Issue Fatigue

The Indy Star ran an interesting article about 'issue fatigue', the idea that lawmakers get tired of dealing with an issue year after year, and finally it passes.

Many issues sort of hang around -- sometimes for years -- as advocates try to convince their colleagues that their bills are worthwhile.

In these cases, ideas become law through a combination of determination, familiarity and fatigue.

A statewide smoking ban and the elimination of the state's inheritance tax are issues poised to become Indiana's latest examples.

I found it fascinating as I consider the possibility of Libertarians winning elections and becoming legislators. Would they also experience issue fatigue? I doubt it. If there's one thing that characterizes most libertarians, it's dogged determination. You don't stick around as an ideology centered third party without tenacity.

At a meeting last week of the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers were hearing the details of a complicated Senate bill that would cut the inheritance tax by changing the definitions of some beneficiaries, increasing the amount of an estate that would be exempt from taxation and slashing the actual tax rates.

Even before testimony on the proposal could begin, though, Ways and Means members were impatient. They weren't interested in more proposals to cut the tax. They just want it gone.

"Do it and get it over with," Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, said. "Otherwise we'll be fighting this every year, and philosophies won't change."

Before you get the wrong idea, understand that Moses has been the one trying to get the estate tax cut or even eliminated. Yes, a Democrat trying to cut a tax. Give the man his due on that.

But, why pass it and get it over with? Why not fight it every year, if that's the conscience of the individual lawmaker? If that's the will of the people in a particular district? Libertarians wouldn't shirk the task.

But it is instructive. Once we get in, we need to introduce legislation and doggedly stick to it. If we understand that so many will capitulate rather than deal with things repeatedly, very well. We know what strategy to employ.

Business Property Owners Lose More Ground

The Indiana legislature has ended its' short session so the members can go campaign for re-election in November. The one item that struck me more than any other points to the further assertion of government that business property owners will continue to have less and less to say about what goes on on their land, and that those who show up on it will have increasingly more the say.

This trend started in great earnest with the discussion of smoking bans on business property. Governments at all levels are increasingly saying that business owners cannot set policy on their property, because even though private property, they are places of public accommodation.

So, it certainly does follow that the Indiana legislature approved a law permitting employees to bring guns onto business property, regardless of whether the business owner approves. From the Indy Star:

The legislature passed House Enrolled Act 1065, which lets most employees take their guns with them as they drive to work and park in a company-owned lot, as long as the weapons stay out of sight in a locked vehicle. And it passed House Enrolled Act 1068, already signed into law by Daniels, that will keep gun permit information secret.

The losers here? The media and businesses.

Business groups argue that companies should be able to set their own policies on handguns to safeguard their property and employees. They point to workplace incidents where disgruntled employees have retrieved a weapon from their cars and opened fire.

The Star got it right on business as loser here. I'm all for the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. However, the rights or property come first for me. If I don't want your gun on my property, that should be my call. Alas, in today's America, if you own business property, you can go to hell. Someone else gets primacy on what is now only nominally 'your land'.

Update: One day, I'll learn never to use my Mac for these posts. It's not really the fault of the Mac so much as Blogger. If I cut something from a source when using the Mac, Blogger preserves the font type and size. try to make it uniform? Forget it. Blogger freaks out and makes it worse. Doing the same operation on the PC leaves everything uniform. I like uniformity.

Yet Even Still More Smoking Ban for Marion County

It seems like there is endless restlessness by those who wish to use the power of government to force businesses to involuntarily adopt no-smoke policies. From WTHR 13's report:

A City-County Council committee approved a tighter ban in a 4-2 vote. The measure is designed to further reduce health effects of secondhand smoke especially on non-smoking workers at bars and clubs.

...

City Councilor Christine Scales questioned the wisdom of expanding the current restrictions. "Why a total ban? We're talking about serious liberty interests at stake here. Smoking is legal," she said.

I happen to like no-smoke establishments. I choose to patronize them. However, I get hung up on the phrase "the pursuit of happiness". People define that in different ways. For me, playing hockey is one avenue to happiness. For others, it's smoking a cigarette in a bar. I no more want a group of busybodies to outlaw my ability to play hockey on the basis of safety and eliminating risky behavior than smokers or bar owners want this ban. It's the third parties, those who don't even participate in the ownership or behavior, who are driving this law. That makes their efforts very suspect to me. I don't trust little dictators.

The ends of the no-smoke policy is nice, but the means are very important to me. There are the parallels I think of:

I like having a fully staffed military, but I oppose conscription.
I like having top notch health care, but don't think you should be taxed to make it so.

We want the ends. For the means, it is so unnecessary to resort to force, yet it is our nation's first resort anymore. We become less American daily.

Smoking Ban Testimony

I was reminded yesterday what an unpleasant business law-making is, as I testified before a House Committee in opposition to Indiana HB 1213, which proposes a statewide smoking ban in private workplaces.

Two hours was alotted for the proponents, and then two hours for the opponents. There were many speakers for both sides, so I winnowed my remarks, from four pages to one and a half. I was quoted in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:

“At first blush, you think this is a noble cause, but there needs to be a balance,” said Mike Smith, president of the casino group. Mike Kole, a central Indiana resident, echoed Smith’s concerns.

“It sends a signal to business that we like to meddle in how you run your affairs,” he said.

Here are the 'full' comments I presented to the Committee:

I do not smoke. I do not own a restaurant or a bar, a bowling alley, or a casino. I'm a regular citizen who has been concerned enough about the direction our governments are moving in to have run for office as a Libertarian candidate. I am ceoncerene about this law because of the messages and signals it sends, both by design, and unintentionally.

Because I don't smoke, and don't like secondhand smoke, I choose smoke-free restautants. For the same reasons, directing myself towards work that would not have me be in a smoking environment was something I did by conscious design, by choice. That's an important value. Choice.

I am dismayed with the ease with which proponents disregard the value of being free to choose, in order that a few more places will be how they like them to be.

With all due respect to Mr. Maurer, creating a healthy business climate, where Indiana attracts employers, is not created by passing a law like this. It sending the signal to business that we like to meddle in how you run your affairs. I don't think you'lll find a business owner that is drawn because of regulations or higher costs of operation.

In fact, the business owner from Lexington, Kentucky made the case that businesses adjust. That's true! They do! They respond to customer feedback. If business does better without smoking in their establishments, as he says they do, they would respond to that fact, as he said they do, and embrace the policy voluntarily.

Just as Voltaire famously made the case for free speech by saying, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it", I take a similar approach to this issue. Nobody thinks smoking is good for you, but tobacco is a legal product. And since we aren't calling for a prohibition of tobacco, and since this is still the land of the free, business owners should retain the right to set their policies within their four walls. Even if it isn't the policy I would set.

If government must be involved in this issue, it would be adequate to fully inform would-be patrons and workers of the smoking policy. I disagree with the person who gave testimony earlier, equating the signing of a waiver, which fully informs the worker of the working conditions, as 'intimidation'. It's information! And in a free society, we are able to make informed decisions. Post a sign indicating the smoking policy of the building and be done.

I urge you not to pass this bill, in the name of liberty, choice, and property rights.

Health should not come at the expense of these things.

I was a little astonished at the rudeness of many of the proponents. After the opponents sat quietly through two hours of their testimony, about half of their side left. About half of the remaining backers were talking loudly and answering their phones during their testimony, and some were even laughing at the opponents during their testimony.

Three women seated next to me were full of guffaws as a representative of the casino industry testified. When I returned from my turn to speak, I had to walk behind them to get back to my seat. As I sat down, the woman next to me leaned over and said, "I'm a libertarian, too".

I was completely stunned. I'm not sure in what universe the correlation between her rude behavior and her words has any meaning. I said nothing to her. If she's voting Libertarian, I'm glad of it, but she's doing so for all the wrong reasons.

The whole exercise reminded me just how much I dislike this process. Hearing two hours of the other side just made me cringe, for the complete disinterest they have in liberty, and in knowing they are probably a majority view. It take a tough hide, or completely mercenary disposition to tolerate it on a daily basis.

And that reminds me how much I've come to not respect the political mercenaries. I saw someone on the other side who smokes and whom I had come to believe was one who believes in liberty- especially as regards business property. That person is now deeply involved with the advancing of this bill, and I was told it is not at all about belief in right and proper government, but about being involved with a win.

That's just mindblowing and wholly contemptable. I've been known to get along just fine with socialists and other un-libertarians, on the basis of a good and vigorous debate that starts with the premise that we are interested in doing the best we can in the public arena. I can respect that person, even if I think they're wrong on their conclusions. What good is the political mercenary, who will even advance laws they think are bad, and not proper? This isn't a game. If you need to win at something that involves deception and cunning, play chess or poker, and leave the rest of us alone. Get the feather in your cap elsewhere.

In any case, this may not amount to much this year, as the Committee has to decide whether or not the bill will advance beyond the Committee. That vote is expected to happen next week.

New Podcast

The Indiana House Public Policy Committee is hearing testimony Wednesday morning on House Bill 1213, which would ban smoking in all Indiana workplaces if passed. 

I spoke with Chris Ward, the 2007 candidate for Lawrence Mayor in a special edition of the Libertarian Party of Indiana's Weekly Podcast. Chris has a useful perspective. He is a former smoker, and works in a restaurant that currently allows smoking in the bar area of the building. We talked about the health issues related to smoking in the workplace, worker choice, and the rights of business property owners.

For my part, I am scheduled to speak on the side of opponents of the bill in the House Chamber. I don't smoke, and I don't own a bar or a restaurant, but I believe in the primacy of the right of business owners over the intrusion of the state on the behalf of others.

Smoking, Again

It appears that Indiana is poised to consider a statewide ban on smoking in places of public accommodation. No sir, I don't like it.

I don't smoke. Never have. I detest the smell of tobacco smoke. What I do like are property rights.

There's no doubt that smoking can kill you, and that secondhand smoke can also kill you. I'm not advocating smoking or hanging around in smoky bars. But people engage in this behavior, using a legal product, for a variety of reasons, none of which especially needs to be justified to me.

I trust business owners to set their own policies. Some restaurant owners long ago set smoke-free policies as a matter of their business plan, hoping to attract a clientele that prefers a smoke-free atmosphere. But there is clearly also a market for restaurants that permit a post-meal smoke. If the owner permits it, and you chose to walk in, who is harmed?

Some say that the people who work there are harmed. Sure they are, if they choose to work in a smoky environment. Who is taking what gun and pointing it to their heads, forcing them to be there? But, it's their job!

Well, no. It isn't their job. The job, like the building, belong to the employer. The employee is one who agrees to be there, on an agreed-to set of terms. Now, there may be some stupid employees out there, who didn't bother to discuss the terms, or who were somehow non-observant of the conditions of the workplace when they accepted the job of their own volition.

If the employer permits smoking by employees, the smoker isn't 'intervening' into the non-smoker's space. He is smoking in the space provided by the employer. The life, liberty of the property owner comes before the non-property owner who is invited into the building. It's the primacy of the property owner over the visitor that is important.

Consider your home for a minute. Would you not consider it absurd to invite guests over and then have them determine the policies of your home? So, why is a place of business any different?

America is really losing its' way with regards to freedom, and understanding freedom. When anybody but the property owner can dictate the policies affecting that property, there is no freedom, but fascism.

But, since it's clear that there are health risks associated with the use of tobacco, it seems prudent for those offering smoking policies to warn their potential guests. We have warning labels on cigarette packages. There is no reason why we can't have the smoking policy of various establishments clearly posted at all entrances so that informed choices can be made. This way, those who hate smoke, like me, can figure out if we want to enter or not. those who smoke can go where they want to as well.

Seems like a nice, King Solomon compromise solution- One that respects freedom.

Angry Publican: David Hockney

Following up on the recent post on the effect of the smoking ban (among other things) on Britain's pubs, I happened across an article that was sent to me about a month ago by Steve Wainstead. Steve was a photo major, and turned me on to Hockney's photo collages, which was eye-opening for me. In turn, I began to shoot photo collages for myself.

Hockney is quite outspoken about the smoking ban, and all things "bossy". From an article in The Independent:

Some of the world's finest artists were lifelong smokers, he will happily point out, including Picasso, Matisse, Monet and Turner. Hockney does not smoke while he is painting because he needs his hands free, but when he steps back to take stock of his work, he lights up. And when the Government announced its proposed smoking ban in pubs and clubs, Hockney turned up at Labour's annual conference to lead a protest funded by the tobacco companies. "Death awaits you whether you smoke or not," he proclaimed. "Pubs are not health clubs. People go to drown their sorrows. We could save a lot more lives if we refuse to serve alcohol, you could argue. This is ridiculous. It's bossy."

Bossiness is one of Hockney's pet dislikes. He has a slogan: End Bossiness Soon – "soon" because he thinks "now" would sound bossy. "People should start standing up for themselves," he says. "Where has the awkward squad gone?"

I was pleasantly surprised to learn of the range of Hockney's libertarian beliefs. It's not what I expect from an artiste. But, it appears that Hockney finds the "for your own good" laws to be conformity, something many artistes once rebelled against.

let's hear it for Hockney!

Britain's Pubs Dying

Big surprise: two top causes are the smoking ban, and taxes on alcohol.

Link to CNN video

This may well be hailed as a good thing. Obviously, smoking and alcohol are bad for you. But, what about tradition? I once planned a trip to Britain with friends that included at least one London pub crawl, because to me, it just screamed, ENGLAND! (Sadly, the trip was scrapped due to work.)

Says British beer blogger Pete Brown, "If you took a guy from the 10th Century, and brought him forward in time, the only things he would recognize today are the churches and pubs."

So, another corner of the planet becomes more homogenized. Great.