Author Archives: Brad Warbiany

Where Markets Beat Government — and Vice Versa

Economics, Education, Monopolies, Politics

I checked out Perry’s site the other day, and ran across this post on Wal-Mart. It looks like Wal-Mart is opening its doors again in New Orleans, while Congress is still pointing fingers. It got me thinking: why is it that we see for-profit businesses flocking to the area, while FEMA is still trying to figure out where to park their beautiful trailers?

I originally wanted to issue a snark-filled rant on why government is inefficient, bloated, and ineffectual. But this, combined with Massachusetts’ insanity, calls for something a little better. I’m not an anarcho-capitalist. I realize that there are places where government can get necessary things done that the market cannot. It is only when we ask it to do things it is not suited for that we run into problems.

Bear in mind, this is an off-the-cuff treatise, so I welcome comments pointing out all the places I am wrong.

I see there being a few major types of services provided by the government and markets:

1. Distributed provider, distributed user: This would fit the mold of most day-to-day interactions. When you go to buy lunch, you have a wide range of choices. Purveyors of those products can sell to anybody; there are few long-term interactions.

2. Single-provider, distributed user: This would fit things such as roads, sewers, police, military, courts, etc. In these types of interactions, there action between the provider and the user is often severed. In the case of roads/sewers/etc, it is common that an individual homeowner or driver could not contract with a provider to build a new sewer system or road to service them. Often, maintenance of these services are paid for by some sort of taxation, and only occasionally by a true “user fee” arrangement. Courts, police, and military are even more so, because there is not often a true link between what police or courts do for those who aren’t currently the victim or perpetrators of crimes, but they offer a sort of “blanket of protection” for everyone. Again, the link is fairly severed between provider and user.

3. Specialty provider, specific user: This is a tough category. In this, I place things such as medical care, which often is difficult to procure in a true competitive environment (outside of general-practitioner care), and is highly tailored to the specific user. There may be 3 hospitals in a close area, but only one specialist in the field you need. This may also include education and other services, where the relationship between a specific provider and user is difficult to break. For example, when you put your child into a school, you don’t want to have to change that school without good reason, because of the relationships your child generates with classmates/teachers/etc. Last, it includes such things as insurance, where acute costs are very high and risk may need to be pooled.

—————————————————

The first case is a place where markets always beat government, hands down. Government action, nearly by definition, is one of monopoly, and monopolies are known for poor efficiency. They don’t innovate to serve their customers, they don’t bring costs down through competition, and they have no reason to do either. This one is so obvious that it needs no further discussion.

The second case is the poster child for government action. This is the one agreed upon by everyone except the anarcho-capitalists. There is a little point of distinction on things like roads (the “pure” libertarian will ask for them to be privatized), but I’m going to gloss over that. I chose sewers but left out other utilities for a reason, as well. Without getting too heavily into it, there are certain “common carrier” services that form a bit of a gray area. Electrical or gas service doesn’t lend itself quite to competition very well, due to the extremely high infrastructure costs in service. Georgia’s take on natural gas, however, is one where the actual distribution of gas is centralized, but you have your choice of “service company” to sell you that gas. It blends some of the benefits of competition without the drawback of requiring multiple companies to lay redundant infrastructure. But in most “common carrier” utilities, some sort of government action is required, as local government is typically granting monopolistic licenses to providers. The cases of courts, police, and military, however, are specialized enough where we leave government to provide these directly. This is the one case where we grant a monopoly on initiating force, and choose to keep that power in the hands of government we control with our vote.

So I think we can all agree that communist Russia showed us how dangerous it is to let the first case be provided solely by government. And I think we can look post-communist Russia to see how lack of infrastructure and legitimate courts/police/military to protect the rule of law will lead to anarchy and rule by the strong.

But the third case is problematic. This is a case where it is easy for politicians to advocate government action, and easy to dupe unsuspecting voters into agreeing to it. Usually, they play to emotions. It is always hard to watch people go without adequate medical care or education. It is far too easy to go from watching this to thinking that it simply shouldn’t happen, and therefore the government should take over and provide the service. But while this is different than the first case, it is still not a place where government monopoly works. Our current educational system is evidence of that. In the case of medical care, nobody wants to see people lose their entire livelihood due to high medical costs. But the proper way to pool risk is with insurance. Just as we would not ask the government to provide flood insurance, car insurance, or homeowners insurance, medical insurance is not for the government to pay. It would help, of course, for the government to end its policies which make it nearly impossible for individuals to provide their own coverage reasonably cheaply, but that’s a whole different debate. Again, look at education. Education would be much better provided in this country if we returned to a competitive market, with parents paying for school directly, and (at best) a safety-net program to help the poor. When even the NYT is realizing that vouchers work, it is obvious that we need to change our strategies.

As I said, there are times when government action is the best way to get something done. Those cases are few and far between, and in all of them I suggest making the services controlled as locally as possible, to allow a “market in governments” to form. Just as people choose which business to patronize, and should be able to choose which school to patronize, the experience of federalism and local control allow people to choose which local government to patronize. This will allow people to choose local government based upon the ability of government to provide necessary services, and allow competing localities to learn through competition how to be more efficient. You can ask states like Massachusetts (the only state in the union to lose gross population year-to-year) just how important this is.

But where government action is not efficient (almost everywhere), we need to make sure our policies are designed to facilitate the working of a market, not impede it.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Blue Laws and Anti-Smoking Laws

Economics, Individual Rights

Over at The Unrepentant Individual, I’ve long pilloried blue laws. As a Beer Advocate, the fact that I’ve moved to a state where it is illegal to purchase alcohol on Sundays irks me. Granted, I think far enough ahead that it doesn’t worry me, but the idea that the state determines what days alcohol should and should not be sold seems like an affront to freedom.

At the same time, I’ve long asked here about how much I disagree with anti-smoking laws. Granted, I’m not a smoker (although I used to be), but again, I feel like it is an affront to freedom to decree that smoking should not be allowed upon private property.

I’ve asked with both situations that we choose freedom over-regulation. If you’re a liquor store owner and you choose to close on Sundays, in observance of your religion? You’re free to make that choice. If you’re a religious person who thinks it is wrong to purchase alcohol on Sundays, don’t do it. Likewise, if you’re a restaurant owner and you want to serve patrons who don’t want to be around smoke, choose to be a non-smoking restaurant. If you dislike smoke to the extent that you don’t want to be near it in a restaurant, go to non-smoking restaurants. It is freedom. It may not always end up with the “desired” results, but in my mind, it’s the best policy.

At the same time, I am faced with a difficult argument from the blue law and anti-smoking advocates. Trying to get people in higher positions to listen meant that I had to at least understand common litigation terms, just so they had an idea that I knew what I was talking about. Plus, it would be easier to get my point across when it comes to arguing about the law.

When I suggest that a business choose to go no-smoking, or that a business choose not to sell alcohol on Sunday (or on the other end, choose as a pharmacist whether or not to dispense birth control), the argument is that a business can’t survive if it makes that choice.

One popular establishment, though, is bucking that trend, and showing that choosing to restrict your own business doesn’t necessarily mean your demise. The policy of Chick-Fil-A is to be voluntarily closed on Sunday. If the anti-freedom forces were correct, Chick-Fil-A would be going out of business. Instead, it recently expanded into California, keeping it’s closed-on-Sunday policies, and has been growing all the same. Rather than failing, Christians who agree with that policy tend to give Chick-Fil-A more business because they feel like it’s a “moral” company. And Chick-Fil-A is no startup. They’ve been around and growing for sixty years.

How is it that a company who chooses to voluntarily restrict their operations in this manner succeed? Because the market allows a wide range of diversity. Some people prefer Chick-Fil-A (or a California operation, In&Out Burger) for their Christian roots. Others like these restaurants for the food, and care little about the religious aspect of the business. Either way, Chick-Fil-A is simple proof that businesses choosing to buck the trend can survive.

Georgia’s anti-smoking legislation went into effect in July 2005. Before the ever happened, I visited quite a few restaurants in the Atlanta area who were non-smoking. Some of them had enclosed bar areas where smoking was allowed, several were completely non-smoking. They were succeeding and following the “desired” results with no help from government decree to shackle their competitors.

I’ve said before that legislators only do what is safe. Smokers have become so ostracized that it is now politically safe for legislators to enforce discrimination against them. But what most people don’t understand is that there is an underlying trend against smoking in our entire culture, and the politicians are just catching onto the coattails of that trend. At the same time, the politicians are claiming credit for that trend. Smokers are losing their havens naturally, but when a politician can claim credit for enforcing that natural phenomenon, it makes voters feel like those politicians are needed. Anti-smoking sentiment is growing, and anti-blue-law sentiment is growing. When those trends grow large enough, politicians jump on. But we shouldn’t allow them to take credit for destroying freedom by pandering to the majority.

The experience of California years ago may be necessary, as it showed the world that restaurants and bars could survive smoke-free. But instead of learning the lesson, other states mimicked the legislative option. Likewise, the argument against ending blue laws is that liquor stores who voluntarily choose not to sell on Sunday will be put into difficult business positions. But the experience of Chick-Fil-A shows that a business in a competitive market can choose to close on Sunday and survive. My local liquor store has a good enough beer and wine selection that I’d rather shop there on any day but Sunday than shop for beer at the supermarket. If a liquor store chooses to close on Sunday, they might have to raise their game in other areas, but that’s not a bad thing.

It is clear that solutions to quitting smoking need to be made more apparent. With plenty of companies like Pure E-Liquids providing vaping products, other companies creating nicotine patches and chewing gum, and therapy becoming more readily available, smokers need to be aware of the support surrounding them. Although there is still a lot of research that needs to be done on vaping products, there are many products that people who choose to vape can benefit from. For example, you can get CCELL cartridges from Hamilton Devices for your vape kit, which is readily available and many people see vaping as less of an issue as smoking cigarettes. Vaping has many more benefits than smoking as you can get flavours, there are a range to choose from. Here are Cheap Custom Vape Juice Salt Nic Flavors – TBD Liquids. But this is a topic that most aren’t aware of, and it needs to be addressed.

Those who think we need to restrict smoking don’t trust the market to supply a product that they feel they’re entitled to. But anti-smoking laws wouldn’t be passed if there wasn’t a demand, and the freedom of a market will satisfy a demand. The blue law folks are a tougher nut, because they’re simply trying to legislate their own morality, not their own preferences. They think it’s immoral that someone should buy liquor or beer on Sundays, and think it’s their duty to stop us. But their power is waning in this country, it’s only a matter of time. Both groups are repugnant to me, but it’s the former that worry me the most.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

I thank the FEC for FREEING us!

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Media

FEC Frees All Web Political Communication Except Paid Ads

Eric chastised me about the title to this post, where I improperly used language and claimed the government had rights. As such, I need to point out this gaffe before even addressing the meat of this article. The FEC did not give us Freedom. They only lifted their (immediate) threat of immorally infringing upon our freedom.

Yesterday’s unanimous Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling on Internet political communication places paid online advertising in the category of “public communication,” subject to campaign finance laws. Bloggers, Web pundits, and all other Internet communicators, however, get carte blanche.

…

Prominent bloggers are hailing the FEC decision, which affords them the same exemption from campaign finance restrictions that is afforded offline media like TV, radio and newspapers. Indeed, even when individuals who run Web sites accept payment from a federal candidate, political party committee or other political committee, no disclaimer is required. Also, according to the FEC document, public communication doesn’t include republished campaign material that is placed on an individual’s Web site, blog or e-mail, so it’s not considered “coordinated communication.”

So, they’ve accepted as legitimate the idea that they decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t, and how. While I am somehow now a member of a privileged class (“the media”), I still do not accept the government’s power to decide who can and cannot speak. If they can decide today that bloggers are part of the media, they can just as easily decide the opposite in the future.

I refuse to acknowledge their power to infringe upon my right to speak. That is my position, regardless of which way the FEC decides. And should they have decided otherwise, I would have been forced to disobey.

The game is not over. I do not believe it is right to leave these decisions in the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the FEC. H.R. 1606 is still active. After the FEC ruling, it could still be voted upon, or it might simply go away. It is time to make sure it does not go away. I am sending this letter (by fax) to my Congressman, Tom Price. I suggest all of you do the same, as we need to send a message that this is illegitimate in the first place.

Dear Rep. Price,

As you may be aware, the FEC recently ruled that blogs and other online communication, with the exception of paid political advertisements, will not be regulated as a part of the Bipartisan Campain Reform Act (BCRA). At the same time, Rep. Hensarling had introduced the Online Freedom of Speech Act (HR 1606) to ensure that online communication would be wholly exempted from the BCRA.

Understandably, there was a lot of political pressure to pass HR 1606 before the FEC released its ruling on Monday. As a result of that ruling, it is likely that much of this pressure will subside. Regardless, it is my belief that HR 1606 should still be voted upon in the House and passed. The FEC has determined that it is the arbiter of what should and should not be regulated as political speech under the BCRA. While they may have decided today to bow to politics and not regulate online communication, there is no guarantee that they won’t change their minds next month or next year, when they are no longer in the spotlight of public opinion.

The way to ensure that the FEC does not change its ruling is for the Congress to make sure that they don’t have the authority. It is not the place of unelected federal bureaucrats to determine whether or not individuals have the right to freedom of speech. I ask that you do what you can to ensure that HR 1606 does see a vote in the near future, and that you vote in favor of the measure.

Thank you for your support.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Yes Virginia, I Really AM a Radical

Constitution, Politics

[Note: I originally wrote this entry back in June 2005, when the original Supreme Court nomination debates were occurring. I was advocating for Janice Rogers Brown, who was considered a “radical extremist” by the left-wingers. I was reminded of this post reading Chris’ bio today, and thought I might cross-post it here. Enjoy.]

When I posted a few days ago about the new byline, Lucy Stern asked me whether I really wanted to call myself a “radical”. I had to think about it for a millisecond or so, look around at what our government has become, and determined that “radical” is a perfect term to describe me.

I was watching Fox News a few hours ago (Brit Hume’s show, I think), and they were talking about extremist appeals court nominee Janice Rogers Brown. I’ve picked up a few quotes on other blogs about Brown:

The Choice America Network:

Of all the extremist positions judicial nominee Janice Rogers Brown has taken, her stated agenda to undo all progress on social justice since the New Deal may be the most striking. These are her own words:

“The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document…1937…marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution.”

The Manitou Project:

Janice Rogers Brown’s extremist legal views are completely at odds with working families’ interests and values. Even ultra-conservative columnist George Will calls her “out of the mainstream.” She compares enactment of New Deal legislation such as the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek with a “socialist revolution.” She compares “big government” with “slavery” and an “opiate.” She says the First Amendment protects racial harassment in the form of slurs in the workplace. She says leased employees shouldn’t expect to participate in employers’ pension plans because they are part of a “new labor paradigm” that is “simply a matter of personal choice and private agreement” in which courts should not interfere.

Wow. We need to keep her off the federal bench.

Janice Rogers Brown believes that the Constitution is the guiding law in our land. Specfically, she reads the Constitution literally, and believes that whatever is not in there shouldn’t be done by our federal government. And she’s an extremist. An extremist isn’t by definition wrong, or bad. It simply means that she is out of the mainstream.

There’s a good reason for this. The mainstream has been moving more and more left for the last 92 years (I use 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was passed for that calculation). Someone who views the New Deal as a socialist program and openly states so is not in the mainstream. Someone who believes that private property rights may include the right of discrimination is not in the mainstream (even though it is obvious she doesn’t approve of discrimination). Someone who has the view that coerced redistribution of income is a mild form of slavery is not in the mainstream. It is her view that this country is ruled by laws, as enshrined in the Constitution, and if the “mainstream” wants to change that law, it requires Constitutional amendments, not judicial activism.

So am I a “radical”? Am I an “extremist”? Yes. It is obvious that compared to the mainstream thought in this country, I am nowhere near the average Joe. The average Joe believes that the rule of the majority is just. The average Joe believes that government exists to promote his agenda, not protect individual rights. The average Joe views taxation and regulation as tools for social engineering. The Republican and Democratic parties are full of average Joes looking not to further American ideals with their votes, but to get “their guys” holding the reins of power.

So yes, I am a radical. I’m not afraid of that label, because the government I envision is radically different than the one we have. And yes, I am an extremist. Because I believe that we should be much closer to the extremes of personal liberty and personal responsibility than we currently are. I make no claims that the rest of the country thinks the same way I do. But the principles I believe in don’t require them to. They can live they way they want, and I’ll live the way I want. They don’t offer me the same courtesy. My beliefs put me well outside of the mainstream. But with such folks as Janice Rogers Brown out here with me, I can at least claim good company.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Online Freedom of Speech Act — Delayed?

Constitution, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Media, Politics, The Bill Of Rights

I posted about how important of a vote this was on Wednesday, in anticipation of it happening yesterday. Looks like the vote didn’t happen, and the House isn’t in session today. According to the schedule, this should be the first order of business on Monday.

Now, there are two possible explanations. It looks as though they were following the schedule, and that they may have simply run out of time. On the other hand, they could be stalling for a chance to let the lobbyists come in, so they can do some backroom negotiating between HR 4900 and HR 1606. It’s unclear which is occurring, but the added time gives our Congress the option of doing the latter, even if that was not the cause of the delay.

What’s the difference between the two? HR 1606 says the internet will be free from regulation under BCRA. HR 4900 says that the government has the legitimate purpose of regulating the internet, but tries to set the limits of regulation such that it won’t affect most individuals. As I do not recognize their right to limit freedom of speech in this area, I choose HR 1606. As I know that regulations have a tendency to widen over time, I also choose HR 1606, because I know that narrow regulations today will be wide regulations in the future. It’s time to make sure our Congresspeople know where we stand.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/
1 … 229 230 231 232 233