Unless a principled stance is taken, unless man’s rational and natural rights to life, liberty, and property are defended consistently, this is exactly what will come to America:

I am very concerned this will happen here, not in an isolated sense, but because a ban on weapons will expedite further erosion of our freedoms.

This threat is only a symptom of the underlying issue, our failure to properly regard individual rights. Despite a large segment of our population who’ll resist, the reason organizations such as the NRA will prove to be impotent in the long term is that they don’t crusade on consistent principles, and they’re really only fighting to rearrange Titanic Deck Chairs.

What value is there in a right to a firearm (a specific piece of property) if individual construction is criminal and oppressive regulation and taxes eliminate manufacturing of such property? Many of the same people who’ll boldly proclaim their right to firearms will waffle on (or concede) the “right” to health care, minimum wage, education, or any other phony privilege based on force. Failing to abstract, they won’t object on principle to government intrusion into private business, but fail to see how such injustice threatens them when used for ends they disagree with.

Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it—intellectually and physically. - Philosophy: Who Needs It

I’m most intimidated by gun bans because a government that would ban and confiscate weapons is far enough down the road to tyranny that economic stagnation, and the desperation and violence which accompany it, can’t be far behind.

Desperate and violent times are when I want to be able to defend my family and myself the most.

An excellent post by GVH explores the next ring in the chain of America’s tyrannical noose. Staying true to the cause of trampling rights, specifically the right of Employers to set their own terms with Employees, our Dictators strive to restrict Hospitals from taking disciplinary action against workers who refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable. Since morality is subjective and arbitrary for a large percentage of people, virtually any action can be refused on moral grounds - and Hospitals can’t take any punitive measures! Because there probably won’t be any repercussions for such negligence starting in the near future, we can only hope in the event of a medical need that the ER attending can’t imagine any arbitrary reason to object to our aid on moral grounds.

Two areas of interest here: the broad offense of mingling religion and Government, and the interference by Government in the private terms between two individuals (employer and employee) - both violations of rights by the supposed protector of rights. The first represents a blatant protest for why this country was founded, and the second, which underlies a tremendous record of economic strangling, has become so mainstream that most people don’t even question it.

Employers and employees are individuals acting in voluntary agreement. So long as no force is involved, either party is able to abandon the relationship on any grounds they deem appropriate. If an employee wants the job, they’ll concede to the terms of the employer. If the employer allows duty exemptions based on personal moral objections, they do - if they don’t they don’t. It’s their right as the property owning agent to set their terms as they see fit. For Government to intervene by trumping such terms is a violation of their rights to life, liberty and property. The employer’s livelihood depends on their ability to remain profitable by conducting their business in a way that consumers pay them for services. In order to scale their business, they must hire competent individuals that add at least as much value as they cost. To achieve such gains, the employer has the right to set the terms of employment lend themselves accordingly. They also have the right to dictate the terms for another individuals presence on their property.

When Government interferes with the Employer’s rightful discretion regarding employment terms, not only are they violating property rights by negating the employers ability to set the terms for another individuals presence on their property, they are also interfering with their ability to manage their employees, a violation of their right to act freely in their best interest which effectively limits their ability to scale their business, which directly affects their livelihood.

Whether we’re talking about forcing an employer to pay wages based on metrics other than they choose, forcing them to allow individuals on their property with firearms regardless of their discretion, or forcing them to make exemptions in their terms of employment based on arbitrary religious whims - all are violating the employers rights.

People that condone such intrusive power by Government usually fail to think beyond the concrete terms relating to their specific moral compass. Never mind the fact that a proper Government doesn’t initiate force, many Christians are fine with injecting religion into Law (or education), but fail to consider (by abstraction) the threat which such authority would impose if any other religion or standard of morality were plugged into the same power template. Likewise, collectivists are fine with the idea of trumping rights as long as it’s their moral code which is the guiding agent. Once a Government has the overall authority to force, the restricting stipulations will vary with consensus. Those who don’t hesitate to use Government to force their beliefs on others, in doing so they’re also establishing the precedent and plumbing for such force to be diverted to a cause they wouldn’t dare condone. They don’t mind giving the key to their front door to a neighbor for purposes they approve, but in doing so they’ve granted him the means to betray their terms. Now that he has it, he may come in at will and wreak any havoc he chooses, or copy the key a thousand times so every thug in town can also help themselves. Such is the risk of failure to abstract.

As stated by Gus…

If leftists really didn’t want to be under the knife of fundamentalist doctors, they would support freeing all medical care from government control, and then take advantage of that freedom to boycott such physicians. Likewise, if conservatives really valued freedom of conscience for physicians, they, too, would begin working to get the government out of medicine. They could have whole hospitals that didn’t practice abortion! (But then, they would have to give up on their dream of forcing everyone else to abide by their arbitrary dicta.)

Our freedom is eroding from both sides of the isle because both fail to properly regard the individual. Not only must we abandon any law that tramples an employers right to set their own terms with employees, so we must abolish any legal tenet that violates an individuals rights to life, liberty or property.

A recent post by Andy Clarkson, regarding reason as the proper means of human interaction, is a perfect illustration of how a sound principle can provide extremely persuasive, or at least thought provoking, dialogue.

In a recent lengthy discussion with a friend who is an Obama supporter, she wanted to focus upon economics. Her view was that top economists had endorsed Obama. Why was that not enough for me to support him?

One, I refused to discuss economics. I explained to her that there are different schools of economics and each is based upon different philosophical premises.

Two, I told her that no matter what issue or argument she would bring up, my answer would be exactly the same. I oppose the initiation of force against another human being.

And then I provided a list of examples: murder, rape, taxes, robbery, burglary, slavery and so on. I explained that the only proper way for human beings to interact is based upon reason, persuasion, logic, discussion, collaboration, and so on.

I didn’t budge from this stand because it provided the moral high ground. It also provided the platform for extending the conversation eventually into selfishness, rights, and capitalism.

The approach was successful in that she shifted focus from economics and began asking questions about rights. The conversation will continue. But I will be sure to use moral opposition to the initiation of force as “home base” — and more importantly the role of reason and persuasion as the proper means of interaction.

I think it is also the ideal response for shorter conversations or one- liners. [emphasis mine]

I really like this tactic. In similar conversations I typically promote rights as the determining factor. I usually contend that if an action violates ones right to life, liberty, or property than it is immoral, unjust and certainly not within the proper role of Government - the protector of rights. Of course Andy’s litmus test, being wider in abstraction, would include my condition because to violate a right is to encroach upon it by initiating force. The hazard of the “rights” angle is that many people don’t have a sound integration of the concept, which can lead to a more involved conversation of rights, privileges, and all the potential tangents - a conversation that would likely require a more lengthy discussion than appropriate. With the “initiation of force” angle, there are fewer underlying premises to manage and the point is still made.

His more abstract principle lends itself to more persuasive and less controversial dialogue. He sows the see without trying to rip the old plant by its roots - which I’ve learned the futility of doing so, the hard way.

I also appreciate how Andy integrated this tactic into his letter to our state officials:

I ask that you take into consideration one principle as you judge whether to support or oppose various issues in the coming year.

That principle is the immorality of the initiation of force against another human being. Initiation of force against another human being is immoral because it destroys human beings’ primary means of survival.

The primary means of survival for human beings is: reason. Reason, logic, persuasion, discussion, collaboration are the only moral means of human interaction.

Obvious examples of the initiation of force include murder, rape, robbery, and slavery.

To some, less obvious examples include taxes, fraud, required or compulsory community service, the military draft.

The common thread among all of these examples is the actual use of physical force or the threat of physical force if one does not comply with the demands of another. None of these examples involves reason, logic, or persuasion. Thus they are immoral.

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens — through proper police force, courts, and jails. When the government violates the rights of its citizens by initiating force, it destroys or violates the lives of those citizens.

I ask that you focus upon this principle as you make your decisions.

He’s presented here an excellent display of the power of principles.

A potential answer for all the screams for fuel efficiency will likely never meet Americas highways.

Ford’s 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here’s the catch: Despite the car’s potential to transform Ford’s image and help it compete with Toyota Motor ™ and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. “We know it’s an awesome vehicle,” says Ford America President Mark Fields. “But there are business reasons why we can’t sell it in the U.S.” The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

………………..

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline.

Other sources cite the tremendous costs and technical changes Ford would face trying to meet EPA approval. To put it in other terms - Ford can’t build and sell a product according to their terms, because the US Government violates property rights.

Well, the day has come when America has elected a president of a different race than all that preceded him. The usual suspects boast of America’s progress and lament how proud Martin Luther King would be - as if their collectivist triumph, which happens to be championed on this particular day by a man of mixed race, carry the same moral nobility as Dr. King’s genuine crusade for a colorblind world.

MLK correctly promoted that men abstain from taking the crude intellectual shortcut of assessing another man based on his genetic lineage, i.e, overlooking an individual in favor of a group. Yet, in this great day of change, a tremendous number of people did exactly that, and on a more fundamental level, they elected a man who’s an avowed collectivist, i.e, one who overlooks individuals in favor of a group as his exclusive method.

Draw your own conclusions about progress.

A man’s philosophy drives his every decision. When such decisions extend into the realm of wielding force against a nation of individuals, the importance of his philosophy is immeasurable. How he regards our rights to life, liberty, and property, how he reveres the proper scope of government, his sense of justice – these are the keys one should consider when evaluating a political candidate, especially one looking to rule a nation.

I didn’t vote. Given the choice of poison or venom - I’ll stay home. Yes, the current dimwit imbecile is on his way out - good for America. No, we won’t be harnessed by a theocratic regime - great for America. At least our march into collectivist stagnation will be orchestrated with the style and class of a charismatic and well-spoken dictator.

Race, like sex, doesn’t determine one’s philosophy, intelligence or ability. However, for a country plagued in its infancy by the irrational collectivist disease of slavery, and since longing to be colorblind - today is one of symbolic significance. For a culture rank with sloppy attire, unintelligible slang and nearly void of aspiration to achieve anything of rational value, a neatly dressed, extremely well-spoken man in a successful and honored position is a unprecedented role-model and cultural icon. This is good for America.

What the man will do is not. Obama is a collectivist by his every statement. He does not regard individuals with any degree of sanctity. People are merely spokes in the wheel of his vision. This is bad for America. Obama will treat men as property of the State, and as such, what should properly be considered as rights will be treated as privileges. When property is a privilege, wealth can be confiscated, guns can be collected, and business regulations can be enforced. When men are seen as means to a collective end, any portion of their life, liberty or property can be used as the ruler desires. As in every collectivized society in the history of man, individuals drained of their rightful motive and means to survive will stagnate in passivity. This is bad for America. Men wrangled with regulation, dictates and plunder, while also being denied the proper means to protect themselves from other men in desperation from the same oppression is a society doomed to resort to animalistic survival. This is bad for America.

If instead of an avowed collectivist, this candidate were a rational-minded individual who valued justice, freedom, and rights, this day could be one celebrated by all Americans. Instead, such a day of pride for many Americans coincidentally spearheads a likely fatal stab in the back of all Americans by way of undermining our essence. I’d like very much to share the celebratory sentiment, but in the context of freedom and individual rights, today is a very dark day.

I’ve become firearm enthusiast. I like the engineering, I like the power, I like the security. Firearms are a tribute to the focus of mans mind on the endeavor to protect his life.

A particularly uncomfortable confrontation in the street out front of our rental house in 2006 prompted my official foray into the world of firearms. We were building our current home and had the opportunity for very cheap and flexible rent through a colleague of my wife. Every deal is a tradeoff and in this case the trade was cheap rent for a somewhat shady locale. There are areas in most towns referred to as the wrong side of the tracks - this home would have been built on the tracks. One side of the street was warm and pleasant, the other dark and risky.

I grew up like many guys with BB and Pellet rifles. We lived on several wooded acres so plinking targets, cans or birds out in the back yards was no big deal. Growing up in a small rural suburb meant I had family and friends that were avid outdoorsman, and through them I gained experience with shotguns and rifles. My father had both and a revolver, but I never really paid much attention to them. He instilled a healthy sense of fear, both in the inherent dangers of guns and especially the dangers of me tampering with his guns. I remained very distant, if not isolated from deadly weapons from my early teens until a few years ago.

A few hair-raising stares in downtown Charlotte on dark early mornings as I walked in from the parking lot initiated my curiosity. The booming, lowered and tinted thug-mobile pugnaciously blocking my driveway at the rental house one late winter night was the deciding factor that led me to a serious approach to self-defense.

I have a tendency to take on new endeavors in a very dedicated manner and this one would be no exception. I very quickly recognized that a firearm in incompetent hands is a liability that can ruin lives. I joined a few ranges, one near work, and one near home and began training a few days per week. I soaked up as much info as I could find. I tapped into a new realm of industry, culture and controversy. I also started to really enjoy shooting and the mechanical aspects of maintenance and part upgrades. I learned that like any market, there were niche offerings for specialize purposes. There are pistols small enough for effective concealment, there are those with upgraded components and tailored for accuracy, there are those optimized virtually every situation one could be in requiring such power at their disposal. As a natural progression I started to look into the rifle market. There are traditional bolt-action rifles and there are the modular, military inspired tactical rifles. The latter are far more interesting to me. The AR-15 platform is a very innovative and flexible weapon. In addition, it’s also the weapon of choice for those who’d prefer me not have the ability to defend myself with deadly force. It’s a powerful, customizable, all-purpose and pleasantly engineered source of anxiety for the irrational - I’ll take two of those.

I must get to the point.

I’m going hunting this year for the first time in 20 years. I’m excited - not necessarily about killing an animal, but about the exercise as a whole. The excitement of being outdoors, gearing up to face the weather, acting covert, relying on the technological masterpiece in your hands, the rush of the kill, and the reward of food to show for it in some cases. Depending on the game, there are some I’d actually prefer not to kill. Deer, I appreciate, but if we’re talking about an undeniably ugly and unappealing beast such as a bore, fox or coyote - I’ll have absolutely no reservations about their elimination.

I carried a vague awareness of restrictions around hunting. I knew there were certain times of the year that hunting with particular types of weapons was common. What I had been naively insulated from was the tyrannical invasiveness of our game laws. Given the overreaching club of Government in all other areas of our lives, why would it surprise me that essentially I have to ask the state permission to act within my proper role on the food chain?

I’m required a license to hunt or fish. I can’t go kill a varmint without paying a fee to the State. Even after which I’m only privileged to kill so many, and only during very brief time periods. What weapon I use to kill is restricted. What caliber I use is restricted. What time of day I do so is restricted. The sex of the animal I claim is restricted.

Does the state own all the animals? Or, do animals have rights? What a brilliant concoction of Environmentalism and Gun Control! And consider the potential revenue stream - subjective law always proves to be an adequate means to control men and loot their pockets.

The animals are either property, or they have a right to life. Which is the State implying? All arguments supporting these laws are founded in one of these foundations, neither of which can hold their weight on either moral nor practical grounds (the moral always is the practical).

Laws should be based on rights.

• There is no specific right to have an ample supply of game for hunting.
• Animals have no rights.
• Man has a right to his life, liberty and property.

Who’s right to what am I forcefully violating by hunting according to my own terms? Men have the right to their lives, their liberty and their property - all three of which are violated by this perversion of justice. Hunting to eat, freedom to do so at my discretion and the right to do so unchallenged on my on land are all three dependent on the consent of the State. Once again, another sick inversion of the proper role of government. The supposed protector of rights is the violator.

Anyone surprised?

Can you imagine our founder’s response to the notion that what was a staple of survival in their time has now been criminalized? America, as they envisioned and died for, no longer exists.

A great read from GVH…

What is government? What is it for? What does it do? How does it do it? Not one of these questions comes up, and yet we’re carrying on a discussion of how to get a better field of candidates as if we were all on a corporate search committee. Except that the government doesn’t pay too well. And for some reason, the United States hasn’t restructured or spun off a few states to become more manageable. And it has a Constitution, at least for the moment. Why?

These unusual properties of the job of a government official all relate to the nature of the government as it is today, although one needs to know further whether we have a proper government in order to know whether any given aspect of the job would normally be a factor — or whether there are other factors or qualifications we ought to consider, but haven’t.

I am not going to discuss the proper nature of government at length here, today. (Ayn Rand has done that already, and far better than I could, anyway.) I will note that the government is the only social institution that can legally wield physical force — the delegated retaliatory force of self-defense of the citizens — and its only proper purpose is the protection of individual rights.

In contrast to the electorate at the time of America’s founding, an astounding percentage of the population today does not grasp the nature or purpose of government. This means that, as voters, they will demand — and get — candidates committed to misusing government force for other purposes at the expense of the protection of our freedom. The Founders were aware that such a day could come and deliberately made it difficult for the government to actively do things beyond its proper function. They called it “checks and balances”.

In that light, the very idea of calling for a more “competent” government officialdom should cause the spine of anyone who values his freedom to tingle. Competent? To do what? Make the trains run on time? Even if they can make you board those trains to somewhere you don’t want to go? Our problems are not because our government is run by incompetents, but because it is frequently doing the wrong thing, although not, so far, to the degree of running trains to an Auschwitz.

In addition to calls for “better” officials putting the cart before the horse, it is worth noting that, due to government meddling in the economy, there is a vast misconception — shared by Reynolds — that our government officials need to be Renaissance men.

Why? Their proper job description is actually rather simple.

This argument has surface plausibility due to the unnecessary complexity of the mixed economy. (Thus, it is also related to the notion I elaborated on earlier that voters need to be near-omniscient to make good electoral choices) But this argument is wrong, and often reflects an inability by those who hold it to think in terms of principles. As I said before:

Heinlein has it half-right that figuring out how to vote requires an “enormous” amount of time. It does take time, it is true, to master the principles on which our nation was founded. However, once one does this, these principles greatly simplify how one approaches any subsequent election, even in today’s context of massive government intrusion. Anyone who thinks that each election requires enormous amounts of study before one can vote intelligently does not understand the cognitive role of principles.

“Protect my individual rights, and do not violate them,” is the basic principle by which I would want a government official to act. Yes, he would have to have some idea of what individual rights are, but it would not matter one jot whether he were a Creationist, a global warming hysteric, an animist, a Moslem, or (usually) uncomfortable thinking about scientific concepts, so long as what he did in office was guided by that principle. And, under a proper government, his power to adversely affect my life would be greatly diminished compared to what it is today.

We do need cultural change, but what Reynolds calls cultural “change” is just more of the same. What needs to change about our culture is for more people to understand the nature of individual rights and the proper role of the government. Each, incidentally, entails a discovery of proper ethical principles — which, incidentally, actually run counter to the altruism Reynolds prescribes.

Until that happens, we will remain in an inherently unstable mixed economy that will alternately drift and lurch towards totalitarianism. The government will increasingly attempt the impossible: replace the minds of millions of individuals with bureaucrats and inflexible rules in order to run an economy for 300 million plus. This will cause problems, which the government will expand to attempt to “fix” ad infinitum.

The government can not run the economy and should not try. There is no such thing as a government official competent for that job, and that is a job I frankly want to remain undone because I have work of my own to do and want politicians out of my way. And there is nothing wrong with me wanting to live my own life as I see fit. In fact, that is good. [emphasis mine]

Read the whole thing if you can…

I’m still leaning heavily towards not voting in this election, and for the same reasons detailed here. There is only a single issue that stands out as a distinguishing characteristic between these clowns - self defense with deadly force.

The NRA, an organization I can no longer support due to their pragmatic indifference to property rights, is really hammering on the obvious anti-gun (read: anti-property rights) intentions of Obama. Here is a bullet list of their key points:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

Sure he does. He wants justices that will legislate his collectivist agenda from the bench in spite of the constitution.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

I’m sure it was poorly crafted with full intent.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

Sure he did. A subjective legal system is a handy tool for a man of which force is the preferred means to deal with men.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

No surprise here.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

Yes, he is anti-gun - which means no guns, no ammo. An unarmed population is easier to control.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

In a nation riddled with subjective law, a rogue court system who’ll trample the constitution at will, and a population of which the majority doesn’t properly respect rights, this is essentially the only issue that clearly distinguishes Obama from McCain.  If we’re going to be subjected to inadequate protection from people who’ll forcefully violate our rights in a system that only hints at a standard of justice, I want to be able to protect myself and my family by any means necessary.  I want to have the ability to issue deadly force at all times.

My life and the lives of my family are precious and irreplaceable.  One candidate conveys a clear intent to deny me the means to better protect myself, while at the same time promoting policies that will amplify those very threats. The other promotes policies just as vile, and shows disdain for individuals and freedom comparable to his opponent - but, he claims to support my right to self-defense.  With a few exceptions, his record supports the claim.
With either outcome, the sanctity of the individual will further erode into some collectivist variant.  With Either outcome, what’s left of Capitalism will take a tremendous blow.  With either outcome, the irrational philosophies of the majority will yet again have their way.  For the first time since 9/11 and only the second time in my adult life, I have a sense of fear.  I fear that the economic destruction resulting from years of pragmatic ignorance will inevitably become the fissure releasing decades of hatred, panic and misery that’s brewing within our divided population.  When/if that storm erupts, we’ll see savagery from men scrapping for survival that I can’t imagine.  Weapons won’t guarantee survival, but they will provide an increased odds.  The process of disarming us is well underway and this election could enable a substantial boost for such cause.

Pulling the lever for McCain won’t save Capitalism, it won’t rescue individualism, it won’t promote reason, and in fact it will perpetuate several vile mystical and tyrannical movements.  But, it may enable us to retain our right to self-defense and possibly shift the momentum of a movement that will certainly injure our republic.  A vote for McCain may enable us to survive long enough to see the day of reason.

Men of reason don’t rely on force for survival, but even Hank Rearden appreciated the value of gun ownership.  Is this sufficient motivation to cast a ballot?

Read the rest of this entry »

A particularly repulsive violation of property rights is the saga brewing near my hometown in Clemmons, NC. This swirling storm of pragmatic tyranny and economic ignorance has now climaxed into a court hearing. My exposure to this silly soap opera is courtesy of my father, a Novant Health employee for over 30 years. Essentially the dispute revolves around bureaucrats and those cowards who leverage them, namely Baptist Hospital, forcefully violating the property rights of another private entity - Novant Health. Novant seeks to build a new community Hospital - Baptist and the bureaucrats object because Baptist wants to also build in the same region. Competition creates value, so this can only mean higher quality service for residents in the area right? Oh no, when you stir a giant pot of pragmatism with a collectivist stick, the only results are force and economic decay.

The political details of the dispute are irrelevant, so I won’t waste any time documenting them here. Here are the only relevant facts.

• Two hospitals are competing for the same geographic region.
• In any private endeavor, the individuals funding the venture stand to profit or lose their own resources.
• In a market free of coercion, consumers solicit the services which provide the most value.
• In a free country, property rights are sovereign and not to be trumped by the state - regardless of what collectivist tenet they scream.

In denial of all of the above facts, for some reason the State of North Carolina assumes the power to grant or deny growth in the Health Care industry. Through some magical analysis void of economic or moral merit they compute the sovereignty of property rights under the guise of a Certificate Of Need.

From the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation:

The North Carolina Certificate of Need Law prohibits health care providers from acquiring, replacing, or adding to their facilities and equipment, except in specified circumstances, without the prior approval of the Department of Health and Human Services. Prior approval is also required for the initiation of certain medical services. The law restricts unnecessary increases in health care costs and limits unnecessary health services and facilities based on geographic, demographic and economic considerations.

I must interrupt here. In a competitive market, free of external meddling, there would be no unnecessary increases nor services void of adequate demand. An unnecessary increase is an opportunity for a competitor to have an advantage. Businesses that aim to prosper avoid such mistakes. To the contrary, this law is directly responsible for unnecessary increases due to the fact that it stifles competition and inhibits the logical flow of capital.

The fundamental premise of the CON Law is that increasing health care costs may be controlled by governmental restrictions on the unnecessary duplication of medical facilities. To accomplish its purpose, the CON Law provides that “no person shall offer or develop a new institutional health service without first obtaining a certificate of need.” All new hospitals, psychiatric facilities, chemical dependency treatment facilities, nursing home facilities, adult care homes, kidney disease treatment centers, intermediate care facilities for mentally retarded, rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, hospices, diagnostic centers, and ambulatory surgical facilities must first obtain a CON before initiating development. In addition, a CON is required before any upgrading or expansion of existing health service facilities or services, which involves a capital expenditure above specified minimums.

Administration of the CON Law is entrusted to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Certificate of Need Section in the Department’s Division of Health Service Regulation is responsible for its implementation. Anyone desiring a certificate of need must apply to the CON Section, and furnish information upon which the Section can find that the application is consistent with specified “review criteria.” The Section may approve or deny an application outright, or it may approve the application with such conditions, as it finds necessary to bring the project into compliance with the mandated criteria.
Summary of the CON Process

The following narrative provides a brief summary of the CON process. Applicants and other interested persons should always refer to the applicable statute (G.S. 131E, Article 9, 175-190) and administrative rules (10A NCAC Subchapter 14C)for more complete information.

1. Allocation of Beds — At the beginning of each calendar year, a new State Medical Facilities Plan is published by the Medical Facilities Planning Section of DHSR which sets forth the maximum number of health service facility beds, by category, that may be awarded by the Certificate of Need Section (CONS).
2. Review Schedule — In order for competitive applications to be reviewed at the same time, the CONS has adopted a system to review applications according to a batched review schedule. Under this system, applications for similar services in the same geographic area are reviewed at the same time. Review schedules are found in the State Medical Facilities Plan.
3. Pre-Application Procedure — Each applicant submitting an application must submit a letter of intent (LOI) to the CONS no later than the date the application is due. Most applicants submit an LOI as the first step in the application process. In response to an LOI submitted before the beginning of the review period, the CONS forwards a letter to the applicant that indicates whether a CON review is required. If so, the CONS explains the category in which the application will be reviewed, provides the beginning review dates for that category and provides the necessary application forms. An applicant may meet with representatives of the CON Section for a pre-application conference to discuss any questions relative to the CON process and application forms.
4. Application Submittal — Applications must be received by 5:30 p.m. on the fifteenth day of the month immediately preceding the beginning of the applicable review period. In instances when the 15th day of the month falls on a weekend or holiday, the filing deadline is 5:30 p.m. on the next business day. The filing deadline is absolute. After an application is submitted it may not be amended, however, the CON Section may request that an applicant submit clarifying information. The CONS reviews each application to determine if it is complete. An application is deemed complete if the correct fee is paid and the original signature page is provided. If an application is deemed incomplete, within five days the CONS will notify the applicant of the items needed to make the application complete.
5. Public Comment Period — During the first 30 days of the review period, any person may file written comments or letters of support concerning the proposals under review.
6. Public Hearing — A public hearing is no longer required to be conducted for each proposal under review. However, under certain circumstances as set forth in G.S. 131E-185(a1)(2), a public hearing is required to be conducted by the CONS in the service area affected by the application no more than 20 days from the conclusion of the written comment period.
7. Application Review — The CONS has from 90 to 150 days to review an application for a certificate of need. Each application is reviewed against G.S. 131E-183 Review Criteria and any applicable criteria and standards in the administrative rules. All written comments and presentations at the public hearing are also taken into consideration by the CONS during the review of an application. An application must be conforming or conditionally conforming with all applicable criteria and standards in order to be approved.
8. Appeals of Decision — Within 30 days after the date of a decision any affected person may file a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The administrative law judge must make his recommended decision to the Director of the Division of Health Service Regulation within 270 days after the petition is filed. The Director then makes the final agency decision, which may be appealed to the N.C. Court of Appeals.
9. Monitoring — After the certificate is issued, the CONS will monitor the development of the project through review of progress reports submitted by the applicant. In accordance with G.S. 131E-189, the CONS may withdraw a certificate if the holder of the certificate fails to develop and operate the service consistent with the representations made in the application or with any conditions the CONS placed on the certificate of need.
[emphasis mine]

In other words, property rights are subservient to some common good far superior than the rightful wishes of mere individuals, and derived from an intuition only possessed by the State.

From a moral standpoint this is an egregious perversion of justice. The purpose of Government is to protect individual rights, not to violate them. This law in its entirety is a blatant violation of property rights.

From an economic standpoint this is ridiculous nonsense. So what, if there is a hospital built on every block? The beauty of the free market is the just law of competition. The entity that provides the most value, which in this case could be comprised of any combination of innovation, technology, convenience, price or even the quality of the sheets on hospital beds, or the temperature in the rooms, will have rightfully earned the most market share. Any entity that can’t compete will cease to exist. If Novant and Baptist want to build Hospitals across the street from each other, as Forsyth Medical Center and WFUBMC virtually are, then the market will decide who prevails. A free market involves choices. Choices have consequences. A good choice profits, a poor choice destroys. These are two entities with vast financial resources, all of which can be lost with poor decisions. They are run by individuals who have proven to their superiors a knack for making intelligent business decisions. They have rightfully earned their resources. They are intelligent individuals with the right to utilize such resources as they see fit according to their reason. If they choose poorly, the market will punish them. If they choose intelligently, they and their customers will profit. If this is where and how they rightfully choose to utilize their property and resources, no entity has any moral right to intervene.

Are we to assume that the state (whose members have little to nothing at stake for incorrectly squashing Novant’s intent), through some unfathomable means, contends to know more about this particular market and the financial specifics than the qualified professionals at Novant (whose livelihoods depend on excellence) making the decisions?

When a right is violated, we may not be able to trace out in advance the destructive consequences that will come, but they are inevitable. This colossal waste of resources is a shining example. Novant Health, the entity that will either profit or fail on their own accord, can rightfully start a new business venture wherever they please. No bureaucratically endorsed “certificate” should be needed.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription.

To those who oppose Novant tell me this - Whose right to what is being forcefully violated by Novant starting this new venture? By what right does the State have any say in the matter?

To those who have said “If you don’t like it, fine change the law. Until that happens, then Novant has to obey the law just like everyone else.” How many lives are you willing to throw away waiting for an unjust law to change?

Novant should adamantly defend their unquestionable right to build where and how they please. They should dismiss CON laws as arbitrary and unjust violations of property rights. Any other defense is pragmatic and futile. With regards to Baptist - attempting to stifle competition by leveraging a bureaucracy beyond its proper scope is despicable. To do so in a scenario where lives are literally on the line is beyond contempt.

The purpose of a Hospital or related Health Care endeavor is to extend or enhance the lives of individuals. When entities compete to do exactly that the individual wins. Conversely, with every red-tape detour, every regulation, every “certificate” or any endeavor, other than health care, that these entities invest their resources in, the quality and value of their product is diminished. The end result is less care for a patient’s dollar. The same people pushing these senseless regulations in one conversation are the ones who’ll complain about the cost of health care in another - costs driven up by a meddling government in private affairs. The money wasted on this pathetic circus could have been invested in some valuable aspect of Novant’s business plan.

Rights violated, time and money wasted, political bickering interfering with innovation and productivity… sounds awfully familiar. Will we ever learn?

by Craig Biddle - Full article here.

As the 2008 presidential election nears, and while John McCain and Barack Obama struggle to distinguish themselves from each other in terms of particular promises and goals, it is instructive to observe that these candidates are indistinguishable in terms of fundamentals.

On the domestic front, McCain promises to “take on” the drug companies, as if those who produce and market the medicines that improve and save human lives must be fought; he promises to ration energy by means of a cap-and-trade scheme, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to dictate how much energy a company may purchase or use; he promises to “battle” big oil, as if those who produce and deliver the lifeblood of civilization need to be defeated; he promises to “reform” Wall Street, as if those who finance the businesses that produce the goods and services on which our lives depend are thereby degenerate; he seeks to uphold the ban on drilling in ANWR, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to prevent Americans from reshaping nature to suit their needs; and so on.

Obama promises to socialize health care (under the tired euphemism of “universal health care”), as if insurance companies, doctors, and patients have no right to use or dispose of their property or to contract with one another according to their own judgment; he promises to increase the minimum wage, as if employers and employees lack those same rights; he promises to pour taxpayer money into “alternative energy,” as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to confiscate money from productive citizens in order to subsidize tilting windmills; he promises to force oil companies to fund government handouts to Americans, as if the owners of oil companies have no right to their property or profits; he promises to bail out homeowners who cannot pay their mortgages, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to make some people pay for the financial mistakes or hardships of others; he promises to “incentivize” students to do “community service” by offering them taxpayer-funded college tuition, as if the government has a moral or constitutional right to do so; and so on.

In regard to foreign policy, McCain promises to “respect the collective will of our democratic allies,” as if America has no moral right to defend her citizens according to her own best judgment; and he promises to finish the “mission” of making Iraq “a functioning democracy” even if it takes “one hundred years,” as if the U.S. government has a moral or constitutional right to sacrifice American soldiers to spread democracy abroad.1

Obama promises to uphold the idea that “America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom. . . . dignity, and opportunity,” as if we have a moral responsibility to minister to the uncivilized and the unfortunate across the globe; and he promises to negotiate with jihadists who chant “Death to America,” as if Americans will be safe from these lunatics when the lunatics give Obama their word.2

Looking past the particular programs of McCain and Obama, and viewing their goals in terms of the purpose of government presumed by these goals, we can see that both candidates hold that the purpose of government is to manage the economy, to regulate businesses, to redistribute wealth, to bring freedom or democracy to foreigners, and to defer to the will of others on matters of American security.

But this is not the proper purpose of government. Nor is it the purpose that America’s founders had in mind when they formed this great country.

Read the rest of this entry »