Oh Great

There’s a group trying to secure Kansas City as the site of the 2016 GOP convention. Gross.

City Bureaucrats are Slum Lords

Writes the Kansas City Star’s editorial board:

Vacant, nuisance properties have become Kansas City’s latter-day plague, a kind of urban gangrene that can create a chronic downdraft in property values. In neighborhoods where the problem is severe, vacant houses draw rats, squatters, drug dealers, vandals and midnight dumpers.

Just how many of these “nuisance properties” are there?

Thousands.

Thousands of dilapidated properties are currently held by the city; estimates range from 4,000 to 12,000. Rotting, falling apart, and sitting idle, most were seized after the “owners” failed to pay rent to the government, or maintained the property as they saw fit, rather than follow a bureaucrat’s arbitrary plans.

Apparently kidnapping the “owners” hasn’t worked, because a few months ago KCTV5 reported that: “Kansas City, MO, police, along with the city, are cracking down and arresting homeowners who ignore repeated warnings to clean up.” Basically, if bureaucrats didn’t like your lawn they’d just kidnap you and hold you for ransom, the logical conclusion of such a policy.

The city government framed this in terms of fighting crime, namely drug use and prostitution, but if these two vices weren’t criminalized to begin with, there would be no such problem with abandoned homes. Michael Rozeff explained why this is true in a blog post on LRC regarding the city of Buffalo conducting SWAT raids on so-called “drug houses.”

So absent all of the problems created by prohibition, the only issue remaining is that dilapidated homes tend to reduce home values. This is another reason city governments regulate such items as where garbage cans may or may not be stored, what hours they are allowed to be on the curb, where and how RV campers are kept, and a whole host of issues related to aesthetics. But as Walter Block would argue, people don’t have a right to a nice view. This is where voluntary associations and neighborhood contracts can protect other property owners, but in no way should government become involved, which, as we see, knows only violence.

The city is now phasing out its Land Trust, the agency formerly in control of the properties. It was marked by “corruption and favoritism” and “strayed from the mission of improving city neighborhoods,” but city officials are hopeful that an even more powerful entity, the Land Bank, will solve this mess once and for all.

The supposed purpose of seizing these run-down properties was to preserve the neighborhoods’ aesthetics and maintain property values. But as has been clearly demonstrated, things have only deteriorated, and expanding the program will surely make things worse. Instead, city officials should publicly apologize to residents for aggravating the situation, and the remaining properties should be auctioned off, with proceeds going to restitution for the former owners.

There’s No Saving The Post Office

Shamita Mahajan wants to save the Postal Service and she’s written a piece for the Kansas City Star making her case. In it, she addresses the rise of digital communication and how that has largely pushed physical mail out of the market, but that’s not the only reason for the Post Office’s dismal outlook. Sure, e-mail has largely nullified the traditional mail service, but were it not for the long-entrenched bureaucracy and labor unions, the USPS wouldn’t likely be in such a poor state.

In some ways I can agree with Mahajan on her point about hand-written letters. Letter writing is certainly becoming a lost art of sorts. Brett and Kate McKay over at the Art of Manliness have written a few times on hand-written letters and their place in the culture. And there was something extra special about sending and receiving hand-written letters between my wife and me while overseas.

However, two things struck me about Mahajan’s appeal, and she’s not alone in her thinking. Probably most Americans share her opinion about such government programs.

Those who enjoy letter-writing aren’t justified in forcing everyone else to support their hobby. This is a simple tenet of morality. It’s unjust to coerce individuals to do anything, let alone cough up money for things they don’t even want to use.

If Mahajan and her family decide to write more letters that’s great, but why must the federal government subsidize it? This is my second point: the industry should be opened up and the government should no longer prohibit companies from delivering letter mail.

As with everything else, the market has a remarkable way of working things out. In the absence of an anachronistic institution like the post office free individuals would step forward and offer to meet the needs of others. If letters can be delivered for cheaper than .45 cents, the market can make that happen; if they can’t, then those who want to send them should pay the difference.

The Real Safety Net

The Kansas City Star ran a piece the other day on unemployment, framing the local impact on the unemployed within the broader macro-political-economy. A couple of women were interviewed who’ve been out of work for twelve months, and are set to “lose” their benefits by year’s end. Unless congress passes another extension of unemployment benefits, another six million individuals will cease being paid come June, 2012.

The present system is filled with moral hazard and vast amounts of capital is wasted, which, if set free, would be put to more productive use. Simply put, humans act. They act in order to survive and to provide for their many wants. The decisions they make are based upon the incentive structure they operate under. What this means for the unemployed is if they are paid not to work, they’re less inclined to go find a new job right away.

This doesn’t mean all unemployed people behave the same way. Many do in fact work diligently to find employment, but not all. The same phenomenon is seen with disability insurance, where people without coverage return to work much sooner, on average.

Advocates for unemployment insurance argue that the cost of the program is worth it because the money helps the recipient and the firms where they spend the money. This is a Keynesian fallacy, based on the idea that consumption, and not production, drives an economy. Generally, those who subscribe to Keynes’ ideas ignore the deadweight losses associated.

When the government spends billions of dollars paying people not to work, firms and investors have that much less to use in expanding their businesses and hiring the unemployed. What we see are the unemployment checks.  All of the development and expansion that cannot happen as a result of the tax goes unseen.

In a recent essay on the subject, Jeffrey Tucker notes that in “economics books from the 15th-19th centuries, there was hardly a word written about unemployment at all.” Unemployment, at least on the modern scale, is a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the large-scale economic interventions of the Progressive Era and New Deal, workers had much less difficulty being rehired or going out on their own. Tucker notes “there is more than enough work to do in this world. There is no shortage of jobs, now or ever. The only question concerns the terms of exchange between the worker and the person [hiring him] (bold in original).”

Government intervention in general distorts the labor market and discourages individuals from starting new businesses. There are myriad licensing and regulatory hurdles to clear before businesses can even serve their first client. The special treatment given to labor unions, foreign trade agreements, and central bank-induced business cycles all wreak havoc on the market. Minimum wage laws restrict hiring, which affects small start-ups more than established firms. Assuming any profit is realized, extortion payments taxes are then due.

The Star’s reporter, Diane Stafford, spoke with representatives from some of the local churches and found that private charities “are seeing first-time applicants whose unemployment safety nets are […] exhausted.” In other words, people are turning to charities as a last resort. This is the exact opposite of how society should function.

In a free society it’s unlikely that such large-scale economic disasters would occur, absent natural disasters. The market, though not perfect, harmonizes when left free from intervention; but stabilization is chaos. When hardship does come, families and private institutions, the real safety net, would provide for the poor.

As with everything else, private organizations have the incentives necessary to ensure success. Because they rely on volunteer labor and private gifts to sustain their operations, they cannot afford to be wasteful. No one wants to work for a failing company just as no one wants to volunteer for a dysfunctional charity.

Likewise, donors aren’t likely to pick failing enterprises to bless with their contributions; they want to maximize their gifts’ effect by placing them in the most efficient hands. Government intervention has meant the institutions best equipped to care for the poor and needy are crowded out. Not only do folks have less disposable income, but so many government programs are in place that the need, morally, to help is diminished.

While speaking on the subject of welfare, Frank Chodorov was asked by an audience member “what will become of the elderly who cannot care for themselves?” Chodorov’s answer was: “They’ll be allowed to die in the streets as was done in the past.” A gutsy move, the questioner may not have taken the bait, but he did, and asked: “When was that ever done?” Chodorov replied: “Precisely!”

Tom Woods puts it in these terms: “Do you really think your fellow man is so evil, that you and your neighbors are so evil, that you wouldn’t help some guy out? […] Don’t you trust yourself to [provide help]? And if you don’t, how have you allowed yourself to be talked into this idea you’re that evil?”

The prospect of no “safety net” terrifies most people, who have been conditioned to look to the government as their savior. Freedom to them is a vice, best taken in moderation, and only when regulated by bureaucrats. Freedom though, is not the problem: the absence of liberty is to blame for our economic woes.

No, You Get Out

The Kansas City Star reported that last night police conducted a bomb search at KCI when a flight in-bound from New York landed. FBI agents reportedly told passengers that an “unauthorized transmission” was made from aboard the plane, which prompted the investigation. According to the story, the FBI “wanted to interview passengers who might have used Internet-connected devices during the flight….”

An all too common discussion began in the comment section when one reader dared to question the police powers used. He wrote “So basically it’s safe to assume that some spy agency in the US is monitoring all our calls, eavesdropping on all our conversations and monitoring all internet traffic. […] So much for America being land of the free.”

Predictably, someone responded with the love-it-or-leave-it cliché. “The United States is most certainly the land of the free. It is so because dedicated people sacrifice to ensure that it stays so. Freedom comes at a cost. If you are not willing to pay that cost, feel free to pack your bags and get out.”

Why should we who resent living in a Police State have to get out? Why don’t instead, those who don’t object to being treated like a slave and a criminal move to a totalitarian society and leave the rest of us alone? There aren’t many places left to go for people who subscribe to the radical notion that everyone in society should abide the same moral code. And, on the other hand, literally dozens and dozens of places around the world are ruled by tyrannical governments with virtually no limit to their powers.

You don’t feel safe living in a society that respects others’ privacy and property? Move on. Since voting with our feet has all but been ruled out as an option for the liberty minded, the other side should vote with theirs.