Massive Legislation Based On Junk Science

On Friday, June 26, the House passed a Climate Change Bill that will “require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century.”

While some politicians complain that this bill is going too far and worry about the damage this will do to the economy, with few exceptions, no one disagrees that something should be done to lessen man’s environmental impact. Meanwhile, the same day that the House passed this bill, The Wall Street Journal reported on the collapse of the supposed consensus among scientists that global warming is a man-made phenomenon:

“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 reputable scientists who disagree with the U.N.—13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.”

In addition to the lack of evidence, one must also consider the impact that a bill, which requires a reduction of this magnitude in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, will have on our technological and industrial progress. Without fossil fuels, industrial civilization, and all the benefits that come with it, would come to a grinding halt. There are numerous examples of countries with very low levels of carbon emissions where one can see clearly what life is like without this industrialization, but these are not places one would want to visit: countries where people lack electricity, running water and sufficient food, where disease runs rampant, and most people do not reach the age of 40.

The long-term consequences of the Climate Change Bill are so destructive that some very careful deliberation is in order. Perhaps, if the science were conclusive, proponents of this bill could try to argue about the necessity for government action. But today, given the increasing skepticism from scientists towards the man-made global warming theory, it is unthinkable that Congress is even considering the draconian restrictions on the freedom of Americans contemplated under this new law. Every American who values industry, technology, progress, and freedom should strongly voice his opposition to the Climate Change Bill.

For additional reading on global warming, environmentalism and other related subjects, see here and here.

National Service: An Immoral Ideal

This spring the President signed into law The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. You should pay special attention to this law because much of it specifically targets young adults. Secondary schools, for example, are offered federal funds in exchange for developing their “service-learning” curricula, encouraging more high schools nationwide to develop service requirements. Under such programs, while studying, taking the SATs, and pouring energy into extra-curricular activities or part-time jobs, increasing numbers of students will also have to perform mandatory service.

And this policy will not be limited to high schools. Service requirements will also be instituted at an increasing number of universities as federal funds from this bill entice them to create or expand their own service initiatives. Because the bill encourages integrating “service-learning” into the curriculum, many universities will develop academic programs dedicated to inculcating a service mentality. In addition, students will be encouraged to work in a “Summer of Service” and to make longer commitments to Americorps.

What do all these initiatives mean to you? They mean more than just spending a summer in a soup kitchen or a year in a South American village, although these are not small matters. Many students need that time to work to pay down their students loans or to take summer classes. Should such requirements be instituted at your school, you may find yourself torn between doing what’s best for your scholarship, career, family, or finances—and giving one of these up to fulfill a service requirement.

And yet this new law has been hailed as a great example of bipartisanship because across the political spectrum there is a consensus that Americans, especially young Americans, should be willing to serve, to do more for others. In other words, everyone seems to agree that you have an obligation to sacrifice for others. But do you? And should the government be forcing you to do so?

Today many Americans accept such a duty and believe that making others one’s primary focus in life is noble. According to this view, you should focus not on the highest pinnacle you can achieve or what brings you the greatest fulfillment, but on how you can best serve others. Following this premise, service programs aim to harness and exploit the virtues of youth—energy, idealism, motivation, and passion—by means of yoking them to the burden of everyone on the planet who has an “unmet human need.” No amount of energy or resources is enough to fill this yawning abyss, and the consequence of such a system will be the sapping of virtue and ability.

It will be the best in you that will be exploited, and it will be the best of you that will be the most harmed. Today, one can do amazing things at a very young age; those of you who have a drive to learn, to create, to produce, to innovate—you will lose the most under this system. Not only because of the hours, weeks, or years that may be stolen, but because of something irreplaceable that may go with them—that benevolent feeling of being in control of your own path.

When you are forced to relinquish your time for service requirements, you’re being told that your life doesn’t really belong to you. Your hobbies, friends, and career aspirations all must take a back seat to unchosen obligations. Those who are tempted to argue that young people having less time for personal interests is not a big deal, or who attempt to justify national service initiatives by saying that some get a value from such work are ignoring the basic principle. It is fine that some people choose to do a bit of volunteering, but that cannot justify forcing everyone to do so. Each individual should have the freedom to decide to what he devotes his time and energy.

This attempt to conscript the lives of young Americans is the proposal of politicians who believe they are better qualified to decide how you spend your time than you are—and that they have the right to do it. But the purpose of government is to protect our rights, not to decree by legislative vote how we spend our time or what morals we should adopt in our private lives. Accepting service as the ideal will damage the lives of young people while simultaneously undermining the proper moral foundation of America: the right of each individual to make his own life and happiness his primary concern.

New Flyers Especially For Your Campus Club!

The Undercurrent has created a flyer especially for campus clubs. Pass this out in high-traffic areas of your college campus, post it on bulletin boards, or insert these into your copies of TU!

Help broadcast your organization’s presence by downloading these flyers. It’s easy to modify this document in Microsoft Word to reflect your club’s meeting times and contact information. Print a few copies and you’re ready to reach out to interested students on campus. To maximize the impact you’ll have on potential club members, attach these flyers to a copy of The Undercurrent.

Feel free to modify this document in any way you see fit. If you have any questions about modifying the flyer, converting it to a PDF, or are having any technical problems, contact victoria [at] the-undercurrent [dot] com.

Murdered Abortion Doctor’s Clinic Closes

Remember George Tiller, the recently murdered Kansas abortion doctor? Today we learned that his entire clinic, one of only a few in the country to provide late-term abortions, is closing down.

An opponent of abortion has succeeded in killing and intimidating yet another pocket of brave doctors who committed their professional lives to a woman’s right to choose the course of her own body-even in the hard cases.

Of course, anti-abortion groups have been quick to publicly denounce the murder as “vigilantism.” But there’s a reason why no one is really surprised when an abortion doctor is gunned down in cold blood.

The “pro-life” movement fervently believes that a fetus holds the same right to life as you and me, and so a pregnancy cannot be terminated at the decision of the woman experiencing it.  But what is the source of this view? Anti-abortionists are unable to ground their position in a rational conception of rights. All they can hope for is that an unknowable God imbues a fetus with a mystical soul from the moment of conception. There can be no proof and no knowledge with respect to such a claim, as it is based solely on religious faith. In imposing their religion on the rest of society, anti-abortionists are sacrificing the actual rights of women and doctors.

Because anti-abortionists cannot provide rational reasons for why a fetus holds the same rights as an actual human being, or why this supposed right outweighs the rights of the female carrying the fetus, it is no surprise that so many opponents of abortion resort to name-calling and intimidation tactics in advancing their agenda.  It is also no surprise that they seek to exert a more sanitized form of force, in the form of governmental coercion, against these women and doctors.

Force is the only alternative to reason and rational argument. “Pro-lifers,” by virtue of the religious source of their conviction against abortion (whether acknowledged or hidden) reject a rational means of persuasion. The end of such a road is, unfailingly, a smoking gun.

Special Summer Issue

It is my pleasure to announce that The Undercurrent will be running a special summer issue in time for the national Tea Parties on July 4th.

Please consider ordering some newspapers. Either go to http://the-undercurrent.com/order and order with PayPal, or e-mail your name, address, and the number of copies you need to contact [at] the-undercurrent [dot] com.

If you are going to OCON this summer and are planning to attend the Boston Tea Party, you also have the option of picking up your papers at the Boston Seaport Hotel. Please e-mail us if you want to take advantage of this option, rather than having the papers shipped to your home.

The papers are sold at cost and will be delivered before July 4th. However, if you would like to distribute but cannot afford to do so, please let us know. There is a good chance that we would be able to find a donor to sponsor your distribution efforts in such a case. Don’t hesitate to send a request by email to: contact [at] the-undercurrent [dot] com.

An alternative or supplement to distributing papers is handing out TU flyers. There are several designs available on our website at http://the-undercurrent.com/participate. Two of the flyers help to explain the current financial crisis and solutions, while another is intended to generate interest in TU.

From all of us at TU, thank you for your interest and support.

The Alternative to Non-Discrimination Law

In my previous post I argued that non-discrimination laws were immoral. But you might still wonder what we can do about the many irrational employers who might discriminate in the workplace. Without such laws won’t many employers consider race and sex unfairly? Won’t there be businesses that choose not to hire certain individuals based on their sex, like women for instance? Or simply choose not to pay them as much as men? In such cases, isn’t the government justified in enforcing reverse discrimination as a means to ending discrimination?

The answer is twofold. The first part of the answer is simply no, the government is never justified in forcing people to make what it regards, rightly or wrongly, as “rational”. No initiation of force by one human being (or institution) against another can be “justified”—such force inherently rejects the realm of reason and justification for the “might makes right” law of the jungle. A rational government is justified only in protecting individual rights, not in forcing people to be “good” to themselves or each other. [See here, here, and here for fuller explanation of this point.]

The second part of the answer is that even though it is not the government’s role to punish these people, it does not mean that they should not and will not be punished. They should be and are punished, both by the market and by the moral condemnation of rational individuals.

Think first of the practical consequences of a business that, for example, hired men only, or only served African Americans, or paid all of their employees based on what sort of ancestry they have. Running a business this way would mean that the best working employees, rather than being promoted, rewarded, and recognized, are left discouraged and under-utilized, and in many cases driven to leave the company. The company pays a real price for its discriminatory practices.

The full extent of the price depends on the extent to which rational individuals throw their weight behind what they regard as moral, and against what they regard as immoral. It is we as individuals, not government, that bear the actual responsibility for promoting the good and discouraging the evil we encounter. The power of public endorsement or condemnation is not to be underestimated.

Just ask yourself: Would you eat at a restaurant that only served white people, or that designated a special section for non-whites? Would you shop at a retail store that refused to hire women on principle? Would you buy a car from a dealership that refused to sell cars to gays? It is your job, not the government’s, to “vote with your feet” by endorsing certain values through your chosen actions.

There are cases in which people will ignore discriminatory practices, and a business may be able to temporarily thrive despite its irrationality. If a department store announced that it was militantly anti-homosexual, perhaps enough people would be indifferent to that fact that they would continue to shop there. But the response in such situations is not to go running to the government to force the department store to hire and sell to gay people. Tempting as that may be, the gun of the government is not the solution to every social ill. The solution is to advocate and educate the public—to work to bring awareness of the issue, and to encourage boycotts.

So long as we as individuals advocate for moral ideas and causes, in the fullness of time any business practicing discrimination will suffer as a result of that practice—and in a free market it would almost certainly fail. Such a business would not withstand the double assault of efficient competitors more focused on making profits than practicing racism, and the principled boycotts of a vocal and discerning minority of customers.

If we truly want to live in a world that does not unjustly discriminate on the basis of factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, then we should work to create such a world. In encouraging rather than discouraging discrimination, the seeming shortcut of anti-discrimination legislation is part of the problem, not the solution.

To Hire, and To Befriend. Should Government Have a Say?

Fairness. Individual rights. Equality under the law. These are all things we, as Americans, and more deeply, as human beings, cherish. We have accepted these ideas as moral, virtuous, and something towards which we ought to strive. It was allegedly in the name of these values that President Obama, with a swift stroke of his pen, signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

The Act, a law against discrimination on the job, attempts to establish equal pay amongst the supposed unequal within the workplace—for men and women; for gay and straight; for ethnicities and so forth. Obama noted that the Act would “send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody”.

Who could argue with that? What reasonable person does not regard discrimination as something distasteful and irrational? It seems that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a definite step in the right direction- an expression of Americanism.

And yet, in our personal lives, most of us wouldn’t support a law against discriminating on the basis of sex, race, religion, and so forth. We would think there is something un-American about the government regulating how we make decisions regarding friends, peers, or lovers. Even though some people undoubtedly make irrational choices, we still wouldn’t want the government to make a law against that. Whatever reasons one exercises in selecting a particular wife or husband, for example—whether one seeks someone who shares the same virtues or goals or interests, or whether one has deep-seated prejudices—we would not want these judgments rendered moot by government legislation.

With the passing of the Fair Pay Act, however, precisely this sort of law now exists within the workplace. Businesses no longer have the freedom to exercise their own judgment.

But what’s the difference? Like our personal lives, isn’t a private business just that—private? The local bar, the bowling alley, and the flower shop trade their daffodils, lagers, and bowling shoes, balls and alleys to individuals for money, at the price those individuals are voluntarily willing to pay. Such businesses are privately held, and privately employed. The amount or regularity of public customers does not make the business public. It serves the public, but it is not publicly-owned.

Just as private individuals choose whom they befriend, whom they steer clear of, whom they love, and for what reasons, shouldn’t private employers be free to choose whom they fire, whom they hire, at what pay level, and for whatever reasons? Both realms are private. Within both, individuals choose with whom they interact. What possible justification is there to support a law against discrimination in a private work environment, and not in a private personal environment? Just as we would object to a law that dictated with whom we spend our time in our private lives, we should also object to a law that dictated whom we hire, and for what reasons, in our private business.

The most important idea here is not whether sexism or racism or anything of the sort is irrational and immoral. They are, undoubtedly. The real issue, of the most importance, is whether or not the government should be telling people what they can and cannot do in their private lives. While supporters of this Act may think that laws dictating whom and for what reasons we hire or befriend in the private realm serve to “make sure it works for everybody,” they are wholly mistaken. It does no such thing. Americans don’t think that way. Individuals don’t think that way. And as individuals, in our personal lives, and in our work lives, we make our decisions, and we reap the consequences of these decisions, good or bad, irrational or rational. Government should have no say here; they should have no part in these decisions. Not even a little bit.

For an alternative to dealing with irrational employers who discriminate unfairly, see this post.

FDA Keeps Smokers At Risk

Millions of Americans choose to continue smoking despite known health risks. Presumably, the value they get from smoking is (rightly or wrongly) worth the risk to them. But for a short time, it appeared that smokers had a healthy third alternative: electronic cigarettes.

The electronic cigarette is a relatively new innovation that works by allowing smokers to inhale vaporized nicotine instead of burning smoke. The effect and experience is very similar to smoking, but without the ill effects of the carcinogens and tar associated with traditional cigarettes. This is an incredible invention. Suddenly, cigarette breaks may no longer need to be a source of guilt. Instead, smoking becomes equivalent to coffee—just another reasonably safe way to get a little extra enjoyment and relaxation out of life.

Extensive studies of this technology are lacking, but preliminary research suggests that e-cigarettes are incomparably healthier than traditional cigarettes. Scientists have long known that it is the burning of tar and other carcinogens that is the basic cancer-causing mechanism of cigarettes, and this mechanism simply does not exist in electronic cigarettes.

The FDA, however, does not give a damn. Citing concerns that the electronic cigarette “might introduce nonusers to nicotine,” the agency has recently launched a campaign against the product, interfering actively with its importation and sale. Today, much of the property of electronic cigarette manufacturers is sitting locked up in some government warehouse instead of being delivered to its rightful owners.

Rather than leaving it up to individual Americans—smokers, scientists, doctors—to judge the value of electronic cigarettes, the FDA has chosen to deny smokers the opportunity to pursue this alternative.

Where does the government acquire the moral authority to do this? Such an authority does not exist in the founding documents of this country. It certainly did not exist in the spirit of freedom that animated the revolutionaries of 1776, and led to the creation of the freest and most prosperous nation on the globe.

The authority of the FDA is not a moral authority at all. It is the authority of the gun. It is by muscle and not by right that the FDA is forcing those who sell these products, and those who choose to buy them, to forgo the opportunity to pursue their happiness in the way they judge best.

When the statistics of smoking-related illnesses and deaths are published later this year, pause and wonder for a moment how many of them would not have occurred if the FDA had only left Americans free to make their own choices, instead of dictating which products they could and could not purchase. And pause and wonder about the innovation-stifling effects the FDA’s campaign will have on the nascent electronic cigarette industry. If even one American dies who otherwise would have lived, and it will likely be many more than that, the guilt of the government will be beyond repair.

See How You Can Get Involved With TU On Our New Participate Page!

Whether you’re interested in promoting our website, distributing the newspaper, or engaging in other activism, you should check out all the resources now available on our Participate page!

This page is the new central location for information on distributing, editing, and writing for The Undercurrent. It also includes a selection of flyers to print and post on campus or hand out at local tea parties, club meetings, or anywhere else you think might attract attention.

If you have your own blog or website and would like to post a TU banner, we have a selection of new banners to choose from. Go to the Participate page at http://the-undercurrent.com/participate/ to view more banners and to copy the HTML code for your website.

The High Cost of a Free Lunch

Congress recently approved a new budget of staggering proportions. Weighing in at $3.6 trillion, the plan provides billions in allocations towards a national health plan, green energy, foreign aid, education, and countless other programs. The president has declared that his budget is “an economic blueprint for the future–a vision of America… that will lead to a real and lasting prosperity.” 

Before breaking out in celebration, however, it would be prudent to consider: what’s the catch?  Will this flood of spending truly usher in a new era of prosperity, or will there perhaps be an even higher price to pay down the road?  

For example, wouldn’t it be great if, as Obama promises, “… every single American has health care when they need it, that every senior has prescription drugs they can afford, and that no parents are going to bed at night worrying about how they’ll afford medicine for a sick child”? But what if, in exchange for providing the nation with health care, the government required you to submit your waistline measurement on a regular basis, screened your menu for unhealthy items, and shut down your favorite restaurant for serving unapproved meals?  

Such a scenario might sound Orwellian, but it is already becoming a reality, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. In Japan, government health officials force anyone whose waistline is bigger than the government-ordained size to undergo diet counseling. In Los Angeles, the City Council recently banned the establishment of fast food restaurants for the upcoming year. California has restricted restaurants from using oils, butters, or other ingredients that the government deems too unhealthy.  What about my freedom, you ask?  You gave up your freedom when you asked the state to pay for your hospital bill—the government is in charge of your health now.

The Senate Republican Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell has declared that he is “…recommitted to putting [his] state and our nation on the road to clean energy independence.” Doesn’t this sound like a noble vision for our environment and economy? But what if, in exchange for providing you with new “clean” energy, the government began to tell you how much you are allowed to drive per month, or how many lights you may have on in your home?

This is already being tried around the world. Brazil rationed energy in 2001, for example, and is expected to do so again. The government forced companies to cut their power by 25% and residents by 20%. Those who used more than the government-ordained limit faced fines and had their power turned off for up to six days as punishment.  The California Energy Commission has proposed requiring thermostats in private homes that would allow government officials to remotely adjust household temperatures.  What about my freedom, you ask?  You gave up your freedom when you asked the state to fund your power grid—the government is now in charge of “blueprinting” your energy future.

The pattern we see emerging is clear. Every time a new welfare program is created or more money is spent on a public service, the government is necessarily given more authority over our lives. This is no coincidence: the government possesses one thing that private industry does not—the ability to enact its policies not through the consent of the customer, but by force. The government is thereby fundamentally different from a private health care provider or power company. Whereas the latter can only attempt to win your purchase through creative marketing and persuasion, the government uses force to make you behave as it deems best. Thus, when you vote for more government spending on services formerly provided by private companies and individuals, what you’re really asking for is more of the government’s coercive intrusion and paternalism.  

As the Obama administration embarks upon an unprecedented expansion of the welfare state, we must realize that we are paying not only with our tax dollars, but with our very freedom.

Photo by Tyrven

This article was also published in the July 2009 print issue.