Peoples Press Collective » Ari Armstrong

Peoples Press Collective » Ari Armstrong http://www.peoplespresscollective.org Bloggage and Original News Coverage From Colorado and Around the Country Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:02:29 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= Cake Bill Advances http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/cake-bill-advances.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/02/cake-bill-advances.html#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:06:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=21bf841c37f1fa1a5c19431c04d3424d Westword's Melanie Asmar reports that the Colorado "Cake Bill" (the "Cottage Food Bill") passed the House yesterday on an anonymous vote. (This was despite the troubles of the bill's sponsor, Laura Bradford.)

I wrote about the story a few days ago.

The bill was amended, but none of those seem to seriously compromise the bill. Now the bill heads to the Senate.

Asmar even embedded my short video on the matter:

]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/02/cake-bill-advances/feed/ 0 Mises’ Lessons for Gentlemanly Disputes http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/mises-lessons-for-gentlemanly-disputes.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/mises-lessons-for-gentlemanly-disputes.html#comments Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:29:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=e3619dd33c7925387221f8c2b9d4d627

Many years after Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek visited Professor John Van Sickle in Boulder, I sat in the same living room where the two men had conversed.

Both Hayek and Van Sickle were friends and students of the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. Van Sickle had saved many letters to and from Hayek, Mises, and other free-market economists of their day. I got the chance to look through these letters and reproduce them. They now reside in the archives of the Foundation for Economic Education. (I've told this story before; I've received permission from Jerry Van Sickle and FEE to reproduce those letters at my discretion.)

I was glancing through those letters for possible use in an upcoming presentation, and I happened upon a letter for Mises that I think admirably illustrates the gentleman's way of handling a dispute. (I read the letter during a time when a friend of mine was coming under some mean-spirited and frankly ridiculous attacks.) The letter is dated March 2, 1955.

Mises stuck to his principles and did not shy away from criticizing perceived errors and slights sharply and directly:

[M]y formulations are to be taken on the one side and should be opposed to the middle-of-the-road formulations of [Milton] Friedman... and others on the other side. To proceed in a different way is tantamount to the adoption of the official position of the New Deal philosophy. Then one does not discuss the economic meaning and function of inequality, but takes it for granted that inequality is bad and discusses whether it should be abolished altogether or whether some "loopholes" should be left. There is nothing that I could contribute to such a debate. ... If you assign my formulations a lower rank than to those of other participants, then please forget about them, set aside the letters I wrote you and do not expect me to attend the meeting.

Several things here are noteworthy. Mises did not refrain from blasting Friedman over fundamental disagreements. Yet he did not refrain from debating the matter with Friedman, so long as he could debate on equal footing.

Mises closed with an equally interesting paragraph:

I want to emphasize that my attitude on this question in no way reflects upon our long established friendly relations and does not at all affect the high esteem in which I hold you personally.

In other words, even though Mises thought Van Sickle was setting up a conference in such a way that slighted Mises in favor of the "middle-of-the-roaders," Mises maintained a remarkably cordial tone, even as he pointedly explained the reasons for his irritation. (Of course, that doesn't imply one must always deliver roses to one's ideological opponents.)

I think Mises's approach goes a long way in explaining why he was so widely loved, and why he remains so influential.

From Van Sickle Documents]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/mises-lessons-for-gentlemanly-disputes/feed/ 0 Mises’ Lessons for Gentlemanly Disputes http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/mises-lessons-for-gentlemanly-disputes.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/mises-lessons-for-gentlemanly-disputes.html#comments Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:29:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong https://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=e3619dd33c7925387221f8c2b9d4d627

[M]y formulations are to be taken on the one side and should be opposed to the middle-of-the-road formulations of [Milton] Friedman... and others on the other side. To proceed in a different way is tantamount to the adoption of the official position of the New Deal philosophy. Then one does not discuss the economic meaning and function of inequality, but takes it for granted that inequality is bad and discusses whether it should be abolished altogether or whether some "loopholes" should be left. There is nothing that I could contribute to such a debate. ... If you assign my formulations a lower rank than to those of other participants, then please forget about them, set aside the letters I wrote you and do not expect me to attend the meeting.

I want to emphasize that my attitude on this question in no way reflects upon our long established friendly relations and does not at all affect the high esteem in which I hold you personally.

From Van Sickle Documents]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/mises-lessons-for-gentlemanly-disputes-2/feed/ 0 Braunlich: CO Campaign Laws Chill Speech of New Activists, Small Groups http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/braunlich-co-campaign-laws-chill-speech.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/braunlich-co-campaign-laws-chill-speech.html#comments Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:27:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong https://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=d592d5a4fbe68dc3759decc7d1373f1f videos of testimony by Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Matt Arnold, and me.

I've decided that the issue is important enough to merit the release of additional video from that event. Here Mark Braunlich argues that the campaign laws chill the speech of new activists and small groups. He did praise Gessler for trying to make the related rules as comprehensible as possible.

]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/braunlich-co-campaign-laws-chill-speech-of-new-activists-small-groups-2/feed/ 0 Let Them Eat Cake (No, Seriously) http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/let-them-eat-cake-no-seriously.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/let-them-eat-cake-no-seriously.html#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:09:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=7faa98d3fb732efbafa5e80cab30b0c3

If the Colorado legislature passes a "cake bill" (1027) to legalize cottage bakers, Mande Gabelson of Ava Sweet Cakes can bake me a cake, just as fast as she can.

Otherwise, she'll get a $1,500 fine for it.

My dad and I are working up a column for Grand Junction Free Press on the story. However, according to Mande, the bill may be heard as early as next week (it already passed through its first committee), and our column doesn't pop until Friday. Thus, I asked Mande if I could release her interview early here, and she said I could. (She also said I can release the images seen here, two of which were distributed in a Republican media release.)

Mande said she used to rent space at a commercial kitchen for $100 deposit, $135 monthly rental, and $12 per hour for usage. "I had to leave the commercial kitchen due to the cost."

But, she said, "I knew the law, I knew I could not sell out of my home, but I knew that other states would allow it with a cottage food law. I wanted to figure out a way to get it done."

And so she contacted her local legislators. "Rep [Laura] Bradford gave me a call over the summer, and we talked about cottage food bills in other states... and here we are."

Mande said that, while professional kitchens work great for large-scale caterers, "If you're someone like me, who just wants to make a cake every once or a while... it just doesn't work."

Right now, you "can't bake a cake and sell it to your neighbor. If the money goes to a school [at a bake sale], that's okay, but they [bakers] can't put the money in their back pocket. I couldn't even sell a cake to my mom. That would be against the law."

The bill, Mande said, "would let me sell from my home. So I could take orders, and people could pick it up at my home... I could sell at farmers markets and roadside stands."

I asked whether she could deliver cakes under the bill. "Yes, you can." But you "cannot sell to say a restaurant, it has to be sold directly to the consumer."

Under the bill, she said, counties can set up a registration process and charge a fee: "It's up to each county as to whether they want to enforce licensing. I'm suspecting that each county is going to go ahead and do that, because they get income from it." However, counties "cannot prohibit individuals from participating in this bill."

Mande said that the bill applies only to "nonhazardous foods" (as defined federally) "that can be left out at room temperature for several days without harboring any harmful microorganisms."

Mande opposes attempts to restrict the revenues of cottage bakers: "The reason there is no cap on that, if I make a wedding cake every weekend, a wedding cake typically sells for $2,000. Not that I would bake a wedding cake every weekend, but that's just an example. You have to think about the man hours that go into something like that. I'm an artist. The typical wedding cake takes between 15 and 20 hours, and I should be paid for my skills. People come to me because of my abilities, and they want to pay me that much, and I should be able to take that. If they put a cap on that, I'd be able to bake only one cake a year? Only two cakes a year? That doesn't make sense to me."

Why did she name her business "Ava Sweet Cakes?" "That's my daughter. When I was 7 months pregnant with her my husband got laid off from Haliburton." Mande took baking classes, and “that's when I discovered I have this talent. When Ava was six months old I decided to name it after her."

From Ava Sweet Cakes

]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/let-them-eat-cake-no-seriously/feed/ 0 Ideas of the Tea Party Survey http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/ideas-of-tea-party-survey.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/ideas-of-tea-party-survey.html#comments Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:14:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=efd79133f81ba721b77ffe98af319dce

Self-identified Tea Partiers are welcome to reply to this survey. Readers are also encouraged to alert their Tea Party friends about it.

Ideas of the Tea Party Survey

The goal of this survey is to better understand where Tea Partiers get their ideas. If you are a self-identified Tea Partier, you are welcome to respond to this survey by February 10, 2012. By responding to this survey, you grant Ari Armstrong the right to publish your responses, in full or in part, without restrictions. However, you may request that your replies remain anonymous for publication purposes. Please email replies to ari (atsign) freecolorado (dot) com.

1. What is your name? Do you grant permission to publish your name with your survey responses, or do you prefer to remain anonymous for publication purposes?

2. What city and state do you live in?

3. What is your primary occupation?

4. If you have a Bachelor's degree or higher, please list your major(s) and degree(s).

5. Did you become politically active through the Tea Party movement? How long have you been active in politics?

6. Besides the Tea Party label, how do you usually describe yourself in terms of your political commitments? If any of the following apply, please list them: conservative, Republican, independent, Christian conservative, fiscal conservative, free-market activist, libertarian, classical liberal, Objectivist.

7. Through what channels do you share your ideas with others? If you use any of the following means, please briefly explain how: social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), electronic email list, radio show, podcast, blog, regular newspaper column, occasional letters to newspapers, organize or participate in politically-oriented meetings or discussion groups.

8. What (if any) ideological or political organizations do you contribute to financially or volunteer to support?

9. Were you exposed to free-market ideas in college? If so, please briefly explain how.

10. What are your main, regular sources of politically-related ideas and information? Please list the most significant radio shows, TV shows, publications, blogs, organizations, or writers that you turn to on a regular basis.

11. Have you read any books since the rise of the modern Tea Party movement that have strongly influenced your political ideas? If so, which ones?

12. For each of the following figures, please briefly explain whether you have heard of the figure, whether he or she has influenced you, and, if so, how:
a) Milton Friedman
b) Friedrich Hayek
c) Ayn Rand
d) Henry Hazlitt
e) Ludwig von Mises
f) Thomas Sowell

13. Besides the figures already listed, have any scholars, intellectuals, or religious leaders strongly influenced your political ideas? If so, please name them and briefly explain how they influenced you.

Thank you for your replies! Please feel free to forward this survey to others in the Tea Party movement.

Ari Armstrong
http://FreeColorado.com/]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/ideas-of-the-tea-party-survey/feed/ 0 Natelson Brings Original Constitution to Colorado Activists http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/natelson-brings-original-constitution.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/natelson-brings-original-constitution.html#comments Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:54:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong https://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=6551cbce79b7a0f8473da6c2b5eadc59 The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published January 20 by Grand Junction Free Press.

As Americans we live under the greatest Constitution ever devised. Unfortunately, few Americans know much about what our foundational legal document means or how it properly applies to modern life. And those who do study the Constitution often abuse (or artfully ignore) its text to advance a narrow political agenda.

Rob Natelson aims to remedy those problems. Natelson, one of the world's foremost scholars on the original meaning of the Constitution, taught law at the University of Montana for over two decades. Now he has returned to Colorado, where he once practiced law, to serve with the Independence Institute. In recent months Natelson has lectured on the Constitution in Denver and Colorado Springs, most recently attending a meeting of Liberty In the Books (which Ari moderates).

Recently Natelson's book "The Original Constitution" came out in a second edition. We encourage you to buy a copy and read it (search at Amazon), then share it with your friends. We are among the most fortunate people ever to walk the planet, because we have inherited the intellectual and legal traditions embodied in the Constitution. It is up to us to keep that heritage alive. We know of no better place to start than with Natelson's book.

"The Original Constitution" embodies Natelson's findings from years of research into stacks of documents, many in Latin, that informed the Founders. Yet the book is widely accessible and beautifully written. Natelson also offers a few hundred well-placed footnotes, as well as a descriptive bibliography, for those who wish to study further. The Constitution is a document for "We the People," and so is Natelson's book.

We especially admire the book's integrity: "Among other academics, law professors are notorious for writing works of special pleading and calling them 'scholarship' -- a practice I actively resisted during my long career in legal academia. I can assure the reader that this book is not a work of special pleading, but a depiction of a slice of history: the legal force of a particular legal document at a particular time."

Natelson dismisses the notion, as expressed by Barack Obama, that it is "unrealistic" to "somehow discern the original intent of the Founders or ratifiers." Instead, Natelson writes, "Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitution's provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law."

To offer an example of how Constitutional clarity can resolve today's debates, consider what one writer claimed in the Washington Times: "Mr. [Herman] Cain's 9 percent national sales tax simply isn't constitutional." Wrong. While we think a national sales tax is a really bad idea, it passes Constitutional muster. The Constitution grants Congress the power to impose "indirect" taxes such as a sales tax, as Natelson makes clear. In an interview he confirmed, "A national sales tax is clearly constitutional, so long as uniform throughout the country."

During the Liberty In the Books meeting, Natelson debunked another view of the Constitution that we have expressed. The idea is that the "commerce clause" grants Congress the authority only to "make regular" (regulate) interstate commerce, not restrict commerce. Not so, says Natelson. Instead, that clause gives Congress power to restrict commerce. However, Natelson explains, the "commerce clause" was intended to grant much less power than is commonly assumed today. For example, properly interpreted it would not allow Congress to force people to buy insurance, as ObamaCare proposes.

We are not convinced, however, that original intent always should dictate Constitutional interpretation. The literal meaning of the text also matters, as do the logical implications of the text.

Natelson offers an example in his book that we think supports this line of reasoning. Originally, Article III established that the "judicial power of the United States" extended to "controversies… between a state and citizens of another state." Natelson convincingly argues that the Federalists thought this would not overturn "sovereign immunity," or the power of states not to be sued by individuals. But the Supreme Court decided to read the text literally and allowed a man from South Carolina to sue Georgia. This unpopular decision quickly led to the passage of the Eleventh Amendment, which affirmed that a state cannot be sued by "citizens of another state."

As Natelson pointed out, Chief Justice John Jay helped decide the Georgia decision. Jay, you'll recall, was an author of the Federalist Papers. If even Jay looked to literal meaning over original intent, might that justify us doing the same?

It matters very much whether we look strictly to original intent, or whether we also examine literal meaning and logical implications, in evaluating the significance of the First Amendment, "due process of law," and other key Constitutional provisions.

Yet, regardless of where we may ultimately end up in that debate, we acknowledge that it is critically important to understand the original intent of the Constitution. We thank Natelson for helping us do that.]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/natelson-brings-original-constitution-to-colorado-activists-2/feed/ 0 Common Cause Joins Pro-Censorship Rally http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/common-cause-joins-pro-censorship-rally.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/common-cause-joins-pro-censorship-rally.html#comments Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:40:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong https://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=953100a8c6f21990669b1cf282817bf1

Tomorrow, various leftist organizations will rally in Denver to advocate censorship to forcibly silence select individuals, on the pretext that "corporations aren't people." And never mind the fact that corporations are composed of people, as are all groups.

In the good ol' days, the left would denounce economic liberty but defend freedom of speech. Today the left's inner contradictions have led it to endorse censorship outright (though many leftists are too cowardly to openly name their goal).

Colorado Common Cause has openly endorsed the pro-censorship rally and will participate in it. Yesterday the organization Tweeted, "#SCOTUS got it wrong, only people are people. Join @Amend2012 to take back your democracy: twibbon.com/amend2012."

The link Tweeted by Common Cause takes us to a web page for "Amend 2012," which states: "Corporations Are Not People. In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC gave corporations the same constitutional rights as everyday Americans, and said corporations could use their massive riches as free speech. Corporations have been doing just that, pouring money into our elections and drowning out the voices of real people."

Of course, Common Cause is itself a corporation, as Colorado records show. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, Common Cause showed revenues of $6,318,706.

So does Common Cause think it should be censored, on the grounds that it is a corporation that "pours money" into the political process? Of course not. Because, you see, some corporations are more equal than others. The members of some groups are more equal than others. The members of some groups are "real people," who therefore retain their First Amendment rights, while the members of others groups are apparently subhumans, undeserving of the same legal protections. That is precisely the logic of Colorado Common Cause's position.

Ironically, Colorado Common Cause and others are simultaneously advocating free speech by opposing the SOPA internet restriction bill, and advocating censorship of corporate speech. For example, in a Tweet today Common Cause promoted a "Musical Attack on #SOPA & #CitizensUnited." See also the linked video.

And yet the voices against SOPA included many of America's most prominent corporations. Wikipedia led the charge -- you know, the free online encyclopedia owned by Wikimedia Foundation, Incorporated. The for-profit corporations Facebook and Google also came out strongly against SOPA. Even the Vibram shoe company came out against SOPA.

Does the American left really want to get in the businesses of imposing government censorship on corporations? As Eugene Volokh sensibly reasons: "Say that Congress concludes that it's unfair for Google to be able to speak so broadly, in a way that ordinary Americans (including ordinary Congressmen) generally can't. Congress therefore enacts a statute banning all corporations from spending their money -- and therefore banning them from speaking -- in support of or opposition to any statute. What would you say about such a statute?"

If censorship is "what democracy looks like," then I for one will fight for the preservation of the First Amendment and our Constitutional republic.

Image: Picasa via Wikipedia

Read also: Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America, by Steve Simpson]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/common-cause-joins-pro-censorship-rally-2/feed/ 0 Common Cause Joins Pro-Censorship Rally http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/common-cause-joins-pro-censorship-rally.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/common-cause-joins-pro-censorship-rally.html#comments Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:40:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=953100a8c6f21990669b1cf282817bf1

Tomorrow, various leftist organizations will rally in Denver to advocate censorship to forcibly silence select individuals, on the pretext that "corporations aren't people." And never mind the fact that corporations are composed of people, as are all groups.

In the good ol' days, the left would denounce economic liberty but defend freedom of speech. Today the left's inner contradictions have led it to endorse censorship outright (though many leftists are too cowardly to openly name their goal).

Colorado Common Cause has openly endorsed the pro-censorship rally and will participate in it. Yesterday the organization Tweeted, "#SCOTUS got it wrong, only people are people. Join @Amend2012 to take back your democracy: twibbon.com/amend2012."

The link Tweeted by Common Cause takes us to a web page for "Amend 2012," which states: "Corporations Are Not People. In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC gave corporations the same constitutional rights as everyday Americans, and said corporations could use their massive riches as free speech. Corporations have been doing just that, pouring money into our elections and drowning out the voices of real people."

Of course, Common Cause is itself a corporation, as Colorado records show. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, Common Cause showed revenues of $6,318,706.

So does Common Cause think it should be censored, on the grounds that it is a corporation that "pours money" into the political process? Of course not. Because, you see, some corporations are more equal than others. The members of some groups are more equal than others. The members of some groups are "real people," who therefore retain their First Amendment rights, while the members of others groups are apparently subhumans, undeserving of the same legal protections. That is precisely the logic of Colorado Common Cause's position.

Ironically, Colorado Common Cause and others are simultaneously advocating free speech by opposing the SOPA internet restriction bill, and advocating censorship of corporate speech. For example, in a Tweet today Common Cause promoted a "Musical Attack on #SOPA & #CitizensUnited." See also the linked video.

And yet the voices against SOPA included many of America's most prominent corporations. Wikipedia led the charge -- you know, the free online encyclopedia owned by Wikimedia Foundation, Incorporated. The for-profit corporations Facebook and Google also came out strongly against SOPA. Even the Vibram shoe company came out against SOPA.

Does the American left really want to get in the businesses of imposing government censorship on corporations? As Eugene Volokh sensibly reasons: "Say that Congress concludes that it's unfair for Google to be able to speak so broadly, in a way that ordinary Americans (including ordinary Congressmen) generally can't. Congress therefore enacts a statute banning all corporations from spending their money -- and therefore banning them from speaking -- in support of or opposition to any statute. What would you say about such a statute?"

If censorship is "what democracy looks like," then I for one will fight for the preservation of the First Amendment and our Constitutional republic.

Image: Picasa via Wikipedia

Read also: Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America, by Steve Simpson]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/common-cause-joins-pro-censorship-rally/feed/ 0 Save Internet Freedom http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/save-internet-freedom.html http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2012/01/save-internet-freedom.html#comments Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:07:00 +0000 Ari Armstrong http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/?guid=55b182eafb880c6a7303ae5f5ebd07e5 explains, bills recently considered by Congress threaten to subject the internet to pervasive government controls.

Yes, I support intellectual property rights. But the bills in question threaten intellectual property rights in the name of protecting them. Censorship is never the answer to any problem, real or imagined.

For more, see SOPAStrike.com.

True to their word, the folks at Wikipedia blacked out their site to protest the bills in question.

If only doctors had done the same to protest Obamacare.]]> http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2012/01/save-internet-freedom/feed/ 0