Category Archives: Anti-state

Life, Liberty and Oligopoly for All!

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: the protection of these rights is the bedrock upon which any legitimate government is founded (if such an oxymoron is possible). However, apparently somewhere along the way “oligopoly” was added to the list of inalienable rights. To wit, the latest example of such protectionist behavior was filed in the Georgia House of Representatives on February 5. A bill (HB907) was introduced that would expand the onerous taxicab and limousine regulations in order that they encompass the activities of internet based ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft. For those unfamiliar with these services, they use a smartphone app based system to connect people that need transportation with those willing to provide it. Like the Internet it is peer-to-peer interaction with the host company merely maintaining the communication backend. It is a lean and efficient system that translates lower operational overhead into lower consumer costs. All drivers undergo a background check and vehicle inspection before they can sign up. To weed out both undesirable drivers as well as passengers these services employ a self-regulating Ebay-style reputation/feedback system.

These services are faster, often cheaper and can quickly respond to increases in demand, so it should come as no surprise that they’ve been having an impact on the bottom line of the traditional taxi services – many of which still don’t even accept credit cards in the cab. Taxi companies don’t like competition. So what do they do? Do they turn to government and ask “Why don’t you remove all your burdensome regulations so we too can operate more efficiently and at lower costs?” No. Instead they demand that if they must drag a 100-lb boulder everywhere they go, then so too must everyone else. In reality they never would ask for regulations to be repealed. Many had a hand in crafting them. These regulations artificially suppress the supply of service (oligopoly) so as to maintain elevated prices. As an industry, taxis operate nationwide under a byzantine set of rules that permit the local government (and often competitors as well) to determine, in their sole discretion, the precise perfect quantity of taxis needed in their jurisdiction. Once that is determined, taxi owners are allowed to purchase from the government that quintessential symbol of their “public necessity” role – the taxi medallion. The medallion is nothing more than a glorified business license, albeit an artificially limited license. To imagine how limiting the quantity of licenses issued for a service might affect prices paid by the consumer, imagine if, say, another occupation that is also bizarrely licensed by the state – barbers – (really? we really need government to ensure we get a good haircut?) were restricted to just one barber per town. Sure that one barber earns more, but everyone else loses. In the same way, the taxis that already have their medallion stand to benefit by using government to artificially limit who can participate in the taxi market.

When discussing this bill in public the taxi companies are not foolish enough to divulge it’s all about protecting their oligopolistic profits; no, they claim, (as do all politicians looking for an excuse to control our lives), it is about “public safety.” Yes, because clearly when someone is paying you for a lift you lose all ability to competently operate an automobile. Cars function completely differently when a paying passenger is in them as opposed to a non-paying passenger. Yes, how stupid of me to not realize this fact.

It’s a good thing we have government, otherwise how else would we be protected from the evils of innovative businesses attempting to compete with ossified fascist oligopolies.

President’s Ponzi Pontifications: MyRA

Amongst the expected ideologically partisan propaganda trotted out by President Obama during his recent state of the union address was a rather interesting proposal: MyRA. It reveals something we knew and something we didn’t know. We knew the President is so hopelessly ignorant of basic economics that he can’t possibly understand why people are insufficiently saving for retirement. What we didn’t know, however, is how perilously close we are to a federal government implosion (this is actually good news!).

In his address he says, “Let’s do more to help Americans save for retirement. Today, most workers don’t have a pension.”  So, his proposal is to create what is essentially a new kind of retirement account (cleverly dubbed “MyRA”) as though a lack of IRA options currently presents a barrier to retirement savings. Please. Saving (for anything) necessitates a deferment of present gratification. That is a hard sell since basic human instinct is to “live for today” (just ask a child to wait to open their presents). As adults we understand that the future is uncertain and therefore saving is prudent, but we never completely shed our preference for present goods versus future goods. So with the deck already stacked against us, is it any wonder that an incentive-distorting program such as Social Security would decrease rather than increase rates of saving? Under the (false) assumption that we are “guaranteed” Social Security for retirement the natural instinct then is to save less. Even if one is still inclined to save in spite of Social Security promises, the ability to do so is made that much more difficult by virtue of Social Security & Medicare’s 8% confiscation of gross income. This of course ignores all the other federal, state and local taxes we pay on top of that. To put it bluntly Mr. President, there just isn’t that much left to save thanks to government interference.

Even setting aside the adulteration of normal incentives, as a retirement option the MyRA is a terrible choice. Given the multiple flavors of privately managed, tax-favored IRA plans already in existence, why exactly do we need a government managed plan? What benefit(s) does this government plan offer the consumer? None. Conversely though it offers one key benefit to the government: instantaneous use of the “invested” funds (please note mechanistic parallel to a Ponzi scheme). The retirement investment market is measured in trillions of dollars and the government would like nothing more than to divert some of that their way. But even beyond the ideological choice of not lending money to a bankrupt regime this investment fails. It is not a real investment. You are simply loaning money to the government. They do not create anything of value from it; they simply consume it (rather inefficiently). On top of that they only promise a paltry 2% return (that doesn’t even keep up with inflation). In order for you to get your money back the government has to pick the pockets of everyone else through taxation and/or inflation. The MyRA program amounts to nothing more than a voluntary (for now) extension of Social Security. Social Security funds are exchanged for treasury notes and immediately spent. MyRA funds too will be exchanged for treasury notes and immediately spent. A MyRA owner and Social Security recipients are left with but a handful of paper treasury notes whose only value is derived from the fact that the US government has the military might to extract those resources out of its citizens in a demographically collapsing Ponzi scheme.

This desperate act is good news though. This penultimate plea to the public to lend them money is the death rattle of a dying, amoral, bankrupt regime. As history has shown, all empires ultimately collapse due to financial, not military, plundering. Death always comes from within, not without.

Energy Independence (Autarky) Makes Us All Poor

If you enjoy the soft warm glow of an incandescent light bulb then you might want to head over to your local hardware store and stock up. As of January 1, the manufacture or importation of 40- and 60- watt light bulbs has been outlawed (100-watt bulbs were banned in 2012 and 75-watt in 2013).  This ban was mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 – a monstrosity of a bill passed with bipartisan and industry support and signed into law by a Republican president (so much for the “Republicans are for small government” myth). It is, like all such bills, predicated on irrational fears and willful ignorance of human nature. The very title betrays adherence to an economically self-destructive goal: market independence. Such independence not only makes us poorer (paying more for less) it actually encourages belligerent behavior. Withdrawing ourselves as a country from the global market (becoming “market isolationists”) by striving for independence or erecting trade barriers makes us more, not less, likely to go to war. Equating energy independence with security is 21st century doublespeak that permits the political class to con the country into following their lead. A country that depends on acquiring its goods through a global network of trade is unlikely to foul that network by killing its participants. But a country that is “independent” has free reign to attack its neighbors if it in fact relies on those neighbors for nothing.

If market independence enhanced one’s security then the state should hold the hermit in highest regard. The hermit produces all for himself and thus relies on no one. But such independence has a cost. It is not money that enhances our standard of living; it is other humans interacting freely with one another. Money is merely a ledger entry, simple bookkeeping to measure the balance of subjective value between such voluntary exchanges if we so choose (e.g. friendship is valuable, but we don’t track that valuable exchange in terms of money). If human interactions add value to our lives, then it follows that limiting those interactions will suppress such value. Government intervention in the market arbitrarily limits these potential interactions by limiting choice. Selecting only from the approved options is no choice at all. So, if government intervention always limits choice, it follows that this will always leaves us all with less value in our lives – even those that appear to benefit from such interventions are harmed, for they too exist in a world with fewer goods because of their legally permitted decreased output.

Now one might have imagined that this “bulb ban” was vociferously objected to by the evil bulb manufacturers (who just wanted to keep foisting cheap bulbs on America in order to preserve their profits at the expense of our “energy independence”). The exact opposite was the case. Industry had been trying for years to entice consumers into switching to the higher margin CFL bulbs with promises of bulb longevity (that never materialized in practice) to offset the exorbitantly higher cost (20-fold in some cases). Once industry realized they could get government to do what the free-market would not (compel consumers to buy their product by leaving them no other choice), they quickly formed a coalition with environmental groups and pushed for crony-capitalist legislation under the cloak of eco-friendliness.

What are the results so far? The consumer has less money, the bulb manufactures have more, and the public, having been sold on the idea of greater bulb efficiency, now leave their bulbs on longer, thus entirely negating one of the primary goals of the bill. That greater efficiency would lead to greater usage should have been easily predicted by anyone who has observed the human penchant to double up on a low calorie meal. Try as they might, Congress cannot legislate away human nature.

The Rule of Men

This past Thursday regulators overseeing the US school lunch program graciously decided to “permanently” ease restrictions added to the school lunch program only 4 years ago. The changes initiated in 2010 were a part of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was crafted with the laudable goal of solving childhood obesity. Fat and salt were cut, fruits and vegetables increased, portion sizes and overall calories reduced. Clearly this singular approach from a singular agency imposed upon an entire nation was destined to succeed because if history has taught us anything, it is that humans always solve a problem upon the first attempt and that monopolistic one-size-fits-all solutions are an ideal mechanism for societal improvement.

But our wise overlords were thwarted in their attempts at showing us peons how to feed our kids. Rebellious local school systems bristled at the new rules; they were vociferous in their objections but ultimately powerless to ignore the rules. Failure to obey would have resulted in a loss of all of their school lunch funding. Federalization of our local school systems via monetary assistance has transformed these systems into the dependent servants of the federal state we see today. Federalization was meant to help, but just as a young bird who is “helped” in its hatching process will be weaker, so too have the school systems grown weak and dependent. Once one accepts the help of the state it is all too easy to become dependent upon it. Once dependency weakens you, it is difficult to find the strength to object to the hand that feeds you. The lion tamer subdues his charge not with the stick but with the carrot of dependency (notice how quickly the lion is fed after each trick). Fortunately our overlords at the U.S. Department of Agriculture deigned to listen to the peasants and in their sole discretion (which could change at any moment) have decided to let a little slack upon the reigns… for now.

However what is interesting here is not so much this federalized flailing over the school lunch program but rather the fact that the federal government can’t even implement this one simple program (feed children a healthy diet) without controversy.  Yet we are supposed to accept credulously that this same federal government can manage something an order of magnitude more complicated (healthcare) and all will be fine. Move along, nothing to see here.

The failure of these new school lunch mandates is a visceral metaphor for the failure of Obamacare. The pattern is the same. Both Obamacare and the HHFKA are predicated upon a naive understanding of a problem which results in misdiagnosis and an ineffective solution. The putative goal of the changes to the school lunch program was to “cure” childhood obesity.  Because, you know, if kids are known for anything it is for their love of the school lunch! Clearly overeating at schools is the proximate cause for childhood obesity. Likewise those foisting Obamacare upon this country labor under the delusion that health care costs are high not because of decades of government interference in the health care market, but rather because the uninsured are unfairly driving costs up by not paying premiums and then getting “free” care at emergency rooms (which I must point out, this latter scenario has been shown to add only 2% to total health care spending in this country (as reported by the left leaning Urban Institute in a 2008 study)).

 

When the top down approach of these mandates is foisted upon an unwilling public how do those in charge respond when the serfs don’t take too kindly to it? The same in both cases: a temporary and discretionary choice to ignore the law (at least while it is politically expedient to do so). With such actions we slide invariably toward a country run by the rule of men, not the rule of law, where it is the individual in charge that decides upon whim how we may live our lives. If the law is bad then repeal it, but these half-hearted “temporary” suspensions of enforcement are the acts of a cowardly and tyrannical government.

Facebook debate: does the state reduce violence?

Recent crazy Facebook debate (don’t you love those), here is the original link. Basically the debate had nothing to do with the original post, it devolved into a debate by one participant claiming that there is evidence showing how the establishment of a strong state over time has led to decreasing violence over time.

I and others called BS on this and then it got interesting. Since this is my blog I’m just posting my responses 😉 I’ve invited others to continue here if they wish. Enjoy.

 

Response 1: Violent death was an order of magnitude higher in non-state societies before the imposition of the state. This is fact.” – This may be fact but it is meaningless in terms of justifying the supposed violence minimizing effects of the state because all things are not equal. Violence is simply a tool that is a means to an end and it has an associated cost. Mankind’s ever improving level of technology (tools) makes our tools more efficient and less costly to implement, however violence always carries with it the same potential cost (ones own potential death or injury). In other words non-violent means to achieve our ends have been getting cheaper and cheaper over time when compared to violent means. So a couple of hundred years ago one could spend months farming 12 hours days or one could pick up a rock and bonk the local farmers over the head with it. Which one has a lower cost in terms of labor expended? 

Today initiating violence against someone for food would be absurd considering our efficient ability to create it means food is just about dirt cheap in comparison to what it was even a hundred years ago. Violence still occurs today but it is much more rare because it only occurs around those things that have a very high cost… so violent means are still “cheaper” means to achieve those ends. But the overriding fact is that as the standard of living goes up violence goes down irrespective of whether the society is state based or non-state based.

Response 2: @Jeff Cav – Why do keep bringing up Somalia? I didn’t bring it up at all… but if you must, Somalia is not at all an example of a stateless society nor is it even a good comparison if we were to accept that it is stateless. First you do have states there, that’s why there is so much chaos and disorder, because the nascent states within that region are all fighting with each other for dominance/control of the entire region. That is, the essence of what a state is is alive and well there – a group of self-appointed thugs that want to control and dominate the lives of others and skim their cut off the top from the populace in the form of “taxes”. There are just many of them all fighting within the borders leaving behind the chaotic landscape we see. Secondly, Somalia was poor and undeveloped when it had a state, it is still poor and undeveloped when so many now say it has no state… so how can you compare a poor undeveloped region to say the US and say “see clearly the US has a strong government and that’s why we are prosperous and Somalia now has no strong central government and they are poor and violence ridden because of the lack of that government” There is no ceteris paribus comparison here at all.

Moving on….although I will grant that it is at least theoretically plausible that a strong centralized authority (the state) could decrease incidence of violence within its borders (due to the “one gang to rule them all” effect), this is kind of pointless – it’s like saying we can eliminate all health care costs by simply killing all the sick people. As with Somalia, all organized violence stems from proto-states warring with each other… so yes, if one big proto-state comes along and crushes and kills them all (their leaders anyway) then that type of violence will disappear from within its borders. But to any extent where this is true it is completely more than offset by the enormous rise in violence made possible by larger organized states when they go to war against each other. ALL wars are only possible because of the existence of states, such organized killing on such a mass scale could simply never happen in a purely free and stateless society (what’s the point -it’s bad for business to kill your customer). So to the extent intrastate violence decreased, extra-state violence shot up orders of magnitude beyond that.

So what’s the solution? A stateless voluntary society. This solution does not assume everyone will be angels and there will be no violence, in fact it works just fine under the assumption there will continue to be bad people that will try to control others through violence. The response to such people is that everyone will have VOLUNTARILY joined insurance or protection agencies to keep them safe from those that would aggress against them (the precedent for this actually existed in Somalia and ancient Ireland: the clan system kept people in line VOLUNTARILY). These associations would not need to be held along geographic boundaries (just as people are members of disparate religions today all around the world side by side). Kind of hard to have a war if your members are mixed in with those you supposedly want to fight. The stateless society would of course not be perfect, it’s composed of imperfect humans… but it is far better than the state based society from an ethical standpoint and a consequentialist standpoint. The stateless society would eliminate war from this planet IF the entire planet adopted this system. I’m not saying this will happen today or even in a hundred years, merely that it should, that it is the ideal… and isn’t that the point, to strive for the ideal, to strive for the goal, even if unattainable today, we should always continue on that path until someday we get there, otherwise, what’s the point, we might as well just accept we are slaves and get back to picking the cotton for our master (the state).

Response 3: @Bruce – I don’t see where anyone in this thread said or implied that adherence to the ideal libertarian philosophy of a stateless voluntary society would _always_ bring about the ideal outcome and that a state-centered society will _always_ bring about the worst possible outcome. The argument for the libertarian ideal is from an ethical standpoint, not a consequentialist one. Theft is wrong – but it is also entirely possible a thief could steal and use those stolen funds for a better purpose than the original owner, perhaps to save a life, perhaps to start a new business that improves peoples lives – all of these things could and sometimes do happen. So in the same way as the blind hen sometimes find corn, sometimes the state manages to improve things on net. But that doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t make it ok. That’s all that is being said. However the state does get things wrong or screwed up way more frequently than it ever gets things right so it is very very easy to poke holes in arguments in support of it. Even those things you cite as being obvious benefits of the state (codified property rights, stable courts, etc) that libertarians should be thankful for can easily be shown to also be provided just as well not by a monopoly but a range of suppliers of those goods. To deny that more one entity can provide those things is to deny the possibility of anything other than a single global government. If 250 countries can provide these things, then why not 2500, or 25,000? There is no non-arbitrary method to determine the “ideal” number of competing political units providing their own unique take on property rights or courts. Saying we should be thankful to the state for these things is like saying slaves should be thankful to their master… I mean the master after all provides his slaves with food, clothing and shelter, right? Without masters, how will the slaves feed, clothe and shelter themselves? Without the state, how will people solve their own interpersonal disputes. The statist answers: they can’t, it would never ever occur to any humans to peacefully solve disputes through a court based system… we need special super intelligent humans to show us these things and force us to engage in them, these wise overlords know better and will show us how to run our lives, for without the state we are as but children.

Response 4: @Bruce  Sorry, if your response was more tongue in cheek I guess I missed that… tone is one of those things very hard to discern sometimes in forums such as these (and even email as well!) As far as your response… I didn’t think nor did I intend to accuse you of an sort of absolutism (e.g. “always” do this or that)… my comments were meant to be more generic in nature (i.e. when some people say such things, this is my response).

I’m not questioning your or anybody’s right to voice their opinion and say they think Jeff’s comment have some merit… I’m just saying I disagree with anyone that would say the idea has merit… maybe I’m wrong, who knows, I don’t think so of course or I wouldn’t open my mouth, I’m just saying I don’t agree and it is because of X, Y and Z. Simply because a bunch of us all do the same thing is not evidence of some grand conspiracy by libertarians to denounce and keep out all dissenting opinions – it is exactly the same response you would see from any opinionated group about any topic they hold strong opinions on when someone proposes a dissenting opinion. Try going over to a paleo group and discuss the merits of non-paleo diet… you’ll see the same kind of fervor in the response. In other words this is not a unique libertarian trait – it’s a human trait. If actual good logic or data is used to support the dissenting view some will just ignore it and some will incorporate that information and change their view.. but in this case it is my view there is no such good data as the data presented is easily debunked via an alternate analysis that is much simpler (Occam’s razor approach here)
The parallel of fundamentalism you bring in is an interesting one and I think it helps me make my point here. I see that those that we libertarians (anarchists?) would label as statist as being the political functional equivalent of a religious fundamentalist. Those apodictic beliefs are based on faith alone, they believe X to be true because they believe it to be true. For that kind of knowledge nothing can ever prove it to be wrong (i.e. I love my children, no one can prove that is not true, science can’t prove God is not real, it may not require a God, but that is not the same thing as actually proving one does not exist). Unfortunately the statists hold this type of faith based belief over subjects that are subject to falsification through inductive or deductive reasoning. When confronted with proof of their errors they squawk and hurl epithets and ad hominem attacks while slinging supposed “studies” that prove their case with cherry picked data in order to bolster their faith.
Most of what the libertarian “believes” in is based on inductive logic (economics) or a logically coherent philosophy (self-ownership) and should not be up for debate at all but sadly is due to religious fervor of the statists of the Keynesian denomination who attempt to use empiricism to falsify inductive logical truths. In other words if someone could logically prove some of what we libertarians adhere to is incorrect, we would (as scientists) change our views (well the intellectually honest would anyway). But the statist is unswayed no matter how much who show them to be wrong or misguided.
So when people question someone who makes a claim that here is an example where the state has actually done good and thus this is justifiable reason for a state we have to call them on it because based on our knowledge of these things we know this interpretation can’t be correct – this is not “faith” it’s call understanding of the knowledge framework. It’s like if you understand the theory of evolution and a creationist says “oh we found this thing and it disproves all of evolution therefore our view must be correct” not only does one have a duty to point out to them that (a) no, that data fits in with the theory like so and (b) even if that data were inconsistent with the theory it means we modify the theory as needed to fit the data, we don’t just dispose of the whole thing. Statists do the same thing, they want to say “oh, see the state did this one good thing that we don’t think would occur under your system, therefore your entire framework is wrong and the whole thing must be discarded” We libertarians can’t even get away with that approach – we can point out hundreds of things the state system gets wrong and yet somehow that doesn’t seem to invalidate it at all in the mind of the statist… so it’s odd that the statist seems to think they just need to find one example where they believe the consequences of a state based outcome are superior to the perceived possible outcomes of a non-state based system and that will then disprove all of libertarianism.
Now you then said “You’re tacitly agreeing that Jeff was right in his assertions while decrying that outcome as irrelevant because it did not conform to the libertarian ethos. I.e., that may have been the outcome but the outcome is bad because it’s not libertarian.”
No, that’s not what I said, but maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I said his interpretation was not absolutely impossible, just that it was less likely to be the principal cause relative to the cause I outlined. But even on his own terms he’s wrong. Even if we said the state is responsible for 100% of all decrease in violence in whatever time frame is being discussed, the decrease in intra-state violence is completely overwhelmed by the increase in inter-state violence (tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone from wars). War being completely a function of the state we can then ascribe all those deaths to the existence of the state. But my secondary point was not as you say the “outcome is bad because it’s not libertarian” – I said the outcome could even be good – (the ends) – but the means are still invalid.
Maybe that is the the core of the matter, libertarians are very focused on the morality of the means, whereas the statist is totally focused on the ends. Some might say the moral statist tries to balance the two (the individual rights vs the collective good), but I’m sorry, I just have to call bullshit on that. No one is wise enough to balance those things, and no one has a right to choose how they are balanced. Maybe my organs will save 10 lives… does anyone except me have the right to “balance” my right keep to my organs and live against the greater good of saving 10 lives?

Minority Report

This past Friday (December 27) a federal judge ruled that it is perfectly fine for the NSA to collect and review your phone and Internet records . Why is that? Well, those records don’t actually belong to you. This ruling is consistent with an interpretation of the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure known as the “3rd party doctrine.” Under this doctrine anything you disclose to a third party is no longer yours and therefore loses all expectation of privacy. Since it is no longer private the government has free reign to sink their teeth into it without any of those annoying justice-impeding anachronisms known as search warrants.

Innocent until proven guilty will soon be replaced by harassed until proven innocent.

As with all government propaganda there is a thin veneer of truth that shamelessly attempts to obscure the larger lie – but these truths are about as effective in that goal as Miley Cyrus’s underwear are in making her appear demure in her Wrecking Ball video. Yes, if you disclose something about yourself to a third party that information is technically no longer strictly private (private meaning known only to yourself). However what eludes this judge and those before him is that it is possible to convey private information to a third party under the protection of a contract. The privacy policies of some companies inform their customers how the company will and will not use information collected in the course of the business relationship. This establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning any information stipulated to remain private. Therefore the 3rd party doctrine does not apply (even though the government wishes otherwise) in those situations where the consumer has a reasonable expectation of privacy per agreement with the third party. It would appear the mantra of the government is that expediency in catching the “bad guys” trumps all other concerns.

The judgment in this case is moving this country backward. Back to the 18th century that is. Back then the use of the “general warrant” by the British rulers was commonplace. A general warrant is distinguished from other types of warrants (i.e. arrest warrant, search warrant, etc.) in that it permits the holder of such warrant to pretty much do anything they want. They can search anything, anytime, anywhere and arrest anyone for any reason. If the principle of the 3rd party doctrine is applied consistently in future cases then it means the federal government has a general warrant to search anything not in your house. There is therefore no barrier to the government demanding the bulk disclosure of: patient records from doctors, purchase records from credit card companies, banks or other businesses, or school records from universities. This data could then be placed into a massive database and “mined” in order to uncover patterns and connections in a futile attempt to flush out the “bad guys.” Today the bad guys are the terrorists, the drug dealers or organized crime (ironically all entities created as a result of government interference). Perhaps tomorrow the enemies will be anyone who dissents from the approved public opinion of his or her masters, that is, The State. Someday soon the world’s mightiest super computers will employ predictive algorithms upon this ocean of data as they attempt to predict undesirable future behavior. Department of Pre-Crime at your service.

Perhaps the above sounds a bit far-fetched, but remember, there is nothing in the arguments currently employed to justify mass collection of data that would preclude these alternative forms of data collection. Just ten years ago the currently revealed mass collection of data would have seemed far-fetched. Just imagine what they can do ten years from now.

In this brave new world that is fast approaching our freedom will be instantly curtailed at the pleasure of any investigatory bureaucrat who doesn’t quite like our answers as they relate to our algorithmically questionable activities. If you become ensnared in this trap then you’d better hope you have an alibi. Innocent until proven guilty will soon be replaced by harassed until proven innocent.

Where’s the beef? Sorry, it’s been banned.

This past week the FDA proposed an outright ban on artificial trans fats in prepared foods.  Trans fats occur naturally and artificial ones have been used for decades in foods. As a foodstuff they are safe insofar as they don’t make you sick upon ingestion and have known physiological benefits in proper amounts (and known harms if consumed to excess, which is the case with all food components). The FDA is not banning some new dangerous unknown substance. They are banning something that has, in large part, already been voluntarily reduced in the past few years to the point that average US consumption of trans fats is now half of what the American Heart Association recommends as being safe. So if it’s already hardly used, where’s the harm in a ban you might say? Setting aside the ethics of the ban, the direct type of harm that can be envisioned would be a situation wherein the use of trans fat solves a problem for which there is no good substitute. Furthermore any substitutes might very well themselves be more harmful than the trans fat. That’s called “unintended consequences” and occurs with every single government mandate ever issued.

Some examples where trans fats are used include cake frosting, microwave popcorn, frozen pizzas and various fried foods. These are mere treats, things eaten a handful of times in a month if even that (how many cakes have you eaten in the last month?). But given the government’s penchant for quixotic battles against virtually riskless activities (trillions of dollars spent fighting terrorism even though jaywalking kills more people each year than terrorism) it should come as no surprise that Uncle Sam would relish the role of micromanaging the minutiae of our lives (“exactly how many calories are in the candy bar sir?”).

Lifelong dependency of the citizen ensures eternal power for the state.

 

There is nothing wrong with the FDA educating the public about the healthiness or lack thereof of certain kinds of foods (although forcing the public to pay for such education through taxation rests on ethically dubious ground). However, the outright banning of this or that substance crosses a line. The metric upon which prohibitions have been based (such as drug prohibition, however ill conceived) is one of “imminent harm”, i.e. if someone is about to jump off a bridge we can plainly see their free will is immediately deleterious to their own well being therefore one could argue intervention is justified. However, the bar has been moved from “imminent” to “eventually possible” i.e. should we tear the bridge down so as to make it impossible for anyone to ever jump off it? Should we now ban every conceivably risky activity?  If so, that’s going to be a mighty long list! Nearly every action in our daily lives carriers some level of inherent risk.

The FDA’s justification for this ban is a mere estimate (i.e. best guess) that it will result in 20,000 fewer heart attacks and 7,000 fewer deaths each year. The rationale is of course the “Greater Good” argument. This ban will naturally lead to lower health care costs for the nation. Why stop there? Perhaps the FDA could implement other policies that have the net effect of lowering health care costs. Perhaps they could ban foods that naturally contain trans or saturated fats (all meat, cheese and dairy). Next they could ban all foods that are not considered to be “healthy” (according to the whim of whoever happens to be in power at the FDA). These directives would surely save more lives, so how can one object? Eventually the government could require all citizens join a gym and exercise each day… because this would lead to fewer deaths each year… so how can one object? Oh, and what of those that refuse to do their quota of exercise? Well, we’ll just levy a fine, err, I mean tax on those that refuse the directive of the collective.

This trans fat ban is just the first step in sacrificing the individual on the altar of the collective state. If you agree to take what the collective offers (free or subsidized health insurance), then you must submit to having your life directed by that same collective. Children accept the care of their parents and thus are obligated to follow their rules. Likewise government demands we follow their rules because they view us as but children. Lifelong dependency of the citizen ensures eternal power for the state.

And Justice for All…

The 19th Century saw an end to chattel slavery. The 20th Century saw an end to conscription slavery. Will we now, in the 21st Century, witness an end to the one remaining form of labor slavery, namely jury service? For those that do not consider jury service to be a form of slavery consider this: If a complete stranger sent you a letter ordering you to appear at a specific location at a specific time, what would you think? What if that person then also threatened you with imprisonment if you did not comply and with physical violence if you resisted the enforcement of compliance and you knew full well they could carry out that threat? Who would that person be, if not your master? The State is your master; the judge is merely its errand boy and the police its henchmen.

So if jury service mirrors the master-slave relationship and is thus a variant of slavery, why is there is no public outcry? Why the quiet acquiescence to our own subjugation? There are two reasons. Cost and confusion. The costs of jury service over one’s lifetime are relatively low (since many are never called and those that are get called only 2-3 times over a lifetime). For example, if the state imposed a new tax whereby everyone paid $10 a year and a randomly chosen 10 people would pay $100,000 instead, it simply would not be worth it for the vast majority of people to fight that. The odds you’ll be hit with the “big” tax are infinitesimal and the $10 tax isn’t costly enough to fight. Just because one puts up with something doesn’t mean it is ok or that consent is implied. It simply means that the costs of fighting it are greater than the burden imposed.

But if low costs are not enough to keep the masses in line, the state can rely on the modus operandi of the con artist: manipulate and confuse your victim into choosing to do your bidding. This is accomplished through public school mediated state sponsored indoctrination that convinces the masses that there exists this mystical thing called “civic duty” and that jury duty falls chief among those. There is no such thing as “civic duty” – we as individuals owe nothing to society by mere virtue of having been born and likewise “society” owes us nothing in return. Our only obligations in life are those that we explicitly consent to (employment, parenting, volunteering, etc.) But even if one does believe in the “civic duty” of jury service, does it not strike you as odd that everyone else in that courtroom (the judge, the lawyers, the bailiff, the court reporter, etc) are all there voluntarily and are being paid market rates for their service, yet the jurors are there involuntarily and are paid well below even minimum wage? Given that jurors by and large are present involuntarily the entire incentive structure of jury service is geared toward producing a low quality product as quickly as possible. That is not to say in ALL cases jurors behave this way, simply that most of the time that will be true since most of the time people just want to get back to their own lives, jobs, etc.

There are two ways the jury system can be improved. Just as we did with the military, we can move from a conscription-based model to an all-volunteer based model. I was called for jury duty last year and found the process to be fascinating. The timing was terrible so I was glad to be dismissed. However that is not to say I would be opposed to volunteering in the future. The point is I would be making the choice of when and where I serve.

The second method to improve the jury system would be to switch to a professional juror system. There is no reason that being a juror cannot be a full time paid profession just like any other. Think of it not so much as a panel of jurors and a judge but rather a panel of 13 judges with one judge guiding the proceedings. Those judges/jurors that gain a reputation for judicious verdicts would be sought out and used for more and more cases. Those that likewise had a poor reputation resulting from their unfair verdicts would cease to be used.

Today’s jury system is an anachronism. It pays homage to an era when the abuse of natural rights was commonplace. A slave may work under threat, but an employee works by desire. Which system do you want delivering you justice?

Barricading Liberty

“We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can” said a National Park Service Ranger in Washington, DC recently. The revelation of this directive has only served to add more color to the canvas of a feckless presidency. What sort of leader seeks to augment, rather than minimize, the impact of a deleterious event upon those he putatively serves?

“We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can”

The behavior of the Obama administration during this current government “shutdown” is reprehensible and petty. The deliberate closures of a number of “public” parks – un-manned, un-ticketed, open air parks mind you – says more about Obama than any of his self-serving oratory. These are the actions of a petulant, spoiled child. He’s not getting what he wants (unconstrained limitless federal spending) so rather than leading (engaging in and brokering a meaningful dialog between both sides) he’s lashing out at the very citizenry he is supposedly serving by using them as pawns in a game of Congressional chess. Obama and his minions are well aware that most of what the federal government does on a daily basis does not impact the public in any obvious manner. The longer the shutdown continues unnoticed by John Q. Public, the weaker his position becomes. Therefore, to strengthen his hand he must make the public squirm as much as possible, even if that means spending additional funds to pay people to barricade open-air facilities that cost nothing to keep open (bike lanes, children’s playgrounds, unmanned parking lots, etc). Even virtual resources such as websites and Twitter accounts have gone dark despite the fact that they are either free or already paid for. But the “shutdown” of public resources was not sufficient. They are now deliberately blocking access to private businesses as well because they happen to be leasing government owned buildings. These businesses make the government money (leases). They do not cost them money (Pigash Inn in North Carolina is just one example). That’s like quitting your job because you ran out of money – it simply defies all rationality! And then there is poor George Washington; he must surely be spinning in his grave because even his house (Mt. Vernon Museum) was shut down by Mr. Obama! Why? The parking lot for the facility is jointly owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association (the private owners of the Mt. Vernon facility) and the National Parker Service (NPS), so apparently the NPS felt it necessary to barricade an un-ticketed and un-manned parking lot that the NPS bears no daily cost to operate. How long will it be until Obama orders all US interstate highways shutdown as well?

These actions have revealed an essential truth of a state run society: there is no “public” property. There is only the property of the Royal Court – the federal government that is – and the king (Obama) may do whatsoever he pleases with his property. If he doesn’t get what he wants, then just as a petulant child would, he will pick up his ball and go home. Or rather, he’s going to barricade off the playground so no one else can play either.

The strategy here is of course plain to see. If he can’t pressure Congress, then he can pressure the public by taking away those things the federal government has so graciously bequeathed to the “people”. If the people value them, then they should rightly be mad at Congress for forcing their poor king to take away their goodies. Fortunately most people are not this blind to his manipulative strategy. In perhaps the best publicized exampled, the day the shutdown began the NPS barricaded the WWII memorial in Washington DC, preventing numerous veterans from visiting the site. However, the veterans were not so easily intimidated. These dauntless men pushed the barriers aside and again demonstrated their strength of character. Character that, ironically, is honored by the very memorial this President strove to separate them from. By fighting the will of past and present tyrants they have set an example for us all. If we value our liberty, then we have a duty to overturn both the barricades to liberty and those that would erect them.

In the dark

As a small business owner I have had the unique misfortune of being exposed to a wide array of state-imposed roadblocks. Whereas the individual may only be disturbed by the occasional run in with their tax bill or prohibition against engaging in activities frowned upon by our wise overlords, a business is daily confronted by a multitude of meddlesome intrusions (and I am not speaking of regulation of efficacy or safety, such standards would still exist in an insurance driven, rather than regulation driven, free market framework).

For example, my company manufacturers chemical products used to maintain aquariums (i.e. to keep fish, plants and corals alive and healthy). A good portion of our products is classified by various state agriculture agencies as either feeds or fertilizers (because they help living organisms grow). Such products are subject to the same agriculture rules and regulations intended for the products aiding in the production of food or large animal husbandry. These rules not only specify a set of taxes (fees) you must pay just for the mere privilege of selling such products within a particular state (50 States, 50 different fees per every product, every year) they also specify the manner in which you may artistically design labeling, the verbiage you’re permitted to use and the manner in which you can market said products. If an ingredient is not on a particular state’s “approved” list then that means you can’t say anything about it on the label – even if it confers a competitive advantage. Therefore the product must get “dumbed down” to meet the most obtuse standards, as printing 50 variations of the same label is not economically viable (for smaller businesses). In some states a lone bureaucrat can unilaterally block the sale of a product to an entire state if they perceive said product does not provide value to the consumer – all on their own personal whim and without any appeal recourse. By way of example I actually had such a bureaucrat in Wisconsin tell me that aquatic plants in Wisconsin don’t need iron to grow (therefore justifying the blocking of sale of our iron supplement). Curious. I know legislatures can enact laws, but I didn’t know they could repeal laws of nature as well.

Now, and here’s the rub for those of you that might think even these onerous regulations ensure efficacy – no state agency actually cares whether a product does what it says. That’s right. All they care about is collecting their fee and that your description of your product conform to their narrow definition of a “proper” feed or fertilizer. Innovation and change? Sorry, not permitted. This is an unfortunate legacy of the fascist depression era agriculture policies that continue to interfere in commerce to this day. All these bureaucrats care about is what you SAY is in the product – and that you pay your fees every year. Of course before you can SAY anything about your own product you must humbly bow down before your overlords and request as meekly as possible that if they have the time could they perhaps deign to review your label so as to ensure it meets their standards for banality and mediocrity, thus ensuring its admission into the Great State of <insert state name here>.

So, if you have ever pondered why so many competing products all say and do the exact same thing, it’s more than likely because of regulations. When government sets the standards, nobody is permitted to step outside of the 3×5 card of approved product parameters. Everyone is forced sell to the same level of mediocrity stipulated by ignorant bureaucrats. Unless, of course, you are a mega huge business that helped to enact these regulations, in which case you can easily afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get your ingredient approved or the millions of dollars to buy political favor if you can’t. Unfortunately small time competitors can’t afford such hurdles even if their product is better. Regulation imposes costs only on those businesses that can already afford it. It ensures the consumer remains in the dark about what they’re missing from smaller competitors who are marginalized by lowest common denominator minded regulation. I know, because I make the innovative products you’re not permitted to know exist.