Category: nannyism

Categories
crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism too much government

Beaver State Bliss

gas, Oregon, freedom, invisible hand, law, pump, control

The Great State of Oregon is not at DEFCON 1. Nor are Beaver State residents gnashing their teeth over a new law that went into effect earlier this week.

News reports proclaimed: “People in Oregon are freaking out about the thought of pumping their own gas under a new law.” But don’t believe everything you read.

For starters, Oregon’s new law doesn’t actually force anyone to do anything. It merely allows “retailers in counties with a population of less than 40,000 . . . to have self-service gas pumps.”

But a Facebook post by KTVL CBS 10 News in Medford took it an apparently frightening step further, asking, “Do you think Oregon should allow self-serve gas stations statewide?” The post went viral nationwide because of responses such as this:

I’ve lived in this state all my life and I REFUSE to pump my own gas . . .

This [is] a service only qualified people should perform. I will literally park at the pump and wait until someone pumps my gas.

Oregon is one of only two states — New Jersey, the other — where gas stations are banned from permitting customers to put gas in their own cars. Folks in the other 48 states have managed, as one Facebooker explained, “to pump gas without spilling the whole tank and triggering a Star Wars-style explosion.”

Still, if Oregonians so revere their regulatory regime, protecting them from the indignity of pumping gas, why change the law even partially?

Well, for economic reasons. As you might expect, gas stations across rural Oregon were closing at night, stranding many motorists.

Freer markets offer greater protection for real people . . . those not too perplexed by the prospect of pumping their own petrol.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom moral hazard nannyism political challengers too much government

How to Prevent Democracy

Maine, petition, signatures, Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, ranked choice voting

Quick — what is the very first thing government should do this year?

Maine’s Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap has urgent legislation. And just so you don’t get the wrong idea, “It’s really not a shadow effort to restrict the people’s right to petition their government,” he insists. “That is not our intent.”

Got that?

Citing voter and election official complaints — without documenting any specific person or incident — the secretary seeks to “virtually ban” signature gathering at the polls on Election Day. His special bill, L.D. 1726, would create a 50-foot buffer so that voters can get to the polls, cast their ballots, and rush back home without ever being approached by fellow citizens seeking their signatures to place an issue on the ballot.

Polling places, Dunlap thinks, should be more “civilized.”

“State lawmakers in recent years have lamented the number of citizen-initiated bills that have been approved by voters,” explained the Portland Press Herald, “including major changes to marijuana law, voting, taxation and the minimum wage in just the last two years alone.”

Legislators, apparently, do not like following laws enacted by voters.

It is interesting that the Ranked Choice Voting ballot initiative, which Mainers passed last November — and Dunlap strongly opposed — gathered tens of thousands of signatures at the polls. In a statement, that citizen committee declared, “Our constitutional right to direct democracy is under attack in Maine.”

Why would a Secretary of State so blatantly favor politicians over the people? In Maine, legislators choose the Secretary, not voters. It’s a bad system, lacking proper separation of powers.

Removed from the people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom insider corruption local leaders moral hazard nannyism porkbarrel politics too much government

The Biggest Loser

Illinois, corruption, exit, vote with your feet, taxes

Government is supposed to serve everybody . . . according to good, old-fashioned republican theory. But most governments serve some more than others. We can define as “corruption” any attempt to make government serve a few at the expense of the many — or the many at the expense of the few.

Illinois is corrupt, and most of us can only watch it get worse. But what can we say about those who live under the Prairie State’s thumb? When citizens see an institution slipping out of control, they can remain passive or take charge. Illinois citizens have petitioned for term limits, redistricting reform and a more transparent legislature only to be blocked again and again by the state supreme court.

What more can conscientious citizens, folks I like to call “liberty initiators” do? Well, they can

  • express themselves in criticism as well as offer alternatives;
  • vote thoughtfully and be well informed;
  • consider running for office or work for good candidates;
  • donate money to reform projects.

Alas, these and other expressions of “voice” have not exactly forestalled disaster.

The last resort is to “exit,” leave — vote with your feet.

The population of Illinois has declined. Many have pulled up stakes and fled across the border to Indiana and elsewhere. In the most recent year for which we have data, Illinois lost nearly 34,000 people, more than any other state.*

Unfortunately, this population loss is only an indicator of how bad Illinois State Government is doing. It offers no solution.

Except, of course, for the people who leave.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Idaho has experienced the biggest population increase. See Reason’s reportage.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies porkbarrel politics responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

A Good Tragedy Not Wasted

Amtrak train derailed, Seattle, I-5, infrastructure, Donald Trump

No matter how “not as bad as we feared” President Donald Trump may be appearing, as we close out the year let’s remember why some of us did not trust him in the first place: his knee-jerk reactions are too often witlessly statist.

The speeding Amtrak train that derailed over I-5 in Washington State on Monday was a horror show, sure. And we have come to expect the President — any President, either party, all administrations — to provide words of comfort after such events. Trump conformed to expectations.

And, admittedly, his initial Tweet was all very proper. But his verbal response was . . . very . . . Old School. After mentioning the federal government’s role in handling the tragedy — “monitoring” and “coordinating with local authorities” — he used the event as an excuse to expound upon the idea that the event provides “all the more reason why we must start immediately fixing the infrastructure of the United States.”

This is bad, old-fashioned policy opportunism. The worst time to cook up “solutions” is right after a tragedy. That’s when emotions are highest and reason is lowest.

More importantly, the train was going through its initial run over newly upgraded infrastructure!

One could more reasonably surmise that the recent infrastructure upgrade was the cause of the derailment — though, let us be honest, it looks like the train was way above the stretch’s speed limit.

Note to Donald Trump: just because there’s a microphone in front of you doesn’t mean you are required to “make a point.” That’s not the President’s job.

Mister, we could use a man like . . . Calvin Coolidge again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment education and schooling folly general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Leave Them Kids Alone

education, school, panic, hysteria, play, gun, toy, private, competition

This just in: oblivious little boys still play cops and robbers.

Just as in days of old.

Wait. Hold on. Breathe. Just breathe. This sociological fact doesn’t mean that we’re a nation of incipient international terrorists but for the galumphing grace of grumpy zero-tolerant schoolmasters.

Common sense says you don’t suspend toddlers from school for wiggling their fingers as if wielding a gun, or for sculpting a “gun” out of a slice of Wonder Bread or Freihofer’s. Yet evidence continues to mount that all too many teachers and administrators are immune to considerations of reasonableness when it comes to kids who misbehave. (Or “misbehave.”)

Such enemies of childhood innocence must be hindered. So let’s give two and a half cheers to Ohio lawmaker Peggy Lehner, who proposes to legislate an end in her state to suspending children in the third grade or younger who aren’t threatening anybody. (I’m not sure why kids in grades later than third can’t catch the same break.)

A new, probably imperfect government regulation is not the only way to counter blunderbuss government-school policies. The most fundamental alternative is the free market.

Ideally, no public-school monopoly plagued by mandatory insane rules would exist. Ideally, all K-12 (and university) educational offerings would be provided by an unregulated market economy, making it much easier for families to drop insane schools and patronize sane ones. The pressures of market competition would encourage school officials to become students of common sense.

We are not there yet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

No Joking Matter

encryption, freedom, Chen Sho Uli, China, Chinese, Orwell, repression

He thought he was just horsing around.

Using the popular app WeChat, a Chinese construction worker supervisor Chen Sho Uli made a gossipy joke about government officials while chatting in a chat group. But being too casual about what you say — and where — can be dangerous in China. For his sin Chen was incarcerated for several days.

“Picking quarrels” is another no-no in the country.

In lieu of Orwell’s telescreen in every room, modern Internet technology enables repressive governments to punish citizens for thoughtcrime that becomes app-speech crime. If the Chinese government can spy on you, it will. And penalize you for remarks it deems offensive to the dignity of the state.

Because of such repression, blogger Stephen Green observes that “strong encryption is everybody’s friend — except the tyrant’s.”

Agreed. Encryption is an important line of defense.

But some societies require this more than others, because harmless, incidental communications are not equally attacked by government, from country to country. Which means that encryption is actually a second line of defense.

The first is a cultural and political tradition respecting individual rights.

For one thing, robust encryption helps only those who engage in hyper-careful private discourse, or hyper-careful anonymous public discourse. Encryption won’t help thinkers of controversial thoughts who wish to express those thoughts publicly and under their own name. Everywhere we can, then, we must strengthen both the technological and cultural defenses of open discourse — recognizing that the latter is the more crucial and fundamental.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
education and schooling folly general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism responsibility

The Common School Agenda

Evergreen, students, protest, Heying, Weinstein

The rise of campus radicalism, write Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein in the “Washington Examiner, appears to “validate every fantasy the Right ever had about the Left.”*

Heying and Weinstein, who have resigned their positions at Washington State’s public liberal arts college, Evergreen, detail what went wrong at the college they “loved.”

A sociologist was hired as college president, and he systematically bred an activist movement reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution. That’s how our two extremely popular professors found themselves defending free speech and non-compliance against angry crowds of students spurred on by college administrators and “equity” officers.

Heying and Weinstein plausibly assert that these protests arise directly from the “‘equity and inclusion’ movement, cloaked in words that sound benevolent and honorable” but serve as little more than “a bludgeon.” And definitely “not like protests many readers will remember from their own college days.”

But are they really that surprising?

Government-run and -funded education hit these United States in a big way with the 19th century’s Common School movement. And not primarily to ensure “proper education.” The rationale was political . . . to more-than-nudge immigrant children to assimilate to our republican way of life.

The political element from our schools never left — and became more Left with each and every “revolution” in educational methods, and each increase in government involvement.

So, does training students to become violent mob activists bent on suppressing ideas they don’t approve of seem out of place?

It certainly is expensive. In more than one way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* And note that this piece did not appear in the left-of-center Washington Post — echoing the hesitance the mainstream and leftstream press have shown towards Bret Weinstein’s story in the first place.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies property rights responsibility too much government

What’s the Big Deal?

Standard Oil, monopoly, merger, antitrust, Aetna, CVS Health Corp

Big news: in a $69 billion deal, CVS Health Corp. plans to buy Aetna Inc. The AP story by James F. Peltz says the move “would shake up healthcare industry.”

Should we worry?

Because corporations aren’t cancerous, growth and consolidation are not to be feared as such.

But speaking of cancerous growths . . . the federal government will not likely take the news of the merger with the tranquility of a Taoist sage.

Over at Forbes, last month, Bruce Japsen predicted that the deal wouldn’t go through, arguing that “a full-blown merger of the healthcare giants would be complicated and unlikely given recent antitrust scrutiny in the sector and given that the drugstore chain is already going into business with an Aetna rival, Anthem.”

Government antitrust to the rescue?

No. We may have been schooled to believe that antitrust “protects competition,” but it has always limited competition, instead. Antitrust was always about fear — of bigness. It was definitely not designed to help consumers. The classic case is the infamous break-up of Standard Oil, which produced more fuel while lowering prices — even as it grew humongous.* Standard Oil grew because it satisfied consumer demand. Which is what businesses are for.

And yet government broke it to pieces, using antitrust rationales, for the benefit of some producers, some businesses.

Think of it as crony capitalism in action.

So, my remaining question runs like this: is the CVS/Aetna merger a response to pure market demand, or as a way to wiggle around insane state and federal regulations?

Health care in America is sick. The merger is not likely the cure. But it would not kill the patient.

We have government for that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* For background, consult the studies of economist Dominick T. Armentano.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom government transparency ideological culture insider corruption moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Invulnerable Government

cfpb, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, director, Richard Cordray, Mick Mulvaney, deep state, administrative state, bureaucracy

As of this week, there are two heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Two claimants to the throne, so to speak.

The bureau’s previous director, Richard Cordray, resigned last week, and as he left he appointed a deputy director, Leandra English. Ms. English sent out a nice Thanksgiving email, billing herself as “Acting Director.”

Meanwhile, in advance of Cordray’s exit, President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney to fill the role. Mulvaney showed up at work yesterday and took possession of the director’s office. He ordered a hiring freeze . . . and brought donuts.

It gets juicier. English has filed suit against the president and his appointee, claiming to be, herself, the directorship’s rightful heir. She cites the enabling legislation, which allowed for deputization by the director. And she cites her commitment to the agency’s mission, of which Mulvaney and Trump have none.

Republicans generally regard the agency as having gone rogue.

And the squabble over the directorship sure seems to validate that charge.

The legality? Presumably, the legislation that established the agency — which deliberately insulated the CFPB from oversight by funding it from the Federal Reserve — does not void an established law, the Vacancies Act, which does allows the president to fill vacated posts.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has taken up English’s side in the dispute, because she believes in the agency’s mission.

Now, I get it: to make government as impregnable as a high mountain fortress is an idea that many folks flirt with, from time to time. But the results are always the same: government secure from democratic checks and constitutional balance.

Come on, Democrats! Give democracy a chance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular responsibility

Don’t Think Different

Apple, “vice president of diversity and inclusion,” Denise Smith race, equality, diversity, hiring,

What do we know for sure about the resignation of Apple’s “vice president of diversity and inclusion,” Denise Smith?

  1. She is a black woman who landed in hot water for saying that a group of blue-eyed blond men can also be “diverse,” because “they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation. Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity . . . is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”
  2. An uproar ensued among persons who favor making characteristics like sex and skin color — as opposed to talent, perseverance, intellect — a top priority in hiring.
  3. Smith then apologized, seeming to disparage her own correct and much-needed statement defending genuinely relevant diversity.
  4. She has left Apple.

What outsiders don’t know for sure is whether Apple asked Smith to leave because of what she said. We can be merely 99.99 percent sure that Apple requested her departure for making her excessively un-same and sane observation.

Not good, Apple.

Excellence and common sense should never be sacrificed to “diversity.” Sub-perfect “diversity” has not impaired Apple’s ability to make popular and effective smartphones bought by persons of every description.

Indeed, no company should be in the least concerned with promoting “diversity” if this means trying to increase the proportions of employees of a certain race, sex, weight, height, blood type, timbre, etc. even when such traits are blatantly irrelevant to prospective job performance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing