Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Alice Salles

Banning No-Fault Evictions Has Nothing to Do With Compassion

Sacramento’s Board of Supervisors thankfully failed to pass an emergency ordinance banning no-fault evictions for the rest of the year. The proposed ban was meant to help residents such as dozens of Arden area tenants who fear they are being kicked out before Thanksgiving. But much like all other housing or zoning regulations in place across the state of California, a ban on no-fault evictions, even if temporary, wouldn’t be compassionate. Far from it. Instead, as the local and state government becomes more greatly involved in the housing business, whether by restricting new buildings or by passing rent control, the demand for housing grows and so does the cost to the resident — regardless of his socioeconomic status. In the end, it is precisely because of these regulations, which are falsely presented as protections, that the poor suffer the most. A report from a local CBS affiliate in California highlights the struggle of one of these residents, Debbie Stollery. The 68-year-old woman was one of the dozens of people served with no-fault eviction notices in the same apartment complex. Now, she fears what the future has in store for her. “I’ve never been homeless and I’m scared,” Stollery told the CBS reporters. “I have to be out the day before Thanksgiving.” Explaining she can’t afford to live as others in California do, Stollery said she feels like a failure. But all the residents of the 58-unit complex are being forced out, as the current owner is selling the property ahead of the new statewide rent control law going into effect on January 1st. As part of the building’s sale terms, the current owner must terminate tenant leases before 2020. And as CBS reported, this apartment complex isn’t the only one taking this step. Now, the elderly resident may have to live in her car — if she wants to stay in Sacramento. In order to help people like Stollery, city officials are looking into keeping landlords from resorting to no-fault evictions. But trying to remedy the consequences of bad housing policy with yet another bad policy isn’t the most compassionate approach. While it’s heartbreaking to see so many low- and middle-income residents lose their homes in California, the reality is that major urban centers in the Golden State have become extremely expensive. On the other hand, housing in the Midwest states remains affordable, even to those living on very modest means. With a country as large and as diverse as America, it is insanity to believe that people have a magical right to live wherever they want — especially if that place is California, and if the residents in question simply can’t afford to pay what local landlords are charging. For people like Stollery, it would have been compassionate if the California housing market had never been tampered with. Then perhaps, there would currently be more affordable options, even if the overall trend remained the same, and prices continued to go up, due to the high demand. Unfortunately, lawmakers don’t miss an opportunity to act as if they are doing the right thing — even if that means actually hurting the poorest among us.

Apple’s Plan to ‘Alleviate’ CA Housing Crisis Will Backfire

Apple fashioned itself as a company focused on solutions. But over the years, the Silicon Valley giant did more than just respond to market demand, designing products that became the standard and creating a global need for functionality and beauty in tech. So it’s no wonder that as California reaches unprecedented levels of a housing shortage, in part because of environmental policies pushed by companies like Apple, the firm is now announcing a plan with the goal of helping to ease the situation but that in the end, will only worsen the state’s out-of-control housing crisis.   According to Apple CEO Tim Cook, the tech firm is launching a $2.5 billion plan that would be split in a series of efforts.  Part of the plan involves giving the California government an open line of credit solely for the development of new, low- to moderate-income housing at a lower cost. Additionally, the firm is launching a $1 billion first-time homebuyer mortgage assistance fund to give aspiring homebuyers down payment and financing assistance as well as an additional $150 million Bay Area housing fund, which will support public-private groups working on affordable housing projects. Apple will also give the state $300 million worth of land for housing and an additional $50 million that would be used to support the homeless.   “It’s just unsustainable,” Cook told Axios. “This problem is so big that the public sector cannot do it alone.” More Housing Alone Won’t Fix This Mess Despite the noble effort, Apple’s decision to empower the state won’t fix the housing issue. In a report for The Atlantic, Annie Lowrey explained that the housing crisis created a series of other problems as more homes were built outside of large California cities.  But as the sprawling grew “into the periphery,” she wrote, houses were built in fire-vulnerable spots. With wildfires happening nearly all year long in different areas, and as restrictive zoning and climate change laws making it more difficult for builders to build elsewhere, legislators consider passing bills that would make it easier for builders to create more housing in urban areas — which are already overpopulated.  Considering that large cities in the state already suffer because of the traffic, this effort will only create more problems for locals. Especially because the metropolitan transit systems can’t handle the surplus of residents. So what will Apple’s programs really do in the end? The answer is a simple one: further, inflate the demand for housing. In the end, people who want to stick around but can’t afford it will feel justified as the ongoing effort to accommodate everybody gives people the idea they have a right to live in the Golden State. The reality is that California is an expensive place to live. As local and state governments worsened the situation with rent control, restrictive zoning laws, and unrealistic “green” laws that make building more expensive, homelessness became a major problem, especially now that “tent cities” can be seen across major cities like Los Angeles. All of this helped to further push the pricing of housing.  Over the years, this provoked a major exodus of working-class Californians. But now, the state, as well as folks like Cook, are telling people not to worry, and that affordable housing is finally on its way. It’s hard to know when the madness will stop, but it’s easy to see who will pay the price for a show of horrors: the working class.  Once tired Californians notice they were duped, they will finally leave in droves. And there will be no one left to pay the bills. 

‘SAFE DRIVERS Act’ Seeks To Expand Bloated Surveillance State

The SAFE DRIVERS Act, a bill introduced by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) in the House of Representatives in late September, would expand the federal government’s spying powers by allowing law enforcement to have easy access to any driver’s personal information. This would be made possible through the creation of a national, real-time data sharing program. Considering that many states already use automatic license plate readers to track drivers’ movement, the consolidation of this data in one large, nationally accessible database, would be an easy next step. During a presser, however, Moulton tried to sell this effort as “modernization.” To better collect information on dangerous drivers, the goal is to incentivize states to modernize their systems, the Democrat said, “and work together to make sure their databases are compatible.” The bill would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation to allocate $50 million to the effort, creating a grant program that would essentially work as a bribery system for states willing to give the federal agency access. Additionally, the bill would create a program that doesn’t only gather data on what car the driver owns or which roads he uses the most. In addition, it would give any law enforcement agency in the state access to citations received by individual motorists, emergency medical services provided, accident information, court judgments, etc., creating a wide surveillance system that would treat every single American motorist as a guilty party. Interestingly enough, Moulton himself claimed that the state would be acting like an overprotective parent. “Just like parents know from a text message that their kids need something,” he said, “states should have the same kind of system in place to get drivers who are a danger to others off the road.” Perhaps, it would be prudent to remind the legislator that the state has no right to treat grown adults as helpless children and that massively collecting data on Americans without due process is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral. Information: Power to Destroy In the age of big government, data translates into power. And in a time when so many of us are easily targeted, both off and online, it’s easy to see how rogue law enforcement agents could use personal information to destroy innocent Americans. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger explained in an article regarding internet surveillance, abuse is always a possibility in the realms of power. “What better way to keep an entire populace subdued, subservient, and obedient? People who are now tempted to, say, join a Tea Party protest movement now have to factor in their deliberations the fact that the government potentially has some very incriminating or embarrassing information that it could use against them in retaliation.” If Moulton had the welfare of Americans at heart, he would refuse to potentially harm them in any way. Broadening the power of the state to surveil the citizenry does the exact opposite.

Sanders to ‘Change Our Value System’ by Chasing Employers Away and Destroying Small Businesses

On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) tweeted that his movement seeks to “change the value system of this country.” Claiming he didn’t seek to change U.S. politics or economics, the Democratic presidential candidate promised that once he is in power, “We’re not going to worship corrupt billionaires anymore.” Instead, Sanders explained, “we’re going to respect teachers and childcare workers and the working people of America.” This claim goes along with the senator’s long-held views, demonstrating not only his lacking grasp of economics but also his belief that government has the duty to organize society according to the philosophy of those in power. In order to accomplish the goal of changing our “value system,” Sanders wants to employ policies that will accomplish the very opposite of what he promises. Behind the Promise According to the candidate’s own campaign page, Sanders wants to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, despite America’s already high corporate tax rates. Additionally, he wants to raise the minimum wage and make it illegal — or at least quite impossible — for companies to manufacture goods abroad and then try to sell them in the United States. By raising the taxes on existing companies, Sanders simply increases the incentive load pushing these same corporations to leave the country altogether. Depending on how heavy the tax burden would be, this policy could potentially eliminate thousands, if not millions, of jobs nationwide. Furthermore, Sanders’ higher minimum wage rules would actually serve as a boost to the same large corporations he attacks, as only major companies are able to absorb the cost of higher wages. Despite his “buy local” approach to businesses, this policy would only hurt small and medium-sized businesses, as well as struggling competitors of large firms, as they are the ones who cannot afford to keep business going with a smaller number of employees. Lastly, the senator’s brilliant idea to keep firms that produce goods abroad from doing business in the U.S. is also an attack against the working American. How many workers would lose their jobs if major companies decided to simply leave due to the high cost of doing business on U.S. soil? The Desire to Organize Society Considering Sanders is never clear about the real-world consequences of the policies he champions, it is clear he’s either completely mistaken about his ideology, or that he uses rhetoric that fails to reflect reality in order to obtain the public’s support. Whatever the case, Sanders is pushing a plan that would completely devastate what’s left of the U.S. economy, hurting the poor and pushing millions of Americans into the welfare system. It is precisely this lack of care for the consequences of policies that central planners display on a regular basis without ever taking responsibility for their policies’ failures. As Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises explained in the book Human Action, “Every socialist is a disguised dictator.” Despite Sanders’ promises, the gap between what he plans to implement and the consequences of these policies is much wider than he’s willing to admit.

Congress Passes Internet Rule That Fines Americans Who Share Photos

The CASE Act is closer to becoming law after 410 members of the House of Representatives voted in support of what many are calling an assault against the common American. And as the bill moves on to the Senate, civil rights organizations worry that the act will have no trouble making it to President Donald Trump’s desk. The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act or CASE Act targets regular internet users who share a copyrighted work they don’t own online. This means that the simple act of sharing an image on Facebook or another social media outlet could put you on the hook for a $30,000 fine. As highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, slapping such a steep fine on a working family could have a crippling effect, especially when we consider that half of U.S. residents struggle to afford an emergency $400 expense. Creating a separate tribunal within the Copyright Office, the CASE Act puts bureaucrats in charge of reviewing copyright complaints and issuing notices to the person who shared the image. Because anyone who has taken a photo, a video, or written something online would be considered a rightsholder under the new law, virtually anybody could be sued for innocently sharing anything. As reported by TechDirt, this law would provide so-called “patent trolls” great opportunities for abuse, putting families and struggling Americans in a dire financial situation. Ongoing Abuse Copyright laws have long exposed innocent parties to crippling fines and even jail time for using their own property to reproduce protected material. With the CASE Act, this overreach of government power is simply expanded, putting a greater number of people at risk of being targeted. Unfortunately, many of those who now oppose Congress’s latest assault against regular Americans will assert that existing copyright laws are preferable, claiming that, at least under current rules, you must register your work to own the rights over it. What many don’t realize is that the CASE Act, as well as all existing so-called intellectual property protections, are rules that actually rely on the violation of property rights for their enforcement. As a matter of fact, when the government prevents someone from sharing an image, it is violating his rights over his own property, whether that’s his smartphone or computer. Whether copyright proponents understand this or not, rules such as the CASE Act are actually an attack against private property by government agents claiming that there’s such a thing as intellectual property. But for something to be considered property, it must be scarce. In other words, its use must prevent another person from using it as well. That’s why a car is a piece of property, as the same vehicle cannot be used by two different people at the same time. An image online doesn’t have that essential quality. While it’s important to highlight just how the CASE Act could hurt the regular Joe, it’s also essential for regulators to understand that all copyright law is essentially a violation of property rights, and that the only moral way to approach this problem is to bring intellectual property protections to an end.
states

Ilhan Omar’s ‘Charitable’ Housing Plan is Actually Inhumane

Rep Ilhan Omar (D-MN) announced she will introduce legislation that would guarantee a home for every person in the United States.  Omar, one of the members of the so-called “squad,” a group of young Congresswomen headed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), said that the “Homes For All” bill would fix a “moral stain” our country deals with as “half-a-million or more people [face] homelessness.”  The bill would put the federal government in charge of investing “in the creation of millions of homes,” Omar said. Adding that Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the squad would support the effort.  This isn’t the first time one of the young members of Congress discussed housing.  Over the summer, Ocasio-Cortez claimed that luxury living should be the standard for everyone. The comment was made while she discussed her move into a luxury apartment in Washington, D.C.  “I move into this building, and it’s marketed as a ‘luxury’ building in D.C., right? I’m keeping it 100% with you,” she told people during a town hall. “So I move into this luxury building in D.C. And what does it have? It’s an efficient building, it’s clean, it has public space, it has a rooftop garden — y’all watching my Instagram — it has all these things, right? It has clean air, it has clean water. And I think about this and I’m like, ‘Hm, this is what a luxury building is like.'” To the congresswoman, “another world is possible,” she added, where “all people have a right to a dignified home, and it’s not science fiction and it’s not just for the rich. Because what we have been taught and what we have been conditioned is that basic rights are luxury and a privilege when they are not.” While Omar didn’t mention luxury standards of living for all those who would benefit from this bill, she claimed that she wants to see an America where an immigrant like herself doesn’t get to arrive to see “people sleeping on the side of the streets.”  But despite the excitement revolving around her announcement, Omar failed to take a closer and more critical look at the very policies that made homelessness such a big problem in America in the first place. And as mentioned by some Twitter users, subsidizing housing is what led to the subprime mortgage crisis that happened between 2007 and 2010, in addition to the Federal Reserve’s easy credit policies.  Why would she think that offering more subsidies and inflating the housing market any further would actually help those in the low- and middle-income brackets?  While many will rally behind her efforts, Omar’s plan is rooted in nothing but wishful thinking. If the goal is to help people who struggle to find housing, she would be fighting to remove legislative interference from the picture, kill all housing subsidies, and allow bad lenders to fail.  Unfortunately, many of Omar’s supporters are unaware that when government enacts charitable policies, the consequences are the very opposite of what politicians promised. In the end, officials never take the blame, choosing to, instead, point the finger at lack of funding, capitalism, or other, less agreeable colleagues in D.C.

100-Year-Old California Store Shuts Down, Highlighting State’s Suffocating Business Environment

A store that’s been a staple in the Eagle Rock community in Southern California for 107 years is closing its doors. While the owner, 78-year-old Kevin Strauch, said that his business model can no longer survive in an online world, he admits that the state’s added burdens, such as minimum wage rules, have helped to make his decision final.  Established in 1912, Eagle Rock Lumber Company remained afloat for decades because of its unique approach to the hardware business. After two Home Depots opened nearby, Strauch made his lumber company the only place in town where homeowners could purchase vintage items such as old pull switches, redwood siding, and anything that the region’s 1920s-era homes required.  Unfortunately, Strauch told reporters, that wasn’t enough to keep him going.   “These kinds of circuit breakers for boxes they don’t even make anymore,” he said.  The fact large retailers have dominated the market, as well as the availability of goods online, has made his business model difficult to maintain. “The model for retail has changed dramatically with the web and the buying and competition and the big warehouse stores,” Strauch explained. What also changed was how expensive it became for business owners to run their business in current-day California.  Saying that the homelessness problem taking over the state as well as the imposed minimum wage requirements have all contributed to his demise, he didn’t want to blame anybody for his store’s closure. Instead, he knows it’s time for him to walk away now. “It’s hard for us to make any money,” he told reporters. Only the Wealthy Can Afford Living in California According to a study by the American Action Forum, the Golden State has some of the most burdensome regulations in the country. These rules, which make the cost of running business prohibitive to small business owners, also harm low-wage and low-skilled workers who are priced out of the labor market. Consumers, meanwhile, are left with fewer options as only a handful of large companies are able to sustain themselves in this environment.  As Forbes explains, it is precisely because of California’s regulatory nightmare that business growth is sluggish in the state — especially when compared to states where the regulatory burden is much smaller.  As small businesses and working-class Californians leave the state, the only ones left are those who are big enough to weather the costs, the miserable living on the streets, and those who rely on government assistance for support. As California struggles to deal with the consequences of this progressive folly, the homeless take over the streets as the wealthy isolate themselves in Silicon Valley. In the meantime, stores that became a part of the California experience,s like Eagle Rock Lumber Company, become part of ancient history. 

Decentralization As A Principle Is Older Than You Think

Libertarians have long looked at decentralization not only as a political principle, with many calling themselves “Tenther” libertarians, but also as a strategy to achieve freedom within the existing political structure of the United States of America. This approach produced a great number of successful campaigns that effectively freed states from the tyrannical grasp of the federal government. But while many use the Tenth Amendment alone as the basis for this strategy, the very idea of constraining power to the smallest organization possible has been around since long before the foundation of the economic science, which had its origins not with Adam Smith in the 18th century, but with the Thomist moral theologians known as the Late Scholastics three centuries earlier. As a matter of fact, the foundation for decentralization is far older than the Church itself, with its chief ideas rooted in Aristotle’s political philosophy. Respect for Familial Units Comes First When attempting to synthesize the ideas of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas “developed the idea that human societies naturally progress from families,” University of Queensland’s Nicholas Aroney wrote, establishing the concept that each and every one of us should be free to contribute in the unique way we’re capable of, “without undue interference from any others, including the state.” So it was this very principle of subsidiarity, which is usually associated with the founding political and social traditions of the United States, that defined decentralization as a means to achieve liberty today. A centuries-old idea observed by men who dedicated their lives to better understand what boosts human flourishing that has remained the very core teaching of Catholicism, whether libertarians (or even the current Pope for that matter) like it or not. While belief in Catholicism isn’t required to understand and appreciate the work that St. Aquinas produced, and how he so rightly codified the idea of subsidiarity in a way that Aristotle couldn’t, it is important to know and understand where this principle comes from. Recognizing its place in history, and more importantly, how long it’s existed as a part of the work of great philosophers, economists, and historians over the centuries gives us an even more solid foundation to believe that, yes, decentralization is the moral approach to power. Furthermore, it helps us solidify our understanding of decentralization, and finally make use of it with the confidence that it isn’t an idea simply based on the U.S. Constitution.

Millennials & Gen Z Mired in Debt, Oblivious to Reasons Why

Millennials are blamed for a lot these days. But when it comes to debt, they are not the only group of young Americans suffering. They are also not the only group negatively impacted by the government’s actions. Data released by Northwestern Mutual shows that both millennials and young Americans known as Generation Z carry large amounts of personal debt. While millennials owe an average of $27,800, members of Generation Z owe $14,000 on average. Millennials also have less accumulated wealth than baby boomers did at the same age, despite being better educated than their elders.  But while young Americans feel guilty about their debt, and many believe they have no choice due to the high cost of higher education, they might not be aware of all the factors contributing to their situation. Starting on the Wrong Foot Millennials came of age during a time of intense government involvement in the economy. As many were being born in the early 1990s, the federal government was increasing the amount of money students could borrow from the federal loan program. Additionally, students categorized as “in need” were also given greater access to college funding. This helped boost the cost of higher education, as it created a greater, yet artificial, demand for college. By the time millennials reached college age, the cost of higher education skyrocketed. But while student debt accounts for the majority of debt held by millennials, that’s not the only issue keeping them from becoming richer. With the Great Recession, the Federal Reserve took steps to warm up a crumbling economy with cheap credit and the expansion of its balance sheet. This created a greater supply of cash that, over a very short period of time, helped to further devalue U.S. currency. And it is this devaluation that helped to “[squander] real wealth” in America, as economist Frank Shostak explained. Furthermore, as these young Americans were entering the workforce, America had already gone through years of slow income growth brought about by the recession. This set up an environment that made wealth accumulation difficult. As you can see, millennials and members of Generation Z had the odds stacked against their favor from the very beginning. While it is important for young Americans to learn about the dragging effect of debt over time, and to take steps to lower the amount they need to borrow to get on with their education, it is also true that actions taken by the government made their lives harder. Unfortunately, we see few if any young people discussing these matters. Many even urge the federal government to become more involved in the process so that more young people can access higher education. Others support policies that effectively price out young and unskilled workers from the job market. It is high time that those who are more harshly impacted by the government’s mindless meddling in the economy become advocates for sound markets.

Why Are the Poor Leaving California?

The state preferred by millionaires and home to Silicon Valley and Hollywood is pushing its poor and working-class residents out. This reality will soon become a problem, not just because of the state’s economy but also because California is the favorite destination of unskilled immigrants. But as thousands flee because of the high cost of living, thousands of others arrive from other countries, balancing the number of residents and bringing it to 40 million. What doesn’t remain balanced, however, is the state’s budget, as the need for more welfare spending grows while working and tax-paying residents leave. This exodus, which became particularly strong following the Great Recession of the late 2000s and early 2010s, has already pushed 7 million born and raised Californians to neighboring states. The majority of those who leave, the IRS reports, are under the age of 35 and make less than $50,000 a year. So who’s left behind? The millionaires and the poor. And while the rich stay because they can afford to avoid all the problems the working class has to face, the poor can’t afford to live in the Golden State on their means alone. This puts an additional strain on social services and welfare systems. In the long run, this could mean two things. First, the state will no longer be able to afford the loss of tax-paying workers, and second, it will have to ask the federal government for more help. For a state that prides itself on being a sanctuary for people of all backgrounds, this has dire consequences. Especially as state regulators continue to implement rules that raise more artificial barriers across all industries. In the end, everything from housing to groceries becomes more expensive than in neighboring states. So what is California to do if it wants to be welcoming to all again? Sound economics says that it must put an end to policies that hurt the poor, especially the unskilled. Removing barriers such as minimum wage policies and licensing requirements for professionals could be a great first step. But will California’s legislators take this type of action before it’s too late? With a law that raises the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2023 in effect, it’s hard to see legislators pushing for a change. Needless to say, this will continue to hurt unskilled workers who see their chances of obtaining work experience obliterated by the artificial barrier raised by the state. As economists have predicted, things will surely worsen for California before the state’s political class learns its lesson.

Los Angeles Spends Millions on Temporary Homeless Shelter, as Root Cause Goes Ignored

California continues to struggle to deal with its homeless problem, but while even county and local officials admit that government-imposed housing regulations are worsening the situation, the state continues to allocate millions in taxpayer-backed funds to cities for the implementation of programs that “fight” homelessness. But is there a real solution that wouldn’t involve looking at homelessness’ root causes? As part of this campaign, the Los Angeles Services Authority (LAHSA) has been working on developing expensive housing to thousands of homeless residents. Unfortunately, simply housing them in brand-new apartments isn’t working, as this series of Los Angeles Times articles have shown. But despite the city’s failures to address the problem, the Los Angeles City Parks Commission announced recently that the Griffith Park in the trendy neighborhood of Los Feliz is going to get a temporary homeless shelter. The structure would be located on the southern end of Griffith Park, the home to the historic Griffith observatory and a favorite hot spot for tourists trying to take a photo under the Hollywood sign. The temporary shelter is expected to house only 100 people and cost $4.6 million. It will be built just south of the Griffith Park Recreation Center and it’s part of the “Bridge Home” program. Unveiled by L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti in 2018, the effort is meant to put up two dozen temporary shelters for the homeless across the city. But while a total of five shelters are already in use, there is only so much that temporary housing can do.

A Crisis That Goes Way Back

California’s homelessness problem is one that can only be explained when you step back and look at the state’s history of meddling with the housing industry. While the federal government also has housing regulations in place, state and local officials have long subsidized, regulated, and used restrictive urban planning policies that made housing in urban areas prohibitively expensive to low- and middle-income families and individuals. These policies are often meant to hurt the poor, as it is only the rich and connected who manage to successfully lobby lawmakers to impose restrictions that insulate them from seeing their neighborhoods change as the demand for more housing increases. And as housing becomes increasingly restrictive, the number of people unable to afford a roof over their heads grows. That coupled with other policies such as the high minimum wage also helped to push the working poor out of the state. Who’s left behind? The millionaires, who can afford to live in a reality far removed from what the working class experiences, as well as those who have called the streets their home. In any case, cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco are on the verge of collapse, with rare diseases such as typhoid fever and, some experts say, the bubonic plague, making a come back. If the goal is to make housing affordable again, and give entrepreneurs incentives to work to truly address the homelessness, California and local city officials should roll back its regulations and minimum wage law, especially if they want the unskilled and poor to get back on their feet.
gun control

Walmart’s New Gun Policy Fuels Culture War Instead of Compromise

Walmart is responding to gun control activists by putting an end to the sales of handgun ammunition and short-barrel rifle ammunition in its stores. Following the deadly shooting in July at a Mississippi Walmart store and another in August at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, the company was heavily criticized by the media, gun control advocates, politicians, and even some of its own employees for not discontinuing the sales of weapons. In addition to the changes to the retailer’s inventory, Walmart will also ask customers to stop openly carrying firearms in stores located in states where “open carry” is legal. Concealed carry is still OK, however. gun control In a memo distributed to employees, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said that fear that “someone might misinterpret a situation, even in open carry states, could lead to tragic results.” “We hope that everyone will understand the circumstances that led to this new policy and will respect the concerns of their fellow shoppers and our associates.” To the mega retailer, these changes are significant because up until now Walmart had a 20% share of the market for ammunition while holding a 2% firearms market share. Now, the firm expects its ammunition share to drop to a range of 6% to 9%. “We know these decisions will inconvenience some of our customers, and we hope they will understand,” McMillon said. “As a company, we experienced two horrific events in one week, and we will never be the same.” But while this move may appear unprecedented, Walmart is no stranger to changes in firearm sale policies following shootings. In the 1990s, the company stopped selling handguns across the country with the exception of Alaska and in 2015, it stopped selling semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 rifle. After the Parkland, Florida, shooting in 2018, Walmart changed its age policy and stopped selling guns and ammunition to people under 21. While Walmart has a right to change its policies as it sees fit, the company is responding to pressure coming from a faction of society that does not represent the country’s population of nearly 330 million people. As a matter of fact, Walmart’s customers are as diverse as can be, and it’s more than natural to expect that communities in certain parts of the country will greatly mourn the retailer’s latest decision. Nevertheless, Walmart isn’t the only retailer in America and it certainly won’t be the last to respond to market demands. As residents from gun-loving states look for another source for their ammunition, they will be doing so peacefully and without holding a grudge against the firm. And that’s because whatever Walmart does, it won’t restrict a person’s right to choose where he or she shops. Unlike government, private companies will respond to pressure and demand, but they alone cannot dictate what other firms will do in response. In a truly open market, other firms would see an opportunity for growth by offering precisely what Walmart won’t. But in a country with a strong central government like America, rigid top-down rules have the opposite effect.

Time to Split Up

In a country with such a diverse number of communities, cultures, economies, and geographies, there can never be a one-size-fits-all approach to anything. Unfortunately, gun control activists (and even some gun right groups) seem to ignore this reality, pushing for rules that impact everybody. As Mises Institute’s Jeff Deist explained, our right to self-defense “flows naturally from self-ownership of our bodies,” meaning that a government-backed right to gun ownership is unnecessary, as that has long been our right, regardless of what federal authorities say. Like Walmart, communities that share the same values, background, and culture should be able to say “no” to a particular rule without fearing being reprimanded by the federal government. Unfortunately, Americans mostly frown upon the idea of independence these days, making it hard for an effective decentralizing movement to spring up.