His previous videos are primarily educational, and while his newest one does educate, it’s extremely practical. As a response to a left-liberal video called The Story of Broke (same creators as The Story of Stuff), it sets an example of how to talk about public choice problems and the knowledge problem while at the same time agreeing with much of the critique of our current system. It’s simple, and brilliant. Add to that the amazing production effects (seriously, there are sharks in this video!), and it’s a wonderful 4-minute video.

Check it out:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Story of Broke Response

In addition to getting their bodies squeezed by the TSA, airline passengers are now getting their wallets squeezed by the airlines as well.

Some airlines have begun charging $5 for printing out your boarding pass at the airport. Even if you print from a self-service kiosk, you’ll still pay a $1 printing fee. Some airlines are now charging a 10 percent fee for infants traveling on international flights who are seated in your lap. One carrier, Ryanair, charges extra for babies on any flight, domestic or international. Some airlines have a fee of $40 for bringing a large carry-on onboard. The fee is only $20 if you indicate as much when you book your ticket. Some airlines are now charging extra for snacks. The last time I checked, JetBlue and US Airways were charging $7 for a blanket and pillow and American Airlines was charging $8. The extra fees were obviously not enough to help American, as it just filed for bankruptcy.

Obviously, to get around paying the fees, passengers could print their boarding passes at home, leave their infants with family members when flying overseas, travel only with small carry-on bags, eat before they board, forgo the blanket and pillow, or choose an airline that doesn’t have the particular fee they don’t want to pay.

But one practice that all airlines (except Southwest) have instituted, and maintained in spite of cries from the public that they are being gouged, is a fee for checked luggage. In a perfect illustration of the laws of supply and demand, as airlines imposed fees to check bags, more passengers began carrying their luggage onboard.

But the outrage of the flying public has only increased. According to Steve Lott, spokesman for the airline industry group Air Transport Association, fewer than one in four passengers now pays a checked-luggage fee. That means not only that more carry-on bags must go through security checkpoints, further slowing down the security process, but that space for carry-on bags in airplane overhead bins is at a premium. It’s no wonder that too much carry-on luggage toted by passengers recently emerged as the number-one complaint of air travelers.

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) aims to change all that. Like all statists in Congress — the overwhelming majority in both parties — she believes that the solution to any problem is government intervention. She has just introduced a bill (S.1913), the Basic Airline Services to Improve Customer Satisfaction Act, or BASICS Act, to forbid airlines to charge for the first checked bag.

In a press release, Landrieu maintains that airlines collected $3.9 billion in checked-baggage fees in 2008 and 2009. She asserts that her legislation will solve both the “financial burden of paying a fee” and the “headache of trying to fit everything into a carry-on.” Says the senator,

When an airline advertises a flight, that is how much it should cost, plain and simple. Passengers should not be charged additional fees for checked or carry-on baggage, drinkable water or other reasonable requests. Air travel can be a stressful experience for many reasons, but unfair fees for basic amenities should not be one of them…. Passengers have been nickeled and dimed for far too long and something has to be done about it. Air carriers should be required to provide a minimum standard of service to their passengers or face additional fees — that is what the Airline Passenger BASICS Act and the FAIR Act will do.

The FAIR Act would impose additional fees on airlines that do not comply.

The only redeeming thing about the bill is its brevity and simplicity. Section 1 gives the title of the bill and section 2 states just the following:

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations —

1. to require an air carrier operating under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to permit each passenger who has purchased a ticket for air transportation on the air carrier to, without paying a charge in addition to the price of the ticket —
   1. check one bag that is not considered overweight or oversized pursuant to the policy of the air carrier in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act;
   2. carry on to the aircraft one personal item and one carry-on bag that are not considered overweight or oversized pursuant to that policy; and
   3. once the passenger boards the aircraft, have access to–
      1. a seat;
      2. potable water; and
      3. bathroom facilities; and
2. to impose a civil penalty on an air carrier that fails to comply with the regulations prescribed under paragraph (1).

That is it. That is the entire bill. But a clear and concise bill is not necessarily a good bill.

First of all, Steve Lott points out that “banning baggage fees would actually be less fair to customers, as it could result in higher ticket costs that all passengers would bear as opposed to just those who are checking bags.” According to the Air Transport Association, airfare alone does not cover the operating cost of a flight. The price of jet fuel has risen from an average of a little more than $1 a gallon between 2001 and 2005 to more than $3 in 2011. According to Tony Tyler, the chief of the International Air Transport Association, “Domestic and foreign carriers will transport about 7.6 million people next year, but profits are projected at less than 1 percent.” The airline industry as a whole lost $25 billion in the last decade. The lesson here is that things are not always as they seem and there are always unintended consequences whenever the government intervenes in the economy.

Second, banning airlines from charging fees for checked bags — for whatever reason — is a form of price controls like those instituted by Richard Nixon in 1971 and Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, in 2011. Nixon’s “temporary” imposition of wage and price controls on August 15, 1971, turned into more than two years of Soviet-style central planning in the United States with a cost-of-living council and pay boards and price commissions to approve requested price increases after a 90-day freeze. Invoking the ideals of Lenin, Chavez recently said that “the Law for Fair Costs and Prices would prevent unscrupulous businesses from unjustly raising prices.”

Although Nixon did it to institute “a new economic policy” (kind of like George W. Bush’s saying he had to abandon free-market principles to save the free market), and Chavez to “protect the people from capitalism,” the result is the same: government central planning by bureaucrats.

Sometimes government price controls take other forms. Minimum-wage laws are a result of government bureaucrats’ setting a price floor below which the price of labor is forbidden by law to fall. Price-gouging laws are a result of government bureaucrats’ setting a price ceiling above which the price of goods is forbidden to rise.

But whether governments dictate that prices can’t be raised, can’t be lowered, or can’t be changed at all, price controls are still a form of Soviet-style central planning.

Third, just as there is no right to a free drink with your meal at a restaurant or free use of bowling shoes when you go bowling, so there is no right to free checked luggage when you take an airline flight. Do I want to have to pay to check my luggage when I fly? Of course not. Who would? I don’t want to have to pay for my flight either, but I do it if I want to board the plane. Just as I pay for dinner at a restaurant or for tickets at a theater, even though I would prefer to eat and watch for free.

Fourth, consumers have the power to persuade airlines to lower prices or eliminate fees without the heavy hand of government mandates and regulations. After major U.S. banks recently announced that they would begin charging their customers a monthly fee for using their debit cards, Americans in droves voiced their opposition and began transferring their money into local credit unions. The banks caved in and discontinued the fees.

Fifth, and most important, whether the airlines are “gouging” consumers, whether they are charging “unfair” fees, or whether the airlines can “afford” to not charge for checked bags is not the real issue. Where does Mary Landrieu or any other member of the Senate or House get the authority to tell businesses what services they can and cannot charge their customers for? Certainly not from the Constitution they have sworn to uphold. Congress is checking the Constitution at the door if it thinks it has the right to dictate such things. The BASICS Act is one more piece of statist baggage that further weighs down a free society.

Originally posted at The Future of Freedom Foundation on December 7, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Statist Baggage on the Airlines

1. It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano – The Judge, host of FreedomWatch on Fox Business, has put together an amazing book that analyzes a host of topics from the standpoint of natural law. I will be reviewing this book on LCC soon but I’m going to say it now – you need to read this book. The data and stories he presents in the book make it easily worth every penny and a well-deserved place on your (or anyone else’s) bookshelf.

2. Libertarianism Today by Jacob Huebert – This book was on the list last year, but it warrants another mention because you can get it at a significantly reduced price by purchasing directly from the publisher. Huebert’s book is definitely a must-read, and is one of the best recent books on hardcore libertarianism in the past few years. LCC writer Laurence Vance has called it, “The best introduction to libertarianism on the market.”

3. Bourbon for Breakfast and It’s a Jetsons World by Jeffrey Tucker – Check out the LCC review of Bourbon for Breakfast, and you’ll see that it is a super read for anyone looking to circumvent statist restrictions upon their lives. Tucker’s followup work tells exciting stories of the little everyday miracles of the free market at work.

4. Liberty Defined by Ron Paul – Another gold standard in libertarian literature by one of liberty’s greatest defenders. See the LCC review for the full story.

5. Rollback by Thomas Woods – I am a huge fan of Tom Woods and have known him for over 5 years now. His latest book makes an eloquent case for dismantling pretty much everything the government currently does today.

6. Great Wars and Great Leaders by Ralph Raico – Leaders who take a country to war are often heralded as “great,” but the libertarian perspective dispenses such ideas as folly. War is the health of the state and the enemy of liberty, and Raico’s historical work is great ammunition in the war of ideas that we fight daily.

7. Myth of a Guilty Nation by Albert Jay Nock – This is an old book newly reprinted by the Mises Institute, and I’m excited to see it available again (because I’m a big fan of Nock and haven’t ever read this one). From the Mises.org description: “Nock’s book reminds us of what most everyone has forgotten, namely, that this was sold as a war for freedom and self-determination over imperial ambition. Along with that came some of the most rabid war propaganda ever fabricated until that point in time, all designed to make Germany into a devil nation. Nock’s brave book took on that idea and demonstrated that there was fault enough to go around on all sides. All through the 1920s, a Nockian-style retelling of the facts behind the war led to a dramatic shift in public opinion against World War I.” Awesome!

8. The Bastiat Collection Pocket Edition by Frederic Bastiat – If you haven’t read Bastiat’s The Law, you need to get on that immediately! This book contains all the major works of Bastiat in a very small volume, and makes a great gift.

9. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt – Need to learn a little more about economics? Start with the classic by Hazlitt, and never forget the first lesson again…

10. Christian Theology of Public Policy and Bible and Government by John Cobin – I would be remiss to write a book list on LCC and not mention the excellent work of John Cobin, especially in this volume. As Christian libertarians, these are must reads, and don’t forget to check out Cobin’s free Christian Theology of Public Policy Short Course series on LCC!

Check out other Top 10 book lists and book reviews on LCC for more ideas, and remember that every time you shop at Amazon.com through a LibertarianChristians.com link you are supporting the work of LCC! Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Libertarian Books for Christmas 2011

To me, it seems ironic to me that they would criticize “neo-liberal thinking” of trying to implement “technical solutions” to economic problems, then essentially propose a new central bank. I can’t think of anything more “technical” than forming a new state apparatus that has monopoly power over money itself. If anything, the statement shows a profound confusion about the nature of economic problems in the world and what must be done to solve them.

Tom Woods has been very busy these past few days writing response articles to this statement, and they are worth reading (especially if you’re not particularly familiar with the internals of the Catholic Church). Here are the links:

Idolatry of the Market at LewRockwell.com

Truth and Charity at Taki’s Magazine

Don’t Mix the Ecclesiastical with the Economical at NPR

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Vatican’s Confused Statement on the Marketplace

(HT Chris Bevis for the title of this post.)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Is Saul also among the prophets?” or, the Rush Limbaugh flip-flop

You can see the full details of the plan here, or you can download a PDF. Here are some of the high notes:

Spending and Entitlement Programs

The Paul budget cuts $1 trillion in the first year of his presidency, including complete evaporation of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, Interior, and Education. Finally, a Republican who actually wants to abolish the wretched DOEs (both of them)! Ending foreign wars provides most of the cuts in this category. Spending returns to 2006 levels within a year (not enough, in my opinion, but a good start).

The plan provides for preservation of existing Medicaid and other welfare programs for the time being, but more importantly allows people to opt out! Considering that I no ZERO people, libertarian or not, who expect to receive a cent back from what they pay into Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security this is a godsend.

Taxes

Paul’s plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, which is down from around 40%. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates out there and it is one of the many reasons for the declining industrial economy here. All of the Bush tax cuts remain (one of the few good things Bush ever did) and the Death Tax is abolished. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

Regulation

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley will be scrapped, thank goodness. Not really a surprise, of course, because these monstrous regulatory devices are easily some of the most destructive mandates in recent years.  The report also says, “President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.” Hopefully by “onerous” he means almost everything.

Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve, of course, will get a full audit, exposing the government banksters’ fraud and deception forced upon the world. Gold may not be made official money yet, but this is the best start you can hope for.

Conclusion

All this being said, as an abolitionist I would be remiss to point out that this budget does not go far enough, for three reasons. First, why are certain departments, like defense, seeing nominal increases in spending after the major cuts year on year? If the plan is to drill down the size of government, I wouldn’t expect to see any department or program see increases over the years. And no, I don’t think that inflation-adjusted numbers should count. I don’t get a raise just because my money is worth less, and neither should the government.

Second, unless I missed it then why on earth is the income tax not eliminated on day one? Has that not been a pretty important point of Paul’s message from the beginning? Would somebody correct me please?

Third, why stop here with the cuts? There are plenty more departments to eliminate, bureaucratic orgs to eradicate, and government waste to incinerate. Never rest on your laurels, strike the root! Now, I grant that, while comprehensive, this plan is not written on stone tablets. Ron probably would love to do more, but in such a publication as this you must nail down the essentials rather than write every detail you can. So, kudos to the Paul campaign for putting forward a good plan.

Again, you can check out the full plan here.

I hear there is another major money bomb coming up, called Black This Out. If you support this plan, perhaps you should consider donating?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), more popularly known as Obamacare, passed the Senate on Christmas Eve of 2009, passed the House on March 21, 2010, and was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. It was one of the most controversial and partisan pieces of legislation in history, with no Republican in either house of Congress voting in favor of the 2407-page bill (H.R. 3590 [PDF]).

The onerous provisions of the PPACA include an expansion of Medicaid eligibility, the prohibition of annual and lifetime coverage caps, the elimination of co-payments and deductibles for selected health-insurance benefits, guaranteed issue of insurance policies without regard to preexisting conditions, federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, employer mandates, more arcane insurance regulations, an increase in the Medicare tax on the “rich,” and a tax on indoor tanning services. Perhaps the most egregious part of Obamacare is the “individual mandate” that every American not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or health insurance must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

Within hours of the passage of Obamacare, the attorney general of Florida, Bill McCollum, and the attorneys general of twelve other states (Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor, and their respective department secretaries, Kathleen Sebelius, Timothy Geithner, and Hilda L. Solis, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The lawsuit was later joined by the attorneys general of thirteen other states (Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), the National Federation of Independent Business, and two individuals, Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg.

On January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola struck down the Obamacare mandate, declaring, “The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional” (PDF). He said further,

The defendants’ argument that people without health insurance are actively engaged in interstate commerce based on the purported “unique” features of the much broader health care market is neither factually convincing nor legally supportable.

Because I find both the “uniqueness” and “economic decision” arguments unpersuasive, I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.

And because Judge Vinson reasoned that “the Constitutionality of the individual mandate is the crux of this entire case,” and “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable,” he also ruled that “the entire Act must be declared void.”

The judge then ruled on March 3 that he would honor the Obama administration’s request that his ruling be stayed while the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, reviewed the case. He also expressed interest in the Supreme Court hearing the case because “the sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be.”

After an official appeal by the government on March 8, the Atlanta appellate court, by a 2–1 vote on August 12, affirmed the judgment of Judge Vinson in a 207-page opinion that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but rejected his argument that the mandate was not severable from the rest of the PPACA, thus rendering the rest of Obamacare “legally operative” (PDF).

On September 28, the state plaintiffs (PDF), the National Federation of Independent Business (PDF), and the Obama administration (PDF) each filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Obama administration also issued a statement through Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president and deputy senior advisor, affirming the constitutionality of the PPACA and expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will agree.

But Florida et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services et al. is not the only lawsuit against Obamacare. Since the PPACA was passed, there have been twenty-five other court challenges to the new health care law.

Besides the Florida case, there are two other cases where the individual mandate of Obamacare was declared unconstitutional.

In Virginia v. Sebelius, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the individual-mandate provision of the law on December 13, 2010. Said Judge Henry Hudson, “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” But the government appealed the decision in the 4th circuit court of appeals, in Richmond, which ruled unanimously on September 8, 2011, that the district-court judgment be vacated and the case remanded back to that court to be dismissed “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” because the plaintiff lacks standing.

In Goudy-Bachman v. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled on September 13, 2011, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Judge Christopher Connor wrote that allowing the individual mandate to stand “would effectively sanction Congress’s exercise of police power under the auspices of the Commerce Clause, jeopardizing the integrity of our dual sovereignty structure.”

In six other cases, the constitutionality of Obamacare was upheld. Three of them were also heard at the appeals court level.

In Liberty University v. Geithner, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed the case on November 30, 2010. On appeal, the fourth circuit court of appeals, by a vote of 2–1 on September 8, 2011, vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case back to that court to be dismissed “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” because the individual mandate is a tax that cannot be challenged in court until it is collected, which will not be until 2014.

In Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case on October 7, 2010. On appeal, the sixth circuit court of appeals ruled, by a vote of 2–1 on June 29, 2011, that Congress has a “rational basis” to impose the individual mandate, and the court upheld the constitutionality of the PPACA.

In Seven-Sky & American Center for Law and Justice v. Holder, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on February 22, 2011. The decision of the D.C. circuit court of appeals is pending.

Nine other cases were dismissed by district courts for lack of standing or procedural problems. One of these cases, New Jersey Physicians v. Obama, was also heard by the third circuit court of appeals, which upheld the district court ruling. Two of the nine cases, Baldwin & Pacific Justice Institute v. Sebelius and Kinder v. Geithner, are pending at the appeals-court level.

Eight cases are still pending at the district-court level.

All these cases basically come down to the question of the “individual mandate” versus the “commerce clause.” In general, liberal judges appointed by Democratic presidents view the mandate as constitutional, while conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents view the mandate as unconstitutional. Both groups err, but in different respects.

The commerce clause is the most abused part of the Constitution. It has been used by the federal government to increase its power over the states and their citizens and to decrease the power of the states and their citizens. It has been used to force farmers to destroy crops and pay a fine for growing “too much” wheat (Wickard v. Filburn). It has also been used to criminalize marijuana for medical use even where states approve its use (Gonzales v. Raich). All the commerce clause says is that Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

During the health-care debates back in 2009, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNS News where the Constitution authorizes Congress to order Americans to purchase health insurance. Her response was simply, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” She answered no further, and took another question. Her press secretary then said that asking Pelosi where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a “serious question.”

Pelosi’s office has issued a statement on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform” in which she does answer the question:

The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the health care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.

In the early history of the American republic, as Judge Vinson points out in his decision striking down Obamacare, “The word ‘commerce’ was understood to encompass trade, and the intercourse, traffic, or exchange of goods; in short, ‘the activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest’” (PDF). Not manufacturing, not mining, not agriculture, not insurance, not medical care.

Nowhere, as Judge Vinson further points out, “in Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist” is the term “commerce” “ever used to refer unambiguously to activity beyond trade or exchange.” Any member of the federal judiciary should be familiar with this.

Obamacare is unconstitutional because health care and health insurance are not commerce, are not interstate commerce, and are not relevant to the commerce clause.

According to Madison — the father of the Constitution — the commerce clause

grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, as Judge Vinson summarized from U.S. v. Lopez (1995), has “identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power”:

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

But even under the widest possible interpretation of the commerce clause, the individual mandate is still unconstitutional. In the PPACA, Congress has assumed the power to create commerce by forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and to regulate inactivity by penalizing individuals for not doing so. Obamacare moves the country closer to a single-payer system; that is, socialized medicine, something that Democrats in Congress have sought to institute since the presidency of Harry Truman.

When the Supreme Court decides to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it will have to decide two questions: whether the individual mandate is constitutional, and whether it is severable from the rest of the health care law.

There is something far more important, however, that the Supreme Court will not be deciding: whether Congress has the authority to legislate concerning health care in the first place.

Nancy Pelosi’s aforementioned “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform” says

Reform opponents continue to spread myths about components of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, including the nonsensical claim that the federal government has no constitutionally valid role in reforming our health care system — apparently ignoring the validity of Medicare and other popular federal health reforms.

The federal judges who found the individual mandate unconstitutional actually agree with Pelosi on this point. Here is Judge Vinson in his original decision that declared Obamacare unconstitutional:

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here. (PDF)

And here are Judges Joel Dubina and Frank Hull of the 11th circuit court of appeals in Atlanta, stating that although the individual mandate is unconstitutional, Congress still has broad power to legislate concerning health care:

We conclude that the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power. This conclusion is limited in scope. The power that Congress has wielded via the Commerce Clause for the life of this country remains undiminished. Congress may regulate commercial actors. It may forbid certain commercial activity. It may enact hundreds of new laws and federally-funded programs, as it has elected to do in this massive 975-page Act. But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die. (PDF)

As demonstrated at length throughout our opinion, Congress has broad power to deal with the problems of the uninsured, and it wielded that power pervasively in this comprehensive and sweeping Act. As to the individual mandate provision, however, Congress exceeded its enumerated commerce power.

Because the belief that government should intervene in some way into health care is so pervasive and systemic, the question of whether Congress has the authority to legislate concerning health care was not and will not be considered by any federal court. And that is unfortunate, because strict constitutionalists recognize that the Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have anything to do with health care or health insurance.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to provide a health-care safety net, a prescription drug plan, vaccinations, medical treatment, or health insurance subsidies.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care or insurance, to eliminate co-payments and deductibles, or to guarantee issue of insurance policies without regard to preexisting conditions.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to fund clinical trials, laboratories, community health centers, medical research, or family planning.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to mandate medical licensing or force hospitals to treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, or HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to regulate hospitals, nursing homes, the health-insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, organ sales or donations, medical devices, medical schools, physicians, dentists, nurses, midwives, psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists, or practitioners of holistic, chiropractic, homeopathic, nutritional, or other forms of alternative medicine.

Libertarians, of course, also recognize that not only are these things unconstitutional, they are beyond the purpose and scope of a government limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property.

The Supreme Court may overturn the individual mandate or the whole of Obamacare, but neither of those actions will restore a free market in health care.

Originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation on October 11, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Supreme Court and Obamacare

Consider this question for a moment: If you were asked to explain why a free market is a good thing, how would you do it? What would come to mind? In less than 10 minutes of watching these videos, you can understand the benefits of trade and be ready to explain it to someone else.

Video 1: Wealth Creation

Video 2: Cooperation

Video 3: Conservation

The LearnLiberty.org project is sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies, so kudos to them for doing great work.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Trade is Made of Win

The gentlemen at the Freakonomics blog had some excellent things to say about the Ten Commandments of The American Religion. Some of it is hilarious to read, but the more salient point is that these are “meta issues” that form the background of American culture, and we need to understand it in order to fight it. Kudos to James Altucher for some thought-provoking content. Here’s a quick quote:

#3 Thou Shalt Recognize that Some Wars Are Holy. Everyone argued with me in my post about “Name me a war that was worth it.” Apparently some wars are “holy” and can’t be argued against. All I want is to prevent 18 year-olds from dying. That’s the basis of my argument. We can argue all the history we want after that.

Also, if you haven’t checked on LewRockwell.com recently, you really should read Lew’s latest article: The Police State Abolishes the Trial.

Today, every single citizen, no matter how free he or she may feel in daily life, is in reality a sitting duck. You can be made to disappear. There is essentially no way you can escape once the feds sweep you into their net. There is no justice. The total states of the past used to pretend to have trial-based convictions. The total state of the present doesn’t even bother. It just puts a sack over your head and takes you away…

How could this have happened in America? Well, looking back, it seems that it all stems from a single flaw: the belief that the most essential institution in society is the state that protects us from criminality and must maintain a monopoly over justice. Some of the greatest defenders of freedom otherwise have been happy to make this one concession to the state. And this one concession is now a major source of our undoing as a free people.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Freakonomics on the Ten Commandments of The American Religion, and more.

I’m still waiting for him, or anyone else, to explain exactly how one measures the common good.  Should we measure it in median income, chicken dinners per household, or perhaps dinners per chicken coop?

Come to think of it, one cannot “measure the economy” at all; neither by the common good nor by maximum profit.  Maximum profit is only a useful measure for a private enterprise.  It is the key measure to know whether the company is producing more value than it is costing.  Every company should aim for this goal.  The economy as a whole is an impossible and meaningless aggregate like GDP and is used for political aims, not economic gains.

He continues, “The economy cannot function only with mercantile self-regulation but needs an ethical reason in order to work for man,”  But this fails to realize that these interests are one and the same.  It is ethical and necessary for man to work because God commands us not to take from others.  In our pursuit of profits the market is regulated by supply and demand.  This is not a “self” regulation but a product of the free market system.  Nowhere, this side of heaven, will people “self-regulate” their actions.

Tom Woods, a vocal Catholic and Austrian economist, has written a great book on the church and the free market. I wish the Pope would read it.

Editor’s Note: Although we think the Pope is completely wrong on this issue, we do not wish to be disparaging in total. (The alliteration was clever, though, don’t you think?) We will freely criticize leaders of any denomination who promote bad economics and seek power, and herald those who speak truth to power.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Don’t be duped by this dope, errr, Pope.