Hoover: Worse Than FDR

I was surprised to see that Scott Powell categorizes Herbert Hoover as a presidential "mixed bag," while FDR is among the "unforgivables." As I discuss for The Objective Standard in my review of Amity Shlaes's book The Forgotten Man, Hoover helped cause the economic catastrophe that assured FDR's election, and Hoover implemented many of the political economic controls that paved the way to FDR's continued controls. So Hoover was at least as bad as FDR.

As Shlaes mentions (and I review), Hoover once said that concern with private property is a "fetich." I was curious about this, so I looked up the passage in Hoover's American Individualism:

But those are utterly wrong who say that individualism has as its only end the acquisition and preservation of private property -- the selfish snatching and hoarding of the common product. Our American individualism, indeed, is only in part an economic creed. It aims to provide opportunity for self-expression, not merely economically, but spiritually as well. Private property is not a fetich in America. The crushing of the liquor trade without a cent of compensation, with scarcely even a discussion of it, does not bear out the notion that we give property rights any headway over human rights.

Notice how Hoover builds his collectivist edifice on grains of truth. He claims to endorse "individualism," yet his sort of individualism sacrifices the individual to the collective, moderately, of course. It is true that authentic individualism is not concerned only with economic ends.

Hoover denigrates economic interests as "selfish snatching and hoarding," something inherently suspect morally. Why "snatching," rather than "earning?" Why "hoarding," rather than "investing?" And what is this "common product?" Hoover here suggests that the wealth within a nation belongs to the nation, rather than to the individuals who earn it.

Notice the example Hoover gives of the "spiritual" dimension of "American individualism:" the "crushing" of an industry without compensation or even much discussion. Obliterating an entire industry through federal controls, subverting the choices and property rights of individuals to the will of the collective -- that is what Hoover means by "human rights."

Hoover was a dishonest snake who crushed the entire American economy beneath the boot of his collectivist "individualism."

Everyone Is Welcome at Hamburger Mary's

The following article originally was published March 30, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary's

"Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural, created order," State Senator Scott Renfroe said February 23 on the Senate floor. He called homosexuality an "abomination," a "detestable act" worthy of the death penalty in Old Testament scripture. He said that adultery and murder are also sins, and "all sin is equal."

Fast forward to March 24. Josh Penry, Senate Minority Leader whose name often comes up in discussions of possible Republican challengers to Governor Bill Ritter, spoke to the Denver Metro Young Republicans at Hamburger Mary's in Denver.

The restaurant's web page explains, "Hamburger Mary's franchises are 'open-air bar and grilles for open-minded people,' where guests enjoy a flamboyant dining experience. Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary's, but our concept is unique in that we are the ONLY national franchise actively marketing to the gay community."

Open-minded Republicans. Who knew?

Penry told Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, "I've got a traditional view on marriage, and a similarly traditional view that you shouldn't spend your life judging others. And so I don't."

Thomas James, president of DMYR, told Hoover that the group picked the restaurant for capitalistic reasons, not political ones: the burger joint offered a "suitable layout" at a "good location."

James added, "DMYR welcomes any individuals who share its five core principles: individual rights with personal responsibility, small and limited government, free-market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the rule of law."

We think it's a very good thing for Republicans to befriend homosexuals and for homosexuals to befriend capitalists. It could be a match made in heaven.

Ward Churchill: Another big story from Denver is that Ward Churchill appeared in court last week to get his job back at the University of Colorado.

The people who really deserved to be fired were those responsible for hiring Churchill in the first place. The entire premise of offering Churchill a job was that he was supposedly a Native American who would write leftist attacks on the United States. Churchill never had the appropriate credentials for the position. And there's not a shred of evidence suggesting he has any American Indian ancestry.

Search online for Churchill's "Winter Attack," and you will find that Churchill sold reproductions of a work that he had copied, with a few minor alterations, from the deceased artist Thomas Mails.

Churchill was a fraud before his job at CU, he was a fraud in getting that job, and he was a fraud as a professor, plagiarizing the work of others and fabricating "facts." The true scandal is not that Churchill fought to get his job back but that he ever landed the job in the first place.

Then of course Churchill compared the American victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Nazis. He wrote of the destruction of the World Trade Center, "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

In an added fraud, Churchill claims that his "right" to keep his job is protected by the First Amendment. It is not. The First Amendment forbids censorship, government restraint of free speech. The First Amendment does not require employers to provide the resources for employees to speak. For instance, you do not have the right to give a speech in your office promoting racism.

Churchill may have been protected by his employment contract -- again a problem that CU created -- but the First Amendment has nothing to do with job protection. True, because CU accepts tax dollars, more government protections apply. But just imagine how seriously the left would take Churchill's First Amendment claims if, for instance, a professor argued that homosexuals deserved to be beaten. Churchill's leftist supporters would be the first to demand a firing (and we would agree, again subject to contractual constraints).

Ah, but Churchill is cool, he has a persona, bangs a drum, wears a Che hat with sunglasses and poses with guns, and says things the left enjoys. And that is enough for young sycophants and feeble minded leftists to ignore Churchill's fraud and their own hypocrisy.

Bill 1984: Local Representative Steve King is a House sponsor of an atrocious bill that would collect DNA samples prior to criminal conviction, based only on arrest. The bill is officially numbered 241, but we call it Bill 1984 because of its Orwellian implications.

Nothing is more basic to our system of justice than the presumption of innocence, which Bill 1984 threatens. One thing the bill would do is give the police an incentive to arrest people on some pretext just to get a look at their DNA. We have enough Kings in the horror business, Steve.

Rushified

I've been Rushified. The best thing about the new film I Love You, Man is the tribute to Rush -- the band even plays a song in a cameo.

I thought it was a fun but not hilarious movie about male bonding, and I really like the cast. (I went with my wife, though obviously I should have planned a "man date." Maybe for the DVD release.)

If the official web page's hurdles annoy you, you can find most of the best clips through YouTube. Check out the man cave, for instance.

A Rush fan site has some more info on the links between the movie and the band.

Gotta go now -- got a Rush DVD in the computer.

Turn On Lights Saturday at 8:30 for Edison Hour

Remember to turn on all of your lights -- all of them! -- Saturday at 8:30 p.m. to celebrate Edison Hour. In fact, turn on all of your electrical appliances you can manage. Take an hour to appreciate the discovery of electricity and the invention of electrical power generation and the electric light. Say a silent "thank you" to the scientists, industrialists, businessmen, and producers who have made possible electrical power.

We no longer live in a dark and cold world. We can turn on the lights when it gets dark. We no longer have to rely on burning smelly oils or animal fats for light.

We no longer have to depend on burning wood or coal in home ovens (even in the middle of summer) to cook our food. We need merely turn the dial on the electric oven.

We no longer have to spend hours laboring to prepare food and clean up the mess. We can flip on the electric mixer or processor, then throw all the dirty dishes into the electric dishwasher. Then we can throw the leftovers into the electric freezer or refrigerator, where we keep milk, produce, and meat in an edible state for days and as long as months.

For entertainment and education, we can flip on the radio, television, or computer. For instance, we can watch an online video Thomas Edison discussing the electric light.

Of course Edison Hour is a response to Earth Hour, to which Keith Lockitch responds:

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible. ...

The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.

In the name of industrial progress, in the name of life-serving energy production, in the name of technological advancement, in the name of a lighted path or book page or computer screen, turn on those lights, Saturday, at 8:30 p.m.

'We Have a Co-Responsibility'

Attorney General Eric Holder said that the United States should reinstitute the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban on the sale of arbitrarily selected semiautomatic guns in order (at least in fantasy land) to reduce the violence of Mexican drug gangs.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added, "I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility. Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

Clinton is right about one thing: the United States does "have a co-responsibility" for drug-related Mexican violence. The United States wages a war on drugs at home and abroad while encouraging the Mexican government to follow suit, a policy primarily responsible for drug-related violence.

We know perfectly well how to end drug-trade-related violence both in Mexico and in the United States. End the war on drugs. But few politicians have the courage or integrity to state this simple fact, at least in public.

This is yet another example of how drug prohibition promotes gun prohibition, a topic I discussed in 2000 (though I no longer endorse the Libertarians).

Gun-rights advocates who endorse drug prohibition act as destroyers of their own cause.

Amity Shlaes Review

With talk of new taxes, new union powers, continued bailouts, and more federal controls of business, now is the perfect time to review the damage that similar controls caused under Hoover and FDR.

The Spring Objective Standard has published my review of Amity Shlaes's book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. The beginning of the article is available online at no cost; the journal sells the article singly and offers online and print subscriptions.

I summarize, "As president, Hoover pursued six main types of political controls that devastated the economy: protectionism, wage controls, interference with the money supply, scapegoating of businessmen, expansion of public works, and increased taxation." By the time Hoover left office, unemployment was somewhere between 20 and 30 percent. By extending and expanding such controls, FDR prolonged the Depression and impeded economic recovery.

Obviously I recommend Shlaes's book. However, as I mention in the review, Shlaes does not offer a good account of Federal Reserve policy especially before the Depression. While others, including Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, have written about monetary policy of the time, I don't think the matter has been definitively settled. (The economic analyses of both Friedman and Rothbard are influenced by political preconceptions that I believe are significantly faulty.) I still have much reading to do in that area, though my sense is that I will search in vain for a definitive account that fully explains the historical facts and points the way to a free market alternative.

But Shlaes does a great job of reviewing the other sorts of controls imposed by Hoover and FDR. I hope my review serves to crystalize some of the key historical events as well as to generate more interest in Shlaes's book.

Learning to Love the Denver Post

The Rocky Mountain News was my favorite newspaper in the entire world. I'm not saying it was the best in the world, but it was the best at covering my region. The only thing that mitigated the pain of its closing was that the event was anticipated for many weeks.

But then the Denver Post did something that surprised me, though it makes perfect sense: it hired some of my favorite writers from the Rocky, particularly Vincent Carroll.

Moreover, the Post's editorial board has seemed to put out better work since the closing of the Rocky. I don't know if this is just coincidence, some bias in my observations, the addition of Carroll, or some other factor.

But for a paper with a widely acknowledge leftward tilt, the Post's editorial of the day offers an outstanding defense of legislative sanity:

Mr. President, private companies that have not accepted federal bailout money are not yours to govern. That idea needs to be killed too. ...

Congress, in great haste, gave banks and other lending companies trillions of dollars in bailout money. Then, when passing President Obama's stimulus package -- again, in great haste -- Congress approved an amendment that allowed firms like AIG to accept big bonus payments.

Then, when AIG legally paid out its bonuses, Congress flipped out and, again, in great haste, overwhelmingly approved a 90 percent tax on the executives who earned bonuses.

And the 90 percent tax is not just applicable at AIG. The tax would be levied on executives at any financial institution that received bailout funds, including those banks, such as Wells Fargo, that didn't even want the money and were basically forced to take it. Stories have surfaced of profitable companies, whose parent companies received bailout money, where executives would be penalized with this burdensome tax.

I can quibble with other lines, but the heart of the editorial is an informative and spirited critique of overreaching government.

Also today, the Post published Carroll's article against single-payer health care. He concludes, "I'd rather see health-care reform nudge us in the direction of cost-conscious consumption -- so that 'rationing' is more directly related to individual preferences and costs are driven down through provider competition."

Carroll doesn't quite go far enough -- he complains that real reform is "a pipe dream in today's political climate," when actually it is journalists like Carroll who help create today's political climate. The unpopularity of a good idea is reason to argue for it all the more strongly, not surrender. Besides, the main problem with free-market health reform is not that it is unpopular, but that most people simply aren't aware of how political controls caused the current mess or how real market reforms would help solve the problems.

I'm sure I will continue to find my daily annoyances in the Denver Post. Still, I'm hopeful that the newspaper has improved and will continue to do so.

TV Is Dead; Long Live TV

My wife and I have lived without a television set for some years. Yet we watch quite a few television programs online. Within the last couple weeks, we've watched the latest episode of Dollhouse at Hulu (and the sixth episode is the best yet), the first two episodes of Castle (starring another of Joss Whedon's stars, Nathan Fillion, in a pretty good show from ABC), and the pilots of Buck Rogers, The Incredible Hulk, and Airwolf, all three childhood favorites.

After we ditched our TV we relied largely on Netflix to watch television shows that had come out on disk. Just tonight we watched a classic movie, Time After Time (in which H. G. Wells chases Jack the Ripper to 1979), online through Netflix, which also offers many television shows online.

The local television news stations offer much of their video online as well. And of course individuals and organizations can make available video for practically no marginal cost through YouTube.

The online viewing quality is sometimes superb though sometimes jumpy (especially through Netflix). I get the idea, then, that the main trouble is with the software rather than with the bandwidth. (A note to TV stations: people won't be as willing to watch your shows if you make us download a bunch of BS "protection" software that screws with our machines.)

We've watched television shows on iTunes, but at $1.99 a pop we'd usually prefer to "pay" for our viewing by watching cheesy ads.

I am just stunned by the rapid progress of online video. I still remember watching Tron at my first VHS party. It was a huge, rented machine that popped open from the top, daring us to insert the video tape. (Tron came out in 1982, about a decade before the World Wide Web took off.)

Given the advantages of being able to watch the show I want to watch when I want to watch it, I don't see how the online video industry will do anything other than explode in growth. I don't need cable, I don't need specialized recording machines. I just need my Mac and my Comcast internet connection. (Comcast also offers cable TV, which I'm rarely tempted to purchase.)

I hate TV, but I love (some) television. I wonder how long it will take for the total integration of media.

Quillen Misses Atlas's Point

Ed Quillen, a columnist for the Denver Post whose work I often appreciate, recently wrote a snarky, misleading review of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. While his column illustrates -- and perhaps helps contribute to -- the continued popularity of the novel, his remarks could stand some improvement.

Quillen illustrates a common problem in interpreting the book. He says he read the book when he was 16, and apparently he hasn't read it since. Often kids read the novel without seriously understanding any of Rand's ideas or any of her literary subtlety, then, later, they complain that the book is juvenile based on their juvenile understanding of it. I too read Atlas Shrugged when I was around 16 or a bit older, but I didn't really get what she has to say until later in life. So read the novel as an older teen, and then read it again when you're 25, and perhaps again later on with Rand's other essays (the novel was published when Rand was 52, in 1957), and then write a newspaper column about it.

Quillen correctly indicates that the novel's plot is about what happens when, in the context of socialistic political controls of the economy, the producers go on strike. I've written about this as well, with my dad. Rand describes the strike of the novel as a "fantastic premise" and a "hypothetical case." Indeed, she explicitly wrote that she didn't think it is time to go on strike. Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute, also said the appropriate move is not to go on strike, but to fight back intellectually. Furthermore, the novel is not just about the producers going on strike; it is about them paving the way to return to a world of reason and political liberty.

Yet, as Rand was aware, higher taxes and more political controls do discourage and impede productive effort and sometimes encourage people to quit their paying jobs, so her premise does have its roots in reality. Furthermore, in a fully totalitarian society, producers should go on strike, either by leaving the country or fighting back.

But of course, as Brook indicates, the real theme of the novel is not just that producers should quit working in the face of increasing political oppression. If that's all you get out of the novel, you're not actually reading it. Rather, Rand builds a case for rational self-interest, which neither exploits others nor subjects one's self to exploitation, leading to a life of reason and a morality suited for living a successful, prosperous life on earth.

Quillen suggests that Rand's philosophy is similar to that of Nietzsche, despite the fact that Rand explicitly denounced Nietzsche's philosophy as irrational and deterministic. For more on this, see Robert Mayhew's essay, "We the Living: '36 and '59," in Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living.

Next Quillen conflates the productive geniuses with those "trying to get their hands on even more public money." But Rand does not confuse independent producers with government moochers. Indeed, Atlas is filled with villains who are the sort of businessmen who seek political advantage, including the brother of the heroine, James Taggart.

Quillen argues that "there's little reason to worry about the withdrawal of some current Galt, since others might well be ready to step up to the plate." As evidence, he lists a few cases in which people independently came up with similar inventions. For instance, Leipniz invented the calculus along with Newton. But does Quillen seriously doubt that the world would be a different place, a worse place, had Newton never lived and contributed so much to physics, far beyond the discovery of calculus? What if both Leipniz and Newton had lived in the sort of world that crushed intellectual advancement?

Quillen then notes that he dislikes Microsoft, despite the fact that the company played a major role in the spread and development of the personal computer, and despite the fact that certain Microsoft products, such as Word, continue to be industry standards even on other platforms, including the Mac.

True, in any industry often a handful of individuals help build the industry. But a relatively small number of individuals built the modern computer industry, and our world would be a far different place without the likes of Steve Jobs, Stephen Wozniak, and Bill Gates. In many cases a single individual makes astounding advances that would not have been duplicated by others or that would have been delayed by decades if not centuries.

The question, then, is whether we want to build the sort of world that recognizes and rewards productive geniuses, and permits them the freedom to work according to their own judgment and reap the rewards of doing so, or a world that increasingly yokes producers with political controls, thereby impeding their progress.

Atlas Shrugged promotes a world of reason, rational self-interest, voluntary cooperation, progress, and liberty.

Political Excess

"Members of Service Employees International Union and other activists gathered at noon Thursday outside Denver's Wells Fargo Center to protest what they called 'corporate excess' as part of dozens of demonstrations planned in 30 cities targeting large financial companies." The Denver Daily News also reported the story.

It is indeed an outrage that AIG and others are essentially paying huge bonuses with taxpayer dollars.

But wait just a minute: who is it that promoted this "corporate excess?" It was the union candidate, Barack Obama, who, along with his predecessor George W. Bush, promoted massive corporate bailouts. The fundamental problem is not corporate excess, but political excess. What we need is an end to all federal bailouts and all political controls of the economy.

The unions, too, contributed to this excess. Unjust union legislation is a big reason why American companies are not competitive, and why the auto industry in particular is failing. The union pressure for artificially higher wages is part of the reason why federal politicians acted to bail out corporations rather than let failing companies go bankrupt. So for the unions to now decry the very political interventions that they helped bring about is absurd and hypocritical.

I have plenty of criticisms of the Ludwig von Mises Institute -- which hardly remains true to the ideas of its namesake -- but recently the organization published a talk by Peter Schiff that goes a long way toward explaining the political excesses behind the irresponsibility of some American corporations. Schiff discusses how the Federal Reserve, first under Clinton and then under Bush, promoted a bubble economy through easy credit.

All the unions want to give us is more of the failed policies that created the economic crisis. Unions, insofar as they benefit from federal favoritism, are part of the problem. What we need is an end to political excess and a renewal of truly free markets.

Don't Ship UPS with Recipient's Account

I learned a lesson the hard way about trying to ship something via UPS using the recipient's account information. The shipping cost around $50. The value of my wasted time far exceeded that.

The first UPS store refused to ship the package, on the pretext that they didn't have the appropriate forms. So I had to go home, call around till I found another store that would handle the job, then make a special trip.

But that store botched the billing information, so UPS sent me a bill that I received just today. So I had to waste yet more time calling UPS on the phone to have the billing handled correctly. However, I was sternly warned, if the recipient refused the shipping charges (though I had verified the account information and received prior authorization to use it) I would be billed the original amount plus an additional fee.

Well, I'd like to see UPS just try to collect a single red cent from me. UPS should be compensating me for my lost time.

I experienced a more general problem as well. Both the franchises I dealt with blamed all the problems on the central UPS, whereas the central UPS blamed all the problems on the independent franchises. The setup strikes me as the perfect arrangement for everyone to avoid responsibility.

In fairness, the local UPS shop has generally done well by me for services unrelated to UPS shipping, and the central UPS customer service has been pretty good. Just don't ship using the recipient's account number!

Bill 1984

I had occasion to meet State Senator Morgan Carroll, who said a few words against the bill that would require DNA samples before conviction, based merely on arrest for a suspected felony.

Officially the bill is known as "Colorado Senate Bill 09-241." The more appropriate name for it is Bill 1984, in honor of the Orwellian world it would help bring about.

Previously I wrote, "I still need to think more carefully about this issue before reaching a definitive opinion..." I have thought more carefully, and I have reached the definitive opinion that Bill 1984 deserves to go down in defeat, as surely as two plus two equals four.

As one of my friends explained to me, the bill would (among other things) create a perverse incentive for the police to arrest select individuals on some pretext, just to look at their DNA. We could call this "DNA fishing."

Notably, and frighteningly, Carroll "wound up casting the lone vote against" the measure in Senate Judiciary.

The Denver Post points out (in a typically vacillating editorial):

The results will be kept in a database unless the person is found not guilty, is convicted of a misdemeanor, or charges are dropped.

However, removing the DNA sample from law-enforcement databases is not automatic. ... The person whose DNA was taken has to, in some cases, get a notarized letter from the DA saying no felony charge was filed within the statute of limitations -- which could go on for years. Or that person must get a certified copy of a court order saying the charge was dismissed.

In other words, the burden is on the accused, and it's significant.

Of course, by then the police have already run all the DNA checks they intended. Moreover, it is only a matter of time before some other legislator figures that allowing the innocent to remove their DNA information from the database is an undue burden on law enforcement.

The foundation of a just legal system is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved. Yes, upon probable cause people may be arrested, held, and tried prior to a jury's finding of guilty or not guilty. But such restraints are justified only insofar as they are necessary for the resolution of the case. Violations of liberty beyond that are unjust.

Not everything goes in empowering law enforcement to solve crimes. No doubt the police could solve more cases if they were able to arrest people without cause, forcibly collect DNA samples of every newborn, implant everyone with computer chips, use torture, imprison people at will for any length of time, etc. But we don't allow those things, because they would corrode the very system of liberty and justice that we are trying to protect. For similar reasons, we should not allow DNA sampling prior to conviction.

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Beer Smash Photos

Call it the Denver Beer Party. A friend who attended the March 13 "Beer Smash" sent in the photographs reproduced below. The event was to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales, particularly the right of grocers to sell regular beer to consenting adults. See my first write up and link to the YouTube video, then my follow-up based on comments from the Denver Daily News.


Denver channels 2, 4, 7, and 9 came out for the event.


Earl Allen, Ari Armstrong, Amanda Teresi, and David Williams spoke at the event.


Justin Longo (at right) also helped with the logistics.




Notice the large plastic sheet and rags to contain the mess.










We interrupted the speeches to get to the beer smashing, as one of the stations was broadcasting live. Then Dave finished up his remarks and Earl argued that we should repeal this remaining vestige of Prohibition.


Hasta (la vista) Manana. (Manana was one of the beers I smashed.) It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Notice that the mess was contained within the plastic and rags. I did get a bit more splatter than I anticipated, so I carefully cleaned up the area using a damp rag. For good measure we also picked up additional trash, such as cigarette butts, left by others.

I thank my fellow freedom fighters for their help with the event.

CO Brewers Should Endorse Liberty

Last Friday, I helped to organize a "beer smash" protest against beer protectionism. I joined other speakers in making the case for free markets in beer sales. Right now Colorado grocers are legally forbidden from selling regular beer to consenting adults.

A Monday story from the Denver Daily News quoted me and another like-minded fellow:

"Competition is competition," said John G., who wouldn't disclose his last name. "If liquor stores can't compete with the big bucks stores, then that's just the nature of capitalism."

Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com, is a vocal advocate of getting a version of HB 1192 on the Nov. 2010 ballot. The Web site publisher staged an event at the Capitol on Friday where he smashed bottles in protest of the grocery limits, arguing that not allowing grocery stores to sell full strength beer is "using the force of the government to harm competitors and favor certain businesses."

"Protectionism is wrong," he said. "What we want instead of protectionism is a free market, where merchants and customers can come together voluntarily of their own choice and associate in the way that they deem best. What we need, in a word, is liberty."

During my brief talk, I also explained that Colorado's beer protectionism is endorsed by "an unholy alliance of special-interest groups." The first group is liquor stores, which stand to gain financially by legislatively damaging their competitors. The second group is (some) small brewers. The third group consists of "self-righteous moralists who think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to live our lives."

This newspaper line is particularly illustrative of the "Bootleggers and Baptists" sort of special-interest convergence: "[T]he Colorado Licensed Beverage Association and others, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said teen convenience store clerks would possibly cave to peer pressure and start sneaking full-strength beer out to their friends."

I've addressed arguments about underage sales previously. Here I want to focus on the arguments of the brewers:

Brian Dunn, president of Great Divide Brewing Co., said consumers would likely have seen less variety of beer throughout Colorado as a result of House Bill 1192. He said large supermarket corporations would not stock as much variety as liquor retailers do, but that retailers would go out of business, leaving less variety on the shelves.

"One of the reasons that the beer is so good here is because the independently owned liquor stores are willing to carry a very wide variety of beer that is produced by the craft brewers," said Dunn. "That variety will be seriously hindered if this bill passes."

Colorado beer drinkers who favor economic liberty may want to note that Great Divide has added its name to the list of those pushing protectionism.

Dunn's argument is ridiculous. He is basically claiming that brewers will be hurt by having more merchants to sell their beer to.

Beer protectionism has nothing to do with the success of Colorado brewers. Instead, Colorado is known for its beer for two main reasons. First, Coloradans like good beer: they demand it and buy it. Second, as I've mentioned, legislative changes in the 1980s allowed brewpubs to do business.

Beer Advocate notes about 1982 -- just a year after the Great American Beer Festival began in Colorado: "For the first time since prohibition, a brewery is allowed to open that not only sells its' beer at its' own bar on premises, but serves food to boot. In Bert Grant's Yakima Brewing and Malting Co., Inc., [in Washington] the Brew Pub is born." Obviously, such legal changes have a lot to do with the success of Colorado's brewing industry, while beer protectionism has nothing to do with it.

The fact is that Colorado brewers are in business today because protectionism against their industry was lifted. Now some of these same brewers hypocritically wish to impose similar protectionist policies on other merchants.

Is it true that brewers would have less of a market if grocery stores could sell beer? I grant that, while the figures put out by the liquor store industry strike me as fear-mongering, probably some liquor stores will close. But if they're only in business because they legislatively harm their competitors, they don't deserve to be in business. Liquor stores that offer genuine value to their customers, through better selection, better service, etc., will continue to thrive. Not only that, but many grocers will carry a large selection of craft beer.

I went to two local liquor stores yesterday. One carried four brands of Colorado beer; the other carried five. Both stores sold only a tiny fraction of available Colorado craft beers, and both stocked far more big-name and non-Colorado beer. This is typical of smaller liquor stores I've seen. No doubt at least some grocers would stock a larger selection of Colorado craft beer than those liquor stores stock. Larger liquor stores, on the other hand, feature a spectacular selection and would compete with grocery stores successfully on that basis.

Let us look to Arizona, where grocery stores sell beer, wine, and liquor. A search of liquor stores in Tucson hardly shows a dearth of them.

Meanwhile, an employee of the St. Mary's Safeway in Tucson told me, "We have quite a few off brands" from "all over America," including Sierra Nevada (California), New Belgium (Colorado), and Four Peaks (Arizona).

Protectionism artificially creates winners and losers by legislative fiat. Once that protectionism is removed, winners and losers will again be chosen by consumers on a free market. That makes for hard times for those who benefited from protectionism. But protectionism is unjust, and it harms consumers and select merchants.

Those favoring protectionism like to tell hysterical stories about what allegedly will happen once the protectionism is repealed. But the sky has not fallen in other states that lack such protectionism, and it will not fall in Colorado, either. A free market in beer sales will instead restore the right of free exchange and offer greater value to consumers.

Give us liberty in beer sales.

L. Neil Smith Serializes Ceres

Colorado science-fiction author L. Neil Smith has written a new novel called Ceres, a sequel to Pallas, my favorite novel of his. (Actually he wrote the novel some time ago, but it is just now coming out.)

Big Head Press is serializing the novel online.

The story takes place on a terraformed asteroid. "Chapter Zero" begins to reveal the life of a young woman devoted to ice skating, which on a low-gravity asteroid is a rather different sport. With Smith, we can count on heavy doses of action and intrigue as the story progresses.

Concealed Carry for County Employees?

The following article originally was published on March 16, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Rowland suggests county employees carry concealed handguns

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently County Commissioner Janet Rowland suggested that county employees might carry concealed handguns to improve security at the old county courthouse.

Our friends at the Daily Sentinel said in a March 2 editorial that her "shoot-from-the-hip solution" "deserves to be shot down." We retort that the editorial is way off target.

We're still not sure Rowland has forgiven us for our 2006 column razzing her for wondering if gay marriage might open the door to allowing "a man to marry a sheep." However, we point out, if sheep could handle defensive weapons, the wolves might not be so eager to attack.

The Sentinel doubts that concealed guns would have helped in a recent event: "An angry county resident confronted a clerk in the county administration area of the old courthouse and made the clerk feel threatened. If the clerk had a concealed-carry permit, would... she have drawn her weapon and commanded, 'On the floor, dirtbag. You're out of line!' to the angry resident?"

Obviously the Sentinel's editorial writers need a first-time or refresher course on defensive firearms. One draws a concealed gun only when in mortal danger. A county employee who behaved as the Sentinel suggests would be fired (or worse).

Your elder author, an employer for many years, learned quickly that employees bring their backgrounds to work with them. Those trained in defensive firearm use are not only better shots, they are better able to handle all sorts of emergency situations appropriately, almost always without involving a gun.

Somebody who mortally threatens another usually believes he can overpower his victim. What concealed carry does is give the victim a chance to be something other than a defenseless sheep.

Nearly forty percent of the students in firearms classes in the Grand Valley are women. Many are single moms, many are divorced, many travel alone on the highways, many have husbands who must leave town for work. The women taking firearms classes have their own reasons.

According to Pinkerton surveys of corporate security professionals, homicide is a leading cause of workplace deaths, particularly for women. In most cases women murdered at work are victims of someone other than current or former romantic partners. Even more women are beaten, raped, or assaulted on the job.

Outside of work, some women are threatened or stalked by former boyfriends or spouses. People who carry a concealed gun to and from work do so for their own safety and protection. Once at work, locking the firearm in the car may not be the best way to safely secure or store the firearm. For somebody facing a real and known threat, what does the potential victim do walking to and from their vehicle?

We seem to have forgotten that a few dollars' worth of box cutters killed over three thousand Americans. The next time you are at work, sitting at your desk, think of the items within arm's reach that could be used as weapons. Pens and pencils. Large paper weights and other blunt objects. Sharp edges and corners. Broken glass. Fists. No metal detector is going to stop all "weapons" from coming into any workplace.

No, we're not trying to promote paranoia. Most of us will never be brutally attacked. Yet we buy life insurance even when we don't expect to keel over. Most of us do not think twice about putting our seat belt on when we enter our automobiles. We just feel safer with the safety belt on, though none of us plans on getting into an auto accident. Many who carry concealed handguns feel the same way.

Picture yourself on the floor with some guy's hands around your throat, choking the life out of you. We imagine the most comforting words you could possibly hear at that moment might come from the petite grandmother who has shared your office for the last ten years, as she draws her concealed gun and commands the attacker, "On the floor, dirtbag. You're out of line!"

All businesses, not just the county court house, should be concerned about security. Even the Sentinel has taken a closer look at the matter, as is obvious if you approach the business's front desk.

Unfortunately, many employers think first of purchasing stuff rather than training employees. Most businesses can't install metal detectors, and we're not sure they'd do much good even at the court house.

Some Colorado State agencies spend the time and money to train their employees in defensive firearms use. Your elder author has worked with Alon Stivi of Direct Measures to provide some of that training. Stivi points out that the goal is two-fold: to reduce the chances of becoming involved in a dangerous situation, and "to respond to violence or security threats without putting yourself at even greater risk."

Rowland may not know much about sheep, but at least she's thinking seriously about how to prevent government employees from falling prey to the wolves.

DNA Samples Before Conviction?

David Williams sent out the following media release, which I pass along as interesting information. I still need to think more carefully about this issue before reaching a definitive opinion, but the default position is that collecting people's DNA before they have been convicted of any crime is pretty scary territory. (Note that I do not endorse the Libertarian Party.)

Backlash against costly government DNA database builds

March 16, 2009 Denver -- Colorado Senate Bill 09-241, which would mandate the use of government force to take DNA samples from innocent citizens, made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-1 margin on March 11, 2009. A wide range of groups have joined together to fight this un-American bill, which would cost taxpayers over $1.7 million to implement.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado, the Colorado ACLU, the Gadsden Society, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and the Colorado Public Defenders Office, among others, all oppose this costly Orwellian expansion of government power over innocent Americans.

David K. Williams, Jr., Legislative Director for the Libertarian Party and President of the Gadsden Society is among those against the bill.

"The backers of this bill claim it will help law enforcement. Undoubtedly it would," Williams said. "So would the repeal of the Fourth Amendment. So would micro chipping newborns so the government knows where they are all at times, from cradle to grave. So would putting video cameras in every house.

"The point is that helping law enforcement is not the only concern Americans should have. Protecting the Constitution and preventing government abuse of power should also be a concern of all Americans."

The next stop for the bill is the Senate Appropriations Committee, where a hearing date has not yet been set. If the Appropriations Committee decides it is a good idea to spend $1.7 million of taxpayer money to implement the proposed DNA database, the bill would move to the floor of the Senate for debate.

Senator Morgan Carroll (D – Aurora) was the lone “no” vote in the Judiciary Committee.

Resources

SB 09-241 language

SB 09-241 Fiscal Impact note

SB 09-241 Senate Judiciary Committee Roll Call vote

About the Gadsden Society

The Gadsden Society is a non-partisan public advocacy group, fighting for the preservation and expansion of individual liberty throughout Colorado. The Gadsden Society monitors bills pending in the state legislature and advocates on behalf of legislation that expands individual liberty and opposes legislation that contracts individual liberty.

Contact information

David K. Williams, Jr.
President, The Gadsden Society

Supreme Court Approves Property Tax Without Vote

Steven Paulson of the AP reports, "The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a property tax measure expected raise $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years."

This tax increase was imposed despite the clear language of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which requires voter approval for tax increases.

Several Republicans immediately blasted the court's ruling.

Cory Gardner said, "The Colorado Supreme Court is the most partisan court in the United States; today's decision shows a blatant disregard for the Colorado Constitution and the taxpayers of this state who simply want to be asked first before they are taxed. Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey just managed to make Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like a conservative."

Josh Penry said:

It's fitting that the most partisan court in the land rubber stamped the governor's property tax increase on exactly the same day Senate Democrats are poised to repeal Colorado's landmark spending limits, and exactly two weeks after the Governor signed the largest increase in car taxes in a generation.

With loyalist Democrats in charge of the Governor's mansion, the state House, the state Senate, and the Supreme Court, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights is on life support and the principle of fiscal restraint is in full retreat.

Unfortunately for citizens, this property tax hike comes at the worst possible time -- the moment when many Coloradans are struggling just to keep their homes.

Apparently the Democrats have grown weary of controlling Colorado government, as they have now handed the Republicans a real campaign issue for next year.

Brook on Atlas Shrugged Sales

Sales of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged are off the charts.

In an article for the Wall Street Journal, Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, explains the obvious reason and the deeper reason for this.

The obvious reason is that "Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations," something that is happening to our own economy to a degree.

But why was Rand able to project an economy in which these trends accelerated? It is because she was able to see the moral basis of political economic controls and the logical conclusions of those moral precepts. In short, Rand upheld rational self-interest and renounced self-sacrifice. Rand pointed out that rational self-interest, not sacrifice, is the true path to authentic love of (deserving) others, and that rational self-interest forbids exploiting others, whereas the morality of self-sacrifice demands it.

Thus, Brook explains:

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

Read the rest of Brook's article. And, if you have not yet read Rand's ground-breaking novel, now is the perfect time to do so.

(Don't) Lie to Me

On a friend's recommendation, my wife and I started watching Lie to Me, the new Fox show starring Tim Roth. Last night we watched through the sixth episode, the latest one. I really like this show.

The premise is that Roth's character (Cal Lightman) and his colleagues are experts at reading emotional expressions. A smile, a hand gesture, a shrug reveals the truth -- or a lie. Lightman's firm hires itself out to government agencies, corporations, and individuals who need to get to the bottom of something, be it a criminal allegation or doubt of a book's authenticity. One of the show's fun gimmicks is to compare the expression of a character with that of a famous person -- Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George Bush, O. J. Simpson -- to indicate the universality of some expressions.

The show is "based on the real-life scientific discoveries of Paul Ekman," a psychologist who studies emotional responses. The show also has obvious moral implications: it shows that lying in a misguided attempt to gain values pits one against reality and causes internal conflicts (a lesson I also learned the hard way when I was young and dumb).

The show's big challenge is that its actors must convincingly mimic expressions of deception and of truth. This is sometimes done awkwardly or too obviously. It also points to a limitation of the psychology: if actors can mimic these expressions, can't real liars do it, too, at least sometimes?

Thankfully, Lie to Me does not present emotional detection as some sort of formula or as anything that is obvious. A person's uncoached, authentic responses can say a lot about the person's emotional state. But emotions are highly complex, and expressions of it are physical. So is a smooth forehead an indication of an emotion or of Botox? And detecting a lie, for instance, says little about what the person is lying about. Lightman is as much an investigator as he is a psychologist, and reading expressions is only his most obvious and specialized tool for getting to the truth.

One interesting point is that Lightman sometimes lies to his subjects in order to provoke emotional responses, pointing to the legitimate distinction between dishonesty and the broader category of deception. (One need not tell the truth to a criminal wanting to know the location of his would-be victim, for instance.)

So, while Lie to Me presents some interesting paradoxes of deception, its broader theme is the power of honesty.

Beer Smash Protests Protectionism

This morning some friends and I hosted a media conference in Denver to advocate freedom in beer sales and to protest beer protectionism. Earl Allen, who spoke at the event along with Amanda Teresi and Dave Williams (and me), put together a YouTube video:



Here's the release I sent out yesterday:

ISSUE: Allow Grocery Sales of Real Beer, End Protectionism

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: Smashing Beer Bottles to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales

WHEN AND WHERE: West Steps, Colorado Capitol, 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 13

SPEAKERS:
Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com
Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty on the Rocks
Dave Williams, president of the Gadsden Society
Additional speakers pending [Earl Allen became the fourth speaker]

"Grocery stores have a right to sell regular beer to consenting adults, and beer drinkers have the right to shop at stores of their choice. By killing Bill 1192 Wednesday, the legislature maintained unjust protectionism at the cost of individual liberty, property rights, and freedom of association," said Ari Armstrong.

Armstrong will smash beer bottles from Colorado brewers who endorsed protectionism. The event will feature appropriate measures for safety and cleanup, so no beer or glass will be left on state property.

"The protectionists are smashing our liberty, so it's only appropriate that we smash their beer," Armstrong said.

Brewers who opposed 1192, thereby endorsing protectionism, include the following:

Bristol Brewing Co.

Del Norte Brewing Company

Colorado Brewers Guild

I do think it's a mistake to think that the Brewer's Guild necessarily speaks for all its members. I don't mean to suggest that Bristol and Del Norte are the only or primary offenders; they're just the ones I learned about. (Bristol's oatmeal stout is spectacular, by the way, so I was especially pained to break bottles of that.)

I support Colorado's beer and wine industry, and I have supported the freedom of brewers to produce and sell their products. Beer and wine producers, above all other businesses, should understand the devastating power of political intervention. Their industry was legally squashed for years in this nation. So why do some brewers support using political force to squash certain business transactions now? They should know better.

Other things equal, I'd prefer to buy my beer from producers who stand up for freedom rather than trample individual rights. So if anybody knows of any Colorado brewers who opposed the protectionist measures restricting grocery beer sales (or that even took an officially neutral position), please let me know, and I'd be happy to promote those brewers and go out of my way to buy beer from them.

I support liberty, and I try to support businesses that support liberty.

7 News broadcast the event live just after 11:00 a.m. CBS4 also published a story on the event, as did 9News.

Blogger Richard Combs writes, "I agree completely with Ari that this is unjust protectionism, and that the State of Colorado should long ago have abandoned this vestige of prohibitionism... But… the idea of smashing perfectly good, drinkable bottles of beer just disturbs me deeply."

I hear you, my friend, but what's truly disturbing is the political smashing of our liberties.

I'm going to end my evening, of course, with a beer, and a toast to liberty.

Time to Bring Beer Sales to Ballot

It is a classic case of cowardly, unprincipled, anti-freedom legislators pandering to "concentrated interests" at the expense of justice and the dispersed populace.

Grocers have the right -- the right -- to sell products of their choice, including regular beer, to willing buyers (who are adults). And consumers have the right to shop for the goods and services of their choice from willing sellers. That is, grocers and their customers have the right to freely exchange goods on mutually agreeable terms.

Yet Colorado law violates this right of free exchange by restricting grocery store sales (except for a single store of a chain) to low-alcohol beer, which only weenies drink. The law is wrong, it is protectionist in nature (meaning that it protects special interests at the expense of select merchants and consumers), and in the name of justice and liberty it must be overturned.

Last year the legislature overturned the law banning Sunday liquor sales at stores. Some liquor stores went along in the hopes that they'd pick up more business. But the justification of the law -- and many politicians and reporters are confused on this matter -- was not any impact it might have had on overall sales. The justification of the law was that it expanded liberty and protected individual rights, in however small a way.

Now it is time to complete the repeal of Prohibition.

If 38 other states can allow the sale of normal beer in grocery stores, why does anyone think the sky will fall in Colorado if the unjust restriction is repealed?

First beer brewers, teaming up with liquor stores for the protectionist racket, argued that the protectionist legislation expands the number of beers sold. I pointed out that, first, the argument is likely false, as grocery stores would offer an expanded market to many breweres, and, second, that the argument is irrelevant, because sellers and buyers have the right to sell whatever products they want on mutually agreeable terms.

Then the protectionists joined with the social activists to argue that protectionism is needed "for the children." I answered that protecting minors does not require and does not justify violating the rights of adults. Besides, beer sales would be at least as tightly monitored at grocery stores as they are at liquor stores.

Thankfully, the forces of freedom are not backing down. The Denver Post reports:

Bill sponsor Rep. Buffie McFadyen, who delivered 66,000 signatures from shoppers favoring expanded strong-beer sales, said she thinks the issue could end up on the 2010 ballot.

"And they will certainly want to include more than just beer," said McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, hinting that wine and spirits could be included in a future initiative.

Of course, restrictions on liquor store food sales should also be lifted.

Though the Post claims the bill was defeated by a 7-4 vote in committee, the legislature's page reports that House Bill 1192 was killed in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee killed the bill on March 11 by a vote of 8-3. (I called the capitol to verify this.) Following is a list of legislators who voted for and against, again according to the legislative web page. (The vote was whether to "postpone indefinitely," or kill the bill, so a "Yes" vote was a vote to kill the bill.)

For Liberty, Against Protectionism
David Balmer, Republican, Arapahoe
Larry Liston, Republican, El Paso
Edward Casso, Democrat, Adams

Against Liberty, For Protectionism
Laura Bradford, Republican, Mesa
Sara Gagliardi, Democrat, Jefferson
Kevin Priola, Republican, Adams
Su Ryden, Democrat, Arapahoe
Christine Scanlan, Democrat, Eagle, Lake, Summit
John Soper, Democrat, Adams
Amy Stephens, Republican, El Paso
Joe Rice, Democrat, Arapahoe, Jefferson

So Republicans on the committee voted against the measure by 3-2, while Democrats voted against it 5-1, even though McFadyen, the bill's sponsor, is a Democrat. On net, both parties continue their hostility to property rights and freedom of association. (The Denver Business Journal reports that "several legislators said that while they agree that the state's liquor-sales laws need reform, they felt it should come in comprehensive fashion, not just in a piecemeal bill that benefits grocery and convenience stores." But when is more liberty ever a bad thing?)

It is time for the people of Colorado to take back their liberty.

Wage Controls Cause Unemployment

Apparently Congressman Jared Polis is now a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would encourage more unionization by replacing the secret ballot with the non-secret "card check" process for demanding unionization. ["[T]he legislation would eliminate employers' right to insist that workers hold a secret-ballot election, while retaining the option for workers," Colorado Media Matters breathlessly clarifies, because we all know that the real motivation of union bosses is to "retain the option" to let employees vote by secret ballot.] Notably, the measure would amend the National Labor Relations Act, or Wagner Act, a law that significantly contributed to the economic downturn of 1937 and 1938 (as discussed.)

The basic issue is fairly straight-forward: federally encouraged unionization acts as a type of wage control, artificially boosting the monetary wages of some at the cost of lower wages and more unemployment for others.

As George Reisman explains, people acting on a free market adjusts to deflation by cutting prices and (nominal) wages, which gets the economy moving and sets the stage for gains in real wages. Full employment is necessary for full production: people who are out of work aren't producing goods and services.

A major problem with U.S. auto manufacturers is that unionization has seriously damaged the competitiveness of the U.S. industry. That's a big reason why tax payers are now asked to subsidize car makers, when many struggling firms should go into bankruptcy.

The fact that the U.S. struggles under wage controls -- and seems set to add more of them -- means that the economy cannot readily adjust to deflation. Another consequences is that the federal government has put the nation at risk of serious inflation by expanding the money supply.

As of January, the unemployment rate in Colorado was 6.6 percent, compared to 8.1 percent nationally. This is a big problem, though of course nothing like the unemployment rates during the Great Depression. As noted, even by the most optimistic figures unemployment never fell below 9 percent from the end of Hoover's term through FDR's first two terms.

A period of rising unemployment is the worst possible time for more severe wage controls.

Around Colorado: March 10, 2009

Massachusetts Again

Apparently the advocates of socialized medicine will never give up, no matter how many times a variant of their schemes fails, no matter how many times their premises are defeated.

Michael Salem, president and CEO of National Jewish Health, argues -- no "argues" is not quite the right word, since he doesn't actually offer any argument -- that "Colorado should look at various models (such as Massachusetts)" in designing political controls of medicine.

To learn why that would be a disaster, and why we need liberty in medicine rather than more political controls, read the article of Paul Hsieh, MD, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America."

Brian Schwartz also has out a good op-ed on health policy, published by Colorado Daily.


Keep Electoral College

Here's another one for the "Why Are We Still Talking About This" file: "If lawmakers ultimately approve House Bill 1299, Colorado will join a still-small coalition of states that vow to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, regardless of whether that candidate won in their state."

I've explained over and again why doing away with the electoral college would be very stupid and bad for Colorado.

Unfortunately, the Denver Post has sacrificed clarity for cuteness with its headline: "Bill 'popular' enough to get 1st panel's OK." Very funny word play; I'm rolling. Nevertheless, the measure lost in a popular vote in 2004 by nearly two to one.

I am tempted to mention how idiotic the Democrats are for pushing this sort of nonsense, but then I remember the Republicans...


Keep Asset Forfeiture Reforms

I've collected some of the key information about a bill that would gut the asset forfeiture reforms of 2002. (See also the update.)

Now Ed Quillen of the Denver Post has weighed in:

[T]he government could also attempt to take the house in civil court... even if [the criminal suspect] was acquitted. That's "civil asset forfeiture." ...

Obviously, this procedure is ripe for abuse, and in 2002 Colorado adopted a law to prevent such abuses. It requires a criminal conviction before forfeiture, and protects innocent property owners whose tenants commit crimes. It requires forfeiture proceeds to go through the regular budget process, rather than to the policing agency. It has reporting requirements.

In other words, our current law allows asset forfeiture as a legitimate tool of law enforcement, but makes the process fair and open.

But apparently, it doesn't bring in enough money, and thus House Bill 1238, sponsored by Joe Rice, a Littleton Democrat, would repeal the requirement for a conviction as well as the reporting requirement. In other words, it allows cops to seize property on mere suspicion and auction it off, with a big chunk of the profits going to the "seizing agency."

Hey, why pay taxes to support police departments when they can finance themselves this way? And why bother with the burdens of convicting someone in criminal court when you can just grab his assets through a civil procedure, where there's no right to counsel and no protection against self-incrimination?

Applied vigorously, HB 1238 could enhance revenues without raising taxes, and I can't think of any other reason that this legislature would even consider such an assault on a quaint, old-fashioned concept like "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Jerry Kopel has also blasted the measure in an article for the Pueblo Chieftain: "We should not go back to a system that made police and district attorneys look like pirates out for loot instead of providing enforcement of criminal justice standards."


Energy Crisis Looms

The Obama administration, along with Democratic leaders in Colorado, seem determined to forcibly restrict the production of real energy (coal, oil, natural gas) while lathering fantasy energy (windmills, solar panels) with corporate welfare. If these trends continue, the result will be phenomenally more expensive energy for our homes and cars and a "fantasy energy economy" essentially controlled by politicians. (I'm all for alternative sources of energy, provided that people adopt them voluntarily in a free market.)

Nancy Lofholm begins her recent article for The Denver Post: "The number of rigs drilling for natural gas and oil in Colorado has plunged 46 percent in the past year -- one of the steepest declines in the country." Obviously broader economic trends are a factor.

Meanwhile, Vincent Carroll points out, "At the very moment Obama is poised to direct waves of subsidies into forms of renewable energy that account for a minuscule slice of the nation's electricity, he would strip oil and natural gas producers of incentives to drill."

But, again, a huge part of the problem is that the federal and state governments own most of the land from which energy is drawn. And so decisions are made not by private land holders, environmental groups that buy up conservation lands, and civil courts defending real property rights: decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats.

The Denver Business Journal reports:

Colorado lawmakers Friday heard testimony on proposed oil and gas rules that energy leaders say are turning the screws on one of Colorado's largest industries.

The regulations are intended to reduce the environmental impact from drilling by requiring oil and gas operators to keep compliance checklists and confer with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on minimizing the effect of drilling on wildlife. The regulations also set stricter standards on crude oil storage.

On a free market, land owners would have the incentive to balance land uses. Typically oil firms would look for side revenues from recreational use, and environmental groups would look for side revenues from energy production. But today we have a system in which wildlife rules are twisted to environmental ends in order to force down energy production.

Ah, but might not the environmental rules make Colorado more desirable for tourists? Sure, we'll make up the revenues by catering to hunters and the like. Right. Leaving aside the fact that there's limited inherent conflict between energy production and recreation use. Of course, if people can't afford to travel here due to high energy prices...


End Beer Protectionism

As I've argued, current law that restricts grocery store sales of beer are protectionist, and they are wrong. But now the "Baptists" have trotted out another ludicrous argument for protectionism:

One contention they have is that the bill would allow grocery store workers and convenience store workers who are under the age of 21 to be able to sell full-strength beer.

Clerks at liquor stores must be at least 21, they point out.

"The bill weakens rules aimed at keeping alcohol out of the hands of underage drinkers," said Sen. Lois Tochtrop, an Adams County Democrat.

"This will double the number of outlets selling full strength beer," said Kory Nelson, a Denver city attorney who prosecutes stores that sell to underage customers. Emphasizing that he was speaking only for himself, he said in the press release: "There will be beer sliding out the back door and slipping through the cash registers. It will mean kids selling beer to kids."

I cannot offer the most apt description of these protectionist claims, as I have a policy against swearing. So let me say only that the cited arguments are stupid.

Grocery stores already sell 3.2 beer; why would sales of other types of beer pose any greater problems? Other states already allow grocery store sales, and apparently the sky has not fallen there.

Nelson's argument seems to be that grocery store employees will steal beer from the stores in order to sell it black market. And yet, for some reason, grocery stores are willing to take that risk, perhaps because they realize that Nelson's claims are moronic. What a stooge.

Grocery store employees are just as likely to steal 3.2 beer, cigarettes, and cold medicine (which can be used to produce methamphetamine). Yet we don't outlaw grocery store sales of those items.

I agree that the government plays a legitimate role in keeping stores from selling certain dangerous items to minors, on the grounds that minors are still under the care of a guardian and have not acquired the maturity to engage in certain transactions. But such police actions can never justify violating the rights of stores to sell lawful products to adults.

Protectionism "for the children" just doesn't fly.

Don't Watch the Watchmen

Who watches the Watchmen? Me, unfortunately. But you can learn from my mistake and stay away, far, far away, from this viciously repugnant film. I cannot explain what is wrong with the movie without revealing key elements of plot, so if you are already determined to see the movie, DO NOT read on. At least you can't say I didn't warn you.

Though a movie superficially about "super heroes," these "heroes" are either brutal murderers, vicious psychopaths, or impotent sideliners.

I'll get right to it. In order to get the United States and Soviet Union to start working together in a common cause, rather than blow each other up in nuclear war, Ozymandias murders some 15 million people in various cities around the world and lets the world believe Dr. Manhattan, another of the Watchmen, is to blame. Dr. Manhattan, who set up Richard Nixon for additional terms as president, "understands" this mass murder while neither condoning nor condemning it, right before splattering another of the Watchmen for threatening to tell the truth about what happened.

The theme of the movie, then, is that the ends justify the means, however barbaric, murderous, unprincipled, detestable, and horrific. (In reality the chosen means would achieve only suffering, tyranny, and death.) Notice a couple of things. It is the very existence of Dr. Manhattan and his support of Nixon that led to Nixon's continued presidency and the continued cold war, and thus the "need" for Ozymandias to murder 15 million people. And Ozymandias is known as the "world's smartest man." The movie thus attacks heroism as such at the deepest level.

The film's stylish artistry, along with its two characters of any virtue, serve only to mask the film's basic indecency. Ultimately, though, those two characters -- Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II (brilliantly portrayed, I confess, by Patrick Wilson) -- serve only to illustrate the fundamental futility of true heroism.

Though Flibbert is basically correct about the film, he doesn't get these characters' relationship quite right. Owl can't express his romantic interest in Spectre so long as he surrenders to fear. So he comes out of retirement and, with Spectre, first saves people from a burning building and then breaks a compatriot out of prison. Here these characters are tough, resilient, actually heroic, and very bad-ass. But these adventures do not impact the broader course of the movie. In the end, they accomplish nothing. Ozymandias claims that their greatest triumph is failing to stop the mass murders.

This disgusting film -- which got a 65 percent "fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, leading me to question the sanity of movie critics -- made $55.7 million opening weekend. It cost around $130 million. My only hope is that those of us suckered into seeing it tell all our friends to abstain from rewarding this monstrous film with additional ticket dollars.

Around Colorado: March 6, 2009

Today I've already covered gambling, antitrust, and spending limits. Now that I'm warmed up...


More on Inflation

The Gazette noticed my post on inflation and published a lengthier treatment of the issue:

Ari Armstrong, a rock star in Colorado's libertarian community and publisher of FreeColorado.com, recommends an alarming visual exhibit of the nation's growing money supply. Don't look at this if you don't have a strong stomach. It's a graph showing the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis' adjusted monetary base, the combined index of Federal Reserve activity pertaining to the money supply (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS?cid=124). The graph shows the money supply's gradual ascent starting in the early 20th century until now. In 2008 the graph shoots straight up in the air, revealing a one-year inflation of the cash supply that equals its growth over the past 100 years.

I picked up the information from Paul Hsieh, whose post features a number of interesting comments about the meaning and potential implications of the data.

Also, I'm not actually a libertarian any longer, for reasons I've explained. Finally, what is needed now is not guns and God, as the Gazette suggests, but a true understanding of economic liberty, rooted in a moral defense of capitalism. Yet obviously I appreciate the Gazette's more detailed treatment of the crucial issue of inflation, along with the friendly mention.


Littwin: Si

I was giving Mike Littwin a bit of heck earlier today over spending limits, but he's on more solid ground when it comes to in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I just don't see this as a big deal either way, though some Republicans are using it as an excuse to rile up the xenophobes and avoid the serious issues facing the state.

Should illegals get in-state tuition? The problem is that this shouldn't be a legislative issue. Colleges should not get tax funds. Colleges should be able to admit whom they please, at whatever cost they agree on with students. Those willing to accept those terms should be able to go. But Republicans couldn't possibly discuss any fundamental issue. They instead grant the premise that college students should benefit from forced wealth transfers, then debate the miniscule details over how to divvy up the loot.


Glass Is Back

Welcome back, Bob. Glass is back. A one-time leader of the now-defunct Tyranny Response Team and general all-around hell raiser, Glass is back in Colorado, and last night he was out protesting the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the plagiarist Ward Churchill. He got the attention of Boulder's Daily Camera:

“As a taxpayer, I resent any tax dollars going to a fraud like Ward Churchill,” said another protester, Bob Glass, of Longmont. “I believe in academic freedom, but let’s invite the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazis if we’re going to take this to the absurd.”

Glass also made an appearance on 7 News, where he said Ayers and Churchill belong behind bars, not in a lecture hall. Here Glass goes too far. While Ayers might have belonged behind bars at one time, that time is long passed. And Churchill, while a complete schmuck and a liar, hasn't done anything criminal. The worse offense is by the idiots at the University of Colorado who hired the fraud in the first place.

Glass is a passionate guy. If he can rein in his passion with good sense, he'll be a valued addition to Colorado's liberty movement.


Job Sharing

I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm still shocked by the raw stupidity that some people display about the economy. For example, Steve Luera argues in a letter to the Denver Post that "we" should "cut the jobs you do have in half and spread them around so everyone at least has something."

The basic mistake here is to imagine that there are only a set number of jobs, and once those jobs are taken, everybody else is out of luck. Obviously that's idiotic. "Back in July 1776, there were about 2.5 million people living in the colonies." Now there are over 300 million people in in the United States. So how did the economy manage to grow by scores of millions of jobs?

Since the Industrial Revolution, fewer and fewer people have labored in agriculture and have moved to an increasingly diverse array of jobs. Today people work in jobs unimagined at the nation's founding, especially in the technological sectors, and also in newer service jobs such as pet care and professional massage. There is no inherent limit to the amount of jobs an economy can support. If a billion people lived in the United States, a billion people could, in a system of liberty, find work, and the number of specialties would increase.

On a free market, one without the wage and employment controls of today's economy, everyone who wants to work can find work, excepting a relatively low and constant percent of people momentarily between jobs. It is a matter of supply and demand. True, economic shocks can temporarily throw some people out of particular jobs, but they can soon find new ones, unless political controls muck up the employment market, as they so often have and as they continue to do today.

Hoover imposed wage controls and job sharing, and the result was the worst depression in the nation's history. (He made many other mistakes as well.) The answer to unemployment is economic liberty, not more of the controls that caused unemployment in the first place.


Axe Taxes Not Jobs

Dave Thomas sent me a link to a liquor alliance fighting higher taxes on their products.

In the coming months, lawmakers will be proposing alcohol tax increases that will put jobs in your community at risk and raise the cost of your favorite drink. There's a real price to pay when elected officials misguidedly try to replenish state budgets with regressive taxes that will hit us at a time when we are already being hit hard conomically.

Cheers, brothers.


Federal Spending

Mike Rosen -- another Rocky carry over -- has a hard-hitting column out today about the democratic problem of "we the people" helping ourselves to other people's money. And David Harsanyi offers his take on federal spending that is at the same time humorous and terrifying.

Arveschoug-Bird

Mike Littwin is among the Rocky writers to make the jump to the Denver Post. With all the shaking up, I wish the Post had decided to put its editorial writers on, you know, its editorial page, but for some reason that escapes me it continues to put a select corps of editorial writers on the news side.

Today Littwin argues that the "repeal of the Arveschoug-Bird provision... [is] a start toward fiscal sanity." Littwin's reason for this? Wait a minute... this is Mike Littwin, so he doesn't need any reasons. He's just that funny.

It is admittedly a complicated issue. So who better to explain it than the leftist Bighorn Center?

Arveschoug-Bird limits the growth of General Fund expenditures to 6% more than the previous year or 5% of personal income, whichever amount is lower. In practice the 6% limit is always less. ...

Arveschoug-Bird limits only General Fund spending while TABOR limits the total amount of revenues that state and local governments can keep. Revenues includes most state fees.

With the passage of TABOR, Arveschoug-Bird effectively became "constitutionalized" since TABOR does not allow any spending limit to be weakened without a vote of the people.

There are some notable exceptions that are not counted under the Arveschoug-Bird limit, such as General Fund spending mandated by the federal government and transfers to capital construction.

Wait another minute... where is this "vote of the people?" The Democrats' answer is basically, "We don't need no stinkin' vote of the people." Colorado Independent explains, "Supporters of the bill, relying on a recent interpretation of the law written by former Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofky, argued that Arveschoug-Bird is not a cap but an allocation strategy..."

Here is the Republican response:

The bill would end a long-standing policy that caps the growth of the state's operating budget at 6 percent a year. The legislation would amount to a dramatic shift--shorting highways untold billions of dollars in the years to come -- because of a formula that directs all revenue in excess of the cap to transportation and other critical capital projects. Without the cap, the highway-funding formula is moot.

"...the pressure to grow operating programs is immense," Denver Chamber spokesperson Tamra Ward says in prepared a statement distributed to the business community. "The 6 percent limit prevents operating spending from growing beyond a sustainable level."

"This bill jeopardizes any hope we might have of fully funding vital road and bridge needs for the foreseable future," said Assistant GOP Leader Greg Brophy, of Wray. "So it's really no surprise that so many business groups have stepped forward to call the Democrats out on this reckless move."

In the end, I simply don't trust the Democrats to treat the matter as an "allocation strategy." Instead, they'll treat it as a way to shortchange transportation so that they can fund other programs, then plead with the taxpayers for new transportation-specific taxes. That's just the way they roll.

FTC Goons Force Whole Foods Fire Sale

As discussed, in this tough economic time the Federal Trade Commission continues to punish Whole Foods for the "crime" of conducting business. The antitrust laws that form the pretext of the FTC's abuses are inherently unjust, though even within antitrust dogma the crusade against Whole Foods is insane.

Even though Whole Foods is buying out Wild Oats, the chain still faces stiff competition from King Soopers, Albertsons, Safeway, Sprouts, Sunflower, Vitamin Cottage, and numerous independent and ethnic markets. The FTC is putting the screws on Whole Foods out of sheer vindictiveness, just to prove that it can. The FTC's thug, who ultimately threaten armed enforcement if their dictates are not obeyed, are destroying economic wealth -- hurting both businesses and their consumers -- for the sake of destruction.

The AP reports, "Whole Foods Market says it will sell 13 stores to resolve the Federal Trade Commission's challenge against the grocer over its purchase of Boulder, Colo.-based Wild Oats Markets. ... Once it gets approval from the FTC, the company says it will take a non-cash charge of no more than $19 million for the sale of the stores."

Never mind what the stores might be worth on an open market, never mind that Whole Foods has the right to run them, never mind that whoever buys the stores is unlikely to reduce prices in them, the FTC is forcing Whole Foods to sell stores even at a loss just to get the goon squad off their backs. It is a deal they can't refuse.

Colorado's Gambling Problem

Colorado has a gambling problem. The problem is that it is illegal. That is, it is illegal unless you run a politically approved gambling house in a politically approved gambling town, or if you help run the state's own gambling ring ("Don't Forget to Play"). Then gambling is perfectly fine with the authorities. But, other than that, it is illegal. Because, you know, we wouldn't want the laws to be anything other than completely hypocritical.

Gambling does not inherently violate anybody's rights, and thus the government has no legitimate business outlawing it. However, illegal gambling is necessarily run by criminals. It turns out that incentivizing criminals to run gambling rings is a pretty stupid idea, because criminals often do a poor job of it. If we outlawed cigarettes, those would be sold by criminals, too, rather than at the local grocery store. Even though gambling itself violates no rights, criminals who run illegal gambling operations often figure out ways to break legitimate laws in the process.

Turning gambling into a crime, then, generates real crimes, and it also wastes precious tax resources on enforcement. If gambling were legal, it would be safe and easily monitored.

If gambling were legal, would some idiots with mouths to feed lose their shirts -- and their grocery funds -- playing games? Yes, they would. But living in a free society means that people have the right to act stupid. Some people lose their shirts even when gambling is illegal. Some people will act like morons no matter what the law says. But consenting adults have the right to gamble, whether they do so responsibly or irresponsibly. At the same time, spouses of irresponsible gamblers have the right to file for divorce, and friends of irresponsible gamblers have the right to exhort them to better behavior. If people want to voluntarily fund anti-gambling messages or programs, that too is their right.

Colorado authorities have busted two illegal gambling rings, one just this week and one in 2008.

Kieran Nicholson of the Denver Post reports, "A tavern owner in Colorado Springs has been arrested for running illegal poker games for cash in his bar, police said. ... The raid was a culmination of a three-month investigation by the liquor-enforcement unit of the police department."

They have a "liquor-enforcement unit?" That busts illegal gambling rings? So let me get this straight: residents of Colorado Springs would rather pay taxes for cops to bust players of games than, say, investigate auto thieves and violent criminals. Huh.

But that's the little story. The Big Story involves famous names -- "top Denver names [!]," the Post assures us, including "2 former Broncos [!!]," 9News gushes, so that's way better for selling newspapers and television advertisements. (Tom McGhee of the Post joined Deborah Sherman of 9News to report the story.)

By the Post's account, the operators of the ring were true bastards who (allegedly) broke legitimate laws:

Nobody brought money to the table. Instead, gamblers played on the book, an arrangement that let them settle up with the house at the end of the game. ...

[Jeffrey] Castardi was also putting money on the street in loans, registering the outlays in a book and mercilessly dunning his debtors, according to the indictment.

Those who borrowed, or couldn't pay back the house after a night of cards, paid a steep price -- 5 percent interest per week or more, authorities said.

One of those players was Eric Cox, whose wife, Cathy Lopez, found his cellphone near the spot where he killed himself. There were numerous text messages -- some threatening, and some sent on the day he died -- from Castardi and Daniel Rieke, who is also named in the indictment.

9News adds that the operation also allegedly employed "theft, forgery, [and] fraud," according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Obviously, this could never happen with a legal gambling operation. The government properly protects against theft and fraud as a matter of protecting rights. As for the collection tactics, if you don't pay your credit card companies, they don't send out Guido to break your legs or anything like that. Instead, such matters are settled in court. No legal gambling operation would front players serious money they couldn't cover, because the risk of loss would be very high.

So employees of CBI, the attorney general's office, "the Denver Police Department, [and] the Colorado Department of Revenue" can round-robin back-slap all they want. The fact remains that they are spending tax dollars to "solve" problems created largely by the very laws they are paid to enforce. But, hey, it's great business, for criminals, cops, and media alike.

The Inflation Menace

I've joked with several friends that we should create a betting pool to predict the top inflation rate over the next few years. My bet is that inflation will top out at 11 percent (on an annual track). Some of my friends think I'm playing Pollyanna.

While it's impossible to figure out precisely how the future will play out, due to the many factors and the inherent unpredictability of human choices, Paul Hsieh has brought forth some uncomfortable data, brought to us via Todd Zywicki, via Peter Robinson, via Andy Kessler, from the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis. The upshot is that the number of dollars has skyrocketed in the last few months. As in, roughly doubled.

Zywicki argues -- and I've heard this before -- that so far we have not seen the increased money translate to high rates of inflation because "'velocity' of money has remained low -- people and banks are hoarding money, rather than spending, borrowing, and lending it."

But I don't see how its possible to avoid serious inflation at some point, quite possibly amidst an economic recession.

Around Colorado: March 5, 2009

Mike McConnell Discusses Food-Stamp Diet

Yesterday (March 4) I appeared on Mike McConnell's radio show for about a quarter of an hour to discuss my "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet." The audio file is available. I argued that the main problem with federal programs like food stamps is that, by forcing people to contribute, such programs sever the link between donors and recipients. (The more fundamental problem is that such programs violate people's rights, but I left that point in the background for this brief radio appearance.) This ruins the incentive of donors to watch how their dollars are spent as well as the incentive of recipients to use the benefits responsibly and gratefully. The result is hard feelings and an overpriced program rife with problems.


Government Transparency

This should be a cause that everyone can support -- everyone but those wasting tax dollars, that is: transparency, or putting all documents related to government spending on the internet, for everyone to see. Following is a March 4 media release from the Colorado House GOP:

Taxpayers scored a victory today when the House Finance Committee gave unanimous support of Rep. B.J. Nikkel’s, R-Loveland, Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act. The act, House Bill 1288, would create an online database to detail how the government is spending the taxpayer’s money.

“The state government is one of the only institutions that will spend your money without telling you what it’s spending it on. This is not the government’s money, it’s your money, and you have every right to know how it’s being used,” said Nikkel.

The legislation is similar to bills that have passed in several states, including Missouri, Kansas and Texas, as well as in the United States Senate. The U.S. Senate version of transparency was sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Sen. Tom Colburn, R-Oklahoma.

“Democrats and Republicans alike understand that this needs to be a law, not just an executive order that can be rescinded at anytime,” added Nikkel.

HB 1288’s next stop will be the House Appropriations Committee.

Forfeiture Update

The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition sent out an update regarding the nasty asset forfeiture bill. The bill is now scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on March 16 at 1:30 p.m. CCJRC reports, "The bill sponsor, Rep. Rice, has requested a later hearing date because he is working on a substantial amendment to the bill as introduced." But why amend something that so obviously deserves a stake through the heart?

An Ode to Inky Fingers

For somebody who claims to hate reading ink-on-paper news publications (as opposed to reading the same publications online), I spent a lot of time yesterday and this morning getting my fingers inky.

I still haven't gotten used to the new morning routine. By habit, I check DenverPost.com, then RockyMountainNews.com -- because I like to save the best for last. But now the second page contains the same old content, as the Rocky has gone under. I felt like I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone when I pulled up Vincent Carroll's first column for the competition.

That is great news, by the way: the Post has picked up not only Carroll but Lynn Bartels, the capitol reporter, and Mike Littwin, the writer of political humor and humorous politics (and sometimes politics quite serious). With Carroll on the editorial board, perhaps the Post's editorial page will improve. Though I sincerely miss the Rocky's editorial page, and I doubt the Post will ever come close.

(It's hard for me to complain too much, though, as the March 4 Post featured a letter of mine arguing that, despite State Senator David Schultheis's "repulsive and shameful" comments about HIV testing for pregnant women, "politicians need to stop manipulating our health decisions, whatever their motive." The letter follows up on my first and second post on the matter.)

The upshot is that the Post seems to be making a genuine effort to reach out to Rocky readers and improve its publication.

Of course, there is also the Denver Daily News, where, upon checking, I immediately found a story of great interest to me (about contraception). So perhaps I'll have to start checking out that publication more regularly.

Back to the inky fingers. Last night my wife and I stopped by the local King Soopers to pick up some milk. We noticed that the store had some copies left of the final Rocky. (Perhaps the Denver Newspaper Agency released extra copies.) So we flipped through the paper -- every page of it -- in profound sadness. It was a history lesson in fifteen minutes, as the paper reviewed its major stories over its many years.

About half way through the paper, the neighborhood suffered a blackout. For a few moments, the store went completely dark. (I was happy to have a mini flashlight in my pocket, which I've started carrying around all the time.) The store has emergency power, so the lights (at least some of them) quickly came back on. For the Rocky, it is lights out, for good.

Westword

I had also fallen behind my reading of Westword, Colorado's most important "alternative" weekly. I finally read Joel Warner's fabulous article on Colorado's medical marijuana industry.

I read Patricia Calhoun's new story about that rights-violating bastard Steve Horner and his enabling bureaucrats.

I also read four papers' worth of Jason Sheehan, the food critic, finishing the final one this morning. Listen, I don't give a crap about fancy restaurants. If I eat at a restaurant, a rare occurrence, I almost always to go a local chain food shop. I never, ever read food criticism. It seems so silly to me, to write about food, of all things, especially considering everything that's going on in the world.

But I love Jason Sheehan. I even imagine myself sitting in the restaurants he describes, and almost wishing I were there (I mean, for the ones earning good reviews). Sheehan loves food. He adores it. He lives for it. He always finds an interesting back story. And it is inspiring to read a talented writer with a sincere passion for his work.

I figured out just this morning that, to read all of Sheehan, one must turn to not one, not two, but three pages of Westword. He writes, "Cafe," "Bite Me," and "Second Helping."

I don't even know what the hell grits are, and I don't even know whether I've ever eaten them. Some sort of corn dish, I gather. But grits are religion to Sheehan:

Once cooked and plated, grits become recalcitrant. They refuse to absorb sauce, refuse to even mix well — becoming clotty and stained rather than blended, ugly and foul and (if any food can be) ill-tempered. Grits are tough. They have very specific ideas about their proper employment on the plate and will brook no f***ing around.

(Sorry about the asterisks, but I've sworn off extreme swearing for this page, and I'm going to stick to the policy even when it seems unnecessary.)

Considering some of Sheehan's descriptions -- "the dried cherries were another smart addition, cutting the richness of the bacon and the weight of the white corn with a little zing of tart and sweet," "fresh thyme and garlic, an unexpected dart of spice that hits you right on the back of the tongue" -- it occurred to me that Sheehan is not a food critic, after all. He is still a chef, except now his ingredients are words.

* * *

My beloved Rocky Mountain News (and it's easy to forget my criticisms of it over the years in a time like this) is dead. Print journalism in Colorado will never be the same. But, new and old, personal and corporate, online and ink-stained, journalism continues. Anyone who has taken a peek at our region or our world knows that good journalism is more important than ever.

New New Mac

As I mentioned yesterday, my wife and I purchased a new iMac on Sunday. On Tuesday, Apple came out with a line of new iMacs consisting of better machines for less money. I appreciate the fact that there is a transition period between old and new product, but I felt slightly jilted that Apple neglected to tell me about the pending change, which obviously would have affected my purchase schedule.

But the Apple store was very good about exchanging the machine, though I did have to eat a ten percent "restocking" fee (even though they're not actually going to restock the computer). I had suggested that Apple simply incentivize me to keep the old machine, but that proposal was dismissed. However, now I'm glad that we actually did the upgrade; as good as Sunday's machine was, Tuesday's machine is a lot better. Now you can get a larger screen, bigger hard drive, and more and better RAM for less money. This again demonstrates the phenomenal success of the ongoing computer revolution.

The upshot for readers is that now is a great time to buy an iMac. These powerful, all-included machines start at $1200. That's less than what the Amiga sold for back in 1985 with its 256K of memory and floppy disk drive (never mind inflation). I did love my Amiga, but in retrospect is seems like a child's toy. Amazing.

Incidentally, last night we watched Joss Whedon's Dollhouse (Fox) online. The third episode, "Stage Fright," is especially well written and performed. If you haven't started watching the series, you're missing out. I remember the days when I strung a cable from the phone jack to my fancy new modem so I could chat with the locals. Now I'm watching "television" on my computer over a cable line. Again, amazing.

As easy as it is to get bummed out by the economic recession and the federal shenanigans, the advance of computers serves as a reminder of the magnificent productive force of the capitalist system, even one hampered by increasing political controls. We live in a glorious age. It makes you wonder what would be possible in a free, unfettered economy, doesn't it?

Stop Forfeiture Abuse

It's just wrong if the police can take your property when you have not been convicted of any crime, especially if the police can spend the money on themselves.

That's why, in 2002, a broad coalition passed Bill 1404 to reform asset forfeiture. You can read all about it in my series of articles:

Forfeiture Reform Bill Delayed
Asset Forfeiture Reform Passes First Vote
Asset Forfeiture Reform Advances
1404 Passes Senate Committee
1404 Set to Become Law

Unfortunately, a new bill -- sponsored by Democrats, no less, who belong to a party supposed to care about civil liberties -- threatens to undo the 2002 reforms.

The Colorado Springs Gazette editorializes:

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee will consider Thursday what has to be the most outrageous bill proposed in this session of the Colorado General Assembly, and perhaps in the last several years. House Bill 1238 would more than undo a law that received widespread bipartisan support in 2002, which prevents law enforcement from keeping the assets and proceeds from forfeitures, even when a suspect has been acquitted in court.

Loose translation: The new bill would allow law enforcement to take your home, your car, and your grandmother's jewelry on the mere suspicion you committed a crime, and they could keep it regardless of an acquittal by a jury of your peers or a dismissal of the criminal case by prosecutors. It's a bill that says, in essence, you're guilty if accused.

Writing for the Independence Institute, Mike Krause summarizes the bill as "an invitation to misgovernment." (Unfortunately, as Krause pointed out last month, "In 2007, the Democrat controlled legislature (with plenty of Republican support) approved HB 1275 which designates the Colorado National Guard as a law enforcement agency for the purpose of 'sharing in the federal asset forfeiture program' as part of the Guard's counter drug operation in Colorado. ... [The bill] blurs what should be a clear line between soldier and cop, sets a hugely dangerous precedent of military involvement in civilian law enforcement and increases the federal government's influence into the practices and priorities of state and local agencies and takes the disastrous war on drugs to a new level in Colorado.")

The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition -- a leader in the 2002 reforms -- also issued an action alert:

WHAT HB 09-1238 WOULD DO:

1. Erodes reasonable protections for property owners by
a. repealing the requirement that someone be convicted of a criminal offense before their property can be forfeited. (in a civil forfeiture action, a property owner does not have 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination nor the right to counsel)
b. allowing for forfeiture even if the owner didn’t know that the property was used in violation of the law under the theory that he/she “reasonably should have known.”
c. repealing the requirement that the plaintiff prove that the property being forfeited was instrumental in the commission of an offense.

2. Reintroduces the profit motive to law enforcement and no longer requires forfeiture proceeds to be allocated through an accountable budgeting entity (like City Council or County Commissions) but rather allows law enforcement and prosecutors to keep a majority of the proceeds directly.

3. Removes any transparency and accountability by repealing all forfeiture reporting requirements and repeals the prohibition on transfer of forfeiture cases out of state court when local or state law enforcement were the seizing agency, with limited exceptions. ...

Current law ensures that forfeiture actions are fair and that property owners have due process without undermining law enforcement’s ability to use forfeiture as a legitimate tool. Current law also brings the revenue generated from asset forfeiture into an appropriate budget process and provides accountability while removing any appearance of impropriety. HB 09-1238 repeals these fundamental principals of fairness and due process. It also creates an unacceptable profit motive for law enforcement.

What good is the Democratic Party if it doesn't even stand up for basic civil rights? (Republican Shawn Mitchell played a pivotal role in passing the 2002 reforms, and Republican Bill Owens signed the bill.) Whether or not this bill makes it through a Democratic legislature will reveal a great deal about the soul of the Democratic Party.

New Mac

Our G5 Mac lost its logic board over the weekend. Rather than pay to get it replaced, we decided to upgrade to stay current with the software. (As a graphic designer, my wife primarily uses Adobe products contained in that company's Creative Suite.)

Obviously it's no fun to go through a computer melt-down. I lost a couple days of time, then we had to buy a new machine. However, after the experience I'm a more loyal Mac user. The local Apple store diagnosed my machine at no cost, ruling out the hard drive and RAM as the problem. Then staff of the store answered extensive questions about the machines currently available, and we selected one that I think will fit our needs spectacularly. (We got an iMac, which is only slightly less beefy than our old machine at a considerably lower cost.) By the way, it's possible that a cause of the problem was dust in the machine that inhibited air flow. The old Motorola machines have a reputation for running hot -- which is primarily why Apple switched to Intel -- so if you have a Motorola tower I suggest you get it cleaned.

An Apple machine will cost you more than a comparable PC, but that's comparing apples to oranges (or lemons). With a Mac, you get a machine that works with fewer hassles, and you get real customer service.

I almost wish I'd saved all my old machines, just so we could show the next generation the rapid progress. My first computer was a Commodore 128, as in 128 kilobytes of RAM, double the memory of the popular 64. (The first Apple I used in school ran on a cassette tape drive.) The new machine has four gigabytes of RAM, or over 31,000 times the memory. It's such an obvious point that we rarely savor it: the computer revolution has improved our lives dramatically in countless ways. So, thanks, Steve and the gang.

Political Controls Provoke Producers to Go On Strike

The following article originally was published March 2, 2009, by the Grand Junction Free Press.

Political controls provoke producers to go on strike

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The economy has recovered from every recession so far, so it's a good bet that, eventually, the economy will recover from the current recession as well. We can be sure that, so long as the recession lasts, Barack Obama will blame outside forces, and as soon as the recession has ended Obama will take the credit.

Assuming the economy starts growing again, it will do so in spite of, not because of, Obama's new forced wealth transfers and political controls of the economy. The controls of Obama, the Congress, and the state legislature, on top of earlier controls promoted by both political parties, threaten economic prosperity.

Such controls violate the rights of producers -- of doctors, engineers, programmers, builders -- to set their own destiny, control their own business and property, and interact with others on a voluntary basis. Political controls subject producers to the whims of bureaucrats.

Controls also forcibly transfer wealth from some people to others, thereby reducing the incentive to produce wealth. Around 40 percent of each new dollar earned goes to taxes. The deficit spending of Obama and George W. Bush threatens to impose the hidden tax of inflation.

When producers face the twin threat of bureaucratic meddling and confiscation of the fruits of their labor, many throw up their hands and either quit producing or cut back. They go on strike, in part or in full, loudly or quietly.

We have talked with countless friends who have decided to invest less or work less. Many would rather work on the house or the car, where at least their labor is not taxed, than spend more time in their chosen field where they are largely directed by bureaucrats and forced to hand over much of their earnings to others.

We have heard of doctors leaving medicine or certain specialties to avoid the associated bureaucratic nightmares.

We have heard of entrepreneurs who would rather sell their dreams to safe corporations than risk opening a new business under the regulatory nightmare of Sarbanes-Oxley and other controls.

We have heard the outrage of working-class families, who are struggling to make their ends meet even as they are forced to subsidize the irresponsible, such as the woman in California who added octuplets to her six prior children. We hear, "Why am I working so hard?"

This idea of a strike of producers is hardly new. In 1937, Harold Ickes, FDR's Secretary of the Interior, "gave a radio speech assailing America's wealthy, charging that sixty families who ran the nation were on strike against the rest of the country," writes Amity Shlaes in The Forgotten Man.

The next year, Wendell Willkie fired back at a similar claim made by Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson. Willkie said, "Mr. Jackson has previously spoken of a 'strike of capital' against the government. If there is any strike of capital it comes from these millions of small investors, not from the wealthy few... The main problem is to restore the confidence of investors in American business, and to do this will require more than pleasant speaking on the part of government. For several years the government has taken definite action to show its hostility to business." [See This Is Wendell Willkie (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1940), p. 70.]

Ayn Rand, who lived through both the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression, made the idea of the productive strike the theme of her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged. For many years the working title was "The Strike." Rand described the theme as "what happens to the world when the Prime Movers go on strike."

Rand wrote of her "fantastic premise," a "hypothetical case" in which the world's top producers disappear, one by one. (Much of the drama takes place in a fictional valley near Ouray.) But the truth behind Rand's literary device remains: political economic controls discourage the producers from creating the wealth necessary for our lives.

Today the fantastic pushes through reality. In a touching YouTube video called "My Strike," a man begins his address by quoting Atlas Shrugged. He explains how friends of his have left their fields. He says, "Now I'm on strike... I woke up one morning and could not think of a single reason to come to work... We live in a time when billions of dollars of market capitalization can be wiped out by a single political speech, statutory command, or regulatory decree. And those politicians consume our lives as much as our dollars."

It's no wonder that sales of Atlas Shrugged have tripled over the same period last year, reports the Ayn Rand Institute.

Perhaps it's time for you to fold up this paper, roll up your sleeves, and get back to work. Because that's what we always do, right? We go back to work, no matter what the politicians do to us or how much they take from us. Until they cross that line and we the producers say, "No more."