BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Liberty & Limited Government Archive

Friday

19

September 2014

0

COMMENTS

Is Secession Acceptable Again?

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Liberty & Limited Government

An interesting aspect of yesterday’s vote for Scottish independence is that it has Americans discussing political separation without all the unwanted historical baggage of the Civil War and race relations. That is, there have been substantive discussions even among Americans on the pros and cons of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom (they ultimately voted to stay) without anyone claiming the very idea of secession to be racist, as so often happens when it is considered within the United States.

Even though the Scottish vote resulted in affirmation of the union that forms the United Kingdom, the orderly acceptance of the vote stands in stark contrast to the threats of violence that come in response to even idle talk in the US. Just suggest that a state might leave the union, and you won’t have to wait long for indignant statists to wag their fingers and sarcastically warn about “how well that went last time.” In other words, try to leave the union and they’ll wage war upon you and burn your cities to the ground. In the name of unity, naturally.

If the British, who once fought a war to prevent the American colonies their independence, can agree that they want no unwilling subjects and indicate they would have accepted without bloodshed the will of the Scottish people to secede, then is it not time for Americans to stop threatening violence at long-shot prospects of political separation?

Saturday

30

August 2014

0

COMMENTS

Risks Come in Many Forms

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Gun Rights, Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The New York Times editorial board has some sound advice for Great Britain as it worries about the threat of home grown terrorists. It’s a serious problem, and one which the UK has largely invited on itself through a failed experiment in cultural appeasement that has only served to embolden extremism. Be that as it may, NYT editors are right to warn against overreactions that undermine civil rights by concluding that, “scrapping civil liberties should not be the first line of defense in a democracy.”

Terrorists pose a safety risk, and mitigating that risk should be done with respect to civil liberties rather than trampling them. But there are a great many risks in society, and unfortunately the NYT editorial board fails to consistently apply this principle on other issues. They have no problem curtailing rights for the illusion of security when doing so confirms their ideological biases, such as limiting speech in the name of removing money from politics, or scrapping the Second Amendment in the name of reducing violence.

In fact, just a day before sternly warning the Brits against overreacting to their homegrown extremism problem, the very same New York Times editorial board overreacted to a single gun accident caused by the irresponsibility of parents and an instructor that allowed a young girl who couldn’t handle the weapons and its kickback to shoot an Uzi, ultimately resulting in the instructor’s death. Not only did they use the unusual incident to finger wag at defenders of the Second Amendment and note in horror all the various ways in which gun enthusiasts enjoy their hobby, but they also demanded the restriction of rights in response. Citing a similar incident over half a decade ago (giving indication to  how rare these events are) where a young child accidentally killed himself at a gun range, the NYT editors praised his state of Connecticut for reacting by banning access to certain guns even at gun ranges for those under 16, regardless of the level of supervision, precautions taken, or capabilities of the shooter. They then lamented that there will be no “swift action in Arizona, where the gun culture is deeply entrenched.”

Rights are precarious things. They are at their most vulnerable when the populace is scared. The New York Times recognizes this when it comes to foreign threats, but fails to understand that domestic panics over extremely low risks of harm are just as dangerous.

Tuesday

5

August 2014

0

COMMENTS

Government Accuses Gay Bar of Anti-Gay Discrimination for Enforcing Government ID Requirements

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Identity Politics, Liberty & Limited Government

Government lovers and practitioners of identity politics are eating their own according to Scott Shackford at Reason:

What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano, dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn’t because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn’t match his driver’s license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.

This is an important point. Arbitrary and overzealous enforcement has been a common tactic for government agents to harass certain minority populations, like gay communities. Allowing in customers who do not match their ID is a sure fire way to invite such government harassment.

Equally disturbing is the logic used by the government to determine that there was “discrimination.” The bar, it seems, dares to cater to the interests of a particular subset of the gay community known as “bears,” or burly masculine men who prefer other burly masculine men.

The state’s report notes that the bar has a dress code forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes. While the report states there’s nothing wrong with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or transgender people. The Wrangler is a “bear” bar, whose target demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What’s alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:

“[T]he Respondent caters to a gay subculture known as “Bears,” which are bisexual or gay males which tend to place importance on presenting a hypermasculine image andoften shun interaction with men who exhibit effeminacy. This is evident from the pictures and statements made by employees regarding the “Bear” culture of the club and several links on the Respondent’s webpage referencing “Bear” clubs … .”

Emphasis added by me because WT-bloody-F? You know what gay people love? Having the government tell them how their various subcultures work and think on the basis of talking to a bunch of people at a bar and looking at pictures. The preference for dating or friendship with certain types of people is not the same as “shunning” other types of people. And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.

In a truly free and diverse society, outlets meeting niche needs would be welcomed along side those serving a more general population. But in a world of degenerative Progressivism, words such as  “diversity” and “discrimination” have been twisted to the point of almost meaning their literal opposites. Diversity now requires universal sameness – all locations must serve the same clients in the same way. Discrimination now refers to any perceived negative action against a special identity group – such as the enforcement of ID requirements – even as the same action is routinely used against non-protected classes without fuss, making anti-discrimination efforts inherently discriminatory.

Shackford ends with the most important point:

This case is a good demonstration as to why it’s so important to hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association. The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar. And if the community finds it significantly discriminatory, they can use social pressures to push for change (as Marzano has apparently done with a call for a boycott).

Freedom, not central government control and more power for bureaucrats, is the answer.

Sunday

8

June 2014

0

COMMENTS

The Artifacts of Big Government

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

Last month, the Washington Post provided an exposé on the proliferation of wasteful government reports. As the headline example, the author cites the 15 employees across at least six different offices that prepare an annual Report to Congress on Dog and Cat Fur Protection. The requirement was created as part of a 2000 law written by legislators no longer in office. It is, in other words, perfectly emblematic of Washington DC dysfunction. The question is: what exactly does this tell us about why and how our government is failing?

The Dog and Cat Fur Protection report is just one of many. The story claims that the current Congress expects 4,291 different reports from 466 federal agencies (aside: there should not even exist anywhere near this many federal agencies, and wouldn’t if the government stuck to its Constitutional duties).

It would be easy for some to blame all this on bad legislators. Certainly it would be possible for Congress to collectively decide to solve the problem by going through and eliminating unnecessary reports, just the same as they could close down duplicative and unneeded agencies. But that’s misleading. If the institutions of government, along with the incentives they create, and the political culture both remain constant, it’s not going to matter who is elected. The results will continue to be the same.

We have now a system that has grown out of control, and a populace enamored with magical thinking. We expect every problem in life to have a political solution, and we demand that someone – the more centralized their role, the better – be answerable for every setback or inconvenience. The result is that government not only must try to involve itself in far too many aspects of daily existence, but that politicians must constantly demonstrate that they are in firm control of the apparatus of government, even as such control becomes increasingly impossible.

Tuesday

25

February 2014

1

COMMENTS

Let Them Eat (Someone Else’s) Cake

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Free Markets, Liberty & Limited Government

At RedState Erick Erickson weighs in on the debate over whether or not bakers should be required to supply wedding cakes for gay couples if they don’t want to. He looks at the issue through the prism of Christianity (which is not unreasonable given that most of those refusing to do so are Christian). But I’m not particularly interested in the theological aspects or what a good Christian ought to do. I’m interested in policy.

Erickson states:

If a Christian owns a bakery or a florist shop or a photography shop or a diner, a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person. It is against the tenets of 2000 years of orthodox Christian faith, no matter how poorly some Christians have practiced their faith over two millennia.

And honestly, I don’t know that I know anyone who disagrees with any of this.

I don’t know Erickson, so his statement remains true, but I emphatically disagree that “a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person.” In fact, I’d take that in the exact opposite direction than he intended and say that both should be allowed.  In a free society, anyone should be free to choose not to engage in commerce with anyone else, for any reason.

Erickson chooses to approach the issue from the angle of religious freedom:

The disagreement comes on one issue only — should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship.

I think he’s attempting to cut too fine a line. Moreover, I think the religious freedom argument is weaker than the property rights and freedom of association arguments. These rights are simple to digest: I own my labor and that which it produces, and I therefore own the right to choose with whom I shall trade my goods. The government has suppressed this right by asserting that stores are “public” if they allow people to enter freely, and by being “public” they must serve everyone. This is and always has been hogwash, and the requirement that a business serve everyone has no basis in any authority granted to government.

Similarly, the freedom to associate necessitates an implied freedom of disassociation. Without the right to refuse association, the right to associate with those whom we choose is meaningless. And if the right to disassociate with a person or entity does not encompass the ability to refuse an economic transaction with that person or entity, then it is a hollow right.

Matt K. Lewis similarly addressed the issue at the Daily Caller, in the context of a proposed Arizona law to allow Christian businesses to refuse work for same-sex weddings. I don’t care for the specific law, which is parochial and targeted in a way that suggests animus and bigotry as its intent rather than true preservation of rights. But that aside, Lewis doesn’t tackle the right question:

The truth is, this is a tough issue that pits things we value as a society against things we value as a society.

We have reached a point in the gay rights debate where all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. We are now entering into the zero-sum game phase of the debate, where gay rights and religious liberty must collide. (In other words, the cake is only so big. If you take a piece, you are guaranteeing the other guy has less cake.)

So who’s right? My guess is one could guarantee public opinion is on either side of the issue, depending on how you frame the question. If, for example, you were to ask someone whether or not “businesses should be allowed to deny services to same-sex couples,” the answer would, of course, be “no.”

On the other hand, ask Americans if “government should have the right to forcefully coerce Christians to violate their convictions,” and the answer would also be “no.”

He is probably right that people would answer the question of whether a business has the right to deny services to same-sex couple in the negative, but that’s in part because it’s the wrong question. We might find it utterly distasteful when someone refuses to serve another for bigoted reasons, but we also find it distasteful when others express bigoted opinions. The right to free speech is nevertheless widely acknowledged as protecting their rights to do so. Why are economic rights taken less seriously? So contra Lewis, what we should be asking is whether “business should be allowed to deny services to anyone,” or even whether “exchange should ever be compulsory, instead of voluntary.” These are the questions at the heart of the matter, and these are the questions which too long have been answered incorrectly by government, the courts and even voters.

Wednesday

1

January 2014

0

COMMENTS

Redistribution and the Human Prosperity Deniers

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, Liberty & Limited Government

Writing for the Washington Examiner, Randolph May highlights President Obama’s recent declaration that that income inequality is the “defining challenge of our time.” May harkensd back to Alexis de Tocqueville’s prescient warnings in Democracy in America:

Tocqueville argued that a democratic regime, by the sheer force of the majoritarian canon it embodies, would ceaselessly move in the direction of striving for ever greater degrees of what he called “equality of condition.”

This continual push for more equality of condition would lead inexorably to an ever-increasing encroachment of government authority at the expense of individual freedom.

We’ve witnessed just such an encroachment and it appears to be accelerating despite vast growth in overall human prosperity. That’s the thrust of a piece by Marian Tupy that challenges overly pessimistic accounts of the state of the world:

The dystopian world that Francis describes, without citing a single statistic, is at odds with reality. In appealing to our fears and pessimism, the pope fails to acknowledge the scope and rapidity of human accomplishment—whether measured through declining global inequality and violence, or growing prosperity and life expectancy.

The thesis of Evangelii Gaudium is simple: “unbridled” capitalism has enriched a few, but failed the poor…

Just how free the free market really is today is debatable. The United States is perceived as the paragon of free-market capitalism. And yet over the last two decades, according to Wayne Crews of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington has issued 81,883 regulations—or nine per day. Maybe the marketplace should be regulated less, and maybe it should be regulated more. But unbridled it is not.

…

As for the negative consequences of “trickle-down” economics that the pope bemoans, let’s look at them in turn.

First, consider inequality. Academic researchers—from Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University, to Surjit Bhalla, formerly of the Brookings Institution and Rand Corporation, to Paolo Liberati of the University of Rome—all agree that global inequality is declining. That is because 2.6 billion people in China and India are richer than they used to be.

…Paradoxically, the shrinking of the global inequality gap was only possible after India and China abandoned their attempts to create equality through central planning. By allowing people to keep more of the money they earned, the Chinese and Indian governments incentivized people to create more wealth. Allowing inequality to increase at home, in other words, diminished inequality globally. And global inequality, surely, is the statistic that should most concern the leader of a global religion.

Tupy is also the editor of new Cato Institute project HumanProgress.org, which documents the dramatic improvements in human well-being that have taken place primarily over the last century. The site is needed because public perception is much more negative than reality, driven by cynical politicians who conjure ever more reasons to continue expanding government, as well as their own power.

Speaking of prosperity deniers, Donald Boudreaux recently provided a list of salient questions to ask of redistribution’s proponents, questions which they are unlikely able to answer. Here’s a sample:

Do you not worry that creating government power today to take from Smith and give to Jones — simply because Smith has more material wealth than Jones — might eventually be abused so that tomorrow, government takes from Jones and gives to Smith simply because Smith is more politically influential than Jones?

Suppose that Jones chooses a career as a poet. Jones treasures the time he spends walking in the woods and strolling city streets in leisurely reflection; his reflections lead him to write poetry critical of capitalist materialism. Working as a poet, Jones earns $20,000 annually. Smith chooses a career as an emergency-room physician. She works an average of 60 hours weekly and seldom takes a vacation. Her annual salary is $400,000. Is this “distribution” of income unfair? Is Smith responsible for Jones’ relatively low salary? Does Smith owe Jones money? If so, how much? And what is the formula you use to determine Smith’s debt to Jones?

I highly recommend reading the rest of Boudreaux’s piece. And if you happen to favor redistribution, I suggest you try answering the questions and seeing if you still do.

Wednesday

16

October 2013

0

COMMENTS

Notable Quotations

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

Chris Edwards, “Budget Battles Highlight Importance of Federalism:”

Outside of the military, the federal government is mainly just a giant cash transfer machine, vacuuming up taxpayer earnings and redistributing them to individuals, businesses, nonprofit groups, and state/local governments through more than 2,000 subsidy programs.

***

Brink Lindsey, “Kludgeocracy’s Lessons for Libertarians:”

The sad truth – sad, that is, for people like me – is that small-government rhetoric is much more popular than actual small-government policies. American public opinion, I’m sorry to say, is pretty comfortable with big government; it’s just not very comfortable with how comfortable it is.

***

Niall Ferguson, “Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3”

“For too long, Paul Krugman has exploited his authority as an award-winning economist and his power as a New York Times columnist to heap opprobrium on anyone who ventures to disagree with him. Along the way, he has acquired a claque of like-minded bloggers who play a sinister game of tag with him, endorsing his attacks and adding vitriol of their own. I would like to name and shame in this context Dean Baker, Josh Barro, Brad DeLong, Matthew O’Brien, Noah Smith, Matthew Yglesias and Justin Wolfers. Krugman and his acolytes evidently relish the viciousness of their attacks, priding themselves on the crassness of their language.”

Friday

11

October 2013

0

COMMENTS

End Times for the Welfare State

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

A recent letter to the The New York Times:

To the Editor:

Stephen D. King correctly observes that the United States and many other so-called advanced economies are looking forward to a dismal future (“When Wealth Disappears,” October 6). Unfortunately, he dances around and at best merely alludes to the root cause of the problem.

While recent years have seen rather dismal economic growth, the fact remains that people today are, by and large, wealthier than ever before. Levels of comfort and convenience – from air conditioning to machine washers to access to multiple vehicles per family – once reserved for the wealthiest few are now common even for the least among us. In asserting that “we are reaching the end times for Western affluence,” King thus fails to be sufficiently precise in his analysis. It is the Western welfare state whose affluence has reached its limits.

While the last century has witnessed tremendous strides economically, with incredible new technologies revolutionizing how we live, work and play, it has also seen an ever increasing share of those gains diverted to the public sector. It is for this reason that King’s prescriptions are just a step in the right direction. For our nation to avoid becoming another Greece, politicians henceforth must refrain from promising the fruit of another’s labor as a means for enhancing their own political power.

Sincerely,
Brian Garst
Director of Government Affairs
Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Wednesday

9

October 2013

0

COMMENTS

Marauding Band of Government Thugs Harass Seniors at Yellowstone

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

In the latest incident highlighting the utter contempt and disdain with which the American government holds its citizens, roving bands of government thugs harassed and intimidated visitors at Yellowstone in a petty, vindictive effort to exact pain on the American people in hopes of achieving political gain in the course of a routine fiscal disagreement between branches of government (Hat-tip: Yid With Lid).

Vaillancourt was one of thousands of people who found themselves in a national park as the federal government shutdown went into effect on Oct. 1. For many hours her tour group, which included senior citizen visitors from Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States, were locked in a Yellowstone National Park hotel under armed guard.

The tourists were treated harshly by armed park employees, she said, so much so that some of the foreign tourists with limited English skills thought they were under arrest.

When finally allowed to leave, the bus was not allowed to halt at all along the 2.5-hour trip out of the park, not even to stop at private bathrooms that were open along the route.

Lest you think there is some innocuous explanation for this unnecessary harassment, consider this exchange:

The bus stopped along a road when a large herd of bison passed nearby, and seniors filed out to take photos. Almost immediately, an armed ranger came by and ordered them to get back in, saying they couldn’t “recreate.” The tour guide, who had paid a $300 fee the day before to bring the group into the park, argued that the seniors weren’t “recreating,” just taking photos.

How are cameras expected to work with only 83% of our precious government open? What madness is this?

The seniors quickly filed back onboard and the bus went to the Old Faithful Inn, the park’s premier lodge located adjacent to the park’s most famous site, Old Faithful geyser. That was as close as they could get to the famous site — barricades were erected around Old Faithful, and the seniors were locked inside the hotel, where armed rangers stayed at the door.

“They looked like Hulk Hogans, armed. They told us you can’t go outside,” she said. “Some of the Asians who were on the tour said, ‘Oh my God, are we under arrest?’ They felt like they were criminals.”

…The bus trip made headlines in Livingston, where the local newspaper Livingston Enterprise interviewed the tour guide, Gordon Hodgson, who accused the park service of “Gestapo tactics.”

“The national parks belong to the people,” he told the Enterprise. “This isn’t right.”

…Many of the foreign visitors were shocked and dismayed by what had happened and how they were treated, Vaillancourt said.

“A lot of people who were foreign said they wouldn’t come back (to America),” she said.

If I were overseas and subjected to similar harassment and intimidation by a foreign government, I wouldn’t want to return there either. This sort of nonsense ought to outrage any American who takes seriously the ideals upon which our government is supposedly based. It is abundantly clear that the American government has gone completely rogue, and no longer putting up even a the pretense of understanding that it operates under the authority of the people.

Monday

23

September 2013

0

COMMENTS

End the Federal Subsidy for Big State Governments

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

The relationship between federal and state governments – the division of power between the two levels being known as federalism – is an integral part of the American constitutional system. Federalism uses separate and competing spheres of sovereignty to check the growth and power of government as a whole.

Unfortunately, that system has been steadily eroded by a series of policies that have empowered the federal government, weakened states, made states dependent upon the largess of Washington, or encouraged excessive growth of state governments. As Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation writes in a recent Issue Brief, the latter is accomplished in part through a federal deduction for state and local taxes that shields residents in high tax states from feeling the full cost of their bloated local governments.

Dubay writes:

The tax code allows taxpayers to deduct certain state and local taxes, including income taxes, sales taxes for residents of states that (wisely) go without an income tax, real estate taxes, and personal property taxes. State and local income taxes makes up about 95 percent of all state and local tax deductions.

…The harmful unintended consequence of the deduction is that it encourages state and local governments to raise their taxes. Higher taxes allow state and local governments to grow larger because they spend up to the maximum amount of revenue they can collect.

The deduction encourages state and local governments to raise their taxes because it transfers a portion of their tax burdens from their residents to the federal government. For instance, for every dollar a state taxes a family paying the 33 percent federal marginal tax rate, the family effectively pays only $0.67 of the state tax, because the deduction on the family’s federal taxes reduces their federal tax bill by $0.33.

This reduction in the “price” of the state’s taxes encourages states to raise their taxes higher than they otherwise would, because taxpayers offer less resistance since they do not pay the full cost of the higher taxes. Taxpayers are more willing to accept higher taxes because of the deduction in the same way consumers are more willing to buy a product or service when prices fall.

Dan Mitchell has similarly pointed to the faults in the state and local tax income tax dedication, as well as potential wrong headed solutions to its distortions:

Under current law, state and local income taxes are fully deductible, but state and local sales taxes are only temporarily deductible. The right policy is to get rid of any deductibility for any state and local tax…

Not surprisingly, the crowd in Washington doesn’t take this approach. Instead, they want to extend deductibility for the sales tax. And they may even be amenable to raising other taxes to impose that policy.

…This is a very misguided policy. It means that greedy politicians such as Governor Brown of California or Governor Cuomo of New York can raise tax rates and tell voters not to get too upset because they can deduct that additional burden. This means that a $1 tax hike results in a loss of take-home pay of as little as 65 cents.

But you don’t cure one bad policy with another bad policy. A deduction for state and local sales taxes just augments the IRS-enforced preference for bigger government at the state and local level.

Dubay further explains how eliminating the deduction would benefit tax competition and limited government:

These data show that while taxpayers in high-tax states pay a hefty amount of state and local taxes, they also see that burden reduced the most because of the deduction. If tax reform eliminated the deduction, these taxpayers would see the biggest increase in their effective state and local taxes. They would likely put the most pressure on their state and local governments to stop tax increases and apply the most pressure on those governments to reduce their high taxes.

Like Mitchell, he also notes that offsetting elimination of the deduction is essential to reform:

Eliminating the state and local tax deduction should be done only within the context of overall tax reform. Congress should not eliminate it (for instance, through “loophole closing”) without other offsetting tax changes. To do so would be an unnecessary tax increase.

The state and local tax deduction is just one of many policies distorting the federalist system and encouraging excessive government growth. Federal mandates, grants, handouts and other tax preferences also undermine tax competition and need reform.

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