Beth Cody on Prostitution Laws

"It's time to strike down these inappropriate, over-reaching and needlessly damaging laws. Just as modern societies now understand that arresting people for the 'crimes' of homosexuality and interracial sexual relations is both barbaric and not beneficial to society at all, so should the antiquated and inhumane laws against prostitution be struck from the books."

Read Beth's excellent article here for the reasons why she believes "we should leave this archaic law behind."

"Looking Backward" Book Review

Here are some thoughts on the book Looking Backward: 2162 – 2012, A View from a Future Libertarian Republic, by Iowa libertarian author Beth Cody. The review was written by Deborah D. Thornton who is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant, Iowa.

Looking Backward: Potential, but Utopia?

By Deborah D. Thornton

The Libertarian movement, as evidenced by supporters of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential bid, grew in strength during the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. According to the dictionary, a libertarian is one who "advocates for maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."(1)

The Preamble of the Libertarian party platform makes the following statement:

We seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
Inherent in this statement and definition is that society and government as we know them today must be radically changed in order to achieve a better world. The idea is that all would be perfect if we made these changes. We could have a utopian world.

The idea of utopian communities has been a part of the American culture since our very founding. In many ways utopia is what the Puritans were looking for in their quest. Other well-known examples include New Harmony in Indiana, Brook Farm, the Shakers, the Oneida community, and even the hard-working Germans who settled our own Amana Colonies in Iowa. More recent utopian groups include those such as the "Jesus People Movement" of the 1970s. Utopian movements have been formed around socialist, communist, anarchist, and religious themes.(2)So far, while some have succeeded for brief periods of time, all have ultimately failed.

In her newly published book, Looking Backward: 2162 – 2012, A View from a Future Libertarian Republic, small business owner and writer Beth Cody has crafted a fictional Libertarian world and explains the workings of this society. She uses the honored "accidental" time traveler approach to set the scene for exploring.

A professor from a campus much like those in Iowa accidentally falls into a 150-year coma, emerging in 2162. The United States of America as we know it has fallen apart under the weight of onerous debt and taxation, unsustainable social entitlement programs, overreaching government regulations, continuing wars, and general corruption.(3) The first states to leave were Texas and California. Then the rest crumbled. The most successful of the resulting countries is the "Free States of America," formed around Libertarian principles. The area of the Free States includes Iowa and the states westward to Idaho and Nevada.(4) Most interesting is the idea that various areas of the U.S. have broken off and formed countries heavily influenced by our history.

Much of the environment our professor awakens to is similar to 2012. Cars and homes haven’t really changed that much – we still haven’t figured out how to teleport ourselves like in Star Trek! But the government structure of the time is radically different.

The Constitution of the Free States is strictly Libertarian. Most importantly it includes prohibition of federal and state government taxation. All government is funded by voluntary donations. The federal government can not raise money through debt. Government can not print money or regulate its printing. There is no national military, only voluntary militia. Government can not fund or provide education. Government employees can not be paid with public money. And most importantly, the federal government cannot make new laws restricting the individual freedom of individuals, businesses, or states.(5)

Cody then goes on to have our professor’s sponsor show him around to see how the
country really works, and to explain why and how these ideas and systems are better than that
of the old United States. Looking Backward is an interesting and easy read. It clearly lays out how a Libertarian government might work.

Movement towards many of the ideas and goals discussed is needed in our country
today. Many of the new "Tea Party" Conservatives in Congress and the Iowa Legislature are working towards and promoting these approaches. Smaller government, lower taxes, increased personal freedom, and reduced government regulation are issues which many voters and taxpayers support.

Unfortunately almost 50 percent of the voters and elected officials stand firmly on the other side – believing that bigger government is more effective and more social services programs are needed, along with ever higher taxes. The wealthy must be taxed more because it is "unfair" for them to be successful. Parents are unable to decide how to best educate their children. Families must be forced to have health-care insurance or pay higher taxes. Consumers are unable to decide how much soda to drink.

Though utopian societies have never been successful – and one would not want the
United States as a country to disintegrate – when considering the current government and
economic situation one can not help but wish Cody and those supporting Libertarian ideals good luck.

(Endnotes)

1 "Libertarian," TheFreeDictionary.com, accessed on July 9, 2012.
2 "Utopian Communities," Answers.com, accessed on July 9, 2012.
3 Beth Cody, Looking Backward: 2162 – 2012, A View from a Future Libertarian Republic, p. 50.
4 Ibid, p. 47.
5 Ibid, p. 52.

Reprinted by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute.

Beth Cody on Rifle Marksmanship

One of my favorite local writers (besides myself) is Beth Cody, who writes a monthly opinion column with a libertarian perspective for the Iowa City Press-Citizen. In this month's column Beth writes about her experience going to an "Appleseed Project" training event for rifle marksmanship.

According to Cody, "The program attempts to teach the vital rifle skills that used to be common and that won our nation its freedom, but that are disappearing from our national general knowledge."

Why are rifle skills important to the average citizen? Cody writes: "The founding fathers of our country understood that the best way to safeguard the liberty of citizens was to leave most power with the citizens and divide government power between levels and branches. Similarly, gun ownership and skills, being a bulwark of liberty, should be broadly spread among the majority of citizens. In many countries, dictators take power by gaining control of the military or police, leaving an unarmed populace with no recourse. This would be more difficult to do in America, where half of households own firearms."

You can read Cody's Press-Citizen column here. She also wrote a good gun-related article shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings, which you can read here.

You can also learn more about the Appleseed Project here. I didn't see any more shooting events in Iowa on their schedule, but they'll be back next year. Although I'm fairly comfortable with a rifle, I think I'll go to an Appleseed event for a refresher. I haven't had any formal rifle training since I was a young kid in boot camp.

Beth Cody on Gov't-Run Health Care

Wednesday's edition of the Iowa City Press-Citizen had a good column by libertarian writer Beth Cody called "Let's focus on fixing the sick part of our health care system," which is in response to the increasing call for government-run health care. Cody, a small business owner and writer, assures readers that government "universal coverage" will be "universally disappointing."

In her column, Cody points out that there really isn't a problem with health care per se, most people are happy with the actual care they receive. (Since I just spent two and half days in the hospital with my wife having a new baby, I agree wholeheartedly. The staff and facility at St. Luke's birthing center in Cedar Rapids were first rate.) Cody says the real problem is with the cost and complexity of the insurance system that has grown up around health care.

Among the flaws of the current insurance regime, Cody points out:

1. "Insurance policies are expensive because competition is restricted -- individuals must buy policies in their own state."


2. "Each state has long lists of mandated coverages for things consumers often don't want or need, which makes insurance so expensive that many must go without coverage entirely."


3. "Tax policy encourages reliance on employer-provided insurance, leading employees to stay in bad job situations merely to keep their insurance."

Since these three main forces driving up health care costs are created by the government itself, is it likely that the government will be able to reduce health care prices? I cannot, for the life of me, understand the faith that many people have that the government can do so, when every other program administered by the federal government is either a wasteful disgrace or teetering on insolvency or both.

Cody lists some of the other side-effects of government health plans, including waiting lists, doctor shortages, lower survival rates, and discrimination against elderly, minority and rural patients. She recommends reading the Cato Institute's policy analysis "Health Care in a Free Society" for more examples. (I would also recommend a shorter Cato article "Obama Doesn't Have the Only Prescription for Healthcare Reform.")

So what can be done to reform the health insurance industry? Cody recommends four mostly market-based reforms:

1. "Allow people to purchase insurance from any state -- this will lead to more competition and much lower rates."


2. "Repeal corporate deductibility of premiums and replace it with individual tax credits. This will sever the unhealthy relationship between employment and insurance, empower individuals and lead to more individual plan competition and lower rates."


3. "Allow insurers to charge less to policyholders who practice healthy habits -- this is mostly illegal now, incredibly."


4. "Reform medical malpractice laws, which will make health care itself less expensive."

These all certainly make sense and would be helpful in making health insurance less expensive, but it would be nice to see some reforms that lessen or eliminate the need for health insurance altogether.

Food is as much a necessity as health care, yet we don't have some elaborate, overly-complicated, often senseless system to pay for it. Imagine having to pay a $25 co-payment every time you made a trip to the grocery store, whether buying ramen noodles or veal chops. Broccoli might be "covered" while cauliflower is not. It would be utter nonsense, yet we think it makes sense for health care? So long as health care consumers rely on a third party to pay the bill, prices will continue to be out of whack with reality.

If, like food shoppers, health care consumers knew exactly what price they were paying and had to pay out of their own pockets, competition would soon drive health care prices down to the lowest sustainable level. Tax exempt "health savings accounts" are one small step in that direction. Abolishing the income tax, which has so perverted market incentives in health care (as well as everywhere else) would be even better. Well, I can dream.

Barring "radical" reform like that, Beth Cody is certainly right, a market-based health insurance industry would be infinitely better than any government-run program. Unfortunatly, that doesn't appear to be the way the political winds are blowing.

Beth Cody on Gay Marriage

As the issue heats up in Iowa, Iowa City Press-Citizen writer Beth Cody weighs in on her website:

"Conservative Republicans have traditionally upheld personal freedoms and limited government (which is why I am still a registered Republican).

"Insisting that government get out of the marriage business is the only opinion that is consistent with Conservative belief in limited government.

"How could any advocate of Constitutional freedoms believe otherwise? Just as freedom of speech is not limited to speech that the majority finds agreeable, freedom to associate is not limited to majority-approved groups.

"Whether or not one personally approves of homosexual relationships, no rationale exists for government interference in such personal matters.

"As government once prohibited men and women of different races from marrying, now government appointees and bureaucrats believe they are wise enough to decide whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

"Why is it that people invariably look to government to help them, when government is nearly always the main force to be overcome in the pursuit of happiness?

"Marriages should be private contracts between individuals of legal age. Government would simply record civil union contracts as they occur, and enforce them like any other contract.

"Whether to call such unions “marriages” would be decided by couples, their families, their churches – not by government.

"Other people and businesses should be free to recognize (or not) these marriages; and churches not required to marry any specific couples.

"No matter how the Iowa legal case is decided, we will have made little progress toward real freedom from our government masters. I believe it will be up to Constitutional Conservative groups to ask the real question: who should control marriages: the state or free individuals?"

Read the entire article here.