As Good As One Could Expect: Notes on Judge Vinson’s Opinion of Obamacare
Amy Peikoff writes in her blog, Don't Let It Go, on Judge Vinson’s 78 page opinion in which he held that Obamacare was unconstitutional:[...] When I first read the opinion, I was not pleased. I was not pleased that Vinson began by using an Originalist approach; I was not pleased that he seemed to concede the propriety of treating the Constitution as, in effect, a "living" document; I was not pleased that he implied that the Supreme Court could -- in fact that he seemed to invite them to -- eliminate the activity/inactivity distinction. I feared that the Supreme Court might just decide that, in our modern commercial age, yada, yada, yada, an economic decision can constitute "activity" for purposes of the Commerce Clause, and that Vinson hadn't done enough to prevent this. I found his basic argument -- that, given the current state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, if this law were to be upheld, no real distinction could be made between the "individual mandate" and anything else Congress wanted to make people do, and therefore, if this law were to be upheld, our government would no longer be a limited one whose powers are enumerated -- terribly unsatisfying. But today, after sleeping on it (even if only for a few hours), and having a brief interchange with an actual Constitutional Lawyer, I realize that my expectations are unrealistic. This is about as good as one could expect.First, even if Vinson were an Objectivist, his job would be to apply the law, as it exists, to the facts of the case before him. Thus, even if he rejected the Originalist approach, he would still be stuck with the language of the Commerce Clause itself, plus all of the horrible precedent expanding Congress's powers under that clause. Especially given that Vinson is a district court judge, it seems the best he can do is to explain why, in the context of this binding precedent, Obamacare goes too far, and is therefore unconstitutional. So, given that I've concluded this was Vinson's assignment, is there something significant he could have done that would have been more satisfying to me? I did find his expressing "reluctance" in striking down the legislation to be annoying. I mean, at least he needn't be reluctant! He is, after all, assuming he is right, saving us from a government whose powers are no longer enumerated and limited, right? He should be glad about this! I also was annoyed that he seemed to be inviting the Supreme Court, twice during the course of his opinion, to reformulate its Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a way that allows them to uphold this legislation. However, what I realized today is the only significant thing I found missing was some sort of argument as to why it must be an activity that Congress regulates under the Clause. I wanted some sort of positive justification for the activity/inactivity distinction. It was no good to just hang one's hat on the idea that, if you get rid of this distinction, Congress could do whatever it wants. I needed more!What sort of argument could one provide?Find out in her enlightening post, Notes on Judge Vinson’s Opinion.
Obamacare: Null and Void
From Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional:A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.[...]"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."
Audio Lecture: The Morality of Exchange in the Ancient World
On Friday, January 12, 2011, Dr. John Lewis -- at the invitation of Professor Michael Munger and the support of the Thomas W. Smith Foundation -- gave a lecture for the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program at Duke University: “The Morality of Exchange in the Ancient World.”You can listen to this lecture online here: http://michaelmunger.com/Lewis1-21-11.mp3Tax Reparations…for the Rich?
Forbes.com has just published the latest column by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, which looks at the role class warfare rhetoric is playing in the debate over taxing the rich.Americans, historically, have not been envious of wealth. The predominant attitude has been: let a person make as much money as he can, provided he earns it. The reason class warfare rhetoric has been effective of late is because the practitioners of class warfare have largely succeeded in painting the rich as unproductive parasites.[...] if we’re talking about the creation of wealth in a division of labor economy, the most productive Americans don’t benefit the most: They contribute the most. Thirty years ago, if you were a shop owner, you spent a large chunk of your time poring over inventory, keeping your books, clinking away at your calculator, double checking your numbers, and going through enough correction fluid to whitewash a fence. But thanks in large measure to software pioneers like Microsoft founder Bill Gates, most of those tasks now take a fraction of the time, can be performed far more accurately and have become so simple that you can probably delegate them to an entry-level clerk. You gave Bill Gates a few hundred bucks; he gave you a better life.Super-wealthy Americans — men like Gates, Warren Buffett and Fred Smith — are predominantly thinkers and innovators who succeeded by contributing new ideas to the productive process. Not just new inventions, but new methods of organization, marketing, worker motivation and production, distribution and finance. That’s to say nothing of the fact that wealthy people are the primary contributors of capital to the economy — the factories, tools and technology that make the average American worker hundreds of times more productive than his Third World counterpart.This is what John Galt, the fictional character in Ayn Rand's best-selling novel, Atlas Shrugged, called the "pyramid of intellectual ability" :
In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong. [Atlas Shrugged]You can read the entire op-ed here.
Part 2 of Lisa VanDamme’s Response to “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”
Lisa VanDamme takes the Wall Street Journal Article “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior” to task methodologically, exposing that it is premised on a false dichotomy. Is our choice only to be high-handed or hands-off? Domineering or deadbeat? Abusive or permissive? Or is there another alternative?Click here for the first video: Lisa VanDamme Slams WSJ Article “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior", Part 1Obama on Civility
Bosch Fawstin is an amazing artist and who is working on his second graphic novel: The Infidel. Here's his take on Obama's "Civility."For more of Fawstin's work visit his blog: http://fawstin.blogspot.comLisa VanDamme Slams WSJ Article “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior”
Lisa runs the VanDamme Academy, a private school that provides a quality private education for elementary and middle school students, with a Montessori environment for 5 to 7- year - olds. This is the first of several videos in which Lisa VanDamme shares her thoughts about the Wall Street Journal Article "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior."In this video, Miss VanDamme implores listeners to consider the question on which the whole issue depends: By what standard do we say a child is "successful"?.WOW! You can read some of her CapMag articles here. You can visit Lisa's video blog here.UPDATE: See Part 2 here where Lisa answers the critics of Part 1.What Happened To All That Oil That Spilled in the Gulf?
From "Gulf oil spill was abated by bacteria that feed on hydrocarbons, report says" (Washington Post):No, but the vast majority of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill is already gone, according to a final government report released last month. That report, along with several experts contacted by the Lantern, provides a detailed picture of the oil spill and its aftermath.Trying to remove all oil from the gulf would be a Sisyphean task. Every year, oil tankers, drilling platforms and boats spill more than 310,000 gallons of oil into the gulf. But even if we halted human activity in the gulf, natural seeps from the sea floor would still send 42 million gallons of oil into gulf waters each year.These seeps actually prevented the BP spill from being an even worse disaster. The gulf has more natural seeps than any other body of water in or around North America. Because of this constant supply of hydrocarbons, there is always a healthy population of bacteria floating around the gulf looking for more food. When BP's well blew out, these tiny creatures went into a feeding frenzy. (The lack of natural seeps, and oil-eating bacteria, is one of the reasons that Alaska's Prince William Sound has been slow to bounce back from the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989.)Related:BP Oil Spill: Private Property is the Solution How a Capitalist Government Would Handle the BP Oil SpillEnvironmentalists Kill and Maim Dozens in Texas: How Environmental Regulations Reduce Safety and Productivity in the Energy Industry A steadily-declining number of refineries, coupled with an ever-growing demand for the products of refineries, means companies must push their plants to the limit; many today operate at 95% of capacity, well above the norm for industry in general. That leaves little time for the maintenance, repair or upgrade of existing plants. This necessarily leads, in turn, to less-safe equipment and less-safe operations. Obviously, more regulation and more fines cannot possibly solve this problem.
Think TSA Groping Was Bad? Search and Seizure Without Warrant
Glenn Greenwald brings to light some scary facts about the so-called Depart. of Homeland Security. In "Homeland Security's laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez" he writes:For those who regularly write and read about civil liberties abuses, it's sometimes easy to lose perspective of just how extreme and outrageous certain erosions are. One becomes inured to them, and even severe incursions start to seem ordinary. Such was the case, at least for me, with Homeland Security's practice of detaining American citizens upon their re-entry into the country, and as part of that detention, literally seizing their electronic products -- laptops, cellphones, Blackberries and the like -- copying and storing the data, and keeping that property for months on end, sometimes never returning it. Worse, all of this is done not only without a warrant, probable cause or any oversight, but even without reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in any crime. It's completely standard-less, arbitrary, and unconstrained. There's no law authorizing this power nor any judicial or Congressional body overseeing or regulating what DHS is doing. And the citizens to whom this is done have no recourse -- not even to have their property returned to them.[...] What kind of society allows government agents -- without any cause -- to seize all of that whenever they want, without limits on whom they can do this to, what they access, how they can use it: even without anyone knowing what they're doing? [...] Back then, this was painted as yet another Bush/Cheney assault on civil liberties, so one frequently heard denunciations like this from leading Democrats such as Sen. Pat Leahy: "It may surprise many Americans that their basic constitutional rights do not exist at our ports of entry even to protect private information contained on a computer. It concerns me, and I believe that actions taken under the cover of these decisions have the potential to turn the Constitution on its head." But now that this practice has continued -- and seemingly expanded -- under the Obama presidency, few in Congress seem to care.Indeed, even in the wake of increasing complaints, Congress has done nothing to curb these abuses or even regulate them. But at least one member of the House, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat, is attempting to do something. Rep. Sanchez has introduced a very modest bill -- H.R. 216 -- requiring Homeland Security to issue rules governing these searches and seizures so that they are no longer able to operate completely in the dark and without standards. The bill would also impose some reporting requirements on DHS (Section 4); provide some very modest rights to those subjected to these seizures as well as some minor procedural limits on DHS agents (Sec. 2); and would compel "a civil liberties impact assessment of the rule, as prepared by the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security" (Sec. 2(b)(9)). [Glenn Greenwald, "Homeland Security's laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez", Salon]Search and Seizure without warrant does not need to be regulated, as it is unconstitutional. This is the proper approach.Related Reading: My TSA Encounter
CapMag.com Classic: Gun Control and The Right to Self-Defense
Gun Control and The Right to Self-defense
Adam Mossoff | 5 June 1998 There is a right to own firearms, which is a derivative of man's right to self-defense, which is itself derived from man's right to life. The field of battle on which gun control should be fought is exactly on this issue: man's rights.The Death of Neoconservatism: Six Questions for C. Bradley Thompson @ Harpers
1. At the core of your book is the notion that neoconservatism is dead. But consider that Politico recently published an analysis of Obama’s Middle East policies in which ten of eleven persons quoted were neocons (the eleventh was a Palestinian). The Washington Post’s editorial page is rapidly becoming a neocon fortress. Is it really time to talk about the “death” of neoconservatism?2. What do the neocons mean by “governing philosophy,” and how does this affect the way they engage in politics in America?3. Irving Kristol’s argument for capitalism is, you conclude, remarkably luke-warm. Where do neocons part company with advocates of a pure market economy?4. You link the neoconservatives closely to the writings of Leo Strauss, and particularly to his book Natural Right and History, which you say “may very well be one of the most profound and deadly philosophic assaults on America ever written.” What do you mean by this?5. Leo Strauss’s 1933 letter to Karl Löwith, in which he acknowledged his adherence to “fascist, authoritarian, imperial” principles has drawn a lot of attention lately. Strauss adherents treat it as a sort of aberration. Are they right to push back in this way?6. You suggest that a willingness to prepare for and wage wars lies right at the heart of neoconservatism. Has this affected American foreign policy in the last decade?Read the answers at Harpers.Winners of the Atlas Shrugged Video Contest To Be Announced Jan 13th!
John Stossel will announce the winners of the Atlas Shrugged Video Contest on his show on the Fox Business Network on January 13, 2011. Sponsored by the Ayn Rand Institute, videos will be judged on their intellectual strength, creativity and persuasiveness. Grand Prize: $5,000; winning video posted on the Atlas Shrugged website!Q&A: Is the TSA at airports overstepping its bounds?
"The whole department of Home Security is an outrage..." -- Leonard PeikoffListen to the rest.Richard Salsman @ Forbes: A Golden Decade Of Government Failure
The past decade was “golden” for investors — but only for those who actually held gold and avoided such typically touted holdings as stocks or bonds. Even as finance professors kept insisting that investors “hold stocks for the long run,” one could observe gold’s price increasing by 410%, while U.S. stock prices declined 10%. More amazing perhaps, especially for today’s stock-obsessed advisors, gold has registered gains for ten consecutive years — a performance consistency that U.S. stocks have never achieved.The only way to have prepared oneself to benefit from this decade-long golden performance was to distrust government’s more invasive role in the economy — a premise as rare today as gold itself. Most policymakers, economists, investment advisors and journalists applaud a larger government role in the economy, which is one reason that Keynes — who rationalized statist policies — has made a comeback after being discredited in the prior three decades.Read the rest...Event: Summer Conference 2011 at the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism
Every summer The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism hosts a three-day conference for undergraduate and graduate students. Students attend lectures, participate in small group discussions, and have free time to discuss and debate the ideas presented in the formal sessions. Throughout the three days of sessions, students have ample opportunity to speak one-on-0ne with faculty and ask them questions in a more informal setting. The summer conferences, held on the campus of Clemson University, provide a unique opportunity for students to study with leading professors from around the country, to meet top students from around the world, and to study capitalism in a challenging, engaging environment.The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is pleased to accept applications for its fourth annual summer conference for college students. We invite you to join us for an exciting three-day program of lectures, seminars, and discussions. Students will arrive on May 26th and depart on May 30th, with the main event running on May 27th through May 29th.Exciting Programs: Students will participate in an intensive and exciting program exploring the moral foundations of capitalism and Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Students will attend lectures, participate in small-group seminar-style discussions, and question and answer sessions. Outside of class, students can relax and socialize on Clemson’s campus. Evening activities will include a barbecue dinner, a meet and greet with the faculty, and a career advice discussion.Full Scholarships: All admitted students will receive a full scholarship, including reimbursement of travel expenses up to $500. All housing and meals will be provided on the campus of Clemson University, and reading materials will be providedInsight into the Logical Leap
Physicist David Harriman has started an online site where he gives insight into his excellent book, "The Logical Leap." Sample articles include:- The Logical Leap Goes to College
- Is the Discovery Process “Linear” or “Spiral”?
- Free Falling with Galileo
- Is My Account of History “Unconventional”?
Six Myths and Realities About Oil
Over at Fox News Alex EPSTEIN writes about “The 6 Myths About Oil”:Every American consumes an average of three gallons of oil a day. Republicans and Democrats call this reliance on oil an “addiction”—an irrational, self-destructive habit that must be broken as soon as possible. This year’s BP oil spill disaster is only making the chorus to “end our addiction to oil” louder. But if we examine the most common arguments for this idea, we see that they are myths. Oil is a vital, viable, and desirable part of our energy future.He goes on to list 6 myths (and their corresponding realities):
- Myth #1: America’s reliance on oil is an “addiction”—an irrational, self-destructive habit. Reality: America’s use of oil brings indispensible value to our lives.
- Myth #2: There are “green” technologies that are just as good, or better, than oil. Reality: There is zero evidence that any “renewable” can replace oil in any foreseeable future.
- Myth #3: Because oil is finite, it will inevitably run out. Reality: There’s a lot more oil than you think—and if we have a free market in energy we will ensure that we find superior substitutes long before we run out.
- Myth #4: Because oil is mostly in other countries, they can cut us off at will and create an economic catastrophe. Reality: International trade makes our energy supply more secure—and far more affordable.
- Myth #5: Because oil money funds hostile dictatorships (Iran, Saudi Arabia) by using less oil we can make them poorer and make ourselves more secure. Reality: Direct threats to America must be fought through direct and decisive military action—not through multi-decade, sacrificial schemes to lower oil prices.
- Myth #6: Because the burning of oil produces CO2, oil is a deadly pollutant that must be severely capped. Reality: Carbon-caps, not carbon emissions, are the real deadly threat to human life.