The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

House Democrats Scramble to Resolve Differences

Mike Van Winkle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:58:17 +0000

“House leaders struggled Thursday to settle differences … in time to pass expansive health care reform Saturday. The push to garner the 218 votes needed for passage came as congressional Republicans and thousands of conservative activists gathered on the West Lawn of the Capitol — just below the steps where Democrats released their bill last week — to protest what they call a government takeover of health care that will lead to extraordinary new taxes.” (Washington Times, Friday)

Two-minute warning.

FEE Timely Classic:
“Ranking the U.S. Health Care System” by Jim Peron

Climate Bill Pushed Through Committee

Mike Van Winkle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:49:43 +0000

“In a step that reflected deep partisan divisions in the Senate over the issue of global warming, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee pushed through a climate bill on Thursday without any debate or participation by Republicans.” (New York Times, Friday)

Looks like its Hail Mary time.

FEE Timely Classic:
“Mandating Renewable Energy: It Ain’t Easy Being Green” By Michael Heberling

Denver Rail Project Costs More than Expected

Mike Van Winkle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:06:16 +0000

“Projected costs [of a Denver rail project] have ballooned to nearly $7 billion, and the system faces a budget gap of $2.2 billion, mainly because of a sharp drop in sales tax revenues … Voters could be presented with a proposed sales tax increase as early as next year to finish a system that remains mostly an idea.” (New York Times, Thursday)

Don’t say we told you so.

FEE Timely Classic:
“Mass Transit Mess” by John Semmens

Let’s Ignore Congress

Sheldon Richman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:28:26 +0000

I spent a good part of Wednesday night closely skimming — my conscience won’t let me type “reading” — the Republicans’ alternative healthcare “reform” bill. It’s 219 pages of legalese. I know it’s one-tenth the size of Speaker Pelosi’s bill, but that doesn’t make for easier navigation. Figuring out how it all would work is no easy task, and I don’t claim to have done it. At least the bill appears to legalize the purchase of insurance across state lines and does not contain an individual or employer mandate.

It does promise to lower the cost of medical insurance. Maybe it would, but with Medicare driving up prices and shifting costs to non-Medicare patients, I doubt it. Others have pointed out that belief in government is like belief in magic. No need to wonder how it will achieve some glorious purpose. The mere expression of its will is enough to make it happen. I think of Yul Brynner as Ramses II in The Ten Commandments: “So it is written, so it shall be done.”

In keeping with the magic theme, the titles of legislation look like incantations. The Republican bill is called the Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act (pdf). I wondered what the acronym would be, then realized that CSHCRA is not pronounceable. (Pelosi’s AHCA [Affordable Health Care for America Act] isn’t much better.) I guess the title shop in Congress couldn’t come with anything as clever as the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) or the HEALTHCOURT Act (Health Care Over Use Reform Today), a malpractice overhaul bill.

Here’s a taste of the House GOP leadership’s bill:

SEC. 101. ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL ACCESS PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE HIGH RISK POOLS AND REINSURANCE MARKETS.

(a) STATE REQUIREMENT.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than January 1, 2010, each State shall-

(A) subject to paragraph (3), operate–

(i) a qualified State reinsurance program described in subsection (b); or

(ii) qualifying State high risk pool described in subsection (c)(I); and

(B) subject to paragraph (3), apply to the operation of such a program from State funds an amount equivalent to the portion of State funds derived from State premium assessments (as defined by the Secretary) that are not otherwise used on State health care programs.

You get the idea. Imagine that for 219 pages, never mind 1,990!

Is it any wonder that at times like these I seek comfort in chapter 19 of Herbert Spencer’s great classical liberal work Social Statics: “The Right to Ignore the State” (1850)? In that work Spencer establishes his well-known law of equal freedom: “Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.” Then later he draws out a neglected implication:

If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state — to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying towards its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man’s property against his will, is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment — a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw.

Heady stuff, indeed. Where is the flaw? I think the American scene could use Herbert Spencer today. He’s refreshing! Behold: “Let men learn that a legislature is not ‘our God upon earth,’ though, by the authority they ascribe to it, and the things they expect from it, they would seem to think it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporary purpose, whose power, when not stolen, is at the best borrowed” (emphasis added). Brilliant! Thus, “The first condition to be conformed to before a legislature can be established without violating the law of equal freedom, is the acknowledgment of the right now under discussion — the right to ignore the state.”

He goes on to use the democratic-republican’s own principle to establish his point: “[T]hey who maintain that the people are the only legitimate source of power — that legislative authority is not original, but deputed — cannot deny the right to ignore the state without entangling themselves in an absurdity.”

But haven’t the governed consented?

Perhaps it will be said that . . . the citizen is understood to have assented to everything his representative may do, when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected someone holding opposite views — what then? The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted — whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees; if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A’s consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!

Indeed, Charles Johnson, a Freeman contributor, argues that consent is not possible if withholding consent is not possible. “If there is no effective possibility of refusal, then there is no possibility of publicly expressing consent, and if there is no possibility of publicly expressing consent, then there is no possibility of consenting,” Johnson writes.

Alas, in the end, Spencer backs away from his case.

Let not any be alarmed, therefore, at the promulgation of the foregoing doctrine. There are many changes yet to be passed through before it can begin to exercise much influence. Probably a long time will elapse before the right to ignore the state will be generally admitted, even in theory. It will be still longer before it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty of checks upon the premature exercise of it. A sharp experience will sufficiently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. Whilst, in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements, and so great a dread of experiments, that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so.

Be that as it may, Spencer raises a challenging question, one worth thinking about as our misrepresentatives in Congress prepare to impose on us in a very big way.

Even Seasonal-Flu Vaccine Is Short Supply

Sheldon Richman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:10:31 +0000

“Even though the regular flu season has yet to start, the nation is facing a severe shortage of seasonal flu vaccine as well as swine flu vaccine.” (New York Times, Thursday)

Who’s in charge here? Oh right, the same ones who want more control over medical care.

FEE Timely Classic
“A Ton of Prevention: How the FDA Threatens Vaccine Supplies” (pdf) by Arthur E. Foulkes

Fed Will Keep Federal Funds Rate Near Zero

Sheldon Richman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:08:50 +0000

“Federal Reserve leaders are sticking with their policy of very low interest rates for some time to come, they indicated Wednesday, but gave new details of the factors they will use to decide when to change course.” (Washington Post, Thursday)

How does the Fed know what the right rate is?

FEE Timely Classic
“The Fed Sets Interest Rates? ~ It Just Ain’t So!” by Richard H. Timberlake

Senate Extends Unemployment Payments

Sheldon Richman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:05:31 +0000

“The Senate voted unanimously Wednesday to offer up to 20 more weeks of unemployment benefits to those who have been out of work a long time, after weeks of delay in which hundreds of thousands of Americans exhausted their government aid.” (New York Times, Thursday)

Government likes to break people’s knee caps then benevolently hand out crutches.

FEE Timely Classic
“Unemployment and Liberty” by Benjamin Zycher

The Freedom Philosophy as a Calling

Steven Horwitz — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:01:18 +0000

When the fine folks at FEE and The Freeman recently asked me if I would like to write a regular online column, I briefly hesitated, thinking through my busy schedule and ongoing writing commitments. But it was only briefly, as I knew this was something I had to make time for. The same could be said for a recent hour I spent debating the merits of capitalism with a person I’d never met, and who wasn’t especially polite about it, in the comments section of a Facebook status message of a mutual friend. As another libertarian friend said afterwards, “Every conversation is an opportunity to change the world, wherever it takes place.” Indeed.

And just a couple of days ago, as I sat in a park in New Orleans with a friend and her son, I was checking my email only to have my friend, who is also an academic, turn to me and say, “Do you ever stop thinking about work?” As I thought about how to answer that question seriously, I realized that it was based on a flawed premise: that I perceive what I do as “work.” That’s not the way it feels. I answered, “In some sense, no, I don’t ever stop thinking about ‘work.’ But what I do does not feel like work. It’s a calling. There’s a world out there that needs to be improved.”

For those of us who have imbibed the freedom philosophy, the world never looks the same as it did before. We see all kinds of problems around us, both in the way the world is and the way many people think it should be, and we feel compelled to respond to them. When people say things that we know are wrong, we are always ready to engage them (assuming that the social situation allows it to be done). Those of us who are professional intellectuals feel, perhaps, “called” in this sense, given that we have the knowledge, skills, and reputation to reach more people and perhaps make more of a difference.

The danger of the language of a “calling,” of course, is that can slide to into dogma or in-your-face obnoxiousness. We’ve all met the person who doesn’t know when to keep politics out of a social setting, and that’s not a person we want to be. And it’s also not effective in getting the message of the freedom philosophy out. Integral to this particular calling is trying our best to make our core values and behaviors conform to our preferred social order. Peaceful exchange and social tolerance are not just political principles but guides to human interaction at all levels.

So engaging in Facebook comment threads, or checking my email at the park, or agreeing to take on this column in the face of a big to-do list, or the general inability of many like-minded folks to say “no” to one more talk or paper, or another trip or conference can all be understood as part of the calling that comes from understanding the freedom philosophy and seeing its power to change the world in ways that would improve the lives of billions of our fellow humans.

Each time we talk, civilly and with an open mind, to those who see the world differently, or write a letter to the editor, and or give our time or resources to deserving organizations, we are taking up that calling to make the world a better place. For many of us, we just can’t help it. But that’s okay because we can think of nothing more important that we could do than to respond to that calling.

I hope that this column becomes a place where my calling becomes part of your calling and helps you to spread the freedom philosophy. I’ll do my best to live up to my end, and I hope you’ll do the same. One glance at where the world has gone in the last few years should tell you that we need the freedom philosophy more than ever.

Health Bills’ Cost-Cutting Power Is Doubted

Sheldon Richman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:00:03 +0000

“In years past, policymakers tried taming health-care growth with price controls — in government reimbursements and through managed care. The Obama administration has advocated a third way: moving away from fee-for-service payments, which reward providers for doing more procedures, to a coordinated system that pays doctors and hospitals for doing better…. Now, as the debate reaches a critical juncture, many are worried that the president’s ambitious hopes to constrain costs could result in tepid half-measures on Capitol Hill.” (Washington Post, Wednesday)

Central planning by another name.

FEE Timely Classic
“Government Fundamentalism” by David R. Henderson

Homebuyers Tax Credit to Be Renewed

Sheldon Richman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:58:10 +0000

“The Senate and House are poised to agree on a compromise measure to extend unemployment benefits that also would expand a popular $8,000 tax credit for homebuyers, despite a recent government report on extensive mistakes and suspected fraud in the program.” (New York Times, Wednesday)

Just cut taxes and spending and let us decide how to spend our money.

FEE Timely Classic
“Are High Taxes the Basis of Freedom and Prosperity?” by Sudha R. Shenoy