By any objective standard, there’s undoubtedly a growing and determined initiative to disarm American citizens. Restrictions, taxes, regulations, and outright prohibitions continue to form a more strangling grip on the firearms industry. Those of us who value firearms for professional, sporting, enthusiast and defensive purposes naturally see the benefits of rallying to a unified cause whereby strength in numbers means a louder voice and more resources to fuel the message. For more than a century the National Rifle Association has been an effective advocate of the second amendment, but in recent years, their lack of sound, explicit principles has become abundantly clear, and will inevitably undermine their essential purpose - it already has.

Individual Rights and America

America’s founding essence is individual freedom. As correctly and explicitly prescribed in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is achieved by establishing a government that protects individual rights to life, liberty and property.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Of course, one’s right to life is the bedrock to any political right regardless of context, but without freedom and property, one really doesn’t maintain the means to sustain his life. Without freedom to think and act, one cannot take the steps necessary to gain knowledge or earn a living. Without rightfully possessing the results of such thought and action in the form of property, one cannot survive in a self-sufficient manner.

Maintenance of each of these rights logically necessitates the sovereignty of the others. If you encroach upon one, you encroach upon them all.

Does The NRA Understand Rights?

Last year, I contacted the NRA-ILA challenging their position in the Florida HB 503 decision. This case centered on an Employer in Florida who prohibited the possession of firearms by employees on company grounds. The NRA, in an astonishingly short sighted manner, sided with the employees, and against the employer - the property owner.

According to the NRA, the employer’s property rights - to determine particular policies which pertain to their legal property - were trumped by the employee’s right to life. Not only is their position presented in an anti-business hue ( phrases such as “Big Business”, “corporate giants” ) that Karl Marx would find comforting, such a stance ignores three crucial facts:

1) No individual has the right to be on the private property of others without prior consent and compliance with any predefined, mutually agreed upon terms. Those who violate this principle are trespassing.

2) Employees of a business are subject to contractual terms which may or may not subject their presence to a particular set of stipulations. An individual seeking employment with a particular employer is free to accept such stipulations, negotiate the terms accordingly, or choose to seek employment elsewhere.

3) Most importantly, the right to property is a fundamental prerequisite to the right to bear arms - arms being a specific type of property - and as indicated above, any movement that undermines property rights also erodes the right to life and liberty.

The NRA-ILA politely rejected my arguments, insisting that the employee’s right to life trumps any trespassing, contractual, or property owner restrictions - a tremendous evasion of the voluntary aspect of employment and the sanctity of property rights.

At Least They’re Consistent

I still get NRA notifications and in just a few minutes browsing the NRA-ILA I stumbled on yet another stance by this “defender of rights” which displays ignorance of the concept of rights.

This time the position is that renters should be immune to a landlords restrictions regarding firearms on leased property. From the NRA’s “Outrage Of The Week” notification:

This week’s second outrage (read about the first outrage of the week here) comes to us via Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper (D), who recently issued an official opinion that landlords can prohibit law-abiding tenants from possessing their legally-owned firearms within the leased premises of their rented apartments, even if the tenants have a valid carry permit!

…

Denying law-abiding citizens their right to self-defense in their home is simply outrageous, not to mention unfair [to whom?] and possible dangerous. [emphasis and comments added]

The error in this statement should be obvious - it’s not their home. They’re renters… leasing property owned by another individual. As such, just as in the case with employers and employees, renters are subject to mutually agreed upon contractual terms. They can accept those terms, negotiate those terms, or seek housing elsewhere. Concerning fairness, denying a landlord the right to determine their own lease stipulations would be unfair.

Without Principles, Crusades are Futile

Many people don’t appreciate my criticism of the NRA, either siding explicitly with their position or citing my observations as insignificant tradeoffs in the quest to defend the right to bear arms.

Why abstain supporting 90% of a cause over 10% that you disagree with?

My response is that adherence to fundamental principles is a vital necessity and that these errors cannot be taken lightly. That 10% strikes a root that will utterly annihilate any benefit from the remaining 90%. What good is the right to bear arms if the abolition of property rights leads to a total destruction of the firearms industry and eventually a total economic collapse? At that point, we’ll have neither rights nor guns.

Property rights are under attack from every conceivable angle in America, the two cases above included. This country cannot exist once they are destroyed. To the extent the sanctity of property rights are encroached upon, this country slides immeasurably closer to oppressive tyranny. The essence of any variant of collectivism (Socialism, Fascism, or Communism) is the obliteration of property rights in favor of collective ownership of resources. We must salvage and protect property rights at any opportunity, not toss them aside in a hypnotic “right to bear arms” stupor.

This latest issue reaffirms the NRA’s lack of principles. Without a principled ideology, any movement is destined for inconsistency and failure. I hate to say it, but with friends like the NRA, who needs enemies? They’re unwittingly aiding the cause of the groups seeking to drag America into stagnant misery.

I should be clear - the NRA has promoted and prevailed many just causes, but regardless of their achievements, even monumental ones, negligence in the realm of fundamental principles will absolutely offset and undermine their stated mission.

You can fix every shingle on a roof but if you ignore (and exacerbate) the tremendous crack in the home’s foundation your shingles are irrelevant.

Individual Rights and The Proper Role of Government

Until the NRA adopts a rational and consistent defense of the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property, they cannot be effective defenders of any other implementation of those rights - especially the 2nd amendment which relies on all three.

The purpose of Government is not to force employers or landlords to adopt rational gun policies (which can only be done by effectively communicating a rational philosophy), but to protect our fundamental rights from encroachment by force or fraud. Objective law is based on a standard to punish and preclude forceful encroachment of individual rights (life, liberty, and property); in the above cases, neither employers nor landlords were forcefully violating the rights of others. Until the NRA abstains from promoting legislation that violates this prescription, they are helping to destroy America - regardless of how honest their intentions.

I urge any of you who support the NRA to voice your concern about this blatant and potentially devastating inconsistency in their advocacy. Until they rectify such a tremendous contradiction, they cannot be justly considered as true allies of freedom or Capitalism.

I certainly hope they refine their course; we desperately need a unified voice in defense of our rights - including the second amendment.

My sentiments echo this excerpt from Ayn Rand’s address to the graduating class of The United States Military Academy at West Point — March 6, 1974.

“You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service — it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one’s country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic.

This is an enormous virtue.

Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it. The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest — as the armies of other countries have done in their histories — only as an instrument of a free nation’s self-defense, which means: the defense of a man’s individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task.

No other army in the world has achieved it. You have”

I certainly do appreciate the freedom fought and died for by patriots of this country, but I fear we’re coming dangerously close to a total abandonment of that virtuous essence which justified the struggle and maintenance of freedom.

This country was founded on individual rights; when those are gone, so is America. The biggest challenge we face is the endeavor to salvage this once great nation as one still worth defending.

Here’s to those who have and will continue to defend it - both militarily as well as intellectually

A recent story from Michigan depicts an egregious attempt by the state to regulate babysitting which leads to an unavoidable question: To what extent will America condone state involvement in parenting?

The victims in this particular scenario seem only to be concerned with the specific limitations of how the state can regulate child care, but the far more important question is, should the state have any say in the matter of private child-care arrangements?

When you fail to argue on principles, in favor of quibbling over superficial details of implementation, then the possibility of any objective determination of where to draw the line is discarded. Once you throw out the map, there’s no telling where you’ll end up – especially when all passengers compete for their turn to steer the car.

This is yet another symptom of America’s suicidal march into the bowels of socialized education. Once the principle (that the state has a right to our children) is conceded, there is no way to decide the proper extent. If it’s proper for Government to establish compulsory education according to their standards, why start at age 5? Why not pre-school? Why not daycare?

If parents are incapable of adequately providing intellectual guidance according to the state, why not regulate all supervision? Why allow any parental involvement? Why not seize the child just after weaning and just have the parents send in a monthly check?

Better yet, socialize it by calling it free and make it a mandatory element of payroll tax for everyone.

This Orwellian nightmare shouldn’t sound far-fetched considering it’s based on the exact premises of public education - only applied consistently. If America continues to tolerate Public Schools in principle, we should expect more and more of the above.

Children are not property of the state. In a free society, individuals properly have the right to enter into voluntary contractual agreements for child care according to their own wishes, and according to their own financial capabilities. Child care providers, like all other market entities, stand to erect or erode a positive reputation for quality care based on objective standards – those of the parent (the customer). That reputation vouches for their service record objectively.

Conversely, when the state oversees and regulates child care, that objective reputation is replaced with the subjective approval of the state, an artificial facade of quality based on subjective standards that are potentially incompatible with those of the parent.

Many parents unwittingly assume that “state approval must vouch for something!” Yes, parents should consider the conditions for childcare diligently regardless of the state, but phony state approval urges them to shortcut the process under the premise that government is looking out for them.

I’m aware of countless horrifying examples of Daycare establishments, which bear the state approved mark of acceptability, where the conditions are such that I wouldn’t leave my dog in their care. Children wander around in waste-soiled clothing, snot running from their nose, essentially unsupervised by mindless sloths chatting on their iPhone is a common sight in supposedly state-regulated facilities. Very few offer security measures which could prevent any motivated scoundrel from walking off with a child. Just like in other markets, the state regulation has destroyed the notion of an objective reputation that only a free-market can provide, and should be considered irrelevant as metrics of quality or value.

This type of intrusion should be opposed on the basis of individual rights - specifically, a parent’s right to control the education, care and upbringing of their children.

By what right can the state tell a parent or caregiver how many children they can manage effectively? Such terms are properly agreed upon by parents and the caregiver. So long as the terms of service are properly disclosed and adhered to, that agreement is sovereign.

An individual has the right to choose who, where, and on what terms their child can be cared for. The state has no moral, logical, or economical base for involvement the matter.

The role of government is to protect individual rights through the enforcement of objectively defined criminal law. In For the state to be involved with any other aspect of childcare, commercial or private, is beyond the proper scope of government.

Lyrics
========
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

Just a harmless class jingle respecting the office of the president? Not if considered in full context.

This type of occurrence is not exclusive to this president, this political party, this country, or even this century. The historical record of every socialized nation reveals that government seizure of the educational apparatus is inevitable. However, America wasn’t founded as a Socialist, Fascist, or Communist nation, it was founded as a Constitutional Republic based on the principles of individual rights - on such principles no justification for socialization of any market can be logically based. There certainly is no justification either morally or practically for Government to involve itself in the field of ideas.

When Government assumes control over a country’s education, it must assume the management of the funding for such a system. If it controls the funding, it must also control the subject matter being taught. When a government controls the subject matter being taught, they are, in effect, dictating ideology by force - a student cannot pass without compliance with the established curriculum. Wrangling the ideological essence of a population by force is a crucial component to directing the herd. This power was precisely why the 10th condition for transition in the Communist Manifesto was “free public education”.

We must take this very seriously.

Progressive, socialized education is not only systematically destroying our youth’s ability to think conceptually across all subject matter, it also effectively facilitates the level of indoctrination necessary to destroy America.

For America to survive, public education should be adamantly opposed on moral and (obvious) practical grounds. So long as the system remains, we don’t have a chance. Public schools will be the death knell of this country. This is not about optimism vs. pessimism - this is a logical fact drawn from just the numbers.

Rational, self-reliant, individualist minded people, the type of individuals who founded America, i.e., Capitalists, will simply be outnumbered by the irrational, collectivist sheep-like types that socialized education breeds. The ideas and cognitive guidance that a child is exposed to in its formative years ingrain ideals that after years of reinforcement are very hard to think out of. Our government has hijacked our children, by force, throughout those crucial years. The ideas being cast on our youth today bear faint resemblance to any of the founding principles of this country. The work and thought of the patriots of the American Revolution, as well as all the scientific, and creative ingenuity of the 19th century is being tactfully undermined by modern (anti) philosophy and by the dysfunction and incompetence of our socialized system of education.

Before any might take offense, let me clarify one notion; there are good people in our schools - I know because I am married to (a former) one and I know many others - but in a bureaucratic system essentially immune to fundamental economic laws (their customers can’t say no), the most competent and passionate educator doesn’t stand a chance in a non-objective system ruled by the whim of political engineering.

The proper role of Government is to protect individual rights - period. There is no rational, logical or economical justification for socialization of education.

The best thing we as parents can do for our children, and the only chance for America is throw aside the yolk of public education to the extent that we can. The very nature of the system is intended (on egalitarian grounds) to prevent citizens from any other options, and for many that is the unfortunate reality. If a man is taxed for education funding beyond his choice, he very well may not be able to afford to fork out even more of his hard-earned money for opting out of the system. This is the hidden sinister nature of public education - it all but eliminates feasible competition for the vast majority of citizens.

Once the moral sanction is granted, they’ve got us. They can take our children, by force… they can bus them across the county for racist social engineering… by force, and they can then proceed to teach (indoctrinate) them any ideals (regardless of how offensive or irrational those ideals may be) by force.

Take a moment to consider the reality of that last paragraph. For those who can, get your children out of public schools and into private (rationally guided) or home based schooling - schooling that enforces the principles and ideals that you hold sacred. Do whatever you can within your means, adjust your finances, move to a different area, consider home-schooling, but don’t sanction the hideous violation of your rights by doing (or saying) nothing.

If nothing else, and more importantly, understand the principles at hand and vocally oppose socialized education at every opportunity. This is a critical time.

When children are exposed to irrational, collectivist ideals from age five to twenty-five, they’re much easier to rouse by any leftist leader to support any collectivist cause. Socialized medicine, environmentalism, progressive taxation, “net-neutrality”, and the perpetuation of all other anti-capitalist, anti-man, anti-life bad ideas, past and present, are now fueled by voters thoroughly brainwashed in public schools. As the indoctrination continues to intensify, the scope of power afforded to our collectivist rulers will approach free-reign - we’re almost already there.

The best thing we can do for ourselves, our children, our country and the entire world is to fight public education in America as passionately, articulately and as loudly as we can, by every means available, on the basis that man has the right to exist for his own sake, and the the proper role of government is to protect individual rights - not violate them by forcing men to pay, neither for himself nor others, into an inherently corrupt system that spreads ideas contrary to his convictions as well as the founding principles of America.

Our country is the final stages of a tremendous mistake - one that will have adverse effects on every person you know. Acting as if human lives are disposable and that economic laws are pliable, so many are willing to give in to consensus and experiment with Government run health care. It can’t hurt to try right?

This is a deadly pragmatic notion that must be rejected. Not even a single right or life is properly available for sacrificial experimentation. Even if dissecting one human being would save the lives of billions, doing so is immoral. If one man’s rights are violated, so all men have suffered injustice.

For America to endure we must return to nothing less than a free-market in health care.

Politicians are masters at muddying the water in order to aid their efforts. The more they obfuscate and complicate the issue, the more likely citizens are to give-up and give in to what appears to be the superior insights and motives of our leaders. Throw in some hollow rhetoric and spike the potion with the moral tint of altruism and consensus will stomp over an endless sea of corpses. However, If one peers through all the emotional fog, the entire conversation is revealed to be senseless. To make the case much clearer, I’ll frame the principles in an analogous market less prone to emotional fraying.

This not-so-hypothetical market is comprised of a fictitious entity called “Technicare” - a taxpayer funded program to assist a segment of the population with their electrical appliance needs - and a retailer, in this example I chose Wal-Mart, arguably the most highly qualified bastion of efficiency and value.

Like all cases of market dysfunction throughout history, the cause is unnatural economic forces. Essentially, the only force capable of wide scale economic influence is Government. Economics is an elegantly simple system governed by principles that endure time and scale. Producers produce goods that consumers consume according to the standards and prices that both parties agree on voluntarily. That’s it. These fundamentals are absolute and unforgiving, and when any component of the preceding summary is acted against, the market becomes dysfunctional. If producers ability to produce is either enhanced or hampered, if consumers ability to consume is enhanced or hampered, or if the voluntary prerogatives of either are restricted to any extent, the result is some degree of market dysfunction.

Our Heath Care market is one that’s clobbered with regulatory assault from every angle. Each of the components prescribed above are unnaturally manipulated by Government. Government meddling inevitably serves to reduce competition, and decrease purchasing power, the two elements that form the lifeblood of a growing and prosperous economic system.

There are far too many instances to cover exhaustively, but fortunately a principled examination of only a few will clearly illustrate the negative impact that is universally achieved by market intervention. We’ll start by considering an element that achieves tremendous competitive detriment and has no logical justification - The Certificate of Need.

From the NCSL site:

Certificate of Need (C.O.N.) programs are aimed at restraining health care facility costs and allowing coordinated planning of new services and construction. Laws authorizing such programs are one mechanism by which state governments seek to reduce overall health and medical costs.

The basic assumption underlying CON regulation is that excess capacity (in the form of facility overbuilding) directly results in health care price inflation. When a hospital cannot fill its beds, fixed costs must be met through higher charges for the beds that are used. Bigger institutions have bigger costs, so CON supporters say it makes sense to limit facilities to building only enough capacity to meet actual needs.

Profit is determined by the difference in revenue from a unit of work in relation to the unit’s associated costs. Profit increases by either charging a higher price per unit to consumers or establishing a lower cost per unit for producers - by higher prices or by lower costs. Competition amongst market players urges them to offer services at the lowest possible price, thus their opportunity to increase profit will be naturally determined by their ability to operate at the lowest possible cost, as opposed to selling at a higher, less competitive price. Competition is a necessity.

By hindering the competitive aspect of the market, the CON hurdle is actually prone to a rise in costs precisely because mitigates (or eliminates) external pressure to compete on price. Additionally, the process is tedious, timely and expensive. For productive endeavors, time is money, and this process equates to an atrociously misdirected waste of capital.

The other fallacy used to justify this process is that investors would risk such vast amounts of money as typically involved without doing the proper market research to justify the expense. Like in so many other cases, and for obvious reasons, bureaucrats just can’t grasp the concept of personal responsibility. Unlike moochers wasting handout money, when an individual is spending his own earned resources, he’d best be, and typically is, mindful of how he does so. Successful investors seeking a profitable avenue for their capital do not need parental guidance.

Let’s consider this absurdity in our fictitious market:

• How would the “Certificate of Need” process and burden, including all the inherent political wrangling, affect an aspiring Wal-Mart store?
• Would the associated cost cause their prices to increase or decrease?
• Would that money be more appropriately invested in real estate, infrastructure and inventory, or as the cost of asking permission to do business when and where they see fit?
• On what logical grounds should they have to ask permission?
• By what right could some authoritative body decline their request?
• By what right does anyone or any entity have such authority in a country founded on individual rights?
• Whose right to what would be in jeopardy of encroachment by a lack of oversight for this new entity?

Consider Technicare’s impact throughout the rest of Wal-mart’s business model:

• Once the tedious CON process is complete and business is booming, how would Wal-Mart compensate for selling televisions to Technicare customers for an amount that’s significantly reduced - possibly below cost?
• Would these customers tend to spend more or less if given a Technicare credit card for which they have no financial responsibility?
• How would this consumption impact the individuals who are liable for the Technicare expenditures?
• How about if Technicare was granted the authority to determine what Wal-Mart could charge non-Technicare customers for televisions, how would this affect these customers if the pricing was at or below cost?
• By what right should Technicare posses such authority?

If Technicare was expanded to include storage media:

• Would this amplify or negate the existing affects of the program on Wal-Mart?
• How about if the storage media market was regulated by Technicare’s parent company GovCo. so that the media could be adequately tested, which led to drastically increased research manufacturing and legal costs and the time to market for a new product was a number of years. Would this impact the cost of storage media for all consumers?
• What if Wal-Mart was also regulated on how much they could charge Technicare customers for storage media?
• What if they had to sell below cost? What would this do to the costs of storage media for non-Technicare customers?

If Wal-Mart were forced by law to give away products at no charge:

• How would the rest of their business model be impacted?
• Would they continue operating at a loss?
• Would this raise or lower costs to the remainder of their customer base?

If Wal-Mart’s prices increased drastically over time due to the mandates of Technicare:

• How would the “Certificate of Need” process and burden, including all the inherent political wrangling, affect an aspiring competitor?
• Would it make market entry easier or more difficult?
• Would this affect lead Wal-Mart to be more or less responsive to its customers?
• Would such market-entry overhead inspire entrepreneurial interest?

Given the above scenario and the obvious answers and established patterns:

• On why logical grounds would some suggest granting Technicare/GovCo drastically increased, if not exhaustive, control of Wal-Mart operations, accounting and pricing?
• What would the expected results entail?
• As non-Technicare customers lose purchasing power as a result from both having to fund Technicare and having to endure higher prices as a result of Technicare, what changes would be more likely to repair the situation?
• What if Technicare decides to restrict all customers from shopping anywhere besides this new WalTech-GovCo?
• By what right could they?
• Wouldn’t this be a coercive monopoly?
• What would that mean?

With “solutions” like these, who needs problems? Is this issue really as complex as so portrayed by the media and politicians?

Socialization proponents consistently offer supposed aspects of the health care market that exempt it from economic laws due to some disadvantage faced by consumers. Regardless of the specifics, for each such claim we should ask “Why is this, and what are the repercussions?”

