Freedom is Free

Jose Fernandez, Marlins ace pitcher, was killed early Sunday morning in a boating accident. He was just 24.

He was born in Cuba. Before he was even 16, according to Wikipedia,

Fernández attempted to defect unsuccessfully three times, with each failed defection attempt followed by a prison term. Fernández, along with his mother and sister, defected in 2007. On that successful attempt, José's mother fell overboard when the boat hit turbulent waters, and José had to dive into the water to save her life.^[5] They reached Mexico, and then moved to Tampa in 2008

Hearing about his life on Sportscenter yesterday made me feel gratitude for already living in the United States and never having to take such a risk.

My gratitude, however, is relative. I feel fortunate because most of the world has not been born into the favorable circumstances of  countries like America.

I do not, however, feel like I owe something to society or to political authorities for my relative freedom. Those who say, "freedom isn't free" are wrong. An early libertarian blog was called Freedom is Free, with the tagline "Who owns you?"

Fernandez and his family risked quite a lot for freedom. The Castros owned them, and they escaped.

That's a price they should not have had to pay.

To say "freedom isn't free" is to suggest that hierarchy and coercion - slavery of one kind or another -is the natural state, and freedom is a modern innovation. It's also an implied threat: As long as you obey these laws and fight these wars, you deserve to be free. If you don't, you should be locked in a cage.

To say "freedom isn't free" is to say Cubans who are unwilling or unable to escape or rebel somehow deserve the Castros.

It's to say that freedom is a privilege, not a right.

It's to say that freedom is what you get to have after rulers do what they want to you.

But I would ask again: Who owns you?

The price of freedom is nothing. Nothing.

If you live in a place where the price is higher, that price is not being set by people who are protecting you or have your best interests at heart; it's being set by criminals.

Healthcare Reform: It's about your liberty, not your party

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/healthcare-reform-it-s-about-your-liberty-not-your-party

As you know, the Senate voted to pass Harry Reid's boondoggle healthcare bill. You can see how your Senators voted here: http://tinyurl.com/yku2upu

But this isn't over. There are still differences between the House and Senate healthcare bills that can derail the entire project.

And so we continue the fight. Today, let's remind Congress that we oppose this healthcare bill because we believe in liberty. https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/114

Here is my letter with talking points you may want to use . . .

I am very angry that the Senate passed H.R. 3590.

But keep in mind that my anger does not stem from partisan hatred. I am not a Republican. Democrats can't afford to ignore me, and Republicans shouldn't assume I have their vote.

My concern is my liberty, not my party.

I applauded when Democrats (though not nearly enough of them) opposed the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act. I agree with Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html

But I see now that even this (insufficient) Democratic opposition was neither principled nor consistent. For in their healthcare bill . . .

* the people will lose the essential liberties of privacy and freedom of choice
* as they will be forced to purchase insurance and enroll in a healthcare system they do not want
* in order to achieve a false sense of "safety" in a health coverage scheme
* which will be more costly and less effective than what we have now, and far worse than what we could have by restoring the free market

No supporter of this bill should be called a "civil libertarian" ever again.

While I applaud Republicans for staying united in their opposition, I recognize also that they have a large share of blame for getting us into this mess.

* Their corrupt and incompetent rule paved the way for the Democrats to take power and push this bill
* Their support of the Medicare Drug Benefit puts the lie to the notion that the GOP is a party of fiscal responsibility and small government
* Their support of barbaric measures such as medical marijuana raids underscores their hostility to our basic liberties

What Democrats and Republicans both must realize is that my body belongs to me, not the federal government. Not only should this healthcare bill be defeated, but Congress should reverse course entirely and leave me free to make my own decisions with my own life and health. Congress should . . .

* allow larger tax deductions through expanded Health Savings Accounts to decouple health insurance from employment
* allow purchase of health insurance policies across state lines, so we can each choose policies that best fit our circumstances
* repeal all federal laws and regulations that deny access to alternative, non-traditional healthcare providers, treatments, and drugs

With these steps, you will drive down prices and allow greater access to healthcare. You will stop rewarding drug and insurance companies and instead force them to compete. Greater freedom will bring about a healthier and wealthier society.

As long as I do not violate the rights of anyone else, Congress has no moral or Constitutional authority to control my life or health. Do the right thing. Oppose this tyrannical healthcare bill and replace it with a real reform bill that restores our essential liberties.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/114

And we encourage you to forward this Dispatch to friends and post it on your blog and social network pages. http://tinyurl.com/ybwu6j7

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Model for the U.S.?

Mark Steyn gave a lecture at Hillsdale College on, "Is Canada's Economy a Model for America?" His answer, No. Canada's prosperity depends largely on the American market. And it has socialized health care (ten-month waiting list for the maternity ward), high taxes, protectionism (a foreigner can't even own a bookstore), subsidies (the government even helped with the travel expenses of demonstrators at the 2001 Summit of the America's) , central planning (how many foreign-born strippers do we need?), giant public sector.

On top of that, there are outrages such as Quebec's prohibition of English signs, and the absence of freedom of speech as Americans understand it. For instance, a man can be hauled before a "Human Rights Commission" for publishing the famous Danish Muslim cartoons. Canada has had hate-speech laws for decades, and even deported a man to Germany to stand trial for holocaust-denial - even though the "crime" was committed on Canadian territory. Canada, like the U.S., can also detain "terrorist suspects" on secret evidence.

But my point is not to bash Canada. Rather, to point out that in spite of all this, Canada is tied with the United States in the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom Rankings, and two years ago, the State of the World Liberty Project had Canada listed as the third freest country in the world, and the U.S. eighth.

If both are in the top ten, and are among the "freest," then the world isn't very free. But for all its faults, Canada isn't as bad as the United States. And that's embarrassing. Once the freest country in the world, the U.S.A. doesn't even have bragging rights on its own continent.

Trade, Immigration, Freedom

The New American has its first Freedom Index for the 100th Congress. (It used to be called the Conservative Index but that was abandoned because of the confused meaning of "conservative" these days.)

Not all of these issues are specifically about "freedom." The index is based on ten votes in the House and ten in the Senate. One vote in the House had to do with trade/immigration, and two in the Senate. (A third vote in the Senate did have to do with immigration, but also involved Constitutional rights.)

Aside from those, however, the questions really had to do with the Constitution. If a bill is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter what its other merits happen to be. A "correct" vote on an unconstitutional bill in this index is a nay. The reasoning goes, if Congress strays from the Constitution, Congress will begin violating our Constitutional rights and freedoms. I certainly agree.

Because Congress has Constitutional jurisdiction over trade and immigration, there aren't necessarily Constitutional reasons to support or oppose particular proposals. In these cases, the New American seems to favor populism over freedom, because it seems to me that lifting a restriction is pro-freedom, and keeping or adding restrictions is anti-freedom. So perhaps "Freedom" Index isn't accurate.

I am more of a pragmatist when it comes to trade and immigration. To say we should let anything and everyone into the country is just another way of saying we shouldn't have a government or country at all. I agree with that in a utopian sense, but do not see how that is practically achieved. If we are to have restrictions, I believe they should be premised on protecting the public. But all too often they just serve to punish the consumer.

On trade, I could see trade restrictions designed to protect the safety, health, and environment. In addition, as a matter of fairness to domestic producers, I could see requiring imports to conform to the same regulatory standards required of domestic products. But that, to me, is an argument for eliminating the regulations, not for restricting trade.

Likewise, on immigration I could see restrictions designed to protect the safety, health, and environment of the nation - that is, keep out known criminals and carriers of infectious diseases. I could also see restrictions to prevent overcrowding, which could be bad for the environment. Moreover, if foreign governments are facilitating immigration to our land, encouraging it, or intentionally creating economic refugees that swamp our borders, I could see calling for restrictions, as the surplus population drives down wages not due to free movement of labor, but because of deliberate government policy of another country. Lastly, I could see immigration restrictions if immigrants overwhelm government services and brings on bankruptcy - but I see that more as an argument to get rid of the government services.

In any case, restrictions designed to protect American jobs or American wages are really restrictions that raise prices and punish American consumers. If one foreign-made good is produced more cheaply and can sell more cheaply than the American version, there shouldn't be a law against buying the foreign good. Likewise, if an immigrant is willing to work for less than the American, the employer should be free to hire him. Most of the problems concerning trade and immigration are really structural problems with America's tax and regulatory regimes. In a free market, there would be no question that immigrants make the country wealthier; now there is doubt about that considering welfare, public schools, road congestion, etc. And in a free market, free trade would create jobs, not destroy them.

Government is inherently inefficient and most of what it tries to do may be better left undone or left to the private sector. However, just as we understand why we have a military, I understand why we protect our borders from goods and individuals we consider dangerous. When such restrictions venture into economic planning or helping certain segments of the population, they become unjust.

An Inconsistent Libertarian

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I would rather the State "wither away," perhaps through peaceful secession, then collapse under its own weight. But this means working within the context of countries with borders. I hope that the State will eventually dissolve in a happy utopia, but I do not wish it to break apart from bankruptcy and civil strife.

Discrimination Laws

You may have heard of Somali Muslim cab drivers in the Twin Cities refusing service to passengers who carry alcohol. Apparently this practice isn't common in other cities or from other Muslims.

The conflict is between the right to preserve one's religious convictions on the job and the right for customers to not be discriminated against. Should the anti-discrimination laws protect the Somali drivers, or should they protect the customer?

This "problem" was created of course, by the law, not the market. Anti-discrimination laws do not exist in free societies, because freedom of association is one of the cornerstone freedoms. If we converted to a free society tomorrow, cab companies could fire these cab drivers who refuse passengers carrying alcohol, or for any reason or non-reason whatsoever. Yet independent cab drivers could refuse service to any passenger for any reason. Passengers could wave down a taxi but then change their mind if they perceive the cab driver to be of a certain religion or nationality the passsenger despises.

But religious and political convictions are expensive. When it comes to the market, even the most devout usually recognize that strict adherence to a principle is irrational and unprofitable. Discrimination and intolerance hurt the business more than the customer. The customer has lost a little bit of time (such as in waving down a taxi who then refuses him), but has lost no money, whereas the business has lost both time and money (the lost fare).

If some - like the Somali cab drivers - want to stick to their silly rule even what it is against their self-interest, they should be legally free to do so. But the law certainly shouldn't protect them.

Moreover, there are some forms of discrimination that are not invidious or malicious. If a black businessman wants to hire more black workers, even when there are equally worthy non-black candidates, why shouldn't he? His purpose is not to hurt non-blacks, but just to help fellow blacks. It is natural to favor those who are more like you over those less like you. Why should the law get in the way?

If individuals were left to do as they will in a free society, we will see financial incentives to be open and tolerant to people of all faiths and nationalities. The market will also reward those who serve the interest of their own clientele. If that means some "divesity" policies or affirmative action programs, we will see that. If in other cases it means strict meritocratic qualifications, we will see that, too.

If we let freedom work, we will see lower social tensions and a more cohesive society than we do now with all of our anti-discrimination laws. Social harmony can not be created with laws and guns.