How much freedom will we give away for a dollar?

Er..make that 3.7 million dollars, I guess.

Two of my favorite Vermont bloggers share their perspectives on the primary enforcement seatbelt law being considered (i.e. they get to pull you over just for not having a seatbelt on).

Jeff Soyer weighs in at Alphecca.
As does Geoffrey Norman at Vermont Tiger.

Take a look.

Free-Market Environmentalism

This was originally published 3/30/07 at 5:18 PM, which was Friday evening, so I bumped it up to the top of the blog.

I want to talk about the environment. This is one of those issues that really shouldn't be partisan, so I want to explore why, I think, it is.

I think there are a couple of factors at work here. The most obvious is that the people who tend to be active in the environmental movement also tend to have other views that are at odds with the conservative movement. Many conservatives, this blogger included, tend to eye the environmental movement with a great deal of suspicion that it is a front for imposing anti-business, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, and anti-progress legislation, among other things. (Funny how those folks are often called progressive.)

I am personally much more environmentally conscience than most conservatives that I know, including my own husband. I will have to admit, though, that most of it started out with my own benefit in mind, not the collect good of the environment.

I use all natural dish soap, laundry soap, cosmetics, shampoos, household cleaners, even bug repellent (Burt's Bees. It works awesome and smells like herbal tea). I garden organically, buy organically raised, hormone-free meats, rBST-free milk (since way before it was popular), and stuff like that. Those things are for my health, though. I am, as my sister calls it, freakishly sensitive to environmental contaminants.

When I started living like that, though, I started to realize how harmful chemicals, pesticides, and cleaners are to the environment. I also started to realize how important it is to be aware of not only what we put into our bodies, but also what we put into our environment.

It has raised my level of awareness about how anything I do will affect the planet.

Since everyone is affected by what others do to the environment, I think this is more than just a personal issue, but I do not think is warrants a heavy-handed government solution.

As people are becoming more environmentally aware and more people are calling for environmentally friendly products, the market is providing solutions. That is what the left does not seem to get about the free-market - we control it with our buying power.

The anti-business brigade always says that all big corporations care about is money, but they never seem to stop and think about where that money comes from - consumers.

If we all put our money where our mouths are, so to speak, and buy environmentally friendly products, we will see strange things start to happen. Before we know it, every grocery store will have a natural foods section - wait, that already happened. Kellogg's will start making organic cereal - wait, that already happened, too. Okay, well, before you know it, I will be able to buy organic cotton pajamas for my kids at Wal-Mart - oh, man! That already happened, too.

The key is educating people and convincing them to buy "green" products, not for the government to legislate personal behavior. (Now, why does that phrase sound familiar?)

To be continued...

PS, that Wal-Mart link is a great read.

Note: I just Googled "Free-Market Environmentalism" after I published this and found that it has a whole Wikipedia page! (I haven't read it yet.) Can I ever coin a new phrase? Sheesh!

Okay, it's a book, too. Man, I really need to read more!

Catch The Blogger

My last post seemed to spark a game of "Catch the Blogger in an Inconsistent Ideology" in the comments field. I thought it would be easier to address all of the issues in a new post, rather than in the comments.

First, I have to point out, you will not likely find me with an inconsistent ideology. I am nothing if not consistent. Thanks, JD Ryan for at least backing me up on that, even if you did take a dig at said ideology.

Speaking if JD, he said that seat belt laws (and other safety related laws) for children are okay. I would tread lightly here. I think what anonymous @ 3/28/2007 08:54:00 AM said is right on. Parents are the ones who have the primary role in deciding what is good for their children, not the government.

Does that mean that children will be the victims of their parents' stupidity? Oh, yes, it does. But you know what? Children are the victims of their parents' stupidity. Aren't we?

God love her, there are at least a dozen things that I do (and will do) differently than my mother did because of how it affected me. That does not mean that the government should have been telling her how to parent.

For Pete's sake, according to Richard Dawkins and his ilk, I am abusive to my children because I am raising them with a religion. The way I look at it, I am exposing them to a great sense of security and value that a mighty, all-powerful God loves them even when they think or do bad things, as we all do.

Should the government decide which one of us is right? (The answer is no.)

I really stand by my simple rule of thumb that the government should not make laws to protect us from ourselves - even when I think the action in question is morally wrong. (I will address Ivan Jacobs' comments about such simplicity in another post.) I will get into detail about the other specific comments, though.

Right out of the gate, comes the classic association fallacy that because I am conservative, I must support the use of government to deny rights to homosexuals.

As any longtime She's Righter can tell you, unlike the usual suspects, I fully understand that my freedom to worship the Spirit in the sky is only as secure as your right to worship mother earth, the tree faeries, money, your favorite Hollywood celebrity, or your same sex life partner.

Setting aside the fact for the moment that I do not think the government has the jurisdiction to regulate marriage contracts at all, under our current system, I do not think that it is the right of government to define what is a morally acceptable marriage union.

However, I do not believe that anyone has the right to be liked or to have their lifestyle accepted; that goes for any lifestyle. The government is not there to make anyone feel comfortable and loved. And the government is definitely not there to force religious organizations to deny certain tenants of their faith in order to make someone else feel okay. There are already plenty of religious groups that accept homosexuality. And last I checked, freedom of religion is actually written in the Constitution, not just inferred or made up.

Moving on, legalization of marijuana. I am not a big fan of the stuff myself, but hey, if it's legal, we can tax it and sell it in stores. A wider tax base for my perfect small-government society means the tax rate will be even smaller; real entrepreneurs can get into the marijuana industry, including hemp production, which will bring down the price of hemp clothing; and the low-level street thugs will be forced to go out and get real jobs, instead of preying on innocent children. Can you say win-win-win?

Next, we have the if we have no laws, everyone will drink, gamble, and sleep with prostitutes defense of freedom-limiting laws.

Actually, I think there should be no drinking age, gambling should be legal, and I can come up with no reason that prostitution should not be a legally permissible business venture.

Let me uncouple these and take them one at a time.

Drinking: The countries that have no drinking age, and where families typically practice drinking in moderation as a regular practice, have fewer problems with binge drinking teens/young adults.

Anecdotally, anyone can tell you a story about that girl or boy in college who had never had a drink in high school, went totally crazy once they tasted freedom, and failed out of freshman year because they were too drunk to go to class - ever.

Gambling: I totally don't see the problem with gambling. I never got why people think it should be illegal. Is it a stupid thing to spend money on? Yes. Can I name 100 other things that are stupid to spend money on (and don't even present that tiny chance of making that money back)? You betcha. (And yes, I saw the Free Press story about the poor gambling addict that embezzled over $73,000 from his employer to fund his addiction.)

Prostitution: Do you frequent prostitutes? Are you a prostitute? Would that change if it was legal?

I do not foresee a huge uptick in the amount of prostitution going on, if it is ever made legal. It is still going to be morally wrong regardless of the law, so I doubt that people are going to flock to brothels just because it is legal.

That brings me to another point, the government does not have to pass laws in order to model decency. I see nothing wrong with leaders having values and expressing the dangers of certain lifestyles, such as gambling and prostitution. We can be a decent society without having the government baby sit its citizenry by legislating right personal behavior.

Besides, we will always have outspoken religious leaders to tell us when our actions will send us to Hell.

How to Raise Libertarian-Minded Children

The other evening at dinner, I was complaining about yet another erosion of our freedom - I can't recall which one; there are just so many these days - and my 8-year-old son said that laws that keep us safe are a good idea. In an effort to avoid the unpleasantness of a future liberal in the family, I asked him to give me an example.

He said that seatbelt laws were good because seat belts keep us from flying out of the window in a car accident.

I said, "Well, remember that commercial that says that kids should ride in a booster seat until they are 4'9"? Should they make that a law?"

"No. That would be stupid!" (He's not yet 4'9", but he is over 8 years old, the age up to which Vermont requires a booster seat.)

"Why? It would keep you safer, like the commercial said, and you just said that laws that keep us safe are good."

"Yeah, they are, but that law would be stupid?"

"Why?"

[Silence]

"Why? Because you don't want to have to sit in a booster?"

"Yes," he reluctantly replied.

"So how do you decide what safety laws to make? If you don't want someone telling you that you have to ride in a booster seat, why do you have the right to tell someone else what to do to keep them safe?"

At which point he brilliantly concluded, "I guess I don't."

We all talked about it for a while longer, including my husband and my 10-year-old son. The kids came to the conclusion that laws that keep us safe from other people hurting us are okay, but that we really don't have the right to make laws just to try to keep people safe from getting themselves hurt.

No More Playing the Flute While Driving

I wasn't going to post anything else today, but I couldn't help but comment on this new piece of legislation from the vault of stupidity.

Lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, "interacting with pets or cargo," talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.

I can understand the cell phone thing, even though I don't agree with it, but no eating or drinking? Can we chew gum?

No smoking? Where in the world are people supposed to smoke? They can't do it anywhere else in public.

I would also like to know if breaking up a kid fight falls under the category of "interacting with pets or cargo."

The worst part is, I can't even blame this on the Democrats. The bill's sponsor is Rep. Thomas Koch (R-Barre).

"What finally pushed me over the edge was when I was at a stop sign and somebody opposite me was trying to navigate around the corner with a cell phone to the ear in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and she wasn't doing very well."

Let's just hope no one ever flips him off while driving.

What would Edison say?

Sorry for all of the news dumps lately, but I haven't had the time to do any original posts. I will try to bring you some of my fresh perspective and enlightening brilliance later this week.

In the meantime, I just read this story out of good ol' California.

How many people does it take to change a light bulb? In California, the answer could be a majority of the Legislature.

The electricity-wasting incandescent bulb would be banned _ replaced by energy efficient compact fluorescents _ under a bill that Assemblyman Lloyd Levine plans to introduce.

Governor Arnold "The Terminator" Schwarzenegger has not weighed in on this issue yet.

Feel free to discuss.

A Third Force

Back before the election, I linked to a piece by Richard Viguerie, in which he declared that the Big Government Republicans needed to lose the election. Ever since, I have been receiving e-mail from one of Viguerie's groups.

One great thing about that is that it contradicts my pessimistic view that the right does not have a handle on how to use new media to rally grass-roots support. I get e-mail like that from Newt Gingrich and a couple of others, as well. Good for you, guys.

At any rate, the other day, I received the following statement from Viguerie, in response to the President's State of the Union speech.

“I was struck more by what I didn’t hear than by what I heard.

“What he did say was mostly big-government economic, energy, and education schemes that could have just as easily come from President Clinton or President Carter. What he did not deliver were any Reaganesque calls for reducing the size of government, or getting the government off our backs—a core conservative goal since the 1950s.

“The underlying message in this State of the Union Address was directed toward the Democrats: In effect, we can work together--let’s make a deal. The underlying message directed toward the conservatives was: You have no place else to go.

“Among the other omissions in the President’s speech:

♦ He did not acknowledge any mistake in pursuing the liberal, big government policies that have driven the Republican Party from power on Capitol Hill.

♦ He did not announce any changes in personnel in a conservative direction.

♦ He did not announce that he will veto any increase in discretionary spending.

♦ He did not call for the downsizing or elimination of any government programs.

♦ He did not call for eliminating the corporate welfare shelled out to big business.

♦ He did not announce that he will veto any legislation that contains ‘earmarks.’

♦ He did not launch a serious war on the institutionalized government corruption between big business, their lobbies, Congress, and the Administration.

♦ He did not announce any significant initiatives to protect traditional moral values.

“Accordingly, conservatives must continue to declare their independence from the Republican Party. We must act as a Third Force in American politics, seeking to draw both major political parties to the Right. Conservative principles and goals take precedence over partisanship. We will support Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the right thing, and oppose Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the wrong thing.”

While I don't agree with every single thing that Viguerie wanted the President to say, I think he has an interesting idea - for conservatives to abandon their allegiance to a party and act as a force that draws both major parties to the right.

I think the case could be made that the reason both major parties are moving toward the Big Government side (I'll refrain from using the classic left-right designations here) is due in large part to the efforts of different social activist groups to gain public support for their movements. Public support = votes. Ergo, the politicians started moving in the direction where they thought they would find the most public support.

One need not look very far to find examples of public policy being shaped by a couple of loud voices, whether or not the general public agrees.

Could this strategy work for conservatives?

In light of the former Republican majority's near total abandonment of fiscal conservatism, would it make sense for conservatives to abandon the party and work instead on influencing the entire political landscape by influencing public opinion through independent activist groups?

I don't know if this is what Viguerie is proposing, but it does make sense for small government conservatives to start getting out and actively educating the public as to why Big Government policies are harmful.

And I agree with Vigueire that the conservative vote cannot be taken for granted to belong to the GOP.

A Promising Abraham Cherrix Update

Last summer, I blogged about Abraham Cherrix. A 16-year-old Virginian boy with Hodgkin's disease, who was being forced by a court at the request of a social services agency to undergo chemotherapy against the will of him and his parents. You can find those posts here.

Another judge overruled the decision and Cherrix was allowed to seek an alternative therapy, although the family is now required to report to authorities on his condition every three months until he turns 18.

I found an article this morning with an update on his condition.

After six weeks of treatment in September and early October, the tumors in his neck and near his windpipe had shrunk, and he showed no active cancer, according to Dr. Arnold Smith, the physician in charge of the treatment.

The article also mentions "Abraham's Law."

Del. John Welch III, a Virginia Beach Republican, has said he will sponsor "Abraham's law" for the General Assembly session that begins in January.

The bill would change the child abuse and neglect statute to state that parents of mature children with a life-threatening condition who have made a well-informed decision not to seek a particular treatment would not be considered abusive or neglectful.

I thought this might be of interest to longtime readers of She's Right and a certain self-proclaimed "civil libertarian" that agreed with the state's forced chemotherapy.

That reminds me, I am planning a post soon about the civil libertarians on the left.