I'm Comcastic

Today feels like a slow, rainy fall day, so I'm going to take it easy and review some of my recent shopping experiences.

Despite the fact that I was a loyal Qwest customer, I'm now signed up with Comcast. Why? Qwest doen't offer internet service at my new address! Which is unbelievable. But, despite Comcast's reputation for poor customer service, the outfit did very well for me. So far, I'm a pleased customer. Nevermind that the company's slogan, "Comcastic," rhymes with spastic and bombastic.

I was in a hurry the other day at the grocery store, so I quickly bought a half-gallon of "All Natural," "Made With Real Oranges" Minute Maid. Well, make that "All Natural Flavors." Mostly it's corn juice, which I promptly poured down the drain. Yuck. I guess high fructose corn syrup is a "natural" drink, in the same way that fly soup is "natural."

During the same shopping trip, I noticed a publication on the stands called "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Palmistry." Yup.

I enjoy Flight of the Conchord's robot song, in which "it is the year 2000." Well, I recently picked up a used book called "The Year 2000," published in 1967. (It cost $9.95 for a hardback back then.) The book anticipates "increased Sensate (empirical, this-worldly, secular, humanistic, pragmatic, utilitarian, contractual, epicurean or hedonistic, and the like) cultures..." The authors couldn't have been more wrong about that one. That's what happens when "empirical, this-worldly, secular" is equated with pragmatic and hedonistic.

With Palin, McCain Ignores Colorado Warning

The following article has been offered as a non-exclusive op-ed by the Coalition for Secular Government.

With Palin, McCain Ignores Colorado Warning

by Ari Armstrong

"I have to win here if I'm going to be the next president of the United States," John McCain told a Colorado crowd in July. The fact that the Democrats came to Colorado for their convention also proves the presidential importance of the Interior West, a region known for its independent streak and partisan upheavals.

However, McCain seems not to have learned the political lessons of the Interior West, despite the fact that he's from Arizona. By selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate to attract the evangelical vote, McCain risks alienating the independent voters and non-sectarian Republicans he needs to win.

Recent polling results from the Pew Research Center indicate that most Americans now think churches should keep out of politics. Even half of conservatives share this view. The Interior West is particularly leery about faith-based politics; Pew results from 2005 examined by Ryan Sager suggest that 59 percent of residents think "government is getting too involved in the issue of morality." Yet faith-based politics is one of Palin's signature issues.

Palin endorsed the teaching of creationism in tax-funded schools before softening her stance on the issue. She ardently opposes abortion, describing herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be," apparently even in cases of rape, incest, or health problems. Speaking to a church as governor, Palin said that it's "God's will" that she help build an energy pipeline; she added that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God." Political reform, Palin argued, "doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Given McCain's desire to win Colorado, he might have examined why this once solidly Republican state is currently governed by Democrats. One central reason is the domination of the Republican Party in the state by the religious right.

Democrats captured the final branch of state government in 2006 when Bill Ritter defeated Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez in the governor's race. Ritter was accomplished in his own right as the Denver District Attorney but lacked high-level political experience. While Beauprez's campaign suffered a variety of failings, Beauprez's own commitment to faith-based politics, and his selection of a running mate of the same cloth, hurt him badly.

Beauprez himself opposed abortion and favored faith-based welfare. His running mate, Janet Rowland, shared those views and had also come out in favor of teaching creationism in tax-funded schools. When asked about the separation of church and state, Rowland replied, "We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Such expressions rubbed independent-minded Westerners the wrong way.

Yet McCain is following a similar path. On his official web page, McCain says that his ultimate aim is "ending abortion." His running mate, like Rowland, shares that view and favored tax-funded religious education. Palin, like Rowland, would leave Americans without freedom from religious law. Will the team's commitment to faith-based politics be too much for voters in the Interior West to swallow?

The McCain-Palin ticket has a lot going for it that the Beauprez-Rowland ticket did not. McCain is a decorated military veteran with a lengthy career in the Senate. Palin is credible on energy, appealing to low-tax conservatives, and friendly toward gun owners. She has a record as a reformer, and she's an attractive, vibrant, and poised speaker.

Moreover, the left's shrill personal attacks against Palin may serve only to evoke public sympathy for her and energize her supporters. The left's complaints about Palin's lack of experience may underscore their own candidate's inexperience, as Barack Obama tends to come off as a glorified motivational speaker. Yet the Obama-friendly left, in its attempt to itself cozy up to the evangelical vote, shies away from criticizing the McCain-Palin ticket over the issue of separation of church and state.

Nevertheless, as independent and traditionally Republican voters evaluate McCain and Palin on their own merits, rather than merely as the alternative to Obama, many will grow concerned over the pair's commitment to faith-based politics. This will cost McCain votes and other forms of support.

McCain may have energized the religious right, but in doing so he has brought faith-based politics to the forefront of his campaign, leaving freedom-minded independents and secular Republicans without a candidate they can support. The question remaining is which presidential candidate will make them more fearful.


Ari Armstrong is the editor of FreeColorado.com and a co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us, a paper criticizing the Colorado proposal to define a fertilized egg as a person.

Support The Undercurrent

The Undercurrent asked me to spread the word about the publication, which I'm happy to do:

The Undercurrent (TU) is an independent, student-run Objectivist newsletter distributed twice a year to college campuses across America. TU is currently looking for distributors and donors for its fall edition, and will stop taking orders on or about September 22, 2008.

If you would like to distribute, please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/subscribe/ and buy your copies of TU today. If money is an issue, please contact Guy Barnett, our head of distribution, at guy**AT**the-undercurrent**DOT**com. There is limited funding from donors for students who want to buy and distribute TU but cannot afford to do so. If you're part of an Objectivist campus club, you may want to see if your college will fund distribution of TU as a club activity.

If you would like to donate, please visit http://the-undercurrent/donate/ and contribute directly using PayPal. ...

Spreading rational ideas on college campuses is critical to making this world a better place. Your assistance is necessary for the achievement of that goal.

Thank you for your support.

ARC: Let Doctors Protect Conscience by Contract

A few days ago, I criticized efforts to force hospitals to abandon their faith-based practices, however much I disapprove of those practices. Now the snazzy new Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC) has produced a release that aptly explains the reasons for my view. Thomas Bowden said:

[T]he law should recognize each individual's right to deal, or refuse to deal, with others on a voluntary basis.

For example, a doctor has the right to refuse an employment offer from a Catholic hospital that forbids contraceptives and abortions. But if he takes the job, he has no right to force the hospital to abandon its religious taboos and allow him to perform abortions. Likewise, a hospital has the right to hire only those doctors willing to prescribe contraception and provide abortions. If one of those doctors refuses to perform such services on moral grounds, he must take the contractual consequences.

Patients have the same rights as doctors and hospitals to set their own terms of trade. A pregnant woman contemplating abortion has the right to seek treatment at a hospital whose doctors are unencumbered by religious superstitions about ensoulment at conception. But if that hospital denies her admission, she has no right to demand that the Catholic hospital down the street abort her fetus.

The correct path out of the "conscience controversy" over abortions and contraceptives is not to adopt new regulations creating "provider conscience rights." The solution is for government to recognize and protect the individual rights of all participants in the health-care system. Doctors, hospitals, and patients should be allowed to deal with each other by voluntary agreement, with government's only role to enforce contracts and prevent fraud.

However, I would again point out that implicit contractual understanding could require patient notification. If I walk into a hospital, normally I expect to be offered the full range of medical information and treatment options. If a hospital refuses to offer some information or treatment on religious grounds, I need to know that. At least a hospital has an obligation to relate its relevant policies so that patients can make informed decisions.

Why Harry Potter Fans Should Read Ayn Rand

This article originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

September 1, 2008

Why Harry Potter fans should read Ayn Rand

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

As September 1 marks the first day of school at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, we decided to ignore Colorado's political scene for the moment and focus on something truly important: great literature.

We've both long been fans of Ayn Rand's works. In fact, when Ari was young, Linn read aloud Anthem as a bed-time story. Anthem is Rand's novelette about a dystopian future in which people are known by numbers, not names, and the word "I" has been outlawed. The hero of the story rediscovers electricity in secret and eventually escapes with his beloved to freedom. The book inspired Ari's preoccupation with liberty.

More recently, Ari has grown passionate about another novelist: J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series. Ari has even written a book of literary criticism called Values of Harry Potter; see ValuesOfHarryPotter.com. In its focus on the heroic valuer, the book explores Rowling's themes of courage, independence, and free will, then critically examines her minor themes of self-sacrifice and immortality.

Ari's shared passion for Rand and Rowling is no coincidence. The two authors explore many of the same themes and offer their readers gripping, tightly plotted stories filled with great heroes, dastardly villains, and intriguing ideas. Fans of Rowling easily could fall in love with Rand's works, and vice versa.

Both novelists have written great Romantic works. In her introduction to The Fountainhead, Rand writes that Romanticism "deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence." That helps explain why Rand's books remain strong sellers decades after their initial release and why Rowling's books have appealed to readers across continents in many languages. These are not stories of the neighbor next door and his neuroses. These are grand epics of monumental clashes between good and evil.

As Ari argues in Values of Harry Potter, the central theme of Rowling's novels is the heroic fight for life-promoting values. Harry and his allies fight courageously to protect their lives, loved ones, futures, and liberties from the vicious tyrant Lord Voldemort. For example, in Sorcerer's Stone, Harry gives a fiery speech to his friends Ron and Hermione, persuading them to take action against Voldemort to save their lives and world.

Rand's characters, too, fight passionately for their values. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark refuses to compromise his integrity as an architect, even if that means he must work in a granite quarry or blow up a building that has ripped off and debased his design. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt and Francisco d'Anconia walk away from their normal lives in order to finally subvert the evil men and ideas taking over the world.

After learning he's a wizard, Harry takes the Hogwarts Express to a magical world filled with wonder, possibility, and great champions like Professor Dumbledore. Hogwarts is Harry's escape from the oppressive Dursleys. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart's Transconinental Railroad also symbolizes movement into a world of near-mythical champions such as the steel-producer Hank Rearden.

While Harry has Hogwarts, Dagny discovers Galt's Gulch, the place where her heroes live. After Dagny crash lands her plane in the Gulch, she experiences, "This was the world as she had expected to see it at sixteen... This was her world, she thought, this was the way men were meant to be and to face their existence..." It is to this spirit of youthful passion and confidence that both novelists remain true.

As Rand explains, free will is the foundation of Romantic literature, because free will is what enables a person's "formation of his own character and the course of action he pursues in the physical world." Because of the fact of free will, people can form or reform their characters and act for their values. This is the premise behind any compelling plot, which depends on the characters making and then enacting choices toward some goal. It is no surprise, then, that Dumbledore endorses free will, saying "it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be."

Rowling and Rand share an interest in other themes as well. Both authors love liberty and hate tyrants; both John Galt and Harry Potter work outside the established government to fight those wielding power corruptly. Both authors present fiercely independent heroes who refuse to unquestioningly follow self-proclaimed authorities.

Of course the writers also have their differences. For example, while Rand solidly rejects religion, Rowling includes the Christian elements of self-sacrifice and life after death in her novels. Yet their similarities are more intriguing.

If you haven't yet read these novels, then you are in for an enthralling and potentially life-altering adventure. It is yours to discover your own Hogwarts or Galt's Gulch, not merely in the realm of imagination, but in your daily life.

Republican Majority for Choice

Recently I learned about a national group called the Republican Majority for Choice. From first appearances, this group seems to be headed in the right direction. The organization writes, "We are deeply concerned with direction of our Party if it continues to endorse a social agenda that is both intrusive and alienating."

The group even has a Colorado affiliate headed by Amanda Mountjoy (whom I don't know). Here's what Mountjoy had to say against Amendment 48 (which would define a fertilized egg as a person):

Making changes to our State Constitution is a serious matter that should not be manipulated by special interest groups with a single issue agenda. This is not the place or the vehicle to debate private healthcare decisions. This initiative is a thinly veiled attempt by an extreme minority to impose their views upon the people of Colorado and will lead to big-government control of some of the most complicated choices facing our families.

Consequences of the initiative would be far-reaching and would not only include a ban on abortion, but also a ban on many commonly used forms of birth control. If the proponents of this initiative were truly concerned about reducing abortion in Colorado, as they claim to be, then they would work to forward proven effective, common sense measures like prevention and education. In the past Coloradans have defeated initiatives that interfere with personal freedom, and the Republican Majority for Choice is confident that Colorado voters will again vote to ensure that reproductive healthcare decisions remain between a woman, her family, and her doctor.

The group's newsletter offers a more detailed case against the measure. (Of course, I recommend the paper by Diana Hsieh and me on the subject.)

Unfortunately, the group seems to veer into unprincipled pragmatism at times. For example, the Colorado chapter claims that Amendment 48 "simply goes to far," following the line from the main campaign against. For reasons that Diana and I explain, that's a horrible position. Also, the group notes, "Thanks to the years of hard work and dedication from the members of RMC Colorado to providing complete and compassionate medical care for survivors of sexual assault, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 60 in to law Thursday, March 15 to mandate hospitals to provide information about emergency contraception (EC) in the emergency room." However, the government has no business dictating policy to hospitals. That said, if hospitals intend to practice faith-based medicine, they should clearly inform their patients of that. So there is some role for the law to play in the matter -- as in any case of contract.

Yet, despite some problems with the RMC, the group represents a positive step for the Republican Party, which, under the guidance of the religious right, has become an enemy of liberty and handed Colorado government to the Democrats.

Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy

MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy

Sedalia, Colorado / August 27, 2008

Contact: Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," Diana**AT**SecularGovernment**DOT**us

The wholehearted embrace of faith-based politics by Democrats is the big news of the Democratic National Convention. "It's a losing strategy, particularly in more freedom-minded states like Colorado," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.

A recent Pew survey showed that Americans are growing more wary of the persistent attempts of politicians to inject their private faith into public policy. A majority of Americans of all political stripes oppose the mixing of politics and religion.

In Colorado, the Republican Party's determination to enact laws and policies based on sectarian Christian values has resulted in stunning defeats in recent elections. Colorado was once a solidly red state, but now it's purple, and turning blue.

"Despite these losses, the religious right is still on the warpath in Colorado," Hsieh said. "This election, they're attempting to force God's law on the state via Amendment 48, the ballot measure which would grant fertilized eggs all the legal rights of persons in the Colorado constitution. If passed and implemented, the amendment would criminalize abortion as murder and ban the the birth control pill. It would be a disaster for the men and women of Colorado." See "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a Coalition issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, available at http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf.

Now the Democrats are imitating this losing strategy by infusing liberal politics with religious fervor. They're holding interfaith prayers, opening their platform to religious opponents of abortion, and supporting faith-based initiatives. Ironically, they're doing so in Colorado, the very state that was handed to them as a result of voter disgust with the religious right.

"It's political suicide. The Democrats will only alienate the majority of Americans committed to the principle of secular government," Hsieh said. "Who can those voters support, when both Republicans and Democrats seek to govern by their personal faith rather than rational principles?"

"To protect freedom of religion and conscience, Republican and Democratic leaders must embrace the separation of church and state on principle. Politicians should govern according to the secular principles of individual rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, not religious scripture," Hsieh said.

The Coalition for Secular Government (www.SecularGovernment.us) advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.

Pepper Spray in Denver

So much for calm protests. The Denver Post reports, "About 7 p.m. Monday, riot police using pepper spray forced a couple of hundred protesters out of Civic Center and then blocked them before they could reach the 16th Street Mall. ... Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the convention's Joint Information Center... said an officer fired the first spray when several of the protesters charged toward the police line, which had been set up to protect the roadway and prevent any movement toward the pedestrian mall."

I am concerned by claims that, first, the group had a permit to protest there, and, second, the police surrounded the group, preventing people from dispersing. But it's not like I exactly trust a group called Recreate 68.

I've done a bit of protesting myself -- enough to know its tiring and in many contexts not very useful. In general, while I support people's right to peacefully protest within the constraints of property rights, I have to wonder about people who get a kick out of routinely seeking confrontations with the police.

People's Press Collective

To see photos and videos from the streets of the Democratic National Convention, see the People's Press Collective. (This a conservative outfit, despite its fun name.) I myself am happy hanging out in the burbs, away from the craziness. (I put in for tickets to hear Obama's talk, but instead of tickets I got a spot on the campaign propaganda list, which was sort of annoying.) I hear that hotels as far away as Longmont are sold out.

The Big House Buy

You may have noticed that things have been somewhat slow at FreeColorado.com lately. This is because, in addition to writing a book and co-authoring an issue paper, I closed on a house on Wednesday. My wife and I closed on a house, I should emphasize. Our experiences may offer some insight into today's housing market.

The price we paid will bring down the averages: the sales tag was $145,000, not bad for a three-bedroom house at its location. However, we are paying for that low price in other ways. Consider:

* The process took eleven weeks. During that time, we had to put most of our stuff in storage and live in a temporary situation.

* The siding was a complete disaster; it hadn't been painted in many years, and much of it was bare. To qualify for the loan, I had to spend my own time and money, prior to closing, to scrape and prime the house. We also had to fix two windows. I have never heard of a real estate deal where the buyer fixes the house before closing.

* There's quite a lot wrong with the house. In addition to the siding repairs, it needs new paint inside and out, some patchwork to repair old water leaks, a new hot water heater, a complete landscaping job, bathroom repairs, and so on. So, even though the price is lower, this largely reflects the time and money that we'll have to put into the place.

* The previous owner had the place rented and those parties had some sort of dispute about the place. For my first inspection, I couldn't get access to the house, so I had to pay extra for the wasted trip.

Put simply, very few people would have had the time, patience, or resources to buy this house. On several occasions I was convinced the deal had fallen through. So bear that in mind when you hear averages of housing prices. My guess is that we are approaching the point where marginal buyers will start to feel more secure about the market, then they'll buy, buy, buy. Once all the difficult houses are off the market, real estate values will improve nicely. But that's just a guess.

Need a Loan?

The buy would not have been possible without the dedication of our loan officer, Elsa Wohlford of Premier Mortgage Group. She went so far beyond the call of duty that I'll be forever grateful. (I get nothing for promoting her other than the satisfaction of doing so. Readers should not assume that she endorses any of my views or positions.) If you're looking to buy a house via a loan, or refinance, you could do no better than to sign up with Elsa.

Hellboy II

I was pleasantly surprised by Hellboy II. I remember the story from the first one being completely ridiculous. Here the main story is more interesting if hardly plausible, but the rich characters make it a memorable movie. Center stage are two romances. Even though only one of these four characters is human (and two don't even look human), their relationships are quite compelling. The bad guy is the son on an Elvish king and the brother of one of the love interests. He's a "complex" villain, meaning that the viewer is supposed to sympathize with him. This leads to a bifurcated character.

The movie is hilarious. Truly, deeply funny. This from the guy who gave us Pan's Labyrinth. Two of the fight scenes are an absolute riot (given that our hero is nearly indestructible). And there are some very funny moments in Hellboy's love life. So "funny" comes to the fore, leaving melancholy to fill the recesses. I have no interest in seeing the first film again, but I'm sure I'll rent the second film down the road.

Staged Silliness

Check out this picture of the stage of the Democratic National Convention. Apparently the Democrats think Obama is running for President of Disney Land. That God I don't have a television, so I only have to witness this in a static photo. Does this sort of garish silliness really work with people? But I guess Obama doesn't actually have any good ideas, just the show. If he wins, I'll just call him the Dazzle President. (Obama's main talk will be across the way at the football stadium. Wait a minute -- why was I feeling comforted by that?)

Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life

"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a paper by Diana Hsieh and me, is now available.

Following is the media release:

MEDIA RELEASE -- COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

New Paper: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, published by the Coalition for Secular Government is available on the web at:

http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Contact:

Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and Founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, diana**ATSIGN**SecularGovernment**DOT**us

Ari Armstrong, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and editor of FreeColorado.com, ari**ATSIGN**freecolorado**DOT**com

AMENDMENT 48 IS ANTI-LIFE, NEW PAPER SHOWS

"Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution, is profoundly anti-life," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.

"It would obliterate basic reproductive rights in Colorado based solely on the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is the moral equal of a born infant. The biological facts show just the opposite: that only the pregnant woman, and then the born infant, are persons with rights," Hsieh said.

"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," written by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh and published by the Coalition for Secular Government, shows that the ballot measure is hostile to human life in myriad ways:

* Given existing criminal statues, Amendment 48 would subject women and their doctors to life in prison or the death penalty for abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.

* It would prevent doctors from properly treating non-viable ectopic pregnancy until the woman's life and health was in serious danger, thereby causing needless deaths.

* It would force thousands of women each year to bear unwanted children, whatever the cost to their own lives and happiness.

* The measure would ban popular and effective forms of birth control, including the birth-control pill, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies.

* It would outlaw the fertility treatments responsible for the birth of hundreds of Colorado babies to eager parents each year.

"The voters of Colorado must protect their reproductive rights against this dangerous assault. They must vote 'NO' on Amendment 48," Hsieh said.

Amendment 48 Would Harm Actual People

The following article originally was published August 18, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press.

Amendment 48 would harm actual people

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We used to be on opposite sides of the abortion issue. Linn has long held that it should be legal, while Ari once thought that it should not. Now we agree that Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution, is a horrible idea that would result in death, misery, and lost liberty for actual people.

Many years ago, we went to a local event to hear one of the lawyers involved in the Roe v. Wade decision on the legalization side. During the questions, someone in the audience harshly condemned the lawyer for aiding in the murder of babies. The lawyer fired back that science, the Supreme Court, and most people rejected his claim. We left the event where we entered it: on different sides of the issue. This would have been before Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe," converted to Christianity and opposed abortion.

Around that time, Ari even wrote a letter to a local paper (that we can't find now) pointing out a seeming paradox with the legalization side. As far as we recall, some criminal had harmed a woman, resulting in the death of her fetus. If a fetus is not a person, Ari reasoned, why should we care whether a criminal harms it? It was a pretty good letter. But its premise was wrong.

Now Ari has worked on a paper criticizing Amendment 48 for the Coalition for Secular Government (SecularGovernment.us) that should be available this week. Here we'll review some of the highlights.

The first fact that opponents of abortion must confront is that, if a fertilized egg should have all the same legal rights as a born infant, that implies that criminal penalties should apply for abortion. Notably, current statutes define first-degree murder as killing a person "after deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person." Surely that describes abortion, if a fertilized egg is a person.

The penalty? Under current statute, the penalty for first-degree murder is life in prison or the death penalty. One Denver minister has openly advocated the death penalty for women who get abortions. If you oppose abortion, is that really what you want? If not, what sort of criminal penalty do you have in mind?

Many women get abortions for health concerns. For instance, a small percent of fertilized eggs start to grow in the fallopian tubes rather than in the uterus. These ectopic pregnancies can be fatal. If a fertilized egg is a person, then can doctors perform abortions even if the woman's life is at risk? Or would doctors be forced to watch their patients endure hours of agony and operate only at the very last minute? Though most pregnancies don't turn out that way, in some cases Amendment 48 would cause the death of the woman.

But the consequences of Amendment 48 extend far beyond abortion. Many types of birth control would be banned. For example, while the pill usually acts to prevent fertilization, it may also act to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. While the matter would result in lengthy political and legal battles, many opponents of abortion do argue that the pill prevents implantation. Emergency contraception and IUDs also would have to be banned under Amendment 48. The inevitable result would be more unplanned pregnancies.

Fertility clinics also would have to be shut down, because they operate by fertilizing eggs in the lab, then transferring select fertilized eggs into the woman. In 2005, Colorado's seven fertility clinics helped around 820 women deliver babies. According to advocates of Amendment 48, these pregnancies should be forcibly prohibited. In the name of saving fertilized eggs, the measure would prevent the births of hundreds of babies every year.

A fertilized egg clearly is not the biological equivalent of a born infant. A fertilized egg is microscopic, without any organs or awareness. An older fetus too is dramatically different from a born baby. A fetus is totally contained within the woman and totally dependent on her for oxygen and nutrition. A born baby, while still basically helpless, can breath and eat using its own organs. Though the case can be expanded, that's the basic reason why an embryo or fetus should not have the same legal standing as a born infant.

What about the case of the criminal who harms a fetus? A woman who learns that she's pregnant and decides to have the baby is overwhelmingly excited by the pregnancy. She looks forward to delivering a baby and raising a child. The fetus is both a physical and legal extension of the woman. A criminal who harms a woman's fetus deserves harsh criminal penalties.

Amendment 48 would result in needless death, intrusive police actions over our sexual lives, and the banning of fertility treatments. As the title of the new paper summarizes, the measure is anti-life.

Meet Colorado's Congressional Delegation

Colorado sends seven people to the U.S. House of Representatives. Of those seats, three are solidly Republican, two are solidly Democratic, and two are held by strong Democratic incumbents. In other words, as of Tuesday's primary, Coloradans have already effectively elected their members of Congress. The only competitive primaries were in the second district, where Jared Polis beat insider Joan Fitz-Gerald by spending $5.3 million of his own money, and the sixth district, where Secretary of State Mike Coffman handily beat Wil Armstrong (leaving Democratic Governor Bill Ritter to appoint Coffman's successor at the state level). So who are these strange cats who are supposedly representing us in Washington?

First District: Diana DeGette has been in office for as so long that I don't recall offhand who preceded her. Typical Denver Democrat. Not too kooky.

Second District: Polis ran on a hard-left, socialist platform. (I know this because I live in his district and received his campaign literature.) That's somewhat ironic, because I believe I first met Polis at an event featuring Milton Friedman, who came to town to talk about vouchers. I sort of like Polis, and that may even remain true if he forgets about his ridiculous campaign promises and gets down to the serious business of protecting our rights. I confess to hating rich jerks who want to shove socialism down the rest of our throats. We'll see if that's what Polis becomes. I am particularly concerned about Polis's plans to socialize medicine (a system that he will not be forced to live under).

Third District: John Salazar, brother of Senator Ken, seems like an okay moderate Dem. I don't know much about him, and, for a Congressman, that's not a bad thing.

Fourth District: Marilyn Musgrave is best known for trying to amend the U.S. Constitution with a marriage restriction. But she's laid off of the anti-homosexual agenda somewhat. At least she's a good vote on guns; that's the only thing I can think of off-hand to like about her. (There is something humorous about the same state sending both Musgrave and Polis to Congress; you've got to love Colorado.)

Fifth District: Now we get to the Crazy Brigade. Doug Lamborn signed Colorado Right to Life's 2008 Candidate Questionnaire. He answered "yes" to the following questions:

1. Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn?

2. Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? ...

3. Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendent effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization? ...

6. Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)?

7. Will you refuse to support any legislation that would allow abortion, even if it is a 'pro-life' bill? (i.e. legislation that says "Abortion shall be prohibited unless...")

Sixth District: Coffman answered "yes" to the exact same questions. By putting up Lamborn and Coffman, Colorado Republicans have demonstrated that they take faith-based politics very seriously, and they overtly want to diminish the separation of church and state.

Seventh District: Ed Perlmutter seems like another centrist Dem; he doesn't seem to make the news much.

To summarize, of Colorado's seven representatives, one is a socialist Democrat, three are moderate ("socialism light") Democrats, and three are faith-based Republicans. Of that mix, not a single one comes close to representing my views; not one holds as primary individual rights, including both freedom of conscience and economic liberty.

Bad Week for Denver PD

The week started with the ACLU suing the Denver Police Department for arresting the wrong people. Now, a new video apparently shows that Denver officers slammed a man's head into the ground, breaking his teeth, and then lied about it under oath. The original charge? Running a red light on a bicycle.

Deborah Sherman of 9News broke the story. Check out the video. Also read the account of the Rocky Mountain News.

Will this result in criminal charges and dismissal from the force?

Good Colorado Service

I've been known for a touch of surliness when I get bad service, but at least I also try to promote people and companies that give me good service. Though the topic is unusual for this web page, I wanted to recommend four businesses today. (I get nothing out of this except the satisfaction of promoting people I like. Please note that I haven't asked any of these people if they want me to publicly praise them, so don't assume that they endorse any of my positions or statements.)

If you need a house inspection, I recommend Mike Bruchs, a Denver-area member of The Home Team Inspection Service. He's at 303.954.4453. I'm convinced that Mike found every problem with the house he inspected for me that falls within his job description. (He's also good about mentioning what he's unable to check.) Not only did I gain a great deal of useful information about the particular house, but I learned a lot about houses in general.

If you need massage, I have two recommendations. Here's a recent praise quote I sent to Now and Zen Massage: "Of the scores of massage therapists I've seen, Andrew is among the very best at finding tense muscles and working them out. Only two other therapists with whom I'm familiar belong in his league. I do a lot of work at the computer, and over time this strains muscles in my neck, shoulders, and back. Andrew keeps these muscles from becoming a painful distraction from my work and life. In you need a truly therapeutic, expert massage for muscle tension, Andrew earns my highest recommendation."

Also, Lifetime Health and Wellness hires a Romanian named Cornel who offers a spectacular deep-tissue massage. His technique is different from that of any American I've seen, and it works very well for me.

Finally, Kimco Printing recently did some work for me that turned out beautifully. The job was completed early, too. The business doesn't have the best slickest image, but they deliver quality where it counts.

Take That, IE

The other day I checked my web page on a machine hooked up with Internet Explorer, which reminded me that I'd never fixed my page to work with that (idiotic) browser. Well, the fix was spectacularly simple. I just changed the alignment of the banner from "left" to "middle." So now I have to live with a centered banner, but at least the page works now for those of you still living in the technological dark ages. (I'm sure there are other ways to fix the problem, but at least I've found one of the ways.) If anybody still has problems viewing this page, please let me know. Thanks.

ACLU Sues Denver Over Mistaken Arrests

Even though I'm still mad at Colorado's ACLU for supporting Referendum C, which clearly lies outside the organization's mandate, once in a while the group reminds me that, sometimes, it does crucial work on behalf of liberty. Consider today's media release:

ACLU sues Denver on behalf of five innocent victims of "mistaken identity" arrests

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 11, 2008

CONTACT: Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director...

On behalf of five clients, the ACLU of Colorado filed suit today against the City and County of Denver and various Denver law enforcement officers, charging that in each case, “recklessly sloppy police work” resulted in the innocent plaintiff’s arrest and imprisonment—as long as 26 days in one case—for crimes with which they had no connection whatsoever.

The lawsuit describes the ACLU clients as victims of “mistaken identity” arrests—in each case, Denver law enforcement officers had legal grounds to arrest a particular suspect for an offense, but instead they arrested or caused the arrest of one of the ACLU’s innocent clients. In each case, the ACLU asserts, officers deliberately ignored facts that demonstrated that they were arresting or causing the arrest of the wrong person.

In four cases, the ACLU’s clients were arrested on a warrant that authorized the arrest of a entirely different person. After any arrest, Colorado law requires a prompt appearance before a judge, but in almost every case, the ACLU’s clients were denied that right, preventing them from explaining to the court that they were not the person named in the arrest warrant. Similarly, Denver Sheriff Department deputies at the jail refused to investigate obvious red flags and repeated complaints from Plaintiffs and their family that they were locking up the wrong person.

The lawsuit asserts that Denver policymakers have knowingly tolerated and turned a blind eye to an unjustifiable risk and frequency of such “mistaken identity” arrests. The ACLU contends that Denver officials failed to adopt the necessary policies, procedures, supervision and training that would reduce or eliminate the risk of such “mistaken identity” arrests. The ACLU also cites Denver’s failure to adopt necessary policies to detect and promptly correct such “mistaken identity” arrests when they occur, and its failure to ensure that arrested persons were brought promptly before a court.

The suit also asserts that the ACLU clients and other victims of “mistaken identity” arrests attempted to file complaints with Denver officials after their arrest, but the complaints were rebuffed or ignored.

Read rest of the release details the stories of five people who were mistakenly arrested. Nice job, Silverstein. It will be very interesting indeed to learn what becomes of this.

Economist Swings By Colorado

The Economist thinks it knows why Colorado has gone to the Democrats (via Paul). More Californians, more Hispanics.

But there is a more important reason for the Republicans' woes: their elected representatives are bonkers.

In the 1970s the state party came under the sway of an anti-tax, anti-big government group known as the “House crazies”. This included Tom Tancredo, now a congressional scourge of illegal immigrants. The House crazies eventually joined forces with an equally fierce group of social conservatives rooted in Colorado Springs, headquarters of the evangelical Focus on the Family. ...

More than one lawmaker has got into trouble for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. The small-government wing remains incensed that voters suspended a tax-restraining measure in 2005, even though it was crippling the state's finances.

This is part right, part wrong, and part stupid.

Let's start with the stupid. How exactly is forcibly preventing Colorado businesses from hiring workers from Mexico and elsewhere consistent with an "anti-big government" stance? Instead, Tancredo represents the populist wing of the Republican Party that has alienated both metropolitan sophisticates -- Colorado is a highly educated state -- and Hispanics. (It turns out that people tend not to vote for you when you threaten to forcibly round up their friends and neighbors and kick them out of the country.)

Now on to the wrong. The claim that taxes restraints were "crippling the state's finances" is just recycling The Denver Post's garbage. What was crippling the state's finances was the insatiable spending habits of politicians.

What The Economist gets right is that Republicans have alienated independents and secular free-marketeers with their incessant calls for faith-based politics. Republicans complain that the left has been spending money like crazy. Well, maybe if the Republicans hadn't constantly berated and condemned homosexuals, they wouldn't have induced rich homosexuals to fight back. (Not that that's where all the money is coming from.) Only Republicans act surprised when people get offended when they're told they're going to hell, tearing apart the culture, corrupting the youth, and engaging in sex comparable to bestiality. Who ever would have thought?

It turns out that Westerners get a little nervous when a Republican running for governor gets a running mate who claims we have no constitutionally-protected freedom from religion.

But Republicans finally seem to be figuring some of this stuff out. For example, Bob Schaffer, who has claimed he wants to end all abortion, recently came out against Amendment 48, which seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person. However, now Schaffer just looks like a spineless jerk. He told the Rocky Mountain News, "I think there are other strategies and tactics that get us far closer to advancing the cause of human life." Is that squishing sound water in your shoes? We'll see whether Schaffer's dodge can save him. Meanhile, his opponent, Mark Udall, has strongly endorsed the separation of church and state. Does that matter? I'll put it to you this way. I cannot think of a single issue other than that where I agree with Mark Udall (though I'm sure there's something). Yet, this November, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him. At least he knows what he believes on the matter and isn't afraid to say.

Notes on the Housing Market

As Yaron Brook has pointed out, the primary cause of the housing crisis is an array misguided federal policies. As my wife and I have have tried to buy a house, I've noticed a few details that fit into this picture.

The first thing we noticed is that many houses on the market in our area are completely trashed. We were interested in one house because it's a fixer-upper, and we were told that we couldn't qualify for a loan to buy it, because it needs so much work. This puzzled me till I worked out why loans in such cases generally don't work. If we were going to buy that house, we'd need to dump somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 into it to bring it up to standard living conditions. (This house has completely stained carpets, goop on the walls, holes in the walls, broken windows, a dead tree and weeds in the yard, and siding in desperate need of repairs and paint.) We were told that lenders are worried that, once people move into such houses, they won't be willing or able fund the needed repairs. For a moment I wondered why a lender wouldn't simply give us a loan that included cash for the repairs; then I put myself in the lender's shoes and saw the danger of such a deal.

By encouraging people to buy houses who would not otherwise qualify, the federal government has handed over the keys to people who frankly are not ready for home ownership. Many simply aren't ready to take care of the houses or to competently rent them out, so they end up dumping trashed-out houses on the market. My guess is that this is a large, if not the major, cause of depressed housing prices in many areas.

Also in our area, some very nice houses have sold for what they were going for a few years ago. So, while well-kept houses aren't showing strong equity growth, neither are they showing severe losses. (Granted, I live in Colorado, not Los Angeles or Las Vegas.)

Another thing I noticed is that, between about 2000 and 2004, housing prices shot through the roof. This does seem to have been a bubble, which also fits with slumping housing prices now.

Of course, part of the problem is that buyers don't know where the market will bottom out, so they're reluctant to buy given the uncertainty. However, I get the sense that, once the market is clearly turning up, a lot of hesitant people will jump in suddenly.

My wife and I have been trying to buy a house on "short sale," which means that the bank is controlling the sale and willing to take less than the price of the outstanding mortgage. This house, too, has substantial (but I think superficial) problems, which goes a long way toward explaining its relatively low price.

The take-home lesson is that averages don't account for the state of particular houses. Depressed housing prices reflect, in part, a declining condition of many houses. And that in turn was fostered by idiotic federal policies. While certainly it's a good idea to be aware of economic trends, it's also easy to get caught up in statistics and lose sight of what's really going on.

"Consumer Choice" Versus Liberty

The Rocky Mountain News surprised me with its call for more stringent federal controls on car designs. It's July 24 editorial starts out well enough, noting that "Washington's command-and-control approach to the promotion of ethanol and other biofuels has unleashed a host of unintended consequences."

But then the News concludes:

[W]e also hope lawmakers take a serious look at the Open Fuel Standard Act, a bill launched last week by Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Colorado's own Ken Salazar.

The legislation would require automakers to produce a greater share of flex-fueled vehicles over time. By 2012, half the new cars sold in America, of domestic and foreign origin, would have to run on both gasoline or a "renewable" fuel such as E85 (which is 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline)or biodiesel. By 2015, 80 percent of new cars would have to be equipped to handle either type of fuel.

The bill would not compel car owners to buy gasoline or E85; it would let them select the fuel they prefer, based in part upon price signals. And flex-fuel technology can reportedly be added when cars are built for about $100, or less than 0.4 percent of the average new car's price. ...

Washington would be genuinely expanding consumer choices, not compelling individuals to purchase something they may not want.

The first problem with the News's analysis is that, if the new standards genuinely would help consumers relative to the costs, people would rush to buy the flex-fueled cars without taking a beating by the federal stick.

More significantly, the News praises "consumer choices" outside of the context in which it's a good thing: the system of liberty.

Relevant is not only the choices of consumers but the choices of producers. People have the right to run their businesses the way they see fit, so long as they don't violate the individual rights of others. Consumers properly have the right to choose where to conduct business. What "consumer choice" is all about in the context of liberty is that buyers choose which goods and services to purchase, thereby rewarding the businesses that best meet their needs and allowing businesses that don't meet people's needs to fail. The federal controls violate the rights of property and contract.

To take a simple example, let us say that the Blue Shoe Company produces only blue shoes, and it has found a group of customers happy to buy its products for whatever reason. A federal control that forced all shoe companies to produce red and green shoes would be immoral, as it would violate the rights of the shoe producer as well as of the consumers who wish to do business with the company. An appeal to "consumer choices" would not change the moral status of the controls. The reason that there is not (so far as I'm aware) a company that produces only blue shoes is that most customers want a selection of colors, so shoe companies offer such choices. However, shoe companies often are highly specialized, some making only high-end formal shoes, some making only sneakers. The proper point of the law is to protect people's rights to control their property and contract voluntarily, not to superficially expand "consumer choices" by force.

Thankfully, the News published a reply by Justin Blackman on August 1:

The editorial stated that "consumer choice" would fix these problems and advocated yet another government mandate (the Open Fuel Standard Act) to "put motorists in the driver's seat." This piece of legislation would force automakers to manufacture flex-fuel vehicles.

Normally, "consumer choice" tells automakers what to sell.

Motorists will never be "in the driver's seat" as long as the command-economy mentality persists, and there will always be unintended consequences when the government restricts the freedom of individual consumers to choose what goods and services work best for them.

The solution to energy supply problems is to leave consumers alone and let us decide for ourselves where our money should go. After all, if flex-fuel vehicles are good products, wouldn't we buy them of our own free will?

So good sense prevails at the News in the end, as it so often does.

Values of Harry Potter

I'm pleased to announce the publication of my book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles. It's a 112-page work of literary criticism; you can read the introduction at the book's web page.

As the back cover notes, the book "explores the complex themes of J. K. Rowling's beloved novels, illuminating the heroic fight for life-promoting values, the hero's need for independence, and the role of choice in virtue. Drawing on the ideas of Aristotle and Ayn Rand, Armstrong then critiques the Christian elements of self-sacrifice and immortality, arguing that they ultimately clash with the essential nature of the hero as exemplified by Harry Potter and his allies."

I'm pleased with the project, and, thanks to the design of my wife Jennifer, it's beautiful. Perhaps my favorite material is from the last chapter, where I analyze the Horcrux, an object created through horrific evil. I explain how the Horcrux combines three aspects of evil that drive Rowling's villains, then I discuss Rowling's apparently intended contrast between the Horcrux and the Christian cross.

The earlier chapters deal with courage, independence, and free will.

The book is intended for readers of Rowling's Harry Potter novels. So if you've read them, check out my book and let me know what you think. If you haven't read the novels, I highly recommend them. If you hurry, you can still read all the novels plus my book before the next movie comes out!

Massage Licensing Rubs Special Interests

This article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press on August 4, 2008.

Massage licensing rubs special interests

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We can rest more soundly knowing that muscle-rubbers will be fingerprinted, fined, and registered with the State of Colorado "in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare" as "an exercise of the police powers of the state," as Senate Bill 219 states.

Registering massage therapists, our legislature and governor have told us, "is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety." What a farce. How did Colorado survive for so many decades without such a program?

Is it any surprise that a July 28 story in the Free Press features glowing endorsements of the law by those whose competitors will now be outlawed?

Marilyn Veselack, owner of the Institute of Therapeutic Massage, told this paper, "This was a long time coming, with the Colorado Coalition of Massage Therapists working for years on trying to get what we think is respect."

They've got "respect" all right: now some of their competitors can be thrown in jail. We're not sure if that sort of "respect" is closer to that demanded by the Godfather or Rodney Dangerfield.

One way to legally practice massage therapy is to go to "an approved massage school." Coincidentally, Veselack owns just such a school, which charges $6,000 or $9,000, depending on the program.

Veselack said she currently has around 25 students. The math on that looks pretty good to us, even though Veselack noted that she's not currently paying herself a salary because of costs of moving and remodeling. We do not doubt her sincerity when she says, "My heart is with teaching," we just don't think such teaching should be politically favored.

So what are the pretexts for passing this legislation protecting special interests?

The first is that people are just too stupid to pick a good therapist without the help of the Great Nanny. A big concern is the distinction between real massage therapists and sexually-oriented massage. But we've never met anyone who is unaware of this difference. Massage therapists are good about advertising the therapeutic, non-sexual nature of their services.

Prostitution is a separate legal issue that should not be addressed through laws for therapists.

Your senior author's wife, Sharon, has used massage therapists for many years. Sharon asks friends, doctors and other therapists about the qualities and professionalism of therapists. Most clinics advertise high standards. You wouldn't buy a used car, hire a maid, or go on a date without checking into things; why would you treat massage any differently?

Ari once worked as an unlicensed tutor. He just hired an unlicensed house inspector. In a market, people are free to investigate services, solicit advice, and spend or withhold funds from whatever providers they see fit. Generally, people reward good service with their business.

Certification is no guarantee of quality: Ari has had some dreadful massages from certified therapists. Nevertheless, all the therapists we've ever hired and evaluated are certified, as that at least indicates a basic level of training. Yet there may be somebody, for instance, who has expertly practiced massage for many years in another country who is now subject to new barriers to entry here. The new law violates the right of contract between therapists and willing clients.

It's fraudulent to claim certification or expertise where none exists, and fraud is already against the law. We fully support certification by voluntary groups, much as Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances.

Veselack suggested that we "talk to the police department," especially in Colorado Springs, about human trafficking and other problems involving massage and nail parlors. Grand Junction Police Sergeant Bill Baker said massage is "not something we've been getting calls on."

In Colorado Springs, Lieutenant David Whitlock said he he hadn't heard of the bill. City Attorney Will Bain said, "I don't know anything about it." Sergeant Creighton Brandt said his department "didn't have any direct or even peripheral involvement in the passage of the legislation," though a lobbyist may have weighed in. The El Paso Sheriff's office didn't return our call before deadline.

Where human trafficking is a problem, obviously that's already illegal, and it should be addressed directly, not by registering all massage therapists.

Another excuse for passing the law is that it preempts a patchwork of arbitrary and conflicting local ordinances. We agree that preemption is a good idea in such cases, but such state-level preemption should free people from political controls, not subject them to more.

You may not think that registering massage therapists is a big deal. But our liberty is not dying by a single massive assault, it is dying by a million tiny cuts, with more every year. Such laws entrench protectionism and promote special-interest warfare. They give politicians ever-greater power over our lives. And they train citizens to think and act as children, dependent on the political class for their day-to-day decisions.

What we need is some liberty therapy.

Initiative Killers

In leading up to a story about American expatriation, I'll start with a personal encounter with bureaucracy.

I'm starting up a small-scale side business that involves mail order. While mail order outside of Colorado poses few problems, mail order within Colorado is a royal pain. There's actually a web page called TaxColorado.com, sort of the antithesis of FreeColorado.com, that takes you to the Colorado Department of Revenue.

One of the documents there describes the sales-tax nightmare in Colorado. If you're selling everything from a set location, you can figure out all of the relevant sales taxes, then charge all your customers the same tax rate. But if you're trying to ship items elsewhere in Colorado, matters are considerably more difficult.

Sellers are supposed to charge sales tax for all regions in common between the buyer and seller. I live in Westminster. Westminster spreads over two counties. Thus, several rates apply: Colorado, the RTD region, the football stadium region, the cultural tax region, the county tax, and the city tax. If I sell to somebody else in Westminster who lives in the other county, that's a different tax calculation. Here's a description of the RTD tax region:

The Regional Transportation District (RTD) levies a sales/use tax of 1.0% effective January 1, 2005. The RTD boundaries include the counties of Denver, Boulder, Broomfield (except certain areas immediately adjacent to I-25 and Highway 7 interchange), Jefferson, Adams (west of Box Elder Creek), Arapahoe (south of I-70 west of Picadilly Rd. to Jewell, then west of Gun Club Rd. to Quincy, then generally west of Monaghan Rd. including Arapahoe Park and Aurora Reservoir), and Douglas (northern portion plus Highlands Ranch), and parts of Weld County that have been annexed by the City of Longmont and the Town of Erie since 1994.

In the northern portion of Douglas County, the RTD boundaries consist of the city of Lone Tree (original Lone Tree), all annexed areas of Lone Tree, the Acres Green area, and the Park Meadows Mall (in unincorporated Douglas County and not in the city of Lone Tree).

You've got to be kidding me. In addition to all of the work of starting a new business, I now have to figure out which buyer does and which does not live the district described above. When I called the Department of Revenue to explain that this creates a logistical nightmare, the woman on the phone said, in essence, that's the way we do things around here.

I seriously considered two alternatives to starting this small-scale business, a venture that will probably lose me money for at least a couple of years. The first and most appealing alternative was simply to not start the business. Why spend so much effort and risk so much money only to put up with so many hours of bureaucratic hassle? It almost wasn't worth it to me. The second alternative I considered was to set up shop in a state with no sales tax. How many other small-scale operations have been shut down or driven out of state because of Colorado's tax hassle? And Colorado is considered to be relatively business-friendly!

As I've reviewed in the past, other things equal, people tend to move to states with more economic liberty. It should come as no surprise, then, that U.S. economic controls inspire some people to set up shop outside of the country. It's not that other countries are necessarily more free, but other regional attractions, coupled with increasingly stifling controls in America, can encourage some people to leave.

U.S. News reports:

...Matt Landau appears very much at home in Panama. One might even be tempted to call him an old hand were he not, at age 25, so confoundingly young. Part owner of this lovely boutique hotel in Panama City's historic Casco Viejo, he is also a travel writer (99 Things to Do in Costa Rica), a real estate marketing consultant, and editor of The Panama Report, an online news and opinion monthly. Between fielding occasional calls and text messages, the New Jersey native is explaining what drew him here, by way of Costa Rica, after he graduated from college in 2005. In addition to having great weather, pristine beaches, a rich melting-pot culture, a reliable infrastructure, and a clean-enough legal system, "what Panama is all about," he says, "is the chance to get into some kind of market first." ...

In his recent book Bad Money, political commentator Kevin Phillips warns that an unprecedented number of citizens, fed up with failed politics and a souring economy, have already departed for other countries, with even larger numbers planning to do so soon. ... [M]any... are entrepreneurs, teachers, or skilled knowledge workers in the globalized high-tech economy.

If American economic controls become more stifling, we'll lose more of those people who drive our prosperity. The possibility of getting "into some kind of market first" has little to do with the region and much to do with the economic controls of the region. It's not as though Americans have run out of markets: it's that high taxes and increasing controls have made getting into new markets more difficult or, in many cases, illegal.

Our "souring economy" is due to two main things: the housing crisis and high fuel costs. Notably, both of these problems were caused by politicians. Yaron Brook explains how politicians mucked up the housing market. High energy costs are the direct result of a decades-long campaign by environmentalists to shut down energy production and divert resources to "alternative" fuels such as corn gas (which has also increased food prices).

We still live in a vibrant and relatively strong economy, filled with opportunities. I love Colorado and I love the U.S. Still, the more politicians here trample economic liberty, the more free-spirited creators and producers will look elsewhere to fulfill their dreams.