|
January-February 2010
Vol. 24, No. 1
Letters
Discretionary Parceling
The November article by Timothy Sandefur (“Property Rights — or Property Permissions?”) is one of the most important I have read in at least 20 years.
I live in a rural county in western Colorado that still doesn’t have building codes or zoning. Not formally, anyway. Our “Republican” county commissioners here would dearly love to see these land-use restrictions passed, but the pesky loud-mouthed citizens keep rising up and getting in the way. But this has not stopped them from sneaking these restrictions in wherever they can, in other ordinances and under other names. And if this causes the ordinance to be illegal under state law, so be it. Attempts to litigate the illegal ordinances are brushed aside by district attorneys and judges who always side with the government officials, saying “the commissioners have discretion” — whether state law clearly prohibits their actions or not.
Our county commissioners even decided to try their hand at being land developers, with taxpayer money, and contrary to state law. (We are a statutory county, thus supposedly cannot supersede state law). This is not actually uncommon. But citizen attempts to bring the matter before a court have been unsuccessful, in spite of clear-cut violations of state law.
Our commissioners recently adopted new subdivision regulations, which have absolutely bizarre zoning twists in them. They decided that all property splits would be treated as if they are major subdivisions, and no one would be allowed to make lots smaller than the average of all the lots surrounding the property split in question. “Family splits” are no longer allowed. They say this is “to protect our rural lifestyle” by “slowing down growth.” When they were developing subdivisions — and acting as a finance company — with taxpayer money, it was to “encourage growth.”
Meanwhile, we all have to listen to lots of talk about “the vision for the county” (which we are not allowed to participate in) and how “we don’t have the right to depreciate our neighbors’ property values.” This has caused a lot of animosity here, as it is clearly becoming what we call “property rights vs. property values.” The land-use regulations increase significantly in page numbers, even as they become more and more vague. This is supposedly to allow for individual situations, but in actuality, it serves only to give more and more “discretion” to the county commissioners. The oblivious “progressive” citizens (a tiny minority) applaud these efforts, saying they “feel that it is best for the community.” There is no bridging the gap, because the difference is philosophical — not political, as so many assume.
Sandefur’s article really hits the nail on the head, and gives enlightening historical perspective to this noxious phenomenon. I will be sharing this article with everyone here who cares. Thanks.
Debbie Schum
Cedaredge, CO
Send ’Em Packing
Andrew Ferguson’s account of the Reason-TV interview with LP Chairman Bill Redpath (Reflections, December 2009) omits several key issues, which he is legitimately forgiven for not having known. In particular, in my opinion:
First, it is no wonder that Redpath “contorted himself to avoid talking about Barr’s collapsed campaign.” After all, at the front end of that campaign was the National Convention with Barr as the nominee. Redpath there boasted that he was the man who recruited Barr. For Barr’s collapsed campaign there is plenty of guilt to share, and first in line is Bill Redpath.
Second, the primary reason for the collapse of the Barr campaign is that the campaign was a sham, a fundraising scam on the Libertarian wallet politic. Readers will recall a decade ago the proud role that the late Bill Bradford and this magazine played in exposing the Browne campaigns as illusions that spent next to nothing on real politics. As some of you recall, I was Bill’s primary researcher, because I had accumulated the huge amount of paperwork that revealed the truth about Harry Browne.
The Bob Barr 2008 campaign makes Harry Browne’s efforts look like miracles of fiscal efficiency. Out of $1.5 million, the Barr campaign spent a hundred grand on real estate and 30 grand more for furniture and office equipment. It spent around a third of a million dollars on staff, not to mention $100,000 on consultants. Barr also demonstrated Republican conservative money management: his campaign ended nearly $200,000 in debt. Based on campaign FEC reports, it appears that at best 4% of Barr’s $1.5 million raised went for public outreach or advertising of any sort. It seems to have spent nothing on TV ads.
Barr’s performance was, of course, the exact opposite of Redpath’s claim that Barr had made a totally solid effort. Most notably, unlike almost every other past presidential candidate, Barr has refused to share his donor and volunteer lists with the national Libertarian Party.
Barr illustrates the continued failure of two currents in libertarian politics, namely the superstitious belief in celebrity candidates, and the equally false notion that southern white social-intolerant bigots are plausible recruits as Libertarian activists.
Having said that, Ferguson reaches precisely the right destination: “the onus is on Redpath and others at the national level to make the case for their continued employment. The Reason interview does precisely the opposite.”
There is no case to be made. It is long past time for good Libertarians to appear at the next Libertarian national convention and send Mr. Redpath and his LNC cronies packing, lock, stock, and barrel.
George Phillies
Worcester, MA
Still Significant
In the December Liberty, Andrew Ferguson belittles Bob Barr’s showing in the 2008 presidential race. He starts by mentioning “the failure of the LP to make any sort of dent whatsoever on the 2008 presidential election.”
In reality, Barr’s candidacy altered the Electoral College results, by possibly tipping Indiana, and almost certainly tipping North Carolina, from McCain to Obama. The vote in Indiana was Obama 1,374,039, McCain 1,345,648 (a margin of 28,391), and Barr received 29,257. The vote in North Carolina was Obama 2,142,651, McCain 2,128,474 (a margin of 14,177), and Barr received 25,722.
The Reflection also implies that Michael Badnarik’s 2004 showing of 397,265 votes is really more impressive than Bob Barr’s 2008 showing of 523,686 votes, because the ratio between Nader and Badnarik in 2004 was closer than the ratio between Nader and Barr in 2008. Nader got 465,650 in 2004 and 738,475 in 2008. But Ferguson fails to mention that in 2004, Nader was only on the ballot before 50.1% of the voters, whereas in 2008 he was in a far better position, and appeared before 85.2% of the voters.
Furthermore, when Ferguson finds it relevant to compare Nader’s showing to LP showings, he undercuts his other argument that it is of no significance that the LP in 2008 vastly outpolled the Green and Constitution Parties. The Green Party in 2008 ran a former Georgia member of Congress who had been defeated for reelection in a primary, just as the LP did in 2008. But Cynthia McKinney only polled 161,603 votes. The Green Party has now been outpolled by the Libertarian Party in each of the last two presidential elections by a margin of more than three to one. This is meaningful, especially since the big media in the United States once considered the Green Party to be more significant than the Libertarian Party.
Richard Winger
San Francisco, CA
Owning Up
There is plenty of room for reform in every professional endeavor, including the legal profession, but when Gary Jason (Reflections, December 2009) and others call for “tort reform” as a means to curb rising healthcare costs, what they really are advocating is “tort immunity” for healthcare professionals, pure and simple. These critics are quick to cite examples of frivolous lawsuits, unnecessary medical tests, and high insurance premiums, but they never care to discuss the subject of exactly what to do about the alarming frequency of medical mistakes that so often cause enormous damage to patients. It’s easy to blame the lawyers, but the obvious fact is that lawyers don’t make medical mistakes. If the healthcare professionals would simply own up to their mistakes, medical malpractice lawsuits would not be necessary.
Timothy J. Taylor
Jomtien Beach, Chonburi, Thailand
Jason replies: I normally thank letter writers for reading what I write, but Mr. Taylor clearly hasn’t read what I have written on tort reform and medicine. He might want to look at the lengthy piece I wrote on the topic (“The Ethics of Tort Reform,” June 2008).
Specifically, I have never advocated tort immunity for healthcare professionals or anybody else. I have only advocated that we adopt the system that all other advanced nations have, namely, loser-pay. If you feel a doctor has harmed you (and yes, Mr. Taylor, I realize sometimes doctors are incompetent or even negligent), go ahead and sue him. But if you can’t convince a jury you are correct to even the low “preponderance of evidence” standard that applies in civil trials, then you should be made to pay for the expenses of the other party, the one whom you forced to defend himself. This would be simple reform, and it is the norm in other advanced democracies.
What people like Taylor and Obama never do is specify what tort reform they would agree on. The president and his Myrmidons control the government — completely! — and the Democrats are now in their third year of control of Congress. So what tort reform have their ilk produced? Nothing. Nothing. Not one damn thing. In the case of the decaying fetus of a healthcare bill produced by Pelosi and her pals, there is one clause that would permit some “trial” programs in the states, but it doesn’t specify any such trials, and it will not permit those trials in any state that caps awards for punitive damages!
As to why doctors don’t own up to their mistakes, why, it is the same reason why lawyers never own up to theirs, or anyone else owns up to theirs. It is precisely because, in this litigious lawyers’ paradise, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law!
Family Matters
In Reflections (November 2009), Jon Harrison asked, “I would like to know what other libertarians think” about a government agency blocking a 13-year-old from attempting to sail around the world alone.
Short answer: Gray areas that involve the safety of a child should be the parent’s decision.
Longer answer: In an authoritarian society, you are the property of the state, which does with your body as it chooses. In a libertarian society, adults own their bodies. In this imaginary society, two entities have authority over a child — the parents and the child. Only when the actions of a parent or child present a clear danger to the child does the state have a right to get involved, and only then through due process. That is, only their peers, a jury, can take away the rights of a parent or child to make their own decisions.
In a libertarian society, a majority of people would be very resistant to doing preemptive strikes, especially so when it comes to taking away rights from parents on the grounds of protecting their children from possible harm. The presumption would be that parents are responsible adults until proven otherwise. Letting a child sail around the world alone would be a parent’s decision. If harm comes to the child, only then would the state or anyone else have grounds for bringing charges against the child’s parents.
Clyde Garland
Bryan, TX
On Palestine, Continued
Bill Merritt’s reply to my letter (October 2009) demonstrates that he is sorely in need of someone to actually connect the dots for him. I feel compelled to do so.
Merritt describes himself variously as “a singing member of the [libertarian] choir,” and also as someone “who subscribe(s) to the more generally accepted moral codes of the world.” It was truly hard to discern either from his response to my letter. Merritt apparently believes that any country that possesses military superiority relative to its adversary is therefore morally wrong to use that power in furtherance of its own interests, regardless of circumstances. This conclusion is inevitable given Merritt’s steadfast refusal even to consider the actual moral context for the country’s actions. (Perhaps he thinks this moral sanction somehow applies only to Israel, but the point is the same in either case.)
All he sees, or chooses to see, is that Israel has taken the Palestinians’ land away from them, and then brutalized them when they protested. He ignores the fact that this territory is not, and has never been, “their land.” The morality of Israel’s actions (and those of the Palestinians, as well) cannot be divorced from this fact, no matter how hard Merritt tries to do so. While there have certainly been injustices committed — by both sides — with respect to individuals’ ownership of specific parcels of land, the fact remains that the overall question of statehood remains unresolved to this day, and that is entirely due to the perpetual intransigence of the Arabs, not Israel.
Merritt wonders how my moral code can allow Israel to inflict “wanton, pointless destruction” on the people in Gaza. Leaving aside that Israel’s actions in Gaza were neither wanton nor pointless, the answer, long obvious to most “singing members” of our choir, is that most basic of moral principles — the right of self-defense. I truly cannot imagine that anyone claiming to be a libertarian cannot see that, or would deny that. What government would or could possibly accept rockets being lobbed into its country, or suicide bombers blowing up its citizens? In Merritt’s distorted view of morality, apparently Israel should.
Merritt laughably suggests that Israel’s better option is to “make peace.” I say “laughably” because this seems to assume both that Israel has never considered this option and that it might actually be possible under current conditions. Any knowledgeable observer of the region over the years knows that both assumptions are false. (This may just be another of those acknowledged “gaps” in Merritt’s historical knowledge.) Perhaps Merritt is unaware of the Camp David Summit in 2000, during which Israel offered the Palestinians virtually everything they required, and which offer was summarily rejected by Yasser Arafat. This is but one example of Israel’s many attempts over the years to make peace, and of Palestinian unwillingness to do so. The truth, also apparently unknown to Merritt, is that, while Israel has offered many compromises over the years in its pursuit of peace, the Palestinian position (i.e., the total destruction of Israel) has remained essentially unchanged since 1948. It is therefore beyond ludicrous to suggest, as Merritt does, that the Israelis have failed to exercise this option, and that it is the Palestinians who have no alternative to violence. The truth is clearly the reverse.
Merritt also disingenuously suggests that it is somehow anti-Semitic to support Israel’s current position, because it will lead to “Israel’s being run into the sea.” Fortunately for Israel’s true supporters, Israel, with the continued support of other right-thinking countries such as ours, runs no such risk today. The actual truth is that Israel would be committing national suicide if it made the kind of “peace” that the Palestinians, and apparently Merritt, demand.
How would Merritt suggest that Israel go about making peace? With whom should it negotiate this peace? What form would such a peace take? Neither the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank nor Hamas in Gaza could come close to guaranteeing Israel’s security, which is the most basic moral prerequisite for any peace, even if Israel were willing and able to meet Palestinian terms. The Palestinians claim that “all” they want is a return to the pre-1967 war status quo, despite the fact that, prior to 1967, before Israel conquered any of the disputed lands, before the occupation, before it undertook to “starve and bomb” the Palestinians, the Arabs were unalterably opposed to that status quo, and used violence against Israel in furtherance of that end. The aggressive, immoral behavior of the Arabs in the period from 1948 through 1967 alone justifies Israel’s unwillingness to return completely to the 1967 borders. I can only conclude that the “peace” Merritt desires is an unconditional Israeli surrender, leading forthwith to its destruction. With friends like Merritt, Israel has no need of enemies.
Merritt says that what he really wants to know is “why we should allow our great and honorable nation to be cynically drawn into a fight that is neither of our making, nor in our interest.” I am pleased to inform him. Firstly, I am not aware that we have actually been drawn into this fight, cynically or otherwise. We do have legitimate national interests in the region, and these interests merit a certain concern for U.S. foreign policy. The issue of U.S. military aid to Israel is a fair subject for debate, but I am confident that the modern state of Israel is fully capable of defending itself even without our help, and would do so. The United States supplies weapons to countries far more despicable than even Merritt’s distorted version of Israel, so unless he proposes to eliminate all U.S. military aid to any country he deems impure, he doesn’t have much of a moral leg to stand on there either. As to the question of why it is in the interest of the United States to help Israel defend itself, the same questions were raised in 1940 about America’s aiding Great Britain, and the same answers apply.
Merritt is entitled to his shuttered view of national interest and defense and his ignorance of history, but he is not entitled thereby to claim that his moral code is somehow superior to mine, however “widely held” he thinks it is. It clearly is not.
Michael L. Carp
Montclair, NJ
Merritt replies: Because I recognize you from our previous correspondence, I know you to be scholarly and thoughtful — which raises concerns about the provenance of the above letter. In fact, a close reading suggests it was not written by you at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, something is fishy, Mr. Carp.
Reasonable man that you are, you agree that national suicide is not in the best interests of the state of Israel — that, in fact, she would be better off working toward a peaceful Middle East rather than throwing her long-term survival into question by continuing to steal Palestinian land.
But the person using your name seems to feel that Israel’s endless land-grab isn’t really an issue because the land is “disputed.” What, exactly the nature of this dispute might be, Imposter Carp neglects to tell us but, apparently, it arises from the fact that some marginal folks in Israel really, really want the land for themselves.
You would agree with all decent and honorable people that a family who has lived on a piece of property for, say, a thousand years, has a legitimate claim to that property. You would never take the position that ownership of that family’s land is “disputed” just because somebody else wants it. But Imposter Carp doesn’t see it that way. He just chalks up any attempt by the legitimate owners to defend their property as “aggressive, immoral behavior.”
You would never claim that field-testing experimental explosives on schoolchildren in Gaza was forced upon Israel in the name of morality. “That most basic of moral principles,” as Imposter Carp put it, “the right of self-defense.” Those kindergartners with fingerpaints, you can almost hear Imposter Carp saying: good thing Israel put a stop to them while it had the chance. No telling what they would have done next.
You know full well that shredding 5-year-olds from the air not only has no military value, but puts Jews all over the planet in danger. As the Jewish World, published in Jerusalem, puts it: “. . . through its actions, Israel has more than once endangered and shamed the Diaspora. Ask the Jews of the world what their neighbors said after Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Ask them when they last felt pride in Israel’s actions.” Imposter Carp can find this at www.haaretz.com, if he cares to see what people who really love Israel believe.
Imposter Carp doesn’t see a connection between America’s mindless backing of Israel and the harm that is being visited on the Palestinian people, but I know you do. Perhaps you saw the signs in the September 13 Rallies in Support of the Palestinians. Most of the rest of the world did: “It Is America That Enables Israel.” Pretty specific, wouldn’t you say?
You know as well as I do that America’s knee-jerk support of Israel’s ongoing death wish has led to a lot more than just demonstrators waving signs in front of TV cameras. Eight years ago, 3,000 of our countrymen were murdered on our soil.
I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to the religious beliefs of Imposter Carp. Perhaps he was in an ashram on 9/11. Perhaps he missed the fact that the person who set those murders in motion specifically gave America’s support for Israel as one of his reasons.
I can tell from your letter of a few months ago that you are much more aware of recent history than Imposter Carp seems to be. You know why our country was attacked, and you agree that America has been drawn into a fight that is neither of our making nor in our interest. But the person writing in your name claims not even to be “aware that we have actually been drawn into this fight.”
You are in an awkward position here, Mr. Carp, and it’s not my place to advise you how to proceed. No miscreant has ever written this sort of letter over my name. But if one did, I’d clear the air before people started imputing his ideas to me. I can’t speak for the editors on this, but I imagine Liberty would be pleased to accommodate you if you wish to disavow this claptrap.
It Lives!
Many thanks for Doug Gallob”s review of “The Creature From Jekyll Island” (November 2009). It is a must-read for every serious libertarian and certainly recommended for the average citizen. It is an eye-opener, probably as important as Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.”
After reading “Creature” for the first time, I reread Jim Powell’s “FDR’s Follies” and then went through “Creature” again immediately afterward. Placing it all in the context of Mr. Obama’s administration, history seems to be repeating itself.
Len Gay
Onset, MA
Send Money, Guns, and Writers
I fell with relish on the November issue as soon as I saw its cheery blue and white cover in my mailbox, and flipped straight to Reflections, as always. Ted Roberts’ “Overinflated fears” was heartening and optimistic. I make a hobby of collecting Weimar Reichmarks and what with the latest antics of America’s first metrosexual president, my prime anxiety has been how soon the dollar will take its place in the ashcan of history alongside my collectibles.
Let me state that I’m no economist, just a working-class schmo with a love of liberty. I’ve tried to read some economic theory over the years and I can certainly see why they call it “the dismal science.” A question arose in my mind, however, as to how we will ever escape the specter of hyperinflation and economic collapse as long as our money system is based on conning everyone possible, including the federal government, the respective states, counties, and cities, along with all the residents thereof, to carry a lifetime of debt?
I hope someone at Liberty will have the time and inclination to address my concerns. In the meantime, I’ll anxiously await the next issue while I split my disposable income between silver quarters and .22 cartridges.
David W. Roberts
Tacoma, WA
|
|