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.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
If you don't vote, you can't complain
The grip that this fallacy has on people is incredible. I wonder why it isn't questioned more often.
It is false because it is based on the assumption that, among the selection of candidates, there's something for everybody. The assumption is flawed. It implies that regardless of one's beliefs, there's a candidate who claims to represent those beliefs rigidly enough that he deserves one's vote. This is simply untrue.
It wasn't until this election season that I understood the reality of this fallacy. Usually I vote libertarian, but this year I'm not completely sold on the libertarian candidate. I will examine my other options between now and November, but if I don't find someone else whom I feel would make a good President, I will write in Ron Paul. And I will still have two good reasons to complain: 1) because the party I traditionally vote for will have let me down by tinkering with its platform too much, and more importantly 2) the winner of the election will enact policies that are completely against what I believe.
The alternative would be to abandon my principles and vote for for a candidate whom I don't actually want to win. In so doing, I would forfeit my right to complain- particularly if that candidate won, for I would bear part of the responsibility of his agenda. Even if he lost, while I couldn't be held responsible for the winner's policies, I still will have registered my support for the belief system of a candidate I did not endorse. In effect, my vote will have said, "You have my support; better luck next time."
It wouldn't be a big deal if only a handful of people did this, but considering that this is how millions of Americans choose to perform their civic duty, it turns out to be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "Anybody but Obama," as though merely replacing Obama with the most popular alternative won't bring about its own unique set of problems.
It's hard to imagine how so many people can genuinely adopt the "Anybody but [candidate/party]" doctrine and continue to vote that way forever, especially because even when they vote for the winner they still never run out of things to complain about. But it does happen.
Then again it must be just as hard for most people to see why I vote the way I do, because I'm constantly berated about it. Here's a short list of things I hear again and again, every election:
You're wasting your vote [if you don't vote Republican or Democrat]
My personal opinion is that voting for something you don't actually support is foolish. This isn't some ivory tower libertarian philosophizing here- it's a simple observation. What people who say this don't understand is that neither popular candidate has shown even the slightest sympathy towards anything resembling my values, and so I sincerely believe I would be shooting myself in the foot (or, if you prefer, wasting my vote) were I to have anything to do with electing either one of them. I care who wins, and I don't want it to be either them.
You'll never win / What do you hope to accomplish by voting third party?
When I do vote, I'm well aware of the staggering improbability of my candidate winning. I've taken that for granted for years. But I've never heard a convincing reason as to why I should consider that a factor when deciding whom to vote for. Yes, I know that my third party vote isn't going to tear down the establishment. So when given the choice between actively supporting a system that I believe is a disgraceful sham, or not, I will happily opt for the latter in every instance. There's no incentive not to.
A vote for a third party is a vote for [candidate].
The only people responsible for a candidate winning are the people who voted for that candidate. It doesn't matter whether your candidate lost by a margin of less than some other candidate's votes. It might be a bummer, but as someone whose candidates will likely never win an election, I'm just not sympathetic to that claim. Besides, there are plenty of people who never vote at all- do they all deserve blame as well?
No, they do not deserve the blame. People who refrain from voting probably do so for reasons similar to why I don't vote for popular candidates I don't like- they don't see the point. Maybe they noticed after a few election cycles that no matter who wins, nothing substantial changes. That so many people don't vote is a testament to how little the main candidates bring to the table.
I will end this by saying that if you're putting your faith in either Obama or Romney, you already lost the election. I predict in another four years we'll all still be in the same boat: we'll still be engaged in pointless open-ended war, we'll be deeper in debt, thousands of people will still be imprisoned unjustly, the government will still have it's boot on the throat of our educational system, unemployment will still be high, the entitlement cans will be kicked a little further down the road, the cost of healthcare (and everything else) will continue to rise, and politicians will still be able to make up the rules as they go along.
Come to think of it, maybe all of our votes are wasted.
It is false because it is based on the assumption that, among the selection of candidates, there's something for everybody. The assumption is flawed. It implies that regardless of one's beliefs, there's a candidate who claims to represent those beliefs rigidly enough that he deserves one's vote. This is simply untrue.
It wasn't until this election season that I understood the reality of this fallacy. Usually I vote libertarian, but this year I'm not completely sold on the libertarian candidate. I will examine my other options between now and November, but if I don't find someone else whom I feel would make a good President, I will write in Ron Paul. And I will still have two good reasons to complain: 1) because the party I traditionally vote for will have let me down by tinkering with its platform too much, and more importantly 2) the winner of the election will enact policies that are completely against what I believe.
The alternative would be to abandon my principles and vote for for a candidate whom I don't actually want to win. In so doing, I would forfeit my right to complain- particularly if that candidate won, for I would bear part of the responsibility of his agenda. Even if he lost, while I couldn't be held responsible for the winner's policies, I still will have registered my support for the belief system of a candidate I did not endorse. In effect, my vote will have said, "You have my support; better luck next time."
It wouldn't be a big deal if only a handful of people did this, but considering that this is how millions of Americans choose to perform their civic duty, it turns out to be a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "Anybody but Obama," as though merely replacing Obama with the most popular alternative won't bring about its own unique set of problems.
It's hard to imagine how so many people can genuinely adopt the "Anybody but [candidate/party]" doctrine and continue to vote that way forever, especially because even when they vote for the winner they still never run out of things to complain about. But it does happen.
Then again it must be just as hard for most people to see why I vote the way I do, because I'm constantly berated about it. Here's a short list of things I hear again and again, every election:
You're wasting your vote [if you don't vote Republican or Democrat]
My personal opinion is that voting for something you don't actually support is foolish. This isn't some ivory tower libertarian philosophizing here- it's a simple observation. What people who say this don't understand is that neither popular candidate has shown even the slightest sympathy towards anything resembling my values, and so I sincerely believe I would be shooting myself in the foot (or, if you prefer, wasting my vote) were I to have anything to do with electing either one of them. I care who wins, and I don't want it to be either them.
You'll never win / What do you hope to accomplish by voting third party?
When I do vote, I'm well aware of the staggering improbability of my candidate winning. I've taken that for granted for years. But I've never heard a convincing reason as to why I should consider that a factor when deciding whom to vote for. Yes, I know that my third party vote isn't going to tear down the establishment. So when given the choice between actively supporting a system that I believe is a disgraceful sham, or not, I will happily opt for the latter in every instance. There's no incentive not to.
A vote for a third party is a vote for [candidate].
The only people responsible for a candidate winning are the people who voted for that candidate. It doesn't matter whether your candidate lost by a margin of less than some other candidate's votes. It might be a bummer, but as someone whose candidates will likely never win an election, I'm just not sympathetic to that claim. Besides, there are plenty of people who never vote at all- do they all deserve blame as well?
No, they do not deserve the blame. People who refrain from voting probably do so for reasons similar to why I don't vote for popular candidates I don't like- they don't see the point. Maybe they noticed after a few election cycles that no matter who wins, nothing substantial changes. That so many people don't vote is a testament to how little the main candidates bring to the table.
I will end this by saying that if you're putting your faith in either Obama or Romney, you already lost the election. I predict in another four years we'll all still be in the same boat: we'll still be engaged in pointless open-ended war, we'll be deeper in debt, thousands of people will still be imprisoned unjustly, the government will still have it's boot on the throat of our educational system, unemployment will still be high, the entitlement cans will be kicked a little further down the road, the cost of healthcare (and everything else) will continue to rise, and politicians will still be able to make up the rules as they go along.
Come to think of it, maybe all of our votes are wasted.
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.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Asking the Wrong Questions
One of the greatest quotes of all time was written by Thomas Pynchon in his book Gravity's Rainbow:
Examples of wrong questions abound, but a recent example concerns the Obama administration, insurance companies, religious institutions, and birth control (and presumably everyone who buys insurance). The New York Times describes it as "a new rule that requires (read: forces) religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control." But according to the NWLC, such a policy has already been law for over a decade. To me the specifics are vague (intentional?), but they're not as important as Your Favorite News Source would have you believe. All you need to know is this: the government is going to use its police to force some group of people to do what the group doesn't want to do, ostensibly for some common good.
The rhetoric is tired and predictable. People who support the mandate choose to see it as a preventative health issue (in this instance, making it easier to obtain birth control), which is all that's needed to justify the government doing whatever it wants at gunpoint. It's a question of women's health, you see. You're not against women's health, are you?
The most vocal opposition to the mandate comes from religious groups. They object to being forced to pay for things they find incompatible with their beliefs. If it is true that this mandate will force churches et al to directly or indirectly pay for what they find objectionable, then they do have a legitimate complaint. Therefore, the law should be on their side, and that's the angle they should be pushing. But this is almost totally ignored, and instead is portrayed as some sort of an assault on religion. Obama wants to destroy religion, you see. You're not about to let him take away your religious freedom, are you?
See how that goes? Nowhere in there is it asked whether any government (let alone the federal government) should use force (backed by men with guns) to make insurance companies do anything*. And why would they bother asking such a thing? Doing so is clearly not in the interest of the political class. Could you imagine any prominent politician or lapdog pundit on mainstream TV bringing up whether this is even an appropriate use of the awesome force of government? Of course not, because it would only raise more questions about the legitimacy of power, government's role, personal responsibility, individual rights vs. the will of the majority, and much more. But nobody wants to rock that boat.
The truth is that this is not a religious freedom issue or a women's health issue, though it may be paraded around as such. It's also not a preventative care issue, an economic issue, or an employee benefit issue. Like everything else in which the government has the last word, it is (or has now become) just another political issue- to be decided by whichever faction with more political pull at the time.
This is why the issue is framed the way it is. It's designed to get people on board with some political agenda they might not otherwise support. It's much easier to provide people with a false choice and just have them argue over that. That way, whichever position a person comes to adopt, there will always be some politician who will be there to take the credit. And so long as politicians keep getting the credit, they'll continue to be the ones who decide which questions get asked.
*except refrain from using force or fraud.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."The government and the media frame every issue by asking the wrong questions. They do this for two reasons: to try to make sure every viewpoint has a partisan association, and to make sure the right questions are never asked.
Examples of wrong questions abound, but a recent example concerns the Obama administration, insurance companies, religious institutions, and birth control (and presumably everyone who buys insurance). The New York Times describes it as "a new rule that requires (read: forces) religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control." But according to the NWLC, such a policy has already been law for over a decade. To me the specifics are vague (intentional?), but they're not as important as Your Favorite News Source would have you believe. All you need to know is this: the government is going to use its police to force some group of people to do what the group doesn't want to do, ostensibly for some common good.
The rhetoric is tired and predictable. People who support the mandate choose to see it as a preventative health issue (in this instance, making it easier to obtain birth control), which is all that's needed to justify the government doing whatever it wants at gunpoint. It's a question of women's health, you see. You're not against women's health, are you?
The most vocal opposition to the mandate comes from religious groups. They object to being forced to pay for things they find incompatible with their beliefs. If it is true that this mandate will force churches et al to directly or indirectly pay for what they find objectionable, then they do have a legitimate complaint. Therefore, the law should be on their side, and that's the angle they should be pushing. But this is almost totally ignored, and instead is portrayed as some sort of an assault on religion. Obama wants to destroy religion, you see. You're not about to let him take away your religious freedom, are you?
See how that goes? Nowhere in there is it asked whether any government (let alone the federal government) should use force (backed by men with guns) to make insurance companies do anything*. And why would they bother asking such a thing? Doing so is clearly not in the interest of the political class. Could you imagine any prominent politician or lapdog pundit on mainstream TV bringing up whether this is even an appropriate use of the awesome force of government? Of course not, because it would only raise more questions about the legitimacy of power, government's role, personal responsibility, individual rights vs. the will of the majority, and much more. But nobody wants to rock that boat.
The truth is that this is not a religious freedom issue or a women's health issue, though it may be paraded around as such. It's also not a preventative care issue, an economic issue, or an employee benefit issue. Like everything else in which the government has the last word, it is (or has now become) just another political issue- to be decided by whichever faction with more political pull at the time.
This is why the issue is framed the way it is. It's designed to get people on board with some political agenda they might not otherwise support. It's much easier to provide people with a false choice and just have them argue over that. That way, whichever position a person comes to adopt, there will always be some politician who will be there to take the credit. And so long as politicians keep getting the credit, they'll continue to be the ones who decide which questions get asked.
*except refrain from using force or fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)