Category Archives: Libertarian opinion

Breaking Bad

I’m old enough that I now find most entertainment to be fairly derivative and predictable. However the TV series “Breaking Bad” is a welcome exception. If you are not familiar with it but enjoy solidly unpredictable drama you owe it to yourself to look into it. The August 12 episode’s ending left the audience in a state of numbed denial [spoiler alert: stop here if you have not seen the episode yet]. The main characters have just clandestinely robbed a train of a key chemical needed to prepare crystal meth when a young boy on a motorbike happens them upon. Without a word one of them pulls out a gun and simply dispatches the boy as blithely as one would a troublesome fly. Why? Because the boy might say something which could lead to their arrest.

After the shock of witnessing the senseless onscreen (albeit fictional) death of a young innocent wore off I came to realize why this scene was so disturbing: this type of violence occurs routinely. The boy’s death is iconic of the reprehensible loss of civilian life in wars. In “traditional” wars civilians usually know where the front line is and can avoid it. Today that is impossible. The wars on “terror” and drugs occur on a global battlefield from which there is no escape. Innocence is no defense: you are just one street address typo away from no-knock raid carried out by machine gun festooned goons.

Apropos to the “preventive” murder depicted, the US repeatedly goes to war upon the same principal of “potential threat neutralization” (Spain-1898, Korea-1950, Vietnam-1965, Iraq-2003). Unsurprisingly the neocons and chicken hawks are now rattling their swords to do the same to other countries (Iran, Syria). We as a nation are engaging in the same onscreen behavior as the thieves in “Breaking Bad”: shooting first for fear of what might happen. This behavior is reprehensible at the individual level and at the national level. The moral validity of actions does not change based on the numbers that simultaneously engage in those actions.

The moral validity of actions does not change based on the numbers that simultaneously engage in those actions.

For parents there is no greater fear than contemplating the untimely death of your child. So consider what kind of a country would inflict on foreign parents our most horrid nightmare. The US has killed both directly (drone strikes) and indirectly (sanctions) hundreds of thousands of children through the cold indifference of our leaders. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright in a 1996 interview with 60 Minutes stated that “we think the price is worth it” when asked if the confirmed deaths of half a million Iraqi children due to UN sanctions was “worth it” in relation to the goals of those sanctions. The Bush administration fares no better: he (and Congress) restarted the Iraq war (of which even low estimates are 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties and authorized the use of torture. Likewise Obama has failed to live up to his 2009 Nobel Peace Price. He acts as a remote executioner via the deployment of the “judge, jury, and executioner” drone strikes that have killed countless civilians who are written off as “collateral damage.” Ah, yes, the ends always justify the means. Wake up America. We have “broken bad” and are now the “bad guys.” Would we tolerate Chinese drone strikes of Americans because China deemed them to be a potential “threat” ?

In terms of this country’s meddling, interventionist, blow-back prone foreign policy it doesn’t matter whether Obama or Romney wins; they will both continue our current wars and will have no qualms about starting new ones. If you are tired of the endless wars (drug and terror) and have no more desire for the blood of innocents to be on your hands by way of voting for the “lesser of two evils” (“hmmm… who should I vote for, Hitler or Stalin…”) then consider the alternative that the media is so afraid you might hear about they won’t even include him in national polls: Libertarian Party candidate for president Gary Johnson. 

Who counts the votes?

“Voting is every citizen’s constitutional right.” The operative word in this uncontroversial statement is “citizen.” In order to validate one’s right to vote one must verify that one is an eligible* citizen (*over 18 and not a felon). To claim verification is an undue barrier to this right would be to likewise claim that a member of a health club should not have to substantiate that they are in fact, you know, members of such club. If you walk into a club and try to use the facilities would you not expect to be challenged with a request to prove that you are entitled to use such facilities? Then why is the idea of demanding that voters demonstrate their eligibility to vote seen as an outrageous request? The typical response is to trot out some sob story about how some poor person can’t afford the bus fair across town to pick up their free ID. Please, there is always some pathetic excuse that betrays the complainer to be someone that can’t be bothered to expend even the slightest effort in securing this supposedly sacrosanct right.

The next complaint is that voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem, citing various studies that show extremely limited cases of fraud. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Uncovering voter fraud is like finding a cockroach… for every one you see there are a million more you don’t see. In person voter fraud by its very nature is all but impossible to determine objectively after the fact. It would be like determining the crime rate in a city by asking people if they have broken the law. Unsurprisingly crime rates would be much lower if measured that way. Voter ID is a simple precaution to prevent possible fraud. Car theft is pretty rare, but I’ll bet you still lock your car in public? Why? Because it is a trivial preventive step in the same way voter ID is a trivial preventative.

Could the process be easier and more streamlined? Yes, of course. For example, why do we register to vote in one process and then provide an unrelated ID to vote? We should be able to present the voter registration card (a card that every voter currently gets when they register) as proof of eligibility. Problem solved.

Unfortunately voter fraud is all too common in American elections. Jimmy Carter was the victim of such a severe case of fraud in 1962 (that by some miracle of persistence he was able to prove and eventually had the results reversed in his favor) that it is believed this is the primary reason his Carter Center now takes a keen interest in worldwide election monitoring. If someone wants to steal an election it is much easier to manipulate the vote count rather than the vote itself. That doesn’t mean we should leave the door open and make it easy for in person fraud to occur, but it does inform us as to where we can most effectively allocate resources to prevent fraud. The weak link in the chain is the human link. Sure the vote is 40 to 60, but if that information is relayed by me calling Bob on the phone or sending him an email, then I can tell him any number I want. Don’t think it goes on today? Think again.  I personally witnessed this type of fraud (vote total relay) myself this past spring (a recount was done which negated the attempted fraud). To paraphrase Joseph Stalin, “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”

Hey man, you owe me!

President Obama’s now infamous “You didn’t build that” speech offered up two worldviews that betray his social-collectivist tendencies. The President engaged in a non-sequitur fallacy in his effort to establish the validity of two falsehoods by invoking a truism that is best embodied in the quote of Isaac Newton, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” That is to say, we owe our entire standard of living to the countless billions that came before us. Each new innovation relies on the tools and knowledge of prior generations. No one builds anything in a vacuum. The President falsely presumes that societal advancement is necessarily impossible without government involvement (e.g. building roads and schools). This presumption rests on the notion that absent government it would simply never occur to the simpletons in society to build a road, a bridge, a school, or to pursue research. We are but helpless babes that require the gentle guidance of our wise overlords.

Upon the (false) precept that government must play an integral role in society he now presumes this establishes a basis to conclude that society (the people) are morally obligated to pay government whenever, however and in whatever arbitrary amount deemed appropriate by government. More abstractly he is saying that because party A did something for party B then it is permissible for party A to unilaterally impose an open ended arbitrary obligation onto party B in perpetuity. This is little different than a drug dealer who showers gifts on a kid for a few years and then expects that kid to return the favors by doing anything that is asked: “Hey man, you owe me!”

The President’s fatal conceit is in believing that because government plays a tangential role in producing some societal goods it must then follow that government has the right to erect a barrier to the collective goods of society that may only be breached by accepting the necessity of an arbitrary debt obligation (taxes) to that gatekeeper (government). We do not owe any particular group or individual in society anything as a consequence of something they did or are doing. If that were so then perhaps we should pay taxes to GE as well for all the things they have produced that benefit society.

The only barrier to society’s goods is a natural one: our ability to produce goods or services that society values. If we desire to take something out of society’s pot of goods, we must first deposit something equivalent to the value that we wish to withdraw. Money is merely a claim ticket to the value put in the pot; it gives us the right to withdraw that value later (which is why counterfeiters and thieves are reviled, they withdraw without putting anything in). Conspicuous consumption must be preceded by conspicuous production. Taxes represent confiscation of our withdrawal rights that are diverted to government favored industries or classes of individuals. Government puts nothing in the pot; it simply forces us to pay for things we don’t want or to overpay for things we might want. Government’s limited role in society cannot justify arbitrary taxation with specious appeals to “fair share” (an objective definition for which you will have as much success in extracting from a progressive as you will in nailing Jello to a wall.)

Government’s Olympic Journey

For an Olympics host city the games are akin to a credit card financed trip to Vegas: lots of wagering on someone else’s dime and hoping for the best. The poster child for poorly executed games was Montreal, 1976. Those games were 800% over-budget – residents are STILL paying off the bonds. On average most cities do a poor job (an average of 170% over budget for the past 50 years). However being over-budget doesn’t necessarily mean the effort was for naught. Atlanta was 147% over budget (1) but was actually one of the success stories (spending a “mere” $2 billion compared to the nearly $15 billion spent on the current London Olympics). In fact most of the games since 1984 have been financial successes. What was special about 1984? The games were held in that good ol’ bastion of capitalism, the United States (Los Angeles). After the financial debacle of Montreal, Californians were wise enough to reject tax increases to cover the cost of the games. This forced the US Olympic Committee to turn to the private sector. The 1984 games were almost entirely privately funded and made frugal use of existing venues. They were the first games to be highly marketed and although criticized at the time for the “unseemliness” of such a sacred event being commercialized, the games turned a profit and that commercialization model has been used ever since.

Events like the Olympics are putatively part of the assumed economic development mandate that some believe is a role government should play. Although I dispute the need for government to play such a role (insomuch as they can play a role by simply getting out of the way) I do agree that the Olympics are about one thing: money. I do not say this as a cynic, but as an observer of human interactions. Money is simply the physical embodiment of humans producing things that other humans want. These people want to consume (watch) sporting events and those people want to produce (participate in) sporting events. Thus the act of facilitating both parties coming together has value. There is no more of a reason for governments to be involved in the Olympics than there is for it to run oil production or mining operations. It’s not that in theory government couldn’t do a good job on its own and actually make money, it’s simply that this has never happened, so why do we keep hoping “this time will be different.” Only the privately “outsourced” games have been successful (as happened in Atlanta and Los Angeles). Which begs the question: if the partial privatization has led to success, why not make the games a wholly private affair? The IOC (International Olympic Committee) could simply rent existing venues from private owners. The IOC would invest profits from the games into programs that foster youth and amateur athletics worldwide thus ensuring a steady supply of future Olympians. Private business would build new venues only where it was profitable. If there were no profits then the private investors would lose their money, not the taxpayer. Businesses that would be positively impacted would come together to form a consortium that would fund infrastructure improvements thereby unburdening the taxpayer from such expenses. In short, those that stand to gain economically from Olympic games should be the ones to (voluntarily) foot the bill. Government has started on the right path by privatizing part of the games, now it needs to complete the journey and stop socializing the costs (taxes) in order to benefit the few (private investors).

Cui bono?

I recently saw a pro-TSPLOST bumper sticker on a truck. I thought “that’s odd, why would average Joe Citizen be so impassioned about infrastructure policy that they would feel the need to advertise it on their vehicle.” Then as I passed the truck the reason became all too clear: a bright blue logo signified that this truck was owned by a road construction firm. Yes my friends, that company is a “rent seeker.” Rent seeking is that process that distinguishes the market entrepreneur (one who must compete in the free market for paying customers) from the political entrepreneur (one who gains an advantage over his competitors by lobbying the government to pass laws favorable to his line of work, such as regulations, licensing laws, or outright government purchasing.) The construction company in question sees the potential $18 billion that will be raised and they want their share of that pie.  If you want to evaluate the merits of any newly proposed program, simply ask “cui bono” (to whose benefit). If the answer comes back in the form of concentrated benefits (construction firms and those selling right of way) and diffuse costs (“it’s only a penny!”) spread among the taxpayers, then chances are it is a political boondoggle that will accomplish little at a greatly inflated cost and should be promptly voted down.

The TSPLOST is being sold to the public the same way every new government expenditure is sold to the citizenry: through FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). The fear of what will happen if we don’t pass it (roads will crumble, bridges will fall, kittens and babies will be slaughtered!) comes first, then uncertainty surrounding our future (how else can we build and maintain roads?) and ultimately the third leg of doubt is brought to bear (there’s no way anything else can work). The tenuous justifications for “regional” projects are laughably juvenile in their simplicity. The Project Sheets for the Constrained Project list were apparently assembled from the “TSPLOST” template found in Microsoft Word; only the titles and locations have changed. Miraculously all the projects “could assist in having a positive impact on the economic vitality for this region”, “improve access to jobs”, and “improve travel times for drivers.” Sounds grand, however these descriptions were used to describe the two projects for Morgan county: a 1 mile driveway (Stanton Springs parkway) extension and widening of a lightly travelled rural highway (441 south of I-20). Someone please explain to me how widening a road will enhance access to jobs? Is there some impenetrable Great Wall of Georgia that these new wider roads are going to get us around?  The sad part is that for Morgan county the two projects aren’t even fully funded by TSPLOST. The county will come up $24 million short after 10 years (see spreadsheet). Naturally we’ll need to extend the TSPLOST for ANOTHER 10 years when it comes time for renewal in 2022 else we will have to raise property taxes to make up for the shortfall.

Which raises a final point. It has been suggested TSPLOST will save money through reduced property taxes, however that math does not work. It was stated that county officials “hope” to lower taxes by 1 mil. Using the median home value in Morgan county (US Census) of $169,400 we find that would be savings of about $67. Using the median household income in Morgan county (same source) of $46,000 and the fact that people on average spend about 36% of income on sales taxable goods (food will be taxed under TSPLOST), that translates into an increased sales tax burden of about $165 per year or a net increase of $100 on average. Everyone that would like to reach into their pocket at Christmas and hand over $100 to the government, please raise your hand. Yeah, that’s what I thought. Property tax savings is a red herring. For the overwhelming majority of residents there will be a net increase in taxes. Who benefits? The public or the politically well connected?

On July 31, vote NO on TSPLOST.

Will you still pay me, when I’m sixty-four?

The mainstream media likes to occasionally publicize statistics demonstrating an ever-widening income/wealth gap. This is usually either in response to some left-wing talking head (Obama) mentioning it in a speech, or, it is simply a slow news day and nothing whips the masses into a frenzy like giving them the impression they are somehow being cheated out of their “fair share” of the economic pie, “yeah, let’s stick it to those evil rich people!” Yeah, grandma and grandpa are pretty evil, aren’t they? That’s the little tidbit they leave out of these numbers, although it is one that should be obvious: old people have lived longer than the rest of us, therefore they’ve had more to time to accumulate wealth and the work experience that allows them to demand higher wages. Duh. If the relative proportion of the aged in this country were constant the effect of age on relative changes in income distribution would be nil. But, the proportion of the aged is not constant, it is increasing. The “baby boomers”, the largest single age demographic in this country, are getting older. What do we get when we put those two together? We see a growing demographic that is increasingly earning and accruing more and more wealth. And how would we expect an increasing proportion of increasingly wealthy elderly to effect wealth distribution statistics? That’s right…a growing statistical disparity when people are lumped into wealth brackets that ignore age.

I’m not suggesting age is the sole contributor to changes in wealth/income disparities (increased productivity being another important factor) but it is obviously a major influence considering the overall “greying” of America (see US Census site and compare 1990 v 2025). And it is not merely the size of the group. The financial savvy of today’s “elderly” coupled with an increasingly productive economy have led to a poverty rate among those 65 and older one-third of what it was in 1967 (11% down from 33%). This is HALF the rate for those under 35 (22%). Bear in mind Social Security had been paying the elderly benefits since 1937, so it apparently wasn’t all that effective if the poverty rate was still 33% after 30 years of operation. We as a society need to shed the idea that old=poor and that Social Security is the only thing that stands in the way of grandma turning tricks for her next meal.

So what is the point? It is not to pick on the “age challenged”, but rather to point out that social benefits and tax policy based merely on age, race, or gender make no sense. They are inherently discriminatory insofar as such policies assume ALL in some demographic must be poor or disadvantaged in some way. If we must* have a government run social safety net or constituency-pandering tax breaks they should be means tested at the individual level, not group level. In other words, property tax breaks for the elderly: bad, but, property tax breaks based on income, good. Social Security based on age: bad, but Social Security based on need, good (I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to how one should objectively define an inherently subjective concept like “need” – Warning, your head may explode).

We are a nation of individuals, not groups. We owe it to ourselves to evaluate need at the individual level, not the “group” level, else every self-entitled special interest group lobby will bankrupt this country as each group jockeys to live at the expense of every other group.

 

* Just not to leave anyone with the wrong impression here, I do not believe government is the most efficient vehicle by which assistance and charity can be distributed to those that truly need it, therefore I am in no way advocating a government run “safety-net”. I am merely suggesting that since it is politically unlikely that we will as a society unburden ourselves with the ponzi-esque social safety net we have established, the least we can do is force the government to run it more efficiently and effectively. Private charities do a fine job of that now and could do so much more were the government to get out of the way, lower the tax burden on the “wealthy” so they could give even more and allow the efficiencies of the market (good charities survive, bad ones go away) to provide needed help.

Needs of the many?

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the PPACA (Obamacare) case came down last Thursday the world of Facebook exploded in a firestorm of cross fired epithets both praising and decrying the ruling. Frankly I’m just a bit burnt out on it all, as it would seem everything that could be said has been said ad nauseam (and yet I’m writing this article!) I think both sides believe or hope their words can persuade those on the other side, but for the most part it is a futile exercise. The Facebook community and its ilk are no different than Congress or the President; everyone is just talking past each other and no one is listening. In order to persuade you must listen and understand why they hold their beliefs or ideology, otherwise for the most part they will just hear your words but not understand the meaning. My goal in writing these articles has always been to inform and thus persuade. I’d like to think I’ve done a good job at this however I recognize the reality that I’m likely preaching to the choir while being ignored by the congregation.

If you have read this far and you are a pro-Obamacare person then congratulations for being willing to have an open mind. In order for me to have a ghost of a chance of possibly having you consider that socialized healthcare is perhaps not the best route to help people in need, I need your help. I need to understand why you support Obamacare. Please consider the following questions and feel free to respond at the contact info below.

1. Is healthcare a right? If so, why?

2. If healthcare is a right then is there any moral distinction between securing a negative right (i.e. a right secured only through the inaction of others) vs. securing a positive right, such as healthcare (i.e. a right secured only through the action of others)? Stated differently, is it moral to compel other individuals to act on one’s behalf under threat of state sanctions because one’s needs are deemed greater than those from whom the compulsion is placed upon? I believe all major world religions teach to receive help one must ask, not demand?

3. If you believe the needs of some outweigh the rights of others, then do the ends justify the means? If you agree that normally positive rights are by definition amoral, then are violations of morality justified if it might save a human life? (i.e. progressive taxation is theft but is it justified because it might be used for some useful purpose)?

4. If the ends should not justify the means (as this premise can justify any action), then do you believe that with healthcare we can make an exception because people’s lives are on the line? If yes, then why is it ok to violate some rights (property, contract, liberty) but it is not ok to violate other rights (life, privacy) in pursuit of possibly saving a life? Or is it? Would it be ok to euthanize a healthy person if their organs could save the lives of 10 people? Clearly the greater good is served by this action, so why is this wrong yet theft to possibly save a life is perfectly fine? Both involve a “taking” of property.

I understand the desire to help others; all of us on both sides of the debate want to help those in need, we merely disagree on the best course toward achieving that end. If you’re willing to look at the history (see  these articles) you will see that it is government, through regulation and subsidization (Medicare) that has caused prices to spiral out of control. Prior to 1965 (Medicare established) healthcare prices were stable and low and those in need were never turned away owing to the charitable nature of the American citizenry and her doctors. To suggest those in need were not helped is to slander the American people as implicit in the charge is that we are an uncharitable bunch that can only do “good” when forced to do so by our government.

RIP United States of America 7/4/1776 – 6/28/2012 – Obamacare upheld

Below is the body of a letter I sent to my employees today informing them of what they can expect now that Obamacare has been upheld as “constitutional”

All

Today June 28, 2012 the United States of America ceased to be a constitutional republic and is now a fully democratic fascist* oligarchy in which a tyrannical majority elect conceited tyrants that impose their will on all.

What does this mean for you as an employee? It means quite simply that health insurance rates will continue to skyrocket year over year at a 25% clip and that our only recourse is to continue raising deductible’s on the few policies we are even allowed to offer in order to keep premiums anywhere near close to affordable. To prepare for this you will be well advised to begin setting aside 10% of your gross income each paycheck into a separate account to build up a fund to cover the very high deductibles you will need to maintain in order to have some semblance of being able to afford coverage.

This is not a requirement – I am merely offering you my suggestion as to the most logical course of action to protect your own self interest given that government mandates and subsidies do nothing but drive cost of out of control (housing, healthcare, tuition – oddly all 3 have out of control costs and oddly government meddles in all 3, a coincidence? I think not). This is not opinion, this is simple economic fact that those in power simply refuse to believe, preferring to close their eyes, stamp their feet and repeat the mantra “yes we can, yes we can, yes we can” –

it is no different than jumping out of an airplane sans parachute and willing yourself not to crash into the earth… until you actually hit the earth you might believe it is working… but then reality hits you all at once.

Long term (I’m thinking 2020-2030), the government will take over healthcare and we will move to a single payer system after the “private” market becomes entirely too expensive, so naturally the government must step in to save us all.

“Gee thanks for those crutches there, oh right, you’re the one that broke my legs”.

But at least by then you will have saved up enough for medical coverage so you might still be able to afford “private” health coverage on a for cash basis so as to avoid the several month waiting list to actually even see a doctor.

Unfortunately when government steps in to take over it will likely put us and other small employers out of business as I foresee the government simply mandating that employers contribute $40-$50k/year per employee for health insurance that would go to the government – that’s in ADDITION to pay, therefore in order to recoup the cost we would have to double or triple prices and those high prices will severely if not all but eliminate the market for us… whose going to buy a $75 bottle of Marine Buffer?

So start sharpening those resumes for the eventual government job we’re all going to have, because there won’t be any others around. Think I’m overstating the case here – just look at Greece… we’re getting a preview of what is to come to us in 10-15 years… that’s how all socialist/communist/fascist countries end up. We are well on the way on the road to serfdom ( http://goo.gl/m05az )

Greg

* please look up “fascist” for yourself… it does not mean “nazi” as so many seem to believe these days – it is a form of socialism in which there is putative private ownership of business however government directs most aspects of how business is permitted to operate, thus government truly controls the business infrastructure while maintaining the illusion it is otherwise

Crackle, SNAP, Pop(ular) goes the entitlements!

Do “food stamps” mitigate hunger among the American poor? No. Although with a name like “food stamps” one can be forgiven for falling into the trap of believing so. Following the current cutesy trend that apparently requires government programs have clever acronyms that describe their purpose (PATRIOT Act, HIRE Act, etc.) it has been renamed SNAP (get it, “snap” your fingers and food appears courtesy of the US taxpayer!) But I digress. Why do they not help? Three reasons: (a) fungibility & marginal utility, (b) socialized costs and (c) dehumanization through dependency.

Fungibility means that any given unit of something is indistinguishable from any other unit of the same material. For example, grain, silver or dollars are fungible, however diamonds or tires are not (as they vary in quality). Marginal utility is the concept that given some good, as one procures more of said good one values each subsequent unit less. So if you have a small amount of water, you value it highly as you must satisfy your most urgent needs first (thirst). But, as you gain access to more water you may then opt to “waste” it on less urgent needs, e.g. washing your car. Ok, so with that little economics lesson out of the way, how does this relate to food stamps? The food stamp money is fungible with regular money. In other words food stamps are no different than cash. Why? Absent food stamps the marginal value of the money recipients possess is very high and they will spend it on the most urgent needs (food) first. People in poverty aren’t going to NOT buy food and instead buy sneakers, movie tickets and haircuts. That would just be stupid. If we then give them money earmarked for food, they will still buy food (with food stamp money) AND NOW other (less urgent) goods with the money they used to spend on food. We are just playing a shell game, pretending this money is for this and that money is for that. It’s all just mixed together. Fungibilty is the reason some recipients can afford fancy nails and cell phones.

A secondary issue is that of socialized costs. Because the program exists people are willing to work for less than they would absent the program because they know they can count on it. If I know I need $15k/year to survive but I know the government will give me $5k/year in food stamps, then I’m going to be a lot more willing to work for $10k/year. So the employer pays less because the employee is willing to accept the lower wage BECAUSE OF the program. Then the government taxes the employer and hands the money over to the employee as food stamps. So in the end both end up with the same amount of money. So what did we accomplish here? Why not just cut out the middleman (the government) and pass the savings onto everyone? Once again we are just playing a shell game where the only beneficiary is the government.

The state is our shepherd, we (the sheeple) shall not want.

The final issue is the social harm the program engenders through the promotion of an entitlement mentality (literally – the government is running ads trying to get people to join the SNAP rolls). This mentality dehumanizes the recipient by promoting the idea they are merely wards of the state who cannot survive without suckling at the state’s communal teat. The state is our shepherd, we (the sheeple) shall not want. Inherent to the structure of any entitlement program is an economic feedback incentive that promotes attachment. The more money you make the less benefits you qualify for. I think U2 captured the idea well, “running to stand still.” Why expend great effort to obtain that which you can obtain from no effort at all?

I know politicians mean well, but their complete ignorance of basic economics and incentives creates problems bigger than the ones they were trying to solve. Just because something seems intuitively obvious (state sponsored welfare helps people) doesn’t mean it is correct. The notion that the sun revolved around the earth was intuitively obvious for centuries until someone took the time to apply some thought to the question. Big problems require deliberate, contemplative analysis, not thoughtless, knee-jerk, feel-good solutions.

Are those pumpkins next to that tree?

Democracy is sometimes described as “the tyranny of the majority over the minority” (e.g. two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner), however a more appropriate description might be “the tyranny of the uninformed over the informed.” Georgia’s new license plate is but just one mundane case in support of this secondary meaning.

To be fair, it is an attractive design… for a t-shirt. But it’s not going on a t-shirt, it’s going on a moving object and its sole purpose is to rapidly convey information to an observer (e.g. plate number and state). At this it fails miserably. I recently observed a new stationary plate not more than 30 feet away while filling my car with gas and I simply could not make out the number even after staring for some time (yes, my vision is fine). The plate is simply too busy. There is too much color and too many contrasting objects. These design elements while “pretty” do nothing but serve to camouflage the numbers. Sometimes “less is more” (think Apple’s simple package designs vs Microsoft’s “where is Waldo” package designs). Fortunately there is a “plain” tag, although it is not much better due to a dark colored peach in the background obscuring the two central numbers. The only designs that came close to being appropriately designed for the task were tags #1 and #8 and possibly #4.

Georgia is not alone. In the past decade many states have updated their plates to more colorfully busy designs that look great on a magazine cover but are utterly unreadable from more than 6 feet away. This plate beautification trend is symptomatic of a larger dysfunctional political process wherein it is believed that uninformed popular opinion can never be wrong. Rather than choosing politicians who possess the requisite abilities for proper job execution (fiscal discipline, faithfulness to the constitution) we choose them based on superficial qualities (i.e. attractiveness, personality, pandering ability or sometimes whether or not they have a D or R next to their name). The result is a political class that for the most part doesn’t understand what the purpose of government is. Likewise, by employing uninformed popular opinion in its decision making process, government has managed to fumble even the simple task of choosing a plate that succeeds at just one function (legibility) by turning it into a popularity contest that seems more suited to choosing a design for a t-shirt.

And it gets even better. The final design wasn’t even chosen by the people, although it was winnowed down to the top three through a biased on-line voting scheme. The final design was chosen by none other than Governor Nathan Deal. Reminds me of that commercial…”you wouldn’t want your doctor doing your job (cut to doctor playing instrument or running jackhammer), so why are you doing his.” Do you really want your governor acting as an untrained art director, going simply on his gut of what looks “nice” versus actually having someone with training in the field of design who understands the actual task of a license plate: being legible from a distance. Perhaps the governor should decide what books are read in our state run schools based on the cover design?

Having people vote on the final license plate design is not like having them vote on the Peachtree Road Race t-shirt. Rather, it is more like having them vote on which model of police cruiser should be purchased or how thick the asphalt should be on a new road. Hopefully our government buildings won’t someday be engineered by uninformed popular opinion… unfortunately our laws are driven by the same misguided process. Perhaps that explains the mess we are in.