Supreme Legislature Writes Tax Law

In South Dakota v. Wayfair, the Supreme Court - in its infinite wisdom - decided that ecommerce had reached such a level that it was unfair for brick and mortar stores to pay sales taxes while internet companies did not.  Though I agree that it is unfair, that is a legislative matter.  The court doesn't get to change policy because the economy has changed.  This new ruling is going to create far more trouble than it solves.  If anything, it might nix a lot of ecommerce as companies refuse to do business with a vast number of localities with differing tax structures.

It is one thing for Texas to require Texas-based companies to collect sales taxes for all sales within the state, but now Texas can require Alaska-based companies to collect Texas sales taxes for internet purchases and forward it to Austin.  Alaskans will be conscripted as tax collectors for a state where they are not represented.  Hmm, taxation without representation?

 

The way to do this would be to have citizens required to report out of state purchases and pay the tax.  Of course, there is no way the citizens would approve such a law.  It is easier for state governments to strong-arm thousands of businesses than millions of citizens, especially since many of those citizens have a negative view of business.

 

Such consequential changes in tax law should not be made by a 5 - 4 majority of lawyers.  The appropriate answer should have been to refer South Dakota to Congress to change the laws.

Net Neutrality is what we had until today

"The government that governs least, governs best."  Thomas Jefferson

 

Freedom is where there is unrestrained choice.  Law exists to restrain some of those choices, such as murder and theft.  Law provides a framework for a civil society but it also limits freedom.  As such, one desires just enough law to maintain a civil society but not so much as to create a totalitarian regime.  Lack of law leads to anarchy (e.g. Libya or Somalia) where excess of law leads to oppressive dictatorships (e.g. North Korea, Cuba).

The internet and the technology sector, which has existed mostly outside the bounds of government regulation, has been the most dynamic part of the economy.  Coincidence?  No.  One does not put a pallet of bricks in the trunk of the car and then expect that to improve the acceleration.  The same is true with government regulation.  Regulations have both costs and benefits.  The question should be asked if the benefits outweigh the costs.  Government does not ask that question because the answer would lead to less regulation and therefore less government power.  It is a rare person who voluntarily surrenders power.  The regulations and the inevitably lawsuits they will trigger will send the internet into a decade of stagnation.  There is no point investing when there is so much doubt about the future.  Prices will rise and service will get worse.

 

On another point, has the government really demonstrated such good custodianship of late that it should be trusted to stick its fingers into another sector of the economy?  How did that Stimulus fare?  At the end of it, the president admitted that there had been no shovel-ready jobs after all.  Nearly a trillion dollars of stimulus that was supposed to restore our ailing infrastructure and still the administration claims we have a crumbling infrastructure.  Huh?  Or how about the Affordable Care Act?  That is great, right?  Keep your doctor, he said.  Well, maybe not.  Save $2500 per family, he said.  Well, not so much.  Costs went up instead.  Maybe it has done better with foreign policy?  No, it's one embarrassing mess after another.  Yes, this is the government I want to entrust with policing the internet.

 

I am sure the regulations will be balanced, not weighing more heavily on those with views opposite the regulators (3 Democrats to 2 Republicans).  You know, like the IRS jumped on MoveOn.Org just as much as various Tea Party groups.  Oh, they didn't jump on MoveOn.Org?  The regulators have used a 1930s law to regulate the internet.  Maybe they should wait for Congress to pass a law?  Really, shouldn't this be a decision by the elected representative of the people rather than a majority of 5 non-elective bureaucrats?

Internet Kill Switch

The White House has finally responded to criticism over US President Barack Obama’s hushed signing last week of an Executive Order that allows the government to command privately-owned communication systems and acknowledges its implications.

http://rt.com/usa/news/white-house-systems-order-142/

Let's do a thought experiment: In what situation would the government need to take over all communications - including the internet and wireless cell phones - in the country.  What sort of emergency would justify such an action by the central government?  What if a nuke destroyed a city?  Would it be in the national security interest of the US to cut off all communication among the citizens?  No.  How about if there was an invasion?  A Jihadi army suddenly landed on the beach and started laying waste?  No, still no good reason to take over communications.  What if hackers figured out a way to make every computer display "America sucks" in flashing letters?  No, because that isn't even possible.  And what about the cell phones?  When would the government need to assume control of AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint?  I can think of no good reason for the government to cut off our communication but I can think of some bad reasons.

Totalitarian governments - like Iran or China - seek every means possible to control communication and access to information among their populace.  If people don't know what the government is doing then it is hard for them to stop it.  An informed populace is a prerequisite of a representative republic but an uninformed populace is a blessing to a dictatorship.  If our government had good reasons, why was there a "hushed signing" of the order?

Regardless of your party affiliation, the idea of the central government having the ability to sieze control of communications should be concerning.  One should always be distrustful of government, regardless of which party is in office.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington