Arkansas Body Art Interventionism

Enough. Not a single one of you have read the legislation. If you had, you would have clearly understood that the only thing banned is sub dermal implants by tattoo artists. You can still get them by trained medical personnel! And not a single one of you criticizing me took the time to understand that tattoo artists and the Arkansas Body Modification Association BROUGHT ME THE LEGISLATION ASKING FOR MY HELP! The main bill was their bill in an effort to maintain quality standards and updates for their industry that they felt were necessary to protect their industry, them as artists and their clients. Both bills were amended several times and the artists supported both bills!

Arkansas State Senator Missy Irvin 

Emphasis mine, because it will be important later.  She's referring to the storm kicked up as mentioned in this MSNBC article:

At issue is Arkansas Senate Bill 387 which both chambers of the Arkansas state legislature actually passed in late March of this year. The bill was then signed by the governor. Rather than banning tattoos or cracking down on the body art industry–as many headlines have suggested–the bipartisan legislation actually legally redefines the term body art in Arkansas to add the practice of scarification–the scratching, etching or cutting of the skin to produce a design.

Rather than a seeing the bill as a crackdown, most body artists in the state are pleased with the legislation.
[...]
In fact, [piercing and scarification artist Misty] Forsberg said she and other artists spoke in favor of the legislation in the Arkansas House, once the language banning scarification was taken out.

Small potatoes if you care about principle.  The state government in Arkansas long ago decided individuals should not be able to make an independent living as body modifiers.  They must get state permission to work and particularly to teach other artists.

This law isn't a body modification apocalypse, but it does strip away additional freedom.  Now only licensed physicians can insert subdermal implants, body artist trainers must have 5 rather than 3 years of licensed and regulatory compliant experience, and scarification is restricted as a regulated practice.

This may be a marginally incremental decrease in economic freedom, but what the hell, why not bring the blog back to life with something as local as the previous post?  American Volkswirtschaft is about principle and even small potatoes like this matter.  Anyone has the right to set up shop in the area known as Arkansas and satisfy customers seeking body modification.

Here's that emphasized section again from above:

The main bill was their bill in an effort to maintain quality standards and updates for their industry that they felt were necessary to protect their industry, them as artists and their clients.

Though in the back of my mind I have always thought Industry seeks Government protection through laws that screw their independent competition, it was not until I started reading The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko, Crisis and Leviathan by Robert Higgs, and listening to The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire 1870 to World War II by Murray Rothbard that I began to realize the depth and age of the rot in the American system.

It is a common assumption that most members of an industry are automatically opposed to additional regulation, licensing, taxes, and other forms of state economic control.  You, dear reader, ought to dump this assumption immediately if you possess it.  Far more often, Industry seeks additional control to protect itself through:

• new barriers to competitive entry
• artificial price supports
• socialization of costs

The people at the Arkansas Body Modification Association can claim rose-tinted intentions about professional standards, but the end result is they sought the deadly force of law to make it harder for anyone who isn't them to do what they do.  If they had any integrity as artists, they would advocate for laws freeing their line of work from state control so more people can participate in the market.

Austin Tree Interventionism

Single Family Residential Properties

The removal of or impact to any tree 60 inches in circumference and larger (measured at 4.5 feet above the ground). Sixty inches in circumference is equivalent to 19 inches in diameter. Trees smaller than 60 inches in circumference are not regulated. Protected size trees that are dead and/or hazardous also require a permit. A Tree Risk Assessment (example form) may be requested to further document the condition of the tree.
Examples of when a tree permit may be needed

Commercial and Non Single Family Development

All trees 8 inches in diameter and larger (25'' circumference) are required to be accurately located on site plans submitted for development review. The trees are depicted on the grading and tree protection plan sheets per the Environmental Criteria standards.
See Critical Root Zone and Tree Preservation Requirements.

Austin Arborist Program

In Austin, TX, property owners are not free to dispose of the trees on their property as they see fit.  This intervenes in their freedom to improve their land according to their own values.  As such, this is an infringement upon private property rights and a truly free market.

My girlfriend and I spent the better part of Saturday afternoon clearing out saplings, young trees, and dead trunks out of my backyard.  We did not pause to consider whether anything I wanted out was greater than 60" around, I simply set a standard ("if it's arm width and alive, it goes!") and we acted.  The dead trees were rotten down to the roots and much larger.  Ditching them removed threats to my neighbors' property, increased the chances of grass taking root, removed insect infestations, and gave me more space to do something with the yard.

But apparently I should have kept a tape measure handy, because I don't really own these trees.

Think this is an idle concern?  Take a look at what happened to this guy in Portland.

Introducing American Volkswirtschaft

The term Volkswirtschaft was long applied by the German champions of government omnipotence. Only much later did the British and the French begin to speak of the 'British economy' and 'l'economie francaise' as distinct from the economies of other nations. But neither the English nor the French language produced an equivalent of the term Volkswirtschaft.

The Volkswirtschaft is a sovereign nation's total complex of economic activities directed and controlled by the government. It is socialism realized within the political frontiers of each nation.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

 

For many years, words like unregulated, unbridled, uninhibited, unchecked, unrestrained, and unhampered have been regurgitated into the public sphere when talking about actual American economic conditions.  For many years, words like free markets, capitalism, liberty, free enterprise, entrepreneurship, open competition, and free trade have been likewise bandied about when arguing over the same thing.  Both the camp against economic freedom and the one allegedly for it commonly assume that what exists now is basically that: economic freedom.

This blog is my stand against that assumption.  American Volkswirtschaft says no: you are both wrong.  The common economy in this country is not characterized by freedom.

This is a chronicle of the vast variety of ways federal, state, and local United States government entities attempt to direct, control, and shape American economic action.  It is a direct rebuttal to anyone claiming we operate within the context of a free market capitalist society where individuals are at liberty to peacefully associate with whomever they wish and peacefully trade their legitimately-owned private property with whomever they wish.

We do not.  It is an everlasting shame that this is the case.  Individuals may have a degree of economic freedom not allowed in many other countries, but that does not forgive gross errors and mischaracterizations.

I begin shouting into the darkness on this day, April 15, 2013.  Hundreds of millions of Americans are forced by penalty of law to hand over a portion of their income to the federal government.  Trillions of dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000, folks) will forcibly shift from individuals to the state.  The act of taxation alone is proof that an economy is not free.

Federal law threatened me with fines and imprisonment for earning money and not giving the state some arbitrary cut.

The $2,800 I "owed" the IRS could have been used for extra savings against a future emergency or for helping a friend get through a period of unemployment.  I might have spent it on a car to replace my dying Accord or a solid privacy fence for my house.  That money would have been handy to pay down credit card debt, upgrade my home computer, buy new cameras and lenses, treated my friends and family to food and drinks, or even build my cat's dream playhouse.

It does not matter to me whether the money I handed over builds an embassy blast wall in Afghanistan, pays for a child's operation, repairs a pothole on IH35, or funds basic research into genetics.  The federal government threatened me with violence if I did not give it up and as a result, I was less free to act to improve my life.

Acting to improve your life is the essence of economics.  Any American government policy that interferes between a person and their choice to work, trade, buy, sell, or own is subject matter for this blog.