If You Care About Limited Government, You Don’t Wave Away Abuses of State Power

29 12 2011

As someone who is both a libertarian and a Republican I have a somewhat complicated relationship with conservatism and what some self-identified conservatives claim it means to be conservative.

Chiefly the trouble lies in the fact that most every conservative claims they are supporters of individual liberty and limited government, but then toss away those concerns the moment it involves liberty for someone they don’t approve of, whether they be gays, immigrants, Muslims, or other unpopular minorities.

Mostly I’ve focused on immigration and how many on the right so easily reject the free market in order to subsidize American labor interests. This time though, I want to focus on another aspect of so-called conservatives enabling statism.

In a recent post Ann Corcoran of Potomac Tea Party Report responds to a report highlighting incidences of police brutality by cavalierly dismissing it as so much political agitprop from the Left.

This is unconscionable if you honestly believe in limited government. I care about things like the tax code and land use policy, and I certainly recognize how the state uses them to restrict individual liberty. But the police being free to brutalize innocent people and even to egregiously violate the civil rights of actual criminals is a massively bigger threat to individual liberty.

And contrary to Corcoran’s implication, this isn’t something that was made up by the Obama administration or George Soros or some other bogeyman leftist.

I spent about 5 minutes on investigative journalist and libertarian activist Radley Balko’s site and found the following:

  • Over 380 cases of police breaking into people’s homes and terrorizing the occupants while doing no-knock drug raids. These incidents frequently feature physical harm being inflicted on occupants and put both young children and elderly relatives at risk. In virtually every case they either found only miniscule amounts of marijuana or actually had hit the wrong house.
  • Over 320 cases of police shooting people’s dogs when the dogs posed no threat to the officers. In many cases people pleaded with the officers to allow them to pen the dogs or otherwise restrain them but the officers refused to do so and shot the dogs instead.
  • Something like 700 cases of police getting away with flagrant violations of the law either because other police officers refused to enforce the law against them or courts refused to consider as valid testimony that contradicted the claims of the offending officers.

Spend a bit of time reading through the linked material. It’s horrifying to think that this sort of thing happens in America today. We’re a far sight better than places like North Korea, China, or the various authoritarian tyrannies of Africa and the Middle East, but the state is still egregiously violating individual liberty in the United States and in ways a whole lot worse than excessive marginal tax rates.

Just because those abuses aren’t terribly visible to people like Corcoran or myself it doesn’t mean they aren’t real and it certainly doesn’t mean that they aren’t an issue that limited government advocates ought to be outraged about.





Independence Day Thought

4 07 2011

I’d be interested in seeing to what degree people who complain about illegal immigrants breaking the law correlate with people who illegally shoot off fireworks on the Fourth of July.

Also, I think it’s worth linking to my Independence Day post from last year.





A Little Perspective Please

23 05 2010

Conservative pundits have been in an apoplectic rage because Mexican president Felipe Calderon dared to criticize the immigration policies of the United States.

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/zuTA-mGg2PQ]

As our good friend Rep. Tom McClintock put it “It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.”

I have but one thing to say about this. Apparently its only ok for Reagan to criticize about the migration laws of another country.

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8]





Immigration, The Right, and American Jobs

7 03 2010

Lately I have begun to notice an odd strain of thought in much of my fellows on the Right when it comes to the issue of immigration and jobs.

Simply put, many people who otherwise consider themselves strong, consistent conservatives (and occasionally, but much less often some self-described libertarians) are quite vocal about the importance of protecting “Americans jobs” from the threat of being held by immigrants (most of the time illegal, but in some cases legal as well).

Frankly this mystifies me. Most of these people would readily agree on how much the were opposed to using government stimulus money to try and stop unemployment or what a terrible idea it would be to bring back the WPA. Now, I’m not endorsing either, I think they are bad ideas as well, but I fail to see how it makes sense to be for defending “American jobs” from being held by non-Americans but against defending “American jobs” from being held by no one.

Likewise, to paraphrase Don Boudreaux, if it is so important to ensure that only Americans hold “American jobs,” then why isn’t there an equally loud outcry to take actions to prevent Virginians or Delewareans or Pennsylvanians from holding “Maryland jobs.” After all, if the economic logic that it is better for an American to do a job, even if it costs more, is true, then the same will hold true at smaller levels.

If the Right truly cares about the free market like it claims to, then it is necessary that it support the free market in everything, including labor. You don’t get to pick and choose and still say you support the free market.





Pelosi Clear – She and the Dems Want to Revive the (un)Fairness Doctrine

25 06 2008

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently made very clear at a press event that she unequivocally supports a revival of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Even worse, she claims that is also the goal of the Democratic caucus and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has been hard at work on making that a reality.

This is something every serious defender of American freedom needs to be aware of. A revival of the Fairness Doctrine will almost instantly silence political discourse on the radio and on TV. Knowing the way the Left works, they will likely try and extend it to the internet soon afterwards.

So let this serve as a warning. Without the Pence legislation passing, if Barack Obama becomes president this liberty-stifling practice will be back with a vengeance.

(Also worth checking out, a list of those congressman who claim to oppose the Fairness Doctrine but refuse to sign onto Pence’s discharge petition, http://hypocrisycaucus.org/)

digg story





Millenial Progressives – Why No Debate?

21 06 2008

Lately, I’ve been keeping my eyes on a recently started collective blog called Pushback. I was drawn to it because a friend of mine, Lisha Arino is a writer for it, and once I got there I found plenty to argue with by other writers.

Interestingly enough, they don’t really seem interested in having any sort of discussion that isn’t with the likeminded. On numerous occasions I’ve posted civil, well thought out comments on posts, either in response to the post or to other comments. What has been the response – deafening silence.

What really takes the cake though was when I submitted a guest post. It wasn’t some libertarian rant, it was a reasoned argument, arguing that the Bush tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive, not less. It was backed up with actual numbers. But of course, they never posted it. They didn’t even have the dignity to respond to me saying they wouldn’t post it. Just more silence.



The popular mantra of the Democrats, the Kossacks, and others has been that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich. This assertion has gone along pretty much unchallenged the whole time. But just out of curiosity I went and did some research into what would happen if they were allowed to expire. What I found was quite surprising.

To begin with, the tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive, not less. In 2007 the top 20% of taxpayers paid 73% of taxes compared to the 72.4% they would have paid without them. The difference might be numerically small, but it is huge in terms of principle.

There’s an even better way to get this point across though, and that’s by putting a face to it. Here are some examples:

Mike and Susan Davis live in Canton, OH. They have two children: Tommie is 5, and Christine is 3. They have a household income of $65,000 (the median amount for a family of four). They take the standard deduction. How much are their taxes scheduled to rise?

If the Present Tax Code Remains in Place

The Davis’ will have a federal tax bill of $3000.

Under the 2011 Tax Hike

The Davis’ standard deduction is shrunk because of the return of the marriage penalty.

This means that their taxable income goes up.

The tax rate on the first several thousand dollars of their taxable income has grown by 50%.

The child tax credit has been cut in half, so Tommie and Christine don’t help as much.

The Davis’ tax bill will be over $5000—a full $2000 higher than if present law were simply kept in place.

Here’s another:

Butch Miller started Miller Manufacturing, Inc. back in the early 1990s. He built it up from a small tool making shop in a rented garage to a 10-employee business. Like many small manufacturers, Miller Manufacturing is a Subchapter-S corporation. That means the business profits pass through to Butch Miller’s 1040. In 2011, Miller Manufacturing will make a profit of $450,000. What will its taxes be?

If the Present Tax Code Remains in Place

Miller Manufacturing’s profit will flow through to Butch Miller’s tax return, where he will pay a federal income tax of $157,500.

Under the 2011 Tax Hike

Because the top marginal income tax rate has been raised from 35% to 39.6%, the Miller Manufacturing tax rate has gone up.

Miller Manufacturing can no longer expense all their equipment purchases the first year. Rather, the company has to spread the deduction for most items over seven years.

Miller Manufacturing’s tax bill will be at least $178,200—a difference of $20,700. As a result, Miller Manufacturing has to lay off the most junior employee to make ends meet.

Or perhaps this might sway you:

Betty and George Jones worked hard all their lives. Betty stayed home to raise the kids, and George worked for the phone company. For all thirty years he was there, he set aside 2% of his salary in an employee stock purchase plan. He now has $250,000 in utility stock, which throws off $10,000 in annual dividends. He also sells some of the stock every year to live on, generating annual long-term capital gains of $5000. The rest of the Jones’ $50,000 in income comes from the utility’s pension plan and the taxable portion of their Social Security benefit.

If the Present Tax Code Remains in Place

The Jones’ will have a tax liability of $1500

Under the 2011 Tax Hike

The dividend tax rate for the Jones’ has gone from 0% to 15%.

The capital gains tax rate for the Jones’ has gone from 0% to 20%.

The standard deduction for the Jones’ has fallen because of the re-introduction of the marriage penalty.

The Jones’ tax bill has grown to $5013, an increase of over $4000. They have to pay the difference from their nest egg.

And one final one:

Since he was a boy, Pete Handel always enjoyed having a glass of orange juice from the citrus groves on his family farm. His grandfather, Mike, bought the land cheap after he got back from The War, and struggled to get a good citrus crop ever since. The farm never made a lot of money, but the land certainly went up in value over time. It’s now worth $10 million, which always made old Mike laugh, considering he paid off his original $10,000 mortgage back in the 1970s. As he sipped on his glass of O.J.,, Mike’s grandson Pete wonders: will he have to pay the death tax when Grandpa dies?

If the Present Tax Code Remains in Place

The death tax will be eliminated. Pete will inherit the citrus farm with modified carryover basis on the land. He owes no taxes when his Grandpa Mike dies.

Under the 2011 Tax Hike

The death tax has come back in full force: a 55% top rate, and a $1 million exemption.

Pete has to come up with a ghastly $4,590,800 in order to pay the death tax.

Pete doesn’t have that kind of money, so he sells the farm to pay the death tax and keeps the rest for himself. The farm’s 50 seasonal employees all lose their job, and the farm is turned into a shopping mall with overpriced retail products people don’t need

The simple fact is that the Bush tax cuts were far more progressive than anyone gave them credit for, and that we can’t afford to let them expire. The costs will fall disproportionately onto the middle class – the rich have access to accountants and tax lawyers to lower their liability and the poor have such a low tax liability as to not be overly affected. But the middle class have neither, have benefited the most and will proportionately be hit the hardest. It might sound illogical, but the progressive thing to do would be to maintain the tax cuts.


Now agree or disagree with the content of the post, I think we can all agree it would have made for an interesting discussion about the true nature of the progressivism the contributors claim to believe in.

Even more interesting though, is this post by Pushback editor Rob Anderson. In describing just what Pushback is, he had this to say:

When it comes down to it, that’s what Pushback is all about. You won’t see many posts on this blog claiming to successfully characterize millions of young Americans. What you will see, though, is a collection of posts on everything from politics to fashion written and edited by a diverse group of young people. These posts will record in real time the developing thoughts and ideas of a cross-section of Millennials.

But apparently “a cross-section of Millennials” just means the Millennials that think the same way that we do.

And if you wanted to read the post I submitted, click on the Read More.





Liberty Bell Artic le

11 12 2007

Two posts in one day? If that’s not amazing I don’t know what is. Anyhow, I wrote an article for The Liberty Bell which you should be familiar with if you’ve read my older posts. It’s a political newspaper here at Seton Hall, the only one I might add. Devoted to issues of personal liberty it’s also completely student run. Anyhow, I wrote an article on Al Gore and the IPCC receiving the Nobel Peace Prize but it wasn’t able to be run in the most recent issue due to time and space constraints. It’s probably getting published in the next issue but I thought I’d post it up here as well. Read it below the cut.

Aaaannnddd the prize goes to Al Gore (and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change but who cares about them when you’ve got Big Al). That’s right, in case you had not heard, the Nobel Peace Price for 2007 was jointly awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC for “their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
This would all be fine and dandy if it were not for the fact that the case is hardly as cut and dry as environmental activists would present it. Not only is the science behind climate change still contested, especially on significant points such as the degree to which change may be occurring and to what degree man is responsible for any change, but the debate has almost entirely excluded ethical concerns for how green initiatives are in fact red – red with the blood of the world’s poor.
First to address is the science. Al Gore and other defenders of the science of climate change have consistently argued that any credible scientist supports the idea that climate change is catastrophic, it stems from carbon emissions, and it is primarily caused by man. The facts however tell a very different story. A great many scientists disagree as to the causes of climate change, with other arguments ranging from gases such as methane to shifts in the Earth’s position, to increased solar activity. Where scientists do agree on climate change, they disagree over how much is occurring, with a great many believing any change will be of no more than a few degrees. Scientists’ objections to the idea of carbon-based, man-caused climate change is strong enough that over 19,000 scientists have signed onto a petition to reject the Kyoto Accord and any similar agreements.
There is not even a sound consensus amongst the scientists of the IPCC, co-winner of the prize. Steven Killoy, a journalist and free market activist, submitted a survey to the IPCC (which only 54 deigned to complete) and the responses were surprising. According to his report on the responses, “Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius — twice the level of warming occurring during the 20th century — is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others, or too difficult to assess.” With this kind of disagreement amongst the foremost body on climate change, can the science of global warming really be considered a definite matter?
Apart from the question of science is the even more relevant question of ethics. The majority of advocates for dealing with climate change are currently pushing for mandated limits on emissions of carbon, but how often has there been a concern for how this impacts people. For a test case consider the Kyoto accords. As far back as two years ago it had already cost $150 billion and resulted in a temperature reduction of 0.0015 degrees Centigrade. The cost of these sort of “developments” almost always falls hardest on the world’s poorest. They are the least able to implement the costly alternatives to fuels like coal or oil and at the same time they are the most dependent on them. This problem is compounded by the fact that the poor are the least equipped to stand up for themselves.
This truth has been evidenced by the success of well-funded entities like Greenpeace who have repeatedly succeeded in stopping development in the name of preserving the Earth. Every single one of these successes resulted in the poor being denied much needed development, and the denial of that development ensures that they are incapable of moving out of poverty.
For this reason alone neither Al Gore nor the IPCC deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Alfred Nobel’s will states that the prize is to go to “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” They have done none of these things. In fact, by encouraging mandated standards that can be met only by the wealthiest of nations they are encouraging discord, not fraternity amongst nations. Furthermore, their work worsens the plight of the poor, and to top it all off, it is based off of uncertain science.





The Right to Racism

21 09 2007

I don’t know how much the MSM has been covering it, but the incident with the so-called “Jena 6.” Rather than explain the situation, here’s a link to the Wikipedia Article on it.

The main way I know about this whole thing is an e-mail another student here at Seton Hall got sent out saying we should try and raise awareness of it or some such (it went out to Diplomacy students and was connected to being a Diplo major somehow). This was then followed by a massive proliferation of groups supporting the young men being charged, condeming the town for its actions, and condemning racism in general.

Now while for the most part this is all good and fine, it does have some very disturbing implications. To begin with, the support has been extremely one-sided; those being charged are undoubtedly being hit with higher charges than are deserved, but where is the outrage over the fact another student was brutally assaulted by six others. Even more bothersome though is how people have harped over how horrible it is that racism still exists in the world.

Yes, racism is horrible and offensive and all the rest. Yes, it would be nice if it were gone. But to demand an end to racism, is to say people have no right to be racist – an absolute lie if there ever was one. We are all granted a Constitutional, and more importantly, a natural right to think in whatever fashion we wish. This includes racist thought, no matter how much we may not like it.

So please, if you’re against racism by all means be so. Go ahead and encourage others to be more open-minded. But don’t act as if people don’t have the right to be racist and it is acceptable to force them to be tolerant.





What Really Matters To (Some) Environmentalists

6 08 2007

I commend the (I believe Anne Arundel) County Board of Appeals in their recent decision to not allow the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Magothy River Association to appeal a landowner from building a home on his property.

The Board properly ruled that the environmental organizations had no grounds to appeal as they owned no land on the river. Finally, someone with the resolve to stand up to the hysteric environmental movement and make it clear that potential harm to the earth is no grounds to interfere with the sacred rights of private property.

Another plus of the decision was the reaction it brought about from the CBF. In the face of this roadblock did they pledge themselves to continuing the fight in other legal avenues? Did they swear to increase their efforts in preserving the environment in the area to counter the increased development? No!

Instead of doing any of those, they have threatened to reduce their efforts in the area if they don’t get their way. I may not agree with environmentalists, but I can at least respect them for having principles if they stay true to them. Acts like this or the disgusting hypocrisy of PETA simply make clear to me that environmentalists are frequently motivated not by concern for the earth or the future but just with gaining power for themselves – at the expense of capitalism, property rights, and freedom.

Read the story here





More QAC Absurdity

24 07 2007

Yet another post on the Sentinel Whispers today. It annoyed me enough to respond, so I submitted something on the Buzz and am also putting it up here.

“ I have to say this is bull!! Mr Stamato doesn’t care about anything but his
bottom line . . . bottom line is he was denied sewer to build his 218 unit
subdivision and he’s pizzed! It has nothing to do with “Fair Housing” or
his desire to offer “affordable” housing . . . he had to include those 67
“moderately priced” units to get past “Go” in his approval process. I’d
love to know what “moderate” price they were going to be offered at and what
the other houses in this “affordable-housing development” were to be priced.
And how does he figure the County Commissioners are a “direct provider” of
homes in this instance? They weren’t the ones who were to build and sell
the homes, he was. Just another developer hungry to get his piece of QAC.”
Kent Island Resident


And out come the attacks ad hominem. Now perhaps I’m mistaken in this, but I would assume that “Kent Island Resident” is not in fact personally acquainted with Mr. Stamato, certainly not enough to know for a fact that he “doesn’t care about anything but his bottom line.” But hey, I could be wrong, I don’t know Mr. Stamato and I don’t know who “Kent Island Resident” is either.

I do know enough though to tip my hat to Mr. Stamato. While I disagree with mandated Moderately Priced Housing (MPH) as a matter of principle I commend any action that sends the clear message the county cannot continue to interfere in the lives of its citizens with impunity. Power cannot simply be created, it must be transferred. Every new regulatory burden placed upon the landowners of Queen Anne’s county is one more piece of our decision making power stolen from us by those with no right to do so.

Here’s another thing I know. If “Kent Island Resident” and everyone else who is all for MPH really wanted it then they would be outraged at the County government. There is no better way to drive up prices than by adding government regulation to it. Regulation cost money, and no sane businessman would simply soak up those regulatory costs himself, he factors them into the costs of production which results in a higher end price. Want more affordable housing? Deregulate!

With less regulations there will in turn be significantly less costs in the creation of homes. Therefore prices can be less. And as for that evil profit motive so many people like to complain about, it will encourage lower prices because of something called diminishing returns. The long and short of it is that at some point continuing to raise prices leads to less economic return. And in a weak housing market (such as the one we currently have) the point of diminishing returns will be hit even more quickly in order for the units to have any sort of competitiveness on the market.

Finally, people claim that the developers are all eager to get their piece of QAC? He’s the one trying to develop land in order to sell it to other people. The only people looking to get their own piece of QAC are the anti-capitalist, private property hating, misanthropic misers that forced into the commissioners seats a group of like-minded individuals or persons too weak-willed to act otherwise and who are now using taxpayer dollars stolen from the citizens to purchase more land so that it cannot be utilized and fully realized by the rightful owners – private entities! “Who are the developers to act the way they have?” such people ask. More like “Who is John Galt?” if you ask me.

EDIT: Since apparently some have taken this post as too much and found it offensive I offer the following.

First an apology for any offense taken (but none as to the words themselves or the ideas they convey).

Second a reminder that my views are completely my own and in no way reflect the opinions, values, feelings, or any other what have you of anyone else, related to me or otherwise.

Third, and finally, attacks made are never against people, they are only against ideas, policies, and actions on them.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.