I have every sympathy for Charlie Green's painful loss. However, his solution of pushing for a law change to make it a felony to "cause the death of a police officer during a traffic pursuit" was not the right remedy.
Police officers are increasingly accorded special status in society -- which flies directly in the face of equal protection under the law for all individuals, regardless of race, creed, philosophy, class, or who their employer is.
No government employee is worth more than any average citizen - we don't have nobility in this country. At least we didn't at one time.
Police chases are dangerous enterprises, and for that reason, they should only ever be initiated when the individual being chased is known to have committed a serious violent crime, is armed, and has shown intent to be an immediate danger to other individuals.
Checkpoints are of dubious constitutionality. Refusing to cooperate with one is not an offense worthy of a 100 mph chase. It wasn't worth the risk to Khalil Walker, the driver of the SUV that fled the Powhatan checkpoint; it wasn't worth the risk to other motorists and pedestrians; and it definitely wasn't worth the price Robbie Green paid.
Most incidents that eventually lead to dangerous police chases begin with nothing more than intensely scared individuals who already fear getting arrested for whatever reason they are being chased. As the chase continues, the person fleeing, who has undoubtedly watched "Cops" and watches the news, realizes he also has a good chance of being beaten, Tasered, or shot to death -- which fuels his desperation.
For real reform, and to protect life, a better law change would have been to prohibit all police chases except those where a clear and present danger of immediate violence exists. In addition, checkpoints should be outlawed as the violation of individual rights they are.
Ultimately, however, the job of policing must be ended as a government enterprise. The entire industry should be turned back over to the private sector. Besides the fact that people who work in the private sector never are accorded royalty status by the government, simple exposure to liability law would tend to ensure that chases would be minimized.
In contrast, with government seizing ever more power over the lives of individuals as is the case in America today, the incentive for government-supplied police forces is exactly the opposite: chase today, create a disaster waiting to happen, whine to the legislature about how dangerous your job is when the disaster does happen, then wax poetic to the legislature about how much money chases cost the department -- and win a bigger budget next year. This is a very perverse incentive.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Song of the LiberCop
Ah, the glorious song of the Libercop. The eyes water at the thought.
DEFINITION: LiberCop (n) -- A person (assuming the word "person" is appropriate) who watches in horror any time the Libertarian Party begins to show any sign of success, and slanderizes and defames anyone who is even suspected of remotely being involved in fomenting that success.
A LiberCop oozes up out of the slime (I'd say "woodwork" but that's too clean to describe their origin) to beat up on other LP members until all forward progress is "arrested" and the enemies of the Libercop are all "locked away" -- gone from the Party. LiberCops become almost completely silent and well-behaved when the LP is in remission and its best and brightest have fled for more appreciative groups.
The average LiberCop (and they are really, really average) spends most awake hours being righteously indignant about other Libertarians who look, think, or act differently than they.
LiberCops are bigoted, indifferent to the effect their words have on others, usually sexist and racist, and often do not bathe frequently enough to wash off their trailing, fetid stench of hypocrisy and treachery. They have all of the nastiest traits of mainline Insidians (see the flyer on Insidians -- you will read about one or two people you know!).
LiberCops, even though they are sexist, racist bigots, are attracted to the LP because the old parties are too massive for them to strangle. It's much harder to poison a convention crowd of 30,000 than it is to poison one of 500.
The reward for LiberCops is "making a difference" -- which to them means to force the LP into decline and stagantion.
The most terrifying thought to a LiberCop is that they might fail in slaying the LP. Their efforts to kill it and drive away the most productive activists are usually incredibly shrill as a result.
Fortunately they are just like all other "Insidians" in that they are nuts and can be safely ignored by normals.
The best way to rip the disguise off a LiberCop is to simply allow them to vomit their illogical, vile bilge unchallenged and let the disgusting nature of their allegations, claims, pronouncements, and proclamations reveal their true nature to those who are unaware of the LiberCop's essential nastiness. Only immersion therapy -- letting someone get a full taste of this rotten sort -- has proven to be a successful vaccine against the "LiberCop Virus".
Libercops are like bird droppings. As you go through life, every so often you will find yourself the target of some foul stuff. It isn't your fault, you just happened to be in the way. LiberCops, like birds, are primitive and they know nothing else but to aim their excretory regions and let fly. Too bad for anyone in their way.
The only thing to do is make note of who and where they are, brush them off, and give them no more of your time or attention than you would a dung beetle.
DEFINITION: LiberCop (n) -- A person (assuming the word "person" is appropriate) who watches in horror any time the Libertarian Party begins to show any sign of success, and slanderizes and defames anyone who is even suspected of remotely being involved in fomenting that success.
A LiberCop oozes up out of the slime (I'd say "woodwork" but that's too clean to describe their origin) to beat up on other LP members until all forward progress is "arrested" and the enemies of the Libercop are all "locked away" -- gone from the Party. LiberCops become almost completely silent and well-behaved when the LP is in remission and its best and brightest have fled for more appreciative groups.
The average LiberCop (and they are really, really average) spends most awake hours being righteously indignant about other Libertarians who look, think, or act differently than they.
LiberCops are bigoted, indifferent to the effect their words have on others, usually sexist and racist, and often do not bathe frequently enough to wash off their trailing, fetid stench of hypocrisy and treachery. They have all of the nastiest traits of mainline Insidians (see the flyer on Insidians -- you will read about one or two people you know!).
LiberCops, even though they are sexist, racist bigots, are attracted to the LP because the old parties are too massive for them to strangle. It's much harder to poison a convention crowd of 30,000 than it is to poison one of 500.
The reward for LiberCops is "making a difference" -- which to them means to force the LP into decline and stagantion.
The most terrifying thought to a LiberCop is that they might fail in slaying the LP. Their efforts to kill it and drive away the most productive activists are usually incredibly shrill as a result.
Fortunately they are just like all other "Insidians" in that they are nuts and can be safely ignored by normals.
The best way to rip the disguise off a LiberCop is to simply allow them to vomit their illogical, vile bilge unchallenged and let the disgusting nature of their allegations, claims, pronouncements, and proclamations reveal their true nature to those who are unaware of the LiberCop's essential nastiness. Only immersion therapy -- letting someone get a full taste of this rotten sort -- has proven to be a successful vaccine against the "LiberCop Virus".
Libercops are like bird droppings. As you go through life, every so often you will find yourself the target of some foul stuff. It isn't your fault, you just happened to be in the way. LiberCops, like birds, are primitive and they know nothing else but to aim their excretory regions and let fly. Too bad for anyone in their way.
The only thing to do is make note of who and where they are, brush them off, and give them no more of your time or attention than you would a dung beetle.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Go Green: Why Should Richmond Subsidize Pollution Anyway?
Many area residents have followed the story of the government workers in the city of Richmond who have been double-dipping for their official-business transportation. I don't know the details of all this -- perhaps their pay stubs don't show the transportation reimbursement as a separate component, in which case it doesn't occur to them they were getting it. I don't pay much attention to each line item on my pay stub, either.
I don't particularly care, either way, because whether or not they were double-dipping is just window dressing. The best way to prevent problems like this is simply to eliminate their jobs.
But if Richmond taxpayers simply can't live without government workers interfering in their everyday life, perhaps the next best solution is for government employees to be required to use the same transportation system for their commuting & official business as they force all taxpayers to subsidize: The Bus. Employees should be given free tokens to do so, and should have to pay an "impact fee" if they choose to drive anyway.
According to the Virginia Employment Commission, there are 10,840 employees who get a city of Richmond paycheck. Interestingly, Richmond's own budget website says there are only 8,493. Must be some secret agents in there somewhere.
Besides the fact that not a single one of these folks produces new wealth to ultimately enrich everyone, how many have cars they have to park downtown? Let's say half of all employees work downtown, or about 5,000. Including hizzoner. Few of them carpool -- spend ten minutes marveling at the aggressive driving during the commuting hour and while doing so, observe how few cars are carrying more than one person. So, let's say there are 4,500 spaces taken up by Richmond government workers' cars every day.
At the same time, many in government will happily regurgitate the garbage science of anthropomorphic climate change; hypocritically while they are collecting fat bonuses to subsidize their trifling meddling around town and unspecified activities at cheap hotels. Here's where the rubber should meet the road. If government is going to force-feed the poison of discouraging private resource use and emissions, it should be the first to "go green". It should set the good example, rather than be the poster child for "do as I say, not as I do". Government employees should all be required to use GRTC (or ride a bike, or walk) to go from their homes as well as to go to and from all official-business appointments.
Think of how this will open up downtown to productive uses. Businesses require available parking at low cost to be able to produce wealth for the government to tax. Shoppers who used to avoid downtown will find thousands of welcoming parking spaces so they can do business with a thriving commercial area, rather than thousands of government workers' cars crowding them out.
Think also of other potential benefits. One would be that increased biking or walking will improve city workers' health. Better health means lower costs to the city for health insurance. Another would be the fact that thousands of government worker's cars taken off the roads will reduce the demand for fuel. Reduced demand means downward pressure on gas prices - a good thing for everyone.
Government employees generally accomplish little but the looting of the productive private sector. For that reason, their impact on society should be minimized or eliminated wherever possible. With one little change, the city of Richmond can re-open the commercial district, support its own bus service, and eliminate several million tons of emissions its workers inject into the atmosphere every day -- and lower the tax rate due to lower costs.
Later, we can move on to eliminating 29,449 state workers' and 5,942 federal workers' cars from the streets as well.
*************************************************************
Marc Montoni lives in Henrico County with his family and serves as a member of the Libertarian Party State Committee. He is a network consultant and writer who often contributes to the city of Richmond's tax revenue by patronizing city establishments.
I don't particularly care, either way, because whether or not they were double-dipping is just window dressing. The best way to prevent problems like this is simply to eliminate their jobs.
But if Richmond taxpayers simply can't live without government workers interfering in their everyday life, perhaps the next best solution is for government employees to be required to use the same transportation system for their commuting & official business as they force all taxpayers to subsidize: The Bus. Employees should be given free tokens to do so, and should have to pay an "impact fee" if they choose to drive anyway.
According to the Virginia Employment Commission, there are 10,840 employees who get a city of Richmond paycheck. Interestingly, Richmond's own budget website says there are only 8,493. Must be some secret agents in there somewhere.
Besides the fact that not a single one of these folks produces new wealth to ultimately enrich everyone, how many have cars they have to park downtown? Let's say half of all employees work downtown, or about 5,000. Including hizzoner. Few of them carpool -- spend ten minutes marveling at the aggressive driving during the commuting hour and while doing so, observe how few cars are carrying more than one person. So, let's say there are 4,500 spaces taken up by Richmond government workers' cars every day.
At the same time, many in government will happily regurgitate the garbage science of anthropomorphic climate change; hypocritically while they are collecting fat bonuses to subsidize their trifling meddling around town and unspecified activities at cheap hotels. Here's where the rubber should meet the road. If government is going to force-feed the poison of discouraging private resource use and emissions, it should be the first to "go green". It should set the good example, rather than be the poster child for "do as I say, not as I do". Government employees should all be required to use GRTC (or ride a bike, or walk) to go from their homes as well as to go to and from all official-business appointments.
Think of how this will open up downtown to productive uses. Businesses require available parking at low cost to be able to produce wealth for the government to tax. Shoppers who used to avoid downtown will find thousands of welcoming parking spaces so they can do business with a thriving commercial area, rather than thousands of government workers' cars crowding them out.
Think also of other potential benefits. One would be that increased biking or walking will improve city workers' health. Better health means lower costs to the city for health insurance. Another would be the fact that thousands of government worker's cars taken off the roads will reduce the demand for fuel. Reduced demand means downward pressure on gas prices - a good thing for everyone.
Government employees generally accomplish little but the looting of the productive private sector. For that reason, their impact on society should be minimized or eliminated wherever possible. With one little change, the city of Richmond can re-open the commercial district, support its own bus service, and eliminate several million tons of emissions its workers inject into the atmosphere every day -- and lower the tax rate due to lower costs.
Later, we can move on to eliminating 29,449 state workers' and 5,942 federal workers' cars from the streets as well.
*************************************************************
Marc Montoni lives in Henrico County with his family and serves as a member of the Libertarian Party State Committee. He is a network consultant and writer who often contributes to the city of Richmond's tax revenue by patronizing city establishments.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Those "Pothead" Libertarians
One of the more constant refrains I hear from some libertarians is that Libertarians need to outgrow their "image of being potheads".
Now, I understand many of us come from the conservative side of the fence. I "did some time" as a Republican activist, myself (1978-1980). However...
I've been a Libertarian activist on the front lines for two decades, almost three, and have interacted with thousands of voters about the LP. While I prefer to wear suit and tie when committing political acts in the name of the LP, I also am decidedly not a conservative-leaning Libertarian.
Rather, I am a Libertarian-leaning Libertarian.
In watching the level of **activism** by various LP members, it is very often those who might be regarded as "potheads" who do huge amounts of the heavy lifting for our ideas. I'm not even sure their image in the minds of our conservative-leaning members is even fair -- they're not all actually potheads; they just have that image due to their demeanor, dress, etc.
In any case, the so-called potheads are by and large the ones who show up at the Virginia General Assembly -- and dare to speak. They're usually the ones who collect the bulk of our ballot-access petition signatures. They are almost always the ones who show up at protests, local events, and staff LP information booths.
And you know what? I have never heard one of our "pothead" activists say anything negative about our more conservative members. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing in reverse.
The Libertarian Party, and the libertarian philosophy, isn't just about conservative hot-buttons such as eminent domain reform, gun laws, and "lower" taxes.
It is about those things; but it is also about repealing drug prohibition. All of it. It's also about abolishing laws against prostitution, private gambling, and other consensual behavior.
As one who was thoroughly conservative for a time -- I voted Reagan in 1980 and even volunteered at the headquarters of the Republican Party of Virginia as well as for the Richmond For Reagan HQ -- I have to say that the "potheads" have earned not just our tolerance but our wholehearted, honest welcome and respect. If we disparage and insult them by issuing the constant refrain that "the LP must lose it's image of being a collection of dope-smoking hippies", the LP will be much poorer because of it.
Ron Paul, with his open advocacy of eliminating the Income Tax and ending drug prohibition, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither the libertarian movement nor the Libertarian Party need shy away from advocating an end to the drug war. He proved that no part of libertarianism need be held back from the discussion. Even though he shied away from no subject, his message of freedom appealed to a complete cross-section of the population -- students and retirees, housewives and working women, business executives and wage slaves, blacks, whites, browns, yellows, and reds.
Libertarianism -- whether it's talking about repealing the Income Tax, ending Drug Prohibition, legalizing prostitution, or private roads -- will win new friends only when presented proudly, well, and in a clear, consistent manner. Act like you fear to tread on any one part of the libertarian philosophy, and your ideological opponents will seize on your weakness and scramble all over you like wolves on a carcass.
Now, I understand many of us come from the conservative side of the fence. I "did some time" as a Republican activist, myself (1978-1980). However...
I've been a Libertarian activist on the front lines for two decades, almost three, and have interacted with thousands of voters about the LP. While I prefer to wear suit and tie when committing political acts in the name of the LP, I also am decidedly not a conservative-leaning Libertarian.
Rather, I am a Libertarian-leaning Libertarian.
In watching the level of **activism** by various LP members, it is very often those who might be regarded as "potheads" who do huge amounts of the heavy lifting for our ideas. I'm not even sure their image in the minds of our conservative-leaning members is even fair -- they're not all actually potheads; they just have that image due to their demeanor, dress, etc.
In any case, the so-called potheads are by and large the ones who show up at the Virginia General Assembly -- and dare to speak. They're usually the ones who collect the bulk of our ballot-access petition signatures. They are almost always the ones who show up at protests, local events, and staff LP information booths.
And you know what? I have never heard one of our "pothead" activists say anything negative about our more conservative members. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing in reverse.
The Libertarian Party, and the libertarian philosophy, isn't just about conservative hot-buttons such as eminent domain reform, gun laws, and "lower" taxes.
It is about those things; but it is also about repealing drug prohibition. All of it. It's also about abolishing laws against prostitution, private gambling, and other consensual behavior.
As one who was thoroughly conservative for a time -- I voted Reagan in 1980 and even volunteered at the headquarters of the Republican Party of Virginia as well as for the Richmond For Reagan HQ -- I have to say that the "potheads" have earned not just our tolerance but our wholehearted, honest welcome and respect. If we disparage and insult them by issuing the constant refrain that "the LP must lose it's image of being a collection of dope-smoking hippies", the LP will be much poorer because of it.
Ron Paul, with his open advocacy of eliminating the Income Tax and ending drug prohibition, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither the libertarian movement nor the Libertarian Party need shy away from advocating an end to the drug war. He proved that no part of libertarianism need be held back from the discussion. Even though he shied away from no subject, his message of freedom appealed to a complete cross-section of the population -- students and retirees, housewives and working women, business executives and wage slaves, blacks, whites, browns, yellows, and reds.
Libertarianism -- whether it's talking about repealing the Income Tax, ending Drug Prohibition, legalizing prostitution, or private roads -- will win new friends only when presented proudly, well, and in a clear, consistent manner. Act like you fear to tread on any one part of the libertarian philosophy, and your ideological opponents will seize on your weakness and scramble all over you like wolves on a carcass.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Slashing Government
Want to reduce the state budget? Here's a half-billion dollar launch pad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone recently asked me what Commonwealth of Virginia government spending is wasteful and could be eliminated.
I had to think about that for a minute, because I frankly can't see any reason to keep much of anything except a small police force to keep an eye out for local police corruption and maybe a court system of last resort.
But I digress.
Here are a few suggestions for state agencies/activities that could be rather painlessly eliminated:
********************************************
1. Virginia Port Authority
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Trans&vAgencyCode=407
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The mission of the ports relates to the state’s long-term strategic transportation plan as well as the state’s strategic economic development plan. The agency, through the Commonwealth, owns and operates marine terminals in Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Newport News. It also owns a truck and rail terminal in Front Royal. It markets these ports to ship lines and businesses worldwide through the headquarters in Norfolk, as well as through other offices across the United States and overseas. Overseas offices include locations in Brussels, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Singapore, Cairo, and Hong Kong. Currently, the authority’s budget is from nongeneral fund sources, primarily revenues received from the Transportation Trust Fund and from fees paid by ship lines for use of the ports. The agency does not receive any federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Why is the state involved in operating a freight terminal? Overnight and hundred of other companies are already in that business, they make profits, and pay taxes.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $77,947,316 in 2007.
********************************************
2. Department of Aviation
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Trans&vAgencyCode=841
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The department helps airport owners plan, construct, maintain, and operate their airports. The agency also plans the state’s aviation system and promotes aviation and air travel safety. These activities account for more than 90 percent of the agency’s budget. In addition, the department licenses aircraft and airports, and maintains the state government’s fleet of aircraft, which accounts for slightly less than 10 percent of the agency’s budget. The primary funding for the agency comes from nongeneral fund sources such as fuel taxes, and aircraft sales and use taxes. In 2001, 1.4 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- For one thing, it's redundant. The FAA, insurance companies, and architects already do all of the above activities the agency does.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $31,864,188 in 2007.
********************************************
3. Human Rights Council
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=173
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "This agency investigates unlawful discriminatory practices under federal or state statutes. As an alternative to the investigative process, the agency has implemented a mediation program in an attempt to expedite dispute resolution. The agency serves the Commonwealth’s citizens, public and private employers, and localities. In 2001, 3.1 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Redress is available in courts; or, better yet, in the offices of arbitrators or mediators.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $461,177 in FY 2007.
********************************************
4. Charitable Gaming Commission
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=173
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The agency, created in 1996, is charged with the oversight of raffles, bingo, and instant bingo games permitted to raise funds for charitable purposes. The commission has the authority to issue, suspend, and revoke permits to operate these games and to certify suppliers of gaming goods and services. The agency spends about eight percent of its budget to license Virginia’s 650 charitable gaming organizations and about 30 gaming suppliers. Another 32 percent of its budget goes to inspect and audit the operations of charitable games, and just over 20 percent of the agency’s resources is allocated for activities to enforce the charitable gaming laws and regulations. The remainder of the agency’s budget is spent to conduct hearings, to educate the public and gaming organizations about charitable gaming, and to provide administrative support to the commission. The agency is fully supported by nongeneral fund sources, which consist of the license fees and audit and administration fees paid by gaming organizations and suppliers. The agency does not receive any federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Redress is available in courts; or, better yet, in the offices of arbitrators or mediators. Not only that, but reputable charities would have their accounts audited anyway by an accounting firm. If the gamer doesn't care where the money goes and chooses to play in a non-reputable charity's game, well, no harm no foul.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $2,670,827 in FY 2007.
********************************************
5. Virginia's Public Broadcasting Board
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2002-2004&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=911
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The Virginia Public Broadcasting Board provides state support for public television and radio in Virginia and for instructional programming (ITV) viewed by students and teachers in Virginia’s public elementary and secondary schools. Just under 31 percent of the board’s budget is allocated for ITV programming, 33 percent goes for community service grants for public television, and just under seven percent goes for community service grants for public radio. Less than two percent of the board’s funds go for contracts with private nonprofit organizations to provide radio reading services for print-handicapped Virginians. Another 27 percent of the board’s budget goes for repayment of state support for the conversion of Virginia’s public television stations to the new digital standard mandated by the Federal Communications Commission. The board receives no federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Most Virginians have access to 50 or more channels offered by the private sector. Besides, government can never resist an opportunity to propagandize a captive student audience.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $3 million / year
********************************************
6. Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Comme&vAgencyCode=301
Also see: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/about/pdf/strategicplan.pdf
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "More than one-third of the agency’s budget is spent to promote Virginia’s agricultural and seafood products. Another 18 percent is spent to prevent and control diseases and pests affecting crops and farm animals through research, testing, grants, technical advice, and direct services to farmers. The agency spends 13 percent of its budget to ensure food safety by inspecting grocery stores, food processing plants, dairies, food storage warehouses, and meat and poultry slaughtering and processing plants. The department also spends nearly a fifth of its budget regulating business practices and investigating consumer complaints about unsafe products and fraudulent services. Nearly 44 percent of the agency’s budget comes from nongeneral fund sources, such as federal grants, user fees, registration fees, and excise taxes. In 2001, 10.5 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. There is not one single service listed in their report which is not provided by companies in the honest sector. Indeed, many of their services are paid for with user fees -- which means they can easily be privatized.
The most interesting part is where it says 1/3 or its budget is spent promoting agricultural and seafood products. In the private sector, that might be called "advertising".
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $339,490,000 (general fund expenditures only; this doesn't even touch the agency's revenue from service fees) in FY 2007.
********************************************
That's already over $400 million in reductions. Not reductions in the rate of increase, but REDUCTIONS. Outright elimination.
Those interested in finding out how Virginia's government spends money, and where it gets it to spend, may wish to bookmark these links:
I. The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget breaks down state spending into easy to read tables; and each main heading is a link that leads to more specific information:
II. I'm not a big fan of the U.S. Census as it is today (see the Libertarian Party's Census Articles, here and here), but they do some good data collection on state governments, including Virginia's.
By the way, this is not directly related to state budgets. But if you're interested in the federal Balanced Budget Amendment, take a look.
********************************************
-- end --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone recently asked me what Commonwealth of Virginia government spending is wasteful and could be eliminated.
I had to think about that for a minute, because I frankly can't see any reason to keep much of anything except a small police force to keep an eye out for local police corruption and maybe a court system of last resort.
But I digress.
Here are a few suggestions for state agencies/activities that could be rather painlessly eliminated:
********************************************
1. Virginia Port Authority
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Trans&vAgencyCode=407
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The mission of the ports relates to the state’s long-term strategic transportation plan as well as the state’s strategic economic development plan. The agency, through the Commonwealth, owns and operates marine terminals in Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Newport News. It also owns a truck and rail terminal in Front Royal. It markets these ports to ship lines and businesses worldwide through the headquarters in Norfolk, as well as through other offices across the United States and overseas. Overseas offices include locations in Brussels, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Singapore, Cairo, and Hong Kong. Currently, the authority’s budget is from nongeneral fund sources, primarily revenues received from the Transportation Trust Fund and from fees paid by ship lines for use of the ports. The agency does not receive any federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Why is the state involved in operating a freight terminal? Overnight and hundred of other companies are already in that business, they make profits, and pay taxes.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $77,947,316 in 2007.
********************************************
2. Department of Aviation
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Trans&vAgencyCode=841
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The department helps airport owners plan, construct, maintain, and operate their airports. The agency also plans the state’s aviation system and promotes aviation and air travel safety. These activities account for more than 90 percent of the agency’s budget. In addition, the department licenses aircraft and airports, and maintains the state government’s fleet of aircraft, which accounts for slightly less than 10 percent of the agency’s budget. The primary funding for the agency comes from nongeneral fund sources such as fuel taxes, and aircraft sales and use taxes. In 2001, 1.4 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- For one thing, it's redundant. The FAA, insurance companies, and architects already do all of the above activities the agency does.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $31,864,188 in 2007.
********************************************
3. Human Rights Council
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=173
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "This agency investigates unlawful discriminatory practices under federal or state statutes. As an alternative to the investigative process, the agency has implemented a mediation program in an attempt to expedite dispute resolution. The agency serves the Commonwealth’s citizens, public and private employers, and localities. In 2001, 3.1 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Redress is available in courts; or, better yet, in the offices of arbitrators or mediators.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $461,177 in FY 2007.
********************************************
4. Charitable Gaming Commission
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=173
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The agency, created in 1996, is charged with the oversight of raffles, bingo, and instant bingo games permitted to raise funds for charitable purposes. The commission has the authority to issue, suspend, and revoke permits to operate these games and to certify suppliers of gaming goods and services. The agency spends about eight percent of its budget to license Virginia’s 650 charitable gaming organizations and about 30 gaming suppliers. Another 32 percent of its budget goes to inspect and audit the operations of charitable games, and just over 20 percent of the agency’s resources is allocated for activities to enforce the charitable gaming laws and regulations. The remainder of the agency’s budget is spent to conduct hearings, to educate the public and gaming organizations about charitable gaming, and to provide administrative support to the commission. The agency is fully supported by nongeneral fund sources, which consist of the license fees and audit and administration fees paid by gaming organizations and suppliers. The agency does not receive any federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Redress is available in courts; or, better yet, in the offices of arbitrators or mediators. Not only that, but reputable charities would have their accounts audited anyway by an accounting firm. If the gamer doesn't care where the money goes and chooses to play in a non-reputable charity's game, well, no harm no foul.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $2,670,827 in FY 2007.
********************************************
5. Virginia's Public Broadcasting Board
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2002-2004&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=911
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The Virginia Public Broadcasting Board provides state support for public television and radio in Virginia and for instructional programming (ITV) viewed by students and teachers in Virginia’s public elementary and secondary schools. Just under 31 percent of the board’s budget is allocated for ITV programming, 33 percent goes for community service grants for public television, and just under seven percent goes for community service grants for public radio. Less than two percent of the board’s funds go for contracts with private nonprofit organizations to provide radio reading services for print-handicapped Virginians. Another 27 percent of the board’s budget goes for repayment of state support for the conversion of Virginia’s public television stations to the new digital standard mandated by the Federal Communications Commission. The board receives no federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Most Virginians have access to 50 or more channels offered by the private sector. Besides, government can never resist an opportunity to propagandize a captive student audience.
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $3 million / year
********************************************
6. Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Comme&vAgencyCode=301
Also see: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/about/pdf/strategicplan.pdf
OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "More than one-third of the agency’s budget is spent to promote Virginia’s agricultural and seafood products. Another 18 percent is spent to prevent and control diseases and pests affecting crops and farm animals through research, testing, grants, technical advice, and direct services to farmers. The agency spends 13 percent of its budget to ensure food safety by inspecting grocery stores, food processing plants, dairies, food storage warehouses, and meat and poultry slaughtering and processing plants. The department also spends nearly a fifth of its budget regulating business practices and investigating consumer complaints about unsafe products and fraudulent services. Nearly 44 percent of the agency’s budget comes from nongeneral fund sources, such as federal grants, user fees, registration fees, and excise taxes. In 2001, 10.5 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."
WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. There is not one single service listed in their report which is not provided by companies in the honest sector. Indeed, many of their services are paid for with user fees -- which means they can easily be privatized.
The most interesting part is where it says 1/3 or its budget is spent promoting agricultural and seafood products. In the private sector, that might be called "advertising".
ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $339,490,000 (general fund expenditures only; this doesn't even touch the agency's revenue from service fees) in FY 2007.
********************************************
That's already over $400 million in reductions. Not reductions in the rate of increase, but REDUCTIONS. Outright elimination.
Those interested in finding out how Virginia's government spends money, and where it gets it to spend, may wish to bookmark these links:
I. The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget breaks down state spending into easy to read tables; and each main heading is a link that leads to more specific information:
II. I'm not a big fan of the U.S. Census as it is today (see the Libertarian Party's Census Articles, here and here), but they do some good data collection on state governments, including Virginia's.
By the way, this is not directly related to state budgets. But if you're interested in the federal Balanced Budget Amendment, take a look.
********************************************
-- end --
Monday, February 05, 2007
Copyright is Wrong!
Copyrights (and patents) stifle creativity and efficient delivery of goods.
Copyrights and patents are a subsidy, nothing more -- a fact the Founders recognized. That's why they phrased the principle the way they did, and put it in the Articles as a power the government was authorized to enact. It is not a right, and never was -- otherwise it would be among the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
It's also one of the few areas I disagree with the Founders. *NO* government subsidy should have been written into law, much less enshrined in the Constitution.
It is simply not the business of the FBI (or any other government agency) to assure that the makers of crass products like Mickey Mouse (or even Windows) get rich.
Copyright law stifles innovation and makes plagiarism of others (ie Disney characters mostly based on public-domain Grimm's Tales, most software being altered versions of existing code or ideas (such as the Windows GUI being inspired by the Mac GUI, etc) profitable.
Patents are no different. Had Benz succeeded in patenting the automobile as a whole in the late 1800's, automobiles would *still* be extremely costly and idiotically-designed to this very day.
I could care less if a person downloads files of any type. No one has any "right" to ideas (or electrons). Those who want to "protect their 'right' [sic] to their copyright" should be expected to sell their material only under contract -- and they should be expected to be ready to have courts enforce those contracts. Why do I as a landlord have to get my contracts enforced at my own expense while copyright holders expect the FBI to do their work for them?
I began experimenting with open-source software this year for all of the above reasons -- and when I can, I avoid purchasing copyrighted or patented items. I prefer not to deal with subsidized monopolists if I can help it.
Copyright holders should figure out how to deliver their product to willing consumers cheaply enough so that those consumers won't want to *bother* investing the time (installing a file browser, etc) or money (upgrades to hardware, and so on) required to "steal" them instead.
Apple, for all its faults, proved this concept can be profitable with its iPod and downloadable song services; but even so, it's certain late-adopters will continue to whine about how things "should be" rather than embracing new technology and getting with the times.
Another reason why copyright law is increasingly a failure at its intended purpose: It backfires right in the face of the publishers. As law-enforcement/legal interference grows, so does resistance and rebellion. Remember what Princess Leia said to Grand Moff Tarkin, in the first Star Wars ("A New Hope"): "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."
The only free-market way to protect ideas is with contractual agreements -- which should be enforced in civil courts, not with criminal courts as is copyright law -- OR to maintain physical control over the medium on which ideas are stored. Then, if I steal the medium, yes, I am guilty of theft, because I have taken something tangible. And the theft of such property should extend to the fair market value of the ideas contained within the medium, using established practices for calculating such fair market value.
And yes, even though the medium itself might be a CD worth 45 cents, courts are generally smart enough to figure out that 100 lbs of fish oil is worth less than 100 pounds of gold. Therefore, if one could subtantiate a claim that the CD stolen would have netted the owner $1 million in a sale at fair market value, the court will generally back you up.
I stand by my assertion that copyright law is just another subsidy; in this case for those who have ideas. It distorts a HUGE sector of the market, enabling SOME vendors of copyright-able products to become FABULOUSLY rich. If they were in a free-for-all market, they would have to pay more attention to effective delivery & marketing to the mass market of CHEAP products. We'd get a lot more standardization, and MANY more people would be able to purchase the product.
Isn't the main raison d'etre of a free market to assure that businesses get products to consumers in the most efficient (i.e., lowest cost possible for an identical good) way? Copyrights assure that will never happen here.
Further Reading ********************************************
Copyrights and patents are a subsidy, nothing more -- a fact the Founders recognized. That's why they phrased the principle the way they did, and put it in the Articles as a power the government was authorized to enact. It is not a right, and never was -- otherwise it would be among the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
It's also one of the few areas I disagree with the Founders. *NO* government subsidy should have been written into law, much less enshrined in the Constitution.
It is simply not the business of the FBI (or any other government agency) to assure that the makers of crass products like Mickey Mouse (or even Windows) get rich.
Copyright law stifles innovation and makes plagiarism of others (ie Disney characters mostly based on public-domain Grimm's Tales, most software being altered versions of existing code or ideas (such as the Windows GUI being inspired by the Mac GUI, etc) profitable.
Patents are no different. Had Benz succeeded in patenting the automobile as a whole in the late 1800's, automobiles would *still* be extremely costly and idiotically-designed to this very day.
I could care less if a person downloads files of any type. No one has any "right" to ideas (or electrons). Those who want to "protect their 'right' [sic] to their copyright" should be expected to sell their material only under contract -- and they should be expected to be ready to have courts enforce those contracts. Why do I as a landlord have to get my contracts enforced at my own expense while copyright holders expect the FBI to do their work for them?
I began experimenting with open-source software this year for all of the above reasons -- and when I can, I avoid purchasing copyrighted or patented items. I prefer not to deal with subsidized monopolists if I can help it.
Copyright holders should figure out how to deliver their product to willing consumers cheaply enough so that those consumers won't want to *bother* investing the time (installing a file browser, etc) or money (upgrades to hardware, and so on) required to "steal" them instead.
Apple, for all its faults, proved this concept can be profitable with its iPod and downloadable song services; but even so, it's certain late-adopters will continue to whine about how things "should be" rather than embracing new technology and getting with the times.
Another reason why copyright law is increasingly a failure at its intended purpose: It backfires right in the face of the publishers. As law-enforcement/legal interference grows, so does resistance and rebellion. Remember what Princess Leia said to Grand Moff Tarkin, in the first Star Wars ("A New Hope"): "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."
The only free-market way to protect ideas is with contractual agreements -- which should be enforced in civil courts, not with criminal courts as is copyright law -- OR to maintain physical control over the medium on which ideas are stored. Then, if I steal the medium, yes, I am guilty of theft, because I have taken something tangible. And the theft of such property should extend to the fair market value of the ideas contained within the medium, using established practices for calculating such fair market value.
And yes, even though the medium itself might be a CD worth 45 cents, courts are generally smart enough to figure out that 100 lbs of fish oil is worth less than 100 pounds of gold. Therefore, if one could subtantiate a claim that the CD stolen would have netted the owner $1 million in a sale at fair market value, the court will generally back you up.
I stand by my assertion that copyright law is just another subsidy; in this case for those who have ideas. It distorts a HUGE sector of the market, enabling SOME vendors of copyright-able products to become FABULOUSLY rich. If they were in a free-for-all market, they would have to pay more attention to effective delivery & marketing to the mass market of CHEAP products. We'd get a lot more standardization, and MANY more people would be able to purchase the product.
Isn't the main raison d'etre of a free market to assure that businesses get products to consumers in the most efficient (i.e., lowest cost possible for an identical good) way? Copyrights assure that will never happen here.
Further Reading ********************************************
- http://www.stephankinsella.com/ip/index.php
- (more to come)
Friday, April 28, 2006
DMV: An Agency Past Its Prime
I wrote the below opinion article in the year 2000. Little has changed since then as far as the DMV "culture" is concerned.
-------------------------------
DMV: An Agency Past Its Prime
by Marc Montoni
You hear it all the time. People everywhere, in every state, always complain about their state's motor vehicle agency. In Virginia the culprit goes by the name "Division of Motor Vehicles", or "DMV".
You swear every time you walk out of the DMV that you're going to call your state legislators and let them know what you think of the slow service, the bureaucrat behind the counter that treated you like a number and had that "us against them" attitude, and other grievances. But you never do, because you know the odds are stacked very high in favor of the DMV.
Legislators like motor vehicle departments because they are cash cows. They are because they can charge you whatever they like in exchange for allowing you to drive. If you can't drive, you can't participate in this economy. Indeed, even if you do find a way to participate in the economy without driving, you still have to go to the DMV and allow them to photograph, catalog, number, and profile you so you can get an ID card so you can get a job. Other, non-state-issued forms of ID are not "permissible" as proof of citizenship so your employer can allow you on the site and pay you. By definition, this is an extortion racket.
A recent trip I made to a brand-new DMV branch office in my former hometown of Richmond was a typical experience. You wouldn't know that working conditions had improved with the new building, because the reception wasn't very different from previous trips to the rented office in a shopping center.
Walking inside the palatial new branch office, I was directed to an information desk where clerks give you the forms to do what you need to do. They give you a time-stamped number strip, and you go sit down. And wait. And wait.
I wasn't there during a rush, either. Lunchtime is their rush, when people who are out doing productive work in the private sector have to skip lunch to pay their dues to the cash cow. I have never seen a DMV plan for a lunch rush, though -- in fact, it sure seems to me that, similar to the Post Office, during the lunch rush is exactly when they send their own employees to... well, lunch. Not even a second thought to staggering their work hours.
While I waited, I looked at the number strip I'd been handed -- and discovered that the time stamp was two minutes ahead of the actual time. Funny, I had already been sitting there for fifteen minutes -- so the time stamp on the number strip was about seventeen minutes ahead of real time when it was printed. I came to the admittedly cynical conclusion that the branch managers use the times on those number strips to "prove" customer waiting times are half as long as they really are. Interesting ruse.
I was called by the computer and went to the window it told me to go to. I wanted to trade in the regular plates on my older car on the new orange "antique" plates I'd heard about. I didn't know it at the time, but the new plates weren't due out until the 1st of July, and I was five days early. So I asked the clerk for the new orange antique plates. The clerk interrupted me before I even had a chance to finish my request, and loudly stated that there was no such thing as an orange antique plate; they had the familiar black and white plates and that's what she was going to give me.
Within seconds of arriving at the window, I was made to feel small and ignorant. After my meek insistence that the new plates were indeed being offered, my surly public servant asked someone else in the office. The other employee was better informed and confirmed the new plates were coming, but I was a few days early. With no apology, my tormentor repeated that fact that they weren't available yet, in a defiant, victorious tone. Deciding to wait a few days for the orange plates I wanted, I told her to cancel any transactions she had started and I'd come back after July 1. I suggested that maybe she treat customers a bit less like dolts. I thought that might be the end of an unpleasant experience, but it wasn't.
I began walking towards the door, and as I did, I heard laughter from her direction. I turned to look, and she and her two clerk neighbors were looking at me while she laughed.
Yes, I know. The joke's on the taxpayer.
This incident made me think of what might be done to make the DMV more friendly. But then I realized it can't ever change. The "us-against-them", "customer is always wrong" attitude is part of the game. Look around -- the attitude is everywhere in government offices. The IRS ("seizure fever -- catch it" signs on employee bulletin boards); the Postal Service, the police department (the "blue wall of silence"), the school board (Goals 2000 instead of the 3 "R"'s) -- and the DMV.
As long as the "customer" is required by law to run through the state's bureaucratic hoops -- with jail or starvation the price for not doing so -- there is no way to change the culture. The nation fought a war over slavery in the last century, but now everyone is a slave to the bureaucratic machine. How did it happen?
The Libertarian idea that government services should be replaced by private sector alternatives is long overdue for a good look. There is no reason why your bank and insurance company can't take care of your car registration requirements, and even your driver's license needs (if you can't come up with insurance, they won't give you the driver's test, etc.). The access to records needed by the police for legitimate accident investigation and the like would still exist -- the data just wouldn't be collected by one archaic and unresponsive state agency.
When something proves itself inefficient, it's time to try something else. Abolishing the DMV is an idea whose time has come; the DMV's decades-long record proves it can't be reformed. It's time to replace it with a friendlier private-sector alternative.
# # # # #
Marc Montoni is a Salem resident and directs daily operations of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
-------------------------------
DMV: An Agency Past Its Prime
by Marc Montoni
You hear it all the time. People everywhere, in every state, always complain about their state's motor vehicle agency. In Virginia the culprit goes by the name "Division of Motor Vehicles", or "DMV".
You swear every time you walk out of the DMV that you're going to call your state legislators and let them know what you think of the slow service, the bureaucrat behind the counter that treated you like a number and had that "us against them" attitude, and other grievances. But you never do, because you know the odds are stacked very high in favor of the DMV.
Legislators like motor vehicle departments because they are cash cows. They are because they can charge you whatever they like in exchange for allowing you to drive. If you can't drive, you can't participate in this economy. Indeed, even if you do find a way to participate in the economy without driving, you still have to go to the DMV and allow them to photograph, catalog, number, and profile you so you can get an ID card so you can get a job. Other, non-state-issued forms of ID are not "permissible" as proof of citizenship so your employer can allow you on the site and pay you. By definition, this is an extortion racket.
A recent trip I made to a brand-new DMV branch office in my former hometown of Richmond was a typical experience. You wouldn't know that working conditions had improved with the new building, because the reception wasn't very different from previous trips to the rented office in a shopping center.
Walking inside the palatial new branch office, I was directed to an information desk where clerks give you the forms to do what you need to do. They give you a time-stamped number strip, and you go sit down. And wait. And wait.
I wasn't there during a rush, either. Lunchtime is their rush, when people who are out doing productive work in the private sector have to skip lunch to pay their dues to the cash cow. I have never seen a DMV plan for a lunch rush, though -- in fact, it sure seems to me that, similar to the Post Office, during the lunch rush is exactly when they send their own employees to... well, lunch. Not even a second thought to staggering their work hours.
While I waited, I looked at the number strip I'd been handed -- and discovered that the time stamp was two minutes ahead of the actual time. Funny, I had already been sitting there for fifteen minutes -- so the time stamp on the number strip was about seventeen minutes ahead of real time when it was printed. I came to the admittedly cynical conclusion that the branch managers use the times on those number strips to "prove" customer waiting times are half as long as they really are. Interesting ruse.
I was called by the computer and went to the window it told me to go to. I wanted to trade in the regular plates on my older car on the new orange "antique" plates I'd heard about. I didn't know it at the time, but the new plates weren't due out until the 1st of July, and I was five days early. So I asked the clerk for the new orange antique plates. The clerk interrupted me before I even had a chance to finish my request, and loudly stated that there was no such thing as an orange antique plate; they had the familiar black and white plates and that's what she was going to give me.
Within seconds of arriving at the window, I was made to feel small and ignorant. After my meek insistence that the new plates were indeed being offered, my surly public servant asked someone else in the office. The other employee was better informed and confirmed the new plates were coming, but I was a few days early. With no apology, my tormentor repeated that fact that they weren't available yet, in a defiant, victorious tone. Deciding to wait a few days for the orange plates I wanted, I told her to cancel any transactions she had started and I'd come back after July 1. I suggested that maybe she treat customers a bit less like dolts. I thought that might be the end of an unpleasant experience, but it wasn't.
I began walking towards the door, and as I did, I heard laughter from her direction. I turned to look, and she and her two clerk neighbors were looking at me while she laughed.
Yes, I know. The joke's on the taxpayer.
This incident made me think of what might be done to make the DMV more friendly. But then I realized it can't ever change. The "us-against-them", "customer is always wrong" attitude is part of the game. Look around -- the attitude is everywhere in government offices. The IRS ("seizure fever -- catch it" signs on employee bulletin boards); the Postal Service, the police department (the "blue wall of silence"), the school board (Goals 2000 instead of the 3 "R"'s) -- and the DMV.
As long as the "customer" is required by law to run through the state's bureaucratic hoops -- with jail or starvation the price for not doing so -- there is no way to change the culture. The nation fought a war over slavery in the last century, but now everyone is a slave to the bureaucratic machine. How did it happen?
The Libertarian idea that government services should be replaced by private sector alternatives is long overdue for a good look. There is no reason why your bank and insurance company can't take care of your car registration requirements, and even your driver's license needs (if you can't come up with insurance, they won't give you the driver's test, etc.). The access to records needed by the police for legitimate accident investigation and the like would still exist -- the data just wouldn't be collected by one archaic and unresponsive state agency.
When something proves itself inefficient, it's time to try something else. Abolishing the DMV is an idea whose time has come; the DMV's decades-long record proves it can't be reformed. It's time to replace it with a friendlier private-sector alternative.
# # # # #
Marc Montoni is a Salem resident and directs daily operations of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
