FREELIBERTYPAC.COM RELEASE: Virginia Budget Chicanery

====================================
NEWS FROM FREELIBERTYPAC.COM
THE "LIBERTARIAN WING" OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
World Wide Web: http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
====================================
For release: February 5, 2010
====================================
For additional information:
Marc Montoni, Founder, FreeLibertyPAC.com
Phone: (804) 592-6066
====================================

Despite the myths government officials distribute, reports of "budget crises" are mostly hogwash. The problem is not revenue; many government bodies are collecting revenues that are only one or two percentage points off their peak, and some are collecting more this year than last -- the economy be damned.

The problem is that governments spend cash like drunken sailors. When was the last year a government budget -- in real dollars -- was smaller than the previous year?

Governments viciously suck up every spare penny they can find. Just from 2000 to 2009, Virginia's state spending has increased by 28% over the rate of inflation and population growth. From 1982 to 2007, Virginia government spending has increased at an average of about 7 per cent annually. How many wage earners have seen the same sort of increases?

Every time a federal, state, or local government declares some sort of "budget crisis", a quick fact check reveals "crisis" revenues are usually about the same as the revenue collected two or three years prior. So the question must be asked -- were government employees -- now the best-paid people in the job market -- begging on street corners those previous years?

Hardly.

Citizens and taxpayers are the ones being hit hard by economic conditions, not governments. Governments normally do their level best to increase the hardship, rather than relieve it -- their greed and avariciousness only increases during economic downturns. In their desire to steal ever more wealth from the private sector, governments raise tax rates to extract more wealth at gunpoint (try not paying and see who shows up).

Here are some budget ideas that would actually wrench Virginia's economy into rapid and sustainable growth: 1) Abolish the state income tax. 2) Initiate a hiring freeze at the state level; and initiate layoffs of employees whose functions do not directly protect the rights of individuals (we don't need the state government running ports or courier services, for example). 3) Repeal most regulations and taxes on starting businesses, such as the outdated and entrepreneurship-crushing BPOL tax. 4) Abolish zoning laws that crush the formation of garage businesses.

There are many more similar reforms that could be made. Unfortunately, however, governments never willingly give up money or power -- so we're destined to continue on the slow march to economic oblivion.

Sources:

JLARC Spending Synopsis: http://jlarc.state.va.us/inbrf/Inb392.htm

JLARC Spending increases from 1982: http://jlarc.state.va.us/fau/Data/Expend_Func.xls


**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.

------------------------------------------------------------
FreeLibertyPAC.com http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
PO Box 71106 voice: 804-288-2766
Richmond VA 23255-1106 fax: 804-592-6066
------------------------------------------------------------

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

My Personal Journey with Open Carry

[Note: This article was first published in "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 9/30/09".  VCDL used to have an archive of their Alerts but now it seems to go back only to 2012.  Other sites, such as OpenCarry.org, republished it.  I am publishing it here on my own blog also for archival purposes.]

In 1971, at the age of 9, I was stuffing envelopes for a Democratic candidate I didn't even know, while on a family visit to Pittsfield, MA.  My mother had taken me and my sister to see relatives in the area, and one of the relatives was supporting a local campaign for office.  Two things I remember about the mailing party we stumbled upon during our visit were 1) one of the relatives making an impromptu speech about guns and how they should all be outlawed, and 2) I was a super mean envelope-stuffer.  People around the table were amazed at how fast I was assembling the mailing.  I distinctly remember the sound of those custom-imprinted nail files with the candidate's name and office on them, hitting the envelopes I was stuffing.

In retrospect, I probably wasn't so fast so much as everyone else was yakking a lot about the campaign.

Throughout the seventies as I became a young adult, I remember many conversations with my parents about gun laws in the United States.  The often bemoaned their still-(somewhat)-legal status.  At that time, I swallowed their line without question.

Then, in 1980, a friend handed me a copy of 'The Fountainhead', by Ayn Rand, and from there I became affiliated with the Libertarian Party.  I changed my mind about guns, but consciously declined to buy one for myself for several years.  I remember thinking about it, but I was too nervous about guns -- a relic of my upbringing -- to own a "real" one.  I had shot BB guns and even a small .22 during my youth, and it didn't seem a big deal -- but bigger guns seemed like magical objects to me.

That changed in 1993.  By chance one day, I saw a friend on the Henrico County police force, Officer Pace, looking through some collectible comics at a comic shop.  Pace had helped me on a couple of previous occassions (accidents or crimes I had witnessed, I think).

For whatever reason, we got on the subject of guns.  He told me that citizens can wear a gun openly, on their hip, or three points visible in a car, without a permit.  I'd been thinking more and more about guns in the years leading up to this, and I was looking for a way to increase public awareness of the law-abiding ownership and carrying of weapons.  Officer Pace's words on open carry inspired me to do more research on the law.

Eventually I decided that open carry fulfilled my goal perfectly, so I went to a local gun dealer and bought my first gun, a Davis P-380 semi-auto.  In retrospect, it was a laughable carry piece.  It was too small for my hand -- two of my fingers were all that could securely grip the handle.  But for the moment, it would do.  Besides, Davis Industries was a pretty cool little company.  It was a California shop, and it warranted all of its guns for life -- which came in handy when a couple of parts eventually broke on the gun.  Too bad they, like many others, were sued out of existence.

But in any case, I knew if I owned a gun, I needed to know how it worked, so about a week after I bought it, I stopped in at a then-brand-new shooting range, U.S. Training & Development (now called Top Gun Shooting Range), in Harrisonburg, VA.  I nervously bought my first box of ammo, a couple of targets, borrowed eyes and ears, and went to the lane.  On the first round I shot, my hands were so shaky I there was this nagging thought I should just forget it and leave.  But I squeezed it off, and except for a few jams that the attendant showed me how to handle, 50 shots went flying away just fine.

A couple of thousand rounds later, that gun is pretty much toast, and I have a better carry piece that actually fits my hand now.

But in between my first outing in the spring of 1993 and now, I have been in places all over Virginia with a gun on my hip, and have fired thousands of rounds through every conceivable type of gun at numerous indoor and outdoor ranges.

Most places I have been, there were no issues.  However, I was thrown out of the Valley Mall once in Harrisonburg (1995), I was asked to leave The Grey Wolf Grill (1998) at Willow Lawn Shopping Center in Henrico (ironically the Grey Wolf was two doors down from where that conversation with Officer Pace had taken place almost five years earlier), an old man in the buffet line at a Western Sizzlin in Henrico angrily asked me and my friend Chris why we were carrying, and verbally berated us for doing so, and a few other minor incidents of a similar nature.

I have been stopped once or twice for traffic violations, and it's never been much of an issue with the officer involved.

In all, I'd say my experience was positive, and advanced gun rights.

* My mother, who had been anti-gun all her life, started talking to me about them.  Eventually, she agreed to go target shooting with me -- the first time she'd *ever* held a gun, much less fired one.

* My best friend, Chris, began a gun collection and open-carrying odyssey of his own -- he now has more guns in more varieties than I do (a fact which I agree shames me).

* The barber I used to go to regularly began talking to me about guns and carrying, over the course of six months' worth of periodic hair cuts.  By the end of that six months, I accompanied her to a gun store to shop.  While she didn't buy that day, she did buy shortly thereafter -- and I treated her to her first 50 rounds of ammo and an hour at the range.

* When I bought my first house, one of my longest-term roommates was a good friend -- a fellow I'd sold a car to in 1982, and we'd remained friends ever since (must have been a good car to him).  After seeing me carry for a while, he bought his own gun, too.

* Another roommate was a student from mainland China.  I took her shooting with all of my guns also.  We had several interesting conversations about guns -- she told me that all Chinese citizens are trained to arms from a young age.  That meant shooting was nothing new to this bantamweight 18-year-old young lady, which surprised me no end. 

* Countless other friends have gone shooting for the first time in their lives -- with my guns.

I eventually created a flyer to carry in my back pocket about open carry / any kind of carry, just to answer the most common questions (unfortunately, as open carry has become more accepted and I've had to explain it less, I managed to lose my digital file of that flyer).  The gist of it was I'd been telling questioners verbally: that I believed a right not used is a right you will lose; and that I wanted to confront the image most people had of guns.  TV news had long promoted a very one-sided view of guns - they would show the aftermath of violence in DC readily, but they would put stories of people defending themselves in the dustbin.  The only other times citizens saw guns were when they were on the hips of government cops.

In short, I became a missionary for gun rights as much as I had become a missionary for the Libertarian Party.  It was a happy coupling, though.  The Libertarian Party has by far the strongest position of any U.S. political party on the private ownership of weapons.  Libertarians are probably more consistent on weapons than even some of the most radical gun groups.

My own version of libertarianism says that if a weapon is too dangerous for citizens to own, then it's too dangerous for governments to own as well.  Readers may then surmise that I believe as as the Founders believed - that individuals should be allowed to own & bear military-class weapons, primarily as the best defense against tyranny.

I continue to carry to this day, and it warms my heart to see so many others have joined the movement.  Thank you, Internet.

And thank you, Officer Pace.

Who is funding Virginia's Left?

Exposing the Schills

Who funds the left?

You do.

Really, it's true.

Let's take a look at just one example. A Multi-million dollar example that covers only a few months of the left's rent-seeking.

Take a look at the recent contributor reports filed by The Democratic Governors' Association (DGA), which is meddling in Virginia elections by funneling millions of dollars through "Common Sense VA", against the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell:

This report covers only the loot that ONE leftist organization has taken from your wallet.

Perhaps you should ask the businesses and entitites you do business with why they are funding the left. Did you receive full disclosure from those entities that by doing business with them, you would be helping to fund a massive wealth-transfer enterprise that would get your assets seized in a RICO proceeding in other circumstances?

Let's pick out a few examples from the report. Keep in mind that about $3 million dollars has been funneled through the Democratic Governor's Association into Common Sense VA; and the main purpose of Common Sense VA is to run anti-McDonnell ads. This is money that does not show up on the Deeds campaign's finance reports; although it can easily be seen as a rather direct contribution:

1. You fund the left when you buy a plane ticket. A portion of your fee goes to pay the pilot, who is a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. His union funnels a portion of his dues into the DGA, thence into Common Sense VA.

2. You fund the left when you pay the countless taxes, fees, and fines your federal, state, and local governments force upon you daily. A portion of your money is deducted from the bureaucrat's wages, and funneled to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which in turn gives those government worker union "dues" to DGA, which again sends the cash to Common Sense VA. AFSCME is one of DGA's fat cats - just from January 1 through June 31, this amounted to almost half a million dollars.

3. You fund the left when you pay the toll on that fancy new bridge, you're throwing money at AECOM Enterprises, which routed $5,000 of your money into DGA, and from there, DGA sent some along to Common Sense VA.

4. You fund the left when you pay your Aetna premium. Aetna paid DGA $30,000 over six months -- and DGA gave some of that money to Common Sense VA.

5. Remember the AFLAC duck? Cute, ain't he? He should be, because when you pay your life insurance premiums to American Family Life Insurance Company (AFLAC), remember that they paid $ 88,690 to the DGA.

6. Big Pharma supports socialism, too. Allergan, a seller of Botox products and other things, sent $ 100,000 of your payments to DGA.

7. Big Rail got in on the act too. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) gave DGA $ 150,000.

There are so many other companies on the list! Take a look at the report for yourself.

If you ever shop at Wal-Mart, in six months the company gave the leftists at the DGA $80,000 of your money. Be sure to tell your local Wal-Mart manager how much you appreciate the company throwing money at Democrats through front organizations like the Democratic Governors' Association and Common Sense VA. Maybe it's time to shop K-Mart for a while, instead.

Oh, and if Waste Management, Inc., picks up your trash, call them and ask why they're sending your money to the Left. Then find another refuse collection service.

You know, it wouldn't hurt if you showed up at the corporate offices of these behemoth companies to ask them to stop funding the growth of government.

Next Month: Exposing Republican Schills


**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

Breathless Media Treatment For One; Yawn for Another

OK, let's see.

Scenario 1:

A guy (with two full carloads of very large friends, as well as a BB gun that looks like a pistol and a bunch of baseball bats loaded in the cars) chases down two very small guys and one girl. One of the small guys shoots at one of the following cars, killing one of the occupants. Despite the chase, the deceased becomes an "innocent victim", and outrage and protest follow. The jurors remain awake and alert during the trial and deliver a guilty verdict for the shooter and his cousin. They are sentenced to long prison terms -- terms which don't satisfy the family and friends of the deceased.

No charges are ever leveled against any of the other individuals in the two following cars for their role in the situation. Every one of the reporters covering the trial itself mention the racial composition of the jury, as well as the race of those involved -- repeatedly.

Scenario 2:

A business man steps out of his truck one morning, is immediately accosted, shot to death, and robbed by three crackheads. The initial shooting was reduced to a footnote and hidden on inside pages of the local daily, and not reported at all by most other papers and radio/tv stations in the area.

Two years later, the police at last arrest three suspects, with what would be considered pretty solid evidence in other cases. At the trial of the first one of the three, several jury members -- all but one of whom is the same race as the defendant -- fall asleep during the trial. Eventually they return a "not guilty" verdict, and set the defendant free. Outrage and protest follow, but again not on the front page. None of the reporters covering the trial itself mention the racial composition (or the sleep habits) of the jury; that's left to the victim's wife to say.

What's the main difference between the cases?

The first story was reported almost as thoroughly and endlessly as Michael Jackson's death; with almost daily updates on the progress of the case. Every reporter managed to play the race card in every story.

The second story was almost completely ignored; with only two major articles in the regional daily during and after the first trial. The reporters leave out the race of the victims and perps; except when the reporter on the second story mentioned that the march by family and friends of the victim was "all white" -- even though a black man is clearly seen in the accompanying photo of the march.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/PBUR22_20090621-221803/275243/

So why the breathless coverage of one case, while the other, where there was a clear criminal (actually three) and an entirely innocent victim, elicits a media yawn? And speaking of yawns, what judge in his right mind fails to declare a mistrial when the jury falls asleep?

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

Common-Sense Solutions to Sprawl: OUTLAWED!

Soaring gas prices last summer caused many people to seek out ways to drive less and work closer to home. Unfortunately, seeking was about all they could do. Over the past century of land-use planning, governments have criminalized the construction of compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. The direct result of government wisdom was to make walking, biking, or even using public transport to work, school, and recreation simply impractical, if not un-economic (time has value too).

A recent Commentary columnist in the Richmond Times-Dispatch called for more restrictive zoning to "preserve" green space that she doesn't own. I think she has it backwards.

Sprawl can't be blamed on developers. Developers build because people need places to live and work. It was government that prevented the construction of any more compact, efficient grid-layout cityscapes such as people had built for generations (look at the housing in Richmond's Fan area, for instance). In 1900, a plot of a few acres could house hundreds of people. With the advent of zoning, however, city and county governments have steadily ratcheted density down. This doesn't mean that fewer people will move to a locality -- it just means that to house the same number of people, developers must seek out more and more spread-out virgin land to house them.

With zoning, the following is the normal progression: Zoning starts out by forcibly reducing the number of people allowed to occupy a given parcel of land by introducing minimum lot sizes and adding setback requirements. Then, some shrill minority [often newcomers who wish to slam the door behind them] whine about the precious farmland that is being chewed up as a result of the minimum lot sizes, and scream for passage of even larger lot size requirements. Eventually they get their wish and lot sizes increase to 25, 50, or 100 acres -- the point where only millionaires and government bureaucrats can afford them. This, of course, chews up MORE farmland, so the only 'logical' next step is to simply prohibit any growth of any kind. This progression is in play everywhere in the United States.

There were many reasons zoning codes became a popular import from the European national socialists of the 1890's. Rent-seeking politicians quickly realized that restricting land use could easily be used to exclude poor whites and racial minorities from middle and upper-class white areas; and indeed, some of the earliest zoning codes in the north included provisions for segregated neighborhoods. After the Supreme Court declared such laws un-enforceable in 1948, politicians simply replaced the objectionable provisions with new ones that accomplished essentially the same end using different language.

Other land-use restrictions have further eroded the human-to-land-surface ratio; chewing up build-able surface on every parcel. Setback requirements, for example, and minimum house sizes, such as the ones in Henrico, further restrict the housing stock and force developers to seek out virgin land in less-developed areas.

A look at Henrico County is instructive. Henrico was an early adopter of zoning law (1933) and an early adopter of exclusionary zoning: Henrico ordinances of 1960 outlawed building the small-lot, compact (600 square feet), and efficient entry-level housing such as that which was grandfathered-in around the Fairgrounds and Lakeside areas. This successfully kept blacks from buying into the county because housing prices quickly became inflated beyond the reach of many.

These days, sure, the county supposedly allows starter homes to be built -- but only where they're already standing. With blacks increasingly integrated into the social fabric of society, more and more black families can be found in Henrico neighborhoods. However, the exclusionary intent of zoning law is still there, with a changed focus. Now, it is simply classist rather than racist. The door has been slammed in the face of people with lesser means. You're simply out of luck if you want to split up a parcel into 1/8 acre lots with four or five $80,000, 600-square foot bungalows in one of the trendy West End neighborhoods. Try it and see how long it takes for zoning officials to laugh you out of the building.

Of course, a lot of small houses on compact lots makes bus service somewhat tenable. The 4,000 square foot McMansions with huge setbacks and large lots are auto-centric, and they are what politicians want because they generate more tax revenue.

It is clear that sprawl can be laid at the feet of rent-seeking politicians and the "NIMBY" activists who elect them and pressure them to slam the door on newcomers.

Anyone with common sense would understand that if you artificially restrict the supply of housing in one area, people will go elsewhere to buy their home. Leapfrog development happens when people who want homes can't find any, or find that the ones in the area that they really want have been artificially driven out of their price range. These people continue looking -- further and further away from their desired location.

Besides the severe cost to the environment in the form of sprawl, land-use regulation has relentlessly driven the cost of owning a home upwards. The covetous and loud interest groups that campaign so mightily at "evil developers" and who decry the lack of open or green space from the porch swing on their McMansion, are the people to thank for sprawl. Politicians reflect their constituents.

Zoning, once enacted, is always ratcheted ever tighter, like a noose.

In every community afflicted by the cancer of zoning, residents eventually discover they will have to go to the planning commission to do the most trifling things with their own property -- and the zoning board will see to it that a bunch of meaningless and useless conditions are placed upon them even then. "Oh, you want to put up a new mailbox? Go ahead -- but it has to be one of these approved $1,000 brands, and you have to paint it this color, and you can only put it in this spot here."

In a few decades, zoning will have created a sterile, stuffy, controlled, and boring environment. Our own children will have to leave, because they won't be allowed to build homes or work nearby.

Maybe it's time for change. Not a change in the form of moving control from rightward-tilting socialism to leftward-tilting socialism as in the recent presidential election. Rather, socialism should be dismantled altogether.

Zoning laws should be repealed as the abhorrent affronts to human liberty they are. Those who wish to control property belonging to others should do so the the honest way: buy it, or pay owners to insert restrictive covenants into their deeds. At the same time, the state should cease the practice of building free roads in virgin areas (think I-295 when it was built), and instead leave it to developers and new residents and businesses to pay for their own infrastucture in such areas. These two actions combined will help curtail the explosive sprawl we have today.

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

A Chrysler Tale

Without a doubt, the architects of Chrysler's comeback in the 1990's were shaking their heads in disbelief at DCX's fruitcake management of the marque after the so-called 'merger' in 1997.

A bit of history: Chrysler, bought American Motors Corporation in 1987, and, a few years later in the mid-nineties, had integrated AMC's cost-effective "platform team" manufacturing model. The company had a terrific engineering department, and was very lean. While the company was not the "lowest-cost producer", it had made huge strides in that direction. In short, it was a lean, profitable operation. Chrysler had socked away something like $14 billion in cash by 1997.

Indeed, Chrysler was the most profitable automaker in the world in the mid-'90s.

Then Daimler rolled in, and everything changed.

The pile of cash disappeared into Daimler's gaping maw.

Before Daimler, Chrysler was very cautious about its updates of successful products. The company planned carefully to update styling, technology, and features -- while doing its damndest to ensure changes would not turn off repeat buyers.

Daimler, on the other hand, was haphazard and sloppy. Who was demanding the Pacifica, or the Crossfire? And the Neon? Product planning at Chrysler had originally scheduled a complete redesign for 2000 -- DCX canceled it. Predictably, sales kept falling as the line aged; and eventually the car was discontinued without any replacement model in the pipeline.

2000 represented the beginnings of product planning / long-term management choices from Stuttgart. Mistakes made two years earlier now began showing up. Chrysler posted its first loss since the 1998 merger; and losses would continue to 2004. Wolfgang Bernhard and Dieter Zetsche were sent over to manage Chrysler Group. One of their first decisions was to cut costs on materials used in interiors, to profitable levels. Then they expanded the SUV line at a time the niche was becoming saturated. As I recall it was around that time that trouble-prone DCX transmissions and suspension components started showing up in Chrysler products. Selling defective parts was helpful to Mercedes, not so helpful to Chrysler.

In 2004, the long-in-the-tooth Neon was finally canceled (its 2004 [final-year] sales were 118,476. Taking its place on the production line is the Dodge Caliber / Jeep Compass sport wagon. Essentially DCX sent a fuel-thrifty model into the dustbin and replaced it with a passionless psuedo-hatchback thing that gets worse mileage at the very time the market was turning again towards thrifty.

Also in 2004, Plymouth disappears from the automotive pantheon -- perhaps deservedly. But... Maybe a better move would have been for the return of the brand to its marketing purpose half a century ago: to sell cheap cars to thrifty people.

By 2006, Chrysler marketing was inexplicably positioned to pursue the traditional Dodge buyer. Jeep's image is becoming more confused with the Compass and other new models. The Avenger, Aspen, Sebring, and Commander are all introduced at a time when Chrysler has **neither** a subcompact nor any real C-segment vehicle (the Caliber ).

In short, DCX set up Chrysler for pure disaster. DCX harvested the profits Chrysler brought in during 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2005; as well as the billions in Chrysler's bank account in 1998.

It may be that Daimler really did intend for the Chrysler purchase to be its entrance to the American mass (ie non-premium) market; but they failed to cater to that market. There were no investments in new & competitive compact sedans or subcompacts. They continually cut costs at Chrysler in penny-wise but pound-foolish ways to boost the bottom line, turned it into "all trucks, all the time", and used it as a way to recoup their investments in different technology (such as the transmissions and suspensions in the LX platforms).

Daimler certainly isn't a victim. The marriage was an abusive one that left Chrysler bruised and lighter by several billion dollars. Daimler management got lucky with their purchase of Chrysler. Cash from their American piggy bank covered DCX's never-ending losses on the Smart and Maybach lines. They took away lessons in how the American managers before 1998 got cars from a computer screen to a production line in an industry-leading eighteen months.

There are a lot of people demanding the heads of the auto execs of the Big Three. What no one acknowledges is that the execs who killed Chrysler are named Juergen Schrempp, Dieter Zetsche und Wolfgang Bernhard. They escaped with their skins; I guess just because they live in Stuttgart, instead of Auburn Hills.

FREELIBERTYPAC.COM RELEASE: Obscene Assault on Erotica

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Turning the Police into Royalty Doesn't Help

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.

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 stagnation.

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.

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.

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.

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 --

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 ********************************************

Stephan Kinsella's IP Policy Wikispace

Copyright and Patent in Benjamin Tucker's Periodical

, by Wendy McElroy

The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism, by Stephan Kinsella

Copyright Law: Standing in the Way of Progress, by the Bionic Mosquite

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.

Do "Certificates of Need" Help or Hurt?

Frequently, politicians come up with ideas for government policies that do the opposite of what was intended. In the 1970's, Congress decided to try to apply pressure against rising health-care costs by encouraging "Certificate Of Need" (CON) laws. This early health care regulation acted on the supply, rather than demand, side of the health-care cost equation. By 1974, the federal government required all states to have Certificate Of Need regulations in effect.

At the time, some economists argued that the regulations would actually raise health care costs because they would stifle competition and raise the cost of entering a market. As it turned out, they were correct. As evidence began mounting that the laws were driving costs up, Congress did an about-face and repealed the requirement. Several states, but not Virginia, acknowledged the new evidence and subsequently repealed their Certificate Of Need regulations.

The intent of these regulations was to drive health care costs down by requiring hospitals to first demonstrate to a government commission that a major expansion of existing facilities, or the construction of a new facility, or the purchase of big-ticket new equipment, would genuinely benefit in the community -- that is, that it was truly "needed".

In a recent article in the Richmond "Times-Dispatch", a reporter described the four-year-long legal battle Bon Secours Health System has been forced to wage in trying to win a Certificate of Need from the Virginia Department of Health, for its proposed $72 million St. Francis Medical Center facility the company wants to build in western Chesterfield County.

Bon Secours' rival in the area, HCA Inc., has used the Certificate of Need statutes to freeze its competition out of the market; sending lawyers and "experts" to testify in front of the government commissioner -- in an attempt to prove the Bon Secours facility is not "needed". Naturally, HCA wants to maintain its monopoly on health care in its markets; and the only way to do that is to use the power of government. Were the situations reversed, no doubt Bon Secours would be doing the same thing.

Therein lies the problem with giving the government the power to portion out markets to any person or business.

Bon Secours is willing to gamble $72 million that there is enough of a need for its facility that it will earn a return on the investment. That's what free enterprise is all about -- taking a risk in the hopes of earning a profit.

But when a market is distorted by government meddling, all rules change. Costs for all parties go up. The government spends millions of dollars adjudicating the case; the hospitals spend millions of dollars on lawyers to argue the case back and forth, one trying to build, the other trying to force them not to build. Consumers -- i.e., patients -- end up footing the bill, both through higher taxes and again when they need medical attention. Other factors are worth considering, as well. For instance, if the property upon which Bon Secours wishes to build has already been purchased by the company, they can't yet use it - a substantial investment of money that it is forced to leave sitting in a corner, when it could tbe used to service their customers. This will also raise the cost to the consumer.

Congress recognized the errors of its ways on this issue years ago; now, it's time for Virginia to catch up with the eighties. To lower health care costs, the state legislature should repeal the "Certificate Of Need" statutes immediately.

This will have the added benefit of reducing expenses related to administering the regulations, during a time when the Virginia state government desperately needs to shed non-essential functions. And considering how bloated the Code of Virginia is, deleting sections that are wholly unnecessary and making it a shorter document can only be a good thing.

Any time governments are asked to expand beyond their proper and limited role of protecting individuals from fraud and aggression, they dilute their ability to do anything particularly well. Governments function best when their job is kept simple.

Conversely, private companies can deliver the best service to their customers at the lowest price when they are allowed to conduct their business as they see fit, free of interference by government bureaucrats.



****************************************

Marc Montoni, a network consultant & installer, is a resident of Shenandoah County, Virginia; serves as an elected Director of the Lord Fairfax Soil & Water Conservation District; and is also the Chairman of the Shenandoah County Libertarian Party.

****************************************

Copyright © October 2002 by Marc Montoni. Permission to publish or reprint in any and all venues hereby granted.

****************************************

REFERENCES:

"Hospital's Fate Awaits Ruling", by Bob Raynard, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Saturday, September 28, 2002.

****************************************

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:

STUDY: Beyond Health Care Reform: Reconsidering Certificate Of Need Laws In A Managed Competition System, by Patrick John Mcginley; published 1995 in the Florida State University Law Review:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/231/mcginley.html

****************************************