Voice For Liberty

Tag: Liberty

  • Andrew Napolitano: Man is free, and must be vigilant

    At Saturday’s general session of the RightOnline conference at The Venetian in Las Vegas, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano told an audience of 1,100 conservative activists that the nature of man is to be free, and that government and those holding power are an ever-present danger to freedom.

    Napolitano is Senior Judicial Analyst at the Fox News Network and the author of the books Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land, and A Nation of Sheep.

    Napolitano told of how at the time of the founding of the United States, there was the natural rights group — Madison and Jefferson — which believed that, as Napolitano said: “Our freedom comes from our humanity. It is as natural to us as our physical bodies are. The yearnings that we have to be free are — if you use a 2010 phrase — hard-wired into us by the supreme being that created us.”

    But Hamilton and Adams believed that without government there can be no freedom. Since government protects freedom, government can restrict freedom in bad times.

    The natural law argument won the day, and that’s why there is the Bill of Rights, he told the audience. But in the second year of Adam’s presidential administration, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the government, including the president and congress.

    Napolitano asked: How could those who once risked their lives during the American Revolution come to write such laws once they assumed power? Many people in government have an urge to tell others how to live their lives, he answered. “This is the core of the problem with government from 1787 to 2010. If you must look for any defect in any candidate in either party for any office: If they want to tell you how to live your life, vote them out of office.”

    War is a time when rights can be lost, as when Lincoln locked up newspaper publishers in the North because they criticized his presidency.

    Napolitano told of the Espionage Act of 1917, which makes it illegal to talk someone out of being drafted, working in a munitions plant, or supporting the war. It’s still the law today, he said.

    Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, reminded us that the states created the federal government, not the other way around. Napolitano said that he would have added “And the power that the states gave the federal government, they can take back from the federal government.”

    Shifting topics a bit, Napolitano said the government wants to give away your money in your name. It uses the Mafia model. “Taxation is theft,” he said. It presumes that the government has a higher right to your property than you do. “If the Constitution is to be taken seriously, if you own the sweat of your brow, if you own your ideas and that which you create with your own hands: It’s yours, it’s not the government’s.”

    He told of a recent interview with South Carolina Democratic Congressman James E. Clyburn, where Napolitano asked where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to manage health care? Clyburn replied: “Judge, most of what we do here in Washington is not authorized by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is it prohibited for the federal government to manage health care?”

    Napolitano said Clyburn’s first answer was frank and candid, as well as accurate. The second answer, he said, reveals a “profound misunderstanding of the nature and concept of limited government.”

    Our role in this moment is to defend freedom, he told the audience in closing.

  • In Kansas Legislature, a bad year for freedom and liberty

    It was a bad year for economic freedom in the Kansas Legislature. There were the big votes that most people know of — the big-spending budget, the increase in the sales tax, and the statewide smoking ban — but the legislature passed — and the governor signed — many other laws that chip away at personal liberty and economic freedom. The following list contains many of these bills.

    This list was produced by Bob Corkins of Kansas Votes, a project of the Kansas Policy Institute. It contains only bills that were enacted into law. There were, of course, some bad bills that didn’t make it all the way through the lawmaking process.

    Corkins said that 2010 was the worst session for personal liberty that he could think of in more than two decades of working in the Kansas Statehouse. In many cases these bills had broad support among conservatives.

    Some of these bills are concerned with what people might consider to be minor, unimportant matters. But the legislature thought they were important enough to be the subject of legislation. And while some might seem to chip away at personal liberty and economic freedom in small, insignificant ways, taken together over years, it all adds up.

    Further, when lawmakers pass laws like this and no one complains, and when they get re-elected year after year, it emboldens them to take on bigger challenges to personal liberty and economic freedom, like increasing sales or other taxes. It hardens their resolve to block expansions of economic freedom like school choice programs.

    An example of a bill contrary to personal liberty and economic freedom is House Bill 2130, which requires every occupant of a car to wear a safety belt. Now I happen to think seat belts are a great idea. I always wear mine and ask everyone in my car to wear theirs. But it’s a different matter when the state requires their use. It’s an example of lawmakers trying to protect us from ourselves. Once they start down this road, it’s very difficult for them to stop.

    I’m aware of the argument that says because automobile accidents produce serious and costly injuries that drive up the cost of health care for everyone, and seat belt use reduces the severity of these injuries, we ought to regulate the behavior of people by requiring use of seat belts. We can expect to see arguments made like this more often as our nation moves towards greater collectivization of health care and its costs. What we ought to do, however, is reverse this trend in health care.

    An example of a move away from a uniform tax system is House Bill 2554, authorizing the PEAK (Promoting Employment Across Kansas) program. This program allows certain employers to keep most of the withholding tax their employees pay. Programs like this are contrary to economic freedom because, in this case, we have the state deciding how to direct resources. An alternative that is in harmony with economic freedom is to rely on free markets for this guidance. Besides being contrary to economic freedom, there is scant evidence that economic development programs like this work, in terms of increasing overall prosperity.

    Don’t think for a moment, however, that conservative Kansas legislators rose in opposition to this bill and its intervention into free markets. In the Senate, the bill passed 40 to zero. In the House, the bill passed 109 to 12. Of the 12 votes in opposition, eleven were from Democrats who mostly have far-left voting records. Brenda Landwehr was the only Republican to vote against this bill.

    Another example of government intervention in markets is Senate Bill 430, which restored and boosted a historic preservation tax credit program. In my testimony to a House committee on this bill, I said “We must recognize that a tax credit is an appropriation of Kansans’ money made through the tax system. If the legislature is not comfortable with writing a developer a check for over $1,000,000 — as in the case with one Wichita developer — it should not make a roundabout contribution through the tax system that has the same economic impact on the state’s finances.”

    Principles of economic freedom and personal liberty contend that the state should not be spending this money, whether through direct appropriations or the tax system. Very few conservatives voted against this bill on these principles.

    The following list of enacted bills is ordered, Corkins says, from the “most atrocious to the merely very bad.” Each bill is linked to its page on Kansas Votes.

    Senate Bill 572 (Propose state budget for 2011)
    to approve a state budget that would authorize total spending for the current 2010 fiscal year of $5.416 billion in State General Fund spending (SGF, that portion of the budget paid primarily with state-imposed sales and income taxes) and $14.414 billion from All Funds (including SGF, federal aid, and state agency fees), and for spending $5.621 billion SGF and $13.685 from All Funds in fiscal year 2011.

    House Bill 2360 (Increase state sales, income taxes)
    to enact a state sales tax increase from the current 5.3 percent up to 6.3 percent, amend the Kansas Taxpayer Transparency Act, expand the food sales tax rebate program, and expand the state earned income tax credit (EITC) program.

    House Bill 2221 (Ban smoking in public and workplaces)
    to ban smoking in enclosed areas, including all public places, any placy of employment, taxicabs, hallways and more, but would not apply to outdoor areas, private residences, hotel or motel rooms, tobacco shops, certain private clubs and casino gaming floors.

    House Bill 2320 (Impose nursing home tax)
    to create a provider assessment tax on nearly all licensed beds within skilled nursing care facilities in the state of Kansas; deem the Kansas Health Policy Authority to be the state agency to calculate and implement the provider assessment; establish a Quality Care Fund where all assessments and penalties collected through the assessment program would be deposited; and, establish a Quality Care Improvement Panel.

    House Bill 2356 (Increase state inspections of child care facilities)
    to adopt “Lexie’s law” requiring the Department of Health and Environment to inspect every child care facility once every 15 months. The inspection frequency of a family child care home following an initial inspection will be at intervals that the department determines to be appropriate to assess the health, safety and well-being of children being cared for in the family child care home. In addition, to open certain records to the public regarding the identity of maternity center, family day care home, and child care facility licensees, but would allow the state to withhold such information if necessary to protect public health and safety or that of the facility’s patients or children.

    House Bill 2130 (Mandate seat belts, allow traffic stops)
    to amend state law to require every occupant of a passenger care to wear a safety belt. A law enforcement officer would now be permitted to stop a passenger car for any violation of the seat belt requirement by anyone in the front seat or anyone under 18. The fine for violations would be $5 until July 1, 2011, when it would increase to $10.

    House Bill 2650 (Launch new state transportation works program)
    to initiate a new state transportation works program, providing for the construction, improvement and maintenance of the state highway system; authorizing financial transfers between the State Highway Fund and the Rail Service Improvement Fund; increasing vehicle registration fees; increasing the borrowing authority of the Kansas Department of Transportation; and, pledging $8 million in transportation projects for each county in Kansas over the next 10 years.

    Senate Bill 409 (Development of passenger rail service in Kansas)
    to authorize the Kansas Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a passenger rail service program in the state. To establish the program, the Secretary would enter into agreements with Amtrak and other rail operators to develop passenger rail service serving Kansas and other state. The agreements can include cost-sharing agreements and joint powers agreements. The Secretary should also enter into agreements with local jurisdictions along a proposed route. The bill also gives the Secretary authority to make loans or grants to passenger rail service providers for the purpose of restoring existing rail infrastructure, for rail economic development projects and the cost to initiate and operate passenger rail service. The bill does not specify where program funding would come from.

    House Bill 2476 (Extend and increase court fees)
    to increase a number of court fees and extend such judicial branch surcharges through fiscal year 2011 to fund non-judicial personnel working in the court system; the compromises recommended would alter specific fee increases for specific court actions with the fees ranging generally between $10 and $20.

    Senate Bill 200 (Repeal partial HMO tax, apply full rate to all)
    to repeal the partial state tax of 0.5 percent imposed on premiums charged against a few Health Maintenance Organizations so that the full one percent premiums tax would be applied uniformly against all HMOs.

    House Bill 2582 (Extend and reallocate e-911 tax revenue to locals)
    to delay for one year — until July, 1, 2011 — a provision in current law that discontinues the wireless enhanced 911 grant fee and the VoIP enhanced 911 grant fee, abolishes the wireless enhanced 911 advisory board and the grant fund, and that directs the distribution of the unobligated balance in the grant fund to public safety answering points (PSAPs).

    House Bill 2554 (Expand tax incentives for hiring new workers)
    expanding the PEAK program (Promoting Employment Across Kansas) by liberalizing its definitions, relaxing its requirements so that a company would be eligible if it relocated or expanded a portion of its business operations into the state, permitting qualified companies to retain 95 percent of the employees’ withholding taxes if the median wage paid to the new employees at least equals that paid throughout the county, and by requiring an independent evaluation of economic development incentives administered by the Kansas Department of Commerce.

    House Bill 2226 (Change earmarks of traffic fine revenue, increase fines)
    to increase the fine assessed on traffic infractions that are on the uniform fine schedule by $15. The revenue generated by the increased fines would be distributed to several justice related programs, including the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, the Crime Victims Assistance Fund, the Community Alcoholism and Intoxication Programs Fund, the Boating Fee Fund, the Children’s Advocacy Center Fund, and the criminal justice information system line fund.

    Senate Bill 430 (Limit use of certain tax credits)
    make a 10 percent cut in certain income tax credits permitted under current law; repeal a $3.75 million cap that had been imposed on historic preservation income tax credits; make statutory amendments needed for Kansas to remain in national compliance with the streamlined sales tax act; impose a $10 fee for delinquent taxpayers who enter into an installment payment plan agreement in excess of 90 days from the date of the payment plan agreement; and, people with intangibles tax liability would be required to file their returns with county clerks, rather than the Department of Revenue.

    House Bill 2501 (Allow exemption from liability limit on mortgage insurers)
    to allow the Kansas Department of Insurance to waive (at the sole discretion of the Commissioner of Insurance) the current requirement that a mortgage guaranty insurance company must have a total liability that does not exceed 25 times its capital, surplus and contingency reserve; to amend the definition of “RBC instruction” to mean risk-based capital instructions promulgated by a specified national insurance association; to prohibit firms that offer health care plans from requiring or requesting genetic tests, and prohibiting insurance companies from charging a higher premium because of any genetic test results; and, to grant rights to insurance customers in seeking special exceptions for cases in which their credit histories may affect their insurance coverage, allowing any such customer who experiences an “extraordinary life circumstance” that hurts their credit, and thereby causes an adverse insurance action, to obtain reasonable exceptions to the insurer’s rates.

    House Bill 2485 (Increase evaluation period for trucking licenses)
    to increase the time period from the current 12 up to 18 months for the Kansas Corporation Commission to verify a trucking company’s fitness and regulatory compliance for its continued operation.

    House Bill 2472 (Specify rights in common interest communities)
    to enact a set of rights and duties regarding people who live in common interest communities such as associations of apartment owners, but not owners currently and similarly bound by covenants unless they agree otherwise – setting forth duties in such communities regarding bylaws, owner voting rights, dispute resolutions, access to property, borrowing money, communications with owners, recordkeeping, and other matters; to prohibit until July 1, 2011, any city from adopting or enforcing any rule requiring the installation of a multi-purpose residential fire protection sprinkler system; and, to decrease down to 90 days, but permit a court to extend to up to 180 days, a compliance period for an abandoned property owner to carry out a rehabilitation plan where the property is brought into compliance with fire, housing and building codes and current on all ad valorem property tax owed, and to reduce from three to two years the time a person who purchases a house from an organization that has rehabilitated an abandoned property must occupy the house.

    Senate Bill 389 (Compensation to dentists in health insurance plans)
    to only permit a health insurance plan — including any individual health insurance policy, the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan and the state Medicaid program — to set fees for covered services (and not for uncovered services)provided by a dentist who is a participating provider in the plan.

    Senate Bill 377 (Regulate retainage in construction contracts)
    to prohibit an owner, contractor or subcontractor from withholding more than a five percent limit on the contract as retainage (money withheld to ensure proper work performance); to require release of retainage on an undisputed payment within 30 days after substantial completion of the project; to permit no more than 150 percent of the value of incomplete work, due to a contractor or subcontractor, to be withheld by an owner or contractor and require it be paid within 45 after completion of the work; and, to permit a general contractor to request an alternative security in lieu of retainage, such as an irrevocable bank letter or credit, certificate of deposit or cash bond.

    Senate Bill 373 (Amending application of municipal court fees)
    to require a $19 municipal court fee be imposed uniformly statewide in each case filed in municipal court, other than a nonmoving traffic violation, where there is a finding of guilty, a plea of guilty, a plea of no contest, or a forfeiture of bond or a diversion.

    House Bill 2433 (Liberalize school purchasing process, Prison sales)
    to allow all state educational institutions more independence in choosing how they acquire goods, supplies, equipment, services and land leases without the need to route acquisitions through the Kansas State Director of Purchases; and, to authorize the Department of Corrections for the next three years to sell prison-made goods to private citizens and businesses in Kansas.

    House Bill 2415 (Exempt universities from surplus property law)
    to exempt the six Kansas Regents universities from the current duty to dispose of any of their personal property through the terms of the Kansas Surplus Property Act. That law ordinarily makes the goods available for sale to the general public.

    House Bill 2411 (Criminalize incense, “K2”)
    to criminalize the unauthorized use or possession of certain chemicals known as “K2”, BZP and TFMPP that have been added to herbs and incense to produce hallucinogenic effects when inhaled or consumed.

    House Bill 2353 (Ratify local sales tax vote for jail)
    to retroactively validate a local election last year in Chautauqua County to impose a countywide sales tax where money raised would pay for a new county jail and law enforcement facility.

    House Bill 2160 (Require state workers’ health plan to cover autism)
    to require the state employees’ health plan to cover services for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders in any covered person less than 19 years old, and to require health insurance policies include coverage provisions for orally administered anti-cancer medications.

    Senate Bill 83 (Require licensure of naturopathic doctors)
    to change the regulatory status of naturopathic doctors with the Board of Healing Arts from registrants to licensees and to permit naturopaths to form professional corporations; and, to include two licensure categories — “exempt license” and “federally active license” — in the Physical Therapy Practice Act.

  • Kansas restrictive neighborhood covenants don’t apply to political yard signs

    It’s common for neighborhoods to have restrictive covenants that prohibit homeowners from placing any signs in their yard, except for signs advertising homes for sale. But a 2008 Kansas law overrides these restrictive covenants to allow for the placement of small political yard signs starting 45 days before an election.

    The bill was the product of then-Senator Phil Journey of Haysville. Journey is now a judge in the Kansas 18th Judicial District. The bill passed unanimously in both the Kansas House and Senate.

    According to the First Amendment Center, some 50 million people live in neighborhoods with homeowners associations. And laws like the 2008 Kansas law are not without controversy, despite the unanimous vote in the Kansas Legislature.

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that governmental entities like cities can’t stop homeowners from displaying political yard signs, a homeowners association is not government. Instead, it is a group that people voluntarily enter.

    Generally, when prospective homeowners purchase a home in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants, they are asked to sign a document pledging to comply with the provisions in the covenants. If those covenants prohibit political yard signs, but a Kansas law says these covenants do not apply, what should a homeowner do?

    In his monumental work For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard argues that the right to free speech is not based on some “vague and wooly” concept that protects the “public interest,” such as prohibition of falsely crying “fire” in a theater. Instead, it should be based on property rights. (page 43)

    In the case of falsely crying “fire” in the theater, Rothbard argues that this act violates the contract between the theater owner and patrons to enjoy the presentation without interruption. It violates their property rights.

    While a homeowner certainly owns the yard in front of his house, he does so based on the voluntary agreements entered into, such as payment of an agreed-upon amount of money to the previous owner. Another agreement entered into is between the new homeowner and all the other homeowners in the neighborhood through the restrictive covenants.

    So if those restrictive covenants prohibit political yard signs, that restriction is something that has been mutually agreed to. It is part of the property rights that homeowners in the neighborhood enjoy. It cannot be violated without violating the property rights of those who bought their homes with the understanding that the covenants are part of the property they purchased.

    The Kansas statute

    K.S.A. 58-3820. Restrictive covenants; political yard signs; limitations. (a) On and after the effective date of this act, any provision of a restrictive covenant which prohibits the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, during a period commencing 45 days before an election and ending two days after the election is hereby declared to be against public policy and such provision shall be void and unenforceable.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any restrictive covenant in existence on the effective date of this act.

    Or, as described in the 2008 Summary of Legislation: “The bill invalidates any provision of a restrictive covenant prohibiting the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, 45 days before an election or two days after the election.”

    For the August 3rd primary election, the first day for signs in restricted neighborhoods is June 19th.

    For the general election on November 2, the first day for signs is September 18th.

  • Limits of government and rights of people to be addressed in Wichita

    This Friday (May 7) Sarah McIntosh will address members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club. Ms. McIntosh’s presentation, titled “Make No Law,” will discuss the constitutional powers and limits of the federal government, versus the rights of the people, with a particular focus on the interaction of rights and powers in the health care law and the upcoming right to bear arms Supreme Court case.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • The bamboozled public

    The intellectual arguments used by the State throughout history to “engineer consent” by the public can be classified into two parts: (1) that rule by the existing government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and far better than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its downfall; and (2) that the State rulers are especially great, wise, and altruistic men — far greater, wiser, and better than their simple subjects. In former times, the latter argument took the form of rule by “divine right’ or by the “divine ruler” himself, or by an “aristocracy” of men. In modern times, as we indicated earlier, this argument stresses not so much divine approval as rule by a wise guild of “scientific experts” especially endowed in knowledge of statesmanship and the arcane facts of the world. The increasing use of scientific jargon, especially in the social sciences, has permitted intellectuals to weave apologia for State rule which rival the ancient priestcraft in obscurantism. For example, a thief who presumed to justify his theft by saying that he was really helping his victims by his spending, thus giving retail trade a needed boost, would be hooted down without delay. But when this same theory is clothed in Keynesian mathematical equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it carries far more conviction with a bamboozled public.

    From Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, pages 59 – 60

  • Importance of economic freedom explained in Wichita

    Yesterday Robert Lawson appeared in Wichita to deliver a lecture titled “Economic Freedom and the Wealth and Health of Nations.” The lecture explained how Lawson and his colleagues calculate the annual “Economic Freedom of the World” index, which ranks most of the countries of the world in how the “policies and institutions of countries are supportive of economic freedom.” The conclusion is that economic freedom is a vital component of well-being, income, health, and both personal and political freedom.

    Robert LawsonRobert Lawson

    The Economic Freedom of the World annual report is available in its entirety at FreeTheWorld.com.

    Lawson started his lecture by noting two methods of organizing an economy. There’s the way of Adam Smith, in which liberty, private property, and free trade are paramount, and government is to have a limited role. The other way is that of Karl Marx, where society would be planned and controlled by a central authority according to a national strategy.

    Lawson said he became interested in measuring freedom as a way to investigate the truth of the claims of Smith and Marx. By collecting data about economic freedom, we could learn more about which system — economic freedom or planned economies — works best.

    Lawson defined economic freedom as consisting of free markets, private property and personal choice; freedom to trade both within a country and foreign trade; freedom to enter markets; and security of property and the rule of law. He said that there is a role for government in this system to protect property rights and provide basic infrastructure, but the role of government is limited.

    Measuring economic freedom is complex and multidimensional. Data comes from 141 countries using 42 components that are grouped into five broad areas: size of government, including expenditures, taxes, and enterprises; legal structure and security of property rights; access to sound money; freedom to trade internationally; and regulation of credit, labor, and business. Ratings are on a scale from zero to ten, with ten representing the most freedom.

    Some of the components of the ranking are based on objective data, while some are subjective, perhaps from a survey. Lawson said that the report and book detail the methodology used in creating the index.

    The result is that Hong Kong ranks as most economically free country. Singapore is second, which Lawson said poses a problem. Singapore is economically free, but it is not politically liberal in terms of civil liberties. There is a strong positive relationship between political freedom and economic freedom, but there are exceptions like Singapore.

    The United States ranks sixth. Sweden is ranked fortieth, which is still in the upper quartile of countries. Lawson said that while Sweden has a reputation as a welfare state, the U.S. and Sweden are not all that different. Taxes in Sweden are about 50 perfect higher than ours, and Sweden has many more labor regulations, but otherwise the countries are similar.

    The big differences in the world, Lawson said, are between countries like the U.S. and countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

    China is ranked eighty-second, below the midpoint. Lawson said that China is a problem to rank, having Shanghai which is relatively free, and then outer provinces which are still tightly controlled and repressive.

    Russia ranks eighty-third, right below China. Some of the former Soviet republics like Estonia are doing well, but the Ukraine has made little progress towards freedom.

    India ranks eighty-sixth. It is not an economically free county, but is more free now than in the past, Lawson said.

    To show how economic freedom impacts the lives of people, Lawson used a series of charts that showed the impact of economic freedom on various measures.

    Economic freedom is very important in determining the incomes of people. The countries in the highest-ranking quartile of the economic freedom index have a per-capita income of $32,443. For countries in the lowest quartile the income is only $3,802. Economic growth rates are higher in the freer countries, too, although the difference is not as great as with income.

    Lawson said that a frequent criticism of free economies is income inequality. He showed a chart presenting the share of income earned by the poorest ten percent in each country, grouped by quartile. There is very little difference between the groups. “It doesn’t really matter what kind of economic system you have — free market or not — it does not correlate in any way with income inequality. It’s simply not true that market economies, in general, are more unequal.”

    A follow-up, Lawson said, is that if you are poor, where do you want to be? The answer is in the economically free countries. The per-capita income of the poorest ten percent in the least economically free countries is $896, while in the most economically free it is $9,105.

    Life expectancy is also positively correlated with economic freedom, ranging from 59.40 years in the least-free countries to 79.12 in the most-free countries.

    Is there a relationship between economic systems and the environment? Lawson showed a chart showing that the free countries do better in a measure of environmental performance.

    Lawson said that political rights and civil liberties are also strongly associated with economic freedom, the example of Singapore notwithstanding. India is another exception, being a fairly liberal democracy but ranking low in economic freedom.

    Speaking about the United States, Lawson said that the numbers are likely to go down in the future. While the U.S. ranks above the world average, its measurement of freedom has been declining since 2000. At the same time, the rest of the world is on an upward trend. “It’s no longer accurate to say the United States is among the very top tier in the economic freedom index,” Lawson said, adding that he blames George Bush for this. The decline is partly due to the increasing size of government, but the largest cause of the decline is in the area of property rights. This area is measured largely by surveys asking people how they feel about property rights in America. The perception, Lawson, said, is that the security of property rights are on the decline.

    A question from the audience asked about reliance on foreign aid. Lawson replied that the economic freedom index methodology doesn’t include foreign aid. But there has been research done using the index and foreign aid, which concluded that countries get more foreign aid when they do worse on the index. Furthermore, after receiving more foreign aid, countries do worse in the index.

    A question about the cost of living in countries was answered by the use of purchasing power parity.

    Responding to a question about deficits, Lawson said that the size of government deficits doesn’t enter into the index calculations. The amount of government spending is part of the index, however. Lawson said that Milton Friedman argued that it wasn’t very important to freedom whether the government runs deficits. The size of government spending is important, Friedman said, with the method of financing the spending much less important.

    A question revealed that health care doesn’t play a part in the index calculations, as the composition of spending is not a factor. If the U.S. government decides to spend more on health care, its rating will probably decline, as government spending is in the index.

    A question asked how it can be that China and India are growing very rapidly, but still rank low in the index. Lawson answered that it’s the change or increase in the index that has been important for these two countries. There has been great change in both countries. “It takes only a tiny bit of relaxation to see a flourishing of growth in both China and India.” He added that both countries need to continue their reforms in order to maintain their rates of economic growth.

    Lawson added that regulation, not taxation, is the biggest threat to prosperity and economic freedom in America.

    Lawson’s lecture was sponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and underwritten by The Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation.

  • An inept Kansas smoking analogy

    From last March.

    In today’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita busybody Charlie Claycomb makes another inept analogy in an attempt to press his anti-smoking agenda statewide.

    A while back he tried to compare a smoking section in a restaurant with a urinating section in a swimming pool. This is ridiculous to the extreme, as I show in the post It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool.

    Now in today’s letter in the Eagle, Claycomb says that although the United States Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, since that right is heavily regulated, government has license to regulate smoking, as smoking isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution.

    Here’s why this is another ridiculous analogy (without conceding whether the regulations on arms are justified or effective): A person in, say, a bar that’s carrying a gun can’t be detected as you enter the bar. You just can’t tell upon entering an establishment whether someone has a concealed gun and intends to cause harm to patrons. This is the case even if there’s a law prohibiting carrying guns into bars, and even if the bar has a “no guns” sign.

    But you sure can tell if people are smoking.

    Smoking ban supporters might argue that since there may be smoking in some establishments, my rights are being infringed since I can’t patronize those places without exposing myself to harmful smoke.

    That’s true, except about rights being violated. There’s definitely no right in the Constitution to be able to go everywhere you want on your own terms.

    “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” — John Stuart Mill

    “Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.” — Milton Friedman

  • It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool

    A repeat of a column from 2008. Mark McCormick no longer writes for the Wichita Eagle. Recently that newspaper concluded that because Wichita’s smoking ban caused no economic harm, it was a good thing to do. Let’s hope this regulatory zeal doesn’t spread to other areas.

    In a column in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle (“Smoking ban issue not one to negotiate”), columnist Mark McCormick quotes Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of Tobacco Free Wichita, equating a smoking section in a restaurant with “a urinating section in a swimming pool.”

    This is a ridiculous comparison. A person can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it. But people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking.

    Besides this, Mr. McCormick’s article seeks to explain how markets aren’t able to solve the smoking problem, and that there is no negotiating room, no middle ground. There must be a smoking ban, he concludes.

    As way of argument, McCormick claims, I think, that restaurants prepare food in sanitary kitchens only because of government regulation, not because of markets. We see, however, that food is still being prepared in unsanitary kitchens, and food recalls, even in meat processing plants where government inspectors are present every day, still manage to happen. So government regulation itself is not a failsafe measure.

    Despite the doubts of nanny-state regulators, markets — that is, consumers — exert powerful forces on businesses. If a restaurant serves food that makes people ill, which do you think the restaurant management fears most: a government fine, or the negative publicity? Restaurants live and die by their reputation. Those that serve poor quality food or food that makes people ill will suffer losses, not as much from government regulation as from the workings of markets.

    But I will grant that McCormick does have a small point here. Just by looking at food, you probably can’t tell if it’s going to make you ill. Someone’s probably going to need to get sick before the word gets out.

    But you easily can tell if someone’s smoking in the bar or restaurant you just entered.

    The problem with a smoking ban written into law — rather than reliance on markets and individual choice — is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm, as is the case with laws against theft and murder. But it’s different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking.

    For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision. McCormick and Claycomb want to deny people that choice.

    This is not a middle-ground position. It is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority — no matter how lop-sided — make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as Claycomb stated in another Wichita Eagle article, will “tick off everybody.” Who benefits from a law that does that?

  • Spalding lecture examined liberty, progressivism

    This Tuesday in Emporia, constitutional scholar Matthew Spalding
    delivered a lecture titled “Liberty and the Constitution.” An important topic presented in this lecture is that modern American progressivism is in opposition to the principles of liberty as expressed in the founding of the United States.

    Spalding said that the great theme of the American founding was self-governance. America is unique, he said, because we laid down ideas on paper in the form of our Constitution. Prior to this, politics had been based on who had the most power.

    Private property and religious freedom were important aspects of the American founding. To the founders, property rights were deeply moral and philosophical. Property is not just land, but intellectual creations, too.

    Religious liberty was an important theme of the American founding. Prior to this, there was no such thing as religious liberty, Spalding said. Your religion would be determined by the religion of your king. Sometimes other religions were tolerated, but as in England, it simply meant they “wouldn’t burn you.”

    Rule of law is another important aspect of liberty. Man creates laws, and we are ruled by those laws. Because Americans valued law so much, we did something that no other country had done: we wrote it down in the form of a Constitution. Other counties had constitutions, but they were merely writings of history, not rules for how law should operate.

    All men possessed the same rights, because of nature, because we are human beings. Rights do not come from governments, or kings, or courts. That, the American founders said, is self-evident.

    After the Civil War, different world views arose. In particular, Germany in the late nineteenth center was the hotbed of technology and transformation of government.

    When Americans went overseas to study Europe after the Civil War, we became aware of the radicalism of the French Revolution. It was anti-religious. Everything was to be torn down, even the calendar. That changed the European tradition, and new sets of ideas came into fashion.

    These ideas that were imported into the United States included relativism (there is no self-evident truth) and historicism (all things change). These ideas are in opposition to the principles of the Constitution, and are the basis of modern progressivism, which holds these beliefs: There is nothing permanent. Everything changes. Rights are not grounded in the nature of human beings; instead rights evolve and change. Because rights change, government changes, too. When rights expand, so does government. With more rights, there is more for government to secure.

    Germany had invented the administrative state, or the bureaucracy. Based on their belief in science, they invented new, scientific ways of organizing government. There were to be experts: people to run things.

    In America, power and authority which the Constitution delegated to the legislature and executive was instead given to the bureaucracy. Congress created agencies.

    There also arose the idea of a “living” Constitution. The founders’ Constitution was old and viewed by progressives as a barrier to progress. By interpreting it differently, it became a living document.

    The culmination of progressivism was the Great Society on the 1960s. Congress passed huge, vague laws that gave authority to bureaucrats. “Congress passed a law: clean the water.” How to do that was left to bureaucrats.

    The present wave of progressivism — like the others before — is based on an intellectual, moral, and cultural attack on the ideas of the American founding. Progressives believe the American founders were wrong. Limited government is a constraint, they say, and to make any progress, we must have more government.

    Spalding said that if we were to read Woodrow Wilson’s speeches during the 1912 election and substitute the word “change” for “progress”, we’d see a similarity to the debate of today. Healthcare, he said, was proposed in the progressive platform of 1912, based on the German model of health insurance.

    The argument of modern academics is that the growth of government is inevitable and good. Today, the progressive argument about government growing and expanding without limit, the question has never been settled by the American people. “The American people, as civil-minded as they are, still think they govern themselves, and they object when someone says they will govern for them.” That is good, Spalding said.

    There are two grand choices we face today. One path is progressive liberalism, based on the French Revolution arguments that deny rights, liberties, and the Constitution. The goal of this path is to transform America into something different with a new form of government: bureaucratic and centralized, efficient and European.

    The other path is to recover a form of constitutionalism. Spalding says that the immediate future — perhaps the next few years or decades — is the time to give serious consideration to this choice. The present path of government is unsustainable, and we must decide if there are to be limits on the size of government.

    The current healthcare proposal that says we must buy insurance provides an example, he said. “If the commerce clause of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the doing of nothing, then government is truly unlimited.”

    A question from the audience from someone who identified himself as a progressive said that progressives aren’t trying to make America like a European nation. It’s social Darwinism that upsets progressives, he said, citing the lack of child labor laws and robber barons as examples. Today, there are powers and corporations that are destructive, and progressives need to reclaim power and participation in government.

    Spalding replied that social Darwinism (from the right), like progressivism (from the left), deny human nature. Both use the state to achieve their objectives, and that’s the problem. Neither believe in self government. Many modern ideologies, stemming from the French Revolution, reject the deeper philosophical ideas of the American founding.

    The questioner asked “Equality, liberty, fraternity: this is a rejection of the human condition?” Spalding replied yes, the American and French Revolutions are deeply at odds with each other. “The fact that I would point to is the French Revolution did not lead to constitutional government. George Washington died in bed peacefully. The French Revolution lead to the guillotine.”

    Matthew Spalding is the Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at Heritage and is the author of We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future (ISI Books, 2009). He is also the editor of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, an indispensable collection of essays on the founding document.

    Emporia State University history professor Gregory L. Schneider created the Lectures on Liberty series last year. For more information, contact Dr. Schneider, gschneid@emporia.edu, 620-341-5565.

    Two additional lectures have been scheduled for the 2010 season. Jonathan Bean, a professor of history at Southern Illinois University, will be speaking on liberty and race in American history on Feb. 23. Benjamin Powell, professor of economics from Suffolk University in Boston, will be speaking April 8 on the topic, “In Praise of Sweatshops.”

    The Lectures on Liberty series is underwritten by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation in Wichita.