Blog

Given the libertarian position on alligator ownership expressed by myself in a variety of outlets, it will come as no surprise that me and many libertarians are against banning pit bulls. In a recent article on FEE and a follow up blog post, I counter the idea that pit bulls should be banned. Here are a few arguments against pit bull prohibition:

1. The risk of attack alone does not justify government policy.

2. Statistics along do not justify government policy.

3. Pit bull ownership is not a violation of private property; therefore, it is not unethical.

4. Banning pit bulls harms the welfare of pit bull owners.

5. Annual deaths as a result of pit bulls are negligible.

6. People will alternate into different breeds if pit bulls are banned.

7. If all "bully breeds" are banned, it is possible "designer dogs" will be created that are on the cusp of being illegal.

8. You do not know what people will alternate into.

9.  After a ban, pit bulls may be abandoned in the street, bringing them closer to unsuspecting people.

10. Pit bull owners might not turn in their pit bulls to the government, causing bite statistics to be suppressed.

11. Government pest control programs have a history of failure.

12. People will be marginally less cautious in areas that were once populated by pit bulls.

13. Banning pit bulls will deprive youth gangs of a means of asserting their "toughness," leading to gangs alternating into different methods of attaining criminal status, which might increase gang violence.

These are just some arguments against banning pit bulls. If you want to read more into any of these, check out my blog post which I hyperlinked above. 

What solutions do libertarian propose? For one, people have the right to kill or repel any dog or animal that encroaches on their property rights, and they have the right to extract compensation from the owner of these animals in the event of some trespass, whether it be an attack or simply crossing into one's property. Additionally, animal insurance premiums will encourage people to own less dangerous dogs. Animal insurance exists under the current system, but in a libertarian legal order, the owner of a dog may be liable for more bad behavior from dogs. Insurance premiums will increase further, and the potential legal liability of owning a dog will increase higher than it already is.

Furthermore, libertarians are for allowing people voluntarily establishing private communities that allow or prohibit dog ownership. In privatizing our pre-existing communities, government property once owned by local governments can now be owned and regulated by private parties. Pit bull haters are free to prohibit pit bulls from their share of what was once public property.

Why is this relevant? Breed bans are always a threat, especially in local governments. Municipalities may sneak in a breed ban when nobody is looking as well. A recent example of an Armstrong County municipality taking anti-pit bull action is Kiski Township's "alligator ban." The ban took a lot more into consideration than just alligators. For instance, it regulated the ownership of pit bulls and other allegedly dangerous breeds.

Having good arguments at your disposal as you defend liberty is essential. When it comes to policies such as these, being able to foresee potential unintended consequences should be the focus. The effects may be immeasurable or unstudied, but that should not stop anyone from sounding the alarm.

The Apollo area is being plagued by the prospects of police mergers; however, we should not yield control of our police services. Instead, we must privatize the police by eliminating police departments and creating an environment in which private security can thrive. 

We may "rely" on the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) after eliminating police departments, but there are many reasons to believe it would not be a complete reliance. Digitial security systems are on many houses of many different socio-economic standing, and Armstrong County is one of the most armed counties in the U.S.  These two facts alone will drastically limit the extent of crime, making the continued employment of police questionable. 

Ultimately, the government is not necessary for security, and policing is not the equivalent of security. Security can be provided without government, as it often is, and policing for the most part enforces arbitrary government rules rather than actually protecting people. 

For more, read my recent article on the Mises Wire.

Should People be Forced to Pay Government Fees?

Local governments are always trying to figure out schemes to increase what little stream of revenue they have or offset the fixed costs they face. One avenue taken is attempting to collect fees that are due to them. For example, North Apollo Borough currently or at some point had a variety of service fees. Among them, are fire service fees, garbage collection, and sewage connection. Not paying the fee could trigger a number of responses, from legal to financial, but should local governments even try to collect on these past-due fees? 

One justification that a North Apollo Borough councilman gave for collecting is, "I pay my fee, so should they." Essentially, those that do not pay are labeled as free loaders. In other words, they aren't paying their fair share. However, this logic is horribly mistaken. 

Is the following argument sensical: "If I do x or y, then others should do it too." Obviously not. At some point or another, one's mother or grandmother gave the timeless wisdom of "If all you friends jumped off a bridge, should you as well?" You should clearly not jump off a bridge just because others do it, and you should not have to pay government fees simply because others are paying it. 

The "it's not fair though" argument reeks of kindergarten-level thinking. Why exactly is it unfair? Because it frustrates your goals? That can hardly be considered a standard for something being "unfair." But what makes something unfair? For our purposes, "unfair" can be used interchangeably with "unjust."

If someone agreed to pay for a specific good or service, then they must pay the price. To not do so would be unjust. This is because it would violate a contractual agreement. It would be grounds to bring suit against the party that failed to pay the price. In this case, to not pay the fee is unjust or unfair. However, in the case of government services, there is no contractual agreement (despite what social contract theorists baselessly insist). Given that there is no contractual obligation to pay a government fee, there are no legitimate grounds for the government to bring a claim against those that fail to pay the price for government services. 

The government essentially forces someone to accept a service, then asks for payment in return. This is the kind of thing organized crime does. It is a shakedown, plain and simple. 

An absurd example of this is the trash collection fee. I proposed an ordinance that would have privatized trash collection, making trash services voluntary. This would have totally eliminated the problem of people not paying their garbage fee because the government garbage fee would not exist in the first place, and the fee they do pay will be necessary for them to receive the good or service. 

Ultimately, the justification local government officials use to cover themselves on this issue is hollow. It is kindergarten-level thinking manifesting itself in the minds of adults. Furthermore, this concept of "fair share" is just kindergarten, socialist nonsense that attempts to legitimize theft and violence. Unfortunately, for government officials, libertarians have the perfect antidote to this nonsense. We have an objective standard by which we judge actions: the non-aggression principle. Not paying government fees does not violate this principle; therefore, forcing them to pay would be entirely unjust. 

Against Alligator Prohibition

Amidst multiple sightings of alligators in the Kiski river, Kiski Township supervisors are drafting an ordinance to ban alligator ownership in the Township. This action should be seen for what it is, a senseless restriction on liberty motivated by unwarranted fear.

The  15-page proposal  doesn't only regulate gators; "new regulations pertaining to dogs, household and farm pets and animals and reptiles are addressed." This is being used as an opportunity to strengthen government control over other household pets.  Intrusions like this are completely unwarranted.

The above article cites the fear that residents have over alligators residing in the township. Township Secretary Bono stated, "They (residents) complaining mostly comment that they can’t believe people have alligators. And the one neighbor is fearful that alligators may get loose and end up in her yard. We’ve got to do something.” 

No, Bono. You don't have to do anything. In fact, you shouldn't.

Fear is no legitimate basis for regulating others. 

Some are scared that alligators affect their property values. While that is a completely unverifiable claim grounded in fear, nobody has a right to a high property value. Property values are merely the assessment of another of the true market price of one's property. There is no obligation for assessors to assess property values highly. These residents are essentially asking the township to restrict the peaceful ownership of alligators in the area in order to hopefully increase their property values. In other words, they want the government to harm some to benefit themselves. This is a clear example of corruption. 

For an area that is predominantly conservative, it is surprising that so many support wealth redistributions like this. 

Ultimately, the township must ask themselves, "What happens to the alligators residing as pets in the township if this ordinance is passed?" Will unknown gator owners dump them in the Kiski river in order to avoid being fined under this proposed law? Nobody knows the answer to this question. The township supervisors certainly don't.

Government "pest" control measures are nothing new. They have a long history of failure. Snake breeders in India released their snakes into the streets of Delhi after the government canceled its reward program for snake tails, dramatically increasing the cobra population, the opposite result the British government wanted (More can be read on pest control measures here). If banned in Kiski township, the alligator population of the Kiski river may increase from 1 or 2 to an unknown, higher number. 

Setting aside the issue of prohibitions, is there really an alligator problem in the Kiski river? As noted in my blog post from August, this is nothing new. Gators have been spotted in this region for years, some captured, others never seen again. Chomper, the gator reclaimed in August, was docile and 4-feet long. The current gator on the prowl, named Neo, is merely two feet long (hardly a threat to anyone). Neo is domesticated as well, which will probably make him as docile as Chomper. There have been no shortage of sightings as well; however, many of these can be dismissed as hysteria (When people know there are alligators afoot, every log, shadow, or whatever will be perceived as a gator).

The real concern here is the cold. They want to reclaim the gator before it perishes in the winter. To me, it sounds like the issue will solve itself. There is no need to get worked up over this incident. 

The gator will probably leave people alone and, if not reclaimed, die in the winter. No harm, no foul. After the winter, we probably won't see another report like this for another few years. Unfortunately, ever since people became aware of peaceful gator ownership in the township in 2021, there have been those who wanted to regulate it. 

That is the basic impulse in local government. Despite the pleas and rational against regulation, there is always the control freak who says, "We have to do something."

Hayward, an owner of gators in Kiski township, takes care of them. A regulation would explicitly harm him and his gators. For what? To punish irresponsible alligator owners for a one-time incident that won't lead to anyone being harmed? 

Yes, this regulation is senseless, irresponsible, and will only harm alligator owners and their gators to alleviate the fear of a few control freak residents. I implore the Kiski township supervisors to reject this ordinance outright. 

The Non-Aggression Principle

Where does libertarianism come from? It's an important question. We don't just come to these political positions by chance, right? No. We don't merely accept libertarianism because of experience or personal preference alone, but each one of the members of the Armstrong County Libertarian Party would support the non-aggression principle to a great extent for some reason or another. So, what is this non-aggression principle, and where does it come from?

The non-aggression principle, or the NAP, is a general rule for social engagement.  Adherence to the NAP involves the abstinence from the initiation of force against another’s justly acquired property (their person, their first-used resources, and/or anything they acquired through legitimate trade).  This is a general and absolute rule. It is not particular. Exceptions cannot be granted. But, depending on the belief system one comes from, they may find different conclusions.

Christians, like myself, may read the Bible and come away from it realizing that much of scripture advocates for a principle like the NAP. Libertarians like myself are called Christian libertarians. These libertarians are usually pro-life because of their conviction that abortion violates the 6th Commandment, "Thou Shall Not Murder," and the commandment from Jesus to "Love thy neighbor as thyself," among other passages. This is an example of how the NAP is applied in the Christian context. God created the universe, and there are certain principles that, if violated, would violate the NAP because it would violate God's property right to the universe. Abortion is said to be one of these violations.

On the other side, there are more atheist or secular libertarians that do not allow Christian scripture to interfere with the development of a libertarian ethical system. More secular libertarians employ arguments from a variety of perspectives to justify their belief in the NAP. One particular position, argumentation ethics, appeals to me the most. The idea is that non-aggression is necessary for argumentation (it is a precondition), and since arguments cannot contradict their preconditions and be true at the same time, any argument for violating the non-aggression principle is contradictory and, therefore, void. Therefore, the non-aggression principle cannot be argued against (There is more to it; for the purposes of this post, I shortened the argument to its bare bones to get the idea across. If you want to read more, look here).

Applying this to the abortion case: Evictionists, as they call themselves, believe that abortion is not murder (unjust killing) because abortion is really evicting the fetus from the body, the just property, of the mother. Here, there are no boundaries to the NAP in human affairs because in the secular, atheist worldview, there is nothing, like God, above humans. 

As I hope I have shown in these examples, neither the Christian nor atheist libertarian is making an exception to the NAP. Differences in their position on abortion are coming from their starting points. 

Neither of these libertarians would say that the NAP has exceptions. There are definitely tricky situations, but no matter how unsavory the conclusion is, the NAP must be maintained. 

For example, my favorite argument (which isn't an argument at all) against the NAP was given by Lauren Southern at a debate with Larken Rose at Anarchopulco 2018. She said, "Would you watch your son drown just because he was on private property?" Here she is trying to establish a scenario in which the NAP could be violated. I will say that I would save my son, but that does not mean I am not aggressing against someone and shouldn't be punished. If the NAP is upheld in this scenario, perhaps I would teach my son to be more cautious. There would be a different culture, but the culture would lead to less of the unfortunate scenario Southern outlined than there currently is. 

Strict adherence to the NAP affects behavior. In many cases, behavior is affected in a positive rather than negative way. People become more cautious and respect private property a lot more. 

This is the basic libertarian belief. All policy positions fall from it. Minimum wages? Taxes? Regulations? Prohibitions? All are violations of this basic belief. All libertarians more or less accept this basic premise.

I hope this serves as a good crash course on what we are all about.

A Radical Plan To Improve PA Schools

John Thomas is a Libertarian candidate for Region 2 of the Armstrong School Board.

In an ideal world, all educational spending would be private. However, after many years of government-funded education, eliminating government spending entirely would be a bridge too far for most Americans. Yet, more Americans than ever are dissatisfied with the government school system. Whether it’s those on the right upset about concepts associated with Critical Race Theory or gender ideology making their way into public schools, or those on the left upset that some schools are eliminating certain books from the curriculum, there is a general dissatisfaction with education. 

Following the COVID lockdowns, many families across Pennsylvania got a peak inside the classrooms as students began taking classes from home. What they saw disturbed them.

This presents a unique opportunity for educational reform in Pennsylvania. 

The Armstrong School District serves about 4,800 students and has a budget of over $100 Million. This amounts to over $20,800 per student per year. In other words, even if we freeze educational spending at current levels, a student entering Kindergarten this year can expect to have over $250,000 spent on his behalf by the school district.

My modest proposal is that we close all government schools. We cut the educational spending by 25%, to $15,600 per pupil per year, and send that money to parents, to be used toward education. This spending will be capped at this rate for the next 50 years. 

Any of the money that is not spent on education will go into a trust fund for the student, to be accessed when they turn 18. 

This will present many benefits, including: 

• The immediate 25% reduction in school spending would mean lower property taxes.

• Schools will be free from government regulation, to pursue strategies to make the most impact on students.

• Students who do not want to be in school can leave school early. This may result in them settling for lower-paying jobs, but they could also have a sizeable trust fund, which could enable them to live more comfortably on a lower income. (For example, they could use the money from their trust fund to become homeowners, eliminating rent from their monthly expenses.)

• Students who do not want to be in school will no longer cause a distraction for those who do want to be in school.

• Students remaining in school will know the value of school, which will encourage them to be more focused on learning.

• Some schools will teach curriculum including controversial topics, such as Critical Race Theory. Others will teach abstinence-only sex education. Others will focus exclusively on academic disciplines. Parents can choose the right fit for their child. 

• Because any money not spent on education will go toward a trust fund for the students, parents have an incentive to find the most cost-effective educational solutions. This will create price competition. 

• Because there is competition between schools, schools will have an incentive to provide the best quality product to students. 

Addressing Criticisms

Like any proposal of this kind, this proposal is likely to face criticism. I will attempt to address those criticisms below. In doing so, I will present a few words of caution. Modifications to this program could indeed make the revised system worse than the present system. 

1. A 25% cut in spending will result in lower-quality education. 

This need not be the case. As mentioned above, the most motivated students are going to be the ones remaining in school, so there will be fewer distractions. Also, with money going directly to parents, spending that goes towards expensive programs as part of grant funding or to meet burdensome regulations could be eliminated. More money could be spent directly on teachers and curriculum, with improved student learning, thanks to free market mechanisms which will eliminate waste. 

Imagine a good elementary school teacher who is currently making $70,000 per year in Pennsylvania, with a classroom of 25 students. If this new funding structure were passed, she could start her own school, open to just 10 students. She could charge the full educational allotment, of $15,600 per student per year, and take in over $150,000. Or, she could charge somewhat less, and allow the students to build up savings to be used toward college, starting up a business, or buying a home upon graduation. She could then follow those students throughout their elementary school career, building a level of trust and commitment with those students. Over the course of 5 years, in the present situation, the teacher would have had 125 students in her classroom. Under this situation, she would have had just 10. The commitment and dedication she could offer to those 10 students would far surpass anything she could offer to the 125. 

Now, to be sure, she would have to provide all the curriculum, materials, and equipment herself, out of the $150,000. But, I’m sure she could do that at a far more reasonable rate than how it is currently provided in the public school structure. (She could also begin to build up capital in her micro-school. Over the course of those five years, under the proposed system, she could take in $780,000, versus $350,000 in the current system, plus she would already have a wealth of educational resources curated by the time her second cohort of students began learning.)

2. Some parents would not spend the money on education, and it could be spent feeding harmful habits, such as drug addiction. 

While there is no way to prevent this entirely, we need not pretend to live in a world where this doesn’t already occur. The money that goes towards educational salaries in some, albeit few, cases goes into the pockets of drug dealers. We don’t use the rare case of a teacher getting paid by the school board to support a drug addiction as justification to eliminate teacher salaries altogether. Likewise, we shouldn’t use the potential for a few parents to use their children’s educational funds on addictive chemicals as a reason to maintain the status quo. 

What do we do, then, in the cases where the money is indeed wasted? 

I would propose that this would be handled through civil law. The money is the child’s and the parent is the custodian of the funds. It is the parent’s responsibility to use it in the best interest of the child. If the parent wastes it, then the child, upon turning 18, will be able to sue the parent in civil court. If it is shown that no reasonable person would consider their choice in how to utilize the money as advancing the child’s education, then the parent will be found to be at fault, and the parent would have wages or savings directed toward the child.

3. Wouldn’t this just lead to the government regulating private schools, the same way they regulate public schools now, and ultimately result in fewer choices, with all simply being cookie-cutters of government dictates? 

This is indeed a danger, and when this program is passed, all power must be left in the hands of the parents. There should be no government bureaucrats defining what is and is not educational spending. The parents know their children better than bureaucrats know them and are in the best position to determine what form of educational spending is right for their children. In the rare cases where the parents do not care about the educational well-being of their children, and waste the money, then it could be settled in a court of law as explained above.

4. The availability of grants and loans led to an increase in the costs of college education. Wouldn’t the same thing happen with K-12 education under this system? 

The key difference between college grants and this program is that financial aid for college is expected to be spent. Under this program, there would be an incentive to NOT spend the money – a trust fund for the child. This incentive to save, rather than spend, will keep downward pressure on prices, and make education more affordable.

5. Without the government setting standards for schools, wouldn’t we have dangerous conditions for schools, with some sweatshops masquerading as schools? 

This is unlikely to happen. The market has a way of regulating itself, and private credentialing firms will also likely step up to offer stamps of approval for larger educational institutions. In the world of Yelp, Google Reviews, etc., it is difficult to imagine a scenario where a patently unsafe school is able to attract students. 

This is more likely to create an Uber-ization of education. When Uber first arose, one of the criticisms was that drivers did not have to pass the level of background checks that were required of taxi drivers. Predictions were made of Uber drivers regularly assaulting passengers. However, those predictions never came to fruition. Assaulting a passenger would be the end of your career. Likewise, an educator who assaults a student, in the world absent government schools, would see his or her educational career end. (This would be a substantial improvement over our current situation, where large teachers’ unions protect teachers who have been accused of assault. I would predict that students are more likely to be assaulted by a teacher under our present arrangement than they would be under a fully privatized system.) 

6. Would this result in taxpayer money going to religious schools? 

We need to stop pretending like taxpayer money is not already going to religious institutions. Anyone who collects welfare, disability, or social security, and tithes on that income, is taking money from the state, and giving it to a religious institution. This money will be the family’s money, to be used how they think will best serve the educational interests of their child. If they think a secular education is best, they can choose that. If they think a Christian education is best, they can choose that. If they think a Muslim education is best, they can choose that. This proposal would do nothing to establish a church and would be well within the anti-establishment language of the constitution. 

7. Would this create more rent-seeking lobbyists, trying to get this number increased above the $15,600 limit? 

Yes, and that’s why it should be set in stone for the first 50 years. This is a position that should not budge. If politicians are allowed to adjust this, then it will indeed lead to rent-seeking and may lead to a situation that is just as bad as our current situation in regard to spending.

Conclusion

This proposal may seem a bit bold, but with student reading and math scores at a 30-year low, we need bold proposals. Doing more of the same is not going to serve our students well. We need solutions that will improve student learning as radically as the current system is harming it.

The PA House passed H.B. 1500, a bill which would raise the state minimum wage to $15/hour by 2026 with provisions for further increases to match inflation.  Armstrong County's State Senator and also Senate Majority leader, Joe Pittman, stated that the $15/hour figure was too high; however, there is potential for finding a "middle ground." In a series of letters to the editor (Leader Times, PennLive, and Indiana Gazette), I examined why the minimum wage should not be increased under any circumstance, but I think these points need to be reiterated here. 

The minimum wage will either be ineffective or effective. If ineffective, it will not cause any problems because it will be below the market wage of every labor market. Since there are many jobs that pay the current minimum of $7.25/hour, any minimum wage increase is guaranteed to be harmful. 

An effective minimum wage can show its nasty effects in a variety of ways. First of all, there is the common argument that minimum wages cause simple unemployment. In other words, people will lose their jobs. However, this happens often, but is not necessarily the case. Unemployment can take on other forms.

For instance, when labor is demanded by an employer, they aren't simply demanding "labor" in general. They are demanding specific quantities of labor. Employers are demanding hours of labor, so unemployment can take the form of decreased hours rather than decreased total jobs. 

Furthermore, wages are not the only means of compensation. Employees can be paid in a variety of non-monetary and monetary ways. For example, working conditions are a form of compensation, and improved working conditions are correlated with a lower wage. This is the phenomenon of compensating differentials; when working conditions are more dangerous, higher compensation is needed to obtain labor. Likewise, if conditions are improved, compensation decreases. When the minimum wage is instituted, employers who originally paid below the minimum wage may decrease working conditions to bring the market wage into alignment with the new minimum wage. 

Furthermore, employers may cut other forms of monetary compensation in order to hold total compensation equal. 

Progressives may advocate passing laws to require that other forms of compensation remain untouched or that working conditions remain the same, but doing so will only make the other pernicious effects of the minimum wage take hold. Regulating these other effects will cause unemployment. 

Additionally, the minimum wage will increase costs of production as well, leading to a higher price and a decrease in final consumer goods. 

Ultimately, employers, employees, and consumers are harmed. 

The beneficiaries are cronyist businesses who want to price their competitors out of the market and laborers who are lucky enough to get a job. Politicians benefit as well. They exploit the economic ignorance of the public for political gain. 

Don't be fooled. The minimum wage is undoubtedly bad. Anyone is welcome to challenge me on this point. Let's hope the legislature does not raise the minimum wage whatsoever. Unfortunately, budget negotiations are coming up. The Republicans may strike a deal with the Democrats, but whatever they get out of these budget negotiations is unlikely to be worth it. I don't have faith that the state Republicans have their priorities in the right place.  We can call our State Senators and Representatives, but in the end all we can do is cross our fingers and hope for the best. 

If the State Republicans pass an increase, we won't let the public forget it. 

Local governments should completely default on their debt. Why? Because government debt is illegitimate. You cannot take on debt in someone else's name against their will, and that is essentially what government debt is. It is debt in the taxpayer's name. Want to learn more? Check out my recent article on the topic from Mises Wire: https://mises.org/wire/should-local-municipalities-default-their-debts-seems-good-idea

Nothing is more common than street signage. Everywhere you look, you are reminded of the state's existence by speed limits, stop signs, yield signs, etc. But, what if there is another way? Is a signage-free world possible? Enter naked streets.

The idea was pioneered by Hans Mondermann. He called it shared space. Pedestrians and drivers would essentially share the road. There are no sidewalks, curbs, or signage. Nothing! You would expect carnage, right? Well, that isn't what happens at all. Due to a concept called risk compensation drivers and pedestrians exhibit more caution in their day-to-day lives when their are less safety measures in place. This can partially explain why pedestrian deaths increase after seatbelt laws and why concussions might be indirectly caused by football helmets. Remove signage, people might be confused, but they will be more cautious as a result. As a corollary, more signage might lead to more accidents. 

This is one reason why I strictly opposed adding new stop signs when I was a Councilman of North Apollo. There are already little to no accidents in North Apollo. Adding stop signs will either alter nothing or lead to more recklessness on the part of pedestrians and drivers. 

As Libertarians, we must oppose government imposed regulations. Traffic regulations are no exception, especially since they can be used to milk the taxpayer of money through traffic law violation fines. The concept of risk compensation gives us a rationale for opposing signage and traffic laws outside of ethical arguments. Of course, if a private actor wants to put signage on their private road, they should be allowed and they should have the right to enforce their rules, but the government shall not take the prerogative in doing so, especially when there may be drastic unintended consequences for doing so. 

What can elected libertarians do? Well, in Pennsylvania, new stop signs are approved by ordinance. It would take a couple of minutes to write an ordinance repealing all the ordinances that have approved stop signs in the past. The previous stop sign ordinances would either be available on the municipal website or should be given to you upon request. Furthermore, the libertarian should oppose all proposals to add new signage, markings on roads, construction of new sidewalks, etc. Anything that separates the pedestrian world from the driver world should be opposed. Anything that would make people less cautious shall be opposed. 

P.S. When I made similar arguments at a previous council meeting, a retort I got was, "Well, Ben, North Apollo is a small town," as if being a small town exempts us from the laws of economics. This retort is just a lame attempt at excusing the proponents of state intervention from using reason and evidence in their debates. If reason and evidence  have nothing to do with small town X, then the "leaders" of small town X can pretty much do whatever they want. That is the problem with the "But this is a small town" argument. It will be used in every debate whether it is road privatization or trash collection. Be prepared to engage with that. 

Here is a recent article of mine that was published on Mises.org. In the article I address the causes and cures of malinvestment in the shopping mall industry. This issue is close to the hearts of many western Pennsylvanians, especially those in Armstrong County. We have seen malls build up and die off. The Pittsburgh Mills Mall and Indiana Mall are among two in our general area that have suffered. Unsurprisingly, government had its hands in this mess from start to finish. Read more here:

https://mises.org/wire/empty-malls-and-shopping-centers-how-government-fuels-malinvestments

You can listen to the podcast version here: 

https://mises.org/library/empty-malls-and-shopping-centers-how-government-fuels-malinvestments

Moral of the story: Don't let your local government sway business decisions with tax incentives, the result is almost always dreadful.