More Supreme Court Catastrophes

In a depressing 5-4 ruling today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of group rights above the rights of the individual. The basics of the case involved a local governments ability to seize private property (such as your home) and give it to another private party (such as a hotel chain) for the greater good of the community (in the hopes of increasing tax revenue). This is nothing but shameful. Shameful that local governments would be in the business of doing this, and shameful that the Supreme Court of this great land would uphold there ability to do so.

The only bright side of this decision is that it was met with fierce opposition from the 4 dissenting judges, including O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia. This is good since it furthers the likelihood that the decision would be overturned in the future. The other good news is that the decision is receiving mainstream press coverage, and not as positively toned as you would expect.

Personal freedom has taken another stomach punch here. With any luck, next time I will be writing about a big win on the liberty front. Wish me luck.

NC Government Spanks Bottoms, Earns Revenue

"Looks like revenue is a little down boys, how about pushing for another 'Click It or Ticket' campaign?"

It's not a stretch to imagine that sentence being spoken and echoed through the halls of the NC DMV. After all, times are tight for the state, and we gotta pull in those dollars. There are lots of ways: regular tax increases, bond referendums on "Schools, parks, trees, smiling children, sunshine, etc", and my favorite, the not-so-temporary "temporary" tax. "Well, we're just not ready yet to let that tax sunset; after all we haven't really 'recovered' yet from the last recession. We'll let you know when we have." Funny, but I don't recall taxes going down during the high-tech bubble of 1999 when the state was supposedly flush with cash.

But the most easily-justified and easily-implemented revenue earner is prosecuting or fining for victimless crimes, and North Carolina has plenty of "Nanny Laws" on the books, ranging from laws governing intimate relations, gambling, and all manner of minor drug infractions. One of the more egregious of these is the seat belt law. Everyone knows seat belts are great, the best things since sliced bread and canned beer. They save lives. I get it. I use them. The problem is the government has decided that you will always wear one - It's For Your Own Good, Nanny says, and You Will Wear It. Or, they will fine you profusely. Take it a step further - if you don't pay the fine, they will revoke your license and eventually take you to jail. So, your liberty will be forfeit if you don't belt yourself in inside your own vehicle.

The recent Click It or Ticket drive netted some revenue for the good ole boys:

23,803 citations for safety belt violations, multiplied by a $25 fine, and $50 or $100 in court fees. (We'll average it out to $75 in court fees) results in $595, 075 in fines and $1,785,225 in court fees. To say it costs the court $100 to process a seat belt infraction is stretching it. Subtract the costs of troopers, which would be on the road anyway, just not earning revenue, would be a fruitless exercise. The point is made.

There's no better way to get a little money than just taking it. And there's no better way to take it than to enforce some nanny law about a safety procedure that most people agree with in the first place. No victims, no bad press, no push back from the citizenry, because it's ostensibly for your safety. Just give up your liberty.

If it's really all about safety, no word then on why the state allows the sale and purchase of cigarettes, alcohol, hamburgers, etc. Perhaps more revenue would be lost in that case? In the case of seat belt enforcement, it must have been the easiest law to pass; pressure groups consisting of accident victims loudly calling for regulation, concerned citizenry pushing for a new law (which legislatures love), which if broken, results in a net financial gain for the government.

One of the more obnoxious nanny laws in Raleigh is the mandatory helmet law for bicycle riders. Another seemingly beneficial safety measure forced upon a complacent populace. No word on how much revenue that pulls in for the city. As for myself, I will continue to ride my bike helmetless praying, praying, that someone gives me a ticket for it.

Bitten by the Hand that Feeds

In some cases, big government advocates find themselves suffering from the very government they empower. This is very much the case in a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court to OK prosecutions of medical marijuana cases by the federal government. Seems big government is involved in the state's business of legislating the legal use of marijuana for seriously ill individuals. The real question in this case is the constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act.

It's hard to explain how the federal government has jurisdiction in a case regarding an issue that is solely housed in one state. There is no interstate connection in this case and no apparent infringements on the constitution. There doesn't seem to be any reason for the federal government to be involved at all. But there's a problem. Deciding in favor of the elderly cancer patient in this case would have involved shooting a hole in the constitutionality of one of the governments large investments, the drug war. Even so, we have some principled Supreme Court justices who were able to vote in favor of the elderly cancer patient in California. Who were these defiant justices, voting with the concept that the federal government need not be involved in issues that do not affect it? Only Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Side note for worried liberals: all of these judges were elected by Republicans). Even though these justice's aren't exactly pro-legalization, they had the wisdom to see that it was California's elected officials who should be tasked with the laws governing the state of California, and the courage to act on this thinking.

Where the federal government has no jurisdiction, it should be ousted. This was an opportunity to oust the fed where it did not rightfully belong. I sad day for those who believe in state's and individual's rights, and an unfortunate reminder to those who empower the federal government to be as intrusive as it is - and don't think Patriot Act here, as it is at least related to a granted role of the federal government, to protect national security - Apples and Oranges - another article.

Full Page Sad

The other day I was flipping through The Village Voice because I was out of ipecac, and I came across something interesting. Some hipster du jour named Tim Rice-Oxley, from the band Keane, took out a full page ad to share his opinions on world debt and poverty. It seems that this misguided soul is of the impression that if we could just absolve the international debts of third world countries, then somehow miraculously their poverty crises would come to a crashing halt. Not only do I not trust this individual to be a purveyor of catchy melodies, I also question his knowledge of economics.

In his diatribe he never mentions how exactly this transformation is to take place. Granted a poor nation that suddenly had zero debt could conceivably reduce taxes and turn revenue inward. But isn't simply wiping the slate clean of debt a very dangerous precedent? It seems like a slippery slope to me. What's next, we do away with currency altogether so we can happily exist in the confines of the "Honor System"? In the ad, the author also fails to mention any disdain for the dictators that control most third world countries. This is at the root of the problem, it's the lack of individual freedom that keeps the masses downtrodden and enslaved. Simply taking a magic wand and waving away international debts will not bring anyone out of poverty. Realistically it would just further line the pockets of the very despots that are responsible in the first place. Allowing everyone the freedom and opportunity to become producers and entrepreneurs is what will change the tide of global poverty.

Poverty is always going to exist, because there will always be people who choose to consistently make the wrong decisions and not take responsibility afterwards. A large scale reduction of poverty, however, is possible, but it takes courage and fortitude to fight the forces of tyranny and collectivism that are at it's core. So perhaps this neophyte tunesmith shouldn't waste his money on full page advertisements and instead invest in any number of books by Thomas Sowell et al.

A Word from Neal at Graduation Time

Every year around this time Neal Boortz has a special message for all those graduating from institutions of higher learning. It is the Neal Boortz Commencement Speech.

You could describe this speech in many ways. You could call it crass, overbearing, mean-spirited, etc. For a recent graduate, you could simply call it essential. Whether you agree with his particular views of the concepts examined in the speech, they are accurately described. The difference is whether you think big government is a pro or a con. New grads, and many others, need to read this speech to get the anti big government argument, since they most likely did not hear this view from their professors.

If you haven't read this speech for yourself, it is worth a read. If you know a recent college grad, do them a favor and send them the link. They may thank you for it later.