http://ladylibertarian.blogspot.com/ (I just started copying the post from the Wordpress account to the blogspot, so it only has the latest blog post.)
Feel free to follow which ever one is easier, they will both say the same thing! Thanks!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Why laws are generally stupid and are leading to the decline of our society
I think law and order is a generally necessary thing in as large and complex a society as our own. You need laws to protect property rights and I largely am supportive of the laws that prevent people from killing each other, etc.
What really gets me, though, are stupid laws. (Which is the category that most fall under, unfortunately.) Take, for instance, the "unmarried" clause of welfare and certain states' health insurance coverage.
Recently, Illinois passed a law saying that parents' health insurance covers their children until the children are 26 as long as they are unmarried. Without disputing the overall costs on the system, etc. of this, we can look at the societal implications of this one caveat, "unmarried." Let's say example young adult Rachel is 23 and gets pregnant. She and the baby's father may be considering marriage but both are still in graduate school or have jobs without benefits and do not have adequate health insurance to have a baby. Thus, they choose not to get married. The law disincentivizes marriage.
One might argue that Rachel didn't have to get pregnant or have the baby, but these things happen all too often and this is a decision that many unwed mothers will have to make: get married and provide a stable family situation without comprehensive health insurance, or stay unmarried and get government support.
I am conflicted here. As a libertarian, I believe that marriage is not the government's business. There should not be any law encouraging or discouraging the practice, it should just be ignored. At the same time, I think we as a society need to strengthen the family unit... but the government should not be involved. Why should the government care who I choose to marry, other than for inheritance or power of attorney reasons? Marriage is a religious ritual, not a governmental one. As we hand this over to the government, it strives to devalue and destroy the family, making individuals reliant upon the government instead of their communities and families. (Perhaps this is my government-paranoia coming through, but there is a lot of evidence for this.)
I am conflicted here. As a libertarian, I believe that marriage is not the government's business. There should not be any law encouraging or discouraging the practice, it should just be ignored. At the same time, I think we as a society need to strengthen the family unit... but the government should not be involved. Why should the government care who I choose to marry, other than for inheritance or power of attorney reasons? Marriage is a religious ritual, not a governmental one. As we hand this over to the government, it strives to devalue and destroy the family, making individuals reliant upon the government instead of their communities and families. (Perhaps this is my government-paranoia coming through, but there is a lot of evidence for this.)
The reason we have these married/unmarried laws in the first place is politicians inability to see consequences and differentiate between causation and correlation. (A great essay that really gets into this is Frederic Bastiat's What is seen and what is not seen.)
Back in the 1960s when the modern welfare program was constructed, law makers looked at who needed the most help financially, and single-parents families were (and are) an alarming majority of people in poverty. So, instead of addressing the system and incentivizing contraceptives or marriage, the federal government designated welfare money for single parent households. Not surprisingly, single parent household rates skyrocketed. (Why would you choose marriage when you can get money to be unmarried?) Every single case cannot be blamed on welfare, because there are a variety of situations where this occurs. The rising trend can be attributed to it though, since it has more than doubled in the last few decades. The more children you have out of wedlock, the more money you get.
This is the problem with much of the big government laws that are being foisted upon the American public. They disincentivize healthy behaviors. Living in a single parent household isn't bad, in and of itself, but a permissive attitude has been created to make it the norm, rather than the exception. There is no need to create a family unit because the government will help you out. It sounds like an oversimplification, but this is the logical conclusion. (Why would you choose marriage, especially in a society that embraces single-mother families?)
Marriage should not be something the government needs to know about. The more the government becomes involved in it, the more that families fall apart. Think about Social Security for the elderly... a hundred years ago, the elderly would rarely be sent to something like a nursing home... their children or relatives would take care of them, and if they couldn't, charity homes would take them in. Now, everyone relies upon the government to fulfill the family's role.
As a libertarian woman, I am struggling to find a way to strengthen family and community while disentangling government from it at the same time. Does anyone have any insight into this?
Marriage should not be something the government needs to know about. The more the government becomes involved in it, the more that families fall apart. Think about Social Security for the elderly... a hundred years ago, the elderly would rarely be sent to something like a nursing home... their children or relatives would take care of them, and if they couldn't, charity homes would take them in. Now, everyone relies upon the government to fulfill the family's role.
