Skimming through a Reader from a while back, I notice the following ad for “the nation’s first museum dedicated to freedom and the 1st Amendment”. Yes, it’s the Chicago-based Freedom Museum…
…with an ad that communicates outright ambiguity and equivocation regarding the sanctity of individual rights?
Yo…
“When should the needs of many infringe on the rights of one?” beckons the ad. It’s response: “there is no right answer”.
Come again? Am I not understanding the definition of “freedom”, the ideal the Freedom Museum purportedly stands for? You know, freedom: the state of being lacking external coercion or compulsion. Freedom: the ability to act according to one’s will. Freedom: the opposite of collective imposition.
According to utilitarianism and other common-good analysis, fine; you’re correct – there is no fundamentally correct answer to the question. It requires an arbitrary case-by-case decision-making process. But if freedom is the bedrock – if freedom is the underlying philosophy inspiring subsequent action, there is a right answer to the question posed by the ad. When should the needs of many infringe on the rights of one? NEVER.
When ‘the common good’ of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.
Earlier this month it was Flint, Michigan. Last week? Riviera Beach, Florida. Two days ago, the latest nanny-state trend – outlawing saggy pants – made its way to Lynwood, Illinois, a suburb about 30 miles south of Chicago.
If mere existence of the law weren’t enough, many of its detractors – too boneheaded to understand that it is a lifestyle, not a skin color, that the ban ultimately seeks to root out (which, of course, it never will) – want to make this into a race issue.
A story that, in the last few days, has spread like fire throughout an otherwise lackluster Chicago music scene…(If myspace is any indication, I received more than 15 bulletins in a span of 24 hours.)
The problem/regulatory motivation. From the Chicago Tribune:
Five years after the E2 nightclub disaster that left 21 people dead in a stampede, the city has drafted an ordinance designed to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again…
The actual solution (note that it only took 5 years…). From Save Chicago Culture:
The “Event Promoters” ordinance requires any event promoter to have a license from the city of Chicago and liability insurance of $300,000, but that’s just the start:
The definition of “event promoter” is so loosely defined it could apply to a band that books its own shows or a theater company that’s in town for a one-week run.
“Event Promoter” must be licensed and will pay $500 – $2000 [every two years] depending on expected audience size.
To get the license, applicant must be over 21, get fingerprinted, submit to a background check, and jump over several other hurdles.
This ordinance seems targeted towards smaller venues, since those with 500+ permanent seats are exempt.
Police must be notified at least 7 days in advance of event.
The solution that doesn’t solve anything…back to the Tribune:
But the city’s licensed venues are already subject to stringent city regulations. Disaster struck when those regulations weren’t properly enforced; the city mistakenly allowed E2 to stay open months after a court ordered it shut. The bureaucracy didn’t do its job. So why make the city’s most well-managed clubs pay for it?
Yes, why should responsible private venues and promoters have to pay for the city’s own regulatory incompetence? I mean, the city’s solution to ineffective bureaucracy is…more bureaucracy!? Good god, goodbye entrepreneurship…
The effect this garbage will have on the Chicago music scene. A quote from today’s Jim DeRogatis article:
“The ordinance will reduce the amount of music in Chicago, make events more expensive for consumers, dampen the large and growing economic engine that is Chicago music and create a much less supportive business climate for Chicago’s small music business community.” [Alligator Records founder and CMC board member Bruce] Iglauer said.
Call to ACTION. What you can do…for that, let’s go back to Save Chicago Culture:
We are collecting signatures to present to the council voicing our opposition to this ordinance. YOUR VOICE IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE CHICAGO’S CULTURAL SCENE CONTINUES TO THRIVE. Please leave a comment as your expression of disapproval. These will be presented to the City Council and to all Chicago Aldermen prior to Wednesday’s vote.
(SCC began collecting on the 9th and as of 1:36pm today, there have been 5,522 signature-comments. I invite you to add your own.)
More importantly, activists are asked to attend this week’s City Council meeting—where the ordinance will be ultimately voted on—in order to make their opposition heard.
When: this Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.
Where: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago IL 60602.
If you are unable to be there in-person, according to the Office of the City Clerk’s website, you can view a live broadcast of City Council proceedings here…which is what I’ll be doing. Definitely not as cool but oh well. Hmm, anyone know of a program that captures live video stream? I have a feeling this is something I want to record.
Lastly, if I didn’t explain the story well enough, check out the following video. It’s from a previous City Council meeting in which the ordinance was discussed:
UPDATE: Jumping on the live stream, I quickly realize that the “Event Promoters” ordinance is not on the City Council’s agenda…which appears to be a good thing! From the Tribune:
A proposed event-promoter ordinance that prominent members of the Chicago music community say goes too far was put on hold Tuesday, a day before it was to be voted upon by the City Council.
The decision to further fine-tune the measure before it’s presented to the council was made by Ald. Eugene Schulter after an extraordinary meeting between aldermen and club owners at City Hall...
In response to the outcry, Schulter called an 11th hour meeting Tuesday on the third floor of City Hall that included club owners, members of the Chicago Music Commission, city attorneys and aldermen. At the meeting, Schulter concluded, “there are still unanswered questions and issues that should be considered” and decided against putting the ordinance on the city council’s agenda Wednesday.
More discussions with the music community will now likely take place, which leaves the door open to the ordinance being revised.
…making it the 2nd time in recent history that Schulter has reversed suit due to public pressure. Awesome!
Showergate, for those of you unaware, is the latest scandal (I use that term somewhat loosely) to break out of Chicago, involving an alleged $5,400 taxpayer-funded shower in the office of $155,600-per-year City Budget Director Bennett Johnson III.
The very thought of such an affair, such a monstrous, reckless abuse of taxpayer money, has been condemned by every politician in Chicago…except Alderman Stone.
Got one of these in the mail the other day…more than a month after the alleged violation. Eh…make that the confirmed violation.
Yes, it’s a ticket. A red-light camera ticket. And unlike the curbside 5-o, this method of traffic enforcement is really covert, and thereby, really effective. But really effective at what? Reducing accidents? Or just documenting offenders like me and issuing them $90 citations?
Bingo to the latter.
Of course, at this realization, dollar signs start appearing in the eyes of revenue-strapped politicians everywhere. Mayor Daley, never an exception to this rule, instituted a red-light camera program that collected nearly $20-million in 2006 alone.
Now, I don’t necessarily disagree with the ruling, which revolves around owner responsibility. But, as I’ve made clear, I’m also not naive as to the political motivation for implementing red-light cameras in the first place. It’s all about revenue and hardly at all about public safety.
So, with that said, here’s a website that maps out the exact location of every red-light camera in Chicago, as well as those in every other major US city. Nice.
Chicago alderman got a cost-of-living pay increase January 1st. I’m not sure what that makes their salary now but, according to the Better Government Association, it was $100,971 in ‘07.
But, no joke, the raise is totally necessary! I mean, how else are they supposed to afford all the new taxes they sign into law? Like the bottled water tax.
It went into effect on the 1st, the same day as the alderman pay raise. Five cents on every bottle of water you purchase. Seriously, check out the first item on the receipt below.
Yep, right there. Naked and out in the open. Given Chicago politics, I suppose I should be thankful for such transparency…
However, the city may not be able to rely on the 7-day-old source of revenue much longer. As the Sun-Times reports:
The American Beverage Association, the International Bottled Water Association, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and the Illinois Food Retailers Association are suing the city of Chicago, alleging the tax is invalid and violates the Illinois Constitution, according to a suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court.
I’m rallying for the industry groups. Now how do we go about lowering the alderman’s salaries…
I can’t say I’ve ever been a part of a really meaningful protest. You know, one that actually makes a difference.
That all changed a couple weeks ago at the “Save Lincoln Square” rally. Its value was confirmed when, last week, affected business owners received word that Alderman Schulter was backing down considerably — three-fourths of the parcels in question came off the list. The “involuntary acquisition” list. Alright!
As Richard mentioned last week, it’s not a complete victory. But hey, I’m pumped! We’re pumped! Let’s recognize the power of grassroots activism. By calling out Alderman Schulter and the powers-that-be, by revealing the unjust government seizure for what it was, by causing a big ruckus and drawing the attention of local media and bloggers, a community overcame authoritarian compulsion and defended what the government had no right to offend — their property.
It’s empowering. And we’re not going to stop. We’re not going to back down. Because, let’s face it, that’s what they want us to do. To sit back and passively take it without question, without making a stir.
A similar situation plays out in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which — if you weren’t aware — celebrated its 50th anniversary in October. At the risk of losing your attention span, I’ve quoted it below:
“Mr. Rearden,” said the man, “the government needs your Metal. You have to sell it to us, because surely you realize that the government’s plans cannot be held up by the matter of your consent.”
“A sale,” said Rearden, slowly, “requires the seller’s consent.” He got up and walked to the window. “I’ll tell you what you can do.” He pointed to the siding where ingots of Rearden Metal were being loaded onto freight cars. “There’s Rearden Metal. Drive down there with your trucks — like any other looter, but without his risk, because I won’t shoot you, as you know I can’t — take as much of the Metal as you wish and go. Don’t try to send me payment — I won’t accept it. Don’t print out a check to me. It won’t be cashed. If you want that Metal, you have the guns to seize it. Go ahead.”
“Good God, Mr. Rearden, what would the public think!”
It was an instinctive, involuntary cry. The muscles of Rearden’s face moved briefly in a soundless laughter. Both of them had understood the implications of that cry. Rearden said evenly, in the grave, unrestrained tone of finality, “You need my help to make it look like a sale — like a safe, just, moral transaction. I will not help you.”
The man did not argue. He rose to leave. He said only, “You will regret the stand you’ve taken, Mr. Rearden.”
“I don’t think so,” said Rearden.
He knew that the incident was not ended. He knew also that the secrecy of Project X was not the main reason why these people feared to make the issue public. He knew that he felt an odd, joyous, light-hearted self-confidence. He knew that these were the right steps down the trail he had glimpsed.
The City of Chicago will continue its attempt to acquire the remaining properties on the “involuntary acquisition” list. And it will continue to try and use eminent domain in the future, on other properties in other neighborhoods. As it turns out, much sooner than later.
In the words of my hero Andrew WK, “Never let down”.
Repeal Day? A day celebrating the freedom to drink? Well, alright then!
Yesterday marked the 74th anniversary of the end of Prohibition. Yes, 74 years ago, the 21st Amendment was signed into law (effectively repealing the 18th) bringing joy and merry into the bloodstreams of early 20th-century boozers everywhere. Ah, the freedom to drink alcohol openly and honestly, without fear, without guilt, without repercussions from a paternalistic government.
So, how did I celebrate Repeal Day? One would expect with a few drinks, right? Well, not before first taking care of business. TCB!
That’s right. Last night, Richard and I and hundreds of other activists met up at Chicago Soccer (4839 N. Western Ave) for a community meeting-turned-rally to oppose the city’s use of eminent domain in the Lincoln Square neighborhood. Affected parties spoke, sharing how their lives were being destroyed. Community members reinforced their message, bursting forth with related facts and anecdotes. Christina Walsh, Castle Coalition Coordinator for the Institute for Justice, reminded us of the most costless, most effective way out the tragic situation: “apply pressure to the city”.
The crowd responded. Immediately. Passionately. And, most of all, spontaneously. Out of anger, out of concern, out of an overwhelming sense of injustice, 100 or so attendees marched the nine blocks to Alderman Gene Schulter’s office (4287 N. Lincoln Ave).
When they got there, they demanded answers.
Protesting. Chanting. Networking. Clapping. A passion and dedication impervious to the most bone-chilling weather of the season. Hell, I even saw some fist pumping! Crazy, I know!
Curious onlookers stopped and witnessed the phenomenon: a community making its voice heard, emboldened, strengthened, ready for the next fight and confident in its ability to win.
The message to the powers-that-be was loud and clear last night: Hey City of Chicago! Make like prohibition and repeal your plans for eminent domain. NOW!
