Glibertarians.com 2017 Archive

Category: Federal Power

  • End of The Road – Truckers are soon to be replaced by Robots, but the State has already been Roboticizing The Driver

     

    Much has been made in recent years of the looming replacement of human drivers with Robots Self-Driving Trucks.  I, for one, welcome our new Overlords of The Road, and my concerns lie less in the inevitable evolution of technology, and more in how the state, and large, corporatist, Legacy Carriers, have been slowly chipping away at the autonomy of the individual, Over The Road, Long Haul Trucker.  In this article I hope to illustrate the history and recent trajectory of this trend, and explain the extent to which the regulation of the Trucker has destroyed a once honored and noble occupation, and caused me to give up on it for good …  even though I’ve had a pretty successful 20 year run in the business.  Perhaps, if you wonderful Glibs will have me back, I might comment on why I think those robot trucks are a bit further away than their cheerleaders anticipate, and give some insight as to why certain sectors of the business will probably never be fully automated.

    Jimmy Carter Deregulates The Business End of Trucking

    Back in “The Old Days”, getting into the trucking business was extremely difficult.  A prospective trucker had to seek a license, much like a taxi medallion, to even operate, and any rates you negotiated with your customers were mandated to be public knowledge, and could be interfered with by the Interstate Commerce Commission.  Most trucking was done by in-house transport; many shippers had their own trucking fleets, or hired lease operators who had to run exclusively under those shippers’ operating licenses.  Of course, this lead to unnecessary inefficiencies, inflated rates, and a rather noncompetitive marketplace.  And that’s not even considering the effects of one James Riddle Hoffa. *(Warning, shameless plug for one of my favorite commentators and pod-casters, well known to the readers of this site.

    All of this mess in the marketplace was somewhat corrected, and the field further opened to competition, by the passage of The Motor Carrier Act of 1980, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on July 1, 1980.  Similar legislation followed, both provincially and federally, in my homeland of The People’s Soviet Republic of Canuckistan.

    Of course, this momentous bit of de-regulation was met with howls of protest by the dominant legacy carriers, who were now losing their oligopolies, and, to this day, is also complained about by that portion of the truck driving community who do not understand what free markets actually mean in practice.  God knows I’ve been wincing at their economically illiterate commentary since I was a kid, especially given that de-regulation allowed for once small, independent operators, like my former employers here, to grow from a tiny, family run operation, to having a fleet of nearly 100 tractors and 300+ trailers, a warehousing division, and to such size that they now employ over 200 people.

    That’s the good news part of this article.

    Any Action Will Be Met With an Equal and Opposite Reaction

    The late 1980’s and early 1990’s saw a massive increase in the competition in the trucking marketplace, which also saw the growth of 3PL’s, also known as load brokers.  Many more new companies were opening, many more independent owner/operators were hitting the roads, and the marketplace continued to evolve.  Things at the operational end of the business, however, were also evolving, and not always in a good way.

    The state, as it is want to do, can never leave a good enough thing alone, and major increases in roadside enforcement operations began to take place.  One thing that had not changed over this period of de-regulation of the marketplace was the hours-of-service (HOS) rules governing the amount of time a Trucker could work, how much rest was required, and when.  What had also not changed, since their introduction in the 1950’s, was the use of paper log books, by which truckers were supposed to record their driving hours, location, odometer readings, commodity being hauled, and base of operations, such that enforcement personnel could keep an eye on us.  The Nanny State was not satisfied with this arrangement, and through fits and starts in the early 2000’s they began to dismantle a regulatory framework, which, when matched with the ‘pliability’ of paper logs, allowed for an easier to manage compliance situation for most drivers smart enough to work with, through, or around the rules.

    From the linked wiki –

    Between 1962 and 2003, there were numerous proposals to change the HOS again, but none were ever finalized. By this time, the ICC had been abolished, and regulations were now issued by the FMCSA. The 2003 changes applied only to property-carrying drivers (i.e., truck drivers). These rules allowed 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour period, and required 10 hours of rest.[9] These changes would allow drivers (using the entire 14-hour on-duty period) to maintain a natural 24-hour cycle, with a bare minimum 21-hour cycle (11 hours driving, 10 hours rest). However, the retention of the split sleeper berth provision would allow drivers to maintain irregular, short-burst sleeping schedules. 

    The most notable change of 2003 was the introduction of the “34-hour restart.” Before the change, drivers could only gain more weekly driving hours with the passing of each day (which reduced their 70-hour total by the number of hours driven on the earliest day of the weekly cycle). After the change, drivers were allowed to “reset” their weekly 70-hour limit to zero, by taking 34 consecutive hours off-duty. This provision was introduced to combat the cumulative fatigue effects that accrue on a weekly basis, and to allow for two full nights of rest (e.g., during a weekend break).[2] 

    In 2005, the FMCSA changed the rules again, practically eliminating the split sleeper berth provision. [10]  Drivers are now required to take a full 8 hours of rest, with 2 hours allowed for off-duty periods, for a total of 10 hours off-duty. This provision forced drivers to take one longer uninterrupted period of rest, but eliminated the flexibility of allowing drivers to take naps during the day without jeopardizing their driving time. Today’s rule still allows them to “split” the sleeper berth period, but one of the splits must be 8 hours long and the remaining 2 hours do not stop the 14-hour on-duty period. This rule is confusing and impractical for most drivers, resulting in the majority of drivers taking the full 10-hour break. 

    The split sleeper provision, such as it was, was the tool in our HOS regimen which gave us the flexibility to meet the demands of life on the road, shipping schedules, traffic, you name it.  If you were held up at a customer, unpaid and with nothing you could possibly do about it, as is a common practise and endless source of frustration for the average trucker, you could at least log that time in the bunk, and make up the driving time later.  No more.

    In 2005, the FMCSA changed the rules again, practically  eliminating the split sleeper berth provision.

    This rule change, as well as the introduction of satellite linked electronic log devices, or ELDs, which become the law of the land this month have pretty much eliminated the possibility of most truckers being able to work around any schedules, traffic, weather, or this little thing called ‘life’; and to my great disgust, further remove any autonomy one might have as a trucker.  As has been posted here in a thread by yours truly a few weeks back, this is certainly not good news to the over 3 million truckers in North America who are being affected by these changes.  I mean, who doesn’t want Uncle Sam riding shotgun with you, telling you when you can eat, sleep, or shit, or undermining your fourth amendment rights against your privacy?  Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

    Some anecdotes from my last trucking job about how that effects your life on the road –

    Situation a – I am dispatched from my former employers home base in Syracuse, New York, to a trailer manufacturer in Cheeseheadville, Wisconsin, to pick up a brand new trailer.  Around midnight, I get tired, and pull in to the Petro Truck Stop at Angola, Indiana.  No problem, right?  Yours truly wakes up at a little after 630am, pre-trips the truck, has breakfast, and is ready to roll at 730.  But according to Uncle Sam, and the mandated logging device in my truck, I cannot go anywhere til 10am, when the minimum required 10 hour break is up.  So I have 2 and a half hours to catch up on the fun and excitement to be found here at Glibertarians Dot Com, but not make any fucking money, all because some enlightened public servants pieces of shit at the FMCSA have deemed that my sleep patterns must fit into what they believe is a proper regimen of rest.

    Situation b – Yours truly is on his way back to Syracuse, on a similar trailer retrieval mission as situation a.  Approaching Cleveland, I am about to run out of available driving hours, and pull into the last service plaza on the Ohio Turnpike prior to the 90 splitting off into the west side of Cleveland.  Guess when my ten hour rest period allows me to drive again?  Right in the middle of morning rush hour.  Under the old regimen of paper logs and the split sleeper provision, or if I worked in a civilized place that allows for 16 hour (or more) windows for your drive time to be completed, or allow more driving time (such as Canada, where it is 13 hours, or Western Australia, which is quite similar), I could have kept driving through Cleveland in the evening, and parked on the east side of town, thus avoiding contributing to rush hour traffic.  The next time you are sitting in traffic in some major metropolitan area, and you’re wondering why all of these trucks are on the road at the same time, you know who to blame.

    And there are millions of situations like this taking place every day, in every subdivision of the trucking industry.  Imagine being a cattle hauler, and you have a full load of calves on board, and it’s winter time.  You run out of your 11 hours driving time, and have to stop, in the middle of winter, most likely at a location where you can’t unload your cargo and get them inside somewhere where they won’t freeze to death.  Or imagine that you are me, or one of the many other people who used to run The Ice up North (remember this stupid piece of crap of television?), and your run basically can’t be done, because it’s 16 hours from Yellowknife to the mine under optimal conditions.  In fact, there are so many of these situations, that dozens and dozens of industry groups that depend greatly on trucking are lining up and begging for exemptions to the rules.

    And the trucking industry continues to wrestle with a driver turnover problem, that, although it has decreased slightly through 2015, appears to be on the rise again.  Gee, I wonder why?

    It also seems that many of the older guys on the road, gents who have been trucking for many decades and are used to managing their own schedules, regardless of what Uncle Sam has to say about it, are going to take early retirement or find something else to do.

    At Werner, as Leathers explained, the number of drivers in the 60-67 age group had held steady for “a long, long time,” as a few would retire and about an equal number would move up. 

    In the 90 days leading up to the hours-of-service change, that number fell by half.

    “It’s my belief that’s a representative sample across the industry of drivers who just said, ‘I’m out. I’m done. Thanks, but I’m moving on,’” Leathers said. “That’s been the silent victim of these changes: The drivers that are probably some of the most-qualified we have are saying, ‘I’ve had enough and I’m not going to do it.’ That’s concerning.” 

    Steve Gordon, COO of Gordon Trucking Inc., offered a similar take. 

    “The thing that’s most unfortunate is we’ve worked very hard to build a better lifestyle for our drivers – more out-for-a-week, home-for-a-weekend opportunities. The new restart has been most painful for those folks,” Gordon said. “They can’t leave the house until after 5 a.m. If they get hung up somewhere, they lose that time the next week. So the very people we’re trying to tell, ‘we’re going to do right by you, we’re going to get you home to see your family,’ they’re the ones paying the price.” 

    Think about this for a minute.  A job which attracts people who typically want to be left alone, or have some kind of ‘adventure’, or at very least not be  under the nose of their boss all day, is being regulated to a degree which gives you very little room to schedule your day, virtually dictates your sleeping patterns, penalizes you for taking naps or otherwise attempting to make the most efficient use of your time, and provides the government with an instantly accessible record about where you have been, 24/7, and gives them unlimited access to review your HOS compliance and issue fines at will.  WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

    Where Do We Go From Here?

    For the liberty minded professional driver, the situation looks bleak.  I doubt very highly that the FMCSA is ever going to change the HOS regulations to match more humane and productive provisions in places like Canada or New Zealand, where a guy can drive 13 hours a day and, at least in Canada, has a bit more flexibility with shifting hours around.  And I also doubt very highly that the FMCSA or any state level DOT is going to give up on the rolling cash cows that are ELDs.  If you are an owner operator and you have a truck with a model year older than 2000, you are exempt from the ELD mandate, but that doesn’t help with the stupid HOS regs, and many large carriers won’t take on owner operators who choose to run older equipment.  (And don’t get me started on the EPA rules and how they have completely screwed up the engine marketplace, such that Caterpillar quit making on-highway diesel engines.  Another article entirely …. )   Trucking is an ultra-competitive marketplace for rates, and the little guy has an enormous hill to climb in competing against legacy carriers, who benefit both from economics of scale, and being large enough to enjoy the privileges of regulatory capture.  Hell, some of these arseholes, through cronyist organizations like The American Trucking Association, go right along with all of these stupid laws because they know they can comply with them.  The Provinces of Ontario and Quebec instituted mandatory truck speed limiters, restricting trucks to 105km/h (65mph) by law, even for carriers not based there.  These rules were not proposed by the Ontario Ministry of Transport, or it’s analogs in Quebec; they were proposed by mega-carriers like Challenger Motor Freight, and their crony mouthpieces in the Ontario Trucking Association.

    So what’s a guy to do?  As reported above, many older drivers who were already close to retirement are just going to pack it in.  Some, like myself, are young enough to move into other fields of pursuit, and some, perhaps, already have training or qualifications in other fields.  Unfortunately, due to the nature of the business, and the demographics of people who it typically draws from, this is not the case for the majority of people behind the wheel.  What are they going to do?   What was once considered a free-wheeling, adventurous, decent paying gig, looks more and more like a rolling prison from which many may not escape.

  • OK, I lied…More on Catalonia.

    I thought the topic was done with. The Catalonian leadership had waffled, Madrid had growled and it looked like the whole thing was done. A bluff called and folded.

    Remember, Sully, when I promised not to talk about Catalonia anymore?

    But, as in many things…I was wrong. The Spanish central government appears to want this over with, once and for all. As I have been questioning – what does this matter to a libertarian? Is this a case of “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them“? Or just a bunch of whiny Socialists saying “What do we want? Socialism! Where do we want it? Here!” Should that even matter?

    And now my bid to win a Judge Napolitano Medal for Meritorious Question Marking:

    A good point Playa Manhattan had brought up – at what point is enough of the populace saying “we want out” enough? The referendum that trigger this shitstorm did not see even majority of eligible voter participation. Is there a number where you can draw a line and say “OK, there it is, enough to call it just”?

    What happens to someone who wants to remain Spanish? You see a lot about the Spanish Constitution saying Spain is indivisible – does that hold for people who were not even born, or of age when it was adopted?

    Will Madrid’s continuing crackdown push Catalans to say “hey, maybe the independence types are right…Madrid really does want to crap on us!”?

    Can we just airdrop STEVE SMITH or send Zardoz over there to solve the whole thing?

     

    I am torn…but if pushed, I would say that I would reluctantly back the Catalans. I do truly believe that Governments are instituted among Men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But I can be convinced this is not the case here. Discuss, debate and snark, as you will.

  • A Comparison of Cabotage Maritime Regulations Worldwide – Part 3 (of 3)

    Continuing to elaborate upon my previous themes on Maritime Regulation/Deregulation. (here, here and here).

    Part 1
    Part 2

    Asia – China and Taiwan.

    The focus of the paper by Lee, Wu and Lee (2011) is on the liberalization of trade between Taiwan and the PRC as a result of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) which was signed and came into effect in mid-2010 – and the resulting expected adjustments in trade surpluses. The removal of import/export tariffs (excepting agricultural goods) reveals an increasing trade imbalance favoring Taiwan over the PRC, but the article does include some interesting notes on the cabotage policies between the nations. Specifically, while historically trade between the PRC and Taiwan was routed through third party ports in Japan, Korea and Hong Kong, as a result of liberalization, since 2008 direct trade has been permitted – although only by PRC and Taiwanese flagged ships (Lee, 186).

    As part of the PRC’s overarching “One China” policy, direct trade between the PRC and Taiwan is considered “domestic” trade and only permitted by “domestically” flagged vessels – which in this case is comprised of ships flagged by either the PRC or Taiwan. Although the authors resist speculating on this point, the resulting trade imbalance previously referenced appears to be an acceptable calculated loss on the part of the PRC leadership as it allows them opportunities to speak to the “One China” policy and include both the imports and exports under the greater Chinese economic umbrella and perhaps the establishment of further precedents through trade routes and associated dependencies (Lee, 187).

    ASEAN

    In researching barriers to effective and efficient shipping services in the inter-ASEAN region, Tongzon and Lee (2016) conducted a series of interviews with various representatives of trade organizations, shipping corporations (government and privately owned) and associated logistics service providers. To limit the scope of the study, three countries were selected as representatives to be extrapolated from – Malaysia for the more developed economies, followed by Vietnam and Myanmar to represent the least developed countries (Tongzon, 410).

    Cabotage legislation is specifically identified as a contributing barrier to increased maritime trade over the course of the discussions – and as the authors note, while Malaysia and Vietnam both employ cabotage policies, they are considered market-responsive. Malaysia is specifically noted for making exceptions for container traffic to and from Port Klang, as well as permitting shippers to opt out of restrictions by paying certain taxes and fees – although these may also be exempted if there is no Malaysian vessel available meeting the requirements (Tongzon, 416).

    It should be noted that while acknowledged, cabotage policies as an average are less of a concern amongst the interviewees responding on behalf of the three featured countries than port infrastructure limitations or shortages of trained personnel. Similarly, while Malaysia is a more traditionally and historically a maritime nation due to geographic concerns than Vietnam or Myanmar, neither of the archipelagic nations of Indonesia or the Philippines were reviewed in this paper. The recent contrasting legislation passed in each of those countries – increasingly strict cabotage limitations in Indonesia over the past several years following the initial passage of Maritime Law No 17 of 2008 (Yee), and the amending in 2015 of the Jones Act-esque “Republic Act of 1937” in the Philippines (Yee), which opened up domestic traffic to international carriers in the process of importing or exporting goods – would provide an interesting counterpoint for future research.

    Conclusion

    In reviewing the current literature available on the topic, there does not appear to be a large volume of academic research addressing the specifics of individual nations’ cabotage policies or legislation. As a matter of self-interest, this topic appears to be of more value to various stakeholders, special interest groups and associated government partners who tend to commission their own studies as a means of influencing policymakers (MARAD).

    While there is literature advocating new policies and technologies for shippers to implement – framed in public policy theory terms, the authors are in some cases unwilling or unable to recommend policy stances that would strengthen the persuasiveness of their arguments and give more rationale for reasonable implementation – Perakis and Denisis (2008), and Medda and Trujillo (2010). In contrast, Brooks and Frost (2004) are fully cognizant of the limitations imposed by the current regulatory frameworks and openly recommend changes that would prove efficient and beneficial to multiple parties – in keeping with the pre-existing trade arrangements.

    Traditionally, countries have tended to be protectionist to industries considered critical to national security, but in the 21st century as manufacturing efficiencies have been diversified and shipping specialties have been outsourced, that argument has grown increasingly stale, particularly when considering the comparatively small groups that benefit from associated protectionism at the expense of nearly the entire whole. As a function of free trade agreements in particular, the removal of cabotage restrictions between partners should be a serious consideration from this point forward.

    In approaching future research considerations on this topic, it would be valuable to first collate all outstanding cabotage legislation on a country by country basis and utilize that as a framework for determining economic impacts – along a framework similar to that utilized by Lewis (2013). Although there are obvious distinctions and variations between countries, a common database would allow comparison between data points such as ship flagging requirements, crewing requirements, maintenance or operation taxes and other economic [dis]incentives. With that information available to hand, it would be a simpler matter to correct for comparative gains and losses associated with these policies and recommend more specific or targeted policy adjustments with accuracy.

    Some links don’t work based on library links – article information provided in case anyone else wants to look them up later:

    Lee, Tsung-Chen, Chia-Hsuan Wu and Paul T.-W Lee.  “Impacts of the ECFA on Seaborne Trade Volume and Policy Development for Shipping and Port Industry in Taiwan.”  Maritime Policy and Management.  Vol 38: No. 2, (2011): 169-189.  Web.  12 Jun. 2016.

    < www-tandfonline-com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/03088839.2011.556674#abstract>

    Tongzon, Jose L. & Sang-Yoon Lee.  “Achieving an ASEAN Single Shipping Market: Shipping and Logistics Firms’ Perspective.”  Maritime Policy and Management.  Vol 43: No. 4,     (2016): 407-419.  Web.  11 Jun. 2016.

    <www-tandfonline-com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/03088839.2015.1105393#abstract>

  • A Comparison of Cabotage Maritime Regulations Worldwide – Part 2 (of 3)

    Continuing to elaborate upon my previous themes on Maritime Regulation/Deregulation. (here, here and here).

    Part 1

    Canada (aka America’s Hat)
    As the title so aptly states, “Short Sea Shipping: A Canadian Perspective” by Brooks and Frost (2004) approaches the topic of short sea shipping from a Canadian perspective – but gives due consideration to the association with the United States – particularly in connection with NAFTA. In that, Brooks and Frost provide a valuable summary of existing regulations – as of 2004 – in the US, Canada, and Europe while examining what legislative functions would need to be modified in order to broaden acceptance of short sea shipping as a viable transportation method. Significantly, one highlight of existing policies in North America is that NAFTA as a general agreement, made no dispensations for existing cabotage regimes either with respect to the Jones Act in the US or additional, similar regulations in Canada or Mexico – although the latter two countries did sign an additional bilateral treaty to address the issue. Tellingly, given the geographic and port situations between the two countries, it has had far less tangible effect than a liberalization of policies by the US would have produced across the board (Brooks, 399). The basic domestic cabotage policy requirements for Canadian shippers are also similar to those imposed by the Jones Act with respect to flagging, construction, and crewing requirements – and the potential tax liabilities for failing to meet those requirements. In some cases, however, the regulations appear somewhat more piecemeal – and potentially contradictory – than the all-encompassing Jones Act (and accompanying legislation) in the US. For instance, Canadian safety standards for new vessels are reportedly more onerous and expensive to meet than the internationally accepted IMO standards – while at the same time, a number of existing Canadian flagged ropax vessels would not meet the IMO standards if they were formally accepted as a baseline by the Canadian government (Brooks, 399). While Brooks and Frost appear to be in favor of expanding short sea shipping as an alternative to trucking – particularly in the congested I-5 and I-95 corridors – much the same as Perakis and Denisis – they are cognizant that there is no financial incentive (big surprise) to shippers utilizing current technologies – under the current regulatory regime. In order to develop a competitive alternative, particularly focusing on international traffic between Canada and the US – a market with growth potential on the East and West Coasts – both the US and Canada would need to amend their regulatory structure in order to remove port and cabotage restrictions (Brooks, 401). It bears mentioning additionally, that while the EU historically has a more robust short sea shipping sector – even following loosening of EU regulations – the service still fails to meet the just in time requirements for many shippers who continue to prefer rail or truck services for efficiency – even in light of carbon taxes or greater fuel expenditures (Brooks, 398).

     

    The EU
    Similar in tone and content to Perakis and Denisis (2008), Medda and Trujillo (2010) provide another set of good arguments in favor of short sea shipping – while in turn referencing the current policies in place across the globe – but are forced to acknowledge that a number of the current structural and economic disadvantages are still unable to be overlooked without new incentives.
    While on the surface the advantages still appear to outweigh the weaknesses, particularly when it comes to public perception and environmental considerations, the fact that these issues do not necessarily have any impact on concerns espoused by shippers has severely hampered the implementation of short sea shipping in regions where it does not have a historically strong foothold. Medda and Trujillo are also careful to point out that governments to date have neither provided sufficient incentives for shippers utilizing short sea shipping or disincentives for road and rail transportation. Additionally, they are careful to note that in the EU at least, decreasing some road traffic would result in significantly decreased tax revenues for localities relying on said funds for structural maintenance and general welfare – a decidedly negative and potentially unforeseen consequence of implementing more short sea shipping (Medda, 293).

    Noting the importance of efficient shipping technologies within the more limited scope of short sea shipping, the authors also recommend directing more attention towards Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO-RO) and Float-On/Float-Off (FLO-FLO) cargoes as the sort that shippers would see the most efficiencies from backing – in these early stages – in spite of the larger initial capital expenditures (Medda, 296). Similarly, many smaller ports still require significant infrastructure improvements in order to meet shippers requirements for speedy cargo handling – container or otherwise – to justify the increased focus on short sea shipping as a time-efficient alternative to road or rail transport (Medda, 297).

    Paixao and Marlow (2001) provide a detailed chronological summary of EU (and prior to that, the EEC) shipping policies – addressing the various organizations and policy directives that were promoted as the Union expanded and developed. A significant amount of detail is utilized in reviewing the distinctions between mainland Europe and the outlying, more insular regions – and the need to tailor policy accordingly. In a familiar refrain, the adoption of a cabotage system or short sea shipping policy by the EU was reactive rather than proactive in response to the first expansion which added several non-continental members (Paixao, 188). Furthermore, it wasn’t until after several Northern European nations had already established free shipping agreements between themselves that the EU even began to review an official uniform trade policy on cabotage (Paixao, 192). Similarly, the short sea shipping concepts that function efficiently in some regions don’t work as well compared with trucking or rail transport in other regions.

     

    Australia and New Zealand
    The timing of Everett and Robinson’s (1998) research is set in a period in the mid to late 90s during which the Australian government was examining options on modernizing or updating its policies and does not reflect a true change in status or legislation. Additionally, the focus is more on the nationalized state of the largest domestically flagged lines – the Australian National Line (ANL) – and their inefficiency – more than any specific examination of cabotage. Everett and Robinson provide a general history of the Australian National Line and its relationship with the national government, and as a general rule, the observed inefficiencies fall along lines similar to associated protected industries in other nations (Everett, 270).

    Operating from a protected position domestically, the ANL historically posted losses in spite of traditional trade barriers via cabotage policies and favorable government treatment and subsidies. At the time this article was written, several policies had been passed to increase competitiveness by shrinking mandatory crewing requirements, but there were no definitive adjustments to the established cabotage restrictions on the domestic coasting trade (Everett, 283). To date, there have been no loosening of restrictions in this market, although following the recommendations made through the Harper Competition Policy Review, there is a better likelihood of a shift towards more flexibility in response to the markets in an effort to increase market competition and greater benefits to the domestic community (Thompson).

    Cavana’s (2004) study of New Zealand contrasts significantly with other countries reviewed for this paper. (Refreshing!) New Zealand’s existing cabotage laws were formally removed in 1995 – although international ships transporting cargo between domestic ports must still have delivered imports or picked up exports (Cavana, 182). After almost a decade of unrestricted trade, Cavana was commissioned by the government of New Zealand to determine whether there was any inherent benefit to reintroducing a cabotage program in whole or part. This paper was the end result of analytical discussions reviewing 83 stakeholder submissions to the Shipping Industry Review team assisting in determining how best to increase participation in the New Zealand shipping industry (Cavana, 179).

    As a smaller, more isolated country largely dependent on imports while primarily exporting commodities, New Zealand is in a different position than the US and Canada – although the cabotage policy shifts reflect only a portion of a larger effort to become more of an “open economy” (Cavana, 182). By the time of this paper in 2004, market estimates indicated that international shippers had captured approximately 10-15% of the domestic coastwise shipping market, but even those estimates are difficult to quantify due to the fact that a portion of the resulting increase in traffic also appears to come from international shippers transshipping internationally bound containers between domestic ports for convenience. In this article the practice is referred to as “hubbing” – where one ship will drop off containers at a central port for another ship owned by the same company to pick up – or use feeder services to move to another port for pickup. Container traffic rose approximately 5% per annum between 1995 and the publication of this article in 2004. Accordingly, some of the smaller domestic shippers saw additional traffic as they are received more business participating in the movement of tranship containers between domestic ports (Cavana, 185-186).

    Although the sample sizes are small, initial numbers during the period encompassed by this paper indicate that domestic shipper container shipping costs dropped by as much as 50% and at least one domestic shipper saw a 100% increase in volume. The shipping cost decreases vary greatly depending on the routes, however – due to the fact that most international shipping traffic utilizes a north to south route along the coast. Similarly, in a limited case scenario provided, farmers in one region see a much better return on grain sales due to the cheaper shipping options offered. The low transportation rates offered by coastwise shipping (domestic and international) force railroad and trucking services to maintain low prices to stay competitive (Cavana, 187)
    Consequently, at the time of publication, Cavana recommended against reintroducing cabotage but suggested leaving it open as a future option subject to economic climate shifts. Over a decade after this assessment, cabotage has not yet been reintroduced by the government of New Zealand (NZIER, 45) .

    Some links don’t work based on library links – article information provided in case anyone else wants to look them up later:

    Brooks, Mary R. & James D. Frost. “Short Sea Shipping: A Canadian Perspective.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 31: No. 4, (2004): 393-407. Web. 11 Jun. 2016.

    Medda, Francesca and Lourdes Trujillo. “Short-Sea Shipping: An Analysis of Its Determinants.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol. 37: No. 3, (2010): 285-303. Web. 31 July.

    Paixao, A.C. & P.B. Marlow. “A Review of the European Union Shipping Policy.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 28: No. 2, (2001): 187-198. Web. 11 Jun. 2016.

    Everett, Sophia and Ross Robinson. “Making the Australian Flag Fleet Efficient: Dysfunctional Policy Processes and the ‘Play of Power’.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 25: No. 3, (1998): 269-286. Web. 12 Jun. 2016.

    Cavana, Robert. “A Qualitative Analysis of Reintroducing Cabotage onto New Zealand’s Coasts.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 31: No. 3, (2004): 179-198. Web. 11 Jun. 2016.

  • A Comparison of Cabotage Maritime Regulations Worldwide – Part 1 (of 3)

    Continuing to elaborate upon my previous themes on Maritime Regulation/Deregulation. (here, here and here).

    <The paper these articles were drafted from was original written Spring 2016 – it has not been updated for any modifications or new developments taking place since then.>

    The practice of cabotage – defined by Merriam Webster as “trade or transport in coastal waters or airspace or between two points within a country” has been a key legal aspect of trade for centuries around the world. In the strictly maritime realm, this practice is often referenced using the term “short sea shipping” to refer to coastwise traffic and inland waterways, while “cabotage” is being utilized more frequently in reference to the associated regulatory policies.

    Although there has historically been a potential for international conflict arising from government-imposed restrictions, the last century is notable for both the imposition and review of unwise or shortsighted economic policies that are arguably responsible for net economic losses in a country’s domestic population in spite of documented evidence.

    The United States and the Jones Act (quick recap on themes referenced in previous articles)

    “I used to be a maritime shipper like you…”

    Recognized worldwide simply by name, the Jones Act – formally The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 – has become synonymous some of the most with severe restrictions on trade emanating from a government-mandated cabotage policy. From a strictly legal background, Yost (2013) (excellent paper – HIGHLY recommended for anyone looking for more legal discussion) begins with a detailed review of the Jones Act – and examines the degree that legal decisions have deviated from the original stated intent of the legislation (big surprise?) in the aim of maintaining apparently protectionist stances that have generally been harmful to the overall economy. As a matter of perspective, the author is careful to note that the Jones Act by itself is not a formal tariff (technically-speaking – “the best kind of ‘speaking’”), but functions in a similar fashion as a barrier to entry, limiting competition and protecting the existing participants. (Yost, 62) The higher capital costs lead to higher costs for the customers across the board. While noting that Jones Act compliant shippers are not receiving formal federal subsidies in the way that Amtrak does (specific to the Jones Act alone, not considering additional federal retainer payments), Yost recognizes that the barriers to entry are so steep that the handful of companies providing shipping services to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are essentially operating as government-sponsored monopolies protected from competition. (Yost, 66) In an interesting comparison, the author demonstrates that the current protectionist aspects and legal restrictions are not dissimilar from that of the PRC or Japan and serve no positive purpose towards stimulating domestic economic growth, and in turn advocates transitioning towards a middle-ground policy between Australia’s licensed shipping cabotage policies and the trucking cabotage policies of the EU (Yost, 76).

    Approaching the issues raised by the Jones Act with respect to their economic consequences, Lewis (2013) (referenced in previous articles – highly recommended again) relates a number of studies on various aspects of the Jones Act and related legislation. Through his own calculations, he determines that the net domestic gain through repeal would be between $578 million and $685 million annually. While there would be a significant loss of domestic mariner jobs initially, many of those would be replaced by a steep intake of port services jobs around the country. A clear distinction is recognized between the inland waterways shipping industry – in which a healthy domestic competition has developed, and the vastly more capital-intensive coastal and overseas routes, including Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico in which a very small number of companies have developed near-monopolies due to the restrictions imposed by the Jones Act and associated legislation (Lewis, 83). Lewis is also quick to note that while the trucking and railroad industries both faced heavy regulations earlier in the 20th century, the loosened restrictions in the last several decades vastly increased market participation while simultaneously driving down costs to shippers and consumers and there is no reason to doubt a similar outcome from addressing the maritime regulatory environment (Lewis, 92).

    <Although here again, we’ve recently seen how “re-regulating” the trucking industry is potentially going to lead to a loss of all those gains.>

    Finally, Lewis, like Yost, points to the EU’s maritime deregulations regarding coastal commerce as an example to be considered in adjusting long-term policies – keeping in mind the government’s push to incentivize and increase short sea shipping as a counterpoint to increased road and rail traffic (Lewis, 101).

    Perakis and Denisis (2008) provide a compelling summary of the benefits of short sea shipping as an alternative to road and rail transportation in the United States. The primary concern of the authors here is to present it as both economically and environmentally efficient – with a focus on the intermodal aspects of such transportation – shifting the containers arriving from overseas from the central coastal ports to more local shipping facilities. There are two types of short sea shipping considered – one involving direct loading of containers (TEU (20 Foot Equivalent Units) or FEU (40 Foot Equivalent Units)) onto barges or similar vessels to be transported for further distribution, and the other involving direct roll-on/roll-off movement of 53ft semi-trailers (Perakis, 593). In both cases, the end state is intended to significantly decrease traffic congestion both in the vicinities of the ports, but also on the feeder interstates associated with the ports. Further assumed benefits include decreased air and noise pollution, decreased expenses associated with infrastructure repair in addition to fuel cost savings in moving tonnage further by shipping than trucking or trains (Perakis, 605).

    On the whole, this analysis appears to be largely predicated from the public policy perspective. The majority of the arguments appear to be focused on decreasing activities that affect public spending outlays negatively or that represent potential public backlash for local or state governments. The actual economic functions as they apply to individual companies potentially more concerned with costs or scheduling are largely relegated to shorter discussions at the end of the paper. Indeed, there is no mention of the Jones Act – much less any other current legislative barriers – aside from its inclusion in a listing of potential obstacles hindering short sea shipping (Perakis, 608). To their credit, the authors do recognize in their conclusion that “SSS needs customized solutions for every emerging transportation market in congested trade corridors. A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be effective.” (Perakis, 612).

    Some links don’t work based on library links – base article information provided in case anyone else wants to look them up later:

    Perakis, Anastassios N. & Athanasios Denisis. ” A Survey of Short Sea Shipping and Its Prospects in the USA.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 35: No. 6, (2008): 591- 614. Web. 23 Jul. 2016.

  • What are Rights? An Encore

    People seemed to enjoy the discussion in the original article, so I’m going to expand on it based on some of the conversation we had in the comments. As noted in the comments, August is employing the Socratic method. In real life, August is a Being your own Socrates | sHR.classmate from law school who was a philosophy major. He and I enjoy sipping bourbon, smoking pipes, and talking politics, philosophy, and theology.

    In the original article, I made the assertion that rights are meaningless outside of a relationship. I also asserted that rights are definitions of the boundaries of authority between co-equal entities (man to man; man to human institution). In this article, I will address some of the points brought up in the comments: conflicting rights, objective v. subjective rights, negative v. positive rights, how rights flow from self-ownership.

    The conversation picks up at the end of the prior article:

    AUGUST: So if rights are based on authority and the equality of man, are you saying that rights are attempts to prevent inequity between men and between man and institutions created by man?

    OSCAR: Yes! As with any co-equal relationship, there are certain things solely in the domain of the first, other things that are solely in the domain of the second, and some things that are in an overlapping domain between the two. For example, parenting.

    AUGUST: So, in this Venn Diagram description, your domain is your rights with respect to me, my domain is my rights with respect to you, and the shared domain is collective rights between us and conflicting rights between us. How can rights conflict if they are natural?

    OSCAR: Well, this is more of a semantic difference. Either you can paint with broad strokes (“right to life; right to play loud music; right to swing your arms”) and deal with conflicts of the rights (“my right to swing my arm ends at your nose”), or you can paint more carefully (“right to swing your arms in open portions of your personal space”) and not have to deal with conflicts. Either way, there is a limit to the extent of your rights where you begin to infringe somebody else’s rights.

    AUGUST: This still seems fuzzy. How do you know when you’re infringing somebody else’s rights?

    OSCAR: Well, we need to know how to identify a right in order to be able to tell if we’re infringing on rights. There are two things called “rights” these days. One is negative rights, and the other is positive rights. Positive rights are largely a misnomer in the context of strangers (including the government). The only relationship in which positive rights make sense is the dependent/caretaker relationship. This is why people refer to the “Nanny State” when government enshrines positive rights in law. Negative rights, however, are natural rights. They derive from self-ownership. Negative rights are things whose direct, tangible consequences are felt only by the rights owner and consenting others. In essence, you are the sovereign of your own vintage seminude woman reading by MementoMori-stock on DeviantArtdomain; only you have the authority to make decisions that result in consequences to only you. Thus, you are infringing on somebody else’s rights when you do something that keeps them from exercising sovereignty over themselves and their property.

    AUGUST: Direct, tangible consequences? Like economic externalities, emotional effects, and social consequences?

    OSCAR: No, usually rights violations are one of three categories: force, fraud, and coercion. Nobody forces you to feel a certain way. Nobody coerces the market to ripple when you make a transaction. Nobody forces society to react to your actions. All of these consequences to the exercise of rights may be of concern to people and to society at large, but they are outside of the authority of strangers and the government to resolve by infringing on the free exercise of rights.

    AUGUST: But we discussed before that there are times when you can use force, like in self-defense. It seems like you can’t use force until you can.. it’s all very arbitrary sounding.

    OSCAR: Not at all. There is a basic principle that you can respond to immoral force with force of your own, but you cannot initiate immoral force: the non-aggression principle.

    AUGUST: Ah, so when my neighbor accidentally steps on my side of the property line, I get to kill him?

    OSCAR: No, the NAP is better seen as a negative limitation than a positive one. The NAP tells you when you CAN’T use force, but doesn’t dictate HOW you can use force when it is not immoral to do so. There are rules of proportionality that are outside the scope of rights.

    AUGUST: That is all well and good, but I’m still not convinced that negative rights are a necessary consequence of self-ownership.

    OSCAR: Ownership implies control. If you own yourself, you have control over your actions. Ownership also implies exclusivity as to strangers. There can be co-owners of something, but co-ownership implies a consenting relationship. You cannot be a co-owner with a complete stranger. Therefore, absent consensual abdication of your self-ownership, your claim to your own body and to your actions is exclusive. As previously discussed, the only time this changes is when your actions cause direct, tangible consequences to non-consenting others.

    Part of your actions include your labor. You are the owner of your labor, including the economic value of your labor. Economic value of your labor can be traded for physical property, which makes you exclusive owner of capital. Throughout this entire chain, your exclusive ownership and control has not been severed unless consensually negotiated for. Therefore, self-ownership implies control over your actions, your labor, and your property, up to the point where you cause direct, tangible consequences to non-consenting others. It is important to note here that the direct, tangible consequences need to be caused against a legitimate claim of the non-consenting other. If I buy the Mona Lisa, I deprive you of being able to see it. However, you have no legitimate claim to the Mona Lisa because you have no grounds to claim ownership of the Mona Lisa.

    AUGUST: What’s the point of all of this if a “might makes right” government comes in and imposes its will on you?

    OSCAR: Rights are not subjective. Negative rights are natural outcroppings from the physical reality of self-ownership. Positive rights are natural outcroppings of the duties that are inherent in a caretaker role. Practical infringements of rights do not affect the ethical reality of rights.

    AUGUST: Do you have the right to do something that is wrong?

    OSCAR: In my definition of rights as authority boundaries between co-equal entities, the question is somewhat irrelevant. If your “wrong” thing does not involve using force, fraud, or coercion on a non-consenting other, then government has no rightful authority to stop you. However, this says nothing of the inherent morality of your actions. You could perpetrate a horrible evil against yourself (or against God, for those who believe), and it would no more be within the government’s rightful authority than if you did a great good for yourself (or for God, for those who believe).

     

    For a detailed treatment of this question and other related topics, I turn it over to Milton Friedman (1 hr youtube vid).

  • Civil War II: A reflection on my hot take from May

    Image result for second civil war

    In May, I wrote an article about the unlikely chance of Antifa and the Alt-Right coming to blows and kicking off a civil war. The Antifa Brownshirts were agitating about impeachment at that time, but two months later, they’ve changed gears and gone after the skinheads. While that, in and of itself, isn’t of particular concern, there is a more disturbing trend emerging. Antifa feels free to organize against any “unwoke” social gathering and attempt to get some scalps. What used to be a Simon and Garfunkel concert is now a Dropkick Murphys mosh, and the cops are happy to just sit there and watch. Even if there was just a small escalation in arms between the commies and the nazis, it wouldn’t be noteworthy, except for the way that Antifa is being treated by the left and their media hack cronies.

    As I wrote in the May article:

    Although people joke about “alternative facts,” it’s not a joke. There are two prevailing agendas across the country: 1) Trump is LITERALLY HITLER and A RUSSIAN MOLE AT THE SAME TIME!!! 2) Trump is DADDY and GOD-KING OF KEKISTAN, VANQUISHER OF THE SJWs and CUCKS!!! The left has their educational and media empire churning out outrage by the gallon. The right has their independent media matching the outrage of the left.

    Antifa is smashing windows and folks like Based Stickman (who the fuck is Based Stickman and why is he called that??) are bashing Antifa heads in. People are primed to believe that the violence will do nothing but escalate.

    This dynamic is still there, and the excuse making for the violence injected by Antifa has come to a fever pitch. It wasn’t enough that Trump denounced all of the violent elements in a volatile situation. No, he specifically had to denounce the supposed “right wing” (read: non-Marxian) “hate group” (read: non-PC group). Now that he’s showing an ounce of backbone in standing up to the Prog-Fascist media, he’s LITERALLY HITLER yet again.

    Once again, we approach a crossroads. Will a critical mass of people buy the media’s angle? Will the escalating violence of Antifa be excused away as a righteous backlash against an evil President backed by a malignant social movement? Or, will people cut through the BS and hold both sides accountable for the increasing tension and violence? The first fatal blow has been struck, and it’s just a matter of time before more are landed. Will people give a collective shrug and go back to living their largely unaffected lives, or will they be galvanized to one side or the other by the unaccountable mayhem?

    I still think that a widespread conflict is quite unlikely, but let’s jump back through the portal and get comfy in the Derplight Zone once more. What factors are festering under the surface that could bubble up into a civil war?

    LITERALLY HITLER

    Antifa and their media and political organs are doubling down on the LITERALLY HITLER rhetoric, which is absolutely polarizing and dehumanizing. There’s a reason that people were extremely hesitant to analogize to Hitler in domestic politics for 50 years. The guy was so dangerous that we co-opted an entire nation’s resources for 4 years to end his reign, at immense cost in human and economic terms. When the left compares Trump to Hitler (even implicitly), they’re sending a message to the right, and especially the Alt-Right, that this isn’t just a domestic debate, but a fight to the death.

    The dangerous part is when the left leaves no room for dissent. People on both sides of the political aisle have always been susceptible to hyperbole and puffery, but when the left uses the power of boycott, violence, doxxing, and blacklisting on a regular basis, people who believe differently are given no outlet to vent off their pent up political energy. Much like gunpowder, their anger fizzles out when lit in the open, but when contained in a tidy little container, the results are explosive. The increased “all or nothing” attitude from the LITERALLY HITLER left is boxing the Alt-Right up in a tidy little container.

    “They’ve Gone Too Far This Time”

    I’ve seen a lot of people react this way to the way Antifa has been acting lately. It’s one thing to protest, boycott, shout down, or even make a hostile work or learning environment. It’s a completely different thing to act as a mob. People don’t like mobs, and average non-political folks are taking notice of the mob mentality that has taken hold in certain parts of the left. Antifa has chosen their targets very carefully so far, but one poorly chosen location for a riot could result in a violent response from otherwise unattached people. For most of the unattached, the distance between them in their cozy suburban or rural lifestyle and the violence in the urban liberal college setting is far enough that they don’t feel threatened. If Antifa were to overstep their bounds and perhaps threaten something more relatable to suburban folks (like schoolchildren), the backlash would be swift and violent.

    Widespread Acceptance of Increasing Violence

    I hate the phrase “the new normal,” but it is apt in this situation. Most people see the increasing violence, rail about it for 24 hours, and then forget about it. Like mentioned above, there’s a comfort in the fact that these goons seem to be contained on Image result for soccer momMarxist-sympathizing college campuses. However, you get less of what you penalize and more of what you celebrate. While the average Joe and Jane are ignoring the violent protests, the mainstream and leftist media are praising these goons for “punching Nazis.” We’re going to see more of this simply because there are hardly any consequences worth mentioning in comparison to the accolades bestowed upon these “woke” counter-protesters standing up to the evil Nazis. It’s getting to the point where people are resigned to the possibility of a second civil war.

    Shifting Reaction to SJWs

    The time is starting to come where perceptions of SJWs are shifting from a mix of fear and apathy to abject hatred. The problem is that most SJWs are emotionally stunted and unable to handle rejection. The resulting dynamic is a bunch of SJWs throwing temper tantrums, seeing that their Antifa friends (there is a significant crossover between the groups) are the golden children for breaking windows and harassing “Nazis.” On the other side is the Alt-Right, a reactionary group that makes its hay harassing SJWs and is stepping up its own reaction to these Antifa goons. As much as the Alt-Right dislikes Antifa, they HATE SJWs. They’re looking for an excuse to use Antifa’s tactics against the SJWs.

    Economic Downturn

    We’re about due for another recession, and people tend to be more amenable to violence when they don’t have a job. This one is fairly self-explanatory and well-documented throughout history.

    Floundering Media

    The traditional media is dying, and they’re trying everything they can to get people to consume their content. They’ve long since removed their mask and exposed their Marxist-sympathetic leanings, but they get consumers when there is conflict. These days they’ve gone from reporting on conflict to stoking it, and I don’t think there’s an end in sight. They’re going to do everything they can to start a race war, a communist revolution, and a national witch hunt all at the same time. The ratings will be amazing!

    Overall, I’m still pessimistic on the chances of widespread fighting. I think the worst we will possibly see is an LA riots type situation. However, as shown in Charlottesville, all it takes is one body for the self-righteous leftist media to climb on top and start agitating. Like a high-stakes game of “Press Your Luck,” both sides keep smacking the button, hoping to hit the political jackpot, ignorant of the lurking Whammy.

  • Why Dreamhost is our host

    Even Google knows thisIn alarming, but not surprising, news, the Department of Justice is demanding over 1.3 million IP addresses and associated contact information for visitors to a website hosted by Dreamhost, a Los Angeles-based web hosting company. Our web host.

    The only surprising aspect of the case is that it is not Glibertarians.com that is targeted. The website in question is disruptj20.org, “a website that organized participants of political protests against the current United States administration,” according to Dreamhost. Not only is the contact and personal information of the site visitors wanted, the DOJ is also pushing for access to photographs of protesters that are on the site’s server, and what content the website visitors viewed.

    If you don’t want something coming back to bite you in the ass, don’t put it online in any form. Almost everyone gets this. (Well, maybe not the assorted criminals who are easily apprehended after posting videos of their criminal exploits publicly on Facebook.) This has been a concern for far longer than the current administration has been around, as I am quite sure the Glibertariat is well aware. Hell, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established in 1978, and it has been perverted and allowed to be used for nefarious purposes willy-nilly ever since, completely gutting Fourth Amendment protections.

    However, web browsing is something that most people do automatically, without thinking too much about the ramifications. Of course, many people routinely block their browsing history from spouses, children, bosses and other people in their daily lives. (Visitors to the Certified Family Friendly website Glibertarians.com should certainly be doing so.) It’s far more difficult to block one’s browsing history from one’s internet service provider, and from the web host of sites one visits.

    But back to Dreamhost. Dreamhost has a long history of attempting to protect its users by challenging law enforcement requests for information and legally rejecting them. In 2014, for example, DH was able to legally block 57% of the information requests it received.

    I’ve been a Dreamhost customer for a decade, give or take. I use DH for all websites I build and domains I register, no matter who owns the site. One of the first things that sold me on DH was the ability to have one’s domain registrant and contacts protected by DH during a whois search, at a time when most other web hosts and domain registrars simply wouldn’t bother. I was happy to avoid random obnoxious marketers targeting website owners, and the occasional too-ardent admirer.

    Since then, I’ve repeatedly seen that Dreamhost makes sincere and real efforts to protect more than my mailing address.

    My concern over the gutting of the Bill of Rights by the government has increased steadily since 9/11. That dismantling shows no sign of slowing down. It gives me some tiny measure of comfort that Dreamhost shares that concern.

    And THAT is why Dreamhost is our host.


    If so led, show DH a little appreciation by commenting on their post (link below) or giving a quick shoutout on Twitter or Facebook.


    Read more about it:

    Dreamhost’s blog post

    DOJ Search Warrant

    DOJ Motion to Compel

    Dreamhost’s Opposition Motion

    Popehat’s take

  • The (Small-l) Libertarian Case For a Non-Libertarian President

    What is libertarianism’s best strategy to gain a legitimate amount of power nationally (and then happily cede it to the people)?  Libertarians of the small-l and big-L varieties have sought to gain power by either co-opting one of the major political parties (See; Ron Paul Revolution that the GOP squashed) or by finding candidates to run as a Libertarian that appeal to establishment voters (see: Aleppo).  But I believe there is a third, and overlooked, option: get a candidate who does some libertarian things that irritate the major parties and the deep state apparatus, and allow those actions to result in political hysterics from ultra-partisans while average Americans see no net loss from the actions and in many cases a serious net gain.  I believe this will continue to set in motion a series of events where the government can be shrunk to a level that’s at least tolerable to minarchists and other run-of-the-mill libertarians.

    How libertarian is President Donald Trump?

    The answer is: not very. I think that’s been established.  The man swam in a pool of cronyism sharks his entire professional life. He, through desire or necessity, has been a rent-seeker. He has used eminent domain to further his projects. He has sought special treatment from political entities both domestic and foreign to further his interests.  The man is no altruist. But does that make him distasteful, or does it make the system in which he operated distasteful?  Personally, I will rarely fault someone for utilizing the same processes his competition would use, so long as it does not originate from a position of government authority.  And Trump never held office before his inauguration.  In other words, he never utilized political office for financial gain by, say, orchestrating government access to foreign actors that overwhelmingly donated to your personal foundation or for trade groups and banks that hired your unqualified husband to give speeches at ridiculously over-inflated fees.  In other words, I don’t hate the player, I hate the game.

    And yes,  Trump is allowing Jeff Sessions to wage the drug war, which is a sticking point to a lot of libertarian minds. But I ask you, is it better to wage a drug war and uphold the concepts of equal protection and the rule of law (while allowing Congress to do their job and vote to legalize drugs the right way)? Or is it better to arbitrarily enforce duly enacted laws based on the geography of a person and/or their willingness to bend a knee to the state and support legalization with a ton of unlibertarian strings attached?

    The sadder these people are, the happier I get.

    Some policy positives already achieved and in the works:

    So now we come to Donald Trump’s libertarianism or lack thereof.  The man, no doubt, will continue some of our military adventurism overseas.  But he has already stopped our policy of running guns to terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers in Libya and Syria after the previous admin established those programs and destabilized an entire region, while thoroughly destroying the likelihood that a rogue regime would abandon its weapons programs and try to re-enter the international community (read: we came, we saw, he died). There has been no resurrection of the programs nthe last two administrations ran to ship guns into Mexico through the drug cartels, for different motives yet still in gross violation of Mexican sovereignty.  And perhaps he will continue to not carry out targeted assassinations of American citizens that have never been charged with a crime, which the prior admin was all too happy to do in gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Furthermore, he has already started to roll back our country’s association with liberty-robbing agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both of those agreements undercut the ability for American companies and consumers to freely negotiate what they were willing to exchange goods and services for. Removing our name from them is a step in the right direction, especially if it’s followed up with free trade agreements that haven’t existed in a century or more. That action is yet to be seen, but at least someone had the audacity to upset the globalist apple cart and stop a little bit of the insanity those agreements put us further along the path to.

    Get us out of this circus, please!

    As for civil liberties, Trump is still an unknown quantity.  His statement about “roughing up” suspects is problematic to say the least. And I can only hope it was hollow bluster. But even so, it sets a very poor example and he should correct it immediately.  Now, having said that, he has not furthered Obama’s policy of killing Americans without due process, but that’s not going to be enough.  His willingness to stop going after businesses that exercise what should be a fundamental right to free association looks good so far. As do his overtures to Second Amendment causes. As does his willingness to tackle Affirmative Action and Title IX insanity.  Holy crap, I just realized he’s been the best president on civil liberties we’ve had in recent memory. People that overlook the substance of these actions due to his boorishness need to reassess what their priorities are, in my opinion.

    Furthermore, our business climate has benefited greatly from having an outsider installed as the head of the regulatory apparatus.  Trump has already vowed, and started to carry out, a dismantling of the bureaucracies that stifle economic growth and freedom for Americans.  From the onerous EPA regulations to CAFE standards being rolled back or passed to the states, there has been a serious uptick in confidence from the business and manufacturing sectors that Trump will get the government out of the way of prosperity.  The hilarious irony there is that Trump was a crony his entire life, as I mentioned earlier.  But perhaps he had no choice but to play the game the only way that could lead to success: do what the government tells you and push others out.  Now, when given the reins, he seems to be more than willing to eliminate programs that he personally benefited from but that create barriers to entry for others.  Yes, he could have opposed the system while benefiting from it. But let’s not pretend he’s some awful hypocrite because he played the hand he was dealt. Business “leaders” like Elon Musk, Mark Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, etc, etc, etc have done the same thing and so did their forefathers like Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, and others on back through the ages as long as there was a government agent with a hand in their pocket.  So I’m willing to forgive that.

    Be happy for this.

    And lastly, he put what appears to be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court in Neil Gorsuch.  That is a marked improvement on any names mentioned by establishment candidates on either side of the aisle during the last campaign.

    The other intangible positive results of a Trump presidency:

    Another thing libertarians have always sought is a diminished reverence for elected officials and other “public servants” whose goals are often at odds with those of the people.  Trump’s mere presence has caused probably 2/3 of the political spectrum to demand the reverence for the office be scaled back.  They are now calling for more power in the hands of the states or localities and even ::gasp:: the people, on occasion.  These are people that have been statists to the core. They are the Big Government democrats and NeoCon statist Republicans.  And they are finally unified in an effort to diminish the role of the Executive Branch.  This serves to re-establish the separation of powers that has become all-too-muddy with much of the congressional responsibilities being passed to Executive Branch agencies in an attempt to deflect responsibility and ensure easy reelection for entrenched politicians.  The more responsibility that is pushed back into the laps of our directly elected officials and down to the state or local level, the better for us.  It helps us create a more diverse political environment where “laboratories of democracy” are able to compete for ideas and human investment, rather than an all-powerful centralized state controlling everything. And one need look no further than minimum wage laws (since we have them, I’ll address it) to realize a top-down approach where the minimum wage “needed” in New York is imposed on small towns in New Mexico or Wyoming, where the cost of living doesn’t even come close, is a horrific idea.  The Trump era is returning us to an ideal the founders embraced in that respect.

    And he is returning us to another ideal the founders cherished: temporary service from business-people and non-careerist politicians.  The flood of people on Trump’s coattails from all sides of the political spectrum is refreshing. Sure, many are moneyed and or celebrity candidacies. But so what?  Its a step in the right direction any time we start to end political dynasties and careerists that sit in the Senate for 30 years as they grow further and further out of touch from average Americans.  More turnover from political novices has a much better potential upside of shrinking our government than does further entrenching those who have pushed us to near financial ruin and reduced individual liberty.

    Pucker up!

    The net result so far (in my opinion):

    So let us all embrace the non-libertarian president. For one of these reasons or for another I might have missed. But embrace it nonetheless, because it has already borne libertarian fruit, and I suspect it will continue to do so for many of the right and some of the wrong reasons. Its the best we could have hoped for and probably the most libertarian moment in America for a hundred years.

  • #CalExit 2, The CalExiting

    I’m Not Dead Yet

    #CalExit, more formally known as Yes California (poached unapologetically from the Scottish independence movement) seemed to collapse when it’s leader, Louis Marinelli, moved back to Russia in April, but a flurry of recent news makes it seem like someone forgot to leave the stake in the movement’s heart.

    Singam is the face of “CalFree TV 100% Made in California” (source: YouTube)

    When the site was young—and so was I—I wrote a quick primer on Marinelli and the #CalExit movement for this site. I was contacted by the good folks at the California National Party to clarify the differences between Yes California’s push to radically sever ties with the US by ballot initiative, and the CNP’s more structural process of building a political movement toward that end.

    A Wild #CalExit Movement Appears

    Much of this noise seems to stem from a new group, The California Freedom Coalition (CFC) appearing on the scene. They seem eager to funnel attention to Yes California, but whether they have a formal relationship or are just fellow travelers is murky at best.

    With the exit of Marinelli from the scene I had assumed Yes California would be remembered as the state-scale equivalent of “If Trump wins, I’m moving to Canada,” but a few days ago my news feed started lighting up with sour-grapes Op Eds about how awful California is, being republished by the GOPUSA site and some kind of bizarre exchange between Tucker Carlson and Shankar Singam* the “Vice President, Board Member and Chapter Laision” for the CFC, in which Singam claims California hemorrhaging its middle class to other states is a good thing and leaves Tucker Carlson wondering if he’s being punked.

    Yes California’s official Twitter account has since explicitly denied that Singam speaks for Yes California.

    Singam should replace Marinelli quite handily as a lightning-rod for controversy. He comments aggressively on articles about California independence and is a published author on the topic of ghost hunting.

    CalExit Bits and Bobs

    There’s a Calexit comic book by Matteo Pizzol with art by Amancay Nahuelpan and Tyler Boss. I’ll try and get a copy to peruse on my upcoming roadtrip.

    The gloriously named “Capitalism.com” has an unusually balanced gloss on the economic issues related to CalExit, which was written prior to Marinelli’s exit from the movement. Singam commented heavily on their article.

    *Trying to find information on Singam, Google autocorrects the name to Shanker Singham and tells me he’s an advocate of free markets and free trade with the Legatum Institute. Unfortunately for everyone involved Google is full of shit and this is a totally different guy, and this is why we can’t have nice things.