Vallery.net

I wrote part of this blog article a few months ago when the healthcare bill was just starting to pick up steam. Now that it has passed I felt compelled to update it and post it in response to many of my very liberal friends rants.

Let’s define morality. Merriam-Webster has several definitions however I think the most appropriate one is “conformity to ideals of right human conduct”. The open questions out of that statement are of course who defines what is “right” and who gets to enforce it?

If my four year old son has a toy and another child does not, he knows that the right thing to do is share his toy. I don’t have to tell him. I don’t have to force him. Every action that I do sets an example for him in which he uses to build his own definition of “right”. If he refused to share, and I insisted that he did, my ownly recourse would be to force him on threat of punishment.

I honestly believe that the vast majority of people are good, caring, and compassionate. I believe that they have their own moral compass that guides them as to what is right and wrong. I believe that morality can never be forced as it is a part of who we are. While we can’t force someone to be moral by the definition of the majority, we can punish them for not agreeing. That is what is happening with healthcare and a great many other things in our country today.

I believe that most people would openly assist those in need in whatever way they can. Healthcare organizations have programs to assist those in need. Pharmaceutical companies have programs to get drugs to those that need them but can’t afford them. The statement I often hear is that “Nobody should go without the basic right of healthcare”. While that statement is partially true in that “Nobody should go without healthcare” it is not a right. A right is something granted to us as Americans by the bill of rights and our constitution. A right is something to be protected by the government, not given.

Like so many government programs they are yet again using their guns (by threat of jail) to force morality on the people. I find this particularly interesting in that my liberal friends are also very outspoken about the government staying out of their personal morality. Why is it okay for the government to force people to share their wealth with the less fortunate (an act which should be governed by an individual’s morality) but not okay for them to tell them how to live their lives? How can you possibly be for nationalized healthcare while also against the ban on gay marriage? How can you be for repeal of drug prohibition while supporting new social legislation?

The role of the government is to protect my rights as granted to me by the constitution and the bill of rights; it is not to tell me how I should live my life. If I want to share my wealth with those less fortunate that should be my decision. If I want to get married to another man that should be my decision. If I want to smoke marijuana that should be my decision. Unless my actions infringe on the rights of those around me in a truly free country the government has no authority to have a say about my actions. This new healthcare bill is just another way for the government to force us to the majority’s idea of what is “right”.

There are many folks out there who have not been courteous and respectful during the debate on healthcare. To anyone who used disrespectful, selfish, or hateful tactics to try and stop the passing of this legislation, I fully deplore your actions. However the partisan nature of the comments I see flying in rebuttal to those people are completely disrespectful and not helpful either. Just like you would never go around stereotyping all persons of a specific race or ethnicity, you should not stereotype all republicans and democrats.

While I am certainly not a republican, I am very offended by a couple specific tweets I’ve read from my more liberal friends.

A few examples:

“Let’s just say it: the most profound difference between Dems & Repubs = the former cares about those less fortunate; the latter does not”

“I truly wish that the small percentage of tea-baggers who can read at a 10th grade level would read this: http://bit.ly/bcTDj7”

“Hope americans are watching these old white gnarled hands of GOP hate try to keep health impoverished americans crushed and hopeless”

“Those on the other side of the aisle for whom it applies: Hope you have nightmares tonite about “socialized” medicine & the end of the world”

“”Party of no” spewing lies hate and fear. Any of these guys look like they are suffering from health care poverty?”

“Unbelievable listening to middle age white gop hate mongering men attack America in the people’s house.”

I don’t believe for one second that the members of congress who opposed this bill are also opposed to helping those in need. I believe that they understand that trying to legislate a solution to a problem as far reaching as healthcare would ultimately prove disastrous.

Assuming you can get past the argument of morality and think that the government should be implementing such a policy, we are ultimately left with the effectiveness of their solution. When has the government done anything better than a private organization? Why would they be able to manage healthcare better? The problem with our healthcare system is too much government intervention not too little.

Instead of adding more laws we should think about repealing some already on the books. If the healthcare system was deregulated and liability limited, doctors would be able to practice medicine without fear of getting sued. Insurance companies who offer malpractice insurance would be able to lower their premiums to the doctors. The ability to actually make a good living as a medical professional without the fear of going bankrupt at the slightest mistake would entice more of our brightest minds into the profession.

With the additional legislation just passed it is only going to be costlier for them to do business. Organizations which provide their employees premium coverage are now going to be taxed for doing so. With the increase in cost employers will compensate by reducing benefits to those “legally required”. The decrease in benefits means that there will be fewer people able to have access to cutting edge treatments and procedures. Fewer people with access will mean that the cost will stay prohibitively high or that the research dollars will not be spent to create them in the first place.

In the pharmaceutical realm deregulation would mean companies wouldn’t be afraid to spend larger amounts of money on R&D if they didn’t have to worry about getting sued all the time. They wouldn’t have to worry about their patent expiring and a generic hitting the market that completely undermined their research efforts and took away any chance they had at making a profit. They wouldn’t have to worry about paying out billions and billions of dollars in a class action lawsuit when a drug that hits the market doesn’t perform as expected or has undesired side effects. They would know that because there are folks who have “premium” coverage out there they can charge the amount required to recover their investment and know that there is a market for it.

We are free to choose what we put in our body based on the recommendations of a doctor we trust. Why do we need the FDA to tell us what is okay? Do you know there are drugs out there that could save the lives of millions of people but are blocked by FDA trials? Individuals need to take responsibility for their own action, and where the individual doesn’t have the knowledge to make the right decision, they need to turn to someone they can trust. Can you honestly tell me you trust the government more than your family doctor?

If all of the above happened and doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies were allowed to do what they do best, save people’s lives, healthcare prices would drop dramatically. It would become affordable to the vast majority of Americans. For the few that still were unable to afford it there are still private solutions and charities. It is not the government’s responsibility to provide for its people.

I have friends who are on Medicare/Medicaid (In full disclosure my Mom was before she passed away as well) and it drives me nuts how abused the system is. They have better coverage than I have and I consider the policy that my employer offers me to be very generous. When I see them take a sick child to the ER because of a fever it drives me insane. They didn’t pay a single cent but the taxpayer just paid through the nose when all they needed to do was ensure rest, liquids, and maybe a little Tylenol. Again, healthcare is not a right it’s a privilege.

When something is available without individual cost and consequence it will encourage abuse. A system which holds nobody accountable is one that will inevitably fail.

I won’t be able to caucus for Dr. Paul today because I am a registered Libertarian. I would have had to change my voter registration way back in December to Republican in order to participate. That doesn’t stop me from supporting him. I’ve donated significant money to his campaign and I have advocated him at every opportunity within my social group. I know, just like every other Ron Paul supporter, that he has no chance of winning today. His campaign is not about winning, as great as that would be. Nobody comes out and says it like it is, but it is true. His campaign is about spreading a message, a message of liberty and the constitution. I sincerely hope that the Paul campaign comes up with some way to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states, either as an independent or a Libertarian. If that doesn’t happen I hope that Dr. Paul, as well as his supporters, can rally around whomever the Libertarian party selects as their nominee.

The Ron Paul movement has been amazing to watch as a long time Libertarian. In example, during the 2004 presidential campaign candidate Michael Badnarik received only $1,000,000 in campaign donations. This includes donations prior to the party nomination all the way up to Election Day. Ron Paul has amassed a hefty sum of $30 million+ and it is only February. The message Dr. Paul is sharing is not new, it is that of the constitution, but clearly he has struck a chord with the American people that up until now no Libertarian has. I suspect that this can be credited to two factors. The first is the coming of age of a new generation of voters. The Libertarian message is something that hits home with young voters who are tired of the status quo. Second, I think that Dr. Paul’s affiliation with the Republican party and his existing seat as a Congressman has lent a much needed credibility boost to his ideals, as well as allowed him to participate in the debates and gather some national media attention.

Given the incredible amount of momentum that this movement has, it will be a shame if it all goes to waste. When Dr. Paul finally pulls out of the race come Republican National Convention time, where will that leave us, the unwavering Paul supporters? I sincerely hope that the Libertarian party can seize this opportunity to bring the masses of Paul supporters into the folds. One of the challenges the Libertarians have often had is finding common ground. Libertarians by their very nature are independently minded. If you have an entire political party of folks like this, it becomes a little bit like herding cats. I strongly believe that the lack of adoption of Libertarian ideals thus far is very closely related to this core issue within the party.

Dr. Paul has an amazing power to unite us to a common goal. While I don’t agree 100% with everything Dr. Paul says, and I doubt you will find any Libertarian that does, I agree with 99% of it. Dr. Paul moves us in the right direction, and as a party, the Libertarians need his influence.

We need to do everything we can to keep the spirit of what Dr. Paul is trying to accomplish alive. We can make a difference, while maybe not yet at the national level, we can influence local politics today. I encourage you to run for your local City Council where you live on the Libertarian Platform. Join the Libertarian Party. Attend your Libertarian state convention. Vote for Libertarian candidates. Maybe even run for a state level position?

Links:

• Libertairan Party
• List of state Libertarian Parties
• Atlas Shrugged (Just read it, ok?)

Just stay active, and keep the momentum alive.

I’ve been doing some thinking the last few days about DRM and I can’t seem to come to a conclusion on how I should feel about it. Generally with any issue I can look at it with my moral lens of libertarian ideas, and it becomes very clear what is right and wrong. In this case, I’m lost, so I wanted to toss this question out there and see if anyone has any opinions one way or the other.

First a synopsis of DRM. DRM is a method used to control how digital content is used. It uses different types of encryption technologies to prevent users of digital media (DVDs, CDs, HD-DVDs, video games, downloaded music, etc) from accessing the content without a “key” that is approved by an issuing authority. To put it in real terms, the encryption prevents you from making a copy for your friend (pirating). In no way am I in favor of violating intellectual property laws or advocating piracy. Copyright laws are important in a libertarian society I think. I’m looking at this in terms of “legal” usage of the content. In addition to preventing me from pirating the content, DRM also prevents me from watching the movie on a Linux based computer where no “licensed” DVD playback software exists, making a backup of the disc in case my original gets destroyed, or even copying a DVD movie onto my video iPod so I can watch it there. All of these things in my opinion are 100% valid, and in my mind, legal uses of the original DVD, however according to the DMCA they are illegal because they require the circumvention of DRM.

If I don’t like DRM then don’t buy content that is protected with DRM, right? The problem with that argument is that it isn’t possible. The standards body that created the DVD format and the HD-DVD format was the MPAA. The MPAA is controlled by movie studios and so a core component of the format is the DeCSS DRM encryption (Or AACS in HD-DVD movies). Put simply, no movie can play on any player without the encryption being in place. Thus, even small independent movie distributors are forced to include the encryption on their disks or else they will not play in the vast majority of players that are installed in the homes of their consumers. Also, there is a specific clause in the DMCA under title 1 that requires all analog video recorders to have support for a specific form of copy prevention commonly known as Macrovision built in. Macrovision is used in combination with the DeCSS encryption sponsored by the MPAA. The organizations behind it (MPAA/RIAA) and the DMCA have effectively made it impossible to get DRM free content, so voting with my dollar is out of the question, short of not consuming digital media at all.

The DMCA is also the primary tool used to combat violators of DRM technology. In practice it is fairly trivial to circumvent the encryptions put in place. There are tools readily available that will decrypt a DVD and copy it onto my iPod, or allow me to make a copy of the DVD disk for archival backup purposes, and yes tools that would allow someone to pirate the content. These tools are all technically illegal under the DMCA, but easily obtained. The MPAA/RIAA will send cease and desist letters to anyone making them available, but the internet is an international anarchy, so no matter how hard they try they can’t control what gets posted online.

A quote from Timothy B. Lee, in a paper he wrote for the Cato institute

“The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders — and the technology companies that distribute their content — the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.”

So I think I’ve built a sufficient case to say that the DMCA is anti-libertarian, and borderline unconstitutional. The DMCA uses a government sponsored monopoly to force encryption on the digital media we consume, and makes it illegal for us to use tools that would free us of their constraints. The core of my question however is about DRM, not the DMCA. Assuming for a minute we lived in a society where there was no oppressive DMCA, what then would be the position on DRM?

I have a number of arguments in my head both in favor of DRM and against DRM from a libertarian perspective. At the 30,000 foot level the question is simple. If I buy something that contains DRM, a DVD for example, and take it home, does the manufacturer of that DVD have the right to dictate to me how I use it? Post purchase, do they maintain any rights beyond copyright?

I’ve been looking at this from a couple of different angles. The first way that has made it easier for me to conceptualize is not thinking about “digital” media, but instead thinking of analog media, like a book. We are still talking about copyrighted, intellectual property. Instead of coming in a digital world where controls are possible, it comes in a physical world. If I take my book and decide that I don’t like a certain chapter because I don’t think it is appropriate material for my child to read, is it illegal for me to remove these pages from the book? This is analogous to me removing DRM off of digital media in order to modify it. Now in actuality the likelihood of me stripping DRM off of a movie and editing a scene that I didn’t like is very slim, should I not be allowed to do so if I wanted? Another good example of this thinking is sheet music, again intellectual property without DRM. What if I wanted to perform only a certain section of the composition. I am allowed to copy the sections that are relevant to create a derivative work, only for personal use. Because in the physical world the “protection” that DRM allows was not possible in intellectual property, nobody ever bothered to think of their implications. Intellectual property was treated just as any other physical property, with the expectation of attributing copyright to it.

Now, here is the crux of my dilemma. Clearly DRM (outside the DMCA) is something that private enterprise has decided that they think is important, and therefore have implemented. Assuming no draconian laws like the DMCA, the government has no place in controlling how content is licensed and consumed. If the MPAA/RIAA have enough power to force standards on the industry, then it is not the governments place to interfere. As much as I hate DRM, I think I’m leaning towards the side of the MPAA/RIAA on this one. However, if I violate their terms, and circumvent the DRM there is no criminal punishment to me by the government. I’m only violating the agreement between myself and the content publisher. For DRM to ever be successful it will require the MPAA/RIAA to come up with DRM methods that are “unbreakable”, which I don’t see happening anytime soon.

The industry should be allowed to do whatever it wants. They just can’t use the guns of the government to enforce their choices on us.

What are your thoughts? Am I wrong? Tell me about it in the comments.

For further reading: The full policy analysis from the Cato Institute [PDF]

I’m sure you could take a guess and figure out that I am an atheist, a libertarian, and generally considered a nut job by my peers. I find it interesting how seemingly separate areas of ideology (religion and politics) so often intersect when you become a free thinker. Almost every libertarian I know is an atheist, and almost every atheist I know has at least a slight libertarian bent. I mentioned in an earlier post that I had been reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I just finished the “John Galt Speaks” chapter, which is essentially a 58 page monologue describing Ayn Rand’s theory of Objectivism. It amazed me that this book, and this philosophy which was written over 50 years ago, describes exactly what I believe today. It amazed me that Ayn Rand was essentially an atheist libertarian, before it was socially accepted to be so (Not that it really is today either I guess). That isn’t the point of this post though.

One of the core tenants in Ayn Rand’s objectivism philosophy is in relation to use of force. The use of force should be reserved only for occasions where force has been used upon you. If your life is threatened by a gun, you should use a gun to defend you life. The problem is that, our society has taken it upon itself to limit the ability to defend ourselves when we are threatened by force.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, everyone seems to be shouting about new gun control. The re-introduction of the federal assault weapons ban has new momentum thanks to Carolyn McCarthy touring the talk shows and news programs speaking as if she was an authority on gun control, even though that bill would have had no impact on the shootings that took place. A new law has been introduced to close certain “loopholes” in the NCIC system for background checks. The new law would force doctors and other mental health professionals to hand over confidential mental health information to the government, in violation of our privacy. All of this is a vain attempt to tackle the problem by punishing the victims, and enabling the perpetrator.

Of course it is already illegal, even for concealed carry permit holders, to take a gun onto a college campus, but that didn’t stop Cho from doing it. The harder you make it to legally obtain a gun and to carry that gun in self-defense, the harder you are making it for victims to protect themselves. If just one of the staff members or students at Virginia Tech had been legally carrying a firearm, how many victims would there have been? I’m quite certain that it would have been less than the 32 that were killed, and 15 that were injured. It’s interesting to note that of the 14,000 concealed carry licenses issued in Oregon, only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. That rate is lower than the crime rate among police officers! The point is to say that carrying a gun does not make you a criminal, and the vast majority of those who do carry a gun do so in a safe and responsible manner.

As a society we need to wake up and realize that more laws, more protections, more limitations of our freedoms are never the answer. Our laws might not have caused Virginia Tech, but they enabled the perpetrator to take advantage of those of us who abide by the laws. Cho was able to kill far more individuals than he would have had these controls not existed. You can’t assume that someone who is capable of breaking the law and committing a crime like murder is going to be deterred by a lesser law like gun control or the inability to carry a weapon on campus.

This week, in response to the shootings, and out of fear of what kinds of laws might be passed in their wake, I’ve taken several steps to protect myself and my family. I’ve filed the required paper to obtain my concealed weapons (CCW) permit. I’ve purchased an additional sub-compact Glock 26 that will be my primary weapon for concealment, and I’ve purchased a AR-15 rifle in fear that it will soon become illegal to obtain. None of these are things that I would have considered doing a few weeks ago. Now, I feel compelled to do it in order to protect and exercise my 2nd amendment right.