Category: property rights

Taxation to What End?

Oregon, tax, taxes, corporate, corporation, illustration, Measure 97

Oregonians have quite a few ballot measures this year.

And only one of them seems obviously nutty: Measure 97.

It would raise taxes on the very biggest of companies. The richest — that is, those with $25 million in sales.

Among the reasons given for this excise hike, which is estimated to be the biggest in the state’s history, are a whole bunch of “ooh, look at what we can do with all that loot!” enticements. Yes, and then there is the tried-and-untrue staple of the left, the “make large and out-of-state corporations pay their fair share in taxes” ploy.

Admittedly, trying to get out-of-state entities to pay for your benefits is classic. What “Let somebody else pay” lacks in nobility and morality it makes up for in avarice’s perennial appeal.

But the practical problem? A tax hike is just a bid on a future expropriation. Tax targets can, in effect, counter-offer by moving, or threatening to move, out of taxing territory.

Imagine yourself a thief. Then imagine first announcing to your victims where, when and how much you intend to take.

Right now Oregon sports the tenth best business environment in the country and, maybe, the lowest business taxes*. Raise taxes to the “middle of the pack” and businesses begin to look at states with lower rates.

Objectionable? Doesn’t matter. Folks go into business to make profits, not pay taxes.

Against this reality? Measure 97’s many bigwig supporters: the progressive Democratic governor, Democratic legislators and big-spending public employee unions eager to expand their bottom lines.

But by seeking to maximize near-term tax rates, these greedy special interests risk losing revenue further off, after businesses flee the state.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The Oregon Center for Public Policy ranks Oregon as tied with Connecticut for the lowest in the nation.

Printable PDF

Tags corporate, corporation, illustration, Measure 97, Oregon, tax, tax policy

Accountability crime and punishment moral hazard national politics & policies property rights Regulating Protest responsibility U.S. Constitution

It’s Morning in Wisconsin

Assault on Free Speech in Wisconsin, police abuse, harassment, militarization, democracy, intimidation, collage, photomontage, illustration, editorial, violence

Regarding mornings, put me in Sheriff Hopper’s camp. He’s the Stranger Things character, repeatedly informing folks: “Mornings are for coffee and contemplation.”

Speaking of stranger things, who expects an early morning SWAT-like police raid on their home?

Three years ago, yesterday, that happened to Cindy Archer, and other conservatives in Wisconsin. Near dawn, a dozen police officers in flak jackets pounded on her door, carrying a battering ram just in case. Her dogs were freaking out and she feared they’d be shot. The police ransacked her home, confiscating her computer and smart phone.

This was a secretive John Doe investigation, so Ms. Archer was informed she could discuss the raid with nobody but her lawyer. The raid was public, the media tipped off, but Archer was prevented from defending herself publicly. Or even privately, among friends and relatives.

Her suspected crime?

Like her fellow targets, she had supported Gov. Scott Walker’s effort to reform the law regarding public employee unions. And for fundraising “coordination” in pursuit thereof.

The gag order slapped on conservatives in 29 groups might have prevented us from knowing the partisan political assault taking place, but Eric O’Keefe, the head of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, courageously spoke out.

“Had I honored their secrecy order, I couldn’t have organized our defense,” Eric O’Keefe told Blaze TV. “I decided quickly — look, this is supposed to be a free country, I’m going to operate as though it is, even if it isn’t today.”

First, John Doe Judge Gregory Peterson ordered the probe to close. Prosecutors appealed.

O’Keefe went to federal court and soon Judge Rudolph Randa agreed that Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and the Government Accountability Board were violating their rights. Randa warned: “[A]ttempts to purify the public square lead to places like the Guillotine and the Gulag.”

Randa’s ruling was stayed pending the appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. “It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing,” read the that court’s majority opinion.

Still, the persecutors persisted, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Yesterday morning, the High Court denied Milwaukee County’s appeal.

Calling the three-year dystopian odyssey “a disgraceful episode in Wisconsin history,” this morning Mr. O’Keefe is pushing the state legislature to have some coffee and contemplate (and then legislate) ensuring this never happens again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

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

Post author By CS Admin
Post date July 5, 2016
9 Comments on 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

Tags Brexit, democracy, experts, philosopher king, technocracy

Accountability ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies property rights responsibility

The Climate Cassandra

Global warming, climate change, illustration

Thirty years ago, in June, 1986, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee met to consider the problems of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and climate change.

Present at those hearings was today’s climate Cassandra, James Hansen, then of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. And he was predicting that “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years,” according to Associated Press reporting at that time.

There was some sloppiness either in Hansen’s account, or the AP’s, for in one part of his testimony Hansen claimed that his institute’s climate models projected, for “the region of the United States, the warming 30 years from now is about 1 1/2 degrees C, which is about 3 F.”

Ronald Bailey, the science writer over at Reason, tries to make sense of this mess of numbers, models, and predictions.

Oh, and actual, tabulated results.

Hansen’s predictions went, as Bailey put it, “definitively off the rails when tracking the temperature trend for the contiguous U.S. between 2000 and 2016. Since 2000, according to the NOAA calculator, the average temperature trend has been downward at ‑0.06 F degree per decade.”

That’s not the whole picture, though: “global temperatures have increased by 0.51 C degree since 1986, so perhaps the man-made global warming signal has finally emerged.”

No matter, though, as Bailey notes, “the United States and the Earth have warmed at considerably slower pace than Hansen predicted 30 years ago.”

Which suggests that Hansen’s models may be inspired more by wish, fear, and ideology than genuine science.

So, to those who wish to rush to “do something” (anything?) to combat “climate change,” take it slow. Follow the pace of the Earth itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags climate change, global warming, James Hansen, prediction

Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies privacy property rights

A New Way to Steal

ERAD, gift card, civil asset, forfeiture, stealing, theft, drug war

The fight against government theft of private property, through “civil forfeiture,” just got a little harder.

There’s a new technology available: ERAD card scanners.

And the Oklahoma City Police Department’s joint interdiction team has them, and can use the scanners to take money from you without your consent.

What money, in particular? The money you have stored in pre-paid debit cards.

ERAD stands for Electronic Recovery and Access to Data, and the ERAD Group, Inc., stands to make a lot of cash from the technology. Police around the country want to be able to take the funds secured in debit cards. It’s the latest thing in the war against the war against the War on Drugs.

Drug traffickers, we’re told, hide dozens of such cards in vehicles transporting drugs.

It’s not enough that police can, in the course of investigating a crime — without conviction, mind you; indeed, without charges being filed — confiscate the cards themselves.

The police also want to be able to siphon the money out of those cards.

Which leads to corruption. Which is already rife in civil forfeiture usage, as a recent Oklahoma state audit found — missing money, misused funds, that sort of thing.

The cavalier way in which government officials defend expropriation by ERAD scanners is chilling. In an Oklahoma Watch article, reporter Clifford Adcock relates the official explanation: “These cards are cash, not bank accounts.… Individuals do not have privacy rights with magnetic stripe cards.” Why not? Because the information on the strip “literally has no purpose other than to be provided to others to read.”

That’s so open to logical criticism you could drive a confiscated truck fleet through it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags abuse, asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, civil forfeiture, Drug War, ERAD, police, theft

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

Fatherland, Socialism and Death!

Post author By CS Admin
Post date May 23, 2016
6 Comments on Fatherland, Socialism and Death!

The fall of Venezuela is an atrocity.

The comic elements are clear enough — the further you remove yourself from the poverty, chaos, and collapse. We can wallow in a bit of Schadenfreude, taking glee as some American leftists squirm to explain why the socialist paradise they ballyhooed a mere three years ago now tail-spins to the grave.

The collapse of this socialist experiment offers an enormous level of tragedy. It’s not pretty.

The country’s leader, President Nicolas Maduro, makes his predictable desperation play. Rather than confront his own errors, and the futility of making socialism work in anything like a rigorous form, he boasts. “Venezuela Leader Says US ‘Dreams’ Of Dividing Loyal Military,” reads yesterday’s Reuters report. While no doubt true, this is one of those cases where whatever we dream to the north, our dreams are better than their current reality.

Of course the Venezuelan military should turn on Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s inheritor, protecting the right of recall, which Maduro is denying. By painting the U. S. as the bad guy, Maduro hopes to unite his people — especially his armed forces — around him. That’s what a desperate demagogic dynast does. Citizens and subjects traditionally abandon skepticism about their leaders when they feel threatened from the outside.

Which is one reason it would be a mistake for the U. S. to intervene.

Reuters poetically reports that the military is still united behind the socialist government, and resists the recall referendum, singing “Fatherland, Socialism, or Death!”

Wrong conjunction. Not “or” but “and” … if you insist on socialism.

The government, military pressure or no, should allow the recall vote, and soon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF