Dover's mini Mussolinis

Screw the working man. He's violating a politically determined rule!

The poor guy put out a sign on a sidewalk. Instead of being hailed for his entrepreneurship, his livelihood is threatened. Now, instead of working and producing goods for consumers, he has to waste his time pleading to the mighty Zoning Board.

What's the underlying problem? Well, its about ownership of the sidewalk. Its public property, so everybody does. But not really, because the Dover Rulers say what can and cannot be done on it. (Even if it were on private property, it could still be an issue if the store owner didn't seek the proper permission slip.)

The local government needs to control all the minutia of the hapless taxpayers. And then they have the audacity to demand our hosannahs for it.

Say no to a charter commission

The first reason why you should oppose any movement towards a town charter: local cronies, Dan “beautify my storefront” Chartrand and Russ 100k Dean, support it. Don’t believe for a second that the first step, the allegedly harmless Charter Commission, is just to study to problem of Exeter government’s “inefficiency.” Whatever the results, those who want to tax, spend and accumulate power will use it as a springboard to mulct the hapless taxpayer more than they do now. 

It was obvious that the “scathing” MRI report would be used as an excuse to expand the reach of the Exeter government. Of course this makes no sense: if an institution is “inefficient,” it should be dissolved, not given more power and responsibility. For government, trimming bureaucracy (let alone slashing it) is never an option. If government does something “good,” it is an excuse to do more. If government does something “bad,” it is an excuse to do more. The ratchet turns. 

Don’t pay attention to the argument of modernization, that we somehow need more government because life today is more fast-paced than yesteryear. Pace always tends to increase in an increasingly productive society. More government does not help—all this would lead to is less choice over how we live our lives. Only more productivity, more enterprise, more private property will improve our lives. 

Say no to a Charter Commission. To resolve the “inefficiencies” of government, slash the government. Divide Exeter into two towns. Read Mises. 

Bad business fails, bad government thrives

The report by Municipal Resources Inc. on the Exeter government’s attempts at economic direction is available online through ENL.

At first, this bad report card seems like good news. It should cause more people to realize the futility of government planning, even at the local level. The Exeter government cannot and should not allocate capital goods to their most strongly demanded ends. It is logically impossible for bureaucracy to do this, as Mises pointed out years ago. The report should signal that the Exeter government should be relieved of its powers, duties, and responsibilities. All “public” property that is currently (not) maintained by the Exeter government could be ceded as shares to taxpayers, who can buy and sell their shares voluntarily.  

Unfortunately, whereas failing marks for a business leads to its bankruptcy, failing marks for a government increases its expropriation and control. The report itself pretends that the Exeter government is a business, with voluntarily paying customers rather than mulcted taxpayers. Its recommendations, at its mildest, do nothing but rearrange the deck chairs. Worse, of course, is their recommendation to centralize government power even further, a “written economic development plan,” “more consolidated management and coordination of various activities,” etc. Only in a perverse society would a history of wasteful capital spending and suspect motives would be promoted. The report even offers one right over the plate for Dan “beautify my storefront” Chartrand, with the introduction describing a “tattered” downtown in Exeter (which, according to the report, is home of Phillips Andover Academy).

The report goes on to say that there is a lack of a “cohesive vision.” Why should there be a cohesive vision? There are 14000 people within the political entity called Exeter. Every individual has different valuations, goals, and demands. What the statement really means is that the Exeter government cannot make us taxpayers more pliable and obedient. This does not happen on the market. People buy and sell voluntarily. A cohesive vision, if you can use such an idealistic and empty phrase, occurs naturally as producers align their supply with consumer demand. The beauty of the market is well-described in Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil.”  

How much was MRI paid to do this review?