Category: Politics

Florida Governor’s Race Day One

August 30, 2018 / / 0 Comments

It’s been less than twenty-four hours and already the race card is being flung at Republican Ron DeSantis like it was a shuriken. This is the kind of petty fauxrage bullshit that makes me kind of want to burn it all down. Andrew Gillum is being touted as the first black candidate for governor from one of the major parties. That’s a major accomplishment, but this kind of ridiculousness makes his candidacy look weak.

To be honest, I’m not particularly thrilled with either candidate. Both seem to be heavily courting the populist wings of their respective parties. Of course, that may be simply be pandering to their bases, which have swung wildly to the populist in the last few years.

In the end, I’ll most likely be pulling the lever for DeSantis due to the issue of guns. Gillum is very publicly anti-gun, and I can see him using the executive power of the governor to limit my rights in whatever way he think he can get away with.

To Vote or Not To Vote

August 27, 2018 / / 0 Comments

I’ve missed two elections in the twenty-five years since I achieved my majority. Both were primaries where I had one or two races on the ballot. This will be the third I’m missing.

Why? Because I’ve just moved from Hillsborough County to Manatee. I know close to nothing about the local politics, and I refuse to be a low-information voter.

Now, the November elections? I’ll be ready for them.

First Question

August 20, 2018 / / 0 Comments

If I’m going to debate someone, one of the first questions that need to be addressed is this:

Do you believe, or are you willing to concede that I believe, that I want you to have the best life you can according to your needs, wants, and desires?

If the answer is “yes,” then we can have a civilized conversation about the best means of bringing this about. If the answer is “no,” there is real doubt we can even have a conversation. Because there are very few people that I want them to have less than the best life possible. Those generally fall into those who willfully and maliciously harm others.

Tech Giants and Public Accomodations

August 8, 2018 / / 0 Comments

So, I have a question. In light of Apple, Facebook, and just about all the other tech giants scourging InfoWars from their sites, I’m seeing two things: shameless celebrating by the left who are triumphing in private businesses choosing who they should deal with and the right pointing out that businesses should be allowed to do business with whomever they want whether in cyberspace or meatspace (e.g., businesses who don’t want to serve “teh gayz”.) To which, the left responds with “public accommodations.”

There’s strong arguments for public accommodations, particularly when the supply of services is limited. It’s easy to claim that businesses should have the right to choose what customers they’ll serve when there are twelve other bakers in the city. It’s a bit harder when there’s only one baker in town.

So, considering that currently the tech giants are acting more like, say the only baker in a town, should they be forced to provide platforms under public accommodations laws?

Personally, considering how each side has been flip-flopping on their normal core issues with each new twist of the culture/chattering war, I’d kind of like to see the debate.

When Obama Is Criticizing The Hard Left

August 1, 2018 / / 0 Comments

Maybe they should take a harder look at their rhetoric.

Via Reason (of course) comes an excerpt from Obama’s speech on Mandela’s 100th birthday.

Democracy demands that we’re able also to get inside the reality of people who are different than us so we can understand their point of view. Maybe we can change their minds, maybe they’ll change ours. You can’t do this if you just out of hand disregard what your opponent has to say from the start. And you can’t do it if you insist that those who aren’t like you because they are white or they are male, somehow there is no way they can understand what I’m feeling, that somehow they lack standing to speak on certain matters.

This isn’t the first time Obama’s said something like this.

The Law Is Violence

July 16, 2018 / / 0 Comments

The Atlantic published an article quoting a Yale professor on how ultimately the law rests on the use of violence. It’s pretty much just quoting Professor Stephen L. Carter, but the man’s writing is good enough that I’m going to lift the intro. Just RTWT.

Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

This is by no means an argument against having laws.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.

The pithy saying is don’t advocate for any law you wouldn’t want someone to kill a member of your family over.

Reason Article Barrage!

July 11, 2018 / / 0 Comments

Cleaning up some open tabs. As my readers should know, Reason magazine is where I get a lot of my news and analysis.

California Supreme Court Rules Impossible Laws Are Constitutional Basically, the court says impossibility can be a defense, but does not invalidate the law. Okay, I can understand that concept in theory, but it has real world costs for people forced to defend themselves from overzealous prosecutors enforcing this bullshit law. This is the kind of legal wonky ruling that reduces confidence in legal thinkers.

Illinois Court Rules That Police Can’t Arrest A Person For Carrying a Gun Without Checking For Valid Permit. This kind of balances out the previous article. I’d say I was surprised it came out of Illinois, but their courts have been much better on RKBA than the legislature.

A federal judge has blocked Tennessee’s practice of suspending driver’s licenses for unpaid court fees without first determining if the debtors are too poor to pay. This is a good step to remedying the vicious cycle of fines, suspension, jail that plagued the lower income communities.

Reason Is Concerned That the Recent Loss by the Southern Poverty Law Center Could be a Threat to Free Speech. I understand the concern that defamation suits can have a chilling effect on speech, which is why I support strong Anti-SLAPP laws. I will also admit to my own schadenfreude against the SPLC.

DC Taxes the Hell Out of Ride Sharing to Prop Up Broken Metro System. In my trips to DC, I’ve never had to deal with the numerous issues plaguing the Metro. That being said, with the coming changes in vehicles (automation and electric), I can’t support additional taxes to rail that is on its way out, much less an agency as troubled as the Metro.

Union Dues

July 5, 2018 / / 0 Comments

So, we now have the US Supreme Court telling public sector unions that they can’t force employees to pay dues because those dues are used for speech that the employee has no say in or actively opposes. Some are calling this the death of unions, which I don’t think is necessarily a good thing. I’m hoping it will force a change in how unions operate.

I think public sector unions need to be abolished or substantially overhauled. There’s a governor on private sector unions in as much that if they have to balance the firm’s survival with their demands. Management has to balance the unions’ demands with the survival of the firm. Neither can force a third party with violence to support both the survival of the firm and the unions’ demands.

However, I can also understand wanting to band together to prevent management from forcing bad pay and working conditions. I also understand how the government, in its role as an employer, may want to have one negotiation covering as many employees as possible instead of hundreds or thousands of individual employment contracts. So, how to address all of these competing concerns?

My solution would be forcing a wall between the union’s bargaining activities and its political activities. I’m thinking how the NRA must separate out its political activities (by way of the NRA-ILA) and its educational activities. The bargaining fund could only be used for bargaining activities with management, and not be used for political donations or speech. A fee per employee could be assessed because each employee is using the union services for that bargaining. Any other service that the union would provide (health care, pension, grievances) should be through non-compelled membership. If union leadership wants to ask for political donations to support candidates, then those donations should be in a specific political fund for those activities.

There is a union at the day job. I don’t want to join it both because I dislike how they handle employee-management relations as well as just disliking public sector unions in concept. I’d be more willing to pay a fee for bargaining if I knew that it wasn’t going to be used to pay for speech that I strongly oppose or advocate for employees that really need to leave government service.

Maybe this ruling will force the changes I want to see.

Well, That Was A Hell of Week

June 25, 2018 / / 0 Comments

A flurry of important Supreme Court decisions that will probably take a few years for the full import to become clear.

The big one was the ruling that states could force companies who have no physical presence to collect sales tax for the states. This will definitely have a chilling effect on internet sales, which has thrived on relying on the customer to pay the appropriate sales tax to the state instead of being the revenue agent. One thing that was brought up but not adequately discussed is that the law the Supreme Court upheld had an exemption for businesses under a specified threshold ($100,000 in sales or 200 separate deliveries). Would a law without that threshold still be valid under this ruling?

The next big one was the ruling that cops need a warrant before obtaining cell phone records. According to this analysis, Gorusch’s dissent is more of a concurrence with the result but dissent on the logic made to reach the decision.

Another important decision that will probably fly under the radar, the court decided that Administrative Law Judges needed to be appointed by the president or delegate and not simply by the bureaucracy. Considering the width and breadth of department regulations taking the place of actual laws, this at least makes those who decide in adversarial proceedings more accountable to the political will instead of the bureaucracy.

This has been a most interesting session.