Reflections  

Hourly wages — Suppose that terrorists somehow discovered a way to destroy the productive lives of three million Americans, a thousand times more people than were killed on 9/ll? What would be the economic effect? What would be the effect on the nation's morale? Immense . . . overwhelming . . .

But that degree of devastation, according to a report issued on April 14 by the Internal Revenue Service, happened to America this year — and, you can be sure, will continue to happen to America, every year in the foreseeable future — solely as the result of the federal tax code. Just the effort to file 1040 forms requires 1.6 billion hours of work. The total paperwork effort of taxpayers is 6.6 billion hours. Assume that a working year is 2000 hours long, and you will see what I'm talking about: the total waste of a year's work for 3.3 million Americans.

That is more than the number of working people who inhabit any American city. That is more than the number of people who inhabit 90 countries of the world. That is approximately as many free people (men, women, and children) as were counted in the first census of the United States (1790). That is more than the number of people who voted in any American election until 1856.

I could go on like this. You understand the point. Now ask yourself, What would be the effect of a sudden addition to the American economy of 6.6 billion hours of productive work? It would be the biggest boon to any economy in the history of the world. And that could happen by the simple institution of a flat tax. — Stephen Cox

Outlawing science — The Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law that requires any skeleton of a member of an Indian tribe to be returned to that tribe, if the skeleton is found on federally owned land. In 1996, when a 9,000 year old skeleton called Kennewick Man was found, it became the flashpoint for a lawsuit over NAGPRA, and over the degree to which the federal government should curtail scientific research in the service of a religious orthodoxy. Although Kennewick Man was too old to be a member of any modern-day Indian tribe, a group of tribes demanded that the Army Corps of Engineers give them the remains so that they could "repatriate" it — i.e., bury it, thereby destroying it for scientific purposes. The Army agreed. On orders from the Secretary of the Interior, who declared that any bones dating from before 1492 must belong to an Indian tribe, the Army ordered that the bones be returned for destruction. Only a lawsuit by a group of scientists calling themselves Friends of America's Past managed to preserve the skeleton. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NAGPRA only applies to bones of a member of a present-day tribe.

Now Senator John McCain is leading the charge to amend NAGPRA. He is sponsoring a bill to change the statute's definition of "Native American Indian" to read "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is or was indigenous to any geographic area that is now located within the boundaries of the United States." This means that any skeleton found anywhere on Federal land, even if it is thousands or tens of thousands of years old and in no way related to any present-day Indian tribe, must be given to a tribe that claims it, rather than to scientists for research, and destroyed rather than studied — all to appease Native American creationists. This is an extremely serious threat to archaeology and anthropology in the United States.

Unfortunately, it is part and parcel of a rising trend towards "repatriation." The Smithsonian's recently opened National Museum of the American Indian — which the Washington Post recently described as "more like a cathedral than a museum," has an open policy of repatriation, even though it now has access to the federal government's priceless collection of Native American anthropological specimens. But, as the Washington Post article explains, "the National Museum of the American Indian has no anthropology department and likely never will. Gerald McMaster, a deputy assistant director for the museum and a Plains Cree, says, 'Anthropology as a science is not practiced here. . . .' Science is not going to be the final arbiter at the museum." This is a startling development to anyone who has regarded the Smithsonian as one of the world's finest scientific institutions. — Timothy Sandefur

Christianity, the Church, and Liberty — Most libertarians that I've heard from dismissed the sadness with which so many people responded to the passing of Pope John Paul II as an orgy of mass hysteria. This is hardly surprising: the intellectual leadership of the libertarian movement in the 20th century has consisted overwhelmingly of unbelievers. Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard were both explicit and evangelistic atheists, and I've neither heard nor read anything from Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman that indicate any religious belief. All seem overwhelmingly secular in their thought.

But I think that contemporary libertarians are poorer for their inclination simply to dismiss religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Yes, yes, I know. During the Middle Ages, the church was part of a social system that can only be described as repressive. And during the early modern era, the Church actively opposed the evolution of western society toward greater liberty. And the Church has continued to harbor outright reactionaries who oppose liberal ideas and the liberal social order, and at the same time advocate "liberation theology" that is socialistic, if not quite socialist.

And yes, I know that fundamentalist Protestants have often opposed modernism and liberty, even at times trying to suppress scientific inquiry. And, yes, so-called "liberal" Protestants have often pushed for much greater government power and even supported totalitarians like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

But is it mere coincidence that the love of liberty found its most fertile ground among Protestant Christians and, indeed, that libertarian thinking had its origin among Protestants? Or is there something about Christianity or Protestantism that helped give birth to liberty?

Is it mere coincidence that the Roman Catholic Church is by a wide margin the most enduring human enterprise, lasting (so far) more than 1,700 years? Or is there something about the Church that resonates with human beings, thereby enabling it to endure?

I don't know whether these questions have occurred to the libertarians who dismiss Christianity as mere folly that may be amusing but is worthy of no serious consideration. But I am convinced that those who dismiss the millions who mourned the passing of John Paul II as mere fools, and dismiss John Paul himself as a fool or an exploiter of fools, miss a great deal.

John Paul II stood up to the two great tyrannical ideologies of the 20th century, national socialism and communism. He lived and suffered under both, and was instrumental in bringing down the latter. The defeat of national socialism, in which he was at most peripherally involved, cost hundreds of thousands of deaths in Poland alone. His homeland's victory over communism, a victory in which he was the critical figure, cost at most a few hundred deaths. John Paul was a man of peace, and the peaceful demolition of communist tyranny in his homeland illustrates truths that we should all learn. He was the 20th century's greatest advocate of peace, and the most prominent opponent of the United States' conquest and occupation of Iraq.

From his early adulthood, he was an eloquent spokesman against tyranny. He spent most of his life fighting it, and played as big a role in the late-20th century ascendency over tyranny as any human being. He also opposed the socialist tendency within his church, quietly discouraging the "liberation theology" that had come to dominate Roman Catholic thinking in Latin America.

He was a great respecter not only of liberty but also of life. In a century in which the value of life was demeaned by totalitarian governments and by stupid, vicious wars, he did everything within his considerable power to encourage a reversal of this trend. We libertarians may not agree with all his views, particularly those on abortion, but we certainly should respect them.

When warned of papal opposition to communism, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is famously supposed to have asked, "How many divisions does he have?" thereby revealing his own ignorance of the power of moral suasion. John Paul used this power more effectively than anyone else in recent memory. He never commanded any divisions, nor even the Church he headed. But his love of humanity, of liberty, and of peaceful human endeavor captured the moral imagination of many millions.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a perfect institution. No human institution is perfect. Nor has any institution with a history even a quarter as long as that of the Church failed to have bad days as well as good ones. But the Church respects human reason more than any other religion and has made its peace with the liberal social order. John Paul had a hand in that. He left the Church a better institution, and the world a better place. — R.W. Bradford

Terri Schiavo, Abortion, and Ted Williams — Three years ago, baseball great Ted Williams had his head quick-frozen on the theory that at some time in the future, it might be possible to thaw it out, cure him of the diseases that wrest him from this mortal coil, clone a new body for him, and return him, if not to his days as baseball's greatest hitter, at least to a more or less normal human life.

As Terri Schiavo lay vegetating, it occurred to me that Ted Williams had a better chance of coming back to life than Schiavo did. Unlike Williams', Schiavo's brain was dead. Most of her other organs were alive and functioning, thanks to elaborate machines that kept them going. But brain-dead is the end of her life, and no matter what advances science may make, she wasn't ever going to come back to life. Sure, maybe someday scientists might be able to transplant a new brain into what's left of her, but the resulting being would not be Terri Schiavo.

Ted Williams' brain is a frozen mess, with most of its cells as dead as respect for the U.S. Constitution among members of Congress. But there may be a few cells that are in some sort of suspended animation, like the viruses that scientists have recovered from the bodies of those who died and were frozen in the flu epidemic of 1918. Terri Schiavo's brain was a gooey mass with no cellular structure at all.

I have very strong sympathies with the notion that human life has become undervalued. I have strong reservations about abortion, especially in the second and (especially) the third term, when the fetus has taken the form of a human being. But I had very little sympathy with those who claim to share my reverence for human life and wanted to keep Schiavo's organs functioning indefinitely. A fetus at 24 weeks may not be able to get along without the life support system of its mother, just as Schiavo (or more accurately, many of her vital organs) could not survive without the life-support system of medical equipment. But in the natural course of things, the fetus is going to be born and, still needing life support, eventually become a fully functional human being.

Terri Schiavo's vital organs lost that potential. They no longer constituted a human being, or a potential human being. She did not die when those organs stopped functioning 13 days after the equipment that kept them going was shut down. She died when her brain died, more than a decade ago. — R.W. Bradford

Aiming to please — Fonda is coming 'round again doing her dancing tricks and pirouettes to please us, like some pretty ballerina on a music box. She is still captivatingly pretty, and when she's on I always tune in to see how she looks and what she's doing now. At 67, wrapped in creamy white spandex, blue eyes sparkling against lavender cashmere, she is still a statuesque Barbie doll. Between the lines she is telling us: don't envy me because I'm beautiful, I have bulimia.

Aghast at video footage of herself acting like an ass on a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun, she comes off lame, blaming it on the mean media who showed up that day. She says when she saw them all there that day, she should have known they were there to ruin her life. She mumbled something about being "set up there on that antiaircraft gun." When she talks about that incident, she speaks in the passive voice. In truth, those of us who saw Fonda's speeches back then know that she was an incredibly strong and powerful woman who was quite articulate in her antiwar views, which at times bordered on being pro-communist. She should be forgiven, I think, for her days as Hanoi Jane, due to her tender age and inexperience, and because her foolishness was overshadowed by the sins of the men who ran the war. Insane actions led to extreme reactions, and she really was caught up in a cultural riot.

What Fonda shouldn't be excused from is her continuing insincerity. She still blames the men in her life for everything that has ever happened to her — including going out on her own and procuring women to surprise Roger Vadim for the threesomes she brought to the marriage bed. "Did you enjoy it?" asked Paula Zahn. Oh, I don't know, Jane said. "I was numb. I would drink first." Is she lying to us or to herself, I wondered. Us, I decided.

Fonda never really did anything, meant anything, believed anything, enjoyed anything — everything just sort of happened to her. Her political radicalism? Tom Hayden's fault. Her sexual adventurousness? Roger and Ted. The only thing she did totally of her own volition was become a good girl, a closet Christian. If Ted had known, she explains, he would have talked her out of it. The poor thing is just putty in the hands of any man who happens by.

Insincerity rains down as she speaks of herself as an old jalopy that's losing fenders, and about how she wishes she had just lived a life where she had been with the same husband for 40 or 50 years in the same interview as she relishes dishing about the ongoing adventures of Ted and Jane. Yes, she still sees Ted Turner, she giggles. She has lunch with his new "first girlfriend," and they exchange owner's manuals and laugh. She wants to be a bad girl who led a wild and exciting life full of drama and adventures — political, sexual and spiritual. She wants to please us. No one ever said she wasn't a great actress.

Maybe next time around Jane will get real. — Sarah McCarthy

Conversation Lost — "What's so bad about Wal-Mart?" I asked, regretting the question even as it came out of my mouth. It was clear that the woman across the table from me, who had been explaining to our group of acquaintances that Wal-Mart had to be stopped before it destroyed more small towns, would make no distinction between devil's advocate and devil. In all fairness, she did try to give me the benefit of the doubt. "They drive all the mom-and-pop stores out of business. They go into a town, sell everything at prices too low to compete with, and drive out all the competition," she explained.

"Do they raise the price at that point — stick it to the consumer?"

"No, but they've already done their damage. They ruin a lot of people's lives. The government needs to do something to stop them."

"What about the people whose lives become easier due to the money they save when their food bill drops? I sympathize with the mom-and-pops, but if I can save a few bucks here and there, it makes a real difference for me. I think a lot of people are in a similar situation."

The change in her posture made me suspect I'd been upgraded from innocent fool to corporate shill. The change in her tone confirmed it. "The problem is that they sell everything cheaper than other companies can even buy it wholesale. They have an unfair advantage."

"That sounds like a good thing from my perspective," I said. "Again, I don't want to dismiss the effect on other businesses, but that's the law of the jungle, right? And my bottom line is, well, my personal bottom line. If my food is cheaper, I'm better off. What's wrong with that?"

"They don't even always have the cheapest prices," she gasped. "I got this shawl from a little shop downtown for a lot less than it costs at Wal-Mart. They don't even sell these at Wal-Mart."

I looked to my friends for help. Nothing. I looked over at her husband. Surely he could say something. He was conspicuously not paying any attention. Everyone at the table had more sense than I did. I won't be playing poker in this group.

I folded. "That's beautiful," I said. "It really sets off your eyes. Where did you say you bought it?" — Mark Rand

© Copyright 2008, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.