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

In the Black

“Black Friday,” reads a meme making the social media rounds. “Because only in America [do] people trample each other for sales one day after being thankful for what they already have.”

Thankfulness is vital, I agree. But I’ve been up at the crack of dawn to “cash in” on Black Friday sales, and I’ve never witnessed any violence of any kind. Not a smidgeon. Not that it doesn’t happen — we’ve all seen the videos. It just isn’t the usual experience.

In fact, the camaraderie of strangers is one of the endearing aspects of standing in line waiting for a big box store to open at some forsaken hour.

Trust me, I’m decidedly not an enthusiastic shopper, so participating in Black Friday wasn’t my idea. My youngest daughter wanted to experience it. And taking a businesslike approach to Christmas shopping, she needed the savings. I liked her interest and initiative and so I said, yes, to getting up at 5:00 am.

But after staying up late talking with friends and relatives, that early alarm hit hard.

What I liked, in order, were: being with my daughter, our sleep-deprived sense of humor, the rush of doing something new, and a comforting visit to Starbucks.

For years, I rode this father-daughter Black Friday fast lane. But not this year. At age 17 (her, not me), with her social life and work, she’s got better things to do than partake in dawn shopping raids.

Still, if she ever asks me to go with her on Black Friday, I’ll be up and at ’em, thrilled for the opportunity.

Why? I know what I’m thankful for. What really matters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Christmas, Black Friday, family, values, trample, hypocrisy

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Thanksgivings, 1623 AD

The Pilgrims we were taught about in school deserve a Paul Harveyesque “Rest of the Story” treatment. Most students were not told about how they tried communism before they wised up, though I actually had a teacher who made a point of it.

Yes, initially, the “community” owned everything, and all worked together for the greater good and the Glory of God.

Of course, it was a disaster.

The commune plan sparked sloth, shirking, family quarrels and resentment — with men regarding their wives’ work for others a “kind of slavery.”

And then near-starvation.

The solution? Privatize! They allotted land, setting “corne every man for his owne perticuler.”*

That worked well, but they still had to endure a late Spring drought, and things looked bleak. Then, after prayers and expressions of humility (as Governor William Bradford explained**), the rain returned:

It came, without either wind, or thunder, or any violence, and by degreese in yt abundance, as that ye earth was thorowly wete and soked therwith. Which did so apparently revive & quicken ye decayed corne & other fruits, as was wonderfull to see, and made ye Indeans astonished to behold; and afterwards the Lord sent them shuch seasonable showers, with enterchange of faire warme weather, as, through his blessing, caused a fruitfull & liberall harvest, to their no small comforte and rejoycing. For which mercie (in time conveniente) they also sett aparte a day of thanksgiveing.

So the most obvious political lesson to be drawn from the Pilgrim experience got lost in stories of rain and corn and Indians and such.

But it’s worth noting that Bradford wrote his discussions of communism — and how very wrong Plato and his ilk were — in his primary text, while his talk of the drought was an afterthought in his mss., and appears as a footnote in the edition I’ve consulted.

Both*** Plymouth stories deserve to be told.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*I wrote about this a few years ago, offering some of the juiciest quotations, in “Plymouth’s Great Reform.”

** Bradford’s History of Plimoth Plantation, available for free at Gutenberg.org.

***The traditional date for the first Thanksgiving is given a few years earlier, with Squanto showing up and helping them plant and all. However, Bradford’s memoirs do not use the term thanksgiving (or “thanks-giveing”) or even “thanks” in relation to the harvests of 1621 at Plymouth Colony. But there is talk of plenty of food, including that Thanksgiving specialty, the turkey:

And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter aproached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids they had aboute a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since harvest, Indean corne to yt proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports.

 


PDF for printing

pilgrims, socialism, communism, thanksgiving, sharing, shirking, illustration

 

Categories
general freedom nannyism national politics & policies Popular privacy too much government

Inconvenient Cash?

Everywhere I turn these days, I am hearing something about the push to get rid of cash.

Yes, cash. Greenbacks. Federal Reserve Notes.

You might think that getting rid of cash is a no-brainer. Cash makes up only 11 percent of the money supply. Most of the money stock is already those 1s and 0s in bank computers, on debit cards, and the like. So why not go all the way?

It is the “logical next step,” after all!

But not every “next step” is advisable. When walking towards a cliff, that next step might be a doozy. And when you are dealing with government and the banks, jumping off a cliff proves an apt metaphor.

Don’t go lemming on me, man.

You can probably guess the usual arguments for getting rid of cash. Convenience, for one. It sure would be convenient for government and central bankers if they could just seize control of money “magically” in the banks’ computers.

Somehow, I am not persuaded. Neither is economist Pierre Lemieux, who provides us with a helpful survey of anti-cash arguments. And when the experts argue that it would be more convenient for consumers, incredulity is the best response. “To argue against the usefulness of cash is to deny the revealed preferences of many individuals,” Lemieux insists. “The fact that cash has not disappeared even in non-criminal hands means that it is convenient for many individuals.”

He expands the thought with an important truth: “Economic efficiency is defined in terms of what individuals want.”

And the purpose of governments is to follow individuals, not corral them, manipulate them . . . for bureaucratic convenience.

Let’s keep cash.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

currency, money, binary, electronic, cash, illustrattion

 

Originally (cc) photo by FamZoo Staff on Flickr

Categories
general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies Popular too much government U.S. Constitution

The Venezuela Chaos

I have friends who call themselves anarchists. Their theory? Government is always merely an open conspiracy of some to live at the expense of others.

Republicanism, on the other hand, proposes that if we limit government, we can hone it down to the level where there is no conspiracy, and everything the government does can plausibly help everybody.

Not just a few insiders.

Socialism is the opposite notion. Socialists seek to grow government so far that it “naturally” serves everybody, not only the few. It’s all about “equality,” you see.

Here’s what we know for sure: socialism, when really tried, is so awful that it makes anarchy-as-chaos sound good.

The latest socialist horror is Venezuela, which is getting worse every day. Now hospitals place newborns in cardboard boxes. There are no other supplies.

But that’s not all. The special program for feeding everybody? It’s now mainly for feeding just those close to the government — precisely as my anarchist friends say all government is:

Six months after the creation of the Local Committees of Supply and Production (Clap) that is designed to “distribute food directly to the people,” the government has decided to change its approach by threatening those using the program.

The Venezuelan government announced that it will suspend delivery of food packages to those who criticize its policies.

Are socialist out to prove anarchists right?

I bet most of my readers still put some hope in limiting government to serve all. Venezuelan socialism demonstrates how badly the opposite idea is, showing us that serving everybody by total government just decays into the folks allied closely with government warring against everybody else . . . who starve in plain sight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Ask the next question.

Questions Answered:

What is the difference between a republic and a socialist state?

What do anarchists think of government?

What happens when government tries to do everything for everybody?

The Next Question:

How do we convince well-meaning socialists that total government cannot work for the benefit of everybody? (Since the examples of the USSR, Communist China, and Venezuela haven’t worked so far.)


Printable PDF

government, bathtub, Venezuela, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers term limits too much government U.S. Constitution

Fear and Freedom

“If Libertarian Gary Johnson doesn’t win the presidency,” I posted to Facebook last Monday, “I’m leaving the country.”

Well, Johnson didn’t win. And I wasn’t kidding. I’m writing this from a Parisian café.

Of course, I was also tongue-in-cheek, since — spoiler alert! — I am coming home next week.

This week, I’m speaking at the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy in San Sebastián, Spain — a gathering of pro-initiative folks from all over the world. We want people’s votes to count, even if we disagree with their candidate or issue.

Which brings us back to Donald J. Trump’s surprise victory. Protests have broken out in several cities — some violent. And some folks say they’re scared of what Trump may do as president. Sure, one can snicker at these fearful responses as liberal whining. And to the extent they’re talking about university professors canceling tests and coddling “traumatized” students . . . well, no argument here.

Still, I don’t just sympathize when I hear people fear a politician with power, I empathize.

For a long time, I’ve been worried by out-of-control presidential power — from unconstitutionally making laws through executive orders to making war without any real check on that power. Scary. Whether that president is George W or Obama or Hillary or Trump.

Government is a monopoly on force. Therefore, by definition, government is frightening.

Democracy is often an antidote to tyranny, a check on power, but not always. That’s why folks who truly appreciate democracy believe in individual rights that transcend any vote-getting public decision mechanism.

Scared by President-Elect Donald Trump? Protect yourself: enact greater limits on government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Ask the next question.

Questions Answered:

Is fear a natural byproduct of government?

Which presidential powers lack sufficient checks and balances?

What is more important: individual freedom or democratic decision-making?

Is democracy a check on power or an enhancement?

The Next Question:

How do we go about creating greater limits on political power?


Printable PDF

Protect Yourself, limited government, meme

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access general freedom incumbents initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Votes Without Poison

Strange election. So . . . round up the usual suspects!

Immediately after Hillary dried her tears and conceded, out came the Tweets, then the analyses: the “third parties” are to blame!

Over the weekend, I focused* on one such election post-mortem. The basic idea is not altogether wrong: minor party efforts together may have cost the Democrat her Electoral College advantage this time around, just as Nader’s Green Party run spoiled Al Gore’s bid in 2000 and several past congressional races have been spoiled for the GOP by Libertarians.

Is there a problem here? Yes. But do not blame the minor party voters. It’s the way we count their votes that is “problematic.” The current ballot-and-count system turn voters most loyal to particular policy ideas into enemies of those very same ideas.

When we minor party voters turn away from a major party — usually because said party tends to corrupt or betray our ideas, or make only small steps toward our goals — our votes aren’t so much wasted as made poisonous.

Because the candidate least preferred may prevail.

But there’s a way out: On election day, voters in Maine showed how to cut through the Gordian Knot. Voting in approval for Question 5, Maine now establishes “ranked choice voting.”

Under this system, you don’t “waste” your vote when expressing a preference for a minor party candidate. You rank your choices and, if your first choice proves unpopular, your second choice (or maybe your third) gets counted. So you don’t “poison” your cause.

Republicans and Democrats have more than enough reason, now, to adopt ranked choice voting across the country.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* See yesterday’s links page to my weekend Townhall column for the basic references. But there were many, many articles on the Minor Party Effect, including a skeptical one by Sasha Volokh’s.

 

Ask the next question.

Questions Answered:

What is the effect of minor parties on major party outcomes?

What causes those effects, voter intent or something else?

Is there a way to prevent this, short of further sewing up the ballot access system to minor parties?

The Next Question:

What might our elections look like if people spent more time discussing issues and ideas … and less about class, culture wars, and sex crimes?


Printable PDF

ranked choice, vote, voting, democracy, clown, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

The Wisdom of the Founders

“At a certain point, you have to let go for the democracy to work,” President Barack Obama told HBO’s Bill Maher last week, praising “the wisdom of the founders.”

“There has to be fresh legs,” he continued. “There have to be new people. And you have to have the humility to recognize that you’re a citizen and you go back to being a citizen after this office is over.”

Maher failed to ask Mr. Obama how this “fresh” viewpoint squared with his support for Mrs. Clinton. Nevertheless, let’s applaud the president’s endorsement of term limits.

Speaking of the founders, and limits on power, and this being Election Day, I’m reminded of a commentary in Forbes, back on Election Day four years ago, written by Ed Crane, the man who built the Cato Institute into one of the nation’s preeminent think tanks. Bemoaning the “interminable presidential race,” Crane wished for “a nation in which it really didn’t matter who was elected President, senator or congressman.”

“Don’t get me wrong, because I’m not saying it doesn’t,” explained Crane, “only that it shouldn’t.” He added, “I believe the Founders had a similar view.”

His point is simple: Getting to vote for your next president and senator and congressman is swell, but it’s important to have a Constitution that restrains those elected, so they “don’t have a heck of a lot of power over you or your neighbors.”

“We are a republic of limited governmental ­powers,” or should be, argued Crane. “Such a nation allows for sleep on election night.”

Instead of gnashing of teeth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Constitution, voting, democracy, Ed Crane, fear

 

Categories
ballot access general freedom government transparency media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

A Brexit Effect?

Before the Brexit vote, the likelihood of British secession from the European Union garnered a mere 25 percent chance. That was according to European betting markets, which are usually more accurate. In June, the Brits voted Brexit.

Donald Trump has made much hay of this, understandably.

On Tuesday, the odds of a Trump victory hit the same mark: 25 percent.

Gwynn Guilford’s report on this was drolly titled “Donald Trump has the same odds of winning as Jon Snow ruling Westeros, according to betting markets.”

On June 11, Business Insider had reported that Hillary was increasing her lead; on October 18, it exulted that the Irish betting markets had “already declared a winner” — not Trump. On November 1, the news aggregator merely noted that Moody’s is calling the election a landslide for Clinton.

But BI is also covering the scandal that has disturbed the Clinton camp. There’s no love lost between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, explains Natasha Bertrand in “‘The Antichrist personified’: ‘Open warfare’ and antipathy toward Clinton is reportedly fueling the FBI leaks.” The meat of her representation is that “much of the agents’ frustration . . . may boil down to partisanship”; the FBI is “Trumpland.”

Yet the article ends quoting another FBI official insisting that both Trump and Clinton are awful candidates.

A plausible judgment.

Whether late-in-the-game revelations of Clinton corruption and FBI probing can defy current odds and produce a Clinton defeat remains to be seen. As of Thursday evening, polls-only forecasts placed the odds of winning at 67/33 in favor of Mrs. Clinton, while electionbettingodds.com placed them at 70.2/29.2.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

N.B. Late-breaking Brexit news: The United Kingdom’s high court ruled yesterday that Parliament must vote to approve Brexit before the secession can proceed.


Printable PDF

gamble, betting, HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, president, presidency, election, voting, illustration, creative commons

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders media and media people nannyism national politics & policies

Are We Special?

“Cringe-worthy,” said Kyle Clark, co-anchor of 9NEWS in Denver. He was mocking the 10-foot tall, carved, wooden Trojan Horse replica that Amendment 71 opponents are wheeling around the Rocky Mountain State.

Clark admits that Amendment 71 “would make it harder to change Colorado’s constitution,” but doesn’t seem to have any clue just how much harder.*

“Those opponents with their Trojan Horse want to paint 71 as a sneaky power grab by big money interests from out of state,” Clark continued. “Funny, though, when you find out who paid for their horse.”

Wait . . . this is BIG: Who paid for the horse?

“It’s an in-kind contribution from Citizens in Charge Foundation. They’re a group that protects the initiative process around the country. . . . based out of Woodbridge, Virginia,” replied an Amendment 71 opponent.

Hey, that’s my group!

“Amendment 71 might be a Trojan Horse funded by outside interests,” Clark concluded, but it’s “illustrated by the Trojan Horse funded by outside interests.”

Cute . . . but . . . ?

Does Mr. Clark seriously think that (a) an organization dedicated to making the ballot initiative process accessible to all, with no other interest or business before state government, providing a vehicle and a trailer to carry a wooden horse across the state is equivalent to (b) a multi-million-dollar paid media barrage funded largely by oil and gas interests with lucrative interests before state government?

Citizens in Charge Foundation is honored to work with Coloradans to save their initiative rights by defeating 71.

Speaking of interests and who’s paying . . . 9NEWS has received the better part of a million dollars in ad revenue from the interests supporting Amendment 71.

Compared to a peek at a wooden horse from opponents.

Kyle Clark didn’t mention that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

P.S. Please help save Colorado by making a contribution right now.

 

*Coloradans who have actually qualified ballot initiatives say Amendment 71 would kill the process for all but the wealthiest special interests.


Trojan Horse Trails in Colorado


Printable PDF

Trojan Horse, Colorado, Amendment 71, initiative, referendum, Citizens in Charge, Paul Jacob,

 

Categories
Common Sense free trade & free markets general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest too much government U.S. Constitution

Don’t Kill Colorado!

America has lots of problems. Colorado isn’t one of them.

Search the Internet and confirm that the Rocky Mountain State is the fourth best state “to make a living”; sixth best for homeowners; third on CNBC’s “Top States for Business”; and even holds a coveted first place in “arts engagement.”

What’s not to like?

I know Colorado, fondly, as the only state with a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), a constitutional amendment requiring state legislators who want to hike spending or taxes to first ask citizens for approval. It was passed by voters in 1992, by citizens’ initiative.

Imagine that! Citizens in charge. In real life.

In Colorado.

Unsurprisingly, TABOR has long been No. 1 on Big Government’s hit list; for politicians, lobbyists, university presidents and political insiders, it’s the bane of their existence.

Along with the citizen initiative process, from which it came.

That’s why Colorado’s political establishment spent a million dollars to put Amendment 71 on next Tuesday’s ballot. They aim to kill both TABOR and the citizen initiative.

The amendment allows any partial or total repeal of TABOR — or other current parts of the state constitution — with a simple majority vote of 50-percent-plus-one. But it demands that any new enactment of taxpayer protection (or other reform) leap over a 55 percent supermajority hurdle.

Fair?

It means that a court decision, which “reinterprets” any provision of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, could only be corrected by citizens with a supermajority vote. And citizens would face an avalanche of big spending from big labor and big business. That’s not a bug, but a feature for the powerful forces behind 71.

Still, Amendment 71’s murderous intent goes deeper. The measure also destroys the ability of regular people and grassroots groups to petition constitutional amendments onto the ballot. Instead of one statewide petition drive, Amendment 71 adds 35 additional onerous petition requirements — in every single senate district in the state.

The next question is obvious: Did the political big-shots behind Amendment 71, who blew a cool million dollars to gather their signatures, manage to meet their own mandate for future initiatives by qualifying in all 35 senate districts? Not even close.

While the lobbyists and politicians behind 71 have spent many additional millions claiming Colorado is the easiest state to amend the constitution, a real expert — Dane Waters, chairman of the Initiative & Referendum Institute — concludes just the opposite. His analysis indicates that Colorado’s process is actually “one of the most difficult in the country.” And should 71 pass, Colorado would have “the most strict distribution requirement anywhere in the world,” he said.

Waters fears that by blocking initiative constitutional amendments “on top of the fact that the legislature [in Colorado] has the authority to overturn any statutory initiative, [Amendment 71] will basically shut down the initiative process in Colorado.”

And that is how voters would be silenced and the investments powerful interests have made in the Centennial State’s legislature would be protected.

So there is no reason to be shocked when a bevy of special interests — most notably oil and gas interests, but also gambling interests and other major lobbies — raise and spend over $20 million dollars carpet-bombing the state’s electorate with TV and radio ads, slick mailings, and robo calls to support Amendment 71. They’re trying to convince voters to restrict their own power and increase the legislature’s leverage, since those special interests feel much more “comfortable” with politicians making all the decisions.

And voters making exactly none.

The politicians and lobbyists behind 71 have pulled out all the stops. Big money dominates the airwaves; all four living former state governors are on board; and their TV spots even feature the beloved Hall of Fame Denver Broncos QB John Elway.

But in the end, the beautiful thing about a ballot initiative is that voters have the final say.

And that’s why grassroots groups from throughout the state and all across the leftright spectrum, from the state’s free-market Independence Institute to progressive Common Cause, from pro-TABOR taxpayer groups to more liberal anti-fracking activists, from Colorado NARAL to Colorado Right to Life — those who care about citizens having a say in government — are standing up to the big money establishment barrage, joining the coalition to Stop71.org.

Weeks ago, to kick off the campaign, Citizens in Charge Foundation provided the Vote No on 71 Committee a 10-foot tall, carved, wooden Trojan Horse. The float has been wheeled across the state on a trailer, dramatizing that Amendment 71 is a Trojan Horse from big money interests, who pretend they’re protecting the constitution when they’re actually seeking to restrict citizen power. Providing this focal point has allowed dozens of Colorado citizens to speak out to fellow voters, garnering tons of media attention in the process.

The Trojan Horse continues to reach voters, but like stone soup, the Vote No on 71 campaign has grown in many diverse ways:

  • The head of Common Cause, Elena Nunez, and the head of the Independence Institute, Jon Caldara, have bridged ideological divide to reach out to editorial boards across the state, resulting in the Denver Post and most other major papers editorializing against 71.
  • The Colorado League of Responsible Voters raised several hundred thousand dollars and is running a TV spot countering the millions spent by proponents.
  • The Greenpeace blimp floats over the state, sending the Vote No on 71 message airborne.
  • The coalition has grown to more than 76 groups, each contacting its membership and urging folks to spread the word against 71.
  • A number of groups are advertising against 71 on Facebook.
  • A volunteer phone bank has been set up making thousands of calls to likely voters.

As this election winds down, we know we’re underdogs against the big-shots and their big money. But we also know we cannot let them kill the initiative without a fight. And we know that if we can reach enough Colorado voters with our message against Amendment 71, we can defeat it.

Help us reach more Colorado voters. The best way you can help is to make a financial gift right now. Today. The hour is very late, some voters have already cast their ballots, more are voting every day up until Nov. 8.

Please don’t let them kill Colorado. Help now:

  • Your $50 giftcovers gas for the Trojan Horse to reach another town
  • Your $100 giftpays to put 1,000 flyers on voters’ doorknobs.
  • Your $500 gift – launches Facebook ads reaching 5,000 voters or more.
  • Your $1,000 giftpays for robo phone calls to 10,000 folks who haven’t voted yet, reminding them to vote NO on Amendment 71.

Please give what you can. And take action now.

Can’t afford to give? How about giving your time?

Join our volunteer phone bank and dedicate a few hours one night this week or over the weekend to call likely Colorado voters between 4 pm and 8 pm Mountain Time. You can sign up here for two or four hour shifts and we’ll walk you through how it works.

You do NOT have to live in Colorado to pick up the phone and educate Rocky Mountain State voters about Amendment 71.
Those pushing Amendment 71 claim they want to protect the state constitution from “too many” amendments. But where’s the problem? They won’t say what amendments they believe don’t belong in the constitution.

No, they aren’t seeking to protect Colorado’s constitution, but rather Colorado’s political establishment.

The good guys, Colorado citizens, have taken aim to shoot down Amendment 71. They’ll save the initiative and good government . . . if you’ll pass the ammunition.

This is Common Sense. Thanks for your serious consideration. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Printable PDF

TABOR, Amendment 71, Colorado, Raise the Bar, initiative, voter rights, Taxpayer Bill of Rights,