No Freedom for You

The Supreme Court has once again proven its willingness to eschew constitutionality in order to advance social or political goals. The issue in question concerns the most unsavory members of our society: sex offenders. A synopsis can be found here: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely.

Naturally, I do not support providing these particular criminals with additional opportunities to ply their specific perversions. If our legal system adequately dealt with these people, that would be sufficient. If prevailing wisdom holds that these people are beyond reform, then laws should be written to include either permanent incarceration or capital punishment in response to their acts.

However, what this ruling does is allow for an arbitrary application of "danger to society" to be applied at the discretion of some federal representative. Today, the danger comes from sex offenders who are "beyond reform". Tomorrow, the litmus test will include those who will be repeat offenders of other crimes (i.e. 90% of current prison populations). Next week, the danger will be found in those who refuse to accept the "established science" that man is the sole cause of climate change or it will include those who have stubbornly chosen to believe in the absence of a higher power, depending of course on the dictates of those in power at the time.

As the fifth amendment clearly states:

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

By electing to place in the hands of bureaucrats and functionaries, independent of due process, the ability to extend incarceration indefinitely, the court has again decided to ignore the very document on which our system was built, a document to which each of these justices has sworn an oath to uphold.

The Baby With the Bath Water

Yesterday, Joe Lieberman, Independent Senator from Connecticut, proposed legislation that would remove a citizen's rights based on their affiliation with, or participation in, alleged terrorist acts. While this is clearly a political move driven by the past week's activities in Times Square, it is no less a shining example of the steady, if sometimes subtle, erosion of rights to which we should be accustomed.

The fact that I considered voting for the dark lord, Al Gore, solely based on his selection of Lieberman as a running mate aside, I must say that few proposals have been more glaring assaults on our civil liberties than was this. Lieberman proves that even "moderates" are susceptible to the lure of power and the elixir of public whim (note: quotes should surround all things associated with Washington, not just descriptions of Lieberman's supposed political positions). Fortunately for us, even those on the far left see this suggestion for what it is: both unconstitutional and dangerous to the basic idea of individual rights.

Following 9/11, I read of the Philippines passing legislation similarly worded to this. At the time, all I could think of was the malleability of words. What is constructive criticism today is terrorism tomorrow. No, we do not want terrorists freely carrying out their violent agenda in this country. Nor do we want politicians and bureaucrats exercising the degree to which terrorism can be defined. I would ask Mr. Lieberman to consider his proposed legislation a terrorist act against the constitution, but I'm afraid he proved his redundancy long ago and the message would be lost on him.

Super Humanus Vis

There was a time when I wrote an equally obscure blog entitled "Bulimic Rabbit Herders and The Men Who Love Them." This other vehicle was a means for me to voice my concerns about the myriad issues which, ironically, persist today. Finding fault with much of what I saw around me, I wondered if there were a way to improve upon the system under which we in the United States live. After much contemplation, I realized that we were an incredibly fortunate nation to have had the insightful fathers who founded our republic.

While these brilliant people were provided few examples of freedom in their time, they crafted a system which emphasized individual liberty without ignoring the often corrosive influence of human nature. The challenge presented to the founders was to establish a system under which a central government could operate without impinging on the rights of the citizens.

Considering the constitution as the most basic tool of this system, we witness a document which establishes a refined bicameral legislative structure balanced by both judiciary and executive powers, wresting centralized power from each component to balance it within the whole. The genius of this system is it's emphasis on limitations. Knowing that their system must inherently be populated and maintained by humans, the founders hoped these restrictions would stifle the influence of human nature.

For it is our nature, as with all things, to seek the path of least resistance. Our species, while possessing intellectual potential never seen before on this planet, is no less tied to its base instincts than any other creature that lives and breeds. We are lured and intoxicated by power for it is through power that we find security. Through security we find the path of least resistance. The founders, understanding this, ensured that this drive for power was limited by legal mechanisms established in the constitution.

Tanstaafl.

As Goes Health Care

I begin this blog on a sad day for freedom in this country. Having just returned from our nation's capital, a place where I found a modest assembly of people at least moderately versed in the U.S. Constitution rallying against the attempted takeover of health care by our elected representation, I've come home to hear of the "momentous" beginning of socialized medicine in the land where liberty is thought to be an unalienable right.

While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.

Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.

Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.

Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.

Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.

These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:

Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.

Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.

Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.

Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.

These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.