9/11

On the anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, I remember that the United States of America stands for one thing above all else:

FREEDOM.

Why businessmen require freedom of conscience

At his new blog, Individual Rights and Government Wrongs, Brian Phillips has posted yet another dazzling analysis of the wide-ranging impact of government intervention in the economy. This time his focus is on taxi services. While I urge you to read the entire piece, I do want to note that I was struck by a passage which illustrates Ayn Rand's famous assertion that state and economics should be separate "in the same way and for the same reasons" as the separation of church and state.

The issue is "freedom of conscience" - something often cited by those who claim to uphold church/state separation. Why is freedom of conscience required to run a business? Brian cites this example:

Claims of “market failure” are founded on an arbitrary assertion of how the market should operate. And when the market fails to meet this arbitrary standard, it has “failed.” This is no different than running massive computer models of the NFL season and declaring that, if the Cleveland Browns do not win the Super Bowl, we have an “NFL failure.” Individuals have free will, and we often make decisions that the so-called experts don’t believe we should. The experts said that Henry Ford should not pay his workers twice the industry average. The experts were wrong. His turnover plummeted, his efficiency rose, and his profits soared. And, he cut his prices by nearly sixty percent.

Because Ford was free to act on his own judgment, he could prove the practicality of his ideas. He was free to demonstrate the truth that he saw before others saw it. What would have happened to America’s automobile industry if Henry Ford had been prohibited from acting as he thought best? And how much better might the taxi industry be if entrepreneurs and businessmen could act on their judgment, rather than follow the dictates of politicians and bureaucrats?

Any regulation which restricts a businessman's freedom to act on his own judgement interferes with his freedom of conscience, and should be rejected on that basis.

Got sprawl?

Dear Ed Shadid:

A couple of suggestions regarding OKC's urban sprawl.

First: stop annexing outlying towns. You might even ask people in what used to be an outlying town if they want their town back. Seriously, isn't this how all this sprawl happened in the first place?

Second: can't afford to provide services? Simple: deregulate so we can provide our own. I'm sure there are people here who would be more than happy to provide their own "essential services" if the City would just give up its monopoly over them.

BTW, I notice the ad in the Gazette for your event says no taxpayer dollars are being spent on the event. So who IS paying for it?

Sincerely,
Rob Abiera

For the Tea Party

I've been seeing some dangerous rhetoric floating around lately and, no, I'm not referring to the Tea Partiers who want to keep the debt ceiling from being raised. I am referring to those who say that opposition to raising the debt ceiling constitutes some kind of threat to the country and that those who oppose raising the debt ceiling should be censored. It is ironic that those who are now calling for such censorship have historically postured as defenders of the First Amendment, a la the "Free Speech Movement" and the Fairness Doctrine. While they are not yet openly calling for government restrictions on pro-Tea Party speech - which, by the way, is the only thing that qualifies as genuine censorship - they have finally revealed their true colors.

At such a time I believe it is important to be clear about where I stand.

I stand with the Tea Party.

Yes, I have been critical of the Tea Party in the past and I reserve to myself the right to continue to be so. The Tea Party movement was founded by Rick Santelli on the recognition of the fact that the growth of government was out of control. The movement has succeeded in reshaping the debate on the role of government and returning it to the goals of the Founders, who wanted to guarantee the freedom of the American people. A government with access to unlimited funds is a government with access to unlimited power, and Tea Partiers recognize that restricting the government's access to power means restricting its access to funds - not just taxpayer dollars, but the ability to borrow against those dollars. I whole-heartedly support the Tea Party when it opposes raising the debt ceiling - just one of the ways it has helped to re-focus the debate on the role of government.

Ultimately, the goal must be to reverse the growth of government and cut it back to something which poses no threat to the freedom of the American people. I hold that this can only be done by restricting government to the protection of individual rights. This is one of the reasons why I oppose evangelicals who would usurp the movement for their own religious ends, which will result not in freedom but in religious dictatorship - whether they choose to recognize that or not. I regard those evangelicals as aiding and abetting the liberals in bringing about the runaway growth of government.

The United States of America was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

The United States of America was founded as a FREE nation.

The Tea Party movement is big enough and healthy enough to withstand such criticism. I certainly do not regard the presence of factionalism in the Tea Party as grounds for censorship. I regard the fact that it has generated the kind of desperate opposition represented by those who are calling for censorship as testimony to its success, and I stand with the Tea Party in its opposition to those who would obliterate the First Amendment by forbidding media coverage of and access to information about the Movement.

The problem with taxes

. . . is: they aren't voluntary.

The classic illustration of this is the trip to McDonald's. Go to McDonald's, tell them you want a Quarter Pounder instead of a Big Mac - or, heck, you've changed your mind and you want to go to Wendy's instead! - and see if anyone points a gun at your head.

Now, tell the IRS you don't want to pay your taxes and see what happens.

This, of course, is the difference between the free market and statism, something nicely illustrated by an editorial in today's The Oklahoman - though I'm not sure that's what the editorial's writer intended:

All taxpayers have something they'd like to opt out of — war, railroad subsidies, crop supports, space exploration, etc.

And:

Some folks would like to opt out of paying the MAPS 3 sales tax, but their own neighbors approved it.

Darn neighbors!

The Coburn-Lankford proposal on fuel taxes is appealing, but Washington isn't about to opt out of its desire to control more of our lives.

Of course, the proper response is not to simply say - as The Oklahoman seems to - that that's the way things are done so why even try to do anything about it? Here's the comment I posted:

The Oklahoman's editorial writers - in their own snarky way - are actually doing a good job of illustrating one of the fundamental problems with taxes: it forces people to pay for things they don't agree with or may even oppose. The solution to this is, of course, the free market, where people who want something can pay for it themselves, and those who don't want it don't have to be bothered.

The problem with this - as the editorial illustrates - is that taxes at every level: federal, state and local, mean power and government at all levels is addicted to it. Changing this means changing the culture of power. Yes, this includes voting the so-and-so's out until we finally get the right people. But it also means going much deeper than that and addressing the issue of altruism, which is what lies at the bottom of every excuse used by every politician every time they grab for more power.

After all, we are our brother's keeper and it's for our own good and the pie is only so big and there's only so much to go around and SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DO SOMETHING!

No.

Governor Fallin's Facebook Town Hall

The Oklahoma Republican Party is kicking off a series of town hall meetings on Facebook with a session with Governor Fallin. They are asking constituents to submit questions for the Governor on Facebook or through Twitter. I submitted some questions last week but for some reason they keep disappearing. I guess Facebook is being glitchy. Or maybe it's just my computer.

Anyway, the questions I attempted to post had to do with the growth of state government, Oklahoma's casket cartel, and ObamaCare. So far the question about ObamaCare is still up, but the question I really want Governor Fallin to answer is this one:

Governor: In your State of the State Address, you said: "the growth of government shouldn’t outpace growth in the private sector". Why do you think government should be allowed to continue to grow? Why not actually reduce the size of government?

The Governor's Town Hall starts at noon on Thursday, August 4th.

Close the agencies!

Editorial writers across Oklahoma are breathing a sigh of relief as news comes in of increased tax revenues, relieving them of the burden of facing the possibility that budget cuts might actually lead to the closing of some government agencies.

Well, good for them, I suppose. I think the Right has really dropped the ball and is wimping out on the issue of reducing government - as evidenced by Gov. Fallin's crack about "right-sizing" government in her State of the State address.

More tax revenue means more government. The government's power to restrict our freedom will not be reduced until the the size of the government is reduced. It is past time to face the fact that any genuinely structural reduction in government has to involve closing agencies. I keep getting asked: "Where would you start?" Meaning: which agencies would I close first?

Anything not directly involved in protecting the individual rights of Oklahomans to their lives, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness is fair game. This leaves just about everything outside of the legislature, courts and police.

Okay, here's my list:

ABLE Commission
ABLE Tech
Abstractors Board
Accountancy Board
Accrediting Agency, State
Aeronautics Commission
Alcohol and Drug Counselors Board
Anatomical Board
Architects Board
Arts Council
Athletic Commission, Oklahoma State
Center for Advancement of Science & Technology - OCAST
Chiropractic Examiners
Climatological Survey
Commerce Department
Commercial Pet Breeders, State Board
Commission on the Status of Women
Community Hospitals Authority
Conservation Commission
Construction Industries Board
Consumer Credit Department
Corporation Commission
Cosmetology Board
Dentistry Board
Development Finance Authority
EDGE Fund Policy Board
Energy Resources Board
Environment Secretary
Environmental Finance Authority
Faith-Based & Community Initiatives
Film and Music Office
Foresters, State Board of Registration for
Funeral Board
Geological Survey
Group Self-Insurance Association Guaranty Fund Board
Historical Society
Horse Racing Commission
Individual Self-Insured Guaranty Fund Board
Industrial Finance Authority
Interstate Oil Compact Commission
LP Gas Research, Marketing and Safety Commission
Licensed Social Workers Board
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board
Literacy Initiatives Commission
Long Term Care Administrators Board
Lottery Commission
Marginal Well Commission
Medical Licensure and Supervision Board
Medical Technology and Research Authority of Oklahoma
Motor Vehicle Commission
Municipal Power Authority
Music Hall of Fame
Nursing, Oklahoma Board of
Oklahoma Forestry Services
Optometry Board
Osteopathic Examiners Board
Peanut Commission
Perfusionists Board of Examiners
Pharmacy Board
Physical Fitness and Sports, Governor's Council on
Physician Manpower Training Commission
Podiatric Medical Examiners Board
Private Vocational Schools Board
Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors Licensure Board
Psychologists Examiners Board
Real Estate Appraiser Board
Real Estate Commission
Santa Claus Commission
Scenic Rivers Commission
Secretary of Energy, Office of
Securities Commission
Sheep and Wool Commission
Sorghum Commission
Southern Growth Policies Board
Space Industry Development Authority
Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology Board
Wheat Commission

Mind you, this is just a first draft. In going through the complete list of state agencies at www.ok.gov I notice that the state does a LOT of licensing of professionals in various fields. Eliminating that licensing would go a long way to restoring the freedom of Oklahomans to do business in the state.

Notice also that I haven't even touched health & education, both of which should ultimately be on a completely free and open market with no government involvement whatsoever.

I am, of course, aware that there is more involved in eliminating an agency than just closing offices. Agencies are created by statutes and constitutional mandates. Closing agencies will require changing - and eliminating - a lot of unjust laws. Of course, one way to start this whole process is by defunding these agencies.

But at least it's a beginning: 77 agencies (unless I've miscounted).

Let the debate begin! What agencies do you think should be closed?