New Jersey, This Is Your Government

9 03 2010

So, not only has New Jersey passed the idiocy known as Kyleigh’s Law, the firm it hired to make the decals also made vehicle inspection stickers for New York. Stickers that would not stay on license plates:

Up to 2.5 million of 13.5 million inspection stickers produced by SecureMark Decal and distributed to motorists in 2009 failed to stick, the Times reported.

Amid a public uproar, New York Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner David J. Swarts issued a statement last May waiving the fee for replacement inspection and registration stickers and advising police to “use their discretion” upon encountering loose or taped stickers.

Now, I know Gov. Christie is doing a lot to help improve the state, but when a spokesperson for the State Motor Vehicle Commission says this problem isn’t a concern for the Kyleigh’s Law decals it makes you realize just how much work there is to do to make New Jersey a halfway decently governed state.

UPDATE: For those unfamiliar with it, Kyleigh’s Law is a NJ law requiring that all people under 21 and holding a Graduated Driver’s License must also have decals on their license plates identifying them as such. For more info, here’s the series of posts I’ve done on it, from oldest to newest:

Don’t Let NJ Make Driving While Young A Crime
More Problems With Kyleigh’s Law
Help Stop Kyleigh’s Law
Last Chance To Stop Kyleigh’s Law
I Really Hate New Jersey Sometimes
Standing Firm Against Kyleigh’s Law
Striking Back Against Kyleigh’s Law
More News on Kyleigh’s Law
News on Kyleigh’s Law and the Trautmann Suit
Disappointing News on Kyleigh’s Law





Maryland Central Planning Meeting Re-Scheduled

23 02 2010

The Maryland Department of Planning has announced that one of their scheduled meetings to discuss plans to expand even further the State’s efforts to centrally plan Maryland land use policy has been rescheduled

Due to circumstances beyond our control, the Public Forum that was scheduled for Thursday, March 4, 2010, at the Bowie State University campous has been cancelled.

We apologize for this late notice.  Please be aware that the Maryland Department of Planning is working to re-schedule the forum for this region for June 2010.

Stay tuned for information about this meeting.
Sincerely,
MDP

Just a heads up for those in the Bowie area. I’d suggest keeping an eye out for whenever they reschedule it and consider coming to one of the other meetings in the meantime to make sure the MDP knows Maryland needs less planning, not more, and what planning happens should be as decentralized as possible.





Maryland Central Planning

18 02 2010

Marylanders, take note. The Maryland Department of Planning is looking to expand the scope of its authority.

In fact, I would wager this the beginning of an effort to create a State Planning Commission and eliminate local Planning Commissions.

Now, for the record, I’m against all central planning of the economy, for the reasons so aptly noted by Hayek in The Use of Knowledge in Society and other works:

If we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place, it would seem to follow that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them. We cannot expect that this problem will be solved by first communicating all this knowledge to a central board which, after integrating all knowledge, issues its orders. We must solve it by some form of decentralization.

I’m with Hayek that price signals are the best means of sorting and disseminating the disparate knowledge of the many actors in our economy, so even local planning commissions are unnecessary. I think the failure of central planning with regards to land use policy is also born out by the facts.

But if we’re going to have some entity centrally planning land use policy, it damn well ought to be done locally. There is simply no possible way that a state level entity can do a better job of compiling, understanding, and acting on the necessary information than a local group, inherently better aware of local conditions and needs can do.

Even more importantly, the bigger something is, the more likely it will fall victim to special interest concerns. In Maryland’s case, it means that land use policy will come to be completely dominated by Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Baltimore counties. We’ve already seen the result of this – just look at the Critical Area law passed a couple of years ago. An arbitrary and egregious assault on private property rights, it fell most heavily by far on Eastern Shore residents.

Regardless of how you feel about land use policy, everyone should object to it being decided by a distant authority, unaware of local conditions and needs, and far more prone to being captured by special interests. I encourage everyone to pass on the word about these meetings and attend as many as possible and speak out against any further consolidation of land use policymaking power in the hands of the State.

