The Problem Isn’t the Plan, it’s the Planning, Part II

6 01 2012

In the previous installment, I made clear the unbelievable amount of arrogance it takes to think that the production of a single pencil could be centrally planned, much less the land use policy of an entire state.

However I also made the more controversial claim, that Gov. O’Malley doesn’t deserve all the blame for implementing such a foolish plan, that we all need to take ownership of this folly.

To understand why, look back to our friend the pencil. Remember how complex the process of his manufacture is? And think about how much more complex it is therefore to make something much more complex, like a house or a community.

Nobel Prize winning economist F.A. Hayek had many great insights, but his greatest insight was with regards to the astounding complexity of our economy, the ways in which it spontaneously ordered itself, and the folly of trying to centrally plan that economy.

Simply put, Hayek’s great insight was that the economy, and even small sectors of it, are too complex to be centrally planned. The myriad needs and desires of all the individuals who make up the economy simply present too many variables to be accounted for by any person or board.

As a result, when such central planning is attempted, it will inevitably fail. Planners will allocate too little in one area, too much in another, ignore people’s desires and instead force their own preferences. And when the planning fails, how do the planners respond?

Once in a blue moon, they recognize their mistake and roll back their initial planning, allowing the spontaneous ordering of the market to address the issue. More often though, they insist the failure was not theirs, that all that is needed to fix the problem is yet more planning.

In this way, planning begets yet more planning, and what started as relatively minor and benign escalates into massive assaults on individual liberty.

The situation is no different here in Maryland. PlanMaryland did not emerge out of whole cloth from the ether. It is the product of a natural evolution that began the day Marylanders accepted government planning of land use policy via zoning laws and other ordinances controlling land use policy.

Had we protested earlier, refused to accept the lesser invasion of private property rights, then we would never be facing the much larger assault that is PlanMaryland. But it’s not too late, we can fight off PlanMaryland, but we can’t stop there, we need to continue to push forward and rollback zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and all the other intrusions on the free exercise of private property rights in Maryland.

And contrary to what some might say, not only can a place survive without government planned land use policy, it can thrive. I’ll explain that in Part III.





The Problem Isn’t the Plan, it’s the Planning, Part I

4 01 2012

Now that Gov. O’Malley has implemented PlanMaryland via executive order, more than a little ink and plenty of angst has been spilled over it.

It’s been declaimed as part of a War on Rural Maryland, an example of executive overreach, an assault on private property rights, and an effort to undermine local planning boards. All of these are true characterizations of PlanMaryland, but they’re also all wrong.

Alright, they’re not exactly wrong. But they miss the real problem and in doing so the obscure the real issue with PlanMaryland. Simply put, the real complaint against PlanMaryland isn’t what it proposes to do, it’s that it proposes to do.

Take a moment and pick up one of the pencils that is undoubtedly on your desk. Consider it for a moment. Just how did it come to be there?

This is a question explored in the famous essay “I, Pencil.” As Leonard Reed, its author explains, not a person in the world knows how to make a simple pencil. Simply obtaining the raw wood alone is a monumental task, requiring the coordination of hundreds of people and skills – not just to cut the wood, but the mine and smelt the saws and other tools, to grow hemp and make it into rope, to run and maintain the lumber camp, even to make the coffee the lumberjacks drink.

As a simple a task as that would seem, it only continues to grow more complex. To transport the wood, to mill it, to fill with graphite and finish the pencils, to ship it to stores across the world, to produce the energy that powers all of this and to generate the capital that finances it all – all of this involves the unplanned coordination of untold thousands and thousands of people.

With such awe-inspiring complexity, what person in the world could ever make a pencil on their own. And in a vacuum, without the way having been shown first, what person or even group of people could ever centrally plan the process? What minds could ever conceive of, much less manage such an intricate and intertwined system, one that spans not just countless humans across the globe but across time as well.

The answer is simple, none could, and only a fool would think they could.

But if the creation of a pencil is such a complex process, how much more complex is a whole house. And how much more complex a community, or the network of communities we call counties? And for someone to think that one person or even a committee could mastermind the collection of counties we think of as a state?

What hubris. What bald-faced arrogance.

But, in spite of his egotistical belief that government is up to the task of capably managing a system of such infinite complexity, Gov. O’Malley doesn’t deserve all the blame. We all need to accept our share as well. I’ll explain why in Part II.





