close

Education is the number one thing we need to improve in Mississippi.
That’s why MCPP just launched “Move Up, Mississippi”, a campaign aimed at changing our education system for the better.

Mississippi education is only going to improve if we accept the truth about how things really are:

Rather than getting better, the rate of chronic absenteeism in Mississippi schools has got worse.  
 
In 2022-23, over 100,000 students regularly skipped school, up from 70,000 in 2016-17.

So, what’s the solution?
 
What we need is school choice.  Mississippi is now surrounded by states that have school choice.  It is transforming education for the better.  Let’s not get left behind…..

School Choice would mean every family gets to decide where their share of the state education budget is spent.  It would mean that the values being taught in your child’s classroom would have to align with the values of Mississippi families.

To find out what school choice would mean for you and your family, visit moveupms.com

Arkansas, Louisiana and Alabama have done more to improve education in 12 months than Mississippi has achieved in 12 years.  Sign up and join our movement if you believe it is time to change that!

Waiting for my suitcase in the arrivals hall at Jackson airport the other evening, it occurred to me that the luggage carrousel was a pretty good metaphor for Mississippi politics. Like suitcases on a carrousel, many leaders simply sit on the conveyor belt of state politics, waiting their turn to get moved along to the next role.

Too often leaders are carried along by time and process, rarely offering any vision as to what our state should do differently. 
 
This explains why Mississippi conservatives have achieved less in 12 years than Arkansas, Louisiana and Alabama have accomplished in the past 12 months.  Louisiana did not even have a Republican governor this time last year, yet they’ve already passed universal school choice.

Things could be about to change if House Speaker, Jason White, has his way. 
 
This week, White announced that he will be hosting a Tax Policy Summit on September 24th to take a deep dive into the prospects for Tax Reform. 

My friend, Grover Norquist, will be speaking, as will Gov Reeves, as well leading conservative figures from the state legislature.

Having a conversation in public matters because in the past the leadership in our state Senate has done what it can to head off tax cuts.  Bringing the facts of what can and cannot be done into the open makes it far harder for anyone to keep finding new excuses to oppose actual conservative policy. 

Sunshine is the best disinfectant against the putrid politics of backroom deals.  We have seen far too many backroom maneuvers used to kill off good conservative policy in this state. 
 
Back in 2022, Mississippi passed a law to cut the state income tax to a flat 4 percent.  This $525 million tax cut, driven forward by Speaker Philip Gunn and Gov Reeves, benefited 1.2 million taxpayers and their families.  But we must not forget how some in the Senate fought against it – not in the open, of course. 

Weak Senate leadership has a history of opposing conservative proposals in our state.  Seldom do they have the courage to come out and explicitly kill off conservative measures.  Instead, they do it on the sly. 
 
The Senate leadership maneuvered to stop anti-DEI legislation in 2024.  I don’t recall anyone coming out and explaining why they opposed anti-DEI law.  They just killed it in committee with a nudge and wink. 

For three years in a row, the Senate leadership has killed off attempts to restore the ballot initiative.  Again, those against resorting the ballot lack the courage to say they are against it.  They killed that, too, on the sly. 

Rep Rob Roberson’s excellent school funding reform bill, perhaps the only big strategic achievement of this year’s session, passed despite attempts to scupper it by some in the Senate.  (Part of the backroom deal to get the bill passed was to change its name.  It really was that petty.)
 
When the Senate leadership wants to oppose an authentically conservative policy, they follow a now familiar pattern. 

A reason is cited as to why what is being proposed can’t be done.  School choice, we were once told, would be unconstitutional.  An anti-DEI law, it was implied, was unnecessary because there was no DEI on campus.

Once that excuse is shown to be nonsense (there is no constitutional bar to school choice, DEI is rampant on campus), another excuse is promptly conjured up.  And on it goes.

Each time the Senate leadership opposes conservative policy this way, I wonder what their alternatives are.  The answer is that most of the time there are none.  It is pretty low grade to oppose ideas simply because they are not your own. 
 
Eventually, of course, a suitcase that sits on the carousel for too long ends up in lost luggage.

As a direct consequence of the 2022 Reeves-Gunn tax cuts, Mississippi is now starting to see a flood of inward investment into the state.  

Every time you hear about a new factory opening up in our state, remember who and what helped make it happen. I am very optimistic that this Tax Summit could see further progress to make our state more competitive. 

Elections are underway for the Mississippi Supreme Court.  Five candidates are competing for a seat in the Central District, some of whom I heard speak at the Neshoba County Fair recently.  There’s a similar election taking place in south Mississippi. It’s easy to take it for granted that ordinary people are able to elect judges in our state.

Judges have to decide complex legal questions dispassionately.  This sometimes encourages commentators to ask if we should allow ordinary voters to elect judges in the first place.
 
“Do voters know enough to elect Mississippi judges?” ran one headline last week.  Given all the complexities and the fact that most voters have only a limited understanding of the law, surely it should be left to experts to decide who is best qualified to sit on the Mississippi Supreme Court?

If you want to know why ordinary people in Mississippi ought to retain the power to elect their judges, look across the Atlantic.  On a brief visit to my native Britain, I was appalled at what’s been going on.
 
There have been widespread riots in towns and cities across England over the past couple of weeks following the murder of three young girls in Southport at a Taylor Swift dance class. 

The UK authorities are now alarmed that a sizeable number of Brits are extremely agitated about mass (often illegal) immigration.  Tens of thousands of illegal migrants have been allowed to flood into the country on small dinghies from France.  1 in 27 people now living in Britain arrived in the past two years.  4 in 10 foreign-born people in Britain have arrived in the past decade.

More ominously, perhaps, millions of Brits seem to have lost confidence in what many see as a “two tier” criminal justice system.  There’s a widespread sense that the police and the judiciary in Britain routinely apply different standards to different groups, including Muslims.
 
When, for example, (non-Muslim) Roma immigrants rioted in the city of Leeds last month, the police seemed to stand back.  A mere handful have been charged. Contrast that to the way police this week arrested and charged people for saying obnoxious things online.  In Cheshire, the police arrested a woman for an inaccurate social media post.  

The official in charge of public prosecutions in Britain declared that he has a team of “dedicated police officers scouring social media” to arrest people for posting things that are “insulting” or “abusive”.  He even threatened to extradite people to the UK for sharing such material online.
 
Unable to police the streets against violent robbery, the clowns running Britain today are arresting people for being rude online.  Having failed to keep illegal immigrants out, they are threatening to import foreigners into the country against their will for what they re-tweet.

How did Britain end up in such a sorry state?  To a large extent it is a story about the corruption of Britain’s judiciary.
 
Mass immigration has become an explosive issue in Britain because judges have routinely thwarted attempts by successive governments to control it.  In 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 the British people voted overwhelmingly to cut immigration to less than 100,000 a year.  This has not happened because judges have systematically prevented elected governments from controlling the country’s borders. 

British judges only ever seem to rule in favor of those who enter the country illegally being able to remain, ruling on the basis of what they think the law should be, not the laws Parliament has passed.
 
Britain, a once orderly, high-trust society, has become increasingly lawless because judges have routinely failed to apply sentences that ordinary Brits would regard as just.  It is so commonplace for violent robbers and rapists to be given community sentences, rather than go to prison, it is seldom even reported anymore.  Only last month, it was announced that even violent offenders would be released from prison after serving 40 percent of their sentences.

Why are British judges so awful?  Because they are unaccountable to the public.

In Britain, judges are appointed, not elected.  Until 2006, at least the appointments were made by an elected minister, meaning there was at least some degree of democratic oversight.
 
Since 2006, Britain’s judges have been appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, a body obsessed about diversity, equity and inclusion, rather than justice.  Liberty and order in Britain are collapsing as a consequence. 

Back in Neshoba, it was refreshing to watch wannabe judges having to connect with the people that they wanted to serve.  They talked of their record of service.  They gave the audience a good sense of their values.  Watching the process of judicial elections, I realize it would be impossible for Mississippi, with elected judges, to end up in the absurd situation Britain is now in.
 
Keep it that way.  Elect your judges to safeguard your liberties.   Bar some very exceptional circumstances, such as when a city descends into dysfunction (Jackson?), elected judges are better than the alternatives.

On October 7 last year, ordinary civilians in Israel were the victims of extraordinary savagery.  Hamas terrorists killed young people at a music festival, often in gruesome ways.  Families were slaughtered in suburban homes. By any civilized moral standards, there ought to be overwhelming sympathy for a country subjected to such savagery. 

Instead, throughout the Western world, we have witnessed endless anti- Israel protests. Why? Part of the reason is demographics.  In Britain, for example, in 2001 there were one and half million Muslims.  Today, there are almost four million. 
 
That is not to say that every — or even most — British Muslims are anti- Israel. But it does explain the scale and size of some recent protests. So, too, on American university campuses.  There have been frequent anti-Israel student protests, often at so-called elite universities.  It is perhaps not a coincidence that there has also been a rapid rise in the number of students with Middle Eastern backgrounds at such universities. 

Again, not every student from the Middle East is necessarily anti-Israel.  But the reservoir of potential anti-Israel student protesters is certainly larger than before. 
 
The rise in anti-Israel sentiment in the West clearly can’t only be about demographics.  Many, if not most, of those protesting against Israel are not those with a Middle Eastern background, but those on the political Left. 
 
Why then do those on the Left have such animus towards Israel?  Why do they seem to suspend ordinary moral standards whenever Israel is involved? When it comes to Ukraine, for example, those on the political Left – correctly in my view – see Ukraine as a brave country, rightfully taking a stand against a vastly bigger aggressor. 
 
So why don’t they see Israel that way? Israel wasn’t just attacked on October 7.  From the Six Day War to the Yom Kippur War, Israel has been on the receiving end of relentless aggression. Israel, a country smaller than Vermont, is surrounded by larger foes intent on destroying her and eradicating her people, as Hamas showed us a few months ago. 

Progressive opinion in America and Britain is of the view that the government of Ukraine must not try to accommodate Russia or make concessions.  So why do they demand that Israel call a ceasefire? London, Washington and Berlin are full of leaders who want to supply Ukraine with weapons.  Why then do many also demand that America and Europe stop giving Israel the tools to defend herself? 
 
The last time there was unequivocal support for Israel in the West was during the Entebbe raid in Uganda in 1976.  I remember the morning of the Entebbe raid well.  A young child at the time, I happened to be living close by in Kampala. When Israel pulled off a daring rescue mission, freeing the trapped hostages from the hijacked Air France plane at Entebbe — where Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Yonatan lost his life — there was rejoicing across the political spectrum. 

Today, when Israel attempts to rescue her hostages in Gaza she is treated by many media outlets with scorn. Look at how posters of Israeli hostages held in Gaza have been torn down in cities throughout Europe and America. 
 
As my friend Douglas Murray has pointed out, when a cat or dog goes missing in London or Paris or New York, people will often put up a poster about the missing pet.  If we saw someone take down a poster about a missing pet, we would be offended.  We’d know it was wrong.  Where is the outrage against those removing posters of the Bibas kids? 
 
One reason Israel is held to a different standard is anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a famously shape shifting virus.  At one time, Jews were hated for their religion, then for their race.  Today, it seems to me, it is for their nation. Israel is loathed by many progressives because as a country, Israel embodies the notion of national self-determination.  For many centuries, Jewish families toasted each other at Passover with the phrase: “Next year in Jerusalem.” 
 
And then in 1948, almost miraculously, it came true. National self-determination offends elite opinion formers.  They revere supranationalism instead.  They venerate the UN, the ICC and the EU. Progressives prefer laws made by international treaty over those passed by elected national legislatures.  Progressives prefer fealty to rules made by the global community over obligations to an actual community. 
 
Israel’s success offends the Left not only because she is a national state, but because she demonstrates the success of Western society. If all cultures were of equal worth, why then does a small state that could fit inside Vermont produce so much enterprise and innovation? If there is an equivalence between cultures, why has post 1948 Israel seen such success amid a sea of Middle Eastern failure and autocracy? 
 
Those who loathe Israel don’t just hate the Jewish nation state, they despise all nation states – including another phenomenally successful Republic, started not in 1948 but in 1776. If they merely hate Israel, why do they burn the American flag?  America and the Western way of life is their intended target. Whether we like it or not, those of us who love America, who see Western culture as a sublime human achievement, have no choice but to side with and support Israel, against those who seek to destroy us all. 
 
Those who hate Israel hate us too.

Had Donald Trump tilted his head the other way, the bullet that clipped his ear would have killed him.  America was half an inch away from a major civil crisis.

We don’t yet know the full details of this assassination attempt, but it is clear that Donald J Trump has been demonized by his opponents for years.

Of course, in politics you sometimes say negative things about your opponents.  But the rhetoric aimed at Trump has often gone far beyond normal political back-and-forth.  Trump’s opponents have set out to delegitimize him.

After losing to Trump in 2016, Hilary Clinton described him an ‘illegitimate’ president.  Spurious allegations emerged suggesting he was somehow a Russian agent.  Every effort was made to undermine his administration, often from within.

When Trump began to re-emerge as the Republican frontrunner in this election cycle, a number of prosecutors suddenly started to bring cases against him.  Odd, that. 

It seems to me that as in a Banana Republic, he was being persecuted through the courts for political reasons, as much as he was being prosecuted for breaking the law.

Now comes an assassin’s bullet, which narrowly missed Trump but did kill a fifty year old father attending a political rally. 

We don’t yet know what motivated Trump’s would-be assassin, but we do know enough to ask where this growth of political extremism comes from. 

The decline of religion means that politics has become, for many, a substitute belief system. 

“When men choose not to believe in God” my fellow Englishman, GK Chesteron, once observed, “they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

People need a sense of purpose, a framework that explains the world and their place in it.  Without religion, many have adopted a belief system called climate change.  Others a system called intersectionalism.  Their place in the cosmos, they start to imagine, is defined in terms of where they sit in a hierarchy of victimhood. 

Once you think this way, those who share your world view seem virtuous.  Those that don’t become the ‘deplorables’.  Anyone who just happens to have a different point of view is suddenly a moral affront.   Such people must be no platformed. 

Instead of viewing elections a process for deciding who holds office, they are seen as a Manichaen struggle of good against evil.  Once you think this way, the ends begin to justify the means, with calamitous consequences.

Too many Americans are willing to always think the worst of fellow Americans, and it’s not just progressives who look for the worst in conservatives. 

Take what happened in the wake of the attempted assassination.  Many commentators appeared to almost want to find evidence of incompetence, or worse, conspiracy.

An apparent hesitation by Secret Service marksmen in engaging the gunman was somehow sinister, it was suggested.  Commentators without much experience of close personal protection were quick to inform us that the female Secret Service agents could not handle their weapons properly. 

Really?  Why assume the worst?  Why not start from the position that what we witnessed were professionals under intense pressure, making life and death decisions, and doing the best they could? 

I’m an immigrant that looks at America as an outsider.  Born in Britain, and raised in Uganda, I came to America by choice (and good fortune). 

I don’t look about me trying to find fault in my new home.  I see instead an extraordinary country that it is a great privilege to be part of.  I see the most hospitable, friendly, and innovative people on the planet all around me.  I believe so strongly in the things that make America special so much, I even wrote a children’s book about it. 

Each time I meet an American for the first time it never occurs to me to wonder if they vote Republican or Democrat.  To me, they are just American, and all the better for it.

We need to stop looking at each other through the prism of politics.  It’s not good for us, for our politics or for America.

Before I came to Mississippi, I was a Member of the British Parliament for 12 years for Clacton.  Donald Trump's friend, Nigel Farage, has now decided to run for election in Clacton on July 4th.

I'm delighted and I encouraged Nigel to run the moment it was announced that there would be a General Election. (I know, the Brits do politics differently with flexible, rather than fixed, terms)

Back in the old country, the Conservative party faces annihilation.  
 
Having sat in office since 2010, Britain’s Conservatives have failed to govern on conservative principles.  Today, their supporters are abandoning them for Nigel Farage’s new Reform party. 
 
Perhaps this should serve as a stark warning for those who campaign as conservatives, but who govern as progressives.
 
Here in Mississippi, Republicans have been in charge since 2011, about as long as Britain’s Conservatives. 
 
Where are the big strategic changes our state needs?  What reforms are being advanced to elevate Mississippi?
 
There are, I would suggest, three top challenges Mississippi faces:
 

 
Imagine if we were to use the notionally conservative majority in our state to accomplish actual conservative reforms to tackle any of this?  
 
Here is a list of some of the bills that were blocked in the most recent legislative session:
 

 
The one big achievement of the session, Rep. Rob Roberson’s INSPIRE bill which personalizes school funding for students, passed because of Speaker White’s drive and determination.  Eight weeks ago there were still some in the Senate intent on preserving the old Soviet-era funding formula.
 
Morton Blackwell, a great American hero who I happened to meet for tea in Jackson, once said that “In politics, nothing moves unless it’s pushed.”

He’s right.  If we want to see conservative policies implemented in our state, we are going to have to do a lot of pushing! 
 
Nobody likes to be pushed, particularly politicians.  Leaders will not thank you for making them do something they would preferred not to have done, as my experience with Brexit taught me.
 
Here at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy we are 100 percent in the business of pushing for the kind of bold, principled conservative reforms we need. 
 
We need to start using our conservative majority to deliver the kind of changes we are starting to see in Republican-run states throughout the South.

You can tell a lot about someone’s politics given what they might have to say about the conviction of Donald Trump.
 
Anyone telling you that Trump’s conviction is comeuppance for a sordid hush-money scandal, in which he broke the law, probably leans left.
 
Someone explaining that it was all a disgraceful attempt by Joe Biden’s Democrats to stop the 45th President from being re-elected, is likely to be a conservative.
 
In an increasingly post-religious society, politics has become a substitute belief system for many.  The danger is that we view everything through the prism of politics.

Rather than ask what Trump’s conviction means for your side in the Reds versus Blues battle, perhaps what we ought to reflect on what this might all mean for America. 

For most of human history, the law meant whatever the powerful said it meant.  Anyone who has ever tried to do business in Russia or China knows that’s still the way things are in much of the non-Western world.
 
A system in which the law is elevated above the executive – in which the rule of law has supremacy – is historically unusual.  Indeed, it is largely the creation of people who spoke and wrote in the language in which you are reading this.
 
It was English-speaking civilization that invented the notion that the powerful are constrained by rules, and that the rules should apply to everyone equally.  A straight line runs from Magna Carta at Runnymede to the Founders at Philadelphia.  The US Bill of

Rights of 1789 was preceded by an English Bill of Rights of 1689. 

America has become the most successful society on earth precisely because in this Republic, government doesn’t get to change the rules as it likes.

“Exactly!” the anti-Trumpers will say. “Trump’s conviction is true to that tradition!  Even former Presidents are subject to the same rules as everyone else”.

But is that really so?  In what way has Trump been subjected to the same set of rules?  Surely, those on the right will say, he has been singled out, prosecuted over something essentially trivial?
 
Those that brought the charges, it seems to me, were motivated by politics, rather than justice.
 
Prosecuting political rivals is what they do in Russia, Brazil or Malaysia.  It is awful to see political prosecutions in the United States – and it bodes ill for the future of freedom in this country and around the world. 

Twenty years ago, George Bush’s electoral strategist, Karl Rove, hit upon the idea of using ‘wedge-issues’ to galvanize the conservative base.  At the time, Rove seemed to be remarkably successful.  Republicans won.
 
Two decades on, I wonder if it was partly Rove’s ‘wedge-issue’ approach that provoked the left into doing something similar.  Under Obama, the left became increasingly inflammatory.  Perhaps there is a straight line that runs from the politics of ‘wedge-issues’ in the noughties to the culture wars we see today?
 
Some on the left might be tempted to celebrate the use of lawfare to try to take down a political opponent.  They might want to stop and think first.  It is, I worry, only a question of time before we start to see something similar from the right. 
 
If lawfare becomes part of American politics, what chance is there that the United States remains exceptional compare with all those other less happy republics? 

It is not just the legal process that America needs to de-politicize.  We need to stop making everything a question of where you stand in the culture war.  Your views on Disney or money management, Taylor Swift or Chick-Fil-A should not automatically correlate with the way you vote. 

If it is politics alone that gives you a belief system in life, you are going to end up desperately disappointed with both politics and life.
 
The United States was founded by people that believed that to survive, a Republic needs a moral citizenry.  America needs to believe in something above politics and beyond the next election cycle.

This week, it emerged that the newly appointed head of America’s NPR (National   Public Radio) hates the US Constitution.  Speaking in 2021, she described the First Amendment which safeguards free speech as “a challenge.”

How could it be that the head of America’s public broadcasting service, established by an act of Congress, has such contempt for the US Constitution?

In her previous role running Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, Katherine Maher rejected a “free and open internet” as a guiding principle.  Such principles are, in her words, a “white male Westernized construct,” according to reports.

Katherine Maher, reports say, support efforts to censor opinions that do not conform with her leftist world view.  She spoke of the truth as being “a distraction”.

Sadly, Katherine Maher is not a one off.  She is fairly typical of the sort of people now running many of America’s institutions, HR departments, government agencies and universities. 

Ms Maher’s social media posts might read like parody.  There is nothing funny about the way that people with Ms Maher’s outlook and opinions are subverting America’s Founding principles, and replacing them with a grim leftist dogma that risks destroying American and the West.

Conservatives need to push back, but how?

Until now, many conservatives have been better at identifying the problem than at tackling it.

To defeat DEI, we need to pass laws, reform institutions, appoint the right people and set the right incentives.  Most of all, however, we need to counter bad ideas with good ideas.

States can take a lead in the fight back.  Here in Mississippi, for example, there was a successful campaign two years ago for a bill to combat Critical Race Theory.  The new law goes some way to addressing the issue, but not far enough. 

If we are serious about restricting DEI dogma, we need to ensure that your tax dollars cannot be spent promoting this divisive ideology.

Florida’s Governor, Ron DeSantis, has shown that states can take the lead against DEI, signing an Executive Order, restricting the use of public money for DEI programs.  State leaders in Oklahoma, Utah and Texas have also done something similar.  We need to see similar action here in Mississippi.

Did you know that many public universities use your tax dollars to promote Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) programs?

One of our leading public universities here in Mississippi has an “institutional diversity, equity, and inclusion plan” governing every aspect of campus life.  DEI shapes not only university admissions, administration and faculty hiring, but what young people are taught, with the development of an academic equity scorecard. 

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.  That is why conservatives need to expose how many of your tax dollars are being spent to DEI programs. 

Instead of more DEI hires, the University of Florida recently decided to eliminate all DEI employee positions.  Last month, the University of Texas at Austin fired dozens of employees who used to work in diversity, equity and inclusion programs.  Every state should aim for something similar.

The best way to defeat bad ideas is with good ideas.  Teaching young people the following truths about America will give them immunity against the ‘woke’ mind virus. 

This is a fight that we can win.  One day we will look back and think it absurd that someone with Katherine Maher’s outlook could be put in charge of producing public service broadcasting content.  But there is a great deal that we need to do right now in order to get there!

Douglas Carswell is the President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

Beware of politicians who want to ban things.

What would you most like to see Mississippi’s elected lawmakers do during the current legislative session? 

Action to eliminate the reams of red tape holding our state back, maybe?  Further tax cuts, perhaps?  With so many other southern states moving ahead with school choice, you might wish that our lawmakers would do something similar.

I doubt that a bill to ban “squatted” trucks is your top priority. Yet, that is precisely what one bill in our state legislature aims to do. 

I’m not about to invest a lot of effort into opposing this bill, but I do think we should be wary of politicians in the business of banning things. 

Typically, politicians resort to banning things when they don’t have any other ideas.  The impulse to ban things is driven by their search for validation and purpose. 


Those in favor of a ban on “squatted” trucks are quick to tell us that action is urgent given how dangerous these trucks are.  I can think of a lot of things that could be deemed dangerous. 
 
Do conservatives really want to get into the business of banning things because they are dangerous?  Once you start, where do you stop?  If trucks are to be banned for being dangerous, wait ‘til you hear what progressives have to say about guns.
 
Under this proposed law, anyone caught driving a vehicle whose front ends are raised more than four inches above the height of the rear fender faces a $100 fine.  Will police officers pull people over to measure their fenders?  Should the guy with a truck raised a mere 3 inches expect to get pulled over every time?  

As the parent of a teenager, I’ve discovered how adding a young person to your insurance policy can make your premiums soar.  This is because the insurance system is good at assessing risk.  Higher risk = higher premiums. 
 
If squatted trucks really were the danger that the detractors claim, surely it would be reflected in raised insurance premiums to the point where they became prohibitively expensive.
 
In a free society, there must be an overwhelmingly good reason to use the state’s monopoly of force to restrict something.  It is not enough to ban something because we disapprove of it.  Or. as I fear, disapprove of the people that drive “squatted” trucks.  

Once politicians form the habit of seeking out things to ban for the benefit of the rest of us, they won’t stop.  Next will come a ban on certain types of vapes.  Or, as in California, certain food additives and Skittles.  If they can ban one type of truck, why not another?
 
If you want to see where relentless banning leads, take a look at my own native Britain.  Despite having had notionally conservative governments, politicians across the pond have relentlessly banned things from certain breeds of dog to plastic drinking straws.  From the ability to use email lists for marketing to self-defense pepper spray.  From disposable cutlery and gas water heaters to the internal combustion engine (from 2035).

On their own, none of these restrictions have proved to be a catastrophe (although the ban on internal combustion cars, once it comes into force, may yet prove to be).  Collectively, however, the blizzard of bans has been devastating by infantilizing British society.  
 
Treated like children, more and more people behave like children.  Denied responsibility, society grows irresponsible.  Britain today feels utterly demoralized as a consequence.  This is what happens when you put politicians in charge of deciding what’s best for everyone else.
 
Banning tilted trucks won’t be the end of the world for Mississippi.  It will be the end of a little bit more liberty.

The impulse to ban things, I believe, comes from what H.L. Mencken called “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time.”  Let’s leave Mississippi truck drivers alone.

Douglas Carswell is the President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram