Freedom or Security: Which do you prefer?

Government Induced Depression

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:31:00 +0000

Here we go again... government never learns. Protectionist policies lead to stagflation: higher prices AND increasing unemployment.

Markets: Always Providing Solutions

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:27:00 +0000

When governments get involved, markets turn to black. I always seem to fall on the 3rd dimension of many issues, and this one is no different. At the end of the article, you'll notice that "more regulation" is needed to curb the problem. That is always government's answer.

Arguments go back and forth; jamming equipment, more guards, blah, blah.... inmates will find ways to subvert any effort by the authorities. That's what they do...that's what people do. (How can we solve this problem given the current constraints?) Sounds like any business venture!

Texas' prison system's top investigator, Inspector General John Moriarty's blatant ignorance is bewildering; he said "The demand is the problem. It's huge."

Ending the drug prohibition would have a much larger impact on the "demand problem". Not to mention all the money our government plunders to fight "the war on drugs."

Should inmates have cell phones: no. Are they going to get them? Yes. Can we stop it? No. Should we steal $66 million dollars from the public trying to stop them? I think not.

Obama's Spending Watchdog's

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:51:00 +0000

first course of action should be to fire herself. He's increasing the size of government just to decrease the size of government. Obama, that prankster! What a good one he pulled on those who he "promised" hope. I'm sure chief performance officer Nancy Killefer, will do the job for free to minimize "waste."

Profit

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:53:00 +0000

Contrary to increasing popular belief, profit is not a bad word. Liberals attack companies that are trying to improve profits as if expelling a demon.

Profit is the incentive everyone has to put effort toward...well... anything. Profits don't necessarily have to be pecuniary. If you determine that the effort put in serving at the soup kitchen was worth the reward, you made a "profit." Some are motivated by the Benjamins, and others for love. It really doesn't matter.

Why is it so awful then for a company to stop matching contributions to employees' 401k's? If the employees decide that's the breaking point, they'll find they consider relatively better. Well, thanks to government fiscal policy, a relatively better job is extremely difficult to find.

It should be considered, for a moment, that a business that makes insufficient profits is NO business. If no business exists, employees don't make their own contributions--let alone receive a match.

Liberals should be happy that FedEx and other companies are still handling the logistics of transporting their Christmas packages around the world.

The Path of Least Resistance

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:45:00 +0000

Before I learned the truth about economics, liberty, and politics from an eccentric, slightly ostracized, libertarian economics professor, I spent 6.5 years in the US Air Force. That first year in the Air Force was spent learning what I naively contracted (with the government that controls us) to learn. More specifically: electricity.

I should tell you, I'm self-diagnosed economics OCD. I make connections to economic principles where there sometimes there just should not be. I eat, sleep, dream, and .... yeah. Luckily for those who spend the most time around me, I keep my mouth shut about them--otherwise, I'm SURE I'd have no friends to speak of.

Here's my connection: People are just like electrons flowing along a wire seeking to maximize utility. (Yes, I know I'm a nerd.) The electron seeks to minimize resource loss in achieving its ultimate goal. Don't ask me what that goal is, it isn't my business. This is no different from individuals acting in their own self-interest. If there is a perceived-easier path to achieving a goal, that is a choice individuals' should be allowed to make.

Metaphorically writing, government routinely interrupts the free-flow of electrons. Taxes (theft of private wealth), subsidies, licenses (legalized bribery), and regulations (the ultimate anti-anti-trust) induce sub-optimal, resource-wasting results. Eventually, electrons encounter so many detours they never make it to their destination.

Left- and right-leaning interest groups use the same government authority to impose an ideology upon others, and then they get mad at each other for violating each others' rights. As an independent observer, I am frustrated by the hypocrisy on both sides. No! More appropriately, it infuriates me.

Just like electrons, people want to minimize resource loss while maximizing their utility. Government routinely interferes by making the path easier for the weak at the expense of the strong. Electrons and People flow the path of least resistance--it's nature's law.

Government Destroys California's State Parks

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:26:00 +0000

Once again, government policy is reaping devastating unintended consequences. As it turns out, tighter border security is forcing Mexican drug cartels to grow marijuana in remote areas of California's "protected" parks. This means toting in irrigation equipment that runs for miles and spraying pesticides and fertilizers to maximize plant productivity.

If your neighbor had no fear of being arrested for the non-crime of smoking a "J", I'm sure they would prefer to use "organic" growing methods in their backyard garden plot.

Check the article here.

Are People Smart or Stupid?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:22:00 +0000

Consumers complain about "price gouging" and then they complain about the resulting shortage. In this case: Stupid. This article dated September 12th, 2008 cites anti-price gouging measures by the same states that are now experiencing gas shortages. DUH!

The 1999 deregulation of financial companies had little or nothing to do with these financial market problems. Graham-Leach-Bliley did not change how financial securities were created. Major media continues to perpetuate the ignorance connecting the two.

I give people the benefit of the doubt, I actually think they're smart and don't need government to tell them when they're being taken advantage of. It's all printed pollution. No one reads the legalese fine print anyway.

Deregulate: MY ASS!

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:29:00 +0000

I took a class recently to improve the the probability I would get a better score on the GRE. (I did better than I thought I would, but not as good as I wanted.) On the last day, the teacher made reference to the "de-regulation" of banks and correlated that with their recent failures. Oh, I wanted to throw out the BS Flag. What is worse, I have heard this response at least three other times in the past week. If you to- or watch any of the major news media sources, and believe what they say, I hereby deem you.....let's just say it's not good.

Tackling the "de-regulation" argument: Graham-Leach-Bliley. Among other things, the GLB finally repealed the Glass-Stegall Act which prevented the Bank of America's from owning the AIG's, and the AIG's from owning the Merril Lynch's and visa versa. Why would the government do this? Because the domestic companies couldn't compete with foreign banks who could combine themselves and benefit from reducing costs to consumers. Yes, you and I benefit. Now hold yourself for a moment; don't go mindlessly citing the current economic woes just yet. I can heard it already, "They deregulated and then the big, evil corporations could do whatever they wanted and look what happened!"

No they couldn't. With any de-regulation comes a huge wave of new regulations. It doesn't really matter anyway. Government didn't deregulate where it mattered. GLB didn't free up how financial securities were created. Which, by the way, is the same coveted principle as portfolio diversifcation--that should be another post.

The markets started to drop in March 2001, I will always know this because that's when I first opened my ROTH IRA--and it immediately tanked. Regardless of what you think the motivation behind the September 11 attacks were, I'll begin with the resulting Federal Reserve drop in interest rates. This is where the real problems started. An interest rate is the price of money. Yes, money has a price just like PS3's, Wii's, bread, cheese and milk. Low interest rates encouraged people to borrow, when in hind sight they should not have. It's kind of like if Sony dropped the price on PS3's to $50, and EVERYONE bought one--or five. Do you think you could sell yours used for $50? Of course not.

The only way money is different, is that new loans are simply money created out of thin air. This causes there to be more dollars floating around, and each dollar is now has less purchasing power; which, in turn, causes prices to increase. HOUSING BUBBLE! With all this money floating around, banks didn't want to just let it sit in savings accounts where they had to pay interest on it. Banks are in business to make money, so they lent it out again.

I got way off course here.

To finish up: The Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long; thereby, encouraging financial instititutions to take risks they would not have otherwise. Were there some people taken advantage of? Yeah, sure. Blame the Federal Reserve for granting the incentive to these financial institutions.

Do you seriously think that company execs sat around smoking Cuban cigars and sipping brandy all the while thinking, "How can we take advantage of the middle class?" Just like any small business owner would, they were strategizing on how to grow.

What's the point?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:32:00 +0000

What is the point of paying for insurance if the government is just going to give it away? Why should I work so hard to pay for my own health? More specifically, why in the hell should I be required to pay taxes for some other person's kid to get the flu shot?

I guess we all know that it's easier to spend other peoples' money. Damn socialists.

Drug Prohibition: Unintended Consequences

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:04:00 +0000

In this well-written piece called "Mexico Pays the Price for Prohibition" by Anastasia O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal, she points out EXACTLY the problems with narcotics prohibition. Fact: More people are harmed because the drugs are illegal than are harmed by the drugs themselves.

Forget the fact the moral issue here. The state does not own your body and, therefore, must use violent force to protect you from yourself. In other words, the state has no right to tell you what you may or may not put into YOUR body.

A short excerpt:

Mexico is engaged in a life-or-death struggle against organized crime. Last week six more law enforcement officials were killed in the line of duty battling the country's drug cartels. This brings the death toll in President Felipe Calderón's blitz against organized crime to 4,909 since Dec. 1, 2006.

A number of the dead have been gangsters but they also include journalists, politicians, judges, police and military, and civilians. For perspective on how violent Mexico has become, consider that the total number of Americans killed in Iraq since March 2003 is 4,142.

Do you see that!? More people have died in this drug war in two years than American Soldiers who have needlessly been lost in Iraq in five years.

I've discussed the drug war with family members and they are vehemently opposed to legalizing drugs--for emotional reasons. It's always something to the effect of, "I don't want my children endangered by someone who is high or intoxicated." Well, guess what? It's too late for that.

Here's the thing that bothers me the most: By saying such things, we make it clear that it's okay to sacrifice the lives of innocent Mexicans for the perception of safety. Well, to me, this is NOT okay.

Take the power away from the drug cartels and legalize narcotics of all kinds. Many problems of the world would simply disintegrate: Afghanistan poppies, Colombian coca, and Mexican marijuana. If there's no profit in it, then they won't be producing it. It's that simple. Fewer people in this world need to die violent deaths--c'mon people.

This Austin Statesman article popped up on my Google Reader today... what a coincidence.

Alcohol Prohibition

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:44:00 +0000

It's good to see someone advocating greater liberty in this country--it almost feels like America.

It is unfortunate that MADD members still have a close-minded approach about reducing drunk driving on America's streets. They can only "claim" that the age limit on alcohol consumption has saved thousands of lives. Of course, there is no specific data collected on the number of teenagers who have died because they did not understand alcohol's effects. There are plenty of examples of people acting out after discovering they lived a sheltered live from sex, drugs, etc. Because of the law, parents are afraid to teach their adolescents the consequences of consuming alcohol. They are not permitted, by law, to be properly educated in a supervised manner. Why are we so surprised that youths are making the wrong decisions? I understand that most states have exemptions for guardians being the suppliers; however, most parents don't want to even go down that road "just in case."

I do not advocate drunk driving. In fact, I abhor even the thought. The fact remains, however, that people drink and drive regardless of the law. When I've been drinking, my first thought is not that it's illegal and I might get in trouble. I think, I might hurt someone and that's not worth it.

How many times must we learn the lesson of prohibition? That is certainly an interesting question. Clearly, the law doesn't prevent anyone from drinking alcohol. People are still dying. Morality cannot be legislated, and some bad choices cannot be prevented.

Finally, an educated group of individuals is recognizing that the current program isn't working. University presidents are speaking up in the name of alcohol safety, health, and education (can you believe it?). Of course, it has already been misconstrued by MADD.

We don't need redundant laws. There's already one for intoxicated operation of a vehicle: NEGLIGENCE. Here's a novel idea: how about we punish people for what they ACTUALLY DO instead of what they might do?

I hope the alcohol-age prohibition finally given some legitimate, fact-based, emotion-free discussion. Let's do the right thing and let people have their liberty back. This is the United States of America after all.

Dept. of Labor Dashes Opportunities for Young People

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:57:00 +0000

For an economics writer, the author of this Associated Press article overlooked a serious factor influencing the unemployment rate this summer--especially for young people looking for work: the increase in the Federal Minimum Wage.

Not a single flippin' word about last weeks' federal minimum wage increase. "Nothing is so harmful as good intentions."--Milton Friedman. I understand it was supposed to help the people at the bottom--now they can't even get jobs! That was a fantastic idea!

I shouldn't get ahead of myself: inflation is much more of a problem than minimum wage. Minimum wage does not even come close to maintaining the purchasing power of inflation. The minimum wage increase is simply a band-aid on a cut that won't heal when a person has full-blown AIDS.

Speeding? You are a National Security Risk.

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:49:00 +0000

This ridiculous article popped up on my Google Reader today: National Speed Limit Pushed as Gas Saver.

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia needs to retire if he's going to propose idiotic policies like these. He must seriously believe that oil and gas are the only precious resources. Forget the fact that peoples' time is worth anything.

I am curious, though, as to how much GDP would decrease as millions of Americans were slower to get where they are going. How many more hours would be wasted in the car? In other words, how much productivity would be lost?

This would surely be a great policy to ensure America went into a depression!

Fundamental Belief Differences

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:45:00 +0000

Yesterday my sister-in-law published her experience with her county social services office:

This morning, I had to make a trip to social services, to check in on some applications I had and some questions I needed to answer.... Every time I am there, I always feel uneasy, and very sad. Not to mention, the whole experience is usually very frustrating with lines, short staff, and everything else.

I got the the office with no delay, and there weren't very many people in the building itself. I thought that this trip might be quick and painless, but boy was I wrong. I pulled a number, and took a seat. As I waited, I heard a man asking the receptionist why his medi-cal was cancelled. She told him to find out his case worker's name or his social security number. Lucky for him, he had the card on him, or he may not have received any help. He explained to her that as a result of many small daily heart attacks, his memory fails him to the point he can barely remember his name half the time. He said that he needed the medical coverage to get a daily prescription that was necessary for his heart functions, and without the drug, he could end up dead any time. Hearing this, I was already in tears.

Lucky for me, it was my turn next to the counter where this poor man was standing. The lady helping me was so distracted and I was too, I'm sure we both were staring when I noticed that there was a lineup of people against the wall behind the counter. This man began to explain to his case worker that he couldn't fill out the paperwork himself, and that he didn't have his own ride to be able to make it to have it filled out and back to the social office in time to submit the paperwork before the day had ended, and that it would be another week or so before he could get the help to the office again. Everyone behind the counter had such straight, stern faces, listening to this man's strife, and no one was willing or very concerned to even help him. I watched tears form in this man's eyes as he told the woman that her life must be so easy, and that he didn't ask to have a stint put in his heart while he was dead on the table....

...I almost couldn't take it anymore. I was already bawling, but I found myself unable to speak. I was so horrified by the situation around me, I hardly knew where I was. I listened to the man say to the woman behind the counter, as he turned to leave, "You know, I can understand why people come into places like this with oozies." I thought to myself, "Yeah, really," and before I could turn away, someone had come to grab me away from the man as I watched undercover cops deal with him and threaten to arrest him. I asked what was going on, and the woman told me that I needed to 'here where it's safe'. I told the woman that I didn't feel at all threatened, and she said that was okay, but she did, and that they'd been having some "unhappy customers" lately. I wanted to say, "Yeah, I'm one of them." But all I could do was run out of the building and explode. I felt like I was having an anxiety attack. That man's trouble had consumed me. I couldn't stop thinking about how many lives have been lost due to this lame system that's always struggling to help people, and make money at the same time.

Our government needs to figure out how to keep this stuff from happening. I can't understand how one human being can suffer so badly, while a whole room of people stared at him emotionless. I came home to my family shaking and crying with so much energy running through me. I had to get this story out there, I don't know if it has the same effect in this stupid blog, but I wanted it to at least make people around me know what's happening here, right here in Xxxxxxxx County. People are dying, suffering, not eating, all over this county. With so many people in this situation, I feel compelled to change it. I don't know how, but I do know that with determination, almost anything is possible, and on that note, I plan to send my vote this November to Mr. Obama. Let's hope that does something for this piss poor government funded option for our country's sick, wounded, poor, unhealthy, or otherwise incapable citizens. I would encourage everyone I know to stand up against the forces of evil and do all the good you possibly can!!!! Don't ask, just help whenever, whoever, however you can. Wouldn't this world be a happier place?!

If there is a tactful way of explaining the situation I don't know it, so that's why I'm writing here instead of commenting. If you know a way, let me know?

I am in no way upset at my sister-in-law, she is rationally using a government program to advance the welfare of her family--that I commend. I dislike, however, that there is a system for her, her family, and that old man to be dependent upon. It is the government's fault (or the people for allowing it to exist), for making these people dependent.

The reason there is poor, careless, and even indifferent customer service at the social services office is because it faces no competitive forces. There is only one office (or program) and if you want to use it, you are required to wade through the bureaucracy. They are, in effect, a monopoly on social welfare. You cannot go anywhere else; therefore, there is no incentive to be better or to try and attract or maintain business.

The sad truth is that no amount of tinkering by the government will fix it. I am even more saddened by the fact that my sister-in-law is crying, ignorantly, for more of the same. By voting for Barack Obama in November, the situation will only become worse over the long run (McCain is no better, mind you). Granted, it might be better initially while people are still caught up in this false hope Mr. Obama is promising. By increasing the size and scope of the government, you are inviting more bureaucracy.

Exploring the possibilities of expelling such a government organization, we might come to the conclusion that private charities would replace these government behemoths with greater efficiency. We might get "Single Mothers of America." While government social services exists and steals money from people who may not otherwise support this cause, "Single Mothers of America" will never be created. Citizens are of the mindset that the government is taking care of it so I don't have to. Just look at this example of how poorly it is run and ask yourself, "Do I want the same government that created this program to "fix" it?"

www.CampaignforLiberty.com <------ The only way it's going to get fixed.

McCain, Obama.... Oh My!

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:52:00 +0000

I never like to say that I agree with the McCain camp on anything. However, this article titled "Obama Will Spend to Revitalize Economy," is exactly the problem with Senator Obama and his supporters. Contrary to trendy beliefs, Big Government can not and will not fix anything. Just you wait, things will only get worse under the reign of Obama. I say to myself, "Oh great! Just what we need, a NEW-New Deal." Oh yes, let's just throw another $10 BILLION at childhood education, and $150 BILLION on developing alternative energy, and $60 BILLION on new infrastructure. At least this particular CNN article is balanced, saying simply one side says this and the other says that.

Yes, Mr. Obama, please end this warmonger-president's war; but, give ME my money back instead of spending MY money as YOU see fit.

The policies of Senator Barack Obama are far from freedom supporting. If you give it any thought at all, you'll realize that his ideas are heavily laden with the burden of heavy taxes on everyone. It disgusts me to be stolen from to fund government programs I do not support.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, is no better. He's full of rhetoric about low taxes and free markets, but the senators are simply mirror images. The senators' plans steal from the public to fund failing American government Gosplans. The difference is where the funds will go: McCain favors big government, war and fascism; Obama favors biggER government and socialism.

These "choices" make me sick. I can not in good conscious cast my vote for either of these two.

TexasSure.....Yeah, sure...

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:42:00 +0000

So I heard some of the latest propaganda from the Texas Department of Transportation, Public Safety, Insurance.... and.... yeah... all those.

Now Texas law enforcement will snoop on all drivers to ascertain whether or not the vehicle is insured according to state law. They're calling this spy operation TexasSure. IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SAFETY the government of Texas is taking another step to watch what you do (or don't do).

This is yet another small example of the impending predictions of George Orwell's 1984. Big Brother will only increase his ever-watchful eye.

Soon everyone will be a criminal.
More government eyes coming to your city soon!

Thanks FHA, For Screwing Me Over

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Wed, 21 May 2008 05:11:00 +0000

I know now is not a good time to be selling a piece of real estate, but I've got to get out from under this one. I had a tenant who destroyed my house and I leveraged the repairs in order to sell it; it was supposed to be a sort of a quasi-flip job.
Luckily, I got a full price offer with in weeks! Well, let me rephrase: It was a full price offer minus 6% seller concessions for down payment, closing costs, insurance, taxes, and other miscellaneous money grabs. I took it!
It's been over a month now and the FHA, in their infinite wisdom, to protect consumers is ruining a great deal for both parties. The buyers want my house, and I really want to sell them my house. But NO, more federal-government bureaucracy is stonewalling the process.
My friend claims that I'm a victim of a mortgage industry trying to reconcile its neglected responsibilities. I say, "Bullshit!" Government policy caused the problem in the first place by encouraging banks to lend to un-predictable borrowers. Too much money chasing too few investments. I'm a victim alright. Of yet another well-intentioned government program having UN-intended negative consequences.

Killing for God?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:46:00 +0000

Recently, I commented on an evangelical's blog about Ron Paul. Needless to say, this upset the "regulars." Most foreigners to the blog leave comments with vulgarities which only reinforce the view that Ron Paul's supporters are misguided. Of course these comments are met with similarly obscene replys. Which I find ironic coming from people that call themselves Christians. But when I brought valid, pointed arguments, I was still met with insults--what a surprise.

My Google reader sent me the following article. It's kind of long, so if you read nothing else, just read the last line.

A Christian View of Armed Warfare

I Speak for God!

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Sat, 10 May 2008 05:32:00 +0000

That title is kind of pompous, huh? I thought so too, but that's exactly what evangelicals in America are doing these days.

I saw a bumper sticker today--identicle to this one-- but on a large, American-made SUV that made me give pause. It states, "God is PRO-Life" "Hmm... that's quite a presumptuous statement," I thought. After a little more pondering, it occurred to me that GOD is quite the opposite of that bumper sticker's claim! Surely The Almighty does not condone or encourage such choices. Seriously though, can anyone validly argue that He uses omnipotent powers to prevent such choices?

Despite how you may feel about the issue, the fact remains that God chooses to allow humans free will. In speaking with my roommate, a more accurate bumper sticker might read, "God is probably PRO Agency, but probably doesn't like abortions."

Stop Global Warming: Bring On the Free Market

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:51:00 +0000

Ludwig Von Mises, a great, modern economic thinker, stated that government interventions create unintended consequences that lead to calls for further intervention, and so on into a destructive spiral of more and more government control.

This could not be more true than in the Big Oil industry. Thanks in large part to our popularly-elected 42nd President, Al Gore and his movie, an ever increasing part of the population is wising up to the detriments of fossil fuels on our environment. What has never been brought to the forefront, however, is just exactly HOW we got into this mess. Many, indeed, would be surprised to discover that it is this very same government that has brought us to this impasse. Disguised as "consumer protections," regulations were imposed on industries (in this blog: energy) at the behest of large companies offering bribes to lawmakers. This has effectively eliminated competition and prevented creative destruction (discussed here on Econtalk.org); and moreover, our right to choose alternative energies for the last 70+ years. We have been prevented from enjoying better, more-efficient forms of energy production since The Great Depression.

Frequently, people decry the results of free markets as unfair and unhealthy; yet, I would argue that the global warming wouldn't be a problem if our politicians had stuck to the US Constitution. This superb document asserts no favoritism or special protections among groups or classes of people. Competition is a wondrous, Godly invention and the founding fathers of the United States understood that power--more so than we do now.

Unintended consequences of government regulation is all over the news if one is so inclined to connect the very-simple dots. Global food prices are skyrocketing, insomuch as the poor countries cannot afford rice, corn, and other commodities which are being made into fuel. That is because the US Government has subsidized the production of ethanol derived from corn, therefore, pushing up demand for- and prices of corn. It is a strange wonder to me why exactly we are using our food for fuel.

So for those of you who are clamoring for more government intervention, think about what you're asking for. If you really want to solve the global warming crisis, advocate smaller government and fewer regulations and watch alternative energy flourish. Don't you see that world hunger, poverty, political instability, and climate change are all inter-related? There is only one presidential candidate willing to eliminate UN-Constitutional government programs--do your research.

Recycling CAN BE wasteful

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:47:00 +0000

Just because you don't want to hear it, doesn't make it untrue. I called the 101x MorningX radio show in Austin, TX this morning arguing that recycling CAN BE wasteful--not that it IS. I really had been enjoying the show.

A disclaimer: I love recycling. Actually, I think I'm somewhat irrational with my desire to recycle. I grew up being bombarded with recycling propaganda in the 80's, I drive a hybrid car, I am a vegetarian by default (wife chooses to be so, therefore, I am), and I have those cloth shopping bags--I'm doing my part.

Advocates of recycling often do not look at the whole resource picture. The item being recycled isn't the only resource involved. The time (our most valuable resource), water, and electricity (and the resources to produce that electricity: coal, water, etc.) are also valuable. I understand that it takes all the same resources to mine the minerals; but millions of people wasting water, electricity and their productive time for a small amount of recycled material can be much more harmful than a few hundred people running machines and equipment for A LOT of material.

I admit to being an economics nerd. Hence, I listen to Econtalk.org on a weekly basis. Although this podcast is old, it addresses the argument that recycling is always good. Just because it makes us feel good doesn't mean that we're saving the environment.

If, and when, recycling becomes truly profitable people will be digging through old landfills to reclaim a valuable resource. It's just plain economics.

