Tulsa Libertarians Commentary

Michael Clem :
Annexation
Petitions Under Way for Third Party Ballot Access
Safety Inspections Passe
Separate Education and State

Jimmy Cook :
Cockfighting Editorial Misses the Mark
What Are We Paying You for?

Albro Daniel :
Stop Funding Education

Scott McPherson :
A Moral Case for "Right to Work" and "At Will" Employment
Is It Time for Private Roads?
Libertarian Say: Vote No on May 8th
Of Politics and Drinking Water
The Distance Between Them and Us
We Don’t Need More Campaign Finance Reform—We Need Less Government
What Americans Should Have Learned from Waco

Rob Roberts:
Let Parks Operate Alone
The Mugger and the Thief

Annexation

Tulsa World
Letter to the Editor
4/20/2003

Former City Councilor Dewey Bartlett has suggested that the City of Tulsa annex more of the surrounding area to increase their tax base. With the city running short in the budget department, this may seem very appealing to the Mayor and the City Council, but it is not actually a good idea.

With more territory will come more responsibility. Any newly annexed land will expect the same services the city provides other areas of town, including road maintenance, utilities, sewers, and law enforcement. Thus, while annexation will ensure a greater tax base, it will also mean a proportionate increase in city expenses. The net result should be close to zero.

The only way to make it profitable is for the city to skimp on its services to the new areas. I don't think we should encourage the city to be irresponsible.

It is also likely that the people who live outside the city limits don't want to be annexed and pay extra taxes. After all, why did they originally choose not to live within the city?

In the search for more city funds, we must not be too zealous. Annexation won't solve the city's financial problems.

Michael A. Clem, Tulsa

Petitions Under Way for Third Party Ballot Access

Tulsa World
Readers Forum
6/8/2003

Once again, the Libertarian Party is collecting petition signatures to allow its candidates to run on the ballot as Libertarians. Oklahoma is the most difficult state in the nation for ballot access, with election laws requiring third parties to gather more than 50,000 signatures just to be on the 2004 ballot.

The ballot access requirement is onerous because it requires third parties to spend time, money, and effort collecting signatures, resources that cannot then be spent on campaigning or other meaningful political activity. It also costs the state more money, because the state election board has to count and verify the petition signatures for each and every party that attempts ballot access in Oklahoma.

For some, this is a simple issue of fairness. Whether you agree with them or not, why shouldn't Libertarians or other third party candidates be allowed on the ballot? Others are satisfied with the "two-party system."

Besides the obvious factor of limiting the competition, this also limits political expression. Most people who become active in a third party are proud of their affiliation. Third party candidates want people to know who they are and what they stand for.

In spite of superficial similarities, a Libertarian is not a Republican, and a Green is not a Democrat. If a third party candidate were to take the path of least resistance, however, they would register and run as a Democrat or Republican. The election laws seem designed to fool the voters and dilute the value of party affiliation, especially since they give political parties little control over the selection of their candidates.

When political expression is lost, the political process itself loses value. In the 2000 elections, Oklahoma was one of only two states where the well-known Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader was not on the ballot. Whether they wanted to or not, Oklahoma voters were denied the option of voting for Nader.

Traditionally, third parties have not gone on to become major parties. Instead, third party ideas have been adopted by the major parties. Many of the ideas of the Socialist Party, for example, became part of the Democratic platform. With major restrictions on third party access, where will new political ideas come from? How will voters tell the Democrats and Republicans they need to change if there are no alternatives to vote for? What good is the right to vote when there are so few choices permitted to the voter?

The "two-party system" is not really a system but merely an outdated tradition, one that has been around so long that some people are under the impression that it's actually illegal to run as a third-party candidate. Given the current status of the ballot access laws, that impression isn't wrong by much.

The Democrats and Republicans have been running this country for about 150 years, which means that elected Democrat and Republican politicians have created our current set of political problems. We will not solve these problems by electing more Democrats and Republicans who have nothing new to offer. We need more than "bipartisanship" for new ideas and solutions. We need freedom of expression. We need third parties.

The Revolutionary War was fought because the American colonists didn't have representation in the British government. Today, some American citizens are also not being represented in government, people whose views do not fit in the simple left-to-right political "spectrum." Easing the ballot access requirements would give these disenfranchised more possibilities for political representation and expression.

Furthermore, it would enrich the political process with competition, debate and discussion, attract more voters to the booths, and create more opportunities for changing government and solving political problems. Finally, it would keep Oklahoma from being the most difficult and restrictive state in the nation for political access and expression.

Isn't it time for Oklahoma to support fair and open elections?

Michael A. Clem, Tulsa

Safety Inspections Passe

Tulsa World
Letter to the Editor
3/26/2002

Occasionally somebody complains about unsafe cars and suggests that we should bring back mandatory safety inspections. But there is little reason to believe that safety inspections prevented accidents.

If they are such a good idea, anyone can go to a mechanic and get an inspection without a law. Insurance companies could offer incentives by offering lower rates to people who maintained inspections.

Will insurance companies actually do this? Only if it can be statistically shown that safety inspections do, in fact, help prevent accidents.

Either way, a mandatory system cannot be justified. It's wrong to require it if it doesn't do any good, and it's unnecessary to require it if it is worthwhile.

We should let the police concentrate on protecting us from real crimes. Increasingly, the police are expected to act as our nannies, instead of as our protectors. In the case of safety inspections, let us not repeat this mistake.

Michael A. Clem, Tulsa

Separate Education and State

Tulsa World
Letter to the Editor
2/9/2003

As teachers storm the state capital seeking more money for public education, we see the fundamental problem of the system: politically- controlled schools. Because of its political nature, we pay more and get less, and public teachers and administrators become just another special interest.

While they can fairly claim that they're doing it for the good of the children, our kids will continue to get a second-rate education, because in this system, politics will always come first.

The only real solution is to empower parents and even the students (as they get older and become more responsible for themselves), letting them control the educational system. This does not mean vouchers.

The trouble with vouchers is that they don't free students from political funding, and thus will inevitably fail to free students from a politically- controlled curriculum. He who controls the money controls the curriculum.

The only legitimate responsibility of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. A compulsory educational system is necessarily a violation of rights, and monopolizes the educational marketplace. Just as there is a separation of church and state, there should be a separation of education and state.

Only a free and unmonopolized market in education can free our schools from political control and provide the incentives for quality education.

Michael A. Clem, Tulsa

Cockfighting Editorial Misses the Mark

Tulsa World
Letter to the Editor
Submitted

I'm writing in response to an editorial in the March 13th Tulsa World. By saying that our legislators are 'flipping us the bird,' there is the implication that they aren't thinking in the best interest of Oklahomans. I see this in a totally different light. Yes, the initiative did pass, but I didn't vote for it. I voted against it not because I like the idea of cockfighting; I do not. I worry about the size and cost of government; look at our budget situation in Oklahoma to see my point.

Who will pay to house and feed those convicted of felonious possession of chickens? It will be us, the citizens of the State of Oklahoma, the taxpayers. Our state budget is overextended as it is. Does it seem like the right thing to do is add more prisoners by adding to the list of criminal offenses? More prisoners cost more money; this doesn't even begin to deal with the prison overcrowding situation, or the additional resources required by law-enforcement agencies. Where are we going to put all of the felony-convicted cockfighters?

Prisons are built to protect society from the actions of people who would commit force or fraud, those who put law-abiding citizens at risk. Prisons are not built as a place to put those we disagree with. Please, as the editorial suggests, call the senators who passed this measure. But thank them for trying to save us the money and resources that enforcement of the measure would cost us, the taxpayers. Thank you, Senator Shurden. Thank you and your co-sponsors for trying to save prison space for real criminals.

Jimmy Cook, Claremore

What Are We Paying You for?

Tulsa World
Letter to the Editor
5/20/2003

While some state legislators are attempting to solve age-old questions such as whether to use paper or cloth napkins in barbeque restaurants, State Senator Scott Pruitt wants to reopen the evolutionary debate; well done Senator.

He should focus every waking moment on trying to come up with a solution to the “budget crisis.” Senate bill 346 comes across as a joke and as a slap in the face to anyone worried about the situation in Oklahoma .

It would be nice to work on solutions to problems, rather than creating new ones; or worse, rehashing old issues such as this. We have to learn to respect the beliefs of others. I find it disgraceful that he would use his position to stifle other people’s beliefs. Defending his religion isn’t what he was hired to do.

Senator Pruitt wants us to realize that “the theory of evolution is just that - a theory.” How many Jewish people would like to see a disclaimer in the bible stating that the story of Jesus Christ is ‘just a theory’? State Senator Pruitt’s constituents might want to call his office and ask, “What are we paying you for?”

Jimmy Cook, Claremore

Stop Funding Education

Owasso Reporter
Letter to the Editor
5/18/2003

Its sad to see teachers’ unions and politicians square off when it comes to funding the government-sponsored school monopoly. In good economic times, the only negative that is brought up is the continuing failure of education. In economic downturns, as was seen at the May 1 meeting, it's a cry to steal more money to pay for a system that is no longer appropriate for this modern age.

The time has come for Oklahoma to change it's Constitution, stop public funding of education and let private competition take over. If grocery stores were government controlled, do you think we would have so much choice?

In a free market education system, the poor will not be left behind. Home schoolers have shown it doesn't take much money to beat government taught kids in all subjects. It would also bring back morals, as low cost church sponsored schools would spring up.

Albro Daniel, Owasso

Vice-Chairman, Oklahoma Libertarian Party

A Moral Case for "Right to Work" and "At Will" Employment

By Scott McPherson

[This article was originally published in the May, 2001 issue of "Perspective", the public policy journal of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, www.ocpathink.org. It was reprinted by the Tulsa Beacon]

In anticipation of an upcoming vote on Right to Work, an Oklahoma lawmaker is proposing to use RTW as a springboard for a worrisome attack on the state's "at will" employment law. Representative Opio Toure, D-Oklahoma City, is spearheading an attempt by some lawmakers "to circulate an initiative petition to eliminate employment at will in Oklahoma," according to an April 10 report in the Tulsa World. "As we have contemplated it, an employee who has been on the job for a certain period of time would have to receive a specified notice before being terminated," he said. According to Toure and his allies, at will employment must be scrapped to insulate employees from their wicked bosses in a not-too-distant Right to Work Oklahoma.

The most baneful justifications for scrapping at will employment come from the opponents of both Right to Work and at will laws, who would have us believe that some sort of legislative tit-for-tat is now in order to protect the "rights" of employees against the perceived excessive power of employers. Yet if one dares scratch beneath the shallow surface of the claims of lawmakers and labor unions, common fallacies surrounding "rights", "work", and "fairness" are easily refuted, and the moral case for both Right to Work and at will employment can be made. And that is precisely what needs to be done.

A free market economy is by definition one in which force and coercion have been abolished; the moral and necessary role of government is in ensuring that it stays that way. Right to Work is an attempt to remove legal, not private, obstacles to an individual gaining employment. In spite of the alleged "needs" of unions to protect "their" shops (what the Dark Ages called fiefdoms), a job is a trade of goods and/or services, and a trade, by definition, requires the consent of all parties. If one party should find the terms of the trade unacceptable, they are free to look elsewhere to satisfy their needs. Right to Work merely says that the union, backed by the force of government, cannot keep an individual from seeking terms with a potential employer independent of the union, nor force him to give up part of his rightful property to union coffers. Claiming that this leaves individuals with no "protection" stands the concept on its head.

Writing in the essay Man's Rights almost forty years ago, Ayn Rand pointed out the obvious: "There is no such thing as 'a right to a job'—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man's right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him." It will be the great contradiction of our time should the state of Oklahoma embrace the idea of the latter part—while chaining the person who makes that choice to the person whom he hires, that is: by dismembering the state's at will law.

The purpose of all law should be to protect the rights of human beings. Far from "granting" to employers some "unfair advantage" over employees, at will employment law serves the important moral purpose of recognizing the converse of the dreadful system of slavery abolished in this country by the Thirteen Amendment, namely that a person offering a job should never be the slave of the person accepting it. If one seeks terms of trade with an employer, he ought not to be able to do so with a club in his hand.

If the person seeking work is unhappy with "at will" conditions, versus contract employment in a particular work place then, as the saying goes, nobody's holding a gun to his head. He is free, in every sense of the word, to seek terms with someone else. Instead of supporting this environment, Rep. Toure and his colleagues wish to interject the figurative gun into that relationship themselves.

In what is perhaps an accidental admission of the true motivation behind his proposal, Rep. Toure said that states with both Right to Work and at will employment do "not afford the employee protection against unfair employers." On the other hand, "An employee who has a union contract cannot be fired unless there is cause shown for termination [emphasis added]." Opponents of Right to Work are attempting to counter their likely defeat on that issue by turning everyone in the state into a union worker, whether he likes it or not.

In claiming the moral high ground of "fairness", opponents of both Right to Work and at will employment are seeking refuge in a muddled, contradictory and indefensible definition of what is fair. It is this same interpretation of what is "fair" that has brought the relationship between employer and employee to that condition where companies are being sued for hurting someone’s feelings.

The greatest tragedy is that so many of those on the right side of these questions do not understand the moral premise at stake, and so are ill equipped to counter the arguments of labor leaders and power-hungry politicians alike. Mike Seney, vice president of the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that eroding at will employment would have "extremely damaging" economic consequences. This is certainly correct--an environment of compulsion is anathema to a productive society, regardless of who holds the whip--but the whip is what needs to be addressed.

Is it fair to fire a man who has worked hard all his life, been on time everyday, and obeyed the rules—just because? One might just as well ask if it's fair to refuse to hire him to begin with. After all, when one seeks to use the law to, in theory, deny the person who owns the job from having a say in the terms of employment, then one is denying, in practice, that he owns the job to begin with. Perchance, in the end, is it that which Rep. Toure is pursuing?

04/10/01

Is It Time for Private Roads?

By Scott McPherson
[This article was originally published in the June, 2000 issue of Media Bypass magazine]

Every major urban area in the United States is facing a similar dilemma. Transportation infrastructures are decades old, at best, but must now accommodate much heavier volumes of traffic than originally intended. Road problems never are really corrected and what repairs their "public" owners manage are often slight and frequently run over-time and over-budget. New construction tends to lag months behind need and in the interim homeowners and businesses fight over right of way, routes, and access.

The idea of privatizing streets and highways appeals to many people who are becoming more and more frustrated with the perpetual debt, corruption and incompetence that presently exists. The term "privatize" has deservedly fallen into disrepute because of its association with government-protected trusts, but private ownership is intended, in its true, unadulterated form.

Could a system of privately operated roads actually work? The same question might be asked of any field currently dominated by government, such as social security, healthcare, or education. If anything at all has been learned from our experiences with government influence in these areas it is that failure is the norm, where in the private sector success is imperative. Would anyone actually wish to undertake the responsibility of road ownership in a for-profit environment? Certainly it is beyond dispute that people need roads, and the entire system of free enterprise is patterned after just such a requirement. Without need, no one would bother supplying anything. It is exactly because Americans need roads that entrepreneurs would be willing, and better able, to invest in them, and the resultant competition would insure that it be done right.

Privatization would not necessarily turn the country into one big turnpike. Toll roads are merely one of an indeterminate number of solutions the free market would inspire were streets and highways to be transferred to private hands. Ultimately, the market would determine the best way to provide the best service to customers, at the greatest convenience. Exorbitant charges would not be inevitable under a private road system either; many enterprises pass on virtually no expenses to consumers despite the incredible expenditure necessary to provide their services. Broadcasting is an obvious example. No one offers up their credit card or writes a check every ten minutes while listening to the radio or watching television. Advertising pays for these, and the only "fee" customers face is the cost of a TV or stereo. Come to think of it, we are charged for broadcasting—public broadcasting. (Ironically, this is not unlike how road taxes work—you pay whether you use it or not, and those who use it the most get subsidized by those who use it the least.)

The beauty of capitalism is that it allows businessmen to find what consumers want most--determined by a vote at the cash register--and competitors in their attempts exceed that success.

It has been suggested that market principles could not properly regulate road ownership because one person or company would own all the roads. But under a system of privately operated roads we would not be simply shifting responsibility to some road management corporation granted monopoly-status by the state. Competition means non-coercion. The only legitimate roles for the government would be transferring domain and title by way of negotiated contracts, taking the money (which ideally would be given back to the taxpayers), and arranging for courts to settle any disputes.

It is possible that, assuming no one else entered the bidding, one agency could wind up owning all the streets--but not very likely. A glance down any urban area’s main thoroughfares shows thousands of businesses that are accessed from streets essential to their livelihood. When facing the fact that the roads outside their shops will no longer be funded by the state these supermarkets, car dealers, fast food joints, and strip malls will quickly purchase and begin sustaining those roads themselves. The last thing they would want would be to allow their roads to fall into the hands of anyone that might raise prices high enough or allow conditions to deteriorate enough to turn away customers.

The only way for a company to procure and maintain the entire road system would be by offering a superior product at a lower price, then buying up the road-properties of less-efficient competitors through voluntary acquisition. This would certainly be good for consumers in the short term, but even fears that an eventual monopoly could then "force" users to pay above-market costs are groundless. If drivers became displeased enough with prices or conditions in a particular city, or a specific part of it, they wouldn’t drive there and the local economy would suffer. With no cars on the road its owner would become very unpopular with local enterprises, who might choose to relocate where driving costs aren't so high. Those that chose to stay would probably negotiate lower rates on behalf of their clientele. Either way, customer happiness is the overriding consideration.

Another remedy for excessive charges under monopoly control of the roads would be the incentive it created to avoid high prices. Employers would feel the pinch as potential employees negotiated for higher wages to offset their travel costs, and might instead turn to a larger home-based workforce. Others would carpool, and bicycle path development would certainly boom. Filling stations, auto mechanics, and insurance companies, all of whom would suffer financially from a reduction in the overall amount of driving, might support road maintenance and construction themselves to take the pressure off drivers, or even lower the price of their own goods and services. Who knows, a new industry providing affordable light aircraft could even be born! However it worked out, the free market would lesson contention by inducing innovation--and often at the monopolist’s expense.

A pay-as-you-go highway system could also cut down emissions. Supply and demand would dictate that the most heavily traveled roads, cross-town and in-bound expressways, be more expensive to use. When the number of cars on these roadways reached a peak the charge would go up. This increase in price would concurrently decrease demand and limit congestion and pollution by restricting the total number of cars on the road at any one time. Incidentally, fewer cars during rush hour would also mean fewer accidents.

In conclusion, the reason our roads and highways are in such terrible shape, congest so miserably, and spell death for thousands each year is precisely because they are not in private hands. Government, unlike business, has the luxury of ignoring signals of consumer unrest, and therefore has no incentive to improve its products. We will always be paying for roads. The question is whether we will continue to trust our money, maintenance and safety to the same system that routinely brings us inefficiency and corruption, or the free market. Who do you trust to deliver the mail on time, the post office or Federal Express?

The history of mankind shows that when the instruments of force and coercion are removed from men’s relationships they find for themselves the benefits of trade. Businesses need elasticity to meet the ever-changing demands of the economy, and private road owners would have every motivation to adhere to the principles of the free market, or suffer the consequences. Exactly how and in what manner the roads would function without the interference of the state is unimportant. It is enough to know that a multiplicity of entrepreneurs will always rush to satisfy any demand if the opportunity for profit is present. This power of the purse will provide the necessary incentives for owners to improve roads, keep them free of gridlock, and maintain safety, all at the lowest possible cost and the greatest possible convenience.

Clearly, privatization would not usher in a utopian age. But if people could choose the roads they wanted to drive on, from cheapest to best to most direct, customer satisfaction, if not guaranteed, would finally be possible on America’s streets and highways.

01/25/00

Libertarians Say: Vote No on May 8th

By Scott McPherson

During a 2000 gubernatorial debate in Indiana, Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning said that "asking a Libertarian to support a tax cut is like asking Tiger Woods to swing a golf club". With this in mind, it should come as no great surprise that the Tulsa Area Libertarians (TAL), a Tulsa-based political action group, is calling for a "No" vote on May 8th.  It is necessary to explain why that is, and what is being proposed in the absence of the revenue generated by the third-penny sales tax, which such a vote would repeal.

It is common for Libertarians to oppose tax increases, tax continuances, and bond issues.  Government today at all levels is operating far outside of its rightful domain, and as a result the efficient and effective delivery of many goods and services is disrupted.  Regardless of the many promises made by government, it cannot adequately perform functions best left to the private sector, and every penny taken from citizens by government is one less penny individuals have to fund the competent provision of necessary services themselves.

On a more philosophical level, Libertarians say that the only thing government should do (what we refer to as its legitimate functions), is protect individual citizens against acts of force and fraud.  More precisely, government's only moral function is to protect the rights of its citizens.  Libertarians believe, therefore, that the only functions of government consistent with that principle are those that directly contribute to the protection of the rights of individuals.  In short, government should provide an army to protect our borders, policemen to respond to emergency calls, and courts to settle inevitable civil and criminal disputes.

Services like the provision of streets and sewers, and the maintenance of a city fire department do not exist to protect individual rights, and should therefore be removed from the purview of government and left to the free-market and private initiative.  Instead, when an opportunity to lower taxes presents itself City leaders always point to the funding of these very services as a reason to maintain current tax levels.  When privatization is offered as an alternative, however, political leaders often suggest that some things just can't be left to the free market.

But streets and sewers, water and trash service, and fire departments are precisely the first services that anyone interested in decreasing and limiting the power of government should consider returning to the private sector.  The history of volunteer fire departments is itself an indication of how individuals, working collectively, solved a common societal problem.  Because of the sheer size of cities today, versus the relatively small urban areas of yesteryear, it isn't likely that such a volunteer force would be very effective in Tulsa, though outlying areas like Berry Hill or Turley could certainly utilize them with success.

What is more likely to happen in a private fire-protection environment is that insurance companies would begin contracting fire service with massive “fire protection” corporations, who would specialize in city-wide service to protect the mortgaged properties of their clients.  Individuals would likely also invest in additional coverage as well, just as "contents" insurance is often purchased along with "home insurance" now paid for as part of a mortgage.

Streets, sewers, water and trash services would also be an easy task for the private sector.  Already in Tulsa County private trash pick-up is flourishing, with three companies competing for customers.  If any doubt about the efficacy of such private service still remains, one need only remember that city residents, by and large, would like to see such competition extended to inside the city limits.  By contrast, people in the County aren't exactly howling for their private service to be taken over by the public sector, the surest sign that prices are lower and service is better.

Water service is also leaning towards private initiative, even without an overt policy of privatization.  The prevalence of water filter systems in the city, along with the boom in bottled and filtered drinking water, is the greatest symbol that individuals are frustrated with government incompetence.  Even after considering the tax bill, Tulsa's residents are paying out even more money to make sure the water they drink and bath in is healthy and free of pollutants.  Imagine the number of people that could afford whole-home water filter systems (about $100 a month) if their City of Tulsa bill was cut in half (if not more) and a penny (for starters) was removed from the sales tax burden?

One must also remember that the laws of economics would also bring beneficial results: When Tulsans began demanding more water-purification, more companies would enter the market.  The resultant competition would lower prices even more.

Streets and highways, though admittedly a more complicated issue, could still be effectively built, maintained, and funded by the private sector.1  The gross incompetence in the government-controlled transportation infrastructure of this city is infamous.  It is time to explore a different approach.

In conclusion, the Libertarian position on the May 8th sales tax vote is simple.  Any reduction in the tax burden currently carried by the citizens of Tulsa should be welcomed, particularly when the money being collected is used to fund services not consistent with the preservation of individual rights.  Libertarians believe that government’s frequent ventures outside its moral purview lead to market distortion, higher prices, and bad service.  The Tulsa Area Libertarians encourage voters to vote against a continuation of the third-penny sales tax on May 8th.

04/22/01

1For a more extensive opinion on private roads see “Is it time for private roads?”, by Scott McPherson, Media Bypass magazine

Of Politics and Drinking Water

By Scott McPherson

[This article was originally published by Laissez Faire Electronic Times, www.zolatimes.com, Aug. 13, 2001]

The House of Representatives voted on July 27 to restore the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water to that set in the final days of the Clinton administration. The new arsenic level, 10 parts per billion, was assailed as too expensive by the Bush administration and repealed by executive order. This move prompted outcry from Democrats and environmentalists who accused the Bush administration of waffling on pro-environment campaign promises.

Now that the House (with the help of nineteen Republicans) has backed the former president's last minute environmental concern, politicians of both sides are flurrying to gain the most political advantage. The White House, for its part, is dancing only slightly out of step to the music set by the Democrats. President Bush is not opposed to the new standards, we are told, he merely wants to wait until “sound science” supports the move. The Environmental Protection Agency, headed by former New Jersey Republican governor Christie Whitman, is in agreement, initiating three independent studies to determine "a more protective and more affordable arsenic standard", according to a July 28 Associated Press report.

Democrats are in full cry to paint themselves as the real saviors of American drinking water, even if their eleventh hour cavalry charge contains more spin than substance. Michigan Representative David Bonior, chief sponsor of the amendment prohibiting EPA from funding the lowering of arsenic levels, said that "When you turn on the kitchen sink, you ought to be able to drink what comes out without worrying about being poisoned." Rep. Bonior is right, but one must wonder why this outpouring of preoccupation with what comes out of the kitchen faucet is only just now reaching political fruition.

Conservatives would be correct in viewing with askance this newfound liberal cause in light of the fact that an eight year Clinton presidency saw no moves to lower arsenic levels. It's only too bad that they are completely defenseless against yet another big government ploy. For as long as water remains a political rather than a free market issue, it will be dominated by those best equipped to fight a battle of sound bytes and political planning. And the Republican Party is far-from-ready to fight for market solutions when so much more can be gained from the "Me, too" approach to environmental issues.

The supply of drinking water must first be understood as a non-government problem. Government exists to protect individual rights, not guarantee a particular standard of living, which is what piped water represents. If this weren’t true then all the centuries before such technology existed would depict one long chain of rights violations by omission, which is a gross distortion of the very concept of individual rights. Members of society respect the rights of others by not acting in a certain way, not by being compelled to act in a certain way. Simply put, if one has the right to have water piped to his kitchen, then a moral government would be obliged to force people to provide it. Ironically, this approach to rights did exist for about two and a half centuries in the American South, when someone’s alleged "right" to cheap cotton (and someone else’s "right" to cheap labor) was used to justify slavery.

The provision of water, like any other commodity, is a matter to be left to the private initiative of the marketplace. The demand for such luxuries as indoor plumbing represents peoples’ willingness to pay for it; the profit motive assures that someone will invent the wanted good or service and find an affordable way of getting it to the masses. It was private companies like the Addyston Pipe and Steel Company that expended the time, energy and resources of over a century ago to make the existence of water pipes possible. There is no logical reason why this same free market should not be the source of water companies as well.

Private water companies, operating in a totally free and open market, could for a number of reasons provide water to American homes far better than any political body. First, private companies are well known for being far more efficient than government agencies, and for providing much better service. Few but the most anti-market ideologues will contest this fact. A plethora of little water companies dotted around the country would most assuredly bring much lower water prices to most communities, as well as the type of competitive service that Americans have grown accustomed to in markets like personal computers, long distance telephone service and dining.

But what about quality? The greatest reservation that people have to a totally privatized and open market in the provision of water services to residential customers is concern for the quality of the water that people would be drinking and bathing in. But that is precisely the problem that exists under government-run water companies now, and the current debate about arsenic perfectly illustrates this point. While government is in charge, people can fully expect political haggling and special interest influence to determine the outcome of this controversy—not free market competition.

Under a system of private water companies, though, we could expect that the owners of such firms would have a very personal interest in seeking out the soundest advice on the acceptable level of a particular contaminant, such as arsenic, in their water. Should a particular company choose wrong or, worse, choose to ignore the suggestions of leading experts and proceed to deliver highly contaminated water into homes, customers would have recourse to liability law if they feel they have been wronged. When ABC Water Inc. faces a class action suit it will have no choice but to accept the very real economic consequences of its actions.

Government water boards, by contrast, must only worry about the political consequences of their decisions. What, after all, is the likelihood of a successful prosecution of the local government-run water service when the city council can prove it was only following the recommendations of the EPA? And anyway, even a successful suit would only result in higher water rates for everyone as local taxes were raised to recoup what is lost through liability.

Private water companies, however, could not turn to the government to make up such losses. A genuinely private company, too, would pass on costs, but the striking difference is that ABC Water Inc. would have to face either competition or the ever-present threat of competition if its services fell below standard. When faced with the liability for some ailment suffered by its customers, ABC Water would have to alter its ppb standard or pay out even more in damages to every new set of plaintiffs. With each penny paid out in compensation, its prices would rise, meaning the loss of customers to a competing business and smaller profits. If no competition existed in the current market, rising prices would be the surest way of attracting it. Any company operating under such circumstances would have no choice but to modify its behavior, or eventually perish.

Perhaps most importantly, successful lawsuits would inspire other free market water companies to adopt higher water quality standards as well. The obvious result of all such activity is that private water companies that already sought to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible price would have no choice but to also incorporate quality into their product. Government, on the other hand, need not worry about price, service or quality; it faces no market catastrophe if it violates the rights of its customers or ignores the signals of the marketplace.

This ongoing debate about the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water shows why government should always remember its legitimate role in our lives. Any "solution" to this issue will be a purely political one, which means that the final decision about how much poison is admissible in your water will be settled by a vote in a far away political chamber, not by a judge and jury that has heard all the relevant arguments. Even if the decision finally reached is a good one, we'll never know because there will be no economic feedback to support it. Worst of all, if the political solution is wrong, we’re stuck with cancer-causing drinking water.

President Bush and the Republican Party should have the courage to demand that government at all levels gets out of the water business. Then we will have drinking water free from the contamination of both politics and impurities.

07/29/01

The Distance Between Them and Us

By Scott McPherson
[This article was originally published by Tulsa Today, www.tulsatoday.com. A shorter version also appeared in the Tulsa World]

The recent reinstatement of Lori and Buddy Visser to the Tulsa Police Department highlights the creeping divide that separates ordinary citizens from the police. On April 10, 2000, the Vissers were travelling off-duty with their daughter when an unidentified object from a nearby vehicle struck their car. Whether the object was thrown deliberately or simply flew from the vehicle is as yet undetermined. Nevertheless, to this menace responded Officers Visser with what even Tulsa Police Chief Ron Palmer called "excessive force"--pulling the car over and pointing handguns at the occupants.

Despite the opinion of Chief Palmer and his decision to fire the officers after an Internal Affairs investigation into the incident, both are expected to be back on the job by July 16 of this year. An arbitrator overturned Chief Palmer’s decision after the Vissers appealed their termination.

Many will find the decision to put Lori and Buddy Visser back on the police payroll about as surprising as the incident itself. Even fellow police officers from area departments have described the Tulsa Police Department as being "made of Teflon"--nothing sticks to it. Whether or not this is an accurate generalization, there is a growing tendency to see the police not as protectors, but as part of the problem. The entire situation involving the Vissers only deepens that distrust.

Some today are beginning to understand why there was often popular resistance to the establishment of police departments; it was not until the mid-nineteenth century that any existed in either America or England, and even for a short time after that they were an anomaly. It was generally held that in order for law enforcement to remain sensitive to the rights and welfare of the people, an elected sheriff or city marshal would represent the law and deputize a few local hands as assistants. Should an emergency require a larger number of officers, the sheriff could invoke his posse comitatus prerogative--he’d call out the posse. The sociological and practical advantages of such an arrangement were obvious: a person who one day found himself in a position of legal authority over his fellows would more than likely be back behind his grocery counter the next. It also meant the citizenry at large maintained a strong sense of personal responsibility regarding day-to-day law and order.

Today, by contrast, we have citywide police departments with massive numbers of full-time uniformed officers. It could be argued that the centralization of the population into large urban areas makes the old style of policing obsolete. This is correct, at least for larger cities. However, the legitimate role that policemen play in our lives has not changed--a policeman is not a special construct of the local government--like the sheriff and his deputies of yesteryear, he is simply the person we hire to keep the peace in our absence. The police officer is an extension of the legal authority established by the citizenry, not a bully empowered to make us all behave.

Tulsa police officers Buddy and Lori Visser could have chosen a much different approach to resolving their situation with people they believe threw something at their car. They could have recognized their less-than-objective connection to the dispute and involved on-duty officers. Failing that, they could simply have ordered the suspect vehicle to the roadside, arrested the occupants and left the rest to a judge and jury. Instead, they appear to have lost their cool and succumbed to Road Rage, Police Style. They flashed their badges, pointed their guns, and proceeded to act like common thugs instead of professional law enforcement officers.

This isn’t to say that an average citizen would never have behaved the same way were he in their place—far too many of them do—but the difference is that the average citizen isn’t backed up by a powerful union, its lawyers and civil service protection, all designed to ensure that Buddy and Lori Visser are not treated like average citizens. In such behavior by an average citizen, we call road rage by its rightful name; we don’t gloss it over with claims that it "didn’t violate department policy". If a simple citizen had behaved as the Vissers did, he would be facing a charge of “Pointing a Deadly Weapon” at a minimum.

Of course, some would say that subjecting the police to the same standards as normal folks is unfair. Fine, then let us have an internal review of the situation and leave it to the chief of police to resolve. Oops, that didn’t work either.

Sadly, the reality is that as long as we feel we need a professional police department to enforce the law, we can expect an elitist mentality from those officers. Several reforms could be suggested, like employing only part-time policemen or ending civil service protection. But first, foremost and last, we should take a step back and, in reviewing all police behavior, take a firm ethical stand in declaring that there is absolutely no reason why conduct that would get you or I arrested should be treated as a mere "disciplinary matter" when perpetrated by a cop.

07/10/01

We Don't Need More Campaign Finance Reform—We Need Less Government

By Scott McPherson
[This article was published in the March 2000 issue of Infinity Press]

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." --P.J. O'Rourke

The rallying cry on both the Left and the Right these days is for Campaign Finance Reform. Regardless of political affiliation, from Bill Bradley to John McCain, they are united in their calls for limitations on the amount of "special interest" money currently "influencing" and "corrupting" the sanctity of the American electoral process. Political action committees (PAC's), "soft" and "hard" money donations—these fundraising instruments are the equivalent of Hate Speech from activists, pundits, and politicians hoping to convince an increasingly cynical audience of their sincerity. They all want to clean up the system, but no one wants to identify what makes the system so corruptible.

The dollars floating around political activities makes it crystal-clear that our "representatives" belong to someone other than those who voted for them—they belong to those that paid for them. Candidates and political parties dependent upon donations from "special interest groups" are being influenced by their contributors to vote auspiciously on legislation affecting those interests. This often comes in the form of corporate welfare—subsidies and grants, or laws that restrain or even forbid competition. From tariffs to Internet taxation, most anyone who can be threatened or strengthened by government interference tries to steer things their way. Corporations, most often cast as the villain in the campaign finance debate, did not create this mess. They are guilty only of making sure it works for them. Most voters agree the solution is Campaign Finance Reform. Primarily, we are told, more constraints on "soft money" (money given directly to political parties) and "hard money" (contributions to a specific candidate) are needed. Scarier suggestions have included forcing broadcasters to furnish airtime to candidates and banning "special interests" from providing political information, such as the voting records of members of congress. But these are not realistic solutions! Soft and hard money have been regulated for over twenty years, and dictating programming schedules and obstructing use of the printing press to "return government to the people" simply is not acceptable in a free society. 

That Americans have forgotten the proper role of the state is precisely what “reformers” are counting on. Dragging out the same tired old clichés waxed so eloquently four, eight, or twelve years ago, politicians wishing to connect with their constituencies are proposing more laws to manage a problem made possible only by government's pervasiveness! When people feel control over their lives slipping away in the shadow of a corporate leviathan they instinctively seek to limit the amount of control that can be had over legislators—instead of seeking to limit the amount of sway the legislature has over them. To restore trust between the individual voter and his representatives requires an understanding of how their contractual relationship has been breached. The only morally tenable purpose for government is the protection of its citizens against acts of force and fraud. The Founding Fathers subordinated government to the will of the individual by constructing it with clearly defined and limited functions. Elections were never meant to simply provide new masters. Elected officials were expected to carry out delegated tasks only. They were expected to govern, not rule. Today, politicians manipulate activities that were never supposed to feel their touch, yet lay blame for out-of-control government on those who pay for their campaigns!

In the last one hundred years the economy in particular has been the battleground for political expansion. From the forced provision of employee benefits (including medical leave), OSHA regulations, and the minimum wage to affirmative action and anti-trust laws, companies operating on the market especially feel the heavy-hand of the state in their affairs. It would be intellectually dishonest to contemplate them not exploiting the system, and whether or not their actions are "right" or "wrong" is subsumed by their overwhelming desire to survive. Corporations have mastered the art of pull, of directing legislation to create a favorable environment for their specific industry or company at the expense of everyone else. It is this that the advocates of Campaign Finance Reform hope to stifle, but they are missing the forest for all the green.

We don't need to "get money out of politics"—we need to return government to its proper place. We need to remove it from our businesses and bank accounts. Government should be protecting private property, not micro-managing it. If no precedent had been established allowing for the government to interject itself between two or more persons engaged in a voluntary exchange of goods and services, no incentive would exist for anyone to interject himself between the government and the people. Corporate attempts to control the legislative agenda are only a symptom of a political process hostile to genuinely free competition.

In short, instead of trying to limit the amount of money that can be contributed to political campaigns, we should be drastically decreasing the size and scope of the government and its accompanying ability to forcefully affect people's lives. When politicians no longer hold the reigns of power over everyday life it will no longer be profitable to control the reigns of politicians.

01/09/00

What Americans Should Have Learned from Waco

By Scott McPherson
[This article was originally published in the September, 2000 issue of Media Bypass magazine]

"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." --Justice William O. Douglas

With the announcement of two decisions favorable to the government regarding federal activities in Waco, Texas, government apologists of every political stripe are hailing the end of "speculation" and "conspiracy theories" about what happened at the end of the 1993 Branch Davidian siege. Both Independent Counsel (and former Republican senator) John Danforth and a civil jury have found the government was not responsible for the April 19 fire that burned Mount Carmel, and its eighty occupants, to the ground. Unfortunately, like the burglar who sues the homeowner for tripping over a coffee table and breaking his leg during his malfeasance, some important pieces of the puzzle have been left out.

What happened in April of 1993 on the grassy plains outside of Waco will never be fully known; experts, investigators, and conspiracy theorists will be debating the events of that day until the end of time. Perhaps most importantly, who started the fire that quickly consumed the lives of 80 men, women and children? Were Davidians shooting at FBI agents, thus justifying the claim made by agents in charge that fire trucks were deliberately held up out of concern for the safety of the firefighters? Did FBI sharpshooters fire into the home and church of the Branch Davidians as it burned, killing many that were trying to escape and surrender?

Personally, I don’t have a firm opinion of what exactly happened that day. The "facts" of April 19, 1993 ultimately depend upon whom you ask, and I’ve stopped asking. I stopped asking because trying to determine whom was at fault for the deaths of those people has overshadowed what happened on and before February 28, 1993—what was by far the greater injustice—and to do so means letting it happen again. For February 28 was the culmination of nearly seven months of needless scrutiny that ended with federal stormtroopers descending violently upon a group of peaceful religious separatists, and the beginning of one of the most tragic events in American history. 

If Thomas Jefferson was correct, that governments are instituted for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of individual members of society, then a government acting within its moral purview would never have had cause to be at Mount Carmel on February 28, 1993. Why? Because no one’s rights were being violated by anyone at the Branch Davidian complex, and to interfere absent any such violations would be the antithesis of "wise and frugal government". In light of this philosophical underpinning, the very groundwork on which this country was founded, I would like to submit the following facts to a candid world:

What went wrong at Waco began before April 19, 1993. Some would say it started when the federal government became an “activist” government, finding “problems” to “fix” despite its constitutional restraints; some see the federal entrance into law enforcement as the beginning of the end of a restricted, limited central government. One thing is for certain—when the government, through its alphabet soup of federal agencies, sees peaceful Americans as a threat requiring commando raids, machine guns, "flashbang" grenades, National Guard troops and propaganda to subdue, we can hardly be surprised when ninja-suited federal agents create an America more like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia than "the land of the free". And we can hardly be surprised when they pour from cattle trucks to attack a church in Texas full of women and children. 

When members of the media, investigative committees, law enforcement agencies and popular opinion focus on the fiery end to the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993, something very crucial is overlooked. No one who has never hurt anyone should ever be subjected to an early-morning paramilitary raid on his or her home and family. If we have genuinely learned anything from the Waco debacle, we should immediately repeal every law criminalizing activities that have no victims. Whether the act in question is the use of prohibited substances or a petty violation of an obscure federal gun law, both of which motivated the investigation and attack on Mount Carmel and its peaceful residents, we’re long overdue for rethinking our activist government. April 19, 1993 never would have happened were it not for February 28, 1993. And February 28, 1993 would have been just another day in Waco, Texas had the government of the United States just left those people alone.

07/22/00

Let Parks Operate Alone

Tulsa World
Letter to the Editor
4/7/2002

State parks absolutely should be privatized because the state should never have been in the park and recreation business to begin with.

The purpose of government is to protect people from crimes of force and fraud, not to provide affordable getaways for the family.

Think about it this way. Every dollar the state spends on parks is a dollar taken under threat of force from you and your neighbors. Would you hold a gun to your neighbor's head and demand that he pay for your park? Of course not.

Let the market place handle this. People like parks, therefore the market will provide parks by means of free exchange and free association, not by means of forced taxation.

Will visiting parks be cheaper or more expensive? That's irrelevant. That is like asking if you'll have enough money to take a vacation if you decide to not forcibly take money from your neighbor.

Rob Roberts, Mounds

The Mugger and the Thief

By Rob Roberts
9/7/2003

As our country continues its evolution into a banner socialist state I increasingly admire the honesty of the common mugger. The mugger is honest about his intentions. He is going to take your money because he wants to spend it on things he wants. He does not pretend to be doing it for a noble reason to persuade you that you ought to just hand it over to maintain your good standing in the community. He does not hide in the cover of darkness and prowl; he works in broad day light. He is absolutely honest about his intentions and his mode of operations.

The thief on the other hand is deceptive and operates when no one is looking. The thief sneaks in and takes what he wants then sneaks out. Sometimes the thief may pretend to be someone he is not to gain trust or access then commit his dastardly dead. The thief attempts to escape all responsibility for his actions but seeks to enjoy all the benefits. The thief has no honor at all.

You are more likely to live next to a thief than you have previously believed.

Chances are your neighbor would not walk up to you point a gun and demand money so he can buy something he wants. But like the thief your neighbor may not hesitate at all to vote for a tax proposition that requires you to pay for something your neighbor wants and you do not. If you chose not to pay that tax you will be punished. If you resist then the state will use whatever force is necessary to make you pay. Posthumously if necessary but you will pay. Attempting to absolve themselves of guilt your neighbor will say they are acting in the best interest of society. For the greater good. For the children.

Is not the price of a civilized society that some must be sacrificed for the greater good?

Living in a civilized society apparently means that it is acceptable to sacrifice people, to take their property, to punish them, to use them so long as it is done neatly. Certain rules must be followed so that the majority does not feel guilty for allowing human sacrifice for the public good.  Some cultures require a feast before throwing a young virgin selected by the king into the volcano in order to save the whole tribe from the furry of the volcano god.  Other cultures simply vote on who to throw in and are done with it.  To break those rules of civility, of democracy, exposes those who have gone along with the theft, with the looting, with the atrocities to the evil they are responsible for.

Thomas Jefferson did not invent man's unalienable right to his life, to his liberty and to his property. As Jefferson so beautifully wrote, these cornerstones of libertarianism were self evident. No government was needed to make them. All government can do is come along and either protect or violate mans unalienable rights. These rights supercede any contrived constitution, law or ordinance. Unalienable means that a mans right to his life, to his liberty and to his property do not have exceptions for the benefit of society or for the greater good or for times of war. Unalienable also means that these rights can not be separated from him. Not even with a ballot.

Society has two kinds of thieves. The one thief you already knew. The other kind of thief has a voter registration card.