The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.
Would you be upset if you had to pay “too little” for a limo ride?
Me neither.
Nevertheless, the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission requires limo drivers to charge a minimum of $50 per ride, no matter how brief the ride may be. In 2001, Florida lawmakers foolishly empowered the Tampa-area Commission to set minimum fares. These began at $40 for limo rides, then rose to $50.
The purpose is to protect established firms from competition. “That’s why taxi companies love it — because it protects taxi companies,” says Justin Pearson, executive director of the Florida chapter of the Institute for Justice, the valiant libertarian law firm. “Large taxi and limousine companies have divvied up customers.”
Dave Shaw, president of West Florida Livery Associate, admits that taxi and limo companies backed the $50 minimum. That way, “there wouldn’t be any issues where limousines were charging the same amount as taxi cabs.” Of course, the mere desire to see certain prices prevail, low or high, does not imply any entitlement to see those prices imposed by force.
The Institute for Justice has sued on behalf of limousine business owner Thomas Halsnik and two limo customers. IJ argues that the Commission’s mandatory minimum violates the right of customers to bargain and the right of owners to make a living. “The government shouldn’t make it a crime for businesses to give customers a good deal merely to protect politically powerful insiders from competition.”
Exactly. The government shouldn’t force us to pay more so the politically powerful can be unfairly protected from competition and enriched. But it too often does.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
It’s a strange world. Russian President Vlad Putin may have saved the day, preventing U.S. military action against Syria . . . all because a reporter had the temerity to ask Secretary of State John Kerry for a list of demands before the U.S. went firing missiles in Syrian President Assad’s direction. Shocked by such a sensationally sensible question, Kerry mumbled something about giving up all their chemical weapons.
So Putin rang up Assad, and the next thing you know, Assad said, “Sure.”
Do you want fries with that?
It may indeed all be a ploy on the part of Putin and Assad, but it provides a breather, a timeout before Congress votes to give President Obama the approval he has asked for ( but which he says he doesn’t need) to strike Syria . . . and which he may choose to ignore if he feels like it, which may soon all be moot anyway.
In any case . . .
Gas attacks are extremely unpleasant.
The Obama Administration released film of Syrian victims of Sarin gas attacks. CNN played the footage so citizens could see “what Senators and members of the House are being shown as they make their decision.”
Last night, Mr. Obama called on “every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack.”
Oh, come on. Opposition to a military strike isn’t predicated on a lack of empathy. Were suffering the measure, we’d be at war in dozens countries all the time, including in Syria more than a year ago, since over a 100,000 people have died in the civil war where both sides have committed atrocities.
To suggest that we should decide the best course for U.S. policy by watching acts of violence and the resultant human suffering is simple-minded and demagogic.
There’s something wrong when Russia’s dictator-president looks better than ours.
This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
It is foolish to suppose that new institutions set up, will long retain the character given them by those who set them up. Rapidly or slowly they will be transformed into institutions unlike those intended—so unlike as even to be unrecognizable by their devisers.
Tonight Americans have an opportunity to listen to President Barack Obama as he directly states his case for a U.S. military attack on Syria. Wouldn’t it be nice if, for one day, instead of Americans listening to the president, the president had to listen to us?
Not just on Syria . . . on anything.
Well, Eureka!
The polls will be open in Colorado all day before the Big O’s big oration, from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Rocky Mountain Time, enabling voters to do the talking in the first recall elections of state legislators in Colorado history.
This is no mere politician monologue, but a real democratic dialogue. And you can bet politicians will be listening — from state legislators to the gun-controller-in-chief.
The conversation started this past legislative session, when Senate President John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) and Senator Angela Giron (D-Pueblo) moved two laws through the Colorado Legislature. Anti-gun laws. This angered Second Amendment activists. The conversation continued when a group of citizens decided they weren’t willing to suffer silently; they drew up recall petitions and then gathered tens of thousands of voter signatures, triggering the recalls.
That’s a lot of hoops to jump through. The president can simply call up the networks and almost instantly communicate to millions. But citizens have to work harder for their talk time.
So, listen respectfully to the president tonight, by all means . . . but remember that, if you want politicians to listen, the initiative, referendum and recall constitute one heckuva megaphone.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
[S]ocial life must be carried on by either voluntary co-operation or compulsory co-operation; or, to use Sir Henry Maine’s words, the system must be that of contract or that of status — that in which the individual is left to do the best he can by his spontaneous efforts and get success or failure according to his efficiency, and that in which he has his appointed place, works under coercive rule, and has his apportioned share of food, clothing, and shelter.
The continuing, ramped-up protests of low wages at low-end service jobs, like McDonalds and (to some extent) Walmart, put many of us in a bind. On the one hand, a decent person wants others to be happy in their work, and paid well. On the other, a wise person wants those others to face reality.
It does no good to protest the law of gravity, or blame nature for your limited skill set. We work with what we have, apply our intelligence and industry from our baseline situations. We adapt.
How?
Produce more of what someone else is willing to pay for. That’s how (some) other people earn more than $7.50 an hour. Or $17.50 an hour. Or $175.00 an hour. McDonalds doesn’t pay high wages. But there are many companies that do. Even in the restaurant biz there are better-paid burger-flippers — those burgers are priced higher (and taste better, and are served in posher places) thus allowing the purveyors of said hamburgers to afford the higher wages.
What do protestors really expect? If their wages go up, either their employers fire some workers and switch to automation (thus cutting costs) or up go the prices.
But if prices rise, who buys the burgers that pay for McDonalds’ workers’ wages? I’ll buy a McDonalds burger for a buck, or a premium burger for five bucks. But jack up the prices, and I go elsewhere.
Protesting low wages? Might as well protest gravity.
Or, since the economy’s in such a slump that folks would rather gripe than look for more productive jobs — which are, after all, unnaturally scarce — protest Obama.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Over at Townhall.com, this weekend, your Common Sense columnist expands on Friday’s Common Sense. It’s a tricky subject, discrimination. We hope you find it a rounded-out discussion, and worthy of sharing with your friends. The difference between the classical idea of freedom, and today’s rather different notion, is worth exploring.
So, click on over, and come back here for a few additional links:
Thomas Sowell on discrimination, an interview with William F. Buckley, Jr.:
The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.
The president hems and haws about what he’d do if Congress doesn’t approve of his plans to punish Syria’s president.
http://youtu.be/AR96XouYzg8