Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

Florida Judge Overrules Prohibition Against Doctors Asking Patients About Guns

As far as gun bloggers are concerned I feel I’ve been in the minority on the issue of barring doctors from asking patients about guns. I’m never a fan of legislation that tramples one right in the futile attempt of protecting another. Well it seems a Florida judge agrees with my belief that the law preventing doctors from asking patients about guns was a bad piece of legislation:

In August, the Florida chapters of three professional physicians’ organizations, along with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, sued on the grounds that the law — a “physician gag law,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called it — violated doctors’ freedom of speech. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Miami agreed and temporarily blocked the law. It seems likely that the decision will become permanent.

“Despite the State’s insistence that the right to ‘keep arms’ is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. “A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect nor interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own, possess, or use firearms.”

In my opinion all rights should be absolute because every infraction against a right sets up a precedence for the government to perform more infractions down the road. It’s a case of giving an inch to somebody and seeing them take a mile. Although I sympathize with the supporters of this law I can’t support it. There is the possibility of doctors using your medical records as an underhanded gun registration system but making it illegal for your doctor to ask about guns is a direct violation of their right to free speech.

Ultimately the market can be used to solve this problem. You’re under no obligation to answer any inquires from your doctor so the easier solution to this potential problem is to not answer any questions your doctor asks about firearms. If your doctor continues to insist that you tell him whether or not you own firearms you can go to a different doctor. This is a system known as voting with your wallet and it works quite well (unless the government forces you to pay money to somebody of course).

Although the pro-gun side says this law is necessary to prevent a secret gun registry from being established and anti-gunners claim this law is dangerous because it bars doctors from asking about an actual medical issue I don’t see either argument as the core issue. The core issue here is that this law violates the freedom of speech to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The right being violated in this case is the one that allows us to have open discussion on issues such as the rights of gun owners. I’m not willing to sell one right down the river to protect another and thus am happy to see this ruling.

Apparently Nobody Listened to Bastiat

Do you know what’s a scary thought to consider? The fact that the United States Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world. Just stop to think about that, a department in the United States government is the largest employer in the world. Combine that with the fact that this agency is also in charge of war and it really begins to paint a frightening picture. Then you have the other scary fact that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is the second largest employer in the world.

As expressed by Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson war is not a productive economic activity. Wars only serve to destroy, never produce. Keynesians will say the destruction of goods and property will cause a boost in the economy when it comes time to rebuild all that was destroyed. Austrians point out the fact that replacing what was destroyed isn’t productive as it takes resources away from the development and production of new consumer goods. This fact is usually summed up in Bastiat’s broken window example:

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Every dollar that is spent replacing what was lost is a dollar that could have been better spent fulfilling a different want. As the shopkeeper had to replace his broken window he was unable to buy a new suit which lowers the production of the tailor. The fact that the two largest employers in the entire world deal with breaking things demonstrates one of the biggest problems with the world economy. Capital that should be going to the production of new consumer goods are instead being funneled into the construction of tanks, bombs, and other weapons of war for use in destroying what has already been built necessitating the replacement of those destroyed things.

Just imagine the advances in technology and standards of living if all the capital used to produce new ways of blowing shit up and replacing what was blown up was instead put to productive uses. We may actually have had flying cars at the turn of the century (sorry I’m still bitter that the promise of flying cars was never fulfilled).

The Real Reason for the PATRIOT Act

Although our government claims that the PATRIOT Act is necessary to fight terrorism it’s more apparent every day that terrorism is the secondary consideration of this legislation:

So how has the Patriot Act fared as a defense against terrorism? The act has been used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases.

So the PATRIOT Act has been used ~107 times more often to fight the war on drugs than the war on terror (I wonder if they can use it to fight the war on illiteracy or the war on poverty). This demonstrates that the PATRIOT Act isn’t seen as a last ditch piece of legislation to be used sparingly against only the most dangerous enemies of America. It’s obvious that this legislation was meant to be an all encompassing tool used to fight any and all crime.

In the eyes of the government civil rights too often get in the way of their agents enforcing laws against behaviors decreed illegal because some politician needed to manufacture something for the American people to fear in order to justify yet another expansion of government power.

USDA and FDA are Pointless Government Agencies

When I talk about wanting to dismantle government agencies people often claim that some regulatory agencies need to stay in place for our safety. One such agency that is often brought up is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). People will tell me that without regulatory agencies such as the FDA all our food would instantly become poisonous and we would all die of every food born pathogen ever. Another agency that seems to be loved is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) who are in charge of various agriculture related regulations such as the process of certifying certain produce as organic. Neither of these agencies have proven themselves to be effective and, as this Mises Daily article explains, private certification entities would be far more effective:

Apparently, the FDA and the USDA have a stellar and unblemished track record of keeping the populace safe from tainted food and dangerous medicines.

Both lists are notable in length. What’s interesting when you think about it is the fact that neither agency received any form of punishment for failing to keep Americans safe. An utter lack of accountability is the biggest problem with government agencies. When a government agencie fails to fulfill its mandate they are usually given more power, more money, and more enforcement agents which creates an interesting conflict of interest as failures lead to rewards while success leads to more of the same. The reason for this inverse reward system is because government agencies usually receive funding based on the amount of fear they can generate and major failures generate a great deal of fear. As the article explains the same is not true for private agencies:

Private, third-party certifiers could inspect livestock and produce and affix their seal of approval only when certain standards are met. That the reputations of the inspectors and the farmers are truly on the line would preclude much of the graft and inefficiency that is a constant feature of the current system.

When a private ratings or certification agency screws up it’s their reputation that’s on the line and in such markets reputation is everything. If your agency is in charge of ensuring food safety and tainted foods certified by your agency get out in the open then it’s likely people will lose trust in your agency and thus you’ll not be in business for much longer. Thus private agencies receive rewards for performing well as more people will want that agency’s certification as it becomes trusted by more buyers. The accountability that is nonexistent in government agencies flourishes in the private sector.

The other problem with government agencies is that they’re overly bloated and extremely inefficient in providing their services. These inefficiencies lead to higher levels of expense as people who deal with the FDA and USDA know all too well:

There is a general consensus among those who are deeply devoted to such things that the USDA Certified Organic sticker is, at best, a limited indicator of the agricultural practices involved in the production of various foodstuffs. The USDA program is, like any government agency, bloated, inefficient, and inconsistent. It is rife with corruption and requires expenditures of time and money that preclude many small farmers from participating.

As a result, many small producers are eschewing the USDA label as simply not worth it.

The same is true of the FDA. Getting a drug or medical device approved by the FDA costs an exorbitant amount of money and takes many years. What this means is only large corporations (such as the much hated big pharmaceutical companies) can bring drugs and medical devices to market and the cost of those drugs and devices is extremely high in part to make up for the research and development costs of getting FDA approval. On top of that the years it takes to get FDA approval can cost lives when the drugs and medical devices are designed for use against life threatening ailments. Several years of approval time can literally means the difference between life and death for somebody who has been diagnosed with cancer.

In the case of USDA certification the free market is still allowed to operate and thus private certification agencies have sprung up that serve food growers who don’t want to deal with the expenses and headaches of getting USDA approvals:

The farm that runs the CSA (community-supported agriculture) to which I belong is explicit in their disclosure of their growing methods, all the while explaining that they have not received “official” organic certification. In short, there seems to be a general consensus among advocates of organic and sustainable agriculture that the government seal of approval is limited in its value.

[…]

In the absence of a reliable government organic-food regulatory agency, the market has provided several voluntary options. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers “a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods.” They rely on voluntary participation and a peer-review system that is less expensive, less paperwork intensive, and more efficient than the USDA program.

Whole Foods Market has developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry, through a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit.

As I explained earlier these certification agencies has everything to lose which means motivation exists to ensure only those complying with their regulations receive their certification. Likewise these agencies do not have infinite funding and must ensure their operations run as efficiently as possible which lowers the cost of the services they provide. Though the best things about these agencies in my opinion is the fact that they’re voluntary and you only need to interact with them if you choose to do so.

Unfortunately the government has claimed a complete monopoly on the approval and certification of drugs and medical devices so no private competition to the FDA exists in the United States.

The next time somebody tells you that agencies like the USDA and FDA are absolutely critical to the safety of the American people remind them that the free market can not only provide the same services but can do a better job for less money.

More Proof Ben Bernanke is an Idiot

I’m sure you read the headline of this post and thought to yourself, “Ben Bernanke is proof that Ben Bernanke is an idiot.” That’s true but I like to be thorough when building cases against the intellect of stupid people. Take for instance Bernanke’s recent appearance in Minneapolis (sadly I wasn’t able to join the protest as it took place a noon and I was working) where he pointed out the reason the economy isn’t recovering. Here’s a hint, it’s our fault:

Then he said something new: Consumers are depressed beyond reason or expectation.

Oh, sure, there are reasons to be depressed, and the Fed chairman rattled them off: “The persistently high level of unemployment, slow gains in wages for those who remain employed, falling house prices, and debt burdens that remain high.”

However, Mr. Bernanke continued, “Even taking into account the many financial pressures that they face, households seem exceptionally cautious.”

Consumers, in other words, are behaving as if the economy is even worse than it actually is.

Yes the reason the economy isn’t recovering is because people aren’t spending money due to their overly cautious nature. I’m not sure if Bernanke realizes this but in order to spend money you have to have money. On top of that when you’re unemployed spending any money is a scary proposition because there’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to make more money in the near future. That is to say when you don’t have any sources of income all expenditures or potentially permanent reductions in your available savings.

Anybody with two brain cells to rub together would be able to reach such a logical conclusion. Of course Ben Bernanke doesn’t have two brain cells and thus he is throwing out nonsensical theories to explain why people without work aren’t spending money:

Why? Well, one possibility is that Americans collectively are suffering from what amounts to an economic version of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Let me guess, the next plan the Federal Reserver is going to develop will involve economic post-traumatic stress disorder therapy. Either that or they’ll just try to pump $10 trillion into the economy because if at first you don’t succeed try the same thing again, only harder.

Proof Once Again That It’s Not About Protection, It’s About Extortion

Numerous rants on this site can be found regarding the “justice” system in this country. Case in point we have the following court ruling in which a woman was prosecuted for selling counterfeit Cisco equipment:

A Virginia woman was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for leading a “sophisticated” conspiracy to import and sell counterfeit Cisco Systems networking equipment, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

I’m not going to complain about the charges or case itself but the punishment placed upon the perpetrator. This woman was nailed for selling counterfeit equipment which you can argue grants a legitimacy to Cisco’s claim of damages so I understand why she was made to pay restitution. What I don’t understand though is the rest of her punishment:

In addition to the prison time, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia also ordered Chun-Yu Zhao, 43, of Chantilly, Virginia, to pay US$2.7 million restitution and a $17,500 fine.

The emphasized parts are the source of my confusion. As this woman wronged Cisco I can see why she would be made to pay restitution to the company but I see no reason why she should be thrown in prison and made to pay a fine to the government. In this case prison makes no sense since the supposed purpose of incarceration is to separate dangerous people from the rest of society. Somebody dealing in counterfeit goods is not a danger to society as no act of violence has been made. She didn’t assault or murder anybody, she simply committed acts of fraud.

Then there is the fine. Why should the government receive any money in this case? The courts are already paid for using tax dollars so a claim of funding can’t be legitimately made. The woman in no way wronged the government or “society” either so why the Hell do they get any cut from the ruling? It’s because our “justice” system is simply another funding mechanism for our government.

Some people may ask why this kind of thing bothers me. The reason it bothers me is because it creates a conflict of interest. Courts are argued to be impartial arbitrators whom can peacefully solve disputes between two entities. This impartiality is jeopardized when the government (who own the courts) receives money based on their ruling. In such cases a situation is created where the government gains if a guilty verdict is decided and therefore it’s in the best interest of the government to proclaim judgements of guilt.

When the government stands to receive $17,000 from a fine why would they entertain any idea of the accused being innocent? If the accused is ruled to be innocent the government receives nothing but if the accused is ruled to be guilty the government receives money. How can any claim of impartiality be made in such a system?

Emperor Obama

The head asshole in Washing D.C. isn’t even trying to hide his delusions of emperorship anymore. From a live blog I was able to pull out parts of Obama’s speech he gave last night (because I certainly wasn’t going to waste my time watching that dumb ass like on television) and the following statement from him almost floored me:

What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?

We’d have a country of law, opportunity, and liberty. I honestly can’t believe (OK I can believe it but I don’t want to) that an elected official would be so brazen as to openly state on public television that he doesn’t give two fucks what the laws say government can and can’t do. He might as well have flat out said, “Fuck the Constitution, I’ll do whatever the Hell I want and you stupid peasants are going to like it!”

What else did the chief asshole say? Well This quote was interesting:

Obama again stirs the pot with the GOP, noting that Abraham Lincoln – the first Republican president — also “mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges.”

He also mobilized a nation to invade another nation which killed hundreds of thousands of American citizens just so he could keep his petty little union in place. And the first person to say he did it to free the slaves can take a seat over in the corner because you get a timeout for not knowing your American history. If you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation you’ll note that it would have only freed the slaves in seceded states (not the Northern slave states) if they didn’t return to the Union by January 1863. It was a purely political move to coax the Confederate states into returning to the Union.

Our chief asshole also introduced his new legislation, the American Jobs Act, which he urged Congress to pass without reading just like he urged them to pass his Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act:

Some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.

Emphasis mine. Personally I’d like our “representatives” to actually read the damned bill before taking any action. Likewise if that bill does anything besides getting the government out of the economy it will be pointless and shouldn’t be passed.

Obama should write a book titled I’m Above the Law: Why the Rules Don’t Apply to Me.

If Your Right Requires the Labor of Another It’s Not a Right

Everybody repeat after me, “If the labor of another is required to provide your right then it’s not a right.” California is looking once again to prove itself as the looniest state in the Union by making home ownership a protected right:

California could ban lender-initiated home foreclosures, under a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would make home ownership a fundamental right.

Initiative 11-0014 could appear on the ballot in November 2012, if supporters submit more than 800,000 voter signatures necessary to qualify the measure.

You can read the text of initiative 11-0014 but I think the following piece sums it up:

Makes home ownership fundamental right. Prohibits lenders from foreclosing
on California citizen’s personal home. Requires lenders to assist California borrowers not paying on home loans due to financial hardship or illness. Requires lenders to reduce home loan principal to reflect drop in local property value i fmore than 10 percent, and to reschedule payments, reduce interest rates, and/or refinance without new credit review. Requires lenders to refinance home loans a t minimum cost within 45 days of request i f loan has been maintained for three years. Provides back property tax assistance to homeowners.

First of all you can’t infringe on a right to own property if you don’t, you know, own the property. What is proposed is so full of cognitive dissonance that it would make the head of a logical person literally explode if they attempt to make sense of it. First of all if you have a loan on your home then it’s not your home. Let’s look at what a mortgage is, it’s a loan that is backed by real physical property. That is to say you give the title of some property to a person giving out loans and they take it as collateral. When you take out a mortgage you are saying, “I promise to pay back my loan and if I fail to do so I relinquish the ownership of my property to you.”

Until you pay back the loan you are not the owner of that property. A mortgage is an exchange of ownerships rights; the entity giving the loan exchanges the right of ownership of a sum of money for the right of ownership of the collateral. Until the loan is paid back with any contractually agreed to interest the entity who gave the loan is the owner of the property. Thus what this initiative proposes is impossible because it’s claiming to protect the “right of home ownership” by pissing all over the right of ownership.

That’s just one glaring problem with this initiative. The other glaring problem is the fact that it is trying to declare something a right that requires the labor of another to provide. A right to property means you have a right to ownership over legitimately obtained property not a right to be provided property by another. The difference between the two is huge. For instance I can’t have a right to own a home unless I can build the entire home myself of materials I can entirely produce myself. If my “right” requires action from another either that right isn’t a right or I get to declare select people as slaves. The same logic applies to healthcare, unless you can provide your own healthcare you can’t claim a right to it.

If I can homestead or purchase a property, extract the raw resources needed to build a home form that homesteaded of purchased property, refine those materials into a state usable to build a home, and then build a home entirely of those materials by myself then I can claim a right to it. On the other hand a failure to perform any of the following procedures means that I must rely on another to provide a link in the chain of home ownership and thus can declare no right to owning that type of property.

You have no right to owning a home but you do have a right to the ownership of your labor because you are a self-owner. That means you can exchange your labor for a home but you can’t demand somebody provide you a home outside of a voluntarily agreed to (by both parties) exchange. That’s why a right to ownership of your labor doesn’t translate into a right to own specific types of property.

I’m not sure how so much stupid was written on paper. It baffles me that somebody unable to see the cognitive dissonance in this bill is able to read or write.

If This is Our Family I Want a Divorce

It appears as through the Obama administration is really ramping up the use of the phrase “federal family.” Everybody’s favorite federal agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), has decided that we’re now all part of one big fucked up federal family:

“Under the direction of President Obama and Secretary Janet Napolitano, the entire federal family is leaning forward to support our state, tribal and territorial partners along the East Coast,” a FEMA news release declared Friday as Irene churned toward landfall.

The G-word — “government” — has been nearly banished, with FEMA instead referring to federal, state and local “partners” as well as “offices” and “personnel.”

“’Government’ is such a dirty word right now,” says Florida State University communication professor Davis Houck. “Part of what the federal government does and any elected official does is change the terms of the language game into terms that are favorable to them.”

“Family” can evoke favorable thoughts of motherhood and security.

Although I’m glad that government is starting to get such a bad image attached to it I don’t think renaming it “family” is going to help improve that image. The government’s image is poor because what they’ve done has been nothing but an endless series of bad decisions.

Honestly if my family was forcefully stealing from other people, killing neighbors outside of self-defense, making life difficult for productive members of the family to alleviate the pain of unproductive members, and constantly trying to control family members by enacting new rules regulating every form of behavior and thought I’d want a divorce. Of course the last time members of the federal family tried to file for divorce they were subjected to constant physical beatings until they finally submitted and withdrew their filings.

We Can Do This Without You

It appears as though Obama is looking to continue his failed quest to restore the American economy using failed Keynesian methods. Namely Obama is asking Federal agencies to identify “high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects” that can be done without the need for congressional approval:

On Wednesday, Obama took a now-familiar path in adopting a program–this time a jobs and infrastructure effort–that can happen entirely within his domain. Obama directed several federal agencies to identify “high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects” that can be expedited now, without congressional approval.

One week before he will make a major address to Congress on jobs, Obama is making sure they know he plans to move forward without them. The president has also directed the Education Department to come up with a “Plan B” updating the 2001 No Child Left Behind law in the absence of congressional action. The message to Congress is clear: Do your work or we’ll do it for you.

Remember that system of checks and balances? Apparently neither does Obama or Congress (as they should be reigning Obama in right now). It looks like Obama is enjoying his near emperor status and has decided to run wild with tyrannical power. We may as well just call him the King of America since he’s able to do all these things without approval from any of our “representatives.” Corollary to that we should start calling Congress the Bitches of America since they seem to be more than happy to lay down while the title of President is slowly changed to King.

I do have a message for Obama though:

His message to lawmakers: We can do this without you.

Our message to the government: We can do this without you. Get the fuck out of our economy and let it become prosperous again.