Rocky Mountain News on D.C. vs. Heller

June 29th, 2008 by Brian

The Rocky Mountain News published Ari Armstrong’s piece on the recent Supreme Court ruling that recognizes our right to defend ourselves with a firearm.  Here are the opening paragraphs:

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed what most Coloradans have long held and what our state’s constitution also strongly protects: the individual’s right to own a gun.

The June 26 ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller overturns Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and requirement that guns be kept inoperable in the home. Gone is the fantasy that the Second Amendment protects only state militias.

Ari has additional comments on it at FreeColorado.com.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

Howard Roark would be proud

June 20th, 2008 by Brian

From the Wall Street Journal, a story that could come right out of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead:

…tens of thousands of people who lost their homes in Hurricane Katrina and are still living in federally owned trailers will be forced to find a new place to live. After nearly three years, the federal government’s temporary housing is coming to an end.

These folks are not going to have an easy time of it, because affordable housing in the Gulf Coast region is scarce. The problem has persisted despite billions in government aid – and the efforts of large private developers – because of a shortage of skilled laborers and sky-high insurance rates.

The Everhouse

Yet now there is hope, in the person of John Sawyer. Not only does this 64-year-old Bostonian believe he can build houses people can afford to buy and insure; he says they will withstand the next big storm. And, by the way, he intends to makes a tidy profit. …

Virtually no one else has been able to do so, it should be noted, even with existing tax incentives and other programs. The Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) is preparing its latest attempt to tackle the problem by allocating $350 million in federal money to developers to build “affordable homes.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

The big lie behind politician-controlled medicine

June 11th, 2008 by Brian

The Denver Post printed the following letter of mine last week (on-line version):

Re: “Who has your health at heart?” May 22 guest commentary.

AFL-CIO executives John Sweeney and Mike Cerbo perpetuate the big lie behind politician-controlled medicine: that the free market is not working and that costs have been spiraling out of control because of markets.

But costs have been increasing precisely because of the employer-based insurance they espouse, which is a consequence of a biased and non-free-market tax code. It favors employer-based insurance and penalizes other types of medical insurance.

We consume medical care like a business traveler dining on the company’s expense account: Since someone else pays the bill (insurers), patients need not shop around, so providers don’t compete on price. Why?

Tax-discounted insurance encourages us to buy more costly insurance than we probably need, hence penalizing saving for future medical expenses. Our “insurance” has become prepaid health care.

Employer-based insurance also coddles insurance companies, which have little incentive to please consumers. They know we’re essentially locked to our employer and the costly insurance plans they offer. To buy a competitor’s product, we must change jobs or pay a stiff tax penalty.

The AFL-CIO should be ashamed of promoting self-serving policies that both empower labor unions and result in expensive medical care and insurance.

For a way out of this policy mess, see Michael Cannon’s piece on Large HSAs here and here. He compares it with McCain’s plan here.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

Infant voters & narcissist candidates

June 5th, 2008 by Brian

From George Will’s Newsweek review of The Cult of the Presidency, by Gene Healy:

If you can name it, presidents are responsible for it. The name for this is infantilization. “The average American,” said President Richard Nixon, “is just like the child in the family—you give him some responsibility and he is going to amount to something.” Vice President Al Gore said the government should act like “grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.”

Such demented talk encourages presidential candidates to make delusional promises—energy independence in eight years (Mike Huckabee), “an excellent teacher in every classroom” and “every school an outstanding school” (John Edwards, who presumably knows how every school can stand out when all are outstanding), a “perfect” nation (see above) and so on.

The last presidential candidate to talk sense about the office was fictional. In an episode of NBC’s “The West Wing,” the Republican candidate, who was not the hero, was asked, “How many jobs will you create?” “None,” he replied, adding: “Entrepreneurs create jobs. Business creates jobs. The president’s job is to get out of the way.”

An occupational hazard of the inflated presidency is a hazard to the nation. It is what Healy (borrowing a term from psychiatry) calls Acquired Situational Narcissism. As repositories of absurd expectations, and surrounded by sycophants, presidents become deranged. Inevitably, the inflation of expectations causes what Healy calls an “arc of disillusionment” that diminishes one president after another.

For a summary of the book, see Healy’s article in Reason magazine.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

McCain & Obama: live for the State!

June 4th, 2008 by Brian

David Boaz of the Cato Institute points out that neither candidate for Life Coach of the United States (or is it Daddy, High Priest, or Santa Claus) has much respect for individualism. Rather the derive meaning from our own personal life goals and priorities, we can do so only with service to something, anything, so long as it is not ourselves, as we were ants living for the sake of an ant colony. He concludes:

The real issue is that Messrs. Obama and McCain are telling us Americans that our normal lives are not good enough, that pursuing our own happiness is “self-indulgence,” that building a business is “chasing after our money culture,” that working to provide a better life for our families is a “narrow concern.”

They’re wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others.

The article is here.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

Reminder of freedoms we do have

May 29th, 2008 by Brian

Sure, both of the United States oppose free speech through their support of campaign finance laws. But we have much to appreciate here, as Ethiopian journalist Habtamu Dugo discusses in this video.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

Politicians guilty for expensive insurance

May 25th, 2008 by Brian

The Rocky Mountain News published my letter to the editor on Tuesday, May 6 (print scan).

Darla Stuart (Speakout April 22) writes that since “Colorado’s citizens and businesses deserve to know the real cost of the health-care insurance,” politicians should force insurance companies to provide “transparency.” But we really deserve to know how politicians have inflated insurance costs in the first place.

Tax policy encourages employer-based insurance, which essentially chains us to one insurer. Shielded from competition, insurers need not compete on price very much.

State-level bureaucrats succumb to special interests by burdening small-group policies with many benefits we do not need. The Congressional Budget Office reports that such mandated benefits increase premiums by at least six percent [p. 16, 20], and possibly more than ten. It also reports that community rating laws increase premiums by nine percent [p. 16].

What’s becoming increasingly transparent is where allegedly well-intentioned controls like House Bill 1389 will lead: politician-controlled health care and insurance where bureaucrats make decisions that rightfully belong to you and your physician.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

If only all politicians were so honest

May 25th, 2008 by Brian

U.S. House Democrat Maxine Waters during a hearing concerning gas prices.

I suggest she read the Constitution she swore to uphold, think a bit about property rights, and watch this video by John Stossel. My favorite part is the graph showing that tax revenue from the tax on gasoline exceeds oil company profits.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

Teen minimum wage costs them jobs

May 21st, 2008 by Brian

Daily Herald, Chicago, April 28, 2008

“Suburban teenagers might have trouble finding summer employment, but some businesses say they fear they’ll have even fewer work opportunities next year.

If an Illinois proposal to make the teenage minimum wage equal to adults’ pay becomes law, teen-friendly businesses may slice hours or give their 15- to-17-year-old workers the boot.” …

York Theatre in Elmhurst also would be forced to downsize its 40-person staff of mostly high-schoolers if the higher wages became law.

“Being a family-run company, there’s not a whole lot in the budget for payroll,” said Trevor Murakami, general manager of York Theatre.

See also this editorial in the Investors Business Daily:

As a basic point of economics, it’s a given that anytime you raise the cost of anything, you will use less of it. As such, the minimum wage hike that took effect in Massachusetts this year has been a job-killer for thousands of untrained youths, many of them minorities.

We’re not the only ones to see this, by the way.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like:

Conservatives for hope and optimism?

May 15th, 2008 by Brian

Update to: What warrants explaining: equality or inequality?

Consider what Arthur Brooks wrote in his recent post at the Freakonimics blog:

In my book I argue that conservatives are more optimistic about the future than liberals are, and believe in each individual’s ability to get ahead on the basis of achievement.Liberals are more likely to see themselves and others as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether individuals can climb without governmental help.

Via Arnold Kling at EconLog.

Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg it
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • TwitThis

You might also like: