Author: Tony

State property or parental property is still property.

In the sense that the term is used to imply a moral obligation and chosen desire to provide and care for children, I have no objections to discussing parental rights. To some extent that’s what I read as the goal in this editorial by Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. I just wish the correct use was the basis of the discussion rather than the caveat. Mr. Bowden introduces the topic in response to the recent ruling in California affirming the legality of homeschooling.

But where’s the real victory for parents’ rights? Rights identify actions you can take without permission. A true victory would have been a judicial declaration that parents have an absolute right to control their children’s upbringing–and that they therefore don’t need government permission to educate their children as they see fit.

There’s much more verbiage in the essay taking that same lazy approach. But absolute should not be accepted as a stand-in for nuance. Is this particularly libertarian?

To give parents a permanent victory, California would need to make its law consistent with America’s founding principles. Parents are sovereign individuals whose right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to control their child’s upbringing. Other citizens, however numerous or politically powerful, have no moral right to substitute their views on child-raising for those of the father and mother who created that child.

We know that rights are ignored far too often, but that doesn’t provide us justification to fling the word about as if expanding its definition and application are all that matter. That justification doesn’t exist, nor is that approach to rights correct. Where the individual is concerned, yes, but children are also individuals. Sharing DNA is not a contract capable of converting an obligation into a right. Creating the child is the parents’ right as individuals. Raising that child is better approached as an obligation with important qualifications. (I use obligation as an objective term not meant to imply a burden.)

Mr. Bowden gets closer later in his essay:

Of course, there are certain situations in which government must step in to protect the rights of a child, as in cases of physical abuse or neglect. …

Education, like nutrition, should be recognized as the exclusive domain of a child’s parents, within legal limits objectively defining child abuse and neglect. …

The qualification is key to advancing liberty first, for each individual. How best to do that, and on which principles, is next. Parents are the correct answer. But setting limits using objective standards should never be lost in the issue. Parents must be free to homeschool their children because they are best positioned to respond to the child’s positive right to an education. That is not a concession that the child may be held in a perpetual state of ignorance that will inhibit or prevent her from becoming a functioning, independent adult. Bowden succeeds where he makes that point. I wish he’d gotten there earlier so he’d have more time to defend this proper view of liberty instead of retreating on exaggerated claims.

———-

For discussion: How likely is it that children will respect liberty when they become adults if they’re only granted their basic, fundamental liberties at the discretion of their parents? Where liberty is denied, is it really better if parents deny it rather than the state?

Spuds MacKenzie didn’t need a drinking license.

Since I haven’t discussed central planning urges quite enough tonight, this from Ezra Klein:

21 is, of course, a bizarre marker. Demanding that kids refrain from drinking for three years after they become legal adults and, in most cases, leave their parent’s supervision, is a bit odd. “Welcome to adulthood, except when it comes to beverage choice!” But this could point the way towards a grand new education policy scheme: Drinking age is 18…if you attain a college-worthy GPA. Otherwise, 21. Implement that and you’ll blow those other, way lamer, educational attainment proposals out of the water.

He refers to the recent urging from a group of college presidents. Until he reached but, I was with him. The drinking age is ridiculous. There is no principled defense for denying certain adults a set of rights acknowledged for other adults.

But the but is too much. Witness how Klein packages his recognition of rights. This is not a chance to defend rights. It’s a chance to implement grand new policy. You can have your rights if you meet our standards. Who sets the standard for a “college-worthy GPA”? Will all students be held to an Ivy League requirement? Community college? Who decides? And what about someone like me who never drank or dreamed of drinking during high school and college? Maybe I can have free speech from 18 until 21 if I attain a “college-worthy GPA”?

This is the problem with collectivist thinking. Rights can be embraced, but there’s no need to demolish the status quo just because the right exists and it’s currently denied. Rights are not the end for individuals to use as they desire. No, rights can be embraced but the status quo should be reshaped rather than abandoned. Someone else always knows better. Klein would let young adults drink, but he would still infantilize them to the state.

Link via Andrew Sullivan.

But I want it. Isn’t that enough?

As if I needed more reasons to not vote for Sen. Obama, here’s another:

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall meeting on the economy in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I suspect this is nothing more than pandering, that Sen. Obama understands how ineffective – stupid, really – a single-payer system would be. He even concedes as much in the same event.

But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

All of that is an inconvenient hurdle. And it would be too easy to acknowledge that the government influenced or directly caused a significant part of the twisted, dysfunctional system that employs many people. And presumably serves many people, not all of whom are dissatisfied with what the private insurers do, or what they would do if freed from meddling. So, yeah, it’s a responsible to suppress the urge play central planner, even if it’s just pandering. Especially if it’s just pandering.

More:

His new marketplace would create a new government-run plan, like Medicare, to compete against the private plans.

The government should never compete with the private market. It is too easy, too inevitable that government will rig the game in its favor. There may be a claim of benevolent public good. We should have so little bad luck in a government market. More likely, politicians will reward naked rent-seeking for their own personal gain. Do we need to tally the examples?

As long as Sen. Obama pursues rhetoric like this, Sen. McCain’s possible strength in Virginia will not sway me into voting Democrat.

Link via Kevin, M.D.

I’m sure I’m on the No Fly List now.

I had a post planned to mark today’s fifth anniversary of Rolling Doughnut. I tossed that idea after a bit of fun morning travel. An encounter at the airport, rather than boring platitudes about writing and obstacles, reminded me why I love what I’ve built here and why I will continue (despite recent appearances to the contrary). The ability to say when something is not right and what should be done to make it right matters, however small my reach. So.

I flew to Buffalo this morning. Everything was fine until I reached the security checkpoint at Dulles. A TSA employee approached me with a strange device strapped to his arm. Allow me to roughly quote our conversation:

TSA: We’re testing a new device that scans for liquid explosives. Do you mind if I scan your bag? It will only take about 20 seconds.

Me: Do I have a choice? Can I say no?

TSA: Yes.

Me: Then I’m saying no.

First things first. I worded my question with the same careful consideration TSA – all law enforcement, really – used to craft theirs. If they could search my bag just because, they would’ve demanded rather than asked. I’ve watched enough episodes of Cops to be wise to the game. Anyway, I already knew the answer to my question. But initially playing dumb makes sense because authority has a tendency to get mean after realizing it’s been out-smarted. Also, it’s more fun.

After I said “no”, the TSA employee walked away. I watched as he returned to the security desk rather than moving on to people behind me and began a conversation I could not hear. I knew what it was, though, because our national security-at-all-costs mindset is so predictable. I also saw what happened in front of me. I reached the front of the line and handed my boarding pass and ID to the next TSA employee. He eyed me a moment too long, then looked at my ID. He carried this on for several cycles, apparently trying to stare me into submission. Another TSA employee had also stepped in front of the line and held everything up. Crisis management with manufactured crisis.

The TSA employee with my boarding pass and ID handed them back. I stepped forward and another TSA employee, flanked by two more employees, motioned me aside from the other passengers and away from the metal detectors. The two extraneous individuals stood behind her, one looking over each shoulder. Our conversation:

TSA 1: Sir, is there a reason you refused the scan of your bags when we asked?

Me: Yes. I asked if I had a choice. He said yes. So I said no. I don’t see how that gives you a reason to pull me aside now.

TSA 2: You do understand why we do this?

Me: I have rights. I’m exercising them. Are we done?

TSA 1: Yes.

I proceeded through security with no more trouble, which was a nice surprise. Still, the TSA’s policy approach to security is clear. Submit. Don’t question. Stand up for your rights, or even mere logic, and we will make your life hell, even if it’s only in this inconvenience. You don’t want another 9/11, do you? But who feels better knowing that the full attention of at least seven TSA employees focused on one man exercising his rights? That’s nothing more than security theater.

It was an interesting way to celebrate Rolling Doughnut’s fifth anniversary and to remember why I’ll be here for another five and beyond.

Update: I just opened my checked bag. Everything had been searched thoroughly and haphazardly, or perhaps maliciously. My toiletries bag was unzipped, a pocket in my suitcase was unzipped, and the car charger case was unzipped. All three were zipped when I finished packing my suitcase this morning. And my clothes were stuffed back in.

Let’s ramble together.

It’s been too many days. Blah, work, blah. More on this sometime this weekend. Moving on.

Many, many circumcision stories have popped through lately. I’m aiming for a quick hit to clear them out. First up:

“In our study we found gay men who were circumcised at infancy didn’t report having some kind of negative or positive impact on sexual dysfunction.

“However, nearly all men who were circumcised after infancy reported some sexual dysfunction, erectile problems or premature ejaculation, and one in five reported some complication as a result of the circumcision. …”

We all see the obvious flaw, I think. Didn’t report. Is it too difficult to extrapolate that self-reporting is subjective, and therefore inferior, to objective considerations. How about I theorize that all circumcision results in some form and degree of sexual dysfunction. Those circumcised at infancy just don’t realize it. I can’t (and won’t) say that’s true, but it’s no worse than the above.

Next, there was an international conference on HIV/AIDS in Mexico City recently. Of course all discussion of circumcision seemed to focus entirely on the allegedly miraculous power of circumcision. I encountered very little consideration of ethics. I found an example of this indifference in the New York Times, which is almost always reliably bad in this respect.

There was no question about the ethical need for an early stop of the trials. …

But there was a question about the ethical need to constrain the implementation of voluntary, adult circumcision to adults volunteering to undergo circumcision. Public health officials ignored that ethical need within six days. They’ve continued to ignore it since.

For example, in an article titled “Not such an unkind cut, after all”:

Modern techniques make the risks associated with circumcisions insignificant.

Insignificant according to whom? Not necessarily the person facing those risks, yet that gets ignored in favor of propaganda.

Brisbane doctor Terry Russell, who has performed about 19,000 circumcisions, says he has never had a case in which a blood transfusion was required, or a systemic infection ensued. “We see minor local infection in about 2 per cent of the boys that we do, but most are treated without putting them on antibiotics.”

Russell uses the PlastiBell for his procedures, which is a small ring that fits inside the foreskin, over the head of the penis. The foreskin is compressed between the ring on the inside, and a string which is tied to the outside of the foreskin. The clamping cuts off circulation in the area, reducing the risk of bleeding and infection. The PlastiBell accurately defines how much foreskin should be removed, “so you can’t take off too much or too little”, says Russell.

Too much or too little according to whom? Not necessarily the person losing the (functioning, healthy) foreskin, yet that gets ignored in favor of propaganda. And where there’s propaganda, we can almost always find one of our cadre of propagandists. This time, it’s Brian Morris:

An unequivocal advocate of circumcision, Morris notes that men who have the procedure enjoy better hygiene.”Just general, day-to-day, run-of-the-mill hygiene is so much better in circumcised males. This is something that washing with soap just can’t fix, because the bacteria return quite quickly in uncircumcised males,” he says.

And female genitals? Other parts?

… Morris claims that the medical benefits of circumcisions are such that the procedure should always be considered a direct medical need.

Morris needs a dictionary that will properly define need, preferably in a medical context.

Morris says one in three uncircumcised males will suffer an illness that will require medical assistance for a disease directly related to not getting circumcised. From this perspective, Morris argues, it is unethical not to routinely circumcise given the relatively simple and painless nature of the process and the harm that can be avoided.

Do women who get breast cancer suffer a disease directly related to not getting a mastectomy before cancer strikes? Morris is playing very loose with logic, yet he gets featured as if he’s the reasonable voice. The best¹ the reporter can apparently do to counter Morris is this:

That both pre-pubescent boys and adults can undergo circumcisions might support Mason’s contention that the matter should be left until the child can decide for themselves.

It’s not “now or never” for circumcision and all its allegedly wonderful benefits. That’s a large caveat in favor of considering ethics and human rights, no? And maybe it suggests a more vigorous examination of the bit where Morris equates potential benefits to direct medical need than the reporter attempted?

Finally, via Religion Clause, an article from World Net Daily about a lawsuit in Italy over infant baptism. This particular aspect stood out.

[Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Joseph] Infranco said, “All parents have the right to raise their children in their religious tradition, which obviously includes participation in the historic rituals associated with that religion.”

We could discuss baptism, and I’d probably agree with this statement. But it’s far too broad. If we can judge psychological harm, then no, I won’t concede the point without a debate. If we can judge physical harm, then I will never concede the point. Historic or not, ritual or not, there is no defense for permitting parents to impose physical harm. Children have individual rights – particularly to their bodily integrity – that can’t be ignored in favor of imagined, non-existent rights to treat individuals as collective property.

I didn’t really stick with the quick hits, did I?

¹ For those who wish to mix issues and push for nationalized healthcare as a strategy to reduce infant circumcision, the reporter dropped this into its own paragraph as a defense for the clear intention of the article. I think America would see this emphasis on long-term costs more than an emphasis on short-term costs. Or rights.

Reducing the burden of diseases later in life would also save money in the already over-stretched health budget.

When the choice is between hubris and rights, central planners will always choose hubris.

Monkey Smile Jamboree

In three minutes, this video neatly summarizes much that is wrong with the American mindset surrounding infant male circumcision.

After a bit about “what is circumcision”, we have this exchange:

Teen: “Does it hurt the baby?”
Adult: “It doesn’t feel good, but they don’t remember it.”
Teen: “Yeah, but it doesn’t matter the memory of pain, it matters the pain or not.”

The teen has a natural, reflexive push for simple logic. She gets it entirely correct. As I’ve argued before, following the “he won’t remember it” angle could justify anything short of murder. Something else (ethics, medical need) must get in the way, rendering “he won’t remember it” irrelevant. He will experience it. That matters.

Continuing on through the video, the adult pushes to replace logic with emotional conditioning. One of the teen girls asks why all (circumcised) men have “an awkward scar around their penis”. After laughter and a bit of disbelief, the adult responds:

“He’s talking about probably the separation from the shaft and the head, okay?”

This is ignorant. A scar results from every circumcision. It may be at the separation of the shaft and the glans, although it’s usually further down the shaft than that. (Not much, unfortunately, since there are nerve endings in the now-excised foreskin.) But there is a scar. No circumcised male is unique in being free of this inevitability. Any person who’s seen a circumcised penis, or even the result of another surgery, knows this if he or she is willing to acknowledge reality despite its interference with preferred fantasy.

Next comes the low point of the discussion from the adult:

“You want your husband or boyfriend or whoever… your husband, yeah, there we go, to be circumcised.”

If I told my (fictional) son that he wants his wife or girlfriend or whoever to be large-breasted, implying that he shouldn’t be with a smaller-breasted woman because their natural bodies are defective, you would consider me a piggish ass. Rightly so. Forcing one person to conform to the opinion of another is wrong. Including when it involves surgery. Especially when it involves children.

We all remember our economics, right? All tastes and preferences are subjective. Even if I ignore the preferences of the male subjected to circumcision so that he will presumably please his future partner’s aesthetic preference, as this woman does, what about the subjective tastes and preferences of these females? They’re entitled to their own opinion, as long as it’s the adult’s opinion that foreskins are gross? Conformity for all? That is wrong.

Apart from witnessing how the development of a young mind is perverted by an adult’s careless lack of curiosity, this video is instructive of how males are not the only people injured via circumcision. We expect conformity among females. They just get less unlucky in this debate. We achieve their conformity through manipulation rather than mutilation.

Human Resources Award Winner

As if I needed another reason to hate the Party Before Principle mentality that pollutes politics, this:

Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as immigration judges and line prosecutors, according to an inspector general’s report released today.

Goodling passed over hundreds of qualified applicants and squashed the promotions of others after deeming candidates insufficiently loyal to the Republican party, said investigators, who interviewed 85 people and received information from 300 other job seekers at Justice. Sampson developed a system to screen immigration judge candidates based on improper political considerations and routinely took recommendations from the White House Office of Political Affairs and Presidential Personnel, the report said.

Goodling regularly asked candidates for career jobs: “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?” the report said. One former Justice Department official told investigators she had complained that Goodling was asking interviewees for their views on abortion, according to the report.

A novelist wouldn’t write something so ridiculous because no reader would believe it, yet this too-stupid-for-make-believe mindset is how the Bush Administration tried to rebuild our justice system. Permanent majority and all that. I’ll pass.

Not that I think Democrats will not be ridiculous in their own way when they regain control in November. Hopefully they won’t appoint a new Monica Goodling. But if they do, no doubt he or she will be an economist. “What is it about the profit motive that you most distrust?”

Returning to blogging…

… with a review.

Apart from an incorrectly attached F8 key, my new laptop – a Dell Studio 15 – arrived in pristine condition, no emergency calls to Dell customer “service” required. This is obviously good. Also good is the improvement over my four-year-old laptop It’s nice to have shiny new toys, but functionality is more important. The previous laptop could probably be made better with a clean restore of the operating system. Breaking out a credit card is easier.

A detailed review would probably be boring, and my blogging muscles are slightly flabby. So, a list ignoring the obvious advantages of a faster computer with more memory.

Pro:

  • Sleek design – very cool
  • No modem, leaving room for useful features
  • Vibrant glossy screen without an excessive mirror effect.
  • Fingerprint reader – Is it reasonable for a libertarian to love swiping a fingerprint as much as I do? It works, so no typing necessary.
  • HDMI port – Connecting the Blu-ray player to my television involved plugging the cable in and nothing more.
  • Backlit keyboard – When I remembered to turn this on while typing in the dark for the first time, I wanted to write poetry – Ode to the Backlit Keyboard.
  • Dell Dock – This is basically Dell’s effort to make Windows Vista into Mac OS X. I like it, although this criticism has merit.

Con:

  • Sleek design – in every aspect beyond the backlit keyboard, Dell chose form over function to the detriment of the computing experience. It’s nice marketing to chase Apple, but they should’ve thought about their copying.
  • The power cord protrudes from the right side, interfering with using a mouse. Apple’s power cord offers little interference and it’s on the left side.
  • The 9-cell battery extends down, raising the laptop and making it awkward in a backpack, rather than extending out of the back. Stupid.
  • The screen hinge attaching to the side rather than the top. Cool effect, distracting shift of the screen down. And it limits the range of motion for the screen to angle back. This can be bothersome if the laptop is on a surface significantly lower than my eyes.
  • The keyboard layout is awful. Delete, Home, End, Page Up, and Page Down should be in a horizontal cluster, not a vertical row. And why is the right Ctrl key not next to the arrows? Who uses the keyboard to bring up the right-click menu, anyway?
  • Dell Media Direct – This is garbage. It constantly determines that a Blu-ray update is missing and then finds nothing to update. And using it when the computer is off caused my computer to freeze. As soon as I find reliable Blu-ray software, I’m uninstalling Media Direct.
  • Water Stain – the palm rest has a design that looks like a water stain. I tried to wipe it off when I opened the box. It’s inconsequential but it’s a poor aesthetic.

For my personal configuration, the only real mistake seems to be the screen resolution. I opted for the basic 1280×800. It’s nice, but everything on the screen feels too big. It’s a significant improvement over my old laptop’s 1920×1200, but 1440×900 is probably the sweet spot on a 15.4″ screen.

From this, it might appear that I’m arguing against the Studio more than I am. I probably should be. Instead, and it’s probably just rationalizing that I have this for the next few years, I place most of my quibbles into just a need to adapt. Maybe I just need to break my habits of the last four years.