BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Author Archive

Thursday

24

May 2012

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Anonymous Commenting Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government

Is anonymous internet posting a good thing?  There’s plenty of room to debate the question, weighing the potentially negative impact it has had on civility in political debate and society in general, versus the benefits of encouraging more speech and protecting people from retaliation for expressing their views. But just because something might be said to be harmful, doesn’t mean government ought to have a role in doing anything about it. This is one of those cases, though a number of New York Republicans seem to disagree:

Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.

If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.

An anonymous comment could remain if the author “agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

This awful idea is an affront to the very notion of free speech, and Wired humorously but devastatingly notes that this legislation would have banned the pseudonymous Federalist Papers from being distributed online.

The arguments given by the bills supporters are the legislative equivalent of burning down a house to kill termites. Consider this:

Republican state Assemblyman Jim Conte praised the legislation, writing that it would eliminate “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks that add nothing to the real debate.”

The legislation would “demand that those who spread rumor, conjecture or outright lies online be willing to come forward and defend the comments they post,” Republican Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney added. “We, as a society, have never expected anything less when potentially harmful words are put into print.”

But there are already satisfactory remedies to all of these supposed problems. The answer to bad speech is good speech. Mean-spirited and baseless attacks can be countered with fact-based rebuttals. Harmful lies, meanwhile, are covered under slander and libel laws, and even anonymous users can today be compelled to be revealed if they cross legal lines. There is, in other words, no rational basis for the legislation even if we ignore the issue of its unconstitutional and liberty-restricting nature.

Wednesday

23

May 2012

0

COMMENTS

Joe Biden's Imagination

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Joe Biden says to “imagine where we’d be if the Tea Party hadn’t taken control of the House of Representatives.”

Thanks to new, cutting edge technology I have tapped into Joe’s brain and extracted just such imagination in lyrical form:

Imagine there’s no Tea Party,
It’s easy if you try.
No investigations for us,
Our only limits are the sky.
Imagine all the Keynesians
Spending for today.

Imagine there’s no elections,
It isn’t hard to do.
Nobody to elect or vote for,
And no Constitution too.
Imagine all the bureaucrats
Dictating life in peace.

You may say Old Joe’s a socialist,
But I’m not the only one.
Someday you’ll be forced to join us,
And the Party will be as one.

Imagine no free choices,
I wonder if you can.
No need for self-reliance,
Julia’s life is in our hands.
Imagine all the people,
Sharing Obama’s stash.

You may say I’m a schemer,
But I’m not the only one.
I know someday you’ll join us,
And we’ll all worship The One.

Thursday

17

May 2012

2

COMMENTS

Obama Makes History

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

There’s been lots of talk regarding the discovery that the White House website has appended pro-Obama propaganda to the official biography of numerous past Presidents. Included among the chatter has been well deserved and extremely funny mockery.

The consensus has been that this is another example of Obama’s narcissism. And while I largely consider him the most narcissistic president in our nation’s history (though I don’t profess to be a presidential historian, and have only personally lived under a few administrations), it isn’t my biggest takeaway from the story. In fact, it’s unlikely the President even had knowledge of the additions before they happened. At least, I can’t imagine a President being involved in such minutia, but I’ve also never occupied nor worked in the White House.

What concerns me is the continued parallels, this being yet another in a long line of examples, between the whole apparatus surrounding Obama – his campaign and followers – and the behavior of tyrants. A common feature of dictatorships, for instance, is the erosion of the line between the individual leader and the state, and even the nation. He is the state. He is the nation. The two cannot be separated. This is why you see the faces of people like Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez plastered all over the place.

The leader’s presence is everywhere, not just within the nation, but also its history. The leader is tied into the very fabric of the nation’s history, often times through out-and-out revisionism, but also in more subtle ways, such as through carefully crafted narratives, either embellished or outright falsified, whereby the leader’s story becomes an archetype for the social and cultural values of his people.

Obama, in his attitudes toward governance, his policy preferences and the disposition of his followers, resembles more the typical South American strongman than an American Chief Executive. I do not worry that Obama is going to become a dictator in any real sense of the word, but the willingness of a certain sect of the population, namely his most ardent followers, to not only so readily accept these attitudes but to gleefully propagate them through their own initiative is concerning. It is not entirely surprising, as they are the folks who already ideologically lean toward collectivism, but it nonetheless highlights a disturbing strain of political thought in this country, and ought to remind us that freedom is only ever a generation away from extinction.

Sunday

13

May 2012

1

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Distracted Walking Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The old joke says that blondes can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, but the government of Fort Lee, N.J. might soon be taking it seriously if their new law is anything to go by. After all, they take a rather dim view of the capabilities of their citizens:

Avid texters beware: Fort Lee, N.J. police said they will begin issuing $85 jaywalking tickets to pedestrians who are caught texting while walking.

“It’s a big distraction. Pedestrians aren’t watching where they are going and they are not aware,” said Thomas Ripoli, chief of the Fort Lee Police Department.

Ripoli said the borough, which is home to approximately 35,000 residents, has suffered three fatal pedestrian-involved accidents this year. He hopes his crackdown on people who display dangerous behavior while walking will make his town safer…

They even pulled out the big guns, grabbing some hotshot college aca-deem-ics to “study” the problem.

Two professors at Stony Brook University in New York conducted a study on walking and texting. They found texters are 60 percent more likely to veer off line than non-texters.

I’m glad they settled the important question of whether people who don’t look where they are going are more likely not to walk straight. It was keeping me up all night.

Three pedestrians got themselves killed this year. Tragic, no doubt, but not cause for legislative action. First of all, how many pedestrians normally get killed? Were those three even on their phones? Alas, there was no real journalist around to ask the question.

This sort of social micro-management is unbecoming a free society, and probably has more to do with police budget shortfalls than an earnest effort to protect people. And even if it were born of good intentions, protecting people from themselves is no business of government. It is a waste of police resources to be nagging citizens into self-awareness.

Friday

11

May 2012

0

COMMENTS

Democrat Brad Miller Cheers JP Morgan Loses

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government

JP Morgan Chase lost a lot of money – $2 billion, in fact. This is big news to financial markets, and JP Morgan’s customers, but in a free society you wouldn’t expect the political class to care too much about the individual ups and downs of private companies. Yet Democrats are already pouncing on the episode to push bigger government, and Representative Brad Miller was particularly blunt in his expressing his glee, posting the following to his Facebook page:

In the article he links he is quoted as saying:

“The gigantic size of megabanks, and the perception in the marketplace that they are too big for the government ever to permit to fail, gives them an unfair competitive advantage over smaller financial institutions that distorts the market and discourages competition.” said Miller. “The lack of competition in the banking industry, in turn, leads to ever-higher levels of risk in the system.”

Here’s a thought. If the problem is the perception that banks will be bailed out, then stop bailing them out. But Brad Miller and the big government interventionists can’t say no. That’s a government problem, not a banking problem.

The article also says his legislation would “set a series of caps on the size and reach of the nation’s ‘megabanks.'” Given the glee with which politicians seek to kneecap any business that stands too tall, how about “a series of caps on the size and reach of the nation’s” federal government, instead?

Monday

7

May 2012

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Cookie Police Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The nannies in Massachusetts are on a sugar-hating kick, picking on that most popular of targets in recent years – so-called junk food:

Bake sales, the calorie-laden standby cash-strapped classrooms, PTAs and booster clubs rely on, will be outlawed from public schools as of Aug. 1 as part of new no-nonsense nutrition standards, forcing fundraisers back to the blackboard to cook up alternative ways to raise money for kids.

At a minimum, the nosh clampdown targets so-called “competitive” foods — those sold or served during the school day in hallways, cafeterias, stores and vending machines outside the regular lunch program, including bake sales, holiday parties and treats dished out to reward academic achievement. But state officials are pushing schools to expand the ban 24/7 to include evening, weekend and community events such as banquets, door-to-door candy sales and football games.

The heavy-handed, paternalistic rules are bad enough, but what really irks me is this mentality:

State Sen. Susan Fargo (D-Lincoln), chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Public Health, said the problem of overweight children has reached “crisis” proportions.

“If we didn’t have so many kids that were obese, we could have let things go,” Fargo said.

“But,” she added, “this is a major public health problem and these kids deserve a chance at a good, long healthy life.”

No, obesity is not a “public health problem,” it is an individual health problem. Public health problems exist when one persons sickness can make me sick or unhealthy. But one person being fat has no impact whatsoever on whether or not I am fat.

There is a related problem where I am expected to bear the cost of another’s health choices, but that doesn’t make it a public health issue, that just makes inherently unfair regulations requiring some to subsidize the healthcare of others, even when the cause of the need for care is based on choice.

What State Sen. Susan Fargo (D-Lincoln), chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Public Health, is doing is using one set of boneheaded policies put in place by people like State Sen. Susan Fargo (D-Lincoln), chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Public Health, in order to justify a further collectivized society, and more power in the hands of people like State Sen. Susan Fargo (D-Lincoln), chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Public Health. Funny how that works.

Friday

4

May 2012

2

COMMENTS

Nancy Pelosi Blows the Whistle

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

The dog whistle, that is:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants President Barack Obama to lay off the weed.

Reacting to an ongoing crackdown on medical marijuana facilities in California, Pelosi said in a Wednesday statement, “I have strong concerns about the recent actions by the federal government that threaten the safe access of medicinal marijuana to alleviate the suffering of patients in California.”

The California Democrat said that medical marijuana is “both a medical and a states’ rights issue.

States’ rights? States’ rights? Doesn’t Nancy know that invoking states’ rights is dog-whistle racism? Or so the left tells us anytime someone on the right points at that, no, the federal government cannot just do whatever it wants and, yes, states do have sovereignty over some areas in which the federal government has no authority.

Nancy Pelosi is actually right for once; the federal government is grossly overstepping its bounds in pursuit of the “drug war.” And I should point out that “states’ rights” is actually a misnomer, as only people have rights. States have sovereignty. Regardless, since she is using the language of the racist small-government types, I am eagerly awaiting* the usual leftist uproar directed at the former Speaker.

*And by eagerly awaiting, I mean not holding my breath.

Tuesday

1

May 2012

6

COMMENTS

Everyone is Wrong on Student Loans

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Education, Free Markets

In an otherwise decent speech where he called out the Democrats’ political gamesmanship, Speaker Boehner said that, “Nobody wants to see student loan interest rates go up.” It’s certainly true that the entire political class is united on continuing to subsidize borrowing for higher education, but last time I checked there are more people in existence than just politicians. I, for one, want to see student loan interest rates go up.

I have nothing against student loans, the students who borrow them, or the general idea of borrowing money to receive an education that is expected to provide greater future value than the costs. But the reality is that many today are borrowing more than they can afford and which isn’t justified by the value added.

The federal government is the biggest supplier of student loans, accounting for 90% of all borrowing in the 2010-2011 academic year. Because they are heavily subsidized, student loan interest rates are lower than would otherwise be offered by the market, which means students are taking out more and bigger loans than they otherwise would. This is the intended effect of the policy, but is it a good one?

One result has been skyrocketing tuition costs, as colleges simply raise tuition rates to capture any increases in government financial aid. As the below chart from Dr. Mark J. Perry shows, college tuition growth has considerably outpaced medical care and home prices over the last 30 years.

While the costs of obtaining a degree have ballooned, their value has plummeted. As degrees become increasingly common, their usefulness in signaling diminishes. Degree-holders just aren’t as special anymore, and having a degree no longer conveys the same kind of information to potential employers as it used to.

Meanwhile, the actual educational benefit of obtaining a degree are also decreasing. Colleges are increasingly failing to teach the most basic knowledge and skills, opting instead for obscure courses focusing on identity politics and which have little to no practical value in the real world.

All the trends point toward a massive higher-ed bubble, and with an ever growing number not paying off their loans it’s likely to blow up in taxpayers’ faces.

What exactly the necessary steps are to reverse these trends, I do not know. Part of it is political, and involves removing federal distortions from the lending market. But part of it is cultural. Many see college attendance not as a time to take in as much knowledge as possible, but a rite of social passage that requires doing in excess all manner of social activities. It would be a good start if society – whether it be parents, teachers, politicians or popular culture – stops mindlessly repeating the trope that everyone must go to college. Universities were not designed for everyone, and not everyone will benefit meaningfully from the experience. Some would be better off in trade school, others in the work force gaining an extra 4 years of experience on their peers, while some are simply ready to strike out on their own. But whatever it takes to resolve the issue, this is a major problem that is only going to become increasingly salient for both society and the political class.

Friday

27

April 2012

2

COMMENTS

Stabbing Rampage Halted By Gun Owner

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights

While nannies like Michael Bloomberg continue to wage war on the Second Amendment, guns are saving lives (Hat-tip: All American Blogger):

A man stabbed two people at the Smith’s Marketplace grocery store in downtown Salt Lake City before being subdued by a bystander.

…According to a witness, it appears one man was stabbed in the side of the head and another was stabbed in the stomach. The exact condition of the victims is unknown, but police believe the injuries are very serious and possibly critical.

…Police say a bystander with a concealed carry permit witnessed the attack and stepped in to keep it from escalating.

“(The bystander) was suspicious of what might be going on, and when he saw the stabbing, he just drew his pistol and challenged the individual,” which caused the alleged attacker to lie down on the ground, said Salt Lake City police officer Brian Purvis.

How many more victims there would have been if not for this gun-toting bystander, we can never know. But one thing I know for certain is that you won’t see this story get any significant play at the national level, as it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Saturday

21

April 2012

0

COMMENTS

Freedom and Social Engineering Don’t Mix

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government

Slate reports on Sweden’s radical move toward gender-neutrality:

Many are pushing for the Nordic nation to be not simply gender-equal but gender-neutral. The idea is that the government and society should tolerate no distinctions at all between the sexes. This means on the narrow level that society should show sensitivity to people who don’t identify themselves as either male or female, including allowing any type of couple to marry. But that’s the least radical part of the project. What many gender-neutral activists are after is a society that entirely erases traditional gender roles and stereotypes at even the most mundane levels.

…Earlier this month, the movement for gender neutrality reached a milestone: Just days after International Women’s Day a new pronoun, hen (pronounced like the bird in English), was added to the online version of the country’s National Encyclopedia. The entry defines hen as a “proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon].”The National Encyclopedia announcement came amid a heated debate about gender neutrality that has been raging in Swedish newspaper columns and TV studios and on parenting blogs and feminist websites…

Hen was first mentioned by Swedish linguists in the mid-1960s, and then in 1994 the late linguist Hans Karlgren suggested adding hen as a new personal pronoun, mostly for practical reasons. Karlgren was trying to avoid the awkward he/she that gums up writing, and invent a single word “that enables us to speak of a person without specifying their gender. He argued that it could improve the Swedish language and make it more nuanced.

Today’s hen champions, however, have a distinctly political agenda…

The Swedish school system has wholeheartedly, and probably too quickly and eagerly, embraced this new agenda. Last fall, 200 teachers attended a major government-sponsored conference discussing how to avoid “traditional gender patterns” in schools. At Egalia, one model Stockholm preschool, everything from the decoration to the books and toys are carefully selected to promote a gender-equal perspective and to avoid traditional presentations of gender and parenting roles…

Ironically, in the effort to free Swedish children from so-called normative behavior, gender-neutral proponents are also subjecting them to a whole set of new rules and new norms as certain forms of play become taboo, language becomes regulated, and children’s interactions and attitudes are closely observed by teachers. One Swedish school got rid of its toy cars because boys “gender-coded” them and ascribed the cars higher status than other toys. Another preschool removed “free playtime” from its schedule because, as a pedagogue at the school put it, when children play freely “stereotypical gender patterns are born and cemented. In free play there is hierarchy, exclusion, and the seed to bullying.” And so every detail of children’s interactions gets micromanaged by concerned adults, who end up problematizing minute aspects of children’s lives, from how they form friendships to what games they play and what songs they sing.

As a philosophical conservative I place value on tradition, or the social roles and institutions that have developed over time. I am not resistant to change per se, but think it should be largely endogenous and happen gradually. I also see political systems, which necessarily operate on the principle of force, as existing outside civil society, which is governed by voluntary interaction. Therefore, I naturally resist the exogenous nature of social change as directed by government.

But I have more than just philosophical objections to this sort of meddling. There are also very practical concerns. Namely, it necessarily means a loss of freedom.

In order to force change on society, government must discourage the old behavior while also encouraging the new. The more entrenched the behavior, and I can’t really think of anything with a deeper foundation in human society than gender roles, the more discouragement tends to become suppression and encouragement force. The last paragraph above provides examples.

Social engineering necessarily diminishes freedom. The greater the change desired, the greater the loss of freedom required. For that reason alone, Sweden’s experiment is one I would consider dangerous and unwelcome.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives