All posts by Thomas L. Knapp

Op-Eds

Regulating Rides: Markets Are Better than Politics

Leave a comment

RGBStock traffic tunnel

Jacksonville, Florida’s politicians have, once again, arrived at an impasse on the matter of how to regulate “ride-sharing” services UberX and Lyft (Christopher Hong, “UberX, Lyft remain in limbo as City Council looks to state for new regulations,” Florida Times-Union, May 17). Instead of asking the state’s legislature to bail out its regulatory regime, perhaps the city council should exchange the “how” for a “whether,” and answer “no.”

The best way to handle regulation of UberX and Lyft is to repeal all regulations pertaining to taxi and limousine services in Jacksonville (and, of course, in other locales as well).

If that sounds radical, it is. But “radical” is not the same thing as “extreme.” Rather, it refers to addressing matters at their roots. So let’s do that.

Taxi regulation is not, and never has been, about protecting customers. It is, and always has been, about protecting established businesses from competition.

In Jacksonville’s case, the purpose of the city’s medallion system is to keep prices high for the benefit of Jacksonville Transportation Group (owners of Gator City Taxi, Yellow Cab and Express Shuttle) by limiting cab numbers, making entry into the market very expensive, and thus ensuring that JTG operates without significant competition.

When JTG and its political allies spout off about “protecting the customer,” they’re just laying down a line of bull to cover up their real agenda: Maintenance of JTG’s de facto monopoly at the EXPENSE of the customer. This is equally true of similar medallion and regulation regimes in cities across America.

Instead of fighting this monopoly scheme, UberX and Lyft are — in Jacksonville, anyway — ignoring it. Which does get to the bottom of the matter, doesn’t it?

Of course, this upsets the local politicians, who are used to being obeyed. It also upsets JTG, which has become accustomed to making money through control of politicians instead of through open competition to provide the best service at the best price.

But it doesn’t upset the customers — citizens of Jacksonville who, thanks to UberX and Lyft, can now get a ride when they need one, instead of when JTG gets around to providing one, at a price set by the competitive market rather than by JTG’s political machinations.

Jacksonville’s council faces a simple choice. It can remain aligned with JTG by shoring up its monopoly, or it can align itself with the voters, the customers, the people, whom it claims to serve.

If it wants to do the latter, it will resolve that the city shall repeal, and henceforth lay no, restrictions on commercial ride services beyond those codified in state law. Which, in my opinion, UberX and Lyft, and their customers, should ignore as well.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Pan Fascism: Mussolini was a Piker

Leave a comment
English: Benito Mussolini and Fascist blackshi...
English: Benito Mussolini and Fascist blackshirts in 1920 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

California’s Senate unanimously approved a bill proffered by Sacramento Democrat Richard Pan on May 18. The bill “would allow so-called beer bikes to operate on streets, but leaves cities to decide if alcohol is allowed on board.”

Why are “beer bikes” so important to Senator Pan?  If you guessed “because he likes freedom,” you’re wrong. According to the Associated Press, he’s concerned that “current state law does not include a definition for this type of vehicle, creating legal uncertainties.” Pan may or may not like beer bikes, but he’s deeply worried that something, somewhere, might be happening sans the supervision of Richard Pan.

This is just today’s example. I come across stories like it on a daily basis. A kid cited for running a lemonade stand without a permit. A traveler robbed of his cash by “law enforcement” on the claim that unless he can explain it to their satisfaction, some crime must be involved. And so on, and so forth.

Somewhere, some politician gets a bee in his bonnet and a law gets passed. Not in response to some clear, present, actual danger, but to ensure seamless regulation of all matters, large and small, such that nothing, anything, ever goes unaddressed by the political process.

This attitude, which drives modern American politics, stems from the doctrines of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, founder of the political ideology known as fascism. As he put it: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Mussolini only had a couple of decades to implement his ideas before World War Two and death interrupted him. Unfortunately, a more slowly moving version of those ideas took root in America around the same time under other names (“progressivism” being the most popular and enduring).

Today’s politicians surpassed Mussolini’s control fetishism long ago. We’re fast approaching the “progressive” ideal embodied by the ant colony in T.H. White’s The Once and Future King: Ubiquitous signposts reminding us that “EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY.”

Not that today’s “conservatives” are any better. They’re every bit as keen on controlling others as “progressives” are; they just have different notions concerning which strings to pull on their puppets (all of us who aren’t politicians, that is). As Richard Nixon might say, were he still alive, “we’re all progressives now.”

Well, maybe not all of us. If you prefer freedom, look for the “Libertarian” label when next you vote.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

There’s No Such Thing as an Illegal Knife

Leave a comment

RGBStock Sword

“Nationwide, knife laws vary in neighboring towns, counties, cities and states,” writes Jesse J. Holland for the Associated Press. “This mishmash makes it difficult for citizens to comply.”

The AP’s interest in knife laws stems from the recent death, in police custody in Baltimore, of Freddie Gray. Police justified Gray’s arrest by claiming he was carrying an “illegal”  switchblade knife. It turned out that the knife was a perfectly “legal” blade.

That aside, Holland is wrong in any case. Knife laws don’t vary from town to town, county to county, state to state. There’s one federal knife law. It applies to all levels of government in the United States, and unlike most laws these days it is simply written and impossible to misunderstand:

“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

You may recognize that as the operant clause of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. And you should recall that the US Constitution proclaims itself the “supreme law of the land,” superseding all others which conflict with it in any way. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Madison v. Marbury, “an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”

Freddie Gray’s knife was not illegal, because in valid US law there is no such thing as an illegal knife (or gun). State, county and local ordinances which infringe on the right to own or carry any weapon are plainly unconstitutional and therefore void. They are also indescribably stupid and evil.

Stupid, because laws are only effective  if they are obeyed. Since criminals don’t obey laws, the sole effect of laws prohibiting possession of weapons is to disarm victims.

Evil, because in the priority of rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — life comes first. You can’t be free, nor can you seek happiness, if you’re dead.

Indisputably corollary to the right to life is the right to defend that life against any and all threats. Lacking the anatomical defenses found in other animals (claws, poison glands, etc.), we must instead rely on wit and invention. To forbid us possession of the tools of self-defense is to preemptively deny us the exercise of our primary right.

There’s no such thing as an illegal knife. There’s no such thing as an illegal gun. That claim, made explicit in the 2nd Amendment, is implicit in the laws of nature.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY