The Proximal Tubule

But there is one silver lining to this phenomenon, which is that Americans are massive hypocrites. People may believe in mercantilism, but they don't act on those beliefs in large numbers...

...As citizens, Americans think of economic policy in mercantilist terms. But as consumers, they are quite content with free trade.

This isn't to definitively say people like Paul Campos and Jeffrey Friedman are right, and the obesity warriors are wrong. But it is to say that we ought to have a debate, and the debate shouldn't be premised on the notion that we're already in full crisis mode, the sky is already hurtling earthward, and that the only real debate ought to be over which panoply of government programs we ought to implement to keep earth and sky from colliding...

...Let's first take the time to be sure we really do have the problem, and that the obesity hysteria doesn't soon go the way of media coverage of the "rash" of shark attacks and child kidnappings. Let's second take the time to be sure that if there is a problem, we define it accurately, based on sound science, and not on the dire predictions of a few people who have made careers of demonizing food.

Finally, even if we were to assume the worst-case scenario put forth by the anti-obesity activists, there's still a pretty sound case to be made that the whole issue is very much a private matter between overweight/obese people and their families, and shouldn't be addressed with invasive, far-reaching public policy that removes choices and restricts personal freedom.

That, too, is a case that needs to be made, but that you don't often find in the mainstream media.

Contrary to its title, Michael Moore Hates America isn’t a hatchet job on the filmmaker. It’s a journey across the nation where we meet celebrities, scholars and average folks alike, and we find out whether the American Dream is still alive! In the process, we’ll look at Michael Moore’s claims about the country, its people, and our way of life.

While I consider myself a libertarian in many ways (for drug legalization, against government regulation of fast food, ect), there are some ways I diverge from libertarian orthodoxy. In other words when it comes to seat belt use requirements and motorcycle helmet laws I am a "small -l" libertarian, rather than a "large L" one. Some may think me hypocritical since I resent government interference with what people put in their mouths, how they educate their children, or do in their bedrooms; but am more than willing to go along with restrictions on how one rides a motorcycle or drives a car. They may be right. I'm sure it has to do with the patients I see in my trauma practice, and how many injuries and deaths could be avoided if people would buckle up or wear helmets.

• Seat belt laws increase seat belt usage, and thus, save lives. These saved lives in aggregate entail all the subsequent benefits a single life entails.
• Seat belt laws infer a societal benefit by aleviating the burden to the state of injured unbuckled drivers.

• Seat belt laws cost money to enforce.
• This is related to the fact that seat belt law enforcement takes away from enforcement of other crimes (drunk driving).
• Seat belt laws currently cost money to advertise.
• Seat belt laws erode our freedoms by introducing another sphere into which government can interfere.

As the caisson carrying Ronald Reagan's casket moved slowly up Constitution Avenue toward the Capitol, some news stations let us watch in silence. Others filled the moment with talk about the man and his era. One theme that kept recurring was how bitter and partisan Washington is these days and how it was different back in Reagan's time.

The media's nostalgia for a kinder and gentler Washington is a bit bizarre. Many of us have vivid memories of the 1980s. The Reagan era wasn't a bipartisan love fest. Reagan, like the current President, was mocked, derided and hated by much of the intelligentsia. Not surprisingly, this mood drifted into the politics of the day. Politics has been a nasty business in America since about, oh, 1800. The more things change the more things stay the same.

Most of the work in Washington is a fight over who gets what. It's about dividing a pie among various groups, all of them hungry. In such settings, partisanship has to be the order of the day. And when Washington isn't handing out goodies, but is actually trying to fix something like Iraq or Medicare, it still isn't an engineering problem where you have to sit down and figure something out. Solving these problems involve deep philosophical questions that have nothing to do with compromise or geniality, the essence of bipartisanship.

How could it be otherwise? Every President is divisive. That is the nature of politics. The only President in American history who wasn't divisive might be William Henry Harrison who died a month into office.

As I've mentioned above, the federal Constitution does secure a few positive rights. The clearest example is the Contracts Clause, which bars states from impairing the obligation of contracts, and thus mandates states to provide a forum for enforcing contracts. Under this Clause, people do have "[a] right entitling [them] to have another [the government] do some act for the benefit of the person entitled." (The Court has provided only weak protection for this right, which I think is a mistake, but the right still is a positive right.)

Likewise, the Takings Clause bars the government from interfering with my right to exclude others from my property. If I own some wooded land, the government can't just say "You must allow everyone onto the land." I think it follows that the government also can't simply refuse to enforce trespass laws, for instance by saying "The police and the courts shall not enforce civil or criminal trespass laws against those who trespass on others' woodland property, or who tear down fences protecting others' woodland property." Such a deprivation of legal protection would be close to legally destroying my property right. (It wouldn't be exactly the same, because it would still leave me with some negative right to be free of legal punishment for defending my property through force.) I think that such a denial of property protection probably would violate the Takings Clause.

In any case, the Contracts Clause example at least illustrates that the quotes Steve Bainbridge gives about the Constitution's securing only negative rights are not completely correct -- they are generally right, but they admit of some exceptions.

Many state constitutions provide more positive rights -- two prominent examples are the right to sue in court, and in many constitutions the right to a public education.

• David Boaz remembers Ronald Reagan.
• Johnathan Wilde has a summary of Radley Balko's TCS columns concerning the ABC/Time Obesity Summit.
• Goog news from the drug war front. Jacob Sullum alerts us that a federal judge has blocked the Washington DC law that states public transit systems can't accept money for adds supporting drug legalization.
• And Chip Gibbons asks "Is Free Society Possible Without A God Concept?"