David Boaz in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer: “When government slippery slope goes vertical“

Russell Roberts on NPR: “As Goldman Gloats, What Does It Matter For Us?”

Russell is too much of a gentleman to point out the large number of Goldman cronies who moved into state offices in Washington during the Bush and Obama (or “Bobama”) administrations. Henry Paulson, meet Ferdinand Marcos.

Everyone labels their proposals “reform,” which is an empty label. You can’t be “for” or “against” reform until you know what the reform is (unless you’re 100% satisfied with the status quo, which few people are). Here are just three worries that occur to me and that have not been widely discussed in the media.

1. The term “public option” is a very clever neologism for socialism. That’s not a smear, just a simple statement of fact. It is a proposal for a state-owned medical system, a concept that most people find repulsive, until you dress it up in a new label that combines two attractive terms and was the result of extensive focus group research. But it’s a proposal for a state-owned and managed health care system.

2. It is absurd (maybe even “a lie”) to claim that it would be funded entirely from the premiums of those who freely elect to join it. The political dynamic should be clear. It will run a deficit, probably from the first year, and the political system will generate a clamor to ensure that it does not go under (leaving all those people without care!), so that deficit will be made up for with taxes, whether from general revenues or a new tax. Once it’s financed with tax revenues (which is inevitable), it will be hard to insist that only those who also freely elect to pay premiums should have access. Involuntary tax financing (a redundancy) will grow as a percentage of the financing. In a relatively short time, people will find themselves paying twice for health care, and private insurance (set aside that we don’t have a “health insurance market,” but a highly regulated and controlled and restricted market in pre-paid health care plans) will be increasingly crowded out.* It is a path to increasing state control, not “another option” or “competition for the insurance companies.”

3. Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the president’s speech to Congress was a warning of what I fear will be the outcome of the interaction of the American “right” and “left” on this issue. We will get a state health care system that will increasingly crowd out the private sector, and, to placate the nativist right who fear immigrants getting access to that system, we will also get a national identity card system. The state will expand its power dramatically.

*See the history in other countries. A good history is David Green’s Working-Class Patients and the Medical Establishment: Self-Help in Britain from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to 1948.

BBC: “Merkel ‘heads for’ new coalition”

Governing with the liberal Free Democrats will be an improvement. It looks like the FDP got 14.8%. Bravo!

for economically illiterate advocates of monarchy: “Turks mourn relative of Ottoman sultan”

Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, from Osman I to Mehmed V

Yes, if done according to the law. (Richard Nixon was certainly impeachable, and would have been impeached had he not resigned; the articles of impeachment were drawn up and voted by the House Judiciary Committee.)

Here’s the analysis in the case of the removal from office of the former Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, prepared by the Directorate of Legal Research of the U.S. Library of Congress:

Conclusion:

V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?

Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.

However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.

Hat tip: Daniil Gorbatenko

(Note: Not to say I agree with everything in the video, but it sure is a clever idea. I just wish a version had been done under the Bush administration some time ago.)

The Shady Bunch

(Not that I endorse every image in the video, but it’s pretty cute and clever, nonetheless.)

Vote Liberal in the German Elections

CNN: “House passes amendment to cut government funding for ACORN”

ACORN is notably corrupt, but mainly because, as a tax-funded clearly political organization, it corrupts American politics. I want their hands out of my wallet. And yes, I oppose taxpayer funding of clearly political organizations on the other side of the partisan divide, if there are any. They should all be de-funded.

Brian Doherty on Reason.com: “Obama’s Iraq Pullout on Schedule; 1,000 More Troops on Their Way!”

Taxing Americans for buying Chinese-made tires and starting a “trade war” with China (Financial Times: “US tyre duties spark China clash“)

Extending the pointless and counter productive trade embargo on Cuba (New York Times: “Obama Extends Cuba Embargo 1 Year“)

Thanks, Jimmy Carter, for raising the tone of the debate and explaining to me why I’m angry (CNN: “Carter: Racism plays major role in opposition to Obama“)

Obama speaks:

“You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited.”

So, the president notes that more “government action” means “added constraints on our freedom.” Interesting. And, it seems, he believes that “too little” government was responsible for the fact that “markets can crash” (was all that explosion of government over the last 8 years and intervention into financial markets, interest rates, and housing markets a case of “too little” government?), and that when there is too little government, “monopolies can stifle competition” (no mention of all of the government monopolies out there.)

What serious person doesn’t at least strongly suspect that a “public option” will in fact be privileged over private firms, contrary to the president’s implausible assertion? It is an authentically frightening step toward putting the United States Post Office or the Veterans Administration in charge of health care.

