The Objective Standard Blog
Topics: Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Not Only Catholics Should be Angered by Birth Control Mandates
Conservatives and Catholics have lambasted President Obama over his plan to force insurance providers, including Catholic ones, to cover birth control.
Wayne Laugesen explains for the Colorado Springs Gazette:
President Barack Obama’s administration finalized orders last week that will force all Americans, with few exceptions, to buy health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and abortion pills without the burden of fees or co-pays. Obama is not merely ordering all Americans to accept abortion and contraception, he is demanding their support with mandatory purchases.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers told the Gazette, “This extends telling Americans they must buy health insurance to telling them they must buy products that are contrary to their religious beliefs.” Laugesen added, “Freedom of religion is under siege.” Republican Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum harshly criticized the president on similar grounds. House Speaker John Boehner vowed to overturn the policy by Congressional action.
True, the government should not force Catholics to fund birth control against their religious beliefs. But the government should not force anyone to fund any type of insurance coverage against their wishes. The government should not force people to buy insurance that covers birth control, acupuncture, maternity leave, or any other good or service. Such mandates violate the rights of insurance companies and their clients to freely negotiate terms, and they drive up the costs of premiums.
Insurance mandates not only violate Catholics’ freedom of religion; they violate everyone’s freedom of conscience and everyone’s freedom to use their own resources as they judge best. To be genuinely “pro-choice,” one must respect people’s choices across the board—including their choice of religion or philosophy, their choice of whether to buy insurance and if so what kind, and their choice of how to dispose of the fruits of their labor.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
- Newt Sides with Anti-Abortion Zealots
Image: Wikimedia Commons via Kancelaria Prezydenta RP
Posted in: Health Care, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Liability Reform Shouldn’t Be Limited to Space Industry
Colorado legislators are considering a bill to limit the liability of spaceflight companies. The bill’s sponsor says the measure would recognize “the inherent risks of spaceflight activity,” reports the Denver Post. New Mexico’s legislature also took up legislation to limit the liability of space companies.
No doubt abusive litigation in America has spun out of control. But why should select industries receive special protection that others don’t enjoy? Lawmakers should focus on crafting sensible liability rules that apply equally to everyone.
In his book The Right to Earn a Living, Timothy Sandefur (an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation) summarizes, “The abuse of tort law by mercenary lawyers poses a major threat to American businesses and therefore to the economic liberties of everyone.”
One major problem Sandefur cites is that courts often fail to recognize explicit contracts limiting liability. He offers the example of a 2005 case in which a New Jersey court refused to recognize the liability waiver a woman signed before her son used a skate park. (The son broke his leg, and the mother sued the park despite her signed waiver.)
Whether people want to skate in a park or fly into space, they should be able to decide what level of risk they are willing to accept. When courts fail to recognize freely negotiated agreements limiting liability, that drives abusive lawsuits, puts producers out of business, and limits the creation of new businesses.
Spaceflight companies deserve legal protection from abusive lawsuits. And so do the rest of us here on planet Earth.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law by Timothy Sandefur
- Instrumentalism and the Disintegration of American Tort Law
Image: Wikipedia Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Monday, February 6, 2012
Message to Gov. Christie and His Critics: Gay Marriage is a Moral Right
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie ignited a political furor when he vowed to veto a bill recently introduced in the state legislature legalizing gay marriage because he believed the issue should be decided by popular vote through a public referendum. In so doing, he said “I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.” (Christie has since apologized for that remark.)
The backlash was swift. Said NJ Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex): “Governor — people … were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It took legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.”
“People of color in the American South,” lectured civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), “…could not register to vote… take a seat in the front of the bus [or] visit state capitals. If it had been put to a referendum, we would have never ever won”; only “congressional actions, court decisions and presidential executive orders” made victory possible.
And as the NJ Star-Ledger pointed out: “Imagine how different American history would be if this rule by referendums had carried the day from the start. … [M]inority rights should not be subjected to majority vote. That misses the gist of constitutional rights.”
The governor’s critics are correct, up to a point: Rights are not a matter of voter approval. But nor are they a matter of legislative approval, court order, or executive order. The right of individuals to freely contract with one other, so long as their contracts and actions don’t involve the violation of others’ rights, is a moral matter, which precedes politics and legislation.
Should the bill pass, the NJ legislature in fact will not have created a right to gay marriage; rather, it will have removed NJ’s ban on the practice, thus recognizing that same sex couples have an inalienable right to join together under a marriage contract.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
Image: Creative Commons by Bob Jagendorf
Posted in: Individual Rights and Law
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Human Rights Watch is Wrong on Islam and Politics
Human Rights Watch (HRW) is urging the West to respect the rise of political Islam in the Middle East, saying, “The international community must … come to terms with political Islam when it represents a majority preference.” Instead of being unsympathetic to political Islam, says HRW, the West should encourage Islamist governments to “respect basic rights — just as the Christian-labeled parties and governments of Europe are expected to do.”
But contrary to what HRW implies, the “majority preference” of foreigners is not a standard by reference to which civilized nations should set foreign policy. Further, political Islam means violating rights and, ultimately, killing those who reject Islam. Whether Islamists gain power by force or by vote, they seek to force their barbaric creed on the citizenry and ultimately the world. Encouraging Islamists to “respect basic rights” is like encouraging communists to respect basic rights. It can’t happen.
Further, for Islamists to say that they intend to “respect basic rights” would be a patent lie. Iranian Reza Kahlili, in an interview with TOS, recounts what happened when Islamists took over Iran:
[T]he new government went back on its promise that the clerics would not interfere in government matters, that they would only address the spirituality of the people. The clerics started enforcing Islamic law, which was not supposed to be part of the new government. Soon Khomeini and other clerics declared that they were representatives of God on Earth and that anybody who opposed them would be regarded as a “moraheb,” an enemy of God, and executed.
Following that, tens of thousands of men and women were arrested, opposition political parties were banned, and certain universities were shut down to get rid of the Western influence in our education. Among the thousands taken to Evin prison, where they kept political prisoners, were my best friend and his siblings.
I witnessed the torture and the horror that this new regime was inflicting on Iranian citizens. Teenage girls were raped prior to execution—because of the Muslim belief that virgins go to heaven. Boys and girls were tortured in unimaginable ways, some of which I’ve described in my book [A Time to Betray], and then executed.
Political Islam should not be tolerated; it should be eliminated.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
- “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
- The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go
- An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
Image: Creative Commons by atphalix
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
There is No ‘Right to Work’ Against an Employer’s Consent
People have the right to associate voluntarily and to contract by mutual consent. Those rights have long been under assault by the “progressive” left; now they are attacked by conservatives as well. Today Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, signed a “right to work” bill that further erodes freedom of contract.
Conservative writer Liz Peek praises this bill on the grounds “that union labor costs and work rules have become an obstacle to job growth.” No doubt her claims about unions are true. But the problems arise from various federal statutes, including the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act signed by FDR in 1935, that violate the rights of employers and employees to contract as they see fit. One practical result has been to hamstring the American auto industry, as Daniel J. Mitchell pointed out even before the auto bailouts.
The conservative solution, as articulated by Peek, merely compounds previous violations of freedom of contract with new ones, apparently on the grounds that two wrongs somehow make a right. In her view, the bill is good because it “prohibits contracts requiring workers to pay union dues.” But why should the government be in the business of setting the terms of employment contracts? Employers should be free to hire whomever they want on whatever terms the parties mutually agree to accept.
More broadly, there is no “right to work” against an employer’s consent, any more than there is a “right to health care.” A right refers to a freedom of action—such as the right to seek employment or medical care from willing partners—not to an entitlement to a specific good, service, or outcome. People have the right to work for others only insofar as the employer freely consents to the terms of employment. (Of course, people always have the right to work for themselves using their own labor and resources.)
The solution to rights-violating labor laws is not to impose more rights-violating labor laws, but rather to repeal them all and restore liberty of contract.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
Image: Bob Glass
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Texas Anti-Abortion Law Violates Rights to Liberty and Freedom of Speech
Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas law that forces women seeking an abortion to obtain a sonogram and wait 24 hours before being able to act according to their own judgment. The law also requires doctors to present information and claims that neither doctor nor patient may regard as relevant.
Though praised by some conservatives, the law violates the rights of doctors and patients and opens the door to similar attacks on all our rights.
The Texas law violates freedom of contract by restricting consensual, voluntary agreements between women and their doctors. Conservatives who support such restrictions on abortion can offer no principled resistance when leftists wish to use government force to restrict freedom of contract in medicine in other ways, as by imposing myriad costly insurance mandates.
The law violates rights of trade and self-determination by forcing women to wait 24 hours to get an abortion in most cases. By the same logic, the government could force people to wait to enter any other controversial economic transaction. No doubt other activists would love to use government force to make people wait to buy a gun, buy unhealthy foods or drinks, trade certain stocks or other financial instruments, or even read or publish “sensitive” materials (such as that denying human-caused global warming).
The law also violates the free speech of doctors who, under the law, must discuss what politicians dictate rather than what their professional judgment demands. By the same standards, politicians could impose rote speech on marriage and divorce counselors, sellers of controversial magazines, etc. (The argument that the Texas law merely ensures informed consent is an obvious pretext to make abortions costlier and more difficult to obtain; the idea that women seeking abortions don’t already understand what an abortion entails is ludicrous.)
The choice is stark. We can have either economic liberty or laws that restrict freedoms of contract, trade, and speech; we can’t have both. Those who act to restrict economic liberties in the realm of abortion should not be surprised when other sorts of transactions fall prey to the same types of controls.
Regarding the broader case for why women have the right to seek an abortion, and why fetuses don’t have rights, see Diana Hsieh and my recent Objective Standard article, “The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.”
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Gingrich Seeks to Violate Rights of Women and Doctors to Engage in Fertility Care
- The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty
Image: Creative Commons
Posted in: Health Care, Individual Rights and Law
Monday, January 30, 2012
Gingrich Seeks to Violate Rights of Women and Doctors to Engage in Fertility Care
The spectacle of Newt Gingrich—of all people—trying to dictate the family planning of others is ludicrous.
Yet Gingrich’s recent call for more rules controlling in vitro fertility treatments raises an important issue: Under the proposed anti-abortion “personhood” laws that Gingrich endorses, common fertility treatments would be outlawed. The result would be that many women who wish to have children would be legally barred from getting pregnant.
“Personhood” laws would arbitrarily declare eggs at the moment of fertilization to be the legal equivalent of a born child, conferring full legal rights to zygotes. Among many other things, such laws would ban common fertility treatments that involve harvesting multiple eggs from the woman, trying to fertilize those eggs, and then implanting one or more of the resulting zygotes in the woman’s uterus. Because these procedures typically produce extra zygotes that are later destroyed, “personhood” laws declare them to be murder.
If doctors were forbidden from fertilizing more than a single egg at a time, that would dramatically increase the cost of fertility treatment and dramatically reduce the chances of success. As a result, many women who wish to have children would be legally prevented from doing so. (For details, see a 2010 paper on the subject by Diana Hsieh and me.)
Thus, “personhood” laws would violate the rights of women and their partners to seek fertility care as well as the rights of doctors to administer it—a violation of the founding rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And yet, even though they would prevent many women from having children of their own, the “personhood” laws are preposterously called “pro life” by their advocates. They are in fact profoundly anti-life, and it it time for Americans to recognize them as such.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties
- Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society
Image: Creative Commons by Gage Skidmore
Posted in: Health Care, Individual Rights and Law, Presidential Candidates
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Grey: A Great Reminder of Crucial Truths
Could you survive deep in the Alaskan wilderness and make your way out with only the resources from a crashed airplane?
That’s the stark challenge faced by the seven protagonists of the movie The Grey, starring Liam Neeson. An airplane carrying Alaskan oil field workers crashes during a storm, and they must battle harsh winter conditions and a pack of aggressive wolves while attempting to find their way back to civilization. In addition to spectacular cinematography and spellbinding action scenes, the movie demonstrates surprising philosophical depth in delivering its theme: “What does it really mean to fight for one’s life?”
The movie also dramatizes three related principles that are easy to forget during everyday life but that are made vividly clear in the context of the movie:
1) Man’s basic means of survival is his reasoning mind.
The wolves in The Grey survive using their claws, fangs, and instincts in accordance with their basic nature. Humans, however, cannot survive in this fashion. We lack the fur to keep us warm in subzero temperatures, claws and fangs to kill prey (or to protect ourselves against predators), and instincts to dictate our actions. To survive, we must use our minds, rearrange nature, and create the goods we need. Reason is our basic means of doing so.
2) Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
Do you need to start a fire? Then you must identify the nature of the material at hand and proceed accordingly. Do you need to cross a violently rushing river? Then you must devise a method that holds the weight of a full-grown man; you must respect and apply the laws of physics. Wishful thinking, bluster, or drunkenness won’t make reality bend to your desires or make your problems go away. The only way to solve your problems or accomplish your goals is to face reality head-on, heed the facts, and act accordingly.
3) Modern man is extremely dependent on the benefits of technology.
Technology is an incredible enhancement to our lives. I would rather be typing a movie review on my MacBook Air in the comfort of my living room than shivering in a dark cave wondering whether I’ll be eaten by wolves tonight.
But it’s easy to take for granted the benefits of industrial civilization until we are reminded (in fiction or in real life) what life is like without those benefits. In Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden hosts a fancy party during a storm. During the party, Francisco D’Anconia tells him:
“[Y]ou are able to have summer flowers and half-naked women in your house on a night like this, in demonstration of your victory over that storm. And if it weren’t for you, most of those who are here would be left helpless at the mercy of that wind in the middle of some such plain.”
The Grey reminded me how grateful I am for the many entrepreneurs, engineers, and businessmen who have created our modern industrial civilization. Without them, we wouldn’t enjoy the iPads, cell phones, automobiles, central heating, and electricity we so easily take for granted. Instead, we’d be like the protagonists of The Grey, struggling mightily against raw, untamed nature, hoping to survive another day.
For this reason, although The Grey is not a political movie, it also helped me better appreciate Ari Armstrong’s recent blog post, “Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama’s Tax Hikes.”
In the hubbub of everyday life, it’s easy to forget some basic truths about man, nature, and the fundamental role of reason in our lives. A gripping tale of novel and dire circumstances, The Grey reminds us of what we must never forget if we want to live.
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Science and Technology, The Arts
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Mitch Daniels: Business is “One of the Noblest of Human Pursuits”
In the GOP’s response speech to President Obama’s State of the Union, Mitch Daniels said, “Contrary to the president’s constant disparagement of people in business, it’s one of the noblest of human pursuits.”
Though Daniels’ speech is a mixed bag, his identification of the nobility of business is spot on and is a refreshing contrast to Obama’s anti-business agenda. Businessmen are productive dynamos who trade value for value to earn their wealth. Steve Jobs, John Allison, Bill Gates, Jonathan Hoenig, and other businessmen deserve to be praised for pursuing their rational self-interest and for creating goods and services that further their lives and, consequently, the lives of those who trade with them.
Republican leaders desperately need to recognize and embrace the moral nature of business. And they need to work to protect the individual rights of businessmen and unshackle producers from regulations and discriminatory taxation.
Related:
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
To Give Americans a “Fair Shot,” Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights
In his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “We can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” If only he had the slightest clue what constitutes fairness and equality under the law.
A proper government gives people a “fair shot” by protecting their rights to produce, trade freely with others, use the fruits of their labor as they deem best, and guide their own lives in accordance with their own rational judgment. A proper government protects people’s rights to their own wealth and property, enforces chosen obligations defined by freely entered contracts, and prevents people from forcibly confiscating the “share” of others. And a proper government protects free trade under laws that protect individual rights.
Obama proposes policies with opposite goals and outcomes.
Rather than slash oppressive taxes that drive businesses overseas, Obama wants to impose new oppressive taxes on companies that do businesses elsewhere.
Rather than protect the equal rights of all business operators, Obama calls for corporate welfare for politically-favored businesses (such as Solyndra).
Rather than respect the rights of parents to fund the educational opportunities that best meet the needs of their children, Obama wants more federal controls of education.
Rather than lower tax rates across the board, Obama calls for discriminatory taxes that favor the politically connected.
Rather than protect the rights of individuals and companies to buy goods from their suppliers of choice, Obama wants to establish a “Trade Enforcement Unit” to restrict free trade.
Rather than protect the rights of consumers to purchase the energy that best suits their needs, Obama wants to play favorites with federal mandates.
Rather than seriously restrain federal spending, Obama is content to continue many of the policies that have contributed mightily to the nation’s $15 trillion debt.
There is nothing fair about Obama’s blatant violations of individual rights.
True, Obama offered a few words about protecting property rights, preventing fraud, and slightly loosening the federal shackles on domestic energy production. But such comments seem calculated to blur the difference between rights-protecting behavior and rights-violating behavior by the government, and Obama’s policies clearly favor the latter.
Moreover, Obama blamed the free market for the failures of the government, as with the mortgage meltdown caused by the federal government’s easy-money policies, even as he credited politicians and bureaucrats for the astounding achievements of industrialists, as with hydraulic fracturing in the production of oil and gas (see, for instance, the story of producer George Mitchell).
A nation of prosperous individuals depends on governmental policies that consistently protect individual rights. Unfortunately, many of Obama’s policies threaten to more seriously undermine rights.
Related:
Image: Ben Stanfield via Wikipedia
Posted in: Individual Rights and Law, Presidential Candidates
TOS Updates & Commentary
Sign up to receive TOS updates & commentary.
Featured Posts
- Who Deserves Credit for Tebow’s 316 Yards?
- Santorum Stands for Big Government because He Stands for Collectivism
- When Ayn Rand Meets Patrick Henry
- The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
- The Beauty of Ayn Rand's Ethics
Blog Archive
Blog Topics
- Announcements (165)
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism (107)
- Business and Economics (234)
- Education (57)
- Environmentalism (56)
- Events (100)
- Foreign Policy and War (217)
- Health Care (84)
- History (55)
- Individual Rights and Law (352)
- Philosophy (139)
- Presidential Candidates (17)
- Productivity (2)
- Psychology (10)
- Religion (131)
- Science and Technology (70)
- Sports (2)
- The Arts (40)
- Week in Review (12)
Ideas presented in posts on TOS Blog are those of the authors of the posts and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Objective Standard. TOS Blog is powered by WordPress.
