Open Letter to Democrats

Please, please please go antiwar this next election cycle. I want to vote Democratic this next election, I really do. But if you guys go and do ANOTHER election with cantidates who say "I'm just like a Republican, only better!" I'm really not sure what's going to happen to this country.

Lets take a long hard look at what voting more Republicans into office would say. With the exception of those few principled Republicans that have consistantly opposed the Bush Administration (Ron Paul, for example), most Republicans can be seen as basically a symbol of the current administration. Mr. Bush is in the process of redefining the executive branch into the position of Emperor of the World (provided it has the military means to do so). Now, I admit, the President has long had the power to do basically whatever he wants so long as he does it outside the United States themselves. This guy is formalizing it, and beginning to extend the Imperium into the home territory.

Very simply put, Caesar has crossed the Rubicon, and I cannot support any opponent who does not have as his or her goal the act of repulsing his forces, without installing just another imperial puppet. I think it can still be done electorially, but I think that window may be closing. And I think the act that will shut that window faster than anything else is another four years of Republican majority, unless said Republican majority is VERY different from the current one. And by different, I mean "willing to open Impeachment proceedings," and "Willing to actually enact the "fiscal conservatism" so many of them campaigned upon, then abandoned. Different names would help, too; fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (Not that I voted Republican...)

So, PLEASE, Democrats, unless there is a miracle over at the Libertarian Party (and there's already been one), you guys are the only ones that can save us now (outside the LORD God Himself). Focus on anti-war and constitutionalism (whatever your horrendously shoddy record on that second issue). Stay away from abortion, stem-cells, gay rights, race-baiting, and so on. I don't even care if you actually mean it or not. Simply let it be writen upon the media records of campaigns and elections that THAT is what we voted for, and the fear-mongering imperialsm of the Republicans is what we voted against. Congress has abdicated its authority; the Supreme Court is packed with imperial supporters. Give the voters one last chance...

Please. Please.




linky

Drug Errors and Government Medicine

I remember learning a fable in school. I don't remember whether I learned it in grade school, middle school, or high school, but by the time I was an adult, I knew this fable well. The fable went as so.

Once upon a time, there was no such thing as Medicine, or at least, not Scientific Medicine. Most people relied upon ancient superstitions, con-men, and such, for their medical treatment. Particularly scurrilious were the "snake-oil salesmen," people who would bottle esoteric substances and sell them as "miracle cures" to unsuspecting rubes. Many were injured by such villians, and the people cried out for something to be done.

Then the government created the FDA, licencing boards, etc. and everybody lived happily ever after.

So, how has the government been doing improving out medical system? Well, check this out. I can't help but wonder: is medicine in any better a state now than it was before the government got involved in medicine?

The hilarious thing about all this is that the answers to the questions are RIGHT THERE IN THE ARTICLE. For example

_The nation should invest about $100 million annually on research into drug errors and how to prevent them. Among the most-needed studies is the impact of free drug samples, which often lack proper labeling, on medication safety.

and the answer to the question...

Worse, there's too little incentive for health providers to invest in technology that could prevent some errors today, added Dr. J. Lyle Bootman, the University of Arizona's pharmacy dean, who co-chaired the IOM probe.

"We're paid whether these errors occur or not," lamented Bootman

Now, I'm not an expert, but I'd be willing to bet that under a system of medical freedom (ie. no governmen restrictions and no government funding), they WOULDN'T get paid whether the errors occured or not. Indeed, medical institutions all over the country would have a massive incentive to not make mistakes: those that did make mistakes would be fired for incompetance, and systemic problems would be fixed, or would be eliminated from the market.

How about this:

The government should speed electronic prescribing, including fostering technology improvements so that the myriad computer programs used by doctors, hospitals and drugstores are compatible.

Now, how exactly does a government do that? There's really only one power government can actually bring to bear: say, "start using electronic prescribing or else," and shut down those that don't, or can't comply. This is the main power of government.

So, have you ever heard of the law of supply and demand? Have you ever wondered why medical expenses are so high? Is it worth the money?

Personally, I don't really think so.

The Non-Agression Principle: Absolute Propety Rights

I was just reading this blog over here, and I came myself thinking, once again, about the notion that we can have a civil society without any party having the right to sieze the property of another party or individual--including the government. What that means is: no taxes--none at all. There is no "public" support for things like police and military, among other things. It's straight-up anarchy, which is the way many "Libertarian Purists" like it. The market would solve all problems.

Thieves and murderers would, of course, continue to exist. What is one's recourse to coersion in such a socity? In our current one, you can call the police. If they're coming in large groups from across the border, the military is the preferred instrument. Under anarchy, the only recourse is private action: either keep up a subscription to a private security force, or get together with your fellows and take matters into your own hands... assuming you have any left (hands, or friends).

Personally, I don't think it would work. I have been working on a blog in which I attempt to demonstrate this concept, but I think that The State is an inevitability. Very simply put, it would be cheaper to pay off a group that, in echange for payment, would both protect you from thieves and murderers, and also not be such toward you (Mafia style), rather than pay a group that has to protect you from BOTH the thieves and murderers and the Mafia at the same time. The most economically advantageous system would be the one you are required to participate in--or else. In addition, this industry benefits considerably from economies of scale. Thus, were we to abolish all government today, we'd only be hitting the "reset" button. The State would regrow, as The State is embedded into the intersection of economic law and the law of force.

So Anarchism, particularly "Anarcho-Capitalism", can't really work. It's a nice idea, and people love to dream of it, but its impossible, isn't it?

Not really. I think it is entirely possible to have a social system in which propety is absolute, and in which there exists a guarantor of rights big enough to be effective, and accountable enough not to become the chief violator. Furthermore, we don't have to make any exceptions to the rules for the governing entity: it would not have the right to violate property rights AT ALL, and yet, it would have sufficient funding. All you need, is to accept two ideas:

1. The right to property is absolute. No party has the right to violate the property of any other (not even the government).
2. The Land is absolutely the property of the Community, and not of individuals.

Note that when I say "The Land," I am not referring to the structures built upon the land, the crops grown in carefully prepared fields, the produce of enormous investment in wells and mines, or any other form of capital improvement. These, the results of the labors of men, shall remain securely in the posession of the individuals who build them. The farmer that ploughs and sows shall reap. The miner that digs shall sell his produce. The financier who brings together enormous sums of capital to accomplish great improvements shall reap the proper rewards. The improvements will be secured for the use of those who create the improvements. However, the actual square-feet of dirt would remain, in principle, the property of the community at large.

The problem with treating Land as the absolute property of "The Community" is one of execution. The most obvious way to go about it is simply to declare that the whole Earth is now the property of a newly chartered corporation, with each and every human being equal shareholders. This corporation would rent the land out to those who are willing to pay for the right to exclude others from the use of land. This idea is nice and simple in concept, but likely hideously bureaucratic an corruptable in execution. In addition, it feels like theft, the siezing of property that previously belonged to private individuals. While many of these individuals are the lucky heirs of those who acquired and held land while it was still cheap, there are others who, in their lifetime, have sacrificed much to acquire the lot upon which they live, or where they do business.

I have written before about a way to establish such a coropration without even appearing to be stealing a thing. However, that solution has the problem, once again, of potentially being excessively bureaucratic and corruptable, particularly as it grows in size. I believe a far better solution is presented by Henry George in his book Progress and Poverty, which I am currently reading.

I would just jump to the chase on how it is done, but I think it is necessary to read what George has to say on the subject before his solution to the problem of the poverty that inevitably accompanies economic progress (the increasing divide between rich and poor, and the undeniable fact that the poorest among aboriginal peoples live far better than the poorest among our own.). Perhaps at a later date, I'll do a sort of "cliffs notes" for Progress and Poverty, for those who lack the ability to slog through the admittedly very wordy, perhaps unnecessarily wordy, writing style of Henry George. (Then again, perhaps I suffer the same deficiency.)

EDIT: Were to read but one chapter from Progress and Poverty, read this one.

Notification of Suspension

This is to announce that the Weekly Ramble is suspended until further notice. I simply do not have the time to write anything these days. Between my job and the maintenance of my household, I have little time to maintain any kind of regular schedule.

If you are a reader and you would like to be notified when I resume (and I fully intend to), please comment on this post and provide your email address. Or, if you'd rather not leave your address out there for fear of spam bots, feel free to email me directly at tarvok@gmail.com

Thank you for reading.

Nazis and the Neoconservative Movement

A recent commentary on lewrockwell.com regarding the subject of the government's aversion to seeing the Bush Administration compared to Nazis, while they apparently have no trouble comparing other heads of state to Nazis. This got me thinking about the disturbing similarities I have noticed, and got me wondering if I could get into trouble doing the same. Mind you, I only have about five readers I know about (and I doubt even they are consistant), so I'm hardly a threat. But, you never know. Someone might decide to make me famous.

I would prefer to pepper this with links to quotes demonstrating the points I wish to make, but unfortunately, I am a slave, and only have time to do this on my lunch hour. So, instead I provide you with anecdotes from the top of my head.

So, without further ado, Neocons and Nazis.

Nationalism

I see traditional American Conservatism as having the following features. It has a mistrust for big government and high taxes, preferring smaller government and lower taxes. However, it also has a mistrust for people in, and from, other countries, and so it supports a large military. This military is meant to be used for defensive purposes, to deter those that would otherwise attack. It is not to be used for "nation building" or any other such nonsense. It prefers the lowest possible spending on social programs and foreign aid--none, if at all possible. And it has a great love for America, and American Freedoms.

The only portion of this the Neocons seem to honor is the nationalism part, but they change the message associated with it. For while both a traditional conservative and a neocon will stand and wave the flag with entusiasm, they do so for different reasons.

The traditional conservative sees America as the land of the free, a place with unique freedoms--the Consitution, the Declaration of Independence, and all that. American Nationalism and American Freedom go hand-in-hand; a true conservative would not sacrifice freedom for security.

For the Neocon, America is defined not by her internal traits of individual freedom, but by her external trait of international leadership. America is seen as a unique force for peace and justice in the world, never before seen on the stage of history. To them, ours is a God-granted destiny, to extend our holy system of government to every corner of the world. No cost in either treasure or freedom to our own people is too great to realize this destiny, and anything can be justified in the name of this destiny.

Nazi Germany was also founded on the notion that Germany was a nation superior to all others, destined to reign over the nations.

Socialism

Recall that "Nazi" is a shortening of a longer party name that translates "National Socialism." Their greatest supporters were the middling majority. Ensuring the welfare of their people (Germans) was a prime concern for the German government of that period.

Traditional conservatives would end welfare if they could. Traditional conservatives have long called for the abolishment of the Department of Education.

Compare that to the Bush Administration, which, I have read, has increased spending on Medicare more than any president in years, and has extended the power of the Department of Education farther than any electable Democrat would have dared. Wheras traditional conservatives believe in a limited federal government, the new conservatives are engaged in an unprecedented expansion of federal power, to ensure the welfare of our citizens--something traditional conservatives don't see government as being particularly good at.

Government spending hasn't expanded so much since the Johnson administration, and the War isn't even the principal expansion (Medicare is).

Anti-Semetism

Newsflash! Arabs are Semites! Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, since he was Ishmael's God, too. And the problem old-line anti-semites had with Jews wasn't restricted to Jews; true anti-semites are opposed to any alien, invasive culture stemming from the Middle East, including both Islam and Christianity.

If you look at the rhetoric of the typical Neo-Conservative, there seems to be far greater reverance for the symbols of our Nation (the "Constitution", the flag, the dollar, etc.) than there is for the Cross. They claim the sanction of God, but which god? Jesus said "Love your enemy, and pray for those who persecute you," but the typical Bush supporter obviously follows the older dictate Jesus was responding to, "Love your Neighbor and Hate your Enemy." Love America, hate any nation that does not bow to it. Regard with suspcian any country that does not share our political systems and does not alter any and all foreign and domestic policy when Americans come to call. Hate, in particular, the French, whose nationalists are continually trying to distinguish themselves from us.

There are those who preach that our war is a great War, a Clash of Civilizations, between Islam and... something else. It depends on who you ask, but there are those who claim the opponent is Christianity, to which I say "No." Jesus preached that we should love our enemies. If a man slap us on the check, we are to turn the other to him. If a man forces us to go a mile with him, we are to go two! If a man demands our coat, we are also to give him our cloak! And I do not believe the mandate of a Christian changes any when he takes the reigns of government. For this reason, I do not believe it is possible for a genuine Christian to posess the power of the sword; few would vote for a man who would, on their behalf, turn the other cheek.

No, it is not the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob they worship, but rather the great old God of the State. In Rome, it was the Cult of The Emperor (highest of all gods). In the US, it can be seen in the idol we call the Flag, to whom the state requires we Pledge Alliegence. In the Neoconservative movement, the Cult of State, begun sometime around World War 2, reaches fruition.

The Muslims are opposed by these people with the vigour they do not because they kill in the name of their ideology (our own government does that with great frequency), but because their ideology, like that of Jews and Christians, does not regard the State in general, and America in particular, as supreme. They may be severely misguided in their assessment of the will of God (or perhaps they are not?), but that is not the reason they are opposed.


Okay, so I got it written. Understand that this is worse drivel than usual--I really had to stretch for the Anti-Semetic part. I simply don't have time to write good stuff. :( But it was fun, nonetheless. :p

True Wealth

At a recent bible study, the matter of "true wealth" as discussed in the Bible was the topic of the day. It got me thinking about the matter of wealth storage, wealth stability, portability, the associated risks, and so on. I came up with a sort of "wealth continuum," going from the most transient forms of wealth to the most stable. It looks something like this:

Transient

Food, consumables
Fiat Currency
Tools, Capital Improvements
Gold, Land
Knowledge, skills
Friends, Family, Social Goodwill
The LORD's Goodwill

True

Each of these forms of wealth have differing degrees of volatility and reliability. I shall discuss each in turn.

Food, Consumables

Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, thanked God for them, brok them into pieces, and gave them to the disciples, who distributed the food to the crowd. Matthew 15: 36

But, of course, some of them didn't listen and kep some of it until morning. By then it was full of maggots and had a terrible smell. Exodus 16: 19-20

These are things that you buy, you use, and you're done. Food is the clearest example. You buy food, and you'd better eat it. If you don't, it'll spoil, and become useless to you. It is obviously not a place for investment, though you can't really get away from buying these things. And, of course, it is vulnerable to disasters, such as pest infestation or other contamination, and, of course, theft.

Fiat Currency

This is a more storable and portable form of wealth than consumables, but it spoils with time, as well. A fiat currency is generally managed in an inflationary style, so as time goes by, its value goes down. The sooner you spend it on something, the better. A poorly managed currency is even more vulnerable; sudden spikes of inflation can wipe out one's savings. It's probably even more vulnerable to theft than food and consumables.

Tools, Capital Improvements

This is a better investment than just holding money. One can buy tools to multiply one's labor, or one can invest in other kinds of capital improvements. One can buy shares in manufacturing operations. If one invests wisely in this category, one can do well.

However, there are many disasters that can take away this form of wealth. A sudden shift in the market can ruin a business. A fire can destroy it. Tools and machines wear out, rust, and go obselete. These things can be stolen, or vandelized. Poor management can ruin a business. A constant input of labor, both of the mind and of the body, is needed to maintain capital wealth, as well as a constant input of more capital, for maintenance, replacements, and updates.

Gold, Land

These are things that if one owns them, his wealth increases without any effort except for that which is necessary to keep his claim. Gold generally goes up in value against currencies. Land goes up in value. An investment in real estate is a sure investment. So long as an area's population increases (and this is pretty much inevitable, so long as our food supply continues to be greater than the population's needs), land and gold will increase in value. And that class that has control over their people's land is the class that rules. Gold does not tarnish or rust.

However, gold can be stolen. Land is more sure than gold, but it is dependent upon the stability of the regime that protects land claims. Both are vulnerable to shifts in government policy. And, of course, there are situations that require one to make a choice between one's land and one's life--a bad choice to have to make.

Knowledge, Skills, Wisdom

Wisdom or money can get you almost anything, but it's important to know that only wisdom can save your life. Ecclesiastes 7:12

Because of this, I will do wonders among these hypocrites. I will show that human wisdom is foolish and even the most brilliant people lack understanding. Isaiah 29: 19

I was uncertain whether to put this one before or after gold and land. I decided to put it after, since it is not something that can be taken away (except by madness) once it is acquired. It is something that can be used regardless of the situation. If one is trained as an engineer, one can either command a high salary designing solutions in a mature economy, or trade it for lesser things in a more chaotic situation. These things are useful, and do not wear out, rust, and cannot be taken away.

However, it can go obselete. A skilled blacksmith is driven to poverty by mass-production of metal goods. A skilled farmer who does not keep up on developments in his field will be competed out of the market by an agressive agricultural corporation. A computer programmer must constantly learn new techniques and languages, as the old ones go obselete. Obsolescence is the thing that hurts knowledge and skills.

Friends, Family, and Social Goodwill

I am reminded of "It's A Wonderful Life," wherin George Bailey, highly blessed in all the previous areas (particularly knowledge and skills) is failed by all those areas. Some money is lost, and no amount of skill or wealth or anything can save him. He stood to lose his business his house, and his very freedom. It drives him to suicide (and we'll discuss the intervention that prevents that in the next section), but his friends and family come through for him.

When hard times come, when all the previous forms of wealth fail, having people to fall back upon helps. If a friend is helped out in a time of need, he's likely to help in your time of need. If your house burns down, you can stay with a friend. If you don't have enough money to buy food, a friend is able to help. If your entire base of wealth is destroyed by a hurricane, a friend is able to help.

However, friends die. Friends lose their wealth, too. Sometimes, friends betray you. The more friends you have, the safer you are, but there are things that can drive away even the most loyal of friends. Friends can fail you.

The LORD, The Kingdom of God

Store up your treasures in heaven, where they will never become moth-eaten or rusty and where they will be safe from thieves. Matthew 6: 20

There is one friend that never fails. He is called by many titles, but here, Redeemer and Provider are probably the best ones to use. God is the ultimate source of all wealth. It is he who created the earth from which all our wealth springs. It is he who blesses us with the gifts that enable us to produce wealth. It is he who blesses us with stability, or curses us with instability, which affects the ability to retain wealth. And it is he who can save us when nothing else can.

Food and consumables are made by him, and sometimes miraculously provided, from the manna of the ancient Israelites to the loaves and fishes served up by Jesus and his disciples. Money may belong to Caesar, but the value it represents belongs to God... and I have seen the miracle of the fishes and loaves work in my own financial life (HOW exactly I manage to be okay when I'm living from check to check, and then a financial emergency strikes, can only be answered by Him). Without the skills he grants us, our tools are worthless, but he can provide us with opportunities to gain new tools when our old ones are lost.. He made the land; we are but sojourners in it, and gold is worthless if he is not with us. Skill and knowledge come directly from Him, as do opportunities to profit by them. And those who sincerely follow Him are the best of friends, the most reliable of family, and even when they are destroyed in body or otherwise unable to help, He can help us, in ways we cannot even imagine.

Limit Eminent Domain!

As I'm sure anyone who bothers to read this blog is aware of, the eminent domain issue has been very large in the news lately. I don't have time to write an extensive piece about it here, but I want to annouce that the initiative I will be supporting is moving forward. Petitions need signing. This is a grass roots effort; there is no "big money" behind it, so we'll need all the volunteer help we can get. Go here, download the petition and supporting documents, and just get out there and get some signatures!

From here on, there shall be a link in my sidebar.

The Bad of obsolete Law Retirement Committee

Here's something I think our (Republican) lawmakers could do to prove the devotion to a reduction in the size of government they claim to have during their campaigns.

There should be a committee established at the various levels (Congress, state legislatures, etc.) which has the purpose of proposing the repeal of various laws and acts. Their job would be to look for laws that seem either dishonestly established, ineffective in their stated purpose, or just plain obsolete, and propose that they be repealed. They would, hopefully, be able to do full research on the history behind an act, including the problem they were supposed to address, the arguments made in favor and against, the actual history of the enforcement of the law, the effects of said enforcement, the names of the yeas and the nays, and the lobbyists who backed the act.

They've got committees for every other purpose. Why not this? I think it would shed a lot of light on the actions of our government, and might actually have the effect of rolling back a certain amount of it.

Justice: Absolute Restitution

One problem I think we have with our justice system is that people don't really think much about justice, as a concept. For most people, the government does what it does, and that's that. For those who actually encounter our justice system, it's more about vengeance, the desire to hurt the person they perceive as having hurt them. For some, it's about locking away people they feel threatened by. For others, it's about "rehabilitation."

I believe that justice, ultimately, is about restoring a balance that is disrupted by crimes of various kinds, committed by one against another. So far as it is possible, justice should be aimed at requiring the perpetrator to restore their victim to their original state. In situations in which this is not possible, it's about causing the same harm to the perpetrator, so that the victim can feel that, even if the situation is far from perfect, the criminal has been justly punished.

You'll notice that this definition explicitly excludes victimless crimes. I do not believe there should be any such thing defined by the state. The justice of the state should be purely a matter of mediation between individuals; the only crimes that should be prosecuted by the state are matters of treason, and possibly destruction of public property.

I think that our justice system would work better if all justice were thought of in terms of restitution. When one commits a crime against another, count that as a debt incurred. In the event that the debt cannot be paid, we could imprison them, but I doubt that would solve much. A lengthy period of indentured servitude would serve all of the purposes listed above. It would be a form of imprisonment, which would satisfy those that demand imprisonment. However, it would also put them to work, which would provide value to the party harmed by the crime. During that time, they would learn work skills, which would serve the purpose of rehabilitation. And because it would be individuals who profit from their labor who would be responsible for the servant, it would reduce our prison budget to almost nothing, allowing for lower taxes, allowing for higher employment, which would help reduce crime overall.

I prefer a period of seven years. On top of being the length of time specified in the Law of Moses (which would make it politically viable for Judeo-Christian fundamentalists), it would probably also be sufficient time to train a particularly bright servant in a high-value skill, while allowing time for the trainer to make a profit on the investment. Such a servant, once freed, would be unlikely to return to a life of crime.

Note that these servants would be transferable. The victim of a crime wouldn't find himself saddled with a person he really doesn't want around. He would, however, have the option to sell the perpetrator's servitude to another person or entity, possibly a business that makes its money getting the most out of such persons. The likely mode of operation would be to train them in the most economically valuable skill they can be trusted with, and collect the money until their term ends. The newly freed person would now have a valuable skill to live on.

In some cases, restoration is possible. In the case of theft, require the robber to pay back twice as much as he stole. In the case of vandalism, require the vandal to repair the damage, and pay again the expenses. Do the same for arson. For injury, the rule would be "an eye for an eye," though if the victim chose the eye, they would not have the opportunity to sue for medical expenses. They can either get the eye, or twice the expenses, but not both.

In the case of murder, the perpetrator would owe the victim's next of kin their life; the victim's family would literally have the right to kill the murderer.

For more dispersed wrongs, dispersed entities could be created to defend that particular resource. For example, groundwater pollution could be prosecuted by he who owned the groundwater, ie. a corporation owned by the people in a given area, managed by a board of directors elected by the shareholders.

The key element to note here is that at no point does the State become the plaintiff; it provides the judge and enforcement, but nothing more. Thus, if the victim decides that, for whatever reason, he wishes to forgive the perpetrator, or accept a lighter sentence, he would have the authority to do so. The state would not have the ability to continue a prosecution that could be settled more easily out of court. The victim would be firmly in the driver's seat, and while the law would define what they are entitled to, they would be free to accept other terms, assuming the perpetrator agreed.

Much fewer prisons, rehabilitation, strict enforcement, and an absolute concern for victim's rights. What more can you ask for?

Balanced Budget Amendment

We interrupt this bout of political science-fiction to bring you an idea I think would actually be a good idea to implement today. The passage I would amend reads as follows. The part in bold is the addition I would make.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States in a time of war as declared by Congress;

To pay interest and principal on debts previously established;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why would I take away the power to borrow money except in times of war? The reasoning is simple. We have seen during the twentieth century that a democratically elected government that has this power will abuse it, guaranteed. It is a dangerous power to give to an unaccountable multitide. The democratic political process is such that it encourages high spending and low taxes, and I do not believe it is wise to count on the "widson" of either elected leaders or the voters to restrain the use of this power. Thus, I think that in most circumstances, it is wisest not to permit Congress to borrow money.

However, it is a power that is needed in times of emergency, and the only emergency I think it proper for the government to respond to in this manner is a threat from without. An invading army would use all financial resources available to it, and thus, so should our government. However, I do believe that, if our debt is kept down, there will be even more money avaiable to be borrowed in an emergency. This amendment would make the power to borrow even more powerful, since it wouldn't be wasted on frivolous political matters.

Taxation Justification

Head over to The Free Liberal to see the mess that inspired this.

The issue at hand: is any level of taxation justified?

One thing I think we can agree on is that, for the most part, taxation is unavoidable. As they say, "The only things certain in life is death and taxes," to which I might add my own corrollery, that attempting to avoid taxation entirely speeds one on to the former condition, whether it be death by tax collector or death by uncontrolled thuggery. You're going to have to pay someone, whether it be the mob boss down the street, your own private security service (which you then have the opportunity to use to become the aformentioned mob boss), or the government tax man. In reality, it comes down to who you would rather pay... and I would argue that there are merits and downsides to all three of the possibilities I presented (not to mention the many that I did not).

However, that isn't the question. Taxes may be unavoidable, yes, but is any level of taxation justified? Every libertarian knows the argument (whether they like it or not). All taxation ultimately comes via the barrell of a gun: pay up or else, is the mantra of the taxman. Indeed, the protection money demand made by a gangster has the advantage of being honestly presented. Taxation is, in itself, a form of theft, though it's a form of theft most people are content to live with, given the alternatives.

However, I argue that it doesn't have to be that way. There are many places where "taxes" can be collected in such a way that, even though a demand is implied, the demand is generated in response to a wrong committed by the class doing the paying, or by a service provided that can only be provided by government. I will list a few types of taxes I think are justifiable.

Land Taxes

For me, this is the primary kind of taxation I think our government ought to be engaged in: taxation based upon land deeds. The reason for this is simple: land deeds are a "right" that is created by government. For while a man may have a right to his home, no man has an absolue right to control over acres and acres of land which are not his home; which, in some previous generation, was somebody else's home, wrongfully stolen from him. This is a right created by the government because it is advantageous to do so. The support of the farmer is greater than the support of the herdsman or hunter whose rights you violate by protecting him. The support of the real estate developer is even greater still.

The government registers land deeds. The government enforces land deeds. Therefore, the government has every right to be compensated for this service. And if the government is not compensated, the government has every right to cease providing said services; ie. to erase the land deed, and to stop protecting the owner from squatters and tresspassers.

Now, I offer this with the caveat that I believe that, to a certain extent, people ought to have the ability to choose their own governments. And I don't just mean people ought to be able to elect the rulers; I mean people ought to be allowed to secede from unsatisfactory governments in a regular and orderly fashion--and take their land with them. I don't think even government ought to be a government-created monopoly; a competitive market could keep the prices at an acceptable level.

Tarrifs

Here is another thing I think is justified. Another service the government provides for us is the border, by which it protects us from the chaos caused by the unwise choices of other people's governments. We expect them to keep out terrorists, drug dealers, foreign criminals, and, of course, foreign military forces. I see no reason the government cannot charge those that choose to cross that border for the business they do as they cross it. The more pourous the border, the better conditions are for business; however, the more difficult it is for the border patrol to do their job. The government ought to be directly compensated for such crossings, assuming we expect them to police the borders in the first place.

Again, if we expect the government to defend our borders, they have every right to compensation for that service. Now, it would be nice if someone could come up with a way of allowing market forces to influence the level of compensation that occurs. At the very least, regular and orderly secession practices should be established.

Pollution Taxes

Imagine someone went up to your house and stuck a hose in through the window. Imagine further that they then began pumping green paint in through that hose, ruining your carpet. You would expect the courts to force them to pay the cost of replacing the carpet, and rightfully so.

Imagine further that instead of pumping paint, they pumped toxic gasses into your house. Your best friend (the dog) died as a result. You would likely expect considerably greater compensation.

Now imagine that instead of lethal levels, they instead pumped in levels of pollutants over years of time that caused your child to have a case of asthma he would not have otherwise had. Would you expect them to pay the medical bills that resulted?

Simply put, polluters profit at the expense of people that have to use the resource they are polluting. And while clear-cut localized pollution can be handled by existing legal procedures, the more dispersed and general kinds of pollution (air pollution, for example) cannot be. That would be one *serious* class action suit, and inhumanly expensive.

Instead, polluters ought to be charged directly for their use of our air, water, or whatever as a repository for their byproducts. Just as you (or SOMEBODY) has to pay the dump for the dumping of solid wastes, polluters should have to pay the air district for the dumping of their byproducts. Preferably, it ought to be charged by that level of government which is closest to both the offender and those offended. For example, if most of California's Central Valley's air pollution is produced in the Valley itself, it ought to be an agency created for, of, and by the people of the Central Valley that does the charging. That way, we can make our own decisions as to the trade-offs: clean air, economic development, economic compensation, enforcement costs.

If there's a whole lot of pollution coming from another specific air district, such that it can be proven in a court of law, then regular legal procedures can be used to address that issue, district to district.

If the case for global warming ever goes beyond the politically-motivated house of cards it presently is, I could even support a general tax on carbon-based fossil fuels. (I can already support the taxation of their use by cities, where the concentration of the associated pollutants is already a nuisance at best, a hazard at worst.) The best thing about this tax is it would be collected at a very minimal set of locations: wellheads, mineshafts, and ports of entry. The taxman wouldn't have to be peaking into everybody's business in order to collect it.

Representation By Contribution

This isn't so much a form of taxation, as an alternative to taxation I think would solve more than just the coercive taxation problem. It could solve a whole host of problems, as I've described before. (If you want to read something more current regarding monetary corruption in government, go here.) Since I have, I'll touch on the basics, and a few more observations about the possible benefits.

Simply put, you have one house in a bicameral legislature chosen according to voluntary contribution to the government. As time goes by, people contribute to the government, and receive shares in the next senate election in return. These shares can be traded on the open market. When the election comes, the shareholders vote in the election much as any set of shareholders would elect a board of directors, the difference being that once they've voted, their shares are no longer good.

I've already gone over the benefits in the matter of legislative corruption by money extensively; that was my primary motivation in the original writing.

Another benefit has to do with differences in size between governmental power in different countries. Some states have power that extends over the whole globe. Others can barely keep order internally, and can't even defend against a pushy multinational corporation. There are benefits to both types of countries that adopt this system.

For the global hegemon, this provides them with a way of providing foreigners representation in a government that definately has an impact upon them, in a manner that strengthens the global hegemon. If Brazil, for example, is concerned that our ag subsidies, trade restrictions, and foreign policy are a threat to their own well being, they could buy a seat on our own senate, gaining not only a voice, but a vote on such policies. However, they also directly strengthen our hegemony via direct monetary contribution. It's a win-win situation, in my opinion.

For the tiny third world country, however, this provides them with a direct and regular way to benefit from the presence of multinational corporations. It wouldn't be hard at all for the people of such a country to say, "Okay, we'll pass any law you originate in our own senate, if it meets our satisfaction." The multinational contributes directly to the government in question by buying up pretty much the entire senate. However, the people of that country still have the other half of the bicameral legislature, as well as the executive branch; it can deny truly offensive measures. And, of course, as the country develops, the amount of capital circulating locally increases, allowing local contributors to compete more and more effectively with the foreign multinational.

Conclusion

I hope I have convinced some people that there is such a thing as "taxes" which can be justified. I think all these could be described as "use fees," but of such a general nature they could completely replace our existing tax regime... assuming we abandoned our present out-of-control spending policies. I hope to hear from someone on this issue.

Al Gore, Constitutionalist?

Read Al Gore's Speech

I like what I see, but is it trustworthy? I am inclined to think so; I've always liked Al Gore (who did NOT say he invented the Internet). Read. Discuss. Please.

Telecommunications Regulation

For this week, a letter I just wrote to Congressman George Radanovich:

You're not personally my representative, but I just read at http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-fresno-calif-panel-explore-federal-telecommunication-laws-/2006/01/26/1316203.htm that you are on the committee that is tasked with rewriting our telecommunications laws. I have some ideas on the subject that I hope you might consider.

The problem in the existing market that I see is that the companies that own the lines are currently permitted to require that we buy, for example, local telephone service if we want DSL Internet access, or charge more for Cable Internet access if we do not also subscribe to Cable TV. There is also a dearth of wireless broadband options where I live; I don't know if this is due to economic realities or regulatory barriers to potential providers. If it is the former, I am patient, and recognize that it takes time and money to establish services. If it is the later, this is your opportunity to do something about it.

Ultimately, I would like to see a total separation of transmission and content, though I don't know if this is doable in the current round of regulatory revisions. What I mean is, I pay the "internet company" for access to the internet at large, and I pay *only* for that service--nothing else. Then, I can get telephone switching from any IP telephony company (for example), and/or I can get video content from any video multicaster, and/or I can subscribe to any service that requires a data connection between myself and a provider.

I'm not too concerned about price gouging at the "last mile." Certainly, at the moment, SBC and Comcast are the only (reasonably priced) broadband providers in the city of Fresno, but once PG&E gets into the action, that'll be a third option. Do what you can to remove regulatory burdens to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (wireless) for data transmission. That will up the competition considerably, and should lower access prices. Whatever you do, put up as few barriers (zero, if possible) into getting into the the internet access business, by whatever data channel is available. I don't care if someone finds a way to use the sewer system to provide access; make it legal.

Another thing you might consider is requiring that service contracts state not what can be done with the transmission capacity, but HOW MUCH transmission capacity is being sold. This would open the market to such things as a subscriber opening his home wireless network to neighbors, for a fee or for free, as he sees fit. Note that this does not authorize the sharing of *content*; the cable company (or whoever) would still be free to say only one household is allowed to watch cable TV. However, my network is my network, and I should be allowed to permit access to whom I will; the Internet Company shouldn't be able to tell me what traffic, and whose, I am allowed to transmit on a connection I pay for. Make them sell personal bandwidth, not personal access.

A third thing I would like to see is the Internet hosting two different levels of data transmission service. Basic TCP/IP would be carried along the fastest path it can find for no price other than an access fee. Then there should be a second level of service, a "preferred traffic" level of service. This would be a service that could find a path of guaranteed bandwidth from point A to point B. The sender would pay extra for the guarantee, according to how the owner of each line prices preferred traffic. A protocol could be developed to allow the sender to search for the cheapest path that'll get the job done, and combine the billing via his access company.

This would open the content provision market wide open, while still keeping basic services like E-mail and web cheap. Presently, transmission of high bandwidth content (video, for example) is limited by the amount of traffic on the internet, and there is no differentation in importance between one packet and another. Basically, it's SLOW. By allowing people to pay extra for guaranteed on-time delivery of packets, those that needed extra bandwidth (such as video providers) could pay for it, passing on the expense to their customers, while still keeping basic TCP/IP service cheap.

The profits derived from preferred traffic could then be used increasing the amount of bandwidth available, which is good for everybody involved.

Whatever you do in this round of revisions, operate under the assumption of liberty. Minimize the amount of government regulation, while keeping in mind the fact that a private monopoly (particularly a government protected one) has as much power to trample liberty as a government does. Try to maximize the freedom of all the people: those who own the lines and provide access, their customers, and those that choose not to participate.

Iran Goes Nuclear

So everybody's talking about Iran's recent decision to continue their nuclear research. They do this under the pretext of developing a nuclear power industry. They are probably lying. I say this not because they are an Islamofascist state, but because their leaders are politicians, just like ours. Lying seems to be simply a part of the business. So we can safely assume they are developing nuclear weapons.

Why now? It's obvious. Military force isn't really an option for us right now. Between our financial debt and the public's anxiety to get out of the Iraq war sometime soon (not necessarily now, but when we, and they, are ready for it), I can't really see us staging another invasion any time soon. And I suspect Iran would be a much harder nut to crack. Iraq was a loosely collected group of enslaved peoples groaning under the opression of a ruthless dictator. Iran is a one-party republic presently ruled by a popular nationalist president. Many, many people would die, and I doubt we'd accomplish much in the process. Unless the Eurpeans, the Russians, the Chinese, and others are willing to come forth with significant forces, I doubt it can be done.

Then there's the option of diplomacy. I sincerely doubt diplomacy is going to work on a popular nationalistic president with greater ambitions. It'll probably be about as effective as the diplomacy France and Britain did with Nazi Germany before the start of World War 2. Indeed, we may well be seeing the beginnings of World War 3 on our hands, if we don't do something.

We do have one card up our sleave, a card we didn't have before World War 2: the card that ended it. Jacque Chirac showed unusal good sense for a Frenchman last Wednesday; ironically enough, he did it with the very same sort of sabre rattling the French are famous for hating the Americans for. I think it's pretty much inevitable at this point that the Iranians are going to get nukes sometime soon, and we're going to have to find a way to deal with it. Heck, it's pretty much inevitable that the whole world will have nukes someday. With the advance of knowledge, I fully expect that someday, high school students will be capable of building nuklear reactors in their garages--if only they can acquire the necessary raw materials. I believe the raw materials exist in abundance in many places.

So we can't stop them from going nuclear. What we can do is attempt to ensure that their weapons remain weapons of national defense

I would start with the UN. I believe that France and Russia are scared enough of Iran to go along with us this time, if not actually lead the charge. I don't see how obstructing the entire security council could benefit the Chinese, though they may require some kind of concession in some other area. What I would have the UN do is basically set up a sort of UN sponsored spying effort, kind of a system of nuclear inspections, whether they like it or not. The goal is to keep track of their nuclear materials, and do our best to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands. We'll do it openly secretly: yes there will be spies. No, we won't tell them who they are or where they'll be. And we'll expect them to repatriate any spies they catch, with the full Genoeva compliant treatment prior. This will all be justified under the rhubric "nonproliferation violation."

The second component will be the reiteration of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction to the new generation of rogue states. We'll let the Iranians know that if they decide, for example, to wipe Israel off the map, Israel won't be the only country wiped off the map. We'll let them (and the North Koreans) know that if a nuclear bomb is set off by an Islamist terrorist in any country under our nuclear umbrella, we WILL NOT give them the benefit of the doubt; absolute nuclear obliteration will commense. While there are plenty of radicals in Iran who might say, "so what?" I don't believe every man, woman, and child in Iran is prepared to be a suicide bomber. If their leaders are truly insane enough to start a nuclear war, I fully expect the Iranian people to hand us their heads.

As to conventional threats, for this to work, we need to stay on the defensive, and off the ground in Iran. If they start shelling Israel, call in airstrikes. If we lack air supremacy, bomb their airbases. Hit military targets only. Iran is a republic. We need their dissenters on our side. If they position military hardware in civilian areas, send in advance notice, give the civilians time to get out, then hit it hard. Never mind the ones who stay to be "martyrs." Forget about "collateral damage;" those are the breaks in war. And I don't believe American occupation is an option, in this case. I'm not sure sending in Russian troops would be much smarter. But I am certain that even a nuclear Iran can be contained. Indeed, now that they're part of the "MAD Club," it might even be easier.

Drug Legalization

I'm not certain if I've covered this before, but I may as well post on it again. I was originally going to post this in response to one of Cranky Weasel's posts, (Cranky Weasel's site is a very good read, btw) but decided it was off topic. However, I thought it was well written enough that I could post it here. So, here it is.

As to drugs, I am convinced that more progress would be made were drugs legal. In other areas, this would mean less money would be needed for policing that area, and less outrageous profits would go to those that sell the drugs--you cut off the primary source of funds for gangsters, terrorists, and unlawful organizations of all stripes. Alcohol Prohibition created Al Capone. Drug prohibition has created the very large, very powerful, and very violent street and prison gangs we currently have.

But on top of it, by making it illegal, we bury the stories of actual users. We ruin the credibility of the anti-drug movement when they spread scare stories that don't jive with the stories people can get from actual users, and we ruin the effectiveness of *actual* scare stories since the transmission of such information is limited to the black information market. I am well aware of what Meth can do to a person because I have numerous second-hand stories, and a single firsthand story, to back it up. Suffice to say, it's some really bad stuff. However, people who don't have these kinds of connections don't have access to this kind of information. All they have is the stories of the anti-drug warriors--who's credibility is almost nil in many circles.

Were drugs legal, a genuine culture might grow up around their use. People would know what to do and what not to do, what's dangerous and what's benign. And the longer such a culture was allowed to exist, the more accurate and long-term its information would become. It's a sort of "evolutionary psycho-pharmacology" I would like to see.

In the short run, because drugs have been illegal for such a long time, legalization just might cause some real problems. The gradual legalization that seems to be occurring just might do the trick (cannabis is making its way to the legal zone). In the long run, however, I think legalization would be far better than what we have, in all areas.

Santa Claus, Atheist Myth

There is a myth that certain people believe. It is a myth about a person, who watches them constantly, preparing judgment for their actions. Those who behave properly are richly rewarded on the last day of an age. Those who behave poorly get nothing but hot coals. This person is described in glowing terms as being just, highly powerful, definitely worthy of admiration.

However, as people advance and mature, they lose the ability and the need for such childish myths. They discover that the myth is not, in fact, true. It hurts for a time, but in the end, mature individuals have no need for it. They move on to bigger and better things.

I am referring, of course, to Santa Claus.

I'd be willing to bet that every religious group has celebrations and symbolisms that are designed to transmit their values to children. The Jews, for example, have Passover, so that "when your children ask" why they do all these things, they can tell the story of the first Passover. Christians have the Christmas pageant as a way of focusing their children on the Christian alternative to the materialistic celebration that happens at the same time. I am here to talk about Santa Claus, a tradition that suggests that western culture doesn't merely permit atheism, it has a strong strand of atheism woven deeply within it.

Here's how it works. A child starts out with the myth of Santa Claus. His parents go to great lengths to ensure that the myth is believed for as long as possible. They go so far as to co-opt his older brothers and sisters in this deception, getting them to "go along with it" even though they no longer believe. However, as a child gets older, he gets smarter, craftier. He discovers "Santa's" presents in the closet. His friends at school, having decided on unbelief, make fun of him for continuing his belief. He reads. He might even attempt to test the belief, by sneaking out when Santa is supposed to arrive... only to discover his parents putting out Christmas presents. A really crafty pair of parents might go so far as to do the "Santa" act in a costume, but as children age, such deceptions no longer work.

And so, the child reaches an age where he no longer believes in Santa. And, he ages. Absent a positive affirmation from his parents of the existence of God, he begins to connect the two belief systems--believing in Santa, and believing in God. He realizes that there are adults who believe in God, and adults who do not believe. Even if his parents do believe, he may believe that God is like Santa--a myth to keep him in line, that mature individuals do not believe in, and that honest individuals do not perpetuate. He learns that there are priests and pastors who come out proclaiming their unbelief, that they have had their doubts for years--and remembers his brothers and sisters participating in the game.

Thus, he comes to the opinion of atheism, or at least gains a significant dose of doubt. Santa Claus is where we learn how the game is played, so we can spot it when others try to hoodwink us in similar ways. Thus, Santa Claus is the Atheist Myth--that ritual and story by which atheist beliefs and values are passed along to their children.

If I have any readers, I do hope this will inflame some controversy. :)

Mao Tse-Tung on Political Power

Not posting on the PRC today.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Thus Mao Tse Tung was quoted, and how true it is. I am amazed, however, by how many people look at that and say, "Well, that's not true. There are a lot of ways to achieve political power." We've been living in a representative/majoritarian republic for so long now many people simply can't imagine what power means. Lysander Spooner in "No Treason" referred to the ballot as, "a mere substitute for a bullet." People have forgotten this.

One fellow said argument and "power plays" are alternate routes to political power. I would love to see other examples of ways political power are established other than force, the threat of force, or fraud. The kind that is genuinely based upon the consent on those ruled can evaporate rather quickly--a few bad decisions, and people stop listening to you. Favor trading is a way to accumulate influence, but like in The Godfather, it's the threat of what will happen if the other party doesn't honor a favor owned that ultimately does the job. People are probably more honorable than some might think, but in a system with no penalty for dishonesty, the dishonest do get ahead.

No, political power is ultimately the power to confiscate property, to imprison people, to kill people who don't go along with what you say. One can make reasoned arguments, indebt people to oneself morally and economically, or keep one's reputation clean when everybody else is mired in corruption. Ultimately, however, one's power is based in the compliance of those who have the ability to enforce one's will upon others. There are many countries in which the military rules, because the military is an entity unto itself, and the military has the guns.

This is why the ability of the People at large to keep and bear arms is so important to a system of distributed power (ie. democracy). In a system where the general public is not considered to have a right to arms, there are two groups of people who hold the real power: police, and criminals. One's life is regulated largely by whichever element is closest to home, and on the border, one must walk a fine line between the Laws of the State, and the Law of the Streets. Each side encroaches on the freedoms of the "ordinary citizens," one side through theft and extortion, the other through more direct means.

When everybody has access to weapons, crime becomes a much riskier occupation. The chances of getting shot during a robbery go up considerably. The chances of getting shot while attempting to extort people go up considerably. And the government can never be sure which of their more oppressive policies will result in a few, or perhaps even many, people deciding to fall back on their guns, rather than just putting up with encroachments.

Mao was right. Power does flow from the barrel of a gun. And only a people that has guns has power.

The Environmental Benefits of the PRC

I figured this was a necessary first-touch, since at first glance, this seems to appeal more to socialist types than to environmentalist types. Indeed, the "sell the national forests" tone that would be enabled via phase 1 of the process of creating the PRC would likely offend most, if not all, environmentalist types. This is unfortunate. I believe that, in the long run, the PRC would be the most environmentally friendly initiative ever made. In this article, I will detail why I believe this.

Let's look at the short-term benefits of this first. Yes, it would create a great incentive for the Federal Government to sell off its parks and forests. The downside of this is that we wouldn't have an agency of force preventing clear-cutting, strip-mining, and other environmental no-no's. The upshot is that we would no longer having an agency of force allowing them for dirt-cheap rents to their political contributors when the environmental movement was looking the other way. There would also be great economic incentives to manage the land well.

Say a timber company bought up a parcel of national forest land. If the government was smart about it (and I'm not saying they would be, but you can bet the next owner would be), it would sell the land at the highest price it could get--which would be a price that accounted for the presence of good timber on the land. Suppose they clear-cut it. They would make profits on the timber they'd cut. Suppose they then tried to sell the land off, now that it was worthless for their purposes. They would probably have to sell it at a loss, due to the fact that there is no longer good timber on the land. Not only that, but if they held onto the land, they would likely be subject to lawsuits from "downstream" communities, if all that timber they cut was previously preventing erosion and flash-floods. Very likely, said timber company would end up going out of business. The land would then be bought by someone else--perhaps a more environmentally responsible timber company.

Not only that, but the amount they managed to sell it for would impact the "land only" value of the area around it (since we would have an actual "land only" value to go by). This would lower the rent payments made by their competitors... increasing the dire circumstances for the environmentally unfriendly timber company. And these natural economic laws (as opposed to avoidable human laws) go for each and every harvesting operation that could commence on previously govenment-held lands.

Now, these arguments would hold even if we sold the land outright. But the benefits go even further than that, from the point the PRC takes posession of roadways onward.

The average person owning the average home in the day the PRC completes its purchase program would likely not pay anything to the PRC. The amount they owed in ground-rent and the amount they were owed in dividends would roughly balance out. However, the people managing the roads they used to get around would also be paying rents to the PRC. Assuming the roads were paid for by the people that actually drove on them (the ground-rent costs to governments owning road systems--and the presence of a corporation willing to buy it at whatever they will charge--would be a powerful incentive for them to relinquish control to groups that could find a way to charge based upon use) the homeowner would also be indirectly paying the ground-rent for the transportation system. The farther they commute, the more they pay, which would be a powerful economic incentive for more efficient urban development, and a disincentive to the suburban sprawl we see today. In addition, I am willing to bet that, with transportion systems no longer insulated from actual market forces by the government, alternative, more efficient modes of transportation would arise. Light-rail is only the beginning...

Additionally, from the very beginning (assuming the interstate system was granted to the PRC from the beginning), the additional cost in ground-rent to maintaining road systems would be an economic disincentive to the continued development of road-pork. Many road-building decisions are made based upon a legislator's desire to shift federal tax dollars into his state's construction industry (earning him votes of gratitude from construction workers and others who would otherwise be paid less or be unemployed). With every roadbuilding appropration having to include ground-rents paid to the PRC, it would be more difficult to push road-pork through Congress.

And to those naysayers who see the decay of our road system as the beginning of economic ruin, I remind them that the transition from our current system to the PRC system would be a gradual process. It won't happen in a day. Heck, it probably wouldn't even happen over the course of fifty years. The market would have plenty of time to adjust to the new paradigm, and I think it will be in even better shape once the transition is complete.

Then there is consumption of fossil fuels. Petrolium reserves could be sold off to companies, giving them an exclusive right to drill for oil in a given area. (The government could continue to hold onto ANWAR as long as you can keep them doing it, so long as the ground-rent could be paid through taxes.) However, they would have to pay rent based upon the market value of said reserves, and given how lucrative oil drilling is, they would pay a fairly high price. This would raise the price of the oil when it reached the market, which would cut consumption. This, in turn, would cut pollution.

Very simply put, when the two issues (economics and ecology) cease to be insulated from one another by government subsidies, the list of environmental benefits are endless. I'm sure there are more than I have listed here. This is an issue I am really looking forward to getting into a good argument with environmentalists on. Post your critiques; I shall answer them.

The Public Resources Corporation

Heh, after writing last week's blog, I find myself wanting to describe the same concept from a different perspective.

The Public Resources Corporation would be chartered by the federal government. It's shareholders would consist of all adult citizens at the time of its inception. Each citizen would be granted a single share in this corporation. Once every citizen (child or adult) at the time of the chartering had his single share, the shares would be fixed. No new shares could be issued for sale, or to grant to any individual for any reason. Share numbers would be adjusted from time to time, but this would only be to make accounting easier (multiplying shares to make fractional shares whole--see below), not to rearrange the ownership.

All land owned by the federal government would be transferred to the PRC. The government would retain rights to said land, but would start having to pay rent to the PRC for control of this land (see below). The government would also retain the authority to sell their rights to any individual. The PRC would retain ownership of the land, but the rent would now be paid for by the new rights-holder.

What the PRC would do

The PRC would retain ownership of all the natural resources in its possession--it would never sell it to anyone. However, it would register rights to control natural resources, and charge rent for that right. Once a parcel of land (or band of electromagnetic spectrum, or rights to below-ground resources, or whatever other beneficial natural resource monopoly could be thought up) was purchased, the rights to that natural resource could not be transferred to a new rights-holder except with permission of the rights-holder. In return for absolute control over the given natural resource, the individual would pay a percentage of the market value of that resource to the PRC as rent, on a yearly basis. The PRC would own only natural resources, ie. things not created through human effort. Capital improvements (buildings, etc.) would belong to the individuals that created them, or those to whom they sold them. No rent would be charged based upon improvements to a parcel of land; only the land itself could be the basis of resource value calculations. How the calculations could be done will be the subject of a future article.

The only time a rights-holder could be deprived of his rights is in the event that he could not pay the rent, in which case just enough of the resource would be removed from his possession to cover the bill. Upon being without a proper owner, the resource would be open to public use, the precise rules for which would be decided by the board of directors, elected in the usual fashion (one vote per share). An example I would suggest is that unallocated land could be traveled upon or harvested from (food, timber, minerals, etc), so long as no harvesting tools or transportation equipment (vehicles) that use a non-living source of energy are used (ie no chainsaws, no cars, no tractors; only human or animal muscle). The construction of an enclosure (fence, building, etc), the claiming of the rights to decide what can and cannot be done on a plot of land, or the use of powered equipment would constitute a claim on the land, and the individual doing so would then be subject to rent costs for the area utilized for that year. An individual could disavow their claim to escape the following year's rent, though it would likely be more profitable for them to sell it to someone else who wants it.

Note that this entity would be separate from the government. As such, even the government would have to pay rent to maintain their facilities on public land. This would include any and all land the federal government maintains roads on (the interstate system, but again, they would be charged only for the space, not for the space plus the construction on top of the space). It should also be noted that any property taxes charged by the government would be collected from the rights holder, not from the PRC..

The PRC would have only three things it was allowed by its charter do with the money. The first thing would be administrative costs--the costs of collecting and disbursing the rent on natural resource monopolies. The board of directors would decide how much of the revenues is needed to accomplish this. The second would be direct payment of dividends to shareholders. The third would be the funding of a program to purchase additional, privately held land, until such time as all the natural resources of the country were owned by the PRC. The revenues remaining after administrative costs would be divided between these two purposes according to the percentage of the country's known natural resources owned by the PRC; if the PRC owns x percent of the country's known natural resources, x percent would go to the shareholders; the remainder would go to the purchase program. Obviously, once the PRC owned 100%, 100% would go to the shareholders.

The purpose of all this is to ensure that wealth goes only to those that deserve it, not those that merely inherit wealth. Wealth acquired through labor is obviously deserved. Wealth acquired through investment of capital (itself a valuable kind of labor) is also deserved; it takes brains to invest wisely, and capital growth benefits all. An unworthy heir of capital will typically end up spending more than he earns, and thus the undeserved wealth ends up in the hands of others. But the person who's wealth comes from exclusive control of natural resources--land deeds, etc.--can simply sit back and watch his wealth grow (as land goes up in value with population density), collect rent from those that use his land, and buy more with the profits, until this effect results in inequalities that are not only dangerous, but unjust as well. By making landholders pay rent to everybody else for their control, you prevent this from occurring

Allocating the Next Generation's Shares

When a child is born, that child would become instantly entitled to 1/x + 1/y shares from his biological father and mother, regardless of whether the father or mother was married, or even possessed custody of the child. x is the number of children fathered by the child's biological father plus one (for the father), while y is the number of children born by the mother plus one (for the mother). That share would be removed from the shares possessed by the father or mother, and until the time of the child's majority (reaching 18 years or otherwise emancipated from the family), the person having custody of the child would receive the dividens paid by The PRC.

As the adult continued to have children, the shares would be adjusted accordingly, so that each individual in a given family unit (the biological parent plus all biological children) would always have 1/x shares. Upon reaching 18 years of age (or otherwise emancipated), the child would gain possession of those shares outright. The birth of further children to a parent would no longer affect the number of shares the former child possessed.

Here are some examples to illustrate this principle.

Suppose you have a married couple with an only child. Each brought a single share into the marriage. Upon having the child, the child now has a single share--one-half of each parent's share. Each parent now has a half-share. When he reaches his majority, he will go into life with that single share, and the parents will go on with their half-shares--a single share between them.

If they had three children, each child would now have a half-share--two quarter-shares from each parent, while each parent would have a quarter-share. In a four-child family, each child's share would be two-fifths, each parent's one-fifth, and so on. Next, I'll illustrate a more complicated situation.

Suppose some jerk goes and knocks up some girl. Each of them has a single share to themselves. When the child was born, he would posses a single share--one half of each parent's shares. Assuming the father goes on his way, and does not stay to raise the child, he will go on with his half-share, and the mother would have her half-share, plus the whole share of her baby, for one and one half shares.

If she subsequently marries someone else, and has a child by her new husband (who has a single share and no children of his own), the first child would have a new share value. He would retain his half from his father, but the portion from his mother would be reduced to 1/3, making the child's total now 1/2+1/3=5/6. The mother's portion would now be 1/3. Her new child's portion would be 1/3 from the mother + 1/2 from his father (her husband), meaning he would also have 5/6. The father's share would be 1/2. The family total would be 1/3(mother)+1/2(father)+5/6(Child1)+5/6(Child2)=2 1/2 shares--one from husband, one from wife, and one-half from the jerk that knocked her up. The jerk's shares would never be reduced further due to her having more children by another man.

Suppose, instead, that the jerk wised up and ended up getting married himself (his wife coming in with a single share), while the girl continued to raise her baby and had no more. Suppose he then had two more children. His first child's share would now be 1/2(Mother)+1/4(father)=3/4. The single mother's total shares would be 1/2(her)+3/4(her child's)=1 1/4 to help her raise her baby alone. Meanwhile each of the former jerk's children each have 1/4(father)+1/3(mother)=7/12 of a share (a little over a half), while father's share would be 1/4, and mother's 1/3. Total for the family: 1/4+1/3+7/12+7/12=21/12=1 3/4

Now, suppose the young, single mother gave her baby up for adoption instead of trying to raise him herself. The baby would come with that single share (which would decrease as his parents had more children), and the revenues would go to the adoptive parent, or to the orphanage.

Every now and then, to simplify accounting, the stock would be split in whatever manner necessary to bring all people's share values into integer values. Supposing you've got a bunch of people who's shares are measured in 1/12ths, everybody would get more shares so that the person with 5/12 would now have 5 shares, the person with 1/2 would now have 6 shares, and the person with 2/3 would now have 8 shares.

When a person died, his share would be divided between his offspring. If he outlived any of his offspring, but they had offspring, that child's share would be divided evenly among the grandchildren. If he had no surviving descendents, his shares would be reabsorbed by the PRC.

You'll notice some interesting features in this system of inheritance. First, the children end up with more shares individually than either parent. This serves as a financial incentive for parents to actually raise their children, since the person that has custody has control over the child's share of the dividends. It also serves as a discouragement for accidental pregnancy, since the man that knocks up a girl and runs has much to lose from it. Given how easy it is to prove paternity these days, I doubt many would pass up the opportunity to claim their child's share.

You'll also notice that when they reach adulthood, the children come away with larger shares than their parents'. Hopefully, by the time their children are grown up, parents have developed skills and/or accumulated capital with which they can continue on without quite as much of a share of the public resources. (If the only skill they have is childrearing, foster parenting could be an option, as well.) The children, on the other hand, probably need extra money starting out. This enables them to continue their education, or acquire a loan to start a business, or even start their own families earlier (assuming they believe they'll be financially ready when their own children grow up).

Finally, upon reaching middle age, people would start inheriting their parents' shares, which would be helpful in retirement.

By fixing the shares at the inception of the corporation, and using the inheritance scheme rather than just giving every new adult a share, you provide an economic disincentive to out-of-control population expansion. A large family, once split up, would provide each individual with a smaller share of the public resources than a smaller family. To earn the same amount of wealth, they would have to perform more valuable labor (I consider capital investment to be a legitimate form of labor).

Finally, this could answer the issue of immigrants impacting public services. Because this new "welfare" would go only to shareholders, immigrants would not have access to it. Even their children, who would become citizens if born on American soil, would not also become shareholders. The only way to get their children a share of the resources would be to marry a shareholder--essentially, to marry into an American family. In the event that this results in a large underclass of immigrant families from a neighboring country being exploited by a shareholding minority, perhaps negotiations could be made to get the neighboring country to adopt a similar plan, and eventually merge the two PRCs.

In this way, the corporation could also extend into other countries some day. In return for a grant of all unallocated and/or government owned lands in that country, and the right to purchase more at market value, a median amount shares could be issued to each citizen of that country. Or, if another country had a PRC of its own, the two sides could negotiate terms for a merger, particularly if both had shareholders living on the other side of the border/ocean/whatever.

Extranational Property Corporation: Introduction

Lately, I've been exploring what are called Geo-Libertarian ideas. The basic idea is that, while all men are entitled to the fruits of their labor, natural resources, such as land, water rights, broadcast spectrum, rights-of-way, and so on, are not created by men, and as such cannot be considered to be owned absolutely by any individual. It is a good thing to allow individuals a monopoly over the use of a particular resource (plot of land, radio band, etc.) since the activities that result are very good. However, the benefits of this, under a system of absolute ownership, are concentrated in the hands of the landowners. The result is generally a system in which a small class of wealthy landowners dominate a much larger class of landless peasants and serfs.

The solution proposed is that the only legitimate tax is one which taxes the value of land (and other natural resources) before improvements. So if you own a plot of land with a house on it, you pay taxes on the value the plot would have if there were no house on it. If you own a farm, you pay taxes on the value of the land were the fields not cultivated, and your equipment not there. What do do with the tax is where Georgists divide. Some say distribute it right back to the people directly, others say use it to pay for services (treat it like any other tax).

While these ideas are neat, I have what I think would be an even better idea. It would be very difficult to implement on existing property, but as we're constantly discovering new natural resources that can be monopolized to the benefit of mankind in general, it would be pretty cool to establish a principle by which newly allocated property was subject to this new system, and old property could be added to the common pool voluntarily.

The concept is this: Where natural resource monopolies do not exist, all people live in the state all aboriginal peoples live: not filthy rich, but not dirt poor, either. The creation of natural resource monopolies results in many becoming better off than their ancestors, but many end up worse off, as well. Thus, we should decide that any *new* natural resource monopolies created (on resources, the value of which has either been only recently discovered, or is as yet undiscovered) will be part of a common pool. While the rules of this pool will be set up that nobody is deprived of previously established privelages without their consent, rent will be paid for the maintenance of said privelages.

To this end, I shall introduce the Extranational Property Corporation!

How The Rich keep on Getting Richer

...and how to close the income gap

Or, On the Economics of Deficit Spending

Imagine, for a moment, that there is a group of people out there that produce a highly valuable commodity... a commodity that is valuable for all the right reasons. It makes the lives of everyone who has it better. It is also a new commodity... not many people are producing it yet. Those that do produce it make a lot of money.

As a result of this, lots of other people try to get into producing this product. Those who are already doing so come up with ways of making more than they already are, to generate more profits. The class of individuals and groups that produce this product grows, many lured into this business by the fact that it is a very good, well paying occupation. As more people get into producing it, the price for this commodity is driven downward. Pretty soon, everybody who wants some has some, and people stop buying it at the rate they used to. Prices drop so far that the producers start going out of business. Those that don't have to struggle just to get by.

Imagine that this makes you very sad. You understand history as the story of how noble, how valuable these people were. You regard this profession with a sort of nostalgic romanticism, and would like to see measures implemented that will preserve this class of men. What sorts of things could be done to help these people out?

Well, one thing you could do is buy up and destroy their product, ensuring a continuing level of demand that will keep prices up to where they can all make a profit. Another thing you could do is make them exempt from certain taxes, and paying a lower rate than most on others--this also helps their bottom line. A third thing you could do is pay them directly... a direct subsidy for these producers. All of these things would ensure that these people continue to make the profits they once did.

Every place you see a group of people making a great deal of money--without the use of force to ensure that no newcomers are allowed to horn in on their territory, or the use of force to take unearned resources directly--you can bet that the basic rules of supply and demand is the reason. These people produce a product or service for which there is great demand, but a low supply. Over time, however, the amount produced overall should increase, as more and more people get into that business. Eventually, prices fall, providing a windfall for the consumer.

On "The Rich"

One thing that everybody knows is that the more money you have, the more money you can make. A poor man spends all his money on necessities. A wealthy man can invest his money, thus making more money. In general, the reason for this is the same as for any case where one group of people is making more than another: they provide a valuable product or service. And the product these people provide is called Capital.

Capital can be used to meet any need in life. It can be spent to buy quality food, expensive clothing, fast cars, big houses, rare breeds of dog, and political influence. However, the person who spends capital this way exclusively will soon find he hasn't any capital left. It can also be used to buy tools, machinery, land, and buildings. It can be used to pay the salaries of scientists and inventors. In short, it is used to produce more capital, which can then be used to make yet more capital, and more, and more, and more...

And capital is a valuable commodity. When a person borrows money from someone who has more than they in order to start a business, promising to pay back with interest, they are essentially "buying" capital. Even the poor person who charges on his credit card and pays back with interest is buying capital, generally at a higher rate at anyone else. Capital is very useful, very valuable, and the wealthy who use it wisely in order to get more wealthy are also creating jobs for people who would otherwise be unemployed, and more products and services at better prices for consumers. The real estate investor expands the housing supply; the wall street investor expands the supply of products and services. This is why they make money. They provide a valuable product--capital.

However, like any product, eventually, the supply must exceed the demand, and capital is no exception. Eventually, all the money there is to be made has been made. Now, the factory owner, lacking machinery to buy, must start paying his workers more if he wants to maintain an edge over his competitors (the better paying factory gets better workers). Contractors and architects must make better buildings to attract buyers away from their many competitors--this means attracting more skilled laborers, which means paying them more. The person who's sole profession is investing sees slimmer and slimmer profit margins, until the day comes when investors need a day job. Labor becomes more valuable than capital, thus workers make more money than people who's sole virtue is access to a large supply of capital!

Neat theory, but I'll bet you're wondering why this doesn't seem to happen. We've had two-hundred years of capitalism, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, largely due to the seemingly inexhaustible value of capital. Why is this? Remember: I began this essay with a discussion of the means by which a government can prop up a particular class of producers who are no longer benefited by the laws of supply and demand, due to the fact that they are overproduction. Let us look at each one in turn.

The third was to pay the producer a direct subsidy. I don't know enough about the different subsidies to demonstrate direct payments by government to the capital class, so I'll move on.

The second was lower tax rates for the producer than for everyone else. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes--labor is taxed at a higher rate than making money by spending it. The tax code also contains many tax breaks you need a tax lawyer to find... thus the rich can avoid those as well, while poorer people cannot. The property tax exemption is most valuable to those with the most valuable property... another way the rich are taxed at a lower rate.

However, the first I mentioned is the biggest benefit of all to the upper class: purchasing and destroying product to artificially drive up prices. The government does this through massive amounts of deficit spending. When the rich run out of real investment opportunities, there are always government bonds to invest in. The government "buys" capital from these people, and then "destroys" it, by paying bureaucrats to do nothing, or do what they do inefficiently. Every time some liberal proposes more spending to benefit the lower classes, what they're really proposing is yet more buy-and-destroy to prop up the wealthy, while throwing a very small bone at the people they are claiming to help.

Government funded research is another way the government helps the wealthy stay ahead. Technological progress opens up new demand for capital, as new tools and techniques are invented and discovered. Capital is required to exploit these new technologies. And for the general investor, it doesn't matter that these new techniques are open for anybody to exploit--all they have to do is invest in multiple firms, and they get a piece of the action wherever it appears. An added bonus is that because government research is typically politically (rather than technologically) motivated, it is less efficient than private sector research... thus wasting more capital. The best part is that technological progress goes forward without investors having to risk their capital paying for the research. Government bonds get paid back with interest, no matter how unsuccessful and inefficient the borrower is.

Notice that both of these things are things that liberals advocate, ostensibly to benefit the poor and the general public. Their efforts are quite counterproductive. The real benefactors are people whose sole virtue is access to a large pool of capital.

Probably the best thing liberals could do to advance their cause is to join with fiscal conservatives in a genuine call for balanced budgets. As capital stops being wasted through this "government purchase program," the people who have it will have to invest it elsewhere. The value of labor will increase as the supply of capital outpaces demand. The minimum wage would go obsolete! If this sounds like "Reganomics", remember that the deficit soared during his administration. He may have talked the talk, but he most certainly did not walk the walk. Were liberals and fiscal conservatives to get together on this issue, the result would be a windfall for labor, and a severe blow to the capital class.