LibertyShovel

Digging for truth...guided by the invisible hand

Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

Boston University professors' rectal examination of Obamacare constitutionality stinks

Image credit:  

In an article by the university's BU Today, Professor Wendy Mariner and colleagues filed an amicus curiae to the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of Obamacare.

Some notable quotes:

The new law “stabilizes health care financing by making health insurance virtually universal and affordable,”

“The mandate thus helps to correct distortions in the health care market in which a significant number of uninsured Americans have consumed significant quantities of health care for which they have not been able to pay.”

"Health care is a necessity, something everyone needs and uses. Less than 1 percent of adults have never visited a doctor or other health care professional. However, health care is unlike other necessities—food, water, shelter, and clothing—because, apart from routine care, a person cannot predict his need for health care, and that care is very expensive. "

"The most principled reason for objecting to the mandate is that some people believe that the federal government should not have the power to require people to buy a commercial product they don’t want. However, this misses the point that they are already in the market for health care and that health insurance is simply a means of paying for the care that they have used or will use."

I love this one: 
"The use of health care follows a rough 80/20 rule: in any year, about 80 percent of health care expenditures are spent to treat 20 percent of the population. But, we do not know in advance who will be in that 20 percent."  So what? Isn't this premise true of all risks (accident's, fire, murder, health)? That's the point of having insurance in the first place.

Anyway, I addressed the article in my comment:

The Commerce Clause has been dangerously misinterpreted by Supreme Court precedent, and abused by Congress. Obamacare is wrongheaded for at least three reasons:

1. Legal) The constitutionality of Obamacare is in question. The Commerce Clause was not intended for the federal government to oversee/regulate/mandate all aspects of economic activity. The logical conclusion of the argument used by Obamacare supporters, and by Mariner in the article, is that there is no limit to what Congress can regulate since all human activity affects economic “commerce” to some extent or another – anything not regulated means the feds just haven’t gotten around to it, yet. The Supreme Court once foolishly ruled in favor of regulation even in the case of food production for private consumption, as noted by Wickard v. Filburn, whereby Fliburn was growing more wheat than was mandated by the government in order to keep wheat prices artificially high during the Great Depression. Such cases are then cited to favor more intrusion of government into economic activity.

The actual intent of the Commerce Clause is really quite simple (it’s only 16 words, you know) – to regulate, or ‘make regular’, the rules guiding trade among the states. States were more independent from the federal government back then; as such, rules were established to prohibit states from interfering with the flow of commerce across state lines. This sentiment was summarized nicely by Thomas Jefferson,

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature;”

Furthermore, the penalties imposed are not constitutional, since, if the government argues it is a tax, it is neither “apportioned nor uniform.” The government backpedaled and claimed the fine is a civil penalty.

2. Moral) Even if the Commerce Clause retains its modern interpretation, that federal mandates and regulations are warranted when people engage in economic activity, how can this apply when people are not engaging in the specific activity? As I once read by Reason Magazine contributor, David Harsani, “Is NOT doing something the same as doing it?” Now, Mariner et al. wish to define “economic activity” as including non-activity? And by what moral right does one group of citizens force the others to engage in private transactions? And then threaten with fines and jail if they refuse? If I wish to abstain from purchasing anything, shouldn’t I have that right? In this sense, Romneycare might be constitutional, but it is certainly immoral (not unlike the “War on Drugs”).

3. Economic) If Romneycare (2006) is the fundamental blueprint for Obamacare, then the country is sure to see increases in insurance premiums. Romneycare, like Obamacare, has two basic goals (if you’re not skeptical of government, like myself), insuring everyone and reducing costs. But what about those costs? Massachusetts pays higher than average premiums, and the costs are continually rising. In fact, the state released a report stating that between 2007 – 2009, premiums increased at a rate between 5-10% per year, outpacing inflation; deductibles and co-payments doubled in some cases. All this to reduce the uninsured from 6% of the state population, to about 4% (2009; in 2008 it was 2.6%). State expenditures on healthcare have risen by 33% from ~$10 billion to ~$14 billion from 2005-2011, all while the state faces a $1 billion budget deficit for 2012. If Massachusetts can’t contain costs, why should we think the federal government can do any better? Every budget estimate for every federal program has been underestimated, every time. Why would it be different now?

Nix Obamacare. It’s unconstitutional, it’s immoral, and it’s economically stupid.


Liberty at Boston University responds to Obama's "jobs" package


Students  weighed in on Obama's new spending bill, as reported by the Daily Free Press.  Liberty at BU was asked for a comment. Here's part of our response:

“[The government] has prolonged the recession by interfering in the economic adjustment needed after the collapse of the bubble,” he said. “The idea of using borrowed funds or taxpayer money to ‘stimulate’ is flawed and just doesn’t work.”

You can read the article in its entirety here: http://dailyfreepress.com/2011/09/12/students-have-mixed-responses-to-obama-speech-on-job-market/

In the article, note how the sentiment of Professor Graham Wilson is in stark contrast to the innate skepticism expressed by the students.

This new bill, like the $1 trillion spent from the previous five or six bills, will only delay economic recovery and job growth. Stimulus bills are deficit spending measures that only “increase short-term aggregate demand,” according to the Congressional Budget Office. This means we add to our ballooning debt without realizing long-term benefits – in effect, kicking the can down the road. Additionally, much of the spending is focused on the same programs of the first major stimulus: infrastructure, unemployment extension (already at 99 weeks), Medicaid payments, and propping up state government employee payrolls. Again, without much benefit.

Continued deficit spending is reckless considering Congress has yet to balance the budget, our credit rating was downgraded by the S&P, and the debt-to-GDP ratio is now over 100 percent.

While Keynesian economists may suggest this bill could reduce unemployment "by a full percentage point", previous experiments with much larger spending bills have been ineffective. In the time since the $787 billion stimulus was passed in 2009, unemployment, which was projected to fall to 7 percent still lingers around 9.1 percent, and some 2+ million jobs have been lost. Additionally, economic growth is near stagnant. Why should anything be different with the passage of this newest spending bill?

Jobs are not created by legislators and presidents; they are created by business people, but only when it is profitable to do so. Therefore, any measure that interferes with this model (via taxes, burdensome regulations, uncertainty, etc.) reduces the incentive for businesses to hire new workers. Even though this latest stimulus package tries to entice job growth by providing cuts in payroll taxes, for example, businesses know they are going to get walloped with new taxes down the road, especially when Obamacare and new EPA regulations take effect.

If the government wants to help “create” jobs and “stimulate” the economy, they should first stop trying to help.

Raising the debt ceiling on condition of balanced budget = GOP social engineering??

Image

"Pseudo-libertarian kook" was how Rand Paul was described when I came across a blog called Little Green Footballs where an entry by Charles Johnson attacked him for filibustering any attempt to raise the debt ceiling unless congress passes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What was shocking was Johnson's rationale of this supposedly heinous action.

The truth is that it’s not about a “balanced budget.” The Republican vote to raise the debt ceiling will be contingent on whether they can tack on their far right social engineering schemes — killing Planned Parenthood, eliminating reproductive rights, and oppressing gays. These are the truly important issues in today’s Republican Party, and it’s proven by the simple fact that they’ve larded down every budget amendment with these religious right agenda items.

 

Kooky to require our congress to do their jobs and balance the budget while returning more money to the private sector? Yeah, that's a real goofy idea, genius. Far-right social engineering schemes? What a laugh!! Let's delve into each assertion separately. (And if you're interested, you can read a von Mises case against raising it here.)

First of all, social engineering is a scheme and powerful tool used by government in total. Both government and private groups try to implement social engineering (i.e., influencing the behaviors of others), buy only an entity with a monopoly on force and currency would I consider this immoral. I would further argue that social engineering has been dominated by the left over the past century, though often supported by the right in exchange for their own agendas. 

Citing the Pledge of Allegiance
Public school prayer
Public school abstinence-only sex education vs. giving out condoms
The entire public schools and university system (3/4 are democrat in universities)
"Without question, one of the greatest tools for social engineering is in the realm of public education."
 (Carl Teichrib, www.forcingchange.org).
The government-advocated/supported/endorsed/enforced environmental movement
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Taxation 
  •  
    • Sin taxes
    • Cap and Trade
    • Lightbulbs
    • Sugar
    • The entire IRS tax code
    • Obamacare
    • Urban Planning and Development
Affirmative action
The ADA
Jim Crowe Laws
Breaches of the 1st Amendment
The "War" on Drugs
The "War" on Poverty
Abortion Laws
Marriage laws
Doublespeak laws such as the Patriot Act

I'm sure I'm missing a ton more, but you get the point. See if you can guess which categories belong to which party. I think you'll find the answer is both, to some extent, depending on the category. Many of these are inextricably linked together; for example the misguided environmental movement, the EPA, and public schools.

Second, regardless of your position on abortion, any reasonable minded person should conclude that federal funding must not be part of the picture, in the same way it should not be part of any religious endeavor. What's more, since PP only gets about 30 percent of it's funding from federal dollars it would not likely go out of business. If they suffer a shortfall that's their problem. I'm sure there are enough wealthy philanthropists to rescue them if they think PP is of value to them; otherwise they will simply have to scale back and streamline. Would anyone actually agree to fund something called "The Massachusetts State Abortion Clinic." I don't think so. It would be political suicide. So lawmakers subtly pass funds to private non-profits like PP, but the principle is identical in both cases. 

The question of reproductive rights versus the right of the unborn child is not likely to be solved anytime soon. Better to get the feds out of the way and let states decide among their citizenry. At any rate this is quite irrelevant as eliminating federal funding for PP has nothing to do with the legality of the issue! Removing federal funds does not remove "reproductive rights." Absurd.

Lastly, while I understand that marriage laws (and licensing) is not and should not be a legitimate function of the government, since I think all human beings have the right to freely associate and contract with each other, the assertion that balancing the budget somehow oppresses gays is akin to saying that if we don't pass Cap and Trade the moon will fall into the ocean. It's simply abject nonsense. With the exception of marriage, the gay community enjoys the same rights and privileged as any other citizen of this country. In some ways, they have more rights, since some states have laws banning private companies from firing employees because they're gay. While this is ill-advised, it should be the employers right (free association, remember?). So in some states gay people are protected under the law from being fired from a private company, but what if you're a smoker and work for a public employer? Did you know that Sarasota County, Florida discriminates against smokers? This could be a full blog in itself.

In May, 2008, tobacco-free hiring guidelines were implemented which require all applicants to acknowledge, during the application process, that they have not used tobacco products for the preceding 12 months. In addition, applicants will be screened for tobacco use during the new-hire physical process. If the screening indicates the presence of nicotine, the applicant will be considered ineligible for hire.

Gay smokers are really oppressed then! 

All ranting aside, the government through both parties has engaged in social engineering for well over 100 years through social programs, taxes, and legislation. And we, as citizens, carry a great deal of blame for this by ignoring fundamental principles and sanctioning the use of government force to propel our own desires. We, in many ways, are our own oppressors. 

-A

Obama "full of shit" on letting be medical marijuana shops

Image

Remember all that nice rhetoric Obama gave about letting alone medical marijuana shops? That it was not a 'top priority' for his administration? From the HuffPost 2009:

The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

This was known as the Ogden Memo, which was recently overturned by the administration. 

"Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA."

The story was picked up by Reason magazine, and was posted to Facebook via Reason's Anthony Gregory who commented, "Obama is a drug war totalitarian, and a liar." Reason's Radley Balko responded, "In case you had any doubts that Obama is completely and utterly full of shit." I guess that settles it then. Ok, probably not for the 21% of the US population that "strongly approve" of Obama's job performance. 

Amazing how someone who claims to have smoked weed can be such a statist about the whole thing (why is my word correction underlining the word statist; does it need to be capitalized or something?). Marijuana is classified as a schedule I drug, the same category of morphine and heroine and are the most restricted. Really? Can anyone overdose on weed? Has anyone died from smoking too much weed? This whole thing is absolute insanity! Look, there are a ton of people who like to get high. And they're going to get high no matter what. Even if you could magically make weed disappear, people will just be thinking up new (and more dangerous) ways of getting high. That's what lead to crack and meth. But for others, there's a real benefit to those suffering debilitating conditions. The truly moral and principled position is that all drugs should be legalized for adults. But short of that happening, the government should not prevent individuals from seeking its benefits. So morphine is illegal, but patients are administered it in hospitals. Weed is illegal, and we throw patients under the bus. WTF? Many people are suffering and marijuana helps them. Who owns our bodies, us or the state? Let them choose freely. One organization making big strides in reforming marijuana laws despite its not being able to make a very good acronym is the New Hampshire Coalition for Common Sense Drug Policy founded by Matt Simon, whose efforts were recently showcased in the documentary Libertopia (a film about the Free State Project). Part of the film showcases an emaciated young man stricken with muscular dystrophy who says he's been gaining weight by using marijuana. There are many similar stories out there, especially with cancer survivors. It's simply heartbreaking to see people suffering this way and maddening to see the government callously denying human beings the most basic of all human rights - ownership of oneself.  

Hey Obama, get a fucking clue.  

National science organizations encourage students to lobby for funding

A few days ago I was solicited by the American Geophysical Union via email with the subject line, AGU action alert: earth and space sciences at risk. The organization (of which I belong to) is requesting that its members reach out to politicians and let them know that they won't stand for funding reductions:

Your help is needed to support the future of the Earth and space sciences. The Obama Administration and congressional leadership have been in federal budget negotiations for weeks, and are reported to be negotiating for up to $4 trillion in reduced federal expenditures. As part of this agreement, it now appears that at least $1.1 trillion in cuts will be made in annual appropriations over the next ten years, starting in Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12).

The letter goes on to say that while they don't yet know how the reductions would be applied to R&D, the 2012 budget is likely to be "below 2011 levels, and this trend may continue for a number of years." Why exactly is that bad? Such a statement supposes that reductions in spending increases are the same as cuts. In other words, if spending doesn't increase from year to year, then it's considered a spending cut. I remember the same organizations lambasting Bush - not because he cut science funding, but because it didn't increase (or increase enough) from the previous year!  However, the budget for the National Science Foundation (which provides a significant chunk of R&D funds to academia) has more than doubled from $3.429 billion in 1998 to $6.928 billion in 2010 (this does not include funding for the NIH and others). Personally, spending could probably be reduced to 2000 levels without any significant loss of major discoveries. It only means that a limited resource requires stronger competition. This is a good thing. It insures (to some extent, anyway) that only the best proposals get funded (currently it's about 1 in 10). Although the government still gets to decide what projects get funded according to national objectives, which is heavily driven by politics. Therefore, requests for funding increases simply means there are more and more scientists and graduate students that need funding and less money to go around. In the same way increases in food production allows for a greater population, increases in science funding allows for a greater faculty and student population. This is good business for the universities, which take anywhere from 40%-60% of any research grant as overhead. This necessarily drives up the cost of "doing science," and also subsidizes the cost of graduate students (since science graduate students get a tuition waiver and a salary). 

Ironically, the AGU recognizes the need to reduce the national debt, as long as it doesn't involve cuts to NSF as a matter of national security and economic development: 

While the need to reduce the national debt is real, budget cuts cannot come at the cost of programs that keep Americans safe and build a foundation on which our economy thrives.

This is an opportunity to discuss how federal investments in scientific research and development are paying off, particularly in your district. This personal connection is important because it shows them what the local impact will be from the decisions they make in Washington, and that their constituents are dedicated to supporting these programs and investments.
Image

Whichever science projects are so critical as to keep us safe and also help the economy would be the very last on the chopping block, right? Guaranteed not all the funded projects fit into this category (if any at all). There was a time long ago when science was conducted and/or bankrolled by private labs in which they produced something of value for profit, which could then be used to fund university scientists. Researchers often worked closely with industries, or sometimes as consultants. Not only have such partnerships dwindled, but researchers are often accused of being paid corporate puppets to bias results in the industry's favor. Shouldn't the same be said about researchers and government? 

At any rate, I really take issue with scientists and students being called upon to solicit politicians for more taxpayer dollars when we're already being subsidized by them. This is not the first time this year that I've been solicited in such a way. Here's a letter I received from AGU President Michael McPhadden soliciting students directly:

4 February 2011

Dear student member of AGU: 
You are an AGU member because you want to contribute to advancing our science. Your work in the classroom and laboratory is only one component of that effort. Our community can make progress, in part, because of federal support for scientific research and education. Several science students have written an open letter to federal legislators underlining the importance of federal support to the sciences, even in difficult financial times. I recommend that you read the letter, and if you support it, to sign on. AGU itself issued a press release last week praising President Obama’s pledge during his State of the Union address to strongly support U.S. science. We need all voices to be heard on this important issue.
 
Signing on to the letter is an opportunity for you to take that first step in political action in support of our sciences, but I hope it won’t be the only one you take. Your involvement in science policy helps the entire scientific community. Next steps could include participation in an AGU Congressional Visits Day, a Congressional Science Fellowship, an internship in the AGU Public Affairs Department, contacting your legislators, or following science policy news through our website, social media, and Science Policy Alerts. All of this information is available in more detail at: www.agu.org/sci_pol.

The link to the open letter is particularly amusing since it's written by student members of the Botanical Society of America--I guess that's one of those sciences critical to our national security and economy.

Feel like getting fined or arrested? Go dancing!

Feel like getting arrested? Try dancing in the Jefferson Memorial next time you're visiting Washington D.C. That's what happened to Iraq War veteran and RT America host Adam Kokesh when he and other liberty activists challenged a recent court decision ruling that dancing at the memorial was not in the spirit of remembering Jefferson. 

It wasn't a pants-off dance-off last Saturday that would offend onlookers from indecent exposure that got them in trouble, but simply the act of moving one's body, with or without another person, with or without music, in any way that could be subjectively deemed as dancing by the Park Po-po. All funniness aside, the real offensive actions were those instigated by the Park Police when they decided to use brute force - aggressive violence against peaceful citizens - to squelch these heathens of dance, including choking and body slamming. The proof is in the video pudding:

The actions taken by the Park Police were extreme, and similar sentiments by the public has resulted in an internal investigation on the officers involved. Kokesh and Co. were arrested and released five hours later. They immediately planned for another dance-off in protest to this inane court ruling which occurred today from 12:00 to 1:00 pm. Tune in to Adam vs The Man to see the fallout of today's civil disobedience session. 

Here's a follow up interview with Kokesh after the incident:

This whole thing reminds me of an equally absurd (if not more so) dancing prohibition set against a private restaurant in Arizona. In this case, the county nannies harassed the owners with nit-pickety ordinances costing them $100,000 to comply, and then invoked a sixty year old county ordinance that bans outdoor dancing. 

With that I leave you with Dane Cook's bit on dancing dudes:

Ron Paul launches 2012 presidential exploratory committee

Supporters of Ron Paul have waited with abated breath long enough; he will officially announce the launching of his presidential exploratory committee tomorrow (Tuesday, April 26). I predict the number of RP money bomb pledges and internet adverts to ramp up to encourage the 75 year-old, 12-term representative from Texas to commit to the 2012 presidential race. 

Other prominent candidates include:

  • Mitt Romney
  • Mike Huckabee
  • Sara Palin
  • Tim Pawlenty
  • Newt Gingrich
  • Mitch Daniels

Oddly, an ABC news article has Ron Paul listed as a wild card along with Donald Trump, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann. Another possible candidate (whom I happen to like) is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. 

Here's a previous piece I wrote on how I became a supporter of Ron Paul and why he should run again. 

Authorities attempt to take away our "wings"

Red Bull's famous advertising slogan, "Red Bull gives you wings" may soon be just a fond memory for teens in Long Island. As if the ban on Four Loko and other alcoholic energy drinks wasn't enough, now one Republican authoritarian-nanny (that's right folks), who for some reason has a thing against the wakeful, is trying to ban energy drinks all together for persons under the age of 19. Why 19? I don't know either. Can you image the look on an 18 year-old's face when he tries to get a pack of smokes and a Red Bull...


"Here're your Camels, but sorry young fella, I can't sell you this Red Bull; it's against the law." WTF!? 

"Here you go son, take this here pack o' smokes and rifle, but leave the energy drinks for the adults! They're dangerous!" 

Anyway, according to a NY Post article, Republican Lynne Nowick introduced legislation last December that would prohibit teens from purchasing energy drinks containing 80 mg or more of caffeine per serving, one month following the ban on alcoholic energy drinks. This law is not only dumb and inconsistent, it could also cause some nasty consequences.

The legislation is dumb for obvious reasons, but mainly because a great majority of people can and will be responsible for their own well being if left alone. Moreover, the FDA has deemed caffeine is safe (though probably at some arbitrary amount, like they do with salt). Nowick was quoted as saying, "These drinks can potentially be dangerous for teens." Isn't nice that there's someone in the world who cares so much for the well being of others that they will use government violence to protect them from any potential danger? A 19 year old driving a car isn't potentially dangerous, it's inherently dangerous, yet people would laugh at anyone that would seriously consider arbitrarily banning a 19 year old from driving for his own safety.

The legislation is inconsistent considering it only targets energy drinks. There's much more caffeine in a Dunkin Donuts coffee--would she ban a 18-19 year old adults from purchasing a coffee before they have to shuffle to work or school? 

Below are a couple of charts I made showing the caffeine concentration and total caffeine based on typical servings. You can see immediatley that regualr coffee has about 50% more caffeine (averaged to account for it's variability) than the typical energy drinks, and about 140% more than colas. More telling is the total amount of caffeine consumed (Conc * serving). Most people who go to Dunkin Donuts opt for a 16oz coffee (I think it's because you'll burn your hand off trying to hold the paper cup they serve the small in), therefore they consume much more caffeine than a Red Bull, which typically comes in a 8.3oz can. Even if your taste is for Rockstar, which comes in a 16oz can, that's still 25% less than what you'll get drinking the same volume of coffee.  

Caff_c
Caff_tot

Even coffee manufacturers are getting in on the energy drink craze...which seems silly. They list caffeine as an ingredient on the label, along with ginseng and green tea extract. Did they boost their caffeine content? I don't know--doubt it, though. I think they're just going for that look. If they did, and Red Bull is potentially dangerous, then this stuff would have to be potentially really dangerous!
20110214104519
The US isn't the first country to ban energy drinks (probably where Norwick got the idea; we get so many good ideas from the Euros, don't we?). Norway, France and Denmark have all banned them, and all have since repealed the law. France's ban lasted for 12 years, upheld by the courts in 2004, then finally repealed in 2008. 
Aside from the above reasons, I can see some actually nasty consequences from all this. First, this won't do a damn thing to stop anyone from drinking energy drinks or anything else for that matter. If someone wanted to guzzle Drano I don't know who could stop them. Prohibition fails every time...duh. Prohibition only entices young people to try it, and when they do, they tend to go overboard. There's a least one report of a teen hospitalized after drinking two, count 'em, two cans of NOS! Even he thinks the proposed law is dumb. Maybe he's sensitive to caffeine; as pointed out above, that's less than drinking two 16oz coffees in an equivalent amount of time (I know, you don't typically drink coffee very quickly, but the article doesn't report the over what time period he consumed the drinks). The article also reports that it would take about 45 cans of NOS (again, I don't know over what time frame) to be potentially fatal.  
Moreover, can you imagine parents allowing their 16 or 17 year old kid get their hands on some Red Bull? Would they be convicted of child negligence, or abuse, as they would with other controlled substances like alcohol and cigarettes? Or contributing to the delinquency of a minor at the least? The state would have to crack down on parents giving their children coffee, and check ID's at retailers. Would parents have to keep Red Bull in a locked cabinet? I know, this is all a stretch, and law probably won't pass, but it's important to point out the pervasive, and ridiculous inconsistencies in principle by which authoritarian-nannies live by. 
I say we ban any law that prevents adults/parents from making choices for themselves and their children.  Leave free people alone, lest we not be free!

 

 

 

Atlas Shrugged set to premier 2011 tax day

If you haven't heard already, Ayn Rand's major work, Atlas Shrugged, is finally making its way to the big screen. Atlas epitomizes Rand's objectivist philosophy through a fictional (though all too familiar) dystopia of the United States in decline caused by an increasingly regulatory government, nationalization of major industries, corporatism, and the general view (as even viewed today by many people) that one's rational self-interest is subservient to the "greater good." Though conceptualized in the 1940's and written in 1957, Atlas' message still resonates with many Americans, and indeed, others around the world, and is only increasing as evidenced by the making of this film. 



The film stars a cast of relative unknowns (which I think is a good thing for this film), though you'll see a few familiar faces here and there. The role of John Galt, played by Paul Johansson, is also the films director. Adaptation is by Brian Patrick O'Toole and John Aglialoro who claim they were faithful to Rand's message and the book's overall storytelling. Given that that movie is done in three parts may very well back that up. 

I find it interesting that the release date falls on the last day to file income taxes. There may be more people filing for extension this year, or possibly many more who won't file at all! Thank goodness for government compulsion!  j/k. I, for one, am extremely excited to see this film and watch its influence unfold. 

Milton Friedman lives on!

Back in June, 2010, I wrote a small piece on the 30th anniversary resurrection of Free-to-Choose, a groundbreaking book and television series from the 1980's that examined that power of the free-enterprise system through the eyes of the late, great Milton Friedman, Nobel Prized economist from the University of Chicago. Friedman was a tireless advocate for freedom and capitalism, and held the maxim that capitalism was a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for freedom. 

Reason.tv just uploaded an exclusive preview of the new series, which re-examines classical laissez-fare capitalism within a modern context. The new series is hosted by Johan Norberg and includes remastered snippets of the original series embedded throughout.