On July 15th, 2019, I wrote the following in order to criticize the activities of the city council of Waukegan, Illinois, which I witnessed at a public meeting on July 1st, 2019.
Due to the three-minute limitation on the speaking time of each individual member of the public at these meetings, I was not able to read the entire speech which follows below. Instead, I summarized the following speech, after addressing the issue of why I believe the governor of Illinois should use Jeffersonian nullification to enjoin and prevent federal immigration authorities from rounding up undocumented immigrants (and also to enjoin federal authorities from taking the 2020 census).
The
title of my speech is “Licensing Breeds Licentiousness”. This
title refers to the manner in which people tend to take
liberties
with other people, while they are in bars or casinos. I mean to imply
that the government's endorsement of drinking and gambling, by way of
approving liquor licenses and casino permits, communicates a
libertinistic attitude towards the role of government in society.
Namely,
that if the government approves of the establishment existing and
abiding by the law, then the owner has total leeway in regards to
what rules (if any) will exist on his “private” property. [Which
is, of course, usually publicly sponsored, because local Register of
Deeds' offices register all “private” property claims. I say
“private” because the public
government's registration and tracking of all of these property
claims, makes them quite not
private].
In
the text that follows, I will explain why I believe that the
taxpayer-funded local government, and its system of licensing and
permits (and its monopoly to profit therefrom) offer perverse
incentives to residents and establishment owners, regarding where,
and under what legal circumstances, they engage in non-useful
socio-economic activities; focusing on permitted legal drinking and
gambling on government-registered “private” property. I will also
explain why I believe that
when the government is careless about what licenses and permits to
approve and deny, harm to economic activity, the public's career
opportunities, and social mores (especially in regard to our
standards regarding business ethics, and whether we will take a
demeaning or demoralizing job) are bound to result.
I
first came to this city council meeting two weeks ago. If what
happened during that meeting is any indication of what usually goes
on here, then it is a cause for concern, from both a constitutional
and a theory of government perspective. What you aldermen do here –
issue and deny licenses and permits – is not necessary, and
constitutes a public harm rather than a public good, and I'll explain
why.
I'd
like to make a comment about the woman who, two weeks ago, asked the
city to require all people who wish to hold garage sales and yard
sales, to apply for (and pay for) permits to do so. That resident
made her statement without demonstrating why the fact that a lot of
people are having garage sales in her neighborhood, constitutes any
form of damage to her, or to the community.
Garage
sale signs never become eyesores, they increase economic activity in
the community, and they provide people who have too much junk with a
way to part with their things without letting go of too much
monetizable value.
To
require yard sale operators to get permits, is to effectively ban
people from having garage sales, unless
they apply for permission from their government, and
pay
their government, for the privilege to do so. Making a few dollars
off of some items we don't need anymore, should not be a privilege;
it should not be something we have to beg and pay our government in
order to do. Adult citizens are responsible enough to have garage
sales without your permission.
The
9th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.” In modern English, this
means “The fact that certain rights are listed in the Constitution,
should not be used to deny the fact that the people have other
rights”, meaning rights which are not
listed in the Constitution.
So
what are those rights? The rights to defend ourselves, and speak
freely, are listed specifically. But others are not, such as things
we need to do in order to survive and have families; like the rights
to move around and travel (locomotion); the rights to eat, drink, and
breathe; to hunt, gather, fish, trap, and forage; to work and to join
or start a union; to enter into a domestic
union (meaning to marry whom we please).
Things we need to do, in order to eat and work and survive and have families, should never require begging or paying the government for permission. They are natural human rights, which the government should either protect, or (if it cannot) leave us alone to protect those rights ourselves without government help. If ever a government becomes destructive of our abilities to provide for ourselves in these manners, then such a government forfeits its privilege to exist, which in a free society it can only derive from the consent and permission of the people.
Things we need to do, in order to eat and work and survive and have families, should never require begging or paying the government for permission. They are natural human rights, which the government should either protect, or (if it cannot) leave us alone to protect those rights ourselves without government help. If ever a government becomes destructive of our abilities to provide for ourselves in these manners, then such a government forfeits its privilege to exist, which in a free society it can only derive from the consent and permission of the people.
Members
of the city council, why are we still requiring licensing and license
applications for people over the age of 18 to get married? Why are
Evanston, Illinois, New York, Hawaii, and other jurisdictions
considering raising the tobacco purchase age to 18? Why can't an
18-year-old rent a car until they turn 25? Do taxpaying, voting-age
adults really need this much coddling from their government?
And who has the right to derive exclusive privilege, and profit, from the issuance or denial of these permits? The city council. And since every local government must comport with federal rules, all permit and license fees must be paid in the uniform monopoly currency which is issued by the Federal Reserve. Which, I remind you, (theoretically) operates under the auspices of the U.S. Constitution, which established gold as the sole legal currency, but through which, also, the Congress gives itself the power to “regulate the value” of the U.S. currency.
And who has the right to derive exclusive privilege, and profit, from the issuance or denial of these permits? The city council. And since every local government must comport with federal rules, all permit and license fees must be paid in the uniform monopoly currency which is issued by the Federal Reserve. Which, I remind you, (theoretically) operates under the auspices of the U.S. Constitution, which established gold as the sole legal currency, but through which, also, the Congress gives itself the power to “regulate the value” of the U.S. currency.
Supposedly,
the people need
the city council to issue and deny permits and licenses, because if
it didn't, nobody else is going to do it. However, through the fact
of the federal government's monopoly on the issuance of currency, and
the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given
territory, we only “need” the city council, because the city
council gives
itself the sole authority to issue or deny them.
If
you take liberties with the word “regulate” in “regulate the
value”, you can basically excuse the federal government (or the
Congress, or the Federal Reserve) manipulating
the value, and doing so legally. The federal, state, and local
governments' profiteering
off of its self-granted monopoly on licenses and permits – with the
help of the federal government's manipulation of the value of our
money – constitute what would be considered a racketeering
operation, if it were taking place in the private sector. But it is
taking place in the public
sector,
where government monopoly prevents any and all alternative agencies
which would compete for legitimacy against the existing government
(and thus prevents truly effective transparency and accountability of
government).
What if we had independent, de-politicized agencies, whose membership were fully optional, that could fulfill the role that “checks and balances” and Register of Deeds offices currently fulfill in our society? These agencies could act sort of like independent business alliances, while registering property claims, and engaging in academic study regarding how to raise the standards of business ethics (which would guide their policies surrounding whether, and when, and how, to shut abusive and fraudulent businesses out of business, and if necessary, confiscate their property for legitimate public use). And the best parts: Nobody could be compelled to fund any one of these agencies whose practices they didn't agree with, and if there were any fees for licenses and permits, they could be paid with anything but the U.S. Dollar (whether that's silver, gold, Bitcoin, labor, a labor-backed currency, a resource-backed currency, a local currency, forms of promissory notes such as mutuum cheques, or any item that holds and/or represents a real store of value).
There's
just one problem: If we had independent, de-politicized
organizations, competing for legitimacy against each other and
against the government, which could issue licenses and permits (and,
if necessary, shut companies out of business for fraud and abuse),
then it's quite likely that this would cause the government
itself
to go out of business. That's because government is operating a
racketeering operation, in operating the system of licenses and
permits. I say this because the government has, again, granted itself
the sole authority to profit off of fees collected for issuing
licenses and permits. Denying those permits only raises the demand
for those permits, which increases their price; while they also
increase demand for ways
to get around the requirement of permits and licenses.
If the public has no way to peacefully circumvent the requirement of
licenses and permits which they cannot afford - and which are not
reasonable because they infringe on our everyday abilities to move
around and make a living and put food on our tables to feed our
families – then the state's system of licensing and permission will
lose legitimacy in the public mind, such that developing
alternatives, and even abolishing licensing itself, begin to seem
like reasonable alternatives.
I
suggest that the Waukegan City Council dissolve. The mayor should
retain his post, but the decisions regarding whether to issue or deny
permits and licenses, which are being made by aldermen at the present
time, could just as easily be decided by the members of the audience
who agree to attend this bi-monthly meeting of the city council. I
suggest that the aldermen on the panel be replaced with a single
clerk, who can read the meeting's agenda to the audience, which can
decide on the basis of a majority vote whether to deny or issue a
permit. If you aldermen want to have a vote, then you can and show up
and vote on the floor with the rest of us, while the mayor and the
clerk retain their posts. If not that, then at the very least,
aldermen should have strict term limits, or could even be made
instantly recallable. I assure you that any resident could do just as
good of a job as these city council members, or better.
If
all
the residents in attendance today got a vote, do you think that what
happened here two weeks ago, would have happened? The City Council
confirmed liquor licenses for several establishments, without
questioning the purpose, or what economic good the community derives
from these establishments having these licenses; meanwhile, the issue
of whether a sports facility that serves youths should be adequately
lit with the help of public funds, had to be debated before it was
accepted? If the public were in charge of the votes at this meeting,
wouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't we be more
worried about who's getting a liquor license, than whether our kids
have enough lighting to play basketball under?
It's one thing to promote youth sports as a matter of
increasing sports- and leisure- related tourism to Waukegan (which,
in turn, increases construction and property values) and to promote
local interests, but it's another thing to support youth sports
because it's the right thing to do. Does it promote local interests
to sponsor a young athlete, if that child grows up to leave town? No;
but that should not be the local government's worry.
To
cease worrying about the loss of local benefit which that athlete
leaving town would bring, though, would require the local government
to cease doing what is in its own nature; that is, to promote its own
interests, by way of promoting local interests. And that is why local
government – and all
governments
- should never be trusted, except to rule in their own interests (and
also in the interest of the property developers who stand to bring
the most property value, taxable revenue, and/or “jobs” to the
community).
Finally,
I would like to “thank” the city council for approving the casino
that will be coming to town. There have been concerns that the
approved casino developer has a history of serving alcohol to minors.
This suggests that the casino which is coming, will find ways to
circumvent local liquor licensing requirements.
I
hope the city council realizes that carding minors for alcohol is, if
only in some small way, essentially a policing,
executive function,
and as such, is not something to be taken lightly. Can we really
entrust alcohol
servers at private establishments
with a police function? I hope that the city is prepared to police
underage drinking in this casino, if it must be built. I would
suggest that it not
be built, or at least that it not have a liquor license.
Alcohol
has been shown to impair people's ability to make responsible
decisions, casinos are nowhere for an impaired person to be, the
casino could not stay in business unless it took
more of people's money than it paid out, and
the city should not directly promote (nor should it even appear
to promote) drinking and gambling for leisure. Throwing one's money
away on gambling and betting, is by
no means a
thing that merits official promotion by way of taxpayer-funded
benefits, subsidies, and privileges.
Despite the concerns about the likelihood that underage drinking will occur at this casino, you, the members of the city council, have made the bold move to approve the casino. And thank God you did, or how else would financially irresponsible people find a way to gamble away all of their hard-earned money; money which could have been spent feeding their families, putting a roof over their heads, making car and home repairs, etc.? What would we do without the city council to offer financially irresponsible people perverse incentives such as these?
Despite the concerns about the likelihood that underage drinking will occur at this casino, you, the members of the city council, have made the bold move to approve the casino. And thank God you did, or how else would financially irresponsible people find a way to gamble away all of their hard-earned money; money which could have been spent feeding their families, putting a roof over their heads, making car and home repairs, etc.? What would we do without the city council to offer financially irresponsible people perverse incentives such as these?
I'd
love to be a teenager graduating from Waukegan High School right
about now, looking at the job prospects available to me, thanks to
this new casino. Especially from a young woman's
perspective: “Let's see, I can work at a casino, and deal cards or
serve alcohol to older men who will leer at me; or I can join the
R.O.T.C., and let the Army beat the shit out of me and inject me with
unknown chemicals for some paltry sum; or I can work for Medline or
some other pharmaceutical company that makes pills while also
creating
the same problems those pills solve by emitting toxic chemicals. What
a myriad of options, what freedom and opportunity!”
I urge the city council to – if possible – rescind the order to approve the permit for the new casino. The risks to the community which will be caused by the perverse incentives offered by public approval of this casino, are too great. Unhesitating approvals of liquor licenses and gaming facilities will only lead to increased (private) demand for venues such as strip clubs and massage parlors. But should the public necessarily sponsor venues which would exist conditional upon prevailing private demand in the market? Absolutely not; I do not wish to see any taxpayer funds disbursed in order to turn downtown Waukegan into an “economic opportunity zone” full of drinkers, gamblers, strippers, and (coming soon) legalized brothels.
Government
must not
send the message to kids coming out of public school, that these jobs
– and the military, and working for companies releasing toxic
pollutants – is their best bet on a long-term career. These jobs
are only good for short-term profit, because they destroy as much as
they create. Until the economy improves, many kids coming out of
Waukegan schools will be stuck in Waukegan for a while. Does a
downtown Waukegan full of legal, publicly-supported, publicly-funded
drinking and gambling really send the right message about either
the importance of civic engagement or
the
value of working hard to build your own business?
As
much as I am pleased that the city council has taken caution to avoid
building the casino too close to a school,
but should we really have a similar requirement that the casino be
far enough away from a church?
Where are these gamblers supposed to go after they've blown all the
money they would have otherwise spent feeding and sheltering their
families? They're going to want to go to church. If it were up to me,
there would be a city ordinance requiring every casino and bar to be
surrounded
by churches.
You members of the city council - you aldermen - you get paid more than the average citizen. Which begs two questions: 1) Why can't you solve these problems, and protect the public from pernicious outside property developers, and 2) Why shouldn't you cease to exist, seeing that you are a permanent political class whose members permanently earn more than the average citizen? Doesn't the fact that you pay yourself more than us, prove that you are one of the fundamental causes of our economic problems?
You members of the city council - you aldermen - you get paid more than the average citizen. Which begs two questions: 1) Why can't you solve these problems, and protect the public from pernicious outside property developers, and 2) Why shouldn't you cease to exist, seeing that you are a permanent political class whose members permanently earn more than the average citizen? Doesn't the fact that you pay yourself more than us, prove that you are one of the fundamental causes of our economic problems?
The
needs to secure property, protect it, and provide for basic zoning to
separate residential from commercial properties, are the fundamental
ideas upon which the government and its necessity are predicated.
However, that fact entails that the nature of zoning is thus, that
the government cannot
avoid but to separate where wealth is earned from where people live.
Zoning, quite simply, causes regional economic disparities; and the
government's power to perform zoning can only result from property
takings that intrinsically subvert the very same principle of
property ownership upon which the necessity of government is more firmly based.
Furthermore, any local government that does not employ multi-use
and/or multi-use-on-multi-level zoning, is wasting space, and is
contributing to a problem which it should be solving (namely, unequal
economic development over territory).
And
now the city council is considering taking away our right to have
garage sales without paying for applications and receiving permission? I know a family of
lawyers, which operates a law firm out of their residence. Why can't
everybody else turn their homes into small businesses, without them being
deemed full-scale commercial enterprises, to be regulated and zoned
as such? Let's not be ridiculous; nobody who's holding garage sales, is running delivery trucks through their neighborhood.
Is the value we'll get from either legitimizing or criminalizing all economic activity which occurs without the permission of the state, really worth the cost we'll lose from suppressing the economic activity, opportunity, and creativity of the people of this community? From suppressing the American dream of equal economic opportunity; to sell your own possessions on your own property?
Is the value we'll get from either legitimizing or criminalizing all economic activity which occurs without the permission of the state, really worth the cost we'll lose from suppressing the economic activity, opportunity, and creativity of the people of this community? From suppressing the American dream of equal economic opportunity; to sell your own possessions on your own property?
What value will
we bring to the community, if we are bringing tourists to Waukegan,
only to expose them to the diverse set of pollutants which are
emanating from the various factories, rock-crushing operations,
chemical spills, and pharmaceutical and sterilization companies
scattered around Lake County?
We can complain all we want about the frauds and abuses committed by these "private" companies, but while they continue to receive public funds to balance their books, and public supports and privileges, should they really be considered private? Why should we expect anything other than abuses to occur on sites which are deemed "private" but which are in fact backed up by public promises of bailouts?
Waukegan City Council, why aren't you protecting us? If you're not going to protect us, then why are you here? To offer outside property developers opportunities to exploit our labor and environment, while we are effectively conscripted into working for them, having no other viable options? And soon, we may no longer be free to hold garage sales without government permission, in order to avoid accepting demoralizing jobs.
What is the point of government, if we get nothing from it but more problems, which the government gives itself the sole authority to solve, whether it feels like doing its job or not?
To watch videos of me summarizing this article, please click on the following links:
Waukegan City Council, why aren't you protecting us? If you're not going to protect us, then why are you here? To offer outside property developers opportunities to exploit our labor and environment, while we are effectively conscripted into working for them, having no other viable options? And soon, we may no longer be free to hold garage sales without government permission, in order to avoid accepting demoralizing jobs.
What is the point of government, if we get nothing from it but more problems, which the government gives itself the sole authority to solve, whether it feels like doing its job or not?
To watch videos of me summarizing this article, please click on the following links:
- “Licensing Breeds Licentiousness:
Speech to the Waukegan City Council”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=326V8zVCY7E
- “Nullify Federal Immigration Laws and Abolish Government Licensing”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiAISB94GXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=326V8zVCY7E
- “Nullify Federal Immigration Laws and Abolish Government Licensing”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiAISB94GXs
Written on July 15th, 2019
Video Links Filmed on July 15th, 2019,
and Added on July 19th, 2019
