Month: June 2011

Companies Abandoning California at an Accelerated Rate

What happens when you increase the tax burden on companies in order to correct a state deficit? Those companies start leaving. Companies are run by people and people are generally willing to put up with only so much abuse until they analyze their situation and consider their options. California has been increasing taxes on businesses and it’s now to a point where many businesses there have decided it’s simply not worth being there and are taking their services and jobs to another state.

In 2011 the rate of businesses leaving California has increased to 5.4 a week. Each of those businesses are also taking their jobs with them meaning the unemployment rate in California is going to continue getting higher. This is also a great demonstration of the fact that states simply can’t tax their out of debt. As they increase their tax rates the victims of those increases are going to leave and then will effectively pay $0.00 in taxes to the state.

California, like most socialist nations, is finally collapsing under it’s own ruined economy. They’ve tried to offer too much for too long and now they’re going all Soviet Union. Governments need to learn that the only way to effectively eliminate their debt is to spend less money. People will survive without government services but they won’t take loosing 90% of their earnings. I’m pretty sure it’s too late for California but I hope my state notices this and learns that increasing taxes on businesses and the wealthy (those who generally own businesses) is not going to reduce our debt but increase it in the long run as tax payers flee for friendly states (South Dakota is right next door and they’re generally pretty nice in comparison).

Wisconsin Assembly Passed Right to Carry Legislation

Things are looking good in Wisconsin. Both chambers of the state legislature have voted in favor of the current carry legislation which means all that’s left is for Governor Walker to sign it into law (which he’s expected to do).

I appears as though Wisconsin will be joining the majority of the Union in allowing its citizens to have a means of self-defense outside of the home. The only state remaining with a complete prohibition against carry is Illinois which will likely take quite some time. Anyways those of you living in Wisconsin please note that the anti-gunners are going to be crying about blood in the streets and other such nonsense but they’ll lose interest very quickly so you can safely continue to ignore them.

Welfare Without the State

When discussions about reducing government functions come up those advocating for the statist position usually decry eliminating state run welfare programs. They claim that eliminating such programs will lead to the poor dying left and right, children going hungry, and people living without health care coverage. As our society hasn’t always had state run welfare programs it does good to look back and how these situations were taken care of before the state got involved. I found an excellent article that talks about how mutual aid societies were used before the welfare state to care for those without means:

Many people think life without the welfare state would be chaos. In their minds, nobody would help support the less fortunate, and there would be riots in the streets. Little do they know that people found innovative ways of supporting each other before the welfare state existed. One of the most important of these ways was the mutual-aid society.

Mutual aid, also known as fraternalism, refers to social organizations that gathered dues and paid benefits to members facing hardship. According to David Beito in From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, there was a “great stigma” attached to accepting government aid or private charity during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Mutual aid, on the other hand, did not carry the same stigma. It was based on reciprocity: today’s mutual-aid recipient could be tomorrow’s donor, and vice versa.

I’ve explained before that I’m against the existence of government welfare programs not because I hate the poor (I don’t) but because I despise violence and the government can only provide via money they obtain through their monopoly on the initiation of force. I refuse to support programs that require the use of violence, especially when there are methods of doing the same things voluntarily. Joining a mutual aid society is a voluntary act which allows groups of people to care for one another while nothing have a gun put to your head making you participate. Not only that but mutual aid societies had a history of providing good services that often surpassed those provided elsewhere:

Under lodge medicine, the price for healthcare was low. Members typically paid $2, about a day’s wage, to have yearly access to a doctor’s care (minor surgery was frequently included in this fee). Non–lodge members typically paid about $2 every doctor’s visit during this time period.

Low prices for lodges did not, however, necessarily translate to low quality. The Independent Order of Foresters, one of the largest mutual-aid societies, frequently touted that the mortality rate of its members was 6.66 per thousand, much lower than the 9.3 per thousand for the general population.

That isn’t the only example of a mutual aid society that provided cheap services that were also of high quality:

Many mutual-aid societies branched out and founded their own hospitals and sanitariums. The Securities Benefit Association, or SBA, charged $21 for an 11-day stay at their hospital in Kansas, while the average at 100 private hospitals was $72. Again, quality was not necessarily sacrificed for price. At the SBA’s sanitarium, the mortality rate was 4.5 percent, while the historical average for sanitariums was 25 percent. This is especially impressive considering that 30 to 50 percent of all cases admitted to the SBA’s sanitarium were “advanced.”

Likewise orphanages were created to not only house and feel those without parents but also educate them:

Mutual-aid societies also founded 71 orphanages between 1890 and 1922, almost all without government subsidy. Perhaps the largest of these was Mooseheart, founded by the Loyal Order of Moose in 1913. Hundreds of children lived there at a time. It had a student newspaper, two debate teams, three theatrical organizations, and a small radio station. The success of Mooseheart alumni was remarkable. Alumni were four times more likely than the general population to have attended institutions of higher learning. Male alumni earned 71 percent more than the national average, and female alumni earned 63 percent more.

That sounds like a pretty decent education without the need to put a gun to peoples’ heads and force them to pay for state provided child care and public schooling for the children in the state’s “care.”

Sadly although mutual aid societies were very effective they were also in the busy of providing for those without means which the government wanted a piece of. As with anything else the government involves itself with providing for those without means was something the state wanted no competition in. To ensure the state maintained a monopoly on welfare laws were enacted that first made life more difficult for mutual aid societies and eventually made it all but impossible for these societies to continue providing their services.

Regardless of the current situation providing for the poor is not something the state is needed for. The poor can be provided for through voluntary means just as they had been in the past. So if you’re like me and don’t believe the government should be providing welfare services remember this article. There is no doubt when you advocate the elimination of the welfare state that some statist punk is going to accuse you of hating the poor which likely isn’t true. Being able to provide an alternative to state run welfare will go a long ways in making your argument more legitimate and demonstrates you don’t hate the poor but instead love services that can be accomplished without the need of force and coercion.

I Bet He Cures Blindness By Throwing Mud in Your Eyes Too

When I saw this article on the BBC asking why the crime rate in the United States have been dropping I expected no mention would be made of the increase in issuance of carry permits. I’ve come to expect that from the media, especially Britain where guns are almost completely illegal. What I didn’t expect was the theory that our lower crime rate is due to the election of the Obamessiah:

1. The Obama effect could explain the increased pace of the reduction of the last few years, says one of the country’s top criminologists, Alfred Blumstein. “The prior expectation was that the recession would have the opposite effect. The question then is what distinctive event occurred in ’09?” The election of a black president could have inspired some young black men, who are disproportionately involved in arrests for robbery and homicide, says the professor. It’s very speculative, he adds, and probably only one factor of many, as one of the cities with a huge drop in crime is Phoenix, in Arizona, which does not have a large black population. “In the field of criminology, you don’t get consistent indicators as you would in physics. There are so many factors that could have contributed.” A separate study on school test scores supports the view that some black teenagers were motivated to try harder by the new presidency.

Hallelujah brother, it’s a miracle! Our president can cure the blind by throwing mud in their eyes, he can walk on water, he can turn water into wine, and he can lower the crime rate! Seriously could the media suck his… I’ll let you fill in the blank here, any harder? Did Barack personally send the BBC a shipment of hookers and blow?

Before some Obamabot comes on here and claims my heated reaction is just due to the fact that I’m a Republican/Glenn Beck supporter/dirty Satanist/whatever I should state that I’d have the same reaction regardless of what president it was about (also I’m not a Republican or Glenn Beck supporter or dirty Satanist).

Beyond that stupidity the article was written as I expected it. Almost all of the theories stated are attributed to the state and not a single mention was made about liberalized (in the classical definition of the word) carry laws raising the stacks for committing crimes. Regardless of the reason the decline in crime does demonstrate that liberalized (again the classic definition) carry laws don’t lead to higher crime rates and thus enacting stricter gun control laws to curb crime is an exercise in stupidity. This is even more important to note when you consider the fact that liberalized (classical definition) carry laws may be part of the reason crime rates are declining.

I May Take Back Everything I Said About Texas

I ripped on Texas a short while back because they were trying to play tough and stand up to the federal government but folded the second the guys in Washington D.C. pushed back. Texas has a chance to redeem itself though as they have reintroduced the anti-molestation bill during a special session:

On Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry presented legislation for consideration in the ongoing Eighty-Second Texas Legislature, First Called Session that would ban intrusive TSA pat-downs.

OK Texas this is your chance to prove to the rest of the union that you don’t take shit from anybody. Get this legislation through and tell the federal government where to shove their legalization of federal agents committing sexual assault. On yet another bright side it appears as through Texas may not be the only state telling the boys at the federal capitol where to shove it:

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 10 other states considering similar legislation in the 2012 legislative session. Utah and Michigan have already joined in. CLICK HERE to track the progress of all “travel freedom” legislation around the country.

I would love to see all fifty states take a stand against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). There is no valid reason for allowing government agents to commit sexual assault on people simply trying to fly from one place to another.

Family of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Want the ATF Prosecuted

Things have heated up for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF). An investigation has been called for and the head of the ATF may have to resign and everybody else will likely get a congratulations and complimentary pat on the pack for their work in suppressing our rights. But as Uncle points out not everybody is happy with simply giving the ATF a slap on the wrist:

The idea was that once the weapons in Mexico were traced back to the straw purchasers, the entire arms smuggling network could be brought down. Instead, the report argues, letting the weapons slip into the wrong hands was a deadly miscalculation that resulted in preventable deaths, including that of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Terry was killed last year north of the Mexican border in Arizona after confronting bandits believed to be preying on illegal immigrants. Two weapons found near the scene of the killing were traced to Fast and Furious.

“I was flabbergasted. I couldn’t believe it at first,” Terry’s mother, Josephine, said when she learned the ATF may have let some of the guns used in the attack slip through its fingers. Terry’s relatives said they want all those involved in his killing and who helped put the weapons in their hands to be prosecuted.

“We ask that if a government official made a wrong decision, that they admit their error and take responsibility for his or her actions,” Robert Heyer, Terry’s cousin and family spokesman, said in a hearing last week by the House panel.

I wish Terry’s family the best of luck but alas I’m guessing they’re more likely to receive a lesson in the evils of statism than receive any compensation for the murder of their family member. The government has a habit of protecting their own which has lead to many government agencies literally getting away with murder without so much as an apology.

Using Legislation to Force Adoption of Your Product

Let’s pretend that you’re a fledgeling inventor who has come up with a new mechanism to make a currently available tool safer. The idea seems solid but it’s also very expensive which has lead to nobody licensing your invention from you. What do you do? If you’re the asshole who invented SawStop you go to Capitol Hill and try to use government to force companies to license your invention:

Gass’ saw uses an electrical sensor to detect when the blade touches flesh instead of wood. Within a few thousandths of a second, the blade slammed to a stop.

But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.

“They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.

SawStop, Gass’ little upstart company, has sold tens of thousands of these safer table saws, and lately things have been heating up in Washington. The National Consumers League last month brought in injured woodworkers to meet with lawmakers and regulators. They want to make the SawStop safety brake mandatory on all table saws.

That’s one of the most dick moves somebody can perform. When you want to make money by creating a better mouse trap that is great and I fully support you. On the other hand if you want to make money by getting the government to use their monopoly on the initiation of force to make people buy your mouse trap I will condemn you.

The reason saw companies aren’t adopting SawStop isn’t because safety doesn’t sell, it’s because safety isn’t worth the asking price to most people:

In other words, let consumers decide. Young says many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 to $300 in cost, depending on which side you talk to.

As mentioned earlier in the article SawStop has sold tens of thousands of their safer saws. His customers obviously felt the additional cost of those saws was small enough that it outweighed their fear of getting injured should their finger get near the saw blade. On the other hand other people who’ve purchased saws want something that is cheap (for instance a person who uses a saw sporadically for hobby project) and adding an additional $100 to $300 will make a big difference to those people.

The reason a free market is great is because it allows us to determine what will be available. Different customers have different wants. Some people want an industrial saw because their business requires it while others want a cheap saw because they only use it once every two years. By mandating SawStop the legislature would destroy the market for those wanting a cheap saw as the cost of licensing the technology is more than some of those saws are.

And in the end there is an incredibly cheap and effective safety mechanism for saws called a push stick. Hell you can make a push stick with basic woodworking tools (no saw required) in a few minutes. Not only do I hope legislation mandating the inclusion of SawStop on all saws fails but I hope Mr. Gass goes out of business and ends up poor and penniless on the streets. Does that sound harsh? It should, I’m not a fan of somebody using force to line their own pockets.

This is What Combining Stupidity and Guns Gets You

One of the most dangerous combinations is stupidity and firearms. That is because such a combination goes along with other lethal combinations like automobiles and stupidity. When you are being stupid with a weapon it’s likely somebody will get hurt and that’s exactly what happened in Hill City:

John Ellis thought someone had thrown something at him during the Old West shootout in downtown Hill City on Friday night.

Seconds later, he laid on the ground clutching his bloodied elbow as his two young daughters watched in horror.

“I got shot in the forearm, and it went through the other side of my elbow,” said Ellis, an optometrist vacationing with his family from Pennsylvania. “I had surgery around midnight Friday to remove bone and lead fragments.”

Ellis was standing 40 feet from the mock gun battle performed by the Dakota Wild Bunch Reinactors, when what he believes was a live round buzzed through his arm.

If you’re using firearms for reenactments the utmost caution must be taken. There should be no live ammunition on the site where the reenactment is taking place, all guns should be checked by every person participating in the reenactment, and shooting should be done in such a way as muzzles never cross the area where spectators are located. It would even better to use replica firearms that are unable to even chamber and use life rounds.

When firearms are involved lack of caution needs to be checked at the door. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being paranoid about firearm safety, especially when other people are involved. On the other hand not being paranoid about firearm safety can lead to people being injured or killed. There is a reason people haven’t been shot at United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) matches, everybody is paranoid about safety and if you violate the safety rules you’re disqualified and sent home for the day (or permanently if the error was egregious enough).

Iowa Sheriff Intimidating Businesses in Attempt to Get Them to Ban Guns on Their Property

Iowa’s law involving the issuance of carry permits changed and now people living in that state are able to obtain a legal means of self-defense without requiring permission from their local sheriff. One local sheriff though is pissed that the state has usurped his authority and is trying to intimidate business owners into banning firearms from their property:

A letter to approximately 600 Marion businesses along with “no weapons allowed” stickers is kicking up a fuss with one conservative group.

The letter to businesses in Marion last week was sent by Marion Police Chief Harry Daugherty. It referred to changes in Iowa code that no longer allow sheriffs to mandate concealing weapons when a permit holder is out in public. That change in gun permit policy took effect January 1st.

The letter from Chief Daugherty urged businesses to ban weapons from private property to “make both (business and police) our jobs easier.” The chief also included two “no weapons allowed” stickers for businesses to place on the front doors if they agreed with his recommendation.

It seems Sheriff Daugherty believes that his life and lives of his officers is easier if people are defenseless. I guess this makes sense if he believes his job is to force the citizenry to comply with his demands and being he’s acting like an authoritarian asshole I’m pretty sure that’s what he believes his job to be. But here’s the kicker:

But Chief Daugherty argued what he authorized was education and not politics. The chief said unless businesses post a “no weapons” notice in a visible location police can’t enforce any trespassing rules against anyone bringing a weapon inside.

According to Daugherty if somebody is carrying a weapon the police can’t enforce any trespassing laws against him or her. The implication I get from this is if somebody is being unruly the police will not remove that person if they’re carrying a firearm. That’s a great little intimidation factor if I’ve ever seen one.

So where Daugherty get the money to print these stickers? At first I thought it was the taxpayers which would have been ironic as Daugherty would have been using violence in order to supposedly prevent violence. Well he didn’t use tax money but the source of his money is through violent means:

And Daugherty also said the $600 cost of the printing and mail wasn’t tax dollars. Rather, the chief used money confiscated in drug raids and other seizures to pay the cost. Those dollars typically go for purchases not on the department’s budget.

Will you look at that, the drug war at work paying for yet another authoritarian power trip. Obviously second amendment supporters are talking about boycotting any businesses that put up those stickers and it appears as though some business owners don’t recognize how strongly many of us like our right to self-defense:

But Rich Foens, owner of Smitty’s Shoe Repair, said he wasn’t that concerned when he posted the sticker from Marion Police.

“I don’t see anybody so strong on the other side they’re going to boycott your business because of it,” Foens said.

As an advocate of the ability to defend yourself I do feel strongly enough where I’ll boycott a business because they don’t respect my life enough to allow me to carry a means of self-defense onto their property. I respect your property rights enough that I’m willing to do business with your competitors should you chose to bar me my rights though so you’ll not have to worry about my patronage or the patronage of many gun owners.

That’s Not Really a Victory

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have been buy arming Mexican drug cartels which has lead to a hearing. As with most government hearings on the illegal actions of government I expected these hearings to go nowhere and accomplish nothing of consequence. It appears as though I was right:

The Justice Department is expected to oust the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to people familiar with the matter, amid a troubled federal antitrafficking operation that has grown into the agency’s biggest scandal in nearly two decades.

Moves toward the replacement of Kenneth Melson, acting ATF director since April 2009, could begin next week, although the precise sequence of events remains to be decided, these people said.

Yup. The ATF actively arms Mexican drug cartels, claims that they need more authority to stop the traffic of firearms going from the United States to the drug cartels, and now the only thing that will happen is the head of the ATF will be replaced. That should teach them (sarcasm for those who didn’t catch it).

This is one of many reasons that government agencies remain unaccountable. When a government agency does something naughty we have a different government entity rule on the validity of the agency’s actions. Since the entity judging the agency’s actions is also a part of the government generally the agency’s actions are deem legitimate. When the actions are deemed illegitimate nothing of consequence happens and instead one or two people are shuffled around so the next person can continue doing illegitimate shit for a while until he or she is caught red handed as well.