My point in general is that the “whys” are far more important than their corresponding repercussions. If a patient has a rash it could be a sign of a number of things, such as poison ivy, a food allergy, an infectious disease like measles, or a skin infection. Treating the symptoms without accurately identifying the cause could leave the patient worse off. Making assumptions on faulty or unrefined premises is a recipe for failure.

I’ve yet to hear a valid claim of “market-dysfunction” (if you will) that is actually more in substance than an acknowledgment of reality, e.g., individuals have varying financial means, or an example of a symptom caused by an existing economically unnatural force in the system, e.g., how Medicare rates affect private insurance premiums.

The former family of claims, in the context of “what should be done?” should properly be answered “whatever motivated individuals choose to do with their own resources.” The charge of “not providing unlimited free service to all who’d consume it” is no more valid a charge of dysfunction than criticizing a rock for not spurting pop-tarts on whim. Demanding a breach of reality in the form of non-causal action is irrational.

If the same question is posed in the context of the second category above, the answer should be “identify and remove the source of the issue.” - which arguably is in all cases, Government intervention.

Despite all the attempts to complicate this issue, it really is as simple as the answers above. Unless and until that is, as I mentioned previously, ulterior motives come into consideration. As soon as the rights of producers and consumers to contract freely are inhibited to any extent, the only possible result is a distortion in the market that will exponentially correlate to the extent of the inhibition.

Individuals thrive under, and have a right to, freedom. Innovation, value and efficiency are the result of freedom. Regulations, on the other hand, reduce freedom - which results in inefficiency, shortages, escalating prices and general stagnation. History illustrates this condition quite well.

Patients have the right to choose from whom, for what, and at what price they consume medical services. Likewise, providers have the right to choose from whom, for what, and at what price they provide their expertise.

This is the only moral and practical relationship between patients and providers.

A diligent consideration of any elements of the market that affect these mutual rights, including their cause, will very accurately highlight what needs to change for the market to operate normally. Increase freedom and all the positive dynamics of this and any other market will prevail.

Again, history unequivocally supports this fact.

To concretize - a free-market in health care, just like every other field throughout history - would result in the best service at the lowest price, according to the discretion of the consumers and producers involved.

There’s nothing unique about the health care market that should exempt it from basic economics. Providers gain expertise in medical services that individuals would consume based on supply and demand.

Only third-party involvement by force can disrupt economic laws and patterns. If one detects a flaw or undesirable pattern, prudence suggests one identify any source of unnatural tampering. Any market traits, e.g., “Forty-plus million uninsured”, could either be symptoms of an illegitimate disruption, or merely factual attributes representing reality. If one were to consider the statistic in slightly different terms, say “Forty-plus million individuals can’t own a 42 inch widescreen television”, then the issue becomes less clouded by by emotion. The facts illustrate that five years ago, indeed a large percentage of individuals couldn’t afford a 42″ television. However, the market (a relatively free one) has responded to demand and now a 42″ television is much more affordable. These principles work regardless if the market is for widgets, televisions, mobile phone service, wellness physicals or CT scans. Where the conversation veers drastically off course is when egalitarian politics come into play. If authentic rights are to be subsumed by artificial privileges, some external force must attempt to usurp economic reality. For every ‘yin’ of Government intervention, there’s a corresponding ‘yang’ of market disturbance. These ‘yangs’ reverberate through the system and their effects continue to amplify until very serious results surface. The system we have now is a result of 50+ years of intense ‘yin’ing. What, other than a tremendously distorted market, could we expect? And, exactly why would we propose more intervention as the solution?

So long as consumers are left free to consume (by their own means) and producers are left free to offer services (as they see fit), the market will perform and innovate like any other.

The government depriving people of opportunities and choice regarding their livelihood is not the solution to the problem of the government stifling competition with distorted economic forces. The solution is to get the government out of health care altogether.

Supplemental Ammunition:
I highly recommend Paul Hsieh’s work demolishing the case for socialized medicine:

FAQ On Free Market Health Insurance

Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care

Moral Health Care vs. Universal Health Care

Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

In a sickening attempt to memorialize one tragedy, a more profoundly reproachful one is carried out in the name of justice.

“We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things,” park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said. [emphasis mine]

What concern are one man’s rights in the face of the USSA?

Of all the contemptible evils being carried out by our leaders, eminent domain is perhaps the most blatantly vicious. I can hardly imagine a more despicable and inadequate manner of offering a supposed tribute to a horrible event.

If I had lost a friend or loved-one on 9/11, this would undoubtedly add insult to injury. A monument built on theft is very unbecoming in the context of solemnity.

Read the whole disgusting piece.

More Here:

• Flight 93 - Eminent Domain

Gun owners continue to shoot their own feet - this time in Texas.

While it may seem like a positive advancement at face value, the Texas Senate bill is an unjust effort - as are all similar measures. Any law that trumps property rights can only lead to the inevitable erosion of self-defense rights, since firearms are, in fact, a specific type of property.

When employees are hired they voluntarily agree to a specific set of terms set forth by the employer. Unfortunately, many employers include irrational guidelines pertaining to firearms on their premises, however, the sanctity of property rights demand that we respect those guidelines.

As an individual in a free society, we can accept those tenets or refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

For government to encroach upon a property owner’s wishes, within the context of a voluntary relationship according to voluntary terms, is an unjust trampling of the American essence. Telling a property owner that he must allow weapons on his property is no different in principle than telling a restaurant owner he must not allow them - both destroy property rights.

Such bills are short-sided attempts which in effect chop down the tree to get to the apple.

Well-intentioned proponents of these measures claim that employees have property rights that trump those of the employer.

…your property rights end at my car doors. That car is MY property, not yours.

It is your property, but it’s subject to my terms when you’re on my property. You are free to accept and accommodate (or violate, as I’ve done in the past), or you may refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

If you don’t want to chance what could be in your employee’s cars on your property, you have a remedy. Don’t allow any parking on your property. However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

That’s certainly one option. Or, you could rely on contract law and property rights by simply specifying restrictive covenants in an employment contract.

However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

Like I said above, if the restriction is “no firearms”, then the context is irrelevant. “No firearms” doesn’t mean “no firearms except for where you have an emotional (or even practical) justification for them”, it means “no firearms”, regardless of how you rationalize it.

Keep in mind, I completely disagree with these types of restrictions, but I’m much more adamantly opposed to using government force to counter them in a way that can only injure the cause of freedom.

Property rights must adhere to a hierarchy to some degree - a chain of command amongst voluntary participants - where each link (acting as a host) possesses the right to impose restrictions on the next (acting as the guest) according to voluntary terms.

An example of the same principle taking place one step down the chain could entail you and a co-worker driving to lunch in your car. You would be fully justified in restricting him from getting in your car with a bag of cocaine (or a copy of The Communist Manifesto) in his pocket despite the fact that the coat he’s wearing is his property. He can either choose to accept your rules, or abstain from the ride or even the relationship. What he can’t do however, is hire government to force you to allow him in your car with whatever he chooses, just because he chooses it.

I urge any freedom loving individual who values his right to self-defense to strongly oppose any legality that disrespects our rights to life, liberty or property.

UPDATED: To add thoughts resulting from the comments here.

The anti-freedom monkeys are in another flinging frenzy. They just can’t accept the notion that freedom enables individual variance in lifestyles. Couple this with complete ignorance of individual rights or economics and the result is their attempt to regulate existence.

I’m amazed at how quickly people will condone the trampling of others at whim. This little gem is one of the most offensive justifications I’ve heard.

Statesville resident Eric Lamberth, a smoker, said he supports the ban because he believes it would help him kick the habit. [emphasis mine]

Unbelievable - the condonement of Government tyranny as means to compensate for his lack of self-control and discipline.

Restaurants are private property. The property owners are the only individuals who can rightfully determine the smoking policies for their property. The purpose of Government is to protect individual rights from being forcefully violated. Since customers are free to choose whether they accept the smoking policies of a particular dining establishment or not - no rights are being forcefully violated. Any law that trumps an owner’s smoking policy prerogative is an unjust slap in the face of America’s essence.

Your rights end when you are unable to keep your smoke away from my nose.

Only if we’re on your property.

The typical debate surrounding this non-issue rests on a fundamental error. This issue is not about the rights of individuals to smoke, nor about a supposed “right” to fresh air; but rather the right of property owners to set the terms for acceptable behavior on their premises. There is no “right” to fresh air. The only right that applies to consumers in this scenario is your right to not be forced to be exposed to air quality that you find unacceptable. So long as an individual chooses to enter the property of others (as opposed to someone forcing them to be there) they do so under the acceptance of the owner’s terms.

This, like all economic issues, is one that a free-market would solve far more effectively. If consumer demand for smoke-free environments rose to the point where such an offering were profitable, then the market would supply such. Instead, our culture is oblivious to the concept of rights and their fundamental role in making America the most prosperous country in the history of mankind. Rights equal freedom and freedom has a brilliantly clear historical record of raising man’s standard of living. To the extent that we chip away at freedom by violating real rights in favor of supposed rights, we destroy what made America.

As Don Watkins of ARC put it:

This widespread war on smoking [sic] is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

Well said.

America’s recent Olympic mega-hero Michael Phelps is in the spotlight for apparently committing an atrocious act, one that Richland County, SC Sheriff Leon Lott finds offensive enough to consider legal repercussions.

“This one might be a lot easier since we have photographs [sic] and a partial confession. It’s a relatively easy case once we can determine where the crime occurred.” - The Sheriff

Did Phelps forcefully violate any other individual’s right to life? No.

Did he forcefully violate anyone’s right to liberty? No.

Did he forcefully encroach upon anyone’s right to property? No.

According to photo evidence, Mr. Phelps is guilty of consuming a particular substance that society doesn’t approve of.

Sure, his physical body is his property. Indeed, we are a supposed nation of freedom. Yes, his life is his responsibility.

However, America has now deteriorated into a luke-warm slosh of laws and regulations based on subjective whim. Considering how routinely our culture passively dismisses revolutionary ideas as platitudinous clichés, should there be any surprise in our betrayal of principles? John Adams’ optimistic vision has nearly met its full inversion by our continual descent towards a government of men and not of laws.

For reasons that no human can rationally articulate, our cannibalistic society has determined that regardless of where, how or when, Michael Phelps doesn’t have the right to his own body, and can only consume items which meet the state’s approval.

The arguments typically fall into two categories. The increased risk category, and the immorality of behavior category. Both are flimsy attempts to rationalize the initiation of force by Government.

The claim by the increased risk camp contends that under the influence of certain substances, an individual’s capacity to reason is inhibited, which increases their potential likelihood to encroach upon the rights of others. The statist answer is that we must mitigate this increased risk by regulating or restricting the behavior. This constitutes a wholesale violation of rights. Based on this logic, why not mandate regular sleep patterns, diet and exercise regimens and make the emotions of anger, jealousy and resentment illegal? Wouldn’t all decrease the potential likelihood that a man would violate the rights of others? If this should be our guiding premise, why not lock men in cages or crank up the slave labor camps? Wouldn’t such measures even further reduce the potential for man to offend? Yes, but doing so would constitute an initiation of force against man by government, which is contrary to both the founding principles of America and to reason and justice. Additionally, there are already numerous laws in place to punish every conceivable way an individual can violate the rights of others. Burglary, trespassing, assault, armed robbery, speeding, reckless driving, extortion, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder are already codified into law. Any action an individual could do under the influence, he could do otherwise. Consistent enforcement of these laws is far better suited for a country bent on the cause of freedom, as opposed to continual erosion of man’s freedom to act in an attempt to make it impossible for him to breach the legal code.

The second, even flimsier, justification for drug laws is the claim that such behavior is immoral. When faced with this justification one must ask according to what standard of values? If the justification is based on religious tenets, which is commonly the case, we should remind ourselves that America was founded as a safe haven from religious mandate, where one was free to pursue any spiritual cause, or none at all. To introduce religious premises into a secular legal system is contrary to the essence of America. If an individual deems consumption of particular substances as immoral, they are free to abstain from such actions. They are not free to enforce that abstinence on others. Coincidentally, the notion to establish religious ethics by legal mandate is the also the root of controversial blue laws, which are clear violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding - as no valid secular justification has even been conveyed.

It stands to reason that man has the right to take any action he chooses so long as it doesn’t objectively encroach upon any other individual’s right to life, liberty or property - by force. No force, no offense. Until American culture reverts to one that considers individual rights as the cornerstone to freedom and prosperity, we’re in a steady decline towards statism - which history illustrates as a bloody and miserable path.

While I have consumed substances which subjective law would deem illegal, as a general rule, I refrain from doing so because they inhibit my ability to reason and perceive reality. To condone any initiation of force against those individuals who do choose such consumption is unjust, immoral and precisely contrary to the proper role of Government.

I adamantly wish Michael Phelps would use this episode to publicly and proudly proclaim his right to use his body as he chooses - including consumption of any substance in any amount at any time.