Arizonans discovering that the so-called "laws of economics" aren't right-wing propaganda

Way back in October 2006, before Obama was an outright socialist, when ugly talk of ILLEGALS dominated the comment sections of the local rags and soft-libertarian Jim Kolbe was still my congressman--a long time ago, in other words, I remarked that, if Arizonans passed a minimum wage increase,

Teenagers, those coming off the welfare rolls, and those in transition between occupationss--none of whom are represented in the AFL/CIO--will be hurt most of all, albeit in a manner invisible to all but the professional economist.

I was wrong. The effects are so obvious that the Arizona Republic reports them without surprise or false sense of irony. Of course teenagers are finding less work. And of course the developmentally disabled are finding themselves unemployable.

The Arizona Industrial Commission, for its part, asked Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to say it ain't so, that the voters couldn't have meant to raise everyone's wage, that after all, the Federal minimum wage doesn't apply to the disabled! (The voters couldn't have meant to approve the union spying provisions, but that's another matter altogether.) Unfortunately, Goddard got this right; the new state law supersedes Federal law.

Of course, the voters meant it. A minimum wage law is, plain and simple, a ban on selling one's labor for less than a prescribed amount. The economic effects--fewer employment opportunities at the margin--have been well-understood for years, and a vote in favor of such a measure means either (A) the voter doesn't know and doesn't care to know, or (B) knows and doesn't care.

The legislature is trying to fix this; HB 2318 would amend the law to create an exception, subjecting the disabled solely to Federal minimum wage laws. Such a remedy, however, would likely be thwarted by the stipulation that amendments to ballot initiatives must "further their purpose". If the purpose of the minimum wage law is to make the state Candyland or a worker's paradise, (now there's some judicial activism for you!) then that's fair enough. If it's merely a price control, then fat chance!

One of these days Arizonans, and Americans, may wake up and suddenly realize that price controls--and economic central planning in general--don't work, have never worked, and can never work. Until then our hope in this matter is that the legislature forces a special election and voters at least realize that driving the retarded out of work and onto the welfare rolls was a stupid thing to do.

Yes, it's legal to beat photo radar!

As reported in Wednesday's Daily Star, the Senate Transportation Committee refused to approve a measure to ban license plate covers.

That means, that products such as the PhotoShield and Reflector covers will remain legal in Arizona, at least under state law.

Such a ban was not likely to affect spray-on products like PhotoBlocker, which do not in any way obscure the letters or numbers on a plate.

Yes, those are affiliate links. If you want to promote PhantomPlate's products on your website, you need only sign up at their website for their affiliate program. If you own an auto parts or simiar store, they are also looking for dealers.

Bush's healthcare merely a baby-step in the right direction.

This isn't an Arizona matter, so I'll keep it brief and just say that I've had yet another guest opinion get printed in the Citizen (albeit in the online edition for timeliness's sake).

Health care requires real fix, not socialism

Tucson City Council asks for the monkeywrench

Speed limits are the sort of law we only tolerate due to discretionary enforcement. Without enough police to catch every violator, the police--unless it's time to fill quotas--tend to go after more dangerous--and more profitable--offenders and let those of us going eight over on Speedway at eleven at night slide.

Tucson's City Council voted 7-0 tonight to undermine our grudging respect of traffic laws by installing red-light cameras and photo radar systems at intersections and purchase and staff a roving photo radar van at a cost of roughly $100,000/year. Although the threshhold speeds will be set--initially--to a tolerable eleven over, mechanistic enforcement does away with the illusion that speed and red-light enforcement are done primarily to protect the public safety.

Photo radar and red-light cameras are intended to be revenue generators, a way for the city to better fund its bloated budget without raising taxes. As such, as was noted by (outgoing Pima County LP vice-chairman) Rich McKnight, the only credible person who bothered to show up to tonight's meeting to speak against the program, they're a waste of the taxpayers' money.

It doesn't take much to monkeywrench a photo-radar system. Mail isn't proper service for a citation; ignoring a mailed ticket is probably the best response, as the city has 180 days after the supposed infraction to properly serve the ticket, which may be more expensive than it's worth. Distorting or reflective plate covers or highly reflective license plate spray may thwart the photo system.

And, of course, it's not unlikely that some local character will have one beer too many and use the cameras for pellet-gun practice. Moreover, a photo-radar van sounds like a blank canvas for a street art project, allowing the speedily creative to put three-foot, chartreuse smiley-face stickers or Mystery Machine style decorations all over it while its crew waits for Sanjay to stick the dozenth doughnut in the box. Not that I'd advocate anything illegal on this blog, of course. Hyperactive imaginations aren't banned, yet.

The best case for us is a victory for David Cain and removal of Tucson's system before it's even fully implemented. Otherwise a long fight to make this as fiscally and politically unprofitable as possible is ahead. Until then, if Maricopa County's experiences are representative, expect tens of hours--and thousands of dollars--of hassles.

The Pima County Libertarian Party hasn't found anyone to challenge City Council incumbents this year. Takers?

Honest and dishonest tax cheats.

"The drive to prove that no one owes income taxes is not a libertarian cause. It does nothing to show people that government programs hurt, rather than help, America. By trying to focus on legalisms, it does nothing to show that government shouldn't be taxing your income."

--Harry Browne, Jail Bait

I've been asked several times why, given that I generally support reducing tax rates, the number of taxes, and the government's power to tax, I show such antipathy to tax resisters and tax protesters individually and as a movement.

It would pay, first, to distinguish between the two. Tax resisters are those who honestly refuse to pay some or all of the taxes they admittedly owe the government. Tax protesters, on the other hand, devise and advance crackpot legal theories claiming that either they personally or nobody owes income tax.

The question of when civil disobedience is appropriate has always been one of shades of grey, and , I suspect, of taste. Rule of law is the foundation of free society; clearly we can't decide for ourselves all of the time which laws to obey and which obligations to meet. Yet clearly we should also not obey every law and meet every obligation no matter how unjust or burdensome. There are people, however wrongheaded, who believe in good faith that taxation is theft. (Not "like theft" or "sometimes theft", mind you, but always, exactly, categorically, theft.) And then there are those who refuse their taxes out of opposition to wars of aggression or the War on Drugs.

Both sorts strike me as hypochondriacs; I remain unconvinced that taxation itself is so great a burden or that the little bit spent on war is so great a portion to justify flouting not just law but rule of law itself, especially in light of tax resistance never making a significant difference. Nonetheless, I appreciate their position and understand its honesty.

Tax protesters, however, come in two flavors: charlatans and suckers. Since nobody likes admitting to being a sucker, the latter usually become the former when pressed about their beliefs. To top it off, they ordinarily become downright rude, namecalling, engaging in personal attacks, and insisting that, instead of referring them to sources, the person who bursts their bubble spell everything out, explicitly, themselves. Ordinarily decent people become outright jackasses when called on their tax protest theories. Maybe they feel like cornered cats. I don't know.

It's nearly impossible to scam an honest man. As with most con games those advancing tax protester theories prey on the greed of their mark, including a desire to be special and be exempt from an obligation the rest of us pleebs and pedestrians have to pay. Thus the tax protest advocates convince people of things no reasonable person in complete intellectual honesty could believe, from a Matrix-like demiurge fantasy about capital-letter, SSN-indexed straw men, redeemable for cash to a belief that the everyday meaning of the word "income" doesn't apply to the internal revenue code. They lead people to believe numerous twisty, unlikely arguments more suited to weasels than to men, and convince them of these things even though the IRS and many private individuals and groups have debunked nearly every bogus argument being advanced. They've lead people astray who've wanted to be led astray.

There's the sad part. People who recognize that taxes are too high and that we were once far freer than we are now are being led to ruin their reputations, discredit their causes, destroy their finances, and face prison time by those presenting the false hope of achieving freedom from taxation, at least for themselves, through word magic. The victims are greedy and dishonest, yes, but ruination is not a fair comeuppance.

Not only must liberty and a $0 tax bill never be confounded: one must also never get so foolish as to believe that there's a way to say "Open Sesame" and have an instant free society. The changes we are due will come slowly and through much struggle both at the polls and in the court of public opinion. By leading people with the right instincts about government astray and perpetuating myths about the natures of liberty and positive law, tax protesters undermine that effort.

A word of advice to the fringe Right.

No matter what your cause is or who you're up against, sending death threats or threats of sexual assault don't do anything to credit your side, and may draw undeserved sympathy to your opponent.

The Associated Press reports that Kyrsten Sinema (D-Far Left) has been receiving such threats ever since introducing HB 2286, which would make felony domestic terrorists out of anyone patrolling for criminals while armed. (HB 2286 is cosponsored by Ed Ableser, Steve Gallardo, Phil Lopes, David Lujan, Robert Meza, Tom Prezelski, and Albert Tom, for those keeping track of antiliberal loonies to dump in '08.)

Of course, this bill is aimed at Sinema's bogeyman, the Minutemen. The Minutemen may be motivated by a combination of evil and stupidity, but they're just a protest group with hero fantasies, sitting on lawnchairs, looking through binoculars, and calling in suspected illegal border crossers to the Border Patrol. And they have interesting fashion accessories--guns--which may also be used in the unlikely event they have to defend themselves. The ACLU's legal observers found that they had to be more concerned for the Miutemen's rights than over any mischief they'd cause. Nevertheless, those fashion accessories coupled with their association with even more unsavory characters like white supremacists gets them labeled "scary" terrorists by Sinema.

It's a good thing this bill doesn't have much chance of passing; I, too, would be a domestic terrorist. I don't know what kind of neighborhood Sinema lives in, but when I walk late at night, I'm usually armed, and when I hear someone prowling around the backyard or driveway area of my building I go out with either my baseball bat or revolver, depending on the circumstances and whether I'm not loaning out the latter. That's a patrol for suspected illegal activity, and I'm not affiliated with a "law enforcement entity."

Will the right-wing nutjobs out there kindly keep me out of trouble, then, by not giving this nonsense any more attention or sympathy than it deserves?