Category Archives: regulation

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

…and why a Labour Party government would be a disaster for Great Britain (and not just because of Jeremy Corbyn’s blatant socialism bent).  In a Deutsche Welle piece about Boris Johnson’s move to replace Theresa May as party head (and presumably as Prime Minister, at least until the next general election), the news outlet quoted Labour Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer:

The debate on Brexit in the Tory leadership contest…[n]one of the likely candidates for the top job has a credible plan for how to break the deadlock before the end of October.

Therein lies Labour’s lack of understanding of the situation. The deadlock is Brussels’ manufacture, not Great Britain’s, and certainly not that of their combined effort. It’s on Brussels to offer solutions to its deadlock.

The clearer understanding is illustrated by Johnson.  He’s

not aiming for a no-deal outcome but it is only responsible to prepare vigorously and seriously for no-deal. Indeed, it is astonishing that anyone could suggest dispensing with that vital tool in the negotiation.

Great Britain needs to leave the EU with no further delay.  Delay only increases uncertainty, and uncertainty damages the British economy and harms the British people and their enterprises who must operate within it.  A smoothly done departure would be optimal, but given what the EU has on offer, a no-deal departure is better.

Keep in mind: for all the argument over border control and immigration and the force of European Union regulations within Great Britain, what’s at the core is that the Brits voted for their own economy and their sovereignty, not the continent’s.

Green Cow Gas

Posted on by
Reply

…or something.  The Wall Street Journal opined Monday on the alleged hypocrisy of California’s Progressive-Democrats on the matter of going carbon-neutral in a shade over a decade.

California has plowed billions of dollars into green energy to wean the state off fossil fuels. But now progressives are complaining that biofuel producers are milking government subsidies intended to help dairy farmers cut emissions. Here is another illustration of the left’s anti-carbon contradictions.

The Editors went on in that vein, describing those Progressive-Democrats’ dismay over two companies thoroughly dominating the cow manure and flatulence emissions carbon credits market, even taking advantage of California’s laws governing those emissions.

The Editors closed with this gem regarding those Progressive-Democrat greens:

California dairies have been shrinking due to the high costs of complying with environmental regulation and water restrictions. By subsidizing methane digesters, the state intended to prevent more dairy farmers from leaving the state for less green pastures. But green groups now say the subsidies will encourage farmers to increase their herds, which could cause more water and air pollution from manure….

I have to ask, then: haven’t these editors (and other critics) heard? Sniffing methane develops magical thinking powers.

Regulatory Capture

Posted on by
Reply

…and campaign finance hypocrisy.  Regulatory capture is where companies subject to this or that regulatory body are large enough and financially successful enough to…influence…their regulators and guide the nature and scope of the regulations to which they, and their competitors, are subject.

The most recent presidential campaign filings show that [Senator Elizabeth, D, MA] Warren and [Senator, I, VT (or D, depending on which spin is current] Bernie Sanders—who has called for ramping up antitrust enforcement and taking on the big tech companies—have each attracted large amounts of contributions from people connected to Google and other tech companies.

As The Wall Street Journal noted just ahead of that cite,

No other candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination has been as eager to call for the breakup of Google as Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Therein lies the hypocrisy: these two, along with many of their fellow Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates, argue most vociferously for getting Big Money out of campaign finance.

Flip Flops

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal concerned itself with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s flip flop surrender on the question of abortion rights and the Hyde Amendment.  I have some thoughts on that.

Joe Biden’s best claim to the Democratic presidential nomination is that he’s a moderate liberal who can pull centrist votes from Donald Trump.

?? Biden himself has never made this claim during the present campaign. He led off his campaign by saying he was the most Progressive of all his fellow candidates.

That’s a non sequitur [the premise abortion rights are dependent on zip code]. The existence of a right doesn’t assume the government’s obligation to pay for it.

The second is WSJ‘s own non sequitur. Government doesn’t pay for anything; us taxpayers do. Government only brokers the deal. However, the WSJ‘s sentiment is on track, sort of: we taxpayers aren’t obligated to pay for anyone’s abortion, either.

Biden’s about-face…underscores how far left the Democratic Party’s activist base has moved.

This raises the more important and more general question. As the Progressive-Democrat candidates race each other to the far left to pander to the Progressive-Democratic Party’s base, what will the winner do in the general election?

Will that candidate betray the Party’s base in an effort to appeal to the center and to Independents, or will he betray the center and those Independents in order to stay with Party base?  In either event, how can he be believed by any voter?

Gun Rights vs Gun Controls

Posted on by
Reply

In a Sunday Wall Street Journal piece about red flag laws as a means of gun control, Zusha Elinson asked whether there are any (other) measures that could unify gun rights and gun control supporters.

I say there are none.  Full stop.

Gun rights supporters want the 2nd Amendment honored as it’s written. That’s it, and it’s that simple.

Gun control supporters, though, don’t care about the 2nd Amendment, except to the extent they’re willing to go to the trouble of repealing it rather than simply ignoring it. This is demonstrated by a couple of things central to their position.

One is their demand to dictate our purpose in having this or that weapon—”Why does anyone need an assault weapon” and “You don’t need that for defense” and “You don’t need that at all.”

The other is their flat refusal to identify their limiting principle on their controls. Where would they stop? What natural condition in our Constitution would set a limit? Gun control supporters refuse to say; they just natter on about “just this sensible control,” or “just that sensible control,” or “common sense controls” generally.

And, of course, it’s their common sense, not anyone else’s.

Concerning Elinson’s main thesis, red flag laws allow authorities to seize, ostensibly temporarily, firearms from people someone has accused of being threats.

The problem with red flag laws is that they have no protections against the flag being raised falsely because the complainer has an axe to grind; or a grudge to push; or someone is oversensitive or overreacting, vis. a grade school teacher who doesn’t want to hear little Sally talking about granddad’s pistol so the teacher denounces granddad; or….

Nor are there any mechanisms beyond pretty words for returning confiscated weapons to the owner once the false flag is identified or the legitimately raised flag’s concern satisfied.

And this: they leave no means of protection for anyone else in the household from which the weapons have been confiscated. Those members are left completely defenseless.

Those last two are consistent with (though by themselves not dispositive of) gun control advocates’ desire to disarm us.