Category Archives: Libertarian opinion

False Alarm

It seems that can our government kicked down the road back on January 1 is upon us in the form of the looming March 1 “sequestration” cliff. One can both admire and be sickened by the hyperbole employed by politicians when discussing these impending “cuts”. President Obama in his 2013 State of the Union address  described them and their effects as “harsh” and “devastat(ing)” to our “priorities” as well as “jeopardizing” military readiness. Really? So a 5% cut is going to jeopardize essential government operations? That’s funny, because the governments own Congressional Budget Office report states that “If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.” The operative word there being “non-essential.” If all the things the President pointed out are truly “priorities” then there should be nothing to worry about as only non-essential items will be cut. Of course this begs the question as to why these “non-essential” things were funded in the first place. Isn’t government only supposed to do what is essential by definition? Claiming that essential programs will be devastated by a 5% cut is to claim that the government lacks the common sense of any citizen. If your ability to spend is reduced do you immediately cut back on your food budget in order to keep paying your cable bill? No, you prioritize. Those things valued most highly are paid for first, those things valued least are paid last or cut. It’s the same ruse they used during the debt-ceiling crisis in 2011 that precipitated this whole mess. At that time they suggested grandma wouldn’t get her social security check. Yes, that’s right, let’s pick the thing everyone values the most and claim it will be the first thing to be cut. That makes so much sense. I mean, how stupid do they think we are? (Don’t answer that.)

But I have to hand it to Obama, somehow he deftly managed to imply that everyone’s oft paraded and favored government employees (teachers, police, and firefighters) would be laid off if sequestration takes place. It’s really more of an assertion as it has no basis in fact whatsoever. They are funded at the local level and would not be in any way affected by sequestration. This is just another scare tactic that the dishonest use to mislead the uninformed.

So, if a 5% cut is devastating then I don’t know how this country survived a mere 10 years ago when the federal budget was about 50% smaller than it is today! Even adjusting for the ratio of budget to GDP, the Clinton years should have been a time of societal and defensive collapse with a mere 18% federal budget burden to GDP. Today it is over 22% and cuts that might bring it to 23% are impugned as bringing about the end of civilization as we know it. Wait, 23% is not down from 22% is it? Read on.

Federal outlays are projected to be $47 trillion from 2014-2023 and these cuts amount to removing $1.2 trillion from that total or a 2% decline in overall federal spending. But even this is not a true decrease. Even if the 2014 projected budget were frozen for 10 years the total outlay would be $36.2 trillion. So even with these “cuts” total federal outlays will increase by 27% which is still an increase from 22% to 23% of GDP. Repeat after me. There are no cuts. There are no cuts. There are no cuts.

Obama and his ilk are simply trying to sell us the government diet. That’s the diet where you gain 10 pounds but claim you lost 5 lbs because you “projected” you were going to gain 15 lbs.

Barking at Ethics

Georgia House Bill 142 (introduced on January 29, 2013) attempts to reform ethic laws in this state. Sadly, legislators have, in their zeal to cast a wider ethical net, broadened the definition of lobbyist so wide that it now encompasses basically everyone except elected officials themselves (just wait, that will come next!). Yes, this includes even you and me. The particularly onerous portions of this bill, the reporting requirements, do not apply to individual citizens expressing “personal views” UNLESS they are speaking to someone elected statewide who was not elected within their district. In other words, as the law is written (as of today February 10, 2013) if you wish to speak to the Governor, Secretary of State, Public Service Commissioner, etc. and discuss anything other than the weather or sports you technically would need to register with the state of Georgia as a lobbyist and pay a $300 annual fee for the privilege thereof.

This provision clearly violates the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (in conjunction with the supremacy clause) or the 14th Amendment (take your pick) insofar as the 1st Amendment guarantees “the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That key phrase “right of the people to petition” – defines precisely what “lobbying” is. Therefore any laws that in any way hinder the ability of anyone to petition (lobby) are violations of this core Constitutional right. It is immaterial toward the exercise of this right whether I (or a group of people) personally petition the government or if I hire someone to act on my (or our) behalf.

The idea that society requires the intervening hand of a strong, beneficent governing body in order to keep us all in line relies upon the argument that, in general, people are bad and need to be governed. This faith in a paternalistic government rests squarely on the assumption that elected officials must necessarily be “better” than the rest of us, for if they are not, what is the point in being ruled by those no better than we? And if they are indeed not any better than we (as evidenced by the apparent need for various ethics and transparency laws), this then begs the question: if the problem with society is imperfect humans, why put imperfect humans in charge? We make the problem worse by conferring special power privileges to those in charge that invite a level of abuse that would otherwise be impossible absent such special privilege.

The fact that we find it necessary to pass ethics laws demonstrates the fundamental flaw of monopoly government. Abuse of power. Ethics laws are mere band-aids that do not address the underlying incentive problem. It is in man’s nature to abuse power just as surely as it is in a dog’s nature to bark. You can muzzle the dog, but he still barks, albeit softly. Ethics laws simply shift unethical behavior underground. I suppose if sweeping dirt under the rug constitutes “cleaning” then ethics laws “solve” ethical issues equally well.

I, like so many others, am justifiably upset with the power and sway some lobbyists seem to hold over many in government. But I’m not upset with the lobbyists; rather I’m upset with a system that encourages rent seeking by a small but vocal minority (rent seeking being the activity of manipulating the power of government so as to benefit oneself at the expense of others). The only way to solve “ethics” problems in government is to remove the incentives to “buy” power. Eliminate the monopoly power government has over the activities being lobbied. I don’t lobby McDonalds to build a restaurant near me, rather, I eat at Burger King. If McDonald’s wants my dollar, they have to earn it. So too should it be with government.

National ID = National Disgrace

The Washington Post’s editorial board recently opined that a national ID card would be the most effective method to thwart illegal immigration. Their idea was bolstered by the fact that both President Obama and a bipartisan group of eight senators recently put forward similar ideas (“fraud-resistant, tamper resistant Social Security card”). Superficially this makes sense. If the problem is uninvited guests crashing your party then the most logical solution would be to demand your guests show their invitation at the door. The Post then dismisses any potential concerns about civil liberties as nothing more than empty rhetoric by citing the fact that 35% of Americans already have a passport.

The Post misses the point in a grandly ironic fashion by citing the innocuousness of the tool the state uses to violate our civil liberties whilst simultaneously ignoring the actual violation. Move along, nothing to see here. The truth is that ID’s don’t harm civil liberties; rather it’s those that require them that do. Government says to step from point A to point B you must show this card. Government says to get a job you must show this card. Government says to start a business you must show this card. There is no end to what new actions the government could conceivably try to control by making one’s right to engage in an action contingent on the possession of “proper” ID. Do you want to go shopping? Buy gas? Go to a movie? Buy a car? Open a bank account? Go to the library? Go to the park? Please – show me your papers. Yes, ID is already required for many of these things. But that is the point. It should not be. Think about it. What are you doing when you show your ID? You – a grown adult – are asking for PERMISSION to engage in some action. It is one thing to ask for permission to engage in something that is not a natural right (i.e. enter a private residence or business), it is quite another to ask permission from the State to engage in an activity that is innocuous to others (traversing a border, starting a business, getting a job, etc.). We are not children, and the State is not our parent. I stopped asking for permission when I turned 18. How about you?

Sadly the real immigration “problem” has never been addressed. The problem is immigration prohibition. In fact the prohibition of anything innocuous to third parties always leads to more harm than ever could result from the prohibited activity itself (violence being the primary result). Drug prohibition is at least plausible albeit still as harmful as alcohol prohibition. But immigration? How can immigration harm anyone? By “stealing” that lucrative low wage job no American wants? Some say immigrants drive wages down. Although nominal wages for low skilled labor may decline, real wages rise for society because cheaper goods and services mean each dollar buys more. Some say immigrants are mooching off our socialist safety net. Well seeing as how it is not so much as a net as it is a luxuriant feather bed what did you expect? Turn it back into a mere net and that problem will vanish. Both big employers and low skilled workers use government to protect themselves from competition. The former uses regulation and the latter uses immigration. A few benefit at the expense of the many.

