Gun Control Post-Newtown

As I have posted before, I am a supporter of the Second Amendment.  And I think military-style weapons like the one used in the Newtown slaughter are probably the most-protected of weapons- the Second Amendment is primarily designed to protect yourself, your state, or your country from an invading attack, foreign or domestic.  But just as you cannot falsely yell "fire" in a crowded moviehouse, the "well regulated" clause of the Amendment allows that there is much we can do to control these dangerous weapons and do our best to make sure they are only used for legitimate purposes.  To wit, my proposal- I'm always open to tweaks and suggestions though:

The Well-Regulated Militia Act of 2013

           Recognizing that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms,” yet also provides that this right exists to provide a “well-regulated militia,” this Act henceforth shall require:

(a)   No person may possess an handgun or semi-automatic centerfire weapon  without first being trained in their proper use and storage, and being judged legally and mentally competent, by an appropriate state or federal licensing authority. 

(b) Any person licensed to own such weapons shall be required to secure them from other persons not such licensed, and shall be held criminally liable if other persons gain access to them if not secured according to regulations promulgated according to this section.

(c) This Act is retroactive to any person owning such firearms, who must either get such licensing within 12 months of final regulations being promulgated, or sell them to a state or to the federal government for disposal or resale to qualified buyers.

(d) The BATF shall issue proposed regulations implementing this Act within six months of passage, and final regulations within 12 months of passage.

How to Balance the Budget

This seems like such a no brainer. Pay for half the deficit with tax increases, and the other half with spending cuts. Spread the spending cuts out equally to everything, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the military (Social Security is not yet contributing to the deficit). For the tax increase side, increase the gas tax and raise marginal tax rates on those making over $100,000. If the gas tax is too unpalatable, then just raise marginal rates on everyone.

On the spending cut side, we are never going to get anywhere with what's going on now: liberals unwilling to cut anything, and conservatives only willing to cut things they hate like family planning and public broadcasting. Not only are these cuts miniscule compared to military and Medicaid/Medicare spending, but they obviously cannot be expected to engender the bipartisan approach we need to get this done. Americans are ready to sacrifice if it's a shared sacrifice, with equal across-the-board reductions in spending. Once we balance the budget, if one side wants to move bills to take money from one program and move it to another, we can consider those efforts on the merits.

And we can't do this all with spending cuts- these are programs that really affect people, whether it's the elderly or the troops. Not since the 20s has the inequality between the wealthy and poor been so great, and tax rates on the wealthy are at all-time lows. The situation we are in has given lie to the notion that tax cuts for the wealthy somehow can create low deficits. Exactly the opposite is true (duh), and we need to raise taxes. We should do this first by raising the gas tax (we are far below the world average), which has the twin benefits of reducing pollution/encouraging efficiency/reducing reliance on foreign oil, as well as raising revenue. Now this would disproportionately affect lower income people, so we should balance it with increases in the income taxes on the well-to-do, back to historic rates. Again, shared sacrifice.

Aren't these measures just common sense?

postscript in the "fiscal cliff" days.  Well I guess my proposal is basically advocating the fiscal cliff!  Maybe not the best fix in these not-recovered-from-recession-yet days, but I'm glad we are facing it to secure some real budget fixes

A Liberaltarian Manifesto

So, what does a liberaltarian believe in? Or what does this liberaltarian believe? A quick summary of a few hot-button topics, that I hope to exand upon in further posts.

Environmental protection:

A basic tenant of libertarianism is that your right to do whatever you want stops when it directly hurts me. Yes, you can swing a bag of rocks around your head- but not when I'm standing next to you. Yet, most who call themselves "libertarians" (you gotta watch it when I leave the "al" out) seem to oppose rules to prevent one person or company from polluting the air that other people breath. This makes no sense. They'll try a bait-and-switch and say "I'm not against environmental protection- I'm against government agencies being in charge. Leave it to the markets and the courts to sort it out." But of course the markets *don't* take care of it, and as for the courts- not only do burdens of proof and unequal financial resources between the polluter and pollutee make simple tort suits often impossible, but libertarians' attitudes towards the courts belie that they really think the courts should do this- they are amongst the first to rail against jury awards and the first to champion "tort reform" etc. So really most modern "libertarians" are really just people who think the ability to make lots of money is more important than the right to be free of pollution that harms you. I don't think that idea is consistent with true libertarianism, yet there it is. Hence the need for the term "liberaltarian."

Gun rights:

I don't know why liberals hate gun rights so much. Ok I guess I do- they think gun deaths are not worth it. But that "better safe than sorry" approach is inconsistent with other liberal values, and is really a conservative value. I mean, liberals are against the Patriot Act, often citing Ben Franklin's quote (and I paraphrase for modernity) that "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Yet, they would sacrifice their gun rights for the security of knowing there are fewer guns out there? Ok that's because they don't really want to own a gun, and care more about a terror suspect's right to habeas corpus (which of course is also important). But you know what? As offensive and crude and, yes, potentially dangerous as your liberal or conservative neighbor's excercise of rights might seem, too bad- they are all in the Constitution that we love so miuch and if you want the rights that you find so dear respected by others then, well, you better respect theirs.

That I support gun rights does not mean I am against reasonable restrictions- far from it.  However, I think they should revolve around licensing of weapons used most in crimes- handguns and semi-auto weapons, rather than banning them.  See my post on "Post-Newtown" gun measures.  If we accept that we need a driver's license to drive a car, we should accept that you need one for these dangerous weapons.

Gay Rights:

Why on earth do social conservatives care if two people of the same sex want to get married and start a family? I thought they were pro-family? How could a gay marrriage ever harm someone else's straight marriage? Oh, and I'm also against segregated schools and denying woman the right to vote too. They are all in the same category of no rational defense along with being against gay marriage. Enough said- my God, even regular libertarians agree with this one!

Aesthetic Building Codes:

Ok so ugly buildings suck. You know what else sucks? When people write homophobic letters to the editor- which I personally find alot uglier than an ugly building. And yet, we acknowledge such free speech rights. So why do we have "design review committees" that get to approve aesthetic designs of the houses we build? Why did they get to tell a local church that it had to buy a new door because it deemed the recently-installed one the "wrong" color? I don't care that it was in a "historical" zone- I live in the same neighborhood and I think if they wanted to have a bright-red door with Satan poking the liver out of some sinner that's their right (not that they did- it was the "wrong" natural wood stain!). This same designated-historic zone has some (gasp!) non-Victorian houses that snuck in before the beauty police arrived. I think those houses help make the neighborhood real and un-Stepford; yet they could not be built now. What? How did this become allowed- and common!- in a free society? This one really gives liberalism a bad name (although many supposed private property rights conservatives somehow agree with it too).

Abortion:
Hmm, the big "A." You'd think being a liberaltarian it's a no-brainer that I'd be "pro choice." Well I largely am but I think this is far from a no-brainer- after all, it's a good argument that a woman's right to abort a fetus ends at that fetus's life. That's why I think it is reasonable to ban late-term abortions after natural (i.e. unassisted) viability, with exceptions for the life or serious physical complications of the mother (pretty much what Roe v. Wade said). But before that, abortion on demand should remain legal- I just happen to think the life choices of the mother trump any rights of a human fetus that hasn't formed sufficiently to live outside that mother on its own.

Helmet Laws, Seat Belt laws, Smoking bans . . .

Ah yes, the nanny state! I put these in the same category, but don't always necessarily come down the same. Helmet laws for adults is easy- no! Look, for some motorcycle riders (and bicycle riders, skiers etc.), the freedom of having the wind blow in your hair and not have your head in a melon is an essential joy of the sport, even if it is more dangerous. I just can't acccept the argument that "what if they get hurt and don't have insurance? Don't we have to pay for that?" Puh-lease- under that theory, we'd have to ban fatty meats, booze, riding bikes at all along roads, etc. Sorry, but in a free society these freedoms of choice trump broad social costs. Seat belt laws are a bit tougher- no one really values the freedom to drive unbuckled, those that don't buckle up are mostly just ignorant/lazy. My solution- those that love the unbuckled life can get a special exemption from the DMV after watching a film of how stupid it is and paying $20. Smoking bans- philosophically hate them, practically love them- I'll have to get to this in a further post!

Corporate Rights:

Corporations are great- I own stock in some big and small ones, and have started small ones for my small businesses. But they should not get the same rights as persons- they are money-making machines with no soul. But aren't they made up of persons? Sure. And my body is made up of individual cells, but no, my toenail clippings don't get Constitutional rights. I have a right to own property and largely do what I want with it, yes. But I am not just a money-making machine- I care about my neighbors, and our system of government basically trusts the individual to do the right thing even if she doesn't always do so. But a coporation? Whose raison d'etre is to provide maximum economic return for its shareholders? Who could be sued by a shareholder if it decided to not fully develop the property in a way that maximized economic return? Sorry- if you want the economic advantages of a corporation- limited liability, favorable tax status etc.- then in return that corporation should have to live with rights that are more limited than for individuals- including limits on campaign contributions!

Health Insurance:

A liberal wants everyone protected. A libertarian wants the government to stay the heck out. What's a liberaltarian supposed to do? Compromise, of course! If private insurance worked fine I'd be all for it- but it doesn't. It's been a big cause of skyrocketing health care costs and needs to go away. Here's what I propose instead: replace Medicare and Medicade with a program that provides catastrophic insurance for all (e.g. that kicks in after you've accrued $5-10,000 of medical bills in a year), payed for with increased non-payroll taxes (income or consumption tax). To pay for that first $5-10,000 (if necessary), everyone would have a Health Savings Account (like many do now) that employees and employers would pay into instead of into Medicare like they do now. People would pay for the vast majority of their health care with money from these HSAs, and any money they still have in it when they die can be left to heirs. It would incentivize people to forgo unnecessary procedures and to shop around, which would lower costs- so would not having to pay an insurance company to process claims and payout huge salaries and profits.

Let's End the Income Tax:

We all know that we tax things to disincentivize them- so why do we tax income then? And think about how invasive the income tax is to your life- you have to reveal so much of it to the government in a tax return. We should get rid of the national income tax, and replace it with a consumption/sales tax. Basics like non-luxury food, clothing & shelter, and any used item, would be exempt so as not to be regressive; everything else would have a 25% tax (rich people spend the most on discretionary spending so don't worry, they will still carry the lion's share of the tax load). Republican, yes, but I like it too! A root cause of pollution and destruction of our natural world is over-consumption, and a consumption tax encourages savings, donation to charity and buying used/recycled- and discourages consumption.

War:

It is both wrong and stupidly expensive for the U.S. to get into these wars that are not absolutely essential to our defense. After 9-11 we attacked Al Quida training camps in Afganistan, that made sense. But once that was accomplished we should have been done, simply continuing counter-terrorism with intelligence and opportunisitic attacks when necessary. A ten-year ground war, the longest in U.S. history, was not called for. All these tea partiers complain about federal spending, and the military is by far the largest component of federal discretionary spending- why are they not marchinig to end these expensive exploits? If there is needed action in the world where it is not directly essential to our interests (like the Balkan wars in the 90s), then we need to get the world to agree and pay for it, such as through the United Nations or at least NATO. We would of course contribute troops and $ to the effort but we wouldn't be doing it alone and it would have international sanction, instead of making us easy foils for Al Quida to say "look there goes the imperialistsic U.S. again."

Drug legalization:

Yes, being a liberaltarian I support at least some drug legalization, but not all. Marijuana's a no brainer- of course it should be legalized. You can't overdose on it, it doesn't make you dangerous while high (except somewhat while driving, but less so than alcohol), and in a free country you should generally be able to do to your own body what you want. But many "hard" drugs I don't think so- crack, heroin, meth? It's hard to see full legalization for any drug that could kill you with a single overdose, or that can make you a serious threat to others (I know that's the case with alcohol, but it's just gonna have to retain its special status). Then there are hallucinagens like psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, extacy etc. Some of those maybe but can you see an LSD store? I'm not actually sure how this would work. But regardless, for any drugs that remain illegal it is insanity to impose criminal penalties for use of them. For addicted people treatment has been clearly shown to be the way to go. But many people who use such drugs are not addicted, they just want to get high- special drug courts can put them to work on community service projects to provide a deterent fo use. But using drugs is not something that is "malum per se" ("inherently wrong" in latin), so there is no reason to give users criminal records or fill up our jails- penalties should be like parking tickets.
More to come . . .