A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves. – Bertrand de Jouvenel
Today’s column features three egregious examples of government overextending its reach, and one extra item for diehard Maggie fans.
Left or Right?
Adherents of the “liberal vs. conservative” fallacy claim that giving government the power to punish those who hurt others’ feelings (as in “sexual harassment” and “hate speech” laws) is a “liberal” idea, unless of course those “hurt feelings” happen to be religious or to involve sex, in which case it magically becomes “conservative”, unless the rhetoric one uses to support such a law includes language about “demeaning women”, in which case it obediently shifts back to being “liberal” again. And as everyone knows, “liberal” laws can never be enacted by those “rednecks” in “red states” (itself a term which flies in the face of long-established tradition that red=leftist) like Tennessee. So one has to wonder how dualists explain the recent law discussed in this June 6th column on The Volokh Conspiracy which criminalizes hurting people’s feelings?
Friday, a new Tennessee law was changed to provide (new material italicized):
(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:
(4) Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] without legitimate purpose:
(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or
(ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and
(B) As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.So the law now applies not just to one-to-one communication, but to people’s posting images on their own Facebook pages, on their Web sites, and in other places if (1) they are acting “without legitimate purpose,” (2) they cause emotional distress, and (3) they intend to cause emotional distress or know or reasonably should know that their action will cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities. So,
1) If you’re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation — not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures — you’re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a “legitimate purpose.”
2) Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”
3) The same is true even if you didn’t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material — say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group — would “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.”
4) And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me.
“Unconstitutional” is an understatement, especially considering that government officials are people and criticism of their policies might indeed “offend” them. This law is pure, unadulterated totalitarianism and I can’t imagine that it will be allowed to stand even in the current political climate. But in the meantime, I’m glad this blog doesn’t originate in Tennessee.
Decentralization
Kelly Michaels called my attention to government attempts to suppress bitcoins, a decentralized online monetary system which exists on peer-to-peer networks without relying on banks, and therefore leaves no paper trail. The government’s excuse is that people can use the currency to buy drugs, but it doesn’t take an economic genius to recognize that there’s a lot more at stake than that; if bitcoin can become established the underground economy could explode, destroying the present government monopoly on currency and making a truly free market possible for the first time in several generations. One thing’s for certain; even if the government manages to quash this particular version of the phenomenon, decentralized currency (i.e. standardized barter) is an idea whose time has come, and attempts to crush it will be about as successful as the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Whores” have been, and for the same social and economic reasons.
It’s Different Because It Involves Sex, Part Umpteen
Despite considerable pressure from soi-disant “conservatives”, federal officials have steadfastly refused to limit the definition of “art” to those creations and performances which are both non-sexual and inoffensive to practically everybody, but apparently the lawheads on a New York State appellate court feel no such compunction and have ruled that dancing isn’t dancing if it’s sexy. Their motivation? Music and dance performances aren’t taxable in New York, and as explained in this June 11th AP story, they couldn’t let a little thing like the law get in the state’s way of robbing a strip club:
…Four Appellate Division justices agreed with a state tax appeals commission’s earlier finding that dances onstage or in private rooms at the club Nite Moves in suburban Albany don’t qualify for a state tax exemption as “dramatic or musical arts performances.” Nite Moves contested a tax bill of nearly $125,000 plus interest on lap dances and admission fees stemming from a 2005 audit. Its attorney, W. Andrew McCullough said Friday the club has a later, larger bill it is also challenging, and that he would probably appeal the Appellate Division ruling. McCullough said the impact of the ruling probably won’t be widespread since most establishments featuring exotic dancers as entertainment are bars mainly selling alcohol where other tax rules apply. “We admit the ballet is a little different and maybe a little more finely tuned,” McCullough said. Still, the club tried to bolster its artistic argument with testimony from a cultural anthropologist who has studied exotic dance and visited Nite Moves, and who said the lap dances should be considered choreographed performances.
The court said it agreed with the state Tax Appeals Tribunal’s determination that Nite Moves didn’t present sufficient proof that it deserves a tax exemption. The court noted that the club’s dancers aren’t even required to have formal dance training, “and, in lieu thereof, often rely upon videos or suggestions from other dancers to learn their craft.”
“It was purely and absolutely a value judgment,” McCullough said, citing First Amendment issues about free expression and adult entertainment.
Simply and bluntly put, the appeals court is full of shit. The only limitations on the First Amendment currently allowed are those for speech which creates a “clear and present danger” (the classic example is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater) or for obscenity. Lap dances are hardly dangerous (except to the recipient’s wallet), and if they were declared obscene they would be illegal and therefore prohibited (thus defunct as a cash cow). Unless they fall under these exceptions they are protected under the First Amendment, and if there’s a definition of “dance” which excludes sexy moves, adherents of the tango and lambada certainly aren’t aware of it. A government has the right to tax specific activities which occur within its borders, but if the State of New York wants to tax stripping while giving ballet a free pass, it’s going to have to do a lot better than merely saying that exotic dancing isn’t dancing just because it’s sexually stimulating.
I’ve Been a Busy Girl Lately
For the past few weeks I’ve been helping Sex Workers Without Borders (Jill Brenneman’s sex worker rights organization, of which I and several of the bloggers I link are members) to spruce up its website, and Furry Girl also asked me to write a little “Intro to Prostitution” for her new Sex Work Activists, Allies and You website, which launched yesterday. On Tuesday evening I was interviewed by Deep Geek for his Talk Geek To Me podcast, which also posted yesterday. And finally, I’ve been asked to contribute some guest columns to a relatively new libertarian blog called Nobody’s Business; I’ll let you know as those are published.
A government has the right to tax specific activities which occur within its borders…
I’m pulling this out of context, which is not really fair, but if this statement were true, we’d have the totalitarian mess we’ve got today AND nobody would have any right to say it was unjust; the government would just be doing what it has the right to do.
Ultimately, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and that power should not belong to anybody. We should pay only for what we choose to consume, I believe, not for what a bunch of bozos in some creaky legislature decide to tax us for.
Actually, I’m glad you did point that out; I like to know my readers are on their toes. When I typed it I was a bit uncomfortable with it, but let it pass hoping people would understand that I meant within reason and subject to constitutional limitations. Governments need some income to function; personally, I’d prefer to allow a few state monopolies like mining than allow taxation of any kind, but that’s me. If we must have taxation, I’d prefer it to be on voluntary activities or transactions merely than on the receipt of income.
The US government claims the right to tax outside its borders — American citizens and US companies doing business overseas have to pay taxes to both the country where the business took place plus the US.
On Tuesday evening I was interviewed by Deep Geek for his Talk Geek To Me podcast, which also posted yesterday.
It’s great to hear your voice! I’d describe it as “husky”, which surprised me for some reason. Very pleasant, as I would have expected. And of course, your points are right on target.
Thanks, JdL! “Husky” is a common adjective for my voice; I also get “smoky” and “sultry”. I used to say that people are surprised because they expect Betty Boop and get Jessica Rabbit instead. 😀
Betty Boop’s got nothing on Jessica “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way” Rabbit. Though, as long as we’re on the subject of rowdiness with cartoon characters, how about a threesome? 😉
I love the line when Bob Hoskin’s girlfriend walks in on him kissing JR just as his pants fall down to his ankles, and says, “Dabbling in watercolor?” If a sequel could capture even half the pure fun of the original, somebody should make it.
Back in my stripping days I often got laughs with that line. 😉
Governments should be allowed income sources that aren’t taxes. Taxes are regressive. All taxes.
Far better:
Eliminate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. Competition will keep the rates low.
Eliminate subsidies for business
eliminate subsidies for persons.
Empower private charities and get out of their way.
Tax real property
Introduce a fianncial services tax: a percentage of any trade on the stock market. Discourage speculation while you acquire revenue.
Tolls on roads: Use taxes.
Actually, it’s all pretty straightforward. The “appropriateness” of Income Taxes and their acceptability is directly related to the fact that we think it’s reasonable because we were born with it.
There are other ways for the government to raise revenue that aren’t as onerous and insulting.
The last thing we want to do is discourage wealth generation. This is effectively what we’re doing.
I’ve never felt that an income tax was reasonable. All other taxes are paid by the initiator of the transaction except that one, which is paid by the recipient; it makes no sense. If all transactions are to be taxed, the initiator should always be the one to pay.
Technically speaking, a “regressive tax” is one for which the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. If the opposite is true, the tax is “progressive”. None of which means that either is legitimate in my view. I’m not rich, but I’ve never understood why a rich person should pay a higher percentage of his wealth in taxes than a poor person should. If we’re all getting the same services from the government, shouldn’t we all pay the same DOLLAR amount, not even the same PERCENTAGE of our wealth?
I definitely agree with you that use taxes for roads are better than the current “Tax everybody and make roads ‘free'” mentality.
Ultimately the question to be answered must be, is it even legitimate for there to be an entity called “government” which decides what its powers are and how much it will charge each citizen to finance its doings? The system called “democracy” is supposed to prevent tyranny, but we can see how well that’s worked in America. I loathe both major political parties equally, but since the Demos have the presidency today, I’ll pick on them: Obama campaigned with a plethora of nice-sounding promises and then reneged on all of them once in office. He praised whistle-blowing, for example, but now is pursuing whistle-blowers with a vengeance never before seen in U.S. history.
I’m not a full-blown anarchist who is convinced that every possible service should be left to the marketplace, but 99% of what I see governments doing today strikes me as illegitimate. We are rapidly approaching a state in which people who care about freedom are seeing few options for correcting the descent of the nation into thuggery. I would like to see, not the murder of government officials, but the FEAR of murder, if that would induce them to back off where they don’t belong.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
Dear JdL, as far as finding out what Obama is, it didn’t take much effort. Thank God for the Internet! I found a lot on that ###*** and it didn’t even take a big amount of time. 1 thing ALONE did it for me: he voted to give IMMUNITY for the phone companies, etc., that have literally spied on the US people. This ###*** really took off when Dubya was in and the “Great Savior” has not only done nothing to stop it he literally voted for the ###**** companies doing the spying to have immunity from the courts. I call him “Great Savior” and other stuff like that as the sarcasm helps me cope. I thought our “Savior” was going to make everything right? Wasn’t everything going to “change”? RIGHT! He’s done NOTHING to go after Dubya and the other ###***. He’s outright snubbed at least 1 person who spoke up for the surving family/friends of those murdered on 9/11 also. I could name a lot more things, unfortunately. I think he’s more dangerous than Dubya because he hides his evil better. Dubya has always shown more (to me since the time he was governor of Texas. Just how Dubya handled the Karla Tucker execution was enough for me to not ever vote for him. Unfortunately, there’s a lot more examples than the Tucker case) and this “Savior” is slicker than Dubya ever was with the front he puts out in public. He has done a few good things (he deserves credit where it’s due), but, for me, he’s done way too much evil (before he became president) for me to support him. I’m with you in that I hate the evil 2-headed monster (1 of my names for the EVIL MONOPOLY 2 party system in the US), but also know there’s some decent politicians within these parties and some of them are working for reform and that’s wonderful and needed. But, as far as a membership in either of them: not at this point! I left the Democratic Party a few years ago and have been glad ever since.
It would be nice if we could sue politicians for breach of contract when they make campaign promises and then do the exact opposite once we elect them. How is democracy worth a damn if they’re all liars?
Beyond that, having a majority vote for something does not make it right. Basic rights are not subject to plebiscite; the classic (and today all-too-real) example is that 51% of the population vote that the other 49% should support them. Today everybody is feeding off the ever-shrinking pool of people who are actually productive. It looks to me as if it’s all going to come crashing down before long.
Hey, JDL and Laura,
Actually, when referring to “…51%.. vote” you should be really referring to a 26% vote. About half of the people of our country are boycotting public elections. I disagree with this boycott, as I think that it causes a “silence=consent” issue with the two party system. I think a much better thing to do would be if all people who hated both parties (like myself) either voted for a “third party” or did a write-in vote for “Jessica Rabbit” or “Mickey Mouse.” Not that I think this would keep the two dominant parties out, but it would be a better method of protesting.
Never forget, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
yours,
—
DeepGeek
The problem with sales taxes can be summed up in the words “Value Added Tax”. Tell me you wouldn’t expect the swine who think they run things to try it. I need the laughs.
Or we could make a concerted effort to cut the government back to something approaching its constitutional authority, which would eliminate the need for a BUNCH of taxes.
*sigh*
…I mean as long as we’re dreaming….
Another thing; I keep hearing people say that a sales tax will be simpler than an income tax. I’ve done retail, and all I can say is, that if the soulless bean counters of the IRS have anything to do with it I have to assume that it will be AT LEAST as irritating.
I probably shouldn’t say anything about taxes, but I’m going to anyway. Taxes in the United States today are very low, compared to the last generation. They are also some of the lowest in the developed world. I can just see some of the foreign readers of this blog reading some of the stuff posted here and laughing their foreign-born asses off at us whiny Yanks.
Why shouldn’t everybody pay exactly the same dollar amount? Because not everybody has the same amount of dollars. If Person A has no money and Person B has a billion dollars, do they both pay the same amount? It better be both paying zero, then, or Person A becomes a tax cheat by virtue of being poor.
Taxation isn’t discouraging wealth generation, either. There a quite a few billionaires in the States, and a lot more millionaires. Millionaires and billionaires from outside the US seem to like doing business here (maybe our taxes are so low?). Wealth is being generated just fine.
OK, the Tennessee thing. I’d heard about this already. Rachel Maddow, whom few would call “conservative” or “right-wing,” did a segment on it. She wondered if her dislike for mermaids means that somebody posting mermaid pics in Tennessee is a criminal. After all, she’s said on national TV that mermaids creep her out, so the person posting has a reasonable expectation…
I haven’t found one real or supposed liberal supporting this. I am surprised that Maddow hates mermaids. I know one person who hates mermaids, and I thought it was just her.
The New York thing. Yeah, that’s just stupid. So, do they tax everybody who makes money dancing, but doesn’t have “formal dance training?” If a troupe of Congolese dancers comes to New York and puts on a performance, for money, and the officials find out that ALL of the dancers learned to dance from other dancers in their town, and that NONE of the dancers have ever set foot in a “dance school,” are they taxed? I’m guessing not. If the dancers at Nite Moves all enrolled in a dance school, would they suddenly be tax exempt? Somehow I suspect that the officials would find another excuse. The Titty Tax!
Either tax dancing or don’t.
Finally: congratulations, Maggie. You’ve been a busy girl, and it’s been good work. Benjamin Franklin said that serving God is doing good for man, and in that sense you are serving the Lord in truth.
Re Taxation: Well, not quite. Yes, the burden of fees officially called “taxes” is lower than it used to be (and lower than elsewhere in the world), but there are plenty of government fees not called “taxes” (such as FICA and unfunded mandates) which are taxes in all but name, and they add up to quite a packet…most of which is charged to the middle class either directly or indirectly in the form of vastly-inflated prices. On top of that, what Americans get for our taxes is pathetic compared to what Europeans get; when you consider what might be called “net taxation”, i.e. taxes plus mandated fees plus typical fines and charges minus state-provided benefits, the American tax burden is among the highest in the world. Furthermore, most of the politicians and pundits who proclaim that our taxes are too low know this as well as I do, but spin it to promote their own insane, confiscatory and unsustainable agenda.
On your final note: Thank you very, very much; I certainly like to think so. 🙂
Maybe if we didn’t freak out over taxes, all the taxes could be CALLED taxes. This would probably go a long way towards getting more bang for the buck (I mean “bang” figuratively, of course. I’m not suggesting it all be spent on military).
Most military men I know are of the opinion that the vast majority of funds spent on the military are wasted, especially on the Punch-and-Judy-show military adventurism of the past decade.
I’ve never spent a day in uniform, but it turns out I agree with most military men you know.
I think war is going out of style, but it hasn’t happened yet, so we do need to maintain a strong military. But yeah, a lot of the spending has little to do with that.
A lot of it is money that is literally thrown away, for example buying airline tickets at the last minute for $2000 that would’ve cost $500 purchased three weeks ahead of time.