Proof that anarchy is more peaceful than government

HARBESON: Great debate: Bumper stickers or license plates?

By DEBBIE HARBESON Indiana columnist

 

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — People love to share messages and make personal statements by slapping bumper stickers on the backs of their cars. As we drive around and read bumper stickers we can learn a lot about a person, assuming the bumper sticker was placed there by the current owner.

We can discover important distinctions, such as whether someone is a cat person or a dog person. Name the subject or issue and you can find a bumper sticker about it. There’s probably even a bumper sticker out there somewhere that says “down with bumper stickers.”

The messages displayed on one’s car can sometimes be quite controversial and yet rarely do we hear about them being the direct cause of a conflict with others. Since everyone enjoys the same freedom to control the privately owned areas on their cars, people can and do tolerate differences and co-exist peacefully.

However, there’s one space on your car that is not so peaceful. Although it’s a relatively tiny space, measuring a mere 12 inches by 6 inches, it’s been the cause of huge conflicts. I’m talking of course about your government-issued license plate.

This tiny space, this piece of metal the government requires that you screw into the rear end of your car, became a source of conflict shortly after the government started issuing specialty plates intended to help raise funds for nonprofit organizations. The problem was easily predicted because anytime the government controls any boundaries, although they claim that their existence in the area brings peace, in reality it often only brings conflict.

Last year, people who didn’t agree with the messages being promoted by some groups began to moan and complain because those groups were being allowed to raise funds and spread their message on government property. These people were never concerned about the government handing out this special benefit as long as they had no problem with the organization’s message.

As a result of this controversy, arguments arose about who should be allowed to use the government property to raise funds and promote their cause and who shouldn’t. After the BMV found a way to remove one particularly controversial nonprofit from the program, it caused even more controversy.

So now specialty plates are suddenly a “big problem” which means politicians now “need” to work on “fixing” the situation. Indiana’s government has already spent time and money on a legislative interim study committee created specifically for this issue and they met early this month.

The politicians are spitting out their usual controlling language, saying specialty plates are a good idea but there just needs to be “tighter regulations” and “more oversight.”

This type of language almost always translates directly into more money being spent as the government defines, creates and administers current and new regulations. This will not only add to the bureaucracy but it will very likely also lead to costly lawsuits. [There have already been lawsuits over specialty plates before last year’s brouhaha began.]

Many people don’t have much problem with specialty plates particularly because the folks who get them pay $40 extra and the money goes to the nonprofit. Well, not all of it — $15 goes to the government for, you know, “administrative fees.”

To me, it makes much more sense to simply buy a $2 bumper sticker and donate $38 to the organization, removing the government completely from the transaction.

It’s very likely though, that plenty of time will be spent during this winter’s legislative session fussing about specialty license plates. Many nonprofits have become dependent on this form of government assistance and will fight to keep it. To remain relevant, politicians will fan the fires and push opposing groups against each other.

This issue is a great example to use to critically examine whether or not what you’ve been told all your life about governments is really true. The next time you are sitting in a traffic jam looking at bumper stickers and license plates, ask yourself this question — which area is more peaceful, the boundary that exists in a state of market anarchy, or the boundary that is controlled by government?

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson has no bumper stickers on her car because she likes to keep her opinions to herself.

A Resolution on Government Resolutions

HARBESON: Whereas, it’s time for a resolution

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — When Indiana Rep. Bob Morris, a Republican from Fort Wayne, said he would not support a government resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts because it is a “radicalized organization,” there was a predictable feeding frenzy in response.

Once this story was in front of everyone’s nose, people smelled the rich sugary sweetness of controversy and chomped down. Hard. Most people fell right in line and dutifully framed the issue around the Girl Scouts, but the Scouts have about as much relevance to the main issue as chocolate flavor has to do with the main ingredient in the pie that maid Minnie Jackson gave to racist Hilly Holbrook in the movie, “The Help.”

Think about what gave this politician the opportunity to state his views about the Girl Scouts in the first place — a nonbinding government resolution. Shouldn’t we be discussing the very idea of these resolutions? They are basically puffed-up documents that congratulate organizations, businesses and individuals for various accomplishments and anniversaries.

In other words, these resolutions are simply another way for politicians to pander to the voters.

Knowing that, it’s easy to understand why Morris’ action annoyed all the politicians. After all, he was refusing to go along with their pandering. Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma was so desperate to pander that he handed out cookies on the House floor. That’s how important pandering is — so important that he threw his fellow party member under a busload of Thin Mints.

Why would any private voluntary association even want the approval of these people? I guess the document is something to put on the ol’ “I love me” wall, but personally I’d just keep that part of the wall empty before I would display something that showed I got a condescending pat on the head from government officials.

These resolutions also take advantage of the hard work and achievements of others. Politicians hop on the success wagons of people who have nothing to do with government — people who are simply living their lives and driving toward their own goals. I mean this literally too, because there is a government resolution this year congratulating Tony Stewart on winning the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship.

I don’t know how resolutions start but I can’t imagine Mr. Stewart really cares all that much. I can’t imagine he spent last year making all those left turns, dreaming about how cool it would be to have a bunch of politicians formally congratulating him with a document full of almost as many “whereas this” and “whereas that’s” as there are laps in a Daytona race.

Adults are one thing but when I looked through the resolutions for this legislative session I noticed that most of them are written for kids who have excelled in some way. This actually does make sense.

Such resolutions can be an important part of the continuing indoctrination of the young. Lots of work goes into making sure kids blindly accept political authority and what better way to start than by giving them accolades for their accomplishments. Going back to that pie, such government accolades are the chocolate flavor that hides what the kids are really being fed.

But maybe this would all make more sense if I just wrote a resolution of my own stating my position:

I offer the following resolution on resolutions and move its adoption.

Whereas, nonbinding resolutions serve only as political pandering;

Whereas, politicians use nonbinding resolutions to create controversy;

Whereas, it makes absolutely no sense at all for private individuals and voluntary associations to accept resolutions of approval from an institution that only exists because of coercion,

Be it resolved by this columnist of the News and Tribune of Floyd and Clark counties in Indiana:

• Section 1: That all government nonbinding resolutions and any related controversy be ignored from this point forward.

• Section 2: That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to every pandering politician in the state of Indiana.

— Whereas Debbie Harbeson resides in Clark County, be it hereby resolved that any reader is invited to contact her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com

Zany Super Bowl Party in Indiana

COLUMN NOTES: Sometimes I write columns that might sound cryptic to those who don't live in my state or keep up with the news in my state. So here's a bit of background to the people mentioned below. "Vaneta" refers to Senator Vaneta Becker, the politician who wrote a bill to set performance standards for the National Anthem. I wrote about that here.

"Luke" refers to Senator Luke Kenley who is pushing hard for laws, even federal laws mandating that online companies collect sales taxes for state governments.

"Pat" is Representative Patrick Bauer, who has led Democrat walkouts the past couple of years because his party did not have enough people to stop what the Republicans want to do.

"Dennis" is Senator Dennis Kruse, who is pushing a bill to teach creationism in Indiana government schools.

"Charlie" is Charlie White, the Secretary of State who recently was convicted of voter fraud.

Finally the beer reference at the end is due to Indiana being one of the few states where you can't buy a cold beer on Sunday.

Wow, when I look this all over, I'm kind of embarrassed to say I'm a Hoosier.


HARBESON: It’s super living in Indiana

By DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — My husband and I attend an annual Super Bowl party, which is normally a small gathering of friends, but this year our host’s home was bursting with guests.

At first, I thought this was due to increased interest since the game was being played in Indianapolis, but then I found out that none of these people had been invited.

I’m not sure why they crashed the party because none of them appeared to care about the actual football competition. As a matter of fact, one lady left before the game even started.

When the National Anthem began, “Vaneta” pushed past everyone, put her ear firmly against the speaker, closed her eyes and listened intently. She frowned twice, but when it was over she nodded with satisfaction and went home.

As the game was getting ready to start, I noticed a fellow roaming around, keenly interested in everyone wearing a team jersey. At first I thought he was just trying to figure out who everyone was rooting for, but he was more interested in where party-goers purchased their jerseys. When one guy told him he had found a great deal online, “Luke” pestered him the rest of the evening about paying Indiana sales tax.

Another odd fellow, “Pat,” stormed into the house, stood in front of the TV and announced that even though he and his buddies came to the party, they were not going to watch the game. He then stomped out onto the deck. When his friends didn’t immediately follow, he snarled and they slowly meandered out. After a few minutes several of them came back inside and eventually, when he realized no one was really paying any attention, Pat came back in too.

It was about this time that a battle broke out about the commercials. From what I could tell, one group of people wanted to watch the commercials and another group wanted to mute them. The “muters” mumbled something incoherent about the evils of corporations and, although they managed to occupy 99 percent of the couch, the other one percent retained in control of what mattered, the remote, and played the commercials at full volume.

Another commotion broke out during halftime. Hopes were unusually high this year for another wardrobe malfunction since Madonna was performing. However, by the time that guy came out wearing the sparkly shower curtain, everyone had given up and began discussing the famous wardrobe malfunction of the past.

This led to a huge disagreement. Many people thought the mishap could be explained scientifically as simply a function of the natural evolution that results when performing intense dance moves over time. However, this did not satisfy “Dennis,” who said that was just a theory and the malfunction could just have easily been a creation of the ratings gods. This really started a big bang that only ended when some crazy pastafarian mentioned the flying spaghetti monster.

And speaking of spaghetti, I found another group of people who didn’t really care about football. They spent all of their time in the kitchen, eating the free food and discussing ethics and voting with some secretary named “Charlie,” which they decided made the party an educational outing, which meant they could take home all the chicken wings, pizza slices and brownies they could bag without reporting it to anyone.

By this time it was the third quarter and I couldn’t take any more. I looked at my husband and nodded toward the door. He looked relieved and we thanked our host and slipped out. As we drove home, he said, “Oh no, I brought all of our cold beer to the party. Now we have none for the rest of the game!”

We both silently pondered the reality of the situation. We knew that even if we were lucky enough to come upon $300 million of misplaced funds on the way home, we’d still be unable to purchase a six-pack of cold beer to take home for the fourth quarter.

Because that’s what life is like in Indiana.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson once experienced a wardrobe malfunction but no one even noticed.

Worry Warts in the Indiana Legislature

HARBESON: Who’s worrying?
SOUTHERN INDIANA — Politicians sure seem to worry a lot. They’ve made the furrowed brow an art form, particularly during a legislative session when they introduce their bills that will supposedly fix the problems that worry them so.

For example, several state legislators are really worried about a problem concerning government education in Indiana. Their worry warts popped out immediately when these politicians found out that cursive writing is no longer a mandatory part of the government school curriculum.

I don’t know why they are so worried about this. If you know anything about the government schools, you know that teachers need to focus their limited time on other skills. Schools need to stop wasting time on cursive and focus on the single most important skill students need to succeed in today’s government school system in our modern age — learning how to correctly fill in answer bubbles with a No. 2 pencil.

(By the way, proponents of this law want to include private schools who accept vouchers. This is the second example I’ve found this legislative session proving that politicians will treat voucher-accepting schools exactly the same as fully funded government schools when creating new laws and regulations.)

Legislators are also worried about the ethics law that was passed a couple of years ago. Politicians say certain organizations that help pay their expenses for out of state trips should be exempt from this law because they are educational groups, not lobbyists, and legislators need to be educated on important topics.

Okay this one has me worried. Obviously Indiana has a bunch of woefully uneducated people who claim to be in charge because they seem to have no clue about how to use technology. I guess they’ve never heard of live online virtual conferences. I guess they’ve never heard of uploading video to the Web. I guess they’ve never heard of podcasts. I guess they’ve never heard of emailing pdfs and PowerPoint presentations. They must think their only alternative to a trip paid for by these “educational” groups is to read long reports written in cursive and sent through the U.S. Postal Service.

Alcohol purchases on Sundays provided another worry for some legislators, but not for long. They have no more worries for this year because the bill has been killed in committee. Part of the discussion centered on the lack of clear evidence that selling alcohol on Sundays would increase the tax revenue collected by the state. And if a legislative action doesn’t help the government collect more money, well, then they’re not going to worry about changing anything.

Hey, why the furrowed brow? You didn’t think the Sunday alcohol proposal was based on a foundational principle of freedom did you? I’m sincerely worried about you if you think individual liberty has anything to do with actions taken by the state legislature.

Finally, let’s talk about the worries of Southern Indiana legislator Rhonda Rhoads. During her campaign she appeared to be very worried about the taxpayer. I have several of her postcard advertisements and they all talk about how worried she is and how she wants to stand up for you, the taxpayer.

But now that she’s been elected she doesn’t seem quite so worried about all taxpayers. She is sponsoring a bill, known as the “parent trigger” that would convert a government school to a charter school if 51 percent of the parents vote for it. But when asked why this proposal does not include all taxpayers forced to support the school in question, Rhoads said the taxpayers without children wouldn’t know enough about what’s going on at the school.

In other words, you ignorant, uninformed taxpayers who have no children in a government school just don’t need to worry your pretty little heads about this politician’s proposed legislation. Just shut up and pay.

No wonder so many people worry when the legislature is in session.

Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has been unable to find a set of worry beads strong enough to last her through an entire legislative session.

Making Indiana a Right To Work State

HARBESON: Labor intensive


> SOUTHERN INDIANA — How sad to see the waste of human labor, unionized and not unionized, that’s being expended on the political fight in Indiana concerning the right-to-work issue.

Removed from government, unions are simply people united for common goals in their workplace — a marvelous concept. Removed from government, businesses are simply people trying to meet a demand in the market and hiring people to help — a marvelous concept. Removed from government, when there is a need for conflict resolution, the parties involved work to negotiate a mutually satisfying agreement, understanding compromise may be necessary — a marvelous concept.

However, when unions and corporations use government to gain an advantage over the other party, well, that’s not so marvelous.

It’s also not very smart. When government interferes in what should be voluntary interactions, even when one group thinks they benefited and “won” the fight, they still lose because now they are prisoners, handcuffed to the unpredictability of the political process.

We have clear evidence of this in regards to this issue because a right-to-work law was successfully passed in Indiana back in 1957. Then it was repealed in the mid 1960s. Now here it is again, casting a huge shadow over the people in Indiana. And if the legislation passes, it could be repealed at some future point.

What’s worse, all of this action is only a tiny part of a continuing response to previous government actions, much of it on the federal level. On and on we go. And yet we still believe government solves problems.

The only people who really benefit are the politicians because their interference solidifies and intensifies the rift, ensuring their continuing involvement. This interference between these two groups in particular has helped create the huge funding funnels that are essential in maintaining the two major political party machines we see today.

Indiana Republicans are either dense or being completely disingenuous about the right-to-work proposal. The Democrats have it right — this law, if passed, would not make Indiana a right-to-work state.

Yes, it’s true that this law would prohibit contracts between employers and unions that require all employees to pay union representation fees. But that does not mean Indiana residents would then be living in a state where no fees were charged in order to work. It would only mean the fees that are paid would be lowered for some individuals.

Indiana cannot be a right-to-work state as long as it continues to charge its own fees for the so-called right to work, otherwise known as the income tax. And even if the politicians pushing for this right-to-work law decide to be consistent and amend this bill to include repeal of the state income tax, Indiana still wouldn’t be able to completely unshackle hard working individuals because the federal government also charges fees for working.

They don’t call those annual speeches the state of the union for nothing you know.

Business owners/management, unionized workers and nonunionized workers are experiencing the exact same labor struggle — being hindered in their desire to gain higher wages when forced to hand over fees to the state. Unfortunately, as long as these groups focus on fighting each other through the political process, they can’t see this one grievance they actually have in common — the one grievance that can unite them.

And the politicians certainly aren’t going to point it out.

Although it’s now complicated due to previous actions, the root of the right-to-work issue is as simple as any other issue — government should not be interfering in the voluntary interactions between individuals and it’s a mistake for either side in this conflict, business or union, to use it to do so.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is currently searching for a huge funding funnel of her very own.

Indiana Republican Senator Vaneta Becker's Idea of Freedom

HARBESON: The land of the free

SOUTHERN INDIANA — It has come to my attention that some of you do not think you are free. I find this particularly horrifying considering that yesterday marked the beginning of a very special time of year — the time when politicians gather together for that wonderful annual expression of freedom known as the Indiana General Assembly. This session promises to be packed with proposals from politicians proving you are indeed free.

Take Republican State Sen. Vaneta Becker for example. When she heard that “The Star-Spangled Banner” is sometimes altered by performers, she decided to propose a law mandating standards when the song is performed at events sponsored by government schools.

Clearly, she only wants everyone to understand what freedom means and there’s no better way to help free people express that freedom than by having government place strict guidelines and rules on how to perform a song.

Her proposal makes even more sense considering it’s focused on expressing freedom properly in government schools. After all, these places are the official centers that government uses to educate the masses about the wonderful freedoms they enjoy. So it’s perfectly natural that politicians like Becker would want to tell individuals who perform inside these compulsory-funded buildings exactly how to sing a song expressing freedom.

Yes, it’s true that Francis Scott Key, the author of “The Star-Spangled Banner” lyrics, wrote that poem to suit himself as he expressed his freedom. However, the song is now the official government anthem, which means it is now used as a hymn for worshiping the nation-state, so clearly it must be performed in a government-approved manner. Surely even you freedom-loving extremists can understand that.

What should really be encouraging to freedom lovers is that if Ms. Becker succeeds in getting her law passed as written, she will be helping even more free people express their freedom properly because her proposal will extend the freedom-loving hand of government to private schools who accept vouchers.

You remember vouchers, right? They were part of one of the laws proving you are free that the Republicans moved through during last year’s annual expression of freedom. The law that the freedom-loving proponents said would provide more freedom to people, while at the same time assuring private schools who accepted the vouchers that they would remain free from increased government intrusion.

Now it’s only one session later, and already a politician is making no differentiation at all between private schools that accept vouchers and fully funded government schools. Oh, wait a minute. Forget I mentioned that. Pay no attention to that camel with his nose under the tent of those private schools. Let’s move on.

The bureaucracy needed to support enforcement of Becker’s proposal is a simple matter. The only requirement for the government schools — and the private schools who accept government vouchers — is that they must record all performances and keep them on file for two years, in case there is a problem with a performer who takes liberties with the song.

According to Becker, these requirements would be easy to fulfill due to technology like cell phones. Now, come on naysayers, you have to admit that this is a marvelous example of how free people make good use of technological advances.

Just imagine how great it will be if Ms. Becker succeeds. Indiana will be bathed in that rocket red glare and the air will be bursting with sounds and words emanating from the collective as they sing, correctly and properly, according to the specific directives set forth by the government.

“Oh, say you can see what it means to be free?”

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson might have more to say about the politicians as they gather together during this most special time of the year.

It's Sick to Depend on War for Economic Health

HARBESON: At war with state’s business philosophy

SELLERSBURG — During World War I, Randolph Bourne wrote, “War is the health of the state.” Bourne was referring to nation-states of course, but considering what I’ve learned recently, it seems appropriate to say “war is the health of the state of Indiana.”

According to a 2011 Indiana University report, back in 2001, Indiana received $1.8 billion from the federal government in the form of defense contracts. This number grew to more than $4 billion over the next decade. We all know why the growth occurred: War.

This report, titled “Building National Security: The Economic Impact of Indiana’s Defense Industry,” explains that the ability to attract federal defense spending is of great benefit to Indiana. The introductory letter signed by the lieutenant governor and the IU president says, “... it is critical to the state of Indiana and its work force that the defense industry continues to flourish here.”

I don’t agree. It’s extremely unwise to develop an economy based not only on government spending, which requires taxation and/or debt, but which also depends on death and destruction for growth.

As a result of their desire for continued and increased federal defense spending, a private-public partnership firm, Conexus Indiana, and the Indiana Economic Development Corp. have created the Indiana Aerospace and Defense Council for the specific purpose of promoting Indiana as a great place for the federal government to spend its defense budget.

It’s bad enough that state government uses the euphemism “economic development” in an attempt to centrally plan an economy by spending tax money in ways that favor some industries and businesses over others, but using funds to lobby for increased federal spending that supports war attacks the sensibilities of all peace-loving individuals.

But those who directly benefit don’t see it this way. The groups involved — the politicians, the state universities and the corporations — all benefit from the business that results when the nation-state participates in war. No one wants to acknowledge the horrible truth embedded in the fact that pushing the defense industry encourages the development of businesses that are healthiest during wartime — in other words, peace makes them sick.

This council also wants to increase the number of companies involved, but any business owner should be cautious about such a move. Besides the more obvious concerns when businesses get involved in war, there can also be plenty of unanticipated costs.

For example, as I was browsing around the website of CACI, the newest business to locate in New Albany’s Purdue Research Park, I was amazed at how much time, money and energy this company is spending as it works to disassociate itself from the abuse and torture controversy at Abu-Ghraib prison in Iraq. I wonder if they think the contract was worth it.

Indiana is already receiving fewer defense dollars as the federal government’s involvement in the current wars change. However, instead of seeing this as a warning, signaling a need to gain freedom from such dependency, officials are making decisions that will only suck Indiana in even deeper.

Should the businesses in this state increase their dependency on an “industry” that experiences its best growth when the federal government gets involved in nasty wars far from the actual soil they claim to be defending?

Or would it be better to spend energy working to create products and services that enrich lives, thereby encouraging mutually beneficial peaceful trade and friendly relationships?

I am concerned, and even mourning, this realization of where human energy and resources have been focused, because I do not want war to be the health of the state of Indiana.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is sick of government interference.

Public Intoxication Is Not A Crime

HARBESON: Designate PI law for repeal

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Let’s say you — or someone you care about — had a few drinks one night and, knowing it would not be a good idea to drive, decided to let a sober person take the wheel.

Did you realize you can still be charged with a criminal offense? It’s true. The Indiana Supreme Court just affirmed this in Moore v. State.

Here’s some background on the case. A woman had a couple of beers at a relative’s home. While she was there, another person asked her for a ride. Since she had been drinking, she told him she could not drive so he drove while she rode in the passenger seat and fell asleep.

A police officer pulled them over because a license plate light was out and then discovered that the driver did not have a valid license. When the officer determined that the passenger was too impaired to drive, he arrested her for public intoxication.

There are several issues and concerns surrounding this ruling, one being the implications with regard to society’s strong push to prevent drunken driving by promoting the idea of designated drivers.

It’s not difficult to see possible problems when someone who is responsible enough to use a designated driver can still be charged with criminal behavior. As a matter of fact, as a result of this ruling, when the good folks at New Albany’s Irish Exit give rides to their patrons who have been drinking, it’s now theoretically possible for a police officer to pull their vans over for a minor offense and arrest their customers.

This ruling clearly illustrates problems with laws such as Indiana’s public intoxication law. It’s a good example of unintended consequences, a peril that all written law is susceptible to and is one reason why the less laws we have, the better.

Indiana’s public intoxication law is horrendously vague and depends upon the arbitrary discretion of law enforcement, which means it is open to possible abuse.

Worst of all, this law makes criminals of peaceful people who are not harming others. Lysander Spooner made an excellent case way back in the 1870s when he said “vices are not crimes.” He writes, “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.”

When a law exists that can rightly be interpreted to say that one can commit a criminal offense even while sleeping in the passenger seat of a car, clearly we have a problem.

Indiana State Sen. Michael Young agrees that Indiana’s public intoxication law is much too vague and in the most recent legislative session, he authored Senate Bill 156. This bill added language to the law in an attempt to clarify the necessity of additional behaviors above and beyond merely being intoxicated.

It passed in the Senate, with local Sen. Ron Grooms voting for and Sen. Jim Smith voting against. The bill died in the House and Young says he will try again next year.

While it’s good to know some legislators seem to understand that criminal behavior should involve harm to person or property, I highly encourage Young to go further and push for the repeal of Indiana’s public intoxication law.

Adding language to bad laws merely complicates the issue even further and increases the likelihood of even more negative unintended consequences. Surely, Indiana has enough laws on the books for actual criminal behavior that law enforcement can use if necessary.

Other states have no specific laws against public intoxication and some specifically note that an intoxicated person is not committing a crime. To protect innocent individuals who have caused no harm to others, Indiana should do the same and repeal this law.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson grudgingly admits that selecting a “designated driver” is a better idea than her suggestion of selecting the “designated intoxicated.”

Risking Taxpayer Money

COLUMN NOTES: I changed my mind again. I am going to keep posting the full column here because I want a secondary online depository. I'm also going to try and link to articles and other sources of information I use to write the columns.

HARBESON: Windstream in it for the money


CLARKSVILLE — There’s no doubt Windstream Technologies has developed quite an interesting product. I was initially impressed by the publicity surrounding its wind turbine and when I looked deeper, I saw even greater potential.

First of all, any product that can help people get off the grid is a plus, so a turbine capable of supplying even partial energy needs using wind speeds as low as 4 to 5 mph certainly seems promising.

It’s fairly small and unobtrusive and I even like the design, too. As a matter of fact, I could see one of these babies looking very smart as a coffee or end table in a room decorated in a modern-style design. (Hmm, I wonder if such an installation might actually be operational inside government buildings where politicians are busy blustering.)

In addition, Windstream gained extra publicity when it installed its first turbine as part of the League of Green Embassies program and the company apparently even has a significant amount of preorders waiting.

So with all this going for the company, why does Windstream need to ask taxpayers to take on their risk? Where are the private investors?


If a company can’t convince traditional bankers to assume the risk, there are other ways to raise funds or move a product forward. What has it tried in order to gain access to the nonbank private investment dollar? For that matter, why aren’t the owners trying to sell the idea to an existing company who has the capital and/or infrastructure to build this product?

There are many alternatives and possibilities in the private market.

Do companies like Windstream get tied so strongly into government as the solution because they are in a business which is highly regulated and controlled? Windstream CEO Dan Bates seems to be all for using government to benefit his company because he’s promoted government caps on carbon emissions to force the market to move in ways that benefit his business. Is this really the best means to grow a business?

Maybe New Albany is better off not having companies which constantly look to government goodies. Windstream only came here because Indiana state government bribed them with deals using taxpayer money in the first place. Companies who arrive on such terms are certainly more likely to think they deserve more and more in order to stay.

Windstream ended up in North Vernon, accepting a government-backed loan for less money than they requested from New Albany. This may be partially due to North Vernon’s site being the old Regal Rug factory. A location that was previously used for assembly-type work likely requires less setup costs than New Albany’s retail site. Yet, Windstream still didn’t do it without using local politicians to force taxpayers to take on the company’s risk by providing banking services.

People who promote these special government favors like to label such actions as being “business-friendly.” But for “business-friendly” to be a meaningful term, it must be applied universally, not by handing out special financing deals to certain companies.

A friendly business environment is one that gets out of the way of hard-working, ambitious people so they can develop and grow their product or service without being constantly propped up by government assistance.

Less regulation and less taxation create an environment where self-sustaining businesses are free to invest as they see fit, and no one forces those who don’t gain favor of politicians to subsidize those who do.

It appears that dealing with companies who only come to town because they were bribed means cities will have to deal with demands for even more handouts. Which is kind of like finding out someone only married you for your money.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson wonders if anyone has ever measured the mph that hot air moves inside government buildings filled with politicians.

Free Your Family From Government Schooling

HARBESON: You can choose your child’s education

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Now that Indiana’s government has passed the school voucher law, proponents are excited about increased choice in education.

But let’s be clear, the increased choice they’re talking about still falls inside a coercive system of funding, which means we will see all the associated problems and flaws that always come with force.

All we’ve really seemed to accomplish here is to add one more special interest group — private schools — into the mix of those who will continue to fight to gain access to the pot of government-controlled funds designated for education.

Vouchers just make those fights more complicated because now more fists will fly as they all wrestle in the mud for some of the money.

Meanwhile, individual student needs and interests are still pretty much ignored. For example, vouchers continue to promote the idea that we must choose a single institution, whether government-run or privately-run, for education. Vouchers continue to promote the idea that a curriculum controlled and manipulated by standardized testing can meet individual learning needs.

Is this kind of choice good enough for your child? If so, fine. If not, you can get your family out completely.

If you are tired of all of the constant government manipulation and control you can leave. If your child’s needs are not being met inside government-approved educational institutions of any sort you do have another choice. It is possible to free your family, to become independent and take control if you want.

How? By going independent and choosing home education.

When home educating your family, you have the freedom to focus completely and totally on your child’s individual needs, interests and learning style. There are many ways to help a child learn and by being independent you can choose from a wide array of ideas and find what works for your child.

You can benefit from having immediate flexibility to change any aspect of your child’s education if you decide a specific choice is not working.

You don’t have to worry as much about the effect politicians, school boards, administrators, teacher unions and other special interest groups will have on your child’s education from one school year to the next or from one legislative session to the next. You can let your child’s needs and interests take the lead when you go independent.

Now, you may have concerns and that’s understandable. But if you are interested in this idea, please don’t let anyone try to tell you that you can’t do it. If you want to be independent and take control, you can.

Lots and lots of families have done it already, including mine. And we are glad to help you find the way that works for your family in your individual situation.

For every obstacle you think may be standing in your way, there are others who have overcome the same obstacles. Some have wondered if they had the funds, or the education, or the time and found ways around these obstacles. So if you want to do it, you can do it.

If you are interested, now is the perfect time to investigate the idea further because your family will be taking a summer break from your current schooling option anyway.

So are you interested? Do you want to learn more about home education? Contact me and I’ll be happy to discuss how you can take charge, how you can be independent and still have access to many resources as well as plenty of support and assistance.

You can do it if you want to do it and I’m here to help you. All you need to do is ask.

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is willing to wrestle in mud if it could help even one family gain educational independence. But she’d prefer chocolate pudding.

Bullying: An Essential Component of Government

COLUMN NOTES: Looks like I fired up a few people in the comments section on the newspaper's website again.
HARBESON: A bolt of inspiration

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — I don’t understand why Indiana Democrats are so upset at the possibility of the Republicans introducing an “anti-bolting” amendment this year in order to prevent the minority party from staging future walkouts.

After all, it’s not much different than what they demand of the state’s minors because anti-bolting legislation is really just a compulsory attendance law for legislators.

This should make sense to anyone interested in fairness and equal treatment. If state government is going to make it so difficult for a 16 year old who is not being well-served by the government schools to bolt, then legislators should have to abide by similar laws. Why treat people who support the compulsory government education system any differently than they treat the kids who suffer in that system?

To continue the school comparison, it’s not just me that sees similarities between the legislative walkout issue and school problems. When I typed “Indiana anti-bolting law” into Google, the search engine not only did its job and gave me results for the terms I requested, but also checked to make sure I didn’t mean to search “Indiana anti-bullying law” instead.

I thought about that for a moment and realized Google has a point — bullying is relevant to this discussion.

As far as this year is concerned, I’m sure the Republicans would agree their amendment could just as easily be called “anti-bullying” legislation. We know the Republicans certainly felt bullied when the minority Democrats ran out and spent a month or so away from the legislative session.

So Google is on the right track, but I’d go further and say we should be talking about bullying in regard to the entire government system itself. Bullying is an essential component of all government operations. Legislative bullying is rampant because the main goal of those in the General Assembly is to try to use government to force people to do what they want.

It really gets twisted, too. For example, in this session here’s how the bullying is playing out: Republicans think its fine to bully individuals to pay for another family’s education in a private religious institution, even if those being forced to fund it have deeply held convictions which cause them to object to funding religious institutions.

Similarly, Democrats think it is fine to bully individuals to pay for another person’s abortion, even if those being forced to fund it have deeply held convictions which cause them to object to funding abortion.

Why don’t we consider and think about these inconsistencies, irregularities and downright hypocrisies more than we do?

It’s just like being back in school and being caught between two big hairy bullies who are constantly vying for power. All you, the average citizen, can do is put ice on your black eye while listening to the bullies argue over how they are going to spend your lunch money.

Part of the problem is that we allow legislators, sometimes assisted by the media, to set the tone of the discussion. Legislators work hard to get us to focus on the issue as they want to frame it, which in this case is the “problem” of quorum rules in the legislative session and what, if anything, should be done so the minority party cannot stop everything by staging a walkout.

Maybe it’s time to realize that the issues we should be discussing are never the surface topics that government officials want us to focus on. It’s not about bolting, it’s not about walkouts and it’s not about quorum rules.

Google’s search engine seems to understand there are deeper issues at play. I do too. What about you?

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is always prepared to bolt.

If Only I Could Clean Out The Clutter of Laws Too

HARBESON: Debbie de-clutters

COLUMN NOTES: A commenter on the newspaper's site said "The same argument you make for libraries, could just as easily be made for the existence of National Public Radio, Public TV, and for that matter, the National Endowment for the Arts." I agree.

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — The file I use to collect material for possible columns is growing kind of thick which means it’s time to de-clutter. So today let’s take a quick look at a few of these topics before I throw out the trash.

The first item is an article about the Jeffersonville Canal. The government has started purchasing homes in the areas affected but at least one property owner, Fred Collins, says he isn’t interested in selling. When asked how they will handle such situations, government officials said they’d be as fair as they can.

What does this mean? If those in government were truly concerned about being fair, all they have to do is respect his wishes as a legitimate property owner and simply leave him alone. If you have any respect for the principle of individual property ownership, please join me in supporting Mr. Collins as he struggles to keep his home. Don’t let the government treat him as if he’s a bothersome piece of clutter.

Next up in my pile is a letter State Senator Ron Grooms wrote bemoaning the property tax circuit breaker because it affects the funding of one of his most beloved coercively funded institutions: government libraries.

To make his case for increasing the library’s options for additional coercive funding, he points out how many people love the library and gives statistics on local library usage. Grooms wants us to believe this is a valid argument for coercion, but it’s just as valid to argue that popularity proves there is no need to coerce. Such beloved institutions can surely be self-supporting because the many people who use the library and/or claim to love its purpose, as Grooms does, will act to close the funding gap with no need for government force.

For example, according to the numbers Grooms gave in the letter, if the Jeffersonville Township Library only made one change and charged a fee to check out materials, the cost would be less than 60 cents to use an item for several weeks. What library-loving patrons holding their daily $2 cup of coffee or 89 cent big swig of soda would object to this?

Finally, I have several pieces in my file dealing with the crazy clutter of laws we have concerning alcohol. Indiana’s oh-so-wise politicians discovered that elderly people get irritated if asked to show identification when they want to buy a six-pack and have a lot of time on their hands to bug their legislators about the problem. So, to de-clutter their lives, i.e., get the old people off their backs, legislators are messing with this law again, hoping to find that sweet spot, the age where people are desperately clinging to the illusion that they still look young, but are much too busy to complain to their legislators when they realize that’s not why they were carded.

Let’s add one more alcohol-related item to this de-cluttering column. Did you know that wineries need special government permission to sell their product at festivals and can currently only engage in such business activity for 30 days a year? Well, thanks in part to the work of Representatives Rhonda Rhoads and Ed Clere, they might now be allowed to have festival permits for 45 days a year. Shall we all have a drink to celebrate this amazing freedom?

I just don’t get it. I’m sitting here looking at another item I’m about to discard, a postcard from Rhoads’ campaign that says she is for smarter government. Wouldn’t smarter government best be defined by the repeal of such idiotic laws rather than adding to them?

I guess I can understand why politicians love legislative clutter. It gives them work to do because there’s always something for them to “clean-up.”

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson de-clutters so thoroughly that she’s accidentally pitched her husband into the trash several times. No, really, they were accidents.

Ron Grooms and Ed Clere Teach Me About Football

COLUMN NOTES: Boy, several people kicked my butt in the comments on the newspaper's website on this one. I used to respond to comments, but then I realized that if anyone really cared to discuss one of my columns, they'd send me an email.


HARBESON: I call illegal procedure on legislators’ moves

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — This year, I’m much more prepared to watch the Super Bowl and I owe it all to state legislators Ron Grooms and Ed Clere. Thanks to these guys, I now understand what it means to do an “end run.”

In football, an “end run” means the offense attempts to go around, rather than through, the defensive line. If the team can’t use their running game to gain yardage up the middle, they will often try an end run.

Similarly, Grooms and Clere have been running plays for special interest groups who have been unable to break through local government to get what they want. Both men are using their state positions to introduce legislation which will create new local government entities with taxing authority. These politicians are doing end runs around the communities they represent.

Grooms’ end run involves the creation of a regional airport taxing authority. As Grooms runs with this ball, he repeatedly spits out the phrase economic development, as if it’s something new and wonderful.

In reality, it’s merely a modern-day euphemism for the common good, a phrase that sounds much too socialist to the various business interests he is speaking for, including One Southern Indiana, a specific special interest group that endorsed him.

Not only is Grooms doing an end run around Clark County residents, he also wants to force other counties into his game. This is of course under the pretense that they will benefit.

I’m sure all the residents of these other counties feel the love as Grooms grabs their facemasks, acting as if he knows what is best for them and how his law will make their lives better.

Grooms even has the nerve to use the word “partners” when talking about this plan and how other people should pay for it. As if the idea of voluntary cooperation has anything to do with creating new laws and imposing new taxing authorities on individuals.

Grooms wants us to think his law is different. His law will be good for everyone. This cannot be true because it is impossible. A government action is never good for everyone. Never. Someone always loses the game.

Next, we have Ed Clere and his special interest group who have decided that individuals in Floyd County are failing to prioritize parks properly, so Clere wants to do an end run around them. He wants to create a new government entity with special taxing authority, this one specifically for parks in Floyd County.

However, it’s not just Floyd County residents who should be concerned about this end run. If you live in Clark County, or elsewhere in Indiana, be aware that Clere’s law would create the first park taxing district in the state. How long do you think it will take for “those who know best” to use this end run to increase government in your area?

To politicians like Ed and Ron, though, these increases in government are all good because these actions are perfect for their playbook. Ed and Ron are willing to do an end run around you because they think it’s legitimate to use government force to centrally plan your life and set your priorities.

Observing the behavior of these two legislators adds to the evidence that governments will always tend to grow, no matter which party happens to be in possession of the ball.

We can now see that when those who benefit from government can’t force their ideas of how you should prioritize and spend your money in the local community, they will go to the state-level politicians who are more than willing to try an end run.

Don’t let them fake you out. Keep your eye on the ball.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson always keeps her eye on the ball, which has gotten her into trouble a time or two.

Indiana Smoking Ban Demonstrates How Government Works

COLUMN NOTES: Quite a few comments on the newspaper's website on this one. Very entertaining. Also, I have a strange feeling I used this photo before when writing about some other government actions. I guess that shouldn't surprise me though. (Photo is from wikimedia)

HARBESON: Smoking ban is for stooges

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — In what shall forever remain an undisclosed location, except to say it was somewhere in Indiana, I had a wild experience. Upon entering my room, I heard groaning, squealing and slapping sounds coming from next door. So naturally I put my ear against the wall. What I heard shocked me.

I had apparently stumbled upon a secret legislative caucus. I heard three distinct voices and the following is my reproduction of their conversation, as best as I can recall.

Moe: OK guys, looks like we need to pass a statewide smoking ban this year.

Curly: I don’t know Moe. Why can’t nonsmokers just refuse to patronize places that allow smoking?

Moe: Why I oughta poke you in the eyes for saying that! If people took care of themselves, why would they need us?

Larry: Hey guys, look! Now that I’m a legislator, I have almost 5,000 Facebook friends. They love me!

Curly: But Moe, should we really be telling business owners how to run their business?

Moe: That’s not what this is about you numbskull. Pay attention. This is about the health of the employees that work in these places. You don’t want to force them to breathe smoke while at work do you?

Curly: Soitanly not! But why don’t they get another job?

Moe: What’s the matter with you? You want to force those people to leave their jobs?

Curly: Gee, no. But, hey, what if some people lose their jobs because of a government ban?

Moe: They’ll just have to get another job of course.

(At this point I heard a slapping sound.)

Larry: I just put up a Facebook status, “Curly is slapping himself, ha ha.” Whoa, you should see all the “likes” I’m getting!

Moe: Listen Curly, you can’t think in terms of economics. The health of the people is at stake here.

Curly: Well, it would help I guess.

Moe: Attaboy. Now you’re thinking.

Curly: OK then, let’s ban it.

Larry: You mean, let’s “mostly” ban it. We can’t ban smoking in the casinos.

Curly: We can’t?

Moe: Of course not, dimwit. We get tons of revenue from casinos and lots of smokers gamble. So we can’t create a law that could negatively affect the casino business.

Curly: But Moe, I thought it was about health, not economics. What about the employees in the casinos?

Moe: Imbecile! As legislators we have to weigh things differently when government revenue is concerned. You don’t want to be irresponsible do you Curly?

Curly: Soitanly not! But I thought we were taking responsibility for people by banning smoking everywhere.

Moe: Geez, you just don’t get it. Listen, government revenue from casinos helps provide important government services.

Curly: Like gambling boats?

Moe: Yes. Wait, no. I mean like paying us to write new laws to fix problems.

Curly: OK, I get it. We need to keep people smoking.

Moe: Yes. What? No, we need to keep people gambling. No, wait, what I mean is that we need to give people the freedom to gamble and smoke.

Curly: In government approved areas.

Moe: Now you’ve got it.

Larry: Hey guys, I just changed my status update to “about to head off to lunch.” Wow, lots of people commenting on where we should go. I didn’t even know there was a restaurant called Hell. I wonder if smoking is allowed there.

Moe: Pipe down you slug! We still have one more item on our agenda. There’s a problem with that law we passed last year that forces businesses to card 80-year-old wine drinkers.

Curly: Yeah, we better create another law to fix that or everyone’s going to think we’re just a bunch of stooges.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson swears she isn’t really in the habit of putting her ear against walls. She much prefers peepholes.

Do We Have a System Focused on Justice?

HARBESON: Where’s the justice?

Of all government institutions, courts and prisons are probably the ones most vehemently defended as necessary and proper government functions. This is because most people are led to believe that courts and prisons exist to administer justice.

But is this what happens in reality? Do we truly have a justice system, or is it merely another institution with the same problems as any other government monopoly?

A common problem of government monopolies is unchecked growth, and this has clearly happened in Indiana’s prison system. According to a study by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, and the Pew Center on the States, Indiana’s prison population rose by 41 percent over the past 10 years.

One of the reasons stated for this huge growth is that Indiana’s sentencing laws for drugs and theft “do not result in sentences that are proportionate to the severity of the crime.” As a matter of fact, “the average sentence for someone selling drugs in Indiana is nearly 50 percent longer than the average sentence for sexual assault.”

So Indiana’s laws are more focused on punishing those adults who engage in mutual voluntary transactions than the most heinous act that can be done to another person outside of murder.

Is this a system focused on justice?

Another sentencing problem noted in the report concerned property crime. According to the report, “Indiana state statute defines theft, regardless of the value of the stolen material, as a felony offense. In contrast, most states define theft below a certain amount as a misdemeanor.”

As a result, we end up paying to house people in prison for stealing relatively small amounts of money. This is particularly nonsensical considering a person sitting around in prison is doing nothing to provide restitution to the actual victim.

Is this justice?

It’s easy to see how the political process helped create these situations. Everyone has heard politicians huffing and puffing about getting “tough on crime.” Maybe some of you thought this would translate into forms of true justice, but all we have to show for it is an increased prison population with a lowered crime rate not even on par with neighboring states, which had much less increase in prison population.

Is this justice?

These harsh sentencing laws have resulted in more people spending more time in prison. More people in prison means more money is taken from innocent citizens to pay for their incarceration.

Is this justice?

What’s even more horrendous is that now, as a result of those past reforms, from politicians who ignored the ideas of justice, we now have to endure more political blather telling us that more reform is needed to fix the failures of their past reforms.

Is this justice?

If the politicians involved were focused on justice, they would never have created those sentencing laws. People focused on justice understand that drug laws themselves violate basic principles of individual freedom and justice because there is no victim. People focused on justice understand that theft does have a victim, but one who deserves restitution from the criminal, not the additional abuse from government of being forced to pay for the criminal’s housing.

Reforming disproportionate sentencing laws may be helpful now that politicians have already interfered so badly by closing off options. However, I’m afraid all that’s going to happen is that we’ll be forced to endure more of the same by a new breed of reformers, who still seem to be more focused on numbers and the collective rather than the individual.

But this is just proof that government monopolies are never a good idea, especially if you value justice.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson thinks she’s justified in valuing justice, just in case you care.

School Vouchers: Education Stamps

HARBESON: We don’t need no education ... stamps

If you plan on following the upcoming legislative session in Indiana, I advise you to put on protective gear because it looks like school vouchers are going to be on the Republican agenda.

The idea of vouchers is not new, but has always been very controversial. To more easily understand why, we need to realize that the idea behind vouchers is no different than the idea behind food stamps.

Food stamps help the needy purchase food for their family, and vouchers, or education stamps, help the needy purchase education for their family.

Both are intended to help the needy improve their current situation, so any controversies surrounding each should be identical, but they’re not. This is because government controls education far, far more than it does food.

(This is strange for a society that says it values freedom. After all, the freedom to feed our minds is at least as important as the freedom to feed our bodies, isn’t it?)

Anyway, as it stands now, we do not have government food stores. We do, however, have government education stores; we’ve simply been trained by those in government to refer to them as “public schools.” These government education stores exist solely due to the initiation of force on others.

This is why it’s misleading when politicians like Mitch Daniels say that vouchers will introduce competition into education. To have anything close to true competition in education, all schools would operate under identical market-driven constraints. They would all use voluntary means to gain customers — just like all of our food stores do.

If all we had were privately run schools, then introducing vouchers, or education stamps, would have no more effect on the relative competitiveness of schools than food stamps do on food stores.

What’s even worse, in our current education system, it’s the people who usually express concern for the needy who end up getting in their way. Many of these people fight hard against education stamps for the needy because so many of them make their living off of the government schools.

Naturally, they don’t want to make it easier for their currently trapped customers to leave, so they want to severely constrain the use of education stamps.

We would see the same thing happening with food stamps if we had government food stores. But since we don’t, the needy can go to any store that is approved to accept food stamps.

Parents can buy grapefruit at one food store and then go to another store to purchase hamburger. They can even purchase seeds and grow their own food at home.

But no such freedom would exist with education, even if a school voucher program were passed by Mitch and his buddies because the lack of freedom in education has developed a system that, even in the private realm, is often an odd all-or-nothing venture.

For example, in our current system, a parent would never be able to take education stamps and purchase math services at one private school and go to another private school for reading.

And, of course, none of these families would be able to use vouchers to purchase items that would help them grow their own self-directed education for their individual family.

Therefore, the first step we need to take — if we truly do want to create and develop better educational opportunities for everyone — is to rid our society of these government education stores. We need a competitive private system for education just like we have a competitive private system for food.

When we’ve accomplished this separation of education and state, then we can focus on the problem of government food stamps and vouchers, which promote the myth that it’s moral to initiate force upon others to help the needy rather than using peaceful and voluntary means to do so.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson enjoys the freedom of feeding her mind, but she does try to avoid too much salty language.

Be True to Your School and Do Some Drugs!

HARBESON: Drug seizure funding is a drag

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — I don’t know how you feel about illegal drug use, but if you are currently against it and you also care about funding government schools, you may want to reconsider your position.

Here’s why: Indiana’s laws are set up so that the government schools can benefit from illegal drug trade through asset forfeiture laws. Of course, it’s kind of a bureaucratic process so a couple steps need to happen before the schools get any money from your illegal transactions.

First of all, your dealer would have to be caught so the government can seize his assets. Yes, that would put a crimp in your future support, but only temporarily. After all, we know from decades of fighting the drug war that someone else will quickly fill the void.

So that part’s really no big deal.

The hard part is the second consideration, making sure government officials actually follow the laws they set up for themselves. In Indiana, the law says that when a county seizes assets from a crime — and everyone agrees that most of these crimes are drug related — they are supposed to deduct the costs of law enforcement and then send the rest to the Common School Fund.

Now, some of you might think it’s kind of creepy to fund schools this way but it makes sense once you understand the drug war. Drug transactions are only crimes because government says so.

There is no victim needing restitution, so asset seizure only benefits the government that made the transactions illegal in the first place. Since this makes the drug war look like an unending profit-making scheme for the government, they have to direct some of the money to areas few will criticize.

But creating a law that tells government officials where to direct funds doesn’t mean they will actually follow it. Recently, a private law firm figured out that most counties in Indiana have not been depositing any money from asset seizures into the Common School Fund. This firm believes these counties are not following the law properly, so they filed suit.

The county prosecutors were completely offended. They said they certainly are acting properly and reminded everyone that the law says they can deduct law enforcement costs first and well, they can’t help it if it just so happens that in all the cases, the enforcement costs exceeds the value of the seized assets.

Supposedly, the law firm that filed the suit thought Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller would investigate this possible abuse of the law on behalf of the citizens. But Zoeller said he was going to defend the prosecutors instead.

Zoeller said there is a state law that says if a prosecutor is sued in connection with his job, Zoeller has to defend him. I know that sounds strangely cozy but, hey, it’s state law.

But even so, Zoeller figured out this was a sticky situation, so of course he’s passing the buck. He said the courts are not the proper place to figure out this problem. He said the state law is unclear and the prosecutors need more direction in determining how much to deposit into the school fund.

So this issue is apparently moving to the wise, all-knowing legislature. You know, the entity who already wrote the previous law that has professional lawyers all across the state confused. The legislature thinks they can come up with a formula, through the political process that will settle this once and for all.

And that will be just great because then those who participate in the illegal drug trade will be able to figure out exactly how many joints it takes to put another brick in the wall.

Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson bets that many readers of this column are now wondering how much you contributed to the common school fund over the years.

Homeschoolers Caught in the Crossfire

I made my first video on xtranormal.com. Wow it was really fun. I recommend that site for anyone who wants to have some fun writing scripts and making videos.

This video is in response to a controversy that is brewing in Indiana due to the increased concentration on dropout rates in government schools. Richmond Community Schools has been embroiled in controversy on this issue for some time now. You can read more about that here.

Here's the video I made in response to the controversy:

Mitch Daniels Brags about Converting Private Property to Government Property

HARBESON: It’s time to go public with this

BY DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

SELLERSBURG — Public relations campaigns play a very important role in maintaining the legitimacy and illusion of “good” government. Let’s look at a recent PR campaign by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and his people to see how it works. The campaign we’re going to study involves the two planned DNR projects to purchase land for conservation purposes.

Now, you would think a small-government politician would never brag about converting private property to government property. But such principles disappear quicker than a frightened copper belly water snake when a politician sees that he can use something to his advantage.

See, Daniels and his team are out promoting these bigger government projects (here and here) because they can use them to carefully mold a message. All you have to do is just look at the timing of this PR blast.

It’s the beginning of summer and you’re enjoying the outdoors. So when you see headlines about conserving forests and wetlands, they know you are likely to get a good feeling about your government and the politicians currently in charge.

The federal government is also involved in this and since it works for this particular PR purpose, Daniels is fine with it. That’s why one day you see him angry because the federal government is sticking its nose in his state’s health care business and the next day he’s happy because the feds want to help his state take over private property to ensure the health of a bunch of sweet gum trees. This is just more evidence that principles become an endangered species when a good political PR opportunity arises.

It’s not just about Daniels though. Other politicians see the opportunity in these types of PR campaigns. Democratic State Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Austin, also stepped into the promotional spotlight and said, “I have goose bumps today just thinking about what we’re doing.” Heck, he probably said goose bumps on purpose because it mentions waterfowl.

The implication in all of this is that land will not be conserved unless government is involved. And unfortunately existing private organizations can get sucked in and end up reinforcing such PR implications because they get so excited when their agendas are promoted and government money is spent in the ways they want it spent.

We see this in the comments by Mary McConnell, state director for The Nature Conservancy of Indiana. She said, “It’s exactly the kind of project we should be working on as a state.” So she says. But I doubt it’s true for a parent who’s concerned about her child’s school closing because of budget cuts.

Now, they know that some of us will see through the PR and have important questions about government acquiring private property so they made sure to mention that eminent domain would not be used.

However, I had more questions when Nick Heinzelman, director of land acquisition for the state Department of Natural Resources expanded on this in the Indianapolis Star, saying, “This will all come from voluntary sellers. Some will want to sell now; others may wait,” Heinzelman said. “Any land that comes up for sale, we’ll be there to buy it right away.”

What does that mean? What if a private citizen would also like to purchase the property? Will he have a chance or is there already some government provision that says the government is the only one allowed to purchase any land that comes up for sale that falls inside the border of this project? And what about future costs on upkeep, liability and usage control?

Even though this government PR campaign is intended to create the idea that government growth under the auspices of conservation is a cool way to start the summer, all it feels like to me is just more hot air.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson knows everything there is to know about hot air.

Feel Safer With Politicians Controlling Guns?

COLUMN NOTES: I received quite a few thoughtful responses to this column and most of them were specifically related to the property rights aspect of it all. I'm still thinking it all through but continuing to wonder about such property that is movable, like a car, and how the property rights inherent in that relates to the property rights of land in which the car sits on, such as a parking lot. This may rate a follow up column.

HARBESON: Government and gun control

By DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

>>SOUTHERN INDIANA — Here’s a shocker: Jeffersonville Mayor Tom Galligan and I actually had the same thought once. I realized this when I heard his reaction at a city council meeting discussing changes to the employee handbook.

Expressing irritation about a new state law, HEA 1065, that lets employees keep guns in their cars while at work, he said, “I don’t think there’s any reason for anyone to bring firearms to work. We don’t need that.”

I expressed similar irritation in December 2008, when Galligan brought firearms with him to work. That’s when Galligan acted without any authorization from others and staged a little coup at Environmental Management Corp. by terminating a contract with that company.

After I saw photos in the newspaper, I wondered if the employees of that business felt threatened when he came bounding in accompanied by police officers with guns. I remember thinking, “I don’t think there’s any reason for the mayor to bring firearms to work. We don’t need that.”

I was upset about this aggressive act and its implied threat of violence upon those employees. My only consolation was that at least it gave the local community at large a very clear example of what I mean when I say government is force.

Now, although we said nearly the same words, I doubt we share the same philosophy about gun ownership. Just knowing Galligan doesn’t like this law made me interested enough to investigate it so here are some thoughts about HEA 1065.

First, the law merely says that businesses must allow employees to keep a gun in their car. The gun must be in the glove compartment, or otherwise concealed, in a locked car or locked in the trunk. So I’m not sure why Galligan thinks it’s so horrible.

Interestingly, some businesses are also against it and complain that politicians have passed another law telling them what they can and cannot do. Normally I completely sympathize with this argument.

However, as explained above, the law protects the individual’s right to store her gun, which is her property, inside her locked car, also her property. If someone cannot do this while her car is parked at work, what does that say about an individual’s private property rights? Is her car and all of its contents her property or not? Therefore, as far as I can tell, this law requires business owners to do nothing but leave gun owners alone.

Others against this law seem to assume that someone who stores a gun in their car while at work is only doing so in direct relation to work. However, there are other practical reasons for doing so.

For example, an individual may want a gun specifically for protection at home but, being a responsible gun owner, she often goes to a shooting range for instruction and practice. And, just like the gym, perhaps it’s convenient to go before or after work, so it certainly makes sense to take the gun with her.

Now, although there are good points, I do see the usual problems that occur when politicians create laws. For example, HEA 1065 contains exceptions for certain types of businesses, which means not all individuals have the same rights.

Finally, a deeper philosophical issue is that such laws lead us to believe that government granted permission is the same thing as individual freedom. But all these laws really do is give politicians power over the ownership, storage and proper use of guns, as if they always know what’s best and always make wise decisions.

But all we have to do is simply look at what Galligan did and said to understand something isn’t quite right about governments controlling guns.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is glad there are no laws against someone shooting her mouth off.