|
|
Right now, the most important thing we can do as average Americans is to donate to charitable relief organizations, budgets permitting. (Jennifer and I chose the Red Cross.) And we can offer our gratitude and support for Americans going to Haiti to help. The magnitude of destruction is overwhelming.
We must also denounce the lunacy of people like Pat Robertson, who said the earthquake was a result of a Haitian “pact to the devil.” (Mercifully, Rick Warren said on his Twitter feed, “Labeling any natural disaster as God’s judgment is nonsense.”)
Then, as the dust settles, the majority of us not directly involved in relief efforts should contemplate how to mitigate the harm of such disasters in the future.
The first obvious thing to note about Haiti is that its government is corrupt and its people oppressed. The Heritage Foundation ranks Haiti as “mostly unfree,” ranking 147 out of 179, behind Russia.
A second point to note is that the Haitian government knew the earthquake was coming and did little to prepare for it. As Cassie Rodenberg reports for Popular Mechanics:
Back in 2008, Eric Calais and Paul Mann, geophysicists who study fault lines in the Caribbean, predicted that Haiti would soon face such a devastating quake. …
Calais says that because Haiti poses safety concerns and a difficult work environment with a poor road access system, it’s been neglected by seismologists. …
But his research didn’t translate well enough to elicit safety precautions before the quake. Though Calais notes that earthquakes can’t be prevented, he says there was enough advance warning for the Haitian government to make preparations, and, in fact, his team alerted the government four to five years beforehand.
“We’ve told the Haitian government that the Enriquillo fault is a major player,” Calais says. “We’ve told them exactly where the fault is. We’ve told them how fast it was building up elastic energy, and we’ve told them that right now, if it was to go, it could produce a 7.2 in magnitude or larger event.”
The government has worked with the team and listened to its foreboding reports, Calais says, but for the most part, Haiti has failed to implement emergency plans and restructure crucial buildings.
Economic liberty and a government constrained by the rule of just law is necessary for human life. Statism kills. Corrupt governments kill. Stifling economic development kills.
Michelle Malkin points to a post by Jim Roberts: “Long-term reforms for Haitian democracy and its economy are also badly overdue.” (I profoundly disagree with Roberts’s calls to violate economic liberty at home through forced wealth transfers in order to promote economic reform in Haiti.)
John Stossel refers to the excellent summary of the matter by economist Don Boudreaux:
The ultimate tragedy in Haiti isn’t the earthquake; it’s that country’s lack of economic freedom. The earthquake simply but catastrophically revealed the inhuman consequences of this fact.
Registering 7.0 on the Richter scale, the Haitian earthquake killed tens of thousands of people. But the quake that hit California’s Bay Area in 1989 was also of magnitude 7.0. It, though, killed only 63 people.
This difference is due chiefly to Americans’ greater wealth. With one of the freest economies in the world, Americans build stronger homes and buildings, and have better health-care and better search and rescue equipment. In contrast, burdened by one of the world’s least-free economies, Haitians cannot afford to build sturdy structures. Nor can they afford the health-care and emergency equipment that we take for granted here in the U.S.
These stark facts should be a lesson for those who insist that human habitats are made more dangerous, and human lives put in greater peril, by freedom of commerce and industry.
If you want to live, if you want to promote human life, you must advocate capitalism.
Dear American Lung Association,
I am sorry to learn that your organization deserves an “F” in its understanding of liberty.
I was shocked to read in today’s Denver Post that the ALA has endorsed the violation of property rights (via the smoking ban), higher taxes, and more state spending in Colorado.
While I approve of your organization’s work to persuade people to quit smoking, in this case you are substituting the force of the state for rational argument. The ends do not justify the means, and you are promoting unjust policies that violate people’s rights.
As harmful as smoking is, it is not nearly as harmful as a government that systematically violates property rights and economic liberty. By seeking to forcibly limit people’s choices, you are preventing them from acting on their own judgment. The freedom to act on one’s judgment, consistent with rights of property and person, is the bedrock of liberty and prosperity. If you take away people’s ability to make mistakes, you necessarily undercut their ability to take responsibility for their lives and reach the heights of human potential.
The ALA should mind its proper business of persuading people to improve their health, not promote state policies that violate rights. It should go without saying that I do not donate to organizations that promote the violation of property rights and economic liberty.
Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong
(See 8 minutes into John Hickenlooper’s announcement for the governor’s race.)
Following are the unedited answers of Curtis Harris to the Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey.
If nothing else, Harris, a third-party candidate for the the Second Congressional, gets points for speed. He was the first candidate to reply to the survey.
SUMMARY
In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.
The present US Government is driving America to socialism and economic disaster. Both major political parties and the Congress are at the heart of the problem. I want to return the Federal government to its Constitutional limits and restore individual liberty in this country.
ECONOMIC ISSUES
* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?
No. Economies are stimulated by economic freedom.
* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?
No. Corporate welfare is the result of or leads to government corruption. There is no place for it in a free economy.
* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you
seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?
Much lower.
* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?
Repeal the Federal minimum wage. The States are free to chose their policy. Minimum wages are a proven killer of entry-level jobs.
* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?
Certainly not Federal dollars. I would not support state funding, either.
* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?
Yes. Federal enforcement is often politically motivated and/or based on flawed economics.
* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?
Yes.
SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES
* What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
I endorse the First Amendment. That being said, this country is founded on the primacy of the rights of people as endowed by their Creator. The exclusion of general religious principles (morality) from government is a mistake.
* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?
Not from the Federal level.
* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?
Not from the Federal level.
* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?
This should be up to local school districts and parents. A daily period of meditation would have done me a lot of good when I was in school.
* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?
Promote? No. Allow? Yes.
* Do you support gay marriage?
The Federal government has no role at all in marriage, gay or otherwise. I support loving, committed relationships. How the people of the States and local governments chose to define these is up to their people.
* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?
These are different labels for marriage. The love and commitment in the relationship is all that matters.
* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?
This is not a Federal matter. I do not have the knowledge or experience that would qualify me to have an opinion.
* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?
Again, no Federal role. However, I support parental notification unless there is evidence of abuse within the family.
* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?
Abortion is a State, not Federal matter. There are two questions here. Should abortion be legal? Should there be waiting periods?
As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.
* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?
I am not familiar with this measure.
* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?
Again, no Federal role. It is the family’s decision.
* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?
Again, no Federal role. Otherwise, yes.
* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?
Again, no Federal role. There can be a big argument over what constitutes “risk of life”.
* Should elective abortion be legal?
Again, no Federal role. As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.
* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?
I believe the States can decide on abortion restrictions after the first trimester. I have no opinion on penalties, except the one below.
* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?
No.
* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?
States choice. My personal opinion – Yes.
* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?
States choice. My personal opinion – Yes.
* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?
States choice. My personal opinion – Yes. The research should not be Federally funded.
* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?
Certainly not Federal dollars.
IMMIGRATION
* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest- worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?
Yes. I don’t know how much, but there is unmet demand for skilled people in this country, so the additional visas or immigration would add value to our economy. People that love freedom and have the ability to add value to America should be welcomed.
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?
The Federal government has a Constitutionally authorized role in immigration control.
* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?
Not to illegal immigrants. In any case, most Federal benefits are not authorized by the Constitution.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?
Eminent domain is for legitimate public use only and the property owner must be fairly compensated.
* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?
I am not familiar enough with the situation to have an opinion at this time.
* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?
Yes. It has become a weapon against healthy growth in our economy and often violates private property rights.
BILL OF RIGHTS
* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?
McCain-Feingold should be repealed. It is unconstitutional. In general, campaign finance is a free speech issue and should not be restricted. Voters should have complete access to information on candidates’ campaign funding.
* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?
Since these signals cross State lines and can have an effect on the welfare of the United States, there is a legitimate Federal role. Beyond protections against slander, libel, and content unsuitable for minors (violations of the rights of others), there should be no content control.
* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?
Yes.
* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?
Yes.
* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.
No additional restrictions. I think Colorado’s laws in this area are a good model for the nation.
* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?
No.
* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?
No.
OTHER
* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?
Again, no Federal role here. Repeal the federal laws and leave it to the States.
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?
* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.
