Categories
folly nannyism property rights too much government

Fishy Schemes Against Human Beings

Arbitrary governmental pricing of water — as opposed to free-​market pricing — provides one major reason why it’s so hard for Californians and others to deal with drought.

I’ve talked about it before. And, as before — indeed, as is so often the case when government constricts our freedom to “solve” problems — the do-​badders are pursuing more than one line of attack.

Under-​pricing plus edicts about how we may use water are bad enough, sure. But that kind of central planning is just one method of making it harder to quench thirst and water lawns and crops. Another method? Diverting massive amounts of water from the service of human needs in order to “help” a few expendable fish.

In his Reason article “California Drought a Shortage of Water or Common Sense?,” Steven Greenhut laments fishy schemes to lower reservoir levels and drain a lake near the Sierra foothills “to help coax a handful of steelhead trout to swim to the ocean.” Handful? Maybe not quite. Nine fish. A mere nine.

The Lake Tulloch Alliance estimated that up to $2 million in water value would have to be expended to save each individual fish.

Thanks to coverage like Greenhut’s and Stephen Moore’s, and the resultant public outcry — plus the eventual resistance of local water district officials to the environmental demands of state and federal agencies — this particular attempt by radical environmentalists to elevate fish life above human life has been deflected. At least for now.

But there are more battles to come.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

California Drought Fish

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly general freedom nannyism too much government

America’s Twilight Zones

On Friday I lamented the picking up, by local police, of two children, 10 and 6, for walking home from a local park …

and the subsequent two-​month Montgomery County (Maryland) Child Protective Services investigation, which found the parents “responsible” for “unsubstantiated child neglect.”

Left unanswered? Whether parents “may” let their kids walk somewhere without supervision.

There’s no law, of course, against children walking in public without parents. But the “swarms of Officers” employed “to harass our people” aren’t limited by trifling things like laws.

This Kafkaesque episode reminds me of my experiences with campaign finance agencies.

In both cases, agencies rely upon meritless complaints to investigate, intimidate and impoverish people without any law being broken. All that’s required? An unelected bureaucrat’s arbitrary decision.

Take Lois Lerner. She ran the IRS division targeting conservative groups. Remember her allegedly lost emails? Irretrievable! Until someone actually looked for them.

Before violating people’s rights at the IRS, Lerner did so heading the Enforcement Division of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). A recent George Will column detailed her threats and very public and politically damaging harassment of Al Salvi, the Illinois Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. Sure, he was fully acquitted in federal court … after his defeat.

Using a spurious complaint by former Rep. Mike Synar (D‑Okla.), Lerner launched a political persecution against U.S. Term Limits, costing us nearly $100,000 in legal fees and much more in dislocated time and manpower.

Finding no evidence — there was none to find — the FEC finally closed the matter. But agency officials still issued a news release proclaiming that they believed we had violated the law.

An Oklahoma newspaper headline read, roughly, “National Term Limits Group Broke Law, Says FEC.”

Talk about “unsubstantiated.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Categories
education and schooling folly nannyism

Well-​Substantiated Insanity

In what sort of place are children taken from their parents, or parents investigated by the authorities with that in mind, because they allowed their 10- and 6‑year-​olds to walk to a park to play?

Not a forced 20-​mile march across Death Valley, mind you, but a Saturday stroll of less than a mile under normal earth conditions.

What sort of place? These United States Silver Spring, Maryland, to be specific.

Thats where Danielle and Alexander Meitivs two kids, Rafi and Dvora, were picked up by police, on their way home from a neighborhood park.

A two-​month Montgomery County Child Protective Services (MCCPS) investigation followed. Now, theres no law against youngsters walking in public by themselves. Local public schools dont provide bus service for kids within a mile of the school, deeming that close enough to walk. Nevertheless, this week, authorities announced that the Meitivs were found responsiblefor unsubstantiated child neglect.

The good news is that the neglect charge is completely unsubstantiated.The bad news is that official Free State busybodies seem to have not one clue as to what that word means.

MCCPS will keep a file on the suspicious family for five years. We dont know if we will get caught in this Kafkaesque loop again,says Mrs. Meitiv, noting that the agency left unanswered the question of what might happen if they ever again dare allow their kids to walk outside the house without adult supervision.

The family is appealing the nonsensical MCCPS finding.In the meantime, the Meitiv children will continue to walk in public as if its a free country.

This is Common Sense. Im Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Categories
Common Sense general freedom nannyism responsibility

Millions to Move 400 Villagers

Apparently, it takes a federal government to move a village.

Thinning ice sheets have made it hard for the people of Kivalina, a seaside village in Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle. The Iñupiats who live there have lived off the sea, especially bowhead whales, for a mighty long time. And climate change, town officials say, has raised havoc with their traditional occupation.

Worse yet, the federal government suspects that soon Kivalina will become uninhabitable. “The question now facing the town, the state of Alaska, and the nation,” Chris Mooney writes in the Washington Post, “is whether to move the people of Kivalina to a safer location nearby, either inland or further down the coast — and who would pay upwards of a hundred million dollars to do it.”

If you look at the sandbar upon which Kivalina rests, you can see why it might be subject to erosion and the vagaries of the weather. 

But does that make it a government concern? Really?

In times past, it wasn’t up to taxpayers to guarantee every outpost of humanity’s continued existence. When a way of life became untenable in a given place, the people moved. 

Now, folks tend to look to governments, seeing their “communities” as something others owe them, rather than something they must work to keep.

A bad sign if climate change proves real and massive.

If it takes over a $100 million to move a village with 400 people, what happens when whole cities must be abandoned? I’m sure government will be involved, but if a million Americans must move, we cannot afford to spend the Kivalina ratio: $250 trillion is quite a price tag.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Categories
general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Marriage Savings

Weve all seen lawmakers yammer on and on about how they want to streamlinegovernment, or save the taxpayers money.

But they rarely show us much for all the talk.

Paul Woolverton, writing this weekend in the Fayetteville Observer, noted one such lapse after the North Carolina Senate voted to create a law to let magistrates opt out of conducting any weddings if they have a religious objection.

The problem? No one in the debate,Mr. Woolverton asserts, questioned the underlying premise that a magistrate or clergy member is necessary to seal the marriage contract.

The involvement of the state in the marriage contract biz is unnecessarily complicated, he explains. As fiscal conservatives,Woolverton insists, they could have taken the opportunity to ask something more fundamental: 

A man and a woman pay the government $60 to get a government-​approved marriage license. Why should they then have to visit another government office and pay the government another $20, or hire a government-​designated third party for a fee or donation,to finalize their marriage contract?

Woolverton suggests streamlining the process: … [G]overnment should make its involvement the least intrusive it can be. It should record marriages when couples visit the Register of Deeds to buy their marriage licenses.

And thats it.

Betrothed couples can legally testify to meeting any and all state requirements and officially inform the state of their pre-​marriage and married names. 

Those who want the services of a priest or rabbi or preacher or imam can hire one, or cajole one. Or two.

Thats just not state business.

This is Common Sense. Im Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Categories
folly ideological culture nannyism

The Problem of No Problem

A scientist has a problem: no problem. 

Sounds like a Zen riddle, but it’s really about the riddle of victimhood-worship. 

Emily Yoffe writes an advice column called Dear Prudence. A female reader reported a problem pertaining to workplace bias against women. Although she works in a “very masculine scientific field … I have never really suffered from sexism.” 

Hmmm. Why not? “Maybe I’m just awesome at playing the man’s game (or in denial and don’t have an eye for sexism?).” 

It is probably not denial. It is pretty easy to detect abusive treatment when you’re on the receiving end and not rationalizing it away. The bigger problem, though, is that “even quite reasonable and pleasant women” of her acquaintance get nasty when she can’t “contribute to their list of crimes committed by the patriarchy.” 

What to do? She dislikes unpleasantness, but doesn’t want to lie. 

One thing to do is recognize it’s not up to you to make unreasonable people reasonable. When no discussion is possible, take your conversation elsewhere. I also advise skipping gratuitous self-doubt.

Happily, Ms. Prudence and I are on the same wavelength. 

“My general advice,” she writes, “is that it’s best not to engage with unpleasant people.… But if you feel like it, you can also counterpunch by saying something like, ‘It’s funny, but the only people who try to bully me are women who aren’t in my profession.’ ”

Commonsensical minds think alike, I guess. Ask me for advice any time.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.