Tag: freedom

Okay Not to Harm

A recent appeals court ruling means that (some) doctors and other medical practitioners won’t be forced to violate their ethical principles against doing harm.

The Fifth Circuit ruling affirms a lower-court decision “permanently enjoining [HHS] from requiring Franciscan Alliance to perform gender-reassignment surgeries or abortions in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs.”

What is troubling about the decision is its apparent incompleteness.

In a truly free society, no private professionals or organizations would be coerced to offer their services to anybody. Everybody would be free to participate or to decline to participate in any transaction with a prospective customer related to any medical procedure. Just as any person is now (mostly) free to patronize or not patronize any provider of a good or service.

We don’t live in that free society. But at least we can hope that no person will be compelled to provide the types of services that violate the person’s moral conscience.

Like services they believe harm others.

That harm children … including the unborn.

So the court’s ruling is fine — as far as it goes. But it seems to protect only persons making religious objections, or only members of the Franciscan Alliance, not also non-religious medical practitioners who also morally object to providing abortions or sex-change operations.

Which means that there is more legal work to be done to protect the rights of all of us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL‑E

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags freedom, freedom of association, slavery

general freedom ideological culture Voting

Thoughts on Nothingness

Liberty playing cards with Aristotle by DALL-E

“Democracy has nothing to do with liberty,” the Libertarian Party announced on Facebook, “just as so many of the world’s greatest minds have warned.”

Huh? Just exactly which “greatest minds” are we talking about?

Not Aristotle!

The party’s statement introduced a meme quoting Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the “Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher,” Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV and Distinguished Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It read: “Democracy allows for A and B to band together to rip off C. This is not justice, but a moral outrage.”

Dr. Hoppe has a point, of course. The ‘will of the people’ can be just plain wrong … even, at times, malevolent. A democratic vote can lead to the tyranny of the majority and even to a tyranny of the minority, as those politicians promising to serve ‘We the People’ end up serving themselves and their cronies.

I’ve not read Professor Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, where he sort of argues for monarchy over democracy, but I offer two points: (1) no one in their right mind talks of democracy without including the protections of basic individual rights, which have become the hallmark of democratic countries across the globe, and (2) no one in the real world thinks democracy is God.

Still, we won’t trade it for monarchy.

My issue with this social media post, however, is really with the Libertarian Party’s comment that “democracy” — including the democratic means the party has purportedly been employing across the country for decades — has provided no past benefit and offers no future hope for sustaining or expanding our freedom.

So, don’t vote Libertarian this November?

I’ll take that under advisement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

“Liberty Playing Cards with Aristotle” by DALL‑E (note that the AI has chosen to show Lady Liberty as bruised and beaten. Her torch appears to be made of tissue.-)

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags democracy, freedom, liberty, voting

folly nannyism property rights

Vandalized, Scandalized

Store owners have another reason to get the heck out of that derelict-enabling and increasingly unlivable town, San Francisco. The city fines businesses for the crime of being vandalized by graffiti artists.

This form of harassing property owners is nothing new, but the city had temporarily reduced enforcement during the pandemic.

The policy is unjust in at least two ways.

First, there should be no fines for being hit by graffiti-vandals. It’s the vandals who should be punished, not the victims. Moreover, as Reason magazine points out, “Unlike accumulated trash, noise, or other standard nuisances, graffiti isn’t inherently offensive.”

Rather, it is the city that is being offensive by treating an owner’s property as if it were its own and penalizing owners if their property lacks the appearance that the city ordains.

Second, even granting the legitimacy of requiring property owners to clean up the graffiti, the policy as imposed is abusive. Businesses are being fined repeatedly for graffiti that they don’t magically remove at lightning speed and that the vandals, undiscouraged, simply slap back on anyway.

“I can’t even count,” Michael McNamara, manager of the restaurant Above Ground (now closed), told the San Francisco Chronicle last year. “The paint dries and you deal with another one.” The city had dunned Above Ground with at least three $300 bills for the graffiti.

Rewarding destructive behavior while punishing those whose way of work and life makes civilization possible is no way to run a city — but it is a way of running the good people out of town.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags crime, freedom, graffiti, property rights, San Francisco

defense & war general freedom international affairs

Fight or Flight?

Be strong or be gone. America must choose one of these two options in East Asia.

China insists.

Let’s note at the outset that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) did not “directly” threaten to shoot down House Speaker Pelosi’s plane on her possible upcoming visit to democratic and free Taiwan. That friendly suggestion was instead offered by a columnist for the “state-run” Global Times.

On Twitter.

Which, incidentally, is banned in China.

That being said, the totalitarians are indeed “bad folks.” In addition to continually threatening the invasion of Taiwan, they’re known to rough up defenseless old folks. For instance, browbeating 79-year-old President Joe Biden last week in a multi-hour phone call, in which, according to a Chinese foreign ministry read-out, Xi Jinping warned our president about standing with Taiwan: “Those who play with fire will perish by it.”

While no one in his right mind wants war with the Dragon, to avoid war with fear and cowardice may ultimately require ceding the world’s greatest democratic success story, Taiwan (the Republic of China), to the genocidal (and misnamed) People’s Republic of China.

Our cowardly leaders might opt to shut up and look the other way — especially if there is payola attached — but not the rest of us.

Should the United States tangle with a nuclear power over Taiwan?

Isn’t that like asking whether we should go to war over my mother or yours? Or your spouse … or your son or daughter?

Is one person — or a small nation of 24 million souls — worth such a risk?

When the Dragon demands a sacrifice, recognize it for what it is.

If one person, recognize it once.

If a nation, recognize it 24 million times.

Resist the Dragon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note: As I point out in last weekend’s podcast, Taiwan can successfully repel a Chinese invasion, especially with U.S. and Japanese assistance. And here, Ian Easton, author of The Chinese Invasion Threat, speaks to the issue.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags China, freedom, Taiwan, war

defense & war general freedom international affairs

Does China Want War?

“WARNING,” it began, “THIS VIDEO MAY BE UPSETTING TO SOME VIEWERS.”

Just the all-caps was upsetting, I thought to myself.

Still, I was all ears and eyes for Johnny Harris’s “Here’s What Happens If China Invades Taiwan,” which garnered seven million views since February.

Harris was “a little bit conflicted making this video,” because he “feels very against the machismo fascination with conflict,” telling viewers that “we’re talking about people’s lives” and “entire societies being ripped about by a power struggle.”

Declaring that “China doesn’t want war,” Harris hazards that Mainland China “will probably try much less violent ways to try to force Taiwan to the negotiating table before resorting to all-out invasion.”

Masters of benevolence, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will … accept surrender!

Mr. Harris points out that the CCP has passed a law saying they “must” invade Taiwan if peaceful reunification is not possible. Explaining the dearth of support in Taiwan for joining their totalitarian neighbors, he notes “the interpretation of this law [is] more and more on the side of China should do this forcibly.”

Why, it’s “a legal imperative.”

And protecting “this far away island,” asserts Harris, “is something the American public broadly would not be into.” (Though, ahem, recent polling says otherwise.)

“I really hope that we are past needing to resort to this version of conflict to settle our disputes at this time in our history,” he concludes. “But I’m not totally convinced that we are yet.”

The CCP part of “we” is clearly not there.

“We can talk about it,” explains Harris. “We can find creative ways to solve this.”

My take? Don’t expect too much creativity from the CCP.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags China, freedom, Taiwan

international affairs privacy

Delivering to Evil

Will Americans who demand the outing of anonymous donors to political causes listen to Jianli Yang?

One reason that people donate to organizations anonymously — just as they want their votes and other personal information to remain confidential — is to avoid being harassed by political opponents.

But being bullied in a restaurant is hardly the worst that can befall donors stripped of anonymity.

Jianli Yang is a Chinese dissident. In 2008, after spending years in a Chinese prison for his activism, he founded Citizen Power Initiatives for China, a US-based organization working to advance rights and democracy in China.

Yang notes that Chinese supporters of his organization, even if residing outside of China, “can face extreme consequences when they are identified by the Chinese government.” Without the right to protect donor privacy, affirmed in a July 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision on the associational rights of donors, donors can end up being punished by the Chinese government.

The risk isn’t just theoretical. In April 2021, one Mr. Lee, a businessman, was forced to appear on Chinese television to “confess” to supporting Citizen Power Initiatives for China. The government also sentenced Lee to eleven years in prison.

We must fight both the CCP and their wannabe branch in DC. Things are nowhere near as bad in this country as in China. But we don’t know what threats we will face the day after tomorrow even from our own government.

We need every First Amendment protection we can get.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts