John Pugsley - The Anarchist

“Steal This Book”?

Abbie Hoffman’s 1996 best-seller, Steal This Book, was meant as a practical guide for aspiring hippies, filled with ideas for getting something for nothing. It became a cult classic with over 200,000 copies sold. Now they won’t have to take the risk and steal copies. Google will do it for them.

Last Saturday (Jan 20) the Unbound conference at the New York Public Library, Google and the publishing world faced off over Google Book Search, the search-engine giant’s project to digitize and make available online the entire contents of the world’s great libraries. Google would like make it available to the world free, for the good of all mankind. Publishers aren’t enthusiastic.

Publishers of music and movies are also battling to keep their copyrighted works from being copied by Napster lookalikes. Nor is the software industry safe—software programs have been a juicy target for copying without the owners permission.

Now, why should you or I be concerned about the subtleties of copyright or patent law? Because this issue goes to the very nucleus of the human struggle. All conflict is a conflict over property. Here at The Sovereign Society, our goal is to help our members become sovereign individuals, and sovereignty means control over our own property. The goal can’t be achieved if we don’t agree on what is property and what isn’t.

Ideas are property

In a recent essay published in the Sovereign Society’s Offshore A-Letter, I argued that ideas are property when I discussed a software program created by someone called “muslix64” that allowed individuals to copy DVDs.

“Are ideas property? The core confusion in such issues is the lack of a precise definition of 'property.' The most useful, precise, and scientific definition I've come across is that created by the late Andrew Galambos. He defined property as "Man's life and all non-procreative derivatives thereof." He then went on to divide property into the sub-categories of primordial property (your body and mind), primary property (your ideas), and secondary property (the tangible things you create using your primordial and primary property). If we then agree that theft or stealing is the taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent, certainly muslix64 is facilitating and encouraging stealing.”

A thoughtful and knowledgeable reader, TD, responded as follows:

Dear Mr. Pugsley:

I am not a socialist but I think it fair to point out both Adam Smith and Henry George seem to have had reservations about intellectual property rights.  Patents are after all “patents of monopoly”. How often have patent holders tried to blackmail or bludgeon rivals?

In a free society, why shouldn’t A be able to copy what B has done?

After all, the US copied from Britain and Japan copied from the US when it came to their industrial revolutions.  By the way, I recall reading most inventors opposed the 1850s introduction of British industrial property laws.

To take it to a logical extreme why should we be paying IP royalties to Isaac Newton’s heirs?  And why should we be paying for IP to some editor of Mozart while Mozart (who wrote the actual music) rots in his pauper’s grave?

Intellectual property is one of modern society’s great conundrums. Should ideas be protected? And what of monopoly? Is it right or wrong? Or is it right in some cases and wrong in others? And who should be the judge?

As TD noted, brilliant philosophers have pondered the issues of intellectual property. Even the greatest philosophers may not have found the truth. Nor does the fact that it has been common in history necessarily argue for the abolition of intellectual property rights.

A major source of the confusion over the issue of property, and especially intellectual property, comes from the fact that most people instinctively look at the issue in terms of what feels “right” and “wrong”, or “moral” and “immoral.”

What is “right”? What is “wrong”? People vehemently disagree on what these terms mean. They are intertwined with religious and political ideologies, so what any individual might mean by them depends on his or her religion or political persuasion. It’s wrong to kill someone in some cases, and right in others, etc.. I think the most useful definition of "right" would have to connect it to an objective. Something would be right if it led to the goal, and wrong if it diminished the chance of achieving a goal.

Consider the general but fuzzy belief that “monopoly” is wrong. Although most go along with giving the state monopoly powr on all sorts of things, like money, the use of force, etc. The dictionary generally defines monopoly as “exclusive possession or control” of something. Is it ‘wrong’ to have exclusive use and control of your body? Of your time? Of your automobile? Most of us don't think it's wrong. Only pure communists would argue that, no, any monopoly on anything is wrong. They would contend that you should not have a monopoly on your body, your time, or the things you create. But if a more bountiful world is the goal, then communism has proven itself to be wrong.

Why does a sovereign individual disagree with the concept that monopoly is wrong? Because of what we know about human nature. All life struggles to survive, find comfort, and procreate, and these drives cause humans to act. We are willing to expend effort to work to create food, shelter, clothing, and luxuries. We work to acquire property because we are motivated by our individual self interest.

History has consistently demonstrated that individuals are happier and more prosperous when they control their property. To the extent control is taken from them by force, effort slows, discontent increases, and prosperity declines. If the desired goal is abundance, i.e., a higher standard of living for all, then it is ‘right’ that individuals have a monopoly on their bodies, as well as the things they’ve earned, created, or been gifted. In short, to achieve a higher standard of living, individuals should have a monopoly on their own property. now let's use examples to contrast different types of property.

Suppose you’ve built a house, and offer to rent the house under certain conditions, say for a fixed period of time, with the stipulation that the renter could continue to use it if they didn’t damage it, paid the rent on time, didn’t remodel it, etc.? In other words, if it is your property, should you be able to set any terms on the rental that you choose, and be able to refuse to rent it to anyone who wouldn’t agree to your terms? Or, should someone be able to come to you and agree to half your conditions, but refuse the rest, and if you didn’t agree, they could force you at gunpoint to rent it to them? Isn't this what happens under rent controls? And under those conditions, what happens to the supply of rentals?

Suppose you have great skills as a mechanic which you’ve developed over many years. You to offer to work for someone if they agree to certain conditions of pay, hours, etc. Would it be right or wrong for someone who needs your skills to refuse your conditions but force you at gunpoint to work for them anyway? Isn’t that the definition of slavery? How well has slavery worked over the centuries?

If ideas are property, then wouldn’t the same reasoning apply?

Suppose you have an idea for a breakthrough technology, you studied a problem for years, worked in your lab for endless nights, and conceive a great invention. It will bring great pleasure to everyone who uses it. It is in your mind, and you haven’t disclosed it. Would it be unjust for you set the terms under which you would disclose the invention? Would you be justified in telling someone who wanted it that you'll disclose it only if they agree not to disclose the plans to anyone else, and set the amount of time they can use it, and set the royalty they must pay? Should you be able to set contractual terms, or should someone be able to force you at gunpoint to disclose your idea under their terms? Wouldn’t that be slavery, as well? If the supply of anything is reduced when the producers are enslaved, what effect does slavery have on the supply of ideas?

I postulated that the question of whether something is right or wrong depends on whether it leads to the desired goal. Should you own and control your body, or is it the property of someone else…or the group…or the government? Remember, history has demonstrated that physical slavery doesn’t function as well as a free market. We produce more by being rewarded, than by being punished. Should you own your physical possessions, or should someone else…the group…or the government? History has demonstrated that common ownership doesn’t work. Why work hard if everyone owns what you produce? Should you own your thoughts and ideas, or should those be the property of someone else…the group…or the government? Ah, that's the question.

The principle of freedom is based on human nature. Individual effort is directly proportional to the reward individuals receive for their efforts. Thinking is the hardest work of all. It is intellectual creativity (the result of thinking) that is responsible for the inventions and ideas that make our lives comfortable and safe. The most important property of all is intellectual property, for it is the source of all other property. This leads to the conclusion that mankind's efforts should be directed to encouraging its growth.

TD asked, “In a free society, why shouldn’t A be able to copy what B has done?” A society in which I can take your property without your permission is not a free society.

And, he raised the important question, “why should we be paying IP royalties to Isaac Newton’s heirs?  And why should we be paying for IP to some editor of Mozart while Mozart (who wrote the actual music) rots in his pauper’s grave?”

When innovators are rewarded in proportion to the benefits humanity has received from their innovations, the riches that are generated will encourage more innovators to creativity. Profits spur competition. How much better to see our youth attracted by the dream of getting rich through innovation, rather than being awestruck by the power and wealth that they see in some other endeavor, say being a rock star, or the worst of all, becoming a politician.

If individuals are truly sovereign, that is if they have control of their property, they can do with it as they please. In truth, as their wealth increases, most will not leave it all to their children, for they won’t want to destroy their own children’s incentive to become productive. Wise individuals do not spoil their offspring. Unlike the plundering monarchs and dictators of past and current history who use their wealth to build pyramids and monuments, great innovators who have accumulated fortunes then endowed institutions, libraries, and left their fortunes in trust for the benefit of all. Most innovators truly want a better world. The recent endowments of Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett are cases in point.

For 10,000 years, mankind has lived in semi-bondage. Civilization has been dominated by sovereign states and governments. A world of true freedom, that is, a world in which individuals are sovereign over all of their property, and particularly over their intellectual property, will be a world far richer than we can conceive.  That is the reason ideas should be  protected.

The Clock is ticking

As you’ve probably heard, yesterday, in a ceremony hosted by the British theoretical physicist Steven Hawking, the directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, moved the minute hand of its famed “Doomsday Clock” forward by two minutes.

A group of scientists from the University of Chicago conceived the clock in 1948, three years after the U.S.introduced the world to nuclear weapons by using them on Japan. It was the scientists’ warning to the world about the destructive power of the atomic bombs they had created. Eugene Rabinowitch, one of the cofounders of the Bulletin, wrote, “The Bulletin’s Clock is not a gauge to register the ups and downs of the international power struggle; it is intended to reflect basic changes in the level of continuous danger in which mankind lives in the nuclear age, and will continue living, until society adjusts its basic attitudes and institutions.”

The clock hands are now positioned at five minutes to midnight. This is the closest it has come since the end of the Cold War. The statement released yesterday by the Board of Advisors of the Bulletin began:

We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices.

North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed U.S. emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth.

Although the world's stockpile of nuclear boms is lower than it was at its peak of 65,000 in 1986, there are still an estimated 27,000 in the world, 26,000 of which are in the hands of the United States and Russia, and another 1,000 or so are held by Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Nor are the weapons now in existence the limit of the problem. Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia have declared their intention to embark on nuclear power programs, and Nigeria, Poland, and Vietnam have expressed interest. Nuclear power plants, of course, generate fuel for bombs. Spent plutonium fuel from reactors is weapons-usable after reprocessing, and just 10 or 12 pounds of highly enriched uranium or slightly more than 2 pounds of plutonium is all that is needed to make a bomb.

As noted in the announcement by the Bulletin, each of the 27,000 warheads now in existence has 8 to 40 times the destructive force that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. In that relatively small explosion, 100,000 people were killed. Just fifty of today’s nuclear weapons could kill 200 million people. Man clearly has the power to destroy all life on the planet.

Society has Armaggedon in its power, but is it possible for it to “adjust its basic attitudes and institutions”? Possible, yes. Anything is possible that does not violate a law of nature. There is no law of nature yet discovered that says intelligent life in the universe must commit suicide.

Therefore, if mankind is in danger of destroying itself, there must be deeply-ingrained attitudes and institutions in society that are wrong. If not, society would not still be in danger of self-extinction more than half a century after the danger of nuclear weapons was so gruesomely demonstrated.

I believe the erroneous belief that has kept the Doomsday Clock set so close to midnight all these years is a belief that the state is an absolute necessity for the functioning of society, and that all individuals must submit to its authority. Yet, the state itself was the mechanism that both developed the weapons of mass destruction, and keeps the world in continous danger of Armageddon. The state.

Will the clock advance to midnight? Will mankind destroy itself? Very possibly. But if, by chance or by luck, it does not, it will be because enough individuals recognized the terminal danger of empowering governments with sovereignty. In a world in which sovereign individuals controlled their own lives and fortunes, there would be no nuclear weapons, and no need for a Doomsday Clock.

Natural law vs. man-made law

In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama, for leading a series of non-violent protests against racial discrimination that was written into the laws of most southern states.

Birmingham was probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States with an ugly record of brutality toward blacks. Yet segregation was the law, and King was breaking those laws.

While in the Birmingham city jail, he received a letter from eight Alabama ministers who, although they agreed with his goals, believed the law had to be obeyed.

In one of American history’s most memorable defenses of breaking unjust laws, King responded with his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail”. King asked, how can one advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer, he said, "is found in the fact that there are two kinds of laws: just laws . . . and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws," King said, "but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." He quoted Thomas Aquinas: "An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal or natural law."

This has a ring of passion, but what is “moral law,” or “eternal or natural law”?

These questions have plagued mankind throughout history. They were addressed by Emperor Nero who outlawed Christianity, President Lincoln who emancipated the slaves, and are now asked of our modern politicians who pass laws against a vast array of things on the basis of morality, from stem-cell research to same-sex marriage. Yet, the questions are never satisfied. Laws are passed on the basis of morality, but there is no agreement about what is “moral” and what is not.

We would ask Mr. King, “What is ‘natural law?’” He would say it is the law of God. But that is wide open to interpretation. A more useful approach would be to study and understand nature itself. As science delves deeper into the nature of life, and specifically our human nature, we find ourselves closing in on a more precise understanding of how a society’s laws can be consistent with natural law.

Here at the Sovereign Society, we believe that the freedom that Mr. King so eloquently fought for requires more than man-made laws assuring equal treatment of all. We believe that human nature, built into us all, requires each individual have control over his own life and property, and be free to dispose and trade it with whomever he pleases, as long as he doesn’t infringe on the right of anyone else to do the same.

Thus, we would support Mr. King’s vision of freedom from unequal treatment under the law, but not support any idea that individuals themselves should not have the right to use and dispose of their property, even though they might individually chose to discriminate. The absolute respect for the sovereignty of every individual is the basis of a truly free society.

Stealing ideas

A software program used to protect copyrighted material on both HD DVD and Blu-Ray movies has been circumvented. According to reports, a hacker using the name of “muslix64” released a tool called BackupHDDVD including its source code, and posted a video at Youtube showing other would-be hackers how a movie is decrypted and then played back from a hard disk drive.

It’s curious how little objection most people have to violations of copyrights. In fact, hackers like muslix64 are quick to brag to their peers about their prowess in breaking through the locks others put on their property. However, what this hacker has done is no different from inventing a better tool for stealing cars, and passing out free copies to would-be car thieves. I wonder how muslix64 would feel if his computer was hacked, the program he devised was stolen by another hacker, and that hacker claimed the idea was his own. No doubt muslix64 would feel outrage at the theft of his efforts. No doubt, he considers the idea to be his property.

Are ideas property? The core confusion in such issues is the lack of a precise definition of ‘property.’ The most useful, precise, and scientific definition I’ve come across is that created by the late Andrew Galambos. He defined property as “Man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives thereof.” He then went on to divide property into the sub-categories of primordial property (your body and mind), primary property (your ideas), and secondary property (the tangible things you create using your primordial and primary property). If we then agree that theft or stealing is the taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent, certainly muslix64 is facilitating and encouraging stealing.

That so many are oblivious to the principles of copyright is a sign of the lack of general understanding of the importance of the protection of property. This ignorance is understandable, given that people are culturally conditioned to believe in the sanctity of government, and in it’s current guise government operates on the premise that the need of the group justifies the theft of property from any and all individuals in the group. Politicians pass laws confiscating all forms of property without explaining why it’s all right for the state to take your property by force, while it’s not all right for individuals to do the same. Government steals your money (taxation), your ideas (it limits your exclusive right to your ideas by only limited copyrights and patents), and often enslaves your body (conscription, victimless-crime laws, etc.).

Just as the owners of the movies, music, and software are angered by the theft of their property, so every individual instinctively reacts with resentment and anger when his property is used or taken without his freely-given consent. On careful examination of history, it will be seen that all conflicts enveloping families, communities, and nations can be traced back to the real or perceived theft of property.

This brings us around to the heading for my blog, “Quest for Liberty,” and my appellation, “The Anarchist.” Galambos defined freedom as: “that condition that exists when all individuals have 100% control of their property,” while anarchy comes from the Greek, and means “no ruler,” or “no state.”

I call myself an anarchist in that I agree with H. L. Mencken who said: “I believe in only one thing and that thing is human liberty.” Members of The Sovereign Society share this belief. Theft in any form, whether by hackers or by governments, is wrong. I invite you to join The Sovereign Society, and share in the myriad of ideas that our members and our worldwide network of financial and privacy experts have developed to protect themselves, their privacy, and their financial assets. Click here to learn more.

Mr. Chavez Suffers from Acton's Disease

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez stirred up international equities markets yesterday when he announced plans to nationalize companies in the telecommunications and electricity industries. “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized,” Chávez said of Venezuela’s largest telecommunications company, CANTV, in which American corporations have huge stakes. CANTV shares plunged 14 percent in New York trading. Venezuela’s currency, the bolívar, fell as much as 20 percent in black market trading on Monday. The announcement was the latest in a series of steps Chávez has taken to move Venezuela toward what he calls a socialist revolution.

Mr. Chavez is following in Mr. Castro’s footsteps, aiming Venezuelaon a trajectory toward a communist dictatorship. Mr. Chavez has more to bargain with than Castro, whose primary asset was the Soviet Union’s desire to have a base 90 miles off US shores. Venezuela happens to have a critical natural resource needed by the world—oil. Mr. Chávez has already said that oil projects in the Orinoco River basin should become “state property.” It will be interesting to watch how the scenario plays out in Washington, since the United States remains the largest consumer of Venezuelan oil. Investors should stay tuned.

After centuries of experiments, and with the empirical evidence invariably demonstrating the disastrous decline in output for any society that chooses public ownership of property over private ownership, how can socialism and communism still be sold to voters in countries around the world? We watch countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, nationalize industries, and are baffled as to why the citizens allow it. But voters in democracies like Australia, Canada, and (yes) the US also slowly accept the nationalization of industries (health care?). How can masses of individuals be led down a road so clearly marked with “dead-end” signs?

There are two aspects of human nature involved.

First, human nature suggests that short-term self interest rules. Individuals learn through experience what works and what doesn’t, and the human lifespan doesn’t seem to be long enough (yet) to make the majority of individuals understand that they shouldn’t consume their seed corn. A mob will raid the bulging granary today, without understanding the capital and effort that led to the harvest that filled the granary.

Second, Mr. Chavez, like most humans, carries the gene for Acton’s disease. Power corrupts. Power blinds, power intoxicates, and eventually, power controls. From the lowly bureaucrat to the supreme dictator, anyone who achieves sovereignty over other individuals is sucked inward by power’s magnetic pull. Mr. Chavez is now intoxicated by power, and is amassing more by appealing to the short-term interest of the voters. In the long run, the Venezuelan granary will be empty, and the citizens impoverished.

Prosperity is the consequence of sovereign individuals operating in free markets. Mr. Chavez will give the world one more demonstration of this in the months ahead.

Fences or Freedom?

In my blog titled “Fences” (below) I expressed dismay over the plan to build 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border, arguing that individual freedom promotes peace and prosperity and all infringements on individual freedom, no matter how small, result in some degree of conflict and some reduction of prosperity.

A reader responded that “If our borders were completely open a billion or more hungry people would flood across. … You could forget about maintaining your property rights.”

When defending every individual’s right to make his or her own choices, I’m often told that I’ve overlooked the immediate consequences. For example, if all restrictions to foreign imports were suddenly removed, tens of thousands would lose their jobs because subsidized foreign products would flood our markets, or if government stopped printing money, interest rates would rise and cause a depression, or if open immigration were allowed, we would be deluged with freedom-seekers. Granted, in a world in which force has permeated our lives, it’s never hard to point out the instant (and seemingly destructive) effects of true freedom.

All the evidence of history, however, argues that social and economic organization based on voluntary contractual agreement is the only solution to the horrendous world conflict that has been generated by a world in which social and economic organization is based on political authority.

Each solution based on voluntary action rather than forced compliance has instantly observable consequences, while solutions based on political expediency, and which violate individual freedom, have delayed, unintended consequences. It’s easy to see that jobs are lost when lower cost foreign imports lure away customers. It’s harder to see the higher standard of living and savings gained by consumers. It easy to see the immediate benefits of printing-press money, but harder to understand that in the longer term the consequence must be price inflation, and deeper recession. The very short-term costs of moving from coercion to freedom are vastly offset by the long term benefits of a free society.

Yes additional millions would see America as the land of opportunity, and struggle to get here. However, immigrants want to work, and work creates goods and services, so the standard of living of the community rises and costs fall. Unsubsidized human beings, given the freedom to produce, always create more than they consume, leading ultimately to a full, expanding granary.

What is the promise of freedom? Think again about the message on the plaque at the base of The Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

All men yearn to breathe free, and the beacon torch held by Lady Liberty is the light of freedom. The golden door could be the entry way to a world of plenty, a world in which individuals rather than governments are sovereign.

The Only Rule that's Needed

On New Year’s day in Bucharest, Romania, the European Union flag was raised over official buildings in what President Traian Basescu described as a moment of a great freedom. In Bulgaria, too, the EU flag went up and there were lavish parties to celebrate the occasion, with the EU anthem “Ode to Joy” filling Sofia night skies.

A moment of “great freedom”?

It is far from that. The Romanians and also the Bulgarians, the newest members of the EU, are now subject to a mind-numbing 80,000 pages of EU regulations. Considering that the European Union was built on the idea of removing barriers to commerce that made travel and trade between the countries of Europe onerous and costly, it would appear that it’s “out of the frying pan and into the fire.” Not even the bureaucrats running the EU can possibly know or understand the ultimate ramifications of this vast ocean of laws that entangle the citizens of the member countries.

As is usually the case when laws are passed, the citizens of both countries are unsure of what their new status will mean. Some farmers think they won’t be able to sell their produce anymore as they can’t meet the conditions required by EU rules, and others figure they’ll get new subsidies, but will need to have connections in government, which will now be hundreds of miles away and conducted in another language. In Bucharest, Paul Neagu, 65, a tractor driver, was most concerned that he would not be able to slaughter his pigs in the "traditional Romanian way."

Freedom indeed!

By definition, regulations take away freedoms. Those of us who adhere to the principle that individuals should be sovereign over their own lives and property argue that the larger the number of rules and regulations imposed by force, the greater the level of conflict. Sovereign individuals consider that the only practical and just way to achieve a peaceful and prosperous world is through a system of voluntary exchange. In the long run, given the nature of man, peace, harmony, and prosperity can be achieved with only two rules:

Rule number one. Never aggress against the property of another.

Rule number two. Keep your agreements.

And since breaking an agreement is just a form of aggression against the property of another, rule number one is all that would be needed. Isn’t this strange, since almost every regulation imposed by governments aggresses against someone’s property, and thereby violates the one rule needed for a peaceful, prosperous world.

Terminating individual choice

New Year’s greetings from the People’s Republic of California. The past year was a busy year in Sacramento, what with the “Terminator” busy urging his cohorts in the legislature to protect individuals from themselves. This past year, California politicians passed 910 new regulations that have gone into effect as of today (January 1).

As the Copley News Service noted, among the flood of New Year’s resolutions made by the California government, the law now commands, “Eat your veggies. Go to the dentist. Don't smoke in parking garages. No cruising in a car trunk. Leave Fido at home on hot days – but don't tether him in the yard either. Oh, and don't bribe your local politician.” And those are a mere sample of the deluge.

Lawmakers hiked the minimum wage by 75 cents, bringing it to $7.50 an hour (an additional half-dollar will be added Jan. 1, 2008). This will mean a fatter paycheck for some workers. Unfortunately, they’ll give it back, as higher wages ultimately result in higher prices at grocery stores and restaurants. Face it, in this market microcosm, wages and prices are a zero-sum game. Putting more in the pockets of some workers means taking more out of the pockets of all workers.

We Californians shouldn't dispair. A handful of the 910 changes expand our individual freedoms. Consider how much better off we are now that charities can host casino nights at last, beer makers can offer courses that include free samples, and hair threaders, who use cotton thread and a twisting motion to remove unwanted facial hair by the root, can trim eyebrows (but only if such trimming is ‘incidental’ to removing facial hair). Thank you Governor!

As a friend once quipped, “this used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now it’s just the home of the brave.” And Californians are braver than most.