Court Ruling on Proposition 103

The decision on Proposition 103 is an abomination. One’s position on this initiative is not an issue of being pro- or anti-business. It is an issue of being for or against individual rights.

Consistent with the premise that an individual has an inalienable right to his life, is the fact that he has a right to the products that his life is used to create. In other words, a businessman who owns an insurance company has the inalienable right to set the prices and terms of his business, and to determine who he will and will not trade with. To violate, to abridge a businessman’s right to set the terms and prices of his business, is to violate his right to life, i.e., it is to treat him as merely a servant of the “public’s” whim.

The bitter irony is that this decision is being hailed as a “victory” for consumers. In fact, it is another fiasco. As can be seen with numerous industries and countries, e.g., housing, oil, and socialist countries, each time controls are enacted, there is a corresponding drop in supply or quality and/or a rise in prices. Further, controls create a “brain drain.” As we have seen already, productive insurance executives will either leave the industry or the state. This is hardly a victory for consumers. Nor does it show the respect and admiration due to productive businessmen.

STEVE HANSEN

Claremont