemployment.

What about forcing individuals to purchase insurance? Tanner noted the real costs of forcing emergency rooms to treat people without compensation. (Tanner did not suggest any change to that policy, though I have argued against it.) However, Tanner noted, such costs account for only around 2.5 to 4 percent of health-care spending, rendering them "somewhat manageable."

The problems of insurance mandates, on the other hand, would be severe. Such insurance would be subject to political rules; people would no longer be free to purchase the insurance they wanted. Insurance mandates are difficult to enforce, and it's impossible to force everyone to buy insurance. Mandated insurance is subject to continual pressure by interest groups to expand coverage, which expands costs and leads to limits on care.

Tanner said that the most important reforms must take place at the federal level, particularly regarding the tax code that entrenches expensive, employer-paid insurance. At the state level, the cost of insurance can be reduced by eliminating various mandates.

The key question, Tanner said, is this: "Do you decide, or does someone else decide for you?"

Eight Potter Movies

What I hoped would come true has now come true: The seventh Harry Potter novel will be split into two movies. The Los Angeles Times reports:

After months of rumors, Warner Bros. and the producers of the massively successful movies will announce Thursday that they plan to split "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," J.K. Rowling's seventh and final "Potter" novel, into two blockbuster films -- one to be released in November 2010 and the second in May 2011.

... Director David Yates, who returned for his second tour of Potter duty with "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and is quite popular with the cast, will direct both "Deathly Hallows" films, which will be filmed concurrently.

Yates also directed Order of the Phoenix.

The article adds, "Producer David Heyman said the decision was made with some anxiety and only after considerable deliberations. The producer... fretted that the cynical observers would see the decision as a purely mercenary move." But anyone familiar with the seventh book understands that it simply contains too much material for a single movie. And why in the hell shouldn't these great movies make loads of money?

"Heyman said... the next challenge is figuring out the division." I have already indicated where I think the movie should be split:

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

According to the article, the movies will simply be called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I" and "Part II." That's fine by me.

Boulder Bans Pink Pooch

Unbelievable. Put this is the "only in Boulder" file:

The Boulder salon owner facing a $1,000 fine for dyeing her miniature poodle pink will have to wait for her day in court.

... Joy Douglas, owner of Zing Salon... appeared before a judge in Boulder Municipal Court and asked for her hearing to be rescheduled because she's retained a defense attorney.

The judge granted Douglas' request and reset her hearing for April 7.

Officials at the Humane Society of Boulder Valley issued Douglas a ticket on March 1 for violating Section 6-1-14 of Boulder's city code, titled "Dyeing fowl and rabbits prohibited."

Douglas has insisted she didn't break that law, because she uses beet juice -- and occasionally Kool-Aid -- to "stain" her dog Cici's coat. She said she never has used chemicals, and her pooch never has had a reaction to the stain. ...

She also reiterated her claim that she dyed the dog pink to support breast cancer awareness.

Is this some sort of elaborate practical joke? Apparently not. Here is the code in question:

6-1-14 Dyeing Fowl and Rabbits Prohibited; Selling Dogs, Cats, and Fowl Limited.

(a) No person shall dye or color live fowl, rabbits, or any other animals or have in possession, display, sell, or give away such dyed or colored animals.

This reminds me of the colorful horses in the Wizard of Oz -- except that Oz makes a hell of lot more sense than Boulder policies.

The Denver Post adds:

Not everyone who saw pink Cici was pleased, and some customers called the Humane Society of Boulder Valley, whose commissioned officers enforce the city's animal ordinances. ...

"We've received a number of complaints about the dog," said Lisa Pedersen, director of the humane society. "We've been out to talk with Joy several times. Finally, we gave her a ticket to let the courts decide the issue."

"This is a misrepresentation of what animal control is supposed to be," said Douglas, who drives a pink scooter, a pink car and now is looking for a lawyer to represent her and her pink dog. "This doesn't hurt Cici at all. We color her about once a week to keep it bright. She's fine."

Pedersen agreed that the dog appears to be well-cared for, except that she's pink.

So then why doesn't Pedersen -- and the other intolerant asses in Boulder who registered the complaints -- mind their own damned business?

Peikoff's Tenth Podcast

Leonard Peikoff has released his tenth podcast. My brief summary here is intended to raise interest in the podcast, not serve as a substitute for Peikoff's comments. Peikoff addresses six questions.

1. Granted that the economy should be free, can real "flesh and blood," "cunning" men achieve and sustain a free economy? Peikoff answers that the notion of "flesh and blood" as inherently corrupt is a fundamentally mystical, supernaturalist presumption. If "cunning" means tempted to fraud, then many people are in fact honest, and fraud is outlawed under capitalism.

2. What is existence? Peikoff notes that existence is not an attribute of something else; it is that which is.

3. Do great works of art inspire philosophical movements, or is the reverse the case? Peikoff answers that it "works both ways," but philosophy is primary. For example, Atlas Shrugged "presupposed Ayn Rand's philosophy." Yet, even though the nature of a work of art is determined by philosophical ideas, "art is the greatest disseminator of philosophy that there is."

4. Why is Ayn Rand not taken seriously in some intellectual circles? Peikoff answers that several reasons may be possible. Many people have so automatized such ideas as altruism and the analytic-synthetic dichotomy that Rand's ideas seem alien.

5. On the other hand, why have Rand's ideas grown more respectable in some intellectual circles and in the culture at large? Peikoff gives much of the credit to "heroic individuals like Tara Smith and Robert Mayhew... who have distinguished themselves" in academia.

6. Will religious views in the culture and among politicians translate to courts and the law? Peikoff draws an analogy to socialism, which was once also rejected by the courts. Over time, dominant ideas do influence legal systems. "Religion is now in the process of replacing socialism" as a social and legal influence, as Peikoff argues in his forthcoming book about DIM, Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration.

Biddle Defends Open Immigration

Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, has written a persuasive defense of open immigration. Biddle explains:

Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America -- providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases. Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.

Biddle basis his central argument on the principle of individual rights. Consistent with their right to live, pursue their happiness, and act on their own judgment, people have a right to move to a new region, and the residents of that region have the right to voluntarily employ and otherwise associate with the immigrants. After explaining this central argument in detail and illustrating it with examples, Biddle then goes on to answer seven particular objections. He explains why each objection to open immigration either implies a violation of people's rights or, when properly understood, actually supports the policy of open immigration.

I would add only two points to Biddle's analysis.

First, in his discussion of jobs and wage rates (the third objection that he considers), Biddle rightly emphasizes the moral point that forbidding free association of employers and employees violates the rights of both. However, Biddle might have offered a brief economic analysis here to the effect that free markets, including free migration, ultimately enables a nation's residents to create the most wealth. Economics shows, for instance, that a free economy can accommodate any number of workers, and that real wages depend foremost upon production and can expand even if monetary wages remain flat or go down. Liberty in employment is moral, and, because it is moral, it is practical; any rational producer in a region stands ultimately to benefit from open immigration in the context of free markets.

Second, in answering the objection about culture (the second objection), Biddle doesn't directly counter one important variant of the objection. Biddle rightly rejects the racial argument out of hand, and he strongly counters objections about language and lifestyles. Yet some critics will invoke a fourth variant of the general objection.

The objection runs as follows: the United States is built on and sustained by a set of cultural traditions involving limited government and personal responsibility. These cultural traditions are what keep America strong (economically and otherwise), and letting too many people move in who lack these traditions threatens to undermine the American way of life. Limited immigration is fine (by this objection), but it must be restricted so that new immigrants absorb American traditions rather than impose the traditions of their homelands. Basically, the fear is that the government of the United States will start to look more and more like the government of Mexico, with increasing levels of welfare, unemployment, and political corruption. Various regions of Europe, to take another example, are struggling with Muslim immigrants who do not always assimilate to the culture of their new homes.

