This op-ed by Kansas University Law Professor and noted libertarian Stephen Ware shows how libertarians can tolerate, if not embrace, a government mandate to wear masks to help slow the spread of COVID-19. It is free to read in the Topeka Capital-Journal here.
Here is an excerpt that I believe presents the heart of the reasoning:
In that sense, a mask requirement is less like a seatbelt law designed to protect the wearer and more like a law against driving under the influence of alcohol. Many deaths have been caused by drunken drivers who did not intend to harm anyone, and many of those drivers likely did not even realize they were dangerous.
Similarly, science may be discovering that many of us endanger those around us even when we do not realize we are dangerous because we are not yet experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, although we have been infected and are contagious.
COVID-19 raises the possibility that each of us is, without knowing it, like the dangerously intoxicated person getting into the drivers’ seat.
Protecting others, not yourself, is the main reason for masking. Although, protecting others has the benefit of helping tamp down the pandemic, making it less likely that you will contract the disease in the future.
We don’t praise intoxicated drivers for “bravely” creating and accepting risk to their safety while creating a substantial risk to innocent others. In the same way, those who “bravely” venture out in public unmasked should be criticized for the unnecessary risk they present to others.
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Author Lenore Skenazy talks about today’s children and the free-range kids movement. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 212, broadcast October 7, 2018.
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Lawrence W. Reed, President of Foundation for Economic Education, joins Bob and Karl to discuss the connection between liberty and character, our economic future, and I, Pencil. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 191, broadcast April 7, 2018.
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Dr. Wolf von Laer of Students for Liberty joins Bob and Karl to talk about young people and the cause of liberty. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 190, broadcast March 31, 2018.
In today’s Wichita Eagle Chase Billingham has an excellent column explaining the recent changes to panhandling laws in the City of Wichita (Chase Billingham: New laws will criminalize homeless). An assistant professor of sociology at Wichita State University, he makes important observations and warnings about the effect of these laws.
In his column, Billingham notes a problem with the ordinance designed to regulate “aggressive” panhandling: “Importantly, though, the ordinance defines ‘contact’ in an extremely vague manner.” I may have noticed the same problem in this example from Ordinance No. 50-643:
Section 2: “Contact” means the intentional action by any person which attempts to attract the attention of any other person for the purpose of inducing such other person to slow, stop or which obstructs or hinders the movement of such other person to facilitate a transfer of anything to or from either person.
Street theater in New Orleans. Would this be legal in Wichita? Click for larger.What is an example of attracting someone’s attention to induce them to slow or stop? Busking. And it’s designed to encourage — “facilitate” — the transfer of money to the busker.
In the ordinance, the city says its purpose is to “regulate behaviors that are intimidating, threatening or harassing.” At the same time, the city takes actions that work in cross-purposes. In particular, the city has taken steps to allow — if not to encourage — more alcohol consumption. In 2016 laws were changed that both restricted and liberalized alcohol consumption. This year the city lobbied the state for laws that would establish “common consumption areas.” These are geographically-defined areas where free-range drinking is allowed. That is, you can drink outside in public, like on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Besides Old Town, the city mentioned Delano and College Hill as possible common consumption areas.
There is a reason why cities have long outlawed drinking on the streets and sidewalks. But I guess that no longer applies.
I wonder if the city is running the risk of creating a Disneyland downtown, where everything is planned, staged, and regulated. Our city planners set design standards for buildings, and then use the lure of our tax money to encourage compliance. Is there a purportedly problematic public park interfering with you plans for development? No problem. Just ask the city to redirect your tax dollars away from police and schools so that the park can be rebuilt at no cost to you — in a Disneyland style. Too much crime on the streets? The city will install expensive and obtrusive surveillance systems to protect you, and also to harvest revenue if you forget to activate your turn signal in time.
Vibrant urban areas need organic, grass-roots use of public spaces. It’s a big part of what makes a city a city and not a carefully manicured suburb. It’s knowing that the unexpected could be around any corner and fully embracing that possibility.
Funny thing is, the entities that are pushing for this crackdown on panhandling know this. Visit Indy, Indianapolis Downtown Inc. and Ballard’s administration called for the promotion of organic urban experiences in the Velocity Action Plan released earlier this month.
They want a freer, livelier atmosphere Downtown. They want “guerrilla-style” takeovers of public spaces. They want visitors and residents to be surprised by randomness. In short, they want a true urban environment.
But here’s the inconvenient truth: To get that kind of organic, vibrant urban atmosphere, you cannot control everything. And part of not being able to control everything is that, to a certain extent, you have to accept the good with the bad. The pretty with the ugly.
The mime outside Bankers Life Fieldhouse and the man sitting quietly with a sign asking for money. The woman sprawled on the sidewalk with a cup and the saxophone-playing busker who sends people to the Chatterbox club to hear more jazz.
This is the messiness of an urban environment. It’s not always pretty. But it’s not supposed to be. The people who live Downtown know this. We understand it. It’s why we moved here and not to Carmel.
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Matt Kibbe of Free the People joins Karl Peterjohn and Bob Weeks to discuss FreeThePeople.org and our relationship with government. Mr. Kibbe’s appearance was made possible by the Wichita Chapter of the Bastiat Society. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 171, broadcast November 4, 2017.
While it has become increasingly common for members of the U.S. Supreme Court to make news by public comments, particularly during their summer recess, Wichita Pachyderm Club members had the opportunity for Kansas federal district Judge Eric F. Melgren to quote from his judicial colleagues in a way of defending the Constitution’s concept of the separation of powers. Judge Melgren cited various appellate court rulings, particularly as they related to the largely little known Chevron decision, that damages that constitutional protection at his July 21 speech in Wichita.
Judge Melgren, a former member of this club before his selection as the U.S. attorney for Kansas that was followed by his 2008 elevation to a federal district court post, began by discussing this governmental paradox, “those who favor (government) efficiency, or inefficient, representative government,” and he quoted from three appellate decisions as well as several of Madison’s Federalist papers to make this point.
The founders feared tyrannical government and worried about this new government having too much power. That is the reason for the three separate branches where Congress writes the law, the executive branch administers the law, and the judiciary interprets it. This system of checks and balances make government very inefficient, and Melgren cited Madison’s Federalist 47.
Judge Melgren followed by quoting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in the Department of Transportation v. American Railroads case on this point. Our progressive law has now put the power of taking a general federal statute and having a federal agency basically write the rules and regulations that are then administered by the bureaucracy, and if a dispute arises, is then settled in the agencies own administrative law courts. Congress, often the executive, and unless extensive litigation occurs, the courts are all bypassed. The Chevron decision pushed these legal disputes away from the courts and back to bureaucratic resolutions.
This creates an environment where the bureaucracy has assumed much of the law making powers, administers the law, and then has their own administrative courts to interpret it.
In theory, the bureaucracy is part of the executive branch and reports to the president. However, as U.S. attorney Melgren was reminded by his staff that they would be there after he had left that office. This also applies to the rest of the federal government’s bureaucracy.
To amplify upon this situation Melgren quoted from then federal appeals court judge Gorsuch in an immigration case that turned on the legal question of which conflicting rules from the government applied. The U.S. Supreme Court’s little known but legally controversial Chevron decision took this issue away from the federal courts and gave it to the professional bureaucracy. Gorsuch’s opinion was part of this 10th circuit (federal appellate court) case involving the U.S. justice department in 2016.
Then President Obama’s rule making authority was at issue, that created this legal problem in the realm of federal administrative law making. This was also a problem in Thomas’ opinion in the railroad case.
Justice Thomas warned about this dangerous trend. This amplified the warning Gorsuch bemoans in the weakening of the separation of powers in his appellate case. Thomas warned that too often we abrogated and allowed the power to make laws by administrative fiat. It might help make, as is often suggested, “make the trains run on time,” although Judge Melgren expressed serious doubts on this point there was no doubt about the cost to our Constitution, and the individual liberty it is supposed to protect.
Judge Melgren spoke about the Chevron decision’s impact where the courts must defer to administrative agencies. “Apply the law as it is, and not how they wish it to be,” citing Gorsuch’s opinion, this means that the separation of powers is being totally undermined by the Chevron edict. The solution is: legislation. Law writing is arduous and difficult, but this is not a bug in the system, but this difficulty is a constitutional protection.
This shift in power under Chevron would astonish the founders if they could see our current system as seen by the growth in the federal government in general. Judge Melgren pointed out that within the lifetime of some of the Pachyderm Club members the number of judges in the federal court system in Kansas had expanded from one in 1940 to six today, and that excludes a number of senior federal judges who have officially “retired,” but still on occasion hear about 1/3 of the total number of cases in the three federal courthouses (Wichita, Topeka, and K.C.) in Kansas. Melgren mentioned his late colleague Judge Brown, who was an appointee of President Kennedy and was still hearing cases while over 100 years old. Judge Brown passed away at the age of 104.
Melgren readily acknowledged that the separation of powers was not absolute. The federal court system underneath the supreme court is created by congress. The close to 1,000 federal district and appellate judges operate nationally within an organization structure created by Congress.
Melgren’s last case he quoted was from Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall’s opinion in the selection of district court judges, Sullivan v. Kansas. Stegall’s separation of powers argument cited Madison’s Federalist 51 concerning the concentration of power in any one government agency.
Stegall applied the warnings over the separation of powers and the direction that state law has taken going back to Kansas Supreme Court cases granting additional administrative power going back to a 1976 ruling that involved the complexity created by the separation of powers. The separation of powers was a critical constitutional concept that is a key to protecting our liberties from government expansion.
This cautionary litany of judicial rulings quoted by Judge Melgren served as a legal foundation concerning our Constitution and the separation of powers legal structure. The Chevron decision that weakens our liberty, and expands government’s powers, places a roadblock in the effort to preserve, protect and defend our liberty with this important constitutional protection of the separation of powers today.
Video of this speech is available on YouTube. Click here.
In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: David Schneider of Citizens for Self-Governance joins Bob Weeks and Karl Peterjohn to explain the Convention of States project. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 154, broadcast June 18, 2017
Here is an excerpt that I believe presents the heart of the reasoning:
Here is an excerpt that I believe presents the heart of the reasoning:
