Views

America’s freedom clock needs winding

Details

Tuesday, 08 July 2025

Written by John Hood

When we commemorate the formal birthday of the United States of America, we don’t just celebrate a place, a set of governmental institutions, and a shared history that binds together people with differing backgrounds, faiths, and aspirations. We celebrate a revolutionary act.
As John Adams put it in 1818, the war that secured America’s independence was an effect, not a cause, of the American Revolution. “The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people,” he wrote.
During the turmoil of the 1760s and early 1770s, Americans began to discard the pseudo-religious concept that God had ordained kings and queens to rule over them. They also discarded the secular “habitual sentiments of allegiance and loyalty” that bound them to the crown, viewing the king’s trespasses against their liberty to have dissolved their reciprocal obligations to him.
These were revolutionary concepts in the 18th century. Indeed, America remains a revolutionary society today. But that need not make it unstable, unwieldy, or unattached to tradition. Our revolution of the mind didn’t reject the facts of human nature, the constraints of human life, or the intricacies and responsibilities of human community. It was fundamentally different than the subsequent Continental revolutions that produced guillotines and gas chambers.
Our revolutionary principle — inconsistently applied at first, imperfectly practiced today — was that all human beings are created equal in the eyes of God and the laws of man. It never meant that all human beings were, or could ever be, equal in all respects. It meant only that each of us has the natural right to liberty.
That is, we all enjoy the right to decide what we will do, with whom, to what end, as long as our actions don’t encroach on others’ right to do the same. And it means that when the latter proviso applies — when collective, coercive action is necessary — we all get a say in how such governmental power is exercised by expressing our views and casting our ballots.
Few human societies before 1776 exalted the principle of equal liberty above the interests of powerful monarchs and cabals. More have done so since, however imperfectly, with the delightful result that humanity is happier, healthier, wealthier, and freer than ever before in the history of our species. That’s a revolution worth celebrating.
It could easily have failed. As Adams explained in his letter, the colonies “had grown up under constitutions of government so different, there was so great a variety of religions, they were composed of so many different nations, their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance, and their intercourse had been so rare, and their knowledge of each other so imperfect, that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the same system of action, was certainly a very difficult enterprise.”
That’s what makes the events of 1776 so momentous. “The complete accomplishment of it, in so short a time and by such simple means, was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind,” Adams said. “Thirteen clocks were made to strike together — a perfection of mechanism, which no artist had ever before effected.”
Alas, just as there were no guarantees the American Revolution would succeed a quarter of a millennium ago, there are no guarantees of its continued success. Our institutions were designed to check and balance power, to limit its excesses, to protect our freedom against foes foreign and domestic — including our own foibles and temptations. They’ve worked fairly well. But they don’t work seamlessly. Clocks that strike together at first will, over time, get out of sync.
The framers of North Carolina’s constitution understood well that the system isn’t fully self-regulating. In Article I, Section 35, it states, “A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.” Each of us has a role to play in winding, adjusting, and repairing the clockwork of constitutional government. It’s the gift we should all give our country on its birthday.

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).

Welcome to summer: Is it hot enough for you?

Details

Tuesday, 01 July 2025

Written by Pitt Dickey

Some of you may have noticed the weather of late has been entirely too prominent. Colorful mega heat waves, tornados, hail stones the size of muskrats. Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.
When Willard Scott oversaw the weather on the Today Show, we did not have to endure these atmospheric scuffles. Willard kept things under control. Willard crossed over the great atmospheric divide in 2021. He can’t help us with the weather anymore.
Hell is accepted by many people as being hot.
With summer’s heat dome nestled lovingly over North Carolina, it is not too large a stretch to associate our weather with some approximation of the conditions in Hell.
We don’t have a lake of fire, yet. If, for an unfathomable reason, you walk barefoot at 3 p.m. on asphalt, you will experience on the soles of your feet what condemned souls suffer in Hell. Pro tip: If it is too hot to put your hand on the road, kindly do not subject your dog’s sensitive paws to the asphalt inferno. Burned puppy toes are a sign of a bad dog owner. But I digress.
Back to today’s topic.
What is Hell like? Do I want to go there? Once there, can I change my mind? Is Hell like the Hotel California? You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave? Will they accept major credit cards? With due respect to our heat waves, let us examine what Hell might be like.
Major religions each have their own views of Hell. In the interest of not being burned at the stake as a heretic, I will not attempt to summarize any religion’s beliefs about Hell. Joan of Arc was accused of being a heretic. At age 19, she was burned at the stake by the English in 1431. I hereby cite Ernest T. Bass of the Andy Griffith Show, who did not like Englishters. For any Englishter owners of a stake, charcoal, and a book of matches, please take note: I do not purport to hear voices and I do not speak French.
On a less theological note, consider what mere mortals have said about what Hell is like. Our old pal Mark Twain had some thoughts about Hell. One was “I would go to Heaven for the climate and to Hell for the company.” Huckleberry Finn was confronted with going to Hell due to his religious teachings if he helped Jim escape slavery.
Huck pondered the danger to his immortal soul. He ultimately determined to help Jim escape, saying: “All right then, I’ll go to Hell.” Davy Crockett said, “You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.”
The cheerfully effervescent Friedrich Nietzsche opined: “One must not let oneself be misled: They say, ‘Judge Not’ but they send to Hell everything that stands in their way.” Plato taught that Hell wasn’t a place where people were stuck forever, but where they could redeem themselves to escape Hell and go to Heaven.
It is a bit murky what kind of good stuff the dead could do in Plato’s Hell to improve themselves, but who am I to dispute Plato? The French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre wrote a play about Hell called No Exit. Several people who have died are in a room waiting to be told if they are going to Hell or Heaven. They get on each other’s nerves by various unattractive character traits. By the end of the play, they don’t care whether they go to Heaven or Hell, they just want to get out of the room and away from each other. In a Twilight Zone turn of events, it turns out they are going to be stuck in that room with each other for eternity. Sartre ends the play advising: “There is no Hell. Hell is other people.”
If you have ever been caught in a conversation with a Long Talker whom you could not escape, Sartre is your man.
Victor Hugo did not see Hell as the worst place to be. He might have been trapped by a Long Talker himself. Vic said, “An intelligent Hell would be better than a stupid paradise.” It is unclear if he was referring to Myrtle Beach.
Winston Churchill had some words of advice about Hell: “If you are going through Hell, keep going.” Winston’s quote was incorporated into a country song by Rodney Atkins with the immortal lines: “If you’re going through Hell, keep on going/ Don’t slow down if you are scared/ Don’t show it/ You might get out before the Devil knows you are there.”
Bill Shakespeare, who also had a way with words, chimed in on Hell. His character Ariel in The Tempest reported: “Hell is empty, and all the devils are here.” Bill, like Nostradamus, may have been gifted with the ability to foretell the future, as his quote clearly describes the US Congress.
Have we learned anything today? Sorry, not much. Rodney Atkins might owe Winston Churchill royalties on his hit country song. To mangle Macbeth, this column “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.”
Wear sunblock. It will finally cool off here in mid-November.

(Illustration by Pitt Dickey)

Troy's Perspective: Fayetteville's Mayoral race

Details

Tuesday, 01 July 2025

Written by Troy Williams

On June 12, Fayetteville's four-term Mayor, Mitch Colvin, announced that he would not seek re-election. According to a press release, he said, "I'm also looking forward to spending time with my family and working in my business." Colvin was on the record, saying amidst speculation that he would not run, saying, "Assume I'm running until I say otherwise." Once more, he faced the question just a week before his announcement on WIDU radio, and his responses remained consistent and compelling.
The Mayor has the authority to make his own decisions, but was it acceptable for him to lead or mislead his constituents over several months? Clearly, Mayor Colvin understood that his decision to delay announcing his re-election plans significantly narrowed the pool of potential candidates for the mayoral office. While it may be unfair to speculate on motives, the outcomes are undeniable. Some individuals interested in running for the mayor’s office ultimately decided not to enter the race, either out of respect for Colvin or due to concerns about competing against him.
The mayor’s announcement, made less than a month before the filing date period begins on July 7, puts any candidate who is not already campaigning at a significant disadvantage. Organizing a campaign for Mayor of Fayetteville is challenging. Assembling a political machine and acquiring a war chest of at least $60,000 to $80,000 will be difficult unless a candidate is already engaged in the community.
The outcomes remain constant regardless of whether the mayor’s decision was intentional or incidental; the advantage lies with the declared candidates who are already unofficially campaigning for office. Who benefits the most from Colvin's political stalling tactics? Whom do you think he is most eager to assist? District 3 Councilmember Mario Benavente is unequivocally Colvin's greatest adversary. There's no way Colvin would lend a hand to him. Then there's Freddie de la Cruz, a two-time opposition candidate on the ballot. I don't expect he will receive any assistance, either. So, among the leading candidates, the math is easy because there's only one left: Mayor pro temp District 1 Councilmember Kathy Jensen. I heard Colvin on WFNC radio, and while he didn't formally endorse Jensen, he spoke highly of her and emphasized the strength of their working relationship.
Former councilmember Paul Williams has also announced his candidacy, and additional mayoral candidates may emerge before the filing period closes on July 18. This upcoming fall promises to be an incredibly thrilling election season, full of meaningful choices and dynamic candidates that could reshape our future. Don't miss the opportunity to be a part of it!
The actual test for Mayor Colvin is whether he genuinely values spending time with his family and running his business, as he claims, or if he will choose to pursue another political office. The answer will become clear in due time.

AI will aid transit, not transform it

Details

Tuesday, 01 July 2025

Written by John Hood

Artificial intelligence is coming to public transit. In fact, in some functions and places, it’s already here. But can AI elevate transit into a major mode of daily travel in North Carolina cities and towns? Sorry, the answer remains no.
You don’t have to be a techno-optimist to recognize that autonomous vehicles are inevitable. Self-driving cars get the most headlines, for understandable reasons, but I’m persuaded that automating truck, bus, and train routes will happen faster, in a manner that saves time and money while also satisfying safety concerns.
AVs cannot, as yet, consistently navigate pedestrian-heavy street grids. Their initial deployment to scale will likely occur along fixed routes, including intercity passenger and freight service.
Writing in City Journal, economics editor Jordan McGillis observed that such uses won’t eliminate driving as an occupation. Instead, humans will handle operations near origins and destinations “where the irregularities of tight city streets, loading docks, and warehousing demand a flexible mind,” he wrote. “In practice, this will mean men who previously would have been isolated on the highway for hours on end are instead able to move freight closer to home.”
Some transit vehicles will become autonomous, as well, and future iterations may well include Waymo-style vans and shuttles. More immediate are AI applications that optimize routes, signals, and back-office support for human-operated buses. Some transit systems are already using them.
We should welcome such innovations in North Carolina. They’ll save money and improve service. But I remain doubtful their effects will include significant increases in the share of North Carolinians who regularly use transit for commuting or other daily tasks.
Charlotte has by far the state’s most elaborate and costly transit system, including rail and streetcar lines. A bill filed this year in the General Assembly would place a one-cent hike in the sales tax on the Mecklenburg County ballot this fall. Public transportation would get 60% of the revenue. Even so, its buses and trains are already running well below current capacity, with ridership only 65% of what it was before COVID and about half what it was in 2013.
In Raleigh, transit accounted for 2% of daily commutes in 2019. Four years later, it was just 1.2%. Yes, many fewer people commuted alone in their cars in 2023 (64%) than in 2019 (78%), but that’s because a quarter now “commuted” virtually, by working from home, compared to 9% in 2019. Heck, more Raleigh residents now walk to work than take a bus.
Transit trends differ across other North Carolina communities. From 2019 to 2023, total passenger miles traveled were up slightly in Greensboro, down moderately in Asheville and Durham, and down dramatically in Winston-Salem and Wilmington. In no place other than college towns did transit play more than a modest role in overall commuting patterns.
Although technology-driven improvements in transit service may budge these numbers a little bit, the blunt truth is that the vast majority of us will always choose personal automobility (or work flexibility, if applicable) over riding in groups on someone else’s schedule.
“COVID and technologies have changed travel,” wrote Arizona State University professor Steven Polzin in a recent Reason Foundation study, “but it’s important to recognize that many attributes of travel are very resilient to change.”
After analyzing decades of transit investment and ridership data, Polzin concluded that claims “public transportation can be ubiquitously viable at attractive levels of service over broad swaths of urban America are not supported by empirical data or by evidence of a public willingness or financial capacity to redesign and reconfigure urban areas to optimize transit use.”
That doesn’t mean transit will or should disappear, however. Outside of a few highly dense markets such as New York and Washington, transit’s primary function is to provide essential mobility services for those who cannot drive or afford their own vehicles. AVs and AI applications will help us better and more economically meet their needs. That’s fantastic news — and no fantasy.

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).