As a libertarian woman, I am struggling to find a way to strengthen family and community while disentangling government from it at the same time. Does anyone have any insight into this?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Truth about Tea Parties
You've got to give it to the media: they have been putting up a strong fight to de-legitimize the Tea Party Tax Day Protests. They've called the participants extremists, Republican tools, crazies... and still, people came. I was one of the nearly 10,000 people at the St. Louis protest yesterday. While the atmosphere wasn't as intense as the protest February 27th (after all, that protest was a close-knit 1500 people) it was still exciting and I think everyone left feeling proud to be American.
The media obfuscates the intentions of the protests, saying that they were only about taxes or anti-Obama rallies. MSNBC, the beacon of truth, said on television today that it can't believe people are protesting having taxes taken from their paychecks when so many people are without jobs right now.
I can't speak for every person at every Tea Party, but most of them were average Americans who had never been to a protest before (they had a show of hands) and were just fed-up with spending that won't be paid for generations. (Essentially stealing from our grandchildren.) THAT is what the tea parties were about: a demand for effective policies to get us out of the crisis without putting our country at a disadvantage Grassroots activism, like Tea Parties, is exactly what the Right needs now. These were average Americans, fighting the good fight, practicing their right to assemble.
(Pictures will be added later)
The media obfuscates the intentions of the protests, saying that they were only about taxes or anti-Obama rallies. MSNBC, the beacon of truth, said on television today that it can't believe people are protesting having taxes taken from their paychecks when so many people are without jobs right now.
I can't speak for every person at every Tea Party, but most of them were average Americans who had never been to a protest before (they had a show of hands) and were just fed-up with spending that won't be paid for generations. (Essentially stealing from our grandchildren.) THAT is what the tea parties were about: a demand for effective policies to get us out of the crisis without putting our country at a disadvantage Grassroots activism, like Tea Parties, is exactly what the Right needs now. These were average Americans, fighting the good fight, practicing their right to assemble.
(Pictures will be added later)
Friday, January 23, 2009
Transparency
Obama has talked
(Constantly)
about Transparency.
about Transparency.
But the Facebook grassroots campaign and the "openness" of the new administration seem to be a thing of the past. Immediately after being elected, Obama hedged on his promises to do a great number of things quickly within his first term. His "transparency" allowed only 4 reporters to the re-do of the oath Wednesday. Senior officials refused to be referenced by name (until the Press Secretary made a blunder and referred to one by his first name.) Only one outlet was given an inauguration interview: one that donated to his campaign. Does this sound like Change and Transparency?
But this is not the first time a leader has come in with promises of Change, promises to fix a broken economy. To change the standing of a people in the international world. Think of 1933 Germany.
Transparency was the unique promise Obama gave to the American people: we could follow the change in our country like we were a part of it, somehow. It was part of the reason Obama became the media's darling. Now that the campaign is over, so is that Transparency. But people are still following, some blindly, without thought to the Change within Obama himself and all his previous promises.
Right now, the only transparency for Obama are ice sculptures like the one Wash. U. commissioned for its campus.
(picture taken by me, outside the Student Center)
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Public transportation: Creating its own problems
The true mark of a city is the presence of public transportation: subways, buses, trains. It keeps the streets clearer, lowers pollution and gives people who do not have cars access to the city. But in Chicago and St. Louis these systems are self-destructing, raising fares, cutting service and subsequently being dumbfounded with the lower passenger rates that requires further cuts and increases.
As of 2009, the Chicago Transit Authority has increased prices to $2.25 for a bus ride, up 25 cents from the previous year. For the increase, they cited in November the rising gas prices and the possibility of them increasing over 2009. Understandable at the time, perhaps, but with the gas prices down to $2, taking public transportation is less and less appealing. With the increase in prices, the system is creating a large disincentive to stand and wait for a bus, and thus the prices continue to increase in an attempt to cut losses.
The public transportation system failure is similar to the government's dedication to raising taxes to stem economic problems. It seems that the laffer curve was never taught to the officials in charge. (The public school systems of both cities is another blog post altogether though.) With gas prices low and public transportation costs high, buses and trains are becoming considerably less appealing.
