Of Britiain and Europe

Once again, Britain is threatening to upset the plans of those who would have a single, united European state. British Prime Minister David Cameron has called for a renegotiation of the European Union treaty it signed 1973. Cameron seeks to reclaim for Britain some of the political and economic power it ceded when it joined the union. Like Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler before them, the European Union had hoped to subdue Britain and bring it under the continent's administration. Like Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler before them, the European Union has failed in that goal. What is it about the British that makes them so inimical to continental control? Perhaps it is their long and storied tradition of independence and liberty. Perhaps it is the wretched weather. Whatever it is, even after all these years, we here in the U.S. can still on occasion look to Britain for inspiration.

We Have Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself

In the wake of the recent tragedies in Newtown and Aurora, pollsters have been hard at work. Surveys have been conducted measuring the scope and depth of the public's reactions to the shootings. A University of Chicago poll found that three out of four respondents reacted to the shootings in Connecticut with "deep anger." Fifty four percent said they felt "deeply ashamed" that such violence can happen in the U.S. Other polls found that roughly a third of Americans "felt" that there were too many guns in the U.S. Remarkably, according to an Associated Press-GFK poll, Americans are more disturbed at the shootings in Newtown, Ct. than they were after 9/11. Taken together, polls show that Americans are angry, embarrassed, and afraid. Politicians and gun control advocates are well aware of how Americans feel. Those who have long labored to curtail and, in some cases, ban the possession of firearms in the U.S. are seeking to strike while the iron is hot. To this end, President Obama is taking a novel approach. The president has asserted that one right, in this case, the right to keep and bear arms, should not be allowed to eclipse other rights. He argues that a person's fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are violated when that person is killed.

In a recent speech Obama made the spurious argument that the right to keep and bear arms infringes upon the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He stated that the victims in Newtown and Aurora were denied their rights when they were killed. The president continued by arguing that people who are shot on street corners are being denied their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. He could just as well have said the victims were denied their rights to privacy and free speech as well. The fact is that people who are killed are denied everything. As Clint Eastwood noted poignantly in Unforgiven, "Killing a man is a hell of a thing. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever going to have." Death negates everything. Strangely, President Obama did not extend his logic beyond guns to include other implements of death. After all, a person's rights are violated just as much if he is killed with a hammer as by a gun.

Even if we grant him the argument that being murdered denies a person their due rights, the fact is that guns do not deny anyone anything. Murder is the real culprit, not guns. It is only when a person is killed that their rights cease to exist. The possession of a gun by one person in no way infringes upon the rights of another any more than the possession of a sofa infringes upon the rights of another. If a person chooses to deny another person his fundamental right to life, or any other right  such as the right to peaceably assemble, by killing him there is ample recourse in the law. You simply cannot argue that the ability of one person to violate the rights of another is unconstitutional. If that were the case then the right to own a restaurant can be abridged because it grants the owner the ability to deny the right of some citizens to eat there. Under the president's logic, it would be possible to deny people the right to own a vehicle since if a driver kills another in an accident, he has violated her fundamental right to to life. The fear of dieing in an auto accident can make people reluctant to venture onto the roads thereby denying them their right to liberty. By allowing the right to  protest publicly you impinge upon the rights of others to engage in commerce. You could even make the case that the right against self incrimination should be limited because it can deny a victim her right to justice.

Yes, it is true that rights can conflict. They have, they do, and they always will. Where the president errs is in asserting that it is his responsibility to sort constitutional conflicts out. When rights clash it is up to the courts to reconcile them, not the president or Congress. President Obama should know that. He was a law professor after all. His speech was a rhetorical flight of fancy that put over 300 years of jurisprudence to shame.

When one person violates the rights of another it becomes a matter of law. A crime is committed. The remedy is the enforcement of the law.  If I violate my neighbor's right to liberty I am prosecuted. If I violated by neighbor's right to pursue happiness, I am taken to court. If I violate my neighbor's right to life, I am arrested. There are ample laws to protect a person's rights just as there are ample remedies available if those rights are violated. When one person kills another they are not violating the victim's rights, they are committing a crime. To say that killing a person is a violation of that person's constitutional rights not only makes a travesty of our constitution, it makes a travesty out of logic as well.

Banning firearms is akin to banning automobiles. Even though the vast majority of vehicles are owned and operated responsibly, there are horrible and unnecessary injuries and deaths due to the dangerous actions of drivers. Legally owned and operated vehicles cause death and injury on a massive scale. Last year, 32,376 Americans died traffic related deaths compared with 8,563 who were killed by guns. Many of those who died on the roads were killed due to the carelessness of others. Others died as a result of the criminally reckless actions by other drivers. Ask how many Americans have lost a friend or family member to an automobile accident. Ask how many Americans have lost a friend or family member to guns. Then ask Americans which they are more afraid of, guns or automobiles.

Despite the clear danger that automobiles pose to our safety, no one is proposing that automobile ownership be curtailed, let alone banned. The response has been to craft regulations to make cars safer and increase sanctions against those who operate their vehicles recklessly or illegally. No one is proposing that the ownership of automobiles and trucks be curtailed.to prevent death. Licensed, yes. Establishing an age limit to operate, yes. Requiring routine inspections and punishing criminal operation of vehicles, yes. But restricting their possession, no. Even MAD does not propose that car ownership be restricted.

You say that automobiles are necessary and that we have to live with the dangers they present. But there were times when firearms were necessary, despite the risks attendant to possessing them. There still are. In any event, you do not forfeit constitution rights when they are deemed unessential to ordinary life.

Individual rights have frequently proved a hindrance to government objectives. The right to privacy restricts the government's ability to gather information. The rights against unreasonable searches and seizures hinders the government's ability to collect evidence of a crime. The right to have an attorney obstructs the government's ability to interrogate suspects. This is because constitutional rights do not exist to facilitate the operation of government. Neither do they exist  to serve some common good. Quite the contrary. They exist to preserve the liberty of citizens, not to benefit society or improve the efficacy of government.

The president asserts that we have the right to go about our lives free from fear that we will be killed. He states that our rights are violated when we are killed. To that end he wants to rid us of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The debate on firearms is being driven by emotion, not reason. It is being driven by fear. The chances the average, law abiding citizen being killed by a firearm are remote. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for that same citizen to feel he is somehow in jeopardy because someone else was shot, yet feel perfectly safe in their vehicle even as they drive by a fatal wreck.

Yes we have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have laws to ensure that those rights are protected. That is why we have government to protect those rights. But what can we do if it is the government that is threatening our rights? We can only rely on the courts (or citizen militias if you are inclined to that way of thinking). It is the function of the courts to sort out what rights citizens have and do not have, not the president. The president should not be allowed to usurp the power of the courts. His job is not to interpret the constitution. His job is to defend it. Over the last century there have been many attempts by a president to circumvent the constitutional restraints on their power. Some have succeeded, some have failed. We witnessed President Bush's effort to circumvent the Constitution by denying prisoners the right to challenge their detention in court. We are now witnessing an attempt by President Obama to circumvent the Constitution by asserting the power to define and prioritize rights.

The recent mass shootings were spectacular. Through the sensational efforts of the media, the American public has been saturated with the images and details of the killings. Because of this, the American people have become afraid. We want steps taken to make sure these things will not happen again. When the lives of our children and loved ones are at stake, emotion runs high. But emotion makes for bad law. As is frequently the case, we are prepared to surrender our liberty if we are persuaded that by doing so lives will be saved. This is a misstep that has undone free societies since the beginning of time. Long after danger has passed, the restrictions will remain in place.

The president was careful to follow his reasoning to its logical conclusion. Our rights only mean something if we are alive to enjoy them. If we accept his argument, then every right, even the Constitution itself, must be subordinated to the safety of the individual. Laws would be measured by the extent to which they protected or endangered the life of a citizen. That is a recipe for a government no thinking American would want to live under. The law exists to protect citizens from each other. The Constitution exists to protect people from the government.

Since its very inception, the Constitution has endured numerous assaults borne of fear. From the Alien and Sedition Acts to the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII and segregation, fear has led many Americans to abandon parts of the Constitution. We may like to think that now, in the 21st century, we are no longer subject to unconstitutional spasms of fear. We are. Recent events prove that. Increasingly, Americans are being told that we have a choice. We can live in a free country, or a safe country. What they do not seem to realize is that in a country where people are not free, no one is safe.

People should not have to forfeit their rights when those rights are abused by others. I should not have to suffer the loss of my right to privacy if someone else takes advantage of that right to plot a crime. My right to free speech should not be curtailed because it can be abused by others to spew hatred and fear. My right to assemble peaceably should not be denied because it can spawn a riot. You do not deny citizens their right to privacy because privacy allows some the secrecy they need to hatch plots. I should not have to give up my automobile if a driver runs his vehicle through a crowd of children. Law abiding citizens should not be denied their right to keep and near arms because firearms are used by others to commit crimes. In our country you are supposed to punish the guilty, not the innocent. It is when the public is in a frenzy to restrict rights that rights are most important.

Who Would Pay a Carbon Tax? Everyone.

The idea of a carbon tax is gaining popularity in may circles. From environmentalists to pundits the idea is catching on. The theory behind a carbon tax is that by raising the cost of using carbon based energy sources consumption would go down and innovation would go up. Naturally, if the cost of using coal, oil, and gasoline go up, people would be less inclined, and able, to use them. As important, as the cost of using carbon based energy sources goes up, there would be motivation to use alternative energy sources to the extent that higher carbon prices either spur innovation, or, more likely, the cost of using alternative energy sources becomes more reasonable in comparison. By diminishing our dependence on carbon based energy sources we will not only clean up our environment and improve air quality, we will also will also increase our geopolitical maneuverability by reducing our need to maintain cordial relationships with nettlesome regimes on whom we rely for energy. Free from our need to do business with such countries we could at last pursue our interests unfettered by economic necessity. This is not only an illusion, it is a dangerous illusion.

First, let me address the notion that increasing energy costs will improve life in the U.S. Central to this notion is the belief that increasing gas prices will only affect traffic and environmental matters. The air will be cleaner. Our cities will become denser and with that mass transit will become more feasible. People would take to riding trains or riding buses when they travel rather than drive their cars. In short, the U.S. would finally become more like Europe. We will have dense urban centers surrounded by pastoral county sides spotted with quaint villages. In those dense urban centers people will ride the subway or take buses to get to work. After work, they will stroll around their tight, urban neighborhoods or take a short walk down the the corner grocer to pick up what they need for dinner. Along the way they can stop and chat with their neighbors who they have come to know since they have abandoned the solitary life of auto driving. This is a picture that might be found in dense cities like New York or Boston. It is also a picture that will never be found in the sprawling cities west of the Mississippi.

This is a dangerous notion primarily because the price of gasoline is not limited to drivers. If carbon tax was limited to only those who used automobiles or ran factories, there might be some merit to the idea of a carbon tax. But it is not. The indirect costs of higher fuel prices would be considerable. Cities would have to raise taxes to offset the increased costs if higher fuel prices. City fleets would cost more to operated. City buildings would cost more to heat and cool. Roads would cost more to pave. Power plants would cost more to operate. Utility rates would have to rise.

Then there is the economic ripple effect of higher fuel costs. Everything that is hauled, towed, and carried from one place to another would become more expensive. Whether it is hauled by train, carried by truck, or transported by plane, the cost of moving that item would go up. When the cost of moving an item goes up, the cost of buying that item goes up. Even if you live in a solar powered house and wear canvas shoes you will wind up paying for higher energy costs. Everyone will.

If a carbon tax is expanded to include everything that relies upon fossil fuel for its production and maintenance, then a whole new frontier is opened up. Fertilizer relies on oil for its production. Plastic relies upon oil for its manufacture. Roads rely on oil to be paved. Buildings rely on oil and coal to be heated and cooled. Factories rely on the electricity produced by power plants to operate. There just are not enough alternative energy sources in the U.S. to keep our industry running. Until we have wind powered factories served by solar trains and trucks and staffed by workers driving electric cars, we will need oil and coal. Even if a viable new source of energy was discovered tomorrow, none of us will live to see it replace the carbon based fuels that keep the U.S. running. If a practical automobile that ran on alternative fuel was designed it would still take years for it to become affordable enough for the average American to afford it. Even then it is unrealistic to think that the average American would purchase a new car when it wasn't necessary. Of course, the government could make it necessary through coercion. Most likely, it would. Liberty, economic or otherwise, is rarely a barrier to those who would remake the world.

The other benefit heralded by many is the freedom energy independence would provide the U.S. in foreign affairs.Up to now, the U.S. has had to maintain cordial relationship with countries and regimes on which it relies for energy. We have frequently had to do business with nations that have political objective at odds with our own. Most of our difficulties in the Middle East stem from our inability to dispense with dealing with energy producing nations in the region. If it weren't for oil, the U.S. could simply underwrite and defend Israel and write the rest of the region off. Lacking any economic leverage and military potency, the Muslim world could be safely ignored and left to its quarrelsome self. This too is a dangerous fantasy.

Even if the U.S. is able to somehow to achieve energy independence in the near future, the rest of the world will not. Fossil fuels will be in great demand by the world for a long time to come. Just because the U.S. no longer needed to buy oil from the Middle East, economically expanding nations like India and China would. If the U.S. chose to use its energy independence to free itself from the Middle East brier patch, it would only create a vacuum that would quickly be filled by others. As long as the Middle East needs to sell oil to the U.S., it has to do business with us. Without economic leverage of our market, we will only have diplomacy and military force to affect matters in the region, which is to say we will only have military force. If, and when, that military force is balanced, whether by Iran, China, or some other power, we will have no leverage in the region. That alone is a prospect that should keep neocons awake at night.

A carbon tax would be felt by every American. The increased costs generated by a carbon tax would be felt disproportionately by those least able to afford it. Many Americans do not have room in their budgets to pay for the highers costs that would inevitably result. There is nothing in this country that will not be affected. Plastic bags, tires, fertilizer, surgical gloves, shoes, you name it, will all become more expensive because, even if a commodity does not require a carbon based product for its manufacture, transporting it does.

Those at the forefront of the alternative energy and carbon tax movements do not fret over what it will cost the nation. They can afford a dollar here and fifty cents there. Much of America can't. Policy makers and pundits will still be able to fill up their gas tanks and afford to turn the AC down to 70 in the summer time. Most Americans will not. Many in the political class can park their cars and take the subway to work or walk to the local grocery store. Most of America can't.

The U.S. economy in inextricably bound up with oil and other fossil fuels. It will continue to be so for decades to come. If you want to throw the economy in the tank, raise gasoline prices by $1 a gallon or the cost of electricity by a few cents a kilowatt and see what happens.

Ideas are nice and clean. They smoothly take into account all variables and possibilities. It is only when they come into contact with reality that trouble begins. When reality doesn't conform with the idea something has to give and it is always reality that has to yield.  The idea of a carbon tax makes sense in the mind of the person who holds it. The consequences of trying to impose that idea on reality are simply details to be worked out by the technocrats. As for society, it will believe whatever it is taught to believe and act however it is taught to act. They will gladly bear the burdens a carbon tax would place upon them once they learn all the marvelous things that tax will do for them and behold all the marvelous new technology that would ensue even if they have to get by with less. At least that's how the theory goes.

No Bonus for Statesmanship

Politicians in Washington are frequently criticized for being more concerned with their political careers than the needs of the nation. Such is the case in the ongoing debate over the budget crisis. The numerous obstacles to reaching an agreement on avoiding the "fiscal cliff" are attributed to members of Congress looking to satisfy  important constituencies in their districts thereby preserve their careers. This is sometimes referred to derisively as "pandering". It is no such thing. It is representing your constituents. It is what members of Congress are supposed to do.

Why is Congress so reluctant to curtail federal spending? Because the American people have come to rely on government spending for their living and well being. From cancer research, to defense contractors, to social welfare programs, to college students, to the elderly and farmers, along with virtually everything else you can think of, all Americans rely on federal spending in one way or another. Every dollar spent by Washington has a constituency. When it comes to federal spending, one man's pork is another man's bacon. A congressman from New York might see the reasonableness of curtailing farm subsidies whereas a congressman from Nebraska might see AIDS research as a legitimate target for trimming. There are 435 members in the House representing 435 different districts. There are 100 members of the U.S. Senate representing 50 different states. Each of those districts and states has its own peculiar concerns. It is when the particulars come up that consensus to solve the budget crisis breaks down.

Everyone, well, almost everyone, agrees that something needs to be done. You can find agreement that spending needs to be cut and revenue must be raised. It is in determining how that revenue will be raised and where cuts are to be made that bipartisanship evaporates and politics enters the equation. Reforming Social Security, for example, generally has broad support in the nation and in Washington. But when the issue comes up it quickly becomes mired in the specifics. Will some people be required to pay more? If so who? How much? Will benefits have to be cut? If so, whose will be cut and by how much? The same can be said of raising revenue. There is popular agreement that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. In itself, that is certainly not an objectionable proposal. They should. But where the issue becomes sticky is in determining who is "wealthy" and how much more and in what manner they should be required to pay. How much money can a family of four earn before it is considered "wealthy"? What is a fair rate they should be taxed at?

Hard choices have to be made in Washington. That means hard choices have to be made by the public. Americans have to decide what they need, what they can do without, and what they can get by with less of. It is fantasy to believe that taxes can be raised enough to cover the deficit, let alone pay down the debt. The level of taxation required to achieve those goals would spawn a rebellion. Some entertain the notion that an economic turn around would refill the nation's coffers. That is highly unlikely. First, it would require an economic turn around of historical proportions. Secondly, it would require that spending remain constant long enough for revenue to catch up. Thirdly, and perhaps most unlikely, it would require Washington to apply any surplus to paying down the debt rather than than indulge their pent up frustrations and pursue their ambitions. That is the least likely scenario because the career of a politician depends on tending to the interests of her constituents, not the interests of the nation. Even if it can be demonstrated that a particular policy or project will benefit every American except the members of a particular congressman's district, you can rely on that congressman to oppose it. Compounding this is a tendency for members of Congress to see what is good for their district as good for the nation. Setting aside billions to upgrade a harbor is ensconced in the notion that the nation will benefit from a refurbished harbor, not just the district that harbor is in. This is a fashionable conceit in many congressmen because it allows them to justify steering federal money to their own districts under the guise of helping the nation's economy.

It is wholly unrealistic to expect politicians to fall on their swords. It has common to portray congressmen who adhere to policies that benefit their districts as small minded. That is a mistaken view. Politicians who look after their constituents are doing their job. You should not expect politicians to fall on their swords and deny their constituents for the benefit of people to whom those politicians are not unaccountable to. That is precisely why Congress has consistently relied upon setting future limits and consistently avoided them when they are reached. By setting a limit they get credit for tackling the problem while avoiding the painful task of actually doing anything about it. They once again have promised to get spending under control: tomorrow.

The so called "fiscal cliff" is nothing more than a past promise to get government spending in hand by setting the clock. Now that the clock is going off, many in Washington want to hit the snooze button. If and when they do, the nation should not snuggle up and get cozy.  The alarm is set to go off again in February when it is predicted that the next debt ceiling will be reached. At that time, the $2.314 trillion allocated by the federal government that was supposed to last until October will be spent. The president says the debt limit must be raised if the country is to avoid fiscal calamity. Of course the debt limit has to be raised. What choice do we have? The only thing to be worked out is what concessions Congress can squeeze from the White House before it gives in. The struggle over the debt ceiling is in the details.

There is no bonus for statesmanship in Washington. You either keep your constituents satisfied or you lose your job. As it stands, there is little chance that the deficit can be taken in hand without a great many Americans becoming dissatisfied and a great many politicians in Washington becoming unemployed. If you want to learn how the country got into the mess it is in today I suggest you look in the mirror. Odds are you will see one of the culprits.