At Least The Dems Make The Trains Run On Time

Captain Ed Morrissey--he'll always be "Captain Ed" to me, by the way--writes in his post "The Nanny State, Explained" about some of Hillary Clinton's more frightening comments that have been overlooked. Here's the gem that he notes: "We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?" His response:

I just finished watching the excellent HBO series John Adams last Sunday. It tells the story of our nation’s birth and the sacrifice many of our founders made to create a free nation. They wanted a nation with government limited to just enough power to keep the peace and defend the nation. They didn’t conceive of the idea that a free people would trade their fortunes and freedom to create a government that would dictate choices to them in a manner far more egregious than George III.

*nodding* Actually, freedom meant a great deal to a large number of people who did not have access to the sort of medical care available to even the poorest in this nation. It meant enough that they fought and died in the war that killed the largest percentage of Americans ever against a people to whom they were intimately related. But it seems that the days are gone when the majority of Americans strongly believed there was anything more out there than life and comfort. And with the passing of those ideals, the courage of a nation is passing, as well.

Gone are the days of "ask not," replaced by the days of "you deserve." (What do people really deserve, anyway? Of course it will be more popular to enact policies based on the idea that you deserve everything the world has to offer; the only problem is that it isn't true.) The party of John F. Kennedy died with him; the commitment to freedom is no longer a bipartisan effort.

Global Warming, A Friendly Riposte

My good friend, Mr. 42, left a comment on my last post that I think raises an interesting and a key point, to which I would like to reply. Here is the comment, in full:

First off, let me say that I completely agree with you that the science of global warming is at best debatable, and that we really don't know exactly what is going on. However, I feel we must be prepared for all circumstances.

I think the point you are missing is that in this case, the freedom exerted by these businesses could possibly be infringing on the lives and well-beings of countless other people. People, especially businesses, need to be responsible in controlling how much they contribute to the environment. Will it completely stop global warming? I don't know. Do we, as consumers, also need to be less wasteful? Probably.

If these businesses cannot see that the improvements can not only help them, maybe the government should be involved. The government's primary job is to protect it's citizens. If that means that they have to place laws to protect the environment, then it should.

I think 42's concern is one that is widely shared; it is a legitimate one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. The problem comes at several points, which I would like to outline.

The argument can be sketched out in this way: 1. There is a possibility that businesses' practices are contributing to the incidence of global temperature increase in such a way that other people may be hurt. 2. The government's primary job is to protect its citizens. 3. Therefore, government may have to step in to limit businesses' range of activity.

I realize that my argument will make a departure from current mainstream thought (though not from the classical liberal tradition on which our Constitution was based). However, the problems are with the second premise and with an unstated assumption built into the argument.

The premise that "the government's primary job is to protect its citizens is false. The government's primary job is actually to protect its citizens' freedoms. The point in my bringing up the statement "Give me liberty or give me death" is to say that freedom is more important than life, and that that is a defining and founding creed of our republic. The truth is that the Constitution does not authorize the government to take any action regarding environmental concerns--not even the actions the government has already undertaken. The reason is that the Founders were more concerned with liberty than with life; that's why so many of them risked so much to gain their freedom. In fact, I believe that morality requires us to choose freedom over life, if such a choice becomes necessary.

The unstated assumption is that government action could potentially protect citizens in this area. Increasingly, real world experience tells us that the answer is an emphatic "no." I'll link to a column from Britain's Guardian paper today that will elaborate, but the fact is that government action has contributed to economic stagnation and even deaths throughout Africa, and that government action has done little more than create an enormous new lobbying arena that inevitably leads to inefficient and outright destructive actions, such as ethanol subsidies, restrictions on oil drilling and refining, and promotion of wind power over nuclear.

Michigan: Ensuring Your Safety By Eliminating Your Freedom

Freep.com reports that one-time beauty pageant winner and Berkeley-trained liberal will require parents to use booster seats for any child between the ages of 4 and 7 who is under 4'9":

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign a bill requiring car booster seats for all passenger kids ages 4 through 7 who are under 4-foot-9 inches tall.

Current state law requires a car seat of some kind only or children under age 4.

And hilariously/frighteningly:

The state is planning a public awareness campaign for the new booster seat law, through the he Office of Highway Safety Planning.

Well, I can't think of any way our state funds could be better used. We're going to pass a law restricting your freedoms for your own good. And we'll spend your money to tell you about the fact that we can now fine you $65 if we suspect you're driving down the road with an insufficiently buckled child.

Michigan is like a one-state liberal paradise! I only wish it was Ohio instead of us.

First They Came For The Smokers

What!? Enacting absurdly high sin taxes leads to black market activity?! The Detroit Free Press:

Big-time profiteers and small-time cheaters are smuggling 7 million cartons of cigarettes into the state annually to evade Michigan's high cigarette taxes, costing the state about $140 million a year.

And some metro Detroit retailers are selling cigarette packs with sophisticated counterfeit stamps to evade a 10-year-old law aimed at thwarting smuggling.

Michigan's $2-per-pack tax, the fourth-highest in the nation, helps fuel an illicit demand for cigarettes bought in other states with much lower taxes.

Considering that we're such a well-run state, one would think that this would've been foreseen. Anyway, the Freep reasonably concludes that tobacco is evil:

So now we know another way tobacco is bad for Michigan. Not only does it cost the state health care system hundreds of millions of dollars in smoking-related illnesses, but the Treasury can show at least $140 million in lost revenue from cigarettes being smuggled into Michigan from states with lower tobacco taxes than the $2-a-pack levy here. That's a lot of money going up in smoke.

We'll skip arguing over whether the state should really be involved in health care. Amusingly, commenter "buka2" writes, "Just outlaw all smoking, and then the $140,000,000 won't be available to lose." Sometimes logic stings. But Michigan doesn't lose money from tobacco; in fact, that first Freep article mentions that the state makes about a billion dollars a year from tobacco. That $140 million just represents the obvious result of black market activity from overly high product taxes. But here's the mindset, courtesy of a few Freep commenters. First, "Allycatt":

"FreedomOfSpeech, I think we would gladly pay a 6% tax on our cigarettes. Right now, state tax alone is 40%. Hell, I was even for the 61 cent increase for the SCHIP program - as a smoker, why do I not have a say in how that money is spent? They will continue to tax our cigarettes, because we are the bad guys, they will continue to funnel the money to everywhere but where it should go (health & stop smoking programs). Non-smokers should be damn happy that we are there to pick up the slack. Igor: APPLAUSE! It took me two years to get management to get my office neighbor to tone down the cologne. Headaches, teary eyes, runny nose within seconds when I'm exposed. PERFUME SHOULD BE BANNED OR TAXED TO THE MAX."

We've been so dumb all these years. We should just pass a law outlawing anything that's annoying to anyone! (It'd never pass, of course; obviously, it wouldn't be in the interests of congresshumans.) Then we'd be free from anything that we don't like! Freedom! Here's some "BubbRubb" for ya:

Ty - One last thing about taxing smokers before I begin my weekend: smoking causes many diseases which we all end up paying for through loss of productivity, paying into government assisted health care, etc. I think that smokers should pick up the tab for this, as there is no common benefit for taxes we pay for this. The only fair way I think would be a sin tax.

Hmm....how could we get smokers to pick up the tab for this? What about free mark--no...wait, how about eliminating socialized heal--no....I just can't think of a good idea! Whatever the heck the problem is, it definitely must call for some sort of government action. After all, anytime someone isn't as productive as they otherwise could have been, it harms me and it should be illegal. Next to go: World of Warcraft! This is an example of a doctrinaire liberal slowly following his philosophy to its logical end: state control of nearly everything in your life, for your own good.

In Which I Agree With...George McGovern!?

That's right, dear readers.

Former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, the far-left, anti-war politician who helped drive religion out of Democratic politics and helped Nixon win almost every state in 1972, has written an op-ed with which I almost unreservedly agree. This has left me feeling dazed, but I write on. Read the whole thing, because it's a fantastic column about specific health-care and home mortgage policies, but here's a sample:

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

Apparently the former senator has realized that an America filled with citizens who have to take care of themselves is superior to one in which 536 federal officials (435 representatives, 100 senators, and 1 president) try to make life smooth for everyone.

It isn't just that that sort of interventionist government typically restrains or eradicates economic growth; it's that it is just plain wrong. When did we stop being concerned primarily with citizens' freedom to act autonomously and become concerned primarily with delivering the most pleasurable and least painful life possible? When did we reduce human beings from creatures imbued by their nature with dignity, freedom, and responsibility to simple creatures whose highest goal is the fulfillment of their appetites?

Treating human beings this way is dangerous. The modern liberalism whose excesses even its bygone champion must decry operates on the assumption that the highest form of fulfillment is physical, and so it concentrates on access to food, health care, and sex. Freedom entails responsibility for our actions; it is a paradox and a universal truth that seeking freedom without obligation will leave us with only obligation and no freedom. Freedom and obligation are two necessary characteristics of humanity; modern liberals have done their best to eliminate them and reduce us to the level of animals. Barack Obama is not particularly talented because he can present this philosophy in lofty terms; history is filled with those who eloquently convinced humans out of their natural dignity.

Why else do you think, according to a recent study, conservative college students have goals that embrace social obligations, while their liberal counterparts seek to break them?

Why I Am Not A Conservative

That great book by F. A. Hayek was brought to my mind the other day while musing about a discussion I had with one of my friends about universal health care. In it, the great classical liberal thinker explained that the people Americans call "conservatives" are actually in the liberal tradition, since they believe in voluntary associations and lack of government coercion. Modern "liberals," meanwhile, are really in the socialist tradition, since they favor government coercion for the purpose of enhancing equality; they consider themselves liberals because they believe that freedoms can only be delivered through social and economic equality.

This is an excellent Wikipedia article on the subject, from which I learned much to write this post.

The main distinctions are, as I see it, that the classical liberal believes that rights are inherent in man and negative in nature; that is, that one has the right not to be coerced through violence. (The right not to be coerced through violence is a tricky one, and I shall probably take it up in another post.) By contrast, the modern liberal believes that rights are delivered to man by government and are positive in nature; in other words, that a government can guarantee many different rights, including the right to health care, the right to food, the right to housing, the right to free speech, etc.

Much like the Utilitarianism and Social Contract Theory we're studying in my Ethics class, I find modern liberalism to be too compatible with social engineering for my taste. In my view, classical liberalism respects the dignity of each individual human being--after all, we are made in imagine Dei--and thus is far the more liberal view.

I'm not really a conservative--I'm a classical liberal. But it's probably too late to reclaim that word, tarnished by long association with an illiberal American left wing.

Ask not what your country can do for you....

I've always disliked using a parent as a metaphor for government. It's always seemed dangerous to me to think of the government as having that much control over my life. But I think the metaphor has relevance for the current political situation in the United States, for reasons that have been disturbing me.

Right now, the American people don't feel good. They hear a steady drumbeat of bad news. Despite rising real incomes and standards of living across income groups, people feel like things are getting worse. Americans don't want prosperity; they want security. They want to know that no matter what happens, they'll be okay. They want the government to make sure they are secure. This, I think, is why Barack Obama is so popular; Americans want a man as president whom they think will protect them from anything bad that might happen. In this country, voters don't want to be independent and accept all the risks that come with that. We don't want to grow up; we want to be Toys 'R' Us kids.

Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy, but the senator's message of a government that protects its citizens like children is a far cry from JFK's plea: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country." Are we going to be a nation of adults or of children? This election could answer that question, and I have a feeling I know the answer.

America will never be great because of who is in the White House; it will only be great because regular, everyday Americans make it so by taking risks, improving themselves, working hard, and helping each other without being forced.