Posts Tagged With: Massachusetts

Sean Hannity Was Right

Massachusetts has 76.5% of its votes in.  Politico lists 1,433,968 for Obama and 922,822 for Romney–a 511,146 vote victory for Obama.

If only I had listened to Sean Hannity and Karl Rove, and not wasted my vote on a third party!  Then Obama would have only won Massachusetts by 511,145 votes.  That would’ve shown him!

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Should Libertarians Oppose Inconsequential Laws?

An interesting question came up yesterday that challenges my position from a previous post that libertarians should be utilitarians.

Yesterday I had a discussion with a friend over one of the ballot initiatives in Massachusetts, the so-called “Right to Repair” law.  The law forces car manufacturers to allow competing repair shops to buy technology from them which will allow the repair shops to read code generated by a customer’s car’s internal computer.  This allows the shop to diagnose vehicle malfunctions.  As it is now, only the manufacturer has the ability to read this read this code.

I stated that I oppose the law for several reasons, mainly based on the facts that the law undermines contracts between individual dealers and manufacturers, makes it less profitable for dealers to enter into exclusive relationships with manufacturers in the first place, and discourages manufacturers from incurring research and development costs to create new technology that can then be bought up by competitors.  Each of these would lead to a poorer market for consumers.

But to be fair, the real-world impact that the law would be likely to have in any of these areas is probably very small.  My friend said that, even if she accepted all of my arguments, the costs that the new law imposes on car manufacturers is so remote to her that it would still be worth it to vote “yes” to the new law.  After all, most people only enter the retail market for cars around once or twice a decade.  But they got to repair shops much more often.

How does this affect my position on utilitarianism?

Well, if we judge restrictions on freedom by their negative consequences, what about those laws, like this one, that have not much of any consequences at all?  What, for instance, should a libertarian say about the birth control ban in Griswold v. Connecticut, which was on the books but never enforced?  What about a rent control ordinance that caps rent so far above the market clearing price (say, $5 million/month) that no one would ever violate it?  Or a law regulating a dying industry like the absbestos or quill-pen industries?  If we judge laws by their consequences, does that mean we can’t make any judgments about laws with few, if any, bad consequences?

I don’t think so.  Indeed, I think everyone should oppose all the laws I’ve mentioned.

Before we start judging the utility of individual regulatory laws, it makes sense to first judge the utility of the entire concept of the regulatory state itself.  To state a few of the most obvious problems, government regulations distort the market by substituting the choices of bureaucrats for the choices of free consumers and therefore make people worse off then if they were left free to pursue their own ends.  By their involuntariness, regulations also introduce social conflict into what was once free and mutually beneficial exchange (as in subsidies or tariffs, which direct consumers’ money away from where the consumers want it and toward government-favored industries).  The fact that they can be changed at will makes it harder for people to predict the future and disincentivizes people from entering long-term contracts, given that those contracts could be negated at any time by a change in the law.  The regulatory states’ enforcement mechanism also consumes huge amounts of tax money which could otherwise by invested in more productive areas.  Moreover, taxation itself leads to a decline in net income, which means that people have less money to invest or to put toward their own futures.

When we understand this destructive nature of the regulatory state, it is no longer necessary to judge each new regulation on its own terms, entirely independent of the rest.  Rather, we can understand that, though the new car law probably won’t have a huge effect on the market, to support it is to support a principle of interventionism that has been and will continue to be hugely destructive of civilized society.

Of course, it may be difficult to find the terms to oppose seemingly inconsequential laws in any given case.  But if we fail to do so, then we risk giving up necessary ground to the interventionists.  The burden should be on them to prove why any given law is so necessary that we should support it, rather than on us to show how each of their new machinations will be harmful in any given case.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We Need More Politicians Like Dave Rosa–Whoever the Hell He Is!

As a Massachusetts resident who goes to school out of state, I just submitted my absentee ballot last week.

I live in Barney Frank’s congressional district.  Given Frank’s long-awaited retirement from Congress this year, the race to replace him is between a Republican war hawk and a Kennedy who, according to CBS News, is heavily favored because he “look[s] so much like a Kennedy.”

But it is the third candidate who is the most interesting.  According to the ballot, an independent named David Rosa is also running for Congress.

Who is this David Rosa?  I have no idea.  He has no campaign website.  He has a YouTube channel with one video, called “Dave Rosa: Intro.”  But if you try to access it, you find out that the video is private.  YouTube informs me that I must request access from Mr. Rosa himself if I want to watch his campaign video.

Rosa was spotted at a Taunton Republican straw poll in March, but beyond that there is no sign that he has ever campaigned.  In fact, a local League of Women Voters chapter reports that he actually declined to attend a televised debate with the major party candidates.  That’s right: whereas Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson had to resort to suing under federal antitrust law to be allowed into the major-party debates, Rosa couldn’t even be bothered to accept an invitation to appear!

Which is all a long way of saying: I voted for David Rosa, and it was one of the best votes I ever made.

Gore Vidal once wrote that he believed that the roots of the American empire could be found in the invention of air conditioning.  That is, before air conditioning, DC’s natural humidity would force all the bureaucrats out of the city in search of climates during the summer months–a good quarter of the year.  But once air conditioning came about, it became possible and comfortable for them to sit around and scheme the whole year long.

Continue reading

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com. The Adventure Journal Theme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers