no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Democracy is Great!

Giuliani the Xenophobe

August 14th, 2007

The man just gets scarier and scarier. First it was energy independence, now its illegal immigration.

“We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration,” [Rudy Giuliani,] former New York mayor said at a community center — the first of the day’s two stops in this early voting state.

You see, you’re either with the xenophobes, the closeted bigots, or you’re not. And if you’re with them, then you’re anti-freedom. If you’re not already an American, you must be an enemy – no matter how badly you’d like to become an American, or work for Americans, or buy from Americans. Then again, Rudy gave us this charmer, too:

“What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”

Ah, yes. Freedom through slavery…

Giuliani is certainly not the first person who thinks he can eradicate a concept. But he certainly won’t be the first person to win such a war. We can’t win the war on drugs, on obesity, on crime, on poverty or on racism – no matter how many confiscated tax dollars we pile on the problems. Hell, we can’t even win a war against a bunch of backwards, cave-dwelling, third-world militants who actively want to destroy our way of life. There is no way we can win a war against people who want to contribute to it.

And this – this is without even mentioning the liberal arguments in favor of open borders, in favor of human freedom, in favor of allowing people to leave shit-hole countries if they can muster up the strength and temerity to do so. To work long, unappreciated hours at backbreaking labor so that one day your children can have a better life than you did. Set aside the fact that there are demonstrably bigger threats to America than illegal immigration – not to mention the serious economic consequences of prohibiting immigration, and the perverse incentives that prohibition always has, whether we’re dealing with marijuana, or Mexicans.

Prohibition, Overzealous Feds, and the Failure of Federalism

July 26th, 2007

Don Boudreaux has an interesting theory about how prohibition came to be – a theory which is not inconsistent with what we know about politics and public choice.  His theory tells us why the temperance movement was successful: After the implementation of the income tax, the government had the financial wherewithal to outlaw booze, previously a huge source of revenue. During the depression, income (and tax revenues) fell dramatically, and Uncle Sam was forced to repeal 18 in order to sustain itself by taxing Jack Daniel. Or so the story goes.

The how of prohibition is another story altogether. And a question that’s plagued me for quite some time, still remains unanswered:

The Temperance Movement understood that the “proper” way (if there can be a “proper” way to interfere with individual sovereignty) to prohibit alcohol was by amending the constitution. And that experiment can only be described as a spectacular failure. I still don’t understand why the standard for opiate/narcotic prohibition is so comparatively lax. Can someone explain it to me? Because the “problems” of alcohol and narcotics seem qualitatively very similar, and I just don’t understand why in one case, the standard is near bulletproof, and in the other it’s not and nobody thinks that it needs to be.

Three weeks ago, I brought up the dog-and-pony show that is Oregon’s attempt to legislate “legal” amounts of marijuana for personal consumption. Since the demon weed is illegal under federal law, it’s a moot point, and a waste of time, money and effort – unless the spineless hacks in the State legislature are willing to make a test case for decriminalization. Worth repeating, I “wonder why States bother passing any laws, whatsoever. Clearly, the federal legislators know better, so we should just let them do all the heavy lifting, and let our State representatives just, like, hang out by the pool or something.”

Anyways, I hate to say “I told you so,” but – the DEA had to go and raid a bunch of clinics in Los Angeles yesterday, so – I told you so. Way to go after the low-hanging fruit, you fucking heroes. I bet those cancer patients put up a hell of a fight.

I can’t say it any better than I did earlier this month, but this time I’ll point a finger. Arnold: If your State “is going to pass a law, and seriously entertain a law which is in direct opposition to Federal law or executive order, or whatever Orwellian nonsense justifies Federal interference, then have the basic human decency to defend your constituents.” Stand up for the “people” that you’re always talking about, tell the Feds to get out of your backyard.

Of course, you can’t – which reveals the sham, the absolute mockery, and abject failure which is American federalism.

Central Planners Yield to the Market

July 24th, 2007

It took Massachusetts 30 years to realize that when theory dictates your central planning will fail; your central planning is destined to fail. Thirty years during which anyone unfortunate to live in the State had to deal with an overly regulated insurance “market.”

According to InsuranceNewsNet ($$$), insurance regulators in Massachusetts have decided to take a giant step out of the stone-age, after Governor Patrick described the automobile insurance market in the State as “ailing.” Previously, the State of Massachusetts, through its regulatory arm, bullied insurers into writing auto policies – under threat of revoking their licenses to write other lines of business. Insurers were essentially forced out of the State altogether – and in theory this would’ve probably affected those insurers who were writing riskier lines – which then creates a problem of adverse selection.

Just how bad is it? Well, only “19 insurers currently write auto business in Massachusetts, while another 35 have left the state since 1990.” State Farm – by far the nation’s largest automobile insurer (about 20% nationally) has a paltry 0.42% share in MA. State Farm writes no new business in MA, and only services policyholders who’ve had to relocate. Now, compare this to any other state, where there are generally 50+ insurers writing policies, where consumers have the choice between a low-cost, direct insurer like eSurance, or a more expensive, full-service insurer with a local agent like State Farm, and everything inbetween.
Says the article:

Massachusetts’ 30-year-old “fixed-and-established” system of centralized private-passenger automobile insurance rate-making will come to an end next year, following a pair of rulings by Insurance Commissioner Nonnie S. Burnes to gradually phase out the system in favor what Burnes is calling “managed competition.”

Nonnie Burnes, the State’s Insurance Commissioner, intends to allow “insurers to propose individual premium levels that take into account such factors as driving record, the frequency and severity of at-fault accidents, and traffic violations,” a novel idea, indeed. This new-fangled method is otherwise known as, among other things, “risk-rating” and is (outside of Massachusetts) widely understood and practiced by Actuaries in all lines of insurance. And it has been, for quite some time.

Bravo. Welcome to the 19th century.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics