May 042009
 

Professor Carl Coleman of Seton Hall Law School has written an interesting paper entitled, “Beyond the Call of Duty: Compelling Health Care Professionals to Work During an Influenza Pandemic”.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but I’m in substantial agreement with the abstract:

In anticipation of pandemics and other mass disasters, several states have enacted little-known laws that authorize government officials to order health care professionals to work during declared public health emergencies, even when doing so would pose life-threatening risks. Health care professionals who violate these orders could face substantial penalties, ranging from license revocations to fines and imprisonment. The penalties would apply even to individuals whose jobs do not normally involve clinical responsibilities, as well as to health care professionals who are retired or taking time off from work to care for their families. This Article argues that these laws impose burdens that exceed the ethical commitments individuals make when they accept a professional license. In so doing, they compel health care professionals to engage in what is normally considered supererogatory behavior — i.e., acts that are commendable if done voluntarily, but that go beyond what is expected.

In making this argument, the Article rejects commonly-made assertions about health care professionals’ ethical obligations, including the claim that health care professionals assumed the risk of infection; that a social contract requires health care professionals to work despite potential health risks; and that individuals who have urgently-needed skills have an obligation to use them. It concludes that, while health care professionals can legitimately be sanctioned for violating voluntarily-assumed employment or contractual agreements, they should not be compelled to assume life-threatening risks based solely on their status as licensed professionals. In place of singling out health care professionals for punitive measures, the Article argues that policy-makers should institute mechanisms to promote volunteerism.

(The full paper can be downloaded here.)

A few comments:

1) I’m encouraged that there’s a recognition that there is no such thing as a duty to engage in suicidal self-sacrifice.

2) This shows what happens when the government is granted the power to license practitioners in any field, whether it be medicine, nursing, cosmetology, etc. The government can then claim, “We’ve granted you this privilege, now you have to pay for it by performing additional duty on our terms rather than your own”.

3) This is yet another reason to oppose government-mandated medical licensing, in addition to the arguments made by Alex Epstein (“End Government Licensing“) and Shirley Svorny (“Medical Licensing: An Obstacle to Affordable, Quality Care“).

(Via Marginal Revolution.)


Share This Post

The ABC’s of Virginia Alcohol Law

 Posted by on 3 May 2009 at 11:01 pm  Government, Politics
May 032009
 

This video, “The ABC’s of Virginia Alcohol Law“, was the 2009 winner of the “Best Video of the Year” award from the Sam Adams Alliance:

It also features frequent NoodleFood commenter Steve Simpson from the Institute of Justice, discussing how the state of Virginia infringes on the free speech rights of some honest businessmen by outlawing their ability to make true statements about the products they sell.

(Via Ari Armstrong, who was also the 2009 winner of the “Modern Day Sam Adams” award.)


Share This Post

Against Public Works

 Posted by on 9 April 2009 at 11:01 pm  Government, Politics
Apr 092009
 

On a mailing list, someone recently asked about Adam Smith’s “third duty of government,” namely:

… the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.

The person asked, and reasonably so:

How is this determined; and to what extent is the benefit of the majority a reasonable argument for the forced expense of any individual? (i.e., National defense)

Here was my reply:

Adam Smith’s view puts us on a slippery slope, I think. It concedes the moral superiority of the collective over the individual.

If you grant that it’s acceptable to forcibly tax people to provide for “public works” and “public institutions,” then you’ll soon be forcibly taxing people to satisfy the demands of narrow special interests. Why? Because the mechanism of doling out such public funds can and will be used by the special interests that stand to gain so many unearned dollars from it.

That’s certainly has happened in American history, to such an extent that we’re now spending billions on special interests with barely any discussion thereof. Everyone expects their slice of the government pie, they demand it at other people’s expense, and they get it. While many people question the legitimacy of this or that project, few people question the legitimacy of the basic principle. They accept that some people should be forced to part with their money for the sake of projects of no interest to them — or even projects contrary to their values. But that’s wrong.

