Category: Libertarian

Tastes Great — Less Killing

There’s an animal rights discussion raging at Megan McArdle’s new digs at The Atlantic. The background is too detailed, and probably too boring to those not interested in the topic, to rehash. However, this statement from Ms. McArdle in response to earlier arguments offers an excellent glimpse at a common fallacy among omnivores.

But I’m still battling with the question of whether animals should have rights. I’m a utility maximizer for animals: I think that eating certified humane meat is a positive moral good, because it causes the creation of additional happy animals (insofar as animals can be understood to be happy). …

There’s a term within the animal rights movement that better explains the ridiculous notion of humane meat. It’s “happy meat”, as in, as long as I believe the animal lived a content life on a farm with ample room to move around and received proper handling and medical treatment, contributing to that animal’s eventual, gruesome death becomes trivial. That’s too simplistic.

The argument is not specifically that animals are treated horribly, making “humane” treatment hunky-dory. Basic laws should cover cruelty, regardless of whether it’s food production or dogfighting. Animals have an identifiable central nervous system. It’s rational to assume that they feel pain. How they process that, we can’t really know, but assumptions and observation indicate that their response differs little from that of humans. Hence, we have a reasonable starting point for laws prohibiting animal cruelty, even in a libertarian model.

The argument rests with the death of an animal. From Certified Humane:

Under the system, growth hormones are prohibited, and animals are raised on a regular diet of quality feed free of antibiotics. Producers also must comply with local, state and federal environmental standards. Processors must comply with the American Meat Institute Standards, a higher standard for slaughtering farm animals than the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.

The American Meat Institute’s recommended animal handling guidelines include this:

AMIF’s audit guidelines recommend that companies conduct both internal (self-audits) and third party audits using the following criteria:

Effective Stunning – Cattle and sheep should be rendered insensible with one shot at least 95 percent of the time. For pigs, electrical wands should be placed in the proper position at least 99 percent of the time. For gas stunned pigs, no more than 4 percent of gondolas may be overloaded.

Hot Wanding (Pigs only) – No more than one percent of pigs should vocalize due to hot wanding. Hot wanding is defined as the application of electrodes that are already energized.

It continues further, although it doesn’t get better. There is an acceptable level of inhumane slaughter within the “humane” standards. We needn’t worry about a potential 5% of cattle who are not effectively stunned on the first shot, making them insensible and unaware of what’s happening to them? I don’t accept that.

The certified humane label is merely a feel-good tool for omnivores. I’m not saying that’s enough to outlaw meat. The argument is more detailed than that, and can’t be summed up in one quick dismissal of non-vegans. I’m even willing to accept that “humane” meat is a positive moral good, as Ms. McArdle claims. The basic welfarist argument that a life ended (barbarically) after being spent not in complete agony is better than a life ended (barbarically) after being spent in complete agony is valid. But that positive gain is neither deep enough nor compelling to solve the full issue (animal death) or to ignore the blatant contradictions in animal cruelty laws that do seem to center more on a “fluffy/cute” test than any sort of principle.

I retract my praise of the Bush Administration.

Remember back to October when I wrote about this story:

In its statement, USAID said the funding “should not have occurred, and there will be no further circumcisions performed with U.S. Government funds until the PEPFAR Scientific Steering Committee reviews data from ongoing clinical trials and considers any recommendations on male circumcision from the normative international Agencies.” PEPFAR is the Bush anti-AIDS program.

I guess the “results” are in. Were they even in doubt?

President Bush’s $15 billion anti-AIDS program will begin investing [SIC!] significant money in making circumcision available to African men seeking to protect themselves from HIV, top U.S. health officials said Sunday.

Recent research showing that circumcision dramatically cuts the rate of HIV infection is highly convincing [ed. note: <sarcasm>I’m shocked.</sarcasm>], a delegation of U.S. officials, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, told reporters in Johannesburg.

Countries taking part in the President’s Emergency Program For AIDS Relief have been invited to seek money to expand access to the procedure.

If you want to know how carefully our $15,000,000,000 will be spent, guess:

Circumcision funding would be small at first, with budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for individual countries. But it is likely to grow to be “an important part” of the program in coming months and years, said Kent R. Hill, an assistant administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Small at first, but likely to grow in the coming months. Surely we’ll have a definitive answer by then.

The cells in the foreskin of a penis are especially vulnerable [ed. note: Are we sure?] to HIV, and removing the foreskin makes a man about 60 percent less likely to contract the virus, studies in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda have shown. The research reinforces studies showing that regions with high circumcision rates generally have lower rates of HIV.

About those regions… “Generally” isn’t enough, unless you’re world health experts or the United States government. Then definitive proof isn’t necessary, nor is the obvious point that $15,000,000,000 buys a lot of condoms, which have a definitive, significantly higher success rate at preventing HIV, pregnancy, and other STDs than male circumcision’s “about 60%”. I’m sure the Bush administration is waiting for “broad international consensus” on the issue of condoms and their effectiveness.

As I said in October:

I’m not sure where funding AIDS prevention in Africa falls within the Constitutional responsibilities granted to the United States government, but that’s not my issue.

Today, it’s my issue. Where is funding AIDS prevention circumcision in Africa noted within the Constitution? Which article grants that power? All of the immoral actions of our government weren’t enough, so we had to have this? Really?

Of course, what could possibly go wrong with government handling HIV/AIDS policy? I’m sure our $15,000,000,000 will be spent wisely. It sure will buy a lot of garlic, beetroot, lemons and African potatoes.

Unfortunately, this is also support for another belief of mine. There is a push within the anti-circumcision movement to promote a single-payer health care system in the United States because it would presumably require the bureaucrats to stop funding unnecessary surgeries to fund necessary medical care. This will not work because our politicians are short-sighted. They make decisions for political gain. As long as there is a desire by parents to hack away parts of their sons and an ignorant denial of science and ethics acceptance that this is okay, infant circumcision will continue in America. It doesn’t matter if it’s funded by insurance, government, or parents. It will continue. Just because rationing decisions must be made does not mean that rational decisions will be made.

The worst part of this is easy to predict. This money will be used to fund infant circumcisions, regardless of what the parties involved are now claiming. That’s just the inevitable line of (non-)thinking from public health officials. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t have seen the push for infant circumcision six days after the latest findings on voluntary, adult circumcision were released in December. Voluntary and adult always get lost. Always.

His clarification shifts him from stupidity to ignorance.

To “libertarians” like Glenn Reynolds, nonsense like this is federalism:

In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.

Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. [ed. note: I’ve added the strike-through on this line about Fred Thompson’s position. See the comments for an explanation.]

Aside from the typical blather about “activist judges”, is there a better indication that the new “federalists” are more concerned with permitting their own agenda than with Constitutional rights. Marriage belongs at the state level. Marriage equality belongs at the federal level.

It’s okay for one state to declare that individuals can marry at 16 and another state to declare that individuals can only marry once they turn 18. It’s okay for one state to mandate that a six-month separation must precede divorce and another state to permit immediate divorce with consent from both parties. That’s federalism.

It is not okay for any state to say that females can marry at 16 while males can only marry once they turn 18. That is discrimination, not federalism. State laws must still adhere to protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The new “federalists” want you to believe otherwise. They want everyone to believe that marriage is a shared right rather than an individual right exercised by two people. They’re okay with discrimination, as long as it’s their preferred discrimination. That can’t be achieved with federalism, so they must push “federalism”. They must redefine it into an empty, meaningless concept, lest their fraud be dismissed.

More thoughts from John Cole.

**********

Is there a more ridiculous presidential candidate flirter than Fred Thompson? Further demonstrating his idiocy:

On the issue of Iraq, Thompson refused to provide a timeline for how much longer US forces would remain in the country under his administration, but said, “We need to make every effort to make sure that we don’t get run out of there with our tail between our legs before we’ve done the job of securing that place.”

Asked about critics who call him “too lazy” to put in the long hours necessary to run for president, Thompson said: “If I have critics in Washington it’s not going to come as a surprise to me. I’ll have more by the end of this campaign,” adding, “The proof’s in the pudding. I think that’s curable.”

I’m sure these sound bytes were quite folksy in Thompson’s southern drawl, but our president should be a leader, not a guy who can unfurl a meaningless cliché to avoid answering a question.

Thus always with socialists?

A few days ago, Andrew Sullivan linked to a story about (now deceased) English broadcaster Tony Wilson with this quote:

“I’ve never paid for private healthcare because I’m a socialist. Now I find you can get tummy tucks and cosmetic surgery on the NHS but not the drugs I need to stay alive. It is a scandal,” – socialized medicine patient Tony Wilson

The title of this entry doesn’t refer to any sense of hypocrisy. Mr. Wilson’s friends chipped in to pay for a five-month’s supply of the medicine he needed, so I’ll accept that he was stuck on his socialist beliefs. But I am not surprised at the irrational disbelief and outrage at finding out that socialism doesn’t work. It probably is a scandal that the NHS will pay for something unnecessary while rationing away from something necessary. But again, this isn’t a surprise.

In socialism, rationing decisions will be made by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can’t know, and almost by definition don’t care, about individual needs or desires. Their job is to manage with limited resources, so they will make the tough decisions. There is some balance of uninformed and political involved, but neither should be reassuring or viewed as a path to competent choices. Success is percentages and luck, not merit.

As such, I’m fascinated by this mixed-up e-mail sent to Andrew Sullivan by a reader:

Every healthcare system, public or private, must choose which care to provide and the cost versus efficacy arguments must be weighed carefully. It is always bad to base public policy on a single anecdote and we certainly should not be denying people Sutent solely because someone taking it died within the month. It is telling, however, that you used this story to bash the NHS for being conservative with other people’s money – rather than bash the drug company for refusing to sell its product at a price the customer is willing to pay.

The first statement I’ve bolded is misleading if you don’t dissect it properly. Of course difficult rationing decisions must be made. This is true of any good or service with a finite supply. The correct analysis is who does the choosing. In public health care, it’s the government, with a preference for your opinion only if you’re politically connected or important. In private health care, the individual makes the decision.

The second bolded statement demonstrates what advocates for socialized medicine claim is the fatal flaw of the free market. We must bash the drug company because it didn’t sell at whatever cost the customer is willing/able to pay. No. Life has costs and no party should be expected or forced to offer something in a way that doesn’t meet its preferred terms. The result can be viewed as heartless, but coerced compassion is merely coercion, not compassion.

It would be better to run with this quote from Mr. Wilson:

“I used to say some people make money and some make history – which is very funny until you find you can’t afford to keep yourself alive.

Decisions have consequences. Socialists are just as capable of making “bad” decisions as capitalists. It’s a tragedy when anyone can’t afford to keep himself alive. I am not advocating heartlessness. I do not believe that a free market system should or would allow poor patients to die. I’m just saying it’s more effective to raise standards for everyone rather than setting a maximum standard so that everyone can be covered minimally on the public dime.

It is not reckless or immoral to earn wealth. Mr. Wilson apparently contributed much to his industry, but eschewed personal financial gain for his efforts. I wouldn’t make that choice, but it’s not my place to force him to earn wealth. But wealth isn’t a zero-sum game. It doesn’t have to be finite, to be stolen and shared.

To me, there is no greater achievement than when a man can take care of himself. I accept that someone can disagree. Everyone is free to pursue a goal of voluntary collective responsibility and support. But don’t try to force me to join you. If your economic idea can’t survive without force, it’s immoral.

Take me out to the… church?

September 11, 2001 brought a new “tradition” in Major League Baseball. During the 7th inning stretch, someone sings “God Bless America”. I don’t have any particular issue with the song or teams including it in the festivities. It’s a private event and I know it’s included going in, so even though it’s patriotism that’s more than a bit forced, whatever. There’s no mandate to sing.

Tonight, however, I got peeved. I went to RFK Stadium to watch the Phillies play lose to the Nationals. In the middle of the 7th, I remembered what was coming. Fine, it’s the Nationals, so I’m not interested in “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” anyway. But I’m on the 3rd base side close to the Nationals dugout. This is what I see:

Nats_GBA.jpg

The man singing “God Bless America” is a Master Sergeant in the United States Air Force. I know because I could read it on the Jumbotron. Also, he is wearing a United States Air Force uniform. And singing “God Bless America”.

I don’t think I’m being too picky when I cite the Establishment Clause and how inappropriate this is. Only Justice Scalia could find this anything but an unequivocal co-mingling of the United States government and a specific religion. No, the government isn’t making any law, but the uniform implies an endorsement. That is unacceptable. I was not happy and I intend to contact the Nationals to let them know.

My question for you: am I overreacting?

“Each and every one of us” – prove it.

Originally via Liberty Papers, I share Kip’s dismay about the libertarian credentials of this Ron Paul speech from the weekend waste of time in Iowa:

In case you don’t want to watch, here’s a transcript:

…Our campaign is all about freedom, prosperity, and PEACE!

But the one thing we have to remember is that you cannot have freedom without life. We must preserve all life if we expect to protect the individual liberty of each and every one of us. And that means the unborn as well.

Let me assure you, as an OB doctor and one that has studied history and economic policy in politics for a long time, I can assure you that life begins at conception. Life begins at conception and as an OB doctor, I had the legal responsibility of taking care of that life. If I did anything wrong, I could be sued. If anybody’s in an accident, and a fetus is killed, they can be sued. If in a violent act, a fetus is killed, you can be charged with murder. There is no reason in the world that this government can’t protect life, rather than the destruction of life, like they do when they finance abortion. That has to stop. And the most important way that can be stopped is the reversal and elimination of that horrible ruling, Roe v. Wade. It must be reversed.

All of this “Go Freedom!” talk is fascinating. I’m politically inclined to agree with the surface rhetoric coming from the Paul campaign because the talking points can be dressed up as libertarian. It’s just when the details come out that I’m 180 degrees away from where I’m assumed to be because of Rep. Paul’s brand of “libertarianism”.

But since Congressman Paul brought up a useful point on freedom, I’d like to get his opinion, as an OB, on another topic of rights involving children. From conception to birth, every child presumably has the same rights in Dr. Paul’s worldview. Once born, does every child have the right to be free from medically unnecessary circumcision, or does that right belong only to females? If the latter, do boys lose that right at birth, or do girls gain that right? Why? And is he angered by the federal government’s current, unequal stance on genital integrity?

Republicans support the heterosexual troops.

This point didn’t fit in my first post on yesterday’s House vote, but it’s worth making:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said passage would threaten the safety of the troops rather than protect them because the measure would arbitrarily leave units at home that had specialized skills needed in the war.

Arbitrarily? Is it arbitrary to oust gay service members from the military without any misconduct on their part? What if they have “specialized skills needed in the war”? Like Arabic language skills, for example. If we can’t translate gathered intelligence because it’s in Arabic and the persons who can tell us what it says are at home, does that threaten the safety of the troops? Should I expect Rep. Hunter to sponsor legislation to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell? If not, why is marginalizing gay and lesbian service members more important than protecting the troops?

Economics won’t bow to populism.

Because Democrats incorrectly believe government is part of the solution, not part of the problem¹:

While John Edwards was winding up a tour of America’s most impoverished areas, another Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), came to Anacostia yesterday to stake his own claim as a poverty warrior — and to present a vision for fixing struggling inner cities that directly challenges that of Edwards.
…

To the Edwards campaign, Obama’s move to address poverty is a sign that Edwards has shifted the debate. “This is another example of Edwards leading on the issues and other candidates following,” campaign spokesman Eric Schultz said.

The Edwards campaign should refrain from patting itself on the back. Every economic populist in this (or any) campaign will wrap himself in this issue. That’s what economic populists do. It’s always a marketing push to the middle rather than an economic push to the top.

¹ Note that this does not mean I’m against a limited public safety net, which is the claim levied against libertarians. There is a difference in believing that government is ineffective at solving the problem and believing that Americans living in poverty “deserve” to be there or should stay there until they can dig themselves out.

Don’t just “Do Something”.

Never let it be said that Democrats in Congress aren’t living up to their promises to reform the system.

Farm bloc lawmakers yesterday offered the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry $1.8 billion in new federal grants over the next five years as part of a farm bill that would leave in place far larger subsidies for grain, cotton and dairy producers.
…

The package, unveiled yesterday by Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.), also increases funding for land conservation, wetlands protection and nutrition programs — popular with environmental groups and urban lawmakers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the package “a good first step toward needed reform.”

Right, so reform means keeping large subsidies and adding smaller subsidies. Can we have the old status quo?

I looked through the entire article, and the only mention of reform, defined quite loosely as a change in actions, is this:

Federal payments to private crop insurers would be reduced by about $1 billion over 10 years to free funds for other priorities.

An earlier subcommittee draft of the farm bill would have merely extended the current farm subsidy programs. The proposed new version would do away with some price guarantees and allow farmers to opt for an income guarantee instead.

Taxpayers will save $1 billion over 10 years, which will be immediately shifted to some other spending “need”. Like income guarantees. But at least Congress wants to phase out price guarantees.

I was not blind to the devil’s bargain in 2006 I used to vote for Democrats to replace Republicans. They’re both irresponsible. But I don’t know what’s worse, abandoning principles or being so stupid that you ignore the electoral justifications behind your victory. I’d already made up my mind that I won’t make that mistake in 2008. I’m just amazed that Democrats keep trying so hard to reinforce my decision.

Partisanship vs. the People

Michael Gerson, who’s too regularly full of wrong ideas, discusses child health insurance in today’s Washington Post.

The column is useful enough, since it discusses how to get children covered by health insurance, as well as a glossed-over failure within the existing government structure of providing insurance for children. There’s room for disagreement, despite his opening suggestion, but his conclusion is better than creating a new bureaucracy to do what the government already does. (The government shouldn’t be doing this, and his solution for adults is lacking.)

One sentence is worth excerpting. The story is lost a bit when reading this in isolation, but the context remains.

Fulfilling the most basic parental responsibilities can’t be legislated.

Why not? Politicians (and pundits) seem convinced that many such actions can and should be legislated. At least in Virginia, the laws for restraining children minors under the age of 16 while riding in motor vehicles suggests that basic parental responsibilities are legislated.

I happen to agree with his original statement. (We legislate feeding children sufficiently, for example, but that’s not what Mr. Gerson means by most basic.) As he mentions in his column, almost 6 million children eligible for Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Program aren’t signed up because their parents haven’t filled out the paperwork. That makes no sense. I’m sure most of those 6 million children aren’t signed up because their parents don’t know they’re eligible, but I don’t see how a free society can force people to sign up for public insurance, just because they’re eligible. Providing health care to their children, yes. Accepting public assistance, no.

When we hear that 47 million Americans don’t have health insurance, that means 250 million do. We should learn from the majority more than we decipher problems from the minority. I’m left wondering why, with programs already available, we should create new programs for children and adults in the hopes that we’ll eventually get to everyone. Shouldn’t we investigate why parents aren’t signing up for something that already exists rather than create a new boondoggle that will fall short of politicians’ plans? Our current crop of presidential candidates don’t think so, so the real lesson is that big government conservatism and big government liberalism are more interested in big government than political philosophy. Surprise. Won’t single-payer health care be fun?!?

*******

A little Michael Gerson bonus, extending from his statement. As he concluded in his Independence Day column:

In America we respect, defend and obey the Constitution — but we change it when it is inconsistent with our ideals. Those ideals are defined by the Declaration of Independence. We have not always lived up to them. But we would not change them for anything on Earth.

So what’s in the Declaration of Independence that Mr. Gerson cherishes?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How is same-sex marriage, which Mr. Gerson opposes, not the pursuit of happiness? Is he going to get ignorantly stuck on the reference to the individual’s Creator, read that as a euphemism for his God, and call government intervention okay? He clearly believes he can legislate happiness. If he believes we can’t legislate the most basic parental responsibilities, why not? Legislating signing up for insurance is easier and likely to be more effective than legislating happiness.