Support Clear the Bench

A couple days ago I gave Clear the Bench Colorado a little hell for defending Amendment 54. I want to emphasize here that this is a minor disagreement with the organization (as the issue, while important, is only tangentially related to its activities), and I support Clear the Bench.

Moreover, I recognize that Matt Arnold took on the project on his own initiative, and he is preparing to work doggedly on this issue for many months. He faces a difficult and often thankless uphill battle.

We have the ability in Colorado to vote for judges' retention. Next year four of Colorado's Supreme Court justices face a retention vote. Because of their prejudicial decisions, they deserve to be thrown off the court by Colorado voters. Clear the Bench is working to educate voters in order to make that happen. If you support judicial integrity, support Clear the Bench.

(Also, while I'm praising organizations, I'll point out that the Independence Institute hosted the wonderfully inspiring Daniel Hannan and posted his talk in four parts. Hannan, an English parliamentarian, sounds more like an American than most American politicians.)

Aurora Republicans Host Top Candidates

Micah Marmaro, president of the Aurora Republican Forum, did an outstanding job gathering top Republican candidates and elected officials at a barbeque June 27 at General's Park. Here I'll review what they had to say -- which in some cases was surprisingly little. (I, on the other hand, said too much, but I'll review my talk in a subsequent post.) I'll intersperse my comments with related photographs.



While I have previously criticized Congressman Mike Coffman on grounds of economic and personal freedom, Coffman gave by far the best speech at the Aurora event.

Coffman, who served in Iraq, offered an overview of the situation there. He said, "I think there's going to be an uptick in violence as we pull out of the urban areas." He added, "I'm confident we can stay on schedule" with a "phased withdrawal." He worried that President Obama is "not committing adequate resources to the war" in Afghanistan, risking unnecessary casualties. He also complained about Democratic pressure to "reduce funding for missile defense."

Coffman attacked directly the Democratic argument that "cap-and-trade" energy restrictions will help the U.S. become energy independent. "The fact is that we're dependent on imported oil because they've done everything they can to block our ability to do energy development, to do drilling of natural gas and oil," Coffman said.

What cap-and-trade "will do," Coffman continued, "is it will drive up the cost of energy. What it will do is drive jobs outside the United States... What manufacturing base we have left in America will push over to China."

Coffman said the political pace in Washington, DC, "has been incredible" because "this president has an agenda that is very aggressive... It is not a president of the general election, it is a president of the primary. He is a liberal through and through... This is far-left stuff."

Coffman said that the rapid pace of legislation is cutting short Congressional debate as well as public scrutiny, "so right behind cap-and-trade... we will be debating health care reform, and right on the heels of that we'll be debating immigration reform" (where I imagine I align closer with Obama's policies than with Coffman's, given that I support an employer's right to hire willing workers). Coffman also said he expects to see another move to push "card check," empowering unions by wiping out secret ballots for unionization.

However, given the close vote for cap-and-trade, Coffman said "I think it will have a difficult time in the Senate."

Coffman complained also that the $787 billion "stimulus" bill got minimal Congressional review before passage.

On health care, Coffman called the "public option" a "bait and switch for socialized medicine," a "single-payer system" that "will continue to drive the deficit."

Coffman said, "We have a deficit this year of $1.7 trillion. We will have a deficit for as far as I can see, at about a trillion dollars and rising. That's unsustainable... It got so bad that the Chinese publicly stated that they were worried about the U.S economy" in terms of inflation and interest rates.

Answering a question, Coffman said, "It's truly a European-style welfare state that this president and Congressional leadership are seeing." He noted that various Europeans are trying to get of such systems.

Coffman said 2010 will be a referendum "that will define the direction of America. It will define whether or not we are a European-style welfare state. It will define whether America is simply a country of large labor organizations, big business like Chrysler and GM where government has a stake in them or ownership in them -- big government, big business, and big labor. Or are we a country based on individual rights and responsibility, and anybody being able to start a small business with that entrepreneurial effort."

I also respected Coffman's answer regarding bringing military jobs to Colorado: "I like the fact that defense dollars come to Colorado, as long as we're competitive for those defense dollars. I will not lift a finger to compromise the ability of our military by forcing them into Colorado. And so what I want to do... is make sure... that they have the right tools to succeed in Colorado."

Concluding, Coffman said the central choice is "whether we have a free market economy or whether we have an economy that's managed by the government for its own interests."

All day (aside from my speech), Coffman's discussion of individual rights and a free market economy was the clearest expression of a guiding political philosophy.



Shown above from left to right: Mike Morison (volunteer with Bob LeGare), Adam Eidelberg (volunteer for Dan Maes and Bruce Peterson), Andrew Goad (candidate for state house district 32), and Brian Cambell (candidate for the Seventh Congressional). (Thanks also to Micah for filling in some of these names.)



Bruce Peterson is running for Arapahoe county commissioner.



Loraine Buck, Ken Buck (candidate for U.S. Senate), and Micah Marmaro.



Check back -- more to come!

Clear the Censorship

I am utterly astounded that so many Colorado "conservatives" endorse censorship. Let's get this straight, friends: if you endorse censorship, you are an enemy of liberty. This is just not a negotiable issue.

Amendment 54, a campaign censorship law passed by (bare) majority last year, thankfully has been suspended by a Denver court. This is not a surprise, given the measure violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and contradicts Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, which states:

Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

This is hardly ambiguous text.

I was therefore surprised to read an article at Clear the Bench Colorado endorsing Amendment 54. The article reminds us that the measure "passed by a vote of the citizens of Colorado." So what? Since when do Republicans endorse pure democracy? The entire point of constitutional government is to protect individual rights from mob rule.

Here is the central argument from Clear the Bench:

Once again, a judge has acted on the behalf of special interest groups intent on "gaining favor and contracts from public officials" through political contributions -- "probably triggering a flood of campaign contributions" from those seeking to curry favor while the 'temporary injunction' remains in effect.

The same argument could apply to McCain-Feingold. Does Clear the Bench also endorse the federal censorship law and decry the Supreme Court's limitation of it?

The purpose of Amendment 54 (now part of Article 28 of the Colorado Constitution) is to prevent recipients of no-bid government contracts from contributing to campaigns. The reasoning behind the restriction is obvious enough: people who benefit from tax dollars ought not influence the spending of those tax dollars. But while that reasoning points to a legitimate problem, it does not justify censorship.

With governments at all levels spending so much money through forced wealth transfers -- about 45 percent of the total economy -- political pull is just the way things operate. The only real way to solve that problem is to cut government spending and restore a free market. Until that happens, campaign censorship laws only further violate our rights without addressing the fundamental problem.

At a less fundamental level, if there is a problem particularly with no-bid contracts, then the solution is to restrict or eliminate no-bid contracts (and open contracts to bidding).

If we were to extend the argument that people who receive government funds should be censored, that would apply also to every student who takes government-backed loans, every senior citizen who accepts Social Security or Medicare, every employee and contractor of the government, and so on. In other words, given today's mixed economy and high rate of government spending, the logical conclusion of Amendment 54 is near-universal censorship.

Amendment 54 is shockingly broad; its limitations extend far beyond any direct connection between a no-bid contract and related taxes. Consider the details:

* Amendment 54 prevents contractors, "for the duration of the contract and for two years thereafter," from contributing to any political party or state or local candidate. There need be absolutely no connection between the political race and the contract.

* A contractor cannot "induce by any means" a campaign contribution "on behalf of his or her immediate family member." An "immediate family member" is defined as "any spouse, child, spouse's child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, niece, nephew, guardian, or domestic partner." In other words, a contractor cannot seek to persuade these people that they ought to financially support any candidate. To be enforced, the measure requires thought police.

* The measure also prohibits campaigns from "intentionally" accepting funds proscribed by the measure. What is "intentional?" How is that proved? What this does is allow big-moneyed interests to go after candidates they don't like, discouraging potential candidates who can't afford a team of lawyers from running.

Amendment 54 is bad law. It is unjust law. It is unconstitutional law. It deserves to be thrown out.

Conservatives need to learn that the opposite of "judicial activism" is not mob rule. Judges play a legitimate role in protecting the rights of the individual from the whims of the majority.

It is a shame that Clear the Bench, which has undertaken a good and noble cause in advocating courts that uphold the rule of law, has muddied the waters by endorsing censorship. Let's hope that organization and conservatives more broadly correct that failing.

Electricity Rates Would Skyrocket

Listen to Barack Obama explain, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (Via Joshua Sharf.)

Save Justin's Health Insurance!

Save Justin's health insurance! The crew of the Independence Institute have produced a great, short video explaining one key problem with political controls of health insurance: they can outlaw low-cost, high-deductible insurance (such as my wife and I enjoy). Nice job, guys.

Reject Political Control of Health Care

The following article originally appeared in the June 24, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Reject political control of health care

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Medical decisions can be made by voluntary agreements among patients, doctors, and insurers. Or they can be made by politicians and their appointed bureaucrats. President Obama hopes for more of the latter.

While details remain sketchy, the centerpiece of Obama's plan is a "public" option, meaning that taxpayers would subsidize more health care, probably amounting to well over a trillion dollars over the coming decade.

Calling these forced wealth transfers "public" is misleading. Generally hospitals, doctors' offices, and insurance plans are already open to the public. Any member of the public is welcome to ask for these services and pay for them. But in Obamaland "public" means something different: it means that some members of the public can force other members of the public to help pay for their health care.

Recently Obama said that his "public" plan would "ensure coverage for people where the free market system fails." He said, "We've got to admit that the free market has not worked perfectly when it comes to health care."

The reason that the "free market has not worked perfectly" is that there is no free market in health care, nor has there been one for many decades, Obama's magnificent lie notwithstanding. The problems with American medicine arise from decades of political interference in medicine -- so of course Obama wants to expand such interference.

Between Medicare, Medicaid, and other tax-funded programs, government spends nearly half of all health-care dollars. In addition to driving up federal spending and threatening financial catastrophe in coming years, such programs increase health costs for everyone else by loading down doctors with paperwork and red tape, underpaying doctors, and artificially increasing the services demanded.

The federal government has entrenched employer-paid insurance through tax policy. Lose your job, lose your insurance. This especially screws people who develop medical conditions and then lose their jobs. Because of the tax incentives, such insurance also encourages people to run everything through insurance, which again drives up prices by increasing paperwork and decreasing the incentive to monitor costs. It would be like buying auto insurance that covers oil changes and tire rotations.

Among the many other political controls of medicine, both state and federal governments impose all kinds of insurance mandates, driving up insurance premiums and pricing many out of the market.

So, now that federal politicians have completely screwed up the private insurance market, they want to provide tax-funded insurance. How generous.

But Team Obama is clever. In further destroying the free market in medicine, Obama nevertheless adopts the rhetoric of capitalism. He said, "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down."

In the context of a free market, open competition indeed encourages companies to remain innovative and cost-conscious. But we are not talking about a free market here. We are talking about the federal government essentially knee-capping private insurance companies and then forcing people to pay protection money to finance the political plan. It is the "competition" of gangsters.

Obama dismisses as irrational "fear, that somehow once you have a public plan that government will take over the entire health care system."

Really? The logic behind the plan is to punish private insurance providers and tax-subsidize the "competition." Such a plan is just a back-door approach to eventually establishing "single-payer," meaning the federal government assumes responsibility for most medical payments. And he who pays the piper calls the tune. What the federal government finances, the federal government controls.

If you think we're stretching, watch the YouTube video, "The Public Plan Deception -- It's Not About Choice." In the past Obama professed support for single-payer. Earlier this year Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky said she agrees that "the public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer."

We agree that insurance companies play too great a role in our health decisions and fail to offer the best kinds of insurance. Again, this is strictly a result of federal interference in insurance, and the solution is to get politicians out of the insurance industry, not let them take it over completely.

Obama has also been clever in tying the political takeover of health financing to tort reform. Obama told doctors that, if they get on board, he will do something about "excessive defensive medicine," referring to the insane and unjust law suits often brought against doctors that raise costs for the rest of us.

But if the legal system needs reform -- and we agree it does -- that should be done for its own sake, not used as a club to force doctors into compliance.

Political interference in medicine caused the problems. You're crazy if you think more of the same will solve those problems. And you're putting the health, finances, and liberty of the rest of us at grave risk.

Health Policy on the Radio

I joined Bob Glass on his "Radio Free America" show on Tuesday evening. I appear about half way into the first hour.

To correct a minor mistake: I talked about a swimmer shackled with weights; that example actually came from economist Peter Boettke of George Mason. Here's the direct quote:

"If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in a pool and he sank, you wouldn't call it a 'failure of swimming'. So, when markets have been weighted down by inept and excessive regulation, why call this a 'failure of capitalism'?"

We spent much of the first hour talking about why health insurance is so often tied to employment. It has everything to do with federal tax manipulations. The result is that, if you lose your job, you lose your insurance (on such plans). Another result is that a lot of people develop medical conditions, then lose their job-tied insurance and have a hard time buying insurance elsewhere. To a large degree the federal government has destroyed the health insurance market.

I talk a bit about Health Savings Accounts, which allows people to use pre-tax money to pay for routine care and spend less on a high-deductible plan. I suggested that expanding HSAs would be a good reform moving in the direction of free markets.

The article I mentioned by Paul Hsieh, MD, and Lin Zinser, about political meddling in medicine, is available through The Objective Standard. See also the web page for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

In the second hour, we talked about how Obama is trying to steel the rhetoric of "competition" and apply it to his "public" plan, which is all about imposing force to drive out the legitimate competition of the free market.

We also got more philosophical, talking about why health care is not a right. Bob offered some particularly nice comments on that score. The upshot is that you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not to goods and services produced by others. A legitimate right does not entail any claim on the resources of others, nor does it permit the use of force to confiscate the wealth or labor of others.

Near the end we talked about Obama's claims that, under his plan, you'll continue to be able to choose your own doctors. I said, "That's like choosing your own bread line in the Soviet Union... You might be free to choose Doctor A or Doctor B. But what's going to happen with the political takeover of medicine is that the best doctors are simply going to leave the field. The best students are not going to go into medicine. We're going to be left with the people willing to kiss the backsides of Washington DC bureaucrats. Is that the kind of doctor you want taking care of your health?"

Featured in Money

Money magazine features a short write-up about Jennifer and me pertaining to our Health Savings Account. See page 80 of the July issue.

The upshot is that we pay $148 per month for health insurance (for the two of us) for a high-deductible plan, then use our HSA (which is pre-tax money) for all our health care.

I thought this was a good quote from me: "We are thinking all the time about how our behavior is affecting our health. We eat the right foods. We exercise."

And, by the way, I just scheduled a doctor's visit for myself (my wife sees a different doctor in the Fall) and dental visits for both of us.

The photo in the magazine shows us standing on the dam of Ketner Lake (reservoir actually) in Westminster.

Sotomayor Contributed to Mortgage Crisis

I continue my comments on Sonia Sotomayor today by pointing to an article about Sotomayor's role in the mortgage meltdown (thanks again to Jim Pfaff.)

John Carney writes:

Sonia Sotomayor... served on the board of a New York State agency charged with providing discounted mortgages to middle and low income homebuyers from 1987 to 1992. During the time, she was a consistent advocate of pushing the agency to provide more mortgages to low-income home buyers. In short, she advocated the kind of aggressive lending practices that helped create the mortgage meltdown. ...

The agency, which is called SONYMA, is a local version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It initially provided mortgage insurance to first time homebuyers, mostly on middle-income housing. It expanded into lower-income homebuyers and then into directly buying mortgages in an attempt to push down mortgage rates. During her time on the agency's board, Sotomayor was a consistent critic of its activities, according to this story in the New York Times. And her critique was always the same: not enough loans were being insured on homes for lower-income and minority buyers.

As Carney notes, while Sotomayor's participation preceded the major bubble, the sorts of policies she (and many others) advocated led directly to the mortgage crisis.

For a more complete account of how federal policies created the mortgage bubble and subsequent bust, read Thomas Sowell's The Housing Boom and Bust.

Twitter Feed

Readers may notice a new feature on this web page: a Twitter feed for links to Colorado news of interest to free-market activists. I'll also post a few links to national stories. I'm devoting my Twitter account exclusively to such posts. I've also started tagging my Twitter entries with a single all-caps word to help categorize the issue.

Follow me on Twitter!

Cuffy Geithner

I'm re-reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged right now, and this story sounds like it comes straight out of the novel:

Core Reforms Held Firm As Much Else Fell Away
In Triage Mode, Economic Team's Goal To Expand Fed's Power Trumped Others
By David Cho and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 18, 2009

... Fresh from meeting with Obama, [Treasury Secretary Timothy F.] Geithner asked the lobbyists what they were up to. When they explained they preferred that a council of regulators, rather than the central bank, safeguard the financial markets, Geithner silenced the discussion with a string of obscenities, according to people who were present.

"I don't believe in rule by committee," he said. ...

Apparently, in Geithner's world the only alternative to "rule by committee" is rule by a strong man.

Are you paying attention, friends?

Save the Flies!

Move over, whales. Chill out, penguins and polar bears. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a new campaign: save the flies.

Yes, the flies. As in, the maggot-laying, filthy flies.

No, this is not a story from the Onion. Apparently we're not getting punk'd. It's not April Fool's Day. PETA seriously wants to save the flies. Not the flies joyously buzzing about in the wild, the flies in your house. No joke.

During filming of an interview with Barack Obama on CNBC, a fly pestered the president. Obama said, and I quote, "Hey, get out of here." The interviewer said, "That's the most persistent fly I've ever seen." Then the fly landed on Obama's left hand, and Obama gave it good hard slap with his right hand, killing it, dead, dead, dead. The interviewer said (and again I quote directly), "Nice." Obama said, "Now, where were we? That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker... It's right there, you want to film that? There it is."

Why, the heartless bastard. See the travesty for yourself:



According to the Associated Press, "PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside."

If you think this is a joke, check out PETA's store, where you can purchase the contraption for a mere eight dollars.

As the AP reports, PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said, "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals. We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals... [S]watting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect, and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."

Okay. Let me just come out and say it. The PETA crew is insane. It is not "humane" to catch a fly and release it into the wild. It is stupid. It is pathetic. It is ridiculous. It is insulting to the humanity -- and the intelligence -- of actual people.

The reality is that Obama's swift, decisive action toward the fly ranks among his most impressive moments as president. If Obama would stand up to Ahmadinejad's Iran or North Korea with half the backbone that he stood up to that fly, I wouldn't worry nearly as much about the threat of nuclear warfare.

Kudos to Twitter

Google caved to Chinese censors. But Twitter is actively helping the Iranian protesters retain free speech.

As Fox reports:

Iranian Twitterers, many writing in English, posted photos of huge demonstrations and bloodied protesters throughout the weekend, detailing crackdowns on students at Tehran University and giving out proxy Web addresses that let users bypass the Islamic Republic's censors.

By Monday evening, it had become such a movement that Twitter postponed maintenance scheduled for the wee hours of the morning, California time -- midday Tuesday in Iran.

"Our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran," wrote Twitter co-founder Biz Stone in a blog posting.

"Tonight's planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran)," he added.

I have signed on to Facebook, but I've resisted Twitter. Obviously, I may have underestimated the importance of the service.

Sandstorm In Iran

With all the bad news at home, I was inspired to see a photo of mass demonstrations in Iran, posted by Fox.

There are also plenty photos of blood and fire. Police forces have brutalized many and killed some. So the news is also tragic and frightening.

And yet, people are marching, people are speaking out, and -- sometimes -- for the right reasons.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is doing as little as possible to support reform.

Obviously, the protests are much larger than the presidential elections in Iran. Yet Mir-Hossein Mousavi is better than the tyrant Ahmadinejad. For example, Mousavi wants privately owned media, rather than state-owned propaganda machines. He has his serious problems; for instance, he pledged to "not suspend uranium enrichment," and he says he does not recognize Israel. Yet he also says, "I also believe that the abolition of the religious police is possible."

So Iran is hardly on the brink of a resoundingly pro-liberty revolution. And this could end very, very badly; some speculate that Ahmadinejad left the country so that escalated violence "would not reflect on him."

Still, it's good to see that many Iranians have the heart for something better. What can ultimately save Iran is the same thing that can ultimately save the United States and the world: a philosophy of reason and individual rights.

Here's my favorite line from the protests: "Ahmadinejad called us dust, we showed him a sandstorm."

Say It Ain't So, Joe

I met Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher at the Sam Adams Alliance awards event April 18. My interview with him is available on YouTube. Joe struck me as a fun and friendly guy with some good leanings if a superficial understanding of individual rights.

I thought I was lobbing a softball when I asked him, "What do you see as the central proper purpose of the federal government? What is your basic message? What do the politicians go to Washington, DC to do?"

He began to complain about the "growth of government" under various presidents, then praised Teddy Roosevelt for nationalizing wilderness lands. I thought his answer on this point was basically wrong and that it lacked substance. But overall I thought he came across as a relatively well-informed and well-spoken "man from the street."

But then I heard about a couple of unfortunate comments he's made elsewhere, so of course I had to look them up.

In Christianity Today, where he argues that states should have the ability to ban abortion (which I regard as totally wrong and a violation of basic rights), he says of "queer" people (homosexuals): "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children." That's just straight-up bigotry.

(He added, "I would love to hear our leaders actually check with God before he does stuff.")

Elsewhere, Joe said, "Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot 'em. And there'd be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don't talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict." That's just stupid. You don't shoot people for criticizing the military. Hello, free speech?

What's interesting about this in the context of Colorado politics is that the Independence Institute again bumped Christopher Buckley, an Obama supporter, this time for the ATF party on June 20, in favor of Joe the Plumber. Buckley is the author of Thank You for Smoking, which, it seems to me, would have fit the theme of the event rather well. Meanwhile, it's unclear to me what anti-nanny credentials Joe the Plumber brings to the table. Being at times a politically-incorrect ass is hardly the same thing as fighting the nanny state.

Liberty in Religion and Medicine

Today's Denver Post published a letter from Kaye Fissinger titled, "Church and medicine." She argues that Catholic churches should not be able to practice "Catholic doctrine on birth control, sterilization and abortion."

Following is my online reply:

I advocate the separation of church and state. I also advocate freedom and individual rights -- a free market -- in medicine. Kaye Fissinger's position violates both ideals.

Women have the right to get an abortion -- from willing providers. Patients do not have the right to force hospitals or doctors to offer abortions -- or any procedure -- against their judgment.

Likewise, customers do not have the right to demand that any business provide some good or service. You have no right to require that a car dealer sell the truck you want to buy, or a grocer particular produce, or a book store a particular book. If you walked into a Marxist bookshop and demanded to purchase Ayn Rand, for instance, that would be a violation of the bookstore's right of free speech. You do, however, have every right not to shop at that store.

The ones who properly set policy at a hospital are its owners. If a church owns a hospital, the church properly decides policy there. The owners do owe potential patients full disclosure regarding their faith-based policies. I would choose to do business elsewhere.

Doctors who disagree are free to work elsewhere. If you work for a bookstore, you agree to sell the books the owners wish to sell. The principle is no different when it comes to medicine. If you wish to sell different books or perform different medical procedures, get a job someplace else.

Hospitals should not need to rely on "conscience clauses" to protect their rights of property and contract. Likewise, a bookstore owner who dislikes pornography or some other sort of publication should not have to pass some "conscience" test to abstain from selling such works. Yet the logical implication of Fissinger's view is that somebody should be able to walk into a Christian bookstore and demand a book praising abortion, atheism, Satanism, or whatever (or into an atheist bookstore and demand a copy of the Bible).

Fissinger's interpretation of the First Amendment is completely wrong. The First Amendment prohibits state establishment of religion. It does not guarantee lack of dominance of some doctrine. For example, 75 percent of Americans are Christian. The First Amendment does not require mass conversion to other religions in order to prevent Christian "dominance."

The fundamental problem in medicine is that there is no free market in health care. Governments spend more than half of all health-care dollars. Tax-funded hospitals, like tax-funded schools, should not be able to impose any faith-based practice. The solution to this problem is not to expand political control of hospitals, but to return to liberty in medicine.

Brook Addresses Virginia Republicans

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Center recently offered a keynote address for the 2009 Republican convention in Virginia.

If you are a Republican -- or if, like me, you hope for a Republican resurgence along proper ideals -- please listen to this speech. The future of your party -- and the future of our nation -- depends upon the kinds of ideas that Brook discusses.

If you are an advocate of liberty and individual rights, watch the speech from the perspective of how to craft an effective message.

Are You a Conservative or a Liberal?

The following article originally was published June 8, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

The recent Tea Party in Grand Junction arose in response to increasing government intervention in the economy. It was a spirited event, attended by old friends and people from all social and economic backgrounds.

The Western Slope Conservative Alliance held a follow-up rally, where the word "conservative" echoed through nearly every sentence. Unfortunately, nobody seemed to use the term with a common meaning.

What does it mean to be a conservative? Many of the same conservatives who claim to support free markets and liberty also endorse economic protectionism, censorship, welfare spending, corporate welfare, immigration restrictions, prohibitions of various substances and activities that violate nobody's rights, abortion bans, and so on.

Liberalism, one might think, has something to do with liberty. Yet today's liberals endorse political economic planning on a vast scale. They typically want to forcibly redistribute more wealth, impose controls on private property, and impose more "enlightened" forms of censorship.

Many of today's conservatives and liberals find common cause in the belief that politicians should largely control your life.

Economist and freedom fighter F. A. von Hayek said, "Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism..."

Russian immigrant Ayn Rand, known for her strong anti-socialist, anti- communist views, wondered, "What are the 'conservatives'? What is it that they are seeking to 'conserve'?" She wrote, "If the 'conservatives' do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone."

Yet smug liberals who mock "backward" conservatives have more than a thing or two to learn themselves. They could begin by reviewing Thomas Paine's discussions with Edmund Burke regarding the French Revolution, mob law, and the rule of the masses.

Self-proclaimed liberals might also review Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, with its emphasis on natural rights, free speech, and freedom of religion.

Hayek was as critical of liberals as he was of conservatives, writing that "'liberal' has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium."

Rand was yet more severe: "The majority of those who are loosely identified by the term 'liberals' are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to accept the full meaning of their goal; they want to keep all the advantages and effects of capitalism, while destroying the cause, and they want to establish statism without its necessary effects. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery."

Rand also wrote, "The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men."

Or, as a local friend (Roger) summarized, "If we cannot succinctly and accurately define what distinguishes a conservative from a liberal, the label is meaningless."

If you call yourself a conservative, what is it that you are trying to conserve? The massive welfare state built up in the 20th Century? A religious conception of law? The tradition of encroaching political power?

Or if you fancy yourself a liberal, are you trying to liberate bureaucrats to oversee our lives?

We suggest that conservatives busy themselves with conserving the founding principles of our nation, the ideals of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness free from political interference.

Likewise, liberals should liberate people to run their own lives and control their own resources, according to their own judgment, free from political controls.

In either case, the proper purpose of government may be summarized as the protection of individual rights, which in the economic sphere means the establishment of capitalism.

We appreciate the perspective of economist George Reisman, who argues, "To the extent that present conditions departed from [capitalism, its defenders] would be radicals in seeking to change present conditions. To the extent that conditions in the past had approximated laissez-faire capitalism, they would be reactionary in seeking to reestablish such conditions. To the extent that present conditions were consistent with laissez-faire capitalism, they would be conservative in seeking to preserve those conditions."

We really don't care whether you call yourself conservative or liberal. What we care about is whether you defend or undermine individual rights.

Sam Adams Alliance Awards Videos

I went to Chicago on April 18 to pick up an award from the Sam Adams Alliance. My speech is transcribed elsewhere.

I strongly encourage other liberty-oriented activists in Colorado (and around the nation) to check out the Sam Adams Alliance web page and think about entering the contest next year.

Now the Sam Adams Alliance has released a short YouTube video with highlights of the event.


The video of my speech, and the introduction by Paul Jacob, is also available:



The organization's YouTube page offers more videos of the event.

Judge Sotomayor's Relativism

While I usually write about regional issues here, today's national issues are so crucially important that I'll devote substantial space to the views of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated for the Supreme Court.

Empathy

First recall what President Obama offered in 2007 as a guideline for his nominee: "We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize -- the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Richard Epstein replies:

Rather than targeting his favorite groups, Obama should follow the most time-honored image of justice: the blind goddess, Iustitia, carrying the scales of justice.

Iustitia is not blind to the general principles of human nature. Rather her conception of blindness follows Aristotle's articulation of corrective justice in his Nicomachean ethics. In looking at a dispute between an injurer and an injured party, or between a creditor and debtor, the judge ignores personal features of the litigant that bear no relationship to the merits of the case.

In other words, it shouldn't matter whether you're rich or poor, black or white, or whatever: if you commit a crime, you deserve the same punishment as everybody else. If you are involved in a civil dispute, you deserve to have your rights protected. A judge's job is not to "empathize" with one party over the other, but to achieve justice, regardless of the individual characteristics of the parties.

'Gender and National Origins'

Before delving into some of Sotomayor's judicial opinions, we might look in more detail at her 2001 Berkeley speech, as reproduced by the New York Times.

Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture; she praised Olmos for "promoting equality and justice for all people." (I don't know what views Olmos actually endorsed.) Notice the "and:" equality and justice are two distinct goals. Sotomayor is not advocating equality under the law, the sort of impartiality that Iustitia represents. She is advocating equality as a goal above and beyond justice. But equality in the egalitarian sense and justice are contradictory goals.

One who has not earned wealth does not deserve a portion of it equal to the one who has earned it. The criminal is not equal in stature to his victim, nor does he deserve equal treatment. A person who strives to improve his character is not the moral equal of one who does not.

For a frightening look at what egalitarianism means in practice, see the preview for the film 2081, or read the short story by Kurt Vonnegut on which it is based. (My only complaint with the story is that it emphasizes physical differences, when the important issue is the greatness of mind and character that people can achieve by their own effort.) Or read Aristophanes's classic, "Assembly of Women."

Sotomayor is skeptical that "we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way."

On a positive note, she says her parents taught her "to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it." This signals that Sotomayor is not dedicated to strict egalitarianism, yet a pragmatic, partial egalitarianism remains troublesome.

Sotomayor devotes considerable space to outlining the advancement of women and minorities in the judicial system. Her entire analysis focuses on numbers, not attributes. She urges "Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country... to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system." In other words, racial equality -- i.e., quotas -- is for her a primary goal, not merely a coincidental consequence of promoting the most qualified people for the positions.

Sotomayor distinguishes her views from those of Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, which she summarizes:

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. ... While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.

Sotomayor views this as a quaint and unrealistic ideal: "Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases."

To rephrase, Sotomayor thinks it is usually not possible for judges to fully "transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law."

She continues, "And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

Sotomayor is confusing physical distinctions with equality under the law. Equality before the law does not imply that we ignore all differences between different people. Good judges need not give equal consideration to both males and females as potential romantic partners, for instance. Yet, when it comes to applying the law, it is precisely the setting aside of legally irrelevant differences that is the key to justice.

Sotomayor then considers two possible causes of racially "different perspectives." The first is a difference in "cultural experiences." No problem there. But the second is the "postulate" that "we have basic differences in logic and reasoning." In other words, Sotomayor seriously entertains the notion that logic is different for people of different skin colors.

And here Sotomayor entertains a blatantly racist doctrine. The notion that logic -- and therefore the truth -- is different depending on the color of your skin constitutes a vicious doctrine at odds with the view set out by the Declaration of Independence and echoed by Martin Luther King that all people are created equal in their essential humanity, which is their capacity to use their reasoning mind to discover the facts of reality.

Some people are better at reasoning than others, generally because they have worked harder at it, but reason is the most essentially human capacity that we all share, and in its fundamental functioning it is the same for everybody. It is in this sense that we are all created equal, and this is the foundation of our equality under the law (rather than in abilities or in wealth).

If different people have a different logic and a different truth, then universal standards of justice are impossible. Justice becomes merely the system that one group sets up and enforces over other groups, which have inherently different conceptions of justice. This explains Sotomayor's obsession with judicial racial quotas; the judicial system cannot be fair to different racial groups unless those racial groups share the authority.

Of course, often a lack of representation by some group in the legal system stems from entrenched bigotry against that group, and then the judicial makeup reflects that injustice. But the solution to this problem is to end the entrenched bigotry and promote people according to their individual merits in order to enforce the universal standards of justice. Sotomayor's approach promises only to replace one racist approach with another.

Sotomayor's views quickly collapse to personal subjectivism. If different races have different logics and different truths, then perhaps individuals within those groups also have different truths. Sotomayor continues that there is "not a feminist approach but many," though all of them "are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation" and will never be fully "solidified." Presumably the same analysis applies to race-based "logic."

Sotomayor agrees with Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard, who said "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives."

Sotomayor indeed praises the use of the judicial system to achieve egalitarian outcomes (with no noted consideration of individual rights), pointing out that "Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment." In other words, employers and employees must not be left free to agree to terms of labor; employers have no right to control their resources; the federal government must step in and decide what constitutes "equal" work, pay, and conditions.

Not only do different people have different "logics," by Sotomayor's account, they may have different inborn psychologies, too, leading to her most controversial lines:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

As has been noted, the following variation of Sotomayor's line would be roundly and correctly condemned as racist: "A wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life." Yet for some reason we are expected to give Sotomayor a pass, and indeed place her on the highest court in the land to decide fundamental law.

Sotomayor does grant that "others of different experiences or backgrounds are [capable] of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group." The notion that varied experience in the courts is a good thing is defensible and not racist. The problem is that Sotomayor blends this view with the racist view that different people have inborn and inherently different logics (and therefore truths), as well as psychological dispositions. It is true that our experiences help make us who we are. Yet people of all experiences can come to understand the facts of a particular case and evaluate those facts by universal standards of justice. Thus, what truly matters is not diversity of experience, but the self-generated qualifications of the individuals under consideration.

Sotomayor does not fully commit herself to the racist, relativist view that she sometimes adopts. Instead, she mixes this view with the suppositions of universal justice. She promises "constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives."

It is precisely this mixing of incompatible views that poses a problem. If Sotomayor consistently upheld the racist strains of her ideas, she would be dismissed by everyone and never would have progressed in the judicial system. The problem is that, by allowing herself room to judge based on race and gender, rather than on the universal standards of justice, she threatens to sometimes rewrite the law as she sees fit, based on her own prejudices.

Sotomayor recognizes that "there is always a danger embedded in relative morality." We should take her seriously on this point and hesitate to send an avowed moral relativist to the Supreme Court.

Didden v. Village of Port Chester

How does Sotomayor's judicial relativism play out in practice? Here I'll mention three cases reviewed by others.

Richard Epstein takes issue with Sotomayor's reasoning in Didden v. Village of Port Chester of 2006:

Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion--one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The "or else" was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation." ...

Justice Stevens wrote that the public deliberations over a comprehensive land use plan is what saved the condemnation of Ms. Kelo's home from constitutional attack. Just that element was missing in the Village of Port Chester fiasco.

United States v. Toner

Dave Kopel takes a look at Sotomayor's language in a Second Amendment case. The details are more complex than I want to review here (see Kopel's complete write-up), but the upshot is that Sotomayor held that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Kopel argues that this claim is without foundation, summarizing, "Judges Sotomayor, Pooler, and Katzman simply presumed--with no legal reasoning--that the right to arms is not a fundamental right."

Race-Based Promotions

Thomas Sowell summarizes a third case:

Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.

As is obvious from her own words and from her judicial decisions, Judge Sotomayor uses her race-based relativism as a pretext to promote her leftist agenda in court. We should expect her to continue that tactic if she rises to the Supreme Court.

Kim Pleasant: Whiner of the Day

I've decided to start issuing periodic "Whiner of the Day" awards. The first goes to Kim Pleasant, who shouted down Governor Bill Ritter yesterday. (I don't get many chances to defend Bill Ritter.)

Jessica Fender and Allison Sherry of the Denver Post recount the story:

About two dozen members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 crashed the Capitol gathering, standing watch in the back and shouting challenges to Ritter regarding his recent veto of House Bill 1170.

The bill would have made it easier for them to receive unemployment benefits if grocery-chain management locked them out of their work sites and potentially improved their standing in ongoing contract negotiations.

Ritter spoke to the protesters from the podium, saying "certainly my heart is with the people who have to put food on the table," but the state should not interfere with active labor disputes.

But his answers didn't satisfy Commerce City resident and Safe way worker Kim Pleasant, who shouted, "That is a lie! That is a lie!"

Ritter's veto of 1170 is one of the few things he's done right. If you're stupid enough to go on strike in the middle of a recession, when nearly one in ten people have lost their jobs and many more have taken pay cuts, the last thing you deserve is a tax subsidy for your stupidity. Just try to go on strike and see how much public sympathy you get.

The simple fact is that the typical job at the grocery store requires no special skills, training, or education. If you want a higher-paying job, then go back to school and work someplace else. But don't shout down the governor for protecting taxpayers (for once). At least wait till Ritter lies before calling him a liar.

So, Kim Pleasant, I'm pleased to name you the recipient of the first "Whiner of the Day" award. Please e-mail me your mailing address and I'll be happy to send you your award.

But don't take this as any indication that I'm pleased with Ritter's performance. While he did the right thing this one time, the general theme of his administration has been, "Screw the Taxpayer." Ritter has helped increase taxes or fees on vehicles, hospital visits, properties, sales, and so on.

As Fender and Sherry write, at the same event Ritter signed bills interfering in mortgages and offering more tax dollars for people not to work. Because, you know, during a recession we want to punish people who are working in order to incentivize others not to work.

I can hardly believe the incompetent and anti-freedom Republican Party left me no choice other than to vote for this sham of a governor.

Building Taxes: A Tale of Three Cities

Three different Colorado newspapers recently published stories about how three different cities are handling building taxes in this time of economic recession. The cities are Denver, Loveland, and Boulder.

The Denver Business Journal reports, "The city of Denver will offer free building permits through the first half of June for home-improvement projects as a way to encourage economy-boosting renovation work. ... Building-permit fees normally range from $20 to several thousand dollars, depending on the value of the project."

Did you get that? A building permit for a home-improvement project can cost you as much as several thousand dollars! The city is implicitly granting that these high fees (or taxes; the difference between those terms is increasingly meaningless) hurt economic development. For two weeks the city will stop screwing home owners. But what about the rest of the time?

Still, this is the best story from among our three cities.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan reports:

McWhinney, Loveland Commercial and other developers will ask the Loveland City Council on Tuesday for a 25 percent reduction of 10 permitting fees in hopes of stimulating building in the city.

The reduction would last 18 months and target the city's community expansion fees, commonly referred to as CEFs. The fees generate revenue for streets, parks, recreation, trails, open space, the public library, the museum, general government, fire protection and law enforcement, assistant city manager Rod Wensing said.

The CEFs together cost $11,339 for every residential building permit issued in the city of Loveland.

So Loveland may give home owners a slight break for a year and a half.

And Boulder? Surely the city is following suit and considering easing building taxes and fees? Of course not.

Boulder's Daily Camera blared the headline, "Taxes on new Boulder developments could skyrocket." The paper reports, "For more than a year, the council has been studying whether to replace the city's voter-approved excise tax structure with an impact-fee system that circumvents voter approval and raises the amounts charged on new development."

The new taxes would be used to fund government projects and "affordable housing." Because Boulder has made housing so expensive through its building controls that few can afford housing there. So obviously Boulder needs to charge higher taxes on housing in order to make it more affordable. During a recession. Huh.

The unsophisticated layperson unacquainted with higher Boulder logic might imagine that such taxes would make housing less affordable for some in order to give others a government handout.

It's the sort of plan that has given Boulder its national reputation.

DNA Bill: AP Ignores AP Report

On May 19, the Associated Press reported:

A Longmont man charged in the 1975 stabbing deaths of a Grand Junction mother and her daughter has been ordered to submit fingerprints, DNA and other identifying information as part of the police investigation into the case.

Mesa County District Judge Brian Flynn issued the order Friday for 64-year-old Jerry Nemnich. The order was made public on Monday.

Two days later, the Associated Press claimed, "Gov. Bill Ritter has signed a bill that would require anyone arrested for a felony to submit a DNA sample. ... Under the previous state law, only people who are convicted of crimes must submit DNA."

Apparently Associated Press writers neglect to read Associated Press news reports. It is obviously not the case that "under the previous state law, only people who are convicted of crimes must submit DNA." Under previous law, a judge could order DNA samples. You know, under the "due process" provision of the apparently superfluous Bill of Rights.

To date, nobody has seriously addressed my concern that the new law -- which I called "Bill 1984" for its Orwellian implications -- will encourage police and prosecutors to arrest and charge people just to get a look at their DNA.

That has not stopped Colorado Republicans from crowing about the new police-state law. On May 21, Owen Loftus issued a media release calling it a "GOP Bill," sponsored by Republicans Steve King and Scott Tipton. (Ritter is a Democrat and the former District Attorney for Denver.)

And State Senator Josh Penry, a leading potential candidate for governor, said in a separate release, "This is a big victory for the good guys. We know this bill will catch murderers, serial rapists and sexual predators who attack children. This legislation also underscores how members of both parties can come together to make Colorado safer -- and violent criminals, more accountable."

But what about the accountability of the police and prosecution, Josh? What about our fundamental rights to security of person and due process? What about the presumption of innocence?

When the police need not respect people's basic rights as they go about their job, that is not a "victory for the good guys." Instead, it blurs the line between good guys and bad, and it perverts the purpose of government from protecting rights to violating them.

This is an unpleasant reminder as to why I am not a Republican.

Bob Glass Returns to Colorado Radio

Bob Glass, a founding member of the Tyranny Response Team active a few years ago, is back in Colorado preparing to jolt the radio waves.

Glass, "coming out of a self-imposed exile from Idaho," begins his "Radio Free America" show on Monday, June 1, from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. The Monday-through-Friday show will broadcast on four different stations and stream on the internet. Tune in at KRCN 1060 Longmont, KKKK 1580 Colorado Springs, KVLE 610 Vail, KSKE 1450 Buena Vista, or at TheBigMoneyStation.com.

Glass, formerly publisher of The Partisan magazine, takes a decidedly pro-liberty, pro-free market stance on the issues. Often controversial (he once protested at Tom Mauser's house), Glass recently made the news protesting Ward Churchill in Boulder.

Glass, who grew up in the big city, promises to lace his show "with healthy doses of New York sarcasm." He seeks to "encourage people from all sides of the political and philosophical spectrum to call in with their ideas and opinions."

Glass reflects that he once "was the owner of Paladin Arms, in Longmont, arguably the most politically incorrect gun store that ever was." He is "now back on the Front Range ready to take the good fight to the airwaves," he says. "Tune in and be a part of it."

So Long, Free Market

Now it is perfectly normal for politicians and bureaucrats to determine the fate of businesses:

"An early start, deep political ties and important racing connections have given one of two competing Aurora racetrack proposals the inside track on millions of dollars in tax incentives crucial to getting either project off the ground."

Remember that a "tax incentive" for some means the same thing as screwing everybody else relatively harder. It seems likely that this particular race track may have won out without political interference, but, increasingly, we'll never know whether a business succeeded because it's a good business or because it's a politically connected one.

This business-by-tax-engineering is repulsive. (But not to its "bipartisan" supporters.)

WWII: 'Invasion Forces Headed for Japan'

The following article originally was published May 25, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

'Invasion forces headed for Japan'

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Theo Eversol, a long-time peach farmer from Palisade and grandfather to your younger author Ari, died in 2001. He used to say that he worked the three most dangerous jobs around: farming, mining, and soldiering. Theo served in the Pacific Rim of World War II, a war that within a generation nobody will personally remember. We remember it in the stories and legacies of those who served.

Theo's army career posed the greatest danger. One night Theo decided not to attend a movie. The building was hit by "daisy cutter" bombs, after which Theo searched the field for body parts.

Theo recorded his opinion about the use of atomic bombs to end WWII. After Theo's wife Ila died last year, Ari discovered a paper bag filled with copies of Yank Down Under and Yank Far East, Army publications for soldiers. On a page with a map of the Philippine Islands, Theo wrote, "Yank invasion forces headed for Japan in Sept. 1945. Thank God the bomb was dropped!"

Today President Obama wants "a world without nuclear weapons." We worry that the price for such a world would be America's military strength.

Theo actually heard a military leader rally the troops for a pending attack on Japan. We believe this took place on the northern most island of the Philippines; Theo wrote on the map, "Aug. 1945: We were at Luzon."

If the U.S. military had invaded Japan, chances are good that one or both of Ari's grandfathers would have been killed in battle. Instead, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9. Theo served on an occupation force, not an invasion force.

Theo used to tell his grandchildren, "War is barbaric," an absolute horror. Yet, he added, if the other guy starts it, sometimes you've got to finish it.

Notably, after the United States decisively won the war, the occupation forces turned to the task of restoring lawful order, not fighting terrorists as troops are doing now in the Middle East. Indeed, Theo and his friends were invited to tea by the father of a boy lost in the Japanese military. Today Japan is a good ally to the United States, whereas the Middle East seethes with hatred and violence.

The copies of the Yank magazines, "by the men, for the men in the service," offer a glimpse of military life during war. A cover dated June 23, 1944 features the story, "Noncoms Tell Replacements How To Stay Alive (Page 2)."

A cover dated November 24, 1944, features a photograph of Douglas MacArthur. After President Roosevelt ordered MacArthur to leave the Philippines for Australia in 1942, MacArthur said, "I came out of Bataan [a Philippine province] and I shall return." Yank Far East reports: "He Returned: Attack Day in the Liberation of the Philippines."

Some of you may know our local Sikhs. Corporal Ralph L. Boyce reported, "About 400 [Sikhs] were captured at Singapore and were kept there until May 1943, doing forced labor." One prisoner said, "They give us only handful of rice a day... We are very weak now." Boyce wrote, "[Corporal] Anup Singh closes his notebook [that recorded their imprisonment] and stands up. 'And yesterday we [66 of the captives] were freed.' He smiles, straightens his shoulders and adds, 'By the Americans!'"

We imagine that the news and photographs from the states kept the boys a little homesick. We wonder what Theo was doing as he read this report from March 24, 1944: "A heavy snow, reaching 8 inches in Denver, brightened prospects for a good winter-wheat crop. Gov. Vivian declared that the special session of the General Assembly would be confined to legislation amending the state ballot law to permit Coloradans in the armed services to vote. Twelve of the 14 members of the La Plata County Rationing Board quit because they said policies were dictated by the state OPA office."

The Army publications included entertainment news, but even that served as a reminder of the national scope of the war. One caption reads, "Frank Sinatra... and that old master Bing Crosby decided to bury the hatched as rivals for the swoon-croon vote, at least temporarily. They agreed to go into a duet together if someone would buy a $10,000 War Bond. And the buyer came through, at the Lakeside Golf Club in Hollywood."

Strikingly, the magazines kept a high spirit. Sprinkled among the stories of bloody battles and executions are silly jokes and "Yank pin-up girls." While Gene Tierney's swim suit is modest by today's standards, we imagine her photo gave the boys some reminder of the normal life they were trying to get back to.

On the back cover of a Yank Far East, Theo summarized his tour. Ten months state side. Eight months overseas in 1943, twelve months each for 1944 and 1945, and a month in 1946. Forty-three months of service. Many of us can only imagine. And say thanks.

Credit Controls Punish Responsible

The following article originally was published on May 24, 2009, by Colorado Daily.

Udall's credit controls punish the responsible

by Ari Armstrong

Didn't Sen. Mark Udall's mama ever teach him to read contracts before signing them?

If he had learned that lesson, he wouldn't impose new federal controls on credit cards -- controls that would punish the responsible and the poor in order to reward irresponsible whiners.

Nobody is forcing you to get a credit card. If you don't like the terms that a credit card offers, you are perfectly free to reject them.

Michael Riley writes in the Denver Post that Udall "hatched the idea in 2005 after watching a staff member's experience with a credit-card company that boosted his interest rate to 21 percent even though he had never missed a payment."

If you sign up for a credit card that tells you it will raise your rate whenever it wants, then why are you complaining when the company does exactly what it said it was going to do to you?

If you don't like the deal, then pay off the card and cancel it.

What if you're not able to pay off your card or transfer your balance elsewhere? If you can't handle your balance, then don't charge it in the first place.

The new controls will have two main effects. They will ensure that the young and the poor have less access to credit. And they will make it harder for responsible cardholders to negotiate good terms.

An Associated Press article summarizes the key provisions of the Senate bill. It would force credit card companies to lower rates even for people who miss payments, increasing rates for the rest of us.

It would require a "45 days notice before rates are increased," making it harder for credit cards to lower rates for others. It "requires anyone under 21 to prove that they can repay the money before being given a card," making it harder for young adults to build their credit.

Additional Federal Reserve controls would limit "excessive fees" charged to "people with bad credit," limiting their ability to rebuild credit.

For a few years, my wife and I got in over our heads and faced high balances and interest charges. We made a budget, controlled our spending and steadily paid off our debts. The more debt we paid off, the better the credit terms we could negotiate.

Today credit card companies pay us to use their cards. Our American Express card charges an insanely high interest rate on balances -- which is why we never carry a balance on that card. The card also pays cash back for purchases and offers free monthly interest when we pay in full.

We carry about $6,000 on a Chase MasterCard at guaranteed 0 percent interest forever (provided we make all our payments). Counting inflation, the credit card company effectively pays us to keep the balance.

Of course, if you bury high-interest charges beneath a no-interest balance, it's not such a good deal -- which is why we don't do that.

We worked hard to earn good credit terms, and now Udall wants to punish us to buy the votes of the whiner demographic.

Udall's scheme flows from one fundamental premise: You're just too stupid to live your own life without the "help" of federal politicians.

Unfortunately, those who push for political control over their lives would drag the rest of us down with them.


Ari Armstrong, a guest writer for the Independence Institute, is the author of "Values of Harry Potter" and the publisher of FreeColorado.com.

Reusable Bags Pose Health Risks

Recently I went in to the Whole Foods store at 92nd and Sheridan in Westminster. Upon checkout, the clerk informed me that the store no longer offered normal plastic bags. I had to take paper instead or buy one of the "reusable" bags. The clerk indicated that the policy was "for the environment," to which I responded something like, "Don't give me your pseudo-scientific environmentalist BS."

I have not been into a Whole Foods since. I proudly ask for plastic bags every time I go into Whole Foods's competitor, Sunflower. It turns out that when I go shopping at a grocery store, I'm there to buy food, not listen to some fact-challenged religious sermon.

As I reviewed in January, the Colorado legislature considered fining the use of plastic grocery bags. For the environment. Even though plastic bag crack-downs actually harm the environment (not that that's a primary reason to oppose the measure). Thankfully, the effort failed.

But it turns out that continually bagging up meats and unwashed vegetables in a "reusable," "environmentally friendly" bag makes it, like, all gross and stuff.

Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Center points to an article from the National Post titled, Back to plastic? Reusable grocery bags may cause food poisoning. The article reviews:

A microbiological study — a first in North America — of the popular, eco-friendly bags has uncovered some unsettling facts. Swab-testing by two independent laboratories found unacceptably high levels of bacterial, yeast, mold and coliform counts in the reusable bags.

"The main risk is food poisoning," Dr. Richard Summerbell, research director at Toronto-based Sporometrics and former chief of medical mycology for the Ontario Ministry of Health, stated in a news release. Dr. Summerbell evaluated the study results.

"But other significant risks include skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections," he stated.

The study found that 64% of the reusable bags tested were contaminated with some level of bacteria and close to 30% had elevated bacterial counts higher than what's considered safe for drinking water.

Further, 40% of the bags had yeast or mold, and some of the bags had an unacceptable presence of coliforms, faecal intestinal bacteria, when there should have been 0.

The solution? Wash the bag. But as Lockitch writes, "What about all the water and energy consumed by the washing machine, not to mention all the evil detergents and chemicals that get washed down the drain?! No, laundering the bags will still have an environmental impact–it will still leave a 'footprint.'"

Give me the plastic. And if you want to hassle me about it I can always double-bag it.

Public Health Plan Deception

Via Brian Schwartz: this short video demonstrates that, not only would Obama's health scheme lead to "single-payer" (i.e., politically-controlled) health care, but it is intended to to so:



Of course, these consequences, intended or not, do not automatically disqualify Obama's plan. To read why politically-controlled medicine is wrong and bad for our health, see Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Barter Versus Taxes

Kevin Simpson wrote up an article for the Denver Post, "Barter system booms in Colo." Simpson talked to a few people who have been trading goods and services directly, but I'm surprised that he didn't mention the tax ramifications.

I Googled "'tax income' barter," and the top hit is the following information from the Internal Revenue Service:

Topic 420 - Bartering Income

Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received.

Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X. Refer to Topic 308 for Amended Return information.

A barter exchange or barter club is any person or organization with members or clients that contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis.

The Internet has provided a medium for new growth in the bartering exchange industry. This growth prompts the following reminder: Barter exchanges are required to file Form 1099-B for all transactions unless certain exceptions are met. Refer to Barter Exchanges for additional information on this subject. If you are in a business or trade, you may be able to deduct certain costs you incurred to perform the work that was bartered. If you exchanged property or services through a barter exchange, you should receive a Form 1099-B (PDF), Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions. The IRS also will receive the same information.

Please refer to our Bartering page [see the original document for related links] for more information on bartering income and bartering exchanges.

And how many people bartering in Colorado are filling out the legally required forms and paying the legally required taxes? My guess is the percent is less than two.

In today's world, you can hardly do anything without being required to fill out a bunch of government forms and pay some bureaucrat or other protection money. There's nothing so simple, straightforward, or beneficial that bureaucrats can't turn it into a legal nightmare. The IRS's documentation reads like it comes out of the world of Brazil.

The IRS imagines that barterers are going to refer to Topic 308 so that they can fill out Form 1040X. Good luck with that.

"I hereby inform you under powers entrusted to me under Section 476 that Mr. Buttle, Archibald, residing at 412 North Tower, Shangri La Towers, has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries and that he is liable to certain financial obligations as specified in Council Order RB-stroke-C-Z-stroke-nine-O-seven-stroke-X."

California Tax Revolt

And here I had simply written off California as unsalvageable. Perhaps there is some hope for the Left Coast -- the People's Republic of California -- the state synonymous in Colorado politics with dysfunction -- after all. The Los Angeles Times laments:

The day after voters overwhelmingly rejected a plank of ballot measures intended to ease the state's financial woes, lawmakers awoke to a harsh reality: a projected $21.3-billion deficit and the prospect of another round of bitter negotiations...

"There's a certain point where you feel that it will be devastating to some people and so we tried not to make those cuts," said the governor, who last week outlined grim plans to cope with the deficit. "But now we have to, we have no other choice."

Come on, Ahnold, where's the Terminator when we need him? At least the Governator is looking to slash bureaucratic jobs and cut spending. But he wants to borrow $6 billion from "Washington" -- i.e., from tax payers from Colorado and the rest of the nation?

Hasta la vista, baby.

Armentano Versus Antitrust

Dominick Armentano has penned an op-ed against antitrust for the Christian Science Monitor, "The problem with Obama's antitrust plan."

He summarizes:

The free market does not need more strict antitrust policy; it needs simple protection from fraud. The problem is that, in the 119 years that antitrust laws have existed, there is little empirical evidence that "vigorous enforcement" of them can promote the interests of consumers... Indeed, antitrust history is riddled with silly theories and absurd cases that themselves have restricted and restrained free-market competition and hampered an efficient allocation of resources.

Read Armentano's brief history of antitrust laws -- particularly if you are one of those "conservatives" who thinks central economic planners should play a role here.

A competitive market means a free market, which means a world in which the unjust antitrust laws have been repealed.

No Property, No Freedom

I continue to enjoy Catherine Drinker Bowen's Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May to September 1787. Following are just a couple of intriguing passages:

Stephen Hopkins, arguing from Rhode Island against the proposed stamp tax in the year 1764, had announced that "they who have no property can have no freedom." The famed Massachusetts Circular Letter of 1768 had declared it "an essential, unalterable Right, in nature... ever held sacred and irrevocable... that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own." (page 71)

[Reflecting on George Washington's sentiments:] These meetings would determine whether America was to have a government which guaranteed life, liberty and property, or whether the country was to drift into anarchy, confusion and the dictation of "some aspiring demagogue." (page 77)

How far we have fallen.

Or, in the half-full interpretation, how great is our opportunity to renew our founding ideals!

Motorhome Diaries Guys Arrested!

Three guys are traveling the country in a motorhome to report on the liberty movement and support it. Jennifer and I met them and had a nice chat with them a few weeks ago in Denver at Liberty On the Rocks.

I was disturbed to hear this morning that they had been arrested in Mississippi. Now that they have been released from jail, they have recounted the details on their blog, "Jones County Sheriff’s Department Falsely Arrests MHD Crew."

This story makes me angry. These cops acted little better than common street thugs. Shame on the Jones Country Sheriff’s Department.

Notably, the officers in question abused these travelers' civil rights on the pretext of the drug war.

Memo to the police: your job is to protect individual rights, not violate them. Memo to legislators: when you empower the police with rights-violating laws and arbitrary powers, we end up with a police state. The fact that most of us (or at least most of us with obvious resource and the "right" skin color) never personally suffer such abuses should not blind us to the creeping police state unfolding before us.

PJ on Antitrust

Recently I argued briefly against the Obama administration's threat to beef up antitrust persecution.

Now Pajamas Media has offered an outstanding video, "Obama Administration Cracking Down On Monopolies." Both Terry Jones of Investor's Business Daily and Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute do a fantastic job summarizing the flaws and destruction of the antitrust laws. If you are one of those "conservatives" who advocates central political control of this economy in this area, it is past time for you to reevaluate your views.

The Nobility of Capitalism

Today the Denver Post published an attack on capitalism by Daniel W. Brickley of Littleton. Following is my reply:

Capitalism: The Only Moral System

I’ll untangle Brickley's many confusions. Capitalism protects people's right to live their own lives and interact voluntarily with others, by their own judgment, free from political controls. Capitalism means a system in which individuals rights to property and contract are consistently protected. In capitalism, the job of the government is to protect people from force and fraud.

To the degree that politicians interfere in the market, that is not capitalism, but its opposite. If "bribed governments" grant to some businesses political advantages to seize wealth by force or forcibly harm competitors, that is not "unregulated capitalism;" it is a market controlled to some degree by politicians.

Capitalism is regulated (made regular) first by a government that protects against force and fraud, and second by the independent judgment of individuals. If you don't like a company's products or services, don't buy them! If you think you can do better, you are free to try. But this is not the sort of "regulation" that the enemies of capitalism have in mind. Instead, they call on politicians to control the economy and violate people's rights.

Brickley is right about one thing: capitalism is incompatible with pure democracy. Capitalism protects individual rights. Pure democracy is mob rule, it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, it is 51 percent of the population enslaving the other 49 percent.

Brickley calls capitalism, the only system compatible with the reasoning mind of man, a "religion," and equates it with Soviet communism. This is pure projection. For the full justification of capitalism, see Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Capitalism is marked by men of drive and genius developing the goods and services -- the health care, the technology, the food, the housing, the cars -- we need to thrive. Their motive is to produce life-enhancing products and exchange them voluntarily with others for their personal gain. No motive could be more noble.

As for nastiness, we need look no further than Brickley's smear campaign against capitalism and capitalists.

Ari Armstrong
http://www.freecolorado.com/

Frazier Watch: Top Line

Those interested in Ryan Frazier's campaign for U.S. Senate should note that Frazier recently appeared on ABC's "Top Line" (via PPC). I like his calm demeanor on the show; it compliments his more fiery public speech at the April 15 Tea Party in Grand Junction.

Frazier took a brief moment to discuss his principles of fiscal responsibility and individual rights.

I can live with his answer on immigration: he said we should incentivize people to go home and then come back to work here legally.

I also like his message of "tolerance" toward gay couples, though I hasten to add that the proper attitude is not "tolerance" but open acceptance. ("Tolerance" implies putting up with something one has reason to dislike.) Tolerance here is a step forward for the GOP, however.

I'm not sure what Frazier means about expanding benefits to gay partners. If he's talking about equalizing government treatment, that's fine (though the problem is with the tax-funded benefits per se).

I think Frazier is doing what he needs to do: present himself as as a mature and reasonable guy ready to represent Colorado values of independence and liberty.

No Tax Funds for Religious Schools

David Card, "president of Escuela de Guadalupe, an independent Catholic, dual-language school in northwest Denver," made a series of astounding comments in an article for the Denver Post today.

Card argues that some religious schools "are effective in developing Colorado standards-based academic proficiency in subjects like math, reading and science, and in producing high school graduates." No doubt. But then Card adds, "Clearly, the state has an interest in this."

Clearly, Card has lost his faculties. The government's job is to protect people's rights, not dictate education policy for private schools. Many parents flee to private schools precisely to get away from political interference. Card would extend that interference to schools that are currently private.

Card argues that the state -- i.e., politicians -- should finance religious schools (presumably including his own). He pretends that politicians can force other Coloradans to finance only "non-sectarian efforts" by religious schools. The division is impossible. A religious school of necessity infuses its entire program with its ideological premises.

I left the following comments online:

"No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent." -- Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 4

Forcing a person to finance a religious institution, against his will, violates his freedom of conscience and right to property. Moreover, no conscientious religious school would willingly accept the political interference that inevitably follows political funding.

Antitrust Punishes Success

Devlin Barrett of the Associated Press performs a useful service in reporting the Obama administration's plans to expand antitrust enforcement. It would have been pleasant had Barrett bothered to quote a single critic.

The antitrust laws are a fraud. The premise behind them is that on a free market companies can reach unjust or unfair or economically damaging levels of economic success. But this is simply not the case. On a free market, customers can choose whether to buy a company's product, and others can choose to enter competition.

Instead, it is political power that creates harmful monopolies -- though such monopolies generally are exempt from antitrust enforcement.

Throughout the history of the laws, antitrust actions have been brought by less-successful competitors and governmental agents with an axe to grind to punish successful companies at the expense of consumers and economic health.

Companies targeted by antitrust action are characterized by skillful and efficient management and operations, economies of scale, and wildly successful products at competitive prices. Typical results of antitrust action are higher prices and less-useful products. (This is merely a summary; for details see The Abolition of Antitrust and The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust.)

As Barrett summarizes, the Obama administration claims "lax enforcement by the Bush administration contributed to the current economic troubles." But nowhere in the article is any support offered for that view. The fact is that lax antitrust enforcement had absolutely nothing to do with the modern economic crisis, which was instead caused by federal encouragement of risky loans and investments. Increased antitrust enforcement will only dampen economic recovery.

Barrett suggests that two companies at high risk of antitrust action are Intel and Google -- two companies that have been enormously successful because they provide enormously valuable goods and services. The idea that these companies should be politically punished because they are successful is grotesque. (I personally benefit enormously from both companies; for instance, I am using Intel processors and Google software to publish this blog post.)

Here is Barrett's most chilling line: "[Assistant Attorney General Christine] Varney said the Obama administration would try to follow the historic lessons of The Great Depression in pursuing antitrust cases even in a troubled economy."

The historic lessons of the Great Depression are that politicians hampered economic recovery by going on witch hunts against businesses and business leaders. The fact that the Obama administration sees the Great Depression as some sort of model is truly frightening.

Here is a telling passage from Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man (page 344):

[Robert] Jackson... had collected a set of specific instructions from Roosevelt... to define and prosecute antitrust violations, and, especially, to go after individuals. Sometimes -- when he knew the targets, or liked them -- Roosevelt suggested that Jackson soften. And always, Roosevelt took care not to harm those with special power to harm him. Learning from Jackson of a possible action against motion picture combines, Roosevelt said, "Do you really need to sue these men?" and asked that they be brought in for a talk. But other times he egged Jackson on.

This typifies what antitrust actions are all about -- arbitrary political power brought against the successful for the "crime" of success.