Archive for the Less Government Regulation Series Category

Less Government Regulation Series: Motorcycle Helmets (June 15, 2009)

Posted in Less Government Regulation Series, Society on June 15, 2009 by e-commentary.org

There is something invigorating about open cockpit flying even if only in two dimensions.  Hitting the open road is liberating and rewarding; hitting the open road is also debilitating and punishing.  Donning a “brain bucket” or “skid lid” should be as natural and normal as wearing one’s Schott or Langlitz jacket.

Too many young guys transition in a few seconds from tandem wheels fore and aft underneath them to parallel wheels port and starboard on their sides.  So many of those who are injured are young and reckless and unaware of their mortality or crippled mortality.  We need them to be active in our society.  We need them to ride a motorcycle not roll a wheel chair.

Those who actually ride a chrome pony seem to have more credibility on the subject.  Those who care for those who are injured on motorcycles also have a say and some insight.  Talk, really talk, to the kids who have been mangled and burrow beneath and beyond the macho and the veiled rationalizations and defenses.

Should it be an individual choice?  Sure would like it to be an individual choice.  Too many people who don’t have the best judgment or even a handle on their own affairs are quick to tell others what to do and how to live.

Regulation of motorcycle helmets is done at the state level.  There are many different laws.  Should there be federal regulations?  There are a lot of federal regulations.  If I were God for a day:  The filthy, nasty, officious State should require everyone to wear a motorcycle helmet as a matter of law.  And I do hate to be told what to do.

The majority of motorcyclists who would not release the clutch lever without first sporting a helmet are rationally and passionately opposed to mandatory helmet laws.

Bumper stickers of the week:

Watch for motorcycles

Ride to live; Live to ride

Live

Less Government Regulation Series: Building Codes and Competition (May 18, 2009)

Posted in Law, Less Government Regulation Series, Market Solutions on May 18, 2009 by e-commentary.org

Some individuals oppose state-wide or national building codes because they prefer local codes that reflect local concerns and conditions.  For some, the belief is deeply ideological and passionate.  However, there is a cost to the community in lost competition that costs the consumer.  A builder who is obliged to expend the resources to learn a new local building code is hindered from competing with and against other builders who know the local code.  The local code is a barrier to entry into the market.  With less competition, there are higher prices to the consumer.  If there are more local building codes, ironically there is more abstruse government regulation and more piles of paper.  For some, free and open markets are a greater concern.  Government regulation or involvement is often necessary to promote free and open markets.  These antinomies tax the intellect and muddle the debate.  Rise above the din of ideology.

Bumper stickers of the week:

Measure ten times, cut once.

More is more.

Less Government Regulation Series: English Language (March 16, 2009)

Posted in Language, Less Government Regulation Series on March 16, 2009 by e-commentary.org

The English language is vexing, illogical, inconsistent, and beautiful, mellifluous and inspiring.  Make it sing.  Don’t pass legislation making it mandatory or exclusive.  Let the market decide.

Life would be easier if English were always the default selection on a telephone menu of options.  State in the foreign language to push “2” for the foreign language.  Those who know the language won’t care; those who don’t know won’t care.  Never fear, the children of immigrants always have learned and will learn English.

Post Script:  When all is said, English will remain number 1.

Bumper sticker of the week:

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

2) The farm was used to produce produce.

3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

4) We must polish the Polish furniture.

5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.

) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

10) I did not object to the object.

11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row .

13) They were too close to the door to close it.

14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.

15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.

18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Let’s face it – English is a crazy language.  There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.  English muffins weren’t invented in England or French fries in France.  Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren’t sweet, are meat.  We take English for granted.  But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham?  If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn’t the plural of booth, beeth?  One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices?  Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?  If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught?  If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?  Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?  Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?  Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?  You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all.  That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

P.S. – Why doesn’t ‘Buick’ rhyme with ‘quick’

You lovers of the English language might enjoy this:

There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is ‘UP.’

It’s easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP?  At a meeting, why does a topic come UP?  Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report?

We call UP our friends.  And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver, we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car.  At other times the little word has real special meaning.  People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.  To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.

And this UP is confusing:  A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP.  We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.

We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP!  To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary.  In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions.  If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used.  It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don’t give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more.  When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP.  When the sun comes out we say it is clearing UP.

When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.

When it doesn’t rain for awhile, things dry UP.

One could go on and on, but I’ll wrap it UP, for now my time is UP, so………… it is time to shut UP!

Oh . . . one more thing:

What is the first thing you do in the morning and the last thing you do at night?

Less Government Regulation Series: Drugs (March 2, 2009)

Posted in Crime/Punishment, Drugs, Less Government Regulation Series on March 2, 2009 by e-commentary.org

“Can any policy, however high-minded, be moral if it leads to widespread corruption, imprisons so many, has so racist an effect, destroys our inner cities, wreaks havoc on misguided and vulnerable individuals and brings death and destruction to foreign countries.”

Milton Friedman, Recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics

“Eighty-five million Americans have experimented with illegal drugs.  Since the object of criminal law is to detect and punish the wrongdoer, should we reason that 85 million of us should have spent time in jail.”

William F. Buckley, Jr., Founder of the magazine “National Review”

One in every hundred American citizens is now in prison.  The War on Drugs is really the War on the Populace.  Once again, because victory is impossible, declare victory and call off the war.

Bumper sticker of the week:

There oughta not be a law

Less Government Regulation Series: Love and Marriage (May 19, 2008)

Posted in Gay Politics, Government Regulation, Less Government Regulation Series, Miscegenation on May 19, 2008 by e-commentary.org

Some day, being gay will be akin to being left handed.  No big deal.  Some opine that  there are differences between those who are right handed and those who are left handed yet not enough to start passing legislation mandating disparate treatment.

The California Supreme Court ruled on equal protection grounds that gays in California can marry.  The decision to marry is an individual choice.  The collective (judicial, legislative, executive, bureaucracy) should not define it.

“This is hard to say as a guy, but you aren’t real judgmental.  I think I’m, like, 15 percent gay.”  “I am satisfied that I just don’t have any such impulses, yet I understand that Nature wires some members differently.  . . .   By the way, how does that work?”  . . . . . . . . . . .

The science jocks say that sexual orientation is spread along a continuum.  A small percentage of the population is strictly heterosexual.  Are most members of the population dealing with demons and fears and anxieties that distort their perspective and politics?  Will the constituency for freedom of marriage include those who have no impulses at all toward those of the same sex, those who do, and a few stray free-thinking civil libertarians?

In another generation, however, no one will care.  The current restrictions will be as anachronistic as yesterday’s miscegenation laws.

Bumper sticker of the week:

There oughta not be a law.