Biddle implicitly replies to this objection elsewhere in his essay.

One important point that Biddle raises against the objection is that immigrants are not, on the whole, interested in living under the political traditions of their homeland; that's why they moved. Immigrants tend to be independent, hard-working, and industrious, and they tend to be at least as likely as native-born Americans to support the institutions of liberty. (Writing from personal experience, some of the truest Americans I've ever met are immigrants.)

Biddle also points out that restrictions on immigration, along with the welfare state, are the greatest barriers to attracting industrious immigrants. The restrictions keep out many of the best potential immigrants, while the welfare state attracts some of the least-industrious ones. The solution to this problem is not to restrict immigration, but to repeal the policies that have created the problem.

What about the problem of immigrants trying to import, say, sharia law? Biddle point out that objective, rights-protecting laws should be fully enforced by a government "with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographic area," which means that rights-violating policies and actions should be prohibited. Biddle also makes the more general point that free markets tend to encourage immigrants to participate in the broader economy and thus the broader culture. (In addition, Biddle notes, the issue of immigration is separable from the issue of citizenship.)

Biddle also suggests a central contradiction with the objection about cultural traditions: you can't support the American traditions of free markets and industriousness by actively undermining those traditions by imposing rights-violating anti-immigration policies. The best way to promote good American institutions, both at home and abroad, is to fully achieve them at home. Immigration restrictions send the message, "America is so devoted to free markets that its policies prohibit free markets in labor." In fact, immigration restrictions actively violate and tear down the best American traditions. You can't support free markets and industriousness by prohibiting free markets and barring entry to industrious people.

I want to add a couple of points specific to the conservative motivation for this objection about culture.

Conservatives hold that beliefs and values gain force primarily when they are inculcated by society at large and passed down from parents to children within families. There is an element of truth to this; many people never develop the independence required to think through their ideas and reach their own conclusions. Instead, many people passively pick up the ideas expressed by those around them. However, individuals always remain free to question the ideas with which they are surrounded. As Biddle explains in his essay:

People, including immigrants and would-be immigrants, have free will; they choose to think or not to think, to act on reason or to act on feelings, to respect individual rights or to violate them. A person's choice to respect or violate individual rights is not dictated by his national origin or his race or his language, but by his philosophy, which can be either rational or irrational, depending on whether or not he chooses to think.

The conservative objection about culture is actually a variant of collectivism, for it presumes that an individual's ideas are determined by the surrounding society. In fact, individuals have the ability to think for themselves, and many immigrants do so.

By seeking to impose immigration restrictions, conservatives do not in fact promote the American traditions of free markets and personal responsibility. Such conservatives actually promote the traditions of statism and collectivism.

For many conservatives, the objection about culture assumes a more political form: Hispanic voters tend to vote for Democrats over Republicans. Yet if Republicans actually stood for free markets and industriousness, they would seek to repeal restrictions on immigration (as well as welfare support for immigrants), and thereby win the political support of many immigrants.

Biddle's essay effectively answers every serious objection to open immigration, though Biddle addresses the objection about cultural traditions indirectly. Biddle's essay serves as a blue-print in immigration policy for those who actually want to foster what is best about America.

Boulder Police Chief: Allow 18-Year-Olds to Drink

John C. Ensslin wrote a story for the March 6 Rocky Mountain News that describes some of the views of Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner regarding the drinking age. Ensslin reports:

"... I can say in summary that in addition to personal philosophical arguments (they are considered adults in every other way), I believe that the level of drinking between the ages of 18 to 21 has actually increased over the last 20 years," Beckner wrote [in a letter to City Council members].

"All of the efforts we have tried to implement over the years, including education, awareness programs, heavy enforcement, etc., have had little effect on preventing 18- to 20-year-old adults from drinking.

"What we've done is helped create an underground culture that encourages binge drinking without any oversight or supervision."

Ensslin wrote a follow-up article further explaining Beckner's views:

Beckner stressed that his department is not backing off enforcement of existing laws.

Nor is he suggesting lawmakers simply lower the drinking age without taking steps to encourage responsible drinking.

For example, Beckner said the law could require an 18-year-old to attend a mandatory alcohol awareness class to earn the right to drink.

He suggested that perhaps the law could allow 18- to 21- year-olds to drink in a restaurant but not buy alcohol from package stores.

Any change would have to come on a national level, he said.

I have long favored setting the drinking age at the age of legal adulthood, which is 18 in our society. It's not right that a person can get married, have children, sign contracts, and fight in war -- but not buy a beer.

Following are three articles I've written about the matter previously:

Dempsey Challenges Unreasonable Alcohol Laws
Fight Colorado's Discriminatory Drinking Age Law
Miles Supports Lower Drinking Age

Update on Health Studies

In a February 10 article for The Denver Post, Katy Human wrote, "Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations and less likely to be absent from school."

My immediate thought upon reading this claim is that it doesn't indicate the causal relationship. So I asked Human about this, and she replied that the studies "control for factors such as income and education of parents." I wanted to check this and see what else the studies have to say, so I asked Human to provide me with the citations. On February 21 Human sent me a list of studies. Linda Gorman looked into the studies, and then Dave Kopel also took an interest in them. He checked into the studies originally mentioned by Human, looked at other studies as well, and wrote up his results for the March 8 Rocky Mountain News:

None of five studies Human cited after the fact support her article's statement about what "studies have shown" regarding the effects of insurance on emergency room use, vaccinations and school absences. Indeed four of the five studies she cited do not even address those topics (Cousineau, Medical Care, 2008; Skinner, BMC Health Services Research, 2007; Ward, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2008; Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Sept. 7, 2007).

One study cited by Human was relevant, and it directly contradicted her article's claim. The study looked at the effect of providing SCHIP coverage (subsidized insurance for children whose families have too much income to qualify for Medicaid). Emergency room usage "did not change," the study found. (Szilagyi, Pediatrics, 2004).

... [Later] Human supplied two more citations to substantiate her article's claim about emergency rooms. One of the studies was irrelevant, a 2002 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report which reported no data about frequency of emergency room use for the insured and uninsured.

Human supplied another study which did support her claim. William Johnson and Mary Rimsza investigated Yuma County, Ariz., and found that uninsured children there use emergency rooms more often. The Johnson and Rimsza article, published in Pediatrics in 2004, forthrightly acknowledged that four other studies have found that taxpayer-funded insurance for children actually increases emergency room usage, and a fifth study finds that there is no effect. Johnson and Rimsza suggested that results were different in Arizona because the state's medical welfare program links recipients to pediatricians, and having a pediatrician drastically reduces ER visits for both the insured and uninsured.

Of course, a broad correlation between lack of insurance and emergency-room visits is still possible for at least a couple of reasons. First, some people without insurance are more likely to visit the emergency room -- which by law must provide care for no compensation -- for care that is less-expensively offered at the regular doctor's office or at lower-cost clinics. Second -- and this point also applies to vaccinations and school attendance -- parents who purchase health insurance for their children may be more likely to be employed, make more money, have a higher level of education, live in safer neighborhoods and homes, encourage healtheir lifestyles for their children, and insist on regular school attendance. This is a statement only of anticipated averages; many model parents are less wealthy, and many parents pay for their children's health care out of pocket rather than through insurance.

However, the thrust of Human's article was not to reveal correlations regarding health insurance, but to advocate more tax funding for health programs. Everyone can agree that it would be good for more parents to buy health insurance for their children (though insurance as such should move in the direction of high-deductible policies with routine expenses paid out of pocket). But expanded tax subsidies create all sorts of problems with incentives, such as by encouraging some parents to drop private insurance in favor of tax-funded welfare.

It's quite a leap from "insurance for children is good" to "politicians should expand their control of medicine." Indeed, as Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh argue, the proper way to make health-insurance more affordable is to repeal the existing political controls that have made it so expensive.

Gazette Defends Mitchell

On March 5 The Gazette weighed in on the "look alike" fake scandal that I discussed earlier. To briefly review, after State Senator Shawn Mitchell named the wrong senator during a debate at the capitol, he joked that Senators Groff and Gordon "look alike" due to their political similarities. To get the context, look at the photos of Groff and Gordon, who could hardly look more different.

Some of Mitchell's intellectually dishonest critics tried to turn Mitchell's comments into some sort of racial sleight. The Gazette rightly defends Mitchell against any such charges:

At most, the slip says Mitchell pays little attention to looks, race or age. ... It said that despite differences of race, and obvious differences in age and height, Mitchell saw two liberals. The joke said race, height and age don't matter -- that what matters is ideology, in which case Gordon and Groff are the same. It's antithetical to the grotesque biases of racism, which would hold Groff and Mitchell as vastly different men, for superficial reasons, regardless of politics.

"But let's say, hypothetically, that Mitchell's comment had some distant connection to the racist comment that people of Heritage X 'all look alike.' Then the force of Mitchell's comment would be to make fun of that racist comment. It's not racist to make fun of racists," wrote Ari Armstrong, on the blog www.freecolorado.com.

The Gazette also offers more details about the dishonest attacks against Mitchell:

Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont [said that]... that Mitchell’s comment was inappropriate. ... The progressive Web site www.ProgressActionNow.org pounced on Mitchell's comment, calling it "tasteless above all." The organization deemed Mitchell's explanation "weak as hell." ... The Web site of a liberal organization known as IndependentBasis tried to characterize Mitchell's quote as a racist gaffe, printing his comment like this: "You [blacks] all look the same to me." Never mind that one of the men at the podium was white.

In this last example, not only did Mitchell's critics drop the relevant context, they manufactured a lie about the context. These critics of Mitchell are engaged in character assassination, pure and simple.

The only result of such tactics -- other than to treat people unjustly -- is to draw attention away from a substantive debate of the issues. Apparently, those engaged in this sort of character assassination don't have anything substantive to say and don't believe they can defend their political views rationally. So they try to tear down their opponents rather than beat them in argument.

Stay Out of the Wild

I made the dreadful mistake of wasting 2.5 hours of my life watching the film Into the Wild. I didn't realize it's based on a true story. I thought I was renting a movie about an Alaskan adventure. No, no, no. If you're interested in watching the film, you might first read the story of Christopher McCandless, on whose life the film is based.

This bit from Wiki should give you some idea of what you're in for:

He was last seen alive by Jim Gallien, who gave him a ride from Fairbanks to the Stampede Trail. Gallien was concerned about "Alex", who had little gear and no experience in the Alaskan bush. Gallien tried to persuade Alex to defer his trip, and even offered to drive him to Anchorage to buy suitable equipment. McCandless refused all assistance except for a pair of rubber boots, two tuna melts, and a bag of corn chips.

The outcome is predictable.

Wiki also notes that McCandless "dreamed about leaving society for a Thoreau-like period of solitary contemplation." Well, he succeeded in leaving society, all right.

The movie is a contradiction. At one point, the film shows McCandless burning his money; the film cost around $15 million to make and cleared that amount at the U.S. box office. McCandless shuns technology, but the cinematography is fairly good.

I grant that the performances of Kristen Stewart and Hal Holbrook, who portray two of McCandless's friends, are quite good.

But basically this is a movie about a guy who kills himself with self-induced stupidity masked by left-wing platitudes.

Linn's Trip to Israel, Part I

The Following article originally appeared on the March 3, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press, under the title, "Terror from another perspective."

Israel trip offers lessons on countering terror

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

This was not your typical tourist trip; it was called the Ultimate Counter Terrorism Mission. Your elder author joined over twenty other Americans February 3-10 to travel to Israel. The group consisted of law enforcement and trainers, producers of anti-terrorism equipment, and those with a deep interest in counter terrorism. This column, written from Linn's perspective, is the first of several about the trip.

To set the stage we need to go back fifteen years in Grand Junction. I had been training civilians for several years in the NRA basic pistol and personnel protection courses. These are excellent classes and serve the community very well. Not only had thousands of individuals benefited from the training but dozens of instructors came from this pool of people. From this pool of instructors several Training Counselors arose who are able to train instructors.

With so many well-trained people in the area, several began to express the desire for more advanced training. In conducting a lot of research and interviewing a number of instructors with impressive qualifications, one name kept popping up: Alon Stivi. Stivi has since conducted various training exercises in and around the Grand Valley.

Stivi is a leading expert on security, violence prevention, counter-terrorism, and travel safety. He has served as an advisor to federal, state, and local government agencies, including the U.S. military and law enforcement. He is the U.S. Master Instructor of the Hisardut Israeli Survival System. Stivi also contributes to the magazine Counter Terrorism.

It was in this magazine that I saw an advertisement for the Counter Terrorism Mission to Israel. Thus began my quest to learn many of the facets of counter terrorism that Israel has to engage in for its own survival.

Although I have done a fair amount of travel over the years I had never had the opportunity to travel Israeli airlines El Al. This presented an opportunity to see first hand the different philosophy between the U.S. and Israel on terrorism.

Most of us are familiar with the process of checking aboard an airplane. I would like to relate an incident that took place in Denver last year. I carry a first-aid kit in my carry-on bag and have carried the same kit for years around the world. This means that it has been subject to dozens and dozens of security checks.

Before my flight out of Denver my bag was pulled and I was asked to open it. Sure enough, my deadly scissors were discovered. They were slightly over two inches long with rounded tips. The lady at the machine did not have the authority to decide on the deadliness of these instruments of destruction. She had to call her supervisor to help with what was approaching a national security issue. The supervisor had to make this life-or-death decision.

The decision was that the scissors were too dangerous. I was asked if I would like to mail this cheap pair of scissors back home at a cost of seven or eight dollars. I responded, "Let's just throw them away." But I couldn't just throw them away; you have to sign a form to throw them away.

I always carry a rather large, stout, pointy ball-point pen with me when I travel. I took this pen from my pocket with a flourish to sign the form and said, "We can't allow these deadly scissors on board." The security agent threw me an unpleasant glare.

El Al's process is different. The first thing that they do is profile people who are going to board the plane. This profile is based on how you answer a number of questions. The Israelis are trained to note both the physical reactions you exhibit and the accuracy of your answers. You are probably profiled several times. You then take your check-in luggage to a big machine that x-rays and sniffs for bombs. If something suspicious is spotted in your bags, you are asked to open the bag. Assuming the bag checks out, you then pick up your ticket, turn in your checked luggage, and proceed through security. Perhaps the U.S. could pick up a few pointers on this process.

Israel's approach to security is built on the onion model, layer after layer. I was reminded of meeting a young couple a few years ago that had immigrated to the U.S. from Israel a few months before. I found the husband to be very interesting; he was a mathematical genius (as well as a world-champion juggler). Now he works in Silicone Valley as a mathematician. Anyway, I asked his wife about the biggest change she had noticed when coming to the U.S. She replied, "going to a shopping mall and not having my bags and purse searched when I entered."

Fortunately, for us terrorism is usually a long way away. Will we keep it that way?

Mitchell Defends Republicans

State Senator Shawn Mitchell sent in the following comments on March 3, which I am happy to post. (In general, if readers have trouble posting comments, please send them to me directly in e-mail, and I'll add them as I deem appropriate.)

Ari,

I meant to thank you for your spectacular puncturing of the bogus accusations stemming from that flapdoodle in the Senate with Gordon and Groff. Thanks!

Now, about this post, let me mount half a defense: Guilty, but the charges are overstated. It surely was not a libertarian vote to retain the blue laws. I've told you before I'm kind of a schizophrenic, libertarian leaning conservative. The vote on Sunday closing came from conservative, not libertarian, thinking. Rather than argue that thinking here, which has less to do with religion than the belief that quite enough alcohol is already bought and sold, and the merchants weren't exactly clamoring for the practical necessity to work seven days, I'll just challenge your conclusions.

A bad market vote doesn't make it a lie for many Republicans, including this one, to claim the mantle of market supporter. We may be imperfect. It would be a lie to claim otherwise. But for willingness to embrace, defend, and advocate the functioning of free markets, Republicans are the only team in town. In bill after bill, the Democrats have grown government control over peoples' free choice, often against united Republican opposition. To suggest some kind of rough party parity, well, I won't call it a lie because I know something of your intellect and character, but it's foolishness.

Shawn Mitchell

Before I get started with my reply, I want to note that I have a great deal of respect for Senator Mitchell, and very often he gets things right. That's why it pains me so much when he gets things wrong.

First I reply to Mitchell's claims about the blue laws. The legislature's proper job is to protect people's rights, not decide how much alcohol is "quite enough" to buy and sell. The correct amount can be defined only by what willing buyers and sellers decide on a free market. And the case for repealing the blue laws has nothing to do with how many merchants enjoy the protectionist legislation. Merchants who do not wish to work on Sundays (or any other day) are free to abstain from doing so, and merchants who wish to work on Sundays have that right. The blue laws violate the rights of both sellers and buyers who wish to trade on Sundays.

While Mitchell can claim to balance his "libertarian" and "conservative" streaks, the choice is in any such case one of protecting or violating individual rights. In this case, Mitchell has voted to violate them.

Moreover, any legislator who votes to violate free markets in such an obvious case has surrendered the very principle of free markets. After casting such a vote, how is Mitchell to respond to Democrats who claim to balance their "libertarian" and "liberal" streaks? "People keep quite enough of their money already, and most taxpayers aren't exactly clamoring to keep the extra X Percent of their income." "People own quite enough guns already, and gun merchants weren't exactly clamoring for the practical necessity of selling more than one per customer." "People have quite enough health-insurance options already, and insurers weren't exactly clamoring for the practical necessity of selling policies on a truly competitive market." Mitchell has turned the entire debate over to pragmatists and compromisers, which can foster only steadily increasing government controls across the board.

Regarding Mitchell's claim that Colorado Republicans generally support free markets:

Who was is that most strongly pressed for the Referendum C net tax hike? Who was it that signed the bill creating the "208" Healthcare Commission? Who was it that pushed for more gun restrictions? It was Republican Governor Bill Owens.

Who was it that supported "faith-based" welfare and (later) health-insurance mandates? It was the Republican gubernatorial candidate for 2006, Bob Beauprez.

Which party funded corporate welfare through all of its years in the majority? The Republicans. (The Democrats are perfectly happy to maintain this tradition.)

Who sponsored the smoking ban? Republican Mike May. And who signed it into law? Republican Bill Owens. (To his credit, Mitchell did vote against this one.)

These are only the local examples that quickly jumped to mind. And a list that included the abuses of George W. Bush and other national Republicans could fill a book.

Obviously, Republicans are at best fickle friends of free markets. I readily grant that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to oppose tax hikes, oppose gun restrictions, and mitigate environmentalist interventions. On the issue of health policy, many Colorado Republicans have been surprisingly supportive of individual rights in medicine.

However, when I wrote "that the Republican Party is the Other Party of Big Government," I also had in mind more personal matters over which Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to impose restrictions. (Such matters also involve market exchanges, but the emphasis is on private decisions.)

Mitchell cosponsored Bill 125 regarding pornography, which the Rocky Mountain News blasted in a February 22 editorial. (Tony Bubb alerted me to Mitchell's support of this bill.) I criticized similar legislation in 2004. I have not analyzed the amended bill, but it seems that the best that can be said for it is that it is unnecessary, given that using children for pornography and child abuse generally are already illegal. More broadly, Republicans seem only too happy to impose censorship where naughty images of consenting adults are concerned.

Most Republicans aggressively push for the drug war and often oppose even modest efforts to reduce criminal penalties for marijuana, even for medical use. (To his credit, Mitchell played a major role in limiting abuses of the asset forfeiture laws, which often are used in drug cases. See my articles from June and April, 2002.)

This year Republicans also tried to impose senseless restrictions on abortions; we'll see whether Republican legislators express their support for the measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person.

It remains the case that, while Democrats tend to push harder to restrict our economic liberties, Republicans tend to push harder to restrict our personal liberties. But both parties are quite happy to do both in many circumstances. (That's called "bipartisanship.")

So do not forget that the Democratic Party is the Party of Big Government, but "remember that the Republican Party is the Other Party of Big Government."

Angry Little ELF

The Rocky Mountain News just reported:

WOODINVILLE, Wash. -- The radical environmental group responsible for the 1998 fires at Vail's Two Elks Lodge apparently has struck again -- in the form of fires at four multimillion-dollar show homes north of Seattle.

The sign -- a white sheet that had the initials of the Earth Liberation Front in scraggly red letters -- mocked claims the luxury homes on the "Street of Dreams" were environmentally friendly, according to video images of the sign aired by KING-TV.

"Built Green? Nope black!" the sign said.

The blazes are suspicious because they were set in multiple places in separate houses, said Chief Rick Eastman of Snohomish County District Seven. ...

No one was hurt in the arson at UW, but its Center for Urban Horticulture was destroyed and rebuilt at a cost of $7 million.

I just can't believe that ELF was responsible for these fires; think of all the air pollution!

Assuming a real connection, though, this shows that, ultimately, environmentalists are not interested in "green" production; they are interested in no production, for any production necessarily involves the use of natural resources.

Republicans Against Free Markets

Those who insist upon being pissed off at State Senator Shawn Mitchell, even when they have no good reason to be, may be pleased that I have discovered a real reason to be annoyed with him.

Roger Fillion reported for the February 26 Rocky Mountain News:

The Colorado Senate gave the final thumbs up Monday to a bill that would allow liquor stores to open Sundays, a big step toward scrapping the decades-old ban on Sunday booze sales.

The measure now goes to the House, where it's expected to face tougher resistance. The bill, SB 82, cleared the Senate in a 23-8 vote.

I decided to look up the "no" votes:



Following is a list of the senators who voted against the measure, along with their party affiliation:

Bill Cadman, Republican
Jim Isgar, Democrat
Andrew McElhany, Republican
Shawn Mitchell, Republican
Scott Renfroe, Republican
David Schultheis, Republican
Jack Taylor, Republican
Tom Wiens, Republican

Are you noticing any trends here?

It's not like this is an ambiguous issue. Business owners and their customers have a moral right to do business on mutually beneficial terms, on any day that they like. The (partial) ban on Sunday liquor sales violates free markets and freedom of association (and also the separation of church and state, given that the Blue Laws are rooted in religious restrictions).

So the next time that a Republican lies to you and tell you that Republicans are for free markets, remind the Republican that it took a Democratic legislature to move seriously to repeal to the Sunday booze ban, and seven of the eight senate votes to maintain the ban were cast by Republicans.

Remember that the Republican Party is the Other Party of Big Government.