Back in 2008 I actually thought war was a major issue in American politics. I remember rallies, protests, and sign-waving. A vote for McCain was portrayed as an approval for war, and many people weren't having it.
People sing a different tune now. Almost four years have passed and the US military has continued to be used to search out monsters to destroy all over the world. It has devastated Iraq for no reason, leaving over 100,000 dead. It assisted in toppling Libya's government because Obama suddenly felt like it, and it is looking to do the same in Syria. It continues to slaughter innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan- sometimes with unmanned drones, which it also uses in campaigns in Yemen and Somalia.
Understand that there is nothing worse than war, much less a war with no concrete objective. War destroys capital and kills people by the thousands- people whose life and loved ones matter as much to them as yours matters to you. War takes a cut off the top of all productive civilian economic activity, and it's not cheap. We and our children will pay for it in higher taxes, a lower standard of living, and a less certain future.
War costs freedom, too. It has always been the parent of surveillance states and police states. Even now our communications may be tapped without a warrant in the name of fighting terror. The government can rifle through our personal finances and medical records as it sees fit. Congress routinely gives our tax money to private corporations. We're undressed and hassled when we want to fly, and can probably expect similar treatment for other modes of transit. The Pentagon has so much military equipment that it gives its surplus (including assault weapons, riot gear, and tanks) to local police departments. The President has granted himself the power of having his own kill list. And the federal government recently gave the OK to use drones in domestic air space. History suggests these relatively novel things are now a permanent part of American life.
The upcoming elections will probably mean nothing so far as all of this is concerned, as neither candidate has shown an interest in changing any of it. An Obama victory will send the message that no President will be held accountable for using the military as his plaything, and a Romney victory will prove that Americans are willing to settle for any candidate who says he's not a Democrat. Either way, war will be quietly downgraded to a fringe political issue just like the maintenance of the Bill of Rights. It's a foregone conclusion at this point, but I still don't want it to happen. I'd sooner not vote at all than consent to war by voting for either of those two men.
If the future of the United States is in the hands of politicians who think perpetual war is acceptable, we the people are in trouble. War is destructive, expensive, and erodes our freedom. It makes us all less safe, and it pushes the limits of what kind of tyrannies Americans are willing to tolerate. We'll soon find out what those limits are if we continue giving politicians a pass on this important issue.
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Someday Never Comes
So, the gun debate is back in the news. Some guy went on a rampage in a movie theater. What can we do about it?
I keep being told that in order to prevent gun-related death of all kinds, we either need more laws, stricter laws, or better enforcement of current laws. Sounds fair. But I can promise you that that's never going to happen, and I'll tell you why.
Let's assume it's true- that all we need are better laws. Assume further that after these better laws are passed, gun crimes will either stop happening altogether or decrease to a frequency that we can all accept without wishing for more laws.
Notice I said after these laws are passed. Right now is something different. Right now, millions of guns are already unregistered, untracked, and out there somewhere. Many are already in the hands of bad (or potentially bad) people. No matter how hard the government cracks down on guns, nothing can override the reality that they're already widely available, and have been for some time. Arguing over who's at fault for that is useless. That much is a done deal.
Until the day comes when the government gives us the better gun laws you might want, what are we all supposed to do? All I can come up with is that we have to just live with the fact that we're helpless to defend ourselves against anyone who has a gun and wants to hurt people. Sure, you could buy your own gun and carry it for self defense. Just don't get caught with it outside your home or in any scenario where it could potentially save someone's life, because that will get you arrested and thrown into prison.* Ironically, the people who will throw you into prison can already legally carry weapons and don't have to worry about the law.
When whatever government body you trust with your safety finally hammers out the perfect legislation, maybe things will be different. But the perfect legislation has been on its way for decades now, and I'm starting to doubt whether it's even coming. In the meantime, whose endlessness becomes more apparent with each shooting, don't be shocked when you see incidents like in Aurora, Columbine, and Virginia Tech. The gun-free zones and no-carry laws might score political points with the right people, but saying, "We'll get it right next time," probably doesn't mean as much to the families of the victims of gun violence.
The lesson here is that if you depend on the government for things that are ultimately and rightfully your responsibility, it means you're rolling the dice with your own future. In the case of safety, it both fails to protect and removes the means of doing it yourself. If you examine the many other things that government does, you will find many similar patterns.
Of course if government is the problem, then liberty is the answer. I know that record sounds about as broken as the one that says we need more government, but trust me, it hasn't been playing as long. Until we can get less of the former and more of the latter, we're going to be stuck in the same situations waiting for different outcomes. When the next shooting happens, we'll find out.
*In NJ, for instance, it is basically illegal for anyone to carry any firearm- except the police.
I keep being told that in order to prevent gun-related death of all kinds, we either need more laws, stricter laws, or better enforcement of current laws. Sounds fair. But I can promise you that that's never going to happen, and I'll tell you why.
Let's assume it's true- that all we need are better laws. Assume further that after these better laws are passed, gun crimes will either stop happening altogether or decrease to a frequency that we can all accept without wishing for more laws.
Notice I said after these laws are passed. Right now is something different. Right now, millions of guns are already unregistered, untracked, and out there somewhere. Many are already in the hands of bad (or potentially bad) people. No matter how hard the government cracks down on guns, nothing can override the reality that they're already widely available, and have been for some time. Arguing over who's at fault for that is useless. That much is a done deal.
Until the day comes when the government gives us the better gun laws you might want, what are we all supposed to do? All I can come up with is that we have to just live with the fact that we're helpless to defend ourselves against anyone who has a gun and wants to hurt people. Sure, you could buy your own gun and carry it for self defense. Just don't get caught with it outside your home or in any scenario where it could potentially save someone's life, because that will get you arrested and thrown into prison.* Ironically, the people who will throw you into prison can already legally carry weapons and don't have to worry about the law.
When whatever government body you trust with your safety finally hammers out the perfect legislation, maybe things will be different. But the perfect legislation has been on its way for decades now, and I'm starting to doubt whether it's even coming. In the meantime, whose endlessness becomes more apparent with each shooting, don't be shocked when you see incidents like in Aurora, Columbine, and Virginia Tech. The gun-free zones and no-carry laws might score political points with the right people, but saying, "We'll get it right next time," probably doesn't mean as much to the families of the victims of gun violence.
The lesson here is that if you depend on the government for things that are ultimately and rightfully your responsibility, it means you're rolling the dice with your own future. In the case of safety, it both fails to protect and removes the means of doing it yourself. If you examine the many other things that government does, you will find many similar patterns.
Of course if government is the problem, then liberty is the answer. I know that record sounds about as broken as the one that says we need more government, but trust me, it hasn't been playing as long. Until we can get less of the former and more of the latter, we're going to be stuck in the same situations waiting for different outcomes. When the next shooting happens, we'll find out.
*In NJ, for instance, it is basically illegal for anyone to carry any firearm- except the police.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
On Minimum Wage
The minimum wage is back in the news. An article over at The Nation says that three democratic congressmen are pushing for a raise in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10 an hour- more than a 35% increase. So far as I can tell, the basic argument is as follows: businesses that create the least-paying jobs are unfairly taking advantage of their workers, and can afford to pay them more. Moreover, the proposed increase in wages will not substantially affect prices or unemployment, except possibly for the better. The logical conclusion is that there needs to be a mandated minimum wage.
Opponents of the wage increases say basically the opposite: the pay increase to employers will be followed by an increase in prices. That, and the wage raise will cause some people to be too expensive to hire, thereby causing unemployment. Typically the conclusion is that the minimum wage is fine where it is and doesn't need to be raised because doing so can only hurt people and the economy.
The latter view makes a little more sense to me. Even though I don't subscribe to it fully (I'd prefer if the minimum wage weren't mandated by law), it is worth outlining and addressing its foundations.
A common argument against an increase is that it can cause some people to either lose their job, or not get hired in the first place. If some employers are forced to pay more, they might demand laborers with more skill, hanging the less-skilled potential worker out to dry. Imagine that it happened to you. Suppose you just graduated from college and are sending out applications and expecting to make about $40,000 per year, when some politician declares that those in your line of work must be paid no less than $50,000 to start. Isn't it at least plausible that your would-be employers would want someone with more experience? If you were the employer, what would you do?
Another case against the forced wage raise is that employers might adjust for having to pay for the increase by either raising the prices of the goods/services they provide, or by purchasing less of other goods/services they need to make their business run. A landscaping company, for example, might have less to spend on gas and equipment maintenance if it is forced to spend more money on its workers. This phenomenon is especially true for businesses that rely most heavily on human labor, or for less-established companies that operate at the fringes of viability. A mandated increase in wages might force such companies to either close their doors or never get the chance to exist in the first place. Is it inconceivable?
No, it's not inconceivable. It very well might not happen that way at all.....then again, it might. And therein lies the real reason for abolishing the minimum wage- the outcome is unknowable for the individuals involved, and the dictates are coming from the people who are the farthest removed from those who will be most affected.
I'll be the first to admit that raising the minimum wage can cause some people to be better off that they were before. No dispute there- after all, no politician raves about a new policy that *isn't* designed to buy votes from its intended beneficiaries. But it can just as easily cause others to be worse off. To identify all the particular winners and losers in advance (let alone the degrees to which they win or lose) is impossible, even to the people who favor the wage raise. The best we can say about fiddling with the minimum wage is that it will cause tradeoffs within the economy with some people coming out ahead and others not. The end result can't be held to be any better or worse in aggregate, just different. All the political class is interested in is whether the net result will benefit them when the next election comes.
Why not raise the wage to $20 per hour? Or $100? The usual answer to this is that, past some point, it obviously becomes absurd or impractical. And that's true, it does indeed become absurd. But when? By what metric? How is that to be decided? Do Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson Jr. know what it "should" be? Do they know which wages are "best" and for whom? Was any analysis attempted which arrived at the $10 figure, or did they go with it because it's just an appealing number? It's not even pretended to be something that was arrived at by any sort of calculation. They just made it up.
What really bothers me is the arrogance that politicians display when they, with their amazing pay and pension and benefits (for life), insist on imposing their will on the rest of the country as though it's their job. In this case, the arrogance comes in the form of saying that no task, regardless of how little effort or skill it takes to carry out, is conceivably worth less than ten dollars per hour. Absolutely nothing. Bagging groceries, watering plants, cleaning windows, picking weeds, etc.- either you're paying at least $10 an hour, or you're committing a crime. Do you own a small business in the inner city and want to pay some kid to keep the shelves faced and bag groceries for $7.50 an hour? Maybe $9.99? Unless you have enough firepower to keep the police away, you better not let the labor department find out about it. Considering that governments have shut down curbside lemonade stands for health safety issues, the example is not farfetched.
So when I reject the idea of a minimum wage, I do so not because I'm a 1% sympathizer or because I like exploiting workers, but because of my conviction that no politician has the right to use force to impose arbitrary rules on everyone else in the futile pursuit of what he thinks is best. Nobody should have the right to say who works for how much except the two parties involved. It's a private issue. And until one side is being defrauded or lied to, government simply has no legitimate role to play.
Opponents of the wage increases say basically the opposite: the pay increase to employers will be followed by an increase in prices. That, and the wage raise will cause some people to be too expensive to hire, thereby causing unemployment. Typically the conclusion is that the minimum wage is fine where it is and doesn't need to be raised because doing so can only hurt people and the economy.
The latter view makes a little more sense to me. Even though I don't subscribe to it fully (I'd prefer if the minimum wage weren't mandated by law), it is worth outlining and addressing its foundations.
A common argument against an increase is that it can cause some people to either lose their job, or not get hired in the first place. If some employers are forced to pay more, they might demand laborers with more skill, hanging the less-skilled potential worker out to dry. Imagine that it happened to you. Suppose you just graduated from college and are sending out applications and expecting to make about $40,000 per year, when some politician declares that those in your line of work must be paid no less than $50,000 to start. Isn't it at least plausible that your would-be employers would want someone with more experience? If you were the employer, what would you do?
Another case against the forced wage raise is that employers might adjust for having to pay for the increase by either raising the prices of the goods/services they provide, or by purchasing less of other goods/services they need to make their business run. A landscaping company, for example, might have less to spend on gas and equipment maintenance if it is forced to spend more money on its workers. This phenomenon is especially true for businesses that rely most heavily on human labor, or for less-established companies that operate at the fringes of viability. A mandated increase in wages might force such companies to either close their doors or never get the chance to exist in the first place. Is it inconceivable?
No, it's not inconceivable. It very well might not happen that way at all.....then again, it might. And therein lies the real reason for abolishing the minimum wage- the outcome is unknowable for the individuals involved, and the dictates are coming from the people who are the farthest removed from those who will be most affected.
I'll be the first to admit that raising the minimum wage can cause some people to be better off that they were before. No dispute there- after all, no politician raves about a new policy that *isn't* designed to buy votes from its intended beneficiaries. But it can just as easily cause others to be worse off. To identify all the particular winners and losers in advance (let alone the degrees to which they win or lose) is impossible, even to the people who favor the wage raise. The best we can say about fiddling with the minimum wage is that it will cause tradeoffs within the economy with some people coming out ahead and others not. The end result can't be held to be any better or worse in aggregate, just different. All the political class is interested in is whether the net result will benefit them when the next election comes.
Why not raise the wage to $20 per hour? Or $100? The usual answer to this is that, past some point, it obviously becomes absurd or impractical. And that's true, it does indeed become absurd. But when? By what metric? How is that to be decided? Do Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson Jr. know what it "should" be? Do they know which wages are "best" and for whom? Was any analysis attempted which arrived at the $10 figure, or did they go with it because it's just an appealing number? It's not even pretended to be something that was arrived at by any sort of calculation. They just made it up.
What really bothers me is the arrogance that politicians display when they, with their amazing pay and pension and benefits (for life), insist on imposing their will on the rest of the country as though it's their job. In this case, the arrogance comes in the form of saying that no task, regardless of how little effort or skill it takes to carry out, is conceivably worth less than ten dollars per hour. Absolutely nothing. Bagging groceries, watering plants, cleaning windows, picking weeds, etc.- either you're paying at least $10 an hour, or you're committing a crime. Do you own a small business in the inner city and want to pay some kid to keep the shelves faced and bag groceries for $7.50 an hour? Maybe $9.99? Unless you have enough firepower to keep the police away, you better not let the labor department find out about it. Considering that governments have shut down curbside lemonade stands for health safety issues, the example is not farfetched.
So when I reject the idea of a minimum wage, I do so not because I'm a 1% sympathizer or because I like exploiting workers, but because of my conviction that no politician has the right to use force to impose arbitrary rules on everyone else in the futile pursuit of what he thinks is best. Nobody should have the right to say who works for how much except the two parties involved. It's a private issue. And until one side is being defrauded or lied to, government simply has no legitimate role to play.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Rick Santorum and Casino Politics
Today Rick Santorum announced he was dropping out of the race to be the GOP presidential nominee. The only surprise here is that he lasted as long as he did. I think everybody knew he wasn't going to make it since day one. And even if he somehow did make it, I'm sure Obama would have danced on him in November.
Santorum reportedly had an agenda that was anti-woman, anti-porn, anti-gay, anti-civil liberties, and pro-war. I believe all those things to be true (to varying degrees), but he and his supporters probably didn't see it that way- or if they did, they thought those were positive attributes. They genuinely wanted what he was selling.
Much as he's portrayed as an evil man (and much as I disagree with his political opinions), I don't think Rick Santorum is really as bad as they say. I think he sincerely believes his platform is what's best for everybody, and was simply trying to use the power of government to realize it. What's wrong with that? Every politician does it. What distinguishes good politicians from bad ones, though, is the extent to which the proactive power of their office figures in with their plans. And there aren't many good ones around.
There is, however, a superabundance of self-anointed intellectuals who see it as their duty and right to control others. People are practically lining up for the job- to wage war, to spy on people, to tell people what they can and can't buy/build/sell/make/eat/know, to try to control the economy, to take from some and give it to others. All it takes for one of these people to be president is for enough people to agree with him (or to disagree more with his opponent).
It's a scary situation, but consider this: without the levers of government at his command, Rick Santorum would be just another bigot yelling at his TV at night. Maybe the best he could do is have his own radio show. But as president, he's a different story. As president, he becomes a bigot with a military. He becomes a problem- perhaps even a burden- that a lot of people have to worry about. Put differently, he becomes a living argument for why we need a government with absolute limits.
We can either have a powerful government and spend our lives trying to keep [Your Most Hated Politician] away from that power, or we can have a government that would be useless in the hands of idiots and would-be tyrants alike. The former is more of a casino than a system of governance- even if your favored candidate wins, the probability of actually getting what you want is very low, and the decks are necessarily stacked in favor those who can buy the most influence. Moreover, the wrong people will eventually be in charge, and they'll inherit all the power we gave to the people we thought were right. At least in the latter system, government can focus its resources on doing what everyone generally does agree it should do: maintain the rule of law and keep us out of war.
We have played casino politics for decades now, and it's a sorry example to be setting for future generations. We may have dodged the Santorum bullet, but the Romney and Obama cartridges are right there behind him. My only hope is that Americans of all stripes realize how much they disenfranchise themselves by voting for establishment politicians who promise what cannot be delivered.
Santorum reportedly had an agenda that was anti-woman, anti-porn, anti-gay, anti-civil liberties, and pro-war. I believe all those things to be true (to varying degrees), but he and his supporters probably didn't see it that way- or if they did, they thought those were positive attributes. They genuinely wanted what he was selling.
Much as he's portrayed as an evil man (and much as I disagree with his political opinions), I don't think Rick Santorum is really as bad as they say. I think he sincerely believes his platform is what's best for everybody, and was simply trying to use the power of government to realize it. What's wrong with that? Every politician does it. What distinguishes good politicians from bad ones, though, is the extent to which the proactive power of their office figures in with their plans. And there aren't many good ones around.
There is, however, a superabundance of self-anointed intellectuals who see it as their duty and right to control others. People are practically lining up for the job- to wage war, to spy on people, to tell people what they can and can't buy/build/sell/make/eat/know, to try to control the economy, to take from some and give it to others. All it takes for one of these people to be president is for enough people to agree with him (or to disagree more with his opponent).
It's a scary situation, but consider this: without the levers of government at his command, Rick Santorum would be just another bigot yelling at his TV at night. Maybe the best he could do is have his own radio show. But as president, he's a different story. As president, he becomes a bigot with a military. He becomes a problem- perhaps even a burden- that a lot of people have to worry about. Put differently, he becomes a living argument for why we need a government with absolute limits.
We can either have a powerful government and spend our lives trying to keep [Your Most Hated Politician] away from that power, or we can have a government that would be useless in the hands of idiots and would-be tyrants alike. The former is more of a casino than a system of governance- even if your favored candidate wins, the probability of actually getting what you want is very low, and the decks are necessarily stacked in favor those who can buy the most influence. Moreover, the wrong people will eventually be in charge, and they'll inherit all the power we gave to the people we thought were right. At least in the latter system, government can focus its resources on doing what everyone generally does agree it should do: maintain the rule of law and keep us out of war.
We have played casino politics for decades now, and it's a sorry example to be setting for future generations. We may have dodged the Santorum bullet, but the Romney and Obama cartridges are right there behind him. My only hope is that Americans of all stripes realize how much they disenfranchise themselves by voting for establishment politicians who promise what cannot be delivered.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
There Ought to Be a Law
Back in March there was a news story about a man named Mitch Faber who was jailed on account of not having siding on his home. The details of the story are here.
In one sense, the story is outrageous. Yes the man's house was in dire need of exterior repairs for almost four years, and yes it could be argued that the condition of his house might affect surrounding property values, but these things pale in comparison to the fact that someone was arrested and taken to jail for keeping his house in a condition the government deemed unacceptable. What Mr. Faber did (or did not do) was considered criminally offensive enough to warrant not only locking him up, but making him wear a monitoring device upon his release.
In a different sense, the story is enlightening. It's a perfect example to highlight what can happen every time a law goes into effect. Laws are not suggestions; they're orders, backed up with threats of violence. You either do what it says, or you'll be made to pay a heavy fine, or men with guns come to take you away. Every single law and statute has this property.
I understand the intent here. Laws are needed to keep order. I don't advocate lawlessness; many laws are worth being backed up by force, such as those that protect property rights and prevent theft or aggression between people. But with some things (many, I would argue), it's just not worth pointing a gun in someone's back to get them done. The law that put Mitch Faber in handcuffs for the way his house looked is one such example.
When people say, "There ought to be a law," what they're really saying is, "This is potentially worth police resources, court time, tax dollars, and prison space." A lot of people don't realize this when they run to the government for solutions to problems they wish would go away but are too lazy to deal with themselves, but it's true. In this context, it's entirely predictable (however absurd) that someone could be taken to jail for not repairing his home's façade. That's what laws do, for better or worse, and it's equally true for issues big and small.*
What would I have done in the case of Mitch Faber? I really don't know....but I do know that I wouldn't have gotten the police involved, and I wouldn't want my taxes funding any part of what happened. Maybe there's an objectively better answer, maybe not- but even if the only two options were 1. getting the cops and courts involved or 2. doing absolutely nothing and putting up with it, I'd have opted for the latter. Because I understand that I wouldn't want that kind of treatment brought down on me, I'd resist subjecting even my most hated neighbors to it. Would that we all thought that way.
*For one popular example, take the national healthcare law. Looking past the high-sounding intentions (even if you're in favor of it), it says to Americans: You're either going to buy health insurance or you're going to go to prison. Do not all government programs come with this unspoken ultimatum attached? Has there ever been a privately managed corporation in all of our history with that kind of coercive power?
In one sense, the story is outrageous. Yes the man's house was in dire need of exterior repairs for almost four years, and yes it could be argued that the condition of his house might affect surrounding property values, but these things pale in comparison to the fact that someone was arrested and taken to jail for keeping his house in a condition the government deemed unacceptable. What Mr. Faber did (or did not do) was considered criminally offensive enough to warrant not only locking him up, but making him wear a monitoring device upon his release.
In a different sense, the story is enlightening. It's a perfect example to highlight what can happen every time a law goes into effect. Laws are not suggestions; they're orders, backed up with threats of violence. You either do what it says, or you'll be made to pay a heavy fine, or men with guns come to take you away. Every single law and statute has this property.
I understand the intent here. Laws are needed to keep order. I don't advocate lawlessness; many laws are worth being backed up by force, such as those that protect property rights and prevent theft or aggression between people. But with some things (many, I would argue), it's just not worth pointing a gun in someone's back to get them done. The law that put Mitch Faber in handcuffs for the way his house looked is one such example.
When people say, "There ought to be a law," what they're really saying is, "This is potentially worth police resources, court time, tax dollars, and prison space." A lot of people don't realize this when they run to the government for solutions to problems they wish would go away but are too lazy to deal with themselves, but it's true. In this context, it's entirely predictable (however absurd) that someone could be taken to jail for not repairing his home's façade. That's what laws do, for better or worse, and it's equally true for issues big and small.*
What would I have done in the case of Mitch Faber? I really don't know....but I do know that I wouldn't have gotten the police involved, and I wouldn't want my taxes funding any part of what happened. Maybe there's an objectively better answer, maybe not- but even if the only two options were 1. getting the cops and courts involved or 2. doing absolutely nothing and putting up with it, I'd have opted for the latter. Because I understand that I wouldn't want that kind of treatment brought down on me, I'd resist subjecting even my most hated neighbors to it. Would that we all thought that way.
*For one popular example, take the national healthcare law. Looking past the high-sounding intentions (even if you're in favor of it), it says to Americans: You're either going to buy health insurance or you're going to go to prison. Do not all government programs come with this unspoken ultimatum attached? Has there ever been a privately managed corporation in all of our history with that kind of coercive power?
Friday, March 23, 2012
The Case of Ray Wilson
Over the past several days, I've enjoyed many simple pleasures. I've slept in my own bed, eaten homemade meals, gone shopping, enjoyed the unseasonably warm weather, and continued to earn a living. Lately those mundane things have been reminding me of Ray Wilson.
For those who don't know, Ray Wilson is a New Jersey resident who is currently serving a five-year prison sentence for growing 17 marijuana plants in his back yard (Mr. Wilson has multiple sclerosis and claimed he was growing the plants to help cope with his medical condition). He was arrested after a National Guard helicopter happened to fly over his property and spot the plants.
Since his arrest and conviction, many have petitioned Governor Chris Christie to pardon him. Even the state Senate Judiciary Committee passed a non-binding resolution to have his sentence commuted. But so far the governor hasn't budged, and has stated publicly that he believes Wilson belongs behind bars- going so far as to question whether Wilson even has a medical condition.
I read about this incident a little over a week ago, and it has been nagging me since. Ray Wilson is suffering from a debilitating disease, locked in a cage away from everything he enjoys in what is likely a filthy overcrowded prison. I'm frequently reminded of Wilson when I look through my refrigerator, watch TV, use the computer, or even flip a light switch, because I know that sitting in a cell, he can do none of these things like he used to when he was free.
The injustice is offensive. The details, like the number of plants he was growing or how bad his condition is, are irrelevant- a man is serving a five-year sentence for no good reason. It's alarming that one can be sent to prison at all, let alone for years, for doing something that nobody even directly complained about. What is going on? Why are we paying for this?
The worst part is that this kind of thing is probably far more common than most people believe- Wilson's case is just one that I heard about by chance. Not only does Governor Christie need to pardon Ray Wilson, he needs to pardon every prisoner convicted of non-violent offenses. Yes, all of them. These people need their dignity back, their lives restored, and their records cleared. Making sure peaceful people aren't terrorized by their own government is something we should demand from our elected officials. Any governor who doesn't make this a priority, no matter how well he balances the budget, is neglecting one of his most basic duties. But I don't just blame Governor Christie. I also blame the legislature, the courts, and the people who elect them- including myself. I'm frustrated because I feel I can't do anything about our broken justice system, and I'm pissed that those who can, don't.
Things will only get worse until issues like this become more mainstream, and they won't become more mainstream until we start holding elected officials accountable for the injustice that happens on their watch. Before politicians can be trusted to take care of us in so many other ways that people demand, maybe we should first hold them to the tasks of securing people's rights, leaving peaceful people alone, and seeing that justice is done.
It's probably the most Ray Wilson would ask for.
For those who don't know, Ray Wilson is a New Jersey resident who is currently serving a five-year prison sentence for growing 17 marijuana plants in his back yard (Mr. Wilson has multiple sclerosis and claimed he was growing the plants to help cope with his medical condition). He was arrested after a National Guard helicopter happened to fly over his property and spot the plants.
Since his arrest and conviction, many have petitioned Governor Chris Christie to pardon him. Even the state Senate Judiciary Committee passed a non-binding resolution to have his sentence commuted. But so far the governor hasn't budged, and has stated publicly that he believes Wilson belongs behind bars- going so far as to question whether Wilson even has a medical condition.
I read about this incident a little over a week ago, and it has been nagging me since. Ray Wilson is suffering from a debilitating disease, locked in a cage away from everything he enjoys in what is likely a filthy overcrowded prison. I'm frequently reminded of Wilson when I look through my refrigerator, watch TV, use the computer, or even flip a light switch, because I know that sitting in a cell, he can do none of these things like he used to when he was free.
The injustice is offensive. The details, like the number of plants he was growing or how bad his condition is, are irrelevant- a man is serving a five-year sentence for no good reason. It's alarming that one can be sent to prison at all, let alone for years, for doing something that nobody even directly complained about. What is going on? Why are we paying for this?
The worst part is that this kind of thing is probably far more common than most people believe- Wilson's case is just one that I heard about by chance. Not only does Governor Christie need to pardon Ray Wilson, he needs to pardon every prisoner convicted of non-violent offenses. Yes, all of them. These people need their dignity back, their lives restored, and their records cleared. Making sure peaceful people aren't terrorized by their own government is something we should demand from our elected officials. Any governor who doesn't make this a priority, no matter how well he balances the budget, is neglecting one of his most basic duties. But I don't just blame Governor Christie. I also blame the legislature, the courts, and the people who elect them- including myself. I'm frustrated because I feel I can't do anything about our broken justice system, and I'm pissed that those who can, don't.
Things will only get worse until issues like this become more mainstream, and they won't become more mainstream until we start holding elected officials accountable for the injustice that happens on their watch. Before politicians can be trusted to take care of us in so many other ways that people demand, maybe we should first hold them to the tasks of securing people's rights, leaving peaceful people alone, and seeing that justice is done.
It's probably the most Ray Wilson would ask for.
Monday, January 30, 2012
A Libertarian Foreign Policy
At one point or another, everyone in the liberty movement has had to discuss foreign policy with other people. I'm always amazed at how much the theme of bringing the troops home and withdrawing from the political/military affairs of other countries is such a hard sell. Ron Paul supporters in particular take a lot of heat for this. We're labeled largely as naive isolationists who have a simplified view of world politics. The prevailing wisdom is that there's no world problem so big or small that it doesn't deserve some sort of active response from the United States government.
I've come to realize that our government's foreign policy is a carbon copy of its domestic policy- the policy of threatening to do what they say, or face state violence (the guns in the hands of the cops who will take you to jail for committing any number victimless crimes are the same weapons our president threatens to use against foreigners for not giving in to his demands- only scaled down). As such, it will achieve no more of its objectives abroad than its domestic policies do here at home.
What strikes me as simplified is the idea that people (and governments) in other countries will do what our government wants, provided they're threatened with enough violence. Naive is believing that threatening Americans with jail time for smoking marijuana will keep people from smoking it. It's at least as naive to believe that, say, the Iranian government will abandon its nuclear program (or roll over in some other way) just because they're threatened with sanctions, or that bringing democracy to the Middle East is just a few military invasions away, or that we can kill terrorists without innocent casualties. Perhaps it's not naive at all. Perhaps it's lunacy.
Still, there are many ready-made excuses for our ever-growing military presence around the world, one of which I will address here. I'm unsure of the details, but it goes a little something like this: There are radical suicidal Muslim fanatics who will stop at nothing until we're all dead or the world has been turned into an Islamic theocracy. Therefore, we must continue to send troops around the world to contain this threat (details omitted).
Let's take it for granted that there are people on the other side of the world whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the United States. Let's assume further that they cannot be reasoned with or paid off or appeased in any way. If there are such people (and I do believe there are), I don't think there's any practical thing we can do about it. Really. It's simple to say we should just hunt them down and kill them, but I've seen one too many SWAT raids at the wrong address to believe that that's in the cards. The precision with which such an operation would need to be carried out is FAR too great for government to handle. The mightiest military the world has ever seen is utterly powerless to do what I just described. They can throw all the money they want at the situation and wait as long as they like, but the truth is that government will not solve this problem (if a solution even exists). It's naive to expect that it can, let alone will.
Which brings us to the libertarian policy- free, unlimited trade and diplomacy with all nations, military and political alliances with none (including the European countries), coupled with an absolutely limited domestic government. It's not perfect, but far and away the best weapon we have against terror is, like so much else, liberty.
Why? Because everybody who hasn't already had his mind poisoned does want to live in freedom. The appeal of living under the oppression of a dictatorship is no match for the appeal of living in a free nation where people can work, trade, and behave as they wish. To live free is a natural, instinctive desire of all human beings- even the children of suicidal terrorists. Giving that instinct a place to develop is the only effective way to combat terrorism. We won't be able to to change the minds of jihadists, but by restoring strictly limited government, by seeking ways to minimize the use of force in society, and by adopting and showcasing the philosophy of liberty to the world, we can prevent new ones from appearing. The bad news is that there's no hope of penetrating the minds of the younger generations on the other side of the world unless we lead by example. Indeed, it will take far more than merely closing a few military posts in foreign countries. In short, it will take a revolution in the way we view government's role not only regarding foreigners, but ourselves.
That is the rationale behind the libertarian foreign policy. Call it simplistic, slander it as isolationist, tell me how naive I am, pretend that men like Obama and Gingrich and Romney and Santorum have the slightest clue as to what they're talking about, do whatever you have to do to condemn it, but it's still the only shot we have at a return to normalcy. It is also the only policy befitting to a nation that's referred to as the Land of the Free. The alternative is to just let government run with it- which will leave many people dead and property destroyed, sacrifice long-term goals for fleeting short term victories, and guarantee a more violent world for ourselves and our children.
I've come to realize that our government's foreign policy is a carbon copy of its domestic policy- the policy of threatening to do what they say, or face state violence (the guns in the hands of the cops who will take you to jail for committing any number victimless crimes are the same weapons our president threatens to use against foreigners for not giving in to his demands- only scaled down). As such, it will achieve no more of its objectives abroad than its domestic policies do here at home.
What strikes me as simplified is the idea that people (and governments) in other countries will do what our government wants, provided they're threatened with enough violence. Naive is believing that threatening Americans with jail time for smoking marijuana will keep people from smoking it. It's at least as naive to believe that, say, the Iranian government will abandon its nuclear program (or roll over in some other way) just because they're threatened with sanctions, or that bringing democracy to the Middle East is just a few military invasions away, or that we can kill terrorists without innocent casualties. Perhaps it's not naive at all. Perhaps it's lunacy.
Still, there are many ready-made excuses for our ever-growing military presence around the world, one of which I will address here. I'm unsure of the details, but it goes a little something like this: There are radical suicidal Muslim fanatics who will stop at nothing until we're all dead or the world has been turned into an Islamic theocracy. Therefore, we must continue to send troops around the world to contain this threat (details omitted).
Let's take it for granted that there are people on the other side of the world whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the United States. Let's assume further that they cannot be reasoned with or paid off or appeased in any way. If there are such people (and I do believe there are), I don't think there's any practical thing we can do about it. Really. It's simple to say we should just hunt them down and kill them, but I've seen one too many SWAT raids at the wrong address to believe that that's in the cards. The precision with which such an operation would need to be carried out is FAR too great for government to handle. The mightiest military the world has ever seen is utterly powerless to do what I just described. They can throw all the money they want at the situation and wait as long as they like, but the truth is that government will not solve this problem (if a solution even exists). It's naive to expect that it can, let alone will.
Which brings us to the libertarian policy- free, unlimited trade and diplomacy with all nations, military and political alliances with none (including the European countries), coupled with an absolutely limited domestic government. It's not perfect, but far and away the best weapon we have against terror is, like so much else, liberty.
Why? Because everybody who hasn't already had his mind poisoned does want to live in freedom. The appeal of living under the oppression of a dictatorship is no match for the appeal of living in a free nation where people can work, trade, and behave as they wish. To live free is a natural, instinctive desire of all human beings- even the children of suicidal terrorists. Giving that instinct a place to develop is the only effective way to combat terrorism. We won't be able to to change the minds of jihadists, but by restoring strictly limited government, by seeking ways to minimize the use of force in society, and by adopting and showcasing the philosophy of liberty to the world, we can prevent new ones from appearing. The bad news is that there's no hope of penetrating the minds of the younger generations on the other side of the world unless we lead by example. Indeed, it will take far more than merely closing a few military posts in foreign countries. In short, it will take a revolution in the way we view government's role not only regarding foreigners, but ourselves.
That is the rationale behind the libertarian foreign policy. Call it simplistic, slander it as isolationist, tell me how naive I am, pretend that men like Obama and Gingrich and Romney and Santorum have the slightest clue as to what they're talking about, do whatever you have to do to condemn it, but it's still the only shot we have at a return to normalcy. It is also the only policy befitting to a nation that's referred to as the Land of the Free. The alternative is to just let government run with it- which will leave many people dead and property destroyed, sacrifice long-term goals for fleeting short term victories, and guarantee a more violent world for ourselves and our children.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
On SOPA, PIPA
You may have heard about two internet-related bills floating around Congress. One is the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the other is the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Proponents of the bills say that they're supposed to give the government the power to better guard against copyright infringement on websites with media content and file sharing capabilities. Those who oppose the bills, which include many internet users as well as Google, Wikipedia and Reddit, claim that the proposed legislation would allow the government to completely shut down websites for the most benign copyright infringements, acting more like hired muscle for the entertainment industry than the policemen for property rights.
If you want to learn more about the bills, you can watch a few videos about it here, here and, if you can take it, here. Or if you've got some Advil handy, you can check out the text of the bills themselves. But I wouldn't bother with any of that if I were you. All I needed to hear were the words 'Congress', 'bill', and 'internet' in the same context, and I was already an opponent of whatever it was- for it doesn't matter what the bills are called, how many people of whatever group favor them, or what they're supposed to do. They could both be called the Make the Internet a Lot Faster act (or simply MILF), and I'd still oppose them- because they would still be government programs, and government programs never deliver what they promise.
The outrage over SOPA and PIPA intrigue me though, because they're ostensibly supposed to do something that's good...right? I mean it's not like they're the Shut Down YouTube bills or the Harass Facebook Users bills or the Destroy Online Media bills. So what's the worst that could happen?
After all, don't forget how the government has done such a wonderful job with other noble undertakings as housing and feeding and employing the poor, promoting racial harmony, keeping the banking industry from scamming us, spreading democracy around the world, managing the economy, balancing its own budget, educating our children, providing affordable healthcare, keeping elections clean, protecting our rights, maintaining our infrastructure, stopping drug abuse, taking care of our veterans, making sure food is safe, keeping us out of war, curbing inflation, delivering the mail, cleaning up crime, protecting the environment and stopping terrorism. All things considered, it only makes sense to give it a freer hand in policing the internet.
From watching videos of people who oppose the legislation, I get the impression that they only oppose it because it could potentially take down sites like YouTube and internet radio. I don't want YouTube taken down any more than the next guy, but that's not the best reason to oppose the legislation. It should be opposed because once any such legislation is passed, eventually there will be more. Endlessly more. When the internet becomes the federal government's plaything just like everything else I listed in the previous paragraph, you can kiss it goodbye. It'll become a fable you can tell your grandkids about, like when my grandparents tell me how doctors used to make house calls.
Why will it be bad? John Bain explains:
He goes on to point out the obvious (I paraphrase): if SOPA or PIPA pass, it won't only eventually destroy the internet as we currently know it, but it will ruin the chances of future innovations taking place. While passage of the bills might not completely take down YouTube (which would cause a massive backlash), they will censor it heavily, and possibly preclude the "next YouTube" from ever materializing.
He's absolutely right- and the same reasoning applies to almost everything the government touches.
The reason that ideas like this are even considered by Congress is because we've turned so much over to the government as it is. And thanks to that, we should be aware that while we might be able to beat back SOPA and PIPA today, they, or something like them, will be back eventually. I promise.
Hopefully, this is one area that will resonate with people enough to get them to question the wisdom of asking the government to try to solve any kind of problem. Not only should we seek to stop SOPA and PIPA by participating in blackouts, spreading the message on social media and writing our elected officials, but we should also give similar scrutiny to the many other economic, medical, social, moral, etc., problems that Congress tries to solve with politics and guns. Hasn't it done enough already?
If you want to learn more about the bills, you can watch a few videos about it here, here and, if you can take it, here. Or if you've got some Advil handy, you can check out the text of the bills themselves. But I wouldn't bother with any of that if I were you. All I needed to hear were the words 'Congress', 'bill', and 'internet' in the same context, and I was already an opponent of whatever it was- for it doesn't matter what the bills are called, how many people of whatever group favor them, or what they're supposed to do. They could both be called the Make the Internet a Lot Faster act (or simply MILF), and I'd still oppose them- because they would still be government programs, and government programs never deliver what they promise.
The outrage over SOPA and PIPA intrigue me though, because they're ostensibly supposed to do something that's good...right? I mean it's not like they're the Shut Down YouTube bills or the Harass Facebook Users bills or the Destroy Online Media bills. So what's the worst that could happen?
After all, don't forget how the government has done such a wonderful job with other noble undertakings as housing and feeding and employing the poor, promoting racial harmony, keeping the banking industry from scamming us, spreading democracy around the world, managing the economy, balancing its own budget, educating our children, providing affordable healthcare, keeping elections clean, protecting our rights, maintaining our infrastructure, stopping drug abuse, taking care of our veterans, making sure food is safe, keeping us out of war, curbing inflation, delivering the mail, cleaning up crime, protecting the environment and stopping terrorism. All things considered, it only makes sense to give it a freer hand in policing the internet.
From watching videos of people who oppose the legislation, I get the impression that they only oppose it because it could potentially take down sites like YouTube and internet radio. I don't want YouTube taken down any more than the next guy, but that's not the best reason to oppose the legislation. It should be opposed because once any such legislation is passed, eventually there will be more. Endlessly more. When the internet becomes the federal government's plaything just like everything else I listed in the previous paragraph, you can kiss it goodbye. It'll become a fable you can tell your grandkids about, like when my grandparents tell me how doctors used to make house calls.
Why will it be bad? John Bain explains:
"You want to explain to me why we have a bunch of 50- to 70-somethings debating a bill that would affect the internet world wide- perhaps the greatest technological innovation that we've had for a very very long time? You want to tell me that these guys, who can barely use a keyboard, should be debating this and passing legislation of this magnitude? I'm gonna go with 'No'. It's like putting toddlers at the controls of a 747- but not just a 747; every 747, 777, Airbus A320, every aircraft in the world. Do you think that's a good idea?"
He goes on to point out the obvious (I paraphrase): if SOPA or PIPA pass, it won't only eventually destroy the internet as we currently know it, but it will ruin the chances of future innovations taking place. While passage of the bills might not completely take down YouTube (which would cause a massive backlash), they will censor it heavily, and possibly preclude the "next YouTube" from ever materializing.
He's absolutely right- and the same reasoning applies to almost everything the government touches.
The reason that ideas like this are even considered by Congress is because we've turned so much over to the government as it is. And thanks to that, we should be aware that while we might be able to beat back SOPA and PIPA today, they, or something like them, will be back eventually. I promise.
Hopefully, this is one area that will resonate with people enough to get them to question the wisdom of asking the government to try to solve any kind of problem. Not only should we seek to stop SOPA and PIPA by participating in blackouts, spreading the message on social media and writing our elected officials, but we should also give similar scrutiny to the many other economic, medical, social, moral, etc., problems that Congress tries to solve with politics and guns. Hasn't it done enough already?
Monday, January 2, 2012
The 2012 Liberty Victory
If I could put money on it, I would bet that Barack Obama will be a two-term president. When he takes to the podium at his victory speech, no matter what the numbers are, he will interpret his win as the American people's unwavering stamp of approval of everything he signed into law during his first term. And he will look forward to another four years of expanding government in ways he sees fit. When all is said and done, conservatives will probably blame it on Ron Paul's supporters for not coming around.
"I hope you're happy," they'll spit. "Because you Ron Paulians were too stubborn to vote for Newt Romney, you cost us the election. Thanks to you, we're stuck with Obama for another four years." Of course, this will come on the heels of months of angry muttering about how a vote for a 3rd party (be it Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whomever) is a vote for Obama.
Boo hoo. You can blame us if that's what makes you feel better. Personally I'd put most of the blame on the people who actually voted for Obama (even though, as an aside, I don't understand how anybody could still support him a since he did a 180 on basically all the important things he campaigned on), but I'd also say that the Republican establishment deserves a little blame, too. Because for all the conservative media, for all the millions of dollars at its disposal, for all its advantages over third parties in the electoral process, and the upper hand that come merely by having incumbents all over the country to trumpet its case, it still couldn't come up with a candidate who could successfully sell his story to enough Americans eligible to vote. In 2008, Obama won with less than a third of all voters casting their vote for him- more people than that chose to stay home.
In truth, we're against Obama just as much as any republican. The difference is that we understand that electing Romney isn't going to be any better. Whether or not you believe it's true doesn't matter to us. Save your crying and your whining about the Constitution and your Don't Tread On Me flags and pretending to want limited government and all the rest of it. If you're going to elect an establishment politician like Mitt Romney, you know you're not going to get any of that, so why even bother showing up?
So long as your primary goal is just to get the democrats out of office, we, the people who want real liberty, are not going to play ball. This, I believe, will be the bittersweet victory for liberty in 2012. It will be the year that those of us who want personal and economic freedom for all people; who want an end to war; who rail against centralized power; who hate politics and politicians; who want to keep every cent of what we earn, to give away, invest or spend as we please- will make ourselves known. And we're here to stay.
To be sure, the liberty movement is still in its infancy, but it's undeniably more popular right now than it ever was. Now, we actually have libertarian TV shows (Stossel and Freedom Watch), which virtually unheard of just five years ago. More to the point- we now have the numbers to hold one of the major political parties hostage. Dare I say, we would rather see the next 50 elections go to the democrats than vote for an establishment republican candidate in whom we do not believe. Because (and this is important) if we don't get the option of voting for a liberty candidate, then we honestly don't care who wins. Gone are the days of us settling for the lesser of two evils. We're over it. We've lived through enough elections to know that it doesn't even matter. If voting Republican means turning our backs on our principles, we won't do it. We know we have nothing to gain by it, we've already accepted that you'll blame us, and we just don't care.
Thus, I have two messages to deliver. The message to the republican establishment is this: you will lose elections unless you start putting candidates out there who have a genuine interest in reducing government. So long as you keep alienating us and calling us unelectable, we're going to see to it that your cookie cutter one-dimensional paid-for yes-man candidates are also unelectable. We'll cast our votes against them and we'll do it with a smile.
The message to the American public is this: Elections are not contests to see who's most popular. They've become contests to see who's less unpopular. So long as you agree to hold your nose to vote for incompetent lying people whom you don't actually want to win, those are the only kinds of candidates the establishments are going to put in front of you. This is true no matter your political affiliation. Know in advance that it's going to take more than one election cycle to properly communicate this. Hell, it might take a dozen. But if you don't take a stand at some point and start withhold your support from these parties that care nothing about your welfare, you may as well stay home and accept your fate- that your country will be governed by the worst among us and you didn't have the strength to try to stop it.
"I hope you're happy," they'll spit. "Because you Ron Paulians were too stubborn to vote for Newt Romney, you cost us the election. Thanks to you, we're stuck with Obama for another four years." Of course, this will come on the heels of months of angry muttering about how a vote for a 3rd party (be it Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whomever) is a vote for Obama.
Boo hoo. You can blame us if that's what makes you feel better. Personally I'd put most of the blame on the people who actually voted for Obama (even though, as an aside, I don't understand how anybody could still support him a since he did a 180 on basically all the important things he campaigned on), but I'd also say that the Republican establishment deserves a little blame, too. Because for all the conservative media, for all the millions of dollars at its disposal, for all its advantages over third parties in the electoral process, and the upper hand that come merely by having incumbents all over the country to trumpet its case, it still couldn't come up with a candidate who could successfully sell his story to enough Americans eligible to vote. In 2008, Obama won with less than a third of all voters casting their vote for him- more people than that chose to stay home.
In truth, we're against Obama just as much as any republican. The difference is that we understand that electing Romney isn't going to be any better. Whether or not you believe it's true doesn't matter to us. Save your crying and your whining about the Constitution and your Don't Tread On Me flags and pretending to want limited government and all the rest of it. If you're going to elect an establishment politician like Mitt Romney, you know you're not going to get any of that, so why even bother showing up?
So long as your primary goal is just to get the democrats out of office, we, the people who want real liberty, are not going to play ball. This, I believe, will be the bittersweet victory for liberty in 2012. It will be the year that those of us who want personal and economic freedom for all people; who want an end to war; who rail against centralized power; who hate politics and politicians; who want to keep every cent of what we earn, to give away, invest or spend as we please- will make ourselves known. And we're here to stay.
To be sure, the liberty movement is still in its infancy, but it's undeniably more popular right now than it ever was. Now, we actually have libertarian TV shows (Stossel and Freedom Watch), which virtually unheard of just five years ago. More to the point- we now have the numbers to hold one of the major political parties hostage. Dare I say, we would rather see the next 50 elections go to the democrats than vote for an establishment republican candidate in whom we do not believe. Because (and this is important) if we don't get the option of voting for a liberty candidate, then we honestly don't care who wins. Gone are the days of us settling for the lesser of two evils. We're over it. We've lived through enough elections to know that it doesn't even matter. If voting Republican means turning our backs on our principles, we won't do it. We know we have nothing to gain by it, we've already accepted that you'll blame us, and we just don't care.
Thus, I have two messages to deliver. The message to the republican establishment is this: you will lose elections unless you start putting candidates out there who have a genuine interest in reducing government. So long as you keep alienating us and calling us unelectable, we're going to see to it that your cookie cutter one-dimensional paid-for yes-man candidates are also unelectable. We'll cast our votes against them and we'll do it with a smile.
The message to the American public is this: Elections are not contests to see who's most popular. They've become contests to see who's less unpopular. So long as you agree to hold your nose to vote for incompetent lying people whom you don't actually want to win, those are the only kinds of candidates the establishments are going to put in front of you. This is true no matter your political affiliation. Know in advance that it's going to take more than one election cycle to properly communicate this. Hell, it might take a dozen. But if you don't take a stand at some point and start withhold your support from these parties that care nothing about your welfare, you may as well stay home and accept your fate- that your country will be governed by the worst among us and you didn't have the strength to try to stop it.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Passing Thoughts on The Debt Ceiling
Every time a school year draws to a close and I send another class away from the relative safety of a high school environment, I start to despair. I look at those kids with their graduation day smiles and their unending optimism, and I wonder how the hell they're going to survive in the world that they're going to inherit.
The hysteria over the debt ceiling is starting to disgust me. All I see on TV is finger-pointing and political theater as democrats and republicans try to paper over the government's financial problems, stick some future generation with paying for it, and look like heroes doing it. They will succeed on all three counts.
What burns me up the most is the talk about defaulting. The government will default on its debts if the ceiling isn't raised! Something must be done! I have news, folks. The government defaults on its obligations every day. It has defaulted on its centuries-old obligation to maintain our freedom. Freedoms promised us in the Bill of Rights; freedom to make a living how we want; freedom to travel; freedom to make our own choices in what to buy or sell, freedom to plan our own retirements; and freedom from crime, endless war, and rules that regulate nearly every human behavior.
Of course I understand that liberty doesn't mean squat to the average American. But the government does default on its pecuniary obligations as well. It defaults every time it devalues its currency, but it also assures default by making impossible promises which other people are expected to pay for. The tab for these promises grows by the minute, and at some point, that bag will be too big for some generation to be left holding.
Think this will never happen? Do you really believe we can continue like this for another fifty years? Whose problem do you think it will be when our government's creditors stop lending it money? It sure as hell won't matter to guys like Boehner and Obama; they'll be long gone when this happens. No, the rug's coming out from under our children in the form of either crushing taxation, runaway inflation, or promises that will never be kept. And then things are going to get ugly.
We're still at a stage where things can be fixed with a minimum of pain. They could refuse to raise the debt limit, forego their own paychecks, admit that most of the promises government has made are illegitimate, and start having a real transparent discussion about how to renege on those phony untenable promises in the least painful way possible. But that will never happen. Ever.
Instead, all I hear about is some vague talk about debt limit increases, tax cuts over ten years, and bipartisan compromise. It's the compromise that scares me, because all it means is that both political parties get what they want, and government continues to grow. The only thing that will be compromised will be our posterity's standard of living if we continue to elect the same people who've been squandering our resources and labor for decades.
Maybe the lesson to take away from this is that the importance of independence can't be overstated. Turn off the TV, stop taking every political promise at face value, and start looking for ways to be more independent. Let this and future debt ceiling "debates" remind you that the less your fate is in the hands of politicians, the better; and pass this message on to your children as I try to pass it to my students.
The hysteria over the debt ceiling is starting to disgust me. All I see on TV is finger-pointing and political theater as democrats and republicans try to paper over the government's financial problems, stick some future generation with paying for it, and look like heroes doing it. They will succeed on all three counts.
What burns me up the most is the talk about defaulting. The government will default on its debts if the ceiling isn't raised! Something must be done! I have news, folks. The government defaults on its obligations every day. It has defaulted on its centuries-old obligation to maintain our freedom. Freedoms promised us in the Bill of Rights; freedom to make a living how we want; freedom to travel; freedom to make our own choices in what to buy or sell, freedom to plan our own retirements; and freedom from crime, endless war, and rules that regulate nearly every human behavior.
Of course I understand that liberty doesn't mean squat to the average American. But the government does default on its pecuniary obligations as well. It defaults every time it devalues its currency, but it also assures default by making impossible promises which other people are expected to pay for. The tab for these promises grows by the minute, and at some point, that bag will be too big for some generation to be left holding.
Think this will never happen? Do you really believe we can continue like this for another fifty years? Whose problem do you think it will be when our government's creditors stop lending it money? It sure as hell won't matter to guys like Boehner and Obama; they'll be long gone when this happens. No, the rug's coming out from under our children in the form of either crushing taxation, runaway inflation, or promises that will never be kept. And then things are going to get ugly.
We're still at a stage where things can be fixed with a minimum of pain. They could refuse to raise the debt limit, forego their own paychecks, admit that most of the promises government has made are illegitimate, and start having a real transparent discussion about how to renege on those phony untenable promises in the least painful way possible. But that will never happen. Ever.
Instead, all I hear about is some vague talk about debt limit increases, tax cuts over ten years, and bipartisan compromise. It's the compromise that scares me, because all it means is that both political parties get what they want, and government continues to grow. The only thing that will be compromised will be our posterity's standard of living if we continue to elect the same people who've been squandering our resources and labor for decades.
Maybe the lesson to take away from this is that the importance of independence can't be overstated. Turn off the TV, stop taking every political promise at face value, and start looking for ways to be more independent. Let this and future debt ceiling "debates" remind you that the less your fate is in the hands of politicians, the better; and pass this message on to your children as I try to pass it to my students.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Casey Anthony Walks
Where this trial came from or how it turned into some cult news sensation, I have no idea. It's especially peculiar because while some people have been obsessing over it, others haven't even heard of Casey Anthony.
It was usually on TV where I live, so I caught bits and pieces of the trial over the last few weeks. It seemed to be a little ponzi scheme of hype- it was big news because HLN insisted it was big news. Evidently, a lot of people bit.
I don't think there was anything particularly spectacular about the trial itself, aside from the media frenzy (breaking into other programs for updates on this or that) and the media's pronouncing the defendant guilty of murder from the outset. If you watched the trial during one of its breaks or when they cut to the anchors, it was like a nonstop cheerleading session for the prosecution.
I started to wonder how many people even noticed it. I also wondered how much being constantly told someone is guilty might potentially sway someone's opinion. Some say the media has liberal slant, some say it has a conservative slant- I say the media has a pro-government slant, and the Casey Anthony trial is a good example.
The overwhelming consensus of the TV audience is that she was guilty. If you noticed that all of your friends suddenly turned into armchair lawyers in the hour or so following the verdict, it's because in the end, Mrs. Anthony was acquitted on all counts of murder.
I keep my eyes open, and I see more injustice than the average person ever gets to see (anyone who reads Reason Magazine generally does). I've read stories of men serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I've seen men serve out sentences that were exponentially harsher than what their crime warranted. I've read stories of people getting exonerated while sitting on death row (having rotted there for years, and sometimes decades)- and with no compensation after the fact. Name anything about the American justice system, and I guarantee it has its disgraceful elements- from how juries are selected to how laws are written to how evidence is gathered to how due process is afforded the accused, all the way up through how sentences are carried out- and beyond. I could go on for some time. The deck is clearly stacked against defendants when the plaintiff is government.
I don't know the details of the Casey Anthony trial, and I certainly can't say beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did what they said she did (I'm glad I didn't have to). For whatever reason, neither did her jury, and that's why they let her skate. The defense convinced them that the government hadn't met its burden of proof and the verdict made many people unhappy. I'll say this: If the only price we have to pay for sparing innocent people from the jaws of a prison/death sentence is saddling the government with a stiff burden of proof- even if it's the same burden which, this time, let a guilty woman go free- we're getting a bargain. I'd let Casey Anthony walk ten times over if I knew the same judicial process afforded ironclad protections for the innocent.
Note that I do hate the idea of letting the truly guilty go free. But I despise the notion that people could be convicted on a mere probability of guilt, because I understand that the Probable Guilt Standard would inevitably apply to the innocent as well. Better the system be imperfect in favor of the guilty than against the innocent. Let this one slide. Can't win em all, folks.
It was usually on TV where I live, so I caught bits and pieces of the trial over the last few weeks. It seemed to be a little ponzi scheme of hype- it was big news because HLN insisted it was big news. Evidently, a lot of people bit.
I don't think there was anything particularly spectacular about the trial itself, aside from the media frenzy (breaking into other programs for updates on this or that) and the media's pronouncing the defendant guilty of murder from the outset. If you watched the trial during one of its breaks or when they cut to the anchors, it was like a nonstop cheerleading session for the prosecution.
I started to wonder how many people even noticed it. I also wondered how much being constantly told someone is guilty might potentially sway someone's opinion. Some say the media has liberal slant, some say it has a conservative slant- I say the media has a pro-government slant, and the Casey Anthony trial is a good example.
The overwhelming consensus of the TV audience is that she was guilty. If you noticed that all of your friends suddenly turned into armchair lawyers in the hour or so following the verdict, it's because in the end, Mrs. Anthony was acquitted on all counts of murder.
I keep my eyes open, and I see more injustice than the average person ever gets to see (anyone who reads Reason Magazine generally does). I've read stories of men serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I've seen men serve out sentences that were exponentially harsher than what their crime warranted. I've read stories of people getting exonerated while sitting on death row (having rotted there for years, and sometimes decades)- and with no compensation after the fact. Name anything about the American justice system, and I guarantee it has its disgraceful elements- from how juries are selected to how laws are written to how evidence is gathered to how due process is afforded the accused, all the way up through how sentences are carried out- and beyond. I could go on for some time. The deck is clearly stacked against defendants when the plaintiff is government.
I don't know the details of the Casey Anthony trial, and I certainly can't say beyond a reasonable doubt whether she did what they said she did (I'm glad I didn't have to). For whatever reason, neither did her jury, and that's why they let her skate. The defense convinced them that the government hadn't met its burden of proof and the verdict made many people unhappy. I'll say this: If the only price we have to pay for sparing innocent people from the jaws of a prison/death sentence is saddling the government with a stiff burden of proof- even if it's the same burden which, this time, let a guilty woman go free- we're getting a bargain. I'd let Casey Anthony walk ten times over if I knew the same judicial process afforded ironclad protections for the innocent.
Note that I do hate the idea of letting the truly guilty go free. But I despise the notion that people could be convicted on a mere probability of guilt, because I understand that the Probable Guilt Standard would inevitably apply to the innocent as well. Better the system be imperfect in favor of the guilty than against the innocent. Let this one slide. Can't win em all, folks.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Gay Marriage: A Special Interest Victory
Yesterday, New York became the largest state to recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Many people haven't thought the same-sex marriage issue through much further than "The government should let any couple get married." But same-sex couples aren't lobbying simply to be granted a marriage certificate or to be allowed to love- they're fighting for special treatment from the government.
Wanting to see what that special treatment was, I came across a New York Times article that summed it up (appropriately in the Business section). It begins:
Note: what same-sex couples are gaining are privileges granted by the state; not rights. I guess without the financial benefits and the extra "rights", same-sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue. I find it pretty funny that what's usually held up as some kind of issue of civil equality is really in large part about tax breaks to the special interest group known as married couples.
The article mentions benefits in the realms of: income taxes, estate and gift taxes, health insurance, inheritance rights, state employee benefits, and parentage. These probably aren't the first words that leap to mind when you think of what constitutes a marriage. But they're what count, and it really goes to show how much presence government has in our personal lives.
Of course, I would say that allowing same-sex couples to marry only makes this situation worse. Why? Because instead of questioning the role of government in these matters and having a debate over what gives it the right to dole out such benefits in the first place, we went ahead and gave it more legitimacy in sticking its hand into our private lives. It should treat all its employees the same, and has no business conferring special legal/financial status on couples. And while creating new rules for a specific class of people seems like a step forward, in some respects it is a step back.
But then again, I'm of those crazy people who think the government should treat us as individuals, no matter what the circumstances. If you disagree, not to worry! Mine is a vanishing minority.
Wanting to see what that special treatment was, I came across a New York Times article that summed it up (appropriately in the Business section). It begins:
Couples may marry for love, but the partnership is also an economic one. And now that New York has become the sixth state to perform same-sex marriage, couples who tie the knot here will gain a variety of financial benefits and legal rights.
Note: what same-sex couples are gaining are privileges granted by the state; not rights. I guess without the financial benefits and the extra "rights", same-sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue. I find it pretty funny that what's usually held up as some kind of issue of civil equality is really in large part about tax breaks to the special interest group known as married couples.
The article mentions benefits in the realms of: income taxes, estate and gift taxes, health insurance, inheritance rights, state employee benefits, and parentage. These probably aren't the first words that leap to mind when you think of what constitutes a marriage. But they're what count, and it really goes to show how much presence government has in our personal lives.
Of course, I would say that allowing same-sex couples to marry only makes this situation worse. Why? Because instead of questioning the role of government in these matters and having a debate over what gives it the right to dole out such benefits in the first place, we went ahead and gave it more legitimacy in sticking its hand into our private lives. It should treat all its employees the same, and has no business conferring special legal/financial status on couples. And while creating new rules for a specific class of people seems like a step forward, in some respects it is a step back.
But then again, I'm of those crazy people who think the government should treat us as individuals, no matter what the circumstances. If you disagree, not to worry! Mine is a vanishing minority.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The CNN Republican Primary Debate
If you missed the Republican primary debate last night, you didn't much. It was basically a gameshow where everybody lost- including the audience. Some of the questions were very stupid (Elvis or Johnny Cash?), and the moderator did little to cut off the candidates' rambling answers.
The establishment candidates (Santorum, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich) used the platform to substitute boilerplate for specific answers, regale the crowd with their past legislative achievements, and to take cheap shots at the President. Everything about them screamed 'politician'. They embodied all the things the average person doesn't like about politicians by coming off as disingenuous self-seeking replicas of their political ancestors.
The non-establishment had their own problems. I've heard some people talking favorably about Herman Cain, but he lost my interest when he spoke of himself as a man who solves problems. The last thing I want to hear about is a politician who wants to solve problems. Indeed, the state of the nation is the result of politicians trying to save us with their solutions.
Ron Paul was the main reason I tuned in to the debate. I do like Ron Paul, and I wonder whether that's the reason I'm so quick to distinguish him from the other candidates. While people might disagree with him, he at least doesn't come off like a slimy politician who's only trying to aggrandize his own power. What sets Ron Paul apart from the pack is that he sounds sincere and comes with a touch of humility- two qualities rare among people running for office.
I wish Dr. Paul had a better way of making his platform palatable to the average Joe Nobody who just wants a job and to make sure the financial rug's not ripped out from under him when he goes to retire. While I agree with his message, talking about Keynes and fiat currency isn't going to resonate with anyone but the people who already strongly support him. He also needs to keep his answers concise. That alone would be enough.
I would have a comment here about Gary Johnson (the only other guy in the whole bunch with his head screwed on straight), but he wasn't even invited to the debate. I guess CNN thought their lineup was already diverse enough- even with five basically interchangeable candidates making the list.
So on the whole, the debate was an embarrassment. It was a reminder of why people don't trust politicians and a lot of people don't trust the Republican party. It's anybody's guess as to whom will ultimately be selected to run against Obama, but I don't think anyone has a chance to beat him except Ron Paul (from last night's group, anyway). In short, last night was a showcase of why the Republican party is a self destructive combination of hubris and incompetence. It looks like Obama has his second term in the bag.
The establishment candidates (Santorum, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich) used the platform to substitute boilerplate for specific answers, regale the crowd with their past legislative achievements, and to take cheap shots at the President. Everything about them screamed 'politician'. They embodied all the things the average person doesn't like about politicians by coming off as disingenuous self-seeking replicas of their political ancestors.
The non-establishment had their own problems. I've heard some people talking favorably about Herman Cain, but he lost my interest when he spoke of himself as a man who solves problems. The last thing I want to hear about is a politician who wants to solve problems. Indeed, the state of the nation is the result of politicians trying to save us with their solutions.
Ron Paul was the main reason I tuned in to the debate. I do like Ron Paul, and I wonder whether that's the reason I'm so quick to distinguish him from the other candidates. While people might disagree with him, he at least doesn't come off like a slimy politician who's only trying to aggrandize his own power. What sets Ron Paul apart from the pack is that he sounds sincere and comes with a touch of humility- two qualities rare among people running for office.
I wish Dr. Paul had a better way of making his platform palatable to the average Joe Nobody who just wants a job and to make sure the financial rug's not ripped out from under him when he goes to retire. While I agree with his message, talking about Keynes and fiat currency isn't going to resonate with anyone but the people who already strongly support him. He also needs to keep his answers concise. That alone would be enough.
I would have a comment here about Gary Johnson (the only other guy in the whole bunch with his head screwed on straight), but he wasn't even invited to the debate. I guess CNN thought their lineup was already diverse enough- even with five basically interchangeable candidates making the list.
So on the whole, the debate was an embarrassment. It was a reminder of why people don't trust politicians and a lot of people don't trust the Republican party. It's anybody's guess as to whom will ultimately be selected to run against Obama, but I don't think anyone has a chance to beat him except Ron Paul (from last night's group, anyway). In short, last night was a showcase of why the Republican party is a self destructive combination of hubris and incompetence. It looks like Obama has his second term in the bag.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
What a Real President Sounds Like
I read a book once by a man who was running for president. The following is an excerpt from that book:
He goes on like this for a few pages. It's one of the most memorable passages from anything I've ever read. The man's name was Harry Browne, and the book is The Great Libertarian Offer. If you notice, it doesn't read like it was written by a politician. There are no platitudes, no clichés, no uncertain terms, and no grandstanding or partisanship. It was clearly written by a man who had a specific plan and who intended on following through with it. It's a prescription for actual change that would affect real Americans immediately- none of that "I'll get to it in six months" or "Within ten years, we'll have X Y Z" garbage we hear from every other politician who rides a wave of empty promises into office. I believe such a platform would be very popular among the American people, but I guess I'll never know for sure; candidates with such views (when they exist) are barred from taking part in national debates. And that's a real shame, because any candidate who doesn't specifically address (and plan to make good on) at least five of those points isn't worthy of the office.
The reason I bring this up is to illustrate how much of a disgrace our current president actually is. He is truly an empty suit who is content to walk in the footsteps of his predecessors and who has absolutely no genuine interest in changing the United States back into the free nation everyone pretends it is. Any of the above bullet points could be executed with the stroke of the President's pen. Why do you think he refrains from doing so?
The President of the U.S. is the most powerful person in the world. He can personally make your life miserable or he can make it much freer. And when he can't do something personally, he can lead.
On my first day in office, by Executive Order I will:
- Pardon everyone who has been convicted on a federal, non-violent drug charge, order the immediate release of those in prison, reunite them with their families, and restore all their civil rights.
- Pardon everyone who has been convicted on any federal gun-control charge, order the immediate release of those in prison, and restore all their civil rights.
- Pardon everyone who has been convicted of a federal tax evasion charge, order the immediate release of those in prison, and restore all their civil rights.
- Pardon everyone else who has been convicted of a victimless federal crime, order the immediate release of those in prison, and restore all their civil rights.
- I will make it clear to federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors that we want the violent criminals off the streets. No U.S. Attorney should waste his time or the taxpayers' money prosecuting people who haven't intruded on anyone's person or property. Every member of the federal criminal justice system should understand that prison space is only for criminals who have hurt someone.
- I will announce a policy to penalize, dismiss, or even prosecute any federal employee who violates the Bill of Rights by treating you as guilty until proven innocent, by searching or seizing your property without due process of law, by treating you as a servant, or in any other way violating your rights as a sovereign American citizen.
- I will immediately order that no federal asset forfeiture can occur if the property's owner hasn't been convicted by full due process- and I will initiate steps to make restitution to anyone whose property has been impounded, frozen, or seized by the federal government without being convicted by dur process. Over 80% of such seizures occur when no one has even been charged with a crime.
- As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I will immediately remove all American troops from foreign soil. Europe and Asia can pay for their own defense, and they can risk their own lives in their eternal squabbles. This will save billions of dollars a year in taxes, but - more important- it will make sure your sons and daughters will never fight in someone else's war.
- As Commander in Chief I will remove all American troops from under the command of the UN or any other foreign organization.
- As President I will make sure the executive branch stops harrassing smokers, tobacco companies, successful computer companies, gun owners, gun manufacturers, alternative medicine suppliers, religious groups (whether respected or labeled as "cults"), investment companies, healthcare providers, businessmen, and anyone else who is conducting his affairs peaceably.
- I will end federal affirmative action, federal quotas, set-asides, preferential treatments, and other discriminatory practices of the federal government. [...]
And then I will break for lunch.
After lunch, I will begin removing from the Federal Register thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. [...]
He goes on like this for a few pages. It's one of the most memorable passages from anything I've ever read. The man's name was Harry Browne, and the book is The Great Libertarian Offer. If you notice, it doesn't read like it was written by a politician. There are no platitudes, no clichés, no uncertain terms, and no grandstanding or partisanship. It was clearly written by a man who had a specific plan and who intended on following through with it. It's a prescription for actual change that would affect real Americans immediately- none of that "I'll get to it in six months" or "Within ten years, we'll have X Y Z" garbage we hear from every other politician who rides a wave of empty promises into office. I believe such a platform would be very popular among the American people, but I guess I'll never know for sure; candidates with such views (when they exist) are barred from taking part in national debates. And that's a real shame, because any candidate who doesn't specifically address (and plan to make good on) at least five of those points isn't worthy of the office.
The reason I bring this up is to illustrate how much of a disgrace our current president actually is. He is truly an empty suit who is content to walk in the footsteps of his predecessors and who has absolutely no genuine interest in changing the United States back into the free nation everyone pretends it is. Any of the above bullet points could be executed with the stroke of the President's pen. Why do you think he refrains from doing so?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The Case Against Drug Prohibition
I read a Facebook post recently that criticized Ron Paul's stance on ending the (federal) war on drugs. The quote that stuck out to me was (fairly paraphrased):
"People don't have the right to use drugs. Drugs is a social problem, not a freedom issue. They hurt everyone around those using them, destroys societies, etc. This is about the destruction and the aftereffects on society."
He went on to cite an incident where a kid from his neighborhood got himself all coked out and killed a couple of people with his car.
Touché on the anecdote. People on drugs do commit criminal acts and do cause innocent people to suffer. But prohibition causes innocent people to suffer as well- and in similar ways. So, this is my case against drug prohibition. I'll ignore the huge economic benefits of legalization, the unconstitutionality of prohibition, the relative destructiveness of legal alcohol, and the philosophical arguments for letting adults make their own choices in our supposedly free society.
I disagree that legalization is not a freedom issue. We have this terrible habit of criminalizing whatever we find distasteful (smoking, certain foods, certain speech, firearms, etc.) and it's got to stop. All of those things used in the extreme can have negative effects. But in most instances, when these things do affect someone, they might merely be a nuisance or visually offensive- but not so much as to make victims out of the offended parties.
What's more, things that are potentially dangerous can, in fact, be used responsibly. This is where drug use becomes an issue of freedom. Even though drugs are abused by many, they can be used responsibly without injuring anyone, the user included. Such users do not deserve to be treated as criminals. But even though they haven't committed any crime against anyone, they will invariably be casualties of drug criminalization. The penalties can be harsh. If caught, they will be treated as felons and can potentially have their lives destroyed. They're ruined by the law, not the drugs. So I ask: who speaks up in defense of the responsible users, whose crime has no victim?
Almost no one loses sleep over punishing people for victimless crimes, though. Their case for prohibition usually rests on how drugs can harm totally innocent people. People can be dangerous and reckless in any number of ways when they're high, and that recklessness can end up hurting or even killing people. Examples might include a family torn apart by a son's drug abuse, or a child killed by someone who's high and behind the wheel. These certainly do happen, and nobody likes it. But there are innocent similarly people harmed by prohibition, too.
The family affected by drug abuse might just as easily be ruined when the son gets a mandatory minimum prison sentence for a minor drug infraction. Or when some innocent party's property is seized by the government because of trumped up charges from a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. Or when the SWAT team comes on an anonymous tip and accidentally kills someone because they raided the wrong house (or otherwise acted recklessly, like shooting first and asking questions later, or killing people with flashbang grenades). Prohibition brings the unforgiving hand of the state into the situation, onto the heads of the innocent as well as the guilty. Who speaks up in defense of the innocents harmed by the government as a result of prohibition?
One doesn't need to have a relative killed or property stolen by the government to be an innocent victim, however. One could simply have a legitimate medicine denied or withheld from him because of political hysteria over drug abuse. Got a condition where you need marijuana and a vaporizer to relieve pain or regulate your appetite? Tough break. Your options are to lobby your legislature, quietly suffer, or find a black market. Which do you think is most effective? Innocent people go through this every day. They're in need of medication, but have little choice but to wait it out while politicians dither over the most politically acceptable way of distributing drugs they find appropriate. By means of red tape, greater expense, outright denial, and the threat of punishment for ignoring the law, drug prohibition continues to make victims out of those who want to use drugs for genuine medicinal purposes. That these people are relatively few in number makes no difference.
Who speaks up in defense of these and other victims of prohibition? If you ask the victims themselves, you'll find plenty of people. But those people, myself included, don't matter. We're ignored because we don't have enough political pull. And if there's one thing that trumps reason, liberty and justice, it's political pull. Clearly, there will be victims with or without prohibition. The difference is merely that the victims of prohibition are more politically acceptable.
It bothers me very much to know that some of the money I pay in taxes is used to prosecute people for victimless crimes; to buy the weapons and armor for local police who execute no-knock raids on my neighbors; to pay politicians to keep medicine out of reach of people who need it. But there's nothing I can do about that. It is the reality that has evolved from way back when people thought passing laws to control people's behavior was a good idea.
For those who still think that, I would like to recommend a "good prohibition"- a system that facilitates safe recreational drug use, helps people who have abuse problems, permits everyone access to the medicine they want, and exclusively punishes those who commit crimes against others....but there is no governing body that will punish only the guilty and spare the innocent. Government doesn't work that way, and our current drug war exhibits all the proof you could want. There can never be any such "good prohibition" as I just described; prohibition on the whole needs to end. For we only have two choices: Either we have a free society with some irresponsible people who are hard to control, or we have an unfree society with irresponsible people who are hard to control, plus an irresponsible government which nobody controls.
Which scenario scares you more?
"People don't have the right to use drugs. Drugs is a social problem, not a freedom issue. They hurt everyone around those using them, destroys societies, etc. This is about the destruction and the aftereffects on society."
He went on to cite an incident where a kid from his neighborhood got himself all coked out and killed a couple of people with his car.
Touché on the anecdote. People on drugs do commit criminal acts and do cause innocent people to suffer. But prohibition causes innocent people to suffer as well- and in similar ways. So, this is my case against drug prohibition. I'll ignore the huge economic benefits of legalization, the unconstitutionality of prohibition, the relative destructiveness of legal alcohol, and the philosophical arguments for letting adults make their own choices in our supposedly free society.
I disagree that legalization is not a freedom issue. We have this terrible habit of criminalizing whatever we find distasteful (smoking, certain foods, certain speech, firearms, etc.) and it's got to stop. All of those things used in the extreme can have negative effects. But in most instances, when these things do affect someone, they might merely be a nuisance or visually offensive- but not so much as to make victims out of the offended parties.
What's more, things that are potentially dangerous can, in fact, be used responsibly. This is where drug use becomes an issue of freedom. Even though drugs are abused by many, they can be used responsibly without injuring anyone, the user included. Such users do not deserve to be treated as criminals. But even though they haven't committed any crime against anyone, they will invariably be casualties of drug criminalization. The penalties can be harsh. If caught, they will be treated as felons and can potentially have their lives destroyed. They're ruined by the law, not the drugs. So I ask: who speaks up in defense of the responsible users, whose crime has no victim?
Almost no one loses sleep over punishing people for victimless crimes, though. Their case for prohibition usually rests on how drugs can harm totally innocent people. People can be dangerous and reckless in any number of ways when they're high, and that recklessness can end up hurting or even killing people. Examples might include a family torn apart by a son's drug abuse, or a child killed by someone who's high and behind the wheel. These certainly do happen, and nobody likes it. But there are innocent similarly people harmed by prohibition, too.
The family affected by drug abuse might just as easily be ruined when the son gets a mandatory minimum prison sentence for a minor drug infraction. Or when some innocent party's property is seized by the government because of trumped up charges from a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself. Or when the SWAT team comes on an anonymous tip and accidentally kills someone because they raided the wrong house (or otherwise acted recklessly, like shooting first and asking questions later, or killing people with flashbang grenades). Prohibition brings the unforgiving hand of the state into the situation, onto the heads of the innocent as well as the guilty. Who speaks up in defense of the innocents harmed by the government as a result of prohibition?
One doesn't need to have a relative killed or property stolen by the government to be an innocent victim, however. One could simply have a legitimate medicine denied or withheld from him because of political hysteria over drug abuse. Got a condition where you need marijuana and a vaporizer to relieve pain or regulate your appetite? Tough break. Your options are to lobby your legislature, quietly suffer, or find a black market. Which do you think is most effective? Innocent people go through this every day. They're in need of medication, but have little choice but to wait it out while politicians dither over the most politically acceptable way of distributing drugs they find appropriate. By means of red tape, greater expense, outright denial, and the threat of punishment for ignoring the law, drug prohibition continues to make victims out of those who want to use drugs for genuine medicinal purposes. That these people are relatively few in number makes no difference.
Who speaks up in defense of these and other victims of prohibition? If you ask the victims themselves, you'll find plenty of people. But those people, myself included, don't matter. We're ignored because we don't have enough political pull. And if there's one thing that trumps reason, liberty and justice, it's political pull. Clearly, there will be victims with or without prohibition. The difference is merely that the victims of prohibition are more politically acceptable.
It bothers me very much to know that some of the money I pay in taxes is used to prosecute people for victimless crimes; to buy the weapons and armor for local police who execute no-knock raids on my neighbors; to pay politicians to keep medicine out of reach of people who need it. But there's nothing I can do about that. It is the reality that has evolved from way back when people thought passing laws to control people's behavior was a good idea.
For those who still think that, I would like to recommend a "good prohibition"- a system that facilitates safe recreational drug use, helps people who have abuse problems, permits everyone access to the medicine they want, and exclusively punishes those who commit crimes against others....but there is no governing body that will punish only the guilty and spare the innocent. Government doesn't work that way, and our current drug war exhibits all the proof you could want. There can never be any such "good prohibition" as I just described; prohibition on the whole needs to end. For we only have two choices: Either we have a free society with some irresponsible people who are hard to control, or we have an unfree society with irresponsible people who are hard to control, plus an irresponsible government which nobody controls.
Which scenario scares you more?
Friday, November 26, 2010
An Open Letter to Governor Christie Concerning Brian Aitken
Governor Christie,
Several days ago, I read about the case of Brian Aitken in Reason Magazine. He was arrested and convicted of violating one of New Jersey’s draconian gun laws. I am writing this to request Brian Aitken be granted an executive pardon.
The details surrounding Mr. Aiken’s tour through our justice system would horrify anyone with a sense of justice. The law of which he accidentally ran afoul is a leftover from the irrationally anti-gun Corzine administration, and the way information was withheld from the jury by Judge Morely is simply unacceptable.
What’s worse is the sentence. A seven-year prison sentence is grossly disproportionate to the nature of his infraction; it is seven years of living in a nightmare. It is the destruction of seven years of an honest man’s life- and then comes the epilogue: living the rest of his life as a convicted felon, making earning a living in any professional capacity impossible. And all this is because of what amounts to overaggressive law enforcement preying on someone’s innocent mistake.
I do not know Brian Aitken personally, but I was nonetheless deeply moved by the story of his conviction. His case is a clear indication that we do not live in a nation with liberty and justice for all. It chokes me up with anger to know that something like this could take place in the land of the free.
I am certain that this case is not unusual, and that similar instances occur every day in the United States- so often, in fact, that they go unnoticed. It doesn’t make the news every time some anonymous nobody with no political pull gets railroaded by our justice system. Thankfully, your executive power to grant clemency is a last chance to correct this situation. It falls on your shoulders to use your legal authority to remedy the failures of the system and to take back the unjust hand dealt to Mr. Aitken.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the list of people who have been victimized by the system which is supposed to protect them is very long. Brian Aitken’s name is on that list, but thanks to Radley Balko at Reason, his name has been highlighted. Mr. Governor, don’t squander the opportunity to change this man’s life by doing what it just. Save Brian Aitken from a seven year prison sentence and reunite him with his family.
In Liberty,
William Kern
Several days ago, I read about the case of Brian Aitken in Reason Magazine. He was arrested and convicted of violating one of New Jersey’s draconian gun laws. I am writing this to request Brian Aitken be granted an executive pardon.
The details surrounding Mr. Aiken’s tour through our justice system would horrify anyone with a sense of justice. The law of which he accidentally ran afoul is a leftover from the irrationally anti-gun Corzine administration, and the way information was withheld from the jury by Judge Morely is simply unacceptable.
What’s worse is the sentence. A seven-year prison sentence is grossly disproportionate to the nature of his infraction; it is seven years of living in a nightmare. It is the destruction of seven years of an honest man’s life- and then comes the epilogue: living the rest of his life as a convicted felon, making earning a living in any professional capacity impossible. And all this is because of what amounts to overaggressive law enforcement preying on someone’s innocent mistake.
I do not know Brian Aitken personally, but I was nonetheless deeply moved by the story of his conviction. His case is a clear indication that we do not live in a nation with liberty and justice for all. It chokes me up with anger to know that something like this could take place in the land of the free.
I am certain that this case is not unusual, and that similar instances occur every day in the United States- so often, in fact, that they go unnoticed. It doesn’t make the news every time some anonymous nobody with no political pull gets railroaded by our justice system. Thankfully, your executive power to grant clemency is a last chance to correct this situation. It falls on your shoulders to use your legal authority to remedy the failures of the system and to take back the unjust hand dealt to Mr. Aitken.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the list of people who have been victimized by the system which is supposed to protect them is very long. Brian Aitken’s name is on that list, but thanks to Radley Balko at Reason, his name has been highlighted. Mr. Governor, don’t squander the opportunity to change this man’s life by doing what it just. Save Brian Aitken from a seven year prison sentence and reunite him with his family.
In Liberty,
William Kern
Thursday, August 19, 2010
On Jon Runyan
I saw a TV spot for for Jon Runyan today. It was cute in a generic sort of way, so went to his website to look at his issues. Surely a rookie candidate with over 3300 Facebook fans has a platform that's really going to turn Washington around...
Or will it? A cursory glance looks pretty good, but if you're paying attention, Jon Runyan's platform is actually pretty cookie-cutter. Here is the review of his Issues (not in order).
1. Cutting Taxes and Creating Jobs
Mr. Runyan has eight tax-cutting recommendations. They all sound pretty good in a better-than-nothing sort of way (like increasing the child tax credit from $1000 to $1250). I'm especially a fan of permanently repealing the grave injustice that is the Death Tax. But while I'm always in favor of cutting taxes for whatever reason, lowering taxes is a plank in every politician's platform. They're just words- especially without corresponding cuts in spending. Which brings us to...
2. Balancing the Federal Budget
Runyan talks about the debt, and wants a balanced budget. Everyone wants a balanced budget. The problem is that there are many things currently that are not counted in the official federal budget, such as advance appropriation (which "spends" in the future), delayed payments (putting off costs until the following fiscal year), and emergency and supplemental spending. There's no cap on these things, and none appear on official budgets. Oh, and neither does funding for Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, or mortgage lending by Freddie and Fannie.
So talk of a balanced budget is largely meaningless so long as there are loopholes. The problem is the power to spend, not the spending itself. But in any case, to balance the budget (even to fake-balance a budget), some things need to be cut. In Runyan's Issues section, I can't find any specific cuts he wants to make. He does mention things he wants to spend on, though. Things like...
3. Beach Replenishment & Shore Tourism
What?
Federal legislators, as a rule, should stay out of state business. But this is why they don't: it's a classic ploy to buy votes. "Vote for me and I'll give you federal money." This is where corruption comes from. It's why people get elected and stay in office. I'm not saying Mr. Runyan is corrupt, but he should use his power to work towards ending this this practice.
4. Military & Veterans Affairs
A sentence in this section reads: "I will ensure that our active military fighting to defend freedom around the world have all the tools necessary to defeat our enemies and return home safely to their family and friends."
This one is straight out of the Republican handbook. The United States has little legitimate business "defending freedom around the world." I want my own freedoms defended and the troops brought home. There are many people who believe war is necessary, and that the same government which has failed to secure the freedoms of its own citizens can effectively police the world. I just happen to disagree, and would rather the troops be brought home immediately. The government's job is to keep us out of war.
5. Seniors, Social Security & Medicare
Here, Runyan talks about keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent (impossible), as well as steering money towards (buying votes from) Burlington and Ocean counties (not federal business), and funding medical research he wants to fund. With our money. Whether we like it or not. We do need to honor the commitments made to the seniors who are helpless without their promised government handouts, but work needs to be done to free future generations as quickly as possible from these corrupt and wasteful programs. We need them gone, not done differently.
6. Energy
Runyan is rightfully critical of the Cap-and-Trade scam, and is in favor of letting states deal with their offshore energy production. These are both positives, but then he goes on about promoting both nuclear energy and the green agenda. And then there's the classic bit about the energy independence fairytale at the end.
I don't believe Congress can write respectable laws, much less determine energy policy. The federal government already subsidizes everything under the sun, which only politicizes the economy. The mere 535 people in congress need to back off of doing what they think is right, and let the other some 300 million people determine our energy policy.
7. Affordable, High Quality Healthcare
While rightly opposing Obamacare, Runyan wants to "start over with a more incremental approach." Wrong answer. There are at least half a dozen things that could be done to legitimately lower the cost of insurance and improve the quality of care, none of which involve the federal government calling the shots. Keep the incremental approach and stay out of it, please. Even among conservatives, this one should be a letdown.
8. Israel
The webpage says it best: As a member of Congress, I will strongly support continued foreign aid to Israel to ensure they have the tools necessary to stand strong in the face of hostilities by their enemies.
Just because it's called Foreign Aid doesn't mean it's not destructive and wasteful. If you want to help Israel or any other foreign country, send your own money and your own children. Our taking sides in foreign conflicts is a cause of our problems, not a solution.
9. Immigration
Taxes, war, education, and our welfare state are much bigger issues than immigration, so Runyan's conservative stance on immigration doesn't bother me as much as it probably should. Rather than go on the offensive, I'd like to see an easing of the path to citizenship (whatever that means exactly), but I'm willing to pick my battles on this one.
10. Congressional Term Limits
The real problem is political power, not the person who wields it. So I have serious doubts as to whether term limits are a real solution to anything. But until Congress gets under control, I do support Jon Runyan's call for term limits.
11. 2nd Amendment
His 2nd Amendment stance is out of the Republican playbook. I'd like to know what he means by "cracking down in illegal guns," but aside from that, this one's a keeper.
12. Marriage
When asked about marriage, all federal legislators should say, "No comment." Marriage should be totally done by contract- it shouldn't be a government issue at all, let alone a federal one.
This is pretty typical political fluff that you're likely to hear from any Republican. It's great if you agree with all of it, but this isn't someone who strikes me as a candidate that people who want limited government would rally around. I see Jon Runyan as a guy who wants to go to Washington on his name recognition in order to do what he wants to do. Isn't that why most people run for office? To do what they want to do?
I like that his tax cut ideas are specific, but where are the others? What about the drug war? The spending? Education? The current overseas occupations? Trade? The welfare state? Whether he has Tea Party support or not, I can't get behind a guy who is so generic with his platform. When the best slogan you have is "The other guy is worse," what's that really say about you?
It says to get ready for the continuation of politics as usual. While Jon Runyan's election probably won't kill us, it doesn't look like it will significantly change the course we're on, either.
Or will it? A cursory glance looks pretty good, but if you're paying attention, Jon Runyan's platform is actually pretty cookie-cutter. Here is the review of his Issues (not in order).
1. Cutting Taxes and Creating Jobs
Mr. Runyan has eight tax-cutting recommendations. They all sound pretty good in a better-than-nothing sort of way (like increasing the child tax credit from $1000 to $1250). I'm especially a fan of permanently repealing the grave injustice that is the Death Tax. But while I'm always in favor of cutting taxes for whatever reason, lowering taxes is a plank in every politician's platform. They're just words- especially without corresponding cuts in spending. Which brings us to...
2. Balancing the Federal Budget
Runyan talks about the debt, and wants a balanced budget. Everyone wants a balanced budget. The problem is that there are many things currently that are not counted in the official federal budget, such as advance appropriation (which "spends" in the future), delayed payments (putting off costs until the following fiscal year), and emergency and supplemental spending. There's no cap on these things, and none appear on official budgets. Oh, and neither does funding for Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, or mortgage lending by Freddie and Fannie.
So talk of a balanced budget is largely meaningless so long as there are loopholes. The problem is the power to spend, not the spending itself. But in any case, to balance the budget (even to fake-balance a budget), some things need to be cut. In Runyan's Issues section, I can't find any specific cuts he wants to make. He does mention things he wants to spend on, though. Things like...
3. Beach Replenishment & Shore Tourism
What?
Federal legislators, as a rule, should stay out of state business. But this is why they don't: it's a classic ploy to buy votes. "Vote for me and I'll give you federal money." This is where corruption comes from. It's why people get elected and stay in office. I'm not saying Mr. Runyan is corrupt, but he should use his power to work towards ending this this practice.
4. Military & Veterans Affairs
A sentence in this section reads: "I will ensure that our active military fighting to defend freedom around the world have all the tools necessary to defeat our enemies and return home safely to their family and friends."
This one is straight out of the Republican handbook. The United States has little legitimate business "defending freedom around the world." I want my own freedoms defended and the troops brought home. There are many people who believe war is necessary, and that the same government which has failed to secure the freedoms of its own citizens can effectively police the world. I just happen to disagree, and would rather the troops be brought home immediately. The government's job is to keep us out of war.
5. Seniors, Social Security & Medicare
Here, Runyan talks about keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent (impossible), as well as steering money towards (buying votes from) Burlington and Ocean counties (not federal business), and funding medical research he wants to fund. With our money. Whether we like it or not. We do need to honor the commitments made to the seniors who are helpless without their promised government handouts, but work needs to be done to free future generations as quickly as possible from these corrupt and wasteful programs. We need them gone, not done differently.
6. Energy
Runyan is rightfully critical of the Cap-and-Trade scam, and is in favor of letting states deal with their offshore energy production. These are both positives, but then he goes on about promoting both nuclear energy and the green agenda. And then there's the classic bit about the energy independence fairytale at the end.
I don't believe Congress can write respectable laws, much less determine energy policy. The federal government already subsidizes everything under the sun, which only politicizes the economy. The mere 535 people in congress need to back off of doing what they think is right, and let the other some 300 million people determine our energy policy.
7. Affordable, High Quality Healthcare
While rightly opposing Obamacare, Runyan wants to "start over with a more incremental approach." Wrong answer. There are at least half a dozen things that could be done to legitimately lower the cost of insurance and improve the quality of care, none of which involve the federal government calling the shots. Keep the incremental approach and stay out of it, please. Even among conservatives, this one should be a letdown.
8. Israel
The webpage says it best: As a member of Congress, I will strongly support continued foreign aid to Israel to ensure they have the tools necessary to stand strong in the face of hostilities by their enemies.
Just because it's called Foreign Aid doesn't mean it's not destructive and wasteful. If you want to help Israel or any other foreign country, send your own money and your own children. Our taking sides in foreign conflicts is a cause of our problems, not a solution.
9. Immigration
Taxes, war, education, and our welfare state are much bigger issues than immigration, so Runyan's conservative stance on immigration doesn't bother me as much as it probably should. Rather than go on the offensive, I'd like to see an easing of the path to citizenship (whatever that means exactly), but I'm willing to pick my battles on this one.
10. Congressional Term Limits
The real problem is political power, not the person who wields it. So I have serious doubts as to whether term limits are a real solution to anything. But until Congress gets under control, I do support Jon Runyan's call for term limits.
11. 2nd Amendment
His 2nd Amendment stance is out of the Republican playbook. I'd like to know what he means by "cracking down in illegal guns," but aside from that, this one's a keeper.
12. Marriage
When asked about marriage, all federal legislators should say, "No comment." Marriage should be totally done by contract- it shouldn't be a government issue at all, let alone a federal one.
* * * *
This is pretty typical political fluff that you're likely to hear from any Republican. It's great if you agree with all of it, but this isn't someone who strikes me as a candidate that people who want limited government would rally around. I see Jon Runyan as a guy who wants to go to Washington on his name recognition in order to do what he wants to do. Isn't that why most people run for office? To do what they want to do?
I like that his tax cut ideas are specific, but where are the others? What about the drug war? The spending? Education? The current overseas occupations? Trade? The welfare state? Whether he has Tea Party support or not, I can't get behind a guy who is so generic with his platform. When the best slogan you have is "The other guy is worse," what's that really say about you?
It says to get ready for the continuation of politics as usual. While Jon Runyan's election probably won't kill us, it doesn't look like it will significantly change the course we're on, either.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Last Night's Education Payoff
When the recession hit, the administration where I work (private school) confronted the whole staff and warned that we may be getting pay cuts- either those, or layoffs. It wasn't because someone messed up and ran the school into the ground financially, and it wasn't a result of mismanagement on our part. It was the result of forces beyond our control, and it was very simple: We're in trouble and if the money's not there, this is what will happen. No running to the government for favors. It's called living in reality.
Last night, a bankrupt Senate that can't balance a checkbook gave $26 billion to state governments that also can't balance a checkbook, $10 billion of which went for "teacher retention." Where did the money come from? They did what they always do; they kicked the can down the road. The money is supposedly coming from closing some corporate tax loophole and will, it is said, be paid back over ten years. This is called living in a fantasy, and it should bother a whole lot of people.
It is true that the money will prevent teacher layoffs, but that's only because public school wages do not operate in a market. They're mandated by contract between unions and government. This is where the corruption starts. The politicians join the unions in maintaining the Three Great Fictions: that American education is the best in the world, that student performance is a function of how much money is thrown at it, and that we would all be doomed without a government monopoly over the school system.
The Politicians
The primary skill of a politician is to get elected, and the primary skill of an incumbent is to get reelected. They like to have blocs of people they can count on for votes, so they steer money towards schools. It's a nice exchange; votes for money. Last night's bill was nothing more than a political bribe.
The Unions
The primary goal of the unions is their own survival. They get politicians votes in exchange for tax money, which they use to lavish teachers with good pay and unbelievable benefits. If the money stops coming, however, the house of cards collapses. To make sure that doesn't happen, they can get always get more funding in one of two ways: 1) Threatening politicians to withdraw their support for upcoming elections, and 2) selling the public their fake sob story about how, without wage hikes, the kids will suffer. Union bosses also get to look like the heroes when they distribute the cash to the teachers.
The Teachers
The teachers are the pawns in the unions' political game, and many of them know it. The ones who don't, however, seem to be under the impression that the union looks out for their best interests, and are happy to sell their vote for pay hikes. Those same teachers are the ones who believe their compensation is unfair. But the politics of union negotiations keeps teacher compensation above market (whether they recognize it or not), and many teachers will raise hell at the slightest hint of their earnings possibly getting pared back to something more in touch with fiscal reality.
The Public
In spite of how increased spending has produced little more than higher taxes and test scores that have been flatlining for the last forty years, somehow the public still believes The Three Fictions. There's probably nothing for which the average taxpayer is willing to open his wallet than education. There's almost no recognition of the fact that teaching is a highly political job and the fact that the public school system is little more than a perpetual motion machine of politics. The students graduate knowing exactly what the government wants them to know.
So what happens when the federal government, which has no idea whatsoever about how to deal with its own problems, showers the states with billions of dollars? If history is any indication, test scores will remain unaffected, the political grip on the system will be once more tightened, and taxes will go up (that bit about getting the money by closing a corporate tax loophole is an illusion- when taxes on businesses go up, the businesses simply raise their prices accordingly and we pay for it anyway). But the money will come from somewhere- if not from the municipalities, then from the state. If not from the state, then from the feds. If not from from the feds, then people start losing reelection. And nobody wants that.
Much of this sickens me. I'm angry at the democrats for passing the bill, I'm angry at the republicans for faking their outrage over something they would have favored if Bush were in the White House, and I'm angry that the people being taken advantage of have no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't believe it no matter how clearly it were spelled out to them. It bothers me when the bad guys win.
The solution is to dispel The Three Fictions and shake our faith in the government's ability to serve our interests through education. Hopefully, at least some of us will remember the true cost of last night's bill/payoff come November.
Last night, a bankrupt Senate that can't balance a checkbook gave $26 billion to state governments that also can't balance a checkbook, $10 billion of which went for "teacher retention." Where did the money come from? They did what they always do; they kicked the can down the road. The money is supposedly coming from closing some corporate tax loophole and will, it is said, be paid back over ten years. This is called living in a fantasy, and it should bother a whole lot of people.
It is true that the money will prevent teacher layoffs, but that's only because public school wages do not operate in a market. They're mandated by contract between unions and government. This is where the corruption starts. The politicians join the unions in maintaining the Three Great Fictions: that American education is the best in the world, that student performance is a function of how much money is thrown at it, and that we would all be doomed without a government monopoly over the school system.
The Politicians
The primary skill of a politician is to get elected, and the primary skill of an incumbent is to get reelected. They like to have blocs of people they can count on for votes, so they steer money towards schools. It's a nice exchange; votes for money. Last night's bill was nothing more than a political bribe.
The Unions
The primary goal of the unions is their own survival. They get politicians votes in exchange for tax money, which they use to lavish teachers with good pay and unbelievable benefits. If the money stops coming, however, the house of cards collapses. To make sure that doesn't happen, they can get always get more funding in one of two ways: 1) Threatening politicians to withdraw their support for upcoming elections, and 2) selling the public their fake sob story about how, without wage hikes, the kids will suffer. Union bosses also get to look like the heroes when they distribute the cash to the teachers.
The Teachers
The teachers are the pawns in the unions' political game, and many of them know it. The ones who don't, however, seem to be under the impression that the union looks out for their best interests, and are happy to sell their vote for pay hikes. Those same teachers are the ones who believe their compensation is unfair. But the politics of union negotiations keeps teacher compensation above market (whether they recognize it or not), and many teachers will raise hell at the slightest hint of their earnings possibly getting pared back to something more in touch with fiscal reality.
The Public
In spite of how increased spending has produced little more than higher taxes and test scores that have been flatlining for the last forty years, somehow the public still believes The Three Fictions. There's probably nothing for which the average taxpayer is willing to open his wallet than education. There's almost no recognition of the fact that teaching is a highly political job and the fact that the public school system is little more than a perpetual motion machine of politics. The students graduate knowing exactly what the government wants them to know.
So what happens when the federal government, which has no idea whatsoever about how to deal with its own problems, showers the states with billions of dollars? If history is any indication, test scores will remain unaffected, the political grip on the system will be once more tightened, and taxes will go up (that bit about getting the money by closing a corporate tax loophole is an illusion- when taxes on businesses go up, the businesses simply raise their prices accordingly and we pay for it anyway). But the money will come from somewhere- if not from the municipalities, then from the state. If not from the state, then from the feds. If not from from the feds, then people start losing reelection. And nobody wants that.
Much of this sickens me. I'm angry at the democrats for passing the bill, I'm angry at the republicans for faking their outrage over something they would have favored if Bush were in the White House, and I'm angry that the people being taken advantage of have no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't believe it no matter how clearly it were spelled out to them. It bothers me when the bad guys win.
The solution is to dispel The Three Fictions and shake our faith in the government's ability to serve our interests through education. Hopefully, at least some of us will remember the true cost of last night's bill/payoff come November.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Fire Rob Andrews
I wonder if the people who send Congressman Andrews back to Washington every two years can name any decent legislation that attests to his ability as a lawmaker. In the past two years alone, he's voted for such things as raising the debt limit, the Cap and Trade energy scam, the Cash for Clunkers scam, the stimulus-package-turned-government-slush-fund scam, and a healthcare scam that will all but destroy the surviving pieces of our medical industry that Congress has been butchering for decades. Over the last ten years, he has also voted to send over $100 billion in taxpayer money outside the country in aid to foreign governments.
In the same period, you will also find that Mr. Andrews was one of those who abdicated his duty to uphold the Constitution both by giving George Bush the power to initiate military action against Iraq without a declaration of war, and by voting for (and continually extending) the USA PATRIOT act, which sends the Bill of Rights up in flames. For these reasons alone he should have been ejected from office in disgrace.
But he wasn't. No, this is the kind of career to which Mr. Andrews has committed himself- so much so that he hedged his bet against losing the 2008 Senate primary by running his wife as a placeholder for his House seat. Instead of taking his lumps and retiring after his failed power grab (as he repeatedly insisted he would), he pulled the old switcheroo with his wife and retook the seat anyway because, he said, his "public service was more meaningful" than whatever job awaited him in the private sector. I'll bet.
After a disrespectful stunt like that, one would think the voters would have had the sense to kick him to the curb. Instead, they curbed their integrity by giving him another landslide victory. It is time his constituents recognize that they've been patsies for Rob Andrews for almost two decades. See how his elections are financed at opensecrets.org to find whose interests his career has really been serving. The truth is that no matter what little political favors he may have done for people during his cushy tenure, it hasn't been worth giving the man a free pass to Washington. Because of career politicians like Mr. Andrews, future generations have been guaranteed an America that will be less free and more dependent on government. What's more, that America will come with a high pricetag, and they'll be expected to pay it.
I don't know what the solution is, but I know that sending Mr. Andrews back through Washington's revolving door isn't it. It pains me to wonder how much different everything would have turned out if, instead of blindly putting the same charlatan back into office every two years, we elected someone who didn't think government was the answer to everyone's problems; who wanted Americans to keep their whole paychecks; who didn't unapologetically use public money for federal programs that never deliver what they promise; and who didn't see a House seat as a prize to be won, but rather as an opportunity to maintain the liberties of her neighbors.
Will we get the opportunity to vote for such a candidate this year? Not from what I gather. Almost no one from the mainstream political parties stands out as worth having in office, and I can't find any information on the independents in this district. So broken is this system that I honestly wish there were a None of the Above option. But since there isn't and we're all going to have to hold our nose again to vote this year, let's assert our belief in term limits and send Rob Andrews packing. Nothing is worse than a smug career politician who is way past his prime and doesn't know when to hang it up. Besides, we really can't do much worse, and at least then we might have someone in office with a shred of humility who's not a Washington insider.
In the same period, you will also find that Mr. Andrews was one of those who abdicated his duty to uphold the Constitution both by giving George Bush the power to initiate military action against Iraq without a declaration of war, and by voting for (and continually extending) the USA PATRIOT act, which sends the Bill of Rights up in flames. For these reasons alone he should have been ejected from office in disgrace.
But he wasn't. No, this is the kind of career to which Mr. Andrews has committed himself- so much so that he hedged his bet against losing the 2008 Senate primary by running his wife as a placeholder for his House seat. Instead of taking his lumps and retiring after his failed power grab (as he repeatedly insisted he would), he pulled the old switcheroo with his wife and retook the seat anyway because, he said, his "public service was more meaningful" than whatever job awaited him in the private sector. I'll bet.
After a disrespectful stunt like that, one would think the voters would have had the sense to kick him to the curb. Instead, they curbed their integrity by giving him another landslide victory. It is time his constituents recognize that they've been patsies for Rob Andrews for almost two decades. See how his elections are financed at opensecrets.org to find whose interests his career has really been serving. The truth is that no matter what little political favors he may have done for people during his cushy tenure, it hasn't been worth giving the man a free pass to Washington. Because of career politicians like Mr. Andrews, future generations have been guaranteed an America that will be less free and more dependent on government. What's more, that America will come with a high pricetag, and they'll be expected to pay it.
I don't know what the solution is, but I know that sending Mr. Andrews back through Washington's revolving door isn't it. It pains me to wonder how much different everything would have turned out if, instead of blindly putting the same charlatan back into office every two years, we elected someone who didn't think government was the answer to everyone's problems; who wanted Americans to keep their whole paychecks; who didn't unapologetically use public money for federal programs that never deliver what they promise; and who didn't see a House seat as a prize to be won, but rather as an opportunity to maintain the liberties of her neighbors.
Will we get the opportunity to vote for such a candidate this year? Not from what I gather. Almost no one from the mainstream political parties stands out as worth having in office, and I can't find any information on the independents in this district. So broken is this system that I honestly wish there were a None of the Above option. But since there isn't and we're all going to have to hold our nose again to vote this year, let's assert our belief in term limits and send Rob Andrews packing. Nothing is worse than a smug career politician who is way past his prime and doesn't know when to hang it up. Besides, we really can't do much worse, and at least then we might have someone in office with a shred of humility who's not a Washington insider.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Christie and the Schools
Ask a hundred people how they think a school should be run, and you’re likely to get a hundred different answers. Some parents want more counselors, some want a greater nursing staff, some want particular sports, some want co-curricular activities, some want salary cuts. Everyone assigns a different priority to all these things. Whatever gets cut, no matter how much, people are going to complain.
Parents pay taxes; they want what’s best for their kids; and (so far as I know) they’re more or less forced to send their kids to their local school. They want to milk it, and I don’t blame them. As long as they’re only paying a fraction of the cost involved in putting their kids through school, it’s understandable. I’m sure every parent would like to see her child’s school stuffed with well-educated and well-paid staff, and activities of every kind. Don’t we all?
Well, maybe not all of us. A taxpaying non-parent’s priorities are probably more like “getting my taxes lowered” than “paying for other people’s kids’ government schooling.” I know I’d rather keep the 40% of my property tax than fork it over to the government to be disposed of politically in the school system. Maybe it’s harsh, but it’s true. Public-educated kids are caught in a political crossfire between government, taxpayers, and unions. Everyone has a stake in getting what they want (everyone wants lower taxes; politicians want reelection; unions want power) and we all have to use political means to get it. It’s an unending political tug of war, and the primary casualties are the very people the system is supposed to work for: parents, students, and teachers.
The other week, I attended a board of education meeting. The board announced budget cuts and cutbacks on nursing staff and counseling staff. Many parents were angry over these things, and called for administrative cuts. There was a lot of yelling, finger-pointing, a few speeches, and little good news. It was like a highlight reel of everything that’s wrong with public education.
Since parents believe their children are entitled to an education the government believes it is its job to provide it (two very flawed premises, by the way), any mention of privatizing/deregulating education isn’t even on the table. But the governor wants to address a budget deficit. Wonderful. Since market solutions are unimaginable to most people, the popular alternatives are to [continue to] tax the rich or to cut funding to schools. For anyone who wants less government, the answer is obvious.
I don’t have any faith in the education bureaucracy being able to redistribute their remaining funding in a way that pleases everybody (as I said, everyone involved has her own idea of how it should be), so there will definitely be many losers after it’s all said and done, and the schools will suffer for it. All the more reason to remove the government from education completely. As a parent, do you really want your kid’s education to be so vulnerable to political waves like this? Should every public teacher in the state have to quake in her boots every time some politician sneezes?
No, but that’s the way it is. The problem here is not that Chris Christie is cutting school funding, it’s that some politician has the power to cut the funds to begin with. Put any special interest group in place of parents and the NJEA, and that group would vilify the governor and decry the cuts just as much (or to whatever extent its political power permitted). Wouldn’t you?
Even though I’m tacitly in Christie’s corner on this one, I recognize that that’s only because his position (so far) leans in the direction of less government, and that’s all I’m interested in. That's an important point. See, though I don’t think I should even have to be bothered with any of it, I still feel I have a stake in the outcome. Politics has a way of doing just that- taking people who ordinarily wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a damn and roping them in, forcing them to fight for the least offensive political exploitation of their money, time, and labor; things that shouldn’t be anyone else's to begin with. In fact, the more I hear about this battle, the more I think that neither Chris Christie nor the NJEA are any worse than the other. Maybe the budget cuts are neither good nor bad. Maybe they’re just political maneuvers like anything else, no matter how they’re portrayed to the public by the two warring sides.
The point is that this whole seemingly unsolvable mess is a natural and predictable consequence of the government’s presence in the field. Private school teachers (and parents, and students), on the other hand, are totally insulated from all this political warring. They look upon this and shake their heads, wondering why anyone would want to put up with that kind of garbage.
Then, they turn around and quietly return to work. The rest of the education establishment should be so lucky.
Parents pay taxes; they want what’s best for their kids; and (so far as I know) they’re more or less forced to send their kids to their local school. They want to milk it, and I don’t blame them. As long as they’re only paying a fraction of the cost involved in putting their kids through school, it’s understandable. I’m sure every parent would like to see her child’s school stuffed with well-educated and well-paid staff, and activities of every kind. Don’t we all?
Well, maybe not all of us. A taxpaying non-parent’s priorities are probably more like “getting my taxes lowered” than “paying for other people’s kids’ government schooling.” I know I’d rather keep the 40% of my property tax than fork it over to the government to be disposed of politically in the school system. Maybe it’s harsh, but it’s true. Public-educated kids are caught in a political crossfire between government, taxpayers, and unions. Everyone has a stake in getting what they want (everyone wants lower taxes; politicians want reelection; unions want power) and we all have to use political means to get it. It’s an unending political tug of war, and the primary casualties are the very people the system is supposed to work for: parents, students, and teachers.
The other week, I attended a board of education meeting. The board announced budget cuts and cutbacks on nursing staff and counseling staff. Many parents were angry over these things, and called for administrative cuts. There was a lot of yelling, finger-pointing, a few speeches, and little good news. It was like a highlight reel of everything that’s wrong with public education.
Since parents believe their children are entitled to an education the government believes it is its job to provide it (two very flawed premises, by the way), any mention of privatizing/deregulating education isn’t even on the table. But the governor wants to address a budget deficit. Wonderful. Since market solutions are unimaginable to most people, the popular alternatives are to [continue to] tax the rich or to cut funding to schools. For anyone who wants less government, the answer is obvious.
I don’t have any faith in the education bureaucracy being able to redistribute their remaining funding in a way that pleases everybody (as I said, everyone involved has her own idea of how it should be), so there will definitely be many losers after it’s all said and done, and the schools will suffer for it. All the more reason to remove the government from education completely. As a parent, do you really want your kid’s education to be so vulnerable to political waves like this? Should every public teacher in the state have to quake in her boots every time some politician sneezes?
No, but that’s the way it is. The problem here is not that Chris Christie is cutting school funding, it’s that some politician has the power to cut the funds to begin with. Put any special interest group in place of parents and the NJEA, and that group would vilify the governor and decry the cuts just as much (or to whatever extent its political power permitted). Wouldn’t you?
Even though I’m tacitly in Christie’s corner on this one, I recognize that that’s only because his position (so far) leans in the direction of less government, and that’s all I’m interested in. That's an important point. See, though I don’t think I should even have to be bothered with any of it, I still feel I have a stake in the outcome. Politics has a way of doing just that- taking people who ordinarily wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a damn and roping them in, forcing them to fight for the least offensive political exploitation of their money, time, and labor; things that shouldn’t be anyone else's to begin with. In fact, the more I hear about this battle, the more I think that neither Chris Christie nor the NJEA are any worse than the other. Maybe the budget cuts are neither good nor bad. Maybe they’re just political maneuvers like anything else, no matter how they’re portrayed to the public by the two warring sides.
The point is that this whole seemingly unsolvable mess is a natural and predictable consequence of the government’s presence in the field. Private school teachers (and parents, and students), on the other hand, are totally insulated from all this political warring. They look upon this and shake their heads, wondering why anyone would want to put up with that kind of garbage.
Then, they turn around and quietly return to work. The rest of the education establishment should be so lucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)