Vera Verba

Cartoon from the book “God Wants You Dead” by Sean Hastings and Paul Rosenberg.

Happy Tax Day to all you citizens of the USA!

I have been watching the ongoing story about Major League Baseball and performance enhancing substances for a couple months now. Well really all my life, because the same basic story concerning “artificial” training techniques and athletes has been going on for as long as I have been alive or longer. But until recently, I don’t remember elected officials in our Federal Government thinking they should get involved in this nonsense. Seeing clips from recent congressional hearings on the news, I finally felt that I had to write something on the topic.

Why do our congressmen think that it is their duty to interfere in the rules and regulations of a game being played for entertainment purposes by private citizens? The usual reason of course… no, not just because they all really enjoy hearing themselves talk, seeing themselves on television, and exercising arbitrary power over other human beings - how cynical of you to even think that! They don’t do these things for themselves - it’s all for the children…

You see, famous sports figures are role models for our kids - and our leaders don’t want our kids learning to do illegal or immoral things to win a contest.

That being the case, I guess it is fortunate that our elected leaders are not also role models for our kids. The number of illegal and immoral things they do to win elections and gain more fame and power certainly makes me wish those guys would confine their ambitions to just using potentially dangerous substances on their own bodies. And I definitely wouldn’t want my kids learning how to conduct the sort of political witch hunts that our leaders have demonstrated again and again throughout history.

There is not much difference between the communist witch hunts started by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s and the congressional hearings I am seeing today. In fact, the parallels make the two cases seem disturbingly similar. A situation exists in which public figures in an entertainment industry are being accused of certain past actions - things they might have done that were not against the rules or even particularly frowned upon in their industry at the time. They now risk serious damage to their careers, if they confirm the allegations. If they deny the allegations, they may be jailed for lying to congress. They can not stand mute because that would be contempt of congress, and the fifth amendment won’t protect them because the things they are on trial for are not actually illegal.

Additionally, those who agree to inform on their friends are applauded as heroes, and those who refuse to do so are branded as un-American scoundrels.

What a wonderful lesson for the children.

In the case of the communist witch hunts, the “evil” behavior in question was holding certain political views at some point in the past. In this case, it is having chosen to use certain substances at some point in the past. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to see a strong parallel between the basic human right to control the contents of one’s own mind and one’s own body.

Senator Joseph McCarthy played this same game, and he played it well. He won contest upon contest, disgracing and/or jailing many famous people, thus increasing his own fame. But our current generation of congressmen should remember that, in this bit of history, McCarthy is remembered as the villain of the story - not the hero. They should also try to recall an important lesson that they were all supposed to have learned as children and are now supposed to be trying to pass on to the next generation by virtue of their own actions:

It’s not whether you win or lose - it’s how you play the game.

I am officially dying.

I had a physical just the other day and my doctor told me that I am going to have to start watching my cholesterol levels which are apparently on the high end of the normal range. Also my balance of the different types of cholesterol is not particularly good. Basically I have been informed that it is all down hill from here on out, and I probably have less than 5 decades to live.

However, this bad news led me to some good news. My doctor suggested that I take fish oil supplements for Omega-3 fatty acids to help balance my cholesterol, so I went to Ye Olde Vitamin Shoppe to purchase these supplements. While there, I made a very happy discovery:

It seems that L-tryptophan is once again legal to sell as a dietary supplement in the United States of America.

This makes me feel a quite optimistic. The FDA’s prohibition on the sale of L-tryptophan has been (at least for me) a symbol of the evil that governments so often do under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. I am glad to see the end of it.

There are exactly 8 essential amino acids that the human body needs to function properly, but which it can not produce from other chemicals. If you don’t consume these eight substances regularly, you will die. So make a note - these are all very important things to include in your diet. These eight amino acids are: L-isoleucine, L-leucine, L-lysine, L-methionine, L-phenylalanine, L-threonine, L-tryptophan and L-valine.

Since the FDA’s 1989 ban on the sale of L-tryptophan, one of my favorite things to say has been, “I am proud to live in a country that has not yet outlawed 7 of the 8 essential biological ingredients of human life.” While I will certainly miss being able to throw this statement into almost any political discussion with a totally straight face, I have decided to take it as a good omen that this ban has finally ended.

So I am feeling very good today - although this could just be a result of the L-tryptophan supplements I am now taking.

Ingesting L-tryptophan helps the human body produce serotonin. This makes L-tryptophan an anti-depressant as good or better than Prozac, while being both cheaper and healthier than Prozac. It is a healthier because it stimulates the creation of more serotonin which promotes an ongoing feeling of well being. Prozac, on the other hand, acts as a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, causing an overall decrease in serotonin levels over time, while producing temporary good feelings as the existing serotonin is burned up at a faster rate.

Since L-tryptophan is both healthier and cheaper, one would imagine that Prozac would never have made much headway in a free-market economy. But fortunately for Eli Lily and company, the corporation that developed and patented Prozac, free market economies are few and far between. By a “lucky coincidence” shortly after the FDA approved Prozac for sale it then banned the sale of L-tryptophan.

Now some might cynically believe that the existence of a newly patented and approved drug and the banning of an un-patentable dietary supplement that performed the same function better, by the same regulatory agency that approved the drug, was more than a lucky coincidence. They might be especially inclined to believe this if they have read the 1993 report of the FDA Dietary Supplement Task Force that shines some light on an oddly pro-pharmaceutical policy by admitting that, “The Task Force considered various issues in its deliberations, including… what steps are necessary to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development.”

But Not me.

I am feeling so good from taking my L-tryptophan that I will happily buy into the official story that after a contaminated batch of imported L-tryptophan caused 37 deaths in 1989, the only safe thing for the FDA to do was to completely ban the sale of this essential amino acid.

It makes a lot of sense - at least if you look at it from the government’s point of view.

It is just easier to ban a substance, than to figure out what actually happened. And since L-tryptophan isn’t a patented drug, even if Eli Lilly was not specifically lobbying against it, there wasn’t anyone lobbying for it. There just weren’t any big monopoly profits to be made by going through the expensive process of lobbying the FDA to reconsider their decision. The FDA’s operational model is that someone should petition them and pay for the necessary studies and the time of FDA employees. Why should they ever bother to allow any dietary supplement or food additive to be sold if no one is specifically paying them to do so? And to maximize their authority, the logical default is to prohibit everything new, and ban anything old given any possible excuse to do so.

Of course, in banning one of the eight essential ingredients to human life, it is inevitable that some inconsistencies would crop up, so we shouldn’t blame them if some of their necessary decisions made the ban seem hypocritical. For example, even while the official position of the FDA was that L-tryptophan was a dangerous untested drug rather than a nutritious foodstuff, they still had to allow it to be added to baby food. After all, they couldn’t have babies dying from an amino acid deficiency drawing attention to the fact that this prohibited substance has been an historically vital component of the human diet as far back as our ancestors have had mammalian body types.

And it is probably also just another coincidence that the L-tryptophan ban was lifted the very next year after the patent on Prozac (fluoxetine) finally expired. It would be cynical to think that the ban was lifted when someone stopped receiving their regular bribe money, and I just can’t work up a good dose of cynicism right now - not with all the serotonin I have in my system. So I will just have to be happy in the knowledge that the government finally got it right.

I can sleep soundly knowing that my government has finally corrected its one and only mistake, is certainly not currently enforcing any other stupid laws, and will surely never make any similar mistake in the future now that they have seen the error of their ways.

Or my sound sleeping might just be an effect of the additional melatonin that L-tryptophan allows my body to produce. In addition to regulating sleep, melatonin is an excellent antioxidant that can reduce my cancer risk. I may even lose some weight by reducing the carbohydrate cravings commonly caused by L-tryptophan deficiency. (Is there anything that this wonderful substance can’t do?)

Now I can legally die a happy man.

Since Sean posted so eloquently on not voting, I thought I’d make the opposite case.

Last time I took the Political Compass test, I came out at almost the same place as Sean. And, I’m in firm agreement with the points he makes. (I especially appreciated him talking about the Commerce Clause.) Yet… I will, occasionally, vote.

Here’s why:

I expect governments to be coercive and manipulative. They always have been and always will be. It’s the nature of the beast. But, there are differences between administrations. Not enough differences, to be sure, but the economics of Ronald Reagan, for example, were far superior to the economics of Franklin Roosevelt.

So, if I have some confidence that one side is actually less bad than the other, I might go vote for that side. Mind you, I seldom do this, but I have, and I may again. In doing this, I do not expect good to come of it, only less evil. I can never be sure that I’ll be right in these guesses (politicians not being especially reliable), but sometimes I will take a shot.

One important point: While I think my method of handling voting is sensible enough, Sean’s arguments against it are sound too. That means that I don’t think either Sean or I are completely, provably correct. We’re both looking at a very complex data set, and trying to weight the many factors. We may weigh the factors slightly differently and come to different conclusions.

As for this year? No decision as yet. I’m convinced that Ron Paul is significantly less bad than the others, so if he’s on a ballot near me, that might push me over the edge. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I wouldn’t be looking for perfection anyway - only “less bad.”

It’s not that I have never voted. I have gotten myself registered, and made it to the polls on a few rare occasions. But those times have usually been to vote “No” on some particularly heinous ballot proposition, and not because any particular political candidate seemed like a good choice to me. (Unfortunately, they don’t let you vote “No” on the issue of whether or not you want a given governmental position to be filled at all.)

When asked about voting, I usually answer with a joke. I say something like “Yes, I tried that once, but I didn’t inhale.” Or I tell the person that the first time I voted, all my candidates won but the world didn’t get any better - therefor I decided that I am no good at voting and will leave it to the professionals.

But there are real and serious reasons why I don’t usually vote.

The problem with voting for a given candidate, is that none of the “main stream” candidates ever come close to representing my political views. This leaves me either voting for “main stream” candidate that I think is the lessor of two evils (if I can even figure out which one that is), or voting for some candidate that more closely represents my views, but whom I know has zero chance of winning.

So just what is this “main stream” I speak of, and why am I so far off of it?

Well, take a look at the graph below that shows the current 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates, as well as a few historical political figures, and myself. Actually it doesn’t show all the presidential candidates, only those who are competing in the Democratic and Republican Party primaries. But no other party has won the US Presidency since 1850 (Millard Filmore - Whig Party) and even then it was a two party system as the Republican party was formed in 1854 and the Whig Party disbanded in 1856. So it seems safe to believe that one of these primary candidates will be our next president.

To find out where you fit in on this graph, take the test for yourself at:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

This graph charts two axes. The horizontal axis shows economic policy, with Left indicating greater government control over commerce and Right indicating greater economic freedom. The vertical axis represents government control in other areas of society, with up labeled “Authoritarian” and down “Libertarian.” It isn’t particularly scientific, there is no quantifiable relationship between one horizontal unit and one vertical unit, and the vertical axis could probably be broken up into additional axes. But having an easy to look at (two dimensional) picture of various political philosophies, rather than trying to use a single left/right designation, is still a useful qualitative tool.

It’s also fun.

What this graph IS particularly useful for is seeing why I don’t usually vote. Take a look in the bottom right hand quadrant, where you will find me all alone. With a score of approximately (7.5, -6.0), I am far far away from any of the primary candidates. I believe strongly in all freedoms, economic and otherwise, and among candidates for political office this belief is seen to be a significant aberration.

You will notice that the “main stream” candidates really do all appear to be in a single stream. Their positions almost all fall all along a diagonal line (my addition), indicating that for each freedom they believe in on one axis, they believe in greater control of something on the other. (Ron Paul is the notable exception here, and I will talk about him in a bit.)

This clustering along the diagonal line is not necessarily particularly surprising. These are all politicians aspiring to be government employees, and government is, as the name implies, about governing (that is controlling) people. So if there is any governing to be done, something must be fair game for control. If you don’t believe in controlling people in some way, why would you ever seek a political office? What would be the point of seeking power unless your political philosophy allows you to exercise that power?

But in a democracy, you have to get votes if you want the power - and few people are going to vote for someone who wants to completely control their lives. So for every aspect of people’s lives that the candidate believes in controlling strongly, there needs to be some other issue on which the candidate is pro-liberty. A Candidate will then receive votes from those who want more freedom in the areas that the candidate is not interested in controlling, provided they have a lifestyle that is not greatly impacted by the things the candidate does want to control. Furthermore, many voters actually like to see control exercised over other people in areas that do not affect them personally - or where they happen agree with the specific choices that the candidate wants to make for others.

If you are a person who believes strongly in liberty, not just in the areas that are convenient for your own life, but in all areas, and for all people, then there will never be a real candidate for you to vote for. The nature of those seeking power, combined with the nature of the democratic process, makes only those who are close to this diagonal line normally electable.

Now this year is a little different, because Ron Paul is up on the board as a Republican candidate. He is closer, although you will notice, not much closer, to my positions. He still isn’t even in the same quadrant as me, but he certainly is well off of the normal “liberty trade-off line” that all the other candidates tend to be close to - and in the right direction.

And Ron Paul may actually be closer to me than he actually appears (at least in regards to the other candidates) if the two axis are given different weight. As I mentioned above, there is no real link between one unit on the horizontal axis and one unit on the vertical axis. And if I had to weight them, I would definitely put a higher multiplier on the economic (horizontal) axis - I am just not sure how much that multiplier would be.

The reason I would give greater political weight to the economic, than to other liberties, is the way political control tends to be exercised in the United States. The country I was born in was founded by a very pro-liberty collection of people, and they created a constitution that strictly limited government powers. However, the loophole that has been used to subvert these liberties over the years has mostly been by extension of something called the “commerce clause,” which gave the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Subsequently, with the blessings of the Supreme Court, a very weak argument has been legitimized finding that, since all human action *might* affect interstate commerce, virtually everything you can think of can be controlled by the Federal Government.

Clearly this was not the intended meaning when the Constitution was written, but this is the mechanism by which the United States government has overreached its powers. For example, restrictions on the substances U.S Citizens are allowed to put in their bodies were first enacted through taxes and control on who was allowed to sell those substances. Things that the government can not manage to control directly, it often controls indirectly through controls on related economic transactions. (See my post entitled “Drink Up” for more thoughts on this.)

So, because I have seen that loss of economic freedoms can lead to a loss of all other freedoms, I tend to feel that economic policy is of greater importance to liberty than specific policies on other issues. This makes any candidate’s willingness to try to control us through our exchanges of value a matter of the greatest priority to me in choosing a candidate to vote for.

Looking at the graph above, Hillary Clinton is abut 9 units away from me, John McCain is 10.5, and Ron Paul is 7.0, but if I weight the economic axis as double, then Hillary Clinton is about 11 units away, John McCain is 10.5, and Ron Paul is still 7. (Hint - use the Pythagorean theorem if you want to do this math for yourself) So while Ron Paul is approximately unchanged in my eyes by this re-weighting, you will notice, that it causes my (very slight) affections to switch from Conservative Democrats to Liberal Republicans. But is a 2x weighting the right number? I honestly have no idea, so I don’t know based on this chart (or by any other means I have been able to figure out) whether I should be voting democrat or Republican when offered only those two choices.

Of course Ron Paul would answer that question for me this year, if he were actually to be nominated by the Republicans. But that is not likely to actually happen. Therefor I will never get a chance to cast a vote for him unless he continues his run without a major party nomination. That is not too unlikely, as he is not really a good Republican candidate by any normal measure, and he did run for President previously as the Libertarian Party candidate. But even with him running as a semi-strong third party candidate, that leaves me right where I usually am - either voting for no one, or voting for someone who has no real chance of winning the election.

And that is why I don’t vote.