Here is a common political debate: The first person asks why the government forces him to wear his seatbelt when he drives; it should be his own business whether or not he wants to risk his life. To which a more thoughtful liberal will respond that it is not just his business - everyone else’s insurance rates will go up because of the extra health care costs.

That response misses the root cause. The only reason why the insurance rates for others have to go up is because our government forces people into the same risk pool. This happens in two ways. Programs like Medicaid put everyone into one risk pool that is paid for by taxpayers as a whole. Secondly, insurances regulations limit how much insurance companies charge different types of people. This reaches its zenith with the practice of community pricing, in which everyone is charged exactly the same rate.

In theory people should be able to buy insurance that will cover them even if they drive without their seatbelt (or ride their motorcycle without a helmet). Of course, their rates would have to go up! But once the insurance company charges a rate that is in line with the degree of danger, the objection from risk pooling disappears.

Liberals however are completely opposed to this. Indeed, the progressive state demands that all of society be placed into one giant risk pool. Once this happens they will be free to control every aspect of everyone’s behavior, one little bit at a time. Actually there is one important exception. While liberals don’t think you should have to pay for someone to drive without a seatbelt, they do think that you should pay for someone’s sexually promiscuous behavior.

Risk pooling falls more within the liberal goal of moving as much of our lives into the public realm as possible. Once that happens it is open season on how government controls our public lives.

The curse of foreign aid provides a good look at the law of unintended consequences. Foreign aid has two major effects on the receipient:

• The money props up dictators who use it solidify their political power. Despotic regimes do more to create poverty than charity could ever hope to cure.
• Undermines the local businesses. Aid in the form of food puts local farmers out of work and makes the countries even more dependant upon outside help.

Both of these concepts are intuitive and easy to grasp. The rest of this post is a collection of articles that support one of those two points.
(more…)

The establishment clause of the First Amendment was written to guarantee the free practice of religion. It puts a powerful constraint upon government that in theory in theory protects religious freedom. I say in theory because that was before mandatory public schools without vouchers and school choice.

Now the establishment clause strips us of our religious freedom. Instead of being allowed to freely provide (or not) a religious education for their children, parents are forced to send their children to public schools to be educated by the government, where separation of Church and State reigns. The establishment clause means that parents are forced to provide their children with a secular education instead of having the freedom to decide for themselves.

The Moral High Ground

Tying the debate about Church and State in the public schools to vouchers is important because liberals think that they have the moral high ground on religious freedom. Appealing to arguments such as “this is a Christian nation” or “most people in the community are Christian” just makes them feel more self-righteous in their chosen role as defenders of freedom and the rights of the few. (Liberals ignore the fact that as a general rule they are more comfortable with tyranny of the majority. See here and here.)
(more…)

Conservatives love the debate over the Living Document Constitution because it is such an easy fight. After all, you wouldn’t join a weekend softball league with a Living Document rulebook. Conservatives cherish this role as Keeper of the Constitution, so it can seem like a slap in the face when the left mounts a credible defense of the Living Document. But it is worth taking the time to understand their arguments because it will lead to a much deeper understanding of why a Living Document Constitution is dangerous.

Here is a great defense of the Living Document by Jack Balkin, a Constitutional Law Professor at Yale Law School. I recommend reading the entire article to truly absorb the power of his arguments, but here are the main points:

• The founding fathers intended for the Constitution to evolve
• A Living Document Constitution is essential to secure civil rights. We would all regard the end of segregation as a great triumph, not a judicial mistake. It is also necessary to justify popular programs such as social security and Federal education spending.
• Originalists tend to pick and choose when they want to rely on the Constitution and when they want to use precedent. Therefore they are just as unconstrained and able to rule by fiat as Living Document judges.
• Ultimately, the structure of our Constitution has provided real constraints on Judicial power. The conservative and liberal judges tend to cancel out and rulings are made by the centrists. For the most part, the Supreme Court tracks the general opinion of the public, and when does deviate it is brought back to the center through the Judicial appointment process.

Let’s deal with these points one by one.
(more…)