Comments

• On the article State Driving Ban Ends at 4 p.m.

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  5:22 pm on Saturday, February 9, 2013

  On the surface, the State's travel ban, worded “By His Excellency…”, seemed benign enough. There was a large amount of snow falling that was hazardous for travel. This was a known condition that I do not intend to dispute here.

  I do, however, take issue with the “$500 fine or year in jail” penalty for deciding that you may know your personal requirements for travel better than the State.

  In essence, the State decreed that no matter your personal situation, if you dared to defy their plans, they would take your money and liberty. Even platitudes of “broad interpretation by law enforcement" misses the point – if it was not intended to penalize citizens, then why even use that tool?

  What kind of State do we live under that decides to use the power of coercion, the only power the State has, to dictate the movements of its citizens?

  One method they could have employed is to simply ask that people refrain from travel. Yet another method is to say nothing. This is similar to when it is raining and we individually decide whether to travel or not - no State permission required.

  By placing criminal penalties on travel, the Governor exercised the ultimate State power – that of the badge and gun – to ensure peaceful citizens do not engage in an activity they view as being in their best interest.

  There is a saying that “one’s propensity for government is an inverse of their belief in people” – I think it is clear where the Governor stands.

  Reply

• On the Blog Post Mystery of the 5¢ Coke

  

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  11:20 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013

  Hi Karla,

  Thanks for the story! I didn't realize NPR ran a story with the same example. More knowledge is always good!

  I chose the Coke as an example of prices that are commonly known, but you can see the devastation of inflation everywhere - cars, bread, haircuts, etc. The real takeaway is that an increase in total monetary units will create a decrease in the value of each single monetary unit.

  Thus, inflation isn't a mystery that we must attempt to "control" through some complicated policy (the Federal Reserve, etc), rather, it is caused by the very deliberate and simple action of increasing the money supply - at the expense of those who are not friends with the moneyfactory.

• On the article Menino: Time for Action on Common Sense Gun Reform

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  4:19 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012

  While the Mayor would like to strike out violence with the stroke of a pen, he forgets one critical fact: criminals do not care for written laws. They never have, and they never will.

  Enforcing more laws with a badge and a gun will never "solve" anything. It will only forcibly disarm peaceful citizens and embolden criminals. This is not a new dilemma.

  In 1764, Cesare Bonesana, in his "Of Crimes and Punishments" wrote:

  "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?

  It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons." www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun.txt

  The only "action" needed is to restore us to our State's constitutional rights (Part I, Article XVII). Criminals will always commit crime - stop making it easy.

  Reply

• On the article Latest Redistricting Map Proposal Sees Small Changes to South End Districts

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  9:20 am on Thursday, November 1, 2012

  At its heart, redistricting is all about taking from one group to give to another.

  With that in mind, here's a crazy thought - just make them all by neighborhood. People move in, people move out, but who cares?

  The neighborhood lines are arbitrary enough, and if there is a perceived "imbalance" of people with long hair or people who wear red on Fridays in one district or another, once again, who cares?

  If the City Council wasn't in the business of taxing one group to give favors to another group, then this would be a "non issue". Unfortunately, the fact that the Council is making this an issue shows me what is at the top of their agenda - money and political power (which, its essence is the ability to give favors at the expense of others).

  The Council will never please everyone - so they should stop trying. All it does is create divisions among the people because their resources are being taken from them to be used somewhere they do not agree with.

  Step back and ask what gives them the right to forcibly take from one neighborhood to give to another neighborhood across town?

  Redistricting is just a battle to see who can get the biggest posse. In the end, the "winners" will benefit, and the "losers" are forced into servitude.

  Reply

• On the article Obama-Romney Presidential Debate: Who Won?

  

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  10:15 pm on Wednesday, October 17, 2012

  Hi Kelly,

  I definitely agree.

  As mentioned in my post on the VP "debate", these debates are controlled by the "Commission on Presidential Debates", and they will never allow true debates or new ideas to surface.

  To explain, the CPD was setup by the Democratic and Republican parties in the 1980s - effectively shutting out the League of Women Voters, who previously organized debates, from the process.

  Imagine if Coke and Pepsi started a magazine called "Consumer Choice" and submitted their products to it for review. Laughable, yes, but this is exactly what has happened to the debates!

  If people are frustrated with the Democrats and Republicans (which seems to be true judging by comments here), I'd invite them to take this small quiz to see if they might be a Libertarian and just not realize it: www.theadvocates.org/quiz.

  I'd argue that Libertarians have better fiscal policies than the Republicans, and offer better civil liberty protection than Democrats - check them out: www.lp.org or www.garyjohnson2012.com

• On the article Paul Ryan-Joe Biden Debate: Who Do You Think 'Won'?

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  9:09 pm on Friday, October 12, 2012

  Whoever "won", it surely wasn't the American People.

  Formed in 1987, by the two major parties, the "Commission on Presidential Debates" runs what are nothing more than extended "Coke vs Pepsi" infomercials for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.

  By excluding Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray from these debates, along with other third party candidates, we aren't being shown the entire picture.

  And what motivation would the CPD have to do so? None, of course. They have a vested interest in keeping business as usual. This is what happens when you have a monopoly - the competition is shut out, the owners of the monopoly profit, and the customers suffer.

  If we wouldn't allow a fox to guard the hen house, then why would we allow the parties to control the debates?

  Reply

• On the article Letter: South End Looks Like a Dump on Trash Day

  

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  3:49 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012

  AP,

  It is a widely held misconception that the financial markets are a "free market".

  In practice, they are a system of cronyism, special favors, and bailouts. These distortions prevent true free market actions from occuring, and we all suffer in the end.

  Case in point is fractional reserve banking and the FED's "Reserve Requirement" (currently 0% for "small" banks, 10% for the largest).

  This means if you deposit $100 in a bank, it can then lend $100 to someone else instantly (or $90 if a large bank). So, to the economy, it looks like there are now $200 total in circulation (or $190).

  If both of you want to redeem "your" money, you would be unable to do so at the same time.

  In a "free market" this would create a "bank run" and the fraudulent bank would most likely shut down. People would move their assets to safer institutions, and banks would have an incentive to NOT engage in this type of gambling.

  However, in our system the government regulators "suspend redemption" (so you can't get your money), issue bailouts (using everyone's money), and allow the status quo to continue (with largely the same people in charge). Free?

  This is an entirely different conversation than trash, but my point is, the "free market" that most people point to for "failing" (great depression included) isn't really a "free market" in the true sense of the phrase at all. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=360

• On the article Boston Teachers Union Puts New Deal on Table

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  10:52 pm on Thursday, August 30, 2012

  Holding the City hostage while "Serving the Children" shows this is another misguided system that was built with the best intentions, but in practice, does not meet the needs of those it serves.

  To truly "break the stalemate", we must abolish compulsory schools that are funded by the taxpayer. Stay with me...

  I'm merely saying that once EVERYONE's money is on the line, you get the bickering we see today. And in the end, the students suffer.

  A new system where Parents directly pay for the education of their children (or pool costs with family, neighbors, or charities) accomplishes:

  Accountability: Not from Teachers to a Union, and a Union to a School Board, and a School Board to a City Council, and then a City Council to Parents that vote (in theory). Teachers would be evaluated daily on their performance by the people that purchase their services - the Parents.

  Accurate Pay: In a free market system, the best performing teachers (or groups of teachers) could command higher salaries for their services. Lower performers would not. This feedback system is far superior to any other "evaluation system".

  Constant Improvement: Classrooms must keep up with the latest techniques, and nothing is better at that than the free market. To attract students, schools will invest in best practices.

  The current system will never please everyone, so why keep creating strife by trying? Let us all choose what best fits our own needs. https://mises.org/daily/2216/

  Reply

• On the article Letter: South End Looks Like a Dump on Trash Day

  

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  9:54 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012

  Roxxma,

  I think Timothy is referencing that Capitol Waste is staffed by Union Labor (http://www.capitolwasteservices.com/about.html).

  While they are a private company, unions, in the long run, tend to distort the actual market.

  As Henry Hazlitt states in "Economics in One Lesson":

  "Most of these [Union] policies have been followed under the assumption that there is just a fixed amount of work to be done, a definite 'job fund' which has to be spread over as many people and hours as possible so as not to use it up too soon. This assumption is utterly false. There is actually no limit to the amount of work to be done. Work creates work. What A produces constitutes the demand for what B produces." http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L20

  That is another discussion altogether, but suffice to say that in the topic at hand:

  - The City writes one contract. It will be Union, or it will not be Union. It will anger some, it will please others.
  - If everyone could choose their own methods of disposal, they could choose whatever companies met their needs the best. Union/Non-Union/Volunteer Labor/Zero Trash Generation/Etc

• On the article Letter: South End Looks Like a Dump on Trash Day

  

  

  Robert Yarbrough

  9:34 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012

  Jon,

  I'll agree that ripping open bags for 5 cents per can is a nuisance, though the problem cannot be solved by "thicker bags" or "locking cans" as most politicians would probably suggest. Where there is a will, there is a way.

  The problem is the artificial value of the cans. On the market, one pound of aluminum cans, about 34 (http://earth911.com/news/2007/04/02/facts-about-aluminum-recycling/), can be sold to recyclers for $0.48 (http://www.scrapmonster.com/scrap-prices/scrap-metals/Aluminum-Cans-scraps/11/1/1).

  That means each can is about 1.4 cents on the open market.

  However, every time we buy a can, we are taxed 5 cents (some states are 10!) - 357% its actual value (on top of paying Coke/Pepsi/Whoever for the can in the first place).

  At that rate of return, who wouldn't collect them?!

  So, while in this day and age it is taboo to talk about removing the deposit (after all, if it is good for cans, why not put deposits on everything?), the real solution would be to remove the deposit (the 357% incentive) on the cans that people seek.

  A good reference for further reading is "Recycling Myths Revisited" by the Property and Environment Research Center: http://www.perc.org/files/ps47.pdf

  I'll admit that I was the most ardent supporter of recycling for a long time, even bottle deposits, however, this paper made me at least think about my actions in a different way.