Politics

Knife rights update

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

As previously noted here and here, there were issues with the way US Customs and Border Patrol was reclassifying certain knives. It would have risked instantly criminalizing millions of law-abiding US citizens as well as removing many useful tools from everyday use.

I received an email update from the KnifeRights.org folk:

Customs Officially Backs Off

In a letter to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Customs and Border Protection has officially backed off their proposed revocations and rulemaking in recognition of the Amendment that was passed by the Senate which would add a new exception to the Switchblade Act covering assisted and one-hand opening knives, at least until the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill is acted upon in Conference Committee.

You can read the letter here <http://www.kniferights.org/Customs_response_07212009.pdf> , but the key paragraph reads “The amendment would effectively obviate the need for CBP’s proposed revocations and render the current issue moot. Additionally, due to the numerous comments received in response to the proposed revocation, it is unlikely that CBP will take any further action prior to passage of the Appropriations Act.

This is about as close to a victory as we can come at this time. It may not be over until the fat lady sings, and we actually get the Amendment through Conference Committee, but for all practical purposes, we shouldn’t have to worry about Customs reaching into your pockets for your pocket knives anytime soon. Do take note that Customs has included some ambiguous wording in their letter, leaving their options open, no surprise. But, make no mistake, they have gotten the message; don’t mess with our pocket knives!

This is a welcome bit of progress, and it shows how a vigilant citizenry is the only check against government running amuck across our lives. There’s still work to be done, but so far so good.

Minimum wage hike

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Even the liberal local media reports that the minimum wage hike is going to hurt small business.

The national minimum wage increased by 70 cents last week – a small amount that is going to make a big difference.

Inflation and the down turning economy is one thing. But, adding the recent hike in minimum wage can be an extra challenge for small business owners.

[…]

Some people like Austin resident Jessica Wade worry companies struggling to pay more will have to cut back.

“My biggest concern is that businesses will have to cut back on hours in order to pay one person more money,” Wade said.

I tend to agree with the Libertarian take on minimum wage laws:

Skilled, experienced workers make high wages because employers compete to hire them. Poorly educated, inexperienced young people can’t get work because minimum wage laws make them too expensive to hire as trainees. Repeal of the minimum wage would allow many young, minority and poor people to work.

It must be asked, if the minimum wage is such a good idea, why not raise it to $200 an hour? Even the most die-hard minimum wage advocate can see there’s something wrong with that proposal.

The only “fair” or “correct” wage is what an employer and employee voluntarily agree upon. We should repeal minimum wage now.

A work relationship is a consensual one between two adults (or a minor old enough to make some decisions with their adult guardian). If an employer wanted to offer $1/day as wages and the employee accepted it, what’s the harm in that? Is it not a fair transaction because the two parties involved both agreed to the terms? According to minimum wage laws, apparently not. But what if the employer couldn’t afford to pay that minimum wage? What are they to do? I guess forgo the employee… that could mean firing an employee you already had, cutting back on their hours, or it could mean you just can’t hire one in the first place. How is that any good for anyone involved?

Maybe there’s someone that is unskilled or a risky hire (e.g. a teenager). It’s an investment to train someone at a job, and once you make that investment you want to keep them. So what if an employer was willing to hire someone at a reduced amount, allow them to be trained, and if they proved their worth, gave them a raise to retain them? Is that not fair? The minimum wage laws make that more expensive to do.

Some say minimum wage is necessary so that bad employers can’t take advantage of employees. How is this so? No one is forcing that employee to take the job in the first place let alone stay there if they did take the job. If the terms of the relationship aren’t satisfactory, they don’t have to take the job. If some people feel they have no other choice but to work for such a low wage, well, perhaps working for some low wage, earning some money (instead of none), gaining some skill (instead of sitting around learning nothing), and hopefully working your way to a better rate of pay and job isn’t a bad thing.

Do I think the minimum wage is a sufficient living wage? No, not really. However if two adults consent to a relationship, why are we to tell them otherwise?

The original article continues:

“We pay more than minimum wage, but we try to pay our people well because we have really good people and we want to keep them so that’s always one of our top expenses — payroll,” [business owner Steve] Wiman said.

You see, he has no law that forces him to pay better. He knows that it’s wise to pay well to retain the people that work for him. This is business forces (free market) at work. He understands how business works and behaves accordingly, no need to have some law force him to “pay better than this amount to retain people.”

Minimum wage laws are one of good intentions that doesn’t work.

How is this not a hate crime?

/ hsoi

Story here. Woman gets a brick thrown through the window of her house. Brick has a note on it: “Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong.” And this won’t be charged as a hate crime.

Why not?

Oh that’s right… the lady is white.

Racism only flows in one direction apparently.

This

/ hsoi

In discussing some ObamaCare stuff with some friends (based on this), one friend made a very good point.

Finally, why, for the love of Bob, why would you want to put your health directly under the control of Congress, which is populated by bastards more parasitic, opportunisitic, and two faced than _any_ insurance company _ever_ was.

Case closed. 🙂

Monday Morning Politics

/ hsoi

Ben Stein on the American citizenry waking up.

Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.

The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill — a great idea in theory — was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.

Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.

CNN and the 5 healthcare freedoms you’re going to lose under ObamaCare. They are:

  1. Freedom to choose what’s in your plan.
  2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs.
  3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage.
  4. Freedom to keep your existing plan.
  5. Freedom to choose your doctors

So this is the change they hoped for. God help us all. While I wish folks would have realized this before November 2008 (all the signs were there), I guess waking up now is better late than never.

Oh, and for those of you that go on about health care being a human right, read this from Marko.

Just exactly how much is too much?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Linoge wonders about the same thing I’ve always wondered: just how much is too much?

Whenever someone says “too many” or “too much” or even “too little”, that always brings an implication of “just the right amount.”

So what is that right amount? Someone will say that “oh that’s too much/little” and then I’ll reply asking them “OK, then what’s the right amount?” and no one can ever answer that…. unless it’s a knee jerk “one is too many” sort of reaction, like Linoge mentions.

Give his post a read.

Sen. Murray supports states rights (when it’s convenient)

/ hsoi

Joe Huffman has a nice little back and forth between himself and his US Senator Murray.

Joe’s original email was regarding support for the Thune Amendment. Says Sen. Murray:

Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.

Joe’s response:

Since you are of the opinion that legislation to regulate the use of firearms is, and should remain, primarily a state issue I presume I can count on your support of efforts to remove firearm regulations at the Federal level. I would like to suggest you introduce legislation to undo the continuing infringement of our rights inflicted by the following Federal firearms laws:

• National Firearms Act of 1934
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment
• The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Once those are infringements have been successfully resolved I will be glad to provide you with a list of other Federal firearms laws that need to be eliminated as well.

Go read the whole thing.

Well done, Joe. I’m doubting you’ll get a response, or if you do that it will be anything more than boilerplate “thank you drive through”. Still, one can have a little hope that a worthwhile response may come from the Senator.

Wow, they did their job

/ hsoi

It’s nice to see the “news media” actually doing their job.

OBAMA: “I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.”

THE FACTS: […] budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

OBAMA: “You haven’t seen me out there blaming the Republicans.”

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, “I’ve heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it’s better politics to ‘go for the kill.’ Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about ‘breaking’ me.”

OBAMA: “If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you’d have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we’ve made, it’s going to be $7.1 trillion.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president’s budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

I guess if you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit.

Constitutional right to self-defense

/ hsoi

Eugene Volokh examines if we have a constitutional right to self-defense.

Thus, a rule that one can only use deadly force to defend oneself against threats of death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, and a few other very serious threats would likely be constitutional (even though many states also allow use of deadly force to defend against robbery and in some situations burglary). Likewise, the “duty to retreat,” which is to say the principle that deadly force can only be used in self-defense if it’s genuinely necessary, in that no safe avenue of retreat is available, is likely to be constitutional, too, because it has long been recognized in at least a substantial minority of states. There may be other examples as well. My point is that a federal constitutional right to self-defense likely exists, especially in the wake of Heller. But it is not unlimited, and is likely to be strongest precisely where there’s a broad and deep common-law and statutory tradition of recognizing such a right.