When it comes to bizarre demands for government intervention in trivial matters, US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is the gift that keeps on giving. Try as I may to tear myself away from watchng the slow motion train wrecks of her ideas and cast my gaze on similar weirdness from other politicians, she just tops everyone else on a regular basis and I can’t resist the temptation to talk about her again.

This time, it’s sandwiches.

Yes, really.

And not in the vein of the misogynous “make me a sandwich” meme. In point of fact, she just might be the last person on the planet I’d delegate sandwich-making duty to. Not because I assume she wouldn’t be good at it — she contributed several supposedly Cherokee-related family recipes to a cookbook in the 1990s, after all! — but because I know that no matter what I asked for, I’d end up with whatever Elizabeth Warren thought I should eat.

“We don’t need another private equity deal that could lead to higher food prices for consumers,” Warren tweeted (or whatever) on November 26. “The @FTC is right to investigate whether the purchase of @SUBWAY by the same firm that owns @jimmyjohns and @McAlistersDeli creates a sandwich shop monopoly.”

Such an FTC investigation would presumably take about half a minute to discover the existence of Jersey Mike’s, Firehouse Subs, Quiznos, Blimpie, and a gazillion other sandwich shops of both the chain and small business variety. Not to mention the existence of stores where bread, meat, cheese, etc. can be purchased, and homes with refrigerators, counters, etc. where the ingredients can be stored and assembled at the diner’s leisure.

It’s not so much that Warren seeks solutions to non-problems as that she considers it a problem — or at least an oversight — whenever she happens across something, anything, anywhere, that she’s not been put in charge of supervising.

And it’s not that she’s different from other politicians in that respect. Generally speaking, all politicians have a lot in common with the rest of us — we want to run our own lives, and they want to run our lives too.

But the areas she picks to address make one wonder just what the hell she’s doing to earn her $174,000 US Senate salary. She clearly has plenty of spare time and energy to spend worrying about American sandwich consumption, and no time or energy at all to spend on actually looking into whether that worry is warranted.

There is no “sandwich shop monopoly.” There’s not GOING to be any “sandwich shop monopoly” even if Roark Capital adds Subway to its portfolio.

In fact, the only truly dangerous monopoly in America is the one Elizabeth Warren affiliates herself with: Government.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

I like mass transit. When I’m living in or visiting a substantial city, there’s simply no better way to get around than the local bus or (if I’m lucky) train system. Why battle heavy traffic when I can relax, crack a book, and let someone else drive me  to within easy walking distance of almost any local destination … probably for less money and time than I’d waste on gasoline and parking?

That may sound like an odd confession coming from a libertarian. And, these days, it is. “Mass transit” these days usually refers to government-operated enterprises which run at operating losses and tap taxpayers to make up their deficits.

That, however, was not always the case.

New York’s subway system was operated by private companies until 1940. Chicago’s elevated trains were privately owned and operated until 1947. It wasn’t until 1963 that a bi-state compact purchased 15 private transit operators to make “mass transit” in St. Louis area a wholly government-operated enterprise.

The telling of the story of  private mass transit’s death usually starts with Los Angeles, where National City Lines, a company owned by General Motors and other automobile-centric companies, bought up the private streetcar lines, replacing them with buses. At the same time, the same players lobbied heavily for automobile-friendly streets and “freeways,”  making it more convenient for city dwellers to move to the suburbs … if they bought cars.

So, it’s complicated. Yes, mass transit is heavily subsidized. But so is “car culture.” Those interstate highways and wide city boulevards didn’t build themselves.

At its founding, less than 10% of America’s population lived in the urban areas that make mass transit practical.  That number today: 80%.

But according to a 2020 report published by Railway Age, only one in five Americans report “access to” mass transit, and of that 20%, 40% never use it at all, while only about 11% use it daily.

Look, I get it: Owning a car, motorcycle, scooter, or bicycle makes getting around more convenient in that you can travel on your schedule and per your chosen route, not someone else’s.

On the other hand, riding mass transit means no car payments, insurance premiums, parking worries, etc. In or near an urban core, it just makes sense … assuming systems built to serve their markets rather than to tick items off lists of government transportation planners’ priorities.

Re-“privatizing” mass transit might save its life by making it more attractive to its supposed constituency, the public.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

As part of its deal to put together a majority coalition (and therefore a government), The Guardian reports, New Zealand’s National Party has agreed to  a demand from the New Zealand First Party for repeal of the country’s “generational” tobacco ban, due to come into force in 2024.

The ban — a “world first” that’s since been emulated by the United Kingdom and lobbied for in other countries — would have forbidden anyone born after 2009 from buying cigarettes. Ever. For life.

The excuse offered by the incoming government is that it needs tobacco tax revenues to “pay for” tax cuts elsewhere.

On one hand, I don’t buy that excuse. Tax cuts don’t need to be “paid for.” Even setting aside the standard libertarian objection to taxation (it’s just plain theft/extortion and can never be justified), a decrease in tax revenues can always be “paid for” by cutting spending.

On the other hand, the smoking ban was a no good, very bad, evil, and stupid idea in the first place.

Repeat after me: Prohibition of substances never works, at least if the goal is to decrease or eliminate the sale, purchase, possession, or use of those substances.

By the time the US repealed alcohol prohibition, a higher percentage of Americans were drinking more (and “harder”) booze than before it began.

By the time US states began repealing marijuana prohibition, more Americans were using that particular plant than before it was banned.

You’ve probably been hearing for some years now about an “opiod crisis.” While that alleged problem is tied to legal prescription drugs, the go-to alternative is heroin, and it’s beyond doubt that a higher percentage of Americans use that drug now than used it as of 99 years ago when it became illegal.

Yes, I’m citing the American experience, but Kiwis are presumably no more prone than Americans to obey laws forbidding them to eat, drink, smoke, snort, inject or otherwise ingest the Evil Substance of the Week.

Making it illegal for those born after a certain date to buy or use cigarettes won’t stop those born after a certain date from buying or using cigarettes. In fact, the evidence of history says that smoking rates will likely INCREASE, if for no other reason than that “black market” cigarettes can be profitably sold for less than the currently “legal” ones, given insanely high tax rates on the latter.

Smoking is already dying out on its own, with no need for laws to force the change. Social stigma is certainly part of that. So is the advent of “vaping” and the use of non-tobacco nicotine pouches. They’re cheaper (although government tax farmers are trying to “fix” that),  so far seem to be far less unhealthy, and don’t stink up the places where they’re used like tobacco smoke does.

Heck, I quit smoking six months ago, after 44 years of tobacco use (40 smoking, four “chewing”). I’m still using low-nicotine pouches but may eventually quit those too.

Taxation is terrible, but probably neither as terrible nor as stupid as prohibition.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY