Age-Verification Laws are a Verified Mistake
by Corbin K. Barthold, Law & Liberty, January 9, 2025.
Excerpt:
Now legislators, both state and federal, are going the other way. They’re introducing, supporting, and (only, so far, at the state level) enacting bills that impose age-verification requirements on social media platforms and adult websites. Current online age-verification techniques erode digital privacy: they create vectors for learning users’ identities and snooping on their browsing habits. Online age-verification laws increase the chances that, one day, we’ll have a Bork tapes-style scandal for real.
The point of online age verification is to protect children. But online age verification works only if everyone does it. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re an adult until you prove it (to the extent possible; all online age-verification systems can be gamed). To establish your age, you must tender some kind of personal data, thereby placing it at risk of exposure. Online age-verification laws thus burden the First Amendment rights of adults, by hampering their ability to post and view material on the Internet in anonymity. (They often burden the First Amendment rights of children, too, for example by excluding all minors from online spaces high schoolers are old enough to enter.) The courts have issued a string of preliminary injunctions blocking such laws from taking effect.
The Greatest Heist You’ve Never Heard Of
New York Times, January 7, 2014.
A tribute to some gutsy people, in particular a married couple with 3 children. If they had been caught, they might never have seen their children for more than an hour at a time until their children were teens or even adults.
In this video, you’ll learn about COINTELPRO.
A Failed State
by Liz Wolfe, Reason, January 9, 2025.
Excerpt:
Back in 2017 and 2018, when wildfires raged throughout the state, a lot of insurers drastically scaled back their coverage. Those wildfires had cost them $23 billion in total, about twice as much as the companies had collected in premiums over that same time period, and many of the companies decided some of these places were simply too costly to insure.
Premiums, after all, are not arbitrary; they reflect risk. Teams of actuaries spend a lot of time trying to understand what prices to offer homeowners in any given area. Unfortunately, in California, the insurance commissioner—an elected official, Ricardo Lara—must approve premium increases. Lara generally won’t approve high premium increases, which leads to the predictable outcome of insurers pulling out. Something Lara is also seeking to, uh, “fix” via government coercion.
“For the first time in history we are requiring insurance companies to expand where people need help the most,” he announced last month. “Major insurance companies must increase the writing of comprehensive policies in wildfire distressed areas equivalent to no less than 85% of their statewide market share,” he continued.
Yes, you understand this correctly: He thinks bullying private insurers into covering costly wildfire-prone areas (as opposed to allowing them to accurately price risk) will result in more coverage for homeowners. Look forward to, when it gets costly enough, State Farm and the like totally pulling out of the whole state. Lara, contra his own hubris, can’t force the financials to work. (Somehow, many progressives cannot comprehend this cycle of cause and effect.)
For more on price controls, see Hugh Rockoff, “Price Controls,” in David R. Henderson, ed., The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
Biden’s ‘security’ concern about TikTok and U.S. Steel is doubly specious
by George F. Will, Washington Post, January 8, 2025.
Excerpt:
Nippon has promised to pay $5 billion more than the company’s market capitalization. And to keep U.S. Steel’s headquarters in Pittsburgh. And to give $5,000 bonuses to the company’s steelworkers. And to abide by all union contracts. And to let the U.S. government reject any reductions in U.S. Steel’s production capacity. And to spend $2.7 billion modernizing what Biden delusionally calls “this vital American company,” which has withered by becoming dependent on U.S. government tariffs, subsidies and “Buy American” rules.
The Laken Riley Act is Unjust – and a Trojan Horse
by Ilya Somin, Reason, January 8, 2025.
Excerpt:
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Act (LRA), in a 264-159 vote. This legislation – named after a student killed by an undocumented immigrant – is often sold by proponents as a tool for combatting murderers and sex offenders. In reality, it focuses on detaining undocumented immigrants charged with theft-related crimes, including minor ones. It also includes a Trojan horse provision making it easier for states to challenge a variety of programs that make legal migration easier. These policies are unjust, and likely to impede genuine crime-fighting efforts more than they help them.
The main provision of the Laken Riley Act requires mandatory federal detention of any undocumented immigrant who “is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense.” Notice that the provision is triggered by a mere arrest or charge, and does not require any proof of guilt beyond that. Moreover, even the most minor forms of theft, burglary, or shoplifting qualify. If a migrant is arrested on suspicion of stealing a dime or a paperclip from a store, that’s enough to trigger mandatory detention. Ditto if he or she is charged with even the most minor theft-related offense.
Two comments:
First, it’s too bad that Ilya has fallen into the trap of referring to an illegal alien as “undocumented.” “Undocumented” is the current euphemism for “illegal.” Euphemisms that distort should be avoided. I wouldn’t be surprised if many illegal aliens had documents such as birth certificates. They simply don’t have the document required by law.
Second, I remember reading someone, a Congressman or a pundit, saying that it’s usually a bad idea to vote for a piece of legislation named after someone. This is a case in point.
We Could Use a Man Like Grover Cleveland Again
by Matthew Rozsa, Reason, January 10, 2025.
Excerpt:
Even if Trump utterly fails in these geopolitical gambits, the fact that he is trying in the first place shows his hand. In his second term, Trump plans on using his executive powers to expand America’s global empire. By contrast, Cleveland spent his second term trying to roll back America’s then-nascent imperialist ambitions—and did so without flinching when genuine strength in our foreign policy was needed.
The standout story from Cleveland’s presidency involves Hawaii. When he returned to office in 1893, Cleveland was greeted with a treaty that had been presented to the Senate for the annexation of Hawaii. Newspapers across the land waxed poetic about how the American flag would soon wave in the Hawaiian breeze, but few journalists questioned the official story about how this land had come into our possession. They were told the Hawaiian natives had willingly betrayed their own monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, by replacing her rule with that of white foreigners (mostly Americans).
Cleveland suspected there was more to it. He knew that sugar plantation owners and other wealthy business interests were suspicious of Liliuokalani, who wanted to reduce foreign influence in her country. Once those Americans learned she was planning concrete policies toward achieving this goal, American jurist Sanford Dole and U.S. Minister to Hawaii John Stevens led a conspiracy to dethrone her. By the time Cleveland took office, they had succeeded in doing so (with the unwitting aid of American locals who believed they had support from Washington) and were only awaiting the Senate’s ratification of an annexation treaty to consummate their plot.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Jan 12 2025 at 1:13pm
Does California have a state run insurance company also? We used to live in Florida and we have friends and family who have moved there so I have been off and on following their insurance issues. They have a state run insurance program so rates have risen, some companies have left but a lot more people haver also moved into the state run program, subsidized by taxpayers. The govt made some recent changes that they will hope will change that but that may take a while. (Of note, Florida law makes it very profitable for lawyers to file suits there. They claim that while Florida has 9% of the country’s insurance claims it has 79% of the lawsuits.)
For me the bottom line is that if people want to build or live in risky areas they are welcome to do so but they need to bear the costs and we should let markets determine the cost. If it means your insurance will cost a bunch then that’s just part of the risk. We shouldn’t force insurance companies to set low rates (they should leave) and we should subsidize it with a state run program.
Steve
David Henderson
Jan 12 2025 at 3:08pm
You asked:
Yes. You didn’t ask this but I believe it will be out of money very soon.
I agree strongly with your second paragraph.
Craig
Jan 12 2025 at 3:47pm
“They have a state run insurance program so rates have risen”
There is, its called ‘Citizens’ but that isn’t why they have risen. They’ve risen because its the backhand blow of inflation coupled with in-migration. When I moved to FL in 2018, as compared with NJ, it wasn’t just cheaper, it was WAY cheaper, for double the house. It was a WOW moment for sure. Pandemic has seen much in-migration to South FL so the homes have all shot up in value. Are people who own homes happy with that? Of course and indeed the property taxes for homesteaders have rate increase caps.
My home went from $X to $1.94X, now if I sold it to you for $1.94X today your new property tax would be based off of that number. The home insurance doesn’t really care and every renewal has seen the rates far exceed inflation for years now. So I went from $3600 to $9100 per year. New broker gets me onto Citizens which was 7500ish and a month later I get kicked off because two insurers were willing to pick me up for less (probably because I am 12′ over sea level) and I took the company for $6800 with a 50k hurricane deductible.
“We shouldn’t force insurance companies to set low rates”
Another issue on that is that in South FL one often has these Spanish style terracotta rooves which are quite costly. And so you have a person sitting in a 30 year fixed but that 30 year fixed required home owners insurance, but then the home owners insurance says, “We won’t insure any roof over X years old” and they make you buy a new roof they won’t let you prorate the roof. And they’re like 60k now, they used to be 25k-30k.
People right now are ‘scared’ because they look around and the sun is shining, its 73 degrees on January 12th, but if they sold their home and bought its clone good chance they wouldn’t be able to afford that home as between Palm Beach County and Martin, Broward or Dade Counties. So if they have to move their living standard will plummet.
As an aside they are also forcing me to now buy flood insurance the reason I didn’t want it is because I am 12′ over sea level because it can’t flood here because the water just ‘goes to ocean’
So the next renewal in June I am contemplating ‘going naked’ but I talk a good talk in January come June I’ll see the ocean temperature at 88 degrees and I likely won’t be quite as brave.
john hare
Jan 12 2025 at 7:45pm
I live in central Florida and am building a house. 620 square feet and building for cash. Designed it with reinforced concrete walls and roof designed for f5 tornado. Intend to shop for liability insurance only. If it’s too much we’ll self insure.
Ahmed Fares
Jan 13 2025 at 1:39am
This article claims that they’re forced to build in risky areas.
Los Angeles Zoning Laws Pushed People and Homes Toward Fire-Prone Areas
steve
Jan 13 2025 at 11:37am
Forced is a pretty strong word. People dont have to live in LA. They dont have to live in a large single family home. Also, not sure what point the article was trying tome about fire resistant building. AFAICT it was never required and it was ignored. If you look at the pre-fire pictures lots of those hoes had wooden decks and large gardens. Also, if you look at the pictures it’s clear many of those homes had essentially zero lot lines. A fire starting in someone’s backyard accompanied by 80 mph winds means they all burn down.
Steve
Craig
Jan 12 2025 at 3:16pm
“To establish your age, you must tender some kind of personal data, thereby placing it at risk of exposure.”
Well, to be precise there’s no ‘risk’ of exposure, you ARE exposing it. During the Revolutionary War Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense under the pseudonym ‘Son of Liberty’ because he obviously realized he might be subject to a quick hanging. Indeed there are many compelling reasons why one might want to engage in anonymous speech. Fast forward to the 1960s and the Supreme Court set aside Alabama’s law which would’ve compelled the NAACP to disclose the name of its AL donors. Perhaps risky to be on a list of NAACP supporters in Alabama in 1960? Of course in the current context the issue is internet content that seems directed at more prurient interests but I dare say many might not want to be on certain lists.
Steven
Jan 12 2025 at 4:13pm
In the same way that an undocumented immigrant may have documents, an illegal immigrant may act legally in many contexts. But that’s why we interpret phrases contextually. It is the immigrant status itself that has not been documented and has been made illegal.
Herb
Jan 12 2025 at 6:06pm
We have millions of people who have entered this country by breaking the law – they are the illegals. We have millions who are waiting to enter our country legally – they are barred because of the self interest of the Congress and Executive branches not wanting to change the immigration laws. This is no way to run a country.
Alan Goldhammer
Jan 13 2025 at 8:31am
George Will’s column regarding TikTok was just another example of his deteriorating mental skills (he’s 83 and his recent output has been as erratic as President Biden). The whole TikTok embroglio cannot be placed at Biden’s feet as it was a bipartisan act of Congress that forced the issue. If you want to cast blame, that’s where it should go.
TGGP
Jan 15 2025 at 11:22am
I couldn’t comment at the first link, but I think Robin Hanson’s proposal for private identity orgs to decentralize identity verification is relevant.
Comments are closed.