Uber Comes to South Carolina, Bringing Controversy

Uber is here in South Carolina, but state regulators aren't on board.

I'm a free-market guy, so I'm in favor of letting people engage in commerce without the state getting involved. I'm not 100% sure how the liability insurance works, but if it's a good product people will use it. If it's not, people won't use it. If you're not worried about Uber being "regulated" by the State of South Carolina, should you be free to use them? Is that a crime?

Also, how much of this controversy is simply disguised protectionism of the taxi industry?

I'm content to let the market sort it out. Anyone out there strongly for or against regulating Uber drivers?

Anheuser-Busch Lobbies Against the "Stone Bill"

Big business once again attempts to use the levers of government to stifle competition.

Anheuser-Busch has begun a heavy push against the so-called Stone Bill, writing a letter to state senators and urging them to strike down the amendment aimed at creating more jobs and expanding the state’s craft beer industry.

This is why I'm always saying that there's a big difference between being in favor of big business and being in favor of free markets. Big business invariably attempts to use government to stifle the free market.

Once again, this is why a smaller government (one that interferes less in the free market) is better than a government that tries to manage the free market.

Restaurant Owner In Clemson Doesn't Like Guns

Apparently, he doesn't like making money either.

As you may recall from my earlier breakdown of the new CWP law, bars and restaurants in SC who don't want patrons to carry concealed simply need to post a standard sign to prohibit CWP on their premises.

The legal sign you need to post looks like this:

That's the legal sign. In fact, it's the only sign that carries any legal force. Any deviation from this sign renders the sign ineffective. It's also pretty straightforward. Not a lot of editorializing.

However, the super-genius running this place in Clemson decided to post this sign:

Not a legal sign. Also, weapons-grade stupid.

Now, I have no problem with folks who want to prohibit carry in their establishments. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, it's all good. This guy is fine to do whatever he likes with his business, just as I'm free to go where I want - or not go.

The good news is this guy is going to get a very good real-world example of how the free market works. People on the left love to say that the free market needs to be regulated. Well I have a little secret for them - it is.

The free market is not regulated by a few people in some office in Washington, DC - it's regulated by everyone. My guess is that the free market in the upstate of South Carolina is going to deal with this restaurant, and this guy will either take this offensive sign down, or he'll go out of business.

On another note, where this guy goes terribly wrong is his intolerance about the whole CWP issue. I'm sure this guy is a stereotypical leftist who thinks that tolerance and diversity are great things -- except when your thoughts are not Approved Thoughts. There's no room in this guy's world for people who disagree with him on an issue. They're "losers" and "douche bags" not deserving of his tolerance.

This happens all the time with the left. Thoughts that aren't Approved Thoughts™ are de-legitimized and  mocked, but are never dealt with on the merits. For example, if you don't believe in man-made global warming, you're a "Denier" who doesn't believe in "Science". It goes on and on.

The left is all about tolerance and understanding until you step out of their Approved Thought Group and have an independent thought of your own.

But please, tell me more about how the conservatives are the ones who are so close-minded.

Jerry Seinfeld Dismisses "PC Nonsense"

Jerry Seinfeld has received criticism from the Diversity Agitator Crowd, because the guests on his new show aren't "diverse" enough. Of course, right? That Jerry Seinfeld is such a menace.

When he was asked about this criticism in a recent interview, I kind of figured that he would say something along the lines of Hey, there's lots of funny women/minorities out there, and I just haven't had a chance to have them on my show...or something like that. Something along those lines would be non-committal, and would be a kind of tacit acknowledgment that he supports diversity for it's own sake. Who could have a problem with that?

His actual response?

Well, let's just say he went another direction.

“People think it’s the census or something,” Seinfeld said of the assertion that all pop culture should accurately reflect society. “This has gotta represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares? Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested. I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that.”

This is what you can do when you're rich enough and accomplished enough. You can tell the politically correct, Diversity Agitator Crowd to all go pound sand. And that's exactly what he did.

Good for Seinfeld.

Columbia Bars, Restaurants Say "No" to Concealed Weapons

And that's fine.

If you give people choices, they'll make the best choice for their personal situation. In the larger picture, it all works out.

Freedom. Voluntary Association. It's a radical concept, bro.

Magpul's Final Act of Defiance

Happy Friday.

Back in March, when all the anti-gun hysteria was at a fever pitch, Colorado passed a law (PDF) banning the possession of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. The law does have a grandfather clause that allows anyone who has such magazines to keep them. However, no new magazines with more than a 15 round capacity will be allowed after July 1.

It also just so happens that one of the larger firearm accessories manufacturers in the country is based in Colorado. They're leaving. Way to create a business-friendly environment, Colorado.

Coming soon to a state other than Colorado.

Anyway, that's not my point. This new magazine ban is about to go into effect. Specifically, it goes into effect on July 1, 2013, so new magazines with more than a 15 round capacity are about to become unavailable to residents of Colorado. What is Magpul about to do (before they relocate to another state)?

Give a boatload of magazines away.

Magpul plans to give away 1,500 30-round ammunition magazines in Colorado on Saturday, just a couple days before the ban goes into effect. The magazines will be given away at a “Freedom Festival” on a first-come first-served basis. The event will be held at Infinity Park in Glendale, Colo., from 4-8 p.m., Magpul announced on its official Facebook page.

A number of gun control measures will go into effect July 1, including the magazine ban and expansive universal background checks. However, the law is not retroactive and allows gun owners to keep soon-to-be illegal high-capacity magazines if they were purchased legally before July 1. In other words, every gun owner who gets a free 30-round magazine from Magpul is covered.

I love it. Magpul is leaving, taking their jobs elsewhere, and on the way out, they're sticking a finger in the eye of all the Colorado ninnies who think banning magazines is going to accomplish anything productive.

I just have one question for the anti-gun folks in Colorado: Do you like apples?

Obama Cuts Through Red Tape

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, President Obama has repeatedly said that he wants his administration to cut through the “red tape” and inefficiency of government regulations and rules in an effort to more efficiently bring relief to the devastated Northeast.

“We are here for you,” Obama said in Brigantine, N.J. “We are not going to tolerate red tape. We are not going to tolerate bureaucracy.” 

Does anyone else find this kind of funny that Obama is repudiating government regulations? Let me see if I can figure this out.

We have a government, with rules and regulations in place. Ok, check. Now we have natural disasters, which occur from time to time. We don’t always know exactly when a natural disaster will occur, but we know that eventually, we will have one. Apparently, these rules and regulations don’t allow for efficient disaster relief, so the President has simply told his administration: Hey y'all, just ignore the rules. The normal course of government is too damn inefficient. Just deregulate as you go on an ad-hoc basis to get things done.

This strikes me as really funny when it comes from a President who is committed to enlarging the Federal Government and increasing regulation. If we’re just going to suspend the rules and regulations when it suits us (and apparently the President can just ignore these regulations when it suits him) why not just get rid of these inefficient rules entirely? It’s almost like the government is the problem, and getting it out of the way is the answer.

Unexpectedly!

Good news, environmentalists! The amount of CO2 being released into the air by the U.S. is at its lowest level in 20 years. I'm sure all the scientists are staying "I told you so" right now.

Many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Or not. These scientists seem like the folks at CIA, who didn't know the Berlin Wall was coming down until bricks started hitting them in the head.

As Glenn Reynolds would say: Unexpectedly!

Being Anti-Big Government Isn't Anti-Community

I didn't want to totally ignore the "You didn't build that..." line from Obama a few days ago. If you've been living in a cave for the last week or so, check the link.

The thing about that line (and the thought behind it) is that it totally discounts two important ideas.

1. It discounts the idea of risk in starting your own business venture and risk is pretty much the name of the game. If you're thinking about leaving a big company to go out on your own and start your own business, it's risky. If you're successful, you stand to make more money, and maybe you can employ a few folks down the line. However, if you fail (and most businesses fail) you lose everything. If you sign any loans personally, you're on the hook for that. If you put your house up for collateral for a business loan (hey, the banks don't just give money away anymore) you stand to lose your house. The bottom line is that it's risky to start your own business.

2. It discounts the fact that firefighters, road builders, police, and teachers are paid for by you, the individual. The government didn't just show up with magic money and provide all the road, fire service, and police protection for you free of charge. The individual people voted for their elected officials who levied taxes, and then paid for all that. It's already been paid for by the citizens who pay taxes - small business owners. So don't expect me to say "THANKS!" to a firefighter, teacher, road builder, or teacher for simply doing their job. I'm paying them for it.

Also, trying to shrink the behemoth federal government and all of it's problems is not the same thing as being against working together as a community. That's also what is insidious about this line. Obama is conflating the idea of working together as a community to do things, and owing your federal government some kind of extra credit for your business success. It's not the same thing. Katrina Trinko has an excellent column about this. Read the whole thing here, but this is the salient point, and it's my personal strain of thought. As usual, someone else puts my own line of thinking more eloquently than I can.

The conservative argument is for freedom, not for all-around individualism. In fact, there’s a case to be made that communities are stronger under smaller government, when voluntary associations and cooperation are especially crucial for getting projects done and ensuring that all in the community (such as the poor and sick) are taken care of.

Exactly bang on. Related thoughts from Ann Althouse.

If You Can't Take the Heat, Stay Out of the Kitchen

In the last year, Columbia restaurants have seen competition from food-trucks. To be specific, there are currently four (4) licensed food-trucks serving the Columbia area: Pawley's; Bone-In; 2-Fat-2-Fly; and Alfreso Mobilista.

You would think that four little ol' food trucks wouldn't really cause too much concern to the established "brick and mortar" restaurants since the Columbia metropolitan area is a pretty well-populated place. Not so fast my friend.

I have previously documented the City of Columbia's attempt to regulate the food trucks at the behest of the Columbia restaurants. Now, the Columbia Restaurant Association is lobbying the City of Columbia to push even tougher regulations on food trucks.

The association for Columbia’s brick-and-mortar restaurants is asking City Council to place more restrictions on mobile food trucks that are becoming increasingly popular around the city.

Food trucks should remain half a block from stationary restaurants — 200 feet to be exact — and about four blocks (1,500 feet) from a restaurant that serves the same kinds of meals as food truck vendors, the Columbia Restaurant Association recommended in a Nov. 2 email to council members.

Further, the association wants food trucks to meet fire safety standards and other permits that immobile restaurants must meet.

This is a microcosm of the crony-capitalism we see at the Federal level. Columbia restaurants are trying to use the power of government, under the guise of "regulation" to construct barriers and increase costs to competitors in the marketplace. Rather than simply compete with the food-trucks on a level playing field, the restaurants are trying to use their lobbying power to drive their competitors out of business.

Also, the City Council doesn't need to be wasting time on restaurants vs. food-trucks unless they have every other more important issue already squared away. On the list of priorities for the City Council, regulating food trucks should be about #5,482,389. We have much more serious problems than whether the Bone-In BBQ food truck sets up "too close" to Harper's.

The restaurants don't want the market entirely free - they want assistance from the local government to help them. You know what: Fend for yourselves, you babies. Don't come in and ask the local government run your competitors off and have my tax dollars pay for the enforcement, because that's what they want to happen.

It is time for a substantial part of the government (at every level) to start saying: "Hey, it's not my job to do this." The problem is human nature intervenes and politicians at every level love grabbing more and more power over every aspect of daily life. Whenever you ask them to, they're usually happy to oblige.

I love restaurants in buildings, but that's not the point here. It's not the job of the Columbia City Council to take on the job of where food trucks can and cannot be. Everyone comes to the government with their hands out looking for a favor. Whether it is for subsidies, regulations on competitors, or whatever, it needs to stop.

Fend for yourselves, Columbia restaurants.