Categories
crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard privacy property rights too much government

Taking Our Stuff Back

There’s been a big push for criminal justice reform, with some recent progress on civil asset forfeiture.

This is the process through which police and government agencies grab a citizen’s money or property — even if the citizen is never charged with a crime, much less convicted. Then, to get one’s stuff back, a citizen must sue to prove the stuff was innocent of being involved in criminal activity.

Asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction turns our system of justice on its head, encouraging bad behavior by police — ahem, stealing — by rewarding departments and agencies that get to keep the loot.

Reform legislation passed through an Oklahoma House committee earlier this week and now goes to the full House. Television News 9 in Oklahoma City began its report by acknowledging that, “A watered down version of the civil asset forfeiture bill has crossed another hurdle in the state Legislature.”

That’s because a bill to end civil asset forfeiture outright had already failed in the Senate. The currently pending legislation requires that citizens who sue to recover their property and win be awarded their legal fees.

It’s progress . . . but still not justice enough.

Late last month, Wyoming’s Gov. Matt Mead signed reform legislation mandating that there be a probable cause hearing before the legal forfeiture process can begin. Good. But that was after Gov. Mead vetoed a better bill, which stopped all official, convictionless snatching of stuff.

Police taking people’s stuff without having to prove a crime must be ended altogether, abolished. That means we better stop waiting for politicians. Instead, petition this important principle directly to the people — use ballot initiatives in cities and states across the country.

No time like the present.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

civil asset forfeiture, police, abuse, robbery, Common Sense

 


Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
folly general freedom ideological culture meme national politics & policies too much government

One-Party Socialism?

As the President of the United States noodles around Cuba, opening up relations and trade for the first time in half a century, one obvious obstacle to progress sticks out: Fidel Castro is still alive, and his brother, Raoul, still runs a one-party state.

It is worth reminding Americans how desperately socialism in Cuba requires repressive one-party rule. Sometimes folks forget. As Bernie Sanders pushes a “democratic socialism,” we should wonder where he and his Sandernistas stand on Cuba’s brand of socialism, i.e. without the democratic part.

Months ago, an old 1985 video surfaced of Bernie Sanders, then mayor of Burlington, Vermont, back from trips to Nicaragua and Cuba. Frankly, I agreed with his opposition to U.S. intervention in Central America. But Bernie also praised the Cuban government, asserting that Cubans were not “against Fidel Castro” because “he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.”

He did not mention what Fidel didn’t give, indeed, would not allow: opportunity, progress, autonomy, freedom, democracy . . . the list is long.

Cubans who speak out are arrested, imprisoned.

Bernie did add: “Not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect.” But failed to make any mention of the total political repression of democratic activity.

The necessity of violence to establish socialism should be obvious. Even Bernie’s so-called “non-violent” supporters engage in raucous, invasive protests against Trump, and litter Twitter with indecent talk of assassinating the Republican front-runner.

What would they do with official power?

Are they committed to democracy as a process, really? Or to their programs alone?

Programs that rely upon mass expropriation and strong-arming governance. No matter what Sanders says about “love.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialism, Che, democracy, meme, illustration, Common Sense

 


A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you liked this post,  please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Socialist Stasis, Disturbed

As the President of the United States treads ground previously trod by such a personage nearly ninety years ago — Calvin Coolidge was the last U. S. Commander in Chief to make the trip to Cuba — we are understandably inundated with coverage.

Obama’s Cuba trip is Big News.

We see that Cuba is backwards — it is socialist, after all, so no surprise there — but slowly opening up to American travel and trade. The nation’s voluntary sector squirms under the omnipresent, oppressive feet of its regulators.

What we see now is the result of socialist repression. Cuba shows, perhaps, socialism’s best-case-scenario result, stasis. The island dystopia is in many ways a time capsule. Some of its current charm is that stuck-in-timed-ness.

But there is also endemic hopelessness in the country. The people are held back. Infantilized. Ruled.

And there is no disputing the fact that this is all the result of an excess of socialism. As I have argued before, the old standby, the Blame the US Embargo ploy, is one that socialists wield with devastating results — to their own ideology. Socialism is the suppression of free trade; pure socialism abolishes all trade, along with all private property. Blaming an embargo shows how important private property and capitalism itself are to socialism’s few successes.

Barack Obama is, right now, demonstrating the best case against socialists in his own party, by opening up Cuba to the wonderfully corrosive processes of the market.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Cuba, stasis, Obama, visit, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies privacy too much government

Breaking the Safe

As we tromp repeatedly to the polling booth this year, we should wonder: are we being played?

The answer: yes . . . at least on the issue of Apple’s iPhone security.

I’ve written about this before. Our politicians and government officials are playing demagogue, trying to convert (too successfully?) the electorate into a mob bent on destroying privacy and private property — out of unwarranted fear.

The case for terrorist worries in this case is not even plausible: the FBI waited too long to be convincing, and the NSA supposedly has the metadata anyway. The government doesn’t need the info. It’s after something else.

As former congressman Bob Barr put it, the government’s case is “pure applesauce . . . simply the latest chapter in a decades-long push by Uncle Sam to gain access to Americans’ digital technology and place this booming sector of our economy under its thumb.” He goes on:

[T]he government is for the first time demanding that a company actually invent a way to defeat the very encryption safeguards it builds into the devices it sells. Attorney General Lynch has taken to citing an obscure law, the All Writs Act of 1789, to justify this unprecedented exercise of power to compel companies to do the government’s work for it.

To my knowledge, the government has never demanded that Allied Safe and Vault, or any of its competitors, go out of its way to cook up “a way in” to its security systems.

Government is just trying to retain its old relevance. Folks in power see it slipping. And it is, as Americans outsource their privacy and security not to governments, but, increasingly, to private providers.

That’s a good thing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

surveillance, privacy, iphone, security, NSA, CIA, FBI, terrorism, illustration

 


A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful,  please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
Accountability folly national politics & policies responsibility subsidy too much government

Another Capital Atavism

Had I ever heard of the zoopraxiscope before, I’d forgotten it by the time I read Randal O’Toole’s recent critique of the latest Washington, D. C., public transit debacle, the new streetcar system. So I had to look it up.

It was an early “motion picture” projector.

In other words, an “atavism.”

According to O’Toole, “Streetcars were technologically perfected in the 1880s, so for Washington to subsidize the construction of a streetcar line today is roughly equal to . . . Los Angeles subsidizing the manufacture of zoopraxiscopes.”

O’Toole, a transportation specialist, argues that the new system, barely in place, but already on the hook for more subsidy to build more lines, is grossly inefficient.

As well as atavistic.

“Rather than build five more miles of obsolete line,” he concludes, “the best thing Washington can do is shut down its new line and fill the gaps between the rails with tar.”

Drastic?

Well, is it any more drastic or extreme than debuting a mass system without a fare system in place? That is, without even having decided on which payment system to use?

Unfortunately, the inefficient clunkers are unaccountably contagious. “Following Portland’s example, Atlanta, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and several other cities have opened or are building streetcar lines,” O’Toole explains. “Most of these lines are about two miles long, are no faster than walking, and cost $50 million or more per mile while buying the same number of buses would cost a couple million, at most.”

Politicians idolize such schemes so much that we, the taxpayers, are forced to be iconoclastic.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

pork, government waste, Streetcars, public transit

 


A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful,  please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies too much government

That’s Entertainment

This presidential campaign has been very entertaining.

The three leading Republican candidates could give The Three Stooges a run for their money. Front-runner Donald Trump calls his opponents liars and chokers (or “chockers”) as often as Moe used to smash Curly and Larry in the face.

Slapstick has made a comeback.

Indeed, food fights attract a large TV audience, obviously giving many viewers what they want. And they no doubt produce windfall advertising profits for the television networks that host the debates.

This may be as close to creating economic growth as these politicians will ever come.

No surprise that the media is giddy at the mud-slinging, but why do the candidates go along? Nastiness apparently works.

At least in attracting media attention.

Mr. Trump has dominated the news cycles for months, cycling outrageous statements and cutting remarks, rinse and repeat. As Sen. Marco Rubio explained to those questioning his recent resort to dishing out invective, “I’m insulting Trump because it’s the only thing you [media] guys pay attention to.”

Even the debate rules actively encourage pugilism. By giving candidates additional time to speak when verbally assaulted by name, the ground rules are in place.

No wonder the mostly ignored Dr. Ben Carson interjected during the last debate, “Can somebody attack me, please?”

Neophyte Carson doesn’t understand that the game is tit-for-tat: to be attacked, attack first.

Sure, the critical issues facing our country — terrorism, war, debt, economic stagnation — get short shrift. But what a fun way to choose the next stooge to sit atop the dysfunction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

presidential, debates, candidates, three stooges, illustration

 


A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful,  please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!