Category Archives: Private Property

From Your Pocket To Union Pensions

Economy, Government, Political Economy, Politics, Private Property, States' Rights, The State

The compliant voter keeps electing local officials who’ll use their police powers to pick from the pockets of wealth creators so as to give to a more powerful constituency: members of the public sector unions. WSJ:

“Cities across the nation are raising property taxes, largely citing rising pension and health-care costs for their employees and retirees.
In Pennsylvania, the township of Upper Moreland is bumping up property taxes for residents by 13.6% in 2011. Next door the city of Philadelphia this year increased the tax 9.9%. In New York, Saratoga Springs will collect 4.4% more in property taxes in 2011; Troy will increase taxes by 1.9%.
… Some cities have also pushed unions to reopen contracts in an attempt to pare benefits or raise workers’ contributions for pensions and health care. They have faced stiff resistance from some unions that argue it’s unfair to penalize workers for a financial crisis that isn’t their fault. Others have agreed to some cutbacks.”

“WE ARE DOOMED.”

UPDATED: Net Neutrality Odyssey

Business, Constitution, Fascism, Free Markets, Internet, Private Property, Technology

If they are not, the FCC’s new Net Neutrality rules sound awfully like price fixing, or a kind of Internet Civil Rights Act, where everyone must be allowed access to everything without discrimination based on, well, what and how much you purchase.

Ruled by regulators we certainly are.

Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, provides that:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

So what is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doing regulating the Internet? Nothing out of the ordinary is the answer. The FCC is just doing what all America’s extra-Constitutional government agencies do: manage all aspects of American life. Hence the term “The Managerial State.”

ROBERT M. MCDOWELL, a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, calls the FCC’s unconstitutional power grab a “jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah”; a bypasses of “branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation.”

Let us not forget that the Net Neutrality odyssey began with that bastard Bush. As Wired reports, “In 2005, then-FCC chairman Michael Powell issued a set of principles, the so-called Four Freedoms, which said that internet users had the right to use the lawful software and services they want to on the internet, access their choice of content, use whatever devices they like, and get meaningful information about how their online service plan works.”

Note the Bush boy’s UN-like language: “Four Freedoms.”

This is important: “Both wireless and fixed broadband service providers will have to explain how they manage congestion on their networks. Cable and DSL companies will have to let you use the applications, online services and devices that you want to. Meanwhile, wireless companies will be prohibited from blocking websites and internet telephony services like Skype. Cable and DSL providers would be barred from ‘unreasonably’ discriminating against various online services.”

An Internet Civil Rights Act of sorts.

The one thing that bothers me is this: Is Comcast, for example, not a franchise (“a privilege or right officially granted a person or a group by a government”)? The kind of areal monopoly they enjoy and less-than-optimal service they provide in the market seems to suggest that possibility.

Franchise status might also explain why, as Wired observed, “There was one group … which seemed content with the new rules: the nation’s cable and telecommunications companies, including AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. They’ve been making the rounds in recent weeks signaling their support for Chairman Julius Genachowski’s compromise deal.”

UPDATE (Dec. 22): GREAT MINDS. Michelle Malkin also finds Civil Rights language to be the appropriate source of metaphor to describe the impetus of laws that’ll mandate equal Internet access to all irrespective of the cost of a product or service.

Under the FCC’s new regime, the market will be fattened and socialized and the price system sundered. This means worse service for all paying customers as the incentive to innovate are removed. When will Out “Overlords Who Art in DC” UNDERSTAND that the price and profit system is the key to prosperity? The correct answer is “never.”

VIA MICHELLE:

Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC chairman Julius Genachowski’s “open Internet” plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: “Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right…[though] not many people have talked about it that way.” Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.

“Broadband is becoming a basic necessity,” civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every “nappy-headed child” in America, but essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, “deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is.”

Police State America Erects More Trade Barriers

Free Markets, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Private Property, Taxation

Did you know that Uncle Sam has imposed a Security Surcharge on incoming packages to the United States? So says a friend who paid an additional $9 over and above the standard fare to mail a small, “secured” item from Australia to the US.

Trade is always invited, consensual and, hence, mutually beneficial to the private property holders that are party to the transactions. When government restricts trade, it violates—not protects—the rights of private property owners to exchange goods and to enjoy freedom of association.

Conversely, free immigration, as the libertarian economist and political philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe has explained, “does not mean immigration by invitation of individual households and firms, but unwanted invasion or forced integration.” When government restricts immigration, it is actually protecting private households and firms from these perils.

As Dr. Hoppe noted, “Someone can migrate from one place to another without anyone else wanting him to do so,” but “goods and services cannot be shipped from place to place unless both sender and receiver agree.”

Hoppe’s distinction seems almost mischievous, but it goes to the core of the complementary relationship between free trade and restricted immigration. (Contrary to what you’ve heard from John Stossel, open borders are not the libertarian default position—and they are certainly not the patriotic position. Those of us who live in real communities, removed from the Beltway and the TV Talkers, understand the burdens that state-engineered immigration has imposed on ordinary Americans living in the “Provinces.”)

In the US there are almost no barriers to the free-flow of uninvited people across American borders. Unfettered trade is a different matter; it is taxed and penalized.

UPDATED: Lindt Makes Light Of TSA Looting & Lusting

Business, Homeland Security, Private Property, Regulation, The Zeitgeist

There aren’t many things that can put me off Lindt chocolates, such is their exquisite quality and taste. Except this repulsive ad. I went cold turkey after viewing the lighthearted look Lindt took at two TSA agents looting and lusting with impunity.

UPDATE (Dec. Eighth) : I’m surprised that individuals who’re serious about liberty could find humor, irony, and all shades of nuance in this Lindt ad.

Lindt here is not lampooning the TSA, whose representatives are depicted by pretty, lusty, sensuous, and “assertive” ladies. Just like American men love their women. This is a date. Two lovely women (after all, the TSA is a magnet for such types, isn’t it?), with an appreciation for the finer things in life, alight on a handsome man, who is too well-conditioned to oppose them with more than a meek, “You’re kidding, right?”

How droll!