The Supreme Court of the U.S. recently heard arguments in a case that weighs anti-discrimination rights against religious rights. The specific question is: Should a Christian web designer who is morally opposed to gay marriage be forced to design a website that celebrates the marriage of a gay couple? Colorado law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by any business that offers its products or services to the public. The web designer argues that she is not discriminating against the couple, she is discriminating against the website content being proposed.
Even though I am an atheist and support equal rights for all, I look at this as a case where the web designer is in the minority and the gay couple has the vast majority on their side. I would guess that 90+% of web designers would be very willing and able to design the website for the gay couple. Additionally, this is not about purchasing a standard product or service – like renting a room, buying something off of a shelf at a store, hiring a taxi, or buying food in a restaurant. It is asking a person to use their creative talent to create something that promotes an act that they are morally opposed to.
If we force relatively small minorities of people to act in opposition to their sincerely held religious beliefs, especially when the person who feels discriminated against has many completely voluntary, peaceful alternatives, then we will be putting ourselves in an unnecessary situation where the minority will feel aggrieved and will fight without end. In a pluralistic society, which is what we have in the U.S. we should look first to find voluntary, peaceful solutions to our differences. The force of government should be used only as a last resort when no other reasonable alternatives exist – which is not the case here.
Here is a letter to the editor that I just sent to The Des Moines Register – in response to both an editorial and a letter that were recently published on the subject:
Both sides of the “Right To Work” laws are wrong. The right answer is that the government should get out of the business of regulating employment relationships between private employers and employees. Neither employees nor employers should be forced by our government to do something against their will. And both employers and workers should be prohibited from using force against the other.
That means private employers should be free to negotiate or not negotiate with a union and workers should be free to strike or call for boycotts against any employer. If they want, private employers should be free to require that all of their employees join the union. Employees should be free to accept an employer’s terms of employment, negotiate better terms, or look elsewhere for work. In all cases, no one, including the government, should be able to use force against anyone else.
In the case of government employment, the government should not be forced by law to negotiate with a union and employees should not be forced by law to join a union.
The title of this blog is also the title of an essay by Walter E. Williams that was published in the June 2007 edition of magazine The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty.
I am about a third of the way through a book by Walter Williams entitled American Contempt for Liberty. It is a compilation of many of his essays. Each essay is only about a couple of pages long. The book is hard to put down. I find myself underlining something on almost every page.
Separately, while organizing my office today I found about 10 photocopies of the essay referred to in the first paragraph. I just reread the essay and understand why I made copies to give out to people who I thought might be interested. It is a concise essay that explains the difference between a democracy and a republic and how clearly our founding fathers wanted to establish a republic and not a democracy. So, below is a link to the relatively short essay. I expect that you will enjoy reading it.
Here is what one of our founding fathers, James Madison, said about our Constitution and the ‘general welfare’ clause:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected to them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
We have gone far outside the Constitution with respect to both corporate/business welfare and social welfare.
As Walter Williams might say, most Americans and politicians have contempt for our Constitution. They very much have violated its clearly written provisions and think that is best. They think we should have a pure democracy where the majority gets whatever they want. (We have a republic with a constitution that protects the rights of minorities.)
If they really think the Constitution is wrong, the proper way to amend it is by getting three-fourths of the State Legislatures to agree. That may be hard. It is intended to limit the power of the federal government and leave other powers to the states or the people. As it should be.
By what authority does the President have the power to forgive student loan debt? Our Constitution grants Congress the power to tax and spend, not the President, and surely the forgiveness of student debt is spending money. In addition to the President’s action being unconstitutional, forgiving student debt, even for those with incomes below $125,000 per year, will mostly benefit people with above average incomes. It’s also a slap in the face to those who have already paid off their debt or who saved and never went into debt. It also sets a terrible precedent. Students who go into debt in the future will be encouraged to not pay their debt in hopes that it will be forgiven. Democrats should not feel good about this. At some point in the future there will be a Republican President who will have the same power.
The United States of America is a pluralistic, heterogeneous country. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians. Muslims, Christians, atheists. Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Whites. And on and on. It seems that we are getting more tribal – my tribe is good and other tribes are bad. Many media outlets reinforce the idea that those who disagree with us are evil and have bad intentions. We are righteous and our intentions are honorable. We want to save our Country and our opponents want to destroy it. There doesn’t appear to be a path to peace and agreement about how to go forward.
Every group seems to go to our government to lobby for laws and regulations that support their position and/or outlaw contrary positions. Very few seem to care about fundamental, first principles. They just want their side to win. It would be nice if we could agree on fundamental principles and then go forward with laws and regulations that are consistent with those principles.
Living in a free country doesn’t just mean that others should tolerate the things you do that they don’t like. If you truly believe in individual liberty and want to support diversity, equity, and inclusion, then you need to tolerate people who do things you don’t like.
Here is a letter to the editor of The Des Moines Register that they published today, 7/14/2022:
It appears clear that most of the recent opioid deaths are the result of people buying drugs on the street and not knowing either the strength or even the actual drug that is in what they think they are buying. If we really want to end opioid deaths, we need to end drug prohibition and make drugs of known strength and purity available through legal channels.
It should still be a crime to drive a vehicle while intoxicated or to sell drugs to children. But it should not be a crime for people to put drugs into their own bodies. People who are addicted should be treated under a medical model, not a criminal model.
The Iowa Legislature has passed, and Governor Reynolds is expected to sign, a bill that will force most gas stations in Iowa to sell E15 – 15% ethanol-blended gasoline. Both Republicans and Democrats should be ashamed of this bill, especially Republicans. Republicans have traditionally said that they support free-market capitalism where consumers and business owners decide what to buy and sell. In addition to being unprincipled, supporters of this bill are wrong on the facts. The Governor said, “It’s a lower cost of fuel.” We know that the price at the pump is lower, but that does not factor in the various subsidies paid by taxpayers to farmers, ethanol producers, and fuel blenders. It also does not factor in the lower miles per gallon that a car gets when ethanol is blended into the gasoline. Taxpayers will also pay for most of the costs to upgrade pumps and other infrastructure needed by the gas stations. I did not read where there is any phase-out of the mandate. The good news is that those who supported the bill can rest assured that they will continue to get financial support from corn farmers and ethanol producers.
The Des Moines Register recently published an essay by retired pharmacist and former state senator, Tom Greene, in which he supported proposed legislation that would prohibit insurance companies from switching patients to lower cost drugs or increasing co-pays if the patient is stable on a currently prescribed medication. (“Protect health and end non-medical switching” 2/14/2022) (Link below.)
So, if the newest highest-cost drug works for a patient, this bill would make it illegal to try to change that patient to a less costly drug. If that’s true, then maybe the law should also require that the lowest-cost drug in the same therapeutic class be tried first.
If people had to pay their own way for prescription drugs, many would try lower-cost drugs even if a higher-cost drug was working effectively for them. It seems fair to allow insurance companies to try to save money. It also seems fair to require higher co-pays if a higher-cost drug is chosen. If the proposed bill is passed into law, it will certainly help to push prescription drug insurance premiums higher and higher.
Science does not tell us what we should do. Science can tell us what the consequences will be if we do or do not do some particular thing. Science informs us and our elected representatives, but science does not dictate what the political policy should be.
Almost every decision involves some kind of trade-off. Often, the trade-off is between safety and liberty. For example, most driving and traffic regulations involve giving up some amount of liberty in return for greater safety.
In the case of Covid-19, the use of vaccines, masks, business closings, etc. is a trade-off between safety and liberty. If you say that a Covid-19 related policy is justified if it saves even one life, then you would have a problem. The vaccine has clearly saved many lives, but some people have died from the vaccine as well. It is not as simple as choosing the one that saves the most lives. Almost everyone who wants to take the vaccine can take it. The majority of adults have already chosen to get the vaccine. The relatively few who are compromised in some way and, therefore, are advised against getting the vaccine can do a lot to protect themselves against those who might be contagious.
As a libertarian, I believe that private business owners, just like homeowners and individuals, should be free to choose whether or not to associate with those who are not vaccinated. Government, on the other hand, should really not be able to discriminate based on vaccine status in most situations because we citizens don’t really have the option to “opt-out” of dealing with the government. There may be some situations or circumstances where a vaccine mandate by the government might be appropriate, but the default position should be liberty, with the burden on the government to show why the mandate outweighs the loss of freedom. Ultimately, the decisions will be made by our elected representatives. And as we all know, there is a wide difference of opinion about vaccine mandates among our elected representatives as well as among we citizens.