Category: too much government

Categories
Common Sense initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

Rich Mischief

Government Scold, collage, montage, Paul Jacob, Jim Gill

The SFGate.com headline was clear: “State ballot initiative fee raised to $2,000 to prevent mischief.”

It just wasn’t accurate.

Assembly Bill 1100, introduced by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), passed by Democrats in the legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, doesn’t do anything to address “mischief.” Which, incidentally, abounds in California government — especially in the legislature.

The new law raises the cost for citizens to file a ballot initiative from $200 to $2,000. Now, if the mischief-maker has $2,000 to spend, this new law accomplishes . . . nothing.

Only five of the 26 states with initiative and/or referendum charge citizens any filing fee. California’s is now the highest by far.

“There are some lunatics out there and for $200 we encourage them to put measures on the ballot that say we should put a gun to the head of someone who is gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender,” argued Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). AB1100 was about “clearing out what’s nonsense.”

The senator was referring to an initiative filed by an Orange County attorney, called the “Sodomite Suppression Act,” which, if passed, would establish the death penalty for homosexual conduct.

“This reform is overdue,” argued Assemblyman Low, calling it “a threshold for reasonableness.”

Reasonableness? Those with $2,000 are more reasonable than those with just $200?

The anti-gay measure was a stunt. No signatures were collected. It wasn’t going to be on any ballot. Still, the Attorney General went to court to have it declared unconstitutional. Case closed.

So, why pass AB1100?

To make it harder for voters to go around legislators via the ballot initiative. Just more mischief.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Government Scold, collage, montage, Paul Jacob, Jim Gill

 

Categories
Common Sense folly general freedom ideological culture nannyism too much government

I Prefer Plastic

Paper or Plastic, collage, photomontage, Paul Jacob, James Gill, illustration, politics

When I go to the supermarket, and get asked “paper or plastic?” — about which bag the checker should wrap my purchases in — I almost always say “plastic.” They are lighter than paper bags, are easily re-usable for a wide variety of home purposes, and resist water — thus less apt to self-destruct on the trip from store to car, car to kitchen.

Of course, anything plastic and mega-popular makes a perfect target for environmentalist critics. Hundreds of cities, particularly on the West Coast — but throughout the world — now outlaw plastic bags or restrict their use.

We are encouraged to buy and re-use cloth shopping bags — which in my experience get stinky pretty quickly.

On many issues (say, pollution) my heart is with the environmentalists. But on the bag issue, I’m skeptical. Thankfully, Katherine Mangu-Ward has a great piece at Reason, showing that the scientific case against the plastic bag is weak — weaker than a paper bag holding wet veggies, an exploded Coke, and frozen meat.

Plastic bags are not the litter problem they’ve been cracked up to be, she says, citing one study figuring that “all plastic bags, of which plastic retail bags are only a subset, are just 0.6 percent of visible litter nationwide.”

And, as for harm to wildlife, she quotes a Greenpeace biologist to good effect: “It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags. . . . On a global basis plastic bags aren’t an issue.”

What is at issue is their utility, reusability, and . . . our freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Paper or Plastic, collage, photomontage, Paul Jacob, James Gill, illustration, politics

 

Categories
Common Sense crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom judiciary nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Legalize, But Prohibit?

Pot Pot, legalization, collage, photo-montage, Paul Jacob, Jim Gill

Last week, I warned of marijuana legalization.

Not that I’m against it. But how much will actual freedom be increased?

Note: I’m not bemoaning, as one activist friend argued, that “if you can’t toke up and celebrate in public when it passes, it’s not legalization.”

One cannot now legally smoke tobacco in most public buildings (meaning those open for business as well as government-owned structures) or drink a beer in most public parks or while navigating sidewalks. But you can smoke and drink at home or on certain types of private property.

Ending the drug war and treating newly legalized marijuana pretty much as we treat alcohol and tobacco seems like a long overdo common sense approach.

There’s also the freedom of home cultivation. I have friends who make wine at home, for private consumption. It’s legal; it’s proper. It should also be legal to grow cannabis at home. Yet, many a politician thinks otherwise.

And they are inspired, in a sense, by the popular legalization mantra, “legalize, tax and regulate.” That sends an ominous signal: in order to maximize revenues, politicians see the revenue advantage in forbidding hard-to-tax home cultivation — cultivation that is, let’s face it, a traditional freedom, a right “retained by the people.”

The excuse for this continued prohibition could be “think of the children.” But it’s probably just greed for revenue . . . and the even more hidden enticements of “crony capitalism,” which plagues almost all industry.

You should be able to grow a plant. And self-medicate. These are basic human rights, and the state should work around those.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Pot Pot, legalization, collage, photo-montage, Paul Jacob, Jim Gill

 

Categories
Common Sense folly free trade & free markets general freedom too much government

Despotic Denver?

Chicken Politburo, politics, photomontage, Paul Jacob, James Gill, collage

In what sort of place does the government get to determine whether you can open a restaurant at an airport, according to whether your political beliefs line up with the politicians in power?

Iran? North Korea? Egypt? China? Cuba? The old Soviet Union? Russia today?

Actually, over far too much of our beautiful globe the marketplace is not anywhere close to free. Instead, it’s maniacally manipulated of, by and for those wielding political power.

Including in Denver, Colorado.

“Chick-fil-A’s reputation as an opponent of same-sex marriage has imperiled the fast-food chain’s potential return to Denver International Airport,” reports The Denver Post, “with several City Council members this week passionately questioning a proposed concession agreement.”

The article notes that the “normally routine process of approving an airport concession deal has taken a rare political turn. The Business Development Committee . . . stalled the seven-year deal with a new franchisee of the popular chain for two weeks.”

Popular?

Yes, extremely popular . . . with customers. A senior airport concessions executive said the restaurant was “the second-most sought-after quick service brand at the airport” in a 2013 survey.

Not popular among politicians, however, who claim concern about DIA’s “reputation.”

That’s about it, really. The company itself isn’t accused of any form of illegal or politically incorrect discrimination. It is merely that the company’s ownership and management have expressed disreputable (to some) opinions. And might donate a portion of its profits to political causes that politicians on the Denver City Council don’t approve of.

In a foreign country, with an unfamiliar cause, almost no one would hesitate to call this what it is: despotic.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Chicken Politburo, politics, photomontage, Paul Jacob, James Gill, collage

 

Categories
Common Sense national politics & policies political challengers too much government

Weekend with Bernie: A Fresh Dark Horse

Weekend with Bernie Sanders, http://cognitivebiasparade.prosite.com/, Paul Jacob, James Gill

Going into 2015, news media mavens had all but declared the race as settled: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. But voters didn’t cooperate with their “betters.” Republicans flocked to Donald Trump, a weirdly charismatic figure, and Democrats fell enthusiastically for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-designated socialist.

Why hordes of regular folks prefer Trump over most of his rivals hardly needs extensive analysis: Trump is funny, appears “his own man,” and serves as a sort of wild card.

But why Bernie?

Over at The Hill, H.A. Goodman offers three reasons . . . sort of. The first reason is a confused mishmash of polling blather. But check out Goodman’s second and third reasons.

“Clinton can’t win the Democratic nomination or presidency with the FBI as a running mate,” Goodman notes in bold face type. And “Classified information has already been found within Clinton’s emails and there’s a great likelihood of more revelations pertaining to breaches in protocol. . . .”

So, the reason for Bernie’s popularity is that Hillary is so bad a candidate?

Well, duh. She’s always been a bad candidate.

Indeed, Hillary’s a corrupt insider, while Sanders, like Trump, can be plausibly construed as an outsider. But, like Trump, that plausibility is superficial.

Sanders is a lifelong politician, and when challenged about this, his retort was that he has always stood against the monied interests. He thinks that doesn’t make him a “career politician.”

Maybe being a career politician means never having to look up the meaning of “career” or “politician.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Weekend with Bernie Sanders

 

Categories
Common Sense crime and punishment folly general freedom national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Cannabis and Kings

Jack boot, photomontage, collage, James Gill, Paul Jacob, Common Sense, http://cognitivebiasparade.prosite.com/

The over-riding reason to end the War on Drugs is to re-establish the rule of law in this country.

From Nixon and Reagan to the present time, America has vastly increased the population of prison inmates, many of them for drug offenses. The “land of the free” shouldn’t boast a larger population (per capita and total) of unfree persons than any other nation on the planet.

Further, in the mania to apprehend contraband drug users, producers, and traffickers, we’ve pretty much lost Bill of Rights protections on our lives and our property.

We’ve armed nearly every conceivable division of government against us, turning local, state and federal police “services” into police state apparatuses that hound and steal from portions of our population — which turns them from citizens into fearful, resentful, servile subjects. Meanwhile, the use of civil asset forfeiture and other policing for profit schemes corrupt our police forces in a serious and fundamental and “King Georgish” way.

Sam and John Adams, Toms Jefferson and Paine — they’d all be aghast at what we have become.

But what of the growing tide to legalize/decriminalize marijuana? Reading a report by Steven Greenhut in Reason, it becomes apparent that not every step moves us towards a rule of law. Some steps in “regulating and taxing” cannabis may be more about using crony capitalism to choose winners and losers.

Let’s use some common sense from lessons learned with alcohol — er, with regulating alcohol, that is. Keep marijuana away from the kids and keep the over-regulation of marijuana away from adults.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Jack boot, photomontage, collage, James Gill, Paul Jacob, Common Sense