To just drive in the that I am amused by geeky things...

The Honorable Obi-Wan Reed gave his maiden speech in parliament...

Trip the frustrated idealist...

Things should work right...hose should not run, engines should not stall, people should not steal and markets should work free of outside intervention. But it would be folly to accept this as the way of things merely because these are what would be considered right. I just finished reading Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, and I have to say there have been few things as intellectually enlightening. After reading this book I have learned that just because things seem to be working and are possibly the best possible realistic solution, as a proponent of personal freedoms I should express regret at any situation in which free decisions were replaced with forced ones. I have also taken it upon myself that in light of any opinion I may strongly hold, to always entertain the balance of compulsion and freedom. Joel and Eddie have heard these already and will no doubt hear them again but these are just a few of the things that I frown upon due to their infractions of the ideals of personal liberty yet accept as the realistic solution.

• Minimum Voting Age - While I understand that there are certain physiological barriