Categories
folly general freedom ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies

Include/​Exclude

The right of free assembly is central to a free society. Not everyone understands this.

Last week, conservative/“cultural libertarian” provocateur Milo Yiannopoulis went into the Churchill Tavern in New York to dine with fellow gay journalist Chadwick Moore. 

Also in the establishment? The New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. When the socialists noticed Milo they stood up, faced him, and shouted at him, chantingNazi scum, get out!

Milo is not a Nazi, but his past gentle treatment of the alt-​right counts as “Nazi” on the left.*

The left has been pushing for an inclusivist** reading of the right of free assembly for decades. You see, state laws in the South, prior to 1964’s Civil Rights Act, allowed and enforced white business discrimination against African-​Americans, such as refusing service and accommodations. Leftists argue that there is no right to refuse service or exclude customers; they strenuously criticize those libertarians and conservatives who argue that a right to associate implies a right not to associate … giving them no credit for long opposing laws requiring discrimination. 

Yet now we see many on the left banding together to deny others their free association rights by exclusionary tactics.

This was a group of customers, of course, so this is more similar to antifa violence than business discrimination. But Brooklyn politicians echo the logic, now proudly denying free assembly rights to NRA members — on ideological grounds.

Mob action for exclusion? Politicians siding with the mob?

There’s a word for this — fascismo.

Or, in the vulgar tongue, “Nazi scum.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

 


* Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks articulates this point — Milo’s insistence that he is not alt-​right carrying no weight, apparently.

** Rather than rule-​of-​law liberal, or libertarian.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Escape from New York

“New York City is a walled maximum security prison,” exclaimed posters for Escape from New York (1981, R). “Breaking out is impossible.” 

Now, as part of new legislation giving “free college” to New Yorkers, politicians take the same high concept from the film and extend it to the entire state. 

What, you ask, does Escape from New York have to do with free college? 

First, it’s not actually free college, but only free tuition for state and city colleges.* And note that tuition costs currently run less than half the price tag of room-​and-​board, books and fees. Moreover, the freebie is only for students whose parents earn less than $100,000 annually, beginning in Fall 2017. In 2018, the threshold jumps to $110,000 and to $125,000 in 2018.*

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a likely 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate, pushed the idea of bestowing free tuition in his State of the State address months ago. He also brought in Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who dangled free college during the 2016 campaign and has now introduced legislation in Congress.

But the Empire State Legislature amended the bill. Knowing full well the economic climate created by their previous policies, these venerable solons feared New Yorkers might take the free tuition, earn a degree and quickly move.

To someplace with jobs, perhaps. 

So, the legislation requires student recipients of the free money to remain in the state – not escape – for as many years as they received the free moolah. 

How will they keep graduates from leaving? Well, the movie trailer hyped that, “The bridges are mined. The rivers are patrolled.”

And those who leave also must pay back the tuition as a loan. 

If caught.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

 

* There’s also a subsidy program for those attending private institutions of higher learning, if those colleges match the $3,000 the State puts up.

** New York state ranks 16th in median household income, at $60,850 in 2014. Therefore, the cap will deny this benefit to quite a few upper middle class and wealthier families.


Printable PDF

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies responsibility

It’s Viral

Yesterday, around the country, flags were flown at half-​staff, a sad acknowledgement of the atrocities on 9/​11/​2001.

In preparation for the 15th anniversary, students at a California college put up signs, emblazoned with the motto “Never Forget.” At least one faculty member took it upon herself to rip the signage down. Perhaps believing in blowback, her excuse had something to do with the posters needing a stamp from authorities in a “free speech area.”

Hey, I believe 9/​11 had something to do with blowback, too. But trying to squelch speech rather than add to it seems like the wrong way to go.

In any case, the history teacher saw no problem suppressing the motto “Never Forget,” as if she were not in the “never forget” business.

Then, yesterday, on 9/​11, Hillary “Never Admit” Clinton fell into wooziness at a memorial service. She hurriedly left the madding crowd. Yet, somebody recorded her stumbling, her knees buckling, being physically helped into her van.

For months now, her “conspiracy theorist” political enemies have been speculating about her persistent coughing, apparent confusions, and maniacal laughing fits. Now incontrovertible proof that something was wrong.

After going dark for 90 minutes, her campaign issued a statement that Mrs. Clinton had become “overheated.” Hours later, her doctor announced she’d been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.

Was it bacterial? Chemical? Viral?

No specifics.

And it raises more questions than it answers.

On 9/​11/​2016, what became news was Hillary’s ill health. That news, at any rate, has gone viral. And will probably linger, adding yet another dimension to a strange presidential campaign year.

But, as the history teacher should have asked, are we learning anything?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, health, 911, illustration

 

Categories
crime and punishment too much government

Red Light Robots

Since we constantly battle against bad government — it being necessary to pare government down to its essential kernel, where it protects rather than tramples our rights — we sometimes lose sight of the fact that good government is both possible and necessary.

Now, many folks will raise an eyebrow, here. “‘Good government’ isn’t just about protecting our rights,” they might say. “It’s about providing key services. Like roads. Traffic lights. That sort of thing.”

Sure, we need roads. And safety measures. Nevertheless, good government is not about overkill.

Take automated intersection policing. That is, the infamous “red-​light cameras.”

The New York Post reports that one camera — one intersection robot (better term, eh?) — snapped 1551 infractions on July 7. That was $77,550 for one camera for one day. No wonder that one city councilman likes it. And says it makes roadways safer.

But over at Reason, Zenon Evans marshals some skepticism. “A British study on speed cameras last year determined that ‘the number of collisions appears to have risen enough to make the cameras worthy of investigation in case they have contributed to the increases.’” These dangerous effects don’t appear to be limited to the other side of the pond, either: “[M]any reports,” Evans concludes, “have indicated that red light cameras in the U.S. increase accidents.”

More policing isn’t necessarily better policing. The old rule about traffic safety is that the rules should be set to what most people would drive without the rules.

Let’s remember: rewarding ineffective, counter-​productive policing with lots of money is a bad way to govern the governors.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

Let Us Drive

How about letting us drive?

Who’s us? Passengers — taxi-​ride buyers. Plus anyone else who participates in the market transactions that take us places.

Many Orlando, Florida cabbies are eager to work with the ride-​sharing company that makes the smartphone app Uber. They’re tired of leasing cabs for $129 a day while scrambling for enough price-​controlled fares to earn a decent living after paying that steep cost. Uber drivers provide their own car and let the firm’s technology connect them to customers. Uber gets 20 percent of fare revenue.

The politics are mostly hostile to the innovation in places like New York City where markets are mangled by super-​high license fees and other regulations. The politics are also tough in Orlando, which has been cracking down on Uber drivers. But the mayor and Uber executives have been talking about a deal under which Uber could operate if it submits to … regulation. (Sigh.)

Cab companies in the City Beautiful expect to rapidly lose revenue if innovators like Uber and Lyft get to operate freely. But Orlando taxi drivers expect to gain.

“If you talk to 1,000 drivers,” says one, “950 will tell you they are going to Uber.” Says another: “Let Uber come here. It’s going to be good for the customer and the driver.”

Let them come. Also kill all regulations, including fare caps, that make it harder for cab companies to adapt. Let terms of trade be driven — regulated — by traders. Not by governments.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets tax policy

Tax-​Free New York?

Where can you “start a tax-​free business”?

New York State.

That’s what the Start-​Up NY television campaign is telling folks — way down here in Virginia.

Recall that on Monday I bemoaned the “New York State Open for Business” TV ad campaign, which is spending $140 million to boast of numerous multi-​million-​dollar taxpayer subsidies to certain New York businesses, even while acknowledging a generally unfriendly overall business environment. (In fact, the Tax Foundation’s 2014 State Business Tax Climate Index ranks New York State worst in the nation, dead last.)

Now, Empire State government “has a new plan” — even newer than the “new New York” proclaimed by the previous PR effort. The newest Start-​Up NY TV spot says unequivocally, “Dozens of tax-​free zones all across the state. Move here, expand here or start a new business here and pay no taxes for ten years.”

Wow. No taxes. Sounds good.

But how will the state afford to deliver government services to these special tax-​free businesses? Who will pay their share?

Of course, their employees will earn money and pay state income taxes. Oops. Actually, not so. The tax-​freeness of this super-​duper deal extends to the employees of these new or expanding operations, who can earn income free from state and local taxes.

So, the companies that have suffered long under the state’s onerous tax-​and-​regulation yoke, along with their heavily taxed employees, will continue to struggle — and even more so to pay for the new government-​favored enterprises.

How fair!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.