Politics in Retrospect-2005

As any year, 2005 has brought mixed news for libertarians. Here are a few issues with commentary. As essentially all of these have been discussed by other libertarian blogs or political magazines such as Reason, I will only discuss them briefly here. After each I have written a number of + or - signs to indicate their reflection of the libertarian ideal.

Social Security reform ++

President Bush's proposal to allow young people to replace government-owned social security with private, individual accounts would be an important step forward for personal liberty. It would provide a feasible solution to the increasing gap between the benefits received by retired Americans and the payments into the system made by the younger generation.

Hurricane Katrina +/-

Unlike the other items on this list, this is not a political development in itself and therefore is not by itself material for evaluation from a libertarian perspective. However, the response to it is a political issue. I am a person who opposes government intervention in many areas of human action, and has witnessed its incredibly strong tendency to regulate consenting acts of individuals. Knowing this, it seems particularly ironic that, from the perspective of many residents of New Orleans, govennment disaster relief efforts for Katrina were far below satisfactory. I believe that natural disasters are one of the situations that most justify government intervention, as they are not the fault of any human and have the potential to harm even those who have done as much as is individually possible to protect themselves. If only more resources were devoted to those who sincerely need AND want government action, rather than those who oppose politicians' meddling or whine in hope of being awarded something, the country may well be running a lot more efficiently.

Gonzales v. Raich ---

Stretching the worn-out "commerce clause" of the United States Constitution ever farther past any reasonable boundaries, this ruling on the issue of medical marijuana essentially gives Congress unlimited jurisdiction over activity within the United States. I believe the Controlled Substance Act itself to be unconstitutional, as I favor a strict constructionist interpretation of the limits on federal power, and this case makes more of a joke out of any claim as to the intentions of the founding fathers in limiting centralized government.

Kelo v. City of New London ---

This supreme court case extended the a priori very questionable concept of eminent domain to a new level of absurdity. Instead of appropriating private property for the construction of a road or because it had fallen out of use, Connecticut homeowners were forced to sell their land so that a real estate developer could build a development of much greater value on it. Calling into question the very definition of private property, this ruling goes against the foundations of the libertarian philosophy.

Contraceptive dispensing vs. religious beliefs +/-

The debate over which is stronger, womens' reproductive rights or pharmacists' rights not to violate their religious creeds, has led to one of the latest battles in the war between the left and right. Conservatives stress that pharmacists should not be forced to dispense contraceptives if they believe that the drugs' potential to end the life of an already fertilized egg makes them immoral. Liberals tend to stress the need that women have ready access to the medications. The suggested compromise, that pharmacists need not dispense the pills but must refer customers to one that will, is perhaps the best possible under our current system. However, in the absence of the current system of prescription drug regulation a licensed pharmacist would not be required in the first place, reducing tension at the pharmacy. An interesting dicussion of this was made at The Price of Liberty, particualrly in regard to problems the new law might create with hiring at pharmacies.