ndrosen

When I voted Thursday morning, I voted yes in Question 3, to amend the Virginia Constitution so that persons convicted of felonies will, upon release from incarceration, be automatically invested with the right to vote. I don’t know how much good or harm this will do (will ex-cons vote more irresponsibly than other people?); I voted as I did partly because of a man I met many years ago at a libertarian gathering here in Virginia, Keith Lynch, if I recall the name correctly. He was unable to vote, having been wrongfully convicted of stealing from his employer, when it was really his roommate who was the thief (according to him, anyway). Upon his release, he was again employed by the business which he had been falsely convicted of stealing from; if this is true, it surely casts doubt upon his guilt.

Another provision of the amendment is that the prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent will instead apply to persons who have been found [by a court] to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting. I have some questions and doubts about this. Suppose that an old man in a nursing home can understand the act of voting, at a minimal level, but says that when he casts his ballot, he will vote to re-elect President Eisenhower? Or suppose that he will fill out his mail-in ballot however the person who last spoke with him says that he should? How incompetent can one be, and still be said to understand the act of voting?

Oh, well, borderline cases have to be decided somehow, however exactly the law reads, and the “lack the capacity” clause does not obviously make things worse.

I received another phone call from “Naomi” yesterday, and then one a few minutes ago. I said that I wanted to speak with a human being, or just said “human being,” instead of saying yes or no to the question of whether I’m on Medicare, parts A and B. “Naomi” said that I could say “yes” or “no”, and it was a recording either way. I repeated, “Human being.”

“Naomi” gave up, and said something, I don’t recall exactly what, before ending the call. I don’t know whether this means that I won’t receive any more of these calls, but I can hope, and at least I’ve thrown a small monkey wrench into the automated pestering system.

I’ve been getting some probably bogus telephone calls lately. On Friday, someone with an Indian accent called me, claiming that he was from Comcast, and could lower my monthly bill. I told him, as I recall, that if really was from Comcast, cutting my bills would be fine. He needed my cellphone number, to which he would send a message. I told him that I only had a landline, so we could use that, or he could send an email. He gave up on me. You would think that if Comcast really wanted to reduce my bills, they could do it.

I also got a couple of calls from “Naomi,” talking about something related to Social Security, and saying that they had been trying to reach me since October 23. I asked whether she was human or a machine, didn’t get an answer, and hung up. Then “she” called again, with a spiel about a two hundred dollar monthly deposit to Social Security, or something like that, and asked me whether I was on Medicare, parts A and B. I answered that I was not (I’m not that old), and she ended the call. Later, I got a similar but not identical call, I think with a different name given, and I was again asked about Medicare. Saying no led the caller (probably a voicemail system) to quit on me again.

There were beets for sale at the farmers’ market last weekend, so I planned on buying some this weekend, and making borshch. I bought soy yogurt at Whole Foods, and potatoes at Giant Food, and then looked for beets at the farmers’ market today, but none of the vendors had them, although I was told that there would likely be beets next weekend.

The potatoes should last for over a week, and the soy yogurt should be okay in the refrigerator. Meanwhile, I’ll make other things for dinner this week.

J.D. Tuccille had a piece in Reason the other day about Florida’s grassroots revolt against property taxes, discussing a number of points, so that you don’t have to be a Georgist to be interested. Among other things, the article quotes Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation: ”It is axiomatic that whatever you tax, you get less of,” he adds. “Taxing income means less income-producing labor and investment, for instance. But because land is an immobile asset, taxing property does less to distort market decisions than taxing income or even sales.”

Right, and this point applies to land in particular. Buildings may be fairly immobile as well, but a high property tax on buildings is likely to make people build less, and over time, result in the supply of housing, and of factories, shops, office space, etc. be lower than it would otherwise be in a jurisdiction with high building taxes. Taxing land does not reduce the supply of land at all.

Tuccille’s article also addresses the point that having to pay property taxes makes people feel that they do not really own their homes, but are de facto renters, which is true. Henry George created an obstacle to the success of the single tax movement by stating, “We must make land common property.” He proceeded to explain that he did not propose to interfere with land titles, but to make the public the effective owner by taxing the rental value of land.

I believe that people should not have to pay property taxes on their houses, buildings, or other improvements; I also point out that while the property tax makes the government the effective partial owner of property, an income tax or sales tax makes the government the partial owner of human beings or their legitimate property. An income or payroll tax means that someone cannot keep what he earns by his own labor, and is therefore not the full owner of himself; he is to some degree enserfed. A sales tax means that someone cannot spend the money he has earned on his own needs and wants without making a payment to the government. The property tax, even on buildings, is not a worse infringement on people’s rights than these other taxes.

And now to stop posting, and start working.

I have my disagreements with Amy Acton’s political agenda, but I responded to the appalling ad shown by Vivek Ramasmarmy’s campaign by making an online donation, split between Ms. Acton’s gubernatorial campaign in Ohio and a Democratic candidate in my own state of Virginia.

I have received another amendment, and now have five cases on my Amended docket. I posted last week that I had five cases on my Amended docket, and I haven’t done any Office Actions on amendments, so I may have been confused, or else something weird happened.

I’m still working on a jumbo Office Action on my oldest Regular New application, which I really want to finish by midnight Saturday. I’ll make it somehow.

Wednesday evening, I stopped at Barnes & Noble to pick up two copies of Stephanie Slade’s new book, Fusionism, which I look forward to reading. Today, I gave blood at a bloodmobile parked outside the Patent and Trademark Office, with the aid of a phlebotomist named Stefani, so I mentioned Stephanie Slade and her book. As Stefani hadn’t heard of Stephanie, I said that she was a writer and public intellectual. The phlebotomist didn’t seem all that interested.

Ilya Somin, a law professor and libertarian, isn’t exactly an anti-Fusionist (Fusionism, in this context, means being in favor of both liberty and virtue), but he does have some comments about the current political situation and the limits of Fusionism.

There’s an article in Reason about the great British exodus, meaning that substantial numbers of striving young adults in Great Britain are immigrating for a variety of reasons. One major reason mentioned is high housing costs, and another is high income taxes. There are other issues as well, such as dissatisfaction with National Health; granted that we have our problems on this side of the pond, Americans who want the government to take over all medical care should read about one British woman’s experience with socialized health care.

But then, there are housing costs and income taxes. There may be multiple reasons for unaffordable housing, but one is that the rates (real estate taxes) are rather low, and fall largely on buildings, not land, so owning a house and lot in London, its suburbs, or some other area where there job opportunities and the prospect of a pleasant lifestyle, is a good deal for those who already own, but a nearly unattainable goal for a young couple who aren’t rich. They will also have to pay high rents for a quite modest apartment, and the high income tax stands in the way of their attempts to save enough money for a home.

Cutting the income tax while imposing a land value tax to deflate the sky-high prices prevailing for land would not solve all problems, but it could make homes more affordable for young Britons who are now seeking opportunities in Dubai, Serbia, or the United States.

Earlier this week, I finished an Office Action on an aging amendment; two new amendments have appeared on my Amended docket, so the total is now five.

I have also been working on my oldest Regular New application, but I haven’t finished it by any means.