The solution to “illegal” immigration is to end the prohibition on immigration. Completely free and open borders. Chaos? The end of America? Hardly. Illegal aliens constitute a mere 2% of the US population. Even if every Mexican (all 110 million) came to live in the US (an absurd notion) “native” Americans would still outnumber them 3 to 1. Since even that outlandish scenario would not “end” America, perhaps we should face what immigration control has always been about. Fear. Fear of the unknown, of new customs, of new languages, of new competition. It is only when we humans give in to fear and allow it to guide our actions do we engage in the most reprehensible and irrational behavior. Since fear guides all immigration policy perhaps it is time to examine the rationality of such policies. If the process of entering or exiting this country is indistinguishable from the process of entering or exiting a jail, then are any of us truly free?

Resistance is Not Futile

This will be my last foray (part 1, part 2) into the whole gun debate issue and so I would like to address a common objection to “ordinary” citizens owning “military” grade weaponry. I received this question from a friend recently: “How do sovereign people adequately defend themselves from their government that has vastly superior weapons?” The assumed “gotcha” response is that such defense is obviously futile and thus having demonstrated such futility ipso facto there can be no legitimate reason for a citizen to posses such weapons. This was not my friend’s intent in asking this question though; he raised a legitimate question and was seeking a thoughtful answer.

To answer this we must first ask: What is the objective of such people defending themselves? Is it to achieve an outright resounding victory or is it to merely resist? Although the former objective may be the desire clearly the difference in weaponry would make that an unlikely immediate outcome. However, resistance is a different matter. Resistance does not require equivalent weaponry, merely minimally repulsive weaponry. The truth of this is found throughout a history replete with stories of rebelling forces that were vastly outgunned and outmanned resisting against superior forces for years on end. For example, the American Indian (various tribes) resisted the growing incursions of the United States into their various territories for decades. They did ultimately lose that battle, however there was resistance. Had they been completely disarmed the resistance of the Indians would have lasted days rather than decades.

There are also examples where resistance can ultimately translate into victory. If your goal is not to win but rather to simply wear your enemy down, then it is often possible for the “weaker” party to prevail. For examples of that look no further than our own American Revolution. An army of farmers armed with muskets defeated the mightiest military on the face of the earth. Likewise the tables were turned in Vietnam when we, with the mightiest military on the face of the earth, were defeated by a grass roots militia. Some might quibble over the details of these examples, but there are plenty of others and it does not detract from the underlying point, which is that a weaker party can overcome a stronger party even when they may only posses the most basic defensive weaponry. Don’t believe me, believe history.

So if resistance is a legitimate use of such weapons does that mean possession of such weapons by citizens should be legal? Yes. Does this mean then that everyone is going to rush out and buy their own bazooka and surface to air missile launchers? Of course not – those things are expensive! According to the Internet a bazooka costs around $50,000 and a single round costs $500. In other words the market already has a built in regulation of such weaponry as they are simply financially out of reach for 99% of the population. The 1% that can afford them have no interest in them and the 0.001% that can afford and do have an interest in them are not going to risk losing them by doing something stupid.

If our government were actually serious about restricting weapon sales they could do so today without passing any laws or regulations. Simply make it a condition of any purchasing contract with arms manufacturers that any weapon the military purchases may only be sold to them (e.g. an exclusivity contract). The arms manufacturer is free to sign such a contract or not. Violations of such a contract would entail loss of future multi-million dollar contracts and other damages. Additionally, the military should destroy all weapons when they are designated for retirement rather than selling them through “surplus” stores or to other governments that are not so careful about where they end up. This might not eliminate every instance of these types of weapons getting into the hands of citizens but even advocates of gun laws agree that gun laws won’t eliminate every instance either. So all things being equal it seems a contract based market approach coupled with common sense prevention (destroy, don’t sell, old weapons) will have greater success (today) in achieving the goal of reducing weapon supply. It would limit supply to both criminal and non-criminal alike whereas weapon laws restrict only non-criminal possession.

Breaking Bad (Rules)

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week you’re probably aware of the confessional interview Lance Armstrong had with Oprah Winfrey in which he revealed that he had been “doping” in order to gain a competitive advantage (or perhaps simply leveling the playing field as it has been reported that 20 of 21 top-3 finishers from 1999 to 2005 were also doping). In another recent story HSBC was fined a record $1.9 billion by the US Justice Department due to violation of several anti-money laundering statutes .

What do these two stories have in common? Each contains an apparent villain that has been dutifully brought to light or justice. But upon closer inspection we find neither party has done anything “wrong” in the traditional Judeo-Christian morality sense. They did not kill anyone. They did not steal anything. Armstrong did lie and liars are generally not held up in our society as paragons of virtue, but consider the context. He lied about violating a policy that is irrational and thus is nearly universally ignored. Imagine that your employer established a new policy: all employees are prohibited from drinking soda at work or at home. You know this policy is just silly so you ignore it. If asked by your employer concerning your soda status what do you do? Do you tell the truth and lose your job or do you lie and keep your job? I suspect most would lie over a rule this inane. It is easy to lie when the policy in question is just plain silly, universally ignored, and enforcement is basically impossible. Is “dope” free sport a noble goal? Sure it is. And so is a world free of all weapons. But just like with guns, that genie is out of the bottle. The last guaranteed dope free sporting event took place sometime in the 18th century. Anti-doping policies are disingenuous at best insofar as they give a free pass to mechanical technologies that enhance performance (e.g. high tech bikes that cost more than your car). If anti-doping policies were truly driven by a concern about eliminating “unfair” advantages then every cyclist would be required to ride the exact same model of bike and the genetically less endowed athletes would be permitted to “dope up” to the same VO2 max as their more genetically endowed competitors. Then everyone could cross the finish line together holding hands. Cum by yah.

If private organizations like UCI (International Cycling Union) want to ban doping that is their prerogative (although international treaties banning the practice (such as the US ratified “International Convention against Doping in Sport”, attempt to remove all such discretion from athletes and their athletic organizations). Perhaps the only place where Armstrong and others like him did err is that they did agree to the rules of that private organization when they joined. The most proper way to have proceeded would have been to have not joined any anti-doping organizations but rather to have formed a new entity that did permit doping. Athletes that dope can join that group, those that don’t are free to join any of the others. However I suspect the aforementioned treaty makes “doping permitted” groups illegal. In which case government again short-circuits market based solutions.

HSBC behaved similarly to Armstrong. They simply ignored all of the silly anti-money laundering rules and regulations. To understand why money laundering is considered “bad” consider who is leveling the claim: government. Money laundering can only occur in connection with illegal activities, however it is government that defines what is illegal. It is actually easy to end all money laundering; simply make such associated activities legal. If drug prohibition were ended there would be no drug money to launder. If governments ceased their interventionist policies or did not force people to remain part of their respective unions (Northern Ireland, Palestine, Chechnya, Serbia, Kurdistan, Basques, etc) all terrorism would end (and thus the associated laundering of money toward those ends). In other words, governments (or sometimes private groups) often create the very problems they then proclaim only they can remedy. When they eventually ensnare a violator they parade it around for all to see as both a sign of their effectiveness and as a warning. But we should be skeptical of any hunter who demonstrates his prowess by bagging a Holstein on his own property.

Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems

It has recently come to my attention (thank you George Warren) that the economist Steve Keen has proposed a solution to our economic woes: the government should give people money to pay off their debts. According to Keen it is the high level of private debt (about three times that of annual US GDP ) that is causing the economy to move so sluggishly. While enormous artificial debt creation did indeed foster the previous boom and our current bust, Keen has erred in both identifying the root cause of this debt explosion as well as an appropriate solution.

It is revealing that Keen does not ask the most pertinent question: he blames the banks for the debt explosion yet he does not address how is it possible banks could collectively lend out five times the amount of money in existence ($50 trillion in private debt vs a $10 trillion monetary base (M2))? He then decries “bad lending” – lending for purely financial market speculation, but again fails to ask why it would be in a lender’s interest to make such “gambling” loans – loans that more often than not would default (hint: moral hazard).  What is the answer to these unasked questions? Government. Government interference in the market (legal tender laws, legalization of fractional reserve lending, a central bank, implied bail outs, etc) resulted in the distorted outcomes Keen identifies. Being apparently unaware that government is the root cause of the problems he cites, he then unwittingly invokes that same entity as our savior: he proposes that “government created money” (through deficits) will solve the problem of too much bank created money (loans). But government is the sole reason banks can (legally) create money out of thin air to begin with! The legality of a central bank and fractional reserve lending makes phony debt possible. In a truly free, hard money economy (where the lending of demand deposits would constitute the actual theft that it is) credit expansion and unproductive loans to gamblers would cease to exist (because loan defaults will not be bailed out.) Only time deposits are eligible to be loaned out, thus naturally regulating the debt load in an economy.

Keen falls into the trap of blaming those capitalizing on the fruits of the government created circus (speculators, brokers) with causing the circus. That’s like blaming the existence of slavery on slave traders; slave traders capitalized on a situation made possible only by governmental enforcement of the legality of slavery. It’s the same old story: government creates an artificial scenario that some other group takes advantage of and then that group is subsequently piously vilified while the root cause is ignored.

As the intricacies of lending and finance are rather opaque I shall attempt to distill what has occurred and what Keen proposes to a simple narrative. Let us imagine three friends, Dave, Bob and Gary. Dave needs $800 to buy a house. Nobody has money to lend to Dave. Gary has a solution. Gary prints money ($1000) and gives it to Bob (because Gary doesn’t want Dave to know he is the source of the money). Bob loans the money ($800) to Dave and Bob keeps $200. Dave has his house built which provides builders with money. When the house is done Dave begins paying Bob back. All the builders are sad because Dave is not paying them anymore. Others are sad because Dave buys fewer goods because he has to repay Bob. When Bob gets money from Dave he gives it to Gary who promptly burns it (to hide what he has done). Because Gary is burning the money it is not being spent and so all the sad people ask Gary to print more money (so they won’t have to lower their prices) and to give it directly to Dave so Dave does not have to pay Bob anymore. So Gary prints more money and gives it to Dave to pay Bob, who then gives it to Gary who burns it. So what is the end result here? Dave got a free house and Bob got $200 for handling the money. Seems like everyone came out ahead here, right? Almost makes counterfeiting seem noble – I wonder why it is illegal? Oh, that’s right, because it is theft. It is theft from those not mentioned in the story. It is theft from every other person who holds and is paid in dollars as their dollars become worth less (because there are now more dollars) or worthless – take your pick!

When people propose “solutions” to our economic woes that involve government bailing out some group know that it is nothing more than calls to legally do what would otherwise land any one of us in jail were we to do so individually. It is theft. To have government take from unfavored groups and give to favored groups is theft. It was wrong to bail out the banks and it is wrong to bail out individuals. The only solution is to remove all authority government has over fiscal and monetary concerns. All unfairness in our current system is attributable to crony-capitalism fostered by big government colluding with big business. Dismantle big government and you’ll dismantle the inequity it fosters.

Human Action

In the wake of the senseless shooting tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut we attempt to ease our collective pain by latching onto the only hope of extracting anything useful from this event, that is, to learn from what is now history so that it is never repeated. But what have we learned? Superficially this shooting is no different than any of the other mass killings: heavily armed killer walks into an area designated as a “gun free zone” and then proceeds to open fire on the unarmed. For example, it is a deliberately ignored fact (or rather an inconvenient truth) in the mainstream media that the Cinemark theater chain (where the infamous “Dark Knight” shootings took place in Aurora, Colorado) had a “gun-free” policy. Several of the victims were recent veterans who could have expeditiously put down the shooter had they been permitted to carry arms into the theater. It is highly improbable that the following is mere coincidence: with only one exception (Gabrielle Giffords shooting in 2011) every public shooting in the US since 1950 in which there were at least three fatalities have occurred in gun-free areas (schools, malls, post offices, etc.) The killers may be sociopaths but they aren’t stupid. Such shootings do not occur at police stations or gun shows for a reason. If you are still unconvinced that gun-free zones simply inform evil-doers where they may proceed unmolested then I issue to you the following challenge: place a “this is a gun-free zone” sign on your front lawn. Still feel safe?

Eliminating gun-free zones is however not a panacea. It ironically suffers from the same “whack-a-mole” problem as extreme gun control. For example, if you could achieve the holy grail of gun control, i.e. eliminate all guns, then would-be killers would simply convert to other methods of mass killing (knives (see the oddly coincidental knifing of 22 children in China), explosives, gas, biological, etc.) some of which have a much greater potential for inflicting harm than guns. Yes, one could outlaw each of those weapons in turn but given their prevalence in warfare (and food preparation) it’s simply naive to think such weapons will not “leak” into the civilian population. Likewise, if would-be killers know that armed citizens could be anywhere, then they will engage in more stealthy killings. You can’t shoot back at what you can’t see. There are a lot of ways to kill people without exposing yourself to harm (it’s the entire modus operandi of warfare). So while eliminating gun free zones would help in those situations involving crazy and stupid and/or suicidal, it would not help when crazy and smart is a factor.

The sad fact is that nothing can ever solve the cancer of random mass killings. Humans are random, willful beings whose actions and interactions are impossible to predict, monitor and manipulate with 100% effectiveness. Absent the Panopticon of an Orwellian police state there is nothing government can do to “solve” this problem. If laws could actually alter human behavior then our prisons would be empty. The only possibility of a solution comes from the collective actions of all of us. To the extent all human action is influenced by the actions of others we each have it within our power to potentially alter the actions of others by making each of our own actions positive ones. For example, many of these killers were outcasts, loners, just a little bit different than the rest of us. These differences invited mocking and ridicule which only exacerbated the isolation of these individuals. The killers are not “victims” nor are their unreasonable actions in any way justified, but just because a response is not justified does not mean we should expect it wouldn’t occur. Negative actions invite negative responses (whether such responses are justified is irrelevant to the goal of eliminating such response). We should always be mindful that we do not live in a vacuum and that our actions may have far reaching consequences for others. The “Golden Rule” may not solve the problem, but I’m quite certain it can’t possibly make it worse.

This Butt’s for You

I saw you PCI 3798. I saw you blithely flick a cigarette butt out your car window whilst I was trailing you in traffic. But you’re not alone. I often see smokers discarding their used cigarettes with the casual lack of concern befitting the monarchs of old. Why do others and I find such littering so disturbing? Is it merely because of the visual damage to our surroundings? No, I think the animus runs beyond mere cosmetic harm. Our outrage toward the litterer is a result of recognizing the arrogance the litterer holds to believe they are so important that it is the job of others to clean up their mess (no, cigarette butts are not biodegradable). But wait – isn’t that what we do when we go to a nice restaurant (expect others to clean up our mess after we’re done eating)? Aren’t we expecting others to provide a service for us whenever we purchase a good or service? But this expectation is not arrogance because we in fact provide something in return by paying for such services. The litterer expects (dare I say feels entitled to the notion) that someone else should clean up after them without giving anything in return. It is this sense of entitlement, this sense of “others should bear the cost of cleaning up my mess” that we object to.

How did we as a society arrive at a framework wherein it can occur to someone to feel they are entitled to others cleaning up after themselves at no cost? What created this framework? Government naturally. Only government can create “public” resources by decree. Public ownership of resources is that paradoxical state wherein a resource is owned by everyone and no one simultaneously. Any public resource carries with it the burden of the “free-rider” problem, which is a subset of the “tragedy of the commons.” The tragedy of the commons refers to the use of “free” public resources in a disproportionate manner that maximizes individual benefit. Overuse occurs because there is no direct cost linked to such usage. Direct costs act as a feedback mechanism to meter usage. “Free” public resources have no such feedback and thus overuse results.

Whether it is roads or healthcare, anything made “public” will be utilized disproportionately by some because the over utilizers are able to acquire the goods at artificially lowered free-ride prices paid for (subsidized) by others. In the case of public road, litterers over utilize the limitless ability to litter because others bear the clean up costs. And which “others” bear this cost? Not the government. The government is a terrible environmental steward. They do not as a matter of policy clean up litter. Public roads often bear much similarity to public bathrooms for this reason. Rather, private citizens and organizations freely choose to sacrifice their time in road beautification efforts. Would there be no littering on private roads? Of course not. However the ability to shift more of the direct cost of littering (through tolls) onto the litterer would tend to decrease the frequency of littering. It is also possible behavior would not change at all, in which case road owners would simply clean up the mess and incorporate the cost of clean up into the tolls. But at least the roads would be clean. That is not the situation today.

We really can’t blame the litterer. He has rationally determined the cost of littering (to him) is $0 due to the warped incentives made possible by government interference in the market. In fact we should praise the litterer! He serves as the ubiquitous example of the result of government interference in society. If we can see that socially undesirable behavior is the result of government, then perhaps it will give us reason to reflect on what other kinds of less obvious damage government is inflicting on society (runaway housing, healthcare and education costs perhaps?).

 

The War on Droopy Drawers

It has been recently reported (here and here that the Madison City Council is exploring a new ordinance that would criminalize uncouth couture, that is, droopy drawers. The objective of said ordinance is “…. to get … appearance to be decent” (Councilman Fred Perriman). This statement of course presumes (a) decency can be objectively defined and (b) it is the proper role of government to impose arbitrary cultural notions of “decency.” Traditionally “decency” has been directly correlated with the amount of skin covered as well as the degree of looseness of said coverings. So using this metric it would seem women wearing a hijab (traditional Muslim head and body covering) are perhaps the most “decent” people around. I’m not suggesting the Council plans on imposing mandatory hijabs, however I am curious as to what underlying objective principle affords one the ability to demarcate a point between “hijabs for all” and “down with droopy drawers” wherein “decent” lies on one side and “indecent” on the other? Other than simply the subjective “I don’t like the way that looks” of course.

If we are not free to look like complete idiots, then are we truly free?

Now don’t get me wrong, I personally think saggy pants look incredibly goofy and frankly can’t figure out how they can walk around like that without tripping over themselves. But just because someone finds something to be idiotic is no justification to take advantage of the monopoly of the exclusive use of legal violence (or threat of violence) that government currently possesses in order impose his or her personal preferences on society.

Does this mean we are helpless to object to things we find offensive or undesirable? No. Private property owners are (or should be) free to impose whatever strictures they desire to anyone on their property (for example restaurants commonly have minimum dress code standards, as well as the familiar “no shirts, no shoes, no service” policy). Schools and businesses commonly have dress codes. Subdivisions as a collection of private dwellings have the right to impose any such standards as they see fit for those that enter the private domain of that subdivision (it should be noted it is not uncommon to require unanimity to make changes to homeowners association covenants, thus even in the private realm we recognize it is unfair for a majority to impose their will on a minority). In short, people are free to associate with whomever they wish and to set up rules governing those associations.

So, one might now ask, “What’s wrong with government imposing these nanny-state type rules? Isn’t this no different than a private subdivision setting up similar rules?” Actually, no, it is quite different. Firstly, these ordinances typically override private rules (i.e. if a restaurant permitted saggy pants, the ordinance would still fine the person). Secondly, even if the ordinance only pertains to the public sphere (non-private property) it is still invalid insofar as the “ownership” of such public spaces by the government is illegitimate. All public property was either confiscated directly or purchased with confiscated funds (taxes). So if “public” spaces have no legitimate owner then no one can legitimately make rules to govern such spaces without also admitting that a thief may legitimately control the use of property he has stolen.

This does not imply that all laws are invalid if they occur on “public” spaces. Laws that pertain to the protection of the natural (negative) rights (e.g. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) cannot logically be constrained by location or time frame. “Nanny-state” laws are time and location dependent (i.e. such and such act is ok before some date and in some location but then after that date or in that location it is then magically illegal), that is, they are completely arbitrary in nature.

If we are not free to look like complete idiots, then are we truly free?

Staples… yeah, we’ve got that!

Among the many positions being voted on November 6 is the rather mundanely named “Public Service Commissioner.” In Georgia we have a government granted monopoly for providers of various utilities (electric, natural gas, telecommunications) and in order to keep Joe Citizen from getting gouged by a state imposed monopolistic system the Public Service Commission was established to allow the citizens to have an indirect voice in keeping prices in check. I suspect that this innocuous naming was a concession to those regulated industries in order to minimize the potential that the public might actually become aware they could exercise such control. Perhaps “Monopoly Justice League” might garner more voter attention.

Why do I bring up this seemingly sleepy little race? Because it is one of those rare circumstances where Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians can (or should) all agree that ethics trumps party affiliation. The incumbent candidate for PSC District 5, Stan Wise (R), has engaged in behavior that while following the letter of the law clearly does not follow its intent. People associated with the utilities he regulates have contributed about 90% of the funds received in his reelection campaign.  I see no need to waste words on painting the obvious conflict of interest. Of course I suppose it is possible such donations had no such influence. Just as it is entirely possible Mr. Wise coincidentally voted repeatedly in a way that benefited the regulated industry at the expense of the citizens. It is possible.

Fortunately there is a choice in the District 5 race: David Staples (L). David has taken a pledge to accept NO gifts of any kind from anyone connected to regulated industries. Although David is a Libertarian, allow me to set aside any concerns those of you who normally vote D or R might have (well I suppose just R, as for the D’s reading this, it should be an easy sell to vote for David insofar as you are voting against the Republican – there is no Democrat candidate in the District 5 race). Even if you disagree with Libertarians on some issues, those issues are irrelevant on the PSC owing to the limited powers the PSC has from an ideological and legislative standpoint (i.e. the PSC can’t legalize drugs!). Basically the PSC votes on rate increases and monitors functions that will impact consumer costs (e.g. nuclear reactor construction). That’s about it. They cannot make or introduce new law. From a financial standpoint a libertarian is the ideal candidate for this position. Just as they turn a skeptical eye to big government proposals for increased spending, they will turn the same skeptical eye toward big utility proposals for rate increases. Likewise, a libertarian will seize on opportunities to enhance free market competition within the boundaries of the current monopoly system. Competition should be encouraged since it can only reduce prices. For example, it is illustrative to see the views of current commissioners regarding competition. Currently the Territorial Electric Service Act of 1973 does not allow any business to compete with a utility in its “region” (turf). This policy has thus far barred from Georgia the possibility of increased use of solar energy through a market based (rather than taxpayer funded subsidy based) approach that would eliminate the high upfront cost barrier. It is therefore illegal for a company to install solar panels free of charge on a customer’s home and simply charge the customer on a per kWh basis just as an electric utility would.

David Staples would vote to allow such entities to enter the market when and if that act is modified by the legislature. However, Stan Wise holds the paternalistic view that Georgia is “far from ready” for such arrangements.  Gee, thanks Stan, but I’ll make that decision on my own, I don’t need your guidance. On November 6 vote for ethics and for choice. Vote for David Staples. See www.votestaples.com & this interview for more info.