Nevada Ranchers Part 1

     My next series of post will deal with an incident that recently took place in Clark County, Nevada. Over this past weekend, a rancher named Cliven Bundy had portions of his herd removed from pasture by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Sympathetic individuals from across the West rallied to his aid and came armed. After a tense stand-off, the BLM backed down and released the cattle. Fortunately, no one was injured. The BLM possesses a very simple reason for removing the herd. The rancher in question has not payed his grazing fees to use the land for approximately twenty years. Unfortunately, this issue is complicated by a host of other matters. As near as I can tell, these are the facts about the case.

1. Cliven Bundy's actions are unquestionably illegal.
2. The rancher's ancestors have grazed on the property since the 1800's.
3. The rancher attempted to pay the county his fees after refusing to pay the Federal Government.
4. The BLM has done little to enforce the numerous court orders requiring payment for twenty years.
5. The rancher owes some one million dollars in grazing fees.
6. Most of the infrastructure on the land in question was built by the rancher and his family with their money.
7. An endangered tortoise lives within the region.
8. The BLM was once responsible for euthanizing the same tortoises due to budget cuts.
9. The federal authorities erected "First Amendment" zones where protesters were supposed to gather.

     While Bundy is clearly acting illegally, some have argued that the Federal Government is overstepping its authority in this matter. As I gather more information, in the weeks to come I will analyze this incident and decide whether such claims are valid and Cliven Bundy is a freedom fighter who should be supported, or whether he is a rancher in need of jail time.

     Because this issue seems clear-cut at first, I beseech you, my readers, to remember that legal does not necessarily mean just. Even slavery was once legal. Wait for further evidence to be brought before making a decision. Also, if any of you know something that I have missed, feel free to mention it in the comments. As always, constructive criticism is appreciated.

Hobby Lobby Part Two

     Sorry for posting this almost a week late. Personally, I think professors conspire to maximize a student's workload, but that's not the issue I am examining today. This is the second and final post in the Hobby Lobby series. If you are unfamiliar with the Hobby Lobby controversy, feel free to review my previous post. Last week, I presented arguments both supporting and against Hobby Lobby owner, David Green. This week I intend to evaluate the strength of each argument and decide if Hobby Lobby should be granted an exception.

     The first argument supporting Green, is that Hobby Lobby is not publicly traded. Because Green is the sole owner of Hobby Lobby, he is much more responsible for the companies actions, and the Affordable Care Act (AFA) would force him to provide contraceptives he find morally objectionable. If the company were controlled by an amorphous body of stock holders, the matter would be different, and Green would have no ability to say that mandating Hobby Lobby to provide certain contraceptive coverage is against his religious beliefs. But let's look at this argument another way. How can it be defeated? It relies on Green being owner of Hobby Lobby as opposed to stock owners, but that does not diminish the fact that it is Hobby Lobby being required to provide insurance, not David Green. Hobby Lobby and David Green are two separable legal entities, so the AFA restricting Green's religious freedom does does not follow from the AFA requiring Hobby Lobby to provide insurance. But it does for the simple reason that Green is the sole owner of Hobby Lobby. Let's use an example to simplify the situation: Say you run a bakery. The government passes a regulation that all cookies sold must be peanut butter cookies. Now, you just happen to be deathly allergic to peanuts and request an exception from the law. Common sense dictates that the government will grant the exception. Now say you own a bakery and are still allergic to peanuts, but you only own the bakery. You don't bake the cookies. The government doesn't need to grant the exception in this case. Hobby Lobby is the first case. David Green is sole owner of Hobby Lobby, so he is responsible for "baking" his policies. A publicly traded company like General Motors is owned by stockholders, so they hire a "cook" to decide policy or vote on company decisions. Either way, each stockholder is no longer solely responsible for the company policies.

     The second argument in favor of Hobby Lobby is that courts have already awarded corporations freedom of speech. As freedom of speech is granted in the same amendment as freedom of religion, it would not be surprising if the courts ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby based on this alone. I feel that this is Hobby Lobby's strongest argument. To deny Hobby Lobby Freedom of Religion would split the First Amendment in two pieces that each apply to different entities, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Surely legal rights granted in the same place of the Constitution would apply to the same entities.

     The first argument against Hobby Lobby is the slippery slope argument. This is perhaps the most easily addressed even if it does seem convincing. Simply asking "If we grant Hobby Lobby an exception this time, what will happen if someone asks for _____?" Does not constitute a true argument because the answer is "We will evaluate their case and make a decision at an appropriate time." A slippery slope argument by its very nature does not address the question at hand; it brings up a question in the future. Because we are debating Hobby Lobby today, not some future company, this argument must be discounted.

     The final argument against Hobby Lobby is that they are restricting employee access to healthcare or infringing upon the rights of their employees. The answer to this argument is two-fold. First, Hobby Lobby is is not eliminating all contraceptive coverage, only the IUDs and morning-after pill, so they are restricting employee rights the same way that assault-rifle bans restrict gun rights. In other words they aren't. The second part of the answer stems from the type of right provided by the AFA. The right to health insurance provided by the AFA is a legal right because it is provided by rule of law. Because of this, the government may legitimately grant Hobby Lobby an exception. What the government gives, it may take away.

     In conclusion, Hobby Lobby is perfectly able to ask for an exception and should be granted one. Requiring David Green to provided a service he finds morally wrong is unacceptable and does not infringe upon the rights of his employees. As always, feel free to comment. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

Due to the sudden onslaught of homework, and a strong desire for quality posts, Hobby Lobby Part 2 may be a few days late. My utmost apologies to anyone eagerly waiting. I will do my best to make sure it is posted as soon as possible.

Introductory Post and Hobby Lobby Part One

     Welcome to my very first post. As a student of physics, I enjoy seeing issues laid out in a clear, logical manner. Unfortunately, clarity and logic are rarely present in today's events, so I intend to bring a order to the chaos. But why am I qualified to do this?  My qualifications stem from both my hobbies and my training. One of my favorite things to do is dabble in philosophy and politics, and because of this dabbling, I usually have some idea of what is going on in the world and am able to fit that idea into a larger framework of thought. My training as a scientist enables me to present my ideas in a structured manner that both clearly illustrates my opinion and follows a logical flow. Hopefully, this blog will bring clarity to some issues. Ultimately, however, this blog provides me a place to express my own opinions, so do not be surprised if you disagree with some of my posts.

    The topic of my first post unsurprisingly deals with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but instead of attempting to justify the legislation or demand its immediate repeal, I instead will focus on a single issue, the Hobby Lobby contraceptive case preparing to go before the Supreme Court. In case you are unfamiliar with this particular case,  the ACA requires employers to provide insurance that covers contraceptives to employees, but the owners of Hobby Lobby are arguing that this infringes upon their religious rights. It is important to note that the Greens, the owners of Hobby Lobby, do not object to all forms of contraception. They only object to the morning-after pill and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Both of these they see as akin to abortion which they vehemently oppose.

     As the concept of "rights" is heavily involved in this discussion, it is important to have some definition of the word. I take a "right" to be some privilege either granted by law or nature. The former is a legal right which is granted by society. The latter is a Natural Right, which comes from being human. Unlike legal rights, Natural Rights are not dependent on the whim of a governing body and cannot be taken away. (These are the unalienable rights mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.) Aside from legal rights and Natural Rights, rights can also be positive or negative. A positive right is a right that creates a debt owed to you by society. For instance, a common argument for the ACA was that people had a right to health care. This is a positive right because they mean that people should be given health care. A negative right is a right that prohibits people from interfering with your actions. Freedom of speech is an example of such a right. In the United States, no one must provided the citizenry with newspapers, but no one is allowed to interfere with them either; thus, freedom of speech is a negative right.

     How though do we know what our rights are? Legal rights are simple. They are simply the rights given us by law, so they are anything protected specifically by law. The right to vote, insurance under the AFA, and social security are all legal rights. The easiest way to learn your Natural Rights is to envision yourself alone on a desert island. Anything you can do there, is a Natural Right. On this island, you are alive, so life is a Natural Right. Nobody can stop you from declaring that you own property, so property is a Natural Right. On the flip side, anything you cannot do is not a Natural Right.  You cannot take anybody's property since there is no one else on the island; therefore, theft is not a Natural Right. You cannot kill anybody, so murder is not a Natural Right. You cannot trade with anybody, so trade is not a Natural Right. Since nobody can interfere with trade on our deserted isle, however, nobody can prevent you from trading either. Now that we have some concept of what a right is, we can examine the arguments present in the Hobby Lobby case.

     As I see it, arguments supporting Hobby Lobby are able to take two different approaches. They can either rest on the fact that Hobby Lobby is not publicly traded and still owned by the Greens or they can rely on the court precedence establishing that corporations enjoy the right to freedom of speech.The argument that Hobby Lobby is not publicly traded carries much weight because Green is far more responsible for the company's actions than he would be otherwise. By requiring Hobby Lobby to provided contraceptive insurance, the Federal Government is requiring Green to provided contraceptive insurance as opposed to an amorphous body of stockholders. In this argument, the ACA is then indirectly infringing upon Green's religious rights. The second argument, that freedom of speech sets a precedence for freedom of religion stems from the fact that both of these rights are granted in the First Amendment. Since courts have consistently upheld one part of the amendment in regards to corporations, it should uphold another portion as well. After all, it is the same amendment.

Arguments against Hobby Lobby, however, are more numerous. One of the most cited arguments is what many debaters and logicians dub a "slippery slope" argument. A slippery slope argument continually asks "What if?" in order to cast doubt upon the case in question. The Hobby Lobby case provides an excellent example. A common slippery slope argument against Hobby Lobby consists of this:
     
     Assume the Supreme Court excludes Hobby Lobby from providing IUD insurance on religious grounds. What happens when a corporation refuses to provide any contraceptive insurance on religious grounds. Will that be approved as well? What about when they refuse to pay taxes for religious reasons. Will that be allowed? What about when a company decides that _____ on religious grounds.

     The above is a classic slippery slope argument. Start by assuming the opposition's position, then ask about a more extreme case and continue ad infinitum. Such arguments are generally fairly persuasive but fail to be substantive due to not actually addressing the question at hand, should Hobby Lobby be allowed to deny insurance covering the morning-after pill and IUDs. A far better argument lies in the fact that corporations are neither citizens nor persons. In philosophy, a person is any entity that possesses certain Natural Rights. By arguing that Hobby Lobby is not a person, one can deny them rights that would normally be given to an individual. By arguing that they are not a citizen, one can deny them rights provided by the Bill of Rights, which was originally intended to protect the States and the populous from the Federal Government. This represents the strongest argument against Hobby Lobby.

Another oft provided argument against Hobby Lobby is that they are infringing upon their employees' right to health care. This is perhaps the weakest argument against Green's position as it contains multiple flaws. First, employers were not required to provided health insurance until only recently lending credit to the idea that health insurance is not a right. If it is, surely it would have been enforced long before now. Second, Green is only objecting contraceptives that are used after conception, leaving the plethora of preventive contraceptives available to his employees. This hardly constitutes an attack on employees' rights in the same manner that restricting ownership of automatic weapons does not infringe upon the rights granted in the Second Amendment. Third, contraceptives are not exactly necessary to a healthy lifestyle. They are beneficial and convenient true, but not absolutely necessary.

     The aim of this post is to lay out the major arguments on both sides of the Hobby Lobby controversy. My next post will evaluate these arguments and should be up next Monday. Feel free to comment. Constructive criticism is always appreciated.