For those who’re interested, I address some of those questions in a number of chapters of Realizing Freedom, notably 1, 4, and 7. (You can become a “Fan” of the book at www.facebook.com/RealizingFreedom.

Peggy Lowe’s piece from the Orange County Register on “Libertarians worry about losing Register op-ed page,” including part of my quote:

Tom G. Palmer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of a new book on Libertarian theory, grew up in Huntington Beach and read the Register and the Los Angeles Times every day. He had his first published piece appear in the Register — a letter to the editor when he was a teenager.

“Freedom Communications taught me and many others one of the basics of clear thinking: politicians are not gods, they are just people like the rest of us, with no magical powers,” he wrote in an email message. “I would trade the plain wisdom of R. C. Hoiles, their founder, for all the academic sophistry I was exposed to in my academic career.”

BBC: “Venezuela rivals march in Caracas”

Opponents were also angry at the government for shutting dozens of radio stations last month.

More were expected to be shut, Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello announced on Saturday.

“Another 29 will be gone soon,” he told a pro-Chavez rally, Reuters reported.

A while back I met a rising star on the Nevada scene, who’s now raising funds in consideration of a possible run for Mayor of Reno. He actually favors — in both heart and mind — limited government. A rarity, but real. He’s a West Point grad who saw first-hand the disaster of the political decision to invade Iraq during his two deployments there (he co-authored a serious military history, The Gods Of Diyala: Transfer of Command in Iraq); he favors personal liberty and responsibility; he knows the difference between being “pro-market” and “pro-business”; and he is committed to limiting government to protecting people from harm from others.

His name is Caleb Cage and he’s raising funds (mainly in small amounts, so feel free to help; I did) to make a difference. It takes a heap of money to step up, and he’s not pandering to special interests in his campaign. You can find more information or make a donation at CageForReno.com.

Rep. John Campbell in the Orange County Register: “A right to health care?”

A little partisan, given the huge steps toward such policies under the GOP (I don’t know if Campbell voted for them, e.g., the “right” to prescription drug benefits), but a good commonsensical analysis. (I have similar analyses, but with footnotes and some high-falutin’ language, in my book Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice.)

From Forbes: “It Wasn’t A ‘Coup’”

Article 239 says that any person who has held the office of the presidency cannot be president or vice president again. Furthermore, it states that the officeholder “that violates this provision or proposes its reform, as well as those who support such a violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

I added the italics for emphasis. Note the use of the word “immediately.”

Also, the Honduran constitution stipulates that the only mechanism through which it can be amended is by two separate votes in Congress by absolute majority (two-thirds). However, Article 375 states that under no circumstance can the constitution be amended to allow for presidential re-election.

The purpose of such congressional power and limits on presidents remaining in office beyond one term was and is to keep out dictators, tyrants, caudillos, “strong men,” and coup leaders, such as Zelaya, who initiated a military coup when he ordered the military to use force to override the decisions of the electoral court, the supreme court, the congress, and the attorney general that his plans were illegal. Zelaya was, accordingly, removed. Whether it was the best way to remove him is certainly debatable, but that he was removed legally, after an arrest warrant from the supreme court, is not in doubt.

“Democracy” is not about following mad leaders who seek power forever, but about, in Jefferson’s phrase from the Kentucky Resolutions,

…free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; …. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

The media discussion of events in Honduras is remarkably confused. Here’s CNN:

The president of the U.N. General Assembly scheduled a noon session Monday to discuss the situation in Honduras, following a military-led coup that ousted the sitting president.

and

Micheletti, the head of Congress, became president after lawmakers voted by a show of hands to strip Zelaya of his powers, with a resolution stating that Zelaya “provoked confrontations and divisions” within the country.

….

The coup came on the same day that he had vowed to follow through with a nonbinding referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled illegal.

Imagine that George Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or some other American president had decided to overturn the Constitution so that he could stay in power beyond the constitutionally limited time. To do that, he orders a nationwide referendum that is not constitutionally authorized and blatantly illegal. The Federal Election Commission rules that it is illegal. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. The Congress votes to strip the president of his powers and, as members of Congress are not that good at overcoming the president’s personally loyal and handpicked bodyguards, they send police and military to arrest the president. Now, which party is guilty of leading a coup?

This is another example of populist, dictatorial, anti-democratic thought parading as “democratic.” I discuss the issue in my recent lecture on enduring democracy in New Delhi.

Senior Saudi royal calls for political reforms

8 yr. old Saudi child bride granted divorce

The article by Raja Kamal of the University of Chicago and myself on the need for reforms in the Arab world (focusing one education) from the Beirut Daily Star: “Arab education displays its discontents“