If some project is truly of great benefit to humanity, then either (1) the users of that project should be willing to pay for the benefit they get (e.g. by paying to visit the museum, attend the opera, drive on the road, attend the school, or use the open space) or (2) benefactors, whether large or small, must be found to fund it (e.g. to endow the school, museum, or opera). Often, some combination of those two methods is perfectly workable — as history itself shows. (The National Gallery of Art, for example, was created and endowed by Andrew Mellon and other private collectors.)

If some grand project cannot be funded by either of those two voluntary methods, then it’s clearly not valued by the public. And in that case, to force people to spend their hard-earned dollars on it is utterly indefensible. It’s a sham, in fact.

As a side note, I regard the military, the police, and the courts as a different kind of case than “public works”: they are legitimate functions of government. Yes, they do benefit everyone, and they are necessary to the existence of a civilized society. Yet even in their case, coercive taxation is morally wrong — and practically dangerous. All government should be financed by voluntary contributions. If we can have an all-volunteer military — where men and women put their lives on the line for too-low pay in order to protect America (and more, unfortunately) — then citizens voluntarily contributing their part in taxes is hardly far-fetched.

Thoughts?


Share This Post

Man Detained for Carrying Cash

 Posted by on 5 April 2009 at 11:01 pm  Government
Apr 052009
 

The Agitator says: “Detained by TSA in town for a conference, a director of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty is detained by TSA at the St. Louis airport because when asked to explain why he’s carrying $4,700 in cash (it was proceeds from book and ticket sales at the conference), he asks the agents to tell him what law requires him to do so. He managed to surreptitiously record his conversations with TSA officers on a cell phone. The audio is infuriating.”

Wow. While I’m no fan of Ran Paul, I’m completely horrified by the attitude displayed by these government employees toward a man guilty of nothing more than carrying a few thousand dollars of cash.

The fact is that too many people — many of them working for government now — would willing participate in police state, even to the point of inflicting torture and death on innocent persons. Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments on obedience to authority prove that with frightening certainty.


Share This Post

Hugel OpEd on National Service

 Posted by on 30 March 2009 at 11:01 pm  Activism, Government
Mar 302009
 

The March 30, 2009 edition of the Harrisburg (PA) Patriot-News has published the following excellent OpEd by OAC student Lucy Hugel on the national service bill. Here’s the introduction:

National service bill makes ‘volunteerism’ compulsory
by Lucy Hugel

Thursday, the U.S. Senate sent back to the House an amended bill to “expand and improve opportunities for service,” legislation modeled on President Obama’s campaign promise to establish “universal voluntary citizen service.”

If passed, this act will produce an explosion in the number of service programs. Unfortunately, the goal of this legislation is profoundly un-American–to instill an ethic of servitude in every citizen.

How could expanding community service programs have such a radical effect in the land of liberty? To understand this, one must see how the plan aims to smuggle in compulsory service…

Read the whole thing here.

Congratulations on getting published, Lucy! And thank you for defending a person’s right to his or her own life.


Share This Post

The National Service Threat

 Posted by on 26 March 2009 at 11:01 pm  Activism, Government
Mar 262009
 

The March 26, 2009 Washington Examiner has published a good OpEd on the threatened expansion of the Americorps “National Service” program. Although this issue has received less press than the various bailout-related issues, it could be equally important to the future of America.

Here’s an excerpt from the Examiner piece (bold emphasis is mine):

“Expanded Americorps Has An Authoritarian Feel”

…To begin with, the legislation threatens the voluntary nature of Americorps by calling for consideration of “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” It anticipates the possibility of requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform such service — including elementary school students.

The bill also summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups by saying the new program should “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing “campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants. It allows for the elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life. And it calls for creation of “a permanent cadre” in a “National Community Civilian Corps.”

But that’s not all. The bill also calls for “youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.” This updated form of voluntary community service is also to be “integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula” at all levels of schooling. Sounds like a government curriculum for government approved “service learning,” which is nothing less than indoctrination.

Now, ask yourself if congressmen who voted for this monstrosity had a clue what they were voting for. If not, they’re guilty of dereliction of duty. If yes, the implications are truly frightening.

(Read the whole thing.)

This bill has already passed the House and being considered by the Senate.

The Senate recently voted 74-14 to move the bill onto the floor (i.e., to not filibuster the bill). Hence, it has support from numerous Republicans and Democrats.

If you’re alarmed and outraged by this idea, then you can do the following:

1) Forward the Examiner piece to friends, family, co-workers, etc.

2) Tell your US Senator to vote against the bill.

The Senate version is called S.277.

To contact your Senators to tell them to oppose S.277, click here.

You don’t have to write anything long or super-eloquent. It’s more important that your e-mail subject line be something unambiguous like “Oppose S.277″, so their staff aides know how to tally your e-mail. For instance, I dashed off the following short note to my Senators:

Please oppose S.277. It moves us dangerously close to mandatory national service, something which is un-American and a violation of individual rights.

Of course if you are so inclined, you can write something longer. Here’s what Diana sent:

As your constituent, I wish to express my opposition to any expansion of AmeriCorps and other “service” programs. Such programs are not just costly and ineffective. They also violate the property rights of taxpayers to dispose of their own hard-earned income in accordance with their own choices and values.

Personally, I strongly object to any attempts to use the power of the government to promote the moral ideal of selfless service to the community — as AmeriCorps does. That ideal does not represent my values: I reject that moral ideal as destructive to human life and happiness. Yet I am forced to pay for this government program. That is morally wrong.

A person has every right to donate his own money to the charity of his choice. A person has every right to volunteer or work for the charity of his choice, if the charity is amenable. I do both — routinely — for causes that I care about.

However, a person has no right to dispose of another person’s money to fund his charitable work. That’s theft, plain and simple.

AmeriCorps should be dismantled, not expanded.

The Senate will be voting soon on this. Hence if you wish to speak out on this issue, the time is now!

Update: The Senate has just passed its version of the bill by a margin of 78-20. They still have to reconcile their version with the one passed by the House of Representatives before they can submit it to President Obama (who has promised to sign it).


Share This Post

Mar 022009
 

The online commentary/opinion website PajamasMedia.com has just published my latest OpEd entitled, “Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Protests“.

My theme is that the Tea Party protesters must couple their outrage at the government bailouts with a positive vision of a properly limited government based on Ayn Rand’s ideas.

Here is an excerpt:

Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Protests
March 2, 2009 – by Paul Hsieh

Over the past week, an extraordinary wave of “Tea Party” protests has erupted across America. Citizens around the country have expressed outrage at the government’s mishandling of the financial crisis. And one of the most intriguing developments has been a resurgence in interest in Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged.

Denver’s Tea Party protest opened with a reading from Atlas Shrugged. A sign at the New York City protest read, “Ayn Rand Was Right.” One banner at the Atlanta Tea Party said, “Read Atlas Shrugged Before It Happens.” The Ayn Rand Institute reports that sales of Atlas Shrugged have nearly tripled compared to last year due to Americans’ concerns about the economic crisis.

So why has there been such a renewed interest in Ayn Rand?…

Read the rest here.


Share This Post

Two Hsieh LTEs in Rocky Mountain News

 Posted by on 24 February 2009 at 12:01 am  Activism, Government, Health Care
Feb 242009
 

The Rocky Mountain News has published two (!) of my LTEs on consecutive days.

On February 18, 2009, they printed this letter opposing the latest proposal for “single payer” health care in Colorado:

Single-payer health care has failed in every other country
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia

Response to your story, “Dems’ bill shoots for universal health care” from 2/5/2009 by Ed Sealover.

Single-payer health care has failed in every other country that has tried it. Canada controls health costs by forcing patients to wait months for MRI scans and cardiac surgeries that Americans can get in a few days.

Single-payer advocates mistakenly claim that health care is a “right”.

Health care is a *need*, not a right. Rights are freedoms of action (such as the right to free speech), not automatic claims on goods and services that must be produced by another.

Instead of single-payer health care, America needs free-market reforms, such as allowing patients to purchase insurance across state lines and use health savings accounts for routine expenses. Insurers should be allowed to sell inexpensive, catastrophic-only policies to cover rare but expensive events.

Such reforms could reduce costs and make insurance available to millions who cannot currently afford it, while respecting individual rights.

On February 19, 2009, they printed this letter on the Obama Administration’s expanded welfare state programs:

Heads they win, tails we lose
Dr. Paul Hsieh, Sedalia

When the economy is bad, welfare statists say, “We must expand government programs because everyone is hurting.” When the economy is good, they say, “We must expand them because we can finally afford it.”

If I didn’t know better, I’d think that they wanted to increase people’s dependency on government programs regardless of the reason.


Share This Post

Glenn Beck on Worst-Case Scenarios

 Posted by on 21 February 2009 at 12:01 pm  Economics, Government
Feb 212009
 

The February 20, 2009 edition of the Glenn Beck television show featured a chilling discussion of some worst-case economic and political scenarios facing the US in the next 5 years. Beck was always careful to point out that he and his guests weren’t claiming that these scenarios would happen, but rather that they could happen (i.e., they were within the realm of possibility), and that thinking about them was an important part of working to prevent them from occurring.

Dr. Onkar Ghate of the ARI appeared to discuss possible restrictions of free speech if we started heading towards dictatorship and some of the warning signs we should look for. You can watch his segment here:

One of the other topics discussed in detail was the possibility of a large-scale financial meltdown on the order of the Great Depression (if not worse). Given the US government will dig itself into unprecedented levels of debt due to the various bailout programs, it may start trying to print money (i.e., inflate the currency) as a way to “solve” the problem:

Of course, this won’t work. And Beck’s guests pointed out that this unhappy scenario has already played out in other countries in the past, such as Argentina during the 1990s.

(One of the guests was Stephen Moore, the Wall Street Journal financial writer who also cited Ayn Rand in his widely read recent OpEd, “‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years”.)

Although I still believe that an Argentina-style financial meltdown probably won’t occur in the US, I also believe that there is a small but nonzero chance that it might.

Hence, I’d like to point readers towards this very interesting essay by an Argentinian who lived through that country’s crisis. The author dispels some of the extreme right-wing survivalist myths about such scenarios. More importantly, he also discusses the very real threats and challenges that ordinary people have to deal with in such circumstances, and he gives some worthwhile advice and recommendations on how best to cope.

Much of his advice would be applicable to any number of natural or man-made crises. Anyone who values his or her life might want to make it a point to cultivate the mental and physical tools necessary to survive such circumstances.

Again, I don’t think this is the most likely future for the US. And I intend to concentrate my main effort in the battle of ideas, precisely to help prevent this from happening. But just as I think it’s prudent to keep a fire extinguisher in one’s kitchen or a first-aid kit in one’s car as protection against bad events, I also think it would be prudent for Americans to plan for significant economic and political turbulence in the near future. Many of these actions are things most intelligent people would want to do anyways, such as minimizing/eliminating debt, keeping at least 6 months of living expenses in the bank, staying physically healthy, etc.

The recent history of Argentina offers Americans some important lessons. Whether we learn from them is up to us.

(Disclaimer: This is the first episode of the Glenn Beck show that I’ve ever watched. He’s pretty good on some concrete points of politics and economics. But he also fell into the typical conservative error of stating that rights come from God, rather than being a consequence of our nature. But I’m hoping that there will be future opportunities for Objectivists to present the correct philosophic justification of individual rights on shows like his.)


Share This Post

Yaron Brook on Product Safety

 Posted by on 11 February 2009 at 12:08 pm  Economics, Food, Government
Feb 112009
 

In this video, Yaron Brook answers a question on how to ensure product safety in capitalism via tort law. And he explains why the regulatory state undermines the incentives to make products safe found in a free market.

Exactly!


Share This Post

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha