Author: CS Admin

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies responsibility

Finland on 800-Euros-a-Month

Finland, Guaranteed Income, UBI, welfare, income, Common Sense, illustration

Some folks think the world owes them a living.

Must we appease them?

Should government hand every man, woman and child a check each month to make sure we’re all taken care of?

Finland is embracing this basic idea with a pilot program, providing everyone an “unconditional basic income” (UBI). Treating citizens equally is enshrined in Finland’s constitution, so every Finn will receive the same 800-​euros a month without regard to income or lack thereof.

It sounds like Democrat George McGovern’s “guaranteed annual income,” which was mocked and ridiculed during the 1972 presidential campaign.

But you might be surprised who has supported the UBI: free-​market economist Milton Friedman advanced the similar “negative income tax” back in 1962; Martin Luther King liked it; Austrian economist F. A. Hayek endorsed the concept; Charles Murray, author of Losing Ground, has developed a version of the proposal.

The rationale? Save money by consolidating duplicative welfare programs. After all, the U.S. government runs 79 means-​tested benefit programs, each with its costly, redundant bureaucracy.

Counter-​intuitively, perhaps, Finland’s social engineers think the move will increase employment. Why? Because welfare benefits currently can be withdrawn when Finns gain employment and the attendant income, which discourages folks from risking their secure base benefits.

That’s the case here, too.

The government passing out money — our money — stinks. Folks should take care of themselves, or depend on charity — not confiscatory taxation. Yet, if this version of a safety net does indeed encourage industry, employment, and good old-​fashioned money-​making amongst the poor … it may very well be a step in the right direction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Finland, Guaranteed Income, UBI, welfare, income, Common Sense, illustration

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Historic Paris Pact?

climate change, global warming, Paris, accord, Common Sense

The climate change pact just completed at the United Nations conference in Paris is, the Washington Post informs us, “historic.”

The New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and just about every other paper uses that very word in their headlines, too.

“The 12th of December, 2015, will remain a great date for the planet,” declared French President Francois Hollande, dubbing it “the most beautiful and the most peaceful revolution that has just been accomplished.”

“History will remember this day,” U.N. Secretary-​General Ban Ki-​moon predicted. President Obama called it a “turning point for the world.”

Chris Mooney, in a deeper analysis for the Washington Post, agreed that all the hoopla was “more than warranted.”

But Mooney also acknowledged that, “this document, by its very nature, depends on … Countries, companies and individuals all across the planet [doing] the right things — and very hard things, at that.”

How hard?

Essentially ending any emission of greenhouse gases in the next half-century.

“Achieving such a reduction in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get energy,” the New York Times reported, “and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are not ready to make such profound, costly changes.”

As the negotiator for the Federated States of Micronesia put it: “We’ve agreed to what we ought to be doing, but no one yet has agreed to go do it. It’s a whole lot of pomp, given the circumstances.”

“What’s more,” adds Mooney, “even if everyone plays by the rules, the standards and goals set out by the Paris agreement may not be enough to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change.”

Historic? History will determine that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

climate change, global warming, Paris, accord, Common Sense

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture national politics & policies responsibility

Pollsters Are Political Players, Too

polling, polls, pollster, democracy, influence, elections, Common Sense, Bias, illustration

Is Trump electable? Can Carson nab the GOP presidential nomination? Does Rand Paul have a chance? Is Chris Christie finished — before a voter has voted?

It’s still pre-​primary season, and it is worth remembering that — even as we judge candidates on  various capacities, including their ability to “handle the media” — one arm of the media possesses potentially the most influence along with too little scrutiny: the pollsters.

They are allegedly the most scientific and objective folks in the industry, with closest ties to actual intellectual disciplines, statistics and political science.

But they are also, willy nilly, political players, not just observers.

Though tasked to provide data on public opinion about matters of importance, they also influence public opinion in several crucial ways:

  1. By how they phrase poll questions. This is an art, and can be extremely propagandistic. Pollsters can often “get” the information they want — if they want something in particular, perhaps for partisan reasons — by wording those questions carefully.
  2. By ordering questions in particular ways. The first question sets up a context. The second is then interpreted by those polled in that context. Pollsters can nudge people to reverse their usual opinions by providing an alien context.
  3. By presenting the results, skewed or not. People are influenced by others. Voting for candidates, especially, partly depends on second-​guessing other voters. Few people wish to vote for someone who “cannot win.” Therefore, a published poll result that shows popularity can increase popularity, in a sort of multiplier effect.

Polls and poll results can provide useful information. Hey, I’ve used professional pollsters. But we all have to be cautious … remembering that voting one’s conscience is a high-​percentage play.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

polling, polls, pollster, democracy, influence, elections, Common Sense, Bias, illustration

 

Categories
general freedom

Nix the Union Jack?

New Zealand, flags, flag, democracy, voting, Common Sense

“Get a wriggle on,” New Zealand’s Electoral Commission is telling citizens
who want to cast a vote before today’s deadline to mail in ballots.

New Zealand is choosing a new flag.

Maybe.

In the referendum ending today, the first of two, voters will choose one of five proposed new flags. The second referendum comes next year when the chosen new design goes mano a mano against the current flag.

For years, Prime Minister John Key has itched to “scratch” the Union Jack, the United Kingdom’s flag, off the New Zealand national flag.

To assert some independence, I suppose. Hey, I can relate.

HBO’s John Oliver calls New Zealand “Australia’s Australia.” Glance at the two nation’s flags, they’re virtually identical. Populating a remote two-​island nation, New Zealanders may share a desire not to live in any other nation’s shadow.

Granted, there were no demonstrations for the flag re-​design, in the streets of Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch — or anywhere else, as far as I can tell. This was a referred measure, from politicians to the people — not an initiative.

And the referendums will cost $26 million, something not lost on the citizenry.

Furthermore, a flag is far less important than issues of war and peace, taxes, jobs, you name it.

But I really like that politicians didn’t give a designer a no-​bid contract and do the choosing without the people. In fact, after whittling down to offer voters four designs in this referendum, a fifth entry was added after a petition for it on social media caught fire.

Could the flag chosen be as pleasing as the democratic process being used to get it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

New Zealand, flags, flag, democracy, voting, Common Sense

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Anti-​Gun Barrage

guns, anti-gun, second amendment, Common Sense, illustration

America’s would-​be gun-​grabbers, chiefly in the media and “on the left,” don’t know much about guns.

But they know what they hate.

After the horrific terrorist shooting spree in San Bernardino, MSNBC and CNN went on a shooting-​their-​mouths-​off spree, relentlessly pushing the need for stricter gun control. President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats echoed the theme.

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks went full accelerando, unleashing a foul rant about how “we” are the terrorists and “we” are letting “us” get away with mass murder “every week,” ignoring the statistics that murder rates have gone down, are still going down, and that the rest of the world is being hit with mass shootings too, mainly from Muslim radicals.

When the news came out that the perps were, indeed, Muslim, the barrage of anti-​gun talk didn’t stop, though their intellectual ammunition had fizzled.

The president went further off his rocker, calling the guns he wanted to ban “powerful” — though they are of lower caliber than many handguns — while Hillary Clinton talked about the need to ban “assault rifles.”

As has been noted by others, “assault rifle” only means what anti-​gun folks say it means, and what they designate as assault weapons are not (contrary to their constant implications) the equivalent of machine guns (which have been illegal for citizen ownership for a long, long time).

Being scared of scary-​looking guns is no excuse not to be able to define them. While it would be good to reduce incentives for folks to “go postal” or to commit terroristic acts, we aren’t going to prevent mass shootings by a simple prohibitionary or mere regulatory regime.

That’s for scare-​mongers to push. And us to resist.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

guns, anti-gun, second amendment, Common Sense, illustration
Categories
ideological culture nannyism too much government

A Handle on Global Warming?

Global Warming, Vancouver, gas, sticker, climate change, common sense

Folks in government are prone to overstepping their bounds.

Take, for example, the North Vancouver, British Columbia, City Council, which has instituted a mandatory sticker program for gas pumps. Starting in 2016, public service announcements will appear on North Vancouver gas pump nozzle handles.

What for?

To warn us of the danger of global warming.

Though the city government hasn’t accepted any particular message, Autoblog reports that the policy is clear: “The idea behind the warnings isn’t to shame people for filling up an internal combustion engine but instead to suggest that there could be more eco-​friendly alternatives.”

Autoblog calls this new move a “small step to help fight the planet’s rising temperatures,” and that North Vancouver “will likely be the first city in the world” to enact such a mandate.

I am sure city pols are proud of themselves.

The ordinance was pushed by a not-​for-​profit Canadian group called Our Horizon. The goal? Make a “positive impact on the environment” with this “relatively low cost but highly visible strategy.”

The official estimate on costs? Between C$3,000 and C$5,000. Costs to businesses? “Gas station owners must display [the stickers] as a condition of their business license.”

Meanwhile, the unsettled science of climate change teeters ahead, as The Rebel Media reports: increased carbon dioxide may not cause extra warming (chlorofluorocarbons do that), but does induce greening, helping plant life to flourish.

When the truth finally emerges, out of the fog blown over the issues by groupthink, the findings of legitimate science probably won’t fit on a sticker.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Global Warming, Vancouver, gas, sticker, climate change, common sense