Search

You searched for: Publishing Institution The Objective Standard Remove constraint Publishing Institution: The Objective Standard Political Geography California Remove constraint Political Geography: California Topic Government Remove constraint Topic: Government
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Publication Date: 03-2013
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Objective Standard
  • Institution: The Objective Standard
  • Abstract: I want to thank C. Bradley Thompson for his excellent (and disturbing) article on government "education" ["The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time," TOS, Winter 2012-13]. Among the many disturbing facts Dr. Thompson reports, one that affected me personally concerns homeschooling in California. I have done (and continue to do) some homeschooling for local California families and was disturbed to learn that what I do was ruled illegal by some judge named Croskey. I was relieved to find by the end of the paragraph that Croskey (partially) reversed his ruling. What an abhorrent man and system! I, too, am an abolitionist.
  • Topic: Education, Government, Law
  • Political Geography: California
  • Author: Paul Beard
  • Publication Date: 12-2009
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Objective Standard
  • Institution: The Objective Standard
  • Abstract: Imagine the following: 1. A couple improves their oceanside backyard with tables and benches, a barbecue pit and kitchenette, an outdoor shower and restroom, and a beautiful flower garden. Thirty years later, government officials inspect the yard and declare that the amenities are ugly and out of character with the surrounding area, and that, because the amenities underscore the fact that the yard is private, they have a detrimental psychological effect on the public traversing the adjacent beach. The government orders the couple to clear out their yard and restore it to its "natural" condition, or face stiff penalties. 2. A man purchases a vacant lot along the Pacific coast with the dream of building his residence there, but when he submits his building plans to the local government, he is told that the size and location of his structure would sully boaters' views of the coastline. The government demands that he reduce the size of his proposed home to one-quarter its planned size and place it in a geologically hazardous corner of the lot. 3. A family that has been cramped for years in a mobile home on their 143-acre ranch wants to build a house large enough to accommodate them, but when they apply for a building permit, the government tells the family that, in exchange for permission to build, they must agree to a perpetual agricultural easement over almost all of their land-an "agreement" that would force the family and future generations to farm the property forever. Unfortunately, we need not imagine any of these scenarios, because they are true stories of real people suffering at the hands of a real tyrant. Even as you read, these and other such abuses are occurring in California. The tyrant in question is the California Coastal Commission, a state bureaucracy with near-limitless authority over people's property and, thus, their lives. Although the Commission's power to dictate how property owners may use their property is limited to certain regions in California, similar commissions exist in other states, and the Commission's endeavors provide an ideal case study regarding how and why governmental bodies at all levels across America are increasingly violating property rights. Let us begin our study by looking at the history and nature of the Commission. . . . To read the rest of this article, select one of the following options:Subscriber Login | Subscribe | Renew | Purchase a PDF of this article
  • Topic: Government
  • Political Geography: California
  • Author: Brian P. Simpson
  • Publication Date: 12-2008
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Objective Standard
  • Institution: The Objective Standard
  • Abstract: "We've got to go after the oil companies," says President-elect Barack Obama in response to high oil and gasoline prices. "We've got to go after [their] windfall profits." Explaining the purpose of recently proposed energy legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says: "We are forcing oil companies to change their ways. We will hold them accountable for unconscionable price-gouging and force them to invest in renewable energy or pay a price for refusing to do so." Calling for government seizure of private power plants, California Senate Leader John Burton insists: "We have to do something. These people have got us by the throat. They're making more money than God, and we've got to fight back-not with words, but with actions." This attitude toward energy producers, which is practically unanimous among American politicians today, is wreaking havoc not only on the lives and rights of these producers, but on the lives and rights of Americans in general. It leads to laws and regulations that prohibit producers and consumers from acting on their rational judgment with respect to energy. It causes energy shortages, brownouts, and blackouts that thwart everyone's ability to be productive and enjoy life. And it results in higher prices not only for energy, but for every good and service that depends on energy-which means every good and service in the marketplace, from food to transportation to medical care to sporting events to education to housing. Energy producers, like all rational businessmen, are in business to make money. Profits are what motivate them to exert the requisite brain power, to engage in the necessary research, and to invest the massive amounts of money required to produce and deliver the energy we need to light, heat, and cool our homes, and to power the factories, workplaces, and tools required to produce the goods on which our lives depend. Their profit motive is to our benefit. Moreover, energy producers, like all human beings, have a moral right to act according to their own judgment so long as they do not violate the rights of others. They have a moral right to use and dispose of the product of their effort as they see fit. They have a moral right to contract with customers by mutual consent to mutual benefit. In other words, they have a moral right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. And it is only by respecting these rights that we can expect energy producers to produce energy. So let us examine the assault on these producers, count the ways in which this assault is both impractical and immoral, and specify what must be done to rectify this injustice. . . .
  • Topic: Government
  • Political Geography: America, California