Red Clay Citizen

NC House Protecting You from Yourself

The elected officials of the North Carolina House (well, all but one), think they know better than you what you should be able to do with your money.

Yesterday, they approved a bill (SB 180) by a 116-1 vote that would prohibit certain "server based sweepstakes games."  These games involve a person buying a pre-paid card (usually with long distance minutes) with different codes on it, then going to a computer screen and spinning a wheel to see if any of the codes matched winning payout.  Basically, they were afraid that people were gambling (gasp!).

The lone vote of dissent was Rep. Earl Jones (D-Guilford) who argued that people should just be left alone.

Now, I'm not going to get off on a whole libertarian rant on legalizing gambling, but this bill points to the arrogance and paternalism involved in trying to tell people how to spend their own money.  One lawmaker even pointed to the dangers of "you being able to lose your entire paycheck" (emphasis mine). 

Well, if that's what I want to do, why the heck shouldn't I be able to do so?  Who is government to tell me how to spend it?  What's next, a bill to make it illegal to get in my car and drive to Cherokee or Atlantic City, NJ?  I mean, if there's a possibility I could spend my entire paycheck there, we've got to pass a law to protect me from myself.

Well, in my case, maybe we should pass a law that says I can't ever go to Costco or Best Buy since I'm equally as likely to spend my entire paycheck there.

It is especially hypocritical of any self-described conservative lawmaker to vote in favor of this bill and then stand up and oppose efforts from the left to redistribute wealth and equalize income.  The arguments are basically the same -- you don't know how best to spend your money, so just let the government do it, we can help more people through confiscating and redistribution than you can through spending and saving.

I could be off base with this, maybe the lawmakers just wanted to make sure that if anyone was gambling in North Carolina they were using the State run operation to do so -- the North Carolina Education Lottery.

Smoking Bans That Make Some Sense

Okay, so here's an AP abstract of smoking bans the N.C. General Assembly is currently considering:

The Senate tentatively approved legislation to curb smoking further on state property, even inside state-owned or leased cars. One bill would bar people from smoking within 25 feet of entrances to state buildings on state-owned or leased property. The buffer also would surround ventilation systems and open windows to those buildings. The bill passed after an amendment approved reduced the buffer from 50 feet. Another proposal given the initial OK would prohibit smoking in all state-owned or leased vehicles. Final Senate votes could come Tuesday.

So should we free-market (freedom) fundamentalists work themselves into a tizzy over this? No, actually. Not this one, at least. You see, while bans in PUBLIC spaces may be part of an incrementalist plot to ban smoking everywhere in N.C. eventually, from the POV of property rights, it's not that offensive to me. You see, public property is in some sense common property. The same cannot be said for a privately owned bar or restaurant. So even if we were to ban smoking on the street, which is a public thoroughfare, that would make more sense than banning it in someone's business establishment, which people can choose either to patronize or not (and thus bear, or not, the associated risks of 2nd hand smoke, etc. etc.).

When someone blows smoke into my face on the public street, then makes me pay taxes to have government employees come 'round and tidy up the streets of cigarette butts, well that's the imposition of both a cost and a harm onto me. So, public sector smoking bans are probably right, albeit for the wrong reasons (paternalism, nanny statism, public health fixations, and so on). That said, I'm not going to get bent out of shape seeing that smoking is banned on the sidewalk. Instead, I'm going to put my energy into fighting for people who're trying to run an honest business that includes an environment of which smoking may be a part. That is their right.
-Max Borders

Regulating Renters

In another edition of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, the City of Raleigh has given initial approval to a new program that requires property owners to register with the City and pay a $30 per unit fee to have the right to engage in the private business transaction of renting their property to another individual.  (WRAL story here).

If I decide to rent a house I own to someone else, it is none of government's business. 

