Finally, a holiday I can take seriously. We should all use Milton Friedman Day as an opportunity to reflect on the importance of freedom (choice) in our lives, and look for all the ways in which our freedom to choose has eroded over time.

Crimnals use many tools to aid in the commission of crime. One such tool, apparently, is body armor. New York has decided to do something about it.

Prohibits the purchase or sale of protective body vests except to law enforcement or military personnel; provides for registering of such sales by vendors; establishes unlawful purchase or sale of a body vest as a class A misdemeanor.

. . .JUSTIFICATION : Body vests are utilized as a component of law enforcement uniforms as well as for military personnel. They are designed to protect police officers, peace officers and military personnel from the gun fire of suspects or other acts of gun crime. In many communities throughout the state, law enforcement officials have seen a rise in the sale of body vests to protect drug dealers and other criminals as they conduct their illegal activity. By wearing a body vest criminals pose a larger threat to law enforcement because they are more likely to flee the scene of a crime or in some cases, fire upon law enforcement. It has been brought to the attention of the Legislature by district attorneys and law enforcement officials that a rise in the sale and distribution of body vests is occurring amongst drug dealers and others involved in the regular commission of crimes. This bill attempts to protect our law enforcement officials by preventing criminals from obtaining body vests thereby making them more dangerous and more difficult to apprehend.

The justification is a lot longer than it needs to be. All it really says is that body armor makes commission of certain crimes easier and therefore should be disallowed. But is that enough to justify restricting the freedoms of all citizens? No, it’s not.

Criminals use knives to stab people. Drug dealers use cars to shoot people in drive-bys who have crossed them. Other criminals also use cars to flee a scene, such as bank robberies where bags are also used to stuff stolen money in. Cell phones can be used to watch for the police and warn other criminals of their proximity. By this justification, all these items should be banned.

I know what some of you want to say. “What about the fact that nobody really needs to use body armor, while all those other things have legitimate uses?” First of all, no where does the bill attempt to assess whether or not body armor has significant “legitimate” uses outside of criminal activity. As far as we can tell from the content of the legislation, no such consideration was ever made. The closest it came was in its self serving definition of body armor as something only police and military use. But this is not an argument, this is assuming the conclusion. Even if they did address the issue, however, the mere act of attempting to determine what items have and do not have “legitimate” uses is itself an abridgment of freedom. That decision, ultimately, should reside with the individual.

If I’m traveling to a dangerous country, I may wish to purchase body armor as a precaution. If I have significant reason to fear an attempt on my life, I might wish to protect myself in public. Or, even if I were merely crazy and paranoid, the option to purchase body armor should still be mine.

But not only does this bill fail to adhere to American principles, it has no practical chance of accomplishing its stated purpose. If you outlaw body armor, only outlaws will have body armor. Do we really expect drug dealers and other major criminals to care about racking up one more misdemeanor? Sure, criminalizing the sale of armor will make it harder for criminals to acquire it, but ultimately all it will do is make it cost a little bit more as they turn to alternative sources. Meanwhile, the rest of New York’s citizens find themselves less one choice and out a little more freedom, as the list of prohibited actions continues to grow all for a goal that is unlikely to be achieved.

Hat tip: Moonbattery

A Chicago group is claiming that area homelessness is higher than previously recorded, because “invisible” groups of homeless, living with friends and relatives, were not counted by City Hall.

Chicago’s nightly homeless population stands at 21,078 – nearly four times higher than the count compiled by City Hall – because of an “invisible” group that includes those “doubled up” with relatives and friends, homeless advocates said today.

The city’s last homeless census – on Jan. 27, 2005 – counted 6,715 people.

. . .The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless conducted its more exhaustive count in conjunction with the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Using Chicago Board of Education figures of the 8,461 students living “doubled up” in the homes of family and friends, they counted 21,078 homeless on any given night with just 22 percent of them served in shelters.

Students living with friends and family while attending school are not homeless. Nobody wants to have to rely on friends and family for shelter, but sometimes it has to be done. Living in such a state is a far cry from homelessness. Thankfully, the city has rejected this redefinition of homelessness.

I think this issue reflects a larger philosophical disagreement. Small government advocates tend to believe that government should be used as a last ditch solution to problems. If someone is homeless, they should look to friends and family for help first, and only if none can be provided should they be assisted.

Statists, on the other hand, discount altogether that there can even be a solution that does not involve government. Thus, someone who has a place to live thanks to the generosity of friends or relatives is illogically considered “homeless.” Not to do so would be an acknowledgment that problems can be solved without government, an idea which could spell doom to their candidates if it ever caught on, and therefore must be resisted.

The group even went so far as to argue that living “doubled-up” must be counted because it is “unstable” and “insecure”. To these people a person who has legitimate concerns about their future must immediately succor at the big government teat, as the very worry itself – regardless of whether or not the cause of concern ever comes to fruition – is itself a reflection of society’s failure and the need for government intervention. This view is as dangerous as it is naive.

It seems some people are still capable of resisting complainers.

The Georgia Board of Education voted Thursday to uphold a local school board’s decision to leave Harry Potter books on library shelves despite a mother’s objections.

The board members voted without discussion to back the Gwinnett County school board’s decision to deny Laura Mallory’s request to remove the best-selling books.

Mallory, who has three children in elementary school, has worked for more than a year to ban the books from Gwinnett schools, claiming the books try to indoctrinate children in witchcraft.

“It’s mainstreaming witchcraft in a subtle and deceptive manner, in a children-friendly format,” said Mallory, who is considering a legal challenge of the board’s ruling. “The kind of stuff in these books–murder and greed and violence. Why do they have to read them in school?”

Waaaah waaaaaaah waaaah. It’s a children’s book; a school library is a wholly appropriate place for Harry Potter books to be found. There are plenty of good lessons to be found in the series, including the value of standing up for what is right as this board has done.

Washington D.C. apparently has a problem. It seems their street vendors offer a shockingly low number of choices, according to this WaPo article. Simply knowing this fact, it was immediately clear to me that the cause must be government. And sure enough, it is.

In New York City, street vendors sell goat-meat tacos, sour-plum slushes, mini egg rolls, chocolate egg creams and crepes — and that just covers the food. In the District, the choice often comes down to hot dogs and handbags.

Not everyone is happy with the paltry pickings. D.C. officials are unveiling an overhaul of this monotonous landscape over the next year and a half. They are blunt about what they feel is a big yawn, a pox on Washington’s image.

If it’s up to “officials” to do anything in order to provide the goods the public wants from the private sector, that means – without fail – that those same “officials” are the ones that created the problem in the first place.

. . .In 1998, the District was a lively bazaar with 3,000 vendors working the streets. Too lively: Spots were filled each day, first-come first-served, and fistfights broke out among vendors vying for prime locations. Some landed in jail.

. . .The scene got so out of hand that the D.C. Council slapped a moratorium on new vending licenses. The number of vendors plunged to 650 in eight years, largely through attrition, before the moratorium ended last month.

Vendors nowadays are fairly evenly split between sellers of merchandise and food. The lack of variety in offerings is due in part to the moratorium, Robinson said. With no new licenses issued, “they haven’t had any competition.”

FOX Television, CBS, NBC File Arguments in First Amendment Case Against FCC

The government is violating the First Amendment by embarking on a “radical reinterpretation and expansion” of its power to punish broadcasters for indecent speech, a federal court was told Wednesday by FOX Television Stations Inc.

FOX, CBS Broadcasting Inc., NBC Universal Inc. and NBC Telemundo License Co. are suing the Federal Communications Commission, challenging the way the agency metes out punishment for airing shows that contain profanity. FOX filed formal arguments in a federal appeals court in New York. Later in the day, CBS and NBC also filed briefs.

The New York case is proceeding at the same time as a separate CBS challenge in a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, where the network is protesting an FCC fine over the partial disrobing of pop star Janet Jackson during a Super Bowl halftime show.

In contrast to the Jackson case, FOX is challenging what it calls an unprecedented campaign by federal regulators to punish broadcasters for airing “unintentional and isolated expletives” during broadcasts.

“The result is the end of truly live television and a gross expansion of the FCC’s intrusion into the creative and editorial process,” FOX argued in its court filing.

The FCC offers a prime example of unnecessary government regulation. They shouldn’t be handing out any punishments for profanity. There are ample ways for consumers to express a desire for profanity free television, if that is what they desire, without the interference of government. Free markets tend to work best when they are free, believe it or not.