Big Box Benefits

8 08 2011

A lot of ink, both digital and physical, has been spilled over the proposed zoning text amendment that would potentially allow big box stores here in Queen Anne’s County.

I support the passage of that amendment. I can talk about a lot of reasons why. I could talk about property rights, or savings to consumers, or reducing gas costs for Queen Anne’s County residents, or all sorts of other sound, but abstract reasons. But that’s not what I’m going to highlight, at least not right now.

What I’m going to highlight is a simple, personal anecdote.

My wife and I have a young son. Since she works and we’re not keen on using formula, she pumps milk to  be fed to him while she’s gone during the day. Well this past Sunday evening, the electric pump we rely on for that stopped working. And that highlighted for me, in simple terms, the benefits of having big boxes.

Is there a small, local business that carries electric breast pumps? Maybe.

But how long would I have to scour through the phone book to try and figure out what place that is?

And even if it exists, and I succeeded in finding it, what are the odds it would still be open at 6:30 PM on a Sunday?

In contrast, with a big box store like a Wal-Mart or a Target, one can count on them to carry something like breast pumps and you can count on them be open well after a small local business will have closed for the day, regardless of the day of the week.

Rural character and local charm can count for a lot, but when it comes down to it, accessibility and reliability count for a lot more in my book and most other people’s too.





Six Simple Principles for Budget Reform

26 06 2011

The following op-ed piece was published in this week’s Bay Times and Record-Observer.

This past week our commissioners have sought input from Queen Anne’s County residents on the proposed budget and tax increases. Now they face the daunting task of finalizing the budget and the county tax rates.

It’s a job none should envy. Passions run high and the end result will leave many, if not all, unsatisfied.

In light of this formidable endeavor, I’d like to offer some advice to the commissioners in the hope of easing their burden.

However, they have far better knowledge of county government than I possibly could, so I won’t try to give specifics on what to cut or how much to reduce a given department’s resources. I’ll limit myself to six simple principles:

1) Don’t Raise Taxes

At every hearing, person after person came forward and made clear that a tax increase will be an impossible burden for Queen Anne’s County families, deterring new people from coming to Queen Anne’s County and pushing out people living on the margin. Tax increases might seem a short-term fix, but they’re a long-term disaster.

2) Cut Spending by Cutting Programs

Most cuts that have been discussed have focused on maintaining the status quo, but doing it for less. That isn’t enough. The commissioners need to look hard at county government and decide what it needs to do and what it doesn’t. If a program isn’t necessary, get rid of it. Permanently. Only by reducing the scope of government activity can we possibly tame the budget.

3) There are no Sacred Cows

While much of county government is worth keeping, no part of it can be shielded from its share of the burden – no one can be exempt from budget cuts, not the Board of Education, not the Sheriff’s Office, not a single department. Everyone enjoyed the excess over the last 4 years, everyone must share in the sacrifice now.

4) Seek Alternate Sources of Revenue

Cuts aren’t enough. The county must pursue bold, outside-the-box approaches to generating non-tax revenue. From the modest, like relaxing ordinances limiting billboards and charging fees for new ones, to the extreme, like leasing naming rights to our county schools, every opportunity must be explored.

5) Cap Future Spending Growth

Our county is in this mess because county government spent the last 4 years turning soaring revenues from the housing bubble into huge spending increases. Never again. The commissioners have to implement rules preventing any future budget from growing in size by more than the rate of population growth plus inflation without a unanimous vote of the commissioners.

6) Mandate Sunsets on all Tax Increases

While tax increases are unnecessary to fixing the current budget woes, if the county commissioners do use them, it’s imperative they have a sunset provision. Any tax increase must come with language such that after two years rates will revert to the current levels, adjusted for constant yield. Indeed, this requirement should be made a requirement for all future tax increases.

While any of these six common sense principles are a useful tool for budget reform, taken together they will be a powerful force for fiscal discipline and a strong guarantee against finding ourselves in the same situation again.

I look forward to seeing the county commissioners’ budget and hope to see all six principles as core components of it.





Nobody Wants to be Illegal and the MD DREAM Act Won’t Change That

24 06 2011

Ann Miller recently made the case that the MD DREAM Act encourages legal immigrants to become illegal. While I like Ann and think she generally does a good job with her writing, she’s really missed the mark on this one.

In essence, her argument boils down to the argument that because the MD DREAM Act gives a benefit to illegal immigrants but not to legal immigrants, that creates an incentive for legal immigrants to become illegal immigrants.

All other things being equal, that might be true. The problem is, all other things aren’t equal. To paraphrase the great Frédéric Bastiat, we have to consider both those things which are seen and those which are unseen.

The simple fact is, being an illegal immigrant sucks. It’s a wretched, horrible life that imposes massive burdens, both economic and psychological, even for the luckiest amongst them. No one wants to be an illegal immigrant – they’d just rather be an illegal immigrant than trapped in the hellhole that was their former country.

As an illegal immigrant a person:

  • Lives in constant fear of deportation
  • Cannot participate in the above ground economy
  • Has to be scared of seeking help from law enforcement if they are victimized
  • Are more likely to be targeted by thieves and other criminals because of the (justifiable) reluctance to seek help from law enforcement
  • Possesses a generally lower standard of living than equally poor Americans
  • Is denied access to most welfare programs that benefit the poor
Balance all of the above against the sole benefit of the MD DREAM Act, reduced tutition, with no pathway to citizenship like the federal DREAM Act offered, and I can’t imagine there are any legal immigrants for whom a shift from legal status to illegal status would be beneficial.

Immigrants aren’t stupid, especially ones who are successful at navigating the impossible maze that is our legal immigration system. They know full well what it means to be an illegal immigrant, so does anyone really think they’re going to weigh all the negatives noted above against the meager benefits of the MD DREAM Act and decide to give up their legal status?




A Thought Experiment Involving Voter Suppression Laws

22 06 2011

In light of the recent indictment of Ehrlich campaign consultants Paul Schurick and Julius Henson for voter suppression, I was thinking about the question of voter suppression in and of itself.

The main point that strikes me is the boundaries of voter suppression.

Based off of the indictment, it seems pretty clear that it’s out of bounds to call potential voters and tell them they don’t need to go out and vote because the election is decided. But what else is out of bounds?

There’s a not-small portion of libertarians that are opposed to voting on a mix of moral (it immorally uses the force of the state to impose the majority’s preferences on the minority and the act of voting endorses the use of the force), statistical (the chances of your individual vote having a direct impact on the election are vanishingly miniscule), and economic grounds (in light of the statistical irrelevance of voting there are better uses of one’s resources).

While I am a libertarian, I do not happen to hold with this particular school of thought. But I bring it and its adherents up because they’re a useful counterpoint to political operatives like Schurick and Henson. Furthermore, I’d like to do a little thought experiment considering several scenarios involving them. Note, I don’t know much about voter suppression law so I don’t know the answers to the questions I’ll pose in it and as I said before, I am not endorsing this strain of libertarian thought.

Now, to the experiment. Given the existence of people with an ideological commitment to non-voting:

A). If people who hold these convictions attempt to convince others of that, does that count as illegal voter suppression?

B). What about if some of those people formed an organization to further that message? And if they used that group to create videos or print literature trying to convince people not to vote? Does that count as illegal voter suppression?

C). What if it went a step further and the group made phone calls on election day to encourage people not to go out to the polls? Does that count as illegal voter suppression?

D). And what if a political campaign took the materials made by the organization and distributed them in a targeted fashion designed to primarily hit likely supporters of the opposing campaign? Does that cross the line into illegal voter suppression? (this is assuming all other campaigning laws like disclosure are being followed)

To reiterate, I don’t know much about voter suppression laws, so any input as to which items would cross the line would be most appreciated. However, my guess, informed by nothing but my general intuitions on the matter, would be that scenarios A, B, and probably C would be seen as ok, but D would not.

That troubles me, since it seems to indicate that voter suppression laws have nothing to do with concerns about protecting the democratic process and everything to do with status signalling, namely this:

  • Promoting non-voting for the altruistic reason of ideological commitment is high-status and therefore ok.
  • Promoting non-voting for the self-interested reason of political gain is low-status and therefore forbidden.
Now, I’m not personally interested in voter suppression. Since I have no ideological commitment to non-voting I’d like to see as many people come out and vote in support of libertarian causes and I recognize that people might vote otherwise.
But on the other hand if that’s all voter suppression laws boil down to, I have trouble seeing much virtue in having them. Prohibitions on force and fraud to stop voting make sense, but prohibiting some political speech just because it’s low status and might persuade people not to vote seems both fundamentally wrong and to potentially run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
UPDATE: Just to make sure it was clear, I think the Schurick-Henson case is a completely different animal than what I’ve described in my thought experiment. The facts, at least as reported, seem to leave no room for doubt that this was a fraudulent exercise, something unquestionably wrong and properly illegal.




Mixed up on Gay Marriage

24 02 2011

For those who care about such things, RedMaryland is once again debating the gay marriage issue and what Maryland conservatives ought to be doing about the move to legalize it in the Old Line State.

For a while now there’s something that’s bothered me about this debate (the debate generally, not this one specifically), and I finally think I’ve put my finger on what it is.

Simply put, what government calls a marriage is not really a Marriage.

That which is really, truly Marriage is a commitment made between the partners and, if relevant, the deity they mutually revere. It is a commitment to be forever united and faithful to the person in question – it’s an acknowledgement that the other has become such a fundamental part of your own identity that there is no possibility of your own wholeness without their presence in your life.

Government marriage doesn’t hold a candle to that. It’s just a piece of paper saying the government agrees to recognize two people as one for certain tax and property ownership purposes and that they mutually have the right to make certain decisions on behalf of the other. In substance, it’s just another form of contract, not any different than a contract forming a joint partnership and government calling it marriage doesn’t make it Marriage anymore than government calling a jar of peanut butter a PB&J sandwich would make it so.

So if all that’s at stake is government limiting a certain subset of contract law to some people, then I see two implications arising:

  1. Same-sex marriage isn’t the big deal it’s made out to be, by either side of the debate.
  2. Prohibitions on same-sex marriage are an interference with freedom of contract, and if we support free markets than we can’t simultaneously support abridging freedom of contract.

I don’t imagine writing this will have much of any impact on the policy debate being decided in Annapolis, but with the significant difference between marriage and Marriage, I would strongly urge Republicans, both in legislators and activists, to cease their opposition to the same-sex government marriages.





Is the Tea Party Serious About Liberty?

26 01 2011

It’s an important question and the answer isn’t as self-evident as it might seem.

As Salon’s Alex Pareene has noted, there are some disturbing trends when it comes to Tea Party activists taking anti-liberty stances:

Andrew Sullivan documented two examples of Tea Party illiberalism earlier this week. First of all, polling reveals that support for gay marriage is lower among Tea Partyers than among almost any group besides “conservative Republicans.” Fifty-two percent of Tea Partyers don’t support gay marriage or civil unions. That is not really the position of actual libertarian-leaning Republicans, let alone freewheeling libertarians.

But more damningly, various New Mexico Tea Partyers booed one of the movement’s superstars for daring to suggest that a wasteful and — let’s just say it –tyrannical government campaign be ended.

That’s pretty troubling stuff, as is the hostility to free trade and aggressively anti-immigration sentiment coming from some Tea Party activists and attendees.

However the Cato Institute’s David Boaz has a fair counterpoint to Pareene’s:

“The tea party is not a libertarian movement, but (at this point at least) it is a libertarian force in American politics. It’s organizing Americans to come out in the streets, confront politicians, and vote on the issues of spending, deficits, debt, the size and scope of government, and the constitutional limits on government. That’s a good thing. And if many of the tea partiers do hold socially conservative views (not all of them do), then it’s a good thing for the American political system and for American freedom to keep them focused on shrinking the size and cost of the federal government.”

In general I’d say Boaz comes closer to the truth. But then I see things like this and it makes me want to re-consider:

More importantly than being MSOP’s first meeting of the New Year, this meeting will feature Robert Broadus, leader of Protect Marriage Maryland. We will discuss the imminent threats to traditional marriage in Maryland, which have become very legitimate due to November’s elections, and what the average Marylander can do to stop them.

That’s from the website of the Maryland Society of Patriots, one of the two main Tea Party groups in Maryland (the other main group is AFP based). That they are taking this kind of stance is incredibly disturbing.

There simply isn’t anything pro-liberty about using the coercive force of the state to define marriage as exclusively being the province of the combination of one man and one woman. I don’t expect Tea Party groups to go and support the libertarian social policies, but if it wants to be serious about it’s pro-liberty credentials it needs to avoid coming out and endorsing social conservative statism.





Mistaken on Marriage

19 01 2011

Is traditional marriage an institution so vital to the maintenance of a free and prosperous society that no tinkering with it can be allowed?

That’s the case that Greg Kline is making at RedMaryland and it’s a legitimate argument, certainly better than just shouting “SODOM AND GOMORRAH” like some social cons. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good argument.

Now, I happen to be sympathetic to arguments from tradition, indeed it’s one of the arguments I use to support easing the immigration process. But arguing for tradition doesn’t and shouldn’t mean simply arguing for the static preservation of the current status quo, the status quo of the 1950′s, or any other period for that matter.

  • First, not all traditions are created equal.

To suppose that the sum total of all our traditions at any given point are absolutely vital to the functioning of society and an absence or change in any of them will bring about negative effects is to defend both just and proper institutions and unjust and horrible ones as well. Slavery, arranged marriages, prevention of women from owning property, anti-miscegenation laws, all of these were long-held traditions, but I suspect few of the defenders of tradition would say we are the worse off today for getting rid of them.

  • Second, culture isn’t a static thing that always has been.

It’s a fluid and dynamic, a marketplace of ideas. And that’s a big part of why culture needs to be determined organically by the people instead of being codified into law. Even when they don’t violate principles of justice, a society’s traditions may not always meet the needs of another society or even that same society at a different point in time.

Ancient Egypt, Medieval Europe, and Colonial America all featured traditions and mores that worked for their society but that certainly would be problematic for our society today. That’s why government needs to remain out of the sphere of culture and tradition as much as possible, so that the spontaneous orders that shaped our society can continue to do so as we move into the future.

  • Third, even within a traditionalist framework, there’s nothing wrong with tweaking traditions and experimenting with new approaches.

There is simply a strong, and usually reasonable caution against sweeping, radical changes. But neither Kittleman’s bill, which sparked the whole debate on RedMaryland, nor gay marriage in general are this kind of change. It’s not a wholesale redefinition of marriage, the way something like Robert Heinlein’s imagined limited-duration marriages (I Will Fear No Evil), polygamous line marriages (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), or communal marriage communities (Stranger in a Strange Land) are.

All gay marriage does is tweak the institution slightly by expanding its franchise while keeping all the other particulars intact. This is exactly how social change is supposed to happen according to traditionalists, so it is quite odd that Kline is opposed to it.

  • Finally, in making his case for tradition, Kline veers directly into what traditionalists argue against – central planning.

I think this may be the most serious flaw in Kline’s argument. By presuming to hold the knowledge necessary to absolutely define, by force of law, what marriage is and what marriage is not, Kline is making the same mistake as the French revolutionaries Burke derided and the socialist planners Hayek was refuting – he is assuming that society can be planned.

By only allowing legal recognition of heterosexual unions Kline would be given preference in the marketplace of ideas to a particular conception of marriage rather than allowing the spontaneous orders he speaks so well of continue to operate. On the other hand, making government a neutral arbiter in the process of marriage will better allow society to continue to grow and shift as a creation of human action but not of human design.

As I said at the beginning, I’m quite sympathetic to arguments from tradition. But an argument from tradition isn’t supposed to be an argument for a static preservation of the status quo, it’s an anti-planning argument for slow, gradual change – and that’s what gay marriage in general, and Kittleman’s bill in particular are.





Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool…

10 01 2011

…than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.

In a recent e-mail missive Del. Pat McDonough continued his habit of making unwise and misinformed claims about illegal immigration in America.

Here’s a pretty big mistake:

The Federal and State Dream Act proposals promote the idea that illegibility is based on the applicants parents paying federal or state taxes. It is unlawful under federal law for illegals to pay federal income taxes. The only way this can be accomplished is through fraud.

What’s the real truth? Something far different.

First, illegal immigrants not only can legally pay federal income tax, according to U.S. law they are obliged to. In the case of James v United States the Supreme Court held that illegally earned income is still considered to contribute to an individual’s total gross income and as such the earner owes taxes on it.

Second, it is quite possible for illegal immigrants to pay federal income taxes without resorting to fraud. The IRS issues Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) to persons without Social Security Numbers so that they can pay taxes. In 2008 alone, over 5.5 million tax returns were filed using ITINs. Now, it’s unlikely that all of those were illegal immigrants, but a large number of them undoubtedly were.

I’m not sure who is supplying Del. McDonough with his immigration facts, but considering how often they’ve been wrong he really ought to stop listening to them. And since those mistaken facts are the basis for his anti-immigration legislation he might want to re-think it as well.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.