Here are the currently announced meeting dates and locations:

WHAT:
6:00 to 7:00 p.m. – Open House, meet State and local officials and community groups
7:00 to 9:00 p.m. – Public Forum including an interactive “Keypad polling” activity and table discussions

WHERE and WHEN:
Thursday, March 4th
Prince George’s County
Bowie State University
Center for Learning & Technology, Auditorium – Room 102 (#2 on campus map)
14000 Jericho Park Road · Bowie, MD 20715 (driving directions) Also easily accessible by MARC Commuter Rail Penn Line and Metrobus
Tuesday, March 9th
Carroll County and Baltimore County (west)
Carroll Community College
“K” Building Auditorium (campus map), ample parking near ampitheatre
1601 Washington Road · Westminster, MD  21157 (driving directions)
Thursday, March 18th
Baltimore City
Coppin State University
Talon Center, Dining & Meeting Hall (#4 on campus map), parking in Lot F
2500 West North Avenue · Baltimore, MD 21216-3698 (driving directions) Also accessible by MTA Metro and Bus
Wednesday, March 24th
Montgomery County
UMD Universities at Shady Grove
Building II, Multi-Purpose room (campus map)
9630 Gudelsky Drive · Rockville, MD 20850 (driving directions) Also easily accessible by Public Transportation
Save the date.  Click here to RSVP. (RSVP is not required but will help us plan for space and attendance)
For more information, call MDP today:
(410) 767-4500

UPDATE: The Maryland Department of Planning has posted an updated list, including confirmed and tentative meeting dates for what looks like almost the rest of the state (Mid-Shore is one of the regions still missing). Here are the additional dates and locations;

Thursday, April 8 – 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
College of Southern Maryland

Center for Business and Industry, Atrium (campus map)
8730 Mitchell Road · La Plata, MD 20646 (driving directions)

Wednesday, April 14 (tentative) – 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Community College of Baltimore County, Essex Campus
Campus location TBA (campus map)
7201 Rossville Boulevard · Baltimore, MD 21237 (driving directions)

Wednesday, April 21 (tentative) – 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Anne Arundel Community College
Community College Center (interactive campus map or print)
101 College Parkway · Arnold, MD 21012 (driving directions)

Thursday, May 6 – 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Salisbury University
Guerrieri University Center (campus map), parking in Dogwood Lot D or Camden Lot E
1101 Camden Avenue · Salisbury, MD 21801 (driving directions)

Wednesday, May 12 (tentative) – 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Washington College
Campus location TBA (campus map)
300 Washington Avenue · Chestertown, MD 21620 (driving directions)

Wednesday, May 19 (tentative) – 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Frostburg State University
Campus location TBA (campus map)
101 Braddock Road · Frostburg, MD 21532 (driving directions)

Wednesday, May 26 – 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Cecil College
Technology / Conference Center (D on campus map)
1 Seahawk Drive · North East, MD 21901 (driving directions)

OTHER REGIONAL LOCATIONS TO BE SCHEDULED – KEEP POSTED





Roy Beck’s Curious Vision of Big Government

12 02 2010

Roy Beck, founder and CEO of anti-immigration group NumbersUSA certainly has an interesting take on the idea of big government.

Discussing his talk at the Nashville Tea Party Convention, he explains:

I went to observe and make my case that for those who want to shrink government it isn’t possible without reducing overall immigration (especially LEGAL) immigration

In the actual discussion of his talk he says he emphasized that:

If not for our system of mass immigration over the last decade, there would have been virtually no growth in the uninsured…Just one more example of how current immigration policies create huge pressures for larger and larger government programs and expenditures.

Now, nevermind that it’s grossly inaccurate to describe our current immigration policies as allowing mass immigration and that economists like Keith Hennessy have pegged non-citizens as about only 9.3 of the 45.7 million uninsured. Let’s get to the real fun part of Beck’s claim.

I would love to know what world he lives in where you can have a more restrictive immigration system without:

  • Hiring thousands, if not tens of thousands of additional border guards
  • Mandating a Kafka-esque verification system
  • Requiring everyone to carry a national ID card
  • Empowering (if not outright forcing) local law enforcement officers to demand to see “Your papers, please!”

If this isn’t big, intrusive government, I don’t know what is.

As insane as I think it is, I can accept that some people think these are good policies. What I won’t tolerate is the outright false claim that anti-immigration policies are not big government.





1/26/10 QAC Commissioners Meeting Comments

8 02 2010

I meant to post this last week, but after I had it 75% written and then lost it all I said to hell with it and decided to do it later. So here it is.

A couple weeks ago now I spoke at the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners Meeting. My purpose in speaking was to respond to an advisory opinion issued by the county Ethics Commission against my father (he spoke as well, in fact my comments follow and build off of his).

To offer a little bit of context, my father is a real estate broker and occasional small-scale developer. Queen Anne’s County unfortunately happens to be in the grip of a fervent, one might even say rabid, anti-growth movement. Even though the county is still something like 80% open land and in no danger of being over-developed (For the record, nowhere in QAC is over-developed or anywhere near it. I went to school in north New Jersey so I know what I’m talking about) the anti-growthers, who should rightfully be recognized not as anti-growth but as anti-freedom, are insistent upon stopping any and all development in county. As a result, since my father is a proponent of a reasonable growth policy, they have been fervently against his appointment to the county Planning Commission.

Their most recent move was to get Commissioner Fordonski to file an eleventh hour request for an advisory opinion as to whether my father or the one other person not opposed to growth would have a Conflict of Interest preventing them from serving. The Ethics Commission, in a clearly incorrect decision, held that yes, it was a Conflict of Interest (I’ll post more on this later most likely), hence the comments by my father and I.

You can watch them here. Once you click the link, choose Commissioners Meetings, then Commissioners Meeting 1/26/10 Part 1 of 2. My father’s comments begin at about 00:53:33 (be sure to watch his comments and then the back and forth afterwards). After that I speak at 01:08:15.





Switzerland, Please Stop Jerking Me Around

25 01 2010

The IRS demands Swiss banks turn over info of U.S. citizens with  accounts. First Switzerland tells America to piss off. Then they turn around and say “Ok, we’ll let you have what you want.”

And now they’ve done it again.

A Swiss court just threw a wrench in the gears of an IRS effort to impose bad U.S. tax law on an extraterritorial basis, ruling that Switzerland-based UBS does not have to hand over data to the American tax authorities. This ruling nullifies an agreement that the Swiss government was coerced into making with the U.S. government last year.

Switzerland, you’ve got the right stance at the moment. Tax havens are important and need to be defended:

Look at what happened recently in the thugocracy known as Venezuela, where Chavez began a new wave of expropriation. The Venezuelans with money in Cayman, Miami, and Switzerland were safe, but the people with assets inside the country have been ripped off by a criminal government. Or what about people subjected to persecution, such as political dissidents in Russia? Or Jews in North Africa? Or ethnic Chinese in Indonesia? Or homosexuals in Iran? And how about people in places such as Mexico where kidnappings are common and successful people are targeted, often on the basis of information leaked from tax departments. This world needs safe havens, jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands that offer oppressed people the protection of honest courts, financial privacy, and the rule of law. Heck, even the bureaucrat in charge of the OECD’s anti-tax competition campaign admitted to a British paper that “tax havens are essential for individuals who live in unstable regimes.”

So please, please, Switzerland – let this be the end of the back and forth. Tell the IRS to go screw itself and let that be the end of it.





Welcome to the New Rationing

15 01 2010

Please allow me to indulge in another “told you so moment.”

Back in August I explained the biggest reason I’m opposed to government involvement in healthcare.

That’s because the alternative isn’t an end to rationing. It’s a rearrangement of what drives it. Like it or not, when government becomes the arbiter of choice rather than the market, decisions cease to be driven by market forces and are instead driven by political pull. Try imagining a healthcare system where every health complaint is now a political interest. Do you think they’ll prioritized around necessity and importance? Or will it be around which ones have the best lobbyists and marketing?

So I was understandably not surprised to see this in the news:

The White House has reached a tentative agreement with labor leaders to tax high-cost health insurance policies, sources said Thursday. The agreement clears one of the last major obstacles on the path to final passage of comprehensive health care legislation…Health plans negotiated on behalf of state and local workers, or as part of collective-bargaining agreements, would be exempt for five years after the 2013 effective date

This is what happens when you put control into the politicians’ hands. So long as decisions get made, some method is going to be used to discriminate between consumers. The only question is if you prefer that to be decided by lobbyists and media campaigns or by the dollar.





Thoughts on Avatar

14 01 2010

I saw Avatar shortly after it came out. Since then I’ve avoided weighing in on the variety of reactions to it. Overall, I had no disagreement that it was Dances With Wolves meets Fern Gully with aliens.

But I also saw another angle, one much more in line with my libertarian views. However, since no one else seemed to think so I figured I was simply stretching the limits of interpretation too far. A recent post by Donald Boudreaux has convinced me that it might not be such a stretch.

But here’s another, much-less-trumpeted piece of news that is cause for optimism about the future of freedom in China: In a report on how the movie ‘Avatar’ is perceived by the Chinese people, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports that “China’s moviegoers see a story about private property, not race.”

It’s a very interesting perspective and I highly recommend reading it. However my own libertarian take took a slightly different angle.

It takes 6 years to get from Earth to Pandora. Additionally, the movie suggests the corporation (or rather Pandora and the Na’vi) run through soldiers at a pretty breakneck pace, hence the high pay they’re offered. And then on top of that they’ve been there for a long time (Jake’s statement at the beginning suggests mankind has been going there since at least his childhood), long enough for them to build the Avatar program from the ground up. All of this for a mineral that sells at $20 million a kilo.

Now, I’m neither an economist nor an accountant, but it seemed a bit improbable to me that even at that going rate the company could really be making very much money with all of the costs and the strong implication that they haven’t been very successful mining the unobtanium due to the dangers of both the planet and the populace. And if they could be making that much money doing it, why are there no other companies competing with them there.

The only answer I can come up with is that the corporation operating on Pandora enjoyed the benefit of a government monopoly. That would allow them to both absorb far greater costs than they could otherwise and operate without competition.

I’m sure James Cameron never thought about this, but that it’s such a commonplace reality these days is probably an even bigger indictment of our current union of governmental and corporate power.

What are your thoughts? Does my view hold up, or is it complete crap?





Christmas and the Border

23 12 2009

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – why are the immigration hawks not outraged over the ease with which Santa crosses the United States border?

Supposedly NORAD has been tracking him on Christmas Eve for years. And now Google is getting in on the action. With this level of surveillance on his movements it shouldn’t be hard to stop him and take him to task for illegally entering the country.

And come on. If migrants crossing the border to get a job is a huge threat to our national security, just think about the danger from jolly old St. Nick – the corpulent Big Brother who watches us all year and sneaks into our homes every year. Sure, he’s always brought presents before, but what’s to say what he might bring if Al Qaeda took Mrs. Claus hostage?

And while we’re on the topic of Santa, why haven’t I heard anything about the Consumer Product Safety Commission taking action against Kringle to make sure his elf-made toys are in line with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

And now that I think about it, Santa does all his work at the North Pole. Maybe I missed it, but why hasn’t President Obama stepped in to stop American industry from being undercut by cheap foreign labor? He already did it with tires, so what makes toys different? Are we going to see a Christmas bailout for the toy-makers?

Now, just to make sure you all know, I’m not actually suggesting people start doing what I noted above. I do however think they should learn a bit from Santa. He’s an excellent way of expressing the benefits of a free society. Santa makes everyone wealthier and better off by freely moving across borders, producing goods without having to worry about the costs imposed by foolhardy regulations, and voluntarily exchanging them for good behaviour by children. If that’s not a free market parable I don’t know what is.





Not To Say I Told You So…

3 12 2009

…But I did.

That’s because the alternative isn’t an end to rationing. It’s a rearrangement of what drives it. Like it or not, when government becomes the arbiter of choice rather than the market, decisions cease to be driven by market forces and are instead driven by political pull. Try imagining a healthcare system where every health complaint is now a political interest. Do you think they’ll prioritized around necessity and importance? Or will it be around which ones have the best lobbyists and marketing?

Confused about what I’m talking about? Congress proved me (and numerous other libertarians correct) by caving to public pressure and mandating copay-free coverage of mammograms, even though it is both economically and medically questionable to do so.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.