by Stephanie R. Murphy

I was shocked, surprised, and flabbergasted to hear it. I’m sure that you’ll never believe it, either. The federal government is – get this, readers – butting into your most personal and private business.

OK, you’ve caught me in a rare moment of sarcasm. Maybe I wasn’t really that surprised. After all, government bureaucrats attempt to control what types of substances you put into your body, what kind of work you do with your body, and even how you can legally dispose of your body after death; it makes perfect sense that they would also scramble for power over what parts of your body should remain attached. Yes, that’s right. The CDC is now considering a campaign for universal circumcision in the US.

The reason for pushing this one-size-fits-all policy stems from the results of several studies, all done in Africa, which have demonstrated the benefits of male circumcision for reducing the transmission of HIV.

The studies on circumcision and HIV transmission are very interesting. They are large, randomized, controlled trials; the methodology is solid. They show, on average, a 40–60% reduction in the risk of a circumcised, HIV negative man contracting the virus from an HIV positive woman, as compared to an uncircumcised man. The precise mechanism of circumcision’s protective effect is unknown. There are many potential explanations, none of which are mutually exclusive. First, the foreskin has a relatively high population of cells that are receptive to being infected by HIV. Second, it acts as a reservoir which may trap infected secretions. Third, the foreskin has a higher propensity to ulcerate (become scraped) and become infected with other sexually transmitted infections that cause open sores. It seems that removing the foreskin also removes several potential avenues for HIV entry into the body.

However, when considering the benefits of circumcision, there are some significant caveats. For one, circumcision is not a panacea; it does not completely prevent transmission of HIV, it just lowers the probability that a man will contract the virus during any given sexual encounter with an HIV positive woman. It should be noted that these studies only examined the effect of circumcision on transmission of the virus from an HIV positive woman to an HIV negative man. While this is a relatively common scenario in Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV epidemiology in the US is different. Overall rates of infection are lower. Also, HIV in the US is relatively more common among men who have sex with men (MSM). There is no evidence that circumcision protects against HIV acquisition in MSM. Circumcision also does nothing to protect anyone against acquiring HIV via bloodborne routes, such as sharing needles with an HIV positive person. It should go without saying that men can protect themselves from acquiring HIV in other ways besides getting circumcised, such as practicing safe(r) sex and avoiding intravenous drug use. These methods are much more reliable than the 40 – 60% risk reduction conferred by circumcision.

Circumcision also has risks and demerits. My personal philosophy on medicine leads me to look skeptically at any procedure that removes a part of the body which is not causing harm, pain, or annoyance to the patient; in other words, don’t mess with success. As with any surgical procedure, infections and pain after circumcision are both possibilities that should not be ignored. Medical errors should be considered as a legitimate risk during circumcision, too. There are rare case reports of penile amputation that have occurred during botched circumcisions. There are also many more reports of less extreme, but still real, consequences resulting from circumcision mishaps.

Of course, the question on the minds of many who are considering circumcision is that of whether the procedure impacts sexual enjoyment and satisfaction. That question is, in my opinion, impossible to answer accurately. To distill the immense debate surrounding this issue to its barest essence, choice seems to play a significant role in how men view their foreskins (or lack thereof). Men who choose to get circumcised tend to be happy that they did so; those who did not have a choice in the matter because they were circumcised at birth are more likely to lament it.

That brings me to my main point in writing about the prospect of universal circumcision: the issue of choice. If my patient asked me about circumcision, I would discuss with him the information above. I would also encourage him to do his own research about the procedure if he felt interested. He would make his own decision about whether he wanted to have the surgery.

By contrast, the CDC’s attitude demonstrates a lack of consideration for patient autonomy and consent, two essential elements in all medical decisions. The CDC would like every baby boy born in America to be circumcised, no matter the opinion of his parents and, more importantly, without the boy’s consent. If circumcision were a medically necessary and life-saving procedure with no possible ill effects, things might be different. In reality, it is a surgical procedure that is not essential for the health of a normal man; furthermore, it has both risks and benefits. The relative importance of those risks and benefits is subjective. Every man may value them differently. For that reason, it’s essential that each individual be afforded the choice about what to do with his own foreskin.

To be perfectly blunt, I do not see any justification for removing a part of a baby boy’s body without his consent. Men can always get circumcised as adults if they wish; by contrast, once the foreskin is gone, it’s gone forever. Most people will concede that the procedure is painful even for babies, but they insist that the pain is justified because the baby will not remember it. I wince at the thought of causing pain to a newborn boy. I say that even if he does not remember the physical pain as an adult, he may still suffer from the psychological sting of having had a body part removed without his permission.

Another argument from the advocates of universal circumcision is that it makes good hygiene easier. This is a typical government one-size-fits-all solution: parents are too stupid, in the minds of government agents, to teach their sons good hygiene, so instead we should just circumcise everyone. People are also too stupid to practice safe sex, so we should circumcise them all because they will gain a marginal reduction in the overall risk of contracting HIV. I’ve also heard arguments for circumcision based in religious tradition and cultural norms. Sure, circumcision is common – and a very old tradition in some religions and cultures. But does that make it right? I don’t think that’s for us to decide. I think that each individual, the owner of his own body, should make the call about whether or not circumcision is appropriate for him.

It’s difficult for me to assume the mindset of statists who advocate for this kind of thing, so I raised the issue of universal circumcision in conversation with a few people whose opinions I thought would be unencumbered by that pesky philosophy of leaving others alone and letting them make their own decisions. In addition to the religious and culturally based arguments that several people trotted out, one colleague had an interesting comment. He thought that universal circumcision was a good idea, envisioning a world where no more would awkward teens have to worry about getting teased in the locker room, because “everyone would look the same.” Oh really? The last time I checked, people came in all shapes, colors, and sizes, and that was a good thing! I guess that if everyone looked alike, wore the same clothes, and had the same hairstyles, nobody would ever have to worry about not fitting in. Would this egalitarian also propose to redistribute the wealth from the best-endowed men to those who are not quite as blessed by Mother Nature? Ridiculous.

I certainly cannot agree with the CDC’s move toward making a blanket recommendation that all boys should undergo a medical procedure at birth, without their consent. I want each man to have the opportunity to make his own decision about what to do with his foreskin when he reaches an age at which he is capable of doing so, based on his understanding of the risks and benefits, and how much he personally values each. The bloated, overreaching federal government apparently does not want the same.

by Tibor R. Machan

Too often now when people voice fear of the American government, whether it is homeland security or health-care reform, one is accused of being irrational or paranoid. It is that familiar “It can’t happen here” syndrome at work. But there are good reasons not to dismiss such concerns under current circumstances.

When society is considered a collective — akin to a team, only not voluntarily established like most sport teams — those who see themselves as its leaders and charged with selecting goals everyone must pursue can quite easily slip into a mode of thinking that construes all opposition a form of betrayal. If, for example, the federal government is understood along these lines, setting goals for us all for which resources and hard work are needed, and dissent from which may threaten the ability to collect those resources and secure such work, the dissenters will naturally be perceived as traitors to the cause. Indeed, their obstreperousness will easily be perceived as dangerous obstruction of justice! After all, those who lead us toward a goal they consider vital to the public interest do understand themselves to be promoters, champions of social justice. How else are they to understand wealth redistribution, for example?

In all the literature I have run across in my now quite long career in the field of political philosophy, insisting on the idea that the rich must not be allowed to keep their wealth, the poor must be made to share in the wealth of the nation, the indigent are legally entitled to support obtained by taking from those who have it — all these views are defended mainly as varieties of social or economic justice. And is it not even a crime today to obstruct justice? Sure, that means obstructing law, but it is called obstruction of justice, is it not? Because if the law itself is deemed as just, then those who oppose it are in cahoots with criminals who obstruct it. And by the lights of the collectivists, laws promoting their idea of the public interest are indeed just.

How can a bona fide promoter of social justice tolerate serious, persistent dissent? It is not possible unless one is firmly committed to the idea of individual rights, the right, for example, to campaign against and even withdraw from various projects government officials consider vital to the public interest. And when a country’s government is administered by officials who do not believe in individual rights, as for instance President Obama is not — judging by his close association with and reliance on the advice of legal theorists who denigrate such rights as fictitious — the concern that dissent will land one in hot water with government officials is quite rational.

OK, for a while there is the protection afforded by the First Amendment to the Constitution but with sufficient savvy the defenders of the public interest as they see it could very well see full warrant for weakening such protection. This is one of the lessons of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s efforts to pack the Supreme Court when that court would not go along with his plans for the country, plans that involved breaching the principles of the Constitution. Roosevelt did not believe in the Bill of Rights as traditionally understood in America’s legal history but crafted, instead, a Second Bill of Rights. It wasn’t only that some of the older interpretations of the Bill of Rights needed to be straightened out but that the very idea of citizens having basic, unalienable rights stood in the way of his aggressive statism.

Today, the legal team of President Obama is of the same mind as FDR was when he launched the New Deal. What is needed, they argue, is the reaffirmation of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, with its emphasis on entitlements and the coerced services needed from everyone so as to deliver on these. So when one opposes this policy, one is clearly an obstructionist. One is breaking ranks from an army that needs all the soldiers to be dedicated and loyal. Patriotism is then defined as falling in line with the government’s plans.

Why is it such a surprise, then, that the Obama administration is attacking those American citizens who voice opposition to, for example, its plan for the virtual nationalization of the health-care profession in America? Why be surprised that opponents of bailouts and stimulus programs are denigrated and marginalized instead of argued with? Such people are seen as vicious opponents of social and economic justice, and such opposition is quite intolerable to anyone who cares for such justice, is it not?

Once the bulwark against this kind of tyranny — namely the basic rights of individuals and the legal system that rests on those rights — is rejected as ultimately mythical, what will stand in the way of treating dissenters as traitors?

The fear of the American government becoming more and more tyrannical is not irrational but completely justified by the logic of the current administration’s attitude about political and legal theory. What we are seen as, all of us, is tools and resources for carrying out the government’s plans. Anyone who disagrees may well need to be neutralized.

by Karen Kwiatkowski

The immediate and obvious answer to this question might be “Yes, of course there is.” An anti-liberty mindset would explain our wars — at home on freedoms we like to think were sanctified in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and abroad on other people and other countries who do not quickly enough bend to our great will.

The anti-liberty mindset would also explain how Americans quietly bear government taxation that consumes over half of what they make each hour, and each year. At this point, logic tells us that no future generation will be able to pay the obligations taken on by our government. But an anti-liberty mindset certainly explains why Americans tend to believe that our children somehow will be willing to try!

If a natural and predominant anti-liberty mindset exists in 21st century America, notwithstanding this country’s 19th century groundbreaking role in everyman over every government, then the libertarian movement, whether as a unique political party, as green shoots in mainstream politics, and even as a social networking opportunity is doomed.

There are many signs of an entrenched anti-liberty mindset — and Will Grigg’sfascinating reports of everyday police action against individuals in this country communicate largely that most people still side with the police. Most who watch the ubiquitous cop or military shows on TV, whether dramatically posed or reality postured, tend to cheer for the state over the individual. A recent annual Harris poll asking for the “most respected” occupations found that of jobs with highest prestige in the eyes of the “people” are nearly all government enforcers. The only occupation with over 60% in the “highest prestige” category was that of firefighter, the one-third of firefighters who are employed full-time as firefighters working for local government. Over 50% of poll respondents believed that scientists, doctors, nurses, military officers and teachers were positions of highest prestige. Given the flow of federal and state dollars into these occupations, all may be considered government jobs of a similar sort. Police officers and clergy rated 40% for most prestige. Garnering less than a 40% rating for “highest prestige” in descending order, were the generally market-based private professions of engineering, farming, architecture, elected members of Congress, law, business leadership, athletics, journalism, union leadership, entertainment, banking, acting, stockbroking, accounting, and real estate.

Charles Burris recently shared a report paid for by those in authority that examined whether public school discipline practices “foster the public good.” The report itself was not surprising. My several years of teaching in a public high school left me amazed at the prison-like atmosphere, minute-by-minute demands for submission and conformity, and an underlying sense of institutional threat. That experience confirmed to me that public school is not, and was never, about creating learners or thinkers, but instead an attempt to develop automatons unpracticed in independence, and consequently unable to effectively question authority. What was interesting in this 2009 report was the underlying theme that chronic troublemakers in school should be removed into — dare I say — some sort of educational internment camps.

Lastly, we have the recent non-story of employee allegations under oath that Erik Prince, former CEO of Xe, nee Blackwater, arranged for and threatened murder of both Americans and non-combatants in the several wars in which Xe/Blackwater is supporting overseas. One would expect that a scandal of this nature might be treated with the same frenzy as the Bernie Madoff situation — but of course, these allegations are one of many reports that directly challenge the cherished idea of military service as a prestigious occupation and government killing as a moral endeavor.

It seems to me that the anti-liberty mindset is the most serious challenge facing America today — even beyond the ongoing catastrophe of our fiat-money system that continues to enable the corporate state. The fiat-money system will eventually crash the state — but we will still be battling the anti-liberty mindset in the smoking ruins.

However, the anti-liberty mindset may be itself vulnerable to collapse. The cycle of state growth is corruption, overreach, terror, and eventual collapse. In spite of admonitions to respect police and law enforcement, more and more people see these state agents as tax collectors, felons in uniform and pigs, no offense intended to the four legged variety. In terms of protection, we utilize private security systems that we pay for — no one today expects a policeman to actually be there when a crime is committed, or even to arrive until long after the assailant has fled. We get more crime solving on TV shows and books than we do in real life, where as a rule, no forensics are done and no sustained investigations materialize.

In spite of our purported respect for teachers, we really do not respect them at all. Instead, we have developed a well-deserved cross-generational contempt for teachers in government institutional settings. In the age of the Internet and online encyclopedias, where one is a click away from learning how to do nearly anything, and the great writings that may interest us are instantly accessible — we have teachers who wish instead for us to sit quietly and complete badly formulated true/false questions from even more badly written eight-pound textbooks. Confirming this is a recent story in national newspaper insert called “American Profile.” The second youngest person who actually remembered an exceptional teacher was a 39-year-old woman — and the teacher she remembers is currently her boss! The youngest was an 18-year-old college student who lauded her second grade teacher for “inspiring curiosity” and “being kind.” She must have had more recent teachers, but likely none who could be accused of inspiring either curiosity or humanity.

Finally, in spite of our ostensible regard for those who serve the state as members of the military, the long-term trends bear out that it is less respect we have for these people than it is fear and dislike of them. America has already evolved a Praetorian class, with a volunteer military made up of people groomed socially, genetically, and geographically to serve the state, and who are socially, economically and geographically unwelcome in most communities after their service. Most military retirees who identify as such, cluster in certain state supported locations near atrocious domestic military bases and expensive government health care. The mentally and physically wounded from our wars are kept unseen, unheard, often heavily medicated and out of journalistic view. Those others who truly integrate into civil society do so without reference to their military service, and keep it thankfully buried like any other mistake that is in the past.

Is there a natural anti-liberty mindset? No, there is not. Children want to ask questions, to explore, to experiment, and to think. People truly want charity, or as that word is also understood, kindness and love. In such an environment, liberty flourishes. But there is an artificial anti-liberty mindset promoted incessantly by all things state, and by all things political. It can be rejected, combated, and I hope, destroyed. The first step is to recognize that the anti-liberty mindset is not natural — in spite of the state’s sustained and subtle messages to the contrary.

by David Calderwood

My recent column that references OSHA’s silly grouping of firearm ammunition with true explosives, equating to a potential ban on ammunition sales, elicited quite a few comments (apologies for misrepresenting the possibly apocryphal story about Bush 41’s encounter with a supermarket scanner). One strain within this motivates me to clarify my own views of the role guns play in the current and future battle for liberty.

Folks, at the risk of offending a lot of LRC readers, I have to admit that I think guns will play no direct role in this battle whatsoever. In the age of overwhelming government power where no habitable place on the globe is free from domination by one nation-state or another, it is simply impossible that armed men are going to secede and then win an ensuing firefight with government minions.

In every case where old forms of government are cast off, sometimes to the accompaniment of gunfire, there is always an undercurrent of ideas that creates the necessary commitment of residents to the new paradigm. These ideas may be good or evil, but it is the ideas, not the bullets, that are the necessary ingredient for change.

In today’s America we are on the fast track toward the Total State where no element of human existence is free from the suffocating influence of government employees. In some respects we’re already there, since who among us would give our child a swat on the rump in public without immediately worrying about someone calling the local “Child Protection Agency,” and as we know today’s government employees even dictate how much water a flush toilet can use.

This fast track exists because our friends, neighbors, and co-workers accept the premises on which the Total State is built. They accept the notion, without thought, that by aggregating tax money and the power to direct human choice in the hands of a few elected and (far more commonly) appointed persons the whole product of government will be greater than the sum of its parts. They believe that the United States government and all its vassals at the state and local levels are institutions that produce more than they consume; they see the government as the sole exception in the universe to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

People almost universally see things this way despite the daily litany and lifetime experience of waste, corruption, and sleaze that accompany every level of government. Even government employees whose daily work immerses them in waste and resource misallocation hold faith that there’s no alternative to this massive institution that early in the twenty-first century has crowded out or co-opted nearly all other lawful forms of human organization.

Against this backdrop we still are occasionally treated to exhortations to stock up on battle rifles and case quantities of ammo in preparation for the Second American Revolution. To me this creates a dangerous notion and understandably makes our neighbors (the ones that read such things without understanding the underlying philosophy) nervous.

Acquiring skill with a rifle or pistol is great sport. Unlike golf (also a game of concentration and self-control more than physical strength or stamina), shooting has a side-benefit of having a practical application in self-defense. Sometimes, however, people get carried away with this.

First, since the state is our neighbors’ only real source of acceptable violence, any effort to employ violence against the state’s employees will always be interpreted badly by the neighbors. Nobody fights the law without the law winning because the neighbors identify with the law. Violence against the state in any form simply becomes a rationalization for repression. As long as the state is seen by a plurality of our neighbors as Mother, Father, Protector, and Provider, all violence simply strengthens those who rule. What could set the cause of liberty back further than the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing or the events of 9/11? People who employ violence against government facilities or employees are the identical twins of totalitarians everywhere.

Second, since the state monopoly on violence rests on popular belief, even violence employed in self-defense against freelance criminals will always be viewed in the most negative light possible. This makes employment of even “justified” violence quite risky from a legal standpoint. Violence employed in self-defense is thus a very last resort and nothing to be joked about or taken lightly.

Guns do matter. They matter philosophically because free men and women do not depend on the state’s minions for their own personal safety. They are thus an indicator of citizen power versus government power at the moral level. I carry a spare tire and a jack in my car, but I still try to avoid conditions that might cause a flat, and even if I get a flat there’s a decent chance I’ll call AAA to get a professional to change the tire. The jack and the spare simply give me the option to change the tire should circumstances warrant and avoid my being wholly dependent upon tow-truck businesses.

Given that in this case the government analogy to the tow truck industry is a tax-supported police monopoly, it’s no stretch of imagination to suspect that complete and total citizen dependence on the police for crime suppression would be the Gift that Keeps on Giving to police unions engaged in collective bargaining. Only a cynic would suggest the cops might become scarce in middle class residential areas during negotiations…right?

Guns also matter practically by providing deterrence to freelance criminals. America has always been a relatively violent place and we know from other western countries that removing the threat of potential violence from the hands of average citizens creates nothing more than a free-fire range where Joe Citizen is trapped between the (armed) cops and the (armed) robbers. In this sense privately owned guns deter by their potential employment, not by the body count of criminals shot by victims.

Guns in private citizens’ hands increase the cost of victimizing people; elementary economics tells us to expect that reducing or eliminating this cost should make the quantity of violent crime “provided” increase. This appears to be consistent with experience in the UK, Jamaica, and other places enforcing a legal monopoly of government gun ownership.

In sum, gun ownership is very important but the real war is one of ideas.

You are on the front lines with General Lew, parrying the lies, myths, and obfuscations of the enemy with rhetorical jabs and penetrating questions. We win some battles and we lose others as the pendulum of dominant ideas swings between power and liberty in a never-ending war. The level of liberty our children and we enjoy depends on our persuasiveness and on the tenor of the public’s openness to truth and reality (which changes over time).

We who live relatively free of the dogma surrounding the institution called “government” have little choice. We cannot through reason, and especially not through violence, force an idea whose time has not yet come. We can only be persistent, good-humoredly repeating the truth while patiently awaiting the time when conditions evolve to provide a more fertile soil for liberty’s growth. In the meantime we gain enough defectors from the other side to keep things interesting.

By Greg Evensen

When police investigators begin amassing evidence at a crime scene, the bits and pieces of the puzzle begin to take shape. Usually, with several trained men and women working together to come up with an answer, the intent and actions of the perpetrator are almost always revealed.

Since my core training and experience over many years was as a state level enforcement officer, I have worked crime scenes that were large, complex and conflicting. With enough time, effort and resolve, we too, were able to bring the bad guys to account.

You certainly do not have to be a trained state trooper—or any other level police agent—to use common sense, logic and knowledge, to assess the crime scene that has become the socialist states of amerika.

I continue to be at a loss to explain how it is that so many tens of millions of amerikans simply do not see the utter destruction of their former republic by socialists, one worlders, deviates, liars and thieves. The men in black have been roving the country flashing their memory erasers around the clock. Let’s take a check on how things are really going.

Our nation’s police forces prior to the criminal thug Richard Nixon were centered on community policing. MOST of their time was spent on looking for, identifying, and monitoring criminals, and responding to unusual or dangerous events that were beyond the control of ordinary folks. We appreciated those officers and were proud to say, “he is OUR Cop!” We knew that we could talk to him, kid him, see him play adult softball, and sit across from him in church. We watched him shed tears when one of our kids didn’t make it home after a night of drinking and driving. We remembered him at Christmas, because he didn’t make much you know.

I said “him” because back then, there were no women in the ranks.

As government began its sickening expansion, policing became a meaner and nastier job. It was made that way by badge wearing thugs who didn’t hesitate to do whatever they were told by the S.A.C. (Special Agent in Charge) of the FBI, BATF(E), US Marshal’s Office right down to armed poultry inspectors—yes they have them and they are really tough on criminal chickens. The “us against them” mentality, and the “mission essential” attitude justified SWAT teams, “dynamic entries,” and later use of MACE, TASERS, FLASHBANG GRENADES and “routine” use of SUBMACHINE guns. All in the name of “taking down” the accused—no matter the charge. I abhor such police tactics and was an officer that served my own warrants, rarely with one other officer at the back door.

Now we have become eaves-dropping, roadblock setting, door crashing, face grinding, arm breaking, pursuit driven bastards that have sold their asses to the government masters hell bent on establishing the TRUE reincarnation of the dreaded SS. That is NO overstatement. Note: There are significant numbers of officers at all levels that simply detest the forced training at FEMA centers, the requirements to stop Patriots and others simply because they “look” dangerous, and are exercising free speech statements on their vehicles. By whose ultimate authority does this take place? By whose ultimate judgment is it that it is necessary to harass INNOCENT drivers and families? The public sees this Gestapo mentality as far more of a danger than any stickers they put on their vehicles? Where are all these “faithful” enforcers of the law when it comes to confronting the unlawful, unconstitutional, unjustifiable, and unmerciful rotten bunch of usurpers, communists, atheists, deviated, immoral scungebuckets that are walking the halls of Congress, the White House, and the Federal Courts? How is it that the “get ‘em at any cost” morons at Homeland Security have created an environment in amerika that is an unwarranted intrusion of power in 186 other nations?
And all of this is done in the name of safety and security. I guess that a majority of ignorant buffoons really do believe that Barack Sotero is the Messiah and he does hold the keys to socialist paradise in his hands.

So, once again, I implore those officers of the law who are in grave doubt about the legitimate authenticity of their superiors in any agency, to simply read the constitution, re-read their oath of office, seek out retired officers for guidance, and remember this very carefully—to brutalize citizens in the pursuit of order, is a guaranteed recipe for resistance. PLEASE do not pit yourselves (all 650,000 officers at all levels in the US) against a seething and angry populace who outnumber you 5000 to 1. Believe me; you want all of us working with you, not against you.

Read the rest at this link.