H.R. 676 (continued)

In response to my previous post, H.R. 676-The Battle is Joined , a congressional GOP candidate, Mr. John Faulk, left a comment to my essay. Rather than respond as a commentator, I thought it necessary to respond more forcefully. Hence, this post. His comment highlights the ineffectual way that most Republicans approach the crucial issues evident in this watershed election.

I have sent the following e-mail to the Faulk campaign:

Mr. John Faulk;

Re: comments left on my blog in response to my essay H.R. 676, The Battle is Joined;

H R 676 will have American Taxpayers picking up the health care cost for all 'RESIDENT" read that as illegal aliens. In Sheila Jackson Lee's supporting documents she states the 'VISITORS" to the USA will be given a National Health Care Card. Will we taxpayers have to pay for their trip to the sates also?
John Faulk
faulkforcongress.org
Help me defeat Sheila Jackson Lee

What you say is true enough, and it misses the point entirely. Would it make any difference if Sheila Jackson Lee dropped her demand for coverage for illegal aliens? NO! The issue is not who should be “covered” under HR676, but whether anyone should be forced into a government-run healthcare system at all.

As I made clear, the battle over HR676 or any other “universal healthcare” scheme is a moral fight involving the rights of the individual and the government’s proper role, which is to protect those rights. “American Taxpayers picking up the health care cost for all…illegal aliens” is a minor issue considering the enormous stakes involved in the Lee plan. By reducing the argument to one of who should or should not be “covered,” you are evading the essential issues involved, and thereby conceding defeat to the Sheila Jackson Lees of the nation.

I respectfully ask that you re-read and study my post, especially the links at the end of the essay. They provide a practical and moral roadmap to a true free market alternative to the dictatorial designs of Lee and her ilk. The fight over HR676 is a crucial one for America, which cannot be fought over minor technicalities. There is too much at stake here. If the Left is successful on HR676, it will not stop there. Food, clothing, shelter, higher education…the list is endless, and at the end of that road lies totalitarian socialism. The Dems have come down squarely on the side of the state against the individual. The GOP must offer a clear alternative, which means a principled, moral defense of individual rights.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be up to the task. Instead, I see one compromise after another after another. As a lifelong 59 year-old Republican, this is dismaying and demoralizing. Until the GOP steps up and re-establishes a principled commitment to free-market capitalism, limited government, and individual rights, it will continue to be hard for me to identify as a Republican.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan…I did not leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.

Respectfully submitted;

Mike Zemack

Mr. Faulk's focus on the immigrant issue is an example of fighting with muskets a battle that should be fought with nuclear missiles. It is all too common to the current Republican Party. Mr. Faulk focuses on a technicality. The bill’s (HR 676) sponsors will likely compromise by acceding to his objection to including illegal aliens (and perhaps a few other points), the bill gets passed in a “show of bi-partisanship,” and the Left scores a major victory.

HR 676 cannot be challenged except at its root…by challenging openly and consistently the very sacred cow of Medicare itself. It was inevitable that this day would come. There is quite simply no way one can rationally support government-run medicine for people over 65, but not under 65. If Medicare is good for some, it is good for all. If the "Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act" is bad, then Medicare is bad for all and should be abolished. It’s either-or.

H.R. 676-The Battle is Joined

“A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.”-Ayn Rand

“This issue isn't about ideas, or theories, or philosophy, or idealism. It's about providing healthcare.”-Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)

To paraphrase Sean Connery in the movie, The Untouchables: “Isn’t it just like a liberal to bring a musket to a nuclear war!”

Just as was predicted decades ago, the enactment of the government takeover of medicine for seniors would become the springboard for a complete takeover of the entire healthcare industry. Having crippled the health insurance market while eroding the quality and availability of healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid, the socialists are now ready to complete the task. The takeover attempt began officially on January 24, 2007, immediately upon the convening of the new Democratic congressional majority in congress.

But the real battle is just beginning. On July 18, 2008, a town hall meeting-style congressional hearing hosted by two of the bill’s sponsors, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) and John Conyers (D-MI), took place in Houston. The subject was H.R. 676. Here are the key provisions.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act)'.

SEC. 101. ELIGIBILITY AND REGISTRATION.
(a) In General- All individuals residing in the United States (including any territory of the United States) are covered under the USNHI Program entitling them to a universal, best quality standard of care.

SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.
(a) Requirement To Be Public or Non-Profit-
(1) IN GENERAL- No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution.

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.
(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.
(b) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.
(Emphasis was added.)

What this amounts to is the enslavement of the doctors, a destruction of the incentive to invest in healthcare improvements, a violation of the fundamental human right to profit from one’s own productive work, a complete transfer to the state of the individual’s right to make his own healthcare decisions, a ban on the right to purchase health insurance outside of the government plan. In other words, this bill establishes a healthcare dictatorship in America.

To be sure, this is not the only “universal healthcare” plan floating around. But Objectivist Gus Van Horn, who attended the July 18, 2008 town-hall-meeting style congressional hearing, has posted a detailed synopsis of what transpired. He reported:

You may not be aware of this, but in January 2007, John Conyers (D-MI) introduced legislation (HR 676) which will, for all practical purposes, nationalize the medical sector. Last Friday, after having attended a meeting I had heard nothing about until two nights before it was to occur, I was horrified and angered to learn not only that fact, but that a sizable contingent of Congressmen are working feverishly to build support for this bill among various pressure groups while deliberately keeping the voting public -- supporters and opponents alike -- in the dark about its nature.

According to the OpenCongress web site, the bill has 90 co-sponsors. (The Library of Congress lists 78.) Literature passed out on behalf of Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), further claims that HR 676 has the support of 14 "national/international" labor unions, 33 state AFL-CIO federations, 19 "national/state" organizations (ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to the American Medical Students Association), and thousands of physicians and nurses. (emphasis added)

This particular bill may be the rallying point around which all supporters of “universal healthcare” congeal.

Sylvia Bokor, who also attended the hearing and who supplied the above Conyers quote, said in a letter to the Houston Chronicle:

When healthcare does not deal with ideas, theories, philosophy or idealism, it can only deal with "practice" -- the practice of non-thinking, uneducated, brain-dead zombies who will stick a knife into you without an idea, theory, philosophy or ideal to guide their action. That's what socialize medicine boils down to. No wonder those speakers described themselves as "bleeding heart liberals." That organ, too, is no longer viable, having been bled out. [As reported on the FIRM website]

Another attendee left the following comment on Gus Van Horn’s website:

At one point Conyers spoke about doctors making $1M a year being opposed to 676 because they would have their “goose that lays the golden eggs” taken away. He was almost gleeful as he said this.

As sick as this was, I’m glad I went. It showed me how mean and petty our enemies truly are.

Mean and petty does not begin to describe the evil that lurks inside the soul of one who can make a statement of that kind. Who does Conyers think will be responsible for “providing healthcare”? But “providing healthcare” is not the motive of the socialist crowd. The government, in fact, cannot provide healthcare. Only doctors and pharmaceutical companies and other professional healthcare and health products professionals can do that. That $1M bucks is earned by doctors who actually do provide healthcare. That $1M bucks is peanuts compared to the priceless life-giving benefits provided to us by those doctors. If Conyers and his ilk really cared about “providing healthcare,” he wouldn’t be scheming to strip away the “golden eggs”…the hard-earned rewards…from those without whose vital talents there would be no healthcare for them to take over!

The true motive of the Conyers and the Lees of the world is, in part, power-lust and prestige-seeking. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Ayn Rand discovered the underlying evil behind that “golden eggs” statement. She called it hatred of the good for being the good.

With Obama and the Democrats set to sweep (seemingly) this fall, it appears that they are preparing to throw caution to the wind and go for broke. But with John Conyers declaring that “This issue isn't about ideas, or theories, or philosophy, or idealism,” he is effectively announcing a unilateral retreat from the intellectual battleground.

And therein lies their incredibly juicy Achilles heel. There is a reason why they want to avoid the field of ideas. Collectivism is a vampire that can’t stand the light of an intellectual opposition. Make no mistake, Rep. Conyers did not make an off-the-cuff statement. He meant it. “It's about providing healthcare.” Who would be against that? By keeping the battle on the concrete-bound, emotional level of discourse, the true nature of what is at stake…individual liberty on all matters concerning healthcare…can be conveniently obliterated.

The healthcare battle ahead is a philosophical/moral, not a political, battle. By and large, the GOP doesn’t seem to get it. So the fight will have to be fought at the grassroots. But armed with the right ammunition, this seemingly daunting task is far from hopeless. Letters-to-the-editor, blog posts, on-line forum activism, everyday conversations, letters to one’s congressmen…all can be effective ways to spread ideas.

Whether H.R. 676, or some other “universal healthcare” scheme dressed up with free market-sounding cliches, a sound grasp of the issues involved…especially the moral issues…is crucial to defeating the socialists. So, as Gus Van Horn has done, I am providing a list of resources for those who want to fight for their rights. There is plenty of ammunition here. Nuclear ammunition…of the kind that the Left doesn’t want to hear. A couple of articles are missing the moral component, but are valuable none-the-less in demonstrating concrete facts showing how government-run healthcare just doesn’t work. The list is published below.

The enemy is armed with muskets. We are armed with nuclear warheads…facts, truth, and moral certainty.



Websites:

We Stand FIRM

Americans for Free Choice in Medicine

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights




Essays and Articles:

Health Care is Not a Right

Ted Kennedy vs. Universal Healthcare: A Double Irony

Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”

The Right Vision Of Health Care

FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance


A Moral Outrage

Government Medical Care Always Becomes Political Medical Care

The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World

Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance

MEDICARE MYTHS
AND
FACTS

"Universal Health Care: The Wrong Prescription"

Eminent Domain- Always an Abuse

Zohar Laor reports in the Star-Ledger on a court victory for the victims of eminent domain in Long Branch, New Jersey. He reflects on the Kelo decision, calling it “a decision taken straight out of American mythology's Gotham City, [that] shocked conservatives, liberals & everyone in between by ruling that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development.”

In fact, though, that decision in Connecticut should not have shocked anyone. From as far back as the 19th century, eminent domain has been a tool of private parties to coercively advance their own economic interests. According to a Hoover Institution report:

Here again, we see nineteenth-century takings in which the government condemns land and immediately transfers it to a private party (i.e., a railroad company)…

The Supreme Court made clear the extremely close nexus between the taking of land for railroads and the public purpose to be served, circling back to questions of grave necessity, public use…

The court reasoned that if government itself had the power to regulate commerce by building highways, bridges, and the like, then it would be a legal absurdity to insist that it could not — to use the modern parlance — outsource the work to a private corporation. (emphasis added)

Eminent domain “abuse” going on today is a logical consequence of historical trends, demonstrating again the incredible power of legal precedent. . Note that the court links the justification of eminent domain to the commerce clause (article 1, section 8) of the constitution, then “circling back” to that vague, undefinable term, “public use.”

I have left the following comments to Mr. Laor’s article:

The U.S. constitution is the greatest political document ever written, because it is the only one that holds the individual as the supreme value, on principle, and seeks to protect him and his inalienable rights from the power of the state. Unfortunately, the Founders allowed into the constitution certain unfortunate loopholes that violated its own principles. Eminent Domain is one of them.

When government acquires a power, such as eminent domain, to violate the rights of any of its citizens, it inevitably becomes the tool of any group able to gain access to the lever of that power. It becomes a means for some to achieve politically...i.e., by force...what it cannot achieve through voluntary, uncoerced persuasion and trade. It makes no difference what size that group is or what their purpose is. It makes no difference what compensation is paid to the victim. The end result is the same...the violation by some of the rights of others.

There is no essential difference between the taking of property for the benefit of a private developer, or for some "public" benefit such as roads, schools, or hospitals. Each represents the interests of some private person or group. Each is achieved through the negation of the rights of others. And each is immoral.

The modest pushback against the Kelo decision, while welcome, will be only a temporary reprieve from Eminent Domain's inevitable expansion to new levels of "abuse." As long as we accept as valid the fundamental premise that government can take by force the property of any law-abiding private citizen, for whatever purpose, there is no way to contain it long term. Eminent Domain must be confronted on principle as unjust and immoral, at all times and in all circumstances.

Like most Americans, I have for most of my life accepted eminent domain as a necessary evil. But the history of eminent domain, from the railroads of the 19th century to the present, has been one of steadily expanding reach and abuse. I have concluded, then, that an uncompromising stand against eminent domain on moral grounds...i.e., on the basis of individual rights...is the only viable position. There is simply no way one can fight eminent domain "abuse" by declaring it invalid...except when it meets one's own approval. There will always be some next person who views his exception as valid.

The only way to stop eminent domain abuse is to abolish eminent domain.

Mr. Laor’s heart is in the right place, as evidenced by his concluding comment:

This episode of abuse-of-power has ended on the side of justice but at the cost of time, money and anguish.
All for a battle which shouldn't even be fought in a free society.

But his allowance for “road, schools or hospitals” undercuts and negates his “gut” opposition to eminent domain. The inherent contradictions in that stance are manifest. It is OK to take private property to build a school, a road, or a hospital. But it is not OK to take private property so a developer can build condos, which will be filled with people who will use that school, that road, and that hospital…the very things that it is OK to take private property for. The “public” in public use applies only to the users of that school, road, or hospital, but not to that property owner thrown out to make room for them. Unless, of course, the displaced landowner happens to avail himself of the use of that school, road, or hospital…in which case he becomes the “public” in public use!

The power of ideas is inexorable. Bad ideas can be fought only by means of the consistent…i.e., principled…advance of better ideas. It is not enough to fight eminent domain abuse. Eminent domain is abuse.

Abolish eminent domain!

Post Reference 35

Statistics...and Bounty Hunters

FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) has shed some light on the nature of the statistics that “prove” that socialized medicine is better than our bruised and battered, but still semi-free, American healthcare system. Referring to a piece written by Dr. Linda Halderman, Dr. Paul Hsieh (Co-founder of FIRM), cites these excerpts from her article:

FAQ-If socialized medicine is so bad, why are infant mortality rates higher in the U.S. than in other developed nations with government or single-payer health care?

...According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing <500g is not considered a living child.

But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies -- considered "unsalvageable" outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive -- is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.

...Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a "miscarriage" and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.

As Benjamin Disraeli once observed, there are “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”




Also from FIRM, it appears that our government is getting desperate. Medicare and Medicaid are now employing bounty hunters to track down “greedy”doctors who “overcharge” the government-run programs for medical services. Dr. Hsieh, referring to Dr. Evan Madianos’ post at Med Politics, writes:

The article also describes in detail the "Kafka-esque" nightmare of Dr. Jeffrey E. Kaufman, a urologist accused of overbilling for drugs. Only after he spent "countless hours of unpaid work" submitting numerous records and appeals, did he finally clear his good name of the accusations of financial impropriety.

Many physicians don't even bother to dispute the charges but instead just pay the penalty, because "the cost to the practice of retrieving the corresponding record and forwarding the information could be 10 times that amount" of the requested fine.

If this program is implemented nationwide, I expect we'll see large numbers of RAC "bounty hunters" making money by alleging real or imagined billing errors by physicians who are caught in a maze of increasingly-complex Medicare regulations that no one can be reasonably expected to follow…

The end result will be that the bureaucrats and parasites who create no actual value will make out like bandits, while the producers (i.e., the physicians) get sucked dry.

When doctors are obliged to pay the salaries of their own destroyers, this takes us dangerously close to the nightmare scenario depicted in the classic novel, Atlas Shrugged.

But the most interesting comment comes at the end of Dr. Hsieh’s post:

(Of course some doctors have decided to opt of the Medicare altogether and adopt alternative practice models, such as concierge medicine. If Medicare continues to create disincentives for physicians, I expect this trend will accelerate, just as the large numbers of Baby Boomers hit retirement -- in which case things are going to get very interesting very quickly...)

This begs the question…what if the Left’s quest for a total government takeover of medicine is successful? What if doctors no longer have the option of going into “alternative practice models”? Will doctors who cannot submit to the government’s heavy-handed tactics yet have no private-practice alternatives simply leave the field? Who will replace them? Perhaps Dr. Hendricks, the surgeon in Atlas Shrugged who quit after the government takeover of healthcare, should be heeded here:

Let them discover the kind of doctors their system will now produce. Let them discover…that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it- and even less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.

I suspect there will be a lot of Dr. Hendricks’

New Jersey's Assault on the First Amendment

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That quote is widely attributed to Voltaire, although it may actually be a take-off of Voltaire’s "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Either way, Voltaire speaks for anyone who cherishes his First Amendment rights, myself included.

On July 31, 2008, New Jersey’s Supreme Court expanded the reach of the state’s “anti-discrimination” statutes by declaring that “Making jokes and comments about a person's religion can create a ‘humiliating and painful environment’ and be a form of on-the-job discrimination…,” reports the New Jersey Star Ledger. According to staff writer Kate Coscarelli;

The New Jersey Supreme Court said remarks about someone's faith -- even as a form of ribbing or "breaking of chops" -- cannot be tolerated in the workplace.

Clarifying anti-discrimination law, the court declared that a person claiming religious-based harassment does not face a higher legal hurdle than people who claim they were discriminated against because of their sex or race.

"It is necessary that our courts recognize that the religion-based harassing conduct that took place ... in this 'workplace culture' is as offensive as other forms of discriminatory, harassing conduct outlawed in this state," Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote for a unanimous court.

The ruling holds the borough of Haddonfield in Camden County accountable for discrimination claims made by a Jewish police officer whose co-workers made crass comments -- claimed to be poor attempts at humor -- about his ethnicity and pasted stickers of the flags of Israel and modern Germany on his locker.

By now it should be obvious where we are headed. The power of legal precedent has been unleashed against our free speech rights and the First Amendment. As a result, we are witnessing the logical consequence…a steady reduction on what we are “allowed” to say. In other words, we are fast approaching the day when American citizens think and speak only by permission, not by right. At the end of that road lies dictatorship.

The First Amendment right to free speech is limited only when it can objectively and reasonably be proven to result in physical harm, or the threat thereof, to others. The proverbial “yelling fire in a crowded theater” is an example of that. (Indirect physical or material harm such as in the case of libel can be addressed through the civil courts.) In other words, only when the rights of others are violated can government properly intervene. Otherwise, the right in a free society to speak out is absolute.

But once we accepted a single breech in the absolute principle of free speech, the die was cast. From campaign finance laws, to “commercial” speech restrictions, to "hate” crime and “hate’ speech legislation (prevalent in Europe), to attacks on lobbyists, to laws against “offensive” speech, to FCC restrictions on “violence” and “obscenity” in media content, to the attempt to revive the “fairness-doctrine”…the government’s ever-expanding encroachment on our freedom is evident. All of these restrictions require the government to determine what is offensive, or hateful, or fair, etc…i.e., to engage in the coercive control of ideas. That kind of power in the hands of the state is inevitably the death knell for any free society.

If any politician were to openly advocate for the repeal of the First Amendment, he would be “tarred and feathered” at the polls. But the First Amendment is being systematically repealed, piece by piece, right before our eyes.

Those who are the victims of offensive or insensitive remarks, or of a “hostile” work environment, have the same free speech rights as the offenders. He can fight back verbally, and enlist the support of co-workers or his superiors to put a stop to it if necessary. He can form an ad hoc group to resort to social ostracism of bigoted offenders. In a worst case, he is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere, or start his own business. And, of course, there is that great strength that is the hallmark of a free society…rational, non-coercive intellectual and social activism. Or he can simply ignore the bigot, which is usually the best course of action except in the most extreme circumstances. As long as the initiation of or the threat of force is absent, the same free speech rights that enables the offender can be employed by the victim (or any motivated person) in a myriad of ways.

Short of instances where an employee’s actual rights are violated, it is the responsibility and right of the employer to determine what kind of behavior is appropriate in his workplace and what is not, and to act accordingly. Yes, some may face the injustice of being fired by an insensitive employer for being a “trouble-maker.” Never-the-less, what one does not have the right to do is to agitate for the negation by governmental action of anyone’s free speech rights, because that would also negate the rights of the innocent, including one’s own. If one person’s rights are violated, then the rights of all are violated.

Loyalty to any principle, including the principles underlying the First Amendment, requires…demands…that the rights of all are protected including those of its worst practitioners. Flag burners, Ku Klux Klaners, Nazis, Black Separatists, Communists, and there ilk all have the right to express themselves, however “offensive” that may be. The same goes for those who engage in verbally offensive behavior or who express discriminatory viewpoints. (The vandalizing of the property of others, such as with the pasting of stickers on another’s locker, is wrong and should be punished. But that is a property rights, not a free speech, issue.) The line that separates the vague and undefinable term “offensive,” or one’s right to discriminate (however irrational), from true harassment is determined by when the initiation or threat of physical force commences.

A government may enact bad policy and law. But as long as people are free to speak up, there is open the possibility for change. If there is a single turning point where a nation tips from freedom into outright tyranny, that turning point is at the juncture that separates the coercive power of the state from the individual’s ability to speak freely. By failing to protect the First Amendment rights of its worst practitioners, we are careening toward that tipping point. As distasteful as it may be to defend the rights of bigots or “harassers” …and it is very distasteful to me…that is what is required to defend the First Amendment. Our Constitution guarantees not what you can say, but that you can say it.

So to paraphrase Voltaire, I detest the kind of offensive and unjust racial, sexual, religious or any other kind of despicable language that is the target of the laws that led to the Court’s decision. But for the sake of the survival of a free society, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Post Reference 34

Obama’s “Argument from Intimidation”

“There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate… It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as ‘The Argument from Intimidation.’ ”-Ayn Rand

In my critique of Senator Barack Obama’s March 18, 2008, “more perfect union” speech, I said that his handling of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy was about more than Wright’s comments. He was throwing down a gauntlet…essentially declaring that any principled, intellectual ideas that don’t conform to his collectivist-statist agenda would not be tolerated. On May 10, 2008, I wrote:

“When Obama calls on us to “come together”, it is not to voluntary cooperation and association among individuals with common interests that he is referring. It is the independent thinker that he is aiming to subdue. Consider his response to the Reverend Wright controversy. “Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity.” If “divisiveness” is a criterion for condemning what any person says, then any “controversial” idea…i.e., one that threatens the “unity” of the accepted group (i.e., state) wisdom…can be disqualified. The outrageous comments of a Reverend Wright, and the passionate defense of individual rights against the collective offered by the Founding Fathers can both be called “divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity.” His “unity” message is simply a means of discrediting and silencing principled intellectual opposition to his designs.” (emphasis added)

Terry Eastland, on the Weekly Standard blog, reports the following:

“McCain's decision to support the Arizona civil rights initiative, on the ballot on Election Day this fall, means that a critical campaign issue is now in play. The initiative, patterned after ones in California, Washington, and Michigan, requires that the state of Arizona neither advantage nor disadvantage its citizens on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex in allocating limited educational, employment, and contracting opportunities. In those three areas, where state governments have most commonly used race, ethnicity, and sex to favor certain citizens over others--under the name of affirmative action--the initiative proposes nothing less than colorblind law.”

Colorblind law…the principle that all people, as individuals, are equal before the law…is rooted in the principle of inalienable individual rights. This goes straight to the heart of what America stands for. So what was the Obama response? Writes Mr. Eastland:

“Having come out for the Arizona initiative, McCain can't allow himself to be so intimidated by Democratic attacks (note Obama has already accused McCain of taking a position that’s “divisive”) that he fails to argue in its behalf--that he quits on it. Which is, of course, exactly what Obama and his aides would like to see McCain do.” (emphasis added)

As I wrote on May 10, the true significance of Obama’s speech was missed by most of the GOP and conservative opposition:

“But what really counts, in my view, are the abstract principles…the essence…hidden in plain sight throughout this speech.”

The essence of what Obama stands for, as I argued in my three-part critique, is profound hostility toward individual rights. He is the most anti-American major presidential candidate, philosophically speaking, in my lifetime and perhaps in this country’s history. The central principle in the Arizona civil rights initiative is inalienable individual rights. The central principle that Obama must not just oppose but refuse to allow to even enter into the 2008 campaign debate is inalienable individual rights. That is because the central principle that can blow up Obama’s entire collectivist agenda is inalienable individual rights.

Clearly, Mr. Eastland is worried that McCain is not up to the task of overcoming Obama’s Argument from Intimidation…the accusation of divisiveness. But it is crucially important that he does. With this election shaping up as a watershed for America’s future, Obama can not be allowed to frame the entire campaign on his collectivist premise. His strategy for smothering principled debate, openly announced by him on March 18, must be exposed and shut down. What this country desperately needs is exactly the kind of knock-down, ideological-philosophical, divisive campaign battle that Obama fears…one that challenges his socialist-statist agenda with a powerful moral platform of capitalism and individual rights. The Arizona civil rights initiative is tailor-made for the firing of the opening shots.

McCain has said that this campaign will be about big ideas. Now is his chance to make good on that promise. Is he up to the task? We’ll see, but I’m not holding my breath. Alas, his record and stance on other key issues (McCain-Feingold, national service, his support for the $300+ billion mortgage bailout bill, which President Bush recently signed) do not bode well for the current campaign, for the GOP, or for individual rights.

Commentary 40- The "Animal Rights" Threat to Man's Rights

Do not ask for whom the environmentalist bell tolls…it tolls for you (and your family).

The question of animal rights is so obviously absurd that one is tempted to dismiss it with a snicker. One envisions the idea of establishing a police force to patrol the forests and to arrest animals that attack other animals, or to appoint lawyers to represent animals suing other animals. This is the stuff of comic books.

Except that we are not dealing with a comic book story here. Spain is apparently close to adopting a law declaring that apes and other non-human primates have “rights.” In response, Russell Paul La Valle has written a powerful rejoinder to the ideas, and the person, behind both the proposed law and the animal rights movement. It is powerful, because he defends human rights on not only factual but also moral grounds. Here are the relevant excerpts:

Should animals have rights? The quick and only logical answer is no. A "right" is a moral principle that governs one's freedom of action in society. This concept is uniquely, and exclusively, human — man is the only being capable of grasping such an abstraction, understanding his actions within a principled framework and adjusting his behavior so as not to violate the rights of others. The source of rights is man himself, his nature and his capacity for rational thought. To give rights to creatures that are irrational, amoral and incapable of living in a rights-based environment makes a mockery of the very concept of rights and, ultimately, threatens man. (Russell Paul La Valle: Why they're human rights)

I have posted the following comments to the essay:

There is a crucial difference between man and all other living species. As Mr. La Valle points out, man is the only species whose means of survival (reason) requires that he adapt his background to his needs.

The same dangerous logic that leads to “rights” for apes will be the precedent that leads to “rights” for all species. He is correct that this is a threat to man. If animals have “rights” equivalent to man, then man’s very means of survival is negated. It reduces man to existence on the same level as animals, depriving him of exploiting nature through reason and productive work, for that would violate the “rights” of other species.

That’s the real purpose of the animal rights movement, which recognizes the legitimacy of the means of survival of every living species but man. It’s not love of animals, but hatred of man, that motivates this movement. There’s no conflict between protecting animals from malicious cruelty and recognition of rights as the exclusive domain of man.

Without a moral foundation, the concept of individual human rights can not be defended properly. That is because man is the only rational, moral being on earth. So I will expand a bit on the issue because the ultimate consequences are so serious.

In a free society, each individual is free to pursue his own well-being and happiness through his own productive efforts, and in voluntary association and trade with others. He is legally restricted, basically, by the need to respect the rights of others. He can build a home, but not by cutting down his neighbor’s trees. He can acquire the food produced by others, but only by paying a mutually agreed-upon price, not by theft. But imagine human beings being legally prohibited from cutting down trees to manufacture the lumber for the construction of homes…or being forbidden from cultivating fields for crops…because that would violate the “rights” of an owl that lives in that tree, or the mice that live in that field. Burdened by the need to respect the rights not only of other men, but of other species, man is thus cut off from the ability to exploit the bounty provided by nature for the production of the values required to survive and thrive. So Look around. Virtually everything our lives depend on...from the most vital to the least consequencial...can be seen as violating some creature's "rights." He is cut off, in other words, from the use of his primary means of survival…his rational faculty.

Denied of his means of survival, man is reduced to living on the level of animals…but without the automatic, instinctual survival mechanism possessed by all other living creatures. He is condemned, to put it bluntly, to death. Such is the nature of and ultimate logical consequence of the ascription of rights to animals.

Again, it would be easy for a rational person to dismiss so obviously outrageous an idea as “animal rights.” But make no mistake, ideas have consequences. Legal precedents take on a powerful life of their own. The "anti-concept" of animal rights is a dagger aimed right at the very survival of the human race. The logical consequences that lie at the end of the animals rights road is human devastation. The animal rights ideology being codified into law in Spain is a future tool for some totalitarian regime to enslave the human population in the name of the rights of all species. If you think I am exaggerating about the power of ideas, take a look at history. Just look at the thousand years of darkness and misery spawned by the mind-hating ideas of Ambrose and Augustine, which ended only when the great St. Thomas Aquinas’s revival of reason and Aristotelianism blazed the path to the Renaissance. Just look at what America’s Founding Fathers did with the Enlightenment ideas of reason, individualism, and limited republican government (made possible by Aristotle and Aquinas). Just look what the Communists did with the ideas of Marx in Soviet Russia. Just look what the Nazis did in Germany based on Kant’s anti-reason ideas of altruism and duty.

The animal rights movement, a sub-sect of environmentalist theology, is not primarily concerned with animal well-being. The leaders and financiers of this movement know exactly what they are doing. The consequences of their movement, if allowed to proceed to their logical conclusion, are too devastatingly obvious. It is not to police the woods or to lawyer up animals, but to shackle man…not the “freedom” of animals, but the enslavement of man…not the “rights” of animals, but the destruction of the rights of man…that this movement is about.

Spain is not some primitive backwater, but a major Western industrial power that has embarked on a path to human rights destruction. That is what makes this issue so important. Germany, too, was a major Western industrial power before degenerating into the barbarism of National Socialism. The Animal rights movement is about to emerge from the intellectual fringe into the mainstream of Western legal thought, via Spain’s pending law. It is a poison pill that will spread like a virus if not stopped. Stopping it begins by gaining a proper understanding of the nature of Man,s Rights…which are embodied in our Declaration of Independence…and of the movement’s true motives, which is not compassion for animals (although that is undoubtedly the motive of many well-meaning followers).

To be sure, the animal rights movement is not the only, but just the latest, major threat to individual rights and a free society. A misunderstanding and/or outright ignorance of the concept of rights, both in Spain and elsewhere…including in America…is enabling the destruction of individual rights to proceed in a veritable intellectual vacuum. But the knowledge of the nature of rights…the ammunition required for the battle against all forms of tyranny…is readily available to anyone willing to pick it up. Mr. La Valle has given an example of the proper way to advocate for and spread that knowledge.

(Note: Russell Paul La Valle is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute.)

Post Reference 34