How to waste $100 million...

Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, announced that he was going to donate $100 million to help improve the public schools in Newark, New Jersey.

He would have been better off if he would have announced a series of 100 prizes worth $1 million to those individuals who come up with the best ideas for improving Facebook. Or, he could have spent the $100 million hiring more employees to monitor abuses of the Facebook service. Or, he could have thrown $100 million out of the window of his moving vehicle and assumed the people who picked it up would put it back into the economy.

Yet he chose to do one of the dumbest things a human being could do with $100 or $100 million.

Will $100 million:

a. Cause lousy parents in Newark to suddenly get involved in their childs' education or help them with homework or encourage them to read to their kids?
b. Cause poorly qualified teachers to magically become experts in their field of study?
c. Cause the teachers union in Newark to lose the power to protect bad teachers?
d. Cause tenure to go away in Newark?
e. Cause Newark to open up all school districts to competition, allowing any kid to go to any school he or she desires?
f. Cause the schools to adopt 1950s era punishment for unruly, disrespectful students?
g. Cause the IQ of the students in Newark to increase?

I wish Mr. Zuckerberg would reconsider. All he has accomplished is a net reduction of his wealth with nothing to show for it.

Thoughts on Quran burning and Mosque building

If liberty is truly valuable to you then you must allow others to use their liberty to do things that you might find offensive - so long at their behavior does not violate the rights of others.

This silly pastor in Gainesville has as much right to do something stupid as Muslims in New York have the right to do something that might be offensive.

It really does not matter what we think about a mosque being built in the shadow of 'Ground Zero'. The people who lost their lives nine years ago do not have an opinion on the matter any more than those who are upset about the mosque have any right to use government to stop its construction. If the folks who are proposing this building have paid for the land, labor and materials to build it, then so be it. That is the end of the story....IF....we truly believe in the idea of liberty. To force them to go somewhere else would simply show that Americans are hypocrites and that all that we say we have been fighting against the last nine years would be for naught.

I would be upset if I saw some nut burning the Bible in Iran - or Illinois. Yet, I only have an interest in seeing the Bible treated with respect, not a right to see it treated with respect.

If a book gets burned in America, so be it. So long as the pastor did not steal the matches or force someone else to assist him, we, as liberty-lovers are obligated to stand back, shake our heads over the foolishness of the man, and then let him proceed.

I would hope that Muslims and Christians living in America would see these events as an opportunity to do what we are supposed to do - leave each other alone.

Call 911....then wait 35 minutes....

This afternoon I was in my home when I happened to look out of my window and see a young teenaged girl walking along the side of my house. I hurried outside and found her barefoot and crying. When I asked her what was wrong she told me that she had been beaten by a relative at her home. I asked her if she wanted me to call the police and she said yes.

While she was in my house being consoled by my wife I dialed 911 and reported what had happened. The 15-year old girl told the dispatcher where the incident took place and I gave the authorities my address. 10 minutes went by and no one appeared.

I saw a police officer drive by, attempted to wave him down only to have him go on by.

I called 911 again to find out what was going on. They had not processed the last call yet but said that it would be soon.

Another officer went by. Again, I stood in my driveway, waving my arms. No response.

I called the non-emergency number for our local police department. I got a recording telling me to call the county. I did. The county gave me many options, none of which included talking to a human being.

After 30 minutes I drove the one-tenth of a mile that I live from my town's police department (I can actually see the department from my driveway..) No one was in the police department and the door was locked. A phone with instructions to dial 911 was on the outside of the building.

I dialed 911 for the third time and was told that the last calls were in the system, it was a busy day for the police and someone would arrive soon.

I drove home and after more than 35 minutes an officer finally appeared, told me he had been given the wrong address and then, finally, proceeded to assist this girl who had to wait more than a half hour for the government to do its job in a manner that our taxes call for.

Thank God she was not in my yard bleeding from a gunshot wound...

Is the Economy a Machine or an Ecosystem?

Much of what is missing from the current debate over economic policy is a fundamental question over what our nation's economy most closely resembles - a sophisticated machine that can be fine tuned by special people with IQ's several standard deviations greater than us common folk, or an ecosystem that selects the most relatively fit participants for success, while punishing poor decision makers with lower standards of living.

If our economy resembles a machine, then the Keynesians in Washington are correct that managed health care; near $1 trillion stimulus packages; targeted subsidies and bailouts; quasi-ownership of banking and automotive concerns; green initiatives and much more can be successfully carried out by elected officials whom we entrusted in the voting booth. Let's face it, we have been told over and over again that under the era of deregulation (presumably referring to Reagan, Clinton & Bush), led to the chaos that destroyed the American economy and, deservedly, our faith in capitalism. Unfettered capitalism, we have been told must be restrained by intelligent, diligent political officials and judges so that we can all be spared the ravages of another Great Depression.

On the other hand, what if an economy is not unlike the wilderness and the ecosystem that exists in the wilderness? Think about this proposition for a moment. Out in the wilds of nature, the regulating forces that guide the "decisions" of plants and animals is simply the extent to which the ecosystem selects for success, or failure, the behavior of its participants. Life is a random walk where sometimes there is just enough rain, food, sunlight and lack of disease to allow living beings that are best suited for current ecological circumstances to thrive. Other times, naturally occuring ecological "recessions", i.e. drought, floods, plagues, etc. cause participants that are ill-suited for the conditions that exist to face a greater probability of struggling, or even dying.

The "market" for resources is unregulated but ultimately faces regulation. The regulation in this case stems from diverse life forms using only those resources needed to maximize chances for survival. There is also no punishment imposed for those living things that have the best genes, the greatest strength, or the luckiest location at any given time.

Harsh as it may sound, what if we simply allowed our economy to copy what is "natural" to our condition? Human beings have a greater capacity to work together, a greater desire to share wealth and a deeper understanding of how to organize resources than animals and plants do. Government, one could argue, imposes unnatural regulations, taxes and laws that inhibit human being from maximizing the opportunities our economy (our ecosystem) has presented to us. Whether it is progressive individual and corporate income taxes; crony capitalism for businesses with the best lobbyists, but not the best products; or welfare and health care benefits for voters who would rather use a ballot to get money than a job to do the same, the examples are endless where unnatural, and unproductive decisions are rewarded all because government can use force.

I would like to suggest that the more we encourage our fellow man to look to nature rather than government for guidance on how to structure economic policy the better off we will be in the long run. This would not mean the absence of help for the down-trodden. Far from it. What it would mean is that in the future, participants in our biological economy would not build nests that they cannot afford; would not eat enough food to become a strain to their neighbors' wallet and would not use their businesses to invest in resources that are too risky.

Remember, if we think our economy is a machine, it means that in the long run we must face a reality where more and more experts get to design and control the part of the machine that each of us helps support. I am not sure I want a future that the Soviet Union decided to leave behind.

Thoughts on the $20 billion Shakedown...

In case you missed the last blog entry on this site, I am in favor of BP paying for the cleanup of the property that is owned by all and therefore owned by no one. This is the nature of common property - if one of the part owners/nonowners does something to ruin what the rest of us partly own/do not own then that party must bear the responsibility for the damage done to the rest of us. BP - as my brother pointed out via email - made a lot of bad decisions stemming in large part from poor management on the oil rig. BP, according to The Wall Street Journal relied on less expensive, and riskier technology to drill for oil in deeper waters. Whatever millions BP saved by going cheap and having bad management/crisis planning, it is now paying for - and then some. I am fine with that. If $20 billion is not enough, let it be $23 billion or $36 billion. Whatever. I, like you, want BP to fix the mess it helped create.

Now lets turn to another huge spill that threatens far more people than BP will ever hurt. This spill has caused trillions, yes, trillions of dollars in damages and will have a catastrophic impact on our children, grandchildren and their grandchildren.

This spill is the huge gusher of money that our federal government has blown through since...well, since FDR with an acceleration in the name of Bush Compassion/International Pre-emptive Conflict and Obama Socialism/Keynesian Fallacy Worshipping.

Tell me please - how do we sit here and cry for dead pelicans and turtles who are covered in BP oil, when our future human citizens are covered in debt? Why should I rejoice when BP's CEO is dragged before Congress for his tar and feathering when no one from Congress is dragged before us to explain the trillions wasted in concept wars, health care for all, endless welfare benefits, bailouts for Harvard MBAs who were too stupid to recall the phrase "boom and......bust" and on and on and on?

It is a pathetic joke that BP is held to scrutiny of one standard for ruining the Gulf of Mexico while our own government gets to ruin every state in the nation with no accountability whatsoever.

Someone please explain this paradox to me.

Some Rational thoughts on the BP Oil Spill

I find myself in constant amazement at the stupidity of the American people. Just when I start thinking that maybe my fellow citizens deserve a little credit for having some common sense, another reason to have no faith in the economic intelligence of humans resurfaces.

To date, BP has lost over $1 billion as a result of this historically epic oil spill. Every second, BP officials can watch an underwater camera film profits gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. BP will end up spending far more on lawsuits, cleanup costs, new regulatory contraints on deepwater drilling and more. BP's reputation with consumers is tanking. Stockholders are fleeing. Bondholders are probably selling off in droves.

And yet, the American people think BP does not care about what is taking place. BP cares more than anyone! BP cares because it has the biggest reason (over 1 billion of them) to care. It is as if - when you listen to other people - that this evil corporation is somehow responding slowing and/or stupidly to the spill because it is, of course, an evil corporation that cares only about profits and stockholders. It is precisely because BP only cares about profits and stockholders that BP keeps trying to stop this spill.

Many will say that this is proof that deepwater drilling is too risky to continue or that BP and other companies should have had to take more precautions before they started drilling that deep. Nonsense.

First, the odds of something like this happening were - and still are - so low that it would not have made sense for BP to incur tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs to drill relief wells at the same time the primary wells were being drilled. Think of it this way. We have a better chance of dying from a car wreck than an oil rig has of sinking. Should Ford build cars that look like tanks with several feet of protective steel, bomb-proof windows and bumpers that are 10 feet thick? That would save many more lives, right? What would cars then cost?

If all of the oil companies took into account every possible disaster and then incurred costs to prevent even the lowest probability events, you would have the pleasure of paying much more for gas than you do now. Then you would complain about $6 gas and the "excessive measures" that oil companies are wasting money on.

The reality of this spill is quite simple. BP engaged in rational engineering to provide us with fuel at the lowest possible cost. Government regulators (who failed over and over again to do their jobs) implicitly trusted that BP loved getting money for oil and would try not to spill any. When the lowest probability event actually happened we got a spill into the nation's common property that BP should now pay to clean up. It will be bad for the Gulf States for a long time. Billions, potentially in tourism and seafood revenue will be lost. That is part of the price of keeping gas around $2.50 per gallon.

If you want a full-proof method for keeping all oil out of the ocean, then ban all drilling offshore, pay your $6 per gallon and shut up about the high price of gas.

Why Libertarians are Losers...

As an unapologetic Libertarian I would like to take a moment to point out what is wrong with the folks that make up the ranks of our nation's third largest political party.

I, like many of you, voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like his son, Rand Paul, and find him to be a breath of fresh air whenever he speaks on the issues that are dear to my heart.

And yet, Mr. Paul is on the verge - assuming it is not already too late - of being relegated to a footnote in our political history. This would place him in the company of other Libertarians who seem to take pride in losing elections. After all, it takes a special person to really understand how smart we Libertarians are. We, and only we, know that government best serves us when it leaves our wallets and bodies alone. The Democrats understand liberty as it pertains to our rights to engage in social contracts. Republicans understand liberty as it pertains to our rights in economic contracts.

It takes a real smart person to understand the value of liberty in all contracts between consenting adults.

Yet, Libertarians are really, really dumb in at least one respect.

Rather than slowly pulling Republicans and Democrats in our direction by showing them the value of true freedom, we open our extremist-sounding mouths and blurt out inumerable offensive ideas that send voters running away.

Take Rand Paul's recent remarks that the government probably overstepped its bounds in the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Mr. Paul contended that private businesses should not have faced force desegregation of restaurants, hotels, etc.

Yes, I understand his point. No, I do not think I should have to let anyone in my home or car or other private areas of my life if I choose not to. The problem with what Mr. Paul said is twofold.

First, the voters are not Constitutionally astute enough to discern the broader meaning of his comments and therefore will think he is a racist.

Second, pragmatic Libertarianism might suggest that desegregation of businesses was a proper function of government. After all, black people in 1964 could have argued that they paid property taxes to maintain the sidewalks, roads, street lights, signs, sewers, police and fire protection for the local sandwich shop and therefore a sandwich shop that exists to sell food to the public should have to allow all members of the tax-paying public to peacefully enter and pay for a meal.

Liberty means "anything that is peaceful". A peaceful attempt to exchange private property in a business establishment seems to fit under that definition.

If Mr. Paul - and other Libertarians - want to start winning elections a strong dose of common-sense Libertarianism would help achieve that goal.

Until then, Libertarians will be confined to the wilderness where many of our best ideas our clouded by rhetoric that the voters find offensive or extremist.