Category: Government

John McCain endorses majoritarianism over individual rights.

From John McCain’s speech to the NRA:

Real activists seek to make their case democratically — to win hearts, minds, and majorities to their cause. Such people throughout our history have often shown great idealism and done great good. By contrast, activist lawyers and activist judges follow a different method. They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes, and all of that. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.

Is there an upper bound on how many individuals may have their rights violated before we conclude a constitutional solution is better than a democratic solution? If so, what’s the number? Is there a distinction marking which rights are sacred and which may be violated at will by a majority? Is there any reservation worth considering to limit this complete trust in The People that might acknowledge those hearts and minds that are either incapable or unwilling of being won?

Like every politician, John McCain is a propagandist unworthy of being in a position of leadership. He will not behave as a leader.

Bob Barr on Same-Sex Marriage and Federalism

Here is Bob Barr’s statement on the California Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriage:

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

I’m not distracted by the potential implications of Barr’s view of federalism. This isn’t nearly enough to assume he holds the same flawed understanding of federalism espoused by Ron Paul, so I won’t assume that. But, if not for the second paragraph, I might consider such a possibility harder.

About that second paragraph… First, this from The Liberty Papers:

Constitutionally speaking, of course, Barr is entirely correct. If states like New York, New Jersey, and California want to legalize gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so. The problem with the DOMA, though, is that it would seem to be a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. With very limited exceptions, states are required to recognize the validly passed laws of their sister states, including laws about issues like marriage, adoption, and inheritance.
…

More importantly, though, Federalism simply doesn’t mean the same thing that it meant before the Civil War. The passage of the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court case law that has grown from that Amendment, forever changed the relationship between the people, the states, and the Federal Government, and one of the things that changed is the idea that you don’t lose your rights as an American citizen simply because you move from one state to another.

That’s my understanding of this issue. Given how the full faith and credit issue with regard to DOMA is much stickier than just a “leave it to the states” position implies, Barr’s second paragraph is more an indication of how I should evaluate his approach to governing. Is he suggesting that we should behave as if simplicity is sufficient where facts demonstrate complexity? Is the stated intent behind legislation more important than the outcome of (poorly-worded) legislation? Does it matter if the negative consequences of simplifying the complex are predictable?

What Barr wanted to ensure with DOMA is worth discussing, but how he wanted to prevent states from “being forced” to accept valid laws of other states indicates a disagreeable approach to governing.

“I don’t look at your bum, bum-looker! Cheeky monkey!”

Via Boing Boing, speed cameras in England are clearly not automated or tied to any sort of radar. Rather, the only conclusion is that someone receives a paycheck to observe every moment the camera captures. How else would it capture – much less alert authorities – a passenger in a car traveling within the speed limit mooning the camera? (mildly NSFW link)

Police may take action against the man for public order offences and not wearing a seat belt.

The police lineup should be interesting.

Jeremy Forsberg, of the Northumbria Safer Roads Initiative, said: “This behaviour is simply ridiculous – it’s clear what he was thinking with what he had on show.

“Not only is it disrespectful, but distasteful and offensive, particularly to children who may have been exposed to this nonsense.

Of course the behavior is ridiculous. And as a driver, I’m sure it would’ve been distracting. But it takes a special kind of “liberty-minded” authoritarian mentality to express moral outrage at such an action by releasing a photo for broadcast all over the world – where our fragile children will see the offensive image – because children may have been exposed to the man’s bum. They’re certainly exposed now, genius. Although I suppose the government censor the BBC. For the children.

Post Script: Obvious title reference here.

Hey! Other topics exist. Who knew?

I’m not an attorney, so I can’t get completely into the questions of what Congress has restricted explicitly versus what leeway is authorized. But the Department of Justice has an insightful, albeit obviously broken, theory of how a liberty-minded society should fight an open-ended, poorly-defined war:

The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.

The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.

While the Geneva Conventions prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.

This administration can’t be trusted. We knew that already, so this is just another example. I’m more amazed at my capacity to be surprised by this egregious implication.

Forget the injured and dead prisoners, I suppose. The former will heal, unless they won’t, in which case we’ll classify them with the latter, who deserved it. I do sometimes forget that our government only incarcerates terrorists, not accused terrorists. As long as the intent of the is to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, it can’t possibly be humiliating or *gasp* abuse.

I’m so tired of the argument that intent matters more than the act, that it should be enshrined as a rule. Beyond the obvious fault that the potential for abuse dictates clear rules limiting government, it’s impossible to completely legislate a competent determination of the subjective distinction between good and bad intent. The mere potential for an exception where a vile, illegal act can be excused becomes the rule. That is not a sane path. Prosecute the act; acquit the legitimate exceptions.

Don’t worry, though. Our government still cares a little.

“The fact that you are doing something for a legitimate security purpose would be relevant, but there are things that a reasonable observer would deem to be outrageous,” [a senior Justice Department official] said.

Who determines what is a “legitimate security purpose”? Congress? The president? What if the reasoning is classified, as it most certainly would be, an assumption the administration demonstrates¹ repeatedly? Are members of the administration who authorize such measures the reasonable observers who decide? The answers are important, since they speak to the continued development of what is supposed to be an open and free society.

¹ To be fair, the Bush administration is not alone in this inclination, nor is it unique to a party.

The new looks like the old.

I have a lingering internal question over whether my mistrust of government is still a healthy skepticism or is now in mired in the depths of cynicism. I don’t think the difference matters significantly because I still reach the same conclusions. But the latter might make the rare exceptions harder to accept when they appear. And yet, as I wonder, a story like this on Senator McCain’s proposed “gas-tax holiday” comes along (link via John Cole):

Earlier Monday at a community college in the Philadelphia suburbs, Obama rejected a tax holiday as bad economic policy. “I’ve said I think John McCain’s proposal for a three-month tax holiday is a bad idea,” Obama said, warning consumers that any price cut would be short lived before costs spike back.

“We’re talking about 5 percent of your total cost of gas that you suspend for three months, which might save you a few hundred bucks that then will spike right up,” Obama said. “Now keep in mind that it will save you that if Exxon Mobil doesn’t decide, ‘We’ll just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost.’”

I’m calling my mental approach skepticism because Senator Obama demonstrates here what cynicism really is. Where he could talk exclusively about the stupidity of a tax holiday bribe, he had to jump into talking points. Let’s assume Exxon Mobil, since they’re the working man’s evil oppressor du jour right now, would “just tack on another 5 percent on the current cost”. Then what? I, as a price-conscious consumer in need of gasoline, drive to the Shell station where the 5 percent isn’t “just tacked on”. Although it could be, because in a competitive market, companies are able – and certainly willing, the evil bastards – to “just tack on” whatever little windfall profits they want.

I’ve heard Senator Obama is a new kind of politician. I’m not buying it. A new kind of politics would rely on something a little more honest than pandering to voters with a scapegoat and misrepresentation of economics. This is one more reason I will not be voting for Senator Obama in November.

“Neutrality” is an interesting concept for government.

This article raises interesting issues on the need for investment in Internet infrastructure. I can’t quite decipher whether the AT&T executive is looking for government funding of this needed infrastructure. I think so, although I’m just guessing. Also, while a projected increase in network traffic as video options expand online is inevitable, I’m skeptical of this claim:

[Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T] said: “The surge in online content is at the centre of the most dramatic changes affecting the internet today. In three years’ time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire internet today.”

In three years? I’d like to see those projections.

But that’s not my point here. Generalize this from the specifics about net neutrality and wonder why we can’t get more of this from the government.

The US Department of Justice said in a statement last year: “However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of ‘neutrality’ would do just that with respect to the internet.”

Regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation and diminish consumer welfare? Even when well-intentioned? Who knew?

Will they reduce rates or add more services when the economy improves?

The current, apparent economic journey into recession demonstrates why limited government is wise. Unlike individuals, who tend tighten their financial dealings through closer observance and more critical judgment, government chooses only one path during tough economic conditions.

Fairfax County yesterday joined a growing list of communities across the region that have raised property taxes this year to protect government services and public schools in the face of declining real estate values and a generally sluggish economy.

Perhaps an analysis of the Fairfax County government would reveal a limited array of indefensible services. I doubt it, but I’m rather more interested in the theoretical here. Individuals can’t simply require a higher salary when their salary falls below break-even. They must understand their need to reduce expenses, however temporarily. When services are essentially guaranteed¹ by the government, flexibility causes problems, as these counties are now discovering. No one should be surprised.

No reasonable person is going to suggest cutting out schools, for example, to save money. But if you send your children to a school that you pay for directly, will you likely be more or less inclined to scrutinize how the school spends its (i.e. your) money? Will administrators likely be more or less accountable for each penny? If there’s an important message that needs to go out, and the school usually prints for distribution, might direct concern regarding costs lead to e-mail distribution instead?

Unfortunately, we have layers of extraneous bureaucracy instead. We have distance between consumer and cost. We don’t know how to say “no” when funds are unavailable or the request is ludicrous. We concede more services as public goods, then relinquish more of our money when tax receipts fall below spending. We cease to question any previous transfer of services to government provision. And when the economy picks up, government takes the credit.

¹ Services are guaranteed. Quality, maybe not as much.

This “flexible and compassionate” is misdirected.

This article appeared in the Boston Globe last week. It’s a discussion of efforts to train new mohels in Massachusetts. Two particular passages are relevant to my focus. First:

Be flexible and compassionate, [Dr. Bob] Levenson told the doctors. … Gently tell the truth when a tearful, post-partum mother asks if babies can feel pain. (The answer is “yes, but I’ll be as quick as possible”). And it is perfectly OK – recommended, even – to anesthetize the infant with a little kosher wine dabbed on the lips.

Beyond wanting to see evidence that wine dabbed on the lips of an infant male will anesthetize him from the pain of surgery, this issue raises a large ethical red flag. There must be an objective reason to inflict pain on another, particularly a child who can’t offer (his) consent. And does the infant male’s soon-to-be-removed foreskin serve a purpose? The answer is “yes,” no parenthesis necessary or appropriate.

Second:

But for doctors, the work is not considered particularly lucrative. Mohels must secure their own malpractice insurance, spend significant time counseling families, travel, perform the ceremony on the eighth day of a child’s [sic – male] life, all for a fee of $350 or $400.

If a religious observation requires medical malpractice insurance, it is only legitimate to perform on consenting adults. The individual right of minors to be free from (medically unnecessary) harm must remain the exclusive standard, superior to any religious requirements, because risk is objectively inherent. The evaluation of that medically unnecessary risk against unverifiable religious benefits is subjective. The conclusion is only legitimate from the individual giving up his foreskin.

A libertarian argument for a new law.

Mark, who writes the excellent Publius Endures, left an excellent (and appreciated) comment over the weekend. Normally I would reply there, as I do with most comments. But Mark included one point that I’d like to discuss (emphasis added).

I must say that the circumcision debate (to the extent it can even be called that) has made me feel relieved that my wife and I are having a girl since we don’t even have to consider the issue. Circumcision is frequently done almost without thought, essentially as a ritual. Until Andrew Sullivan started blogging about it in the last few years, it was an issue that I didn’t even consider – I thought it was something that was just what was done. People like you and Sully are starting to open eyes that the practice largely lacks any kind of basis other than as a cultural norm.
The main reason to perform circumcision, as far as I can tell, is that it may create some awkwardness when the child becomes a sexually active adult. The thing is that by the time that becomes an issue, the child will be more than capable of making the decision on his own.
If we had our child a year ago (and it was a boy), I think I would have opted for circumcision just based on the fact that it is a social norm and that there is little publicity about the arguments against circumcision. Were the decision to come up now, I would almost certainly not circumcize.
I’m not sure the procedure should be made illegal, though, but only because I’m generally opposed to adding new laws. However, parents need to be better informed about the risks and generally nonexistent benefits of circumcision.

Before I respond, allow me to clarify that this is in no way meant to condescend on this (or any) point. Although I’m certain that I’m right in all facets of my approach, I’ve thought about this every day for many years. I’ve read a lot of bad arguments on both sides. Reading through them can be tiresome, and without self-monitoring, my response can fall into frustration. (I try to avoid outright disdain, even though there are places where it’s richly deserved.) Mark’s comment is none of that. He shows an open mind that demonstrates genuine intellectual curiousity. He grasps the fundamental argument against male infant circumcision and is willing to act based on that new knowledge. Or to not act, based on that new knowledge. I wish more people had that kind of integrity.

Nor am I suggesting that he does not understand any of the libertarian approach I advocate here. Allow me to reiterate, if you’re not reading Mark’s blog, add it to your RSS feed today. His libertarian credentials are well written in his entries. Here, I’m only offering how I think a libertarian approach must be applied. I’ve read that libertarian arguments don’t apply to children. I find that strange, so this is at least tangentially a refutation of that.

To his comment, though, I think there’s an easy libertarian argument that demands legal prohibition. The Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 exists. As long as it is valid law, restricting all medically unnecessary genital cutting on female minors, even at the request of parents, the 14th Amendment demands that the government treat citizens equally. The only choices are to repeal the FGM Act or make the law gender neutral. Since we all agree that the former is unacceptable, we’re left with the latter. (Take a look at the work Matthew Hess is doing to achieve an MGM Bill.)

Beyond that, viewing government through a libertarian goal of maximizing liberty, I’m against any law that would restrict people from making that decision for himself (or herself). I can form whatever opinion I want about someone’s decision, but it’s irrelevant to what he should be able to do to himself. Weigh the benefits against the harm with whatever consideration makes sense. But the issue at hand is that medically unnecessary surgery is objectively identifiable as harm. There is cutting. There is an inherent risk of complications, both minor and severe. And infants do not have their choice. Objective harm is forced on them without their consent with no medical need or objective benefit.

Statistics demonstrate that, when left with their choice, males almost never choose or need circumcision. Any reasonable person standard must side with not removing healthy body parts from children. They have the same individual rights that every adult has to the extent that a right is inherent and inalienable. For minors, those rights should be viewed as held in trust rather than created upon reaching the age of majority. Since the first legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of each citizen against infringement by other citizens, there is no reason to overlook that just because the person imposing the harm is a parent who views the imposition as beneficial in some (subjective) manner.

Again, I don’t think Mark’s comment indicates that he’s willing to overlook anything. He’s not rejecting a law. But as he points out there is a societal norm in the United States that male circumcision is just an inconsequential snip. As I’ve demonstrated throughout my circumcision category, it’s not true that it’s inconsequential. Even though most American men are content to be circumcised, we are a nation of individuals before any other examination. Adding a new law to include boys protects them as individuals in the same we already protect girls. It is a law that actively advances individual liberty, while actively rejecting an incoherent narrative of liberty dressed in parental “rights”.

We shouldn’t need a law to protect against infant circumcision. But in a perfect world, parents wouldn’t remove healthy body parts from their children out of fear, superstition and conformity. We must legislate for the world we have, with the foundation of individual rights that we know is valid. I could make an argument that existing assault laws cover unnecessary infant circumcision, but no prosecutor is going to pursue that in the common circumstances of male infant circumcision in America. So, barring a sudden shift to rational action by parents, this is an area where the government must legitimately exercise its authority in defense of rights.

Post Script: There’s a little more to Mark’s comment than what I posted here. I left an additional response there, but it was more anecdotal.

Service to the President: What McCain wanted to say.

John McCain offered useful insights into his (dangerous) political mind at the Naval Academy on Wednesday. For example:

I’m a conservative, and I believe it is a very healthy thing for Americans to be skeptical about the purposes and practices of public officials. We shouldn’t expect too much from government — nor should it expect too much from us. Self-reliance — not foisting our responsibilities off on others — is the ethic that made America great.

But when healthy skepticism sours into corrosive cynicism our expectations of our government become reduced to the delivery of services. And to some people the expectations of liberty are reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee.

Actually, my healthy skepticism is still healthy. I expect government to ineffectively deliver services it shouldn’t be attempting, even though it tries and tries and tries. And when it fails, my healthy skepticism knows that it will try harder, but with more money.

My definition of corrosive cynicism looks something like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold. This is the belief that individuals can’t be trusted, so someone smarter must look after their interests for them. That brand of corrosive cynicism believes expectations of liberty should be reduced to the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee. My healthy skepticism understands that competing brands of political speech are a form of liberty thankfully enshrined in the First Amendment. The corroded cynic speaks of quote First Amendment rights.

Continuing:

Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the ideals that protect them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to the world. Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.

Senator McCain and I have different opinions on how our rights are protected. As noted above, we don’t share the same opinion on our rights. But the problem here is his idea of a “cause greater than yourself”. Who decides what cause is greater than me? Who decides whether or not my actions constitute sacrifice? And I’m not thrilled by the idea that “success, wealth, and celebrity gained and kept for private interest” is allegedly a “small thing”.

I’ve long believed that we are a citizenry who behave as though we are rightfully subjects of the government. Among his many faults, Senator McCain is too friendly to perpetuating that mistaken belief. We are electing the president of a government (previously?) limited by a constitution, not a king limited only by his mandate by his higher calling.

Link via Hit & Run.