Category: general freedom

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom regulation

Monopoly vs. Monopoly

monopoly octopus, Joe Biden, Apple

The Biden Administration makes much of its pro-consumer actions. President Sleepy Joe never tires of boasting about how his regulations favor consumers over credit card companies. Considering the massive taxation that his administration supports, however, saving a few bucks on overdraft fees looks a bit absurd in context.

As does the administration’s ramped-up anti-trust actions.

The federal government has now attacked Apple. On anti-trust grounds. For being a monopoly.

The humor in this was noted by anti-intellectual property theorist Stephan Kinsella, tweeting on X: “‘U.S. Sues Apple, Accusing It of Maintaining an iPhone Monopoly’ We grant you patent and copyright monopoly privileges and you use them to build up a monopoly? How dare you!”

Jeffrey A. Tucker of the Brownstone Institute was less amused, and less concerned with Apple’s reliance upon intellectual property, which he claims is secondary to the company’s useful products: “The very notion that the government is trying to protect consumers in this case is preposterous. Apple is a success not because they are exploitative but because they make products that users like, and they like them so much that they buy ever more.”

At issue is how Apple products work so well together but not so well with other manufacturers’ products. “The Justice Department calls this anticompetitive even though competing is exactly the source of Apple’s market strength,” insists Tucker.

Maybe it’s really about this principle: the government giveth; the government taketh away: blessed be the name of the Biden.

In full disclosure, I have an iPhone, which I hate, and a Microsoft Surface Book, which I also hate. I’m open to any of their competitors, which I might hate less.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling folly general freedom

School Choice Reform at Last

public school, home schooling, radicalize children, nanny state, education

How to get school choice reform? Keep fighting.

Last year, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Republican, worked with families and school choice activists to pass school-choice legislation.

SB1 would have given parents who want to take their kids from public to private schools $8,000 a year for tuition, textbooks, and other expenses: taxpayer money that parents would have been able to spend as they saw fit instead of being forced to let public schools get it regardless of performance.

The educrats and their allies were opposed. “Public dollars belong in public schools. Period,” was the comprehensive argument of the Texas Democratic Party chairman.

With his own party constituting a majority of lawmakers in each legislative chamber, it seemed that Governor Abbott and families could have won anyway. The state senate did pass school-choice legislation. As it turned out, though, too many Republican lawmaker in the house were on the anti-choice team.

Which Republicans? The ones that Abbott and other friends of school choice targeted in this year’s primaries. They spent millions of dollars backing challengers who support school choice. And the governor appeared at campaign events to criticize incumbent Republicans who oppose it.

The net result? Of the current 21 anti-school-choice GOP representatives, only six to ten will be returning to the legislature in 2025. (The exact number won’t be known until runoffs on May 28.)

The elections may thus bring enough of a change in the state legislature to let school choice happen for parents and their students in Texas.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment Eighth Amendment rights general freedom

The Case of the Narrow Driveway

nanny state, regulations, government, bureaucrats

Sandy Martinez: mother of three, working hard to get by, whole life ahead of her — why would she sabotage it by failing to perfectly park her car in her narrow driveway such that two of the wheels edged onto the grass?

Think I’m making it up? 

No. It’s true. Some people get distracted and treat their grass as if it were gravel and let their car edge onto it.

Why’dja do it Sandy, huh? Why?

On the hand, it’s her property, so who cares? 

What difference does it make? 

Well, mucho . . . if you’re Lantana, Florida, which fined Sandy $101,750 for imperfect parking, $47,000 because of storm-inflicted fence damage, $16,000 for cracks in her driveway.

The good news is that Institute for Justice is litigating on behalf of Sandy Martinez and other homeowners being hit with plainly unjust fines for trivial code violations.

IJ argues that the state and local governments at fault are violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines. And the Institute and its clients are winning. The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled, in Timbs v. Indiana, that this Eight Amendment ban applies to cities and states as well as to the federal government. 

Many locales, perhaps including Lantana, Florida, may still try to get away with the grift despite this definitive ruling. But sooner or later, some judge will throw out the blatantly excessive fines and point to the recent Supreme Court decision.

Help is on the way, Sandy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom

Did Steve Baker Commit Journalism?

Steve Baker, journalism, first amendment, free speech

The safest thing to do — politically, anyway — is plant yourself in a corner and sit still. But people tend to want to move around, live, do their jobs.

Steve Baker, reporter for Blaze Media, recently was forced to “self-surrender” to federal authorities for committing initially unspecified crimes.

Was doing his job the crime? 

His fed-embarrassing journalism about the January 6 “insurrection” and the way many people have been incarcerated for years for little more than trespassing — was that the crime?

As video of the not-always- innocuous but often-innocuous goings-on of January 6 has been released, Baker has been among those examining the record and noting apparent contradictions in the official story.

When he turned himself in to the FBI last Friday, he was facing charges that the FBI had flatly refused to divulge. But now the Blaze reports that, three years after January 6 “insurrection,” Baker is being charged for things like “entering [restricted areas] without lawful authority” or “parading . . . in a capitol building.”

Trespassing. Arrested for trespassing three years later? 

Or arrested for his reporting on the events of January 6 and its sequels over the course of those three years?

Before Baker turned himself in, the FBI did give him the information that he should arrive in shorts and flip-flops. So that, Glenn Beck writes, “it would be easier for them to put on the orange jumpsuit and ankle irons. Suffice it to say, he wore a suit and tie.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom local leaders Tenth Amendment federalism

Utah and the Tenth

Utah and The Feds

The trouble with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution — the last two items in the Bill of Rights — has not been lack of clarity. The Tenth, at least, is extremely clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The problem has been one of enforcement. How do the States prevent the federal government from overreach? Especially when the federal government acts as if no objection to a federal law could be brooked? Especially when the Supreme Court is, ahem, wrong, or hasn’t yet been approached with a challenge.

Utah has rediscovered an old technique. And revived it. Governor Spencer Cox signed into law the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act”: “The Legislature may, by concurrent resolution, prohibit a government officer from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of a federal directive within the state if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

Ultra clear. And by old precedent — the non-enforcement of The Fugitive Slave Act by some northern states — it provides teeth to the Tenth. If the federal government were to enact (just stretch your mind a bit!) something obviously unconstitutional, like, say, a gun confiscation, the state legislature would simply vote to prohibit any state employee, or subsidiary of the state (county, municipality) from working with federal agents. Federal government agencies don’t have enough manpower to enforce all the rules. The feds rely on the states.

CNN quotes a Democrat representative running against Governor Cox suggesting that the use of this technique would be overruled by the Supreme Court using “the Supremacy Clause.”

No. The Supremacy Clause only applies to the federal government regarding specified (“enumerated”) powers. 

Regarding matters not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is the States that are supreme.

Or the People.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war general freedom international affairs

Panic at Sea

Xi Jinping, China, Taiwan

“The passengers later told local media they feared for their lives,” Newsweek reported.

Those 23 tourists, along with 11 crew members, were traveling from Taiwan’s Kinmen islands, located just six miles off the Chinese mainland, back to the big island of Taiwan, when a Chinese Coast Guard vessel stopped and boarded their boat . . . and for 30 minutes “reviewed their travel documents.”

The Chinese regime, “in response to the recent deaths of two Chinese fisherman, whose speedboat . . . capsized while being pursued by Taiwanese authorities for allegedly trespassing in restricted waters,” has threatened to “step up maritime law enforcement around Taiwan’s outlying Kinmen islands,” explains the magazine.

Kuan Bi-ling, head of Taiwan’s Ocean Affairs Council, said the incident “caused unnecessary ‘public panic.’”

A bit dramatic for just checking people’s IDs. 

But context is everything. 

After all, Chinese dictator Xi Jinping has repeatedly threatened a military invasion that would inevitably kill thousands upon thousands of Taiwanese. And China’s ever-growing military constantly stalks Taiwan, regularly encircling the island with its warships and planes.

The concern of Taiwanese officials is that China’s stepping up its harassment campaign. For 30 years there has been peace around Kinmen, which has become a tourist attraction memorializing Cold War times.

We don’t want to re-live that frosty period, just remember it.

“We urge the PRC [People’s Republic of China] to engage in meaningful dialogue with Taiwan to reduce the risk of miscalculation,” declared a U.S. State Department spokesperson.

But the problem isn’t miscalculation. The Chinese calculate that they can get their way by threatening, bullying, and intimidating Taiwan, their neighbors, the U.S., and the rest of the world. 

Panic? Try not to . . . when Chinazis are checking your papers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom

Amazon’s Wide, Flowing, Constricted River

Amazon, censor, censorship, surveillance, mind control

Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is prohibited from censoring speech.

It often tries anyway. 

One of the ways, as we’ve learned, is by pressuring social media and other companies to suppress speech. Since the federal government can make life very difficult for any company, some companies are understandably reluctant to ignore such pressure.

Amazon did not. When asked by the Biden administration in the person of one Andrew Slavitt, an advisor for the White House’s COVID-19 “response team,” the company agreed to hide books critical of the COVID-19 vaccines

Among the emails obtained by the House Judiciary Committee is Slavitt’s March 2, 2021, communication with Amazon complaining that “if you search for ‘vaccines’ under books, I see what comes up [books criticizing the vaccine]. . . . [I]f that’s what’s on the surface, it’s concerning.”

Amazon was reluctant to intervene “manually” to demote such books and worried privately that rigging the game against particular books because of their viewpoints might undermine the company. But it caved nonetheless, soon modifying its algorithm and advising the White House that “we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.”

Are such decisions consistent with a “consumer-centric” approach that easily allows people to find just what they’re looking for? Which is Amazon’s big selling point?

Of course not.

But as it has done so often over the years, our government was putting its thumb on the scale.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Amazon, censor, censorship, surveillance, mind control

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture privacy

Something to Protect

privacy, security, surveillance

Some people, enemies of drawing the curtains, say: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.”

Doesn’t follow. Hiding is a form of protecting. We all have things to protect. Innocent people advisedly hide information from neighbors, from bureaucrats eager to erode liberty, from plain criminals.

And from the political fanatic who acts as a criminal. 

If you’re a political activist with a public profile, or even just a voter, it may be a good idea to prevent ideological criminals from knowing where you live or work. That’s why God gave us post offices boxes and commercial mail receiving agencies.

Somebody recently firebombed the offices of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, a pro-liberty activist. One fire was set in an office that he subleases in “the building that houses Center of the American Experiment,” Hinderaker’s organization, another near a law center that he works with in the same building.

The suspects are many. Why? Well, as Hinderaker told federal investigators, CAE is “unusually effective across a broad range of issues.”

If bad guys can do something to hurt you — doxxing, stalking, firebombing — once they’ve got certain information about you, it is eminently reasonable to keep that information as private as possible.

Even when such data is already circulating, you can take significant steps to improve your privacy. Among the better books on how to do so is How to Be Invisible by J. J. Luna. More current and comprehensive is Michael Bazell’s Extreme Privacy.

Worth consulting, since — without the recourse these resources provide — the cost of political activism could induce us to cede to evil people the future of our country and the world.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom judiciary too much government

The Vaxxers’ War on Truckers

Justin Trudeau, Canada, truckers, vaccine, Covid

It’s always good when a federal court tells a federal government that it shouldn’t have done some horrible autocratic thing.

Much better had it never been done in the first place — but at least now there is official acknowledgement and, hope against hope, a chance that it won’t recur. 

Hey, a guy can dream.

According to a ruling by Canadian Federal Court Justic Richard Mosley, although truckers’ protests a few years ago against insane pandemic mandates “reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order” (he seems to be forgetting that the government unacceptably broke things first), invoking of an Emergencies Act “does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility.”

No, it doesn’t bear those hallmarks. There “was no national emergency justifying invocation of the Emergencies Act.”

The truckers were clogging traffic to bring attention to a plight caused by the government. That’s it. The truckers weren’t nuking cities or anything. But in reply, the government nuked the rights of truckers by, among other things, freezing their bank accounts and even penalizing people who had donated five bucks to help the truckers out.

Truckers were protesting the fact that they were not being allowed to decide for themselves whether to risk an experimental vaccine. The government banned them from crossing the Canada–U.S. border unless they got the shot.

Luckily, Canada’s federal government has announced that it has seen the error of its ways and — ah, who am I kidding? It is appealing the decision.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom regulation too much government

Unlimited Limits

nanny state

Do politicians understand limits? 

They seem to have this notion that they may limit us every which way . . . with no natural or civilized limit set upon the limits they may impose.

Take California lawmaker Scott Wiener.

This state senator (District 11-D.) has introduced a bill to force carmakers to install a gadget limiting vehicle speed to a maximum of ten miles per hour above the speed limit. The murderous gadget would be installed starting with 2027 car models.

I foresee problems. Hence that word “murderous.” Wouldn’t it be kind of dumb to have to go slower than the traffic all around you if that other traffic consists of pre-2027 vehicles going markedly faster than the speed limit?

Also, mightn’t emergency vehicles often have good reason to zip along faster than this gadget-imposed maximum?

Not to worry. The Hill reports that emergency vehicles would be exempt, “and the California Highway Patrol could authorize the system’s disabling in certain other cases.”

Touble is, any vehicle can, at any time, become an “emergency vehicle” — if an emergency requires it to move faster than the Wiener-imposed limit. Do you then call up the California Highway Patrol and ask that the gadget be disabled? What if you have five seconds to act? That’s not much time to beg the California Highway Patrol to give you control over your own property.

I detect hazards in letting government control every aspect of our lives and every movement we make. Can we put on the brakes, please?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts