Voice For Liberty

Tag: Liberty

  • Wichita Smoking Ban Starts. Sharon Fearey is Excited.

    Today, September 4, 2008, marks the first day of the ban on smoking in Wichita. It’s not quite a total ban, and that has some smoking ban supporters upset. In a letter to the Wichita Eagle, anti-smoking activist Cindy Claycomb writes “If you are a supporter of clean indoor air, please do not spend your money in businesses that allow smoking indoors, including smoking rooms. If we continue to spend our money at places that allow smoking indoors, that tells the business owners that we do not care — that we will tolerate secondhand smoke even though we all know the harmful effects.”

    Not everyone is upset, though. In the Wichita Eagle article Smoking ban takes effect; for smokers, end of an era, Wichita city council member Sharon Fearey is quoted as “I feel this is an exciting time for the city.” If, like council member Fearey, you appreciate increasing government and bureaucratic management of the lives of Wichitans, you might be excited, too. Those who value liberty and freedom, however, are saddened — even if they aren’t smokers.

    Fortunately Ms. Fearey is precluded from running again for her seat on the city council by term limits. The two architects of this smoking ban — Lavonta Williams and Jeff Longwell — can run for election again. The position held by Ms. Williams is up for grabs in the March 2009 primary. Hopefully the citizens of Wichita city council district one will elect someone respectful of property rights, not to mention personal rights.

    For more coverage of the smoking issue and why it’s important, these articles will be of interest: It’s Not the Same as Pee In the Swimming Pool, Haze Surrounds Wichita Smoking Ban, Property Rights Should Control Kansas Smoking Decisions, Let Property Rights Rule Wichita Smoking Decisions, Testimony Opposing Kansas Smoking Ban, and No More Smoking Laws, Please.

  • Wichita’s Naysayers Are Saying Yes to Liberty

    Wichita politicians, newspaper editorial writers, and sometimes just plain folks are fond of bashing those they call the “naysayers,” sometimes known as CAVE people. An example is from a recent Opinion Line Extra in the Wichita Eagle:

    An acquaintance in another city refers to the anti-everything people as “CAVE” people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything). I fear the GOP voters of western Sedgwick County have selected the ultimate CAVE person in Karl Peterjohn.

    Naysayers, too, can’t be happy, according to a recent statement by Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer: “And I know that there’s always going to be people who are naysayers, that they’re just not going to be happy.”

    If you read all of Mayor Brewer’s remarks at Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, August 12, 2008, you’ll learn that without government management of economic development in Wichita, we’d be back to the days of covered wagons. (I’m not kidding. He really said that, and I think he really believes it.)

    Wichita’s news media, led by the Wichita Eagle, continually expresses a bias in favor of government. Even in news reporting this bias can be seen, as shown in the post The Wichita Eagle’s Preference For Government. On the Eagle’s editorial page, we rarely see an expansion of government interventionism opposed by the editorial writers. I can’t think of a single case.

    But saying no to government doesn’t mean saying no to progress. It does mean saying “no” to the self-serving plans of politicians and bureaucrats. It means saying “no” to the dangers of collectivist thinking, as expressed in The Collectivism of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

    It means saying “no” to Wichita’s political entrepreneurs, who seek to earn profits through government coercion rather than meeting the needs of customers in the marketplace. It means saying “no” to the public-private partnership, where all too often it is the risk that is public and the profit that is private. It means saying “no” to a monopoly on the use of public money in the education of children, and “no” to an expansion of that monopoly through a new bond issue.

    So yes, I guess I and Wichita’s other naysayers are saying “no” to a lot of things.

    But what we’re saying “yes” to is liberty and freedom. We’re saying “yes” to the rich diversity of human individuality instead of government bureaucracy. We’re saying “yes” to free people cooperating voluntarily through free markets rather than forced government transfers from taxpayers to favored individuals and programs.

    We’re saying “yes” to consumers choosing which businesses in Wichita thrive, rather than politicians on the city council choosing. We’re saying “yes” to people making their own choices, rather than government “incentivizing” the behavior it desires through TIF districts and tax abatements, those incentives being paid for by taxpayers.

    So let me ask you: what do you say “yes” to?

  • Ultimate Libertarian Quote List

    My friend Eric Odom publishes the Ultimate Libertarian Quote List.

    Well, maybe. My quotations book is pretty good, I think.

  • Defending the American Dream, or RightOnline in Austin 2008

    I just returned from Austin, Texas, attending a conference put on by Americans For Prosperity partnering with Sam Adams Alliance, Heritage Foundation, Leadership Institute, and Media Research Center. Thank you to my friend Erik Telford for inviting me to this conference.

    We had some great speakers. Robert Novak is a favorite person of mine. I devoured his autobiography The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington last year. He told us that he believes the Republicans will lose seats in both houses of Congress, but the presidency can be won. Also: “I like Ron Paul (cheers)…but not for President” (Thanks, Nic Hall, for reminding me of this.)

    I always like listening to Tim Phillips, president of Americans For Prosperity. He told us it’s important to let the few “good guys” in government know that we stand behind them, and conferences like this are one way to do that.

    Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal told us, and it is reported today in the opinion piece Their Fair Share that Americans with income above the median paid 97.1% of all income taxes. Barack Obama doesn’t think that’s enough. This reminded me that we have two classes of people in America: tax payers, and tax consumers. Regarding the death tax: “No taxation without respiration.”

    Steve Lonegan of AFP in New Jersey has an inspiring life story about overcoming blindness as a young adult. The state wanted him to become a client and go to vocational training (to be a basket weaver, he said), but instead he earned an MBA degree.

    Grover Norquist: “The left are not friends. The are a band of competing parasites.” Also: “Republicans who raise taxes are rat heads in Coke bottles.”

    Michelle Malkin is an inspiration to me. Did you know, I believe she said, that Gen. Wesley Clark whines about the “right wing freak machine”?

    Bob Barr, the Libertarian party candidate for president, spoke at a reception. One of his topics? How he introduced the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. This is inspiring? Although he did say “Libertarianism lies in the heart of every American.”

    It’s always interesting to me to see how these speakers are different in person from when they’re on television. My friend Maggie Thurber at Thurber’s Thoughts has some more good remarks on the speakers.

    A few things that I learned:

    It takes a long time to drive from Wichita to Austin! And, at a time when some are urging a return to the 55 mph speed limit, I saw little observation of the current 70 mph speed limit. Even when I drove for a while at 75 mph, people passed me like I was standing still.

    Why is the term changing from “global warming” to “climate change”?

    Ask readers to take action on your blog. Then, after taking action — maybe making a telephone call or writing an email — have readers write a comment about it so others can learn what happened.

    I learned more about media bias and how to spot it.

    One speaker said that the combined circulation of small newspapers is equal to the circulation of large newspapers.

    Personally, I reconnected with some blogger friends that I first met at Samsphere in Chicago earlier this year, a friend I had met at Mises University last year, plus some Facebook “friends” who I had never met in person.

    I also got a glimpse at the power of Twitter combined with a mobile device like a Blackberry. I may have to get one.

    I had thought I would be able to produce an abbreviated Kansas Blog Roundup on Friday, but with all the activity, I didn’t have time.

  • Wichita Smoking Ban: Authoritarian, Elitist?

    Here’s some good commentary I received from a citizen. Wichita’s smoking “ban” will take effect before too long.  Smoke ’em while you can, I guess.

    Wichita’s Smoking Ban and the latest authoritarian arrogance emitted by elitist professor

    University of Kansas School of Medicine professor Dr. Rick Kellerman is on the front page of the May 30 Wichita Eagle.  Kellerman is upset that a complete ban on smoking is not expected to be adopted by the city council at their June 3 meeting.

    Who appointed Dr. Kellerman to be Wichita’s doctor?  The doctor’s elitist and authoritarian statement in today’s Wichita Eagle indicates that he is either trying to become the 21st century version of the Prohibition era’s Carrie Nation or the 20th century’s version of the infamous Nurse Ratched (see Ken Kesey’s classic One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) for improper behavior.  The arguments that Kellerman uses could also be used to ban everything from firearms, cars, risky behaviors from hang gliding to bungee jumping, and a host of activities that free people exercising their freedom in a responsible way may decide to engage in performing.

    While it is a common leftist trait to call their political opponents, “fascists” it is a historical fact that the most famous anti-tobacco and anti-smoking advocate in the first half of the 20th century was Adolf Hitler who was happy to use his tyrannical powers to impose his will upon his subjects.  This was (and is) part of the authoritarian elitism that underlies all totalitarian ideologies.

    Dr. Kellerman’s desire to follow in these footsteps here in Wichita as part of his campaign to destroy invidual liberty, property rights for individuals and business owners, as well as broadly restrict select human freedom.  Dr. Kellerman knows better than the peasants what is good for us.

    Obviously this arrogant professor has never read Thomas Sowell‘s The Vision of the Anointed Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, a book that describes Kellerman’s ideology and elitist arrogance perfectly.  The same issue of the Wichita Eagle has a small story about California’s state senate has passed a ban on smoking within one’s own apartment.  Friendly fascism of the nanny state elitists like Dr. Kellerman are active all across this country.

  • Government Art in Wichita

    Do we really want government art in Wichita?

    David Boaz, in his recent book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties writes this in a chapter titled “The Separation of Art and State”:

    It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it must be kept separate from government. Government, as I noted earlier, involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.

    Government funding of anything involves government control. That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” “Who takes the king’s shilling sings the king’s song.”

    When I read Rhonda Holman’s editorial City can be proud of its arts work in the July 15, 2008 Wichita Eagle, which starts with the stirring reminder that “The arts fire the mind and feed the heart” I thought that perhaps she was going to call for less government involvement in the arts. Anything so important to man’s nature surely, I thought she would agree, should not be placed in the hands of government.

    But my hopes were not realized, because soon she described the City of Wichita’s commitment to permanent spending on arts as “a bold and even brave investment in quality of life.” It appears that even the yearnings of our hearts and minds are subject to government management and investment.

    “Government art.” Is this not a sterling example of an oxymoron? Must government weasel its way into every aspect of our lives?

    And what about the “investment” in art, which Ms. Holman claims helps “drive the economy” through its economic impact and job creation? She, and Wichita City Council member Sharon Fearey rely on a study from 2007, which I discuss in Economic Fallacy Supports Arts in Wichita. This study tells of the fabulous returns on investment by governments when they invest in the arts. Like most studies of its type, however, it focuses only on the benefits without considering secondary consequences or how these benefits are paid for. Henry Hazlitt, in his masterful book Economics in One Lesson explains:

    While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

    It is, as Hazlitt terms it, “the special pleading of selfish interests” that drive much of the desire for government spending on the arts. Either that or elitism. Do newspaper editorialists and city council members believe that the people of Wichita can choose for themselves the art they want to enjoy, and then acquire it themselves? Evidently not, as the City of Wichita government has its Division of Arts & Cultural Services.

    (The material by David Boaz is from a speech which may be read here: The Separation of Art and State.)

  • Defending the American Dream Summit, Austin, Texas

    Later this week I’ll be traveling to Austin, Texas to attend Americans For Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream Summit, also known as RightOnline Summit.

    There will be many excellent speakers, including a favorite person of mine, Robert Novak, whose recent autobiography The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington I highly recommend.

    Naturally, I’ll be blogging from this event. It’s possible that the weekly Kansas Blog Roundup might be delayed.

    Also taking place in Austin at the same time is the Netroots Nation Convention (formerly known as YearlyKos), so hopefully this gathering of the “nutroots” will be balanced by the concentration of conservative and libertarian activists at the event I’ll be attending.

  • Understanding the Responsibility of Liberty

    A writer in the Wichita Eagle’s WE blog recently wrote this cautionary note about what our country would be like if libertarians were in charge: “… you can HOPE that the acid factory down the road didn’t taint your well water and the food you buy isn’t disease ridden.” This writer seems to believe that under libertarianism, one can do whatever one wants, and to heck with the consequences.

    The most important principle to libertarians is the non-aggression axiom. As Walter Block explains in the article The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism: “The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.”

    Isn’t ruining someone’s well water with acid a violation of that person’s property? Of course it is. And if property rights were properly respected, that person could seek damages from the polluter and force him to stop. But governments often don’t let people enforce their property rights in this way. So the government we have contributes to the problem by not holding polluters responsible for the damage they cause.

    With regard to government food inspection being the only thing stopping the spread of disease through food, which I believe is what the writer claims: in the recent article The Wichita Eagle’s Preference For Government I wrote about how government food inspection failures occur frequently. Then, what is the difference in the motivations of government inspectors and private inspectors? When government inspection or regulation fails, politicians ask for more money for the agency that has failed. When private inspectors fail, they are held liable, or perhaps are forced out of business. There’s quite a bit of difference in the motivations between the two.

  • Everything you love you owe to capitalism

    This is an excellent article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. An excerpt:

    I’m convinced that Mises was right: the most important step economists or economic institutions can take is in the direction of public education in economic logic.

    There is another important factor here. The state thrives on an economically ignorant public. This is the only way it can get away with blaming inflation or recession on consumers, or claiming that the government’s fiscal problems are due to our paying too little in taxes. It is economic ignorance that permits the regulatory agencies to claim that they are protecting us as versus denying us choice. It is only by keeping us all in the dark that it can continue to start war after war — violating rights abroad and smashing liberties at home — in the name of spreading freedom.

    There is only one force that can put an end to the successes of the state, and that is an economically and morally informed public. Otherwise, the state can continue to spread its malicious and destructive policies.

    The full article is here: Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism.