no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Michigan

Police State

May 2nd, 2008

Let’s recap: Michigan’s economy flat-out blows.

And Michigan spends $2 Billion on its Prisons, annually. Is crime really 400% worse than it was in 1983? Are the police really 400% better at apprehending criminals than they were in 1983? No, and no. The state is simply locking up more and more people for minor and typically non-violent offenses. The Detroit News reported:

• The 50,200 inmates in Michigan prisons represent a four-fold increase in the number of prisoners over a quarter-century.
• One of every three state employees works in the Corrections Department, up from one in 10, 25 years ago
• The cost to house each inmate drains $31,325 annually from the state treasury.

The real effects on Michigan’s economy are probably probably much greater, since one in three State employees are in the Corrections Department, meaning that whatever income they “earn” has zero economic value. Also, if we consider that the prisoners would be earning taxable income, the real hit to the treasury is probably closer to $40,000 per year—just to keep them locked up.

Interestingly, these inmates cost the state more money than they would probably contribute, en masse. By virtue of being incarcerated, they’re earning $0 annually, which is may be conservatively estimated at $20K-$30K less than they would otherwise make. This is a real diminution of the State’s productive capacity, in the neighborhood of at least $50k or $60k per inmate: $31,325 of other people’s money plus whatever income the prisoner would earn, if freed.

When we consider some other intangible effects of such a police state, predominately the decimation of the family unit, the scene becomes even more bleak. By removing one income from a family which probably required two incomes to begin with, financial hardships are exacerbated, and the strain on social services like welfare programs, aid to dependent children, etc., increases.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that each of these inmates costs the State in excess of $100,000 annually, in terms of real wealth.

Medical Marijuana in Michigan

April 29th, 2008

Some people want to legalize medical marijuana in Michigan. This is counterproductive, for a number of reasons:

U.S. law classifies marijuana, like heroin and LSD, as a Schedule I controlled substance. That means it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

Of course, “accepted medical use” is defined by legislators who are neither doctors or patients in chronic pain, based on bogus medical studies funded by the government, through public universities and probably in cahoots with Big Pharma.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration regards medical marijuana users, even in states that have approved its use, as lawbreakers. And in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws approving medical marijuana don’t bring with them immunity from federal prosecution.

Sometimes this sort of legalization ends up in limbo for a while, since the legislators don’t know what constitutes a 60-day supply. Sometims the Feds raid cooperatives inhabited by octogenarian cancer patients. In otherplaces, some patients are finding it difficult to receive life-saving organ transplants because of the belief among some medical professionals, that marijuana use (even in the context of clinical pain relief) is a sign of addictive personality! [ed. update 5/3/08: Some of them die without the transplant.]

But if you really want to get to the point, look no further than Oakland County Sheriff, Mike Bouchard:

It’s not a good idea and most practicing physicians who work in pain management know there are better and more effective medicines to deal with the issue rather than using marijuana.

Like the legislators who craft these laws, Bouchard is neither a physician, nor is he a patient. And even though it might generally be true that there are better medecines, this is not a fact which applies to all individuals in all circumstances at all times. There exist patients for whom marijuana is the best and most effective medecine.

[Bouchard] said he believes the true agenda of those backing the Michigan ballot proposal is to legalize marijuana for everyone.

His true colors are starting to show! Bouchard is not at all interested in the will of the people he’s alleged to protect; he has his head so far up his ass that he clearly wouldn’t know what “the people” really wanted, even if they were to voice their opinions through an unscientific online poll, much less, a November ballot initiative. .

At the time I read the article, a whopping 77% of DetNews poll respondents indicated that “everyone” should have legal access to marijuana. Everyone. If it was “the will of the people” which outlawed marijuana back in the 1930s, then “the will of the people” should be permitted to rescind that law.

‘[T]his a guise to advance the process of legalization,’ [Bouchard said.]

So what if it is!

Hundreds of thousands of people smoke pot every day. Some of them are terminally ill. Others just like to burn one once in a while. If that’s what the people want, why can’t you let them have it? Bouchard is allowing his personal opinions to interfere with his obligation as a public servant and elected official. Ostensibly, he is in office because of the people who voted for him, and we can infer from his statements that he has no interest in the alleged will of the people.

It’s not about what the people want. It’s not about the public welfare. It’s not really about addiction, dependency, or gangs, or any other side-effect of the war on drugs. It’s about power. And Bouchard, like other petty tyrants, doesn’t want to cede an inch.

Anyone who advances the argument that only pain patients should be able to use it legally is effectively saying, “I’m OK with letting the other people decide how I live my life.” There is no special moral status granted to the terminally ill. But if you only support medical use, this is essentially what you’re saying: “As long as you are healthy, other people (through the apparatus of the State) get to decide how you shall live your life.”

And since it is ultimately “other people” who decide whether you’re healthy, there’s not much of a distinction between the two.

Full-blown legalization is what the discussion should be about.

Comments on Comments #14

April 28th, 2008

Olly wants some clarification from my response to his comment in Comments #13,:

David — just to be clear, I wasn’t espousing liberalism, or saying that Seattle should live up to “liberalism”…

Liberal, Conservative, it’s all the same results.

Duly noted—and I whole heartedly agree with you. Perhaps offsetting the term in quotes was misleading. The term liberal/liberalism has been co-opted by the Statist Left. I try to use it in the old tradition.

+++

Stephan left a comment on How is a Government Established?

Nice point with the fact that birth cannot be consent to government rules.

I like to bring up the “accident of birth” argument from time to time. Typically in the past I have used it in the context of immigration laws. Some people argue that the illegals from e.g., Mexico, are committing a crime. I say that the law preventing free migration of people is the crime. These people say things like, “I’m not against immigration, just illegal immigration.” When the root reason these actions are deemed criminal is the migrant’s misfortune to have been born outside of the United States, the act in itself is not wrong, but is deemed to be wrong because of circumstances over which the migrant had no opportunity to control. In a free market, there is no such thing as “illegal immigration.”

The “accident of birth” helps demonstrate the illegitimacy of governments: Even if we imagine a government that was unanimously and voluntarily entered into by the whole of the populace thereby governed, it would likely claim dominion over any child born to its citizens. Thus the accident of birth has caused that child to be under that government’s control. Unless this government acknowledges the right to secession, and hence renounces its territorial monopoly of power (in which case it ceases to be a government), the moment the first new citizen becomes involuntarily (that is to say: he had no choice in the matter) a citizen, it ceases also to be the model government by consent.

+++

John says “Democracy disgraces itself every day by giving us governance that is neither free nor voluntary.”

That’s the only sort of government that Democracy can offer! Only anarchy can give us a social order that is both free and voluntary. :)

+++

I saw a show about the Border Patrol in Arizona.

Eight men working full time, four ATVs, two jeeps and a helicopter were used to prevent three poor and thirsty Mexicans from finding work, and lifting their families out of abject poverty. I have no idea what a CBP agent earns, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the money spent on preventing these people from entering the country is probably in excess of what they would’ve earned in a year’s time. If the government wields this amount of resources against people who are about to die of thirst, there is no reason to believe that they’ll bring anything less against you.

+++
Peter Boettke inquires

So who is afraid of Ayn Rand? Only those who don’t have the intellectual skill or gumption to meet the challenge of her claims on their world view. And if that is the case, we don’t want them teaching our college students anyway.

He also gives a great deconstruction of the failures of higher education

+++

Speaking of higher education, David Rockefeller recently granted $100 Million to Harvard. Rockefeller, one of the wealthiest men in the world, endows one of the wealthiest schools in the country. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?

+++

The Detroit News mentions that Churches start drive to cover uninsured. I have to admit, I thought this was going to be an article talking about how churches were acting like the fraternal orders and friendly societies of years past. Unfortunately, I read all about how people are using the church to fight for universal coverage laws:

“I refuse to go to the hospital because I cannot afford it,” said [one uninsured] resident.

That’s why [she] signed a petition Sunday at her church, Mount Calvary Lutheran Church, to push an initiative onto the November ballot that would require Michigan lawmakers to come up with a plan for universal health care.

She refused to go to the hospital because she couldn’t afford her medical care. Admirable, I suppose. But then she turns around and signs a petition that asks for universal coverage. Deplorable!

She refuses to use one system that is financed by everyone else (i.e., a hospital can’t refuse you for emergency services) but favors some other system that forces everyone else to pay for any conceivable medical need! I didn’t read any further.

+++

This article on InsuranceNewsNet.com says that if you’re helping your family members financially, you’re probably breaking a bunch of tax laws. If you let your octogenarian mother live in your basement apartment without paying rent, you’re actually giving her a “gift” to which the IRS will attribute a monetary value. If the sum of such “gifts” exceeds statutory limits, there are tax implications and penalties.

Innocuous as this may seem, being generous can also subject you to gift tax. While helping a family member often occurs under the radar, if the gift exceeds a certain value and the I.R.S. catches it, you could be forced to pay the tax as well as interest.

…If you lend money to family members — say, to buy a house or a car, start a business or pay off an unfavorable bank loan — you must charge a minimum rate of interest set each month by the Treasury, called the applicable federal rate.

Sometimes I argue that Government destroys community and charity. Case. In. Point.

+++

This article on InsuranceNewsNet.com wants to examine the differences between Obama’s health plan and Clinton’s proposal. One is a mandate for children, the other is a mandate for everyone. The article questions whether either proposal is Constitutional. Since the Constitution is of no authority, I think it’s a moot point. Sometimes its fun to pretend that the Constitution does have authority. The State pretends this from time to time. And even though you can’t beat them in a game where they write and re-write and interpret the rules, it’s fun to play along.

This part of the article caught my attention:

The federal government does not ordinarily require Americans to purchase particular goods or services from private parties. The closest we come is when government imposes a condition on the grant of a discretionary benefit or permit. For instance, in most states, you must have auto insurance to drive a car or you are required to install fire sprinklers when building a new house. But in such cases, the mandate is discretionary – you don’t have to drive a car or build a house. Nor do you have a constitutional right to do so.

Really? Actually, you do.

Remember that part about “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” ? What about the 9th Amendment? Of course, in practice the exercise of non-enumerated rights is void, but just because the government has usurped these rights doesn’t mean that they’re not allegedly enshrined in the Constitution.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics