Coyote Blog

Arizona Watch has a great post today about our state government's foray into amusement park regulation after several folks were stuck on a local ride for a couple of hours. 

There are no major amusement parks in Arizona, although two large
ventures are apparently planned. Currently, inspections are handled by
insurance companies, who have a serious financial stake in maintaining
the safety of the rides. Insurers can't afford to have unsafe rides at
their client's amusement park. Compare that to the state, that has
exactly what at stake?

As an aside, Phoenix is an awful place for a roller-coaster and amusement park fan like myself to live.  Basically, we have no real amusement parks  (though there are some great ones about a 6-hour drive away in LA).  I have sat and pondered this a lot - why does a city this large with such a strong tourist economy not have a Six Flags type attraction?

The answer I guess is  that our season is wrong.  Our season is November-April, when the weather is nice.  Unfortunately, the kiddies are in school then.  During summer vacation months, Phoenix is a bit, uh, toasty (but its dry heat, as we tell our Thanksgiving turkey each year).  This answer is not totally satisfying, as uncomfortable summer cities like San Antonio and Houston have major theme parks.  Also, Phoenix has no real world class water parks (just a couple of places with 2 slides and a pool).  Maybe its because all the developpers here have golf courses on the brain.

Where do Phoenix people go for fun in the summer?  Well, if you are ever in San Diego or LA during the summer, check the license plates.  Then you will know where we are.

Via Ernest Miller:

Civil and consumer rights groups have won in the Broadcast Flag case!...

...For those who are unfamiliar with the Broadcast Flag, it was ... it was a regulation promulgated by the FCC
at the request of Hollywood that would have required all HDTV receivers
to incorporate certain copy controls. Starting this July, all HDTV
receivers sold in the US would be required to enforce restrictions on
copying HDTV broadcasts that were tagged with the "Broadcast Flag."
Although you might be able to record HDTV shows, you wouldn't be able
to make additional copies for personal use (such as watching in another
room) without a lot of hassle, if it was possible at all, not to
mention taking a copy to watch at a friend's house. The ramifications
of this authority grab by the FCC were enormous, since it would have,
among other things, essentially given them the power to control
significant aspects of the design of anything capable of using HDTV
signals, i.e., modern PCs.

Good.  Now, will someone address letting me copy DVD's to play on a handheld, hard-disk based device like this one.

Volokh points out this bit of stupidity:

Family Research Council Opposing Vaccination:

New Scientist reports:

Deaths from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year
by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by
soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the [sexually transmitted HPV]
virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer . . . . [T]o prevent
infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually
active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, [however,] religious groups are gearing up to oppose
vaccination . . . . "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says
Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, . . . [which] has made
much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms
are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such
as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful,
because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex,"
Maher claims . . . .

This is just wrong on any number of levels.  The lamest part of this, beyond the sheer wrongheadedness of it, is it strikes me as a sign that these religious groups are unsure of their own teachings and moral standing.  I will never be confused with a religious expert, but I would think that religious groups would be fighting for abstinence as a positive moral principal.  Trying to deny vaccinations in order to make sexual intercourse incrementally more dangerous and threatening strikes me as a sign that the religious groups have given up on moral teaching and are now relying on bald scare tactics. 

When my kids were about 2, we had trouble with them getting out of bed and coming into our room.  Increasing the likelihood of STD's in order to discourage sex strikes me as similar to if I had spread tacks on the ground around my kids bed to keep them from wandering around at night.  When we come up with an HIV vaccine, are these groups going to oppose that as well?

Campus liberals rightly get a lot of heat for their attacks on free speech and expression at universities via speech codes and the like.  I have piled on a number of times.  However, the impulse restrict speech you don't agree with is not limited to liberals (though it may be more prevalent due to leftist control of most campuses).  Take this story via Volokh:

Vince Finaldi points me to the affidavit justifying the arrest of a student for asking a rude question at an Ann Coulter speech.  If the facts in the affidavit are accurate, then it looks like the student has an excellent First Amendment defense.

Basically, the student asked Ms. Coulter her opinion of a married man and woman engaging in sodomy.  Granted that he asked the question in a fairly profane manner, but he seems to have followed the Q&A rules by getting up, asking his question, and quietly waiting for the reply from his seat.  So why are the police hauling him away?

I have often criticized Aspiring Governor Eliot Spitzer for his overreaching tactics aimed more at keeping himself on the front page (and in the hearts and minds of voters) than in really catching bad guys.  However, one of the reasons Spitzer gets support for his tactics is that there seems to be an enforcement vacuum at the SEC in pursuing corporate and banking fraud.  The Adelphia case brings us a great example, courtesy of Professor Bainbridge.  It appears that the Rigas family is going to get off with forfeiting some of the assets they plundered - no jail time and no fines!

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it and the United
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO) reached an
agreement to settle a civil enforcement action and resolve criminal charges
against Adelphia Communications Corporation, its founder John J. Rigas, and his
three sons, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas and James P. Rigas, in one of the
most extensive financial frauds ever to take place at a public company.

In its complaint, the Commission charged that Adelphia, at the direction of
the individual defendants: (1) fraudulently excluded billions of dollars in
liabilities from its consolidated financial statements by hiding them on the
books of off-balance sheet affiliates; (2) falsified operating statistics and
inflated earnings to meet Wall Street estimates; and (3) concealed rampant
self-dealing by the Rigas family, including the undisclosed use of corporate
funds for purchases of Adelphia stock and luxury condominiums. The USAO also
announced that it had entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Adelphia and
had settled forfeiture claims against Rigas family members.

Under the settlement agreement, which is subject to the approval of the
District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Rigas
family members will forfeit in excess of $1.5 billion in assets that they
derived from the fraud, including the Rigas family's interests in certain cable
properties.

This is absurd.  The stay-at-home wife of the treasurer of Enron is in the slammer right now but the Rigas's get to walk?  Note that the Rigas's last year were convicted of numerous criminal charges, but there sentencing was delayed so they could negotiate.  I guess they negotiated pretty well.  In my understanding of the cases, this is a much worse case of fraud than Enron.  These guys looted the company for personal gain, and raped their minority stockholders.   Shame on the SEC.

When it comes to defending abortion, women's groups are great libertarians. They will point out that abortion is about the right to choose and about protecting the "fundamental civil and human right of women to make the most intimate decisions about their bodies and their lives".  Its about not letting the government interfere with individual decision-making or a "woman's right to privacy".  Its about assuming women are grown-up enough to make difficult choices about their fetus and their own health and safety.  Opponents of such choice are "ultra-conservatives trying to deny women control over their own bodies".  (all quotes from the NOW web site).

So, women's groups seem to be good libertarians concerned with the primacy of women's decision-making over their own body.  Except when they're not.  NOW has been feverishly campaigning to get the government to limit a women's right to choose breast augmentation, despite the fact that the science is overwhelmingly behind the safety of implants.  Sure, as in any medical procedure, there are some risks, but I defy anyone to tell me that the risks associated with breast implants are greater than the risks associated with abortion.  Abortion is a much weightier and more difficult decision, and, unlike breast implants, it is irreversible.  If women are mature enough to make abortion decisions, they certainly are mature enough to weigh the risks of breast implants.  Or take the birth control pill -- the impact to a woman's body of silicone sacks in their boobs is far less than that of trashing their entire hormone balance.  Sure, the pill makes sense for a lot of people and its great that the option exists, but don't tell me that the the changes the pill engenders in the body are OK but bags of silicone are not.

The real issue, as pointed out early and often by Virginia Postrel, is that feminists consider breast implants as at best frivolous, and at worst a demeaning surrender to male objectification of the female's body.  They don't think women who choose these implants are making the right choice, so they, in their elite holier-than-thou wisdom, want to take the decision away from women.  Hmmm.  Freedom for me but not for thee.  More along the line of distrusting individual decision-making here.

Update:  My main point of this post was on breast implants, and comparing feminist retoric on that issue vs. their retoric on abortion.  I feel the need, though, to mention that I don't accept that abortion is necesarily a pure individual choice situation.  Individual decision-making should be trusted when individuals make choices that affect only themselves, without coersion or fraud.  The problem in the case of abortion is whether the fetus is a piece of tissue that is a part of a woman's body, or an independent life.  In the former case, its removal is subject to individual decision making, but not in the latter.  As I have written before, I think the fetus is protoplasm at 1 week and a baby at 8 months.  At some point in between we draw an arbitrary line between part-of-the-mom and independent life.

Many abortion supporters, unwilling to risk that society might draw this line earlier in the pregnancy than they might want it, take the extra step of arguing that the very determination of whether the fetus is a life or not at 2 or 5 or 7 months should be up to individual taste, and that the government should have no say in that determination.  That strikes even me as the hardcore libertarian as going too far.  Certainly in its limited role of protecting individual rights, the government has a role in determining just who is an individual with rights subject to protection.  Determining if a fetus is an individual with independent rights and at what point in the pregnancy it is treated as such are reasonable roles for government legislation.

I am searching around to get confirmation that this is not a hoax (ala blondestar, which is hilarious by the way if you have not ever heard it) but FoxNews.com seems to think it is really a 911 call so check it out, via the Club for Growth Blog.  I won't give any more details, but it is definitely worth a listen if you want to hear the end game for the Ralph Nader regulatory state.

UPDATE:  OK, (thanks to Kevin Drum for the link) so I can share a tidbit now:

Operator: "... dept, how can I help you?"
Bitch: "Yeah, I'm over here...I'm
over here at Burger King, over here in San Clemente."
O: Mmm-hmm.
B: Um,
no, not San Clemente, I'm sorry, um I live in San Clemente, um, Laguna Niguel I
think that's where I'm at.
O: Mmm-hmm.
B: I'm at a drive-thru right
now.
O: Uh-huh.
B: I ordered my food THREE TIMES, they're mopping the
floor inside and I understand they're busy, they've not even busy okay I've been
the only car here. I asked them four different times to make me a Western BBQ
burger. Okay and she's given me a hamburger with lettuce, tomato, cheese,
onions. And I'm not leaving, I want a Western burger because I just got my kids
from Tae Kwon Do they're hungry, I'm on my way home and I live in San
Clemente.
O: Uh-huh.
B: Okay. She GAVE me another hamburger, it's wrong. I
said 4 times, I said I want it, she said 'Can you go park out in front' I said
NO, I want my hamburger RIGHT. So then the lady came to the manager or whoever
she is and she came up and she said, um, she said um, 'Do you want your money
back'. I said no, my kids are hungry and I have to jump on that 12 freeway. I
said I am not leaving this spot, and I said I will call the police, because I
want my Western hamburger done RIGHT. Now is that so hard?
O: Okay, what
exactly is it you want us to do for you?
B: Uh, send an officer down here. I
want them to make my order right.
O: Ma'am, we're not going to go down there
and escort your Western bacon cheeseburger.

Believe it or not, there is much more.  Very funny if its a put-on like Blondestar, and even funnier if its real.

To avoid any potential confusion, here is a notice to Britain and my British readers (all 10 or so of them):  I do not consider myself, my statements, or this blog to be subject to British law, and in particular your libel law.  Now, since I am an American citizen living and publishing in Arizona, you may be confused why this clarification is necessary.  If so, note this article, via Captains Quarters.

The decision today, by Mr Justice Eady, has cleared the way for a libel trial in London sometime this year [against Arnold Schwarzenegger]

Miss Richardson alleges she was libelled by Schwarzenegger and two
campaign workers in an October 2003 article in The Los Angeles Times,
which also appeared on the internet.

The trial is going forward in London later this year.

Let me say that there are many, many things wrong with the tort system in the US, but one of the things we have done right is consistently protected free speech rights (at least until McCain-Feingold), and part of this protection has been resistance to onerous European, and particularly British, libel laws.

The obvious result, if this type of suit becomes successful and pesky, is of course for media to start blocking Internet traffic from British URLs.  Maybe this is a secret plan to have just this happen, so the Beeb can get their monopoly back.

UPDATE:  (via Overlawyered.com)  It appears that US litigator Samuel Hirsch is making his own interpretation of US libel law by suing Morgan Spurlock, the maker of the film "supersize me".  Though one could argue that the film ostensibly was on Mr. Hirsch's side (Mr. Hirsch makes a living in part by suing McDonalds for his clients who lack the ability to control their eating habits), it caught Mr. Hirsch on film making some comments he would rather not have been made public:

Ostensibly, this would make
Mr. Hirsch a prime ally in Mr. Spurlock's quest to edify the nation as
to the adverse affects of eating junk food. The film, however, was not
flattering to Mr. Hirsch in his brief cameo. In his only appearance on
camera, Mr. Spurlock asks Mr. Hirsch about his motivation for being
involved in the McDonald's litigation. Mr. Hirsch's reply? "You mean,
motive besides monetary compensation?" He then added, "You want to hear
a noble cause?"

Mr. Hirsch is suing for

Negligence, Unauthorized Use
of Likeness, Disparagement to Reputation, and Defamation of Character,
Fraudulent Inducement, False Misrepresentation, Damage to Business
Reputation.

Mr. Hirsch must know that he stands little chance of winning in US court, particularly since the film used his own words against him.  So this is intimidation, pure and simple.

It is interesting to note that McDonalds, the main target of the film, has not been dumb enough to sue Spurlock, no matter what they thought of the film.  And imagine if George Bush had tried to sue Michael Moore for the same stuff.  Suits like this are intimidation to shut down criticism, and it is good and right that they cannot win in the US.

One of the eye-opening experiences of being a small business person is finding all the licenses you need - sales tax license, witholding license, unemployment, occupancy, food handling, alcohol, tobacco, prescription drug sales, etc etc.  This gets multiplied for us since we are in 10 states.

This week I got my new favorite:  My Kentucky Retail License to Handle Eggs.

I was afraid that there might be some special training that went with this - something like walking a hundred yards with an egg on a spoon without dropping it - but fortunately all they wanted was our name and $5.  Note that there is a $100 a day fine for selling eggs without a liscence in KY, so beware all you black market egg purveyers.

I wrote before of the cost that licensing imposes on the economy.  I love Milton Friedman's take on licensing and certification:

The justification offered is always the same: to protect the consumer. However, the reason
is demonstrated by observing who lobbies at the state legislature for
the imposition or strengthening of licensure. The lobbyists are
invariably representatives of the occupation in question rather than of
the customers. True enough, plumbers presumably know better than anyone
else what their customers need to be protected against. However, it is
hard to regard altruistic concern for their customers as the primary
motive behind their determined efforts to get legal power to decide who
may be a plumber.

Now, from Ohio (and via Cafe Hayek) comes this attempt to regulate auctioneers:

Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond,
the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting
as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a
written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being
fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days.

Keep Friedman's quote in mind.  Note that under this system, auctioneers have an automatic veto over new competition, since all potential competitors must find an existing auctioneer to take them on as an apprentice.  Imagine the consumer electronics business - "I'm sorry, you can't make or sell any DVD players until Sony or Toshiba have agreed to take you on as an intern for a year".  Yeah, I bet we'd see a lot of new electronics firms in that system - not.

It gets better, though.  The law is written in a way that it applies to Ohio residents trying to sell on eBay:

Here's the response offered by state Senator Larry
Mumper, author of the legislation: "It certainly will not apply to the casual
seller on eBay, but might apply to anyone who sells a lot," he said. "If someone buys and sells on eBay on a
regular basis as a type of business, then there is a need for
regulation."

This is the kind of regulation mentality that is killing us.  eBay has a great rating system, and while the system sometimes trips for small sellers (since they can just start a new account) but big volume competitors ruthlessly protect their reputation on eBay because it is so visible.

Update 6/23: Property rights lost 5-4.  More on Kelo decision here and here.  The arguments below are still valid, even if the SCOTUS did not agree.

As I have written before, there is a disgusting and increasingly popular trend among city governments to seize private property from one owner and give it to a developer who will build something that will generate more property taxes (e.g. seize house to build a new Home Depot).  This theory of eminent domain is being tested in arguments in front of the Supreme Court around actions of New London, CT to seize private houses and handing them over to a developer so he can build a private marina.  New London argues that it is economically depressed, and it needs to substitute some higher tax paying businesses for lower tax paying homeowners.  Dahlia Lithwick in Slate brings us this telling exchange yesterday between the Court and New London attorney Horton:

Justice Antonin Scalia asks what difference it makes that New London is depressed. What if a city acknowledged that it wasn't doing badly, but just wanted to condemn land to attract new industry? He describes Horton's position as: "You can always take from A and give to B, so long as B is richer." And O'Connor offers this concrete example: What if there's a Motel 6 but the city thinks a Ritz-Carlton will generate more taxes? Is that OK?

Yes, says Horton.

"So you can always take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?" asks Scalia.

"If they are significantly more taxes," says Horton

"But that will always happen. Unless it's a firehouse or a school," protests Kennedy.

The Court even gave New London's attorney a bit of a lesson on how free exchange of goods requires consent of both parties:

"We're paying for it!" Horton exclaims, noting that no one is taking anything from these minorities.

"But you're taking it from someone who doesn't want to sell. She doesn't want your money," retorts Scalia.

Professor Bainbridge points out why Mr. Horton's payment will also be inadequate:

First, it fails to take into account the subjective valuations placed on the property by people whose families have lived on the land, in at least one case, for a 100 years. In other words, if the Supreme Court rules for the city, the government will be able to seize land at a price considerably below the reservation price of the owners. Second, unlike the prototypical eminent domain case, in which the land is seized to build, say, a school or road, in this case the city is using eminent domain to seize property that will then be turned over to a private developer. If this new development increases the value of the property, all of that value will be captured by the new owner, rather than the forced sellers. As a result, the city will have made itself richer (through higher taxes), and the developer richer, while leaving the forced sellers poorer in both subjective and objective senses

Read the whole thing, its depressing, all the more so since commentators seem to feel that New London will prevail.  To my eye, Mr Horton and New London look no different than Stalin-era Soviet planners.  The Economist (sub. req'd)agrees:

Put simply, cities cannot take someone's house just because they think they can make better use of it. Otherwise, argues Scott Bullock, Mrs Kelo's lawyer, you end up destroying private property rights altogether. For if the sole yardstick is economic benefit, any house can be replaced at any time by a business or shop (because they usually produce more tax revenues). Moreover, if city governments can seize private property by claiming a public benefit which they themselves determine, where do they stop? If they decide it is in the public interest to encourage locally-owned shops, what would prevent them compulsorily closing megastores, or vice versa? This is central planning.

Plenty more commentary at Professor Bainbridge (here and here), Volokh (here and here), Cafe Hayek,  and the Knowlege Problem.  The Institute for Justice is defending the property owners and is at the forefront of this fight - win or lose, they deserve props for their efforts.

Postscript:  I generally don't like the arguments I see in some blogs that go like "why aren't the ___________ [fill in  with liberal or conservative] blogs addressing such-and-such issue?"  Blogs are intensely personal, and since most of us write them as a hobby, there are always going to be issues that just don't really get us fired up.  For example, though many libertarian bloggers expend numerous electrons on gun rights, the topic is generally a yawner for me so I seldom go there.

With that said, it is interesting to speculate where the "progressives" are on this case.  When you see a story of a city making a virtue of taking from poorer people to give to rich developers, one would expect the left to go nuts.  As reason describes it (here and here and here):

... a growing number of governments are using eminent domain to circumvent the conventional real estate market. Eminent domain forces property owners to sell their property to the city while the city then turns around and sells the property to developers. Private developers can reap significant financial gains through this process. Reason finds these decisions are increasingly driven by local politics, not respect for property rights, and give well-connected property developers significant advantages over homeowners and small businesses.

Little guy vs. big guy -- where is the Left?  Well, the problem is that progressives generally support the erosion of private property rights.  They like cases that reinforce the ability of government and politicians to take, redirect, or otherwise control private property for their own goals.  In this case, I presume that they are willing to sacrifice a few little guys in Connecticut for the larger goal of increasing statism.

UPDATE:  Apparently the New London attorney ended on a note of mystery, according to SCOTUSBlog:

The moment of the day came in Kelo when the city's counsel attempted to close by saying, "I want to leave you with just four words," then his time expired. (Although he did say -- using more words, "I see my time has expired so I won't be able to tell you them.") Justice Kennedy then asked the plaintiff's lawyer on rebuttal, "You don't happen to know what the four words were?" Regrettably, he didn't.

Here is my guess for New London's last four words: "Everything belongs to us".  Of course "All your base are belong to us" would have been better, but that is seven words.

Appliance repair men take notice:

By a vote of 60 to 34, the Virginia House of Delegates has approved a bill that would fine people $50 for wearing low-riding pants that show off their underwear in a "lewd or indecent manner."

I presume fines are doubled if an actual butt-crack is revealed.

UPDATE:  Looks like the (especially the bottom photo).

Jane Gault at Asymmetrical Information is on a roll with a series of posts about the problems with the Medicare system.  Check out her posts on the ,  the media bias when programs are cut, and the rising cost of Medicaid.

The problem in the world of health care costs is actually very simple:  patients have the incentive to over-consume services and providers have the incentive to over-provide services.  Patients consume as many services as possible because some other entity is generally footing the bills, such that the marginal cost to the patient of extra services is generally nil (if you don't believe this, imagine a world where a 3rd party paid for your car - would you choose the same care you drive today?)  Providers tend to over-provide in part for the same reason, and in part as a defensive response to the threat of torts.  As a result, costs go through the roof, and those who pay (government, insurance companies, employers) respond by rationing, which pisses everyone off.

This disconnect between the entity paying the bills and the entity selecting the care cannot endure.  The fix in the future is guaranteed to be one where the decision maker on the selection of care is the same person who is paying for the care.  The only choice we have in designing the system is whether that entity making the decisions is the government (as preferred by statists of all stripes) or the patient. 

We need a system where people pay their own everyday medical bills, with insurance in place for catastrophic needs (which is basically how we take care of our cars).  You could probably incentivize this tomorrow by making personal medical expenses tax deductible while at the same time making employer-provided medical insurance taxable just like every other kind of compensation.  Not only would this fix the incentives problem in the system, but would also eliminate the portability issue associated with employer-provided coverage.

Unfortunately, people have a huge mental block where paying for their own medical care is concerned.  My wife is a great example.  When I became self-employed, she was shocked that I did not get dental insurance.  I tried to explain that we would just use the insurance to pay for checkups and a filling here-or-there, and it would probably cost more than just paying the expenses ourselves.  But for her, medical bills are paid by insurance, not by individuals, and it actually felt wrong for her to pay her own doctor's bill (we have a big annual deductible on our medical insurance too so it acts mainly as catastrophic coverage).  This is not an isolated attitude - it is why many people equate "not insured" today with "not getting medical care".

Postscript:  There is nothing magical about the system of employer-paid medical insurance we have today.  Many large employers implemented paid health benefits as a way to evade government wage freezes during the NRA of the 30's and later in World War II.  In the tight labor market of WWII, government mandated maximum wages could not lure enough workers, so free health benefits were thrown into the compensation mix since only cash wages were frozen.  The system is perpetuated today by a tax code that does not tax health insurance as it does all other parts of the compensation package.

UPDATE:  Or, we could just try this

UPDATE#2:  A small example of the mindset:  Carly Fiorino get $42 million as a parting gift from HP, but still insists that HP privide her medical insurance.  With $42 million, she couldn't pay for it herself? (via gongol)

I criticized the use of eminent domain to advance private commercial interests here.  The Commons Blog has more:

On February 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. New London, a case challenging the use of eminent domain for economic development. Those interested in Kelo may also be interested in today's conference on "Eminent Domain, Urban Renewal & The Constitution." The conference considers both the constitutional and policy aspects of eminent domain, particularly the use of eminent domain for economic development.

Before you read any further, look at the houses here.  Here is an example:

They look like normal, everyday Midwestern houses, right?  I mean, some are kind of small but several look pretty nice and all of them are in good shape with well-kept lawns, etc.

So what do these houses have in common?  They have all been condemned as "blighted" by Norwood, Ohio.  They have been seized by the city government and will be torn down.

OK, what's the real reason?  The real reason is that Norwood, Ohio wants a Crate & Barrel store where these houses are.  They think the Crate & Barrel is a better use of the land, and they are pretty sure that C&B will pay them more taxes than these homeowners, so they are taking people's homes and giving the land to the developer.  More here and here on this story, and Cato has a whole bunch of articles on abuse of the Constitution's takings clause here.  We have had our own local ongoing takings debate in nearby Mesa, Arizona.

This kind of garbage happens far, far too often.  If the developer wants the land, he can buy it.  If people won't sell, he can go somewhere else.  Simple.

Update:  Here is a pretty bizare intrusion of local government on your home here, too.  Hope they don't find out house.

As a follow-on to the issues I raised in this post about the FDA making our risk-reward choices for us, comes this tongue-in-cheek suggestions from Café Hayek:  Lets start the FCA, the Federal Car Administration, to approve cars for consumer use:

Choices would be few.  Because of the high costs of the approval process, only cars that appealed to large numbers of consumers would receive attention from the manufacturers.  On the plus side, the cars that did survive the process would be very safe and very good cars.  They'd have to be.  Manufacturers would want to reduce the odds of failure to avoid a ten year approval process that resulted in rejection.

It would be great, assuming the bureaucrats in Washington would make exactly the same choices that you would.  In other words, it would be great if we all wanted to drive identical Ford Taurus's.

If you think this suggestion is just ridiculous humor, ask yourself whether this is what Ralph Nader has been after all along.

I mentioned in this post on individual choice the example of the FDA risk-reward decisions for Americans as a whole, an impossible task when each individual's needs and decision making are different (also see here).  This is a couple of weeks old, but is a good article from USAToday about the millions of people who are suffering in the wake of Vioxx's removal from the market. 

Sales of the drug were halted worldwide on Sept. 30, after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke. But, for Rubinstein, relief trumps risk.

Vioxx "was the best pain drug I had been on in 27 years," says the 47-year-old Manhattan resident, who has fibromyalgia, a chronic condition that causes pain in muscles and joints. "I felt good enough to do some exercise. Getting to work was not such a difficult thing.

These people would gladly accept the increased risk of heart problems to reduce their debilitating pain, if only the government and/or the courts would allow them to make this choice.  (yes, I know that Vioxx was pulled by the maker, but this is only anticipation of a tort system that punishes the manufacturer for informed choices made by individual users).

Update:

This is a good post from Cafe Hayek on presecription drugs and individual choice

I thought I had written myself dry on this topic with this long post, which got a lot of nice links around the blogospere.

However, this article by Michelle Cottle quoted approvingly by Kevin Drum is such a great example of government-as-mom fascist control of individual decision-making that I had to link it:

As a nation, Americans are apparently too stupid (or stubborn) to recognize that Big Macs and Big Gulps aren't the foundation of a healthy diet, but thanks to several gazillion dollars in direct-to-consumer drug advertising, we all consider ourselves experts in pharmacology.

....No matter what kind of qualifiers, disclaimers, and helpful tips Merck scrawls across Mevacor's box (or, more likely, crams onto a package insert printed in type so tiny it will make your eyes bleed), a fair number of self-medicating geniuses will think that the best way to prevent heart disease is to take two Mevacor for every six pieces of fried chicken they plan to eat that night. Don't laugh. It will happen and happen frequently.

It must be so wonderful to be in Ms. Cottle's shoes, to have your life so absolutely perfectly put together that you have both the time and the superior intellect to take over my life as well.  In two short paragraphs, she manages to highlight a number of statist tendancies that it took me thousands of words to describe.  At the same time, she makes a hash of my categorization scheme by simultaneously combining traits of three of my four categories, including Nanny's (you can't be trusted with your diet), technocrats (we can make more informed medication choices for you than you can yourself), and socialist-progressives (you are merely an zombie reacting mindlessly to advertising).  Wow.

I am willing to make a bet.  I will bet that at least 90% and probably 100% of US Senators have money invested in equities.  Why?  Because, for long term investments, you would be insane not too.  Even with substantial drops in the market form time to time, equities outperform bonds and government securities by miles and miles.  From this chart, you can see that even if you had the misfortune at age 30 to invest all you savings in stocks the day before the 1929 stock market crash, you STILL would be better off by age 45 having invested in stocks than bonds and your investment would be worth 10 times more at age 65 than if it had been in bonds.  And remember, that is the case of investing on the worst possible day of the last century.  Any other comparison is even more favorable for stocks.  The difference in wealth between stocks and government securities at retirement age is staggering.  Any financial adviser who told a person under 50 saving for retirement not to invest some of their money in stocks should be fired on the spot for malpractice.

However, just like Senators who put their kids in private school but oppose school choice for the rest of us, Senators do not think the rest of us are mature or smart enough to invest in stocks.  Quoting Senator Specter:

On the issue of privatization, I had some time ago considered an idea to place a relatively small portion of benefits in an investment account, providing that the "security" aspect of Social Security was retained and the investment was under professional management. However, with the severe fluctuations of the stock market, I have since rejected that idea.

Men like John Kerry get most of their wealth from stocks, and would fire any financial adviser who did not invest a good portion of his wealth in equities. He understands that stocks will fluctuate from time to time, but that over decades (which is how one invests for retirement) they are the best choice. How hypocritical is it that he and others are saying "Stocks are great for me, they make me wealthy, but trust me, they're not right for you".  More on distrust of individual decision-making here.

In most states, if you are registering as a "foreign" corporation (in this context foreign means out-of-state) you have to have a registered agent in that state.  In some cases, this can be a person who works for you, but since our employees are seasonal in many states, this does not work for us.  So, we have to go out and pay some local attorney a few bucks each year to be our "agent".  The services of this agent seem to include mainly forgetting to forward important mail that the state insists on sending to the agent rather than to my corporate office.  I just got a $250 fine from California because I did not respond to some reporting requirement that they sent to my registered agent, who then in turn lost it or whatever.

Can anyone tell me why this requirement still exists.  Or, even better, why it ever existed.  Maybe it was useful in the days before the Pony Express or the telephone to have a nearby contact, but who cares now?

Penn Jillette, a very entertaining guy and a very interesting libertarian, is interviewed in Reason about censorship in America.  Jillette criticizes what needs to be criticized, but, at least as important, he recognizes that this country is still way ahead of the rest of the world.  Jillette has this way of criticizing while still remaining optimistic and positive that I like a lot, and is a refreshing change from the hate-America crowd.

Kyoto and similar protocols are dying, and for entirely predictable reasons.  Story in TCS from Buenos Aires.

The conventional wisdom that it's the United States against the rest of the world in climate change diplomacy has been turned on its head. Instead it turns out that it is the Europeans who are isolated. China, India, and most of the rest of the developing countries have joined forces with the United States to completely reject the idea of future binding GHG emission limits. At the conference here in Buenos Aires, Italy shocked its fellow European Union members when it called for an end to the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. These countries recognize that stringent emission limits would be huge barriers to their economic growth and future development.

None too soon for me.

For years I have called groups like the Center for Science and the Public Interest the health or food Nazis for their continuing desire for the government to interfere with all of our individual decision-making.  They have even been google bombed with that term, it appears, so I will help -- Food Nazis!

Anyway, Reason has an interesting post linking to a study of Nazi Germany:

In a brief BMJ article, George Davey Smith describes Nazi Germany's pioneering campaigns against smoking, drinking, overeating, and other unhealthy habits. (Robert N. Proctor's 1999 book The Nazi War on Cancer explores this topic in more detail.) "It may seem paradoxical that the robust identification of one of the most important environmental causes of disease of the 20th century occurred in a totalitarian state," Smith writes, referring to Nazi research on the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Uh, no it doesn't seem paradoxical at all that totalitarians would try to micro-manage individual decision-making.

In my post "Fisking the NEA's Improvement Ideas", I said that all of the NEA's calls for teacher certification were less about teacher quality and more about increasing the union's power and increasing salaries.  This strategy is as old as guilds from the 15th century.

Here is a study about the American Bar Association and the bar exam and its effects on quality and salaries.

A newly constructed data set on lawyers' licensing exam difficulty, candidate quality and exam results allows to distinguish the alternative theories. Public interest theory is rejected in favor of capture theory. The results imply that professional licensing has a significant effect on entry salaries. On average, licensing increases annual entry salaries by more than $20,000. This implies a total transfer from consumers to lawyers of 36% of lawyers' wages and a total welfare loss of over $6 billion.

Thanks to Volokh for the link.  This same post from Volokh also talks about how lawyers are trying to prevent non-lawyers from performing certain duties, including workers comp hearings and real estate closings.  And don't even get me started on hair braiding.

Virginia Postrel has an article begging for repeal of the Wright Amendment.

What is this law?  Years ago, when they built the D/FW airport, they wanted to make sure they routed all local traffic through that airport and strangled all the competitive airports.  The Wright Amendment says that other local airports, particularly Dallas Love Field, can only have flights to Texas and adjoining states.

Well, this sounds just like a bit of municipal priority setting, until one other fact is thrown in.  Love Field is Southwest Airlines home field.  By placing this limitation on Love field, and keeping it that way, American Airlines and Delta get an effective subsidy, ensuring that they have no low-cost competition on their longer routes. 

I lived in Dallas for years and trevelled far and wide by air.  The Wright Ammendment cost me and my company at least $10,000 over that time in higher air fares.