Category: general freedom

Categories
general freedom ideological culture insider corruption national politics & policies

Non-Reciprocity

There’s a basic rule that folks who seek power tend to forget and those in power flout outright: the principles we foist on others must apply also to ourselves.

Notoriously, Congress piles regulation over regulation upon the American people, but absolves itself from those very same laws. This became an issue, recently, when our moral exemplars on Capitol Hill began to speak loftily for a higher minimum wage and against modern internship programs.

“A new study,” Bill McMorris wrote last month, “found that 97 percent of lawmakers backing the minimum wage are relying on unpaid interns to help get the bill passed.” McMorris used the H-word in his title, as have many similar reports before him: hypocrites.

The program requirements of the Democrats’ “ObamaCare” have proven to be more burdensome than Nancy Pelosi promised. So President Obama now declares, unilaterally, to postpone applying the employer mandate in the law. Consider, too, the many waivers granted to other groups for various rules and regulations rules. None of this was done to better implement a carefully thought-out policy, but not to aggrieve certain influential groups.

And here we get to the heart of today’s weakness on principles.

You see, it’s not individuals who matter to our leaders, it’s powerful groups . . . groups that fund or swing re-elections.

And that’s the principal reason government policy works at cross-purposes, to our general detriment. Instead of insisting on broad rules that apply to all, our leaders pit group against group, favoring one, then another, then later still another.

Madness for us; method for them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture nannyism

Forced Visits

When I’m ancient and stuck in a nursing home, I’d like my children to visit me.

But would I want them to visit only because they’re being forced to? So they resent every minute subtracted from something they’d rather be doing? No.

While I don’t want that kind of world, Barry Davis seems to. Davis, a New York Times reader, says that he and his friends don’t hear from their kids as much as they’d like.

He praises a new Chinese law ordering children to visit aging parents. Nothing he has seen “in recent times so manifests our common humanity” as this facile compulsion. “We need Congress to pass an American version of the ‘Protection of Rights and Interests of Elderly People’. . . .”

“We,” kemosabe?

I’m in favor of children, however old themselves, visiting their aging parents. I’m also in favor of a free society in which everyone respects the rights and sovereignty of others — including those of children who have left the nest and now live as independent adults. In such a society, relationships are voluntary, whether we’re exchanging money and goods or time and attention. Persons respect the fact that we each have our own lives and priorities. We deal with each other because we want to; we’re not outlaws if we don’t.

That’s a basis for good will. Things are different if every time we interact with another person, it’s at the point of gun, with every participant’s actual judgments and desires treated as irrelevant.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom government transparency national politics & policies too much government

Google or Government?

The ugly fact: our government is capturing all of our phone records. It reportedly is grabbing our credit card information, as well tracking us online. The latest “defense” of this practice? Such mined data’s no worse than the information we voluntarily provide Google or Facebook or other big, bad corporations.

This after-the-fact rationalization comes up short, however, missing that crucial “voluntary” aspect, whereby we get to choose what information we give to a corporation, including providing none at all. That’s not how the National Security Agency works. The NSA just grabs our information without our consent.

What other possible differences might there be?

There’s the crucial matter of degree, too. “The government possesses the ultimate executive power,” argued The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, author of Deep State, appearing on “All In with Chris Hayes” on MSNBC. “I mean, it can jail you, it can detain you, it can kill you.”

“Even though the Obama campaign and Apple . . . know more about me than perhaps members of my family, and probably the government,” Ambinder added, “what the government can do with that information is much different than what a corporation can do. They can make me buy something or vote for someone; the government can imprison me.”

Mr. Ambinder is absolutely correct . . . except for his ridiculous statement that campaigns can “make” you vote for their candidate or that corporations can “make” you buy their products. The crucial difference is between the arts of persuasion (including tempting, cajoling, nudging) on the one hand, and sheer homicidal force coupled with kleptomaniacal thievery on the other.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

Here’s Looking at You, Everybody

Here we go again. One of the less-debated provisions lurking in the Immigration Modernization Act would revive an old statist dream: a national ID card.

More precisely, it would create a federal database of info on everybody. An increasingly intrusive national identification regime would follow.

An article in Wired alerts us that the 800-page bill provides for an “innocuously-named ‘photo tool,’ a massive federal database . . . containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license and other state-issued ID.” Employers would have to check the database before hiring.

That’s intrusive enough. But this database would also lay the basis for all manner of further surveillance and authorization protocols.

A push for a national ID card as a way to combat terrorism has been ongoing especially since 9/11. Worries about illegal immigration have been another major rationale for planning an expansive surveillance regime.

Whether from fear of immigrants, fear of terrorists, fear of drugs, fear of cash or fear of unmonitored actions of any kind (what do people do when they draw the blinds?), the huddled masses are invited to eagerly submit to ever-more-invasive oversight. And, hey, unless we have “something to hide,” why wouldn’t we have boundless faith in the motives and powers of Big Brother?

Who should object to the database? Civil libertarians, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, or, really, anybody who gets a creepy-crawly feeling at the prospect of the surveillance state’s monitoring and approving our every move.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom

Against Terrorism

It’s the business of reporters to report on events like the Boston bombings, and the business of commentators to explain them. But since we don’t have enough evidence, yet, about who did what, all commentators can do is speculate . . .

And that’s not very illuminating. Anyone can speculate.

Instead, let’s take a step back.

“Terrorism” is old. Anarchists at the end of the 19th century began their “propaganda by the deed” campaigns, eliciting from the U.S. government a vast repressive effort against anarchists (even peaceful, non-terrorist anarchists) and syndicalist unionism.

Striking out and terrifying a populace tends to unite that populace, making people more supportive of their government and its policies, not less. This has been observed from time immemorial. So anarchist terrorism was probably the dumbest terrorism in history.

An earlier bout of terrorism was the mob of “democrats” in France, during the late French Revolution. The furor to kill and dispossess got so out of hand that the French were prepared for a tyrant, Napoleon.

Not very effective there, either.

The most common form of terrorism in the last century was state terrorism, where governments brutalized their citizens, the better to solidify power. These regimes seem to succeed, sometimes for long periods. But people eventually turn on such tormenters, preferring peaceful life under a rule of law.

As Bostonians reel from the bizarre bombing, we should remember: the rule of law is better than terrorism. It’s plodding, yes. It is never ideally just, since it is run by human beings. But refusing to resort to indiscriminate violence to “obtain justice” or “make a point” or “get/maintain power” is the basic idea of civilization.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Flight to Freedom

One of the more inspiring perennial stories of my youth were of defectors, people who left their Communist-controlled countries to reach freedom . . . on American soil.

Many, many Soviet and Eastern bloc subjects smuggled themselves out of their countries, or “jumped ship” while visiting the U.S. or other Western nations. The list of freedom seekers is long, impressive, and inspiring.

And this isn’t just “ancient history.”

After an international tour, seven members of Cuba’s National Ballet were confirmed by homeland sources as “not having returned.” And a Cuban exile website has informed us that six of the defectors are now in the U.S., while the seventh remains in Mexico, where the troupe had broken free:

“We were intent on seeking a better artistic life and economic well-being for our families,” Cafe Fuerte quoted one of the group, Annie Ruiz Diaz, as saying.

Correspondents say Cuba’s National Ballet has suffered from a number of high-profile defections over the years, as performers stay abroad in search of greater creative and economic opportunities.

But this is only the tip of the proverbial floating mass of frozen water. In truth, thousands of people defect to the United States every year. Leaving their countries of origin, they flee poverty, tyranny, reckless government and outrageous criminality (too often these latter are the same thing), seeking the comparatively peaceful life found under a nation run by the rule of law.

Alas, defection is going the other way, too, as more and more Americans attempt to escape from increasingly burdensome taxation, oppressive regulations, and selective enforcement of innumerable laws.

We honor the heroic defectors from Cuba only by making the U.S. a place that fewer and fewer peaceful folks would be tempted to flee from.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom insider corruption national politics & policies

No 75 percent Tax Hike

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit blogger, is often sensible, always indispensable.

But his idea for slowing “the revolving door between government and business” would encourage government to do more of the bad things freedom lovers loathe.

Glenn says: “Political appointees in the executive branch should pay an extra income tax when they leave for high-paying jobs.” He wants a surtax of 50 to 75 percent, for five years, on all income greater than what the victims of the surtax had earned as government officials.

Even if lobbying were the biggest cause of outsized government — dubious — expanding government’s ability to impose strangling taxation ain’t the answer.

The tax would, first of all, be unjust in itself, among other things treating persons unequally under the law. It would massively penalize select taxpayers simply for having worked at a certain level in a certain branch of government. Penalize them not only for unapproved-but-legal conduct (lobbying), but for unapproved-but-legal conduct in which they might engage.

The tax would also be a horrific precedent. For one thing, why apply it only to executive appointees and not also lawmakers, judges, the president?

Indeed, such a tax would foster the notion that it’s okay to confiscatorily target the income of members of any group, not just former government officials, in hopes of preventing other disapproved-but-legal conduct. After all, lawmakers wouldn’t be calling up Instapundit to get approval of the next proposed application of his idea.

Back to the drawing board, Glenn.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom

Backwoods Growers Still Outlawed?

One way marijuana legalization was pushed, politically, in Colorado and Washington, was with the “let’s tax this weed!” agenda. Indeed, the “tax and regulate” approach proved a convenient way for marijuana users to get non-marijuana users “on board” the legalization bandwagon, basically buying off those who were most sympathetic to the prohibitionist status quo.

And it’s the dominant way of thinking, today.

This frustrates many who wanted to return marijuana growth, distribution and usage to its pre-1937 legality, for they saw the prohibitionist program as inherently illiberal, nasty, inhumane. To these legalizers, “taxing and regulating” appears as just a ramped-down version of today’s policy.

Think Genghis Khan, who wanted to kill all Manchurians and turn northern China into a vast grazing land for horses. He was convinced not to do so for reasons of the “Laffer Curve”: he’d get more revenue by taxing Manchurians than killing them.

While taxing and regulating Manchurians was certainly better than genocide, it was still a tyrant’s prerogative.

Apply the same logic to cannabis.

Marijuana has been grown and used for eons. Trying to control or eradicate it as a noxious weed rather than tolerate it as a plant with many uses, seems unjust, not merely inadvisable. The whole “tax and regulate” notion rubs up against the home growing of the plant. Marijuana is easy to grow, but many folks want to prohibit people from growing it out-of-doors — the better to keep it out of the hands of thieving youngsters.

Call me old-fashioned, but it seems to me that thieving youngsters should be nabbed and dealt with in Andy Griffith-style justice.

But then, I missed the marijuana episode of the Andy Griffith Show.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom local leaders

Home to Gnomes

Oakland, California, serves as home to over a third of a million human inhabitants, but the city has made room for a very different denizen, the gnome.

The gnomes began appearing to observant pedestrians as painted figures on pieces of wood screwed onto utility poles. At ground level.

The gnomes were charming, and appeared in a wide variety of garb, juxtaposed with similarly styled (and painted) colorful mushrooms and other accoutrements and furniture of gnomedom.

The anonymous artist who painted the gnomes did it for fun, as a gift for his neighbors. Only a few people noticed at first. It was Oakland’s best-kept secret:

About 2,300 gnomes with pointy hats and white beards now live in Oakland. One resembles Santa Claus in a monk’s robe. Others wave or appear to be doing a little disco dance.

Yet until late last month, they had pretty much managed to keep their presence on the down low. Even Pacific Gas & Electric, whose poles are gnome homes, was unaware of their existence.

But when the officials found out, they promised to remove the gnomes. Their very existence, you see, might encourage others to likewise affix near-permanent painted figures, and soon gnomes would not only proliferate, but be joined by djinn, leprechauns, imps . . . and perversities.

When the charmed folk of Oakland found out, though, they rallied. They liked the gnomes. The artist came out of the closet, so to speak, but not to make a name for himself — he didn’t provide his name (though it’s an open secret) — for he didn’t want the gnomes to be about him, but about themselves.

And the people won. Public pressure moved PG&E, and the gnomes are safe. For the time being, anyway.

A charming story, reminding us that the character of a place can arise up in humble ways, and without an Arts Council grant, much less a Bureau of Gnomes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Protect Us, Big Brother

Have Sixties-era flower children, those free spirits who once believed in peace and “doing your own thing,” been so conquered by fear that they now embrace a zero-tolerance, Big Brother-ish national security state?

Sixties generation folks largely run the show these days.

Is it blinding fear of terrorism that convinced them to allow unconstitutional violations of civil liberties? Or to permit the peace-prize-winning president to launch assassination drone strikes from prepared “kill lists,” with admittedly no legal framework to check this new life-and-death power?

Now, after the Newtown school shooting, we again see fear driving the agenda, threatening further erosion of liberty and giving new powers to government.

As the White House announces its agenda to tackle so-called “gun violence,” expect President Obama to follow a 13-point legislative and executive action program* just released by a key progressive think tank, The Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP calls for super-sizing the National Instant Criminal Background Check database, by tying federal funds to states turning over more information on those deemed “mentally ill,” and by pushing all federal agencies to share data on known drug use, etc.

Yes, the new progressive solution to mass shootings is a federal database containing information on every American who has ever seen a shrink or is believed to have smoked weed.

Congress is also urged to pass legislation denying those “suspected” of terrorism their Second Amendment rights. No need for trials anymore.

Still feeling groovy?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Not to be confused with the 13-Point Program to Destroy America, an album by the punkish band Nation of Ulysses, album cover pictured above.