St. Louis has a Metrolink and bus system, which are facing huge service cuts this year. The Metrolink, the subway railsystem, does not have a system to insure that all riders have passes; in fact, most ride for free for the majority of the time. A few conductors are occasionally on hand to check tickets, but this usually only for games and large events. They have focused too much on unnecessary and unprofitable westward expansion instead of consolidating the useful routes and services. Instead of contriving a way to enforce payment, with turnstiles or more conductors (or having those who ARE paid actually checking tickets) the Metrolink begged for a sales tax increase in November in the form of the band-aid Proposition M. It was defeated in the polls; instead of facing the real issues of the abysmally low purchase rate, Metrolink decided to lower service which even they contend will only cause a downward spiral.
Chicago needs to launch a public advertising campaign for the public transportation system. It needs to streamline routes so that they are more reliable and give incentives for people to ride; raising the price is the opposite of what should be done. St. Louis needs to enforce tickets for those who do ride, in addition to encouraging more riders to use the system. Perhaps this is a simplified explanation of a large problem, but both Chicago and St. Louis need to stop contributing to the destructions of their own public transportation systems, or there will be no public transportation left.
As of 2009, the Chicago Transit Authority has increased prices to $2.25 for a bus ride, up 25 cents from the previous year. For the increase, they cited in November the rising gas prices and the possibility of them increasing over 2009. Understandable at the time, perhaps, but with the gas prices down to $2, taking public transportation is less and less appealing. With the increase in prices, the system is creating a large disincentive to stand and wait for a bus, and thus the prices continue to increase in an attempt to cut losses.
The public transportation system failure is similar to the government's dedication to raising taxes to stem economic problems. It seems that the laffer curve was never taught to the officials in charge. (The public school systems of both cities is another blog post altogether though.) With gas prices low and public transportation costs high, buses and trains are becoming considerably less appealing.
St. Louis has a Metrolink and bus system, which are facing huge service cuts this year. The Metrolink, the subway railsystem, does not have a system to insure that all riders have passes; in fact, most ride for free for the majority of the time. A few conductors are occasionally on hand to check tickets, but this usually only for games and large events. They have focused too much on unnecessary and unprofitable westward expansion instead of consolidating the useful routes and services. Instead of contriving a way to enforce payment, with turnstiles or more conductors (or having those who ARE paid actually checking tickets) the Metrolink begged for a sales tax increase in November in the form of the band-aid Proposition M. It was defeated in the polls; instead of facing the real issues of the abysmally low purchase rate, Metrolink decided to lower service which even they contend will only cause a downward spiral.
Chicago needs to launch a public advertising campaign for the public transportation system. It needs to streamline routes so that they are more reliable and give incentives for people to ride; raising the price is the opposite of what should be done. St. Louis needs to enforce tickets for those who do ride, in addition to encouraging more riders to use the system. Perhaps this is a simplified explanation of a large problem, but both Chicago and St. Louis need to stop contributing to the destructions of their own public transportation systems, or there will be no public transportation left.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Vandals on Campus
I recently posted this blog on the Washington Witness' site, the conservative newspaper on campus:
Sometime during the night of November 3 and the morning of November 4th, Washington University in St. Louis’ campus was vandalized. As of today, a week and a half later, the vandals have not been caught or punished and as far as I am aware, there is no investigation of the incident.
These vandals pasted fliers over every visible portion of campus. They chalked the sidewalk, they wrote on windows and doors, they whitewashed posters to sides of buildings.
All of this hoopla was done to urge the Wash U. community to go and vote for Barack Obama. While I find the call of civic duty itself laudable, the method was questionable at best. A recent survey had shown that 80% of campus was voting for Obama, so this material was nothing more than self-congratulatory.
The propaganda posted ranged from merely bothersome to offensive. Posters stapled to trees. Soviet-style images of Obama’s face affixed to walls. Hundreds of little “Vote for Change!” leaflets littering the ground. Obama stickers attached to microwaves, tables, chairs. Posters with a vampire Sarah Palin face with the word “Frightening” glued to walls.
Was anything done about this? Of course not. One doesn’t have to wonder what the reaction would be if the “Frightening” signs had been replicated to have pictures of Barack Obama; everyone would have been up-in-arms about the “racism” of the posters. But the “sexist” posters get laughs or indifference. The hypocrisy is absurd.
All the papers and posters and writing on windows might have even been okay had the perpetrators cleaned up after themselves. (They definitely should have recycled, as they claim to love the environment.) As far as I have witnessed, they did not clean up their mess. Maintenance was forced to pick up after them as the Obamamaniacs (friends of the “everyman” as they like to be seen) celebrated the victory. The irony is palpable.
Some might say this is a rant of a bitter conservative, and perhaps that is true. But it is over a week later and there are still 12 “Frightening!” Sarah Palin signs whitewashed to the side of a building, and it’s definitely not maintenance’s job to take care of it. And they probably will remain there until a good Samaritan conservative keys them apart.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The sky is falling: The automotive industry
The sky is falling. At least, that's what we are made to believe, with bailouts requests coming from all sides of the economy. The latest one comes from the perpetually ill automotive industry, with Ford, GM and Chrysler asking for a portion of the $700 billion bailout.
Usatoday.com posted an article yesterday about the bailout of the automobile industry that read:
If I have been alive 28 years ago, I think I would be having deja vu right now. Unfortunately, the people currently in power cannot remember the government bailout of Chrysler in 1980, which only postponed the crisis until now. (Obama was only 19 then, remember.)
Yes, it would be unfortunate for all the people in the three main Detroit companies to lose their jobs, but GM, Ford and Chrysler do not have a profitable business model. A bailout only delays the inevitable fall; in fact, it augments the future impact by taking tax payer dollars to patch a failed business. They are taking money that could be aiding current, profitable businesses that would grow the stagnant economy and instead throwing them at the union-tied auto industries.
The U.S. auto industry has failed because it refused to focus on the future of the industry and instead focused mainly on SUVs and trucks. The auto industry failed because it is locked into an unprofitable relationship with unions. People are paid, under the union regulation, to not work. How can the American people be expected to be the crutch for these companies?
Innovation should be rewarded, and that is what a free market does. Sadly for the current American economy, the continual propping of the auto industry has impeded upon the free market and has in turn created a greater crisis. Had the auto industry been allowed to fail organically twenty odd years ago, it would have been a gradual process that would not have such an impact.
President Obama needs to take a look at history... the current auto industry in the U.S. is going to fail at some point. Throwing money at the auto industry only postpones the problem for future generations to deal with.
Usatoday.com posted an article yesterday about the bailout of the automobile industry that read:
I think most of us can agree that a healthy automobile manufacturing sector would be beneficial to market stability. But unfortunately we do NOT have a healthy automobile manufacturing sector in the United States.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the Bush administration should consider expanding the $700 billion financial rescue to include car companies.
"A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market stability," they wrote.
If I have been alive 28 years ago, I think I would be having deja vu right now. Unfortunately, the people currently in power cannot remember the government bailout of Chrysler in 1980, which only postponed the crisis until now. (Obama was only 19 then, remember.)
Yes, it would be unfortunate for all the people in the three main Detroit companies to lose their jobs, but GM, Ford and Chrysler do not have a profitable business model. A bailout only delays the inevitable fall; in fact, it augments the future impact by taking tax payer dollars to patch a failed business. They are taking money that could be aiding current, profitable businesses that would grow the stagnant economy and instead throwing them at the union-tied auto industries.
The U.S. auto industry has failed because it refused to focus on the future of the industry and instead focused mainly on SUVs and trucks. The auto industry failed because it is locked into an unprofitable relationship with unions. People are paid, under the union regulation, to not work. How can the American people be expected to be the crutch for these companies?
Innovation should be rewarded, and that is what a free market does. Sadly for the current American economy, the continual propping of the auto industry has impeded upon the free market and has in turn created a greater crisis. Had the auto industry been allowed to fail organically twenty odd years ago, it would have been a gradual process that would not have such an impact.
President Obama needs to take a look at history... the current auto industry in the U.S. is going to fail at some point. Throwing money at the auto industry only postpones the problem for future generations to deal with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)