Category: nannyism

Categories
Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

ABC’s of Deceptive Politics

con game, politics, redistribution, Clinton

In breaking news, a major politician has promised to give important benefits to the poor and the middle class.

She did not specify where those benefits would come from. But we know where they do come from: taxpayers. What this politician has done is promise to take from some to give others. Actually, it’s even more complicated — after taking from some folks, then there’s the skimming off the top (or: taking a big chunk); and after that, there’s the hoopla about the money she is “giving” back.

This is how politicians work. Vague talk and big promises, backed up by the ability to tax and the sanction to threaten your life if you don’t comply.

Characteristically, they avoid talk of the costs of their actions. They focus on the “benefits.”

Many, many years ago, a great American sociologist explained the process:

A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.

That was written in 1883. In 1932, a major politician took the term, “The Forgotten Man,” and applied it not to C but to D.

And since then, politicians have tended to ignore C entirely, except to make them feel guilty for not doing more for D (and, by implication, A and B).

You can see why I prefer direct action on discrete issues by responsible citizens. In which the C’s are consulted.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

con game, politics, redistribution, Clinton

 

Original Photo Credit: David Goehring on Flickr (Creative Commons)

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Freak-​out Factor

gun, control, 2nd Amendment, Republican, police

Most folks are so unused to seeing normal people carrying guns around, out in the open, that when they it, they freak out.

Among those who are at least, well, unsettled by the spectacle? The police.

Funny, the gun freaker-​outers don’t usually freak when they see police with guns. But that may be changing as more and more video footage comes out regarding police shootings of suspects under suspicious circumstances.

It is not exactly by accident that there are protests in numerous cities.

So, police being human, we cannot be surprised when, after the Dallas and Baton Rouge killings of police, “[t]he head of the Cleveland police union called on the governor of Ohio to declare a state of emergency and to suspend open-​carry gun rights during the Republican national convention.…”

The governor’s office responded that Gov. John Kasich had no authority to do such a thing. Open carry was a law in the state. Only inside buildings could carry rights be suspended (as they have been, selectively).

Steve Loomis, the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association head, said that he did not “care what the legal precedent” may be, and “couldn’t care less if it’s legal or not.”

If Loomis, a leader in “law enforcement,” boasts this attitude, no wonder police have had so many trigger finger incidents, sparking so much anguish, protest, and debate.

It’s time for police to rethink their approach to people who have rights to carry weapons.

Perhaps more importantly, we should all try not to freak out so easily.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

gun, control, 2nd Amendment, Republican, police

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall nannyism national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

A Private Party

Donald Trump, delegates, unbound, convention, crime, vote

Virginia delegate Beau Correll won’t cast his first ballot vote at the Republican National Convention for Donald Trump, and won’t go to jail, either.

As discussed last Thursday, at issue is a state statute requiring* delegates to vote for the plurality winner of the party’s primary. On the Republican side, that’s Mr. Trump. Yesterday, Federal Judge Robert Payne ruled the law unconstitutional, no law at all, because it violates Correll’s First Amendment rights to speak and associate politically.

“In sum, where the State attempts to interfere with a political party’s internal governance and operation,” the federal judge wrote, “the party is entirely free to ‘cancel out [the State’s] effort’ (Def. Resp. 28) even though the state has expended financial and administrative resources in a primary.”

Love ’em or hate ’em, political parties are private associations, properly protected by the First Amendment.

But is it fair to hold primary elections, at taxpayers’ expense, and then ignore the votes of so many people?

Easy answer: NO.

Sure, Judge Payne correctly struck this statute, but it doesn’t follow that states must foot the bill for party primaries and national conventions or provide legal preference. Up to now, incumbent politicians have quietly legislated a relationship of too-​friendly collusion between government and the major parties.

It’s time for citizens to look at initiatives to mandate separation of political party and state.

More immediately, the implications for the coming GOP convention in Cleveland are obvious and far-​reaching. “The Court’s decision,” as Correll’s attorney David Rivkin summarized, “follows more than 40 years of precedent in firmly rejecting Donald Trump’s legal opinion that delegates are obligated by law to vote for him.”

The delegates are free.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Penalty for non-​compliance? One year in prison.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, delegates, unbound, convention, crime, vote

 

Original photo credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies property rights

The Return of the Philosopher King

technocracy, expert, epistocracy Brexit, illustration

On Sunday, at Townhall, I addressed the whining attacks on referendums and “democracy” that followed the Brexit referendum.

The most outrageous? A broadside from Jason Brennan.

“To have even a rudimentary sense of the pros and cons of Brexit,” argues this Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Associate Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, “a person would need to possess tremendous social scientific knowledge. One would need to know about the economics and sociology of trade and immigration, the politics of centralized regulation, and the history of nationalist movements.”

In other words, most Brits needn’t worry their pretty little heads about deciding their future; experts have everything under control.

Brennan has a new book coming out, Against Democracy, wherein he posits that we need “a new system of government — epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable.”

Sound familiar? ’Tis the old Platonic whine in new wineskins.

This Philosopher King is necessary, you see, because citizens don’t posses the advanced degrees to judge whether Brennan is right or wrong. We can’t even find a Holiday Inn Express in the phonebook. Or a phonebook.

Nonetheless, why not consult other known knowers?

The late William F. Buckley, Jr., well-​educated and well-​spoken on political matters, once declared that he would “rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory, than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

“Incestuous, homogeneous fiefdoms of self-​proclaimed expertise are always rank-​closing and mutually self-​defending, above all else,” warned journalist Glenn Greenwald, an expert on such hooey.

“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, “and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

Most decisions in a free society are thankfully made by individuals (not voters, bureaucrats, or academics) about their own lives.

But when legitimate decisions of governance must be made, I’ll take democracy over rule by experts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

technocracy, expert, epistocracy Brexit, illustration
Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Gray Lady Casts Shadow

Gray Lady, New York Times, NYT, political correctness, free speech, illustration

Earlier in the week, I noted how media manipulation of presidential poll results by not considering the Johnson and Stein campaigns distorting the race. I speculated why journalists would do such a thing, but didn’t have space for an exhaustive list.

But it’s clear that one of the things journalists aim to do is retain their once-​vaunted position as gatekeepers, as the idea-​people and fact-​dispersers who define the terms of allowable debate.

By ignoring the competition, they narrow the terms of this year’s presidential campaign, allowing their inexplicable favorite, Hillary Clinton, an advantage going to the polls.

But poll taking and reporting is not the half of it. Tim Graham, writing at Newsbusters, notes how the Gray Lady rigs the intellectual field. “The New York Times appears to be playing games again with conservative authors, trying to keep them off its vaunted (and secretively manipulated) Best Sellers list. This has happened to Ted Cruz, to Dinesh D’Souza, and to David Limbaugh.”

And now, Graham tells us, it’s happening to Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel, whose new book, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, has been doing gangbusters on BookScan’s bestseller list.

The new exposé is sixth on BookScan’s hardcover list. But it’s not even made an appearance on the Times’ “list of the top 20 hardcover bestsellers, despite outselling books that did make the list.”

Would the Gray Lady dare manipulate the figures … just to suppress an idea it doesn’t like?

That is, the idea that the Left suppresses speech.

It’s almost too rich to be true.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Gray Lady, New York Times, NYT, political correctness, free speech, illustration

 

Categories
crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

What Doesn’t Fly

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration

After the Orlando massacre, isn’t it time to get guns out of the hands of … licensed security guards?

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, who murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others in The Pulse nightclub, worked for the globe’s largest security firm, Britain’s G4S. He passed two background checks conducted by the company.

Mateen’s government credentials included “a Florida state-​issued security guard license and a security guard firearms license.” Twice, he was investigated by the FBI, in 2013 and again in 2014, and cleared — investigations closed.

Should we talk about security failures?

Instead, a filibuster by Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and a sit-​in protest by House Democrats changed the channel to gun control. The Senate voted on four bills that threatened more than the Second Amendment. Our Fifth Amendment rights to due process were also in the sights of crusading Democrats and appeasing Republicans and still are.

Not to mention the Ninth Amendment, freedom to do all manner of things, including travel.

Hillary Clinton says that “if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.” Yet, the problem comes in government simply declaring someone too dangerous to fly or to buy a gun, without ever publicly bringing a charge — you know, with evidence — much less convicting that person of a crime.

Having a government agent place a name on a secret list doesn’t even approximate due process of law. And, accordingly, doesn’t justify stripping a person of fundamental liberties.

Terrorism is terrifying … but not any more so than politicians who, in pursuit of their political agendas, don’t think twice about our freedoms or their constitutional limitations.

It’s not all right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration