Regulating Danger

Tuesday 10.02.2007 01:37AM

Continuing in the vein of the Good Neighbor Policy, this week's topic is the Disciples of Christ denomination pushing for the federal government to regulate tobacco products. They have joined several other faith groups in the Faith United Against Tobacco campaign.

Regulation can be a tricky topic because it seems innocuous. For example, everyone wants to eat food that is safe, so regulations on food products make sense and are necessary, right? There's nothing wrong with voluntarily seeking regulation, but imposing regulations on others breaks the Good Neighbor Policy by disrespecting their choices. Furthermore, forcing others to fund the imposed regulations disrespects their wealth and their property.

So no, I do not think it's right to seek federal regulation of tobacco. I am not a smoker, never have been, and never intend to be. I am well aware of the health hazards of smoking. Still, I think it is wrong to impose regulations on other people's peaceful choices. Imposed regulation is a lesser degree of prohibition, and neither work very effectively, as history (should have) taught us. Just as the War on Drugs has failed to stop the use of illicit drugs, FDA regulation of tobacco products will not “stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children”, (despite the campaign's claim).

Aside from all that, I must say that as a Christian, it saddens me to see other believers seeking out state regulation to be the “solution to all our problems” instead of private, individual, and voluntary alternatives. Faith United Against Tobacco says, “We believe that faith communities are uniquely situated to bring an ethical and moral dimension to the debate on how to reduce the death and disease caused by tobacco products in this country”, and the best solution they come up with is to let some bureaucrats impose regulations?

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad

Tagged: /
comment (1) | add to del.icio.us

The Good Neighbor Policy

Tuesday 08.28.2007 01:40AM

I have been reading a great book by Dr. Mary Ruwart, “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression”, and working on some ideas for blog posts as a result. This week's topic is a great opportunity for an introduction; hopefully I'll do it some justice.

Last week an Indy Star editorial raised questions about property tax exemptions for non-profits. The suggestion was that due to this “time of crisis” for local government, we should put more scrutiny on these exemptions and even consider changing them - possibly charging user fees for public services, or a sliding scale based on their “ability to pay.”

This topic is a good example of how to apply what Dr. Ruwart describes as the Good Neighbor Policy. To contribute to the peace, we should refrain from using or threatening force against the peaceful actions of others, and respect property that is rightfully theirs. It is a pretty simple concept, extrapolated from things most of us learned at a young age. Most of us would not steal our neighbor's car or assault him for making choices that are different from ours, nor would we join or hire a gang to do so for us.

Property taxes violate the Good Neighbor Policy by imposing force against the choices of people, and disrespecting their property. If your neighborhood wants to build a park and imposes a tax to fund it, you are forced to pay for it - even if you do not want the park and have no intention of ever using it. If you refuse to pay the tax, you risk losing your property by force to the government, even though your actions are peaceful and you have done nothing wrong. Unfortunately, the breaking of the Good Neighbor Policy usually leads to more of the same. People will pay the tax (begrudgingly) and then try to persuade the government to use its force for projects they are more interested in. The cycle of force and disrespect for property continues while we ignore whether what we are doing is even right or wrong.

I believe that's the core of this matter. Scrutiny of property tax exemptions shouldn't be what's being discussed, but whether property taxes are even right to begin with. Personally I do not see how they can be justified, but I am curious what you think and welcome discussion on the matter.

P.S. - an older version of the book is available to read for free on her web site.

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad.

Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression Currently Reading
Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression
by Mary J. Ruwart, Frances Kendall, Leon Louw

Tagged: /
comments (6) | add to del.icio.us

License plates

Monday 04.09.2007 07:50PM

Apparently license plates are a hot topic in Indiana. Whoever said Indiana is a boring state, well! Um... OK, maybe you got us this time.

We now have an alternative plate that says “In God We Trust”, and there is no additional cost for it. I could simply say that if we did not have government vehicle registration/licensing, this would not need to be an issue (OMG! We'd all die), but that makes for far too short a post, and I wanted some variety.

The most prominent concern is probably the 1st Amendment (tangent: I think we'd all be better off if this was left at its first 5 words, “Congress shall make no law.”) I do not understand this concern. Congress has not passed a law “respecting an establishment of religion” here, nor “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Indiana state legislature has not done so, either. They passed a law that allows for an alternative license plate, that's all.

The other concern (OK, so there's only 2 that I really know of; I alluded to the interest level of this story already) is that the state is not charging extra for these plates like they do specialty plates. The problem here is that the organization fees for specialty plates go to support an organization. Where would the organization fees for these plates go - on an altar for God to lick up from the sky by fire? (I Kings 18) I suppose the argument could be made that they should at least charge the $15 administrative fee as with specialty plates, but aha - even some of them are excluded from the administrative fee (“Support our Troops”, “Pearl Harbor Survivor”, and “POW”). Honestly, my instinct tells me these administrative fees are just a fleecing, anyway. This concern seems to be closely associated with the first one: to prevent the state establishing a religion by stamping some vague cliché on a piece of metal, the state should charge more money for it. Or so the argument seems to go?

No, I'm not really arguing in favor of the plates. I would not get one personally; I think it's an overused phrase that essentially means nothing (not to mention the collectivist nature of the “we” is irksome). Overall I think it's a petty issue, though.

(This post is brought to you by the left and right parentheses.)

Coming up next: Congressman Ron Paul's run for President in 2008.

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad.

Tagged: /
comments (10) | add to del.icio.us

On government education

Monday 03.12.2007 11:56AM

Apparently some people thought there might be an issue where teachers in Indiana do not cover the Holocaust – or cover it adequately enough. Therefore Indiana has some new legislation in the works, mandating it be taught as a part of high school US history classes.

My opinion – the short version – is that this is an unnecessary law.

The simplest way I can explain how I come to that opinion is that I favor ending government involvement in education. There are a variety of reasons for this, which the Alliance for the Separation of School & State explains well, but I will focus on the one that is most applicable to this topic.

Government education is antithetical to liberty.

Yes, I said it.

For starters we have the obvious nature of force involved. You will see this is the case if you stop sending your child to government school and do not jump through the hoops for acceptable private schooling – or stop paying the taxes that fund education. The government will come knocking on your door soon enough and make you comply. This government force is in opposition to liberty.

Beyond that, government will not undermine itself or its “vested interests.” Certain things will be taught and others most definitely will not. A class on the Holocaust would cover the atrocities that occurred, but it seems unlikely it would explain how government power was an enabler of the atrocities and how citizens should implicitly distrust government power. Blame will go to specific people or specific groups only, and nothing to the system. It is crucial for government to have citizens that are trusting and subservient; the inherent lesson throughout government schooling is that our government is to be trusted. Unquestioning trust of government is in opposition to liberty.

In a free market education system, the solution to a school not teaching adequately on a topic would be to send your child elsewhere. Since educators would need to compete, they would need to respond to the demand or risk going out of business. These market forces of the consumer's choices would regulate the system far more efficiently than laws made by those with the most political power.

There's a certain sad irony about this whole situation – using government dictate to ensure the past ills of government dictate are taught in schools.

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad.

Tagged: /
comments (8) | add to del.icio.us

Would you invent marriage?

Monday 02.05.2007 02:25AM

The Indiana Senate is discussing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Last Wednesday the amendment passed the Judiciary Committee, which means it will go before the full Senate. If it passes the Senate and the House, it would be on the ballot for the 2008 general election.

For some reason, instead of having a discussion about whether or not government should define marriage in the first place, the discussion is all about how they should define it. How would you feel about having to get a government license in order to date someone? How about a license to be friends with someone? To me, these ideas are as ridiculous as obtaining a license in order to get married. Marriage is a social issue and should not require government intervention or permission.

Getting government out of marriage would solve the whole debate. Contrary to alarmists, society would not crumble and heterosexual families would not suddenly fall apart. Well, not anymore than they do already; it's not like government's definition of marriage has been keeping the divorce rate low.

I think Doug Stanhope summed it up well:

“If marriage didn't exist, would you ever invent it? Would you look at her and go, 'This stuff we've got together is so good – we've got to get the government in on this! This is way too powerful for just two people, we need regulation on this, we need some legislation!' You wouldn't invent that.”

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad.

Tagged: /
comments (6) | add to del.icio.us

next »