Private property is our most fundamental right. This opinion piece reminds us its importance in fighting for civil rights.

Driving is a liberating technology, and we ought to recognize this, especially as we approach Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday.

Let’s think back to 1955, when African Americans stayed off segregated buses in Montgomery, Ala. During the year-long boycott, 325 private cars, some owned by African Americans, some by whites, some by churches, picked up people at 42 sites around the town.

Police harassed the drivers — Martin Luther King Jr. was stopped for speeding (30 in a 25-mph zone) about 30 times — but oppressing people in private cars is harder than oppressing them in public buses.

The boycott was successful, in part because of King’s fiery rhetoric, but also because of car ownership.

How would the problem of bus segregation have been resolved in the idyllic world of public transport? Obviously, the private car solution would be out.

Couldn’t blacks have set up a competing, unsegregated bus company, unfettered by oppressive regulation?

Well, they tried in Montgomery, but that required a permit. And relying on the government that oppresses you to help you become self-reliant is an iffy proposition.

Said Mayor Gayle, as he turned down their application in 1956: “If the Negroes want to ride a public vehicle, they can ride the city buses. There is an abundance of public transportation in Montgomery for those who want to use it. If there is a group of people who don’t want to use this public transportation, that’s their fault.”

Lots of people on the left like to piss on car ownership mostly because they are unable to connected the importance of car ownership to liberty.

A study was just released by the Health and Human Sevices that shows the 40 year head start program has had no discernible effect on children past the first grade. This federally funded program to help children in poor communities has wasted close to a 100 billion dollars of taxpayer money. Clearly this program needs to be eliminated. Lest you think I don’t care about the education of poor children rest assured I fully support the privatization of education. As Andrew Coulson notes from Cato, in DC, when a voucher program was in place to empower poor families to select their schools the current administration eliminated the program despite the phenomenal academic success of those children compared to public school children.

There are other government education programs whose effects actually grow substantially over time, and that are comparatively economical. Consider the federal DC voucher program. Just a year or two after switching from public to private schools, the effect of the private schooling was not big enough to rise to the level of statistical significance. But by their third year in private schools, the evidence was clear that voucher-receiving students were reading more than two grade levels above a randomized control group that stayed in public schools. This program, as I’ve previously documented, costs 1/4 as much per pupil as DC spends on public education: about $6,600 vs. $28,000.

I support privatizing education simply as a means to help the poor. Even though teachers unions claim to care about the poor at the end of the day their primary concern is taking care of their own. In their best interest they were able to put down a program that was showing great promises in helping the poor. They should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately they are likely to advocate for this failed Head Start program provided it continues to provides ways to line the pockets of the union.

Via, Instapundit, National Liberal Radio published a political cartoon that was derogatory towards the tea party movement. When conservatives demanded an apology from the supposed neutral news source the NPR executives declined. They argued:

“Opinion and satire are going to sting some members of the audience and soothe others,” NPR senior vice president for news Ellen Weiss told Shepard. “This one satire is not the only coverage on the topic and while it offends some members of the audience, I see no reason to remove it.”

I for one applaud NPR’s principled stand in favor of satire even when it may offend other people. We need more people with the courage willing to defend free speech even when others find it offensive. For example several years ago a Danish Newspaper got in trouble when it published cartons satirizing the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Many American publications refused to show the cartoons out of fear of hurting the delicate sensibilities of Muslims. Given NPR’s official position on satire towards tea party advocates, I’m confident they show the same kind of courage when showing the satirize version of the prophet of Mohammad during the cartoon controversy.

Senior news executives at NPR and its Web site, NPR.org, similarly decided against reproducing the cartoons.

Oh wait, they didn’t show the satirized version of the Mohammad cartoons. I know its crazy to suggest, but ever so often I think that NPR might not be objective in their news coverage.

French Feminists, presumably liberal, don’t see the importance of liberty:

Married couples in France could end up with criminal records for insulting each other during arguments.

Under a new law, France is to become the first country in the world to ban ‘ psychological violence’ within marriage.

You can’t make this shit up. This is why one should oppose hate crimes and other attempts to legislate thoughts. It leads to very perverse outcomes.

Depressing.

So argues Richard Epstein, who makes the compelling argument that the legislation is a de facto take over of the health care industry, and as such will result in the elimination of private health care insurance companies. Since the constitution mandates that private parties must be compensated when state action takes their ‘property’ this legislation is unconstitutional since it fails to compensate insurance companies for destroying their business.

Regardless of the argument, the piece is a must read because he read through the bill and does an excellent job of translating the legalese into something that can be more easily read.

It should go without saying that healthcare bill is truly a craptastic piece of legislation. I would be curious to see which of my readers who voted for Barack Obama support this healthcare legislation.

Here is a list of parts of the legislation that immediately get implemented.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of these provision will be ruinous to healthcare.

TOP 14 PROVISIONS THAT TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY

1. BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE — Reduces the donut hole by $500 and institutes a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, effective January 1, 2010.

2. IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL) — Creates a temporary insurance program until the Exchange is available for individuals who have been uninsured for several months or have been denied a policy because of pre-existing conditions.

3. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE–Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage.

4. ENDS RESCISSIONS–Prohibits insurers from nullifying or rescinding a patient’s policy when they file a claim for benefits, except in the case of fraud.

5. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 27TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS’ INSURANCE– Requires health plans to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice.

6. ELIMINATES COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES IN MEDICARE–Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program.

7. IMPROVES HELP FOR LOW-INCOME MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES–Improves the low-income protection programs in Medicare to assure more individuals are able to access this vital help.

8. PROVIDES NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN MEDICARE ADVANTAGE– Prohibits Medicare Advantage plans from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than what is charged in traditional Medicare.

9. IMMEDIATE SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING–Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases.

10. CONTINUITY FOR DISPLACED WORKERS–Allows Americans to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.

11. CREATES NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM–Creates a long-term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.

12. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES–Creates a $10 billion fund to finance a temporary reinsurance program to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64.

13. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS–Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years.

14. INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS — Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

WSJ has an excellent post showing the difference between the senate and congress healthcare bill. If anyone thinks these bills are good should probably take a look at whats in them.

The individual mandate is particularly heinous. The parts about prohibiting insurance companies from rejecting people for preexisting condition is also fucked up. How can you honestly tell me you want to reduce healthcare care cost and then forbid insurance companies from taking on consumers who are clearly going to make the whole system cost more.

Don’t get me wrong, there are good moral reasons to prevent insurance companies from rejecting people for prior conditions. Unfortunately moral reasons are not cost saving reasons.