Category: too much government

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Censoring a Diet

North Carolina, like many states, licenses all sorts of businesses activity, especially enterprises related to medicine. That’s why the state’s Board of Dietetics and Nutrition is gearing up to jail a blogger. According to the Carolina Journal Online,

Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.”

Steve Cooksey has learned that the definition, at least in the eyes of the state board, is expansive.

Cooksey had been hospitalized for diabetes in February 2009, and decided to take a major, independent step towards his health, beginning a low-carb, high-protein diet dubbed the paleo (or “cave man”) diet. Within 30 days, he claims, he was off insulin; within a few months he had shed off 45 pounds.

He started his blog, Diabetes-Warrior.net, to chronicle his progress and help others achieve similar success. But after he challenged a local, certified nutrition expert at his local church, the state board went after him, especially objecting to his Q&A section: “If people are writing you with diabetic specific questions and you are responding, you are no longer just providing information — you are counseling.”

Need a license for that!

Journalist Brian Doherty wittily asserts “that someone should be able to describe his experiences . . . and advocate for his own good results should go without saying, though my saying that may well contradict a directive of the California Board of Going Without Saying.”

We don’t need another bureau.

Getting rid of some that we have might be the best policy diet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Second Amendment rights too much government

Drawing Gunfire

Thank goodness the CIA didn’t investigate my preschool drawings. I went wild with pencil and pen, drawing such mayhem that surely my parents should have been hauled into a klieg-lit interrogation room.

But they weren’t. Such dystopian dynamics had to wait a few decades and befall 4-year-old Nevaeh Sansone and her father, Jessie Sansone, of Kitchener, Ontario.

At school, Nevaeh drew a picture of her father holding a pistol. What was her father doing with the gun? Reportedly, little Nevaeh informed adults, and I use that term loosely, her dad was “getting the bad guys and monsters.”

No wonder, then, that when Jesse Sansone came to pick up Nevaeh and his other kids at school, he was picked up, instead, by police.

The child’s concerned teacher had tattled to school officials, who then contacted Family and Children’s Services, who brought in the, uh, big guns — who arrested and strip-searched the child’s father.

Waterloo Regional Police Inspector Kevin Thaler informed reporters that Nevaeh and her siblings told police where in the house the gun was stored and that the children had accessed it.

“It is a four-year-old that we’re taking the information from,” Thaler explained, “but the fact is that this disclosure was very descriptive and very alarming to the officers investigating this.”

He elaborated: “The kids were scared.”

Yeah, I’ll bet they were.

After several hours of harassing the children, humiliating the father and scaring the pregnant mother, the cops figured out that the gun was a toy. According to the father, it was “completely transparent. It doesn’t even resemble a real gun, at all.”

Fake gun. Real panic. Foolish, fear-ridden officialdom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

The Shape of Bills to Come

Q. Why are the bills on farmers’ feed caps rounded?

A. So they fit inside the mailbox as each farmer roots around for his government check.

Old joke — and a useful reminder of how subsidy-dependent agriculture has become. Scott Faber, writing in The Washington Times, barrels right into the subject:

From 1995 to 2010, taxpayers provided nearly a quarter-trillion dollars in subsidies to farm businesses. Only one-third of America’s farmers grow crops that are even eligible for these subsidies, and the top 10 percent of these operations collected 74 percent of available funds. More and more farm payments are being delivered as premium subsidies for farm insurance policies. As more farm businesses purchased government-subsidized insurance, the cost to taxpayers has exploded: from $2.4 billion in 2001 to nearly $9 billion in 2011.

So the joke doesn’t quite limn the nature of today’s agribiz subsidies, which tend to be concentrated in the bigger businesses, not the more sympathetic “family farm.”

Faber notes that, today, as profits rise so do discoveries of insurance fraud . . . and yet farm lobbyists now trot out subsidy extension packages, even to the point of erecting new entitlement programs.

Just what we need, an even more dirigiste agricultural policy.

Faber proposes to cut back on covering farmers’ “shallow” losses — cover “deep” ones only. Move away from an agribiz “entitlement” system. Help reduce the federal deficit, not pile up more bushels of debt. That’s a start, at least.

Certainly, something must be done: Farm legislation is up for renewal this year.

But will Midwestern politicians wearing feed caps dare cut back?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

X Marks the Mistake

Take subject X. What if nearly everything we’re told about X — by the most famous experts and by people in government, as well as most folks in the media — is wrong?

Let X be diet. Maybe the whole “anti-fat” idea, dominant for most of my adult life, is wrong. There’s evidence for it.

Let X be AGW, the theory of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. We’re told that there’s a consensus in favor of it. But there’s less to that alleged consensus than meets the eye — or scientific rigor.

But to really blow your mind, consider central banking.

We’re told that the job of the central bank is to protect us from the fluctuations of boom and bust. The Federal Reserve was established by the federal government just to help us! But . . . what if that was never the actual reason that banks have been centralized?

Economist George Selgin posted, last week, a thorough debunking of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s recent statements about what he’s up to. If you have never heard of free banking before, or the long tradition of central banking criticism among monetary economists, Selgin’s critique may seem outrageous . . . as outrageous as Copernicus and Galileo were back when most folks thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

If Selgin is right (and I think he is), nearly everything we’ve been told by experts and politicians about money, boom and bust, and banking, is wrong.

The central banking school is X.  X is wrong.

So if the Fed doesn’t do what it’s “supposed to,” why do we have it?

It serves big government and some big bankers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture too much government

Down With the Capital

My wife and daughter have devoured Suzanne Collins’s trilogy of dystopian novels, The Hunger Games, Catching Fire and Mockingjay, and they let me accompany them to this weekend’s blockbuster movie of the first in the series.

In the depicted dystopia, a dozen outlying districts have been conquered by the capital. Once a year, for the diversion of sport and, moreover, to assert their life-and-death control over the districts, folks in the capital choose one male and one female teenager from each district — as “tribute” — to go to the capital to fight to the death. The last of the 24 left alive is the “winner.”

The story’s protagonist is Katniss Everdeen, a 16-year old girl whose prowess with bow and arrow helps (illegally) feed her family. When her 12-year old sister gets selected to meet a certain death in the games, Katniss “volunteers” to take her place.

Expressing an independent spirit, Peeta, her district’s male contestant, tells Katniss: “I just keep wishing I could find a way to show them they don’t own me. If I’m going to die, I want to still be me.”

In The Hunger Games, the capital thrives, while folks out in the districts struggle to find enough to eat. In our own country, today, seven of the 25 wealthiest counties are in the Washington, D.C. area. While much of the nation suffers a depressed housing market and high unemployment, that’s not the case in our nation’s capital region.

I liked the movie so much, I’m now reading the book.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture too much government

From Local to Federal

Both the politics of “getting what we want” and the politics of reasonable principles — too often two very different things — rely, ultimately, upon the local, upon voters in actual communities.

In a review of a book with the provocative title How Local Politics Shapes Federal Policy, economist Robert Meiners considers the political economy of America’s most famous dam:

[M]ultiple states wrestled for control of the multi-state Colorado River and for control of the electricity that might be generated. When there is a pot of gold on the table, the stakes are high. Eastern interests opposed the dam. The rhetoric was about “states’ rights” . . . but likely had more to do with eastern members of the legislature seeing no benefit, only costs, for themselves. Again, assuming the dam had net benefits, there is no reason the national government needed to be involved in a project that provide benefits to six states at best.

The book’s author tells the story in terms of ideology, but the reviewer counters that it looks, to him, “more like traditional rent-seeking and logrolling. . . .” Our folks in Congress “constantly think about how to satisfy local interests at the expense of non-local taxpayers,” and that’s certainly the current problem.

And here ideology comes back into the picture. If you think that some people’s lives or property should be sacrificed for some other people’s lives and property, then the ultimate result is the mess we have today. Voters have little option but to take a stand and “ideologically” place limits on politicians and their very own selves.

In our limits, our liberty.

Lacking those limits, we’re each others’ hosts and leeches.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

IRS Overreach

The taxman puts his hands in our pockets. But it’s one thing to reach into our bank accounts and take our money, it is quite another when governments engage in different kind of overreach, where they go beyond the rule of law and just start pushing people around.

Take the case of Sabina Loving and Elmer Killian.

The Institute for Justice has.

These plaintiffs are suing the IRS because that bureau of plunderers has ruled that Ms. Loving and Mr. Killian — who provide tax preparation services — must be regulated and schooled and certified by the IRS itself. The IRS says that these independent tax preparers (independent in that they are not part of big businesses) can’t just offer their services on the market, they must undergo an expensive annual education and certification process.

The overreach part is that the IRS has no statutory authority to regulate these businesses. Congress rejected precisely such regulation back in 2008. So the clever kleptocrats now argue that a pre-IRS law hailing from way back in 1884 authorizes their regulatory powers.

But that law doesn’t even deal with representatives of folks who owe the government money. It deals with representatives of people owed money by the federal government.

Nice try.

“You will be as shocked as Captain Renault to learn that big tax-prep companies — H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty — all support the new regulations,” writes A. Barton Hinkle in Reason magazine, “for the same reason big tobacco companies go after roll-your-own smoke shops: It’s in their interest to stifle low-cost competitors.”

Like Ms. Loving and Mr. Killian.

As we prepare our tax returns in the next several weeks leading up to April’s filing day, perhaps we should burn a little incense along with our midnight oil in support of the plaintiffs and the Institute for Justice. For, really, they are fighting for us, too — eternal vigilance and all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Central Planning, Clarified

Last Friday, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order on “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” and it’s gotten no small amount of attention. It seems to commandeer the entire economy — pretty much anything the government needs — in cases of a presidentially (not congressionally) declared “emergency.”

The powers are vast.

The checks and balances, vague.

The whole thing is matter-of-fact, sporting that business-as-usual style we’ve come to know and . . . view suspiciously. A few clauses at the end of the document build up to a sort of finale of weirdness with this clarification: “This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.” It may be about “national security,” but the government has certainly protected itself. Against us.

Reasons for angst? Yes.

But the angst should not be conceived as new.

Economic historian Robert Higgs, writing for The Independent Institute, notes our long history of what he calls “fascist central planning.” Citing his own milestone work Crisis and Leviathan, he fingers warfare as the major rationale behind the centralization of power and industry. Under the Defense Production Act of the Truman Era, “the president has lawful authority to control virtually the whole of the U.S. economy whenever he chooses to do so and states that the national defense requires such a government takeover.”

It’s breathtaking. It’s sweeping. It’s almost ancient.

And it shows how important actual peace is to our freedoms, our property rights, our very lives.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Very Lame Duck

A Washington Post feature story on Kent Conrad refers to the retiring U.S. Senator as “the Democrats’ balanced-budget guy for more than a decade.”

Of course, no budget has been balanced for “more than a decade.” Being the Democrats’ “balanced-budget guy” is sorta like being the Taliban’s diversity outreach guy or AARP’s youth activities director or the bartender for the Temperance League.

I won’t dispute Sen. Conrad’s claim that he’s “done [his] level best,” but, in the time he’s been in Congress, the federal debt has climbed more than 700 percent, from $2.1 trillion in 1986 to $15.4 trillion today.

Nonetheless, Conrad continues to work his colleagues in the dark corridors of the capitol, and The Post reports his goal is to “draft far-reaching legislation to tame the debt and present it for a vote after Election Day, when lawmakers will be under intense pressure to reach an agreement to avert huge tax increases and deep spending cuts set to hit Jan. 1.”

But how will the desire to avoid tax increases and spending cuts “pressure” Congress to pass Conrad’s preferred package of tax increases and spending cuts? Especially in a lame duck session that sidesteps public pressure?

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan offers a different view: “We shouldn’t be insulating this from the American public, trying to cut back room deals on commissions or whatever. I think the process is moved forward if we put plans out for the public to see and defend our ideas.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Garbage Day

Sometimes, before you can progress, you must first take out the garbage.

This is certainly true of America’s vast library of laws and regulations.

The solution? Repeal.

Congress needs to go into a session devoted to repealing existing laws and regulations.

The reasons for such a grand garbage disposal were handily supplied, yesterday, by John Stossel, who argues in “Complex Societies Need Simple Laws,” that we must “end the orgy of rule-making at once and embrace the simple rules that true liberals like America’s founders envisioned.”

Stossel isn’t saying anything new or shocking. The great legal scholar Richard Epstein wrote a book devoted to just this argument, and the classical liberal thinker Herbert Spencer defined the point of view in 1850 — his classic Social Statics derived law from a principle that should remain static, allowing the rest of complex society to develop dynamically from that simple standpoint.

Free societies need understandable, universal laws. As Stossel puts it, “[n]o legislature can possibly prescribe rules for the complex network of uncountable transactions and acts of cooperation that take place every day.”

Oddly, Stossel doesn’t mention the word repeal.

It’s certainly not a word you hear much in the current Republican primary campaigns. Only one current contender for the GOP nomination seems committed to exercising veto power — the illustrious “Dr. No” — and he is not leading in the delegate count. A Dr. Veto as president could cajole Congress into mass repeals.

Which I bet could have mass appeal.

Unfortunately, we’re not going to get this from our current president, or contenders Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, or the leaders of either party in Congress. These politicians know, really, only one thing: Adding to the mess.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.