Nothing is more important than getting the Federal government’s fiscal and monetary policies under control. Many functions of the Federal government are not authorized by our Constitution and must be phased out. Corresponding cuts in spending, taxes and regulation will allow our economy to grow and produce the tax revenue necessary to eliminate the deficit and reduce government debt.
Thank you.
Curtis Harris
www.HarrisAgainstCongress.com
http://itsthecongressstupid.blogspot.com
Created by Ari and Linn Armstrong
[January 24 Update: Links to candidates' replies and related material are posted following the survey.]
The following survey is open to all Colorado candidates running for the 2010 elections. Candidates should fill out the survey and return it via e-mail to ari(at)freecolorado(dotcom). The survey should be sent as text only within the body of an e-mail, not as an attachment. Answers will be published in full and without editing at FreeColorado.com. Candidates should include contact information for verification purposes.
We will personally send the survey to all major-party candidates running for governor and U.S. Senate. We may send the survey to other candidates as well. We do not have the resources to send the survey to — and track answers from — every single candidate in the state. However, all Colorado candidates are welcome to respond to the survey, and FreeColorado.com will publish every reply received.
Obviously we may choose to quote from a candidate’s answers in our own articles, as may other journalists.
Voters interested in the answers of a particular candidate are encouraged to ask that candidate to send us a reply. Moreover, we encourage other journalists to press candidates for their answers to these important questions.
We have heard from various candidates who decline to answer at least some surveys. We strongly encourage candidates to answer ours. We believe that Colorado voters deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.
Our goal is to fairly elicit a candidate’s substantive views on a variety of critical issues. While many of the questions may be answered yes or no, we encourage candidates to offer whatever nuances they deem appropriate. If you think a question is loaded, tell us why. If you want to explain how your thinking has evolved or how your answer squares with your record, please do so. If you have not developed a position on some issue, say as much. We will reproduce your answers as given. We do ask that candidates not confuse nuance with evasiveness.
Note: Some questions are marked for state-level or federal-level candidates. While all candidates are welcome to answer all the questions, candidates for one level of government need not answer questions specific to another level.
We believe that candidates can be fair to voters only by revealing their views on the important issues of the day. We look forward to reading and publishing the replies.
SUMMARY
In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.
ECONOMIC ISSUES
* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?
* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?
* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?
* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?
* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?
* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?
* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?
SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES
* What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?
* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?
* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?
* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?
* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?
* Do you support gay marriage?
* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?
* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?
* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?
* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?
* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?
* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?
* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?
* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?
* Should elective abortion be legal?
* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?
* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?
* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?
* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?
* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?
* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?
IMMIGRATION
* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?
* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?
PROPERTY RIGHTS
* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?
* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?
* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?
BILL OF RIGHTS
* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?
* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?
* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?
* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?
* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.
* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?
* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?
OTHER
* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?
* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?
* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.
Thank you.
Candidates Should Giddy Up and Answer Survey (Free Press column)
At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions (Free Press column)
Curtis Harris Libertarian for Congress
Dan Maes Republican for Governor
Rich Hand Independent for Governor
John Finger Libertarian for U.S. Senate
Cleve Tidwell Republican for U.S. Senate
John Hargis Independent for Third Congressional
The following article originally was published on January 4 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.
What are conservatives trying to conserve?
by Linn and Ari Armstrong
Conservatives are a strange bunch. They support free trade, except when they want to outlaw or restrict select medicinal plants or forcibly stop employers from hiring willing workers of their choice.
Conservatives support freedom of conscience, except when they want to censor what they declare to be obscene works, punish the mishandling of the flag, or force people to fund religious programs with which they disagree.
Conservatives advocate strong national defense, except when they support a war the president declares unwinnable, along with years of “nation building” at the expense of American lives.
Conservatives endorse federalism, except when they want the national government to tell states how to handle marriage.
Conservatives uphold independence, except when they call on politicians to imprison women for getting an abortion.
Conservatives tout the dignity of the individual, unless that individual happens to be gay or a brown-skinned laborer from Mexico.
Conservatives declare to stand for time-honored principles, except when they “compromise” to raise taxes, pass smoking bans in violation of property rights, expand health welfare, endorse corporate welfare, and use the invasive tax code to crack down on the “crime” of productive work.
We have to wonder just what it is that conservatives are trying to conserve. How can we make sense out of the hash of modern conservatism?
A common explanation is that conservatism is a “fusion” of faith-based tradition and libertarian free-market leanings. There’s something to that. The problem is that faith often clashes with tradition, while libertarian government-bashing often clashes with individual rights.
The libertarian anti-government strain is a minor part of the conservative movement. Many libertarians join their own party, avoid politics, or loudly distance themselves from conservatives. Down-with-government conservatism, illustrated by Grover Norquist’s infamous and unfortunate line about drowning government in a bathtub, alienates the general public and tends toward the reactionary, in the sense of reacting against anything to do with government rather than championing some positive value.
That leaves three major conservative traditions: tradition, faith, and liberty.
Tradition explains why so many conservatives oppose gay marriage and immigration. They want things to stay just the way they are. The problem is knowing which traditions to conserve and which to change. Slavery was a tradition for many centuries, overturned by liberal-minded abolitionists who wanted to fundamentally change society. Rule by king was a tradition.
For too many conservatives, tradition is just a rationalization for advocating policies and cultural trends without the bother of having to justify them on moral grounds. Tradition is the fall-back of the thoughtless.
Sensing the weakness of a strictly traditional approach, many conservatives turn to religious faith. Christians may lay aside Old Testament calls to murder people for homosexuality, witchcraft, adultery, and parent-cursing.
Christians cannot avoid the fact that the New Testament “contains scores of commandments demanding the redistribution of wealth and property from those who created it to those who did not,” as Craig Biddle points out in The Objective Standard. The Marxist injunction, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” finds its “origin in the Bible,” Biddle notes.
Many Christians openly apply Biblical principles to the welfare state; for example, the Colorado Catholic Conference advocated tax-funded “health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death.”
Conservative Christians do a lot of comical dancing trying to pass through the eye of a needle with their riches intact. Yet, in terms of Biblical principles, the best such conservatives can do is say that, yes, people have a moral duty to redistribute their wealth, only they should be free to do it or not. The fact remains that the Bible says precious little in defense of political and economic liberty, individual rights, or the value of economic prosperity.
As Sarah Palin writes in her biography, her brand of conservatism rests on the alleged truth “that man is fallen.” The presumption is that people just aren’t good enough to live in a socialist order. Instead, such conservatives argue, politics must cope with vicious humanity. Then faith-based conservatives who appeal to our “fallen” nature wonder why they can’t capture the moral high ground.
We are conservatives only in the final sense of the term: we want to conserve liberty and indeed radically expand it. We hold that liberty is not a gift from men or the gods, but a necessity for thriving human life. To live successfully, we need the freedom to act on our own judgment regarding ourselves and our property. Government must protect our rights, but it must be restrained by a written constitution that limits political power. Unlike the libertarians, we are not against government; we are for a government that robustly protects individual rights.
The interesting thing about this brand of conservatism is that it sounds a lot like what liberalism was always supposed to be, until its purported defenders twisted that movement to the opposite purpose. The best conservatives, it turns out, are also the only true liberals.
This set of review questions is part of the Liberty In the Books program, a monthly discussion group. These questions cover two works by Eric Daniels on antitrust that go well together for a single meeting. These essays are part of a cycle on antitrust. Previously I published questions for Alex Epstein’s essay, “Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company.” In the future Liberty In the Books will cover Dominick Armentano’s book, Antitrust: The Case for Repeal.
The first work covered here is Daniels’s essay, “Reversing Course: American Attitudes about Monopolies, 1607-1890.” It is contained in the book The Abolition of Antitrust, edited by Gary Hull.
Daniels’s second essay is “Antitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration’s Anti-Business Cudgel,” published by The Objective Standard.
As noted previously, these review questions are intended to inspire discussion of the material, not establish a tight outline for discussion.
Reversing Course
1. What was the general change in federal economic policy from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s? (Pages 63, 65-66)
2. What was the most common understanding of “monopoly,” before and after 1890? (Page 64)
3. What were the English origins of monopolies? (Page 67)
4. What was the nature of the English revolt against monopolies? (Pages 67-68)
5. What was the significance of the English Case of Monopolies and subsequent Parliamentary action? (Pages 68-69)
6. What was the colonists’ view of monopolies? (Pages 69-70)
7. What was the fundamental ideological conflict that divided the English Parliament and the colonists? (Pages 70-71)
8. What was the position of state constitutions on monopolies? (Page 71)
9. According to Daniels, what is the difference between American patent law and the establishment of coercive monopolies? (Pages 71-72)
10. In what ways was the Constitutional Convention friendly toward monopolies? What were the concerns about monopolies raised in that debate? (Page 73)
11. In what ways, and on what grounds, did Congress empower monopolies? (Page 74)
12. How did Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, and Joseph Story defend monopolies? How did their arguments lead from protecting coercive monopolies to breaking up large free-market businesses? (Pages 75-76)
13. How did free enterprise challenge coercive monopolies? (Page 76)
14. How did the fight over the steamship monopoly play out? What was the impact of the 1824 Supreme Court ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden? (Pages 77-78)
15. What were the arguments that continued to be made in favor of monopolies in the 1800s? (Pages 78-79)
16. What was the Charles River Bridge case, and what was the significance of the arguments made in that case? (Pages 79-83)
17. In what ways did Andrew Jackson restrict coercive monopolies? (Page 83)
18. How did judicial definitions of monopoly change after the Civil War? (Page 84)
19. What were the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, how were they decided, and what was the impact of the ruling? (Pages 84-85)
20. What were the circumstances of the case of Munn v. Illinois, and what was the impact of the case’s legal resolution on property rights? (Pages 86-87)
21. What was the nature and impact of Henry Demarest Lloyd’s works on monopoly in the 1880s? (Pages 88-89)
22. What arguments were presented in favor of the Sherman Antitrust Act? (Page 89)
23. What is Daniels’s critique of the “public good” as a standard of law? (Page 90)
Antitrust with a Vengeance
24. Why did C. T. Dodd and John D. Rockefeller create a trust in the late 1800s? (Page 22)
25. What were the cultural and political conditions that led to the Sherman Antitrust Act? (Page 22)
26. In what ways are the antitrust laws nonobjective? (Page 23)
27. Why do producers need a stable legal environment, and how does antitrust legislation undercut this? (Pages 23-24)
28. How has antitrust legislation brought business under federal control? (Page 24)
29. How did antitrust enforcement change (and how did it remain the same) from the Bush to the Obama administrations? (Pages 21, 24-25)
30. How have other federal economic controls undermined free-market competition? (Page 25)
31. What is Daniels’s critique of Steve Forbes and L. Gordon Crovitz, who also oppose stepped-up antitrust enforcement? (Pages 26-27)
32. What does Daniels see as the proper role of government with respect to business organization and operation? Is he right? (Page 27)
I attended the Red Rocks Liberty On the Rocks December 7 meeting, where Adam Schrager discussed his inspiring book about Ralph Carr. Jimmy Lakey, a candidate for Colorado’s 7th Congressional district, also attended that meeting, so I pulled out my audio recorder and asked him some questions.
In business Lakey promotes Christian music. Lakey adopted a son from Africa and continues to participate in charity work there. His biographical notes take up Part I.
For Part II, Lakey said he is running to protect the future of his son as a new American citizen. He said he is not and does not want to be a career politician. He questioned the decision of Ryan Frazier — another Republican in the race — to extend same-sex benefits in Aurora in a time of fiscal downturn.
For Part III, Lakey contrasted his views with those of incumbent Ed Perlmutter. While Lakey stressed his fiscal conservatism, Lakey also discussed his “faith-based beliefs” and endorsed the “personhood” measure slated for the 2010 ballot (defining a fertilized egg as a person).
I have been dismissive of Dan Maes, who is challenging presumptive front-runner Scott McInnis for the Republican nomination for governor. (See my first, second, and third set of comments.) But Maes shows up and answers questions, and that counts for a lot. His tenacity earns him at least a second glance — especially given that McInnis is the ideal candidate of few.
I talked with Maes at the December 21 Liberty On the Rocks holiday party (er, “Christmas party!”) hosted by the Independence Institute. We talked about a number of issues, but I assured him the conversation was off the record. He also complained that I had not given enough consideration to his candidacy. So I figured I’d invite him to further articulate some of things we talked about, on the record. I sent him five questions, which he generously answered. My questions are in bold.
I appreciate you giving me your time at the II event to discuss your campaign.
I would like to again give you the opportunity to further articulate your views, on the record. I have a number of questions arising from our conversation. I will be happy to publish your replies, unaltered, on my web page.
1. As governor, what would be your role in dealing with the military’s desire to expand Pinon Canyon operations? [See the write-up about McInnis's statements on eminent domain for background.]
I would like to act as a mediator and seek out a mutually beneficial solution if possible. I do not see issues like this as zero sum. I only have the ranchers’ input thus far and they have presented a very strong case for preservation based on many valuable criteria not limited to private property rights, less federalization of state land, and cultural history. I await the Army’s position in detail beyond a GAO report that has unaddressed exemptions in it.
2. Generally, when do you believe eminent domain is appropriate, if ever?
It is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit.
3. Please explain what specific economic policies you would adopt. Would you seek to cut specific taxes?
Yes, personal income tax and business property tax. Possibly explore a Fairtax (consumption tax).
Cut specific state programs?
Yes, TBD.
Roll back specific economic controls?
Clarify please.
[I was under the impression that Maes wanted to cut certain regulations on business, and I was trying to figure out which regulations he might want to repeal or modify. I will be happy to post Maes's additional comments on the matter if he cares to send them.] Many politicians, including W. Bush and Obama, promised to cut taxes, so I’m looking for some specific proposals.
I see our energy industry and the accompanying tax revenues as an enormous potential for our state just like our energy producing neighbors. With aggressive and responsible energy policies we could increase these revenues dramatically. Simultaneously, I have articulated my position on downsizing government FTE [full-time employees] by up to 4000.
I will defend Tabor while seeking a better balance with the effects of Amendment 23. I am a strong advocate for public schools as I have two children attending them, however; we must seek more fiscally responsible reform.
Cutting taxes is part of my plan but only after we have struck an appropriate sizing of state government and started a statewide recovery.
4. As you know, the Colorado legislature directs corporate welfare to a variety of industries, including tourism and energy. What are your views of corporate welfare?
I would like to examine the specifics in each case. Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy.
5. The “personhood” measure slated for the 2010 ballot states, “As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” Please explain your views on this measure.
I support it with the understanding that the life of the child is equal to that of the mother and shall never be considered more important than that of the mother.
I appreciate your pledge to answer the survey coming soon from my dad and me. That will probably come out the first days of January.
In closing, understand that we have 3 months until caucuses, 5.5 months until state assembly, and 11 months until the general election. It is still a tad early to have all the answers but I hope I have given you something to start with. Contrary to my opponent, I do have a copy of the current state budget and will continue to examine it, get consultation on it, and come
ready to provide even more specifics in the near future. Thank you.
I will indeed be interested to see whether McInnis is as forthcoming in his answers to the upcoming survey. (I also hope the survey prompts even more specific and revealing answers from Maes on a variety of issues.) I believe the voters of Colorado deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.
By the way, a People’s Press Collective article discusses some of the recent comments of the candidates, including McInnis’s comments about the CSU gun ban.
Talking both with Maes and with Clive Tidwell, the underdog in the U.S. Senate race, I picked up a “throw the bums out” vibe, which is to be expected from candidates with no political experience running against seasoned former politicians. However, I have no interest in replacing one bum with another, potentially worse one. While experience and biography do matter in these political races, I hope ultimately they are about fundamental ideas and their application to policy. So I will continue to try to get candidates to articulate their ideas and policies as fully as possible. I hope the voters — and other political writers — join me in this.
I’ve been complaining quite a lot about Amazon’s e-book service. My basic complaint is that, because of Amazon’s proprietary software, Amazon e-books will only play on devices supported by Amazon’s reader software. Presently that excludes my Mac, which means that the only way I could buy Amazon e-books was to also buy Amazon’s Kindle (or an iPhone or Touch, which runs the software).
I don’t want to buy a Kindle because it does way more than what I want it to do, and as a result it is quite overpriced for my budget and needs.
Thankfully, I have friends who tend to be early adopters of new technology. One of these friends (Diana Hsieh) lent me her Kindle for a few days so that I could check it out. This was quite helpful, because, as Amazon has no physical store front, it is otherwise impossible to pick up and play around with the Kindle before buying it.
I also purchased Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God from Barnes and Noble (BN), because it will read on my computer (with the BN reader) and I wanted to try it out. I’m contemplating buying several more books through BN but I worry that they won’t read on the e-reader I may ultimately buy and that I won’t be able to integrate my purchases from different suppliers. (The word is that Apple is also getting into the e-book game, which could change the industry dramatically.)
BN’s Nook is not yet available for purchase, so I cannot directly compare the two services. I’m reading the God book on my Mac screen and comparing that with text on the Kindle. But that’s what I have to work with.
I’ll begin with the BN e-book. It was easy to buy (once I set up my account), and the BN e-reading software installed and functioned flawlessly. The text looks fabulous on my great Mac screen, and it is easy to increase the font size and resize the window for a narrower column of text.
There is a huge disadvantage with the BN e-book and a minor one. The huge disadvantage is that the e-book will only read with the BN e-reader software, which bugs the living hell out of me. What is the point of having universal formats like pdf and HTML if e-book sellers refuse to use those formats? By contrast, an mp3 song you buy from any vendor will play on any device on the standard software. You don’t buy mp3s from Amazon that play only on the Amazon music reader. (Apple-formatted songs will only play on iTunes, but, as I’ve noted, Apple can get away with this because the company is so great at making players.)
Incidentally, today I spent $63.10 at the Cato Institute’s store to purchase seven e-books. These were straight pdf downloads, so I don’t have to worry about the compatibility issues of DRM. I do think that publishers should sell both pdf and HTML formats so that users can select the format best adapted to the reading device.
The minor disadvantage is that the BN e-book has no standardized page numbers. Instead, the pagination adjusts to the window and text. The problem is that BN e-books are useless for citation purposes, unless we’ve gotten to the point where nobody cares about page references because books are so easily searchable. If I do a review of the book, I’ll look up the page numbers, ironically, with Amazon’s “look inside” feature. Perhaps that should give Amazon the idea that its business model in this area sucks.
There are some advantages to reading an e-book on a computer screen that I did not anticipate. For note-taking, I can easily open a text window next door. The BN e-book allows the reader to cut-and-paste short passages, which is awesome. I also love the way the endnotes work. Click on the endnote to move to that note at the end of the document; click the number again to go back to that point in the text. That beats the hell out of flipping back and forth in a paper copy.
What about the Kindle? Previously I had indicated that I didn’t much like the Kindle’s design, whereas the Sony e-reader looked more appealing. I have since visited a Sony e-reader in a Target store, and I now think it completely sucks. What I didn’t notice before is that the Sony device features ten menu buttons on the right-hand side, which screams poor design. The Target model didn’t even work right, which didn’t fill me with confidence. It seemed a lot more like a toy than a serious reader.
The Kindle, by contrast, is an elegant machine. The screen looks marvelous, and, while I have not yet spent hours reading from it, I have no doubt that will prove no problem. The Kindle’s controls are a lot more intuitive than I thought they would be. One key control is a miniature joystick, which works fabulously. (I’m used to operating a similar control on my Canon video camera.)
The Kindle, then, is great at what it does. The problem is that it does way too much for my needs, and therefore costs way too much for my budget. The Kindle is like a Hummer, when all I’m looking for is an economical and reliable little Honda. Because I don’t want to buy a Kindle, and because Amazon e-books will not yet read on my Mac, I am simply not going to buy any Amazon e-books. (Again Amazon might consider the fact that its business model is completely stupid, though at least the company is working on more readers.)
The main thing that the Kindle has that I absolutely do not want in an e-reader (for the money) is wireless technology. What I want is a cheap little USB cable through which I can load e-books from my computer library onto my reader. The ability to buy books on the road is of practically no value to me.
I didn’t realize you can browse the internet on a Kindle, which is cool, but again the coolness is not nearly worth the money. Of course I loaded up my own web page. The browser was tracking the loading progress — I kid you not — in kilobytes, with a “k.” I finally got irritated by the wait and hit the stop button, at which point (at least part of) my web page displayed, and quite nicely. But, seriously, who wants to browse the internet s-l-o-w-l-y in black and white? If I want to browse the internet on the go, I’ll buy an iPhone or Touch. I’d much rather carry two devices that do what they’re supposed to do than one device that sucks at most of its functions.
Speaking of suckage, I tried the Kindle’s audio reader software. Painful. If I were blind, I imagine I could get used to it. But it would be a real struggle. Think of the challenge of getting past Keanu’s acting to enjoy the Matrix, then multiply that by a thousand.
The Kindle has a built-in speaker and audio-processing software, so it will play mp3s and audio books. That’s cool, but I’d much rather buy a less-expensive e-reader plus a $59 iShuffle. Just sell me the reader. That’s all I want it to do.
As an e-reader, the Kindle works great. If I could just buy the e-reader part of the Kindle at a lower price, I’m pretty sure I’d do it. The dictionary is very cool. You just push the joystick until the cursor is in front of the word of interest, and the definition pops up at the bottom.
It is possible to take notes and record them with a Kindle document. Again push the joystick until the cursor is where you want it, then start “typing” your note. The keyboard, as I anticipated, is horrible. I mean, if you were a sentient ferret or something, it would probably be the perfect size. Maybe it’s okay for the “texting” generation. But I absolutely hate it. I’d much rather scribble down a few notes on a piece of paper. So, Kindle minus wireless minus the keyboard minus the high price is a device I’d love to buy.
At least the Kindle has standardized “locations” (rather than “pages”), but these don’t match the paper version. They are also listed as ranges (such as “locations 14-19″), which is strange. Will publications allow Kindle-specific citations, or will Kindle buyers need to check the page references against the paper versions? I don’t know why publishers don’t simply insert a page counter into the text itself matching the hard-copy page counts. This is trivially easy to do, though it would be a minor distraction while reading the text. Granted, some older books already have many different paginations. But there’s no reason for new books not to feature the same page references for the hardback, softcover, and e-book versions.
The Kindle will run pdf files fine. You can even upload them via USB. But to run files like Word and HTML, a user must send the file to a Kindle-specific e-mail, then Amazon “will convert the document to Kindle format.” So, in other words, to get an HTML file from my computer to my Kindle sitting right next to it, I need to send the HTML file half-way around the world to wherever Amazon keeps its computers, where Amazon will convert this already-standard-format file to the completely-non-standard Amazon format, then send the file back to my Kindle wirelessly. Did I mention that Amazon’s business model for the Kindle is completely ridiculous? I mean, God forbid that I’m able to send an HTML file via a USB cable and read it with my $259 e-reader. I mean, Amazon can install software that will (sort of) read the text out loud, but it can’t figure out how to let me read HTML files directly?
I only had one minor problem while using the Kindle: at one point, when I was trying to jump to a linked table-of-contents entry, the Kindle thought I was trying to highlight some vast portion of the document. But I soon figured out how to cancel out of that mode, and with a little jiggling got the joystick to do what I wanted it to do. (Much of this tinkering I was doing while reading Amazon’s tutorial, which is a pretty good document.)
If my income were more upper-middle-class than lower-middle-class, I’d gladly buy the Kindle, despite the risk of betting on an e-book reader that turns out to be the equivalent of Beta or HD DVD. But, given that the Kindle does way too much and therefore costs a lot, I’ll wait to buy a reader until the market has settled down a bit, the formatting issues have been resolved, and I can buy a nice low-end reader for $150 or less. At this point I will either wait to buy e-books or buy BN e-books that at least will read on my Mac.
It was a fun date, but the Kindle is not yet marriage material.
December 23 Update: I just had a thought: why doesn’t Amazon allow e-book purchasers to view the books in a web browser with password protection? Then Amazon wouldn’t even need to release additional readers. Any device with a browser would suffice. Also, I sincerely hope that Apple makes an economy-model reader, as I imagine the Tablet will be priced well outside my budget.
|
Help Liberty on the Rocks (Denver) Grow. Donate Today!
Get Happy Hour Reminders!
|
