Skip to content

Abolish Private Prisons

I think we should abolish private prisons for these reasons: First, the criminal justice system is one of the very few areas of our society that is clearly a government responsibility. Second, part of the mission of prisons is punishment. Private operators have no incentive to accomplish this objective because they are motivated to keep things as calm as possible. Third, we should not have a prison operator who has an incentive to increase the number of prisoners. Private companies can certainly build prisons and even own them, but government employees should staff them.

Takeover of Afghanistan and the United States

While watching the news accounts of the situation in Afghanistan it is hard not to empathize with the Afghan people. The takeover of their country by the Taliban is almost as gut wrenching as the takeover of the United States by progressives.

Hot Topic: Hiking Restrictions

The restrictions being considered for Phoenix area hiking due to the heat are wrong. Every single person has a different ability and different limitations. Whether to hike in any conditions, heat, rain, thunderstorms, cold, etc., should be an individual decision, not government. There are obviously people who have health conditions that would make it inadvisable to hike at any time. Therefore, the next thing we should expect from our government nannies will be a requirement for a doctor’s authorization for anyone to hike.

A much better change would be a “user pay” approach, that is, charge people for rescues. The word will get around quickly and hotel concierges will start advising their health challenged guests to consider the conditions.

Water: We Won’t Run Out Unless……

Many articles are appearing in various media scaring those of us in the West into thinking we might run out of water. An Arizona State University researcher and one time director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources was recently quoted as saying “everybody thinks they’re special, but nobody is going to be very special when we run out of water.” This is typical of the scare tactics that are used to make us comfortable with more government regulation, which the scare mongers argue, is the only way to avoid such a calamity. Ironically, this is the only scenario in which we WILL run out of water. There is plenty of water on our planet. The problem is getting it to the people who need it. Sometimes this becomes expensive, and this is where market forces, not government, should be allowed to work. Just like any other commodity such as gold or silver or diamonds or rare earth metals, the mining and movement of water can be expensive. If market forces are allowed to work, then water will go to the highest and best uses. A side benefit is that conservation will also occur naturally as the price rises.

However, these beneficial effects of conservation through market pricing can be thwarted by government actions. If a law is passed that prevents water from being transported out of a certain place or to a certain place, this can cause a shortage. Or, if government imposes price controls, there may be uses which cannot occur at these lower prices. Or, if government decides that some uses are more important and should get preferences, this can make other uses uneconomical. Remember, in general, the only thing governments can do is stop you from doing what you want to do, force you to do what you don’t want to do, or eliminate some uses through price controls.

Water is a very precious commodity. Government’s role should be to ensure that there are no impediments to the operation of market forces. Henry David Thoreau said it best: Government never of itself furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.

the new “Independent Republican Party”

Unfortunately, most Republicans today continue to be too dependent on former president Donald Trump, a person not worthy of emulating. For that reason, I have formed, and trademarked, a new organization called the “Independent Republican Party.” Any registered Republican is welcome to join. There are no dues. The only commitment required is standing up for traditional Republican principles and remaining independent of the influence of Donald Trump. It is important to take this action now because the Republican Party is losing its moral high ground by failing to censure Trump’s bad behavior. And, if anyone needs to be reminded of what principles we should stand for, they need only read “Conscience of a Conservative,” either the early edition by Barry Goldwater or the more recent one by Jeff Flake.

Come on, Republicans; in your heart you know he’s wrong.

What Guns Do I Really Need?

In the ongoing debate over gun control you often hear statements like “no one really needs an AK-47 or an AR-15” (these are usually mislabeled “assault weapons”) or “no one needs a 30-round magazine.” So, what guns do I really need? Since many people, if not most, buy guns for self-defense, I think it is instructive to ask what guns are needed by those who are charged with defending us. At the national level we have our military, and they think they need weapons like fighter jets and nuclear bombs. I agree. At the local level, our defenders are police and security guards. Hardly anyone would claim that they need fighter jets or nuclear bombs. The military think they need tanks and howitzers. I agree. Do police need these weapons? I say no. But our police forces in recent years have become militarized and there are some police forces who own these types of weapons. This is an alarming trend because, while the mission of the military is often to “kill people and break things,” the role of the police is to “serve and protect.”

To further this analysis, I like to revive the saying that clarifies why I need defensive weapons: “when seconds count, the police are often only minutes away.” Therefore, I would argue that a good way to answer the question of what guns I need is to ask what guns the police need so that I can successfully defend myself until they arrive. I have established the fact that police do not need nuclear weapons or tanks. What about grenade launchers or fully automatic weapons? Again, given the mission of the police, I would argue that they do not need these weapons. Therefore, neither do I. What about handguns? It seems obvious to me that both police and security guards need these types of weapons. Therefore, so do I. But I cannot imagine why they would need 30-round magazines for these weapons. Therefore, neither do I.

Finally, we get to the toughest question. Do police need AR-15s? In the past, a few selected long guns for sniper kinds of activities and shotguns for closer range incidents were adequate. It seems to me that is still the case. Also, while I can certainly see the need for large capacity magazines for military soldiers, I cannot see that same need for police.

Therefore, I must conclude that people who purchase weapons for self-defense “need” weapons like handguns, shotguns, and rifles, but not AR-15s or large capacity magazines (or fighter jets or nuclear bombs or tanks or howitzers or grenade launchers).I hope my comments finally clarify this issue so there will not be a need for further debate.

Edward Snowden is a Martyr

I have recently learned that misdeeds of government officials are nearly impossible to expose. I learned this by reading Edward Snowden’s book “Permanent Record.” It was shocking. I was already familiar with Snowden’s story; that he had exposed the U.S. government’s mass surveillance program to collect nearly ALL communications by Americans, irrespective of whether these Americans were suspected of any wrongdoing and doing so without a specific court order. This practice must have been known by many senior government officials since two presidents lied about this to the American people, George W Bush, and Barack Obama. James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence even lied about it under oath to a congressional committee.

Edward Snowden released information that exposed the lie. I had always assumed that similar “whistle blowers” could be relied on to do the same whenever there was serious malfeasance by government officials. But what shocked me after reading Snowden’s book was his outlining, in great detail, the extreme difficulty in getting information out to the public about such malfeasance. As a result, I now fear there is much more that the public does not know about such malfeasance. We need to encourage and support whistle blowers like Snowden, not threaten them with life in prison.

Expand Social Gambling

House Bill 2772 would expand off-reservation gambling but would turn over control to the Arizona State Department of Gaming. Bad idea. If we are to expand legal gambling, it should be regulated by market forces, not the government. If licenses are required for gaming, they should be auctioned, as suggested by local columnist Bob Robb. Bob also questions the “prudence and morality of making state programs more dependent on gambling revenues.” This is a subject that deserves more attention.

Several months ago, I attended a meeting of the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council where the Department of Gaming was making a presentation about their budget. They began by stating that their mission was to maximize revenue to the state while maintaining the dignity of Arizona. I could not help but make a comment during the call to the public: I suggested that their state mission was impossible because there is nothing dignified about Arizona running a gaming operation (the lottery), especially since gaming is such a reprehensible action that private citizens are prohibited from engaging in it.

End the Draft

By continuing to make Selective Service registration and draft eligibility apply only to men, the Coalition for Men is arguing that the system is violating constitutional rights of men by sex discrimination. They are certainly correct but there is a much simpler argument that does not carry the baggage of sex discrimination. That argument is simply that the draft is slavery and we abolished slavery in the 1800s. This concept is further embodied in the libertarian notion of self-ownership, that we own our bodies, and no one has a greater right to control them.

My thanks to the retired NSA director and the nine general and flag officers who are supporting the idea of ending the draft, but I wish they had made their arguments based on individual rights rather than sex discrimination.

Sidewalk Sale to Help the Homeless

A recent newspaper article had a suggestion for how to solve the problem of homeless people wandering about near the downtown Phoenix homeless shelters. The article suggested allowing groups and businesses to buy the sidewalks. This would allow for control of the pedestrian traffic and ensure that some entity has responsibility for these people. (We have all heard of the “tragedy of the commons” where public property is destroyed because no single entity is responsible for it.)

I would take this idea one step farther and suggest that both the sidewalks and the streets be privatized. The same idea of responsibility for pedestrians on the sidewalks would then apply to traffic on the streets. I believe that would significantly reduce vagrancy, traffic accidents, and crime. For anyone who has not seen how this would work, you need only look at a few homeowners’ associations or, for a much grander example, look at the town of North Oaks, Minnesota. It is not gated but all the land is private, including streets and walkways. There is no litter, no vagrancy, and little or no crime. Surprised?