The university’s announced policy was that masks were recommended, but it was up to individuals to make that decision. That is in keeping with Governor Ron DeSantis’s executive order that bans mask mandates. My decision was not to wear one. I’m vaccinated, healthy, and willing to take that risk. I’m aware of the argument that I may increase the risk to others, who in this case are all college students. I am a senior citizen, so presumably more at risk than my students.

Yesterday I received an email signed by four high FSU officials, including outgoing President John Thrasher. Among other things, it says in bold type, We expect everyone to wear a face-covering or mask at all times when inside any FSU facility, even if you are vaccinated. My question is: should I wear a mask?

One interesting thing about the email is its authoritarian tone. It also expects other actions, including the expectation that everyone gets vaccinated. It’s not exactly a mandate, because that would directly violate the governor’s executive order, but it’s interesting that the message would be written in such an authoritarian tone when that message itself is anti-authoritarian by resisting the governor’s policy of letting individuals decide for themselves.

Some will be tempted to say I should follow the science, typically followed by a statement that the science says to wear a mask. But this is not a question for science, it is a public policy question. Science can provide information about the consequences of various actions but is insufficient to determine public policy.

For example, science can tell us that driving faster is more likely to result in accidents, serious injury, and death, but science cannot determine what is the optimal speed limit. Similarly, optimal policy to respond to COVID is not a question for science, even though science can provide information about the consequences of various policies.

The policy of the state of Florida is that whether to wear a mask is my personal choice. I work at a state university that is actively opposing the policy of those above them in the hierarchy of state government.

Should I yield to these anti-authoritarian authoritarians and wear a mask?

The post To Mask, Or Not? Should I Yield to Authoritarians Who Resist Authority? appeared first on The Beacon.

Los Angeles is reimposing its mask mandate, some New York legislators are proposing to follow Los Angeles by reimposing mask mandates, North Carolina is extending its COVID mandates, and talk of continuing or reimposing mandates is taking place nationwide. Meanwhile, in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, who has downplayed the increase in COVID cases, has been accused of killing people with his anti-mandate policies.

Mandate supporters must recognize that the mandates themselves have caused much of the harm, economic and otherwise, for the past year and a half. The economic aspects are obvious. Governments have forced businesses to close, prevented “unessential” workers from keeping their jobs, and disrupted the supply chains of businesses that were allowed to remain open. Meanwhile, people out of work have had more mental health problems, drug issues, and suicides.

The essence of the issue is not whether the benefits of mandates outweigh the costs. It is whether people should be free to decide for themselves how to respond to COVID rather than have government mandate what they must do.

One thing we must recognize is that COVID is never going to disappear completely. Like the flu or the common cold, the virus is likely to remain. What policies should remain to deal with it?

At this point, everyone in the United States (except young children) have access to a vaccine, so people can choose to get vaccinated and be highly protected. Sure, it’s still possible for vaccinated people to get the disease, but much less likely, and with much milder consequences. That’s why even though the number of new cases is spiking, the number of deaths is not. Many of the most vulnerable have chosen to get vaccinated.

People who think it is prudent to shelter at home, to avoid large crowds, or to wear masks, are free to do so without government mandates. Meanwhile, the spike in cases is almost entirely among the unvaccinated, who have made their own choices. In one way they are doing everyone else a favor when they get the virus and help build herd immunity.

The spike in new cases is among those who have chosen to remain vulnerable. Everyone should not face mandates because some have made these choices. Meanwhile, those who are vaccinated face a very small risk. It’s not zero risk, but in pre-COVID times, people interacted with others and risked getting the flu, the common cold, and other communicable diseases. COVID risks are analogous, for the vaccinated.

Recognizing the COVID will never completely disappear, and that those who want to can get vaccinated to protect themselves from it, it is time to set aside “temporary” emergency policies.

A year and a half of restrictions on individual liberty is too long, has given the government too much power, and has set a bad precedent that is likely to have negative effects on our liberties down the road. Florida is one state that has taken the path of freedom over mandates. That’s one reason I’m happy to be a Floridian.

The post It’s Time to End the COVID Mandates appeared first on The Beacon.

The US population is about 330 million, so if $1.9 trillion was just divided up evenly and given to every American, each person could receive $5,758. A family of four would get $23,030. Given a choice, would most Americans prefer that everyone receive that much cash, or have the bill as it passed, where some get $1,400?

The bill doesn’t give that $1,400 to everyone. What if the $1.9 trillion were just divided up and given to the bottom 50% by income? A family of four would then get $46,060. What would do the most good, the current relief bill, or giving half of American families $46,060? And if the money were just divided among the bottom 25%, the most needy, each family of four would get $92,121. That could be truly life-changing for those people.

The national debt now stands at about $28 trillion, so this one piece of legislation alone adds about 6.8% to the already bloated national debt, and interest has to be paid on that debt. Twenty year government bonds currently pay a bit more than 2% interest, so the annual interest on that increment of government debt will be more than $38 billion. But interest rates are low today, and it is easy to picture, by historical standards, interest rates two or three times higher than that, which could push the annual interest cost of the bill beyond $100 billion.

So far, that interest cost hasn’t hit the federal government hard, because the Federal Reserve has been buying up those bonds and converting them into money. The monetary base, which is composed mostly of federal debt, has increased by $1.8 trillion over the past year, an increase of 52%.

Eventually, that monetary increase will turn into inflation, and one thing that comes with inflation is rising interest rates, which will impose those higher interest costs on the Treasury. Currently, interest payments are about 5.3% of federal spending. If interest rates triple, which they easily could, we’d be looking at interest taking up more than 16% of the federal budget.

That 5.3% figure doesn’t include payments on the recent COVID relief bill, so it’s not unreasonable to think that five years down the road interest payments might make up 20% or more of the federal budget. That’s money that could be spent on other things (including tax cuts).

The fiscal irresponsibility of our Congress and president has us rushing toward the fiscal cliff, bringing with it inflation, rising interest rates, increased government debt, and an increasing share of the federal budget going to interest payments rather than government programs. But, some will say, people are suffering because so many governments shut down their economies in response to the pandemic.

One answer to that defense of fiscal irresponsibility is that if the government really wanted to help those who need it the most, that amount of money is enough to give every family of four in the bottom 25% of the income distribution more than $92,000. Which do you think would help those in need more?

The post Rushing Toward the Fiscal Cliff appeared first on The Beacon.

The linked article notes that about 25 percent of Black workers and 19.1 percent of Hispanic workers earn less than $15 an hour, compared to 13.1 percent of white workers, so the law would disproportionately throw minority workers out of work. The article says this would “help” minority workers, but it is difficult to see how making their employment illegal would help them. Could anyone believe that if the minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, no low-wage workers would lose their jobs?

It’s actually worse than that for low-productivity workers, because one way people can increase their productivity and earn a higher income is by learning on the job. If people are priced out of the labor market and can’t get their first job, they won’t be able to increase their productivity through on-the-job training. In a society that increasingly is cognizant of enacting public policies to help minorities, it is shocking that some are proposing a policy that would make it illegal for many minorities to hold jobs.

Some people think that corporations make lots of money and so can afford to pay their workers more, but corporations are not charities, and this thought misunderstands what motivates employers to hire people. Regardless of how profitable a company is, it will not hire people who cost the company more than they bring back in income.

Do we really want to make it illegal for low-productivity people to work? Do we really want to enact a policy that disproportionately disadvantages minorities? Many states have already done so, and there appears to be increasing support at the federal level to limit the right to work for some of our most-disadvantaged citizens.

The post Should It Be Illegal for Low Productivity People to Work? appeared first on The Beacon.

At the state level, DeSantis is not restricting economic activity nor mandating personal behavior, noting that the prevalence of coronavirus infections varies from one local area to another. Local governments can impose their own restrictions, but even here, DeSantis has limited what local governments can do.

Local governments are not allowed to prohibit anyone from working or operating a business, are not allowed to require restaurants to operate below 50 percent capacity, and must demonstrate a public health reason to mandate operating below 100 percent capacity. Florida businesses cannot be required to cease operating.

Local governments can require that people wear masks, but they are prohibited from collecting penalties or fines for non-compliance. These policies date back to a September 25 order, and Governor DeSantis reiterated his stance last week that Florida will stick with those policies, even as many states are reimposing mandates in response to the virus.

In Florida, schools are open, restaurants are open, bars are open, gyms are open, hair salons are open, churches are open–everything is open. People who think it is too risky to go to those places don’t have to go, but Floridians have the freedom to make those decisions themselves rather than have the nanny state make their decisions for them.

Governor DeSantis recognizes that mandates and lockdowns violate individual rights. Freedom only exists when people are free to make choices that others view as poor choices. Governor DeSantis has demonstrated his commitment to preserve individual rights, as should anyone who holds a position in a government dedicated to the preservation of liberty.

I see clear value in wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding indoor locations with many people. But just because something is a good idea does not mean it should be legally required. In a free country, people should be able to choose the level of risk they want to bear, especially when the alternative deprives them of their economic right to earn a living.

There is a trade-off involved in protecting individual rights and imposing mandates to slow the spread of the virus. Science can inform individuals as to what appears to be prudent behavior, but the appropriate government policy cannot be determined by science, as I noted in a previous post. Take the example of speed limits for motor vehicles. Science can tell us that higher speed limits will result in more fatalities, but it cannot weigh the value of more rapid transportation against the risk of accidental death.

The same is true with regard to government policies in response to the virus. There are clear short-term economic costs to the mandates that have been imposed, but there are also long-term costs in that precedents have been set that governments can suspend individuals’ rights to earn a living if officials view it as in the public interest.

In a nation that, at its founding, declared life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be unalienable rights, Governor DeSantis should be applauded for his support of liberty over government mandates. He is supporting the principles upon which our nation was founded.

The post Florida’s Governor DeSantis Chooses Liberty Over Mandates appeared first on The Beacon.

If the wealthy want to pay more to help fight COVID-19, they can choose to do so themselves. They don’t need government to force them.

Many wealthy individuals already have pledged to devote more than half their wealth to charitable activities, without government force. What this petition actually asks is that government tax other people, who don’t share the values of the petitioners.

It’s their money to allocate as they want. If they want to allocate it to others, that’s their choice, although as I document in my book Writing Off Ideas: Taxation, Foundations, and Philanthropy in America, sometimes the results are not as desirable as the intentions.

In my book, I note that Henry Ford was notoriously uncharitable during his lifetime, saying that the best thing he could do with his money was to reinvest it in the Ford Motor Company to give people good jobs and affordable automobiles. Was he wrong? Regardless, it was his money and his choice to make.

There are two other troubling aspects to this petition. One is the presumption that the best way to fight the virus pandemic is to give the government more money. On the contrary, governments may not be the best organizations to fight diseases. Moreover, COVID-19, while raging right now, is a temporary problem and there are already aggressive initiatives underway to quickly develop a vaccine. It is unlikely at this point that sending more money to government will hasten the end to the pandemic.

A second issue—the most disingenuous part—is that the petition calls for a permanent increase in taxes to address a temporary problem. The petitioners are using the current pandemic as a cover to further their pro-government agenda.

Their real motive has nothing to do with addressing the pandemic, and everything to do with raising taxes to make government a bigger part of your life. If they succeed, the costs will fall not only on rich taxpayers but on everyone, because our liberty will be a bit more compromised.

The post The Rich Say: Tax Us More to Fight COVID-19 appeared first on The Beacon.

The logic behind that prohibition was straightforward. In anticipation of hospitals becoming overburdened with COVID-19 patients, states prohibited hospitals from performing non-essential procedures to free up beds for those with COVID-19. As it turns out, fewer people were hospitalized with COVID-19 than forecast, so many hospitals now have empty beds and are losing revenues. Rural hospitals appear hardest hit, and in the midst of a pandemic they are laying off staff because of falling revenues, as they operate well below capacity. Many may end up closing for financial reasons. It is very clear, in this case, that government restrictions went too far, to the extent that they have damaged the health care system they intended to preserve to fight the pandemic.

This is easy to see in hindsight, so I’m not saying the fears of those who promoted the prohibition on non-essential procedures were unfounded. But the policies themselves already have proven counterproductive, so states are looking to once again allow non-essential procedures–procedures like colonoscopies, mammograms, and elective surgeries. It also is now apparent that one problem with these government mandates . . . is that they are government mandates.

Because non-essential procedures are prohibited by the government, an underutilized hospital just can’t say they have the capacity and are going to start doing them again. They need the government’s permission, and governments are slow to act, and tend to be cautious. If they are too restrictive, that’s just keeping people safe, preventing dire consequences that might occur without the restrictions. If they are less restrictive and problems arise, government decision-makers take the blame. So, they err on the side of caution. Besides, people in government like to tell people what they can and cannot do.

That works for those who impose the mandates. Governors, legislators, and bureaucrats keep their jobs regardless of the economic effects on others. Meanwhile, those whose lives are being severely impacted, not by the virus but by the economic policies governments have enacted in response, suffer from those policies that, in hindsight, have been too restrictive.

Let’s look at this specific case of banning non-essential medical procedures to see what alternative policy would have worked better.

Rather than government banning non-essential procedures, it could have made the recommendation that hospitals curtail them, and left it up to the hospitals to make that decision. If that were the policy, hospitals with the capacity to do so could resume elective procedures without waiting for government permission. In hindsight, it would have been better to let the hospitals decide for themselves, informed by government recommendations.

Now let’s apply this reasoning to government restrictions more generally. Rather than shutting down restaurants, barber shops, and dentist offices, make strong recommendations but leave it up to individual businesses to decide whether to shut down, and leave it up to individual customers to decide whether to go. The government could strongly recommend against eating in restaurant dining rooms, or against visiting a dentist, but let individuals decide for themselves. Lots of people would follow the recommendations, but others could take their chances if they were so inclined.

I’m confident that restaurants, movie theaters, and dentist offices would not be overcrowded with this policy. The warnings, and the news, has scared many people to the extent that they are afraid to venture into crowds, or into situations where they are in close proximity to strangers. But for those who are ready to do so, or want to return to their jobs just to put food on the table, we claim that this is a free country.

Yes, that could allow the virus to spread more rapidly, but that is not necessarily bad. The idea behind the restrictions was to “flatten the curve” so that the health care system would not be overwhelmed, but flattening the curve means it will take longer to develop herd immunity so the “crisis” will last longer. Flattening the curve does not mean fewer people in total will catch the virus; it just spreads those cases out over more time.

The response of the media may influence policy too. In the states that have had the least restrictive policies, their governors have been criticized for being insufficiently totalitarian.

In this one instance–the prohibition on non-essential hospital procedures–it is already apparent that a better policy would have been for governments to recommend against them but leave the final decision up to hospitals. Extending this lesson to other government restrictions, a better policy might be for government to make recommendations, but allow individuals to make their own decisions.

We can see the economic damage and the loss of liberty that has resulted from government’s severe restrictions on individual freedom during the pandemic. But those who make the rules will tend to err on the side of caution, and those who have power will always be inclined to use it. We can already see the poor results in the prohibition on non-essential hospital procedures.

The post Government Restrictions Have Gone Too Far appeared first on The Beacon.

If we need to take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is no surer way to do it than to build nuclear power plants. According to the EPA, electricity generation and transportation account for 57 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming that most transportation emissions are from motor vehicles, then generating all electricity from nuclear power (and other zero-emissions technologies like solar and wind) and replacing petroleum-fueled vehicles with electric vehicles could eliminate more than half of greenhouse gas emissions. Residential and commercial is another 12 percent, which could shift almost entirely to electricity, and industry accounts for another 22 percent, which also could be largely electrified.

By using existing technology to substitute nuclear power for fossil fuels in the generation of electricity, by substituting electricity for petroleum to fuel motor vehicles, and by shifting commercial and residential heating to electricity, emissions of greenhouse gasses could be reduced by 80 percent or more.

If climate change is a catastrophe on the horizon, and immediate action is needed, why are climate change alarmists not solidly backing nuclear power—a remedy that is available today?

I’m not siding with (or against) the climate change alarmists here. Maybe they are right. Maybe not. But they think they are right, and if they hold these strong convictions, their lack of active support for nuclear power is completely baffling. They perceive a problem. A proven and readily available remedy already exists, but they are not clamoring to implement it. They are not advocating the one change we could implement now to avoid what they see as the biggest planetary emergency to have ever faced humankind.

Admittedly, nuclear power has its own drawbacks, but they are small and manageable compared to the alternative of global catastrophe. France generates about 75 percent of its electricity through nuclear, and many countries generate 30 to 50 percent of their electricity through nuclear power, so the substitution of nuclear power for fossil fuels for electricity generation, and to power motor vehicles and heat homes and commercial spaces, is obviously feasible because it is being done now.

Meanwhile, Germany and Switzerland have started phasing out their nuclear power plants and will completely eliminate them. I’m not objecting to their decision, but the climate change alarmists should be. Those who view greenhouse gasses as a serious threat to human civilization should be outraged at nations that are eliminating zero-emissions sources of power.

Some economists advocate carbon taxes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While carbon taxes would undoubtedly have an effect—look at the difference in the size of the average automobile in Europe, where taxes push the price of gasoline to more than double the US price, and in the United States—they won’t eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Small cars still emit greenhouse gasses. A political problem with carbon taxes is that people resist being taxed, so carbon taxes will be a tough sell.

If governments around the world encouraged nuclear power, and perhaps even subsidized it, energy prices would fall, which people would like much more than rising energy prices, adding to the attractiveness of nuclear power. Electric cars are already cheaper to operate than petroleum-powered cars. What if governments offered reduced cost, or even free, charging stations for electric cars? I’m not suggesting governments should do this. I’m wondering why climate change alarmists aren’t advocating it.

Some climate change alarmists might not advocate nuclear power out of ignorance: They don’t realize the potential of nuclear energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some alarmists might be hypocrites: They don’t really believe their own arguments. Some alarmists are more anti-capitalist and support climate change hysteria because the remedies proposed would move in the direction of undermining capitalism.

Surely some climate change alarmists are both sincere and knowledgeable. So, why is there no visible support within that group for nuclear power?

The post Why Don’t Climate Change Alarmists Promote Nuclear Power? appeared first on The Beacon.