Category: moral hazard

Fear and Freedom

Protect Yourself, limited government, meme

“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.

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

Tags big government, Initiative Rights, limited government

Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers too much government U.S. Constitution

Term Limits Trump

Donald Trump, term limits, president, first, illustration

Entering his campaign’s homestretch, underdog Donald J. Trump gave an important speech at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. He emphasized his support for term limits in what he called his “100-day action plan to Make America Great Again.”

“[R]estoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington” is the top item on Trump’s agenda, along with a pledge to begin the drive for “a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress” on his very first day in the Oval Office.

Public disgust with the corrupt status quo in Washington — and the hope that he will shake things up — drove Trump’s victory.

Yet, today, the Elections Committee of Michigan’s House of Representatives hears testimony on several bills to weaken or repeal term limits. Have the limits lost public support? Not on your life.

Politicians simply want to stay ensconced in power, reaping the many benefits they’ve bestowed upon themselves. They want to stay in power longer.

Just look to California. Back in 2012, a dishonest ballot explanation tricked voters into thinking they were tightening their term limits law. But what they were actually doing was voting to weaken it.

Now, Golden State legislators can stay in the same seat for a dozen years. And special interests have noticed. They’re “investing” more heavily than ever before.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the result in its headline: “Longer terms for California’s Legislature mean a flood of cash from interest groups …”

Here’s for enacting real term limits at every level of government. And if the politicians and special interests don’t like it — good!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags agenda, Donald Trump, president, term limits, U.S. Term Limits

Accountability media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies

Indecency Abounds

Donald, Trump wins, media, failure, illustration

The most indecent aspect of this bizarre election year? The “grab them” comment … from a decade ago? The lies about lies about lies? The “debates”?

Maybe not. Maybe it’s the infamous “mainstream media.”

Last week I wrote about the most obvious case, that of Donna Brazile and her helping hand emails to the Clinton campaign, accomplishing what years of mere induction and analysis could not: justifying, totally, the epithet for CNN as the “Clinton News Network.”

But it was nearly the whole media that was in the tank, as we say nowadays, for Mrs. Clinton. This has been obvious for some time. Even mainstream media mavens have noticed it, as I wrote not too long ago.

Will more journalists and TV faux-journalists notice?

They certainly have now noticed that they did not see a Trump victory coming.

Delusional about Hillary Clinton’s likability, and about how normal folks react to her history of corruption and scandal, TV talking heads and powerful newspapers doubled down in her favor … which may have actually helped precipitate a result against their intention.

The mainstream media triggers much of America, you see, especially the parts of the country that revolted against the prospect of a Clinton Dynasty.

Not that I place myself above journalists as objective, either. I’m not a journalist. I’m an activist. I am for liberty. Responsibility. Accountability. Limited government. I’m no more a fan of major party messiahs than I am of their rah-rah boys in the journalist biz.

I’m not exactly shouting about Trump’s win. I’m just happy that Hillary — and her vast Democratic-partisan media conspiracy — lost.

If this be indecency, make the most of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Donald Trump, election, Hillary Clinton, journalism, media

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

The Wisdom of the Founders

Constitution, voting, democracy, Ed Crane, fear

“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

Tags 2016 Presidential race, constitution, democracy, Ed Crane, fear, voting

Accountability ballot access incumbents moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Vote Early & Often?

Voted yet? The Pew Research Center thinks about 50 million Americans have, representing 38.5 percent of the voter turnout forecast.

I’m for making it as easy as possible for people to cast a ballot. Who isn’t? Well, I mean who among normal people isn’t? I’m not counting politicians and their hacks.

But even I am opposed to extended “early voting.”

Here’s why:

First, the longer the voting period goes, the greater the cost — as more paid advertisements, phone calls and mailings are needed to keep reaching voters over many weeks. No problem here with more money in politics — money is essential, and my candidates and ballot issues could certainly always use more promotion. But let’s not artificially advantage big money by running the meter.

Several states now allow more than six weeks of voting prior to so-called Election Day. Even a three-week voting period is far more expensive than building toward a single day — or, say, a weekend through Tuesday voting period (four days).

Second, we ought to vote together, close to the same time, all of us privy to the latest public knowledge. This year’s drip of near daily “October”* surprises, thanks to WikiLeaks and the FBI, shows the potential problem should a major scandal or incident impact the race after so many folks have already voted.

Third, early voting tends to advantage incumbents. Challengers often don’t catch up to the better known and organized incumbent until the final days of the race.

As for voting often, as in more than once, that’s a crime. Plus, with these candidates, once is more than enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*Well into November, some of these surprises, eh? I mean, it is as if they saved the blood rituals for last.

Printable PDF

Tags democracy, early, early voting, joke, meme, often, vote, voters

ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Pigs in Pokes

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, war, danger, president, illustration

On Tuesday, Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld exhorted Americans to stop Donald Trump at all cost.

The Donald, he asserted, is dangerous because too touchy, too childish in his egoism, to withstand the pressures of the presidency of these United States. “In the statement, Weld made no mention of Clinton,” writes the AP. He focused on Trump and the GOP, instead.

Both progressive and conservative outlets interpreted this as a de facto endorsement of voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton — an uncomfortable conclusion, considering that Weld is Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gov. Gary Johnson’s VP running mate.

Looking at the statement itself, it is apparent that Gov. Weld prefers The Devil We Know to The Devil He Fears.

Which is where he loses me.

One need not like Trump to understand his appeal. Trump is a smoking sack of Who Knows What placed upon the doorstep of the Establishment, the insider classes running the federal government and the Fourth Estate. By taking offense at Trump but not Clinton, Weld sides with the insiders. My longtime respect for Weld aside, how can one plausibly do that?

We know what the Establishment wants most: perpetual war, permanent debt, and secure power.

Meanwhile, the ostensible Republican has been awfully vague on policy. Voting for Trump is buying a pig in a poke.*

The Democratic poke is fairly well known. But Hillary, the war-monger who accuses Trump of being Putin’s “puppet” and repeatedly plays chicken with the world’s other great nuclear power, puts her own policies in a poke by proclaiming her personal prerogative of telling the voters one thing and her insider crowd another.

Neither sack of … uh, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Old idiom: synonym for swine in a sack.

Printable PDF

Questions Answered:
Who is Gov. William Weld most fearful of this election year?
How plausible is a preference of Hillary over The Donald?
What can we make of Hillary’s and Donald’s foreign policies?

The Next Question:
If pigs could fly, which one would you vote for?