In response to this opinion piece in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  House health reform plan works for Houston and Texas

In praising the government-imposed health insurance "reform" plan that recently passed the House, Mr. Wortham gets one thing right:  "big private insurers" shouldn't be "call[ing] the shots" with respect to health care decisions.  Unfortunately, his prescription for an ailing system is to replace corporations with government bureaucrats rather than putting the decisions about what health care coverage is best where they belong:  in the hands of individuals and families.  Rather than removing government-imposed barriers to competition and choice (e.g., prohibition against group plans and interstate purchasing), the House plan praised by Mr. Wortham simply creates more mandates and raises taxes.

With respect to the claim that increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of government agencies somehow "even reduces the federal deficit", Mr. Wortham should keep in mind that this is based on the combination of tax increases (during a recession) and supposed cuts (actually decreases in previously proposed increases) of $400-500 billion in Medicare — "cuts" that groups like the Wortham's AFL-CIO have vigorously opposed in the past and will no doubt lobby against enacting.

The answer to true health insurance reform that really "works" is to remove government barriers to individual choice and competition — not to let faceless, pencil-pushing government bureaucrats decide what's best for individuals and families.  The bill that passed the House of Representatives on a partisan vote is, to use Mr. Wortham's word, simply "wrong" — for Houston, for Texas, and for America.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Reversing course from a previous statement by the President favoring military tribunals for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that five of the terrorists from Gitmo allegedly involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi -- will be tried in civilian courts in New York City.

Of course, civilian courts on US soil operate under different rules than do military tribunals, even with the expanded due process protections enacted by President Obama when he made announced his tribunal policy in May.  For one thing, there's a presumption of innocence -- a presumption notably missing from Attorney General Eric Holder's statement before a Senate panel in which he proclaimed that, regarding the prosecution of these five terrorists, "failure is not an option".  When asked about the possibility of the jurors disagreeing and acquitting the "suspects" (thus deciding that failure is an option), he assuaged concerns with his opinion that "I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."  Well, then.

So while the terrorists will be tried in a civilian court, they will be presumed innocent; yet the nation's top prosecutor announces to the prospective jury pool that failure to convict is not even an "option"?  An option for whom?  Does this mean that the typical rules governing a civilian trial concerning evidence, admissibility of confessions (particularly those resulting from the "enhanced interrogation techniques"), and other rules and procedures, will be ignored?  If so, why bother bringing them to civilian court, why not define a tribunal with the necessary sidestepping?

While AG Holder insisted that the civilian court would wield the same outcome as a military tribunal, Senator John Kyl of Arizona challenged the logic of such a statement, pointing out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was ready to plead guilty before the tribunals; now, he must be tried.  No matter how confident Mr. Holder may be, a 100% chance of a "guilty" plea is certainly preferable to a chance for acquittal, even if the probability is 1% or less.  And never mind the appeals, first of which would have to be the venue; who in New York City would be capable of serving as an "impartial" juror in a courthouse only blocks away from where the Twin Towers smoldered?

If the decision itself is a mistake, at least the prosecutors are top-notch.  As reported by the private intelligence firm Stratfor in a Global Security and Intelligence Report:

 "[t]he staff of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York has gained considerable knowledge and expertise prosecuting terror cases over the years ...  It was in the Southern District of New York in 1995 that Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh, was tried for the so-called Landmarks Plot of 1993 and received a life sentence. In 1996, Abdel Basit (aka Ramzi Yousef) and two co-conspirators were also tried in the Southern District and sentenced to life in prison for their roles in the Bojinka Plot, which also included an indictment for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the staff of the Southern District has been familiar with Mohammed for some time now). The attackers behind the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies were also prosecuted in the Southern District of New York and sentenced to life imprisonment. Few other courts have so much experience handling and prosecuting high-profile terrorism cases...

Stratfor also details capabilities of the NYPD, FDNY, and U.S. Marshals Service Special Operations Group to provide safety and security to New York while the trial proceeds, should it remain in NYC.  But however professional and competent the security apparatus may be, it still isn't as safe and secure as a Naval base on the island of Cuba, 90 miles from American soil.

In announcing the end of "enhanced interrogation techniques", the eventual closing of Gitmo as a detention facility, and the end (and subsequent resumption) of military tribunals, Obama and his Administration have justified their actions as being more fair and equitable than those taken under his predecessor, President Bush.  But how fair is a trial where the outcome is preconceived, and a "not guilty" verdict is potentially ignored?  President Obama is attempting one of the oldest and most well known of cliches:  he is attempting to have his cake and eat it too.  In doing so, he offends common sense:  a preconceived outcome (i.e., one where "failure is not an option") is simply not consistent with a fair trial.  The President is taking a huge risk, for little, if any, potential gain.

In response to this column by E. J. Dionne in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  Health care reform getting bogged down in Senate

I went to bed Wednesday night under the impression that I was both a "normal human being" and a "real American".  Then I read E.J. Dionne's column about the proposed government-centric health care "reform" bill under consideration in the Senate.  What a difference a day makes!

Unlike Mr. Dionne, I don't believe that giving corrupt politicians more power to decide what health insurance coverage is best for me and my family, or that the way to increase choice and lower costs for consumers is to raise taxes, increase bureaucracy, and establish more government prohibitions and mandates.  Thus, like millions of other who prefer individual choice and free markets to government command-and-control, I am thankful that the 2,000-plus page health care bill is stalled in the Senate.

Thankfully, Mr. Dionne has not yet been named by the President as "czar" for determining what constitutes a "normal human being" or a "real American".

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

With the passage of the "ObamaCare" government health insurance plan in the House of Representatives, the debate over the proper course of health care reform continues to heat up.  One of the aspects of the House plan likely to be duplicated in the Senate is seemingly the most innocuous and one that, at first blush, sounds consumer-friendly:  the abolition of the so-called "pre-existing condition" terms, under which health insurance companies can deny coverage for conditions that existed prior to obtaining health insurance.

The unintended consequence of getting rid of the pre-existing condition terms is that people could then wait until they are sick before buying health insurance, knowing that they could then get coverage.  To prevent this scenario, the House included an individual mandate -- each person must purchase health insurance or face consequences.  In the House bill, that consequence is a fine.

The first question that comes to mind is this:  where does the federal government get authority to force anyone to purchase health insurance?  The answer, of course, is "nowhere", which, of course, should end debate right there -- leaving aside the issue that, even if the government did have Constitutional authority to force individuals to purchase health care insurance, it isn't the purpose of the government.  It is not the business of politicians in Washington to decide whether or not I need a particular product or service, and certainly not the business of politicians in Washington to determine that not only must I purchase health insurance, I must purchase the types of coverage they think I should have.

In response to the questions about the so-called "individual mandate", many have used the example of the requirement most states have for purchasing auto insurance as justification for a health insurance requirement.  President Obama himself used that analogy when asked about the penalties for those scofflaw individuals who would choose not to purchase health coverage.  The analogy is a canard, for several reasons.

One problem with the example of auto insurance requirements leads astray even some more market-friendly folks:  the requirement is from the states, not the federal government.  As Madison writes in Federalist 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."  It was the states that the Framers of our Constitution intended to handle issues that "concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State".  If there were any justification for an individual health insurance requirement it would, like auto insurance, fall with the states, not the federal government.  However, it is important to realize something deeper:  there is no state requirement that individuals are required to purchase auto insurance as a condition of their property (the threat of fines) or freedom (the threat of jail).  Rather, people are required to purchase auto insurance only as a condition for using public roads and highways, or, more precisely, for licensed use of those products.  A person wishing not to drive at all, or wishing to drive only on private property, need meet no such requirement.

Yet those advocating an individual mandate -- or opposing it on a state sovereignty basis -- seem not to realize this critical difference.  Even if state governments are Constitutionally-authorized to impose mandates like insurance coverage, it is still an expansion of government intrusion to require such coverage simply as a condition of living in the state.  The auto insurance analogy is not consistent to the debate.  A truly analogous health insurance requirement would be one that is related to usage of state services and resources; for example, perhaps the state could say that health insurance coverage is a requirement for treatment at a state-funded hospital, or perhaps for admittance to a state-funded medical school.

But even there the analogy breaks down, as the auto insurance requirement does not extend to coverage of one's own vehicle -- so-called "collision" and "comprehensive" insurance are typically requirements of a lending agency, to protect their investment, but not of state law.  State insurance requirements exist to ensure that one driver doesn't hurt or destory the life, limb, or property of other drivers without financial restitution.  If I wreck my own car, it isn't the state's business -- that's my property.  If I wreck someone else's, then that person deserves reimbursement.  The state, in requiring liability insurance, is simply working to uphold a legitimate government function:  the protection of private property.

These themes apply to federal insurance mandates as well.  A federal government requirement for individuals to carry health insurance does not serve to protect liberty or property; rather, it serves to intrude upon them; directly, in the form of the government making a decision it is not authorized to make on behalf of individuals and families (and, because of the cost, authorizing a confiscation of property by a third party or by the government itself in the case of a collection of fines), and indirectly, in the implied seizure of assets and ultimately jail time for those who continue to flaunt government diktats.

The individual health insurance mandate fails on every level:  it fails the Constitutional test, it fails the legitimate function of government test, it fails the individual liberty and property test.  Don't be fooled that this requirement is analogous to state auto insurance requirements -- the analogy is a canard.

Although I had no original intention of writing a sequel to the post "Precisely Inaccurate", events have dictated otherwise.  According to this story from the Associated Press, the methodology for calculating the number of jobs that have been "saved or created" by the so-called stimulus bill is even more inaccurate, skewed, and unbelievable than even skeptics imagined.

It appears that upon reviewing the reports, the Associated Press found the following (emphasis added):

more than two-thirds of 14,506 jobs credited to the recovery act under spending by just one federal office were overstated because they counted pay increases for existing workers as jobs saved.

The inflated job count is at least partly the product of the administration instructing local community agencies that received money to count the raises as jobs saved. ...

...More than 250 other community agencies in the U.S. similarly reported saving jobs when using the money to give pay raises, pay for training and continuing education, extend employee work hours or buy equipment, according to their spending reports.

[A] Georgia program inflated the numbers even further by claiming the recovery money saved more jobs than the number of people it actually employs. The agency employs 508 people but claimed 935 jobs were saved because of confusion over government reports.

Not surprisingly, the government officials downplayed the obvious errors in job creation numbers -- according to the AP reporters, these errors "would probably be balanced out by other errors that underreported jobs".  Well then.

The bottom line is this:  neither the government nor anyone else has the ability to measure something as complex as how many jobs are created or destroyed by a particular piece of legislation; the overall economy is too large and complex.  Anyone claiming specific numbers regarding jobs "saved or created" by the so-called "stimulus" legislation is either lying or delusional.  Neither condition is particularly inspiring.

The White House is reporting that the so-called "stimulus" bill has "created or saved" 640,329 jobs.  That's a pretty precise number, except, as ABC News reports, "[o]fficials acknowledged the numbers were not exact, saying that states and localities that reported the numbers have made mistakes."  First of all, if the Obama Administration is aware that the number is not accurate, why post such a precise number?

But it's even more insulting when you look further into the numbers.  According to the same website, approximately $207.1 billion of the "stimulus" has been spent.  The ostensible purpose of the "stimulus" spending was to "save or create" jobs.  Even taking the Administration's own numbers at face value, that means that the government has spent over $320,000 per job that has been "saved or created".  That's even worse than the numbers ABC News reported when a top Obama economic adviser accused them of "calculator abuse" for claiming the government was paying $160,000 per job (the difference in their calculation and mine seems to be the amount of "stimulus" money actually spent; they report "$159 billion in stimulus funds allocated as of Sept. 30", while my calculation is based on the official White House reporting as of October 31).

Only government could assert that a simple calculation of unit cost is "calculator abuse".  Apparently simple mathematics and honesty are too much to ask of our elected officials and what they do with our money.

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  Preferred option:  Public option should be part of health care reform -- with no opt-out by states

I was disappointed (though not surprised) to see the Chronicle editorial board endorse the so-called "public option" -- a government-run health insurance program, based on mandates and prohibitions, to supposedly provide "meaningful competition" in the health insurance marketplace.  Unfortunately, it isn't freedom in the marketplace that limits competition; rather, government mandates against buying across state lines and against group plans limit the pool of competitors.  If government were to remove those barriers, consumers would instantly have more options in a competitive marketplace.

But the Chronicle goes further beyond the pale when it advocates a "public option" that is modeled on the Medicare system, claiming that it "provides for seniors in an efficient and cost-effective way".  Apparently the Chronicle editorialists haven't read the 2009 Report of the Medicare Trustees (available at www.ssa.gov), which talks about "growing deficits", "financial difficulties" and says that Medicare "again fails our test of short-range financial adequacy" and "continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin".  Medicare is a looming financial disaster, neither "cost effective" nor "efficient".

President Obama himself said it best when he pointed out that it is the US Post Office that is consistently having financial and operational difficulties, not FedEx or UPS.  The answer to opening up a competitive marketplace for health insurance isn't more government mandates and prohibitions, it is more power in the hands of consumers.  The "public option" does not help the public.

Sincerely,

Dave Smith
Houston, TX

With a lone Republican vote -- Maine's Senator Olympia Snowe -- another of the multitude of health insurance "reform" bills moving through Congress has cleared committee, in this case Chairman Max Baucus's (D-MT) Finance Committee.  The bill is less government-centric than some of the other bills that have passed various committees in the House and Senate, in that while it does impose a personal mandate to purchase health insurance and new taxes, the bill does not contain the so-called "public option" -- the establishment of a government-run health insurance plan to "compete" with private insurance plans.

Of course, the Baucus plan does not remove the government mandates and prohibitions that currently serve to limit competition:  prohibitions from buying across state lines that would increase competitions and allow individuals to escape costly minimum coverage state mandates; group plans that would enable organizations like the American Diabetes Association, the American Institute of Architects, or even the NAACP from pooling members together and negotiating group rates for its members; or changes in the tax code that would provide individuals with the same tax advantages to buy their own insurance that corporations have to provide it for them, that would make health insurance portable as well as allow for greater individual choice.  None of the Democratic plans offer these fundamental (and inexpensive) reforms that would lessen the impact of government in favor of empowered individuals and families.

But even though Baucus's plan does increase government intrusion, particularly with the personal mandate (for which I can find no Constitutional justification), it is receiving criticism from many desiring a more intrusive, statist "reform".  And in one sense, the criticisms from the left are correct.  In establishing a government mandate that each person must buy health insurance (with subsidies provided to those who "can't afford" coverage), the health insurance corporations are getting a tremendous boost.  What could be better for any business than having the government force people to buy your product?

Often during the health insurance debate, when mandates are criticized, advocates of government expansion pull out the example of auto insurance, and state mandates that one must purchase certain minimum insurance.  However, this is not a good analogy for several reasons.  First of all, nobody actually is forced to buy auto insurance -- only those who wish to operate vehicles on roads paid for and owned by the public; thus, the public decides what protections of public property are necessary to use those roads; if I do not wish to drive, or wish to drive only on my own private property, I require no such license. 

Secondly, auto insurance is a competitive market; there are state licensing requirements for insurance companies that can be used to protect bigger companies from competition, but because it is purchased individually, there is much competition.  And, while there are minimum requirements by the state imposed for the protection of the property of others should a driver cause a wreck, there are no such impositions on what one must get for coverage of one's own vehicle (although most banks do impose such requirements to procure a loan, again, this is voluntary, as no one is forced to buy a car or to get a loan to do so).  A car insurance customer has free reign to shop around with various competing companies (no "public option" provided) and mix and match coverage options.  Also note that auto insurance is used for big ticket or catastrophic expenses.  Oil changes, wiper blades, and new tires aren't the purview of auto insurance.

Thirdly, it isn't the federal government providing the mandates to citizens to buy auto insurance, but rather state governments.  I personally disagree with the decision in Massachusetts to establish an individual mandate; however, as Madison explains in

Federalist 45, the state governments have much wider latitude than the federal government:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The states were expected to establish different policies and laws, with people able to "vote with their feet" should a state government become oppressive or incompetent.  Thus while I disagree with high taxes in Michigan and California, the state governments are well within their rights to implement bad policies on a broad range of "numerous and indefinite" issues.  Not so the federal governments, whose powers are "few and defined" -- with no authority for a personal mandate mentioned in the Constitution.

Mandates by a state government forcing individuals to purchase health insurance are misguided, counter-productive, and oppressive; those same mandates by the federal government are all those things, but add  "un-Constitutional" to the list.  A state could choose to establish a single-payer government plan if it so chose; the federal government has no such authority.

Whether or not any of the proposed health care plans will pass either House of Congress, much less both, is still uncertain.  Let's hope that in the name of "reform", we don't get the imposition of more mandates that limit the choices of individuals and families to define their own health care coverage.

It's official:  the Nobel Prize for Peace has been awarded to US President Barack Obama, making him the fourth U.S. President to win the award, and the third US Democrat to win the award in the past decade.  The previous winners were Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, who brokered a peace treaty ending the war between Russia and Japan, and Woodrow Wilson, who helped broker the peace treaty that ended World War I, Jimmy Carter, and former Vice President Al Gore.

According to the official website of the Nobel Prize, the prizes are "awarded for achievement in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and for peace" [emphasis added].  Yet in its announcement of President Obama's win, the Nobel Committee said that he had achieved the award "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" [emphasis added].

In naming President Obama as this year's Peace Prize Laureate, the Nobel Committee has chosen effort over achievement.  Rather than giving the prize to someone who has stood up to tyranny, like Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai -- who challenged brutal dictator Robert Mugabe, and whose wife was killed for it -- or dissidents in Cuba, North Korea, or even Venezuela, or for womens' rights activists in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, the Committee has chosen to award someone for giving a speech.

True peace can not coexist with tyranny -- true peace requires individual liberty; to claim otherwise is to equate peace with slavery or oppression.  Those who stand against oppression, against tyranny, are true peacemakers.  People like previous winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who continues to stand against the military dictators in Burma, or the Dalai Lama who fights against the Chinese dictators for political and religious freedom in Tibet:  those are true peacemakers.  These are people who, even if they don't accomplish their goals, make sacrifices for their ideals and for the good of others -- for the idea of freedom and peace.  No speech, no matter how eloquent, equates with this sacrifice, and no speech made by the President has freed a single person from the shackles of oppression.  But, according to the Nobel Committee, merely his effort is enough.

President Obama's win is the ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance, and of effort over achievement.

In response to this article in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  Coming soon:  Second stimulus with another name

E.J. Dionne is convinced that the so-called "stimulus plan passed by Congress at the beginning of the year was not big enough," stating that "even $787 billion wasn't sufficient" to move the economy from job losses to job creation and turn around the current recession.  It would appear Mr. Dionne is not dealing in facts.  Regardless of whether or not one thinks that government spending provides any "stimulus" at all, it is important to recognize that according to the government's official website that tracks "stimulus" spending (www.recovery.gov), barely $100 billion of the $787 billion has been spent. 

Doesn't it seem fiscally irresponsible to advocate another round of government deficit spending -- requiring either raising taxes or increasing the debt burden on future generations -- when less than 15% of the original "stimulus" has been spent?

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Whether on a local, state, or federal level, when our legislators vote on laws, one would expect that they have read the proposed legislation and understand what it means.  That seems reasonable, doesn't it?  Well, one expecting such a seemingly reasonable, obvious state of affairs should consider Senator Thomas Carper, Democrat of Delaware.  He was quoted in a recent news story as saying the following concerning the health care legislation proposed by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT):  "I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life", subsequently describing such language as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible."

Senator Carper goes on to state that nobody understands the legislative "gibberish", but take heart:  at least "we are pretty good at understanding the plain English version of the legislation".  Well then.

So let me get this straight:  our national legislature writes such incomprehensible bills in arcane gibberish that even those supposedly in charge of drafting the legislation and voting on it can't understand it.  Yet they expect us to trust them to represent our interests, to make decisions that impact our lives every day, to make choices that individuals and families are no longer allowed to make for themselves? 

And these are the people who "represent" us?

Completely unacceptable.

The business of insurance is built around statistics and quantification of risk:  if you want to ride your motorcycle without a helmet, or if you have speeding tickets or a DWI conviction, you're going to pay more for motorcycle or car insurance.  Insurance providers have things broken down by age, gender, and a myriad of other parameters to determine how much of a risk you are, so they can charge you accordingly.

Apparently, according to the Charlotte Observer, such activity, when applied to health insurance and high-risk behaviors like smoking and high-risk conditions like obesity, serve to "penalize" those customers caught up in the high risk condition:

North Carolina is poised to become only the second state to penalize state employees by placing them in a more expensive health insurance plan if they're obese.

Smokers will feel the drag of higher costs, too, as North Carolina and South Carolina state employees who use tobacco are slated to pay more for health insurance next year. ...

...The idea of penalizing unhealthy lifestyles and rewarding healthy conduct is hardly new among insurance plans. Public health insurance plans in other states already penalize smokers or reward nonsmokers in insurance costs. South Carolina's state employees health plan is scheduled to add a $25-per-month surcharge on smokers in January. Elsewhere in the southeast, Kentucky and Georgia impose surcharges, and Alabama gives nonsmokers a discount.

Of course, there are some that find this "hostile":  "The State Employees Association of North Carolina opposes the tobacco and obesity differentials as invasive steps", with one quoted state employee claiming that "it's an invasion of privacy. This is America, the land of the free."  Of course, the quoted employee seems to ignore a couple of important items.  First of all, under the proposal, no one would lose the right to smoke, or to eat whatever they want, or not to exercise, etc.  Secondly, no one is forced to purchase health insurance (well, at least not yet in North Carolina); an employee not wanting to submit to providing information about smoking habits or height and weight can simply refuse to participate in the health plan.  Third, the plan is being subsidized by the state — to the tune of over $750 million over three years; this means, of course, that the taxpayers of North Carolina are required to foot the bill — the behavior isn't "free" for those paying taxes.

I'm certainly not in favor of Big Government meddling in the private lives of citizens; if you want to smoke or in general live unhealthfully, that's not my business.  However, neither is it my business to be required to subsidize such behavior.  Let those who are of higher risk pay accordingly.  That's not punishment, that's just common sense.

Dear Mr. Moore,
With the release of your latest movie today, Capitalism:  A Love Story, you've apparently decided to attack not just a particular issue of interest, like General Motors, or health care, but the very economic system of capitalism itself.  In reading some of the comments you've made in interviews promoting the film, and in comments on the film from others, I get the distinct feeling that you are criticizing something you don't really understand.  As someone who really does love capitalism, I'd like to invite you to better understand what capitalism, and more specifically, free market capitalism, is really all about.

In an interview with CNSNews, you made some interesting remarks, such as "capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film... I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal [to finance the film].  The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there."  Yet, Mr. Moore, you did get the funding, and you did get the movie out there.  As nobody was forced either to provide you with funding or to pay to see the film (assuming you were using the term "steal" facetiously), "the system" did work.  I'm aware of no other economic system where a person from your background, starting with no connections, no aristocratic background, and no elite education could have done so.  No government program made your movie possible, and no government program forced people to watch it -- people voluntarily lined up to pay money to see your work.

That's the most basic foundation of free market capitalism:  voluntary exchange.  You saw a market for a product -- left-wing documentaries -- and you pursued every means of getting the necessary finances required to produce it.  Because you were successful in providing a product for that market, you were able to fund successive ventures and accumulate massive wealth.  Now I must confess:  I've never seen any of your films; I have no idea whether you're a skilled documentarian or a talentless hack.  But in a capitalist system it doesn't matter -- I have the choice whether or not to provide you with funds.  I have no power over you or anyone else, however.

Now consider if, instead of a free market capitalist system, we had a nationalized film industry -- a "socialist" system.  A National Film Board, Documentaries Division would take applications for grants for government funding to produce documentaries.  Of course, being a government agency, there would be forms to fill out, and guidelines to meet.  Depending on who was writing those guidelines, and how the applications are judged, there are many ways that system could work out.  If a center-right government were in power, perhaps only documentaries praising Ronald Reagan and the war in Iraq or maybe criticizing activist Supreme Court decisions would be in vogue.  With a center-left government, there might be affirmative action requirements to meet, with a certain percentage of documentary grants reserved for, say, minority or women filmmakers.  And, regardless of what party or what kind of government were in place, there would be graft and corruption involved; perhaps an influential Congressman would make sure his son got a grant, or maybe they could be given out as rewards or incentives for favorable movies about someone or a particular issue.

The bottom line is this:  in a capitalist system, when you were turned down for funding or distribution from one source, you were able to "beg, borrow, and steal" until you got your product to the market.  Under a government system, you'd have no recourse once your grant was turned down.  There was still no guarantee under our capitalist system that you could make your films -- there's no right for any of us to achieve our dreams -- but you had the right to try as long as you were willing to, and you ultimately succeeded.

You also provide supposed examples of where "capitalism tried to kill" one of your movies and one of your books.  Now I don't personally know the details of what happened with Disney and HarperCollins.  I would say first of all that corporations don't always act in the true free market capitalist spirit; often, they try to use the power of the government to get special treatment and protection from competition.  But that isn't capitalism, that's not an open market.  Remember:  free market capitalism is simply individual choice and voluntary exchange; fraud or coercion are not part of the equation (the purpose of government in a true free market society is to protect individual from fraud and coercion).  If Disney and HarperCollins were actually trying to suppress your work -- to prevent people from seeing it through fraud or coercion -- then they were acting unjustly.  On the other hand, if they simply weren't wanting to fund your project because they thought it a bad investment, or even because they disagreed with it philosophically, you weren't actually wronged; you still had the right to make the movie or write the book and try to get someone else to buy, publish, or distribute it.  In fact, the fact that your book was published and your movie did hit the screens is proof that you were able to use the free market system to get your product to market.

Finally, I've heard you talk several times about "greed" equating with capitalism.  First, I would submit that greed is a fundamental human failing, not the result of any economic system, and one that is not conquerable by any alternative economic system.  But even greed, in and of itself, isn't a vice that is necessarily bad... at least in a truly free market capitalist society.  There's a famous quote from Adam Smith that "it isn't from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest".  If I'm being provided with a delicious steak, I don't care if the supplier was a happy, benevolent man or a greedy scrooge -- I'm still enjoying that delicious steak.  Now, obviously if that steak is laced with harmful chemicals because of the supplier's greed, that's a different story -- but not a problem of capitalism.  Duplicitously selling someone a harmful or tainted product is certainly fraud, and fraud is acting against the tenets of free market capitalism.  One may still call the person trying to (legally) maximize his steak production simply for the love of money greedy, but he is doing no wrong -- he is simply supplying consumers with product they desire and are willing to voluntarily purchase.

The world is not perfect, and human nature is flawed.  Nobody, even the most ardent advocate, thinks that markets are perfect -- even the most free of free markets in the most capitalist of capitalist systems.  This letter only scratches the surface of what free market capitalism really means and is.  But the most important thing is this:  in a free market capitalist society, each individual is, to borrow a phrase from my favorite TV show, the master of his own domain.  He is free to pursue his own dreams, to buy and sell with others in mutually beneficial exchange, with problems occurring when the elements of fraud and coercion are introduced.  But these are part and parcel of capitalism, but rather deviations from it.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  Bankers' Bonuses:  Fed should rein in compensation that promotes unacceptable risks

In stating that the US financial and banking system is still not "fixed" after last year's near collapse, the Chronicle editorialists correctly identify that unsound incentives promote unsound risk-taking.  Unfortunately, they focus on the symptom -- executive compensation -- rather than the disease itself.  It wasn't "bankers' bonuses" that promoted the financial meltdown, it was government policies that incentivized companies to make loans that couldn't be repaid.   Free market capitalism is based on risk and reward; however, when the government promotes policies that allow companies to keep the reward but makes taxpayers bail out failure, then you get financial institutions taking on levels of risk that would otherwise be unacceptable.

Every gambler knows there's nothing better than playing with "house money", and there's no bigger "house" than the United States government.  Focusing on executive compensation as a fix for our financial situation is like treating a gambling addict by limiting how much he tips the dealer.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX