LOL: Cop propaganda

We have here some public propaganda to rationalize anti-liberty police checkpoints. Portsmouth Police Captain Frank Warchol gives zero justification for them. He "...said it's difficult to say whether or not sobriety checkpoints yield more arrests or get more impaired drivers off the road than a normal patrol would." He can't even say whether these checkpoints, which have an absurdly low strike rate, work. Yet, we must continue to bear them. His justification? Blind trust, without any argument: in his words, “...sobriety checkpoints are a necessary tool in the fight against drunken driving, saying they have deterrent and educational value.” 

Trust is completely undeserved.

What are the real purposes for these checkpoints? Just ask yourself "Cui bono?" Obviously, the police benefit several times over. They benefit by getting to exert power over other people. They benefit when they can issue tickets and make arrests, which usually have nothing to do with alcohol. And (surprise!) the "voluntary" police officers get overtime. And "snacks and water"! (Should they get paid nap time, too?) More sinister is the fact that we peons are further exposed to the expanding police state. To be clear: government sobriety checkpoints have no place in a free society.

But, don't worry, argues Warchol, no police resources are used. I'm not sure exactly what this means other than saying that the police budget isn't affected. First, I doubt this very much. Is he accounting for every detail, including the tax-funded gasoline that fuels their cop cars? Maybe so and maybe no. Even so, however, Warchol's point is irrelevant. The money comes from the NH Highway Safety Administration, and the hapless taxpayers pay for that too. It's not free money. The difference between this roundabout method of government spending and spending directly by the local police department is simply the amount the graft that’s skimmed off the top. My paycheck is still bled dry.

Warchol then makes a half-hearted utilitarian case, claiming that it doesn’t take up much of a driver’s time. But, he has no idea how valuable a person’s time is. Why should he care? We’re not paying customers, and we have no choice. A “minimal disruption” is still a disruption.

Note, incidentally, that he says one indication of “impaired” driving is if a driver is not following “instructions,” by which he means “police orders.” Don’t argue with a cop, don’t disobey him. If you do, you are automatically a suspect.

This puff piece article is nothing but propaganda. Sobriety checkpoints are a mini cash cow for the police and a clear technique to get the masses accustomed to the police state. Thankfully, it’s not working. People are, so to speak, sobering up.

EpiPen price is NOT a market price

Not one word in this article about the real culprit of high EpiPen prices (and drug prices in general): the FDA, which Mylan lobbies for monopolistic privileges to exclude other competitors. This is crony corporatism, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Seacoast media group supports crony deal

A recent editorial supports the Portsmouth rulers using tax money to pay the Foundation for Seacoast Health almost more than $1.8 million for some land, which they will then spend more tax money on to build all sorts of goodies.

They ludicrously claim to see "...the foundation get fair market value for the parcel..." The reason why this is insane is because government purchase of anything does not reflect the market price. The market price is that price of a good at which a voluntary transaction will take place. That no one buys the land voluntarily suggests that it's too expensive to begin with, i.e., that there are other goods that are more urgently demanded by consumers. The price the government pays for something is a political decision.

This is just a crony deal, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill...again.

Uber hate

A sad letter-to-the-editor denouncing “Uber Grandma” is here. The writer has the audacity to mock her intelligence in response to her continuing to drive illegally: “Obviously intellectual acumen is not required to be an Uber driver.”  Since when is civil disobedience stupid? The answer is that it’s stupid to someone who supports the law. I looked up the definition of civil disobedience. From Merriam-Webster:

civil disobedience: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government

This is exactly what Stephanie Franz is doing, and whether the letter writer likes the law or not, questioning her intelligence for engaging in it is itself intellectually flawed.

Regardless, the letter makes same tired argument: Franz is breaking the law, so she is wrong in what she is doing and is a bad person.  The writer’s anger with Franz is sad but expected in a society that encourages division and robotic law enforcement. Instead of recognize the unethical of victimless crimes, he seems like he would prefer punishment.

I have some questions for the letter writer: when slavery was legal, was it moral? Of course not: a statute does not imply morality. So, the argument that Franz should change her ways because she is breaking the law is meaningless.

I have another question: to what lengths will you go to force scofflaw Franz to obey the law? Issue a fine? Arrest? Threat physical violence? What is the limit for a victimless crime?

Charter Commission: not an innocent study

The local media source has an editorial here that claims that establishing a charter commission "risks nothing." This is not true, and here's the reason.

Government bureaucracy is inherently flawed. It's not simply that there are "inefficiencies" that can be fixed. It's that there is that government-run services (or, rather, disservices), are ultimately mandated by the barrel of the policeman's gun. Decisions are not made in an attempt to satisfy voluntarily paying consumers. Every single decision is made politically.  There is no incentive to cut costs because taxpayers are forced to pay. (When was the last time the Exeter government's expropriations budget decreased?

A charter commission will, therefore, obviously find problems with the existing system. But, it will certainly not recognize that it is the existence of the bureaucracy that is the problem, not how the bureaucracy is structured. Instead, it will argue that a change of the structure would help. The ratchet turns--think about it this way: the charter commission will absolutely never, ever conclude something like: the Exeter government should cede road ownership to road users and property abutters. 

My suspicion is that the commission's advocates, like local crony Dan "beautify my storefront" Chartrand, know this and plan to use the charter commission as a stepping stone for increased government power.

The game is rigged. Don't buy into it. If you want to make the Exeter government more "efficient," slash its territorial monopoly over scarce goods.

More faulty gun logic

Yet another person is writing about gun laws. He asks, "Can someone tell me what the age is for a child to carry a handgun or an assault rifle?" He talks talks mockingly about arming all the "vulnerable" people in society and then claims that if one objects to any of it, one should advocate gun control.

This is not a logical conclusion. Rather, it is an empty plea playing on people's emotions. If I oppose a child obtaining a gun, I do not necessarily support more (or any) gun laws. If the former is my position, I could support trying to convince parents not to give guns to their kids. I could support a privately owned store banning parents who do.  Their are many nonviolent ways of protesting something. But, that I dislike something does not necessarily imply that I support it being banned by the force of law. I oppose kids' being fed lots of sugar, but I don't oppose a ban on sugar for kids. (Does Bill Kingston?)

Here is a logical statement: IF you support the universal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, THEN you must oppose criminal background checks for gun purchases. Where do you stand on this, Mr. Kingston?

Guilt until proven innocence

There are a lot of bills lurking in the state legislature, some good, many bad. A recent opiner opposes HB512, which would make make gun confiscation more burdensome for the agents of the state.

The letter-to-the-editor above is completely off base. He starts:

[HB512] is another attempt to get around the supposed burden of applying for a concealed carry permit.

First, this is not at all what it is. It is a bill that restricts and/or penalizes gun confiscation. Maybe I missed an amendment, but I see nothing about CC permits. This is a complete straw man. And, even after setting up a straw-man, the author does nothing but make assertions about the efficacy of the current gun laws and how "we are rapidly moving toward the same situation they have in Afghanistan." I didn't realize that Maggie Hassan's veto was the only thing standing in the way of New Hampshire turning into Afghanistan.

He goes on to talk about his wonderful experience in acquiring his own permit. (I gather that he is trying to imply that because he has a permit, his opinion is somehow more credible than others.) I have one question for this person: should a person be presumed innocent until proven guilty, or not? If he adhere to this principle, you must apply it universally.

Insulting Uber editorial

Hot off the press: Time for Uber to get real. This editorial is riddled with one bad argument after another. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to see right through it. Right off the bat, we have the following:

It is increasingly clear that Uber and most of its drivers are not interested in doing what is right despite Portsmouth city officials’ effort to create a fair and reasonable set of rules to allow ride-sharing services to operate legally in the city.

The first statement equates "doing what is right" with following various statutes and laws. Of course, what is right, i.e., ethical, is not always the same as what is legal. Slavery was once legal, yet it wasn't "right." Alcohol was once forbidden, yet it isn't "wrong." The second claims that the new Portsmouth ordinances are fair and reasonable, but according to whom?  Uber drivers and their passengers would argue exactly the opposite, and this editorial's opinion certainly isn't better or worse than someone else's.

Let's move on.

If the picketing outside a city bar recently weren’t enough, now a group of Free State Uber drivers is planning to picket outside City Hall on Monday before the City Council meets and takes up another request by Uber to alter the city’s new transportation ordinance. It’s sad to say, but you can’t make this stuff up. 

What exactly is the problem with picketing outside City Hall or outside a bar? The author makes no case why these actions are no good. The protesters are exercising their free speech. So what? It seems like the author just doesn't like what the protesters are protesting. But I don't understand. Presumably, civil disobedience against this ordinance would be maligned by the author. Protesting is the "legal" way of attempting to change the system. If this too is bad, what should the Uber supporters do? Answer: shut up and take it.

The author goes on to link protesters with the Free State Project. Is the link real? Maybe so and maybe no, but, with all their publicity, both good and bad, this link looks like an attempt to poison the well for those who dislike the Free State Project.

Then there is some funny statement about Uber being a national compnay.

It should come as no surprise that local taxi cab operators are in compliance and the national Uber company is not. It sort of evokes the mantra of buy local. 

This is a complete red herring. Uber is a national company, and Portsmouth taxis are not. So what? First, it does not follow in any way whatsover that Uber will or won't follow local ordinances. The same is true for taxis. Second, to attempt make the distinction between national and local here is to pull on people's heartstrings even though it has no relevance in determining who is right or wrong here. "Illegal" Uber driver Christopher David, with a wife and baby on the way, is no less human than any taxi driver. The same goes for Stephanie Franz.

It's ok, however. At the very end, the editorial makes sense:

Ultimately, the consumer may have the final say on this matter given the challenges police have expressed in enforcing the city’s law. If people feel comfortable taking rides from strangers who do not want to have full criminal background check that will be their choice.

Exactly. It's the choice of the consumers. The very fact that Uber drivers are so popular should indicate that consumers do in fact demand Uber, even if they aren't "safe," by the standards of the author.  Why didn't the writer of this editorial start with this and then stop writing? Is he/she really so worried about people freely engaging in voluntary trade without the permission of the Portsmouth government? Or is this news resource in the tank for Portsmouth taxis? It certainly seems so.

With any law that is passed, one must always ask: "Cui bono?"