Category Archives: Liberty

Must Support For “Family Planning” Be Compelled?

05 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by in Big Government, Liberty, Presumptive rights, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Fund Me

Where do Libertarians stand on the issue of federal funding of Planned Parenthood? What sort of balance should be struck between the rights of conscientiously-objecting taxpayers and the rights of women to use Planned Parenthood (PP) services? The correct answer has nothing to do with abortion, an issue on which Libertarians lack unanimity. However, the existence of moral objections by any segment of society, whether considered valid by a majority or not, is an important consideration.

Do Individual Freedoms Require Taxpayer Support?

Sheldon Richman discusses the funding question on his Free Association blog in “Planned Parenthood, Social Peace and  the Libertarian approach“. He first makes a basic point: “… no one’s freedom is violated by lack of access to taxpayer money.” I agree, but this statement requires some context. For Libertarians, the baseline is a society in which individual liberty is a presumption. That cannot be the case if taxes and transfers dominate our economic lives. If we’re all busy picking each other’s pockets, then perhaps anyone can lay claim to a dollop of public funds to pay for any damn thing they want. But in a society that explicitly limits the powers of coercive government, private individuals cannot, on the public dime, lay claim to whatever they wish to compel from others. What they desire, after all, is almost always available privately. Therefore, the denial of public funding for PP does not constitute a denial of anyone’s rights.

Individual’s are free to exercise their reproductive or non-reproductive rights as they see fit, and to pay for related services themselves or by seeking a benefactor. Nothing is deprived to that individual other than an invalid claim on the belongings of others.

“Individual rights ultimately boil down to the single right to be free from aggression, that is, to self-ownership. Rights would be defined out of existence if they could be ignored whenever doing so would make someone else’s objectives easier to accomplish. Such an approach to “rights” would turn rights theory on its head by making us a mere means to other people’s ends rather than ends in ourselves.“

Consistent Application of Property Rights

Richman asserts that the right of ownership of one’s body applies equally to the right of individuals to the income they produce:

“Ironically, the right to choose abortion is defended as an application of the right of women to their bodies, that is, as a property right (self-ownership). Another implication of the right to one’s own body is the right to control the fruits of one’s labor (income). No coherent theory of rights can permit a clash of the right to one’s body with the right to the fruits of one’s labor. Thus implicit in the pro-choice case is an argument against tax funding of Planned Parenthood (and anything else), that is, against taxation itself.“

Leftist elites say that a denial of public funding for PP is tantamount to a denial of service to low-income women. Richman asks the elites to put up or shut up: if they believe the services in question are critical, they are free support PP financially, but they much prefer to extract resources from taxpayers without regard to possible moral objections.

Protection of Religious and Moral Principles

Richman adds the following thoughts on public funding of Planned Parenthood near the end of his post:

“Reasonable people of all persuasions should see that it is simply unreasonable to force people to finance an organization they find morally offensive. Thomas Jefferson famously said, ‘To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.’ Compelling men and women to furnish contributions for the performance of services they deem immoral (whether or not they are) is worse.“

Supporters of public PP funding have sought to deflect morality-based opposition with the contention that abortions represent only 3% of PP’s services, but Slate debunked that claim over two years ago. It was based on a count of tests and procedures performed, not on revenue. PP also claims that tax funds never pay for abortion, but as Richman points out, once available, the revenue is fungible and may be used to cover the cost of any procedure. In short, the argument is specious.

The Public Good Argument Is Weak

One more elephant in the PP funding debate concerns the appropriate functions of government. Does PP provide a truly “public” good, one having benefits that are nonexclusive to the primary user? Health services are sometimes assumed to confer public benefits; that is an easy argument in the case of infectious diseases and to some extent for medical research, but not for most health services. The benefits of individual health services are largely private, providing little justification for government funding of PP from a public finance perspective.

Collective Action Needs Strict Limits

Collective action should be confined to the provision of public goods, but even then it can be fraught with conflicts, such as the difficulty of accommodating pacifists during wartime. A truly liberal society will do all it can to accommodate diverse beliefs by allowing objectors to opt out, if possible, or avoiding the funding of private activities, especially those over which there is significant dissent. Under no circumstances should one be compelled to pay for private services that they find to be morally objectionable.

Trump Flaunts Shape-Shifting Powers

06 Thursday Aug 2015

Posted by in Government, Liberty, Tyranny

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

trump characature

Donald Trump could take just about any position on any issue and defend it with conviction and blustery passion… until he changes his mind. At this point in his presidential bid, there is nothing on his campaign web site in the way of specific policy statements. Here is an “On The Issues” post showing the evolution of Trump’s positions in a number of policy areas. Just about anyone on the left or the right should be able to get a few chuckles out of this list. It’s truly astonishing.

A few of Trump’s current policy positions are discussed below, but before getting into that, it’s interesting to consider the overall tenor of his rhetoric. Most observers will happily admit that they find his bombast entertaining, and I do too. He’s outspoken and unapologetic, confronting his critics head-on, often to powerful effect. Many are drawn to this sort of candidate, and his popular image as a skilled businessman doesn’t hurt. But while all politicians are capable of disappointing supporters, Trump fans do not know, and cannot know, what they’re getting.

Trump is almost always critical but rarely suggests actual solutions, making it difficult to discern whether he really has policy positions. So much so that it’s incredible to hear praise for his “clarity”. For a more sober take, read Andy Kroll’s account of frustrated attempts to get direct responses on a few policy issues from the Trump campaign, and of Trump’s bizarre tour of Laredo, Texas. A related piece by Peter Suderman appears at Reason.com. Politico has emphasized the same point in “Will the real Donald Trump please stand up?“. Kroll says this:

“I have zero to report about Trump’s plans for actually being president—except that, from all available evidence, he hasn’t given it a moment’s thought.“

An interesting piece on Trump comes from Jeffrey Tucker in “What is Trumpism?“. A longer version appeared as “Trumpism: The Ideology“. Here is one bit from Tucker, written after hearing “The Donald” speak at FreedomFest:

“The speech lasted an hour, and my jaw was on the floor most of the time. I’ve never before witnessed such a brazen display of nativistic jingoism, along with a complete disregard for economic reality. It was an awesome experience, a perfect repudiation of all good sense and intellectual sobriety. …

His speech was like an interwar séance of once-powerful dictators who inspired multitudes, drove countries into the ground, and died grim deaths.“

Here are a few examples of Trump’s “nativism”, as described by Tucker:

“I did laugh as he denounced the existence of tech support in India that serves American companies (‘how can it be cheaper to call people there than here?’ — as if he still thinks that long-distance charges apply). 

When a Hispanic man asked a question, Trump interrupted him and asked if he had been sent by the Mexican government. He took it a step further, dividing blacks from Hispanics by inviting a black man to the microphone to tell how his own son was killed by an illegal immigrant.“

Two issues on which Trump has been outspoken are international trade and immigration. As an aside, I note that he is always quick to qualify any aggressive statements he makes on these topics with a quick “I love the Chinese”, or “I love the Mexicans”. Tucker, at the link above, highlights Trump’s backward views on trade, which focus almost exclusively on U.S. producers without considering the benefits of trade to U.S. consumers. He sees big ships coming into port, and thinks only of cash flowing abroad: “What do we get?” Well, we get nice foreign goods, thank you very much. But Trump blames foreign trading partners for many ills, despite the fact that his Trump-label ties are made in China! Are we somehow being cheated on those ties? Trump says we need smarter people negotiating “these deals”. Okay… is that a policy?

We don’t need trade wars if we want to avoid a much weaker economy. Yet Trump’s trade rhetoric suggests that he would be tempted to employ trade restrictions like tariffs as a bludgeon. For example, consider one of his other big talking points: illegal immigration (despite the fact that the inflow of illegals has slowed to a trickle over the past few years). Trump wants to build a wall across the length of the U.S.-Mexican border, and he says he’ll make Mexico pay for it. To get a wall built, Trump might well decide that he can raise tariffs on Mexican goods to prohibitive levels as a way of twisting Mexican arms. That sort of action is likely to be very costly for U.S. consumers, and ultimately producers as well.

Trump’s latest pronouncements on immigration policy have been described as confusing. In a nutshell, he wants to deport “the criminals” (and not just those already doing time) and deport all other undocumented aliens; create an expedited process whereby we can let “the good ones” back into the country with legal status; “maybe” create some sort of path to citizenship (because “who knows what’s going to happen”), but not right away; and “we’re going to do something” for the “DREAMers”. Trump says he’ll know how to identify the “good ones”. If he’s so confident of that, then why would he, a smart “business guy”, allow the country to incur the expense of deporting millions of them?

Who knows what Trump will propose in terms of tax reform, health care and gun control? Ditto on welfare policy, defense, the drug war, foreign policy and energy. He wisely spoke against the drug war in 1990, but I’m not aware of any recent statements on the issue. Also in his favor, he does not accept the “consensus” on climate change and opposes Common Core. He has criticized crony capitalism but has undoubtedly benefited from cronyism, enlisting governments in the pursuit of eminent domain action. He is said to favor cuts in federal spending, but he has opposed cuts in Social Security and Medicare. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage, but he has proposed a wealth tax in the past.

Trump has not offered many specifics in this campaign, and the GOP debate this Thursday night will not provide a decent forum for articulating policy. In general, his positioning is a very mixed bag. One gets the sense that he is doing his best to appeal to a sort of populist conservatism. Unfortunately, his signature “positioning” on trade and immigration qualify him as something of a statist. He has certainly held a number of other statist views in the past, though he has disavowed at least some of those.

In closing, here are two more quotes from Jeffrey Tucker about Trump that I found both ominous and plausible:

“What’s distinct about Trumpism, and the tradition of thought it represents, is that it is not leftist in its cultural and political outlook (see how he is praised for rejecting “political correctness”), and yet still totalitarian in the sense that it seeks total control of society and economy and demands no limits on state power.“

“These people are all the same. They purport to be populists, while loathing the decisions people actually make in the marketplace (such as buying Chinese goods or hiring Mexican employees).“

Don’t Call Leftists “Liberal”; They’re Not!

29 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Liberty

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lenin_Got_Rope_Capitalists

Nor are statists, collectivists and socialists, but I repeat myself. The simple plea above is made by Daniel Klein in an essay appearing in the Intercollegiate Review and in Modern Age. He asserts that libertarians (and conservatives) fall into a semantic trap when they use the term as a pejorative for leftists. I have touched on the mangled, modern usage of “liberalism” several times on Sacred Cow Chips, but Klein brings some interesting empiricism into consideration and makes several points worth emphasizing.

First, Klein traces the historical record of appearances of certain words related to liberalism in published literature using the “n-gram viewer” on Google. He shows that the political use of “liberal” began around 1770. For the next 110 years, liberalism referred to a philosophy and policies associated with small government and individual autonomy. In the U.S., however, the term began to be co-opted by the political left in the late 1800s. Around the turn of the twentieth century, references to “New Liberalism” and “Old Liberalism” became more frequent. So the term was subverted in that time frame, a decade or two before the term “left-wing” came into use.

“The literature of the so-called New Liberals declaimed openly against individual liberty and in favor of state collectivism and socialistic reform.“

Today, the association of “liberalism” with the left is confined mostly to the U.S. and Canada:

“…when we step outside North America, we see that, by and large, liberal still means liberal (in the UK, usage is in-between). …

Where liberal still means liberal, such as in Europe and Latin America, leftists have no reluctance in calling their imaginary bogeyman ‘neoliberalism.’“

By way of suggestion, Klein reviews a few alternative labels for the left. In doing so, he notes that in general, the left supports the “governmentalization of social affairs”. For that reason, one of my favorite labels is “statism”. Oddly, Klein never mentions this as a possibility. (Klein concedes that the left supports liberty on a few issues, which happen to be issues upon which most libertarians are in agreement.) He does refer to the old standby “collectivists” in passing.

Klein likes the label “Progressivism” for the left, despite the positive associations some might make with that term. He argues with some merit that progressivism implies activist, goal-directed policy, as opposed to non-intervention and the spontaneous social order favored by true liberals.

“That collectivists should join together for what they imagine to be progress is perfectly fitting. For them the term progressive is suitable. By contrast, conservatives and libertarians look to, not progress, but improvement. …

Another fitting term for leftism is social democracy, which is standard in Europe. Social democracy is a compromise between democratic socialism and a tepid liberalism. The socialistic penchant is foremost, but a vacillating liberalism gnaws at the social democrat’s conscience.”

I fully agree with Klein that we should never refer to leftists as liberals. They are completely undeserving of the description, and doing so concedes a glaringly false premise. Every leftist I know advocates the increasing governmentalization of social affairs and a naive acceptance of an impossible proposition: that government can ever possess the detailed knowledge necessary to successfully regulate individual actors from above. And leftists are foolishly willing to place faith in the benevolence and wisdom of political agents and central controllers. Klein mentions a recent editorial by Kevin Williamson in National Review:

“Williamson ends the piece by quoting two leftist authors writing in The Nation, one decrying ‘unbridled individualism,’ the other ‘unfettered capitalism.’ Williamson concludes: ‘A ‘liberalism’ that is chiefly concerned with the many clever uses of bridles and fetters does not deserve the name. It never has.’”

Leftists Propose New Ministry of Speech Approval

18 Saturday Jul 2015

Posted by in Liberty, Marketplace of Ideas

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

FactCheckers

I witness so many calls for censorship on a day-to-day basis that I find it astonishing. This in a free society, and from people who fancy themselves liberal. They prefer a form of censorship that carries criminal penalties for speech that does not meet with approval by media “fact checkers”. Which fact checkers shall we choose? Will they be fact-checking juries of our peers, or a new cadre of officials donning armbands?

Does anyone truly believe that the branch of the media engaged in “fact-checking” is objective? Andrew Gripp covers this topic, demonstrating that the assessment of “facts” often doesn’t stand the test of time. Fact checkers will call a statement false, only to rule otherwise years later, or vice versa. That’s just how it went down with President Obama’s pronouncement that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan”. True in 2008, false in 2013. Would Obama receive an exemption under this approach?

But that is just one way in which the fact checkers go wrong. More basic is the fact that the assessments they make are essentially opinions! Gripp puts his finger on the primary weakness of the fact-checking industry:

“… it is important to remember that old Enlightenment figure Giambattista Vico’s verum factum principle: the truth is made — made by people with their own biases, limitations, and subjective standards.“

As part of the same censorious narrative, I sometimes hear that Canada “bans” Fox News. This is patently false, as Snopes asserts. Another trope is that Fox News lies 50% of the time, or 82% of the time, or some such claim that should immediately set off the BS alarm of any discerning observer. I get aggravated with certain things I hear on Fox too, but as an empiricist, this just smells like BS. Kevin Williamson shreds these reports as exercises in bias in a piece entitled “How Stupid Happens“:

“The most obvious problem — though certainly not the only problem, not even close — is selection bias: PolitiFact is a readership-driven online publication, and thus it exercises a great deal of discretion about which statements it chooses to evaluate and why. The most obvious factor is that it evaluates only statements that are disputed. Specifically, it evaluates only statements that are disputed and that its editors believe will be of some interest or benefit to its readers. …

But the fact is that unsupportable, boneheaded claims … will live forever, because people are mostly interested in having their biases confirmed and their values affirmed rather than learning new things about the world and how it works. True, much as I like yelling at people on television, it is pretty hard to feel too bad for Fox News and MSNBC over an exercise in confirmation bias, but this sort of sloppy thinking and malicious manipulation does have the effect of leaving the polity a little dumber than it absolutely has to be. And that is an unforgivable sin.“

In many respects, it feels like this topic is hardly worth a blog post, because the wannabe censors exist in an impenetrable ideological bubble. But on the other hand, they are little tyrants, not merely content to seek a monopoly over the market place of ideas, which is bad enough. They also seek to criminalize statements with which they happen to disagree. There is no doubt that they would burn books. Their ideas are dangerous and should not be treated with respect in a free society.

 

 

Balancing Gay Rights and Religious Rights

08 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Liberty

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Government boot

Gay marriage rights are considered a big win among libertarians, but there are thorny issues on the horizon as LGBT activists contest certain liberties of other groups. Last month’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established that same-sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the established rights of different groups are sometimes in conflict; recognition of one individual right under the Constitution does not invalidate the established rights of others. Rather, these rights exist pari-passu unless some intractable conflict exists. Any challenge to a right of one party by another must be resolved based upon whether the courts find a compelling reason, under the circumstances of the case, to favor one right over another. Depending on the details, the result may establish a narrow or a broad precedent.

Last week, Reason carried a good discussion of several areas of possible conflict between the positions of certain LGBT activists and the libertarian view: “Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways?“, by Scott Shackford, covered each of the general issues listed below, which I’ll attempt to summarize. The libertarian resolution to most of these issues is dependent upon whether the challenge is against a government entity or a private party. This dichotomy follows from a constitutional philosophy under which the powers of government are strictly enumerated and the presumed rights of private individuals are broad and unenumerated. Many libertarians, Shackford included, believe that conflicts are often easily resolved when all alternatives for both parties are considered. For that reason, simply allowing private social arrangements to evolve is superior to intrusion by government aimed at righting perceived wrongs.

Employment Nondiscrimination: Shackford is skeptical that congressional passage of the long-debated federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would accomplish much because there has already been such a significant shift in the cultural acceptance of homosexuality. Nevertheless, he is supportive of laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination by government employers.

The ENDA would grant gay and transgender individuals the same status as other protected classes under federal law. With certain exceptions, it would require private employers to offer employment and benefits to LGBTs and same-sex married couples on the same basis as heterosexuals. This is meaningless unless gay individuals self-identify on job applications. It would also require that employers collect data on sexual preference and transgender status, which is costly, likely to be somewhat unreliable and disturbingly intrusive. But the most vexing aspect of federal law prohibiting discrimination by private employers against LGBTs is the potential conflict with the employer’s religious convictions.

The ENDA exempts religious organizations. The real challenge is balancing the rights of homosexuals with those of private employers having deeply-held religious beliefs opposing homosexuality. Should the rights of gays take precedence over the religious rights of private employers? There should certainly be no presumption that gays are dependent upon religious private employers for work. And there should be no presumption of “hate” on the part of a religious employer who does not wish to offer  any pecuniary support to homosexuals. Thus, it is difficult to argue that the employment rights of gays trump the religious rights of private employers, and because alternatives exist for gays, many libertarians see this as a simple issue of live and let live.

Religious Freedom Exemptions: This is about the asserted freedom to decide not to do  business with LGBTs based on religious convictions. Examples are the Muslim baker and the Christian photographer who do not wish to take business related to same-sex weddings. As I noted in “Suit Me or Face a Lawsuit: Adventures in Litigation Land“, compulsion to practice an art or to engage in any act of expression against one’s religious convictions is not acceptable from a libertarian perspective. That does not justify discrimination in a business’s public accommodations, however, where the doors of the business are open for purchases by the general public. The public at large, protected groups and otherwise, should have the freedom to transact there.

Shackford makes some good points in this section, including a rebuttal of the argument that to be engaged in “doing business” somehow disqualifies an individual from refusing an order based on religion:

“This argument flips the idea of civil liberties completely on its head and attributes the source of our rights to the government, a contradiction of the spirit of our own Constitution.“

Transgender Recognition: Most libertarians believe that individuals should have the right to identify publicly as the gender with which they identify privately:

“Fundamental to liberty is the right to personal identity and expression. This includes gender. Transgender citizens have the same right as everybody else to live their lives as they please without unnecessary government interference.“

Shackford again draws the crucial distinction between government and private sector accommodation for the needs of transgender individuals:

“In the private sector, it’s all a matter of cultural negotiation and voluntary agreements. The law should not be used to mandate private recognition of transgender needs, whether it’s requiring insurance companies cover gender reassignment surgeries or requiring private businesses to accommodate their bathroom choices. The reverse is also true: It would be inappropriate for the government to forbid insurance coverage or to require private businesses to police their own bathrooms to keep transgender folks out.“

Adoption: Shackford notes that gay couples can now adopt children in any state, including a partner’s child. But conflicts arise involving religious adoption agencies that are unwilling to work with homosexuals wishing to adopt. Activists would like to stop the flow of public funds to these institutions, but that position is indefensible on several grounds: adoption is foremost about helping children, and it is counter-productive to undermine an agency with a track record of positive performance. There are secular alternatives for adoption as well. Second, placing children in homes undoubtedly provides benefits to taxpayers that exceed the funds supporting these agencies. Finally, the activist position is indefensible as an attack on religious liberty.

Bullying in Schools: Cultural acceptance of gays or any other difference might not extend readily to the schoolyard. Bullying should always be dealt with firmly, but new legal protections for gays should not give way to policies that may be excessively harsh:

“… whatever is done to try to curtail bullying needs to be managed with the understanding that we are dealing with children on both sides of the issue…. 

The libertarian concern here is, just as with the other issues, using the state or the law to punish people—in this case, children—when there are better social tools for this battle… before considering new policies or laws with the intention of fighting bullying, activists need to remind themselves that public schools now have … oppressive disciplinary policies that they use to discard students at the first sign of trouble. The last thing we need is more ‘zero tolerance’ policies. As it stands, we have children and teenagers being arrested by police for common school misconduct and their families forced to deal with costly and time-wasting court systems. It is an absurd outcome that actually threatens children’s futures.“

Shackford closes with a few thoughts about the usefulness of school choice for helping parents find the most hospitable school environment for their children.

Libertarians have been consistent supporters of gay marriage rights, nondiscrimination by public institutions and in the public accommodations of private businesses. However, libertarians are unlikely to support LGBT activists in attempts to curtail religious liberties. This includes the liberty to run a business in a manner consistent with one’s religious beliefs, whether or not that conflicts with the ideals of the LGBT community. Conflicting rights must be balanced in a way that is most neutral and least harmful. Libertarians generally believe that there is no remedy for a violation of religious rights. When the religious rights of private business owners are protected with respect to their non-public accommodations, any imposition this might inflict on other parties is usually mitigated by the existence of willing competitors. Alas, there is no right to a life free of insults, unintended or otherwise.