The City is selling the program as a way to cutdown on landlord's who tolerate crime to occur on their property.  But isn't that just a small fraction of the people renting property?  Why penalize the vast majority of tenants/landlords who are doing no harm to anyone? Why regulate something that isn't really that much of a problem?

The only logical explanation is the City sees this as another way to raise revenue outside of increasing taxes.

The costs will naturally be passed on to renters in higher rent costs -- hitting those who can least afford it the most.  How very progressive of this modern City of Raleigh -- needlessly increase the cost of housing! 

What's next?  A proposal to increase the regressive sales tax by 1 cent?  Oh, wait.

And just what are they going to do with the money raised from the new fees?  Hire the people to enforce the new rules!  "City officials estimated the fees would raise about $775,000, which would be used to hire people to enforce the new rules."

Easley's Pessimistic View of You

Borders had an excellent piece in yesterday's Fayetteville Observer on the best way to help "those in need."

Our Governor thinks so little of the people of North Carolina, that he believes the most vulnerable among us will be cast aside without the "help" of those angelic bureaucrats in Raleigh:

"Third, Easley claims that without government, the state’s most vulnerable people would be neglected and “not receive the critical aid they need.” That means you, dear reader, would neglect them — unless a more enlightened majority voted against your selfish demons. But is that true? Easley is offering us a low-cost way to vote away our sense of moral responsibility for our neighbors and our communities. That moral sense will then be entrusted to an army of bureaucrats who know better than you what your community needs. But isn’t that just compulsory compassion based on a pessimistic view of mankind?"

Borders suggests there is a better way to help those in need than subjecting them to dependency on a faceless bureaucracy:

"So as the pendulum between left and right swings back and forth between election days, let me humbly suggest that we stop thinking of the world in terms of dualities such as government welfare and self-reliance. Instead, let’s embrace a third way. Let’s return the government to its rightful place protecting our lives, our liberty and our property. Then we can get together and help those in our communities without making them dependent, or robbing them of the dignity that comes with work and upward mobility."

Entitlement Nation

Max, I think I can do you one better (well, worse actually). Try this report from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

"The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt."

It's amazing to me that folks on the left actually continue to proclaim these programs to be shining examples of success.

"The CBO also found that if federal income tax rates are adjusted to allow the government to continue its current level of activity and balance the budget:

The lowest marginal tax bracket of 10 percent would have to rise to 26 percent.

The 25 percent marginal tax bracket would increase to 66 percent.

The current highest marginal tax bracket (35 percent) would have to rise to 92 percent!

Additionally, the top corporate income tax rate of 35 percent would have to increase to 92 percent."

If these estimates are even remotely accurate, the future looks grim indeed.

NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATION LOTTERY TO HELP FIGHT RECESSION

For Release: IMMEDIATE 

Contact: (877) 9NC-PLAY

         

EDUCATION LOTTERY TO HELP FIGHT RECESSION ANNOUNCES "INSTANT TAX REBATE" SCRATCH-OFF

RALEIGH - The North Carolina Education Lottery (NCEL) is going to help keep the economy from going into a recession. The North Carolina Education Lottery is introducing a new “INSTANT TAX REBATE” scratch-off game in conjunction with the issuing of “Tax Rebate” checks from the federal government.

The federal tax rebates in North Carolina will total billions of dollars and we need to insure that money is not wasted on frivolous spending but goes to supporting education. Since education is the ultimate economic development tool, this will spur the economy in North Carolina and help keep the country out of a recession.

This instant scratch-off ticket will have over $350 million in total cash prizes, which is a spectacular average of over $100 prize payout per household!

If we can convince half of the households in North Carolina to spend half their federal tax rebate on this game we estimate that the NCEL will gross over $1 billion. If the federal government would do the right thing and give a rebate to poor people and lower income families, who don't pay taxes, it would make our job easier as they are our target demographic (we also target mathematical illiterates and people not in full possession of their senses). If this would happen the Sky's the limit for potential sales!

The $300 million “INSTANT TAX REBATE” game is a $10 ticket with top prizes of $10 million. Players who scratch their way to win the $10 million prizes will be paid in installments of $500,000 over 20 years. There are also over 500,000 prizes between $50 and $500 and over 5,000 prizes from $1,000 to $50,000.

These tickets will be available in stores and check cashing centers when government tax rebate checks start arriving in lottery ticket consumers mailboxes!

# # #

                              THIS IS A PARODY!

Nanny Prison: Criminal Failure to Recycle

Holy $%# s&*$%!
Next they'll be digging through our trash at home. (More on this... stay tuned.)
-Max Borders

The Narrative of Subprime Villainy

What are markets? Markets are nothing more than individuals engaged in exchange. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, sometimes in the process of trading, there is fraud. One party can lie or cloud the terms of an agreement to his or her benefit. We can all agree that it's the government's responsibility to protect people from said fraud. Otherwise, markets are just people engaged in free activity -- mutual benefit, mutual gain--with risks sometimes involved. If such a relationship didn't exist, there would be no trade and therefore no market.

But some of our favorite Mercedes Marxists think of markets as some abstract enemy -- a Darth-Vaderish force that inhabits the greedy and puts Vampire eyeteeth in the necks of the poor. Perhaps this mien - common among progressives - is fueled by guilt. Perhaps by ignorance. Who can say? But of course, anything that happens that's perceived as a social bad is the market's fault and the market's alone. Markets aren't perfect (whatever perfect means -- I guess by their lights that no one should ever have to take risks or fail at anything.) And the government is the almighty, allgood, fix-er-up-er of justice--an objective Board of Control that with the smartest, morally upright people will set straight all the little people who clearly can't make economic decisions for themselves. (What could be more condescending, except perhaps putting a Wikipedia link to the word Schadenfreude as if people have never heard of it?)

Most recently, for example, Progressives have a post that lays blaim for the mortgage crises squarely at the feet of "Republicans" and of course those they derisively refer to as free-market fundamentalists -- despite the fact that the former and the latter don't always occupy the same area of the Venn diagram. Evil capitalists, the story goes, are drinking the blood of the homeowner (forgetting that some of these companies, and their employees, are teetering at the edge of bankruptcy themselves due to poor decisions). For support of their view, they throw in the Left's favorite neo-Keynesian hack Paul Krugman as evidence that they're right, as if this polemicist has said anything sane since 1999 -- or whenever it was Krugman started getting paid more to think less.

Instead of looking for villains in any other places besides his favored place -- that horrible market he (and all of us) have benefitted from -- he sticks to his master-narrative. And if any consideration falls outside of that haves- and have-nots story he jealously guards, he will ignore it, wish it away, or search frantically through Paul Krugman archives for witty retorts. Because rectitude courses through his veins. To consider other ideas ruins that good feeling righteousness brings. In the case of the subprime "crisis", he ignores the fact that HUD regulations have pressured and even forced lenders - either politically or by law - to "serve" populations that would otherwise fall out of the risk calculations lenders use to remain solvent businesses. But no, the government can do no wrong. So this couldn't be a factor.

And while in the wake of the dotcom bubble there was certainly an excessive migration of capital to real estate fueled by Fed policy, our Robin Hoods of home ownership write as if they a) knew all along, suggesting some crystal ball living where the sun don't shine (hindsite being 20/20 and all), b) that Alan Greenspan is any better at planning an complex economy than their favorite progressive politicians are of fixing it, and c) ordinary people are simply not capable of making risk calculations for themselves and to live with the consequences of their choices.

