Heller in the Rocky

Today The Rocky Mountain News published my article on the Heller decision. It begins:

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed what most Coloradans have long held and what our state's constitution also strongly protects: the individual's right to own a gun.

The June 26 ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller overturns Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that guns be kept inoperable in the home. Gone is the fantasy that the Second Amendment protects only state militias.

I go on to quote a bit from the decision, discuss its various defensible qualifications, and then criticize some of its looser language.

The Rocky does a great job editing material. I did want to add three brief points, though, that didn't make it through editing. First, concealed carry properly is restrained by the policies of private-property owners; those who wish to ban guns on their property are free to do so. Second, the checks that our Founders instituted are not limited to those of the three distinct branches; voters check all the branches directly or indirectly, the two houses of Congress check each other, etc. Third, we should see Supreme Court decisions in general "as the minimum standard of liberty" (I also had in mind issues of free speech and economic freedom).

Read the entire piece.

Rush at Red Rocks

This Wednesday I caught Rush at Red Rocks, in my experience the absolute best place to see any band perform. It was as good of a performance as I've ever seen the band offer (and Rush is the best live band I've seen).

The northern lightning storm beyond Denver provided the perfect backdrop for the evening. Dark clouds sprinkled lightly till around 9:30, then the stars poked through. The breeze was noticeable but not annoying. Rush's web page even offers photos of the event.

As I've noted, I count the new Snakes and Arrows album as among the band's best work. My appreciation for it continues to grow. Peart's famous drum solo was particularly breathtaking on Wednesday. In general, the band was in top form. I didn't love the new short films for this leg of the tour, but I understand the need to break thinks up a bit for a 3.5 hour performance.

As I was driving down the road from the theater, I happened across a couple of hitch hikers looking for a ride to their hotel. It turned out that the guy was from LA, his girlfriend from Austin. They've met in different cities to see Rush several times. They even came to Denver earlier in the month, when Rush's earlier date was cancelled due to weather. (I'm not sure they loved my ancient, rattling vehicle, but it got them to where they were going.)

Before I knew what he was doing, the guy handed me a $20 bill, and then he obstinately refused to take it back. I was strapped into my vehicle, so I said weakly, "If you leave that in here, I'll have to give it to charity."

After thinking about it for a while, I decided that (given the band's history) donating it to cancer research was the way to go. After poking around a little on the advice of a friend, I ran across the Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation, which gets a four-star rating from Charity Navigator. That's where I'll send the check.

According to the band's web page, the tour will continue as follows:

June 2008

28th-St Louis, MO
30th-Cincinnati, OH

July 2008

2nd-Pittsburgh, PA
4th-Atlantic City, NJ
5th-Saratoga, NY
7th-Uncasville, CT
9th-Toronto, ON
11th-Manchester, NH
12th-Holmdel, NJ
14th-Wantagh, NY
17th-Hershey, PA
19th-Washington, DC
20th-Charlotte, NC
22nd-Atlanta, GA
24th-Indianapolis, IN

The fact is that Rush isn't going to tour forever. Now's an excellent time to catch them at the height of their powers.

Post, Rocky Err on Denver Gun Restrictions

The Denver Post misstated Denver gun ordinances today, and the Rocky Mountain News published a misleading claim about them.

Following is the Post's misstatement:

Gun ruling splits Coloradans
By Brian Malnes
June 27, 2008

Currently, Denver city ordinances... require state gun licenses to possess or own firearms...

Denver Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said, "I don't know where he got that from... Clearly he misunderstood something I said or what somebody else said... It might have been conflating the state concealed carry issue..." Colorado residents do need a permit to carry a gun concealed.

Broadwell added that the facts around licensing are important, as "that's what some cities do," such as Washington, D.C. However, Colorado has no "generalized permit system," nor does Denver have any plans to require permits.

The Rocky claimed:

Supreme Court Decision won't affect regulations in Denver, experts say
By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
Friday, June 27, 2008

In the city [of Denver]: major provisions
Semiautomatic weapons are banned in most cases.

Note that the quoted line was tacked on as extra information to the article, so it's not clear whether Morson wrote it.

Broadwell said the statement is true "to the extent that semiautomatic weapons are addressed in the assault weapons ordinance." However, I noted, most semiautomatic guns do not fall within Denver's assault-weapon classification. "I see your point," Broadwell said.

Broadwell also offered a more general disclaimer: "If there's not quotes around it... very often a [newspaper's] paraphrase will get something slightly awry."

Here's how Denver's Municipal Code defines an assault weapon:

Sec. 38-130. Assault weapons.
(b) Definitions...
(1) Assault weapon shall include all firearms with any of the following characteristics:
a. All semiautomatic action, centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one (21) or more rounds.
b. All semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds or both. ...

An Individual Right

Obviously the big news of the day is that the Supreme Court has affirmed an individual right to own a gun under the Second Amendment. That's all for now, because I'll be spending the next few hours reading the opinion. Volokh Conspiracy already has some interesting analysis of the decision; a major issue seems to be Fourteenth Amendment incorporation. Eugene Volokh writes, "The majority doesn't clearly signal its view on the question, but it does suggest that simply citing some late 1800s cases which rejected incorporation (at a time when incorporation was generally being rejected as to nearly all of the Bill of Rights) will not suffice."

Tax Hikes Part II

Referendum C was supposed to be the net tax hike to solve all our problems. Now, even though Referendum C pulled in dramatically more tax money than expected, Colorado's Democrats are proposing a new round of spending hikes.

In a June 24 e-mail (delivered early June 25), State House Speaker Andrew Romanoff announced, "A new initiative will give us a chance to fix the fiscal mess in Colorado's constitution. The proposal is called SAFE: Savings Account For Education."

The older SAFE stood for Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic. Call this one Statist Alternatives to the Freedom Epidemic. (I think somebody used the same acronym against the older SAFE, but I don't recall who.)

Or call it "Referendum C, Part II." Supporters of the new measure, "backed by a bipartisan coalition of business, education and civic leaders," are using the same game plan.

Romanoff writes:

Colorado's constitution contains conflicting commandments: one provision reduces revenue, while another increases spending. The net effect: chronic shortfalls in health care, higher education and other "optional" programs.

Referendum C brought us some relief: a five-year time-out from the revenue limit and a permanent fix to its ratchet effect. Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans are better off as a result, including 700 individuals with autism, Down syndrome, and other developmental disabilities, who will no longer be stuck on decade-long waiting lists for vital services; 25,000 at-risk children, who will be able to attend high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten; and 50,000 uninsured children, who will receive medical coverage. (Click here for an annual report on Referendum C.)

Unfortunately, Referendum C’s time-out expires in 2010 -– jeopardizing much of our progress.

The obvious solution is to simply repeal the provision that increases spending. Cynics observe that Democrats supported that spending-hike measure precisely to undermine the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Romanoff fails to mention a detail about Referendum C: it permanently increased state spending. It was not merely a limited "time-out;" it increased the base level of spending forever. But that forever net tax increase is not good enough for the left; no spending hike is ever good enough. They want to seize even more of our money by force.

The entire point of Romanoff's proposal is to forcibly redistribute even more wealth. He wants more welfare for health care, more welfare for education, more welfare for practically anybody who claims to need it. (By dedicating new funds for education, legislators can use other funds for whatever they please.) The cost is liberty. The result is that Coloradans who earn that money and who oppose the tax have no say in how their money is spent. That's wrong.

People have the right to spend their income how they see fit, whether it's on their own children's health costs or education, a down payment on a house, a retirement fund, or a charity of their choice.

Romanoff repeats the same misleading claim he used for Referendum C: "SAFE does NOT raise tax rates or touch the constitutional right to vote on taxes." While it's true that it doesn't raise the rates, it certainly raises the net amount of taxes that people pay.

There is one difference this year. While Referendum C passed in rolling economic times, this year people are feeling the pinch of high gas and energy prices (thanks to the stifling controls on energy production imposed by Romanoff's comrades), along with housing problems. However, so long as a large body of people buy into Romanoff's redistributionist ethos, the tax hikers will be back again, and again, and again.

Amnesty

The following article originally appeared in Grand Junction's June 23 Free Press.

Government granted amnesty -- and should do so again

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Amnesty is offered to those who have killed and wounded thousands of Americans. These illegal individuals have shown no respect for the borders or laws of the United States. Many among Congress and the public think the president has greatly overstepped his authority. But there it is. Lincoln's plan of reconstruction, the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, December 8, 1863.

President Andrew Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation of May 29, 1865, was similar to Lincoln's plan. Many historians have noted that the importance of these proclamations was twofold. They healed the wounds of the divided country by bringing full citizenship to those who would play a future role in the greatness of the country. And they restored justice. Johnson issued his proclamation "that peace, order, and freedom may be established."

If our presidents could offer amnesty to treasonous individuals responsible for over a half million deaths, surely we can offer amnesty to our neighbors from the south guilty only of working hard and providing for their families.

Recently Jill -- we'll call her Jill to protect her privacy -- was sitting in Senator Ken Salazar's office in Grand Junction describing to the senator's aide her husband's immigration problem. As a young child his parents brought him to the U.S.

Jill relates that they have been married for five years and have two beautiful children. They have been trying to work through the immigration system to legalize her husband at the cost of several thousand dollars.

Jill's husband had returned to Mexico to request permission to return to the U.S, a process he was told would take probably no more than three weeks. Jill vented her frustration with the immigration system to the senator's aide because she had just been informed that her husband and father of her children would have stay in Mexico for three years before he could apply to return.

Jill told the aid, "My husband came to this country as a child, his Spanish is poor, and he cannot find a job in Mexico. I am going to lose my house and car and go on welfare. But worst of all, the children will not be able to see their father."

We find it ironic that the "family values" crowd is most insistent on breaking up families in such situations.

Jill's husband did break the law, though he was too young to control his path. Neal Boortz mentioned to your elder author that illegal aliens have broken the law and therefore have to suffer the consequences.

However, our nation has a long history of disobeying unjust laws. Would you have condemned the Boston Tea Party for destruction of property? Would you have arrested the signers of the Declaration of Independence? Would you have convicted your fellow citizens for helping to free slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act?

Two pillars of a free society are property rights and the right to contract. Business owners have the right to hire willing employees of their choice, whether they're from Grand Junction, Mack, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, or Mexico City. (Honestly, a lot of people from Los Angeles are more alien than many from Mexico.)

We should be particularly aware of this issue, as agriculture and other industries in this valley and this nation depend on migrant workers from Mexico.

Yes, U.S. citizens properly have greater freedom of movement within the country than people from other countries do coming in. Immigration should be controlled so that we know who's crossing to stop criminals and carriers of contagious diseases. But we should not stop people from freely contracting with U.S. citizens to rent housing, buy goods and services, and work for a living.

Some illegal immigrants get welfare benefits and "free" health care and education, you say. We agree that's wrong. But is it less wrong for a local-born citizen to take our money by force? The problem of welfare can and should be solved without restricting immigration.

Thankfully, Colorado made a modest step in the right direction this year with Marsha Looper's bill 1325, which points out, "Colorado's agriculture industry employs an estimated nine thousand seasonal workers annually, and the agriculture industry faces critical shortages of seasonal workers." The bill established a "seasonal worker pilot program."

While the bill takes needed steps to ensure local fruit doesn't rot on the ground, farmers shouldn't have to beg the state legislature for permission to hire people. This is America, the land of immigrants and the land of individual rights. To work for a living and contract with others for business is among our most important rights.

Mexicans and, yes, even Canadians should be allowed to freely seek work here, and business owners should be allowed to freely hire them. Amnesty is not a dirty word to us; it is necessary "that peace, order, and freedom may be established."

Schaffer in Trouble

Colorado Senatorial candidate Bob Schaffer is in trouble, reports The Denver Post based on a Rasmussen poll. "Democratic Congressman Mark Udall has opened up a 9-point lead" in the race. The story notes, "Udall maintains a large lead among women, while he extended his lead among unaffiliated voters to 21 points..."

The paper discusses attack adds on Jack Abramoff and "Big Oil Bob," but there's something else going on: Schaffer's strong anti-abortion views have also been in the news (though he's been running from the "personhood" amendment to define a fertilized egg as a person). That helps explain the difference among women and independents.

With gas around $4 a gallon, I think a lot of Coloradans wouldn't mind somebody in Congress who knows a think or two about oil and who isn't dedicated to undermining the country's ability to produce energy.

But in this race between a socialist and a theocrat, the socialist is winning. It's a scary thing when Udall's creeping socialism is the least-scary option.

Sixth Congressional

It's a different race in Colorado's Sixth Congressional, where Tom Tancredo has reigned. I don't think there's any way a Republican can lose there.

In the primary, the leading candidates have sprinted to the religious right. According to a poll released by Mike Coffman, the leading candidates are Coffman, Wil Armstrong, Ted Harvey, and Steve Ward.

Coffman signed the questionnaire from Colorado Right to Life, agreeing that God opposes abortion, "abortion is always wrong" even if the father is a rapist, a fertilized egg is a person, and embryonic stem-cell research should be banned.

It's stunning that Colorado is likely to have somebody like Udall as Senator and Coffman as a Congressman.

Harvey also signed the questionnaire, adding for the "personhood" question, "I organized a petition drive at my church."

Wil Armstrong writes on his web page, "I am pro-life, and I will battle against any ill-conceived and family unfriendly legislation."

Ward has not replied to my e-mail asking him his position on abortion.

Socialists to the left of me, theocrats to the right. Here I am.

Teen Girls Find Pregnancy "Sweet"

I was a little surprised to read a story in The Denver Post (from Tania Deluzuriaga of The Boston Globe) about 17 pregnant teen girls at Gloucester High in Massachusetts. Many of the pregnancies were intentional. To figure out what's going on, I poked around a bit more. It turns out that people have lots of theories, but I've not found anyone who stated the most obvious theory. So I'll do the job after reviewing the others.

Theory 1: Pathway to Adulthood

...Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy, [said a]dults in the city need to do a better job of showing teen girls a pathway to adulthood that includes something other than parenting... "People in Gloucester need to look at using what feels like a crisis as an opportunity to improve services and support."

I guess it never occurred to me that teen girls would think that getting pregnant is a "pathway to adulthood." Isn't it obvious that going to college or getting a job is a pretty good pathway? Or how about waiting till you're out of high school and then getting married before getting pregnant?

I wonder what sort of "services and support" Quinn has in mind. Do we need tax-funded seminars about how getting knocked up isn't too smart if you're a young teen? Quinn's musings are less than helpful.

Theory 2: Reaction to Technology

Fox adds:

Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and FOX News contributor, called the school's epidemic "shocking." ...

"In a world that is so technologically based, there will be predictable push-back from young people," he said. "They want to remind themselves that they are alive and human. One of the ways people do this is that they reproduce."

I think the clinical name for Ablow's theory is "Gigantic Load of Hokum."

Right now I'm typing on my powerful computer plugged into the global internet, listening to digitized music, enjoying electric lighting, and drinking a smoothie courtesy of thousands of businesses around the world. And, somehow, I still feel human.

Ablow's theory seems not to mesh well with the fact that birth rates generally decline in the most technologically advanced countries.

Nor is it clear why getting pregnant might help somebody feel more human than, say, having sex with birth control, studying the classics, preparing for college, or playing Monopoly with the family.

Theory 3: Hit Movies

Time notes that some "blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers."

That doesn't really make much sense, because in Juno the girl gives up her baby for adoption, and in Knocked UP the "young unwed mother" is a single, adult professional.

Notably, Time reports, "'We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,' the principal says, shaking his head." I don't know what movie that came from.

Theory 4: Too Little Birth Control

Time adds, "Even with national data showing a 3% rise in teen pregnancies in 2006 -- the first increase in 15 years --Gloucester isn't sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control."

But these girls wanted to get pregnant. It's not like they were just having sex with 24-year old homeless guys for the joy of sex; they wanted the baby.

In general, it's not like birth control is hard to find. Any grocery store carries condoms.

Theory 5: Economic Woes

Again from Time:

The past decade has been difficult for this mostly white, mostly blue-collar city (pop. 30,000). In Gloucester, perched on scenic Cape Ann, the economy has always depended on a strong fishing industry. But in recent years, such jobs have all but disappeared overseas, and with them much of the community's wherewithal. "Families are broken," says school superintendent Christopher Farmer. "Many of our young people are growing up directionless."

So let me get this straight: if your daddy gets laid off, the obvious reaction is go screw a homeless guy to get pregnant? Huh. I would think the message would be rather different, something like, "You know, money's a little tight right now, and we might have to move somewhere else to find work, so maybe now's not the best time for you, our young teen daughter, to screw a homeless guy to get pregnant."

While losing a job can strain families, it does not "break" them or cause people to be directionless. People routinely seek out new jobs, through need or desire, and most families weather the transition just fine.

The article gives no indication of whether the parents of the pregnant girls are among the ones whose jobs "disappeared overseas." Interestingly, a Boston Globe article also refers to the town's "economic advantage not usually associated with teen pregnancy."

(This last article is the one that points out that, upon hearing they were pregnant, some girls "broke into smiles. One exclaimed, 'Sweet!'")

Theory 6: A Pact

Clearly some of these girls were influencing others to get pregnant. But that doesn't explain why pregnancy became so popular in the first place or why getting pregnant didn't strike the girls as an obviously stupid idea.

Plausible Theory: Decline of Personal Responsibility

Time does offer a couple of telling lines.

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. ... [T]een parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

And a non-pregnant girl at the school told Time, "No one's offered them a better option."

I suggest that the larger problem is that America's students are taught, through explicit propaganda and implicit practice, that whatever they need, society will provide for "free." Their lesson starts with their "free" education, which is funded by taking others' resources by force. Now, their tax-funded schools provide "free" child care along with "free" education. If they can't afford to take care of their babies, they can sign up for "free" food, "free" housing assistance, "free" health care, and so on. (Notably, Massachusetts now has mandatory and highly subsidized health "insurance.")

These students -- these products of the welfare state -- think it's somebody else's responsibility to "offer them a better option."

Thankfully, the Boston Globe ends on a hopeful note:

Sandy Lakeman said she breathed a sigh of relief when her 19-year-old daughter graduated from high school and went to college in Florida. A single mother, she encouraged her two daughters to play sports and get part-time jobs in order to keep them out of trouble.

"I've had to be a waitress and a bartender my whole life and I've struggled," said the Gloucester native. "I don't want my kids to struggle."

Parents still make a huge difference. People have free will, and they can choose to make something of themselves. We still live in an economy sufficiently free to foster independence. While some young teen girls got pregnant, most didn't.

Republicans Botch Abortion

As I've pointed out, Colorado's Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, has placed the Republicans in a quandary. After years of paying lip-service to the religious right, they are now pressured to support 48. The problem for Republicans is that most Coloradans realize that Amendment 48 is insane. A fertilized egg is not a person, yet the initiative seeks to impose the definition through enforced religious dogma.

So now the GOP has become a headless chicken, squawking in and out of the anti-abortion camp.

As Lynn Bartels reports for The Rocky Mountain News, when Republican party chair Dick Wadhams refused to rent a table to Colorado Right to Life at the party's state convention, the group blasted the GOP.

Why did Wadhams deny the table? He told Bartels, "Any organization that publicly attacks the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate is not going to be allowed to buy table space."

What are these attacks? The organization refers on its web page to "Colorado RTL's accusation of his disregard for Chinese women forced to abort their children." Regarding the group's 2008 Candidate Questionnaire, which includes a question about the "personhood" initiative, its web page states, "Notable for NOT answering the Colorado RTL Candidate Questionnaire is U.S. Republican candidate Bob Schaffer." Tim Hoover of The Denver Post adds, "Earlier this year, Colorado Right to Life attacked Schaffer over his defense of human rights conditions in the Northern Marianas Islands, where there have been repeated accusations that textile workers must undergo forced abortions."

Wadhams, also Schaffer's campaign manager, has been reduced to mocking Colorado Right to Life and weakly touting his anti-abortion credentials. He told the Post, "The Colorado Republican Party has good relations with legitimate pro-life organization."

Colorado Right to Life is threatening to walk this November if candidates don't behave. Bartels writes, "Colorado Right to Life President Joe Riccobono warned Republicans that by shunning their conservative base, they're headed for 'another election catastrophe in November'." Hoover adds, "'The state's top Republican is out of touch with his own party's base,' Leslie Hanks , the group's vice president, said in a statement." (I couldn't find that statement on the group's web page.)

Yet if Republicans pander to Colorado Right to Life, they'll lose the more numerous independent voters.

Notably, various Republicans have already signed on to Colorado Right to Life's agenda. I don't notice a lot of Republican names from competitive districts.

Gone are the days when Republicans can mouth anti-abortion rhetoric and expect not to actually have to face the issue. Colorado Right to Life means it, and they're prepared to push their faith-based politics all the way.

See today's post at AriArmtrong.com for more about Colorado Right to Life's Agenda.

Peikoff 17

I'm already a podcast behind, but here I briefly review Leonard Peikoff's seventeenth podcast, which deals mostly with matters of politics.

1. What is treason? Peikoff distinguishes between "giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime" from criticizing a war.

2. Is torture of wartime enemies ever appropriate? Peikoff answers that it's "moral when it's necessary to advance the war for freedom." The problem is that torture rarely yields useful information, he adds. It might be useful if, for example, the military has captured someone who knows about a bomb soon to detonate. It is a matter of tactics, but "not a primary or major issue of a war." I am curious whether those who absolutely oppose the use of all torture would hold their ground if U.S. forces captured a terrorist who had planted a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city.

3. Can Objectivists be soldiers, police officers, or others devoted to "public service?" Peikoff answers that this is no different for doctors or other professionals. A soldier properly fights to preserve liberty for himself, his family, and his country, and to offer an engaging career. (I skipped another minor question before this one.)

4. Did Ayn Rand regret her "provocative tone?" Peikoff's answer here is too good for me to summarize; listen to the podcast.

5. Is reproduction a source of values from a biological perspective? "Of value to whom?" Peikoff asks. The notion of a sort of transcendent biological "value" is an instance of intrinsicism.

6. If you're engaged with someone (for athletics, sex, etc.), do you have a legal as well as a moral responsibility to help the person if they have an emergency health problem? Peikoff answers yes, because you've entered an implicit contract with them. I think he's right here, but the problem is that it would be rarely possible to legally enforce. But if you're having sex with somebody who wouldn't help you with a health emergency, you have bigger problems than your health.

It's a particularly fun podcast.

Regressives Harm Minority Youth

Recently the Colorado Progressive Coalition bragged about helping to pass the 2006 wage controls.

Congratulations: you've put some inexperienced minors out of a job, ensuring that they'll lack the job experience needed for higher pay later.

Kristen Lopez Eastlick writes for Examiner.com:

This year, it's harder than ever for teens to find a summer job. Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007 as "the worst in post-World War II history" for teen summer employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to be "even worse."

According to their data, only about one-third of Americans 16 to 19 years old will have a job this summer, and vulnerable low-income and minority teens are going to fare even worse.

The percentage of teens classified as "unemployed" -- those who are actively seeking a job but can't get one -- is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics.

One of the prime reasons for this drastic employment drought is the mandated wage hikes that policymakers have forced down the throats of local businesses. Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing little to address poverty.

Yet, not only does the group call itself "progressive," but it brags about promoting a policy that hurts poor minority youth.

The only real progressives in the state are the ones advocating liberty, free markets, and individual rights.

Brook Explains Freedom's Retreat

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute has written another outstanding article for Forbes outlining the retreats from capitalism in South America, Europe, and the United States -- and explaining the causes of them.

It feels like the early stages of Atlas Shrugged. But we can turn the tide for the same reason that liberty has been slipping; as Brook writes: "There's no preordained direction for the world economy -- only an undetermined future that will take the shape of whatever ideas and policies we choose to uphold."

Brook points out, "Capitalism and the profit motive continue to be viewed with suspicion. ... This is why Barack Obama can get away with belittling the 'money culture,' his wife can smugly counsel youth to shun 'corporate America' and John McCain can brag about working 'out of patriotism, not for profit'."

Read the entire article.

The Failing GOP

This looks bad for the GOP:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Survey out Friday indicates that 2008 may not be a good year for Republicans up and down the ticket, even though most national surveys indicate the race for the White House between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama is quite close right now.

Sixty-three percent of Democrats questioned say they are either extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this year. Only 37 percent of Republicans feel the same way, and 36 percent of Republicans say they are not enthusiastic about voting.

The Democrats are united for creeping socialism. The GOP is fractured, with John McCain offering a wink to each of the party's faces: the populists (anti-immigrant, pro-censorship), the religious right (anti-abortion), and the socialists light (carbon caps). The result is that hardly anybody likes McCain, and many Republicans detest him. Forgotten is the free-market faction.

The only Republicans who whisper about cutting spending are usually the same ones beholden to the James Dobson crowd and who for that reason alienate independent voters and non-sectarian Republicans.

Where is the Republican who calls for individual rights, lower spending, serious entitlement reform, free trade, free speech, and sound money?

Supreme Decision Due on D.C. Handgun Ban

The Supreme Court's D.C. gun-ban ruling is due soon.

Dave Kopel writes,

The Brady Campaign's preemptive announcement of defeat in District of Columbia v. Heller contains an interesting bit of spin:

But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.

"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.

Plus ca "change," plus c'est la meme chose. In 2000, the NRA endorsed Texas Governor George W. Bush, who supported a similar provision regarding gun shows. Accordingly, the NRA's endorsement of McCain is not good evidence that gun control is more popular in 2008 than it was in 2000.

Of course, in my book this speaks well neither of McCain nor of the NRA.

But the important part is that the Brady Campaign expects to lose. ABC reports:

The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

In other words, the goal of the Brady Campaign now is to restrict the "individual right" to own a gun as severely as possible.

Should Government Own Wilderness?

The following article originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press on June 9.

Should the government own, manage wilderness?

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Just how far do we want to push our free-market agenda? The short answer is all the way. A free market means that people's rights to control their resources and associate with others voluntarily, so long as they don't violate the rights of others, are consistently protected. It means that the initiation of force is outlawed. The alternative is coercion: taking people's resources by force and and threatening them with jail for not doing what you want.

Here's how the argument has developed so far. On April 28, we argued that government (including the town of Fruita) should not forcibly take money from people to subsidize recreation facilities.

On May 12 we replied to Keith J. Pritchard's concern about externalities, in this case a benefit (such as keeping kids off the streets) not funded by the beneficiaries. We argued that, by Pritchard's reasoning, government should seize control of the entire economy. "The system of individual rights provides justice as well as the best framework for solving economic problems," we wrote.

But, Pritchard complained, we did not address one of his points. By our logic, Pritchard wrote, "we should auction off all public parks, BLM land, State Parks, and National Forest to the highest bidder!"

A lot of conservatives would reply to such a challenge by invoking pragmatism: "Of course we don't want to auction off public lands, but we need a balanced approach that lets government subsidize only some things, not others, and take by force only some of our money, not all of it." Regular readers know that's not our answer.

Pritchard's complaint is intended to cut off any principled approach. If we want wilderness areas, then what's wrong with Fruita subsidizing a recreation facility? Surely we have to compromise and agree that government must control some industries, even if there's no clear standard to decide what government should control and what should be left to the voluntarist free market.

We refuse to sanction the mixed economy, the current blend of some liberty and some socialist controls. We advocate liberty, all the time, without exception.

Politically, of course, it's usually easier to stop the government takeover of something new (such as a recreation facility) than to restore a government-controlled entity to the free market. Even though there's no reason whatever for the national government to run trains or deliver the mail, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the United States Post Office have resisted market reforms. Trains and mail remain largely socialized industries.

At least government-run businesses should be self-financing. For example, the gasoline tax is a fairly effective fee-for-use that funds government-owned roads. In Denver, though some lines of the RTD receive heavy subsidies, properly the lines should charge enough to cover costs. If people are not willing to pay enough to ride on a line to keep it operational, it should be closed down.

Many government-run wilderness areas require fees. If you head up the road to Vega Reservoir, you'll find that you must purchase a state park's pass. The showers there cost money. The campgrounds and facilities should charge enough to cover all costs, so as not to unfairly compete with the private facilities near the lake. If you go to Rocky Mountain National Park, you'll pay a fee at the gate.

We ask a simple question: why do you think government does a better job managing wilderness areas than individuals and organizations would do on a free market? The pine-beetle infestation is at least partly the result of inept forest management.

Do you think government would do a better job building cars, growing food, erecting houses, and sewing clothes? People tried that in the last century, and it didn't work out so well. Then why do you think government is uniquely qualified to manage wilderness areas?

We do not, as Pritchard claims, think all wilderness areas should be sold to the highest bidder. In some cases, the land should be given or sold to its current users. For example, Powderhorn leases most of its land from the Forest Service, and the company has a vested interest in caring for the land.

It seems that organizations like the Sierra Club complain most loudly about federal wilderness management. Therefore, we suggest simply giving many federal lands to the Sierra Club or similar groups. We're confident they would do a good job managing the land, and they'd be more open to charging fees for use and even drilling to pay for land management. The rest could be transfered to a privatized Forest Service or sold, with the proceeds used to pay down the national debt.

We enjoy wilderness areas as much as the next person. We also enjoy eating. That doesn't mean we want the government to nationalize farms or forests. America is about liberty, and that is the principle to which we should return.

Internet Explorer Problems

It has come to my attention that this page does not load correctly on Internet Explorer. I tried a fix today that didn't work. If anybody knows how to fix this problem, please let me know.

Railway Suspects Crime in Derailment

Tillie Fong of the Rocky Mountain News reports that the train derailment in Westminster is now considered a crime.

After writing a first, second, and third story about the derailment, I now defer to the Rocky. Here is the key new information:

Officials believe that the tree trunk was deliberately placed on the tracks two hours before the train derailed, about 8:30 p.m. A resident had called Westminster police, warning about the stump in the tracks in the 9000 block of Pierce St.

"An officer removed the tree stump," said Heather Wood, spokeswoman for Westminster police. "He moved it to the side of the railroad track and rolled it off the embankment. We didn't get any calls that the stump was back up."

However, at 10:36 p.m. Monday, a local shipping train, carrying lumber, paper, malt and sugar, ran into the same tree stump that was back on the tracks in the same area.

What's interesting about this is that the Westminster Police (or at least some officers) knew immediately that the derailment was a crime, yet they did not release this information until Tuesday afternoon or evening. (I posted my interview with Steve Forsberg at about 2:00 p.m., just after talking with him, and Fong's story that quotes Forsberg about the crime is marked 10:33 p.m.) Perhaps the delay was caused by slow processing of information, or perhaps police thought that the perpetrator(s) would be more likely to reveal themselves without a pronounced criminal investigation. The delay of information might also have delayed public involvement in finding the perpetrator(s).

Did the Westminster Police contact the railway police? I wonder whether somebody was patrolling the tracks in the area, especially before the next scheduled train.

Fong also reveals a couple of interesting details: the injured brakeman "was released Tuesday," and crews are working to "replace 702 feet of track."

Fong adds, "Anyone with information about the tree stump or who placed it on the tracks should contact Burlington Northern Santa Fe police at 1-800-832-5452. Tipsters can also call CrimeStoppers at 720-913-STOP."

I sent Forsberg a few follow-up questions, the answers to which I'll post when I get them:

1. Did Westminster Police contact railway police about the stump when it was first removed from the tracks, prior to the 10:36 p.m. collision?

2. Was anyone patrolling the tracks in that area prior to the train derailment?

3. Do you have the estimates for the amount of fuel leaked or the cost of damages at this time?

4. We discussed this issue a little, but I'd like to know how many times per year trains carrying hazardous materials of different sorts travel the track on which the derailment occurred.

12:37 p.m. Update, June 11

I tried to post the above post late June 10, but Blogger was having problems. Following is Steve Forsberg's reply to my questions:

"You should put the first two questions to the Westminster PD as I don't have any information on that. I do know our people have praised Police efforts to support BNSF.

"Spilled fuel estimates have been lowered to 200-300 gallons and 100 gallons of lube oil. I don't know how many haz mat shipments move on that route. It would be a low number as there are only 6 or 7 trains a day that use that track."

Also, the Rocky Mountain News now reports that "Burlington Northern Santa Fe repaired and reopened the track at the site of Monday night’s derailment by 10 this morning..."

Derailed Train: BNSF Railway Addresses Injury, Fuel Leak

"The cause [of the June 9 train derailment in Westminster] obviously was the tree stump that was on the track. How the stump came to be on the track is still a matter of investigation," said Steve Forsberg of BNSF Railway in a telephone interview. (BNSF is formerly the Burlington Northern Santa Fe.)

Read the first and second story about the derailment.

Forsberg said that BNSF's police officers will continue to work with the Westminster Police Department to investigate the derailment. BNSF hires "dozens and dozens of police officers" from public departments to work their system, Forsberg said, noting that the officers have the same powers as those on public forces.

Forsberg said the officers, who report to Denver, have the option of working with state and federal agencies if necessary. "At this point in time, the investigation is being handled by the Westminster Police and the BNSF Railway police."

Forsberg wasn't sure how fast the train was traveling when it struck the obstruction. "It would have been slowing. The train crew was trying to bring the train to a stop," but the train "did make impact with the stump," Forsberg said.

"Fortunately no one was fatally injured," he said, though a brakeman reported pain in his neck and back and was treated and examined. Forsberg didn't know whether the brakeman has been released from treatment.

The train held "several thousand gallons" of fuel and had just been refueled. Forsberg offered no firm estimate of how much fuel leaked, saying that the amount would be calculated based on how much was removed from the tanks.

"Where the fuel did leak, there was a dyke created to prevent it from migrating any further," Forsberg said, adding that BNSF contracted with an environmental cleanup company to handle leaked fuel.

Cost of damages is "something that's still being assessed... we're reluctant to put out a number that is not firm," Forsberg said.

The train was hauling items such as paper, lumber, and malt, Forsberg said, adding that it carried nothing hazardous.

Does the route ever handle hazardous material? Forsberg said there are "not that many trains that use that route," and few trains carry anything potentially hazardous. He said that most items classified as hazardous are items such as perfume and cologne, cleaning products, batteries, lighter fluid, and paint. He said that only three-tenths of one percent of train cargo is "highly volatile material" such as chlorine or ammonia; thus, it is very unlikely that any given train could possibly release dangerous chemicals.

"Railroads are actually the safest mode of transportation for hazardous material," Forsberg said, noting that trucks have higher accident rates. Moreover, federal "must carry" regulations require train companies to haul hazardous materials, Forsberg said.

Forsberg anticipated that the area would be cleaned up and the track repaired within 36 hours of the derailment, meaning sometime on June 11. "We'll see how work progresses today," he said.

"In the meantime, we're rerouting trains towards Sterling Colorado, and then coming into Denver from the northeast," he said.

Train Derailment Update

by Ari Armstrong, 11:40 a.m., June 10, 2008
All photographs and audio files may be reproduced with attribution to FreeColorado.com. High-resolution photos and audio files are linked below.

It remains "too early to determine" whether accident or crime caused the late June 9 train derailment in Westminster, said Investigator Trevor Materasso of the Westminster Police Department around 11:00 a.m. "We haven't made any arrests," and the investigation remains "very preliminary," he said.

Materasso said that sixteen of the total 37 train cars derailed, in addition to four locomotives.

He said, "Burlington Northern is taking over the lead in the investigation... We're asking people to recognize that this is a crime scene... We want to ensure that evidence and things aren't tampered with so that the investigation can continue without any problems."

One of the two northbound lanes of Wadsworth Parkway is expected to remain closed south of Independence (the 96th block) "at least through rush hour" and "possibly indefinitely," Materasso said; "Burlington Northern is still bringing in a lot of equipment."

Morning Interview with Investigator Trevor Materasso


high res


high res


Personal Note

As I was the first journalist on the scene and (so far as I know) the first to publish the story, perhaps some readers will be interested to learn how this political analyst picked up a story about a derailed train. The short answer is that I live across the street, and I had the time and equipment to cover the story.

I didn't hear anything because I live in a complex on the far side of the wreck. My neighbor alerted me just after 10:30 p.m. that a train had derailed. It took me a moment to figure out what he was saying; I responded merely, "What?!"

My neighbor was understandably concerned about possible hazardous materials on the train; fortunately, there were none. We walked down Wadsworth to get this news. I briefly considered the residents I'd need to help evacuate if there had been any need; thankfully there wasn't. (I don't know about the restrictions of hazardous materials through residential areas on trains, but I assume there are some.)

I tried to imagine what might have caused the derailment; there are no crossing tracks in the area, so a collision between crossing trains was impossible. I figured that either the rail or engine had failed.

I had grabbed my camera, and I asked my wife to follow with a tripod and my audio recorder. We snapped a few pictures as police taped off the area. I totally understand why the police asked onlookers to clear the area. We respected the police boundaries, yet I asserted my right to cover the story.

One officer told me that a spokesperson would be available at a make-shift command center in a parking lot south of the derailment. My wife and I walked there, where we saw an ambulance treating two people. (We learned that only one went to the hospital for minor injuries, thankfully.) The police officers were professional and courteous. One officer told me that a spokesperson would actually go to the north of the accident, so we walked back across the street, up the road, and back over.

As we walked to the area designated for the spokesperson, an officer on a motorcycle asked us to leave the area, and I noted I was headed for the spokesperson. "You're in a crime area," the officer said. That got my attention; it hadn't occurred to me that the derailment might have been intentional. We soon learned that the cause of the derailment was a tree stump or branch on the tracks, which is indeed suspicious, because I don't think railroads tend to leave large trees overhanging their tracks.

I believe 7News was the second media outlet to arrive (after me). Soon camera operators from four stations mulled about. I learned that they usually get such tips from police scanners, rather than from people calling in. As Materasso prepared to give his interview for the cameras, three of the operators asked me to hold their mikes, as I was already holding up my recorder.



I was thankful that nobody was badly hurt but pained to see the physical destruction. It's quite a wreck. And, if somebody placed the impediment intentionally, it's a large crime that destroyed a great deal of property and endangered people's lives. Given that the wreck happened near my house, I was keen to report it. I'm grateful to the Westminster Police for accommodating the media, including me. I feel I lived up to my journalistic responsibilities.

Westminster Train Derailment Under Criminal Investigation

by Ari Armstrong, 3:00 a.m., June 10, 2008
All photographs and audio files may be reproduced with attribution to FreeColorado.com. High-resolution photos and audio files are linked below. Read the morning update.

A "tree stump or some type of large tree branch" caused a Burlington Northern train to derail late June 9 in Westminster, leading to a criminal investigation, Investigator Trevor Materasso of the Westminster Police Department said. Investigators did not know whether the train, headed north near 92nd and Wadsworth, derailed by accident or crime.

Three people were aboard the train, and one was transported for minor injuries, Materasso said. The train, which derailed at about 10:36 p.m., carried "all non-hazardous material." While some residents in the area were contacted, none was evacuated. As of midnight, Westminster firemen were "working on plugging" a "very small leak" in a diesel tank on the front engine. The derailment involved 37 cars and four locomotives, Materasso said.

A man living across Wadsworth said, "I heard like thunder. I heard the train engine, the whistle, and then not a minute later I heard all this big grinding and thunder noise. I looked out my window and saw sparks coming from the train from the lead engine, and then it just stopped."

Materasso said it's "unknown how long the tracks are going to be shut down." The rail appeared to be twisted off of the bed near several derailed cars. Materasso urged drivers to avoid that section of Wadsworth if possible during the cleanup. [All the derailed cars are south of the light at Independence, the 96th block, and Wadsworth Parkway.]

Anyone with relevant information can call the Westminster Police Department at (303) 430 - 2400 x5, Materasso said.

Shortly after midnight, police handcuffed at least one of three men on the train track just north of the wrecked engine. Materasso said that field interviews of people in the area are standard.

Photographs and Linked Files

Interview with Witness

Interview with Investigator Trevor Materasso

First Video

Second Video


high res


high res


high res


high res


high res


high res (Materasso)


high res

Thanks to my wife Jennifer, who took all of the photographs except for the first one.

Air-Powered Cars

As Americans see gas soar to the $4 per gallon range -- thanks to the environmentalist assault on energy production -- BBC News and Raw Story report that India's Tata Motors is gearing up to produce cars based on French technology of compressed air.

I have to admit this idea of running cars on compressed air had never occurred to me. You can pump air directly into the car or plug in the internal compressor. Tata is also working on a carbon-compression hybrid that BBC News reports can yield 120 miles per gallon. Clever.

Of course, as BBC also points out, the cars are light-weight and therefore, I suspect, quite a lot more dangerous than the cars to which Americans are accustomed. Still, they might be fine for slower-speed city driving. If they catch on a toll-road might even find it useful to create small-car lanes.

Obviously, compressing air is not free. It requires energy. I'm interested to learn how the Indians plan to compress the air. I'm also interested in what the energy loss is between the first power source and the power of the compressed air.

I wonder whether it might be possible to harness wind to compress air, rather than use wind turbines to generate electricity. (We may never know, because now all the subsidies are going to the turbines.)

A huge problem is that compressed air seems hard to transport. A nuclear generator could power the air compression, but unless we're talking about new, smaller nuclear plants it seems more effective to transport the electricity rather than the compressed air. That seems more promising for electric cars, if people can ever figure out how to produce better, cheaper batteries. I guess the question, then, is whether it's more effective to convert electricity to battery charges or to compressed air. And which system promises to provide the longest drives?

Even though the new technology runs into numerous immediate problems, it's interesting.

The best way to promote new technologies is to cut government spending and taxes, eliminate special-interest pandering, cut controls on production, and generally restore the government to protecting individual rights rather than mismanaging the economy.

The USA

The other day I was discussing Health Savings Accounts with a friend. I pointed out that my wife and I love our account, which saves us hundreds of dollars every month by allowing us to buy high-deductible insurance and pay out-of-pocket expenses pre-tax . I joked, "Now all we need is a Pet Savings Account for the vet, and we'll be set."

Obviously that's not going to happen, but it occurred to me that a Universal Savings Account could include other important expenses -- food, housing, clothing, etc. Call it the USA. Why should the working poor and middle class pay taxes on their basic needs?

Unfortunately, the country in which we live is no longer compatible with the values of the USA. Instead, the working poor and middle class are hammered with a net Social Security tax of nearly 15 percent, which makes it incredibly hard for many people to get ahead. Even if some are spared most other income taxes, they still pay all sorts of taxes on food, housing, cars, etc.

Ultimately, though, what we need are not new specialized tax breaks, but reductions in government spending, accompanied by general tax cuts.

Open Letter to Senators McCain and Obama

Below is my letter to Senators McCain and Obama explaining my anticipated vote for this Fall. This letter is in part a response to Severin's concern, "I don't see how voting for Obama will send a message that you dislike McCain. ... [V]oting for Obama is a vote for socialism and that is the message that will be received by everyone in Washington." Publicly expressing the reasons for my vote and sending the letter to the two campaigns should make my intentions clear.

First, though, I want to discuss the politics a bit. Previously I predicted that "McCain will Dukakisize" Obama. Now I'm not so sure.

Obama is a good speaker and an attractive man, and those are the two most important points in his favor (which doesn't say much for the American public). But his far-left ties will alienate many voters, particular rural ones. Nor will he excite the pro-Israel left.

McCain is a horrible speaker, as a left-wing YouTube video illustrates. He's about as exciting as a box of Depends. I doubt that McCain does well with women or younger voters. He's irritated various leaders of the religious right, and he's enraged the libertarian right with his campaign censorship law. So I don't know how excited his base will be to work for him. (It will be interesting to see whether Clinton's supporters can get fully behind Obama.)

McCain is from the Interior West, but the Interior West generally hates him. Romney stomped McCain in Colorado, for example. The Interior West also hates the Clintons, so Obama cleaned up. While I'm tempted to say that Obama's far-left ties will alienate Interior West voters more than McCain's populist-right statism will, I'm not entirely sure about this.

McCain seems to have a better shot at taking Florida, as McCain won the primary there, while Obama didn't seem to do as well.

Obama is actually beating McCain according to some markers. The University of Iowa's U.S. Presidential Election Market shows Obama leading. A Rasmussen poll from today reports: "Obama now attracts 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. That five-point lead for Obama is up from a two-point advantage over the past couple of days. Before that, for much of last week, McCain had enjoyed a slight edge."

Rasmussen also reports that "11% say they are not willing to vote for an African-American presidential candidate." While it's unpleasant to consider that over a tenth of the country seems to be racist (but perhaps they're merely unreliable poll takers), I doubt that any of those votes would have gone to Hillary, either.

The upshot is that, while I think McCain will win, my previous prediction probably was premature given the earliness of the season.

Nevertheless, barring some sort of surprising revelation or new twist, I've already decided to cast the strongest vote possible against McCain by marking in Obama. Following are my reasons.

[July 21, 2008, Update: I have changed my mind on this issue for reasons explained elsewhere. I see no reason to send Obama a new letter updating him on my position, as last time his campaign just sent me a generic, non-responsive letter, anyway.]

Open Letter to Senators McCain and Obama

Dear Senators McCain and Obama,

I am saddened that you two are my choices for President. I cannot vote in favor of any candidate this year. However, I deem that McCain is the worst evil in the race, and therefore I've decided to mark my ballot for Obama as the strongest possible vote against McCain.

My vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any idea or policy that Obama advocates. In my estimation, Obama is essentially a socialist in orientation who would do everything in his power to expand political control of the economy. My only hope is that, should Obama win, he will be too weak a president to further muck up the economy too badly.

While I detest many things about both candidates, I offer three main reasons for voting against McCain.

1. I cannot vote for any candidate who gloats about shredding the First Amendment. McCain's campaign censorship law is despicable and unforgivable.

2. McCain's web page states that the candidate advocates "ending abortion." I cannot vote for any candidate who promotes faith-based politics at the expense of individual rights. While I also fear that Obama will erode the separation of church and state, at least rhetorically he has endorsed the principle, and I believe that the Democratic party would reign in some potential abuses in this area.

3. While Obama's foreign policy of appeasement frightens me, McCain's call to "sacrifice your life" frightens me even more. I favor strong military defense of American lives. Unfortunately, McCain seems intent on following or expanding Bush's policy of sacrificing American lives for endless occupations that weaken America's defenses without defeating the enemy.

Again, even though my vote will add to Obama's column, my vote should not be taken as support for Obama or anything that he stands for, but only my opposition to McCain.

Maybe someday a candidate for president will actually earn my vote, but this is not the year for that.

Sincerely,

Ari Armstrong

If you wish to explain your intended vote to the candidates, following are their campaign addresses.

John McCain 2008
P.O. Box 16118
Arlington, VA 22215

Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

[July 21, 2008, Update: I have changed my mind on this issue for reasons explained elsewhere. I see no reason to send Obama a new letter updating him on my position, as last time his campaign just sent me a generic, non-responsive letter, anyway.]

Unions Fight for Higher Health Costs

Brian Schwartz has pointed out that Colorado's union bosses are trying to further screw over Colorado workers -- so long as the unions expand their power. Schwartz writes:

Re: "Who has your health at heart?" May 22 guest commentary.

AFL-CIO executives John Sweeney and Mike Cerbo perpetuate the big lie behind politician-controlled medicine: that the free market is not working and that costs have been spiraling out of control because of markets.

But costs have been increasing precisely because of the employer-based insurance they espouse, which is a consequence of a biased and non-free-market tax code. It favors employer-based insurance and penalizes other types of medical insurance.

We consume medical care like a business traveler dining on the company's expense account: Since someone else pays the bill (insurers), patients need not shop around, so providers don't compete on price. ...

Employer-based insurance also coddles insurance companies, which have little incentive to please consumers. They know we're essentially locked to our employer and the costly insurance plans they offer. To buy a competitor’s product, we must change jobs or pay a stiff tax penalty.

The AFL-CIO should be ashamed of promoting self-serving policies that both empower labor unions and result in expensive medical care and insurance.

Schwartz covers additional angles of the health-policy debate at Patient Power. And Paul Hsieh discusses problems with the British system and other issues at the FIRM blog.

Nevertheless, with a Democratic legislature (and a weak-spined Republican minority), we continue to suffer the further socialization of health care. For example, Governor Bill Ritter recently bragged about signing eleven health-related bills, most of which expand political control of medicine.

Colorado's advocates of individual rights in medicine have stopped the worst plans and slowed down the political takeover of medicine. If you care about your health and your liberty, now is the time to join them.

Ritter Throws Art Shops a Bone

I was glancing through Bill Ritter's media releases when I happened upon the following:

OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008 ...

GOV. RITTER SIGNS BILL BOOSTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ARTS

At an art gallery and framing shop in North Denver's Berkeley neighborhood, Gov. Bill Ritter today signed legislation that will further support Colorado's burgeoning arts economy, which is rapidly becoming an integral part of neighborhood economic development across the state.

HB 1105 (Frangas/Sandoval) allows art galleries to serve alcohol for up to four hours per day, for no more than 15 days per year. Permits will have to be renewed annually and the alcohol has to be complimentary. The bill requires an ann