BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Author Archive

Monday

19

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

McCain’s Campaign Finance Ignorance

Written by , Posted in Election Time, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

John McCain was on Meet the Press Sunday and used the opportunity to bash the Citizens United decision that struck down his anti-free speech “campaign finance reform” legislation. He claimed that this election is unusually negative – a similar claim that was made in 2008 and which I suspect he will make in ever single election until such time as he succeed in limited free speech – and blamed that observation on Super PACs and the Supreme Court for “unloosening” all money.

In so doing, he has confirmed that he is completely ignorant about the issue which he has made his most important, and in particular what the Supreme Court ruled. According to analysis from the Sunlight Foundation, the Super PACs which McCain blames for the perceived level of negativity have received 70% of their contribution from individuals, not the corporations and unions which were the subject of the Citizens United decision. In other words, John McCain doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Related Update: Reason offers Five Ways Citizens United Is Making Politics Better, including “competitive campaigns, funnier ads and greater freedom of speech.”

Thursday

15

March 2012

3

COMMENTS

The United States of Obama

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

So lots of folks are talking about this story out of Florida:

An American flag with President Obama’s image in place of the stars flew over a Florida county’s Democrat headquarters long enough to enrage local veterans who called the altered banner “a disgrace.”

Lake County Democratic Party officials took down the flag, which flew just below a standard Old Glory on the flagpole outside headquarters in Tavares following complaints by local veterans. But merely taking it down wasn’t enough for several local veterans, who said they fought for the flag Betsy Ross made famous, not one with a politician on it.

“It’s absolutely disrespectful,” Jim Bradford, a 71-year-old veteran who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion told FoxNews.com. “It’s totally ridiculous. To put somebody’s picture there, to me, it’s a disgrace to do that.”

Nor is this necessarily the first time, but it is probably the most blatantly disrespectful.

I pledge allegiance to Barack, of the United States of Obama

This strikes me as a similar sort of political idolatry typical in dictatorships, albeit not as intense. Whether it be Saddam’s Iraq, Chavez’s Venezuala, Kim’s North Korea, or countless other contemporary and historical examples, folks living in a tyrannical society typically cannot escape the visage of their beloved leaders. This is not to say that Obama is or will be a dictator, but the parallels raise interesting questions.

The practice seems particularly common among leftwing dictatorships, though not exclusively so, whether they be communist or populist. Still, I wonder why this is and have come up with an hypothesis of sorts.

A common trait among most leftwing ideologies is a rejection of individualism for collective identity. The self is not the most important identity, the community is and it is typically represented by the state. But while the state may be the most important identity, they are hard to identify with at an emotional level. Enter the charismatic leader.

The leader provides a human face to represent the state, itself representing the community. The people can then emotionally adopt the leader as identity, since they have none of their own. This is why these leaders are capable of being so intensely loved by many while also being so cruel. Once you’ve made that emotional investment, the leader becomes unquestionable.

It is disturbing to see any folks, however many they may be, look at Obama in this light. He is not the state, and the state is not, or ought not be, our identity. We are free individuals.

Tuesday

13

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

We’re All Gonna Die! Pt. 40

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

We’re all going to die…from too much arctic ice!

So much for an ice-free Arctic. Henry Hudson’s long-ago dream of a Northwest Passage that would link England to the Orient by sea will have to wait another century as Mother Earth gives him the cold shoulder. Again.

From Real Science: “1979 was the peak year for Arctic ice, yet 2012 has more ice around Greenland and Alaska than 1979 did.”

Same date satellite data seems to show that Iceland and everywhere else is iced over this year when they were feeling a little green 33 years ago.

Okay, this one is a cheat; unlike all the other posts in the We’re All Gonna Die! series which feature actual hysterical claims of doom, this is not an end times prediction.  This is actually an anti-doom story. But this did seem like a good time to make that nice, round number 40th post in the series, highlighting yet more evidence that ought to shame the doom-mongers.

Of course, if history is any guide, it’s only a matter of time before the excessive ice of global cooling becomes the new melting ice of global warming (which is itself the new global cooling, which I guess will then make global cooling the new global cooling – oh what a tangled web of hysteria we weave!).

Monday

12

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

Obama Wants Government in Charge of Internet Privacy

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Free Markets

The Obama administration recently announced an effort to regulate internet privacy. The plan, labeled a “consumer privacy bill of rights” and ostensibly voluntary, seeks to put federal bureaucrats in charge of enforcing the privacy standards of internet companies such as Google and Facebook.

Using his go-to rhetoric when looking to expand government powers, the President said that Americans “can’t wait any longer for clear rules of the road that ensure their personal information is safe online,” and pledged to act with or without Congressional action. The President seems to think that all of society does nothing but sit around and “wait” for him to devise a solution to every problem. His latest attempt at playing savior thus represents yet another in a long line of government overreaches into the private sector.

In touting his initiative, the President observes that, “For businesses to succeed online, consumers must feel secure.” Does the President really imagine that internet businesses would have no interest in succeeding without his heavy hand to direct them? Or does he merely think that his extensive expertise at growing a business makes him better qualified than the successful entrepreneurs who have pioneered the internet? Oh right, he has no such expertise.

At the heart of the proposal is the apparent belief that consumers are helpless without government oversight, but the exact opposite is true. Without any direction from government, there already exist numerous tools  for protecting privacy on the internet. When individuals and businesses in a free society see a problem, they devise solutions all on their own without government direction, such as browser addons to track the trackers and anonymous web proxies, to name a couple.

Internet users certainly have good reason to distrust internet giants Google or Facebook when it comes to their privacy, but no one is forced to user their services. And while there is certainly room to improve upon existing tools and choices, a centralized privacy regime will hinder, rather than help, the process.

If the President gets his way, internet companies will be subject to FTC oversight on privacy, and will face harsh penalties for noncompliance. Although the program is initially being billed as voluntary, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes mandatory. This proposal is merely an early step toward putting the government in charge of setting the rules for internet commerce. Such a centralized approach will necessarily inhibit creativity by forcing everyone into a single system. Consumers will be robbed of the innovations that would have likely emerged under a more decentralized, competitive environment.

The internet moves at fast pace, one which government is incapable of matching. Federal regulations are cumbersome and inflexible, and by the time rules for today’s technology are developed, tomorrow’s innovations will have rendered them obsolete.

Internet privacy is important. It’s just far too important to leave up to government bureaucrats.

Friday

9

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

Google Fined for Being Too Useful

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

In the world of big government, providing something of use to consumers is to be frowned upon:

Google has been ordered to pay a fine and damages to a French mapping company after a court ruled that the search giant was guilty of unfair competition and “undercutting competitors” by making its Google Maps program free.

According to Agence France Presse (AFP), Bottin Cartographes, a French mapping company that provides essentially the same service as Google Maps for a fee – brought a suit claiming that Google was “abusing” its dominant position by making its service free.

Google’s strategy is, apparently, to undercut competitors by “temporarily swallowing the full cost until it gains control of the market,” AFP reported.

A Paris-based commercial court agreed with Bottin Cartographes and ordered Google to pay 500,000 euro (£415,000) damages to Bottin Cartographes, as well as a fine of 15,000 euro (£12,500).

“We proved the illegality of Google’s strategy to remove its competitors,” said Jean-David Scemmama, Bottin Cartographes’ lawyer. “The court recognised the unfair and abusive character of the methods used and allocated Bottin Cartographes all it claimed.”

This sort of thing is hardly unique to France. The US as very similar, and similarly stupid, laws on the books. But this case really puts the lie to advocates of protectionist policies who claim they are for the consumer. They are not. They are for shafting the consumer.

Look at the language they use and how deceptive is. They mask their protectionist, anti-consumer agenda under the rhetoric of competition. But this has nothing to do with competition. If you assume their logic to be true (which is unwarranted, as there as been zero indication that Google ever intends to charge for Google Maps), there will still always be competitive pressure. So long as another firm can enter the market at any time to offer a competing service, Google will have to offer market competitive prices. The only way to perpetually keep out competition is either to use the force of government, or to perpetually price below market – in other words, by keeping it free. How in the world is the latter possibly a bad thing for consumers, the economy or society?

Thursday

8

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

A Tale of Two (Demolished) Cities

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

This video by Economic Freedom highlights the work done to rebuild Joplin, Missouri after it was hit by an EF5 tornado last May.

Economics professor Daniel J. Smith says in the video:

I think one of the key factors in the recovery process in Joplin, from the tornado, is that the government officials allowed the community to start rebuilding itself. I think Joplin is a great example of the power of people—free people—coming together and both using profit motive, in the businesses, using religious reasons for faith-based organizations, and just concern for your fellow man, in the community-based organizations, to rebuild a disaster stricken community.

Now contrast that with this news report from 2007, over 2 years after Katrina hit:

There are many reasons for the slow pace of rebuilding, including antagonism between state and federal officials, and the difficulty some local leaders have had deciding exactly what to rebuild and where and how. New Orleans, in particular, released a detailed rebuilding plan only in October, and City Hall often appears understaffed and overwhelmed.

But increasingly, critics are pointing to flaws in the process the Federal Emergency Management Agency uses to pay for repairs under the “public assistance” program.

Intricate, inflexible and open-ended, the process seems to value perfect paperwork over speedy resolutions, local officials here say, and requires endless haggling over every acoustic ceiling tile and paper-towel dispenser.

“The staggering amount of time and effort and cost associated with this is just phenomenal,” said Robert W. Becker, the chief executive of City Park, which is about one and a half times the size of Central Park in New York City. “We could have made so much more progress if we had a different process.” In the meantime, Mr. Becker has been working out of a trailer.

The scale of the disasters are much different, but I think there are informative comparisons to be made. Nevertheless, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

Thursday

8

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

The Mentality of an Obama Voter

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Waste & Government Reform

Illustrating why “government welfare” and “safety net” are not actually synonymous:

Amanda Clayton, a 24-year-old from Lincoln Park, Michigan … won $1 million from the Michigan State Lottery this fall, but she is still collecting and using $200 a month in food assistance from the taxpayers with her Michigan Bridge Card.

“I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was okay because I’m not working,” the lottery winner who just purchased a new house and car told Local 4 in Detroit. The station even filmed her shamelessly purchasing goods.

When Local 4 asked if she felt she had a right to the money, Clayton responded, “I mean I kinda do.”

Clayton justified the sentiment by explaining that after taking her winnings in a lump sum and having to pay taxes, the total amount was just over half of the initial winnings.

“I feel that it’s okay because I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay,” she said. “I have two houses.”

Like so many words, the left has managed to hijack and radically redefine what it means to be “greedy.” Rational people see Amanda Clayton as a greedy, selfish leech who offers no value to society. But if you dare speak up and suggest that people who work and provide actual value to society shouldn’t be punished with higher taxes to pay for yet more programs subsidizing despicable human beings like Amanda Clayton, why you’re just a greedy SOB who refuses to pay your fair share!

Tuesday

6

March 2012

2

COMMENTS

“Go to hell Barack.”

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Thus concludes an advertisement currently running in the DC metro system.

The horror!

Naturally, the perpetually outraged are full of…well, outrage. Rep. Moran is throwing a conniption, while Metro manager Richard Sarles is not only “deeply offended,” but finds it “unfortunate” that the language in the ad is not recognized as an exemption to the First Amendment. You see, Metro is a state sponsored enterprise, and as such can’t go around rejecting political advertisements just because someone’s panties got twisted.

In fact, I’m rather tickled by the whole situation. We have here a government run transportation system known for its absolutely awful service that is whining about having to run an ad against a soon-to-be government run health care system.

Saturday

3

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

Australia Looks to Regulate Media, Blogs

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Although local to Australia, this news illustrates a useful point. First, the story:

PRINT and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.

…The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.

…Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled “seriously dopey” by one site operator.

The head of the review, former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, rejected industry warnings against setting up a new regulator under federal law with funding from government.

…”There must be some effective means of raising standards of journalism and of making the media publicly accountable,” the report said. “What the media have lost sight of is that they accepted the idea of press regulation by having set up the APC to make a positive contribution to the development of journalistic standards.

Yes, this is an outrageous assault on the universal principle of free speech. Granting government this kind of authority is, simply put, a recipe for tyrannical disaster. But even beyond the specific issue at hand, the statement in the last paragraph above is particularly myopic.

Where does this idea come from that accountability can only come from political processes? Public accountability is provided by free market competition. There is no stronger mechanism for accountability than the ability of citizens to choose which products they do or do not consume. Political processes, which are vulnerable to corruption and favoritism, are hardly more rigorous.

The last sentence is equally fallacious. If you look carefully at the structure of his sentence, you can see the speaker deliberately hiding the nature of his argument. He speaks of “press regulation,” but not of who is regulating. Self-regulation is not the same as government regulation. The APC, or Australian Press Council, is an industry created and funded body. Its mere existence, regardless of its level of efficacy, is in no way a concession that government should be involved, and it certainly doesn’t resolve the problem of giving government power over media. A free media is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restraining the power and abuses of any government. This initiative will make Australian media, and consequently the Australian people, less free. Let’s hope such bad reasoning does not spread to other nations.

Tuesday

28

February 2012

2

COMMENTS

Federalism vs. Eminent Domain

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

The issue of eminent domain and the outrageous Kelo decision are what first drove me to start blogging. The idea that government goons could legally force people off their property for the benefit of private entities was enough to get my blood boiling – and still does. Thankfully, most states reacted to the troubled decision by enacting eminent domain protections, though not all were effective and many problems still remain.

Being debated before Congress today is the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012, a bill with bipartisan support which would prohibit a state “from exercising its power of eminent domain … over property to be used for economic development … if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.” Sounds wonderful, right? Well, not really.

I’ve written many times about both the benefits of federalism and the dangers of granting the federal government the right to use the disbursement of dollars to force states into specific policy choices. Such use of taxpayer money undermines the idea of separate jurisdictions of government authority, and the benefits we derive from it (the separation of powers between state and federal governments is equally as important as that between the executive, legislative and judicial branches), rendering the states as little more than regional magistrates of a central authority on which they are financially dependent. Ideally, the federal government should be sending no money to the states.

Without the jurisdictional competition of federalism, most people would see the majority of political decisions impacting their lives as being made in a far off Capitol completely out of touch with the challenges they face on a daily basis. The bill also “prohibits the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development,” which I wholeheartedly support, but it is not the place of the federal government to force states to do the same. That is the responsibility of the citizens and elected bodies of the respective states.