And if we, as our champagne socialist bloggers might hope, had regulated away the kinds of loans they finds so abhorrent, how many of the 97+ percent of those subprimers who still own and are paying for their mortgages would very likely still be renting? So which is the "crisis"? Never having the opportunity to begin with? Or freely accepting the risk? Our gentle paladins for social justice know better than YOU what risks you should take. And so do the government nannies they serve with such utter faith and obsequiousness. (I'll pass over the irony in that this author simultaneously derides "market fundamentalism" [yes, again] while taking shots at the former Chairman of the FEDERAL Reserve -- you know, that august government body.) When the government monkeys come around to over-regulate the mortgage industry so no one in the lower quartiles EVER gets a lone, what will they say? 'Screw 'em' I suppose. Or perhaps they'll hand out 3% fixed-rate loans like candy to everyone and bail them out whenever they default--all at everyone else's expense. Either way, they'll know what's best.

To our progressives blogger's false dichotomy I'll say this: the lending industry has already corrected itself. Bailouts will only skew the risk assessment of lenders and buyers more than the government and Fed have already done. Over-regulation a la SARBOX will result in unintended consequences that will be with us well beyond the healing of this burst bubble. We're now paying for a confluence of factors not even a majority of which were products of the market. But more importantly, the cure will be much worse than the disease if you, Bush and Congress get your way.

Despite all the sarcasm they can muster, our Mercades Marxists won't be able to explain away (much less acknowledge) myriad other factors in the subprime issue. They will be content instead to throw out non sequiturs about war or wiretapping. They will offer no substantive solutions. They will be content to hide behind rhetorical devices their readers will happily lap up without reflection. But they will not get into the actual critical thinking. (That's Krugman's job, apparently). No, they are, and will remain, second-hand dealers in bad ideas.
-Max Borders

Happy Repeal Day!

74 years ago today, a failed experiment in the Federal Government's attempts to regulate personal behavior was repealed.

Raise your glass and toast the Constitution and our rights as free citizens.

Progressive "Realism"

Here we have a leftish type at NC Policy Watch demanding more aid so that low income can afford to pay for heating -- what with energy being so costly.

Here we have a leftish type at NC Policy Watch writing in support of measures that will increase energy rates.

Just like with affordable housing and open space, it's another example of how environmental silliness works at odds with concern for the poor. That's the eat-cake/have-cake logic of the left. I guess we MFs just don't understand all the nuances of the Rube Goldberg-style government they're trying to build.
-Max Borders

More of that Illness Known as Krugmania

Prof. Boudreaux takes Paul Krugman to task on another effort in inanity:

Paul Krugman asserts that Social Security faces no financial crisis ("Played for a Sucker," November 16).  His evidence?  Peter Orszag's and Philip Ellis's statement that the largest fiscal problem confronting Uncle Sam is the projected growth in health-care costs.  Mr. Krugman's logic is as compelling as would be that of a physician who concludes that tuberculosis isn't a serious illness because pancreatic cancer is even more lethal.

In 2005 testimony before Congress, the eminent economist Thomas Saving - appointed by President Clinton to serve as a Public Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds - acknowledged that Medicare and Medicaid are in worse financial shape than is Social Security.  But Mr. Saving also warned that Social Security's financial condition is precarious.  Speaking for the Trustees, Mr. Saving said that action to fix Social Security's coming insolvency "should not be deferred any longer than necessary for due deliberation and decision."
-Max Borders

The Real Economics of Smoking Bans

David Henderson absolutely dismantles this false economic argument in favor of smoking bans. There are great (subtle) ethical parallels in this piece, too, which make it a must-read.
-Max Borders

Lose the "We"

Collectivism moralisms have no place in an agglomeration of individuals. So thinks Arnold Kling:

When people use we in today's politics , they are doing two things.

1. Appealing to a moral entity that stands apart from and above John, Mary, or any other individual
2. Treating government as the embodiment of that higher moral entity

You can be a Masonomist and believe (1). It is a good thing to have a conscience and moral standards. It is a good thing to engage in volunteer work, to form organizations that address the needs of others, and to act unselfishly toward family and others in your community.

But government does not have to be, nor is it, the embodiment of any higher moral authority.
-Max Borders

Our Nanny State Recognized?

Observers of the legislature often make a mental note on the amount of safety legislation that is introduced to the General Assembly each session.  I wonder how long it will be before North Carolinians will be required to wear helmets in the shower.  Apparently, I am not alone on this.  A new book has been written by a Colorado journalist that nails it.  “Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning American Into a Nation of Children” is written by Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi.  In the book, Harsanyi points out that this trend of "child proofing" our lives isn't just happening here in the Old North State but in towns, cities and states all over the country. If we continue to mandate, via legislation, good habits or behavior, will we loose the ability to make the right choice on our own?  My first encounter with the safety Kommissars came when my 5 year old wanted a pet turtle.  A trip to the pet shop enlightened me to the brave new world we live in.  The selling of turtles was banned in North Carolina back a few years ago to stop the deadly plague of salmonella that killed any child that said the word turtle aloud.  So rather than promote the washing of hands, lawmakers decided to outlaw what had been a long time children's pet. How long will it be before we do see those helmets in the shower?

Free Market Fundamentalist Friday – name our friends edition!

Our “friends” on the left take delight in labeling those of us who don’t agree with them on the benefits of surrendering our freedom & responsibilities to government as “Free Market Fundamentalists” (FMF).  My guess is that somehow they view it as pejorative in that they think since it conjures up the term Fundamentalist Christianity it is bad.  Many of them view anything that smacks of religion, core beliefs and values as a bad thing.  It is better to have a floating set of beliefs that are evolving.

I think that being labeled an FMF is a term of honor.  Two of the antonyms of free are slave and unfree, neither of which I wish for myself or anyone else.

This brings us to the problem of what to call our “friends” on the left.  After much thought, (not really) I am proposing the name of (drum roll please) “Anti-Market Apparatchiks” for our friends on the left.  Since all of their proposals involve increasing the power of the state and reducing the freedom of action of the individual I think apparatchiks fits them perfectly.  I invite everyone to submit their nomination.

While the Free Market is messy and confusing it is much better than a slave market.  Free Markets mean that we have to make hundreds of choices daily.  Free Markets mean we are responsible for our choices.  Free Markets also mean that we may make bad choices like a plasma TV over health insurance or a higher rate mortgage loan because we did not shop.

But the positives of the Free Market far outweigh the negative because Free Markets provide us with hundreds of choices on an endless variety of products.  Our Anti-Market Apparatchiks friends yearn for the limited choices enjoyed by the unfortunate citizens of the former Soviet Union. When the state makes the choices you soon find that there are not only no choices, but that the one choice dictated is limited and only a select few have real access.

Free Markets also mean opportunity for the individual to prosper and thrive.  The opportunity for individual expression and advancement are limited only by the limits you place on yourself!

Lets here what you think we should call our Anti-Market Apparatchiks friends.

Water Restrictions: Let Market Forces Ration Water

Our own Max Borders had this excellent piece in yesterday's Charlotte Observer regarding the Soviet-style water rationing schemes being implemented across North Carolina.

He argues that such central planning and top-down regulations are in fact an unnecessary evil. By comparison, market pricing of water would allocate this scarce resource much more efficiently:

Indeed, the paradox of markets is that they are inherently conservationist. When any resource is subsidized, people have a tendency to over-consume. So whether we're talking about health care or water, if it's offered at "free" or reduced cost, we have to resort to bans, restrictions and rationing to make sure we don't run out.

But such heavy-handed demand-side management is unnecessary when markets run their natural course. It's time we stopped understanding water as manna, and started understanding it as a good like any other. When we do, we can keep the bureaucrats off our doorsteps, ward off a neighbor's sideward glance, and think twice before we get out the Slip-n-Slide.

Government predators

Imagine this scenario: a lending institution offers sub-prime interest loans to millions of people who otherwise would not have chosen to take on said debt, as time passes these people realize they are in a situation they can not handle, and are forced to take drastic action that has a devastating effect that potentially leaves their lives in ruin.

"Outrageous!" you cry, "those predatory lenders are amoral and should be punished!"

Would it change your reaction if I told you the scenario I described is not the much-discussed sub-prime mortgage breakdown, but the government student loan program?

Democrats in DC are discussing plans to cut interest rates on student loans by as much as half. These predators must be stopped! From the article:

Tom Joyce, a spokesman for Sallie Mae, the student loan organization, said "We do not oppose an interest-rate reduction, ... (but) we'd better be careful of the law of unintended consequences."

I doubt Mr. Joyce has the same unintended consequences in mind as I do. What happens to these kids when "constant fluctuation depending on the current interest rates set by the government" causes their interest rates to shoot up?

Moreover, when you offer such cheap credit to encourage kids to go to college, the "investment" part of their "return on investment" decision matrix of going to college is distorted. The result is more kids going to college who, in reality, will not benefit from a college degree sufficiently to justify the investment of money or time. The end result will be millions of kids either graduating with virtually useless degrees (i.e. art history, english lit, etc.) in terms of the job market, or dropping out altogether because they could not handle the academic demands of higher education.

By offering sub-prime student loans, or even worse, government-subsidized college education opportunities, we are sending young people into a situation they should not be in. If the cost (i.e. interest rate) of financing a college education is set at normal market rates, the expectations of the students in terms of attaining marketable skills will be more realistic. If going to college costs you little or nothing, you are more likely to not take it seriously. You won't have to establish high payoff expectations because, after all, it doesn't cost much!

It seems that government's goal is simply to put "butts in the seats" across college campuses. Nevermind what they will do once there, or how valuable their degrees will be if they graduate - "we must educate our kids to fill the jobs of our new 'knowledge-based' economy!" No mention is made, of course, of how to best inspire the creation of said jobs. This attitude simply puts the cart before the horse: if you break down barriers to entrepreneurship (i.e. gov't taxation, regulation), the market will create the most rewarding jobs possible; as a result, kids will get the appropriate education/training to pursue these jobs.

So, just like those who had their homes foreclosed because their decision was skewed by sub-prime mortgages, young people will face a foreclosure on their future by the "predatory" college loan and subsidization practices by our government. I'm sure the outrage from those wanting to punish mortgage companies will soon be directed at this practice by our government that ruins the lives of our young adults. Yeah, right.

"Regressive" Pulse

Donald Boudreaux, Economics Chair at George Mason University, has this great article questioning the use of "progressive" as a political label. He finds it an ironic term (and I agree) for those who desire a return to a medieval mindset of feudal lords controlling and commanding their lowly serfs under the guise of the common good. A couple of passages stand out.

On the left's fear of free markets:

And if the peasants succeeded in breaking the bonds of their servitude, society would disintegrate into a terrible free-for-all in which no one knew his place and every man and woman would run about making individual choices based on nothing more than their own petty, narrow and base preferences. Orderly society would be replaced by unpredictable, disorderly chaos.

"Progressives" today believe the same.

On why "progressive" is the opposite of the leftist/marxist/nanny state's true intent:

Today's "Progressives" seek a return to the status and static society in which the few direct and "protect" the many. That, of course, is the opposite of genuine progress.

Letter to the Editor - Winston Journal

On the failure of the smoking ban, here's a brief letter I wrote in response to an editorial by the Winston-Salem Journal:

The “Smoking Ban” editorialist writes: "Health and safety rights should always trump property rights." Absurd. Such would be to argue that people have no right to congregate on private property and engage in any risky activity. Indeed, wouldn’t the “health rights” rationale extend to places that serve cholesterol-rich foods? Alcohol? Or that allow break dancing or weight lifting? These activities carry risks. Why deny me my right to engage in them? Private property rights should always trump known health and safety concerns, because the former ensures free people determine and act upon their own risk calculations when they set foot in the door. That is, you can choose not to patronize a restaurant or bar if you don’t want to risk second-hand smoke. Likewise, you can walk by places that serving fatty foods or frequented by belligerent drunks. It’s time we got away from the notion that restaurants and bars are “public” places. They are not. People knowingly choose to accept risks of engaging in legal activity allowed by the owners on their premises. To think otherwise is to support a ‘tyranny of a majority’ whereby a group dictates its preferred policies to private owners.

It's troubling that this case needs to be made at all, much less, again and again.

So What if Ireland Does it?

In a recent op-ed in the Raleigh News & Observer, the author thinks that because a bunch of other places have banned smoking, so should North Carolina:

We know that now, or we should. They certainly know it in 19 other states, where smoking even in bars is banned, or is about to be. Those states include such inconsequential places as California, New York, Arizona and Illinois (which acted just this month). They also know it in entire countries -- England (starting July 1), Ireland (yes, smoking is banned even in Irish pubs), New Zealand, Norway and many more.

A lot of other countries have a national religion, but that doesn't mean we should. This faulty reasoning is a form of fallacy ad populum. It amounts to 'everyone else is, so we should too.'

The author goes on to dismiss one of the basic principles of our republic, while making a false comparison with health and hygiene regulation:

And they don't waste a lot of breath on the "property rights" argument. Public accommodations have long been regulated for reasons of public health. It's no big step from barring bacteria-contaminated burgers to banning carcinogen-contaminated smoke. If this were about rights, what about the right of workers to practice their trades in air not made unhealthy by smokers' actions? Or the right of municipalities to limit smoking locally, as hundreds in the United States have done, but as state law here has prohibited?

Having to explain to Americans why property rights are important is, in itself, disturbing. First, note the term "public accommodations" as if businesses were open to accommodate The People (cue Soviet music), instead of being in business for profit.

Second, notice the attempt to acknowledge some abstract right of employees to work completely without risk, and with an atmosphere of their choosing--not the proprietor's.  Should municipal garbage collectors be 'free' to work without risk of traffic?  Should roofers be free to work without risk of falls?  Should NASCAR drivers be free to work without risk of crashes?  Or King Crab fisherman without risk of capsizing?

Finally, the analogy to spoiled burgers just doesn't hold.  People enter into an establishment with an expectation that they will be served uncontaminated food -- (nevermind that they accept the risks associated with fat and cholesterol). People may choose to (or not) enter a PRIVATE establishment with a smoking policy chosen by the proprietor and accept the risks of second-hand smoke.

In short: private property rights should be absolute. The risk preferences of people cannot override something so basic as those rights. And just because hundreds of places around the country have done it, doesn't make it right. To those who would save us? : Deferring to property rights and free choice is always a safe bet on questions of policy.

Sen. Cowell's next bill

Call me clairvoyant, I think I can see into the future today.  If that pesky bill filing deadline hadn't already come to pass in the NC Senate, I have a vision of what Sen. Janet Cowell's (D-Wake) next bill might be.

Already this session, Sen. Cowell has introduced a bill limiting the use of choke and pinch collars on dogs and outlawing the chaining of dogs for more than three hours at a time.

Well, now comes word of a proposal from Massachusetts that a lawmaker wants to introduce a law requiring seat belts for dogs.

These Northeast liberals need to stop giving her ideas.

The Ban has been Banned

Posting may be light today as this non-smoker celebrates the failure of the N.C. smoking ban. It was close, however, as even conservatives got confused on the matter: "I think someone else's freedom ends when it enters my lungs" said Republican Jeff Barnhart of Cabarrus County. Such a rationale would make perfect sense if we were standing in his living room.  But property rights circumscribe most other rights. If people want to gather and take legal health risks together on private property, they should be allowed to do so as long as the proprietor allows it. Such is the essence of private property and personal freedom. And if I want to benefit from the preferences of those who take such risks, such is the essence of capitalism. If you don't like a smoke-filled bar, don't patronize it. Simple. (I'll leave it to the government to explain to the citizens why smoking is allowed in the public thoroughfares -- you know, the non-private spaces we must share and pay for.)

Anyhoo, personal freedom and property rights in N.C. live to see another day. (Coverage: here, here and here.)

(Update: Fitzsimon and the gang aren't happy about the failure of the bill's passage. They are clearly wedded to some collectivist notion that the preferences and health concerns of groups should outweigh the property rights of individuals. But Chris: we don't need you to protect us from carcinogens. We can do that ourselves. It's called choice.)

Smoldering Property Rights

Apparently the General Assembly is debating a smoking ban, and the banners have the votes to trump property rights, it seems. I'll resume coverage of this in the morning, but the day is getting darker for individual freedom in N.C. (We'll pay special close attention to those who stripped property owners of their rights -- no matter the party.)

More Freedom Lost on Tobacco Road

It looks like N.C. is going to ban smoking in private bars and restaurants. This is a dark day for freedom and property rights in our state.  Apparently 8 Republicans got on the anti-smoking bandwagon. I ask those people: where are your principles?  Did you ever have any?  (Spare me the public health schtick.)

As a follow up: I will be posting a detailed link on who in the GA voted for this legislation.

(Update: The General Assembly will resume stripping us of our freedoms tomorrow, apparently.)

Smoking Ban: Split Personality Electorate

Interesting aspect to the recent Civitas poll (pdf), as compared with last month's poll.

In the March poll (pdf), voters were asked: "Do you think the state should pass a law banning smoking in all buildings open to the public, including bars and restaurants?" 61 percent of respondents replied: "yes".

In the April poll (linked above), voters were asked: "Do you support or oppose legislation allowing a restaurant, bar and tavern owner to decide their own smoking policy as long as the policy was clearly posted at the entrance to their business?" 70 percent said "yes".

I guess framing is everything in poll questions. In any case, property rights should trump electoral whim -- no matter what voters and California transplants think.

Smoking Ban Metastasis

Smoking bans are metastasizing around the country. North Carolina, tobacco road, may be next to go smokeless. This article (pdf) by Chris Hayes ended up in the Charlotte Observer. He reminds us that such bans endanger what most consider to be a basic right to property (i.e. that one may permit any sort of legal conduct on her private property she chooses). So why the ban?

North Carolina's recent effort to curb your smoking habit for you is probably more of bandwagon mentality than anything.  'Them other big fancy states is doing it, so we should too' (or be perceived as being behind the times). The legal justifications that have been given for such bans have centered on "public health" arguments; they claim to want to protect employees from the dangers of second-hand smoke.  But this argument holds no water: Any time someone takes a job, they must weigh the relative risks associated with the job. For example, some of the most dangerous jobs are garbage collector, fisherman and roofer. Employees understand the risks of this work going in. Such is their choice. Likewise for employees in bars and restaurants -- particularly since we've known something about the dangers of second-hand smoke for a while. If you don't want to work in such conditions, you might seek out employment in a restaurant or bar that caters to non-smokers.  There are plenty.

People who claim to support the ban usually do because they are non-smokers. They feel they have some inalienable right to patronize any restaurant or bar, and that said bar should suit their chosen atmospheric conditions.  But they should be reminded that its not their property and not their choice--that they are simply using the force of government to bend others' property to their preferences. And that is wrong. We often refer to restaurants and bars as "public places", but they are actually private.  And yet we allow smokers to exhale and litter butts on the real public thoroughfares of our streets.  Isn't this somehow backwards? Not for nanny-statists.  But for people who care about the primacy of property, smoking bans offend the deepest principles upon which the Republic was founded.

(*Update: found this post from the Progressive Pulse, which we dissected, ex ante, above.)