No Coercion

As the Supreme Court considers “the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years,” I’d like to make a quick observation about the amendment’s wording, one which I’m sure others have made before (including, I think, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals).

Here’s the exact text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Those who would like, for whatever reason, to use government coercion to restrict the natural individual right to bear arms (which is really just a specific case of the general primary natural right to be left alone) often claim that “the people” in this amendment refers to some collective group like the National Guard or other government ‘militia.’

But why do they not make that same argument for the meaning of “the people” in the 1st, 4th, 9th, or 10th Amendments? By their logic, the 1st Amendment, which reads, “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” only in fact protects the right of the government itself to peaceably assemble and petition itself for a redress of grievances! Why the double standard here?

Or what about the 4th Amendment, which reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” I guess that actually only protects the government from unreasonable search and seizure?

Look, it’s not hard. “The people” in all of those amendments refers to private individuals. The 2nd Amendment spells out the duty of the government to not infringe on the private individual right to own firearms.

And I haven’t even mentioned the oddity that anti-gun folks seem to think that the dependent clause (the part about the militia) has some limiting affect on the independent clause (the part about not infringing the right to bear arms). The framers could have written just about anything for the dependent clause, and the nature of the specified right would not be affected. They could have said, “Pancakes, being necessary for a delicious breakfast, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It seems they forget basic grammar when those big scary guns are involved.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

While chatting with some friends tonight, the topic of government studies of artificial sweeteners came up (”Well, of course it did,” you’re saying to yourself). A friend who works at the EPA mentioned some agency folks who had just finished a study apparently racking up more evidence that aspartame (in the form of diet soda in this study, it seems) does such things as cause cancer in lab rats and fails to actually help the rats lose weight as compared to a control group that was drinking regular soda (personally, all the rats I know are more health-conscious than that and tend to avoid soda altogether–something about phosphoric acid).

I asked my friend if he had seen many government-funded studies that came up with good news in their results. You see, it occurs to me that there is a disturbing incentive at work here that makes all government-funded science suspect by default. The money comes either from elected officials directly or from government bureaucracies whose existence and budgets depend on the elected officials.

Now, we know that elected officials (with a very, very few exceptions) depend for their jobs and fame on scaring voters about particular issues and then riding in like the cavalry to solve the terrible problems with new legislation. Are these politicians likely to send money toward scientists whose research finds that, say, aspartame is perfectly safe? Certainly not. Do the scientists know this? Of course. Are there ethical scientists who get the government funding and then proceed to brazenly stick it to their masters by following the science and coming out with results that are not scary? I’m sure there are. But I’ll bet not many of them get repeat business from Uncle Sam (and if they work directly for a government agency, they may not keep their job much longer).

Of course, there’s also a dynamic involved that doesn’t necessarily involve scaring voters into accepting new legislation. Politicians will often also fund research that is popular among the masses, regardless of its actual value. For instance, you see politicians today jumping on whatever the latest ‘green’ technology is that is trendy among the environmental groups (ever notice how easy it is for people to push something when they can use government to force everyone else to help them pay for it?).

I’ve personally seen a lot of government physics research (including some I worked on myself in my pre-libertarian days) that seemed to be driven by socially popular environmental agendas (not to mention plenty of space craft research driven by military-related fear mongering).

Basically, what it comes down to is that research that is likely to lead to an expansion of government power or increased fame and personal power for politicians is much more likely to be funded by your tax dollars than research that isn’t.

Or even more briefly: Government funding of scientific research tends to bias the results in favor of expanded government.

Maybe something to keep in mind when weighing the results of government research.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Have I misread the incentives? Weigh in with your comments, and let me know what you think!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As you know by now, loyal readers, I want to see Ron Paul win the GOP presidential nomination (of course, if he doesn’t win, I’ll be looking forward to the winner being soundly defeated by whichever aspiring socialist dictator the Democrats nominate–I’ll be voting Libertarian along with everyone else who understands that the GOP and Dems are just two arms of the same overbearing police/nanny state).

But the question keeps coming up, when chatting with folks informally, regarding the fervent support Ron Paul receives from white nationalists (WNs), Nazis, and other assorted inbred racists. It turns out that these people see Ron Paul as agreeing with them on certain key issues.

Ron Paul and the WNs both want to get rid of the Federal Reserve–Paul because of his libertarian philosophy and understanding of Austrian economics, and the WNs because they hate Jews and think the Fed is run by a conspiratorial international Jewish cabal.

Ron Paul and the WNs both want the U.S. to stop giving aid to Israel and basing our foreign policy on what’s best for Israel–Paul because of his libertarian philosophy of neutrality and non-intervention, and the WNs because they hate Jews.

There are also other assorted limited-government issues where the racists agree with Ron Paul, but foreign policy and abolishing the Fed seem to be the big two in which Paul has distinguished himself from the pro-government GOP candidates.

So here are the questions: Should Ron Paul engage in a public effort to disavow the racist and anti-semitic views of his WN supporters? Should he actually return money those people have contributed to him? (The Paul campaign currently asserts that it’s better to keep the money since it will now be used to spread Paul’s message of freedom and it’s less money the racists have to spend on their own nefarious agenda). Is Paul missing out on a big chunk of voters who would support him (and convince others to support him) because of his refusal to speak out against the racists? Are you one of those potential supporters?

Let’s hash this out. Post your thoughts in the comments!

(Jason, I already know your thoughts, but do feel free to share them with my other readers!)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

…of alcohol. Don over at Cafe Hayek reminds us that today is the 74th anniversary of the repeal of the 18th Amendment, which banned alcohol. As we all know, the end of alcohol prohibition increased the safety of booze, stopped the trend of sending otherwise law-abiding citizens to prison (and destroying their families), ended mob warfare over control of the alcohol black market, and generally left us more free from an overbearing police state than we would have been had prohibition continued.

But wait. Something’s wrong. We now have even more dangerous substances on the streets, inner cities wrecked by gang violence and families broken by prison, overcrowed prisons, nonviolent young people being sent to prison where they are converted into violent offenders, and a rapidly expanding police state that routinely beefs up its weaponry and violates our most basic rights in its fanatical crusade to fight prohibited goods. Of course I’m referring to the inane War on Drugs.

Why is it that we learned our lesson when it came to alcohol prohibition, but not when it comes to drug prohibition? What is it about the American psyche that results in a large majority of the public and virtually all elected officials at the state and federal levels favoring the continued prohibition of highly demanded chemical substances? Is it (as an old Army buddy told me) that we feel we’d be encouraging our kids to do drugs if we supported legalizing them? Are we really willing to continue to accept all the society-destroying consequences of drug prohibition in order to make ourselves feel better about the messages we’re sending our kids? I for one am more than willing to have a few more man-to-man conversations with my kids about how to take care of their bodies in exchange for the vast reduction of crime (which is a danger to my family), poverty, and government oppression that would come about from the legalization of drugs. Who’s with me?

(By the way, check out Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), and see how the guys in the trenches feel about the Drug War).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!