The Evils of Socialized Medicine

These are excerpts from the Italian movie We the Living made in the 1940's which was based on Ayn Rand's novel of the same name. The book is largely based on Ms. Rand's life while living in Soviet Russia.

These scenes demonstrate what happens under socialized medicine. Any claims to the contrary or denials of rationing by proponents, like President Obama, are based on lies and misrepresentations.

Real life experiences of people who lived in totalitarian societies need to be told, like Ms. Rand experienced under communism, now more than ever.

This Thanksgiving, Celebrate Reason, not Faith

Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday. It is used to celebrate man's ability to produce. It is a day filled with wonderful things to commemorate a person's production throughout the year.

The mouth-watering turkey, aromatic pies, savory trimmings and, in some cases, cosmopolitan decorations are a testament to the creation of wealth. It is these facets of the holiday that should be a source of pride to every self-reliant person.

However, there are those, motivated by hatred for mankind and our comfort and happiness, who would rather make Thanksgiving into a day based on guilt.

Thanksgiving critics, such as environmentalists and religionists, criticize our lifestyles. They say that Americans should be ashamed for consuming so much (especially food). Our material abundance, they say, contributes to a depletion of things like the planet's natural resources.

Critics insist that the construction of homes and buildings, usage of fossil fuels, abundance of food and drink, driving vehicles are cause, not for celebration, but should be condemned. That we should feel guilt for our selfish ways and that Americans have a duty to give reparations to those less fortunate.

They shutter at the possibility of the rest of the world being able to consume the way Americans do.

If the world came to consume the way we do, it will result in a utopia, not a dystopia as many doom-gloomers insist. For the world to embrace economic freedom, even in minimal amounts, means that the production of wealth is multiplied.

Human survival is not automatic. In order for someone to live, their life depends on producing successfully. From the food we eat, the clothes on our backs, the science researched and art forms we enjoy, every act of production requires thought. The greater the thought, the greater the creation.

Yet all production is the result of creation. The wealth created where it didn't exist before and was the result of human effort to reshape places and elements considered of little value into a scheme to benefit mankind. Not the result of mystical creation as told in holy texts such as the Bible or Koran.

In terms of Thanksgiving, less than a year after the founding of the Jamestown settlement in the 1600's, only 46 of the 104 original colonists were left alive, most having perished for lack of food.

This was due, in large part, to the colonists casting off their relgious tenents, since applying them to their way of life was destructive. At first, colonial land and farming was owned and worked on a communal basis along with the care and raising of children.

It wasn't until rejecting their religious beliefs and embracing free trade that the death, famine and misery that resulted from the Jamestown colonists initial communistic policy ended.

The Pilgrims were so pleased with the results from their change of heart that they prospered and didn't starve following their arrival that they saw it as an occasion for a Thanksgiving.

However, the colonist's bold step required thought and action to put their new policies to work. In order to survive, the colonists had to produce. And to produce, they used their logic and reason.

It was Abraham Lincoln who made the first Thanksgiving an official holiday in 1863. Upon making his declaration, Lincoln stated that we have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven.

Yet this statement and the many declarations made by clergy and environmentalists condemning our abundance while calling on us to sacrifice for the greater good or because society or some mystical element - such as God or nature - demands it, is an insult to everything we work for throughout the year.

Thanksgiving is not about faith and charity. It is about thought and production. The proper thanks for one's wealth is not mystical guilt, sacrifice or condemnation but celebration, if one has rightly and morally earned it.

When you sit at the dinner table with family and friends ready to consume your dinner on fine china, ignore those who damn your ability to live by calling for you to sacrifice and relish the day since it is done in commemoration of your hard work and effort.

You have earned it.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Germany Provides Insights into Stimulus Results

Since this month commemorates the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, a blunt and provocative commentary was recently published in The Wall Street Journal by Wolfgang Hummel who is deputy director of the State Ministry of Finance for Berlin.

In his essay, Mr. Hummel discusses the results of German reunification. He points out that the success of unification has mainly been symbolic. Popular politically, but not sound financially.

According to Hummel, the dirty little secret among German politicians is that East Germany would still have a hard time standing on its own two economic feet and, despite the initial results of infrastructure spending which seem beneficial, East Germany is a region whose economy is stagnant.

Since 1990, West Germany still siphons large amounts of Euros to the East to the tune of up to $1.9 trillion yet the region itself still produces little.

Mr. Hummel states when the Warsaw Pact countries collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union, the West German government valued East Germany's currency on a 2 to 1 basis and regional wage payments were valued 1 to 1 which was clearly an over valuation. People in the East were allowed to keep their savings but lost their jobs and the East's overall infrastructure was in shambles.

Hummel goes on to point out that one of the major steps to reunification was a massive spending program on the part of the German government. In addition to spending on infrastructure, money was paid out even to East German companies to continue for them to produce. Wages were even raised despite low productivity.

Yet the initial shock of the region's economic collapse was, and still is, hampered by Germany's onerous employment rules pushed by the country's unions that remain to this day and give regional employers an incentive to move to neighboring countries were labor rules are more flexible.

This in addition to the generous amounts of welfare payments doled out and the high taxes used to pay for them, puts Germany in an untenable position to compete economically which hinders the ability of East Germany to recover.

East Germany's recovery has been nominal and residents of the region mostly rely on welfare payments for sustenance when, in reality, the solution to the East and entire country's recovery is a true economic one.

The German experience is an indication as to what will happen with President Obama's stimulus plan.

Economies do not recover by government spending much less consumers incapable of producing that it takes handouts in order to get them to consume or even work in government financed projects or rescuing companies on the verge of collapse with bailouts.

There is no benefit to giving people money extracted by force in order to bail people or companies out of their risky investments, enact infrastructure spending or to give consumers checks to buy products just for the intrinsic value of buying just for buying's sake.

A government finance recipient's nominal revenues goes up initially but not in real terms. Stimulus spending gives the illusion to companies that there is an actual demand for their products and services (such as cars or homes) and to consumers that their wealth is higher thinking they can afford to buy things.

The reality is that consumers can't actually afford to buy products, and the actual profits of the companies isn't higher than it was. It is true the company's nominal revenues, in dollars, goes up, but not their actual receipts in real terms. As a result, labor and production costs go up due to the newly created money circulating through the system.

For those fooled by the inflation of the money supply, the net result (in real terms) is that they buy things they can't afford and the producers make things at a loss. All parties involved in the transactions utilizing stimulus spending see their real wealth shrink.

The money spent goes to the producer, but the product itself is gone. If a party saves money it is invested which, in turn, is spent on production.

For example, when an employer pays wages to employees, the employees will use their earnings to buy livable items (such as food, clothes, homes and cars). Then the employees consume the products they have purchased. The products consumed are the payment for their labor.

Consequently, you are paid interest out of the profit in the form of more products, services and jobs created in real, not artificial, terms.

In this case, savings is spent. All money that is not kept in cash balances is spent. The crucial issue is not spending for spending's sake but the nature of the spending itself. In the case I outline above, the money is spent not only in real terms but on actual production. Not consumption per se.

What is needed for an economic recovery is not an intrinsic plan of spending using the mantra of stimulus which encourages more borrowing, more spending, and encourages less liquidity.

Instead, a return to reality overall is needed by embracing true laissez faire in which a good start would be a return to savings and liquidity.

Yet it is liquidity and savings that the stimulus packages under both the Democrats and Republicans are obviously geared to prevent.

It's Time for a People's Veto

A specter is haunting politicians - the specter of voter anger.

After the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey earlier this month, it is obvious that voter anger is simmering and will come to a head for the mid-term elections in 2010.

This and previous efforts here in the States to implement some sort of ballot option for voters to reject candidates running for office, the spike in interest of a third-party candidate in a New York Congressional District race and the ousting of incumbent parties on the local level in New York deserves serious attention.

Back in June, rather than vote in the country's mid-term elections, a group of disaffected Mexican voters opted to wage a campaign for a unique candidate for every office up for grabs: Nulo (i.e. nobody).

According to The New York Times, the campaign took off like wildfire. Spurned by the Mexico's bad economy and continuing political corruption, Voto Nulo campaign supporters urged Mexican voters to nullify their ballots by voting for none of the candidates.

With his country's elections 2 months away, a Ukranian man has filed paperwork to run for President after legally changing his name to None of the Above.

Americans, if not voters in general, are obviously angry due to high rates of unemployment and are beginning to realize that the prosperity they thought they would enjoy from the booming economy prior to the economic collapse in 2006 will not return anytime soon.

However, the anger voters are experiencing now has brewed prior to this year. In the United States, the Democrats gaining seats in Congress in 2006 and grabbing control of Congress in 2008 was in retaliation for the awful policies George W. Bush.

It was not an affirmation of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama or their policies.

And, as we saw last month, voters will swing back to the opposition party if unhappy with the one in power.

Yet the unfortunate thing is that there is no political party or elected official, short of Ron Paul, that is serious about not only restoring freedom and getting the economy back on track.

Now with the pending vote in the U.S. Senate on whether or not members of the chamber should begin debate on a massively worded and incredibly expensive healthcare bill, Americans are becoming disaffected with the President who, at one point, enjoyed high approval ratings only to see them sag in recent months.

If the above examples of voter disaffection are any indication, it's time voters had a real choice come election day and a better method of communicating to the two major parties about their disappointment with the choices they make on policies and the quality of candidates they field to run for office.

It's time for None of the Above.

The state of Nevada has had a non-binding None of the Above category for it's ballots since 1975. While typically polling from anywhere from 5 to 15 percent of the vote, in 2006, the amount of votes being cast for NOTA in The Silver State surged.

The Libertarian Party and it's affiliates, in one way or another, require in their bylaws that None of the Above be a permanently placed category when party convention attendees cast ballots for each party office.

All legitimate consent requires the ability for one to withhold consent. Therefore, the legitimate consent of voters requires, rather than not showing up on election day, they be able to withhold their consent in an election to office.

Like casting no votes on ballot questions, voters should have the option to be able to cast ballots stating none of the candidates running for a particular office are acceptable.

Liberty vs. Serfdom

Since today is the day that marks the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I thought you all might appreciate this:

Carrie Prejean Axed by Anti-Gay Group

Looks like Carrie Prejean's days of being a poster child in opposition to same-sex marriage has hit another snag and may well be over.

A sex tape has emerged that is up for sale that allegedly was one of many but the one in question was done by Prejean herself for someone she had a one-night stand with.

Allegedly, the tape, whose price-tag is $10k but no one wants to touch, shows Prejean moaning and groaning while masturbating with a vibrator yelling obscenities.

Due to this new fact having emerged, the anti-gay group Defenders of the Family dropped Prejean as a guest speaker at one of their events like a hot potato.

At one point Ms. Prejean told attendees at the Value Voters Summit in September that God had a plan for her when she answered the question put to her by Perez Hilton on the gay marriage issue at the Miss U.S.A. contest during April of this year.

While she had a right to her opinion, by wanting to become a crusader for a religious-oriented cause, like opposing gay marriage, one would think Prejean would think about any potential skeletons in her closet that could damage her credibility before doing so.

I also wonder if God had a plan for Prejean when she broke her contract with the Miss California franchise.

**UPDATE 10/10*** Ms. Prejean is denying she was having sex in the tape in question and alleges a conspiracy against her. Prejean's mom saw the tape at a viewing and was shocked.

The Moral Bankruptcy of Conservatives

Germany held it's elections in September. The country's center-right parties widened their majorities in the country's lower house of Parliament and allowed Angela Merkel be be Chancellor for another 5 years.

During elections in June, socialist parties were sent packing when European voters rewarded center-right parties an even larger majority in the E.U. parliament.

However, this is not something to celebrate after all. Soon after the German election, The New York Times pointed out that, while socialist parties in Europe are crumbling, Europe's center-right parties have embraced many of the left's ideas.

In an obvious capitulation, the European left's proposals of generous welfare benefits, socialized medicine, environmental regulations, and European nations surrendering some sovreignty to the E.U. are now being championed by parties on the right.

European voters there aren't necessarily rejecting socialism and it's ideas while, simultaneously, embracing economic freedom. It's that parties, like the U.K. Conservatives and German C.D.U., have picked up and supported many of the radical ideas of left-wing while claiming they will do a better job with tax reductions and some liberalization of economic markets mixed in.

Like their counterparts here in the United States, European conservatives can only try to out-shout the left claiming they could do a better job with the country and the economy.

Conservatives know the best solution is to get the government out of the economy and back to its proper function of protecting individual rights. But with their obvious lust for power in mind, they instead dump whatever principles they have and mee-too their left-wing opponents of many issues claiming they will do it differently than their adversaries.

Ayn Rand said it best in her 1973 article, Censorship: Local and Express:

The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories -- with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals [the Democrats] see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe -- but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

She goes on to point out:

…Each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises…..‘Control,‘ to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.

The moral bankruptcy of conservatives isn't just their lust for power, but the appeasement their liberal counterparts with spineless timidity while hoping to convince people they would do the job of their rivals differently.

In short, the morally bankrupt tactics of conservatives, and some libertarians, is: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The moral basis of capitalism is: man's right to exist for his own happiness, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. In a free society, man has a right to his own life, which includes the right to trade freely with others without government interference (short of actual cases of fraud and involuntary force).

The moral bankruptcy of conservatives is that they accept or conserve the altruistic morality of the left and acknowledge that the only justification of a person's right to exist is selfless service to the public, common good, or for religious reasons.

Yet neither the left or right recognizes the fact that that every individual has a right to his own life and to the fruits of his labor. The result is a two-pronged war against the productive and successful, with heightened demands for sacrifice to an allegedly greater good.

Until this ethic is recognized and rejected for the moral evil it is and reason, rather than faith and self-sacrifice, is embraced, individual rights will languish and fade into the legal and moral abyss.

The Life and Impact of Ayn Rand

Last month the Cato Institute hosted a forum to discuss the life and work of Ayn Rand.

The event involved brief lectures by Anne Heller and Jennifer Burns both of whom authored books on Ms. Rand's life and work and were followed by book signings.

You can view the event in its entirety below.

Called for Jury Duty

I showed up for jury duty today. I recieved my summons to appear at the Downtown Phoenix City Courthouse a few months ago. The last time I was called was in 2005 in which I would have served in the West Mesa Justice Court.

In 2005, the court date was on a Friday but the parties involved agreed to post pone the trial until the following Monday so I, and the others called to serve, were sent home early.

This time was another matter. Like the West Mesa Court, the Phoenix Court handled criminal Misdemeanor cases such those involving prostitution, D.U.I. and shoplifting. I was part of the group of jurors called to serve on a jury to judge a DUI case.

It was very interesting to say the least.

I and about 17 other jurors were seated in a courtroom and went through the Voir Dire process. I was juror number 6 and after the judge took his seat, he introduced himself, the city prosecutor, the defendant and his attorney. After the introductions we were asked a series of questions by the judge related to what criminal law is, D.U.I., etc.

During questioning when asked by the judge if any of us had moral issues related to the case, existence or enforcement of D.U.I. laws. I raised my hand.

When questioned individually about my answer, I elaborated by saying that the purpose of law is to protect individual rights. In other words the protection of a person's right to life, liberty and property.

In terms of D.U.I. laws, I pointed out that if a defendant is driving under the influence of a substance, such as alcohol, but has done no harm to anyone, then, rather than be prosecuted, he or she should (if stopped by a police officer) pulled over and picked up by a family member or friend to be brought home.

In the case of a person who has done damage to someone's property, then the subject who committed the act should be required to give restitution.

I neglected to point out, but do feel, that if someone under the influence of alcohol or drugs violates a person's life with bodily harm or death during the course of an activity, such as operating a motor vehicle, then the person who committed the act with murder or assault should be charged and prosecuted depending on the level of harm done to the damaged party.

I explained to the court that I understood the reasons for the law's existence but disagreed with their premise since, based on my research, D.U.I. laws are geared more towards controlling human behavior, are another form of prohibition and are not being used for the prevention of potential harm, crimes or early intervention.

Based on my conclusions, I said, I would have ethical issues with regards to cases that involving D.U.I. for such reasons.

I was thanked by the judge for my forthrightness and, after quickly consulting the defense attorney and city prosecutor, was excused.

When the city employees who recieved jurors in the morning explained to us the jurisdiction of the city court, I hoped that I would serve on a jury for a shoplifting case and not one for D.U.I. or prostitution.

I knew that if assigned to a jury for prostitution or D.U.I. that the possibility of being excused was likely. I also have no doubt that I will either never be called for jury duty again or won't for quite sometime.

I also do not condone actions by anyone, such as the accused in question, who drives under the influence of mind-altering substances. I believe during the judge's explanation to jurors of the D.U.I. case myself and other jurors were assigned to, the defendant had been caught driving while intoxicated before.

If a defendant is a repeat offender and has not committed bodily harm to anyone either time, he should be condemned morally, but not legally.

This incident, however, does not diminish my view about government's existence, the jury system and courts of law.

Far from it.

In terms of juries, for as many bad verdicts handed down by them, I can point to numerous instances where juries acquitted defendants whose rights were violated, accused of crimes they did not committ or where the jury refused to convict a defendant.

Despite today's experience, my excusal from jury service for my views is indicative of a culture (in this case legal) not ready to embrace the very ideas I espouse and the libertarian vision I subscribe to.

Last September, author Michael Giuliano made some interesting observations in an article published in The Freeman.

In his article, Giuliano gives a damning account of the influence of utilitarianism in the legal system and what happens when a legal culture prefers consequentialism over natural law and rights stating:

Within the English and American legal and constitutional tradition, there are assumed to exist personal liberties that either preexist or supersede government power. The “greatest happiness of the greatest number” rule is, in contrast, a principle declaring that the ends justify the means. This elevates a consequentialism that invents responsibility for attenuated effects and thus removes all limitation on the scope of law’s coercive reach. The trek toward greater utilitarianism was in avowed opposition to the natural rights that, in the words of legal scholar Edward Corwin, once “morally exonerated the humblest citizen in defiance of the highest authority.”

The moral bankruptcy the results from embracing utilitarianism leads to results like what is seen today. A pragmatic approach to law where law is lead to manipulation and control rather than preserving and enhancing liberty.

Giuliano goes on to point out:

The law’s traditional requirement of "mens rea", or an evil mind, was the legal foundation of an act’s criminality. The corollary to this is the necessity of an overt act, or "actus reus", comprising the evil deed. The criminal-lawmaking mindset today legislates toward an external standard that judges results and not internal malice. The concept of negligence and the motivations underlying its use in tort law have bled into the criminal law. Freedom is greatly diminished when individually blameless, private, and nonmalicious conduct is so routinely punished rather than subjected to civil remedies.

The problems seen in America's legal system today is the result of cultural influences that have lead to the moral bankruptcy seen in government now-a-days. I think it is incumbent upon libertarians to turn back the tide through continuous education of the populace in public institutions and at large.

Embracing ideas, like Michael Giuliano suggests, is a good place to start.