BTW, 30 seconds on the radio isn't enough time to mount a detailed argument.

Licenses for "Consumer Protection"

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:30:00 +0000

As a staunch believer in free markets, I detest licenses. We, as an apathetic public, have allowed special interest groups to lobby the government in favor of protecting ........ people. As a Libertarian, it disgusts me that governments limit economic activity on behalf of a few ignorant, but loud, consumers.
There are licenses for EVERYTHING now-a-days. To start, you have to get a license just to conduct most businesses. Then there are specialty licenses: florists (in Louisiana), real estate agents, drivers, massage therapists, beauticians. You even have to get a license to get married! I hope you get the point. However, just to make this ridiculousness more concrete, you don't need a license to procreate. (How dangerous could that be?)

My future brother-in-law, as I understand, is a skilled and talented tradesman. As everyone knows, however, construction contractors need licenses on top of any permits required by the government to conduct any sort of work. The requirements for a contractor's license in California are not worth the hassle for him.

The truth remains that licenses do not keep fraudulent people out of the business. For the same reason that age limits do not keep kids from drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, licenses are just another BS money-grab by the government. Without government in every one's business we would have higher quality and lower costs. Let's be honest--ignorance is bliss.

What Stopping Point?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:33:00 +0000

I grant that this topic starts with a trivial matter. In the grand scheme of things, it is completely insignificant; yet, it really boils down to the reality the United States is facing--especially in the midst of a presidential election year.

Yesterday, I spent a good portion of the day reading Alan Greenspan's, The Age of Turbulence while my wife shopped for quilting fabric. It just so happened that the most comfortable place to read was in the driver's seat of my car. You know how sitting on your wallet long enough causes discomfort? So into the center console my wallet went. Much later, while already riding with my in-laws to a local, buffet-style pizza joint, it occurred to me that I didn't have access to my identification. Oh well... until I saw my favorite beer on tap! Yay!!!

My wife had to order a 12oz beer for me--which caused suspicion for the young lady operating the cash register. I'm 26, I've served my country and it pisses me off that a damn pizza joint has become law enforcement. Let us not forget that alcohol is related to more deaths each year than any illicit drugs combined. We all know that the age limit prevents people under 21 from consuming alcohol.

It will be to our country's detriment if anyone other than Dr. Ron Paul is elected president. We are not free, and all the other candidates want to bolster the conceit of the anointed...

The War on Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:11:00 +0000

It has been a long time since my last post. Between then and now I've graduated from college and driven back to the west coast where I am on a 3-month (or so) sabbatical.
I've been trying to spread the Ron Paul message wherever I go, but I find that I'm not able to convince people that freedom is good. Some of my family is so convinced that the drug war protects their children from harm that if drugs were legalized my cousins would surely be victimized by someone under the influence. In their view, it is a certainty that drug use (and therefore violence associated) would increase with the legalization of drugs. "You have to draw the line somewhere." is the regular response to the concession of marijuana.

My Dad said to me yesterday that one day I'll change my views when I have children. While I cherish the wisdom of my Father because it has served me well in the past, I wonder if this is true. I wonder whether or not I will be a supporter of free will after my children are born. Surely my willingness to protect them from harm will include sacrificing my own life. I see right through my Father's patronizing interest since it is clear he views my opinion as nothing more than the ignorance of youth.

Admittedly, I have no new brilliant perspective or insight into the war against drugs. I can only paraphrase some of the great thinkers on the the subject. I understand that the incentives are in place to encourage drug use and production. I understand that drugs are associated with violence because drug dealers cannot rely on the police to protect their personal property. I am just not able to effectively argue the points of the drug war opposition. That is something I will have to improve.

I find it amusing that the supporters of the drug war always cite the prevention of crime associated with drugs. Ultimately, people who are in possession or under the influence are arrested for something they might do. Isn't this a form of thought crime? Since drugs are currently illegal, that prevents people from harming others while using. Yeah right. My argument is that people who use drugs will do so whether or not it is legal. The greater populace won't start using drugs simply because they are legal.

Opinions please?

The Police State

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:43:00 +0000

Here is yet another FINE example of the police using coercion to limit free speech.

Video Here and Article Here.

When will it end?