Richard Disney

Most reasonable people like a balance between security and freedom. I for one value my freedom and take responsibility for the security of myself and my family. I choose to live in a state that, at the present time at least, allows me to use the same tools for protection that criminals would use to rob or kill me.

Today the annual survey that rates the most dangerous and safest states published the results for 2006. Nevada was listed as number one again. I do not think that is necessarily a good thing. I also see that the states listed numbers 1, 2 and 3 (Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico) happen to be the fastest growing states in the nation right now. Things can’t be THAT bad if so many people are flocking to these supposedly crime ridden states.

People didn’t move to America from Europe because it was safer, but because there was more freedom. In American history, people didn’t move from the more civilized eastern states to the “wild west” frontier because it was safer.

In a strange way, I take the crime survey mentioned here as an informal indication that I am living in the right state. The most crime free place to live is an authoritarian police state. Police states have to build walls and fences to keep people from escaping. The United States which is described as an international pariah by many people internationally, and Senator John Kerry domestically, has to build walls on its borders to keep people from sneaking in.

The good news is that in the United States you are free to move to any state that you choose. The U.S. Census Bureau statistics show an overwhelming propensity for people to move from the safer states to the freer states in the nation. It looks like no matter how people vote in the ballot box, their feet vote for freedom over security.

Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. – Harry Emerson Fosdick

National columnist and pundit George Will posted an article bringing attention to once “land of the free” Western States are unfortunately becoming more regulated like their socialist sister states.

A great quote from George Will’s article:

In Nevada, such regulation has arrived. So in Las Vegas, where almost nothing is illegal, it is illegal — unless you are licensed, or employed by someone licensed — to move, in the role of an interior designer, any piece of furniture, such as an armoire, more than 69 inches tall. A Nevada bureaucrat says that “placement of furniture” is an aspect of “space planning” and therefore is regulated — restricted to a “registered interior designer.”

Placing furniture without a license? Heaven forfend. Such regulations come with government rationing of the right to practice a profession. Who benefits? Creating artificial scarcity of services raises the prices of those entitled to perform the services. The pressure for government-created scarcity is intensifying because the general public — rank amateurs — are using the Internet to purchase things and advice, bypassing designers.

The dynamics on what makes Nevada one of the fastest growing states in the nation (we have been overtaken by Arizona for the number one position) is lower taxes and less government regulation.

Liberty minded individuals vote with their feet as they move in droves away from states with high taxes and “nanny state” level regulation. Unfortunately, when they reach their new found less regulated home, those same people vote at the ballot box to increase the very regulations from which they escaped!

What could be more socialistic than a state government enacting regulatory legislation that favors one group in an industry over another? I have for a very long time, favorably referred to Nevada as “The Last Free State”. Since Nevada now regulates who can decorate a house or move furniture, what could possibly be next, the regulation of cough syrup? Don’t laugh, it’s coming.

Aren’t you glad the Nevada Legislature only meets every other year?

Upon recently re-reading a quotation uttered by Barry Goldwater, my thought was that his quote is not nearly famous enough. In fact I think it has been purposely expunged from the memory of legislators at the state and federal levels.

The quotation is this:

“I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Barry Goldwater

In recent weeks, I have had several email discussions with some Nevada State Legislators and repeatedly the legislators have attempted to justify their actions to increase taxes and spending as simply being “needed” or that their constituents “wanted” the increased spending. I would think that a legislator’s oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Nevada would be sufficient to override the inclination of legislators to curry favor by taking from each according to his abilities and giving to each according to his needs.

For too long, this Marxist justification (it was actually popularized by Karl Marx, check it out) has been used by legislators from both major political parties to curry favors from special interest groups and to buy votes from constituents.

Evidently a legislator’s oath of office is not enough. Perhaps it should be mandated that each legislator upon assuming office must recite the Barry Goldwater quote above just so that it is in the public record that they know the words.

The most disconcerting development is that an increasing number of Republicans have cast off the attempt to even appear as though they stand for limited government, restrained spending and lower taxes. Recently Assemblyman John Marvel seems to have made backsliding on promises not to increase taxes part of his platform. Senator Dennis Nolan smiles and smoothly explains that side-stepping the signature requirement to put a tax-hike on the ballot really IS good for the public. It is sad to say that both of the legislators above won their seats by claiming to be conservatives.

How could something so good as compassion be contributing to the decline of America you might ask? Dennis Prager has an excellent article that shows the obvious, using the example of a little league baseball game played by 13 year olds.

A few key quotes:

“[One] team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened — was the scoreboard perhaps broken? — and was told that the winning team’s coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated.”

“Truth was the first value compassion trashed. In the name of compassion, the adults in charge decided to lie. The score was not 0-0; it was 24-7.”

“Wisdom was the second value compassion obliterated. It is unwise to the point of imbecilic to believe that the losing boys were in any way helped by changing the score. On the contrary, they learned lessons that will hamper their ability to mature.”

“They learned that they do not have to deal with disappointment in life. Instead, someone in authority will take care of them. (This is how reliance on the state for personal problems — the worldview of the Left — is formed early in life.)”

Click here to read the rest.

Richard Disney is scheduled to appear on Nevada Newsmakers hosted by Sam Shad as part of the Pundit Panel this Wednesday, March 21st, 2007.

Tune in to see the discussion about the latest Nevada controversy!

What is more worriesome, candidates that refuse to sign the Tax Payer Protection Pledge or candidates who sign it and then when elected raise taxes anyway? That is for you to decide.

It is very disconcerting that Assemblyman John Marvel has sponsored a bill to raise taxes in Washoe County at the request of local elected officials despite signing the Tax Pledge.

Wasn’t Assemblyman John Marvel the Republican who switched his vote over to support the largest tax increase in Nevada history during the 2003 legislative session?

Why do a growing number of Republicans like Senator Dennis Nolan and Assemblyman John Marvel think that introducing and voting for legislation that raises taxes a winning strategy? Is it because they think that the voters have no other option? It appears that voters are losing the option to choose a candidate that will stand for the principals of limited government.

The picture says a thousand words, but it isn’t the Conservative Right that would make Ronald Reagan cry today, it is those in the Republican Party at the local, national and state levels that have moved to the left by embracing more regulations, higher taxes and bigger government.

Time Magazine will most likely use this cover story to discourage conservatives and try to convince them that the conservative movement promoted by Reagan is over. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that whenever candidates convince their constituents that they will support lower taxes, less government regulation and family values, those candidates win…whether Republican or Democrat. The problem is that too many candidates from both major political parties sell themselves as conservatives and then end up converting to socialist policies upon entering government. No candidate that overtly supports a socialist agenda gets elected in this country. Socialists have learned to call their movement “progressive” and use words that confuse voters into thinking they are conservative or “moderate’.

Voters have become angry and frustrated mainly by Republicans who win on stated base Republican values and then initiate bills that raise taxes and increase government regulation. People who vote for Democrats figure their taxes will be raised (if they pay taxes) and that they will be more regulated or they just aren’t listening to stated Democrat aims.

California and other large population states have changed their presidential primary dates to February 5th. The Nevada Democratic Party changed their primary date to January 19th which still gives them a great opportunity to have an impact on the choice of the national Democratic presidential candidate.

The Nevada Republican Party seems to have chosen to move their primary caucus date to February 7th. Since California and other states have formed what is essentially a “mega-Tuesday” on February 5th, what kind of impact or attention will Nevada Republicans have in picking a Republican presidential primary winner? The answer is, not much.

Why not change the Nevada Republican primary date to match the Nevada Democrats? The attention media coverage and yes, money that comes into Nevada will help both parties and all Nevadans.

The headline this morning was that in New York City, two Auxiliary Police Volunteers were shot and killed along with two others by a criminal with several handguns and lots of ammunition.

A quote from New York Mayor Bloomberg indicates either naivety or an intentional willingness to overlook reality. Mayor Bloomberg mentioned several different criminal attacks with guns and then said:

“While the specifics of the cases differ … the culprit, ultimately, is the same: a man with an illegal handgun,” the mayor said Wednesday night at a news conference in Greenwich Village, where he was joined by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a neighborhood resident.

Bloomberg has been a vocal advocate for wider tracking of illegal guns, and he has joined with mayors of dozens of U.S. cities to lobby Washington legislators on the issue. His administration has sued more than a dozen out-of-state gun dealers, arguing that they are responsible for many of the illegal weapons that end up in the city.”

Mayor Bloomberg is a registered Republican but has long been a strong advocate for gun control. In Bloomberg’s quote above there are several obvious logical flaws to his argument that gun control would curtail gun crimes. When Bloomberg says that the culprit is “a man with an illegal handgun”, what does that tell any logical person? If a criminal has an illegal handgun, it is evident that laws don’t stop handguns from being used in crimes and that criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws anyway.

Law enforcement agencies at all levels have no mandate or legal responsibility to protect individuals from harm or death. If they were responsible for individual wellbeing, every time there was an assault or murder, the local police department or sheriff’s office would be sued in a court of law. As a test, go and ask a local police chief or sheriff if they must protect individuals. Generally, law enforcement agencies have three primary mandates at the local level: 1. Deter crime 2. Investigate crimes after they occur 3. Quell riots.

Since law enforcement is not responsible for you or your family’s safety, who’s responsibility do you think it is? That’s right, yours. Shouldn’t every law abiding citizen be able to carry and use guns to protect themselves and their families if they so choose? Not according to proponents of the “nanny-state”.

My response to the message from Nevada State Senator Dennis Nolan in the previous post:

Senator Nolan,

When you apparently dismissed “cyberspace bloggers” from consideration, I think it appeared flippant and either naive or arrogant. Your statement was ill advised for one in elected office just as it would be to say that you don’t think any legislator is too worried about what media reporters are doing. That is the whole point in my discourse with you. I and other bloggers would appreciate an apology for the misunderstanding when you implied that cyberspace bloggers have no impact.

Never did I write that you directly said that bloggers are irrelevant or that they have no impact. What I have written and said is that you implied it with your statement,”I don’t think any legislator is too worried about what cyberspace bloggers are doing.” I didn’t take it as a personal affront or think that you meant it as such. I did take it as an affront to the whole blogging community of which I am a part. As much as I disagree with liberal bloggers and “the wackos” out there, I acknowledge as fact that they have real and growing impact on public opinion and especially political campaigns.

You concede that bloggers have an ever-increasing impact on grass roots campaigns which is true and we appreciate you saying that. Later in your message you ask, “Why should we, particularly the republicans, be “worried” about what you, “the conservative bloggers”, are doing? I will take that as a straightforward and not a flippant question. One reason is that if you, right now, type in “Senator Dennis Nolan” for a Google.com search, blog posts about your statement referencing cyberspace bloggers already outrank your campaign website. Most likely within the week, blogs with much higher readership than mine (not too difficult to do) referencing your cyberspace bloggers statement, will be the highest ranked search results and fill the first page of results for anyone who searches your name. That is not good news for any election campaign especially as more and more voters use the Internet to research candidates. There are other reasons as well.

That being said, I agree that elected officials and bloggers should get together to explore ways to cooperate instead of “cannibalizing” each other. You must understand that many conservatives (I would even venture to say, most) feel “sold down the river” when we work to get Republicans elected at the local, state and national level only to have those same Republicans assign their names to bills that directly or indirectly increase regulation, taxes, fees and government spending. The only reason we came upon your cyberspace bloggers statement was because we were tracking your participation in getting a tax raising initiative on the ballot. From our conservative point of view, many Republicans in office are “cannibalizing” the opportunity given to them by hardworking grass roots activists to perpetuate the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Many Republicans seem ready to increase spending and taxes without even considering the introduction of free market reforms that can be instituted to reduce government spending, especially for road building projects.

I am open to speaking or meeting with you; however, I am not able to schedule a trip to Carson City for the remainder of this week.

Sincerely,

Richard Disney