Tag: freedom

Categories
general freedom

The Season of Not Demanding

Every day, in tandem with these columns, ThisIsCommonSense.org provides a bit of history (“Today”) and a wise or significant saying (“Thought”). Christmas Eve’s Thought is worth thinking about again. 

“Liberty is the only thing you cannot have,” wrote William Allen White, “unless you are willing to give it to others.”

While one could argue that trust and love and a number of other important things also require reciprocity, it is true, and profoundly so, that liberty is reciprocal — or non-existent: if you won’t let others be free, they won’t let you be free, either. 

Further, the responsibility that is freedom’s flip-side is something we must do together. 

That is where the idea of shared burdens comes in. Freedom is not itself a non-economic, or free good, in that those who won’t leave us free must be fought, sometimes with a lot of time and effort and resources. And even danger.

The key to not turning the burden of defending freedom into a form of oppression itself is to respect individual liberty in doing so — not turning our wants into commands.

This year, 2020, the challenge has been bigger than usual. Governments’ demands have been breathtakingly extensive: to not work, not trade, to not engage in business or worship or even going to the beach.

That burden has been so oppressive — and so much worse for some (small business folks and their employees, especially, and those with mental health issues) than others (like retirees, people in government, those working from home) — that surely it is too much to demand of others.

That’s something to consider in this “gift-giving” season: Don’t play the spoiled child, with a gift-demanding attitude toward others.

Freedom is the gift we can all afford to exchange.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies term limits

Why Congress Can’t Read

Blind Leading the Blind, US Congress, politicians

They don’t read.

No one reads the legislation Congress passes, not the staffers and lobbyists who write “the packages” and congresspeople least of all, as again illustrated by the recent 5,593-page, $2.3 trillion pandemic-relief-plus-kitchen-sink bill just passed by Congress. 

They haven’t for decades. 

Nor do they care to.

James Bovard, expert reporter on the excesses of the modern individual-stomping state, says the new monster-bill “is another warning that know-nothing, no-fault legislating will be the death of our republic unless Americans can severely reduce Congress’s prerogative to meddle in their lives.”

Correct. Problem is, it’s Congress that must enact reform — on itself. Talk about a conflict of interest! That’s why the citizen initiative process has been so important at the state level. Without democratic checks — initiative, referendum, recall — at the federal level, what major reform is even possible? 

All big, necessary reforms hit a roadblock on that issue alone.

That goes for limiting the page-length of bills or requiring legislation be posted online for days if not weeks before a vote. 

Same for congressional term limits, which would de-insulate Congress from us. 

And, just so, with the late columnist Bob Novak’s proposal of smaller districts, maybe increasing the number of U.S. representative to 2,000. (It wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything more if we cut their pay.) More politicians might be better than fewer by decreasing the power of individual politicians — diminishing marginal power, you might say.

We find ourselves in a trap. These ideas amount to ways to avoid the trap once we are out of it.

But it is getting out of the trap that’s the hard part.

Any ideas? Please advise. You can be sure your good ideas will be read — not by Congress, of course, but by those of us who want a way out.  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fourth Amendment rights general freedom

Evicting Unjust Evictions

Good news: New York City businessmen can no longer be threatened with eviction and forced to forfeit their rights for the crime of . . . well, for no crime at all.

Sung Cho, owner of a Manhattan laundromat, is one of many victims of an eviction-and-extortion racket perpetrated by the city.

For years, business owners have faced eviction because of offenses that occurred on the premises of their business — even if the owner was ignorant of the alleged offenses before they were committed.

In 2013, police entered Cho’s laundromat to sell supposedly stolen goods. After a couple of people unconnected to the business accepted the offer, the NYPD threatened Cho with eviction. Even though neither Cho nor his employees were accused of doing anything illegal.

Cho felt he had no alternative but to waive his right not to be subjected to warrantless searches, and grant police access to his security cameras, and forfeit his right to a hearing if ever penalized for alleged criminal offenses in the future. To avoid eviction, he accepted those obnoxious terms.

But he didn’t leave it there. In 2016, Sung Cho teamed up with the Institute for Justice to sue the city.

After many ups and downs, the final result is that the law so often used as a club against innocent business owners has been changed. Also, the NYPD must obey a binding order that it “shall not enforce or seek to enforce” the terms of agreements imposed under the old law.

A big win for lots of small businesses against tyrannical actions by government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom local leaders

Cancel Freedom?

Covid, lockdown, Christmas

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s message “couldn’t be simpler,” he offered last week: “It’s time to cancel everything.”

Gee whiz, that is simple.

The mayor’s order “prohibits public and private gatherings of people from more than one household and states that all businesses in the city that require people to work on location must stop operations. Walking, driving, travel on public transport, bikes, motorcycles and scooters are prohibited, other than for those undertaking essential activities,” Fortune reports. 

Walking alone; riding a bike — really?* 

Thankfully, folks are still permitted to play golf, tennis and pickleball. But . . . unless the course or the court is in your back yard, wouldn’t it remain illegal to travel there? Or to play with someone not living with you already?

Governor Gavin Newsom made similar demands, only over even more folks — and with less credibility — after flouting his own previous mandates. His regional order affected “some 33 million Californians, representing 84% of the state’s population,” to be locked down in their homes until after Christmas.

Restaurant owners are going to court to challenge the constitutionality of the governor’s lockdown. “We can’t close our businesses,” restaurant owner Angela Marsden told Fox news’ Neil Cavuto. “We need to stay open to survive this.”

And what about “following ‘the science’”? 

“For the second time in five days,” explained SFGATE.com, “California Gov. Gavin Newsom did not provide evidence that businesses ordered to close during the state’s new stay-at-home order are actively contributing to the spread of the coronavirus.”

Lacking legal authority and defying science provide more than enough reason for outright defiance. “At least seven counties say they won’t enforce the mandates,” NBC Nightly News informed. “The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department will not be blackmailed, bullied or used as muscle against Riverside County residents,” announced Sheriff Chad Bianco.

Defying tyranny is simple, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* As I noted months ago, the scientific data correlate Vitamin D deficiency with serious and deadly cases of COVID-19. Therefore, telling people to stay inside, thereby avoiding sunshine, a major source of the vitamin, is not good advice. As an order with threats of enforcement, it is something even worse.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom too much government

A Tyrant’s License

Covid, virus, epidemic, US Flag, lockdown

The “lockdowns” are not how a free society would handle a contagion.

Free people might advisedly wear masks and physically distance themselves from others when they are especially vulnerable to an airborne disease, or they themselves show some symptoms.*

But free people take risks, too, and accept responsibility for risks taken. And they go about trying to improve their lives generally, in society.

In society, via commerce. 

Furthermore, free people would also change their behavior based on good information freely discussed.

What they would not do is engage in bullying to suppress information, cheer on institutional debate suppression, or mandate abridgments to other’s liberties on the basis of personal or sectarian opinion.

That is, they would not do what we do now.

And, perhaps most importantly, free people would utterly condemn leaders who lied to them, or who took special privileges by flouting their own mandates, enforced on the rest of us.

We’ve sure seen a lot of this latter.

The latest case is that of Austin, Texas, Mayor Steve Adler, who has been caught in one of those grand hypocrisies that show the panic to be mostly political opportunism: he had recorded his early November message to “stay home if you can” after attending his daughter’s wedding with 20 guests and then taking a getaway trip with a party of eight.

“This is not the time to relax,” he warned, however. “We may have to close things down if we’re not careful.”

Recorded in Mexico, I guess that “social distance” allowed him the gumption to deliver a threat: if you don’t self-quarantine, I will quarantine everybody!

Except, of course, himself.

Freedom is not just something for our rulers. Liberty with an exception clause is spelled “L-I-C-E-N-S-E.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* By wearing masks and gloves these two groups would signal to others to give them some distance. Not virtue-signaling, but well-mannered responsibility signals. The healthy people, though, would take the risks of the disease because, after all, we face a million risks every day, from automobile injury to cancer.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture individual achievement

The Individualist Economist

Walter Williams, obituary

Walter Williams died today. Or, by the time you read this, yesterday. 

Williams was a major figure in economics education, instrumental in building an economics program at George Mason University. Plus, he popularized economics for a wider audience with books, columns, and regular guest radio appearances on Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Dinesh D’Souza, in his video tribute, called Williams “an economist, an individualist, and an African-American conservative” when such people were rare. Especially the African-American variety.

Now, Williams’ main themes were not so much conservative as libertarian, citing Frédéric Bastiat a whole lot more than Edmund Burke. But D’Souza no doubt indicates that when he calls Williams an individualist. Consider it a euphemism for libertarian. 

And Williams certainly was an Individual — an individualist in more than just the political sense — though, we saw his resistance to mob pressure and groupthink most clearly in the realm of ideology. 

He could certainly have gotten wider praise had he stuck closer to the culturally dominant notion of what an African-American intellectual’s role was supposed to be. But instead of pushing “discrimination” as the major factor in differences of wealth and health outcomes in ethnic and racial groups in America, he insisted that actions have consequences, constantly reiterating the major themes of the classical liberal economists Adam Smith and Milton Friedman: people provide greater benefit to the general welfare when they marshal their own resources in a private property/free trade framework than when they pretentiously talk about the “public good” through special government programs. 

When two people trade, both gain. 

In politics, it’s too often about taking from some to give to others.

By being himself, going his own way, Walter Williams himself provided a great example of how to serve the common good. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom

Thank You, Anonymous Leaper

North Korea, escape, communism

I hope that the still-anonymous North Korean refugee who jumped a three-meter high, barbed-wire fence a few weeks ago — details are just now emerging — has paused to thank himself for his daring and initiative.

Now is a good time to do it. Thanksgiving is an American holiday, but we’re happy to let others around the world borrow it for their own thanks-giving purposes.

On November 3, a former 110-pound, North Korean gymnast leapt over a ten-foot fence in the demilitarized zone to reach South Korea.

The man has confirmed his story to the extent of proving his ability to leap tall barriers in a single bound in front of South Korean officials. He says he wants to defect.

I wish we knew more about him. But until I hear different, I’m going to assume that he is not a double agent. Just a guy who dislikes being oppressed and who wants a better life.

Every time a person leaps from totalitarianism to freedom, we should all be thankful. Here is someone who made it! This, despite pandemic-incited lockdowns that have made it even harder to escape North Korea. His feat shows others stuck behind country-wide prison walls that escape is still possible, even if few can do it the same way.

It also inspires those of us already on this side of the fence to keep working to preserve and expand the freedom, so often jeopardized, that we still enjoy.

Thank you, sir.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Something to Hate

hate speech, free speech, surveillance, freedom

Headline: “Hate talk in homes ‘must be prosecuted.’”

“Must”?

The proposed legislation targets speech alleged to promote prejudice. It is backed by Scotland’s secretary for justice, Humza Yousaf.

Might the law be deployed to squelch debate regarding, say, radical Islam?

“Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims?” Yousaf asks. “Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home?”

I suspect that here we have someone who has never attended a sizable family gathering. Many attendees might report “hate talk” but oppose fining or imprisoning the so-called hate-talkers.

Could the law be directed against journalists and others who publicly express loves and hatreds?

“We wouldn’t want to give the likes of Tommy Robinson a defence by saying that he’s ‘a blogger who writes for The Patriot Times,’” says Yousaf.

“Stirring up hatred” is, of course, not identical to threatening or instigating violence. Presumably it is already illegal in Scotland to plan murder and mayhem over the dinner table.

There’s an awful lot of speech out there with which we might vehemently disagree. Plenty of dumb, hateful, prejudice-laden speech that violates the rights of no one does get uttered in homes and Internets. We must preserve the distinction between “things that are wrong to say or do” and “actions that should be illegal.”

Scots should resist these hateful assaults on their right to speak freely.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

Papitalism

Pope

In his new encyclical, “Fratelli Tutti,” Pope Francis continues his attacks upon capitalism.

“The marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem, however much we are asked to believe this dogma of neoliberal faith.” Capitalism “does not resolve the inequality that gives rise to new forms of violence. . . . The fragility of world systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom.”

What caused the inequality? Nature? Predation? Production? Inequality caused by theft and serfdom is a problem; inequality caused by production and freedom is not.

The pain of lockdowns (whether justified or not) is inflicted by massive restrictions on capitalism. And it turns out these government programs — pandemic “mitigation efforts” — will likely hit poor countries the hardest, causing (as the UN fears) mass starvation.

The pope cannot blame capitalism for that inequality!

Also, which champions of capitalism contend that capitalism resolves (instantly?) “every” problem? 

Capitalism is the socio-economic system characterized by freedom of production and exchange and by respect for property rights. It enables us to earn a living and make plans without worrying that we will be continuously robbed and our plans continuously derailed by governments. A free society shouldn’t pretend it can fix every problem, but it provides many incentives and opportunities to solve, or at least cope with, the problems of life. When free, we can speak and act as we judge best. 

And learn from our mistakes.

It would be a grave mistake to think that capitalism must be blamed for natural inequality, or for government actions to shut down production and commerce in order (we are told) to fight a virus. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo of Pope Francis by Catholic Church England

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
too much government

Sweet Grape Victory of 2020

grapes, regulation, law

Raise a long-stemmed glass to the wineries of Minnesota. And to the Institute for Justice, which fought for their rights in court.

Minnesota wine makers may now make wine with whatever grapes they like! They may make wines that were illegal for them to make before.

Early in September, a federal judge struck down a 1980 Minnesota law which prevented Minnesota wineries from crushing grapes into wine unless most of the grapes being used had been grown in Minnesota. Winemakers were thus thwarted from producing popular varietals requiring grapes that can’t be grown in the state. Temporary exemptions from the law were possible but could not be counted on.

Judge Wilhelmina Wright’s ruling may well inspire challenges to similar prohibitions in other states. You know you’re a fifth of the way into the twenty-first century when dramatic modernistic advancements like letting wineries buy whatever grapes they wish have become possible.

You may be thinking: “Huh? I had no idea that wine makers in Minnesota were not allowed to buy grapes from other states. That’s painfully stupid!”

Of course, that is probably not the opinion of the proponents of the law. At least some Minnesota grape growers no doubt believe that persuading lawmakers to block out-of-state grapes was a smart move. 

But is it really so very wise to hobble business competitors for the sake of short-term advantages regardless of the long-term costs to the freedom — not to mention the palates — of all?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts