HARBESON; It’s all a matter of opinion

The Indiana Democratic Congressional Victory Committee is running a TV ad which includes this quote from Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock: “To me, the highlight of politics, frankly, is to inflict my opinion on someone else.”

The ad’s intent is to shock you, as if what Mourdock said is extreme and unusual. It’s not — Mourdock merely happened to state the truth out loud, that’s all. Inflicting opinions on other people is the entire purpose of gaining control of the government gun.

Do the Democrats really not understand this?

Of course Mourdock wants to inflict his opinions on others — that’s why he wants this government job. It’s also why Democrat Joe Donnelly, Libertarian Andrew Horning and Independent Jack Rooney would like the job. They all agree that government force is valid, but have differing opinions on the best way to use that force.

As soon as one of these candidates gets elected, he will begin to work hard to do what every other politician that ever existed has done: inflict his opinions on other people. You probably don’t mind and may even be happy, as long as you agree with the winner’s opinions.

But if you disagree — if you have a different opinion, then you do mind and this is why political groups are willing to spend a quarter of a million dollars for a 30 second advertisement.

The opinions of others don’t matter as much in our private lives. It’s true that we can be in situations where we may have to deal with another person’s opinion which differs from our own. For example, we might have a different opinion than our boss in how to perform an aspect of our job, but the difference in our daily voluntary interactions is that we are free to end any relationship if a difference of opinion becomes a problem.

We can also look at what I do here every week. I can’t inflict my opinion on you. I can only share it. I COULD WRITE IN ALL CAPS but this print version of yelling still wouldn’t mean I could inflict my opinion on you like politicians with power and control can.

When someone like me shares an opinion with you outside of government, you are in control. You get to consider the opinion and decide for yourself if you think it has any value and if you want to take any action regarding that opinion.

This even includes political ads. Candidates and their campaign staffs cannot inflict their opinions (unless they engage in voter fraud) — they can only share them like everyone else does while in the private realm. It’s only when one of the candidates wins that he gains the power and control to potentially inflict opinions.

We see this happening all around us, at every level of government. Here’s a list of examples where opinions are inflicted on you through politics: war and methods of fighting terrorism; entitlement programs; where you can smoke; who you can marry; various permit and licensing requirements; designating and protecting historic property; how many bridges to build across a river; whether you should pay tolls and how much the tolls should be and — what’s that?

Oh you’re right, that probably was like scratching my nails on a chalkboard. I’m sorry for inflicting so many examples on you at once. AT LEAST I DIDN’T WRITE THE LIST IN ALL CAPS.

Considering all of this evidence, the people who created this ad sure must have a low opinion of you and me if they think we’d actually believe that one candidate is any different than another when it comes to the desire to inflict opinions on others.

— CLARK COUNTY RESIDENT DEBBIE HARBESON LIKES TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS SO SHE CAN HEAR WHAT SHE’S THINKING.

"Moore" Sewer Problems in Jeffersonville

HARBESON: Sewer debate has turned into a mess

CLARK COUNTY — It’s clear that Jeffersonville Mayor Mike Moore regrets signing the ordinance that included the controversial change in how summer sewer usage is determined. (NOTE: See here and here for more background information.) He knows he made a mistake by not vetoing an ordinance that contained a provision he was strongly against. Now he’s trying to find a way out but he’s working inside government, which is like being trapped inside a well-used Port-a-Potty that’s been tipped over with the door against the ground.

Moore told me that the requirement to purchase a meter for outdoor water faucets is the only thing he objected to in the ordinance and none of this would have happened if he could use a line-item veto. I guess he’s learned the hard way that once an ordinance is on his desk, a veto is the only action to take if there is a provision he disagrees with.

The main reason this situation caught my interest is that there are very interesting principles being articulated as both sides debate the issue. Moore has been clear that he believes the residents of Jeffersonville should not pay for something they are not using.

I agree completely.

He’s not the only government official making this case. The officials who believe that mandating a meter is the best way to determine usage are really saying the same thing — it’s just the other side of the coin. They want to make sure that people who are paying less during the summer are doing so because their higher water use is indeed not going into the sewer system.

So if both sides really do believe in the principle that people should pay for what they use, why don’t they apply that concept universally and consistently? After all, there are many things the city of Jeffersonville forces people to pay for that they don’t use and we don’t hear the mayor or the council trying to figure out how to fairly charge users of those programs.

The real problem for many residents is that the government is telling people they now have to purchase a product so they can make sure they only pay for sewer service they actually used. I can understand why people don’t want to do that. But I can also understand why it could be helpful to use meters. If the point is to pay for usage, then meters could certainly help by getting an actual accounting of outdoor water usage.

It’s always hard to accept something like this because it means that someone is making money off of a government mandate — one of the major problems when governments monopolize a service.

This is probably why I see huge signs in Floyds Knobs that say “NO SEWERS.” Someone up there understands that once you are on the grid, you are stuck with government involvement and the increased control in other areas that comes after the collectivization of poo disposal.

There is another reason this issue caught my interest. Now that Moore has been unable to use the political process to keep the old sewer relief plan in place, he said he plans to ignore the ordinance and continue to give summer relief to people even if they don’t purchase a meter.

This means Moore plans to ignore a law he believes is unjust. That’s civil disobedience — at least when a private individual does it. I’m not real sure what to call it when a mayor ignores a law he thinks is unjust, particularly one that he signed in the first place.

Is this really civil disobedience? Or is it just another government official who thinks he is above the law and would never support a private individual who decided to do the same thing and ignore a law the mayor endorsed? I can’t answer those questions, but I still like it when anyone refuses to obey a law he believes is unjust.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has been told she should pay higher sewer bills because she’s so full of it.

The Gambling Game in Indiana is Rigged

HARBESON: More than a simple game

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Last week’s news about the high-profile raid on an alleged illegal gambling ring in Jeffersonville was a jackpot of examples showing the hypocrisy and confusion caused when government gets involved in vices.

When U.S. Attorney Joseph Hogsett said the eight people charged were allegedly “handling thousands and thousands of dollars a day in wagers,” the message was clear — these guys were in trouble because lots of money was moving around without the government skimming off a portion of the profits.

The government doesn’t care much about gambling as long as they get their cut. We know this because “thousands and thousands of dollars a day in wagers” are also handled just a few dice throws down the river and Hogsett has absolutely nothing to say about the people running that gambling operation.

It’s confusing at first to realize that you can sit on a boat in Harrison County and make bets with a guy rolling a marble and both of you can still be considered to be fine upstanding citizens. But if you go sit on a car in a certain Jeffersonville auto shop and make bets with a guy about the Andretti curse, it can be a criminal act.

The wagers that happen on the boat are not crimes because those transactions are government-approved. The people who run that gambling business dutifully hand over some of the profits they make from creating a venue filled with crisp cards and shiny, clanging machines that attract people who want to engage in this vice.

It’s a great deal for the government when corporations do most of the work and concentrate gambling activities in one convenient easy-to-tax gambling shop. The corporation is of course happy to pay off the government in return for the protection from competition.

Considering what a grand deal it is for government to legalize and tax gambling you might wonder why they haven’t legalized and taxed all forms of gambling. Well, besides the fact that they are helping the current legal gambling venues maintain their little monopolies, perhaps it’s because there is money to be made on both sides of the vice game.

Let’s go back to the press conference about the Jeffersonville gambling operation for illustration. Larry Rollins, the director of the Gaming Control Division for the Indiana Gaming Commission, said his group started investigating the guys involved in the Jeffersonville operation two years ago.

Then when it was discovered that the gambling operation crossed state lines, this meant even more crimes were committed as a result of government prohibitions on gambling, and the FBI was brought into the investigation. For 18 months, employees from all layers of government worked on this investigation. Finally, when it came time to raid the Jeffersonville properties, local, state and federal law enforcement all participated.

That’s a lot of people being paid to work as a direct result of the government prohibition on certain types of gambling.

Now that indictments have been made, those employed by the government court system will also get into the game. And if any of the accused men are found guilty and sentenced to prison for breaking laws prohibiting gambling, you will pay even more people to keep them in a cage so that “society” can punish them.

You can see how the entire cost of enforcement and punishment means that a lot of people can profit simply because the government has the ability to write words down on paper and declare that people who are handling wagers about Peyton Manning’s next game are criminals.

Of course the government officials who get paid to enforce these prohibitions are quick to explain that it’s not all that innocent. They work hard to ante up the fear by telling the public that illegal gambling connects to other crimes and attracts dangerous people. They imply strong odds that innocent law-abiding citizens could be harmed.

No one who profits from government prohibition mentions that the game is rigged from the start because it’s the prohibition itself that helps create those problems. And odds are, they never will.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson never counts her money while she’s sitting at the table. Mostly because she never has any left.

Special Taxing Districts and Government Parks

HARBESON: Why add more piggies to the pie?

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — The city of New Albany and Floyd County continue to struggle to jointly fund government parks. There have been accusations about previous agreements not honored, vetoes of new agreements, arguments over paying a “fair share” and demands for restitution. The topic is hotter than a shiny slide in the middle of a sunny summer day.

One of the latest news items of note is that the county cannot find a copy of the 2001 agreement. I don’t know if they are implying an agreement may not have actually happened or if they just lost it. I’m glad they are looking though because as they’re flipping through pages and pages of documents, maybe they’ll also find a copy of that other government document no one’s been able to find — the “social contract.”

So in the midst of all the bickering on the political playground, it’s no surprise that the idea of creating a special taxing district for the parks system has come up again.

Certain government officials really like the idea. If the parks department can become a taxing district, this would mean that their budget is no longer subject to the approval of local governments. A taxing district automatically gets a certain percentage of property taxes without having to justify their spending to local elected officials.

If you remember, the idea of creating an additional taxing authority in the county is exactly what State Rep. Ed Clere tried to do during the last legislative session, but it failed to make it to the state Senate.

Clere and others who were pushing the idea said they wanted to “take the politics out of parks.” This is a lame statement considering the very idea of a politician using the state legislature to create a special taxing district in order to force consistent funding for a particular budget item is a political process in itself.

As a matter of fact, this is politics at its worst (and that’s saying a lot) because the creation of a special taxing district moves more power and control another step further away from the people forced to pay the bill.

If local government spending is not susceptible to the budgeting process, if local residents lose the ability to set and change priorities, if flexibility in spending is removed and a government entity is guaranteed a certain percentage of funding, who benefits most?

The people who support creating another taxing authority are quick to say it is “revenue neutral” and will not increase anyone’s taxes. Yes, they say, there will be another item that you’ll see on your property tax bill but your total percentage and tax caps will not change.

In other words, the amount of money you are forced to pour in the government feeding trough is the same, it’s just that there will be an extra pig in there snorting and sucking it up along with all the others.

Interestingly though, no one is really saying much at all in regards to how adding another pig will affect all the other piggies. If money is automatically directed to parks through state legislative action, where will it come from? How will the new combination end up? Something has to give, so who will win and who will lose?

Another reason some people like this idea could be because it’s a good way to get government spending off the front page. And out of people’s minds. It’s hard on those in government when there is open discussion about their central plan for the collective because people can more easily see what’s going on.

But if a budget item is granted taxing authority, it’s easier for those same officials to just sit back and quietly rake in their portion of coerced funds. They can tip-toe around and hardly ever have to engage in debates about the money that’s spent.

When government spending is open to discussion and debate through the budget process, at the very least, people can see that there is no truth to the idea that everyone wants the exact same thing, even in an area as seemingly benign as parks. Sure, the political process can be messy — but what else should you expect when using coercion to get what you want?

Just because government jumps in to a field of human interaction, even if it’s recreation, this does not resolve the inherent differences among individuals and their personal wants and needs — it only forces everyone onto the same merry-go-round — one that you can’t even get off, even if you’re sick of the ride.

— Local resident Debbie Harbeson is definitely sick of the ride.

Little Free Library Up and Running

HARBESON: A handy little idea

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — After having worked hard the past few months, I now have something new to add to my resume — “I was Lead Project Manager for a major construction venture, supervising every aspect in the creation of a privately funded community building.”

I haven’t decided whether I should add that the building is about 2 foot wide and 2 foot tall.

The project I’m referring to is my own Little Free Library. I wrote last December about the idea — building tiny libraries as a fun way to support literacy and build community. I knew I had to have one.

But how? I knew little about building or woodworking. I needed to find someone to help me and the first person I thought of was Jim James. Jim is a relatively new acquaintance but through our interactions, I knew he was into woodworking.

I decided Jim would be the perfect person for the job because he didn’t know me well enough to realize how inept I am at anything crafty. He also didn’t know that I can cut my thumb just looking at a sharp blade.

So I contacted him to see if he would help me. I was clear that I didn’t want him to build it FOR me; I wanted him to build it WITH me. I hoped to learn by doing. Since he didn’t know what he was getting into, Jim agreed and I soon found myself in his workshop, an amazing place, loaded with every kind of machine imaginable with which to cut myself.

I learned a lot about Jim while we worked together on this Little Library. And he learned a lot about me — which is why we made a solemn blood-pact that we would never share those things with anyone. Ever. So don’t bother asking either of us for details.

(In hindsight, I am wondering now how our blood-pact will work since he convinced me we only needed to use my blood. It made sense at the time — there was plenty available.)

Somehow, despite my help, we managed to get the library ready for painting and other exterior work — a point where I drafted the help of family. My mom Rose Huber and my daughter, Melissa Weissinger (who also made the mistake of telling me how easy it was to dig a hole with a post-hole digger) helped paint.

My brother Gary Huber and his son Nick helped me put on the shingles. I struggled when I wanted to hammer in at least one nail, but the problem was my brother’s hammer. I think it was for right-handers and I’m a lefty.

My husband John helped me with final touches, which included attaching a piece of stainless steel  engraved “ Paul Huber Memorial,” because I built this library in my dad’s memory. He was a voracious reader just like me.

Within hours after installation, I glanced out my window and saw a woman and two children leaving with an Amelia Bedelia book I just placed inside. That was worth the blood, sweat and bruises.

This idea is spreading fast and I’ve met many people who are busy planning, building and decorating their own unique Little Free Libraries. The Jeffersonville Rotary Club recently awarded grants which were used to purchase two Little Libraries in memory of recently deceased members. Budget Printing Center, a local business in Jeffersonville, has graciously donated labels to attach inside the books to explain and promote the project.

To find out how you can build your very own, and/or share your talents with others who want one but need assistance in various areas such as construction, artwork, and installation, please join us at the next meeting of Little Free Library Indiana at 6 p.m. Tuesday, May 29, at the Jeffersonville Red Cross Office, 1805 E. Eighth St.

You can also keep updated on this project at  littlefreelibraryindiana. wordpress.com, which includes a link to a Facebook page. Join us and maybe soon you’ll have something new to add to your resume too.

 — Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is into making blood pacts but she prefers using other people’s blood. Write to her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com

Politician-Brokered Compromises

HARBESON: The compromising nature of compromise

SELLERSBURG — After Indiana’s long-time incumbent Richard Lugar failed to retain his Senate seat, many of his supporters mourned this loss by focusing on what they consider to be one of his most valuable character traits — the willingness to compromise.

These folks consider this to be a prime virtue for any politician and are very concerned about candidates who express skepticism regarding the value and benefits of compromise within government. They worry about others who do not share their blind faith in the concept.

When writing about the implications of Lugar’s loss, former Democratic Congressman Baron Hill even moaned that “compromise has become a four-letter word to some, unfortunately.”

Why are these people so concerned about compromise? Well, one reason could be that they understand how important compromise is when looking to increase government spending.

It happens all the time. One side puts forth a budget amount on a given item that they consider to be “appropriate” and the other side makes a counter offer. Since compromise will logically fall somewhere in between, government spending always increases when a compromise is made.

So, those who hope to control government spending end up losing every time politicians compromise with other people’s money. And once this connection is made, those people will naturally begin to question the value of compromise.

But there’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of compromise. This is simply an example of how government coercion can skew and twist any concept beyond its original meaning and purpose. As a matter of fact, compromise outside of the coercive system is considered to be invaluable in many areas of life.

For example, when I hear the word compromise, I usually think about personal relationships, particularly married couples. It’s practically a cliché now that when people who have maintained long term relationships are asked to offer advice, they almost always mention the willingness to compromise as being of primary importance.

So what’s going on here? Why is there no controversy about compromise within the couple relationship? Why is the concept of compromise not considered a four-letter word in this situation?

One big reason is that any compromise that occurs within the couple relationship is a give and take between individuals who are each compromising only on behalf of their unique individual selves. They are also compromising with a partner they have freely and voluntarily chosen who shares most of their values, goals, dreams and desires.

They don’t have to deal with a separate group of people claiming to have the authority to represent all couples who reside in a given geographical area who determines what is in every couple’s best interest and then proceeds to create “appropriate” compromises, and force all couples to comply. No, so far at least, politicians stay out of the compromises couples make as they work to live peacefully together.

But the politicians are involved in who enters into these relationships — which makes me wonder, if the people mentioned at the beginning of this column think compromise within government is so great, when are we going to see an offer to compromise on this issue? The compromising politicians could say to opponents, “OK, so you don’t want gays to marry? Well, let’s compromise. How about if we allow gay women to marry but not men? Come on, whaddya say, let’s broker this deal.”

It’s easy to see that such a politician-brokered compromise would be ridiculous, but how is it really any different than all the other compromises politicians make as they continually use their power to manipulate and control everyone’s lives?

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson considers government to be a four-letter word.

Determining Property Ownership in Land

When I first encountered libertarian ideas, I started to see that it became a lot easier to remove the fog from many disputes if you looked at the problem from the standpoint of property ownership. I remember clearly when I really started to understand that. It was a few years ago when a controversy came up about someone burning an American flag.

As I searched the internet for information to help me understand and debate the details, I found Murray Rothbard’s, “The Flag Flap.”   After I read that, I clearly remember thinking, wow, that was easy! It wasn’t important to dig into the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all you had to do was ask, well whose flag is it? If they own it then they can do with it what they want.

From then on, I thought clarifying issues was going to be so easy. And it was for awhile, as long as I stayed within the realm of, as George Carlin would say, “our stuff.” But eventually I had to think about property ownership in terms of land and that’s when it became more challenging. No one labors to create land, it’s just there. When I think about it, I always get confused and frustrated and then just quit for awhile. But then it comes back to haunt me.

It came back again after I wrote the column about property taxes being rent we pay to the government. That column led to more communication with Carl Watner, editor of The Voluntaryist, and I wanted to pass along one article from that publication that he shared with me that has to do with land.

 The article written by Carl is in Issue 56 and is titled, “Voluntaryism And Indians: Proprietary Justice and Aboriginal Land Rights.” This article, which focuses on land ownership as a result of European “discovery” of America, is chock-full of interesting information and ideas to think about in terms of land ownership.

This clash of understanding about property ownership is an excellent example to think through if you want to come to terms with property and land. First occupation and use plays a primary part but as Carl writes:

“The main question to settle is whether they (Indians) rightfully owned the land upon which they regularly or sporadically hunted.”

For more discussion on how this is considered from a voluntaryist perspective, I recommend reading the article for yourself.