The Objective Standard has published my latest article, "Student Loan Scheme Just Another Rights-Violating Bailout."
I review the basics of President Obama's plans for student loans and point out they would put taxpayers on the hook for part of the debt. I also found some interesting statistics about the skyrocketing costs of higher education -- caused predominantly by federal meddling.
I write, "[A]t issue is not the size of the bailout, but the fact that it forcibly transfers wealth from some people to others, violating the rights of the first group and turning the second into parasites. The more government acts on the notion that it is acceptable to bail out some at the expense of others, the more we will see injustices enacted into law."
Check out the entire article!
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thank the Industrial Revolution for Longer Life
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published October 28 by Grand Junction Free Press.
Growing older comes with its problems, but, as we've all heard, it surely beats the alternative. Earlier this month Ari turned 40. (We don't need to go into details of Linn's age.) An interesting fact about the age of 40 is that it's older than the average lifespan of almost all of human history. So if you're older than 40, or hope to be, thank the industrial revolution, which radically extended human life.
The industrial revolution, fueled by the philosophical Scottish Enlightenment, gained steam in England in the late 1700s. This was right around the time of the founding of the United States, which, as the freest country in the history of the earth, soon adopted the industrial revolution as its own and created unparalleled prosperity.
Modern humans have walked the earth for roughly a quarter of a million years. So you are extremely lucky to have been born during the tiny fraction of human history in which you have a good chance to live to see old age as we now understand it.
According to the CIA's World Factbook, one nation still has a life expectancy less than 40: Angola. Several African nations still have life expectancies less than 50. Why the difference? Much of Africa remains ravaged by tribal warfare, political corruption, and an almost total lack of industrial progress, exacerbating such problems as famine and the AIDS epidemic.
Throughout almost all of human history, most people faced conditions roughly comparable to those of the poorest regions of modern Africa. Violence, starvation, and disease were the normal conditions of life.
The Wikipedia entry on "life expectancy" offers some good leads; for example, it cites a recent text on American history that discusses England in the early 1600s. That book summarizes, "Life expectancy was only about thirty-five years, and two-thirds of all children died before the age of four." Today children rarely die. Throughout much of human history, many or most children died, and that was considered normal.
In the industrial world, life expectancy has risen into the upper 70s and 80s. The United States comes in only 50th on the CIA's list with a life expectancy of 78.37. (Monaco tops the list at 89.73.) But the U.S. suffers relatively high rates of auto fatalities and homicides; adjusted for those factors, our country approaches or hits the top of the list.
But how could early industry, with its dirty coal and poor working conditions, so dramatically extend human life? Prior to industry, most people lived in abject poverty, and even the few wealthy of the time had relatively few of the amenities even America's poor now take for granted. (Andrew Bernstein does a good job of reviewing early industrial advances in Capitalism Unbound.)
Prior to industry, people had to walk wherever they went; the lucky few had horses and carriages (which left stinking, pestilent messes in city streets). Steam-powered boats and trains, then petrol-powered automobiles, gave mobility to the masses. Today we can ride by helicopter to a far-away hospital if we need urgent medical care. We can jet around the world in the time it used to take to traverse a state. A relative recently flew to Europe for discretionary health care.
In the good old days, often you were luckier if you did not have access to a doctor with his leeches and concoctions. If you got an infection, often you would die. Today advanced machinery can scan your bones or peer into your heart. We have access to mass-produced drugs effective at alleviating a wide range of ailments. We have access to heart surgery and advanced cancer treatments.
At America's founding, roughly 90 percent of all working people farmed. Eking a living from the dirt without the aid of tractors and trucks, irrigation pipes, and modern fertilizers imposed severe hardships. Today less than three percent of the workforce raises all our food -- freeing up the labor of others to provide our other wants and needs.
Prior to industry, people made their few items of clothing by hand. With industrial production of cotton clothing, the masses could afford to buy clothes and subject them to the rigors of routine cleaning. Today, we can clothe ourselves modestly for perhaps a couple hour's worth of labor.
True, industrial progress requires legal stability and relative freedom. Capital formation -- the development of the tools and machines that expand our productivity -- drives our improving standard of living. People don't invest in capital when others loot or destroy the products of their effort. The prosperity of capitalism derives from the political protection of people's rights. To the degree we stray from that standard, we undermine our prosperity and threaten our futures.
If you value your high standard of living and your potential to live into your 70s and beyond, live in gratitude for the industrial revolution -- and help protect its future.
Growing older comes with its problems, but, as we've all heard, it surely beats the alternative. Earlier this month Ari turned 40. (We don't need to go into details of Linn's age.) An interesting fact about the age of 40 is that it's older than the average lifespan of almost all of human history. So if you're older than 40, or hope to be, thank the industrial revolution, which radically extended human life.
The industrial revolution, fueled by the philosophical Scottish Enlightenment, gained steam in England in the late 1700s. This was right around the time of the founding of the United States, which, as the freest country in the history of the earth, soon adopted the industrial revolution as its own and created unparalleled prosperity.
Modern humans have walked the earth for roughly a quarter of a million years. So you are extremely lucky to have been born during the tiny fraction of human history in which you have a good chance to live to see old age as we now understand it.
According to the CIA's World Factbook, one nation still has a life expectancy less than 40: Angola. Several African nations still have life expectancies less than 50. Why the difference? Much of Africa remains ravaged by tribal warfare, political corruption, and an almost total lack of industrial progress, exacerbating such problems as famine and the AIDS epidemic.
Throughout almost all of human history, most people faced conditions roughly comparable to those of the poorest regions of modern Africa. Violence, starvation, and disease were the normal conditions of life.
The Wikipedia entry on "life expectancy" offers some good leads; for example, it cites a recent text on American history that discusses England in the early 1600s. That book summarizes, "Life expectancy was only about thirty-five years, and two-thirds of all children died before the age of four." Today children rarely die. Throughout much of human history, many or most children died, and that was considered normal.
In the industrial world, life expectancy has risen into the upper 70s and 80s. The United States comes in only 50th on the CIA's list with a life expectancy of 78.37. (Monaco tops the list at 89.73.) But the U.S. suffers relatively high rates of auto fatalities and homicides; adjusted for those factors, our country approaches or hits the top of the list.
But how could early industry, with its dirty coal and poor working conditions, so dramatically extend human life? Prior to industry, most people lived in abject poverty, and even the few wealthy of the time had relatively few of the amenities even America's poor now take for granted. (Andrew Bernstein does a good job of reviewing early industrial advances in Capitalism Unbound.)
Prior to industry, people had to walk wherever they went; the lucky few had horses and carriages (which left stinking, pestilent messes in city streets). Steam-powered boats and trains, then petrol-powered automobiles, gave mobility to the masses. Today we can ride by helicopter to a far-away hospital if we need urgent medical care. We can jet around the world in the time it used to take to traverse a state. A relative recently flew to Europe for discretionary health care.
In the good old days, often you were luckier if you did not have access to a doctor with his leeches and concoctions. If you got an infection, often you would die. Today advanced machinery can scan your bones or peer into your heart. We have access to mass-produced drugs effective at alleviating a wide range of ailments. We have access to heart surgery and advanced cancer treatments.
At America's founding, roughly 90 percent of all working people farmed. Eking a living from the dirt without the aid of tractors and trucks, irrigation pipes, and modern fertilizers imposed severe hardships. Today less than three percent of the workforce raises all our food -- freeing up the labor of others to provide our other wants and needs.
Prior to industry, people made their few items of clothing by hand. With industrial production of cotton clothing, the masses could afford to buy clothes and subject them to the rigors of routine cleaning. Today, we can clothe ourselves modestly for perhaps a couple hour's worth of labor.
True, industrial progress requires legal stability and relative freedom. Capital formation -- the development of the tools and machines that expand our productivity -- drives our improving standard of living. People don't invest in capital when others loot or destroy the products of their effort. The prosperity of capitalism derives from the political protection of people's rights. To the degree we stray from that standard, we undermine our prosperity and threaten our futures.
If you value your high standard of living and your potential to live into your 70s and beyond, live in gratitude for the industrial revolution -- and help protect its future.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Yes, A National Sales Tax is Constitutional
Some have questioned whether a national sales tax is Constitutionally permissible (without an amendment). The answer is yes.
Milton Wolf is among those who question this: "Mr. [Herman] Cain's 9 percent national sales tax [and by extension any other national sales tax] simply isn't constitutional. Among the enumerated powers in our Constitution, there is no federal jurisdiction over the purchases you make at your local stores, aside from those involving interstate transactions."
But it turns out I looked this up in the course of researching my article for The Objective Standard, "'Fair Tax' Looks Ugly in the Details." (See also my more detailed follow-up article on the same topic.)
While I am no expert on the Constitution, thankfully we in Colorado have just such an expert now working in the state: Rob Natelson. (Recently Natelson delivered a seminar on the Constitution with Dave Kopel.)
In his book The Original Constitution (Second Edition), Natelson discusses the types of taxation permitted under the Constitution (see pages 158-161). He mentions the two relevant sections of the Constitution (as originally written):
Of course, the other obviously relevant section is Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."
The question is whether a national sales tax constitutes a "direct" or an "indirect" tax. Based on Natelson's remarks, I counted it as an "indirect" one:
I wasn't entirely sure of my interpretation, so I asked Natelson whether a "sales tax [is] an 'indirect' tax and therefore constitutionally allowed."
He replied, "Yes. A national sales tax is clearly constitutional, so long as uniform throughout the country."
He was quick to point out that his evaluation of the Constitutional matter did not reflect his opinion of a national sales tax.
I will state flatly: even though a national sales tax is Constitutionally allowed, it is still a really, truly, horrendously stupid idea, at least if enacted without repealing the Sixteenth Amendment (which permits the income tax). The worst situation we could possibly end up with (in terms of taxation) would be a national sales tax added to a national income tax. One or the other is bad enough, but both would cripple the economy and severely infringe our liberty.
Milton Wolf is among those who question this: "Mr. [Herman] Cain's 9 percent national sales tax [and by extension any other national sales tax] simply isn't constitutional. Among the enumerated powers in our Constitution, there is no federal jurisdiction over the purchases you make at your local stores, aside from those involving interstate transactions."
But it turns out I looked this up in the course of researching my article for The Objective Standard, "'Fair Tax' Looks Ugly in the Details." (See also my more detailed follow-up article on the same topic.)
While I am no expert on the Constitution, thankfully we in Colorado have just such an expert now working in the state: Rob Natelson. (Recently Natelson delivered a seminar on the Constitution with Dave Kopel.)
In his book The Original Constitution (Second Edition), Natelson discusses the types of taxation permitted under the Constitution (see pages 158-161). He mentions the two relevant sections of the Constitution (as originally written):
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons [etc.; this section was modified by the Fourteenth Amendment].
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. [This section was modified by the Sixteenth Amendment.]
Of course, the other obviously relevant section is Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."
The question is whether a national sales tax constitutes a "direct" or an "indirect" tax. Based on Natelson's remarks, I counted it as an "indirect" one:
Direct taxes included capitations and levies on real property, business assets, and other capital items, on the ownership of basic household necessities, and on wages, rents, and other income. Probably taxes on wealth (such as inheritance and estate taxes) were direct. Indirect taxes were exactions on imports and on consumable goods and services. This line of division was not flawless, for an import duty probably was indirect even if imposed on an item destined to serve as a capital good. (p. 161)
I wasn't entirely sure of my interpretation, so I asked Natelson whether a "sales tax [is] an 'indirect' tax and therefore constitutionally allowed."
He replied, "Yes. A national sales tax is clearly constitutional, so long as uniform throughout the country."
He was quick to point out that his evaluation of the Constitutional matter did not reflect his opinion of a national sales tax.
I will state flatly: even though a national sales tax is Constitutionally allowed, it is still a really, truly, horrendously stupid idea, at least if enacted without repealing the Sixteenth Amendment (which permits the income tax). The worst situation we could possibly end up with (in terms of taxation) would be a national sales tax added to a national income tax. One or the other is bad enough, but both would cripple the economy and severely infringe our liberty.
Waiting for Liberty
President Obama says "we can't wait..." for more mortgage bailouts. But political intervention in the economy is what caused the mortgage crises and our continued economic troubles.
The Objective Standard published my latest article, "Yes, President Obama, We Can't Wait." I write:
Check out the entire piece!
The Objective Standard published my latest article, "Yes, President Obama, We Can't Wait." I write:
... In addition to bailing out those who irresponsibly bought houses beyond their means, HARP also bails out irresponsible lenders -- those who willingly lent funds to those with poor credit. The federal government thus showers the irresponsible with unearned benefits while harming taxpayers and artificially propping up the price of houses. ...
Check out the entire piece!
Friday, October 21, 2011
Moving Picture Institute Advances Liberty
Adam Guillette of the Moving Picture Institute (which helped support the stunning short film against egalitarianism, 2081) attended the Free Minds Film Festival in Colorado Springs earlier in the month. He explained the goals and achievements of MPI:
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
In Defense of Income Inequality (In Capitalism)
The Objective Standard has published my latest article, "The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism." I begin by asking, "Why do many [Wall Street] Occupiers oppose some forced wealth transfers and advocate others?" The typical "Occupier" advocates forced wealth transfers from "the rich" to the less rich -- but that "occupation" position is wrong on moral (and economic) grounds.
I point out, "[T]he income inequality under tyranny is fundamentally different from that under capitalism. One arises from looting and forcing; the other from producing and thinking." (I distinguish capitalists from those "who wield political power to seize subsidies and hamstring their competitors.")
Check out the entire article!
I point out, "[T]he income inequality under tyranny is fundamentally different from that under capitalism. One arises from looting and forcing; the other from producing and thinking." (I distinguish capitalists from those "who wield political power to seize subsidies and hamstring their competitors.")
Check out the entire article!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Bowdon Explains Education's 'Cartel'
Earlier this month Bob Bowden, creator of The Cartel, spoke at the Free Minds Film Festival about his findings on education. He granted me an interview:
Bowdon strongly advocates vouchers; however, in a panel discussion at the film fest, I offered some reasons to question their adoption.
Bowdon strongly advocates vouchers; however, in a panel discussion at the film fest, I offered some reasons to question their adoption.
Monday, October 17, 2011
A Parable of Shoe Stores and Bureaucrats
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published October 14 by Grand Junction Free Press.
The following discussion took place in an alternate universe very much like our own, but different in a few important respects. Any resemblance to real persons in our universe, living or dead, is purely accidental.
The scene is a coffee shop in a town called Great Junction, a town nestled between the Federal Monument, the Bookcliffs, and the Great Mesa. Ralph sits at a table, sipping his brew, sharing a quiet conversation with a few friends.
"Here's how it went down," Ralph began. "For three years my son John and I tried to open a shoe store over at the strip mall by Urban Market. We developed a great business plan and lined up our funding, and John finished up his degree in business while working in a shoe store on the side to earn experience in the industry.
"We did all the basic work in the first year. But then John reminded me we had to apply to the state Shoe Utility Commission, or SUC. I guess their job is to ensure that shoes meet their standards of utility, whatever that means. SUC required us to ask permission from the other shoe store in town, Shoe Central, before we could go into business."
At this point Ralph's friend Henry barged in, "Now hold on there, Ralph, you mean to tell me SUC wanted you to get the permission of your competitor to go into business? That can't be right. That's just insane! When I opened up my burger joint I didn't have to ask permission from McDoogle's! What's next: are they going to make Cameron here ask permission from Orange Cabs to keep his own cab up and running?"
Cameron snorted at the absurdity.
Ralph took a breath, pushed up his shoulders, and continued, "Well, SUC uses pretty fancy language to describe asking permission. SUC says new shoe stores have to 'show a public convenience and necessity' before they'll issue a shoe-store license, all to prevent 'ruinous competition.' And SUC was pretty keen on hearing Shoe Central's claim that it already met the local demand for shoes."
Henry could not contain himself. "'Ruinous competition?' What the hell does that mean? Most businesses compete for customers; that's part of what makes them work hard to offer good service. Shouldn't people have a choice about where they buy their shoes?"
After a pause Cameron asked, "So what happened next?"
Ralph continued, "At least SUC let us ask some local residents whether they'd benefit from a new shoe store in town."
Henry started turning red in the face. "But wait a minute! Doesn't a customer say he wants to shop at a store every time he walks in and spends some money? People say lots of things, but when they put their money on the counter, that's what counts, right? How can a bunch of pencil-pushing bureaucrats predict where people want to shop? Isn't that what the marketplace is for?"
"That's what I always thought," Ralph replied.
"So did SUC give you a permit to open a shoe store?" Cameron asked.
"SUC finally signed off on our shoe store, after forcing us to waste tens of thousands of dollars waiting around," Ralph said.
Henry exhaled sharply.
"Unfortunately, Shoe Central then took the matter to court so a judge could make the decision."
Henry jumped to his feet, spilling his coffee. "You mean, once you kiss the backsides of SUC bureaucrats for a few years, then you've got to start all over with a judge? What country did you say we're living in, again?"
"Take a seat, Henry, it's over," Ralph said. "Amazingly, the judge also signed off on our store. But then SUC got to work again. SUC said we could carry only five types of shoes, and only in three sizes. Also, only people who lived within six blocks of the strip mall could shop at our store. SUC also dictated the prices we could charge for shoes. So we couldn't charge more for better shoes, and if our stock piled up or dwindled we couldn't raise or lower our prices. We'll see if we can make a go of it."
Henry said nothing. He sat hunched over, a single tear welling in his eye, staring at his cap with the emblem of his military service.
After a few moments of silence, a perky young lady walked up to the table and said, "I couldn't help but overhearing, but I for one am grateful that SUC protects the consumer from the anarchy of the marketplace. Shoes are just too important to society to let just anybody sell them. Who would protect us from too many shoes and unfair pricing?"
The woman turned up her nose, spun on her Shoe Central high heels, and walked away. Ralph stared into his coffee.
Those of us living on the alternate side of the universe can only thank heaven that nothing as crazy as the SUC exists in our world.
The following discussion took place in an alternate universe very much like our own, but different in a few important respects. Any resemblance to real persons in our universe, living or dead, is purely accidental.
The scene is a coffee shop in a town called Great Junction, a town nestled between the Federal Monument, the Bookcliffs, and the Great Mesa. Ralph sits at a table, sipping his brew, sharing a quiet conversation with a few friends.
"Here's how it went down," Ralph began. "For three years my son John and I tried to open a shoe store over at the strip mall by Urban Market. We developed a great business plan and lined up our funding, and John finished up his degree in business while working in a shoe store on the side to earn experience in the industry.
"We did all the basic work in the first year. But then John reminded me we had to apply to the state Shoe Utility Commission, or SUC. I guess their job is to ensure that shoes meet their standards of utility, whatever that means. SUC required us to ask permission from the other shoe store in town, Shoe Central, before we could go into business."
At this point Ralph's friend Henry barged in, "Now hold on there, Ralph, you mean to tell me SUC wanted you to get the permission of your competitor to go into business? That can't be right. That's just insane! When I opened up my burger joint I didn't have to ask permission from McDoogle's! What's next: are they going to make Cameron here ask permission from Orange Cabs to keep his own cab up and running?"
Cameron snorted at the absurdity.
Ralph took a breath, pushed up his shoulders, and continued, "Well, SUC uses pretty fancy language to describe asking permission. SUC says new shoe stores have to 'show a public convenience and necessity' before they'll issue a shoe-store license, all to prevent 'ruinous competition.' And SUC was pretty keen on hearing Shoe Central's claim that it already met the local demand for shoes."
Henry could not contain himself. "'Ruinous competition?' What the hell does that mean? Most businesses compete for customers; that's part of what makes them work hard to offer good service. Shouldn't people have a choice about where they buy their shoes?"
After a pause Cameron asked, "So what happened next?"
Ralph continued, "At least SUC let us ask some local residents whether they'd benefit from a new shoe store in town."
Henry started turning red in the face. "But wait a minute! Doesn't a customer say he wants to shop at a store every time he walks in and spends some money? People say lots of things, but when they put their money on the counter, that's what counts, right? How can a bunch of pencil-pushing bureaucrats predict where people want to shop? Isn't that what the marketplace is for?"
"That's what I always thought," Ralph replied.
"So did SUC give you a permit to open a shoe store?" Cameron asked.
"SUC finally signed off on our shoe store, after forcing us to waste tens of thousands of dollars waiting around," Ralph said.
Henry exhaled sharply.
"Unfortunately, Shoe Central then took the matter to court so a judge could make the decision."
Henry jumped to his feet, spilling his coffee. "You mean, once you kiss the backsides of SUC bureaucrats for a few years, then you've got to start all over with a judge? What country did you say we're living in, again?"
"Take a seat, Henry, it's over," Ralph said. "Amazingly, the judge also signed off on our store. But then SUC got to work again. SUC said we could carry only five types of shoes, and only in three sizes. Also, only people who lived within six blocks of the strip mall could shop at our store. SUC also dictated the prices we could charge for shoes. So we couldn't charge more for better shoes, and if our stock piled up or dwindled we couldn't raise or lower our prices. We'll see if we can make a go of it."
Henry said nothing. He sat hunched over, a single tear welling in his eye, staring at his cap with the emblem of his military service.
After a few moments of silence, a perky young lady walked up to the table and said, "I couldn't help but overhearing, but I for one am grateful that SUC protects the consumer from the anarchy of the marketplace. Shoes are just too important to society to let just anybody sell them. Who would protect us from too many shoes and unfair pricing?"
The woman turned up her nose, spun on her Shoe Central high heels, and walked away. Ralph stared into his coffee.
Those of us living on the alternate side of the universe can only thank heaven that nothing as crazy as the SUC exists in our world.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Occupy Denver Steals Services, Destroys Property
Last night I argued that camping out in government parks in the city (where overnight camping is always illegal) is not a First Amendment right.
This morning, I point out that the Occupy Denver movement stole services from Xcel Energy, destroyed property, and cost taxpayers untold thousands of dollars.
9News reports, "Officials say the protesters tapped into the electricity of park structures (like lighting fixtures, etc.) to run their equipment. Xcel is repairing the damage the protesters caused, structure by structure." Those costs get passed along to other energy customers. What, do the rest of us also get to steal services so long as we're protesting something? Hey, A-Basin is open; maybe I can just hop on the ski lift without paying if I wear a political shirt.
I have not seen a figure for how many state patrol and Denver city officers were involved in the night's activities -- no doubt scores at least. So how much will tax payers in the region end up coughing up to cover these costs? Who's going to calculate that tab?
And then there are the dump trucks required to clean up the mess. The Denver Post reports, "Dump trucks were brought in for tents and other trash that authorities picked up and threw away." Dump trucks, as in plural? How much did that cost taxpayers?
I recognize the long and noble history of civil disobedience. Think about Rosa Parks, Gandhi, and those who refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act. Today's Tea Party gets its name from an act of civil disobedience. Strategic civil disobedience in the name of a great cause to advance individual rights is a sacred thing.
But the Denver Occupiers do not belong in the same company. They have no noble cause, nor even a coherent message. Instead, they're stealing, destroying, and looting the taxpayers as a cause unto itself. Call it the Narcissist Invasion.
This morning, I point out that the Occupy Denver movement stole services from Xcel Energy, destroyed property, and cost taxpayers untold thousands of dollars.
9News reports, "Officials say the protesters tapped into the electricity of park structures (like lighting fixtures, etc.) to run their equipment. Xcel is repairing the damage the protesters caused, structure by structure." Those costs get passed along to other energy customers. What, do the rest of us also get to steal services so long as we're protesting something? Hey, A-Basin is open; maybe I can just hop on the ski lift without paying if I wear a political shirt.
I have not seen a figure for how many state patrol and Denver city officers were involved in the night's activities -- no doubt scores at least. So how much will tax payers in the region end up coughing up to cover these costs? Who's going to calculate that tab?
And then there are the dump trucks required to clean up the mess. The Denver Post reports, "Dump trucks were brought in for tents and other trash that authorities picked up and threw away." Dump trucks, as in plural? How much did that cost taxpayers?
I recognize the long and noble history of civil disobedience. Think about Rosa Parks, Gandhi, and those who refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act. Today's Tea Party gets its name from an act of civil disobedience. Strategic civil disobedience in the name of a great cause to advance individual rights is a sacred thing.
But the Denver Occupiers do not belong in the same company. They have no noble cause, nor even a coherent message. Instead, they're stealing, destroying, and looting the taxpayers as a cause unto itself. Call it the Narcissist Invasion.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Occupy Denver and Free Speech
At this moment I am watching live camera feeds from 9News and the Denver Post of the "Occupy Denver" protests. Earlier today, Governor John Hickenlooper, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers held a media conference pointing out that it's illegal to camp on government property in the city at night. But the "occupiers" said they aren't leaving. Yet, at 11:17 p.m., nothing much seems to be happening. (The idea is that the "occupiers" must clear out their tents between the hours of 11 and 5.)
[Update (11:58 pm): The state capitol property runs right along city park property, so it's unclear to me where the tents are actually located. The Denver Post just reported that "Suthers read the Colorado law that forbids camping on state Capitol grounds." So apparently at least some of the tents are on capitol grounds. Whether the relevant government is the city or the state, the reasoning here applies equally. I have lightly edited some of my earlier text in this light.]
The interesting discussion is over the First Amendment and free speech.
A 9News reporter just asked somebody whether "our First Amendment rights override" the laws against camping on government property. The ACLU's Mark Silverstein told 9News that pitching tents is "symbolic speech that's protected by the First Amendment."
But such comments largely miss the point of the First Amendment. No doubt pitching a tent can be "symbolic speech." But you don't have the right to pitch your tent in my front yard in order to express yourself. The right of free speech must be rooted in property rights.
The complication arises on government property, tax funded property. People have the right to protest on government property, but they do not have the right to impede other people's reasonable use of that property, as by blocking traffic. Pitching tents in these city parks in fact poses risks to safety and health (where are these people going to the bathroom?), and it's entirely reasonable to outlaw camping on such property. Essentially what the "occupiers" are doing is asking other regional taxpayers to clean up their mess and property damage.
Recently my wife and I went to a state park to camp. We paid $70 for an annual state parks pass and $22 per night to camp at the facilities. Should I have just been able to say I was "occupying" the camp space and exercising my "symbolic speech" by pitching my tent so as to avoid paying the fee? Obviously not.
The problem is that governments can potentially abuse their management of tax-funded property to prevent reasonable protests. If a government simply disallowed a group from holding a protest, then that might justify civil disobedience. But I have never heard of anything like that in Colorado.
Of course, ultimately the problems of government property can be mitigated simply by limiting the amount of government property. For example, in New York the "occupiers" have taken over a private park; in that case, the owners of the park properly set the policy.
Yes, the "occupiers" have the right to protest. Hell, I even agree with some of what they have to say. Just a while ago the group in Denver was chanting, "Banks got bailed out. We got sold out." That's exactly right. But let's not hear any more nonsense about "free" camping in government parks somehow bearing First Amendment protection. Our Bill of Rights deserves more serious treatment than that.
See also:
Occupy Wall Street: Bob Glass Reports
How to Actually "Separate Government from the Corporations" (The Objective Standard)
[Update (11:58 pm): The state capitol property runs right along city park property, so it's unclear to me where the tents are actually located. The Denver Post just reported that "Suthers read the Colorado law that forbids camping on state Capitol grounds." So apparently at least some of the tents are on capitol grounds. Whether the relevant government is the city or the state, the reasoning here applies equally. I have lightly edited some of my earlier text in this light.]
The interesting discussion is over the First Amendment and free speech.
A 9News reporter just asked somebody whether "our First Amendment rights override" the laws against camping on government property. The ACLU's Mark Silverstein told 9News that pitching tents is "symbolic speech that's protected by the First Amendment."
But such comments largely miss the point of the First Amendment. No doubt pitching a tent can be "symbolic speech." But you don't have the right to pitch your tent in my front yard in order to express yourself. The right of free speech must be rooted in property rights.
The complication arises on government property, tax funded property. People have the right to protest on government property, but they do not have the right to impede other people's reasonable use of that property, as by blocking traffic. Pitching tents in these city parks in fact poses risks to safety and health (where are these people going to the bathroom?), and it's entirely reasonable to outlaw camping on such property. Essentially what the "occupiers" are doing is asking other regional taxpayers to clean up their mess and property damage.
Recently my wife and I went to a state park to camp. We paid $70 for an annual state parks pass and $22 per night to camp at the facilities. Should I have just been able to say I was "occupying" the camp space and exercising my "symbolic speech" by pitching my tent so as to avoid paying the fee? Obviously not.
The problem is that governments can potentially abuse their management of tax-funded property to prevent reasonable protests. If a government simply disallowed a group from holding a protest, then that might justify civil disobedience. But I have never heard of anything like that in Colorado.
Of course, ultimately the problems of government property can be mitigated simply by limiting the amount of government property. For example, in New York the "occupiers" have taken over a private park; in that case, the owners of the park properly set the policy.
Yes, the "occupiers" have the right to protest. Hell, I even agree with some of what they have to say. Just a while ago the group in Denver was chanting, "Banks got bailed out. We got sold out." That's exactly right. But let's not hear any more nonsense about "free" camping in government parks somehow bearing First Amendment protection. Our Bill of Rights deserves more serious treatment than that.
See also:
Occupy Wall Street: Bob Glass Reports
How to Actually "Separate Government from the Corporations" (The Objective Standard)
Ayn Rand's Novels for Colorado Teachers
I am independently promoting funding for the Ayn Rand Institute's "Books for Teachers" program for Colorado.
If you are a teacher, I encourage you to check out the program.
If you are interested in Rand's works, I encourage you to donate funds to ARI specially marked to support Colorado's "Books for Teachers" program.
If you donate to ARI for this purpose, please let me know as well. The total target for the campaign is $19,000. Coloradans have already contributed $1,100 to the campaign, and an anonymous donor has pledged $5,000 in matching funds for new donations. Please let me know whether you want me to use your name or remain anonymous. I'll keep a running tally going below. Note that you can DOUBLE your donations with the matching funds.
Previous donations: $1,100 (includes $500 from Mike and Jennifer Rivers)
Matching funds from an anonymous donor: $5,000
"Galt's Gulch" auction leader: David Weatherell for $3,100
The following contributions all qualify for matching funds:
Ari and Jennifer: $80
Doug and Hannah Krening: $500
Martin L. Buchanan: $100
Mike Williams and Cara: $35
Brian S.: $35
Howard and Susan: $160
Betty Evans: $500
Donovan Schafer: $320
Linn and Sharon Armstrong: $50
David Weatherell: $900
CG: $50
Patricia Tolleson: $100
Anonymous: $500
Mike Spalding: $20
Bill Faulkner: $400
JL: $2,000 (fulfills matching funds)
Richard Watts: $1,000
JV: $200
GF: $500
BM: $35
The Kempes: $160
KM: $25
TOTAL RAISED: $16,870
If you are a teacher, I encourage you to check out the program.
If you are interested in Rand's works, I encourage you to donate funds to ARI specially marked to support Colorado's "Books for Teachers" program.
If you donate to ARI for this purpose, please let me know as well. The total target for the campaign is $19,000. Coloradans have already contributed $1,100 to the campaign, and an anonymous donor has pledged $5,000 in matching funds for new donations. Please let me know whether you want me to use your name or remain anonymous. I'll keep a running tally going below. Note that you can DOUBLE your donations with the matching funds.
Previous donations: $1,100 (includes $500 from Mike and Jennifer Rivers)
Matching funds from an anonymous donor: $5,000
"Galt's Gulch" auction leader: David Weatherell for $3,100
The following contributions all qualify for matching funds:
Ari and Jennifer: $80
Doug and Hannah Krening: $500
Martin L. Buchanan: $100
Mike Williams and Cara: $35
Brian S.: $35
Howard and Susan: $160
Betty Evans: $500
Donovan Schafer: $320
Linn and Sharon Armstrong: $50
David Weatherell: $900
CG: $50
Patricia Tolleson: $100
Anonymous: $500
Mike Spalding: $20
Bill Faulkner: $400
JL: $2,000 (fulfills matching funds)
Richard Watts: $1,000
JV: $200
GF: $500
BM: $35
The Kempes: $160
KM: $25
TOTAL RAISED: $16,870
Free Market Arguments Against Vouchers
This past weekend I attended the Free Minds Film Festival in Colorado Springs, and it was fantastic. Among the great documentaries we saw was The Cartel, a film by Bob Bowden about the shocking corruption in the New Jersey government schools.
I spoke on a panel following the film with Bowdon and Ben DeGrow. Following are my remarks. (I believe the organizers of the film fest will publish video of the entire panel.)
Listeners might be confused as to why I oppose vouchers and yet support tax credits and charter schools (as interim reforms). I think any political reform needs to pass a two-part test.
1. Does the reform expand or weaken protections of individual rights? Liberty activists should support reforms that obviously expand individual rights and oppose reforms that obviously weaken them. If a reform is neutral with respect to individual rights, then move to the second test.
2. Does a reform improve results? If so, support it. Remember that we've already decided the reform does not further weaken individual rights. If a reform strengthens individual rights, it necessarily improves results; the moral is the practical.
In light of that test, I'll briefly review the three sorts of reforms.
A charter school does not increase taxes levied. Instead, it offers families and educators a means to escape some of the worst problems of the teachers' unions and political education controls. So I think charters pass the second test.
A tax credit, as I've reviewed before, threatens to bring new political controls to nominally private schools. For that reason tax credits may weaken individual rights, which is why I've always been nervous about them. On the other hand, a tax credit would not increase net taxes levied, while it would offer tax payers significantly more choice in how to spend their education-directed dollars.
A voucher program suffers two problems. It brings new controls to nominally private schools, and it also forces some taxpayers to finance religious institutions against their will, in violation of their freedom of conscience. So I think vouchers clearly fail the first test.
In watching Bowdon's film, I realized that charter schools and vouchers largely end up in the same place: schools still controlled by politicians but with significantly greater parental control. But there are two important differences. First, charter schools simply cannot be religious in nature. Second, there is no confusion about charter schools being "private." The proponents of vouchers explicitly call schools "private" which receive voucher funds, and that destroys the very distinction between political force and the genuinely free market.
I think the best set of interim reforms, then, consists of charter schools in conjunction with universal tax credits in which tax payers are restricted to giving their forcibly confiscated funds to charter schools. I also think charter schools should be very easy to start, with clear and simple rules and evaluations. This expands the options of parents and expands the choice of those footing the bill, but it retains the important distinction between government-financed education and free-market education.
In a free market, people without children may decide whether to contribute their funds to education, and if so in what way and in what amount. Parents, educators, and voluntary organizations bear responsibility for organizing and financing education. By the standards of free markets and individual rights, that remains the ultimate goal. A free market is the only system in which "education choice" fully becomes reality.
I spoke on a panel following the film with Bowdon and Ben DeGrow. Following are my remarks. (I believe the organizers of the film fest will publish video of the entire panel.)
Listeners might be confused as to why I oppose vouchers and yet support tax credits and charter schools (as interim reforms). I think any political reform needs to pass a two-part test.
1. Does the reform expand or weaken protections of individual rights? Liberty activists should support reforms that obviously expand individual rights and oppose reforms that obviously weaken them. If a reform is neutral with respect to individual rights, then move to the second test.
2. Does a reform improve results? If so, support it. Remember that we've already decided the reform does not further weaken individual rights. If a reform strengthens individual rights, it necessarily improves results; the moral is the practical.
In light of that test, I'll briefly review the three sorts of reforms.
A charter school does not increase taxes levied. Instead, it offers families and educators a means to escape some of the worst problems of the teachers' unions and political education controls. So I think charters pass the second test.
A tax credit, as I've reviewed before, threatens to bring new political controls to nominally private schools. For that reason tax credits may weaken individual rights, which is why I've always been nervous about them. On the other hand, a tax credit would not increase net taxes levied, while it would offer tax payers significantly more choice in how to spend their education-directed dollars.
A voucher program suffers two problems. It brings new controls to nominally private schools, and it also forces some taxpayers to finance religious institutions against their will, in violation of their freedom of conscience. So I think vouchers clearly fail the first test.
In watching Bowdon's film, I realized that charter schools and vouchers largely end up in the same place: schools still controlled by politicians but with significantly greater parental control. But there are two important differences. First, charter schools simply cannot be religious in nature. Second, there is no confusion about charter schools being "private." The proponents of vouchers explicitly call schools "private" which receive voucher funds, and that destroys the very distinction between political force and the genuinely free market.
I think the best set of interim reforms, then, consists of charter schools in conjunction with universal tax credits in which tax payers are restricted to giving their forcibly confiscated funds to charter schools. I also think charter schools should be very easy to start, with clear and simple rules and evaluations. This expands the options of parents and expands the choice of those footing the bill, but it retains the important distinction between government-financed education and free-market education.
In a free market, people without children may decide whether to contribute their funds to education, and if so in what way and in what amount. Parents, educators, and voluntary organizations bear responsibility for organizing and financing education. By the standards of free markets and individual rights, that remains the ultimate goal. A free market is the only system in which "education choice" fully becomes reality.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Great "Fair Tax" Debate
The Objective Standard has posted a three-part debate on the "Fair Tax," a national sales tax intended to replace the income tax.
In my opening salvo, "'Fair Tax' Looks Ugly In the Details," I point out that the "Fair Tax" is still relatively complex, and it would require many Americans to submit the tax. I also discuss the tax's "prebate" and its potential for corruption. I conclude, "Yes, advocates of liberty should look at strategies to make tax collection less burdensome. But fundamental tax reform, which must include serious cuts in net taxes collected, becomes possible only with significant cuts to federal spending."
John Keel wrote a lengthy reply, "Concerning 'Fair Tax Looks Ugly in the Details.'" He argues that the tax is simple, it would impose low compliance costs, and it would reduce rather than expand the black market.
In my reply to Keel, "'Fair Tax' Offers Neither Fairness Nor Simplicity," I expand my criticisms of the tax. I point out that, yes, the tax would require extensive paperwork for compliance. The so-called "prebate" not only adds another layer of bureaucracy, but it poses the risk of expanding into another welfare program. The "Fair Tax" would become easily corrupted, and it would in fact promote an extensive black market. The tax could also lead to a dual system of federal taxation, complimenting rather than replacing the income tax, and it could morph into a Value Added Tax.
However, I point out, if a sales tax actually followed the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, that would be a lot better. But still the major goal of the liberty activist should be to reduce federal spending and restore individual rights.
Read the first, second, and third articles in their entirety!
In my opening salvo, "'Fair Tax' Looks Ugly In the Details," I point out that the "Fair Tax" is still relatively complex, and it would require many Americans to submit the tax. I also discuss the tax's "prebate" and its potential for corruption. I conclude, "Yes, advocates of liberty should look at strategies to make tax collection less burdensome. But fundamental tax reform, which must include serious cuts in net taxes collected, becomes possible only with significant cuts to federal spending."
John Keel wrote a lengthy reply, "Concerning 'Fair Tax Looks Ugly in the Details.'" He argues that the tax is simple, it would impose low compliance costs, and it would reduce rather than expand the black market.
In my reply to Keel, "'Fair Tax' Offers Neither Fairness Nor Simplicity," I expand my criticisms of the tax. I point out that, yes, the tax would require extensive paperwork for compliance. The so-called "prebate" not only adds another layer of bureaucracy, but it poses the risk of expanding into another welfare program. The "Fair Tax" would become easily corrupted, and it would in fact promote an extensive black market. The tax could also lead to a dual system of federal taxation, complimenting rather than replacing the income tax, and it could morph into a Value Added Tax.
However, I point out, if a sales tax actually followed the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, that would be a lot better. But still the major goal of the liberty activist should be to reduce federal spending and restore individual rights.
Read the first, second, and third articles in their entirety!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
How 'Occupiers' Can Separate Government and Corporations
The Objective Standard has published my latest article, "How to Actually 'Separate Government from the Corporations'."
I argue, "Beyond the basic role government properly plays in protecting individual rights, government should remain separated from churches as it should remain separated from corporations." I outline four main ways to separate the government from economics: stop interfering with businesses, stop subsidizing them, stop taxing them, and respect the free-speech rights of corporate members.
I conclude:
Check out the entire article!
I argue, "Beyond the basic role government properly plays in protecting individual rights, government should remain separated from churches as it should remain separated from corporations." I outline four main ways to separate the government from economics: stop interfering with businesses, stop subsidizing them, stop taxing them, and respect the free-speech rights of corporate members.
I conclude:
Members of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement should be careful. If they logically think through their goal to "separate government from the corporations," ultimately they will end up championing capitalism. And then they might decide that Pennsylvania Avenue offers a more appropriate center for a protest.
Check out the entire article!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Occupy Wall Street: Bob Glass Reports
Bob Glass filed the following report from New York. Photo credit: Wikipedia.
On Wednesday I went to Zuccotti park in lower Manhattan to see what all the hoopla was about concerning the swelling crowds gathering to protest Wall Street and Capitalism. Zuccotti park, one of the few private parks in New York City, had been turned into a command post and staging ground for the myriad of groups and individuals who had gathered to vent their rage against the disparity between what they perceived to be the haves and have nots in this country.
The scene was part Woodstock (minus the talent and music) part rave (minus anything resembling ecstasy) and part public forum (minus anything resembling intelligent dialogue). The overwhelming majority of people were in their teens and early twenties -- lost souls not quite sure what they were angry about. I spent a few hours going through the crowd talking to as many people as I could, and it seemed that each person had a different agenda, a different bone to pick, and a different cause celebre.
In addition to the young people in search of life's meaning and some type of government handout there was the usual assortment of left wing organizations, including but not limited to the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, Workers World Party, and dozens of unions including the SEIU. It became clear to me that the rhetoric of class warfare championed by Barack Obama and dutifully spread by the major media had permeated the crowd and was the only common thread holding the rabble together.
They all seemed to agree that greed and capitalism are the roots of all evil and culprits for all of society's ills. They shouted the usual left-wing slogans like "Tax the rich feed the poor," "Jail the bankers," and "The people united will never be defeated." They were particularly upset about the taxpayers bailing out all of the big Wall Street banks and investment houses, but no one seemed to make the connection that the person most guilty of this is Barack Obama.
It soon became clear to me that I was witnessing the formation of Obama's shock troops, those he will try to exploit to bully and intimidate his way back into power.
The supreme irony was not lost on me that so many of these people had ipads and ipods and were using them with great success to organize their movement. I could not help but remember Lenin's famous quote, "The capitalists will sell us the rope that we will hang them with." And I thought of the passing of Steve Jobs, one of America's greatest inventors, entrepreneurs, visionaries and capitalists. A man who will forever change the way we all live for the better.
Considering what little the occupation crowd has made possible, compared to what the great champion of the free market Steve Jobs has made possible, I could only shake my head. As Howard Roark reminds us, "Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light." The occupation forces seem eager to throw in the torch.
On Wednesday I went to Zuccotti park in lower Manhattan to see what all the hoopla was about concerning the swelling crowds gathering to protest Wall Street and Capitalism. Zuccotti park, one of the few private parks in New York City, had been turned into a command post and staging ground for the myriad of groups and individuals who had gathered to vent their rage against the disparity between what they perceived to be the haves and have nots in this country.
The scene was part Woodstock (minus the talent and music) part rave (minus anything resembling ecstasy) and part public forum (minus anything resembling intelligent dialogue). The overwhelming majority of people were in their teens and early twenties -- lost souls not quite sure what they were angry about. I spent a few hours going through the crowd talking to as many people as I could, and it seemed that each person had a different agenda, a different bone to pick, and a different cause celebre.
In addition to the young people in search of life's meaning and some type of government handout there was the usual assortment of left wing organizations, including but not limited to the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, Workers World Party, and dozens of unions including the SEIU. It became clear to me that the rhetoric of class warfare championed by Barack Obama and dutifully spread by the major media had permeated the crowd and was the only common thread holding the rabble together.
They all seemed to agree that greed and capitalism are the roots of all evil and culprits for all of society's ills. They shouted the usual left-wing slogans like "Tax the rich feed the poor," "Jail the bankers," and "The people united will never be defeated." They were particularly upset about the taxpayers bailing out all of the big Wall Street banks and investment houses, but no one seemed to make the connection that the person most guilty of this is Barack Obama.
It soon became clear to me that I was witnessing the formation of Obama's shock troops, those he will try to exploit to bully and intimidate his way back into power.
The supreme irony was not lost on me that so many of these people had ipads and ipods and were using them with great success to organize their movement. I could not help but remember Lenin's famous quote, "The capitalists will sell us the rope that we will hang them with." And I thought of the passing of Steve Jobs, one of America's greatest inventors, entrepreneurs, visionaries and capitalists. A man who will forever change the way we all live for the better.
Considering what little the occupation crowd has made possible, compared to what the great champion of the free market Steve Jobs has made possible, I could only shake my head. As Howard Roark reminds us, "Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light." The occupation forces seem eager to throw in the torch.
Fuel Controls Violate Liberty
The Objective Standard has published my latest article, "Fuel Controls Violate Rights and Stifle Markets." I write:
Check out the entire piece!
... [T]he federal government’s fuel standards disrupt this forward march of technology, substituting the whims of politicians and bureaucrats for the independent judgment of producers and their customers. As a result, the auto industry becomes more heavily shackled by political directives, and it offers consumers less-desirable vehicles. ...
Check out the entire piece!
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Would Prop. 103 Let Legislature Spend However It Wants?
A couple days ago "Brian" wrote about Proposition 103, "The legislature is under no obligation to spend the money on education. Prop 103 is a law, and it is only valid until it is superseded by another law." I heard a similar claim yesterday from Justin Everett and the hosts of Grassroots Radio on 560 am.
While I think it's possible that the legislature could try to overwrite Prop. 103 and redirect the funds to other ends, I think that's very unlikely.
A couple weeks ago I reviewed Prop. 103 and pointed out its language adding the tax hike to the education budget of 2011-12. So, as written, Prop. 103 definitely increases the budget for education. (The budget might have increased anyway, but probably not nearly as much.)
If the legislature tried to spend the Prop. 103 money on other ends, that would undoubtedly draw a legal challenge, though I doubt Colorado's absurdly biased courts would welcome it. But the political heat for failing to budget in accordance with Prop. 103 would be overwhelming.
I can't recall who suggested a more plausible alternative: the money could go to shore up the pensions of those working in government "education" (broadly defined). Prop. 103 says nothing about spending the money on actually teaching children.
It's not like critics of Prop. 103 need to reach for strained arguments about the legislature "spending the money however it wants"; as it is written the measure is terrible.
As my dad and I wrote recently, "Prop. 103. Would Hurt Working Families, Kill Jobs."
A new paper from the Independence Institute amplifies these concerns:
This is an important argument. By further weakening the Colorado economy, Prop. 103 would reduce the amount of taxes flowing into the rest of the budget. So, while education spending would skyrocket, spending elsewhere would fall relative to where it otherwise would have been.
That Prop. 103 would harm the economy is the first major reason to oppose it; the second is that the tax hike would probably have little to no effect on the actual quality of education. (My dad and I review this point as well.) Yes, the money would go to enrich administrators and the teachers' unions, but would it actually improve kids' education? We seriously doubt it.
Further enriching the teachers' unions and entrenching their power is hardly the way to improve education. Instead, we need to move toward free markets to give educators and families the freedom they need to best educate the children in their care.
While I think it's possible that the legislature could try to overwrite Prop. 103 and redirect the funds to other ends, I think that's very unlikely.
A couple weeks ago I reviewed Prop. 103 and pointed out its language adding the tax hike to the education budget of 2011-12. So, as written, Prop. 103 definitely increases the budget for education. (The budget might have increased anyway, but probably not nearly as much.)
If the legislature tried to spend the Prop. 103 money on other ends, that would undoubtedly draw a legal challenge, though I doubt Colorado's absurdly biased courts would welcome it. But the political heat for failing to budget in accordance with Prop. 103 would be overwhelming.
I can't recall who suggested a more plausible alternative: the money could go to shore up the pensions of those working in government "education" (broadly defined). Prop. 103 says nothing about spending the money on actually teaching children.
It's not like critics of Prop. 103 need to reach for strained arguments about the legislature "spending the money however it wants"; as it is written the measure is terrible.
As my dad and I wrote recently, "Prop. 103. Would Hurt Working Families, Kill Jobs."
A new paper from the Independence Institute amplifies these concerns:
The higher tax will reduce job opportunities in Colorado. The total loss in jobs from the Prop 103 tax increase is estimated between 7,400 and 11,600. The higher tax will also reduce the tax base, partially offsetting the revenue generated by the tax. Prop. 103 will exacerbate a $1 billion structural deficit in the state budget.
This is an important argument. By further weakening the Colorado economy, Prop. 103 would reduce the amount of taxes flowing into the rest of the budget. So, while education spending would skyrocket, spending elsewhere would fall relative to where it otherwise would have been.
That Prop. 103 would harm the economy is the first major reason to oppose it; the second is that the tax hike would probably have little to no effect on the actual quality of education. (My dad and I review this point as well.) Yes, the money would go to enrich administrators and the teachers' unions, but would it actually improve kids' education? We seriously doubt it.
Further enriching the teachers' unions and entrenching their power is hardly the way to improve education. Instead, we need to move toward free markets to give educators and families the freedom they need to best educate the children in their care.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Why Can't Blogger and Facebook Play Nicely?
Blogger usually works great. Facebook usually works great. So why can't Blogger and Facebook play together nicely?
The problem is that, if inside Facebook I link to a post of mine managed by Blogger, Facebook does not pick up the lead paragraph of the post (which obviously is what I want). Instead, Facebook picks up my bio line, which is completely unrelated to the contents of the post.
Others have told me that the problem arises from Blogger's non-standard formatting. Regardless, I imagine that the whiz kids either at Blogger or at Facebook easily could fix the problem, if they'd attempt to do so.
Alternately, perhaps there's something simple that I could do to fix the problem -- though I've tried a variety of strategies, all without success. If somebody has a suggestion, please leave it in the comments.
Otherwise, I may have to undergo the serious hassle of switching over to Word Press.
The problem is that, if inside Facebook I link to a post of mine managed by Blogger, Facebook does not pick up the lead paragraph of the post (which obviously is what I want). Instead, Facebook picks up my bio line, which is completely unrelated to the contents of the post.
Others have told me that the problem arises from Blogger's non-standard formatting. Regardless, I imagine that the whiz kids either at Blogger or at Facebook easily could fix the problem, if they'd attempt to do so.
Alternately, perhaps there's something simple that I could do to fix the problem -- though I've tried a variety of strategies, all without success. If somebody has a suggestion, please leave it in the comments.
Otherwise, I may have to undergo the serious hassle of switching over to Word Press.
Why Voting Integrity Requires Proof Positive
Recently I wrote, "Mailing out ballots to inactive voters is an open invitation to voter fraud."
This prompted leftist gadfly Alan Franklin to reply in a series of Twitter posts, "[I]f mailing ballots to inactives is 'an open invitation to voter fraud,' I assume you have... evidence of that? ... Because if you have no evidence... you're just another clown using baseless scare tactics. You know that, right?" He further claimed that I'm using "baseless scare tactics to stop ballots from going to voters" and "[t]echnicalities to suppress voting."
This is a serious topic that deserves serious consideration (as opposed to Franklin's ad hominem attacks).
The principle involved here is that the onus of proof lies on the one making an assertion. So if someone were to falsely accuse Franklin of theft, he could sensibly reply, "You have no evidence that I've committed theft; therefore, your accusation is groundless."
Does a voting system likewise require positive proof of fraud before that system may be declared unsound and prone to fraud? No. The difference is that voting is the positive evidence required for an election result, and that positive evidence must be collected and presented according to reasonable standards of integrity.
To return to the example of falsely accusing someone of theft, imagine the following discussion:
Ben: "You are a thief"
Alan "No, I'm not. You have no evidence of that, and you are lying."
Ben: "But you have no evidence that I'm lying, so therefore you are a thief!"
The problem is that Ben bears the burden of proving that Alan is a thief. Ben cannot throw the burden of proof back onto Alan.
Likewise, the voting system bears of burden of proving which candidate (or side) earned the specified number of votes. One cannot reasonably accept just any system of voting based on the claim, "Well, you have no evidence there's anything wrong with this system." Voting requires positive evidence that it yields accurate results.
Imagine some different scenarios that illustrate this principle.
In Country P, the dictator says, "I am the rightful ruler of this country, because the people support me!" If a critic were to answer, "There's no good reason to think the people support you; why not throw the question up for a fair and open election?" What we we say if the dictator answered, "I know my people, and I know they support me. You have no evidence that there's anything fraudulent about my claim, you clown!"
But let's say we could persuade the dictator that an actual vote by the reasonably qualified electorate would better determine which leader has the majority's support. The dictator says, "I have collected all the ballots, and I have counted them myself, and I am the clear winner." If the critic were to reply, "It's not good enough for you to count the ballots yourself, because you have a strong incentive to miscount or 'lose' the ballots you don't like. Therefore, the ballots must be counted in an open and verifiable way." Again we would not be persuaded if the dictator replied, "You have no evidence that my vote count is flawed, you clown!"
Let's switch the scenario to something more like our actual system. Suppose the Secretary of State issued the following proclamation: "I am standing up to the opposition's voter suppression machine! I want to ensure that every qualified voter has an opportunity to cast a ballot. Therefore, I am mailing ten copies of the ballot to every residential address in Colorado, to ensure there are plenty of ballots to go around to all qualified voters. Moreover, people can also walk into my office, without any identification (because demanding ID would make me part of the voter suppression machine!), and request all the extra ballots they may need for themselves and others they know who are qualified voters."
A critic might argue, "But, Secretary, such a system would be an open invitation to fraud!" What would we think of a Secretary who answered, "You have no evidence that such a system would result in fraud, you clown!" It would quickly become clear which party more closely resembles a clown.
A voting system requires positive proof that only qualified voters cast ballots, and that each voter casts only one ballot per election. You can't just mail out ballots to everybody in the state. You can't just let everybody wander in off the streets to vote, without identification.
Mailing ballots to inactive voters clearly fails the test of voting integrity. Often voters become inactive because they move out of state. Mailing ballots to those old addresses, absent any additional evidence that the voter actually lives there, is just asking for fraud. Setting up a system of voting that easily allows fraud is stupid and contrary to the very purpose of voting.
(Remember that inactive voters easily can reactivate themselves.)
Indeed, I worry that the entire strategy of mailing out ballots invites fraud. How many elderly voters get a little "help" from their activist grandchildren? How many people cast ballots that aren't actually theirs? We do not know. It is impossible to know. And the absence of proof of voting integrity is the problem.
If we are going to maintain the system of mailed ballots, at least that system must include basic safeguards to prevent the worst and most obvious invitations to fraud.
Far better is to return to the polling place. (Note that there could even be a roving polling facility for the physically incapacitated.) Then voters can show their ID at the door. It's clear that one voter casts one vote by his or her choice. That provides positive proof that the election is fair. Would that result in fewer people voting? Probably. But if you can't be bothered to put in the minimal effort required to ensure voting integrity, seriously do you have any businesses helping to determine the future of our civilization?
This prompted leftist gadfly Alan Franklin to reply in a series of Twitter posts, "[I]f mailing ballots to inactives is 'an open invitation to voter fraud,' I assume you have... evidence of that? ... Because if you have no evidence... you're just another clown using baseless scare tactics. You know that, right?" He further claimed that I'm using "baseless scare tactics to stop ballots from going to voters" and "[t]echnicalities to suppress voting."
This is a serious topic that deserves serious consideration (as opposed to Franklin's ad hominem attacks).
The principle involved here is that the onus of proof lies on the one making an assertion. So if someone were to falsely accuse Franklin of theft, he could sensibly reply, "You have no evidence that I've committed theft; therefore, your accusation is groundless."
Does a voting system likewise require positive proof of fraud before that system may be declared unsound and prone to fraud? No. The difference is that voting is the positive evidence required for an election result, and that positive evidence must be collected and presented according to reasonable standards of integrity.
To return to the example of falsely accusing someone of theft, imagine the following discussion:
Ben: "You are a thief"
Alan "No, I'm not. You have no evidence of that, and you are lying."
Ben: "But you have no evidence that I'm lying, so therefore you are a thief!"
The problem is that Ben bears the burden of proving that Alan is a thief. Ben cannot throw the burden of proof back onto Alan.
Likewise, the voting system bears of burden of proving which candidate (or side) earned the specified number of votes. One cannot reasonably accept just any system of voting based on the claim, "Well, you have no evidence there's anything wrong with this system." Voting requires positive evidence that it yields accurate results.
Imagine some different scenarios that illustrate this principle.
In Country P, the dictator says, "I am the rightful ruler of this country, because the people support me!" If a critic were to answer, "There's no good reason to think the people support you; why not throw the question up for a fair and open election?" What we we say if the dictator answered, "I know my people, and I know they support me. You have no evidence that there's anything fraudulent about my claim, you clown!"
But let's say we could persuade the dictator that an actual vote by the reasonably qualified electorate would better determine which leader has the majority's support. The dictator says, "I have collected all the ballots, and I have counted them myself, and I am the clear winner." If the critic were to reply, "It's not good enough for you to count the ballots yourself, because you have a strong incentive to miscount or 'lose' the ballots you don't like. Therefore, the ballots must be counted in an open and verifiable way." Again we would not be persuaded if the dictator replied, "You have no evidence that my vote count is flawed, you clown!"
Let's switch the scenario to something more like our actual system. Suppose the Secretary of State issued the following proclamation: "I am standing up to the opposition's voter suppression machine! I want to ensure that every qualified voter has an opportunity to cast a ballot. Therefore, I am mailing ten copies of the ballot to every residential address in Colorado, to ensure there are plenty of ballots to go around to all qualified voters. Moreover, people can also walk into my office, without any identification (because demanding ID would make me part of the voter suppression machine!), and request all the extra ballots they may need for themselves and others they know who are qualified voters."
A critic might argue, "But, Secretary, such a system would be an open invitation to fraud!" What would we think of a Secretary who answered, "You have no evidence that such a system would result in fraud, you clown!" It would quickly become clear which party more closely resembles a clown.
A voting system requires positive proof that only qualified voters cast ballots, and that each voter casts only one ballot per election. You can't just mail out ballots to everybody in the state. You can't just let everybody wander in off the streets to vote, without identification.
Mailing ballots to inactive voters clearly fails the test of voting integrity. Often voters become inactive because they move out of state. Mailing ballots to those old addresses, absent any additional evidence that the voter actually lives there, is just asking for fraud. Setting up a system of voting that easily allows fraud is stupid and contrary to the very purpose of voting.
(Remember that inactive voters easily can reactivate themselves.)
Indeed, I worry that the entire strategy of mailing out ballots invites fraud. How many elderly voters get a little "help" from their activist grandchildren? How many people cast ballots that aren't actually theirs? We do not know. It is impossible to know. And the absence of proof of voting integrity is the problem.
If we are going to maintain the system of mailed ballots, at least that system must include basic safeguards to prevent the worst and most obvious invitations to fraud.
Far better is to return to the polling place. (Note that there could even be a roving polling facility for the physically incapacitated.) Then voters can show their ID at the door. It's clear that one voter casts one vote by his or her choice. That provides positive proof that the election is fair. Would that result in fewer people voting? Probably. But if you can't be bothered to put in the minimal effort required to ensure voting integrity, seriously do you have any businesses helping to determine the future of our civilization?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Income Tax Stinks, but the "Fair Tax" Doesn't Look Much Better
The Objective Standard published my latest article, "'Fair Tax' Looks Ugly in the Details."
I point out that, not only would the "Fair Tax" (a type of national sales tax) increase the cost of items by (at least) 30 percent, but it would also tax consumable services. While usually sellers must remit the tax, sometimes consumers must do so. The worst possible outcome is a sales tax added to the income tax.
I argue:
Check out the entire article!
I point out that, not only would the "Fair Tax" (a type of national sales tax) increase the cost of items by (at least) 30 percent, but it would also tax consumable services. While usually sellers must remit the tax, sometimes consumers must do so. The worst possible outcome is a sales tax added to the income tax.
I argue:
To a large degree, the debate over the sales tax versus the income tax misses the more fundamental issue of spending levels. How the federal government collects our money matters, but how much the government forcibly confiscates matters far more. So long as the federal government spends massive amounts of the citizens’ wealth on “bailouts,” corporate welfare, and handouts to individuals, any resulting tax necessarily grows onerous.
Check out the entire article!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)