Views

Knotty opine: The Hormuz Conundrum

Details

Tuesday, 12 May 2026

Written by Pitt Dickey

Are you tired of wars and rumors of wars? Does the phrase “Gulf of Hormuz” strike fear in your wallet at the gas station or grocery store? If so, Gentle Reader, kindly read no farther in today’s column. Skip directly to the crossword puzzle. Today’s stain on world literature is going to visit America’s ongoing and seemingly intractable war against Iran.
First, a bit of history. Iran used to be called Persia for millennia, a period of time for which the memory of man runneth not. Europe and Persia were not good neighbors. The Greeks and the Persians got along like Donald Trump and Jimmy Kimmel. If you don’t want to read about history (and if you don’t, why are you reading this second paragraph?), you can watch a movie called 300 Spartans about the battle between 300 Greeks and a zillion Persians at Thermopylae in which the Greeks saved western civilization by holding off an invading Persian army.
Despite being unable to defeat the Greeks, Persia kept its name until 1935. It officially changed its name to Iran when Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, ordered the switcheroo. When you are Shah, you can change the name of your country by whimsical executive order. Don’t believe me? Check out the Gulf of America, the Gulf formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico. There is no business like Shah business.
Now, back to our story. The good old USA has gotten itself knee deep in the big muddy called the Gulf of Hormuz. Like our wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it started out with the slightly shopworn theory called “This Time Will Be Different.”
It was going to be a short war like Venezuela. Knock off a leader we don’t like. The hearts and minds of the people will follow into the wonderful world of democracy. A little Regime Change makes the medicine go down in the most delightful way. Bombs help, too. Four weeks, six weeks tops, and the Iranians will be cowed into embracing democracy as a new and fun way of life.
Unfortunately, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum or in this case the bazaar. It didn’t work out like that. The US and Iran are holding each other and the rest of the world hostage in the Gulf of Hormuz. As the Soup Nazi would say if he was in charge of the Gulf of Hormuz: “No oil for you. Come back, one year!” What to do? What to do? It’s the old immovable object meeting the irresistible force conundrum. Who is gonna blink first? Who will cry, Uncle Sam?
Fortunately, there is a lesson from our old pals the Greeks on how to deal with Iranians. Once upon a time in the Fourth Century, there was a country called Phrygia, which is now called Turkey. The Phrygians did not have a king but needed one. A local Oracle read some chicken guts and announced that the next guy who came into the city riding an ox cart would be king. Soon, a dude named Gordias rode in on his ox cart and was named King. Gordias’ son Midas was so happy, he had the ox cart tied to a post in the royal palace with a bodacious knot that was so tightly tied that no one could untie it. This was known as the Gordian Knot.
Another Oracle declared that anyone who could untie the Gordian Knot would become king of all Asia. Many men tried, and many men failed to untie the knot. One day in 333 BC, Alexander the Great rode into town. Al learned about the prophecy that whosoever untied the knot would rule Asia. Al tried mightily to untie the knot to no avail. Frustrated, but not being a quitter, Al put on his thinking cap and pondered this knotty problem. Like a reformed alcoholic, Al had a moment of clarity. Eureka! He ciphered that it did not matter how the Gordian Knot was untied, just as long as it was done. Results mattered.
Al took his sword and like the killing of the Jabberwocky, “One two! One Two! And through and through. The vorpal blade went snicker-snack.” With mighty blows, he cut the Gordian Knot in two. The ox cart was then free to roam about the country unfettered to a post. Al fulfilled the knotty prophecy and went on to conquer Asia. The rest is history.
How does this story help resolve the Hormuz Conundrum? We have to think outside the knot. Perhaps holding each other hostage will not work. Does anyone have access to the Sword of Damocles? It still seems to be hanging around somewhere overhead.

(Illustration by Pitt Dickey)

Heroes with a Little "h"

Details

Tuesday, 05 May 2026

Written by Dan DeBruler

Of all the things I ever wanted to be, I think it was always just me I wanted most to be. Hero worship was never really my thing. I can't recall ever wishing I actually was Eddie Van Halen, or John Maxwell, or Billy Graham, or even Batman. I just wanted to be me, doing some of the things those people did.
Whether that's a strength or a weakness, I honestly couldn't tell you. It keeps the ground level enough that I don't trip over myself trying to climb up to anybody's pedestal. But every now and then, in the quieter hours, I catch myself wishing I had someone to look up to. And if I had it to do over again, I think I'd let my dad be my hero.
He was a small man—much smaller than me—and a brilliant what-comes-next artist. I don't even know what you call those drawings he made. Sequential art, maybe. Press a button, a ball rolls down a track, drops onto a lever, flips a spoon into a cup on a scale; the cup sinks, drags a match across sandpaper, lights a candle, and twenty-five steps later, an egg lands cooked on a plate. I was always intrigued. I stopped just short of awe. I wish now I hadn't.
On paper, he was an unlikely hero—but then, what hero isn't, once you get close enough? Adopted into a family of pharmacists who expected him to fall into line, he forged the date on his birth certificate instead and joined the Navy. Even in rebellion, he didn't run far; they made him a Pharmacist's Mate. He sailed off to Hawaii with his bell-bottoms and his ditty bag, a Kansas kid a long way from any wheat field he knew. Then the sky over Pearl Harbor went black with planes, and they handed him to the Marines as a Corpsman, and the war became something he carried home but never set down.
Those were the stories I missed. The war stories. The romance stories. The first marriage, the son lost in Vietnam—none of it spoken aloud. Twenty years I lived near a brilliant man full of buried things. A man who once drove fifty miles with the window down because his mother had promised him a hundred dollars to quit smoking, and he meant to show up smelling like he had.
He died of lung cancer at fifty-seven, shortly after our first son was born. Our last call was mostly gurgling and goodbye. I came to know him best after he was gone—through his Navy buddies, through scraps and stories—and the strangest thing happened. The more I wanted to know my father, the more I wanted to know God.
Heroes have always been hard for me to come by. I'd still rather be me than anyone else. But I'm finally learning that the small "h" heroes—the quiet, complicated, half-told ones—are usually the ones God uses to point us home.

Voters Likely To Approve Tax Limitation

Details

Tuesday, 12 May 2026

Written by John Hood

If Speaker Destin Hall and other leaders of the House of Representatives get their way — and I strongly suspect they will — voters will decide this fall whether to amend the state constitution to limit the growth of property-tax burdens across North Carolina.
Here’s how the ballot item would read: “Constitutional amendment requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments.” If most voters say yes — and I strongly suspect they will — the General Assembly will then specify by statute how the limits would function.
Although the details might change, what supportive lawmakers intend to do is cap the growth of local tax collections on assessed property at population growth plus general price inflation. That’s already the rule the General Assembly follows, more or less, when fashioning the state budget. It seems reasonable to most legislators, and to me, to establish a similar speed limit on property taxes.
Now, my choice of words here is far from arbitrary. When I say that the General Assembly “more or less” caps state spending growth at inflation plus population growth, I mean to underline that the cap applies only to the General Fund. Most state spending now occurs outside the General Fund, as it is either financed by federal revenues and user charges or is funded “above the line,” through revenue diversion, rather than formal appropriation. Neither makes the state spending cap worthless. It still imposes necessary fiscal discipline and helps to explain how North Carolina has reduced the state tax burden over time while also funding core services.
Similarly, a constitutional “levy limit” on property-tax growth won’t keep counties and municipalities from funding core local services or making capital investments in infrastructure to accommodate future population growth and economic development. It won’t slam the brakes. Rather, it will act as a governor on the accelerator, keeping the vehicle of government from speeding recklessly.
For example, I believe state lawmakers are likely to apply the growth cap on property-tax revenues to preexisting properties, not new residential, commercial, or industrial development. Tax-policy consultant Jared Walczak calls this option the Brownsville model, after the Texas jurisdiction of that name, and contrasts it with the Boise model (where the levy limit applies to both new and existing property) and the Boston model (where new construction is added to the cap itself).
My John Locke Foundation colleague Joe Harris prefers the Brownsville model, and I tend to agree. A primary motivation for property-tax reform is to keep current owners, be they households or businesses, from experiencing sudden huge spikes in property values and the tax bills that result from them. At the same time, property-tax collections ought to bear some relationship to expansion and development, so that localities can deliver services commensurate with growing demand.
The Boise model is too tight, the Boston model often too loose. The Brownsville approach, Harris argues, “offers the most transparent and accurate constraint on tax growth.”
I know many local officials are upset about the prospect of a constitutional constraint on property-tax burdens. But I would advise them to focus on how it ought to work, not whether to have one. While some policymakers in other states are flirting with the idea of abolishing property taxes altogether — replacing them, wholly or partially, with higher sales taxes — that’s not where North Carolina leaders are going. They seek to retain property taxation as a reliable and relatively efficient means of funding services such as public safety and infrastructure that benefit people in rough proportion to the “stake” they have in the community.
Given how up in arms some homeowners are about dramatic revaluations, however, and the fact that nearly three-quarters of respondents to a recent Carolina Journal Poll favor the House’s proposed constitutional amendment, local leaders should embrace discretion as the better part of valor here.
Statewide levy limits aren’t new or weird. They’ve worked reasonably well in other places for decades. I strongly suspect they’ll work well in North Carolina, too.

Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Be careful what you wish for, it might come true

Details

Tuesday, 05 May 2026

Written by Margaret Dickson

Did you wince as you paid your property taxes this year?
I did.
I am also appealing a revaluation of property our family owns in another North Carolina county, as the appraisal on a next-door lot of almost exactly the same size was valued at less than half of the Dicksons’ appraisal. Fingers crossed on that one.
That said, a proposal floating around in the North Carolina General Assembly for a state constitutional amendment limiting property taxes is a bad idea and then some. So far, no local government has ever hit the current limit of $1.50 per $100 value, which makes the proposed amendment look like a solution in search of a problem rather than a problem itself.
Property taxes are imposed locally to pay for local services, most of which we expect to be in place when we need them.
For example, if someone breaks into my residence, assaults me on the street, or hijacks my car, I definitely want a well-trained, adequately compensated law enforcement officer on duty to handle the situation. If I am injured, I definitely want a well-trained, adequately compensated EMS professional to tend to my injuries. I want garbage pickup and recycling services in my community, as well as parks for recreation and communing with nature. I want firefighters, streets with few potholes, sidewalks, and stormwater management programs. And, although my own precious jewels are long out of formal education, I want good schools for today’s students because education ultimately floats all boats.
All of these services are supported at least in part by local dollars raised by local property taxes. It is a gross generalization to say that lower taxes will mean fewer services, but it is also true.
Having been there and done that, I understand why some members of the General Assembly are supporting this constitutional amendment and why those who understand the tactic but do not support it would have a hard time voting against putting such a measure on the ballot in November. The hard, cynical truth is that no one in the history of the world has ever been successful on a platform of “I will never lower your taxes,” and no one wants to lose an election.
Short of further limiting local property taxes, even though no county has yet reached the current limit, what can be done to ease the very real burden suffered by some property tax payers?
Various proposals have been advanced for more nuance than provided by North Carolina’s current flat-rate property tax system. Second homes could be taxed at higher rates than primary residences. The current property tax valuation system—the one I am appealing—has obvious issues, as thousands of taxpayers can attest. Perhaps our burgeoning AI industry can help with this. Perhaps it will make it worse, but, at the moment all across the country and in North Carolina, expensive properties tend to be undervalued, and modest properties tend to be overvalued, a situation that generates enormous resentment. We could consider expanding property tax reductions for certain demographic groups like seniors and disabled individuals, including veterans.
The proposed constitutional amendment is a “one size fits all” vehicle when a more thoughtful and nuanced approach is needed. Individual taxpayers have our own situations, as do individual communities. None of us should be taken in by this “run on” bill, as in “I need a crowd-pleaser piece of legislation to ‘run on’ in 2026.”
This is a real-world example of “be careful what we wish for because our wish just might come true.” We can and should do far better than this.

Editor’s Note: Margaret Dickson served in the North Carolina General Assembly for four terms.