When it is moral to vote for an imperfect candidate

Imagine you have just fallen off a cliff.  Your fall is stopped by small ledge. You have a chance to survive but you cannot possibly do it alone. Various people become aware of your situation and want to help.  One of them has a good rope and the strength to pull you up, but he is a flawed person with sins in his past that repulse you.  The others who come to help are weak and don't have proper rescue gear.  One of the people even wants you to fall and is preparing to tumble a boulder down on you.  You have a family at home that needs you so you need to make decision.

In my view, it is immoral for you not to choose the rescuer that has the best chance of getting you out alive.

Of course I'm talking about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson and fringe candidates like Evan McMullin, the top contenders in the 2016 election to save America.  Clinton is the one preparing a boulder to toss on us: open borders, ruinous taxation, and disdain for the rule of law.  Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin have some good ideas but they don't have strong coalitions.  They can throw you some tooth floss, but they have no rope.  Trump has the coalition.  He has the rope and the strength to pull you up.  Imperfect as he is, he won't take you all the way home, but he'll get you up from the ledge.  And you'll have to keep an eye on him once your up.

When you understand the realities before us, picking a well-intentioned but ill-equipped rescuer, even if they have impeccable character, is suicidal.  If your choice negatively affects the livelihoods of others and the future of a nation, it is immoral.  This is not the time to indulge in self righteous protest votes.  It is not the time to indulge in wishful thinking about third parties.  It is time to get real and grab the only rope that can pull us to safety.

Under President Obama we were pushed off the cliff.  He initiated what is to be the eventual nationalization of the healthcare industry.  He has doubled the national debt with nothing to show for it.  The bubble economy continues and the recovery has been the weakest since the Depression.   Obama has instituted the precedent of governing like a dictator when it suits him.  As noted here, with the exception of Roosevelt, no president has justified his executive overreach by openly contending he was working around the law-making branch of government. Obama has divided the country more starkly along racial and class divisions.  These divisions are exploited to create a permanent class of people who depend on Democrats.  This is not a unifying effort.  This is an effort to balkanize and to buy votes.

Point of No Return
Enough voters expect benefits from Democrats that it may already be impossible to reform the country.   As of 2013, 35% of tax filers pay no federal tax.  12 million residents (4% of the population) are not here legally and have formed ties with sympathetic voters who believe Democrats will reward these folks .  35% of Americans receive federal welfare benefits.  When you include all federal programs, we have reached the point where over 50% of voters rely on the federal government for their welfare.    Talks of reform naturally scares those voters.  This is why we may already be doomed to collapse.  We simply don't have any more time.  We don't have the luxury of four or eight more years of Obama's policies under a Clinton presidency.

Rigged Election
Donald Trump is not the "evil" choice that I keep hearing so much about.  I just saw him stick his neck out for the unborn on National TV.  It isn't popular to challenge abortion, but he did.  He stuck is neck out to defend the Constitution, the American worker, and people of every race.  He dares call out radical Islam.  He dares to reform immigration.  He dares to be politically incorrect.  There is good in this flawed man.

Oh, I don't doubt that he may have been a philanderer.  But I'm voting for someone to save my country, not teach my Sunday School class.  I tried to get the ideal man (Ted Cruz) during the primary.  But to my chagrin, my coalition chose Trump.  As his wife said, Trump is "raw".  He is not my kind of role model in terms of demeanor.  But by the same token, his unconventional demeanor is what many voters wanted after so much political dishonesty and correctness of the years.

Accusations and video tapes have surfaced with impeccable timing.  Four weeks left before voting, and suddenly we are hearing about all kinds of supposed misdeeds that occurred decades ago.  If the media was not in the tank for Hillary, we would have heard all of this back in February when Trump was running in the primaries.  Trump got all of free coverage in those days because the media saw him as the weakest candidate against Hillary.   Meanwhile the ammunition to take him down lay dormant until the strategic moment.  The news is now 24/7 about anything salacious regarding Trump.  Meanwhile, the coverage about Hillary's corruption is downplayed.

Don't let the media use your morality against you to get their much more corrupt candidate elected.

Number one rule of Politics
If you want to succeed in real estate, they always say, "location, location, location!".  Similarly, there is only one way to succeed in politics:  coalition, coalition, coalition!  Protest votes and third parties will only bring failure.

Third Parties

Third Parties
The last time we had a new party win a national election was in 1860 when Republican Abraham Lincoln won.  Examine the following conditions and see if any of them apply today:

1. In 1860 the Democratic Party was deeply fractured.  It actually split into two conventions and nominated two different candidates.  Had they been united (as today's Democratic party is) Lincoln would have lost.
2. The Republican Party was made possible by the disintegration of the Whig Party after 1852.  The Whig Party was divided over slavery and could not survive the the turmoil over slavery.  Today's Republican Party has inept leadership, but it has no deep philosophical rift to break it up.  
3. It took 8 years for ex-Whigs, ex-Democrats and ex-Free Soilers to coalesce around the new Republican party.  The Republican party, having not yet built up a strong coalition, soundly lost the 1856 election.

The conditions for a third party to not exist today.  Also, in a first-one-past-the-post voting system such as our, it is a mathematical certainty that we'll always have just two major parties.  The only way to have persistent third parties is to have a parliamentary voting system or something like approval voting.  So any talk of a third party in the current system is just wishful thinking.  

Please Support Donald Trump

Nobody was more troubled then I was when it became apparent that Donald Trump would become the standard bearer for the Republican Party.  I was sure the country was finally ready for true principled leadership.  The Republicans fielded  several very good candidates.  But with so many candidates, it was easy for the media to elevate the one candidate who grabbed headlines for the wrong reasons. Trump was able to hijack the anti-establishment wave of sentiment and ride it to victory.

Trump helped squander the Republican debates by turning them into personality matches.   He unfairly attacked my chosen candidate, Ted Cruz.  Yes, Trump brought new faces to Republican ranks.  But he also polarized them.  Never-Trumpers have said that Trump will validate every false charge Democrats like to make about conservatives: that they are bigoted racists that favor big business.  Ben Shapiro stated that America is going toward a cliff like Thelma and Louise. He says a Hillary presidency is like flooring the gas pedal, but a Trump presidency is like yanking out the reverse handle.

So here is where I come down.  We need Trump because he is the best we have.   Our very own Constitution is an example of compromise.  Many of the framers of the Constitution would like to have outlawed slavery from day one.  But if they had stuck rigidly to those principles, the Constitution would have failed.  There is a place for pragmatism in government.  The 3/5 compromise, for example, was an imperfect solution to an intractable problem.  In the end, these compromises created the Union and allowed so much good to come to pass...including the eventual abolition of slavery.  So, should we abandon principles at the first sign of conflict?  Of course not.  The fight never ends, but at certain junctures the ideal choice is not on the table.  When that occurs, it is folly to behave otherwise.

So we know Trump is flawed.  But I call on all Americans to recognize that Hillary Clinton is much more flawed.  Dinesh D'Souza exposes the undeniable truth of this in his latest book Stealing America.  If she were a Republican, Clinton would already have been indicted and most probably convicted of selling influence and compromising national security.  Her inspiration comes from radicals such as Saul Alinksy who delight in creating unrest for political gain.  Her entire adult life has been a play for power and she'll say or do anything to get it.

Not only is her character flawed, but so is her platform.   Hillary's platform is entirely based on an attempt to forcibly correct every injustice real or perceived.  Her power, and the power of Democrats in general, comes from grievance groups.  The more grievances, the more  power.  Democratic initiatives eat at the edges of problems, but at the core, they perpetuate the problems or create different problems.  Notice how after gay marriage, the grievance mongering has now shifted to trans-gendered people.   Or take the minimum wage laws (AKA laws that make it illegal for workers to sell their labor if it isn't productive enough).  These laws increase unemployment and make it harder for new workers to get a start.  For Democrats the minimum wage will never be enough.  After it gets to 15, the battle will be for 20.  The knobs will never be perfect, and so this becomes a perpetual grievance machine.  As proof that Democratic policies perpetuate or worsen problems just look at the finances of Democratic states or the living conditions is many Democratic cities.  Democrats run 9 out of 10 of the most crime ridden cities of the U.S.  Democrats need poverty, racism, and discord in order to get votes.  As D'Souza demonstrates, Democrats need to keep people "on the plantation" every bit as much today as they did during the years of slavery.  Today's plantation is the inner city.  Today's underclass needs more self-worth, a stronger family life, and jobs.  Democratic policies diminish all three.

Back to Trump.  His platform is actually quite awesome.  I don't know how much of it he would actually deliver on, but if he only accomplished 30% of what he says, we'll see amazing results.  A quick run-down on the best of Trump:  1) Lowering tax rates on American business and  simplifying the tax code. 2) Replacing Obamacare with fully deductible transparent health insurance that does not have to be tied to your employer. 3) Enforcing immigration law. (Note: it is pro-immigrant when we treat all immigrants fairly under the law...it is a dishonest and lowbrow tactic  to claim that border enforcement is racist.) 4) Trade reform.  I'm a free trade guy.  But, I concede that China could be a better trading partner.  5) Judges.  The Constitution is doomed if Hillary puts another Ginsburg on the bench.  6)  Check it your self. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/

Would Trump drop these promises after being elected?  Sure he might.  But, I agree with Dinesh D'Sousa, we may not know for sure what a Trump Presidency will look like.  But we DO know what a Hillary presidency looks like.  I'll take uncertain success over certain doom any day.

Would I put all these great solutions at risk by being preoccupied with Donald Trump's abrasive personality?  Donald Trump is at times a jerk.  But, I must confess that I too am at times a jerk.  I have lapsed into thoughtless remarks and insensitivity.   I like to believe that I am a good person.  If I can be a jerk but ultimately a good person, so can Donald Trump.

All big social causes were won when people with different back grounds banded together to make change.  The word for that is coalition.  A Trump win does not tarnish my classical liberal conservative beliefs as long as I fight for them with equal zeal regardless of who is in the White House.  And I will.  We fought the good fight for the purest form of our cause during the primary season.  That is over, and if we can't join the coalition, we all lose.

Bernie Sanders' socialism would be a disaster for everyone

With the rise of Bernie Sanders as a serious contender for president, it is evident that many Americans are turning to socialism as the solution to our problems.  It is amazing how quickly the lessons of history are forgotten. These Americans should know that socialism has already been tried, and hundreds of millions of people suffered because of it.  The Soviet Union, China, India, and even the United States have already tried socialism in different forms.  Each and every time scarce resources were removed from free market based allocation, the standard of living significantly lagged or regressed compared to free economies.  In some cases, mass starvation resulted.

Bernie Sanders has self-identified as a democratic socialist. According to the constitution of the Democratic Socialists of America, the goal of socialism is to remove profit and loss as a mechanism for allocating resources. Instead, they would place bureaucrats in charge of most resources and production.  This is supposed to be okay because the bureaucrats are controlled by democratically elected officials. This, they believe, means that the people control the economy.

The problem with socialism is simple.  It removes true pricing as a means of transmitting information about how to allocate scarce resources.  Socialists want to shoot the messenger that tells them that something is scarce.  Socialists would eliminate profit.  Profit (and loss) is the price signal that indicates that capital has been put to good use.  Socialists want to provide “free” health care, extra time off, and college tuition.  Making things free hides the fact that these resources are scarce.  Lastly, socialists would eliminate wage disparity.  Wages are the signal of how productive labor is.  In all three cases I mentioned, the socialist economy will destroy, hide, or distort information about the reality that underlies the economy.  When society’s behavior doesn’t match reality, people suffer.

China, under Mao Zedong, adopted a completely socialized economy.  All production was governed by “the people” through government officials. In 1958 he instituted the “Great Leap Forward.” This was an ambitious plan to overtake western economies in industrial output.  Having eliminated the evils of capitalism (market driven pricing and allocation) Mao could realize the dream of socialist superiority.  Farmers were forced to give up private property and organize into communes.  Inefficient production methods were implemented by uninformed officials.  Planners mandated initiatives such as “backyard furnaces” for steel production, controversial agricultural techniques, and ill-planned irrigation projects.  The goal was utopian plenty for all, the result was economic devastation and the deadliest famine in history with a death toll of around 30 million. 

Democratic socialists are quick to distance themselves from communist failures such as these because they reject totalitarianism.  Yes, there are differences between communists and socialists in how power is maintained, but they have the same economic strategy: replacing market pricing with central planners.  The story of China’s economic successes over the last several decades has been the story of liberalization and the adoption of free market principles.

India, too, has tried socialism.  The Indian Constitution says India is a "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic".  From the time of independence in 1947 until 1991 Indians lived under a system that has been called the License Raj.  This was a system of heavy handed control of the economy by government bureaucrats.  What resulted was half a century of stagnation.  When India abandoned central planning in 1991 it became one of the world's fastest growing economies.  The average growth rate jumped from 2% to 6%.  As Thomas Sowell put it, "The cumulative effect of growing three times as fast as before was that millions of Indians rose out of poverty".

Prior to liberalization, the Indian consumer would wait months, sometimes years to buy a car such as the Hindustan Ambassador...a copy of the British Morris Oxford which remained virtually unchanged for 40 years.  In state-owned banks, costumers would wait in lines that stretched out the door.  Indian business owners were saddled with so much red tape that it was easier to open new factories in foreign countries despite greater labor costs.  A poignant example of Indian socialism is this story about price controls: Poor in India Starve as Surplus Wheat Rots. 

Probably the most famous example of socialism is that of the Soviet Union.  In order to compare the USSR with Bernie Sander's ideal government, we must overlook the worst of communist oppression which is clearly not the goal of democratic socialists.  So, I will overlook the millions of deaths caused under Stalin and focus on the years afterwards.  The soviet economy was completely planned.  Everyone had a job.  Zero unemployment.  It sounds great until you realize that prices were not reflecting the reality of scarcity.  Everything was rationed by waiting in queues.  Quality and choice suffered.  Black and grey markets supplied people with services that the official economy could not provide.

Waste and inefficiency was rampant.  In Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell describes how Soviet planners mistakenly set too high a price on moleskins with the result that surplus pelts rotted in warehouses before they could be processed.  The planners ignored requests to lower the price for moleskins because they were too busy regulating another 24 million prices.  Socialism replaces distributed decision making (also known as liberty) with top-down control.  This control led to inefficiency across the board.  State operated farms were very inefficient.  Though only 3% of arable land was operated privately in 1980, that land was over 1000% more productive than state run farms.  As another example, Soviet Industry used more electricity than American industries while producing less.  Eventually the inefficiencies grew unbearable and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. 

Many people do not realize that the United States is also greatly influenced by socialism.  We have numerous examples of state planning interfering with a free allocation of resources.  A wave of government activism in the economy began with Woodrow Wilson when he signed the Federal Reserve Act.  The Federal Reserve System was one of the causes of the Great Depression.  The depression then led to an alphabet soup of programs, most of which ended up increasing the severity and lengthening the duration of the depression (See Burton Folsom's book New Deal Or Raw Deal).  Nixon used price controls.  Lyndon Johnson waged an unsuccessful war on poverty.  Laws intended to promote home ownership caused the housing boom, and later bust.  Government red tape of the last decade has led to a slow recovery.  We have too-big-to-fail businesses protected by government.  All the elements we have seen in India, China, and the Soviet Union exist in the United States to some degree.  The problems of a shrinking middle class, rising health care costs, and high college tuition are the result of socialistic intervention.  It is appalling that Bernie Sander's would prescribe more socialism as the antidote to the problems caused by socialism.

Bernie Sander's has said "I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway".  These are his ideal examples of democratic socialism.  He fails to understand that we are already like those countries.  Scandinavian countries rate closely with the United States in the Index of Economic Freedom.  The scores of the U.S. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway for 2016 are 75.4, 75.3, 72.0, and 70.8 respectively.   Where they may have high taxation, they make up for it with more business freedom and less corruption.  The United States federal government spends about 40% of GDP per year, much of it on social programs. When you take into account our debt, corporate taxes, and the hidden tax of inflation, our tax rates aren't that different than Scandinavia.  That is socialism.  Couldn't some of our problems be the result of the socialism we already have?  And couldn't some of Scandinavia's success be due to the free market capitalism they have?  The answer is yes and yes.  Just like India, recent economic success there is also the result of market liberalization.   

Free market based allocation of resources has been proven to be the most efficient and equitable method over the long term.  It is also more democratic than “democratic” socialism.  People voting for public officials are voting for a package deal taking the bad with the good.  Voters are also engaging in speculation since they are voting for unrealized promises.  And they cannot change their votes during long intervals between elections.  Thomas Sowell explains that in a free market, consumers make their choices every day. “A person and can buy one company’s milk and another company’s cheese…then they can change their minds a day or a week later and make wholly different choices.”  Nothing forces entrenched powers to kneel to the will of the people better than the great voting machine known as the Free Market.  

In short, socialists such as Bernie Sanders would destroy both of the things they claim to care about: democracy and prosperity.

The Threat of Excessive Sameness

This summer I have been touring the southern United States.  I have been in the valley of the Rio Grande, the bayous of Louisiana, the forests of Mississippi, and the reefs of Florida.   I marvel at the diverse landscapes and people.  I have tasted Cajun crawfish, New Orleans pralines, and Florida key lime ice cream.  I have experienced Hispanic culture in Miami and African American hospitality in Georgia.  I have seen people of different stripes.  Some excel in science, some have a love of history, some have faith, some have unique talent.

I like diversity.  I like places with different geography, cultures of all types, and people of all races.  I love the uniqueness of the different regions of our country.  I'm glad that we have distributed government that helps protect this diversity.

It is great that the world is smaller than ever with our modern communications and transportation systems.  We can experience diversity more easily than ever.  But this is a double edged sword.  We can contaminate people, places, and cultures more easily than ever too. There is a worrisome trend toward sameness.  Whenever I got outside of the historic districts, I was presented with the same gas stations, the same department stores, and the same food.  I am as guilty as anyone at patronizing multinational establishments.  When I walked into Walmart last week near Cape Canaveral, Florida, I felt like I was transported instantly to the Walmart back home in Colorado.

I am worried that we are nationalizing too much.   I was always on the lookout for interesting local foods and snacks at gas stations. But the offerings were exactly the same all across the country.  It is convenient to drive into a McDonald's and not have to worry about unknowns in price, food style, and service levels.  When you shop local establishments you risk being inconvenienced by the unexpected.  But that is what makes life interesting.

It isn't just the chain stores that introduce sameness.  Our ecosystems are being damaged by invasive species.  World travel has enabled people to bring with them exotic plants and animals that threaten local wildlife. Zebra mussels have invaded Texas, Asian hydrilla is clogging Louisiana bayous, and Burmese pythons have destroyed a large percentage of the fauna living in the Florida Everglades. This writer for the Tulane/Xavier Center for Bio-environmental Research also agrees:

 The phenomenal diffusion of species in new environments has many ecologists contemplating the possibility of a "global McEcosystem." Just as franchised fast food has homogenized local cuisines, species introduction may homogenize the world’s biodiversity.  (http://is.cbr.tulane.edu/InvasiveSpecies.html accessed 7/12/2015)

I also worry about cultural sameness.  When I was in the Acadian region of Louisiana, I didn't hear much French.  When I was in Georgia and South Carolina, I didn't hear as much southern drawl as I would have expected.  It could possibly be that I have spent too much time in the tourist areas.  Tourist sites attract people from all over.  When I went to a local ice cream shop near Charleston, the servers had a Scandinavian accent.  When I went to a fruit stand in Florida, it was run by Guatemalans.  I think the concept of "local" is being blurred.  At least I have heard a healthy dose of "ya'all".  I love that idiom.

Lastly, I worry about social and political sameness.  A few weeks ago the Supreme Court removed two more forms of regional distinctness: health care and marriage law.  We are fast going down the path of having a national identity that doesn't allow for regional variety in anything but the historical monuments (and even those are under attack**).  The Supreme court swept away the ability for state governments to reflect regional differences in civil law with respect to homosexual parternerships.  Marriage law was written by the supreme court.  This would make sense if the issue at hand was an inalienable right.  Like driving, hunting, or getting a college degree, marriage is a right conferred by authorities based on a charter decided upon by the people.  But now one-size-fits-all social and medical institutions are being laid down.  It's McDonalds, McEcosystem, and McMorality.  What is next?  Will SCOTUS decide that all states must have uniform laws with respect to gambling and prostitution?  Excessive sameness was not the design of our federal system.

The globalization of everything is a tide that probably cannot be turned back.  Europeans destroyed the way of life of the American native peoples.  Change and  homogenization is a fact of life.  But we shouldn't give up on distinctiveness.  I'm glad there are those that fight to preserve cultures.  Just as we can fight the invasive species and other damage to our ecosystem, we can hold the destructive forces at bay and, with effort, preserve some of the diversity we hold dear.


**After reading about the removal of the Confederate Flag from being flown at the South Carolina State capitol, I came to agree with the removal due to the special circumstances here. But there is no reason to erase every vestige of that history...the Confederate South was not an evil empire as modern revisionists are trying to portray.   It was misguided...but so have many governments been.  I see a lot of goodness in those people and I celebrate their sacrifices as much anyone else's.

Obama's Immigration Action: The right ends but the wrong means

I watched President Obama's immigration speech today and found myself in almost 100% agreement with the ends that he wants to achieve.  We do need to normalize what has become a black labor market.  It hurts our society to have millions of people living in the shadows.  We do benefit from the enthusiasm of energetic immigrants.  We have to accept that the border failures of the past are water over the bridge and that we are never going to deport 10 million illegal immigrants. The President's goal to end the shadow labor economy is justifiable and honorable.

But the ends do not always justify the means.  President Obama's action creates a new precedent that the executive branch can write law unilaterally.  He violates the separation of powers.  He damages the Constitution.  The Constitution is the instrument that made the United States the kind of place that immigrants would want to come to.  Thus, the President achieves certain "ends" at very high cost.  Very few circumstances justify undermining our Constitution.  It is a sad day when our president breaks the oath he took to defend the Constitution of the United States by defying the very law it sets forth.  The President's plan is to create his own path to normalization. It would create precedents that Congress would have to deal with.  He is increasing the emphasis on "anchor babies" as the way to get into the U.S.  He is choosing who gets lenient treatment and how. This is the purview of Congress, not the President.

The president is also not being forthright about the legitimate concerns that have prevented bipartisan legislation from being passed during his term.  They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  If we do nothing substantive about how we patrol our borders, we'll just have another 10 million illegal immigrants 5 years from now.  We need major border security initiatives to accompany major changes in legal status.   As Charles Krauthammer said, Americans want to embrace hard-working illegal immigrants--as long as we know that "this is the last cohort" who will come in illegally.

A nation without borders is not a nation.  When Rome ceased to defend its borders, it fell.  When the native Americans allowed Europeans to overrun them, their nations were marginalized.  Borders matter.  Period.

I know it is hard to believe, but bipartisan solutions do in fact exist.  They take time, energy, and humility.  Humility is not an attribute I have seen in President Obama.  We need leadership, not gamesmanship.  And whatever we do, The Constitution DOES matter.

Thoughts from F.A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom

I recently read "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek, first published in 1944.  I really liked the book.  Hayek has great insight into human nature and social organization. The main theme of his book is that an overly powerful state will eventually make its citizen's slaves to a set of values chosen by the bureaucratic elite.  Nazi Germany is exhibit A.  Hayek grew up in Austria and knew the history of Germany's socialism first hand.  He shows that  Germany's National Socialism was the natural conclusion to the expanding power of the state promoted by earlier socialists.

Hayek also provides a history lesson of the term "liberalism".  Because the United States began its existence based on liberal ideas of freedom and self government, the word  "conservative" has taken on a strange meaning for Americans.  To be conservative in the U.S. is to uphold that original liberalism.  Hayek, being from Europe, where the liberal ideas never reached their fullest expression, was striving for that liberalism.  Hayek took issue with the fact that in America, statism (the movement to increase the influence of the state) was mischaracterized as liberalism. (Hayek later wrote this 1960 essay: Why I am not a Conservative, an interesting look at political brand names.)

I'd like to share some of my favorite passages from the book. Hayek was inspired by Tocqueville.  He uses this quote early in the book:

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.  But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality of liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." (Ch 2, Pg 77)

Hayek noticed that socialists took the liberal idea of freedom and corrupted it into the idea of "freedom from want".   He said:

"What the [socialist] promise [of freedom] really amounted to was that the great existing disparities in the range of choice of different people were to disappear.  The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth. But the new name gave the socialists something in common with the liberals and they exploited it to the full....what was promised to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude".

Hayek saw that when bureaucrats plan the economy, they subvert the efficient transmission of price information.  This inevitably leads to less efficiency and to distortions such as we see with our health care system.

"The important point here is that the price system will fulfill this function only if competition prevails, that is, if the individual producer has to adapt himself to price changes and cannot control them.  The  more complicated the whole [economic system], the more dependent we become on that division of knowledge between individuals whose separate efforts are coordinated by the impersonal mechanism for transmitting the relevant information known by us as the price system." (Ch 4, Pg 95)

Hayek demonstrated that economic planners cannot foresee all the unintended consequences of their plans, no matter how gifted they may be intellectually.

"We all find it difficult to bear to see things left undone which everybody must admit are both desirable and possible.  That these things cannot all be done at the same time, that any one of them can be achieved only at the sacrifice of others, can be seen only by taking into account factors which fall outside any specialism...which lie outside our immediate interest and for which, for that reason, we care less." (Ch 4, Pg 98, italics added)

 He is adept at showing that simply because a nation is democratic, it is not necessarily free from arbitrary use of power.

"There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; the contrast suggested by this statement is altogether false: it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary." (Ch 5: Planning and Democracy, Pg 111)

I think Hayek's most important contribution is in the area of values and state morality.  He shows that governments that plan the economy also control morality.  That is, the rulers push their values and their quest for certain ends onto all people. We recently saw how certain views on contraception were pushed onto Americans by arbitrary rule makers empowered by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

[The government] must, of necessity, take sides, impose its valuations upon people and, instead of assisting them in the advancement of their own ends, choose the ends for them.  As soon as [an interest-promoting] law is made, it ceases to be a mere instrument to be used by the people and becomes instead an instrument used by the lawgiver upon the people and for his ends.  The state ceases to be a piece of utiltarian machinery intended to help individuals in the fullest development of their individual pesonality and becomes a "moral" institution which imposes on its members its views on all moral questions, whether these views be moral or highly immoral. In this sense the Nazi or any other collectivist state is "moral," while the liberal state is not. (Ch 6: Planning and the Rule of Law, Pg 117)

"And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower--in short, what men should believe and strive for." (Ch 7: Economic Control and Totalitarianism, Pg 127)

"To undertake the direction of the economic life of people with widely divergent ideals and values is to assume responsibilities which commit one to the use of force; it is to assume a position where the best intentions cannot prevent one from being forced to act in a way which to some of those affected must appear highly immoral." (Ch 15: Prospects for International Order, Pg 116)

In my view, the moral nature of state planning makes statism a secular religion.  Only, it is a religion that is forced on others via the ballot box rather than by persuasion.

Hayek makes the distinction between arbitrary rule and the Rule of Law.  Arbitrary rule becomes necessary when the state attempts to plan the entire economy, because lawmakers cannot foresee all the minutia involved.  The movement toward arbitrary rule is exemplified in the U.S. by the tendency to turn over ever more power to unelected alphabet-soup agencies run by the executive branch.

"It is the Rule of Law, in the sense of the rule of formal law, the absence of legal privileges of particular people designated by authority, which safeguards that equality before the law which is the opposite of arbitrary government...It may even be said the for the Rule of Law to be effective it is more important that there should be a rule applied always without exceptions than what this rule is.Often the content of the rule is indeed of minor importance, provided that the same rule is universally enforced." (Ch. 6 Pg. 117)

"By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may setup the most complete despotism imaginable." (Pg. 119)

The book also touches on themes that are probably agreed upon by everyone.  Nobody tired of negative campaign advertising will take issue with this:

"It seems to be almost a law of nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program--on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task.  The contrast between the "we" and the "they," the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action." (Ch. 10, Why the Worst Get On Top, Pg 160)

"If the members of one's group cannot all be personally known, they must at least be of the same kind as those around us, think and talk in the same way and about the same kinds of things, in order that we may identify ourselves with them. Collectivism on a world scale seems to be unthinkable--except in the service of a small ruling elite." (Pg 161)

And if you've ever uttered the phrase "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", this should ring true to you:

"To split or decentralize power is necessarily to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize by decentralizing the power exercised by man over man... 

Economic power, while it can be an instrument of coercion, is, in the hands of private individuals, never exclusive or complete power, never power over the whole life of a person. But centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery."  (Pg 166)

Hayek's one line summary of what created Nazism:

"It was the union of the anti-capitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal." (Ch. 12 The Socialist Roots of Naziism, pg 182)

Hayek also covers the tendency of statists to believe that their planning is justified by scientific evidence or intellectual superiority.  He felt that scientists helped enable the rise of Nazism.

"The influence of these scientist-politicians was of late years not often on the side of liberty: the 'intolerance of reason' so frequently conspicuous in the scientific specialist, the impatience with the ways of the ordinary man so characteristic of the expert, and the contempt for anything which was not consciously organized by superior minds according to a scientific blueprint were phenomena familiar in German public life for generations before they became of significant in England...It is well known that particularly the scientists and engineers, who had so loudly claimed to be the leaders on the march to a new and better world, submitted more readily than almost any other class to the new tyranny [of National Socialism]."  (Ch 13:The Totalitarians In Our Midst)

He felt that scientists have a tendency toward statism because they believe people obey scientific laws the same way inanimate objects do:

"Those who argue that we have to an astounding degree learned to master the forces of nature...[are mistaken when they] argue that we must learn to master the forces of society in the same manner in which we have learned to master the forces of nature.  This is not only the path to totalitarianism but the path to the destruction of our civilization and a certain way to block future progress.   Those who demand it show by their very demands they they have not yet comprehended the extent to which the mere preservation of what we have so far achieved depends on the coordination of individual efforts by impersonal forces." (Ch 14 Material Conditions and Ideal Ends, Pg 212)

Hayek understood human society.  It is true that the rise of Eurosocialism has yet to create a repeat of Nazi Germany. But to a degree, every one of Hayek's observations has been born out again and again.  Canadians face penalties for bypassing state health care.  Green-lobby scientists push for greater government control of energy use around the world.  Americans are being told when and how much health insurance to buy.  Expanding governments have distorted housing markets, healthcare markets, and debt markets.  Regulatory barriers impede business creation and reduce competition.  Interest groups control the tax code for special treatment.  Hayek's work foresaw all of this.  Hayek has something to teach us about our contemporary political and economic challenges.

Why Gay Marriage Is Not an Inalienable Right

I'd like to preface this discussion first by saying that I sincerely wish happiness and peace to everyone, especially my gay friends and fellow citizens. My thoughts here were provoked by a concern over the fact that rights-based arguments that fail to draw a distinction between inalienable rights and vested rights are endangering our freedom. The LGBT community (hereafter just "gay") should be equally concerned about the direction this country is taking with regard to inalienable rights. Neither gays nor natural family advocates should have to worry that government will infringe on their inalienable rights. What follows is my attempt to revive a proper view of rights and see how we can best meet everyone's needs fairly.

I'm amazed that people can get away with the rights-based argument for gay marriage. It is an astounding misunderstanding of individual rights. Gays have the inalienable right to do what they want with other like minded adults. But marriage is an institution that implies the blessing of others. You cannot demand that other people give you their blessing. It is their individual right to give it or withhold it.

The judge who overruled California's Prop 8 today relied on the argument that "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment" and "[it] was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples".

In 1983, Martin Luther King Jr. Day became a national holiday. This was a great honor for a great man. The creation of this holiday cost the federal government an extra day of holiday pay to every federal worker. Doesn't MLK Day discriminate against all other great Americans who were denied the honor of having a day named for them? I guess all these other Americans "aren't as good" as Mr. King. That is a glass-half-empty argument that should be rejected.

When people democratically decide to bestow an honor on someone or a group of people (such as 9/11 workers) it is not a disparagement of the rights of anyone else. And honors such as these are not rights! You cannot demand that somebody else think well of you.

Gay marriage which is forced onto a people undemocratically is a violation of their right to honor whom they will. Take away the economic benefits (which shouldn't be that much anyway in a limited government society) and marriage is nothing but a blessing of your peers. You cannot demand that blessing, it has to be given freely. I have the right to band together with like-minded individuals to give my blessings to whom I may. Government is one way in which people band together.

The fact is, there is only one pairing of human beings that has a perpetual risk of bringing new people into the world: heterosexual unions. Gay unions might have kids from prior marriages or from adoption, but they never have to run the risk of pregnancy planned or otherwise. This special character of heterosexual union makes it fundamentally different than gay union no matter what activist judges may believe. We can give the emperor a new set of clothes, but nobody will be fooled. If some people want to give their blessing to couples who will be creating new members of society, that is their right. Gays can ask for a similar blessing, but it is not an inalienable right to receive it.

If Gays really believed in inalienable rights they would demand that the government stop giving preferential treatment to anyone. Asking that they receive preferential treatment on par with heterosexuals still leaves huge unfairness gaps. What about single parents? What about Catholic Nuns? Shouldn't they have a life partner that can make decisions for them when they are incapacitated? How about two celibate males who live together as friends and are soul-buddies? Why are they "singled out" for discriminatory exclusion from marriage and all the appertaining benefits? You know I'm right. If there is anything that needs to be fixed it is first, we shouldn't be doling out benefits at tax payer expense to any special groups. Second, if we need to fix the law to enable significant-other visitation rights, power of attorney rights, etc. all we need is a "life partner" law. It wouldn't be marriage, it would just be a special legal instrument to fulfill a broad need. Third, marriage should be left to the private sector.

Life partner laws, private marriage, inalienable rights. Problem solved.

IOUSA

This movie is essential viewing for all voting citizens. Schedule 30 minutes to be educated about the looming debt crisis. This is a bipartisan movie which was created largely in response to the Bush years.



The graphical demonstration of historical debt and the social security time bomb is very illuminating. One bone I have to pick is the simplistic description of the 80's as " unprecedented" in peace time spending. The fact is, it is okay to go in debt if you get a return on investment. WWII: great return on investment. Winning the cold war and creating 20 years of prosperity? Great return on investment. So President Bush, to me, is at fault for wasting the Reagan dividend. He gave us TSA, earmarks, and Medicare part D. I agreed with Operation Iraq Freedom, but we should have been making harder choices at home.

The other bone to pick with this movie is the lack of dynamic tax modeling. The 2003 Bush tax cuts are largely misunderstood. Those tax cuts created more revenue for the government. It turns out that when you reduce penalties to wealth generation, more of it gets generated. Kind of like how McDonalds makes more selling Big Macs for 2.99 as opposed to 4.99. So I say "yea!" for the tax cuts, but why squander this excellent tax lesson on expanding government?

My RX for the national debt is simple: the FairTax along with a balanced budget amendment. Raising taxes on the rich is the wrong answer. If anything we need a flatter tax with less deductions and credits and one which includes all voting citizens not just the top 50% of tax payers.

Gun-point analogy doesn't hold water

(This is my rebuttal to BadTux's explanation of why health costs defy free market forces. There it is argued that inelastic demand allows health providers to hold patients hostage for any amount they want to charge)

BadTux, at least your honest that Obamacare IS the takeover of the insurance industry that Obama refuses to admit. He got this through by hook and by crook. IF we wanted to make the insurance companies into a public utility, it should have been sold to the American people that way, not as a trojan horse. BTW, I agree with you that single payer is more efficient than Obamacare as it now stands.

I flatly reject your points numbered 2 and 3. I have two points to make about your argument #2 (I'll label mine using letters) A. Your point about inelasticity of demand could be applied to food. Why don't farmers hold us all at sickle-point for all our money because we'd die if we didn't eat? Because supply is not inelastic (at steady state and when natural resources are not a limiter). The more people are willing to pay, the more supply springs into existence until an equilibrium is reached where prices cannot rise further. (The price is where the supply and demand curves intersect.) And there are ways to create the conditions for a steeper supply curve. Like in France where they subsidize medical training.
But you're gonna say supply is inelastic when it comes to highly trained doctors who can perform transplants or rare treatments. Nope. It is only temporarily inelastic as doctors cannot be trained overnight. The only way the gun-point scenario can exist is if doctors operate as a cartel. And I agree the do! So what do labor cartels do to inflate wages? This is classic Adam Smith BTW: they raise barriers to entry! Yes, American doctors raise barriers to entry into their profession. Obamacare does nothing to help with this. The way to ensure that the cartel cannot hold people at gun point is to break the cartel. This means creating more paraprofessionals that require fewer years of training, it means relaxing accreditation rules to allow more medical schools. It means allowing pharmacists to prescribe drugs, optometrists to perform laser eye surgery, etc. etc. It means allowing tradeoffs wherein inexperienced doctors are allowed to perform heart surgery if the patient is willing to accept the risk (and benefits in terms of cost). There are so many ways to solve the inelasticity of supply and Obamacare does none of it. Badtux, have you read my post Freedom-based Vision of Health Care?

Okay point B) to your point 2. The heart surgery example is not what I was speaking of when I said we should eliminate all middlemen. That is an example where insurance is well suited. We do have middlemen for high stakes items. But we don't need middlemen for routine maintenance. You maintain your automobile without insurance don't you? You only see the insurance company for an accident. As pointed out recently by David Goldhill in the Atlantic, there is no reason whatsoever why people shouldn't be able to budget for and pay directly for 90% of the healthcare they will need during their life. Especially things like pregnancies, vaccinations, eye exams, etc. Why in the name of Pete do we need to buy insurance for anything but a catastrophe? How much do you think food would cost if we had a food insurance system with a bureaucracy to pay for it? Even if your inelasticity argument carried weight for heart surgery, it wouldn't for 90% of the reasons why we see a doctor. Obamacare takes over the 90% that is non-catastrophic. In fact he abhors the concept of catastrophic only insurance (insurance was invented for catastrophes)

Now point C) to your point 3. Do you mean to say that the writers of the constitution meant that the tax code should be used to influence (socially engineer) individual behavior? Please! How much have you studied the constitution? I've read the Federalist papers and Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton, the original protagonist of both taxation and the welfare clause. The power of taxation was to fund the federal government not to manipulate people! The revenue was to enable the government to perform its enumerated powers, which for Hamilton and Madison meant mostly national defense. Manipulating people was not the primary motivation. (that the Whiskey tax might reduce liquor consumption as a side benefit was completely adjunct to raising revenue) And for the record, I don't support the home interest deduction either. I've always been consistently against using the tax code to micromanage people. In fact, the only good solution is the FairTax.

In a followup, you said the fact that uninsured who have no middleman and who get charged exorbitantly are proof the we need middlemen to fix prices. This again harks back to my catastrophic versus routine care point. We do need middlemen for catastrophes. But we'll all benefit when we eliminate middlemen for 90% of non-catastrophic care especially the uninsured who benefit from lower prices more than any of us. The exorbitant fees (which are usually negotiated down even for the uninsured as pointed out in the article) are a reflection of a bureaucratic 2-middleman system that discourages price transparency. They have all the incentive in the world to hide the true price of care because demand is not checked by price but by bureaucratic wrangling. Obamacare just enshrines this system into place while trying to cover the uninsured in a way that will ensure that the true price of medicine is never found and thus, capital will never flow to where a free people would want it to go.

Liberal Hypocrisy

Ten questions for liberals**

1. Why would you support a health care law that requires people to report to the IRS what they do for health care but then vilify President Bush for wiretapping terrorist suspects?
2. Why would you rant about profligate Republican spending from 2000-2008 but then support trillions in new government programs and deficit spending under Obama?
   
3. Why did you rail against Republican threats of a "nuclear option" to bypass the filibuster in 2005 (to confirm judges) but then support the effectively the same tactic to pass health care in 2010?
4. Why did you harp about the Iraq war for 4 straight years, but now that Obama is president (and has "stayed the course" for the most part) you are silent? Why no calls to bring the troops home anymore?
5. Why do you care about 18,000 who supposedly die for lack of health insurance (this has been debunked) but you stand idly by while the lives of 1.2 million preborn children are aborted?
6. Why is the secret ballot sacrosanct for general elections, but not for union elections? Why is it okay for big labor unions to support political causes but big companies should be barred from doing so?
7. Why was Karl Rove style politics wrong during the Bush years, but Chicago style politics is just fine in 2010? Why isn't Obama called out by prominent democrats and reporters for 180 degree turnabouts on two major campaign promises to improve transparency and bipartisanship? (Have you seen his "50 plus one" statements before being elected?)
8. Why is big-anything bad (big pharma, big oil, big banks, etc.) except when talking about the government?
9. Why does your love of free speech stop at the doors of Fox News and Clear Channel Communications?
10. Why do you claim to be rights activists while attacking the 1st, 2nd, ninth, and tenth amendments?

I understand that a similar "conservative hypocrisy list" can be generated. Let's hear it. I'll answer it honestly if you answer this.

**Neo-liberals. Classical liberal = modern conservative

Why the current "demon pass" healthcare should be voted down

The "demon pass" health care bill should be voted down. Here is why.
(USA Today has a great summary of the recent changes as of 3/19/2010)

1. Forcing insurance companies to accept patients with pre-existing conditions destroys the concept of insurance. We will no longer have insurance in the U.S. but instead we'll have an inefficient form of socialized medicine that will magnify all the bad aspects of our current system.
2. This bill is a blow to freedom.
   
   • It takes away individual freedom by mandating that everyone purchase insurance. People are forced into economic relationships against their will. It forces priorities onto people that they may not otherwise choose for themselves. This directly interferes with freedom of conscience and the the pursuit of happiness. **
     
   • It forces companies to provide benefits outside of normal market forces. This is an affront to free enterprise and can only have the side effect of increasing unemployment and depressing wages.
   • It forces insurance providers to run their business in a way the government sees fit. They become agents of the government rather than agents of free enterprise.
     
3. One of the ways the bill attempts to pay for itself is with Medicare cuts. Medicare cuts in and of themselves would be a great way to ensure future solvency of Medicare, but the cuts should not be used to "rob Peter to pay Paul". Medicare is being used as a cow to milk. It is wrong to use this sleight of hand to create yet another entitlement which cannot possibly be anymore solvent than Medicare has turned out to be. (And who believes that these cuts will even stick? Every year congress relents and delays cuts that were supposedly already made in the past.)
4. New taxes. An increase on the Medicare payroll tax on high income earners. Does anyone believe high income earners will just "eat" tax increases without changing their behavior? A new excise tax on health insurance. Taxes and surcharges on individuals and companies who don't comply with mandates. When push comes to shove, these initiatives will backfire in ways that reduce the optimistic CBO revenue estimates. Which leads me too...
5. Exploding national debt. If you really believe this bill will "cut" the deficit (and the word "cut" here is like when a furniture store has a "sale" after marking up prices) then you haven't been paying attention to the last 30 years of entitlement history.
   

This assault on freedom will damage what our nation stands for possibly beyond repair. Rather than solving current health care problems, it will exacerbate them by further decreasing the incentives for consumers to be cost-conscious and for providers to be transparent.

See:
Right to Health Care: When Freedom is Slavery by Another Name
My Freedom Based Vision for Health Care Reform

**Some folks may in fact want to trade health for comforts of another sort. It is not up to the government to make those choices for them. By the same token, the government cannot be on the hook to bail out people who change their minds about being uninsured when it is too late...their care must be at the whim of whatever society can afford but be NOT guaranteed.

Obama's Title of Nobelity

President Obama's recent acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize is an affront to the United States Constitution. Yes, I know that two prior sitting presidents have received the award. I don't excuse them either. But in this case, since the award is intended to influence our President's future actions, it constitutes direct foreign meddling on the office of the President. Roosevelt and Wilson were still free to place American interests above those of the Nobel committee because their awards were for specific past accomplishments.

The spirit of the Constitution's emolument clause is to prevent undue foreign influence:

Article I Section 9.8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a title. The money is an emolument. And the Nobel committee, though not a foreign state, is a foreign entity. (Some argue that since the committee is elected by the Norwegian Parliament, it is an extension of a foreign state) . It is good that President Obama intends to donate the money to charity. But he is retaining the title and intends to let it guide his future actions. This clearly go against the principles of republican government.

Federalist Papers 2,3,4,5, and 22 all warn of the dangers of foreign influence. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. ...

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

I understand that the President has tried to make the best of a difficult situation. Part of me believes that he would have rather this never happened. But why didn't he consult the constitution before quickly accepting the prize? He was sworn to protect that document. Whether he is conscious of it or not, he now has another set of puppet strings.

P.S.
A movie was made in 2006 which also considers Nobel winners to be "nobility".
Here is another good writer on the subject.

Oaks on Religious Freedom

Elder Dallin Oaks speaks out on religious freedom.

Religious Freedom at Risk

Right to Health Care: When Freedom is Slavery by Another Name

Health Care a Right?
"Health care should be a right", says Representative John Dingle. I've heard this same impassioned comment from dozens of others. The language of rights is powerful in American history, so the assertion has a compelling feel to it. Isn't the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" our most sacred principle of freedom? Without good medicine your life and happiness are in great jeopardy. So obviously,the logic goes, health care should be guaranteed to all freedom loving citizens. In fact, we should also be free from want and...and from fear itself! But not so fast...

Let me show you the sleight of hand. It's quite simple. The triumvirate of rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) refers to what in Natural Law is known as inalienable rights. These are rights that, in the rawest state of nature (say if you were alone on a tropical island) you would be guaranteed to have. These are God-given innate qualities of the human condition. They exist without a social contract. We are designed to assert these rights even as Nature challenges them with hunger, disease, and the elements.

Then comes society. With society comes the ability to exchange rights with others. These are "vested" rights. Vested rights occur as the result of exercising inalienable rights. You can use your free will to voluntarily trade your right to property for a right to someone else's property. The key word is voluntary. Successful societies have learned how to create law which promotes the inalienable rights of everyone. Because everyone has different talents, true protections of inalienable rights will always lead to unequal outcomes.

The concept of a right to health care descends directly from the notion of "freedom from want". Franklin Roosevelt first articulated this progressive ideal in his "Four Freedom's Speech". This "freedom" refers to the guarantee of receiving goods and services. In the rawest state of nature, goods and services don't exist. They are created through the application of labor. Nature bestows no absolute right to the fruit of of someone else's labor except through brute force. It is one thing for you to say "I have a right to pick that apple" and quite another to say "I have the right to force you to pick that apple for me". Having the "freedom" to take the produce of another used to be called plunder and slavery.

Photo of Benkos Bioho by who is that with rachel

The guy who says that health care should be a right is saying "I have a right to force people to serve me". 16% of U.S. GDP is devoted to creating the good s and services of medical care. It represents millions of people working hard each day. Should we have a right to their labor (or the labor of the tax payers funding them) for little or no cost? The real kicker is this: that mentality is equivalent to the thinking of southern slave owners two hundred years ago. The slave had no rights to the fruit of his own labor. They belonged to somebody else. He was compelled to provide goods and services to somebody else at no cost. In addition, the slave could not live his life freely. His owners told him how to live his life (being healthy was definitely a requirement). Current health care proposals in Washington contain both these aspects of slavery.

Elements of coercion, to some extent are necessary evils of any society. We have had a military draft. We have had eminent domain seizures. We have had quarantines. But aren't these the exceptions to the rule? The principles of freedom require that we always try to minimize such coercion.

A note about taxes. Taxation is an example of a necessary evil. You can never get unanimous consent from all citizens about whether to be taxed and by how much and for what purpose. Since this subject deserved a full exploration, I wrote about it at length here: Freedom Based Taxation. In short, we can balance the freedom of collective action with that of individual action. The evils of taxation can be minimized by observing the locality principle and by ensuring that the benefits are shared equally by all.

Partial Slavery
I probably won't have many people argue with my view that outright human bondage is a bad idea. I think most would agree that we'd rather suffer a reduced quality of life than live directly on slave labor. Examine the condition of a slave. Would it make it better if we gave the slave Saturday off? On Saturday he can keep all his earnings and do as he pleases. Does that make it better? Okay, let's give him 3 days off. Now he's 42% free. Probably not good enough, so how about he only has to work for his master one day of the week and we'll let him pick which day. Now he's a fractional slave only 14% of the time. Lastly, let's let the slave be free to leave the plantation entirely but he must remit 14% off his earnings back to his master. Are we good now? I think it is obvious that nothing short of 100% free will do, don't you agree? But today, some taxpayers are fractional slaves to others. 4 in 10 tax filers pay no federal income tax at all and the top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. Clearly, an unduly large class of Americans receive benefits paid for by others without their consent.

"Freedom from want" entails large scale widespread coercion. No people in history has ever enjoyed freedom from want. It is part of Nature's Law. "Want" is what drives people to action. The current drive to nationalize health care is just one more attempt so solve social problems at the expense of individual freedom. It cannot but increase the level of fractional slavery we already have.

Take a look at some of the popular arguments for slavery and compare them to arguments for nationalized health care. In each case the speaker illustrates a supposed tangible benefit. Does material comfort trump principle?

Argument Type	Slavery	Nationalized Health Care
Because others do it	John Calhoun: "There has never yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not live on the labor of the other"	Paul Krugman: "...every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. "
Paternalism	Calhoun: "look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house."	Barrack Obama: "I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need"
Stability	Calhoun: "I venture nothing in predicting that the experience of the next generation will fully test how vastly more favorable our condition of society is to that of other sections for free and stable institutions"	Obama: "Now, that's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan -- more security and more stability."
Economic	Chancellor Harper: "And what would be the effect of putting an end to the cultivation of these staples [cotton and rice], and thus annihilating, at a blow, two-thirds or three-fourths of our foreign commerce? Can any sane mind contemplate such a result without terror?"	Max Baucus: "We need to pass very strong, comprehensive healthcare reform this year...Otherwise American families are gonna pay half of their family income on health care premiums"

It is ironic that the practice of partial slavery is more advanced today in what are known as "the blue states". These states were once the liberators who sacrificed life and limb to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. Progressives in these states still see themselves as liberators. These political cartoons were published during the 2004 election in an attempt to link southern conservatives with slavery. Oh the irony:

(Click on image)

Also see this one

Freedom Based Taxation

Taxes are 100% constitutional and fully consistent with the principles of a freedom loving people. However, taxes become a form of slavery when they systematically and purposefully redistribute wealth. Wealth is simply the product of someone's labor. Whether the laborer is Bill Gates, or a cotton picker in the 1800's, when the fruit of the laborer is given to another without consent it is coerced servitude. The principle of freedom in taxation is that the benefits of the taxes must be general and fall evenly upon all citizens. This implies that taxes should be as local as possible. It also means that private alternatives should always take precedence over public programs. The fire department is a good example of the locality principle. Research at the National Institute of Health Sciences is a good example of the general utility principle as it produces knowledge that is available to everyone. I'd even say NASA is of general benefit even if you aren't a space buff. Federal highways are OK too.

However, here is where we depart from the principles of freedom in taxation: 1. overly progressive taxes, especially "negative" taxation, and 2. general fund expenditures on individuals and special interests. When the government reduces the level of tax to zero (or below zero) for a class of people, they are reaping the rewards paid for by another class of people. I'm not arguing for a capitation tax, nor even necessarily a flat tax. I'm just saying that the lowest income tax level should not be zero! And the highest should not be confiscatory! Today, because of so many tax deductions and credits, 4 in 10 Americans pay no federal income tax! How well does that bode for freedom when 40% of Americans have no incentive as voters to control federal spending?

Second, whenever the government writes a check to an individual so they can receive a benefit that is unique to them, unfair wealth redistribution occurs. Welfare payments out of the general fund to select groups of people based on things such as health status or income level are unequal expenditures which benefit a few at the expense of others.

In the U.S. we have at least tried to pay lip service to freedom principles in our welfare state. Social Security was envisioned as a separate fund dedicated to one purpose. It was to be self-funded and it would theoretically (except for the lucky first cohort) pay out about as much as you paid in. Thus, it wasn't supposed to be redistributive. It was a mandatory savings program. Medicare was to be the same. Of course they are both ponzi schemes and we all know it. Today, both of these programs simply represent a massive generational transfer of wealth. Current workers are slaves to current retirees and will not receive back what they paid in.

But what if taxpayers voluntarily vote to extend benefits to select groups? Well, up until the early 1900's, it was understood that payoffs to special interests, even if charitable were unconstitutional. See these examples. We are now flouting the constitution with programs like Medicaid and CHIP. But still, if taxpayers approve of it, isn't that their freedom based prerogative? No, inalienable rights* should not be voted away and the Supreme Court should not allow it. The fact that it has been allowed shows how far we've strayed from the principles of freedom. Additionally, you will never get unanimity among tax payers, so somebody is going to be forced to pay for something that they don't benefit from.

^{*The right to property is an inalienable right. Before Jefferson, the three liberties were "life, liberty, and property".}

I agree that there is a gray area. The welfare state proponent will no doubt say things like:

1. The benefit is general because program X reduces crime, for example, and lowers costs to you in other ways.
   
2. You might need government charity someday too. Consider it insurance of which you are a beneficiary.
3. What about that fire department you mentioned? Not everyone will have a fire. So it's like insurance. Why can't we have health insurance for all too?
   

These arguments have a valid point, but one that has a built-in answer in the American system of government. The answer is local rule. The smaller the unit of collective action, the more likely it is that the beneficiaries of the activity will be have the same needs and interests. Taxation will always be an imperfect vehicle for equitably representing the desires of the the tax payer. The best we can do is to ensure that the taxpayer's contributions travel the shortest distance away from her as possible so that she can see it's effects and have a greater say in remediation of any improprieties.

The fire department, again, is a great example. Different places in the country have different approaches to fire fighting. Some areas rely only on volunteers. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Ever since charity went Federal, we've noticed many more abuses of it. Who is a greater steward of charitable benefits, the man who receives a check from 2,000 miles away or the man who sees his benefactors as neighbors? Keep it local! And when possible, keep it private!

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. "
--James Madison

Taxation will always be messy and imperfect. But this does not give us license to view the "rich" as an ATM and for the "poor" not to contribute. And on the spending side, if there is a risk that a program will only benefit a select group, it needs to be rethought or pushed down to a more local group (state, county, or city) or to the private sector.

My Freedom Based Vision for Health Care Reform

My Freedom Based Vision of Health Care
I would like to offer my vision for American health care for the 21st century. This vision statement is not a specific policy recommendation. It is a vision of what the world could be like after a series of incremental changes. I present my vision first because it is essential, in the current health care debate, that we have a common vision before we argue about specifics. I occasionally make mention of specific policy changes in order to persuade you that the vision is realistic. But keep your eyes on the big picture and see if you don't agree that this is a world that you'd want to live in.

My vision of health care is guided by some core principles: I believe in charity and sacrifice by those blessed with more, but I also think people should lie in the bed they make for themselves. I believe in free choice. I believe that the United States has been the beacon of freedom to the world, and that it needs to remain so.


My Vision
I envision a health care system where people choose their doctor and pay their doctor much in the same way that we choose our barber or our mechanic. People would save for health care the same way they save for home or car repairs. They would budget for it and it would be their choice where to go and how much to spend. Prices would be just as transparent as they are at the local department store. And the less fortunate would have no need of insurance because society would provide free care the same way we provide Section 8 or food stamps (no mansion, and no fillet mignon but you do get what you need)

Health care would be often be delivered at home. I'd have phone and email access to my doctor. Nurses would be allowed to do more. The licensing system for medical professionals would allow for much greater latitude in the use of physicians assistants (PA). These PA's would roam the cities to deliver in-home care at hours that are convenient for their customers. People would rarely visit the hospital. Broken leg? A PA would drop by (much like a plumber drops by for emergencies). They would be licensed to perform all manner of outpatient care. Self-blood draws and self-measurement would be the commonplace. Nobody would trudge into the doctor's office just to have their throat cultured. Everyone would have health appliances that can send vitals electronically to their doctor. An additional tier of prescription drugs would be created that would allow some drugs to be prescribed by a pharmacist (Electronic medical records would be an enabler for this.) More drugs would be available over-the-counter.

My medical records would be available instantly from a medical record provider of my choice. Standards bodies (much like the ones that govern the Internet) would ensure portability of records to any service provider. Privacy laws would be enforced to ensure my data remains private.

An aside on a new personal health paradigm: The CEO of Intel, Paul Otellini recently wrote of an entirely new paradigm in health care. Please read his views on a paradigm of personal health at Politico. You see, instead of copying France or Canada, the United States should lead.

Employers
Just as people are free to choose their doctors, they would be free to choose the funding model. No longer would employers be selecting insurance providers. In fact, the tax incentives that force employers to provide insurance would have been abolished. In lieu of health insurance, employers would have increased the salaries of the employees and gotten out of the health business. If the health of employees was important, they could require yearly physicals much like they do in the Armed Services. But they wouldn't be choosing how health care is delivered to their employees. No more worrying about losing health care because you lost or changed your job! (To get there, we need to tax employer health benefits and move the tax relief directly to individuals).

My Vision on Insurance
People would carry only catastrophic health insurance. This is much like how we use home insurance to cover unforeseen events. Home insurance premiums would sky rocket if we expected insurance companies to clean our bathrooms and replace our worn carpets.

The health of society would be measured by whether people receive care or not (the number of insured wouldn't matter). Most people would buy insurance. Some people would choose not to have insurance. In my vision of health care, these people would still receive the health care they desire and can afford. Most health care will be so affordable, it will be paid for out-of-pocket (and with tax credits) If they really can't afford it, they can receive charitable care, which I talk about below.

A word about genetics. In my vision, genetic information would be strictly guarded as a private information. Insurance companies would be prohibited from requiring genetic tests. But, as now, they would be able to ask about lifestyles, habits, and past health history.

A word about pre-existing conditions. If someone waits until their house burns down to get home insurance, it is too late. It would be down right nonsense to require an insurance company to take on a customer that will be a guaranteed liability from day one. Insurance wasn't invented to take care of people. It was invented to enable people to have peace of mind while they buy homes and have children during their prime working years. If you didn't buy this peace of mind, you will need to rely on charity, as I describe below.

My Vision of Charity:
Local and state governments would provide free access to student hospitals and clinics. The care in these hospitals would be rationed the same way it is in Canada. The difference being that, had they chosen to insure themselves, they would not be receiving rationed care. (In Canada you have no choice but to receive rationed care). And unlike Canada, the indigent care would be funded to a high degree by philanthropists, organizations like the United Way, and by state and local taxes. It is a fallacy that only the federal government is rich enough to help the poor. Several states refused New Deal handouts during the Great Depression and took care of their poor quite well. The funding of these clinics, in principle, would not come from the federal government. However, because the Supreme Court has already broadened the General Welfare clause, I would be swimming against the current to deny any role for the federal government. We would continue to provide Medicare-like services for the elderly. The federal government would be allowed to fund student and research hospitals which provide free care as long as it can be shown that the expenditures fell evenly across the states in proportion to their populations. Such federal expenditures would be modest in comparison to the size of the health care economy. In my ideal world, a constitutional amendment would have restricted all "General Welfare" expenditures of the federal government to be 10% of GDP or less.

Under my vision, every American would receive basic health care. Those who choose to provide for themselves will receive the best and most timely health care. We cannot turn our backs on the principle of the harvest. People must reap what they sow. If you didn't plan ahead, you will be cared for, but it will be Canadian style, and prompt delivery cannot be guaranteed. And your doctor will probably be less experienced. But look at it this way, those who receive free care are providing a service to society by helping doctors gain experience.

Cheap Health Care
In my vision of health care, we would honor contract law. Contracts that cap liability would be enforced. People would be free to undergo experimental treatments. The FDA would provide an experimental tier of drug availability. Doctors would guarantee their work, much like a roof contractor guarantees a new roof. Now, obviously, they can't insure every procedure will be successful. But they can guarantee specific treatments by providing free follow-ups and/or money-back if the customer is not satisfied. And because everyone is paying for their care in much the same way they pay their mechanic, costs will be driven way down for any treatments that enjoy economy of scale. (Think Brakes Plus, Midas Muffler, or Pep Boys.) And don't under estimate how cheap care would be if we allowed more in-home care as I mentioned above.

My Vision of Honoring the Constitution
In my ideal world, all law would have to be accompanied by a statement of constitutionality. People would honor the spirit, not just the letter of the the Constitution. The distribution of government from federal, to state, to county, to city would look more like a uniform rectangle rather than an inverted triangle.

The Constitution does not enumerate the power to manage health care. (Please read the 10th amendment in the Bill or Rights.) It does allow taxation and court precedent does allow spending on the "General Welfare". But the spirit of the law is that the federal government does not micromanage the affairs of the people.

Health care services arise from the fruits of someone's labor. Health care is no more a right than dental care, automotive service, or housing. That the government might decide to bestow services to the needy does not make it a fundamental right. Constitution guarantees equal rights, not equal things. Rights have to do with free agency, not with the receipt of goods and services.

A word about Social Security:
In my opinion, Social Security violates the spirit of the Constitution. However, it was found to be constitutional by the 1937 Supreme Court. The old-age portion of SS won assent by 7/2 vote and the unemployment portion squeaked through on a 5/4 vote. Some historians speculate that Justice Owens, the swing voter, was influenced by FDR's court packing scheme. So we now have a legacy in which the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution can allow the federal government to justify almost any spending. But this does not nullify the spirit of the law.

And what if it can be shown that spending detracts from the General Welfare? If so, it is unconstitutional by any standard. Today, we have unfunded liabilities that if not fixed will eventually bankrupt social security. The 1937 supreme court approved a system that was self-funded. Today it is pay-as-you-go and is producing a huge generational transfer of wealth. The program has led to an unquenchable appetite for pork barrel spending. With 70 years of hindsight, we can definitely see that the program has exceeded James Madison's worst nightmares. What they needed in 1937 was a stimulus program with a sunset. That would have promoted the general welfare in a time of need and then returned the country back to the normal balance of power.

In my vision, two amendments to the Constitution would be enacted. The first, (as mentioned above) would keep "general welfare" spending to less than 10% of GDP unless temporarily overridden by a 3/4 vote. The second would be a balanced budget amendment (again with a 3/4 vote override provision).

Summary
In short, in my vision, freedom of choice is preserved while still guaranteeing help to those in need. I have no illusions about my vision being a panacea. It is just a vision. If only 80% of it were realized, we'd be the envy of the world. It would take a lot of work. As affluent as we are, we'd probably still pay 16% of GDP on health care but it would be by choice. And the rewards would be spread evenly across all people in a way that balances choice, accountability, and charity. Above all, this vision honors the spirit of the Constitution and preserves the principles of freedom which have blessed all of humanity.

Our Best Hope
The best legislation that I have seen to-date is The Patient's Choice Act. I don't understand why this Act isn't being discussed more actively. I know the President would be reluctant to give credit to two Republicans, but this bill addresses the insurance problem while providing a universal solution! He could claim victory at getting everyone covered and receive the bipartisan support which he claimed he would strive for.