We are not amused at your nanny-state prank. Now pull your weeds or ELSE.

Humor, Nanny Statism
Share

april fool's!Given that Boulder is home to the University of Colorado — a former “top party school” — you’d think April Fool’s pranks would be more common than bong pipes and mountain bikes.  But the city seems less than amused at this inspired stunt that parodied municipal property codes:

Person or persons unknown have created a hoax door hanger declaring that homeowners who don’t remove the dust and insect larvae from their sidewalk cracks by noon tomorrow will receive a fine of up to $4,620.

“This is the only warning that this household will receive this spring!” the door hanger exclaims. “Please be sure your crack stays clean for the rest of the year!”

The “ticket” then goes on to suggest that if homeowners need help they can look up “Crack Removal Services” in the Yellow Pages.

Pretty funny, right?  But city officials were quick to point out that it wasn’t real:

[Boulder spokeswoman Judy Jacobson] knew right away that the door hanger wasn’t legit.

“It’s definitely a joke,” she says. “There’s no such code as the one it references. So it’s making fun of the City of Boulder — which is fine. But we just want to make sure nobody takes it seriously and sends us a check, or gets upset because we gave them a ticket. Because we didn’t leave this for them.”

It’s ironic that the city wants to reassure residents that they have no code mandating clean cracks, but don’t think twice about all of the other ordinances that require property owners to maintain their abodes and land in city-approved fashion.  Because they’re a joke as well, just not a very funny one.

We are not amused at your nanny-state prank. Now pull your weeds or ELSE. Read Post »

Fighting The State’s Legalized Theft

Police Statism
Share

The Institute for Justice, which has fought the state on a number of fronts, including eminent domain abuse (the infamous Kelo v. New London case), economic liberty, and most recently political speech in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, is now taking aim at a lucrative revenue stream for law enforcement agencies nationwide, one that doesn’t require higher taxes or even a traffic ticket: asset forfeiture laws.

All it takes for someone to lose their car and everything in it, is to be pulled over by the cops with “probable cause” of wrongdoing.  It could even be their house, if the cops suspect any sort of shenanigans such as drug sales taking place there.  They don’t even have to find any evidence of a crime, and the owners need not be charged with one.  The police can seize the property, sell it, and pocket the proceeds–and in most states, there is nothing the former owner can do about it.

Fighting The State’s Legalized Theft Read Post »

Can There Be Folly In the Justification of Self-Defense?

Private Crime, The Left, The Right, War
Share

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

~ Mahatma Gandhi

“There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.”

~ Napoleon Bonaparte

As is my recent and sometimes unfortunate habit, I’ve been actively involved in or passively listening to, debates between libertarians, statists, anarchists talking like statists, statists pretending to be anarchists, self-proclaimed pacifists, libertarian consequentialists, died-in-the-wool might-makes-right psychos and (seemingly) everyone in between.  If they’ve had time to kill and a high-speed Internet link they’ve been involved, or so it seems.  (Clearly, I’ve got too much time on my hands as well, but enough about me.)

One of the sharper and recurring disagreements I’ve witnessed has been around the justification for self-defense, and why such a justification is vital.  This premise–the absolute necessity–and dare-I-say God-given right to defend oneself, has been offered as a proverbial nail in the coffin as to why an ultimate belief in non-violence, otherwise known as pacifism, is doomed.  I guess it’s no surprise that gun lovers of every stripe find themselves drawn to libertarianism, and frankly, I cannot fault anyone who seeks to defend himself and his possessions.

Can There Be Folly In the Justification of Self-Defense? Read Post »

Libertarians regressing to unsound, and thus, unfair Economics

(Austrian) Economics, Mercantilism, Protectionism, The Basics
Share

Capitalism (by George Reisman) There is a trend among young and “eternally rebel” types to try and conflate Capitalism and Interventionism and call the mix “Corporatism” at best or just call it “Capitalism.” This of course is not only a conceptual, but also an strategic mistake. …

Libertarians regressing to unsound, and thus, unfair Economics Read Post »

But This Cheese Pizza is Two Grains

Nanny Statism
Share

I love food shows, enough to be sucked into watching the first two episodes of “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution” (I also only have basic cable, so no more Food Network. Sigh.) Last week we followed Oliver as he created a new lunch menu for an elementary school in Huntington, West Virginia, the CDC’s unhealthiest city of 2008. And what did we find? Oliver’s menu of baked chicken, brown rice, and fruit did not meet the USDA standards for a well-rounded lunch. He wasn’t offering two grains! Heaven forbid! Oliver resorted to toasting hamburger buns to serve with the lunch, all the while complaining that this extra starch was just going to make the students fat. The USDA-approved lunch, however, met the guidelines–a slice of cheese pizza is two grains. I think they threw a few carrot and celery sticks and a piece of fruit on the tray as well. Which would you rather your child have for lunch? Well, it doesn’t matter because the USDA demands they have the pizza. …

But This Cheese Pizza is Two Grains Read Post »

Scroll to Top