Like most of the rest of the world, the United States has been stumbling its way towards a "papers, please" society in which we must show identification to go about our lives. The latest excuse for imposing a national ID requirement is voting, with the stalled SAVE America Act intended to preempt state procedures by requiring people to show REAL ID-compliant documents before casting ballots. Whatever the excuse, we're told identification requirements will make us more secure, but a recent breach of Denmark's national ID system suggests that such an apparatus is just easy hacker bait.

Hackers 'Harvest Records on Approximately 8.8 Million People'

"Denmark is reviewing security controls around its national citizen registry after unauthorized parties exploited a company's access credentials to harvest records on approximately 8.8 million people over a 10-day period," Shweta Sharma of CSO, an enterprise-level security publication, reported earlier this month. "The breach covers people living in Denmark as well as individuals who have died or moved abroad, while people with protected names and addresses were not affected."

The hacker who broke into Denmark's Central Register of Persons (CPR) claims to have entered through a company with access that used "123456" as a password. Danish authorities are scrambling to reassess their security procedures, the implications of the lost data on what seems to constitute almost the entire population, and "whether there may be similar vulnerabilities in other key public IT systems."

It's tempting to marvel at the risks inherent in compiling a database of the identifying details of a country's people and then protecting it with the crappiest conceivable password. But Americans are in a poor position to savor the Danish government's discomfort (though we should sympathize with the concerns of the Danish people) given our own government's comparable screwups.

The U.S. Government's History of Data Breaches

In 2015, the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) suffered a massive data breach at the hands of Chinese government hackers. The OPM initially put the loss from the penetration of its background investigation databases on 4 million individuals. Later, though, after a second incident, the OPM raised its estimate to 21.5 million people whose "residency and educational history; employment history; information about immediate family and other personal and business acquaintances; health, criminal and financial history; and other details" had been surrendered to hackers.

That breach cast a long shadow. Government-provided credit monitoring and identity theft protection insurance for the affected individuals just began expiring earlier this year.

Frankly, compared to the scale of the OPM data loss, the slightly earlier incident at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) involving the theft of Social Security numbers, birthdates, and home addresses of approximately 100,000 people almost doesn't register.

The Inherent Vulnerability of Centralized Databases

A year before those hackers engaged in one-stop information shopping courtesy of federal databases, the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards had warned me that the federal government's vast collection of sensitive data was bound to be abused and misused. He told me the main "threat is that the vast databases held by the IRS, HHS, security agencies, etc, will be leaked on purpose, leaked because of bureaucrat sloppiness, or be hacked. The more they collect, the more that will eventually leak."

In fact, two years ago, the Associated Press reported that "a former contractor for the Internal Revenue Service who pleaded guilty to leaking tax information to news outlets about former President Donald Trump and thousands of the country's wealthiest people was sentenced to five years in prison Monday."

That leak turned out to involve "the private data of more than 400,000 taxpayers," according to the House Judiciary Committee. When he was sentenced, the guilty party, Charles E. Littlejohn, insisted he "acted out of a sincere, if misguided, belief I was serving the public interest" by exposing the tax records. But his motivation hardly matters to the affected individuals who had no choice but to give sensitive information to the federal government, only to see it badly mishandled—as Edwards predicted.

In the case of Littlejohn, data was stolen out of a smug sense of outrage over the relative burdens imposed by the tax system. In the OPM incidents, information on federal employees was pilfered by a hostile foreign government. In the other IRS breaches, it was apparently taken by criminals seeking to profit.

The Danes may have been lucky, since the people who hacked their national database insist "they had no intention of selling or leaking the data" and may have just sought a challenge. Those affected will just have to hope so.

As the compromise of Denmark's national ID system demonstrates, centralized databases are tempting targets for bad actors who see in them tempting treasure troves of information if they can only find holes in security—like ridiculous password protection. The data storage company RackTop maintains a running list of government data breaches in the U.S., updated monthly.

"Several of 2026's largest government incidents ran through systems built to share documents, according to public reporting: a Defense Manpower Data Center file-sharing system, a third-party discovery-transfer tool at the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, and a SharePoint system connected to DHS's Homeland Security Information Network," the company notes.

ID Requirements Address Some Security Worries While Creating Others

In the U.S., the latest calls for identification documents involve concerns that non-citizens may be casting ballots. In the days before the midterm elections, there may well be reason to ask people to prove their bona fides before participating in the political process. But whether for voting or for any other purpose, reliance on the federal government's national ID by another name—the SAVE Act specifies "a form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States"—builds dependency on a hacker-bait system that should itself be recognized as a security vulnerability.

CSO's Sharma added that the national ID breach is "forcing Denmark to reconsider how CPR numbers are used for identity verification. Officials are advising organizations not to rely on a CPR number alone and to use stronger mechanisms such as MitID, two-factor authentication, or one-time codes." (MitID is a state-run digital identification system in Denmark that also has security flaws.)

Denmark's national ID is no longer considered a reliable means of proving identity. Before Americans go further down the "papers, please" road, we should consider whether it poses more risks than benefits.

The post Breach of Denmark's National ID System Demonstrates the Risks of a 'Papers, Please' Society appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In the country with arguably the most successful market economy on Earth, it's not unreasonable to ask for just one major political party to favor a system of relatively unfettered voluntary exchange. And yet, the midterm elections offer Americans a "choice" between a party openly embracing socialism by name, and one that increasingly embraces state-directed economic activity in the cause of nationalism. Not every candidate running as a Democrat or Republican is on board with their parties' statist transformations, and there are certainly other issues separating the two dominant political tribes. But if you want reliable advocacy of economic freedom, you won't find it in the two major parties.

Open Socialism vs. Nationalist Economic Control

The shift in the Democratic Party's policy preferences from a heavily regulated market economy to outright government control has been well-documented, but it's worth noting Eric Bradner August report at CNN about "a growing list of victories by democratic socialists who are a prominent part of the Democratic Party's left-wing insurgency."

Before his election as mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani called for "seizing the means of production," as has congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which backs many of the new breed of officeholders and candidates and organized their insurgency, boasts of its solidarity with the totalitarian regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. Just a year ago, it sent "a delegation of 40 DSA elected leaders and rank-and-file members" to Havana to learn "about the achievements and challenges of Cuban socialism."

At 65 percent support for socialism in Gallup polling, more Democrats favor a state-controlled economy than back capitalism (35 percent)—though the odd tie in favorability with free enterprise (also 65 percent, but declining) suggests the schools aren't doing a great job of explaining ideas.

Republicans nominally hold very different economic preferences, with only 14 percent favoring socialism, while 86 percent support free enterprise and 75 percent have positive views of capitalism. But when asked by CNBC's All-America Economic Survey whether government should have control of private businesses, "66% of Democrats found it not appropriate for the U.S. to take equity stakes in American companies, while only 34% of Republicans agreed."

That's likely because under the Republican Trump administration, the federal government has been grabbing a piece of the action from tech and resource firms—40 companies, at the current count—and party stalwarts are happy to go along so long as the S word isn't used to describe the arrangement. Instead, it's cloaked as top-down encouragement of domestic jobs and manufacturing.

Two Parties With a Similar Taste for Government Economic Intervention

"American political leaders on the left and right are rebelling against the market-first consensus that dominated Washington for four decades," concluded Axios's Courtenay Brown and Neil Irwin in July. "It's evident in everything from the Trump administration taking government stakes in dozens of private companies to socialist candidates winning Democratic primaries promising a more active government role in the economy."

A glimpse of a socialist future can be found not only in the rising tide of explicitly socialist Democrats, but in GOP heir apparent and Vice President J.D. Vance's repeated denunciation of free-market economic thinking and its emphasis on private choice.

"Do we serve pure, unfettered commercial freedom?" he asked in First Things in 2019. "Or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?"

In a June interview with The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles, Vance returned to the topic to criticize the market-oriented ideas of economist Milton Friedman and called for a state-directed and Christian-infused "American developmentalist" approach to escape what he called "a hyper globalized economy."

"The policies supported by both major political parties suggest a growing embrace of state ownership of the economy," warns economist Daniel J. Smith for the American Institute for Economic Research. "The range of policies widely accepted as legitimate options, referred to as the 'Overton Window,' has shifted toward greater government direction of the economy, with some conservative politicians and voters now treating partial state ownership as an acceptable function of government."

Smith pointed out that the economist F.A. Hayek had observed this phenomenon among authoritarians of the right and left in the 1930s. It was why he dedicated his book, The Road to Serfdom, "to the socialists of all parties."

Rejecting Free Markets Means Losing Liberty and Prosperity

Why this is important is illustrated by Smith's recent research into the correlation, or lack thereof, between socialism and political liberty: "The record, from 1789 forward, is not ambiguous. High degrees of political freedom and heavy state ownership of the economy have not been sustained together."

Smith's observation is supported by the prominent socialist writer Robert Heilbroner's admission in his 1986 book, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, that "political freedom in modern times…has only appeared in capitalist states." He added, "democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist."

Also important, as the Fraser Institute's recently published Economic Freedom of the World: 2026 report points out, "economic freedom tends to be associated with better outcomes." Specifically, the report indicates strong correlations between free-market economies and higher GDP per capita, higher level of income for the bottom 10 percent of earners, lower poverty, higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality. As with the sources cited above, the report found that "personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, and religion are highly correlated with economic freedoms."

So, the benefits of having a major political party that believes in and supports free markets with minimal government intrusion are found not just in expanded political choice, but also in policies that promote freedom, prosperity, and human well-being. Unfortunately, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party are retreating from economic liberty and embracing state control over how we produce, work, own, buy, and sell. Democrats' explicit embrace of socialism, and Republicans' dismissal of free markets in favor of state management and ownership, promise a future of less freedom and reduced wealth.

Maybe Americans would vote against socialism—both the open kind and the implicit nationalist variety—if given the choice. But it's increasingly difficult to find a free-market option on the ballot.

The post The Midterms Offer a Choice Between Two Brands of Socialism appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan's Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, is the latest politician to suggest that the Second Amendment might shield the right to bear arms, but only those that existed at the time that it was adopted: namely, flintlock muskets. It's a not-so-clever way of trimming back the Constitution's protections. The argument's flaws should be clear: the U.S. Supreme Court has already dismissed that line of reasoning, and a world in which the Bill of Rights applies only to 18th century technology would be one where freedom exists only in museum exhibits.

"Everyone Should Have Equal Rights to a Musket"

"I'm gonna swear an oath to the Constitution. The Constitution has a Second Amendment in it, but the Second Amendment, just so we all are clear, even the most conservative folks, they hew to this idea called originalism, and originalism is the idea that you should interpret the Constitution in the context in which the Constitution was written," El-Sayed insisted at a campaign rally. "When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have equal rights to a musket."

So clever. The Bill of Rights passed in the 1780s, so it must only apply to 1780s things. Except that the courts have thoroughly dismissed that ridiculous line of reasoning.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). "We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications…and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

The Founders Lived in a Time of Rapid Innovation

The reason for this should be obvious. The founders were not unaware of progress. Many of them were scholars and innovators. They were certainly aware of (and enthusiastic about) continuing advancements in technology. During the then-recent revolution, American troops had faced off against a small unit of redcoats armed with Ferguson breech-loading rifles. A decade before the Bill of Rights was adopted, the 22-shot Girandoni repeating air rifle was introduced, one of which was later sent along on the Lewis and Clark expedition. And Kalthoff and Lorenzoni repeating flintlock firearms had existed for well over a century.

Not to mention, the founders made extensive use of printing presses to distribute pamphlets and official government documents, including the new Constitution, rather than having them hand-copied as they would have been a few centuries earlier. Technology marches on.

That last point illustrates the foolishness of the only-1780s-tech argument, as Scalia pointed out. What use is a First Amendment that applies only to hand-cranked printing presses and unamplified voices? That would leave the internet, television, radio, telephones, and all post-revolutionary means of communications unprotected from government censorship.

By the same token, a Fourth Amendment stuck in the 18th century might shield us from government agents kicking in the door and rifling through our papers. But it would have nothing to say about wiretaps, computer searches, surveillance cameras, thermal imaging, and the like.

The Founders Sought To Limit Government, Not Create Small Carve-Outs for People

Founders who were well aware of innovation and often contributed to it themselves (think Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson) knew that science and technology constantly advance—because they helped it do exactly that—as would the government's intrusive capabilities. And they believed they were creating protections for broad natural rights against limited government, not small carve-outs from the authority of an all-powerful state.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others," Jefferson wrote in 1819. "I do not add 'within the limits of the law'; because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

The Bill of Rights isn't an ancient artifact to be applied only to a snapshot of life as it existed around 1789. Its amendments are intended to protect timeless individual rights, however those rights might be expressed in an always-evolving world.

El Sayed: "To Protect People From Government Tyranny"

El-Sayed went on, in his increasingly incoherent monologue, to acknowledge that the Bill of Rights was intended "to protect people from government tyranny," and "the idea was that you had the right to bear arms against your government should they become tyrannous." He floated the idea, for some reason, that "the Coast Guard, and state militias" are how this idea was implemented. I don't want to delve too deeply into whatever argument is being presented here, because I've sacrificed enough brain cells by listening to him speak.

But kudos to El Sayed for admitting the Bill of Rights is intended to protect us from government. The only way that can possibly work is if, as government's capabilities become increasingly sophisticated, the protections of the Constitution's first 10 amendments extend to safeguarding our rights from ever more advanced potential intrusions.

The Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights don't preserve a snapshot of life in the 1780s. They were written to protect eternal principles of individual liberty. And they're certainly not limited to muskets.

The post Abdul El-Sayed Would Freeze the Bill of Rights in the 18th Century appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Politicians may not like it, but the countries they misgovern compete with one another for businesses, people, and capital. To attract startups, entrepreneurs, and investors, governments have to offer attractive environments, or else lose out to friendlier nations. When it comes to tax competitiveness, a new report says that Estonia leads the way in first position, with the United States lagging at 17th.

Low Rates and Simplicity Make Countries More Attractive

"The structure of a country's tax code is a determining factor of its economic performance," write Alex Mengden and Luis Zarka for the Tax Foundation's International Tax Competitiveness Index 2026. "A well-structured tax code is easy for taxpayers to comply with and can promote economic development while raising sufficient revenue for a government's priorities. In contrast, poorly structured tax systems can be costly, distort economic decision-making, and harm domestic economies."

The report notes that competition among countries has resulted in widespread improvements (and some backsliding) across the world in recent years. Especially among members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), marginal tax rates on corporate and individual income have declined. That said, most governments haven't given up on milking their populations, with growing reliance on payroll taxes and value-added taxes (VAT).

On the other hand, while "corporate tax base improvements have occurred in Canada, Germany, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, and the United States," France, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia have hiked corporate tax rates. Even worse, tax policy has moved in many countries from a revenue-raising measure into a weapon of economic warfare "deployed to exert economic pressure."

The Tax Foundation's index ranks countries on the degree to which they keep their tax systems competitive—with low rates—and neutral, with minimal social engineering to avoid economic distortions.

Estonia Is First, France Last, With the U.S. in the Middle

According to these criteria, Estonia scores in first place for the best tax code in the OECD for the 13th straight year. According to Mengden and Zarka, the tiny Baltic state earns this distinction for four reasons:

First, it has a 22 percent tax rate on corporate income that is only applied to distributed profits. Second, it has a flat 22 percent tax on individual income that does not apply to personal dividend income. Third, its property tax applies only to the value of land, rather than to the value of real property or capital. Finally, it has a territorial tax system that exempts 100 percent of foreign profits earned by domestic corporations from domestic taxation, with few restrictions.

By contrast, France comes in dead last with the highest top corporate tax rate (36.1 percent) in the OECD, on top of which are "multiple surtaxes and distortive production taxes." France "also applies multiple distortionary property taxes with separate levies on estates, bank assets, and financial transactions, in addition to a wealth tax on real estate. Its VAT covers about 50 percent of final consumption, and it has one of the highest VAT registration thresholds."

The United States ranks at 17, down one place from last year. Among the U.S.'s weaknesses is that its "real property tax burden is among the highest in the OECD" and "the US has a partial territorial system and does not exempt foreign capital gains income." On the plus side, Americans pay relatively low sales/consumption taxes (an average of 7.5 percent, while the OECD average is 19.4 percent).

Not discussed in depth in the index, but still important, is that the U.S. is one of two countries (along with Eritrea) that base income taxation on citizenship rather than residency. "A Canadian living in France pays French taxes, not Canadian ones. An American in France? They pay French taxes and still file with the IRS," notes Bright!Tax. The U.S. tax obligation can be offset for nonresidents, but only by jumping through more bureaucratic hoops.

By and large, countries score better on the index by keeping tax rates low and broadly applied, emphasizing simplicity, and keeping their systems neutral to raise revenue and encourage investment, rather than achieve social and political goals.

Not everybody shares the Tax Foundation's preference for low burdens and minimal complexity. In its 2022 report on Lithuania's tax system (ranked a commendable 5th by the International Tax Competitiveness Index 2026), the OECD urged the country to increase taxes on businesses and self-employed people, and to increase reporting requirements. The OECD apparently favors higher tax burdens and complexity. Keeping the OECD happy would undoubtedly make Lithuania (or any country) less attractive to investors and entrepreneurs.

The U.S. Scores Better on Overall Economic Freedom—Though It's Losing Ground

While the index's middling score for the U.S. on tax competitiveness is disappointing, if understandable, it's not the final word on a country's economic attractiveness. In the Fraser Institute's recently published Economic Freedom of the World 2026 report, the U.S. ranks a credible 5th place, based on 2024 data. It comes in after Hong Kong, Switzerland, Singapore, and New Zealand. The formerly British and now Chinese territory of Hong Kong remained in the leading position despite erosion in economic liberty to accompany its sadly decaying civil liberties status. That's a worldwide concern.

"Global economic freedom fell following the pandemic as policymakers imposed new regulations, raised barriers to trade, expanded the size of government, and then printed money to pay for spending," wrote the Fraser Institute authors, including the late James Gwartney. "While governments have begun to reverse these policies, economic freedom in the average country has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels."

Unfortunately, the U.S. is forecast to slide two positions in next year's Economic Freedom report because of "increases in the size of government, weaker protection of property rights and the rule of law, and significant restrictions on trade freedom."

Improving the U.S. tax environment might help to improve America's economic freedom score. Then again, so would reducing government's role and discontinuing protectionist policies.

Tax competitiveness is one important element of any country's overall economic freedom, which creates an attractive environment to invest, create businesses, and generate prosperity. The U.S. has long thrived because it is, in relative terms, free. That's a status worth maintaining.

The post The U.S. Tax System Gets a Middling Score appeared first on Reason Magazine.

If you have to pay a regular fee to maintain control and use of a home or other parcel of property, do you really own it? Or are you just renting it from whoever collects the money? That's the question behind a growing movement against property taxes, which is winning support across the country and may see its next big test in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that would significantly trim taxes on owner-occupied homes.

'Property Is the Foundation of Liberty'—and a Big Source of Tax Revenue

Advocates of reform understandably champion the inviolability of private property, which is threatened by continuously rising levies. Opponents predictably include people who fear reduced government revenues, but also those who worry that cutting property taxes will shift power to state governments at the cost of local autonomy.

"Property is the foundation of liberty," argues economist Vance Ginn. "It represents the right to the product of voluntary exchange, investment, and saving—not a privilege granted by government. To tax property again every year after it has been bought with after-tax income is to deny genuine ownership. Property taxes operate like an annual wealth tax or unrealized capital-gains tax, applied regardless of income or ability to pay."

Opposing Ginn's argument in the debate is the Tax Foundation's Jared Walczak, who is not so much a fan of property taxes as a believer that they suck less than the alternatives.

"Spending restraint can reduce property tax burdens," argues Walczak. "But with property taxes accounting for 70 percent of local tax collections nationwide and upwards of 90 percent in some states, any discussion of property tax elimination must grapple with revenue alternatives."

"It is axiomatic that whatever you tax, you get less of," he adds. "Taxing income means less income-producing labor and investment, for instance. But because land is an immobile asset, taxing property does less to distort market decisions than taxing income or even sales."

Walczak also points out that while property taxes are usually imposed by local governments, most alternatives to property taxes come at the state level. That would move power further up the political food chain, away from the property owners worrying about their tax bills.

To this, Ginn responds that governments at all levels cost more than they should and that "the moral and fiscal failure of property taxes lies not only in how the money is raised, but also in how much government spends."

That means the debate over property taxes isn't just a struggle between those who want to trim the state's take and those who prefer larger government, but also between anti-tax activists and their frequent allies among advocates of local power. In a piece this week on the groundswell against property taxes, Politico's Liam Dillon notes that "the uprising's most pitched battles are being fought in Red States where the issue has emerged as yet another dividing line on the right."

Localities Are Dependent on Taxing Property

The debate over property taxes is fierce partially because governments have come to rely so heavily on them. "In fiscal year 2023, property taxes comprised 28.9 percent of total state and local tax collections in the United States, more than any other source of tax revenue, despite being levied almost exclusively at the local (not state) level," Janelle Fritts wrote for the Tax Foundation.

Property taxes in the U.S. range from roughly half a percent to just under 2 percent of assessed home value. States that rely most heavily on them, like New Hampshire (1.5 percent in 2024) and Texas (1.4 percent in 2024), also tend to leave a lot of government responsibility in local hands that might be exercised at the state level elsewhere. It's worth noting that Cato's Freedom in the 50 States ranks New Hampshire as having the second least burdensome tax regime among states, with Texas in fourth place.

The lowest taxed states in property terms are Alabama (0.37 percent in 2024), Arizona (0.48 percent), Hawaii (0.29 percent), and Utah (0.48 percent). Some states, such as Illinois (1.88 percent in 2024) and New Jersey (also 1.88 percent), tax the hell out of many things to support large and intrusive governments. Hawaii, despite low property taxes, is ranked as the most tax-burdened state by Cato.

As mentioned above, economists tend to like property taxes because they are efficient, minimally distort economic decisions, and empower localities relative to state and federal authorities. But as Politico's Dillon emphasizes, "everyone who is not an economist seems to hate property taxes."

Homeowners Don't Like the Insecurity That Comes With Property Tax Bills

Property taxes rise with assessed property valuations that homeowners have no control over, as the market shifts with supply and demand. They require what feels an awful lot like an annual rent payment to keep a roof over people's heads many already paid for. That reduces the sense of security that owners feel in their homes, since their habitation remains conditional on meeting local authorities' demands. The bite of sales taxes can be reduced by buying less, and income taxes are dependent on earning paychecks, but property taxes (with some local exceptions) come due no matter what.

Soaring property valuations in recent years drove property tax bills higher for Americans who did nothing but remain at their established addresses, though localities can and sometimes do adjust tax rates to offset rising values. USA Today reported that "between 2019 and 2023, the median value of annual property taxes increased nearly 25%." That has energized the movement to cut or abolish the taxes.

Efforts to reform property taxes have been effective in more than a dozen states, according to Governing. Most of these efforts involved reducing taxes, though eyes are currently on Florida where Amendment 3, a proposed change to the state constitution, would incrementally raise the homestead exemption to $250,000. It also would require "the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value," effectively abolishing property taxes on owner-occupied dwellings.

As a constitutional amendment, the measure requires 60 percent of votes to pass. Polling shows more support than opposition, but not necessarily at the supermajority level necessary for victory.

According to the Tax Foundation, in Florida, "the statewide average sales tax rate would have to rise from 7.02 to 15.34 percent to replace the property tax" with equivalent revenue. Rates could widely vary if localities implemented sales taxes instead of leaving them to the state.

Of course, that assumes state and local governments continue spending and providing services at the same level. But as economist Ginn points out, the problem lies not only in how property taxes raise money "but also in how much government spends." If the property tax revolt represents revulsion not just at the tax, but at the expense of large government, that may require less revenue to fund a smaller Leviathan.

The post Grassroots Revolt Targets Unpopular Property Taxes appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Last week, not only did Oregon's restrictive gun laws fail to stop a shooter intent on killing innocent people, but a passing good Samaritan had to violate those laws to end the murder spree. Fortunately, authorities don't appear intent on prosecuting Kaylub Giamanco, father to two girls who attend the school, for ignoring the ban on guns on school grounds to save lives. But the law is clearly more of a threat to people with good intent than it is to those bent on doing harm. Such laws should and must be defied, but lawmakers need to remove these legal minefields before they do more damage.

A Hero Dad With a Gun Stops a Murder Spree

"I want to start by thanking and praising the quick thinking and courage of the Silver Rail Elementary School staff and parents—and the first responders who rushed to the scene," Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek commented in a press release after the attack by a 16-year-old shooter at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon. "And to the community member who heroically intervened to stop further loss of life, your actions carry a heavy emotional burden—and my thoughts are with you."

That community member was Kaylub Giamanco, who had two daughters at the school. He was reportedly driving past when he saw the shooter approaching Silver Rail with a shotgun in hand. Giamanco parked his vehicle, grabbed his firearm, and followed the shooter, who had blasted his way through the facility's locked doors.

The shooter murdered four people, but Giamanco was able to kill him before he did any more damage. In the incident, the murderer obviously violated the law. But so did Giamanco.

Restrictive Laws That Had To Be Ignored

"Oregon gun laws are rated as the 12th strictest in the nation according to data collected by gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety, but they didn't stop the shooting of four elementary school children and two teachers at a Bend elementary school on Thursday," wrote Lillian Mongeau Hughes of The Oregonian. (Reports say three children and a teacher were murdered, with two others injured.)

The gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety boasts that "Oregon has passed a broad range of gun safety laws in recent years, including a requirement that guns be securely stored whenever they are not in their owner's immediate control, a prohibition on guns at the state capitol, and a law that gives universities the authority to prohibit guns on their grounds."

The similarly restriction-oriented Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Oregon an A- for its laws, ranking the state 11th out of 50. The group notes that the state "allowed local governments to limit firearms in government buildings."

Of specific interest in this case, the state adopted a law in 2021 that, among other things, says "the governing board of a community college or a district school board" may adopt policies banning guns on school grounds, even for those "licensed to carry a concealed handgun."

Importantly, the Bend–La Pine Schools, which include Silver Rail, mandate that "no person on grounds of the schools controlled by the Board of Directors for Bend–La Pine Schools (including in school buildings) shall bring to, possess, conceal or use a weapon or firearm at any property under the jurisdiction of Bend-La Pine Schools, any activities under the jurisdiction of the district, or any interscholastic activities administered by a voluntary organization (i.e., Oregon School Activities Association). This prohibition includes those who may otherwise be permitted by law to carry such weapons or firearms."

The prohibition applies to the Silver Rail murderer, though it was unlikely to be a concern to a person already intent on slaughter. It also applies to Giamanco, who stopped the attack and who must now—probably successfully, given the case's high profile—rely on the authorities to not enforce their own laws.

A Long History of Defensive Use of Firearms

Giamanco is by no means alone in taking the initiative to stop an attack. I've written in the past about Jordan Salinas and others in the Twin Falls incident, as well as Elisjsha Dicken at the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana. The actions of bystanders are crucial given the evidence that would-be mass murderers must be countered with defensive force within the first 30 seconds to avoid a double-digit body count.

There were 634 active attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2025, according to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University. ALERRT defines an "active attack" as an incident in which "an individual or individuals is actively killing or attempting to kill multiple unrelated people in a public space." Of those, 374 were resolved before police arrived, with 29 concluded by civilians shooting the perpetrator and another 60 attackers otherwise subdued by civilians.

That's certainly not a full count of actions by armed citizens to defend themselves and others. The 2026 National Firearms Survey finds that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 2.2 million incidents per year. In most defensive incidents no shot was fired (76.3%), about half (50.8%) involved more than one assailant, and in 70.6% of incidents respondents report that the defensive use was successful, such that no crime remained to be reported to the police."

Undoubtedly, many of those incidents aren't reported to the police because people who have just averted a threat to themselves or others don't want to get entangled with a legal system that is all too often hostile to self defense. If all has ended well, why risk arrest for violating a law that would have prevented you from defending yourself or that you may not even have known about?

As The Oregonian points out, Oregon's "strong laws" didn't stop the shooting. Those laws ban murder, of course. They also specify that "guns be locked, stored in gun safes or in specialized gun rooms as a way to keep children from accessing firearms," according to the report. "Police have not said if those laws were violated." They also ban guns on the grounds of schools with restrictive policies.

Authoritarian Laws Don't Deter Evil and Should Be Defied

The thing about criminals, though, is that they don't obey laws. That's especially true of those who plan murder sprees they don't intend to survive. The consequences the perpetrators anticipate involve death, and if that's not a deterrent, the potential prosecution of their moldering corpses holds little weight.

Unfortunately, legal peril can be a deterrent to good people who intend no harm. The threat of authoritarian laws and malicious prosecutors who enjoy state protection could convince some people to leave the means of self defense at home. Fortunately, Kaylub Giamanco wasn't one of them.

Giamanco's example at Silver Rail Elementary School is one to be emulated. If we're to protect ourselves, our children, and our neighbors, we have a right and a duty to defy laws that seek to disarm us and put us at the mercy of human predators. But we shouldn't have to suffer the threat of such laws to exercise our natural self-defense rights. Given the inability of weapons restrictions to deter crime and the harm they pose for good people, government officials need to eliminate these embarrassing restrictions and get out of our way.

The post Hero Oregon Dad Showed the Importance of Defying Restrictive Gun Laws appeared first on Reason Magazine.