Candidate enters ongoing O-A News 2nd Amendment dispute

(This Letter to the Editor was submitted to the Opelika-Auburn News on 17 June 2006 in response to a number of published letters by a local sociology instructor, Mark Konty. Be sure to read the Clark campaign gun rights platform plank.)

Dear Editor,

For some time on this editorial page, Mark Konty has attempted to persuade readers that the 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution protects not an individual right to keep and bear arms, but rather some collective right. Anyone can easily deduce that the government needn't amend the constitution to maintain its own arms and thus that the 2nd Amendment is either a ridiculous redundancy or is a recognition of an individual right.

I don't suppose that Mr. Konty will admit this, so I would simply say that I am glad that our inalienable right to keep and bear arms is also enshrined in Section 26 of our state constitution, and, I might add, in a manner that is far less open to creative interpretations such as Mr. Konty's. Alabama's Constitution of 1901 clearly states "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." I trust that Mr. Konty would concede that this bit of the legal canon is explicit in its statement of an individual rather than collective right.

It is important to note in light of the discussion of freedom versus prohibition that our right to arms isn't the result of a pragmatic analysis, although many argue for the practicality of widely available firearms. Each individual has a natural right to defend himself (or herself), and the right to arms proceeds directly from that.

Mr. Konty may be a very able sophist, but I doubt that he will convice many that an individual should be prohibited from engaging in self-defense, and yet that senseless position undergirds his whole argument. To paraphrase former US Chief Justice John Marshall and others, "the power to regulate is the power to destroy." Why then should we ever consider allowing our government to regulate our means of self-defense?

Dick Clark
Candidate, Alabama House of Representatives, District 79
Chairman, Libertarian Party of Alabama

Government-sponsored monopolies = Big mistake!

(This Letter to the Editor was submitted to the Opelika-Auburn News on 4 April 2006 in response to this editorial.)

Dear Editor,

The 29 March staff editorial entitled, "City-sponsored wireless Web a good idea" advocates an idea that certainly appeals to many forward-thinking people in Auburn. Of course the idea of internet-access-for-all is attractive, just like 100% literacy, an end to hunger, and free energy. Unfortunately, the proposed policy would simply benefit some citizens at the expense of others while making only nominal progress towards broader connectivity amongst the citizenry.

Your paper's position on this issue is that the city should effectively establish a local, city-ordained, taxpayer-funded monopoly on internet services for a particular service provider (ISP). While the problems with this may not be immediately obvious, they are apparent to anyone who considers the economic impact of such a policy. After all, this is not a "free" service, only one that taxpayers rather than consumers will pay for and one that consumers will not be able to choose. Any individuals who have different usage needs than what are provided for by the city service would be forced to pay for their own needs as well as the city service. What about people with no computer at all? They'll be helping to pick up the tab for the rest of us.

This city-wide monopoly would necessarily entail the coronation of one ISP at the expense of all the others. Why shouldn't our city's residents decide for themselves which company is bringing the best service to market? How will we recover if our well-meaning city officials choose the wrong technology when building infrastructure? If this chosen technology loses favor in the larger market, the City of Auburn could be encumbered with an antiquated system and lots of sunk costs. Let's allow businesses to innovate, let's let consumers make their own choices, and let's get government out of the way!

Dick Clark
Candidate, Alabama House of Representatives, District 79
www.CitizenClark.com

HEAD TO HEAD: Jackel vs. Clark on the Auburn Tobacco ban

(from The Auburn Plainsman, 22 January 2004)

By Roberta Jackel
More than 75 percent of Americans and 80 percent of students don't smoke. We are growing to recognize that other people's smoke is unpleasant and unhealthy.

Increasingly, people don't want smoke indoors where they are working, eating, going out for a drink or listening to music.
The Auburn City Council voted to amend our current ordinance to eliminate tobacco smoke from these places, starting in 2007.
There were many reasons to pass a strong ordinance, but the recent experience of Helena, Mont., is especially persuasive. They eliminated smoking inside public facilities.

The emergency room in the town's only hospital had 50 percent less cases of heart attacks after the ordinance was implemented. Sadly, the city leaders capitulated to pressure from a small number of people and restored indoor smoking. Heart attack rates returned to the earlier levels.

Many in Auburn have stopped patronizing some restaurants because of the smoke. Business owners should be concerned about the loss of these customers. With the low rate of smoking in the United States, for every smoker that may not patronize your business, there are three or four non-smokers who can take their place.

Customers' exposure is only part of the picture.

Consider the employees. One person told me she'd worked waiting tables in a smoke-filled restaurant/bar because it was the most lucrative employment available. But she eventually quit because the smoke affected her so badly.

My friend is not alone. A local bar owner told me that only 5 percent of her employees are non-smokers. How is this possible when so many people don't smoke? A reasonable conclusion is that the presence of smoke places a huge barrier to employment, especially for nonsmokers. People need access to good jobs and it is wrong to say non-smokers can just go look elsewhere.
Smoke-free regulations fall into the same category as those pertaining to public health or unsafe working conditions.

We don't allow businesses to force employees to work excessive hours, serve spoiled food, or avoid fire regulations, saying that people who don't like that can just go elsewhere.

Why should an owner be allowed to create a hazardous breathing environment for its workers and customers?

A few small business owners have complained that government should leave them alone, but this argument is used highly selectively. These business owners apparently have no complaint about the City's efforts at removing sources of rats and ensuring streets are safe.

People have the right to use the drug nicotine, and nobody is taking that away, but that doesn't include the right to burn it indoors and force others to breathe its cancer-causing residue. Smoking sections in a restaurant are like urination sections in a swimming pool. Smoking should be removed from all indoor public facilities, period.

Roberta Jackel is a member of the Auburn City Council, Ward 2, Place 1.
----------
By Dick Clark

By passing a ban on smoking in “public places,” the Auburn City Council effectively removed another layer of private property rights previously afforded to the proprietors of restaurants and bars on The Plains. The driving force behind this no-smoking ordinance was Councilwoman Roberta Jackel, who first proposed making Auburn a “smoke-free city.” At that time, Jackel mentioned similar efforts in Montgomery, making her initial case as a sort of political “keeping up with the Joneses.”

Jackel, joined by Mathews and White, expressed the primary concern at issue should be the health hazard created for nonsmokers by those smoking in small, enclosed areas such as bars.

Despite the protests of numerous bar owners, employees and developer Tom Hayley, the council insisted on restricting the rights of law-abiding business proprietors. Hayley’s objection was much like that of other business owners — an economic one. Although Hayley’s suggestion was to promote the alternate idea of a smoke-free Lee County, his comment supported what many others had already said, namely, that a unilateral smoking ban in Auburn would likely have a negative effect on those Auburn businesses that previously allowed smoking.

It seems quite clear from all this that the council’s actions were based completely on the perceived health benefits of a smoking ban. The problem is that this law takes away the individual’s right to choose.

Sure, smoking is a health risk. This ban, however, leads us towards a popular but dangerous precipice for American law. By the reasoning of the council, activities in public places that may be hazardous to those who participate in them can be outlawed. Now, the council claims that this standard only applies to smoking, as smoking endangers others besides the smoker, whereas, say unhealthy food (as one council member argued) is an individual decision.

This reasoning flies in the face of my DARE training, which taught me that peer pressure makes substances more dangerous. And, honestly, who hasn’t had one more drink or stayed up a little later into the night after some friendly goading? A Dec. 5, 2003 Associated Press story reported that moderate drinking does not combat stroke as previously thought, and in fact seems to cause brain atrophy. In addition, in the Jan. 26, 2003 issue of Newsweek, a bevy of doctors reported that staying up too late has been linked to increased severity of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack and obesity. With this information, it shouldn’t be long before the forward-thinking Auburn City Council bans bars altogether, since all patrons and employees will be engaged in some sort of unhealthy social activity.

Either that, or the council will recognize that, since bars are now consummate health hazards, a little smoke might not hurt after all.

Dick Clark is president of the Auburn University Libertarians.

From One Libertarian to Another on the War in Iraq

(The following is a letter that I wrote to two Alabama libertarians about my position on the War in Iraq. In previous emails, I had made it clear that I am an anti-war libertarian, and by anti-war I mean "the no-compromise, bring-them-home-now position.")

I too made the mistake of voting for GW Bush in 2000. My litmus test was the gun issue, and, heck, the NRA sent me three stickers with which to promote GW Bush. I can even say that, in my capacity as a dorm Resident Advisor, I was ferrying my residents to the polls so long as they promised to vote Bush. I've been trying to pay my penance for that through activism off and on since 2001.

As far as the exit strategy goes, I understand that removing troops from the theater means that there is a higher likelihood that the soldiers who remain there will become casualties. I am sympathetic to this problem, as I have lived with and trained with military men in the past, and I count a number of American combat troops as my friends. In fact, I have a good friend who is a demolitions specialist with SEAL team six, and two former roommates who are in Iraq with the US Army in combat arms slots.

I do not believe that the US Constitution authorizes the mustering of troops overseas. I believe this sort of action to be a grievous evil perpetrated by the federal government with federal taxpayer money. I know as well as you do that there are many brave men and women who are serving in good faith and who cannot be blamed for the poor decisions of their higher-ups. I am a religious man, and I pray for my friends and their comrades who are in harm's way. Nonetheless, I also pray for the innocent non-combatants who will be fully or partially incinerated by US white phosphorus ordnance (as in Fallujah), those who will have their property destroyed by US artillery and mortars, and those who will lose family members under the deceivingly innocent label of "collateral damage."

I cannot now, nor will I ever support any regime that sponsors total war. When Bush declared that those who were not with us were against us, he made it very clear that he was embarking on a jaunt that could only lead to total war involving the persons and property of millions of non-combatants. The crime perpetrated against thousands on 9/11/2001 ought to be treated like a crime. I would advocate the use of force to apprehend the individuals that actually committed the crime (including any material support with foreknowledge). For our state to attack a collective entity for the actions of individuals is immoral and unjust.

As for the sticky situation that we find ourselves in, I can only say that we must extricate ourselves from all entangling foreign alliances, including those with Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and many others.I recognize that this position may not win popular support, but I frankly don't care. It is right and I will continue to declare its necessity from the rooftops even if I am the only one dissenting. I and my future children are being put at risk by the actions of our government overseas, and I will not betray my family's future safety so that Bush can be blamed for fewer coalition casualties. Bush & Friends got our troops into this mess, and I will not accept responsibility for it. It is Bush's fault that our troops are in harm's way, and it is Bush's fault if many die in our troops' extraction/exfiltration.

We should do right at any cost, and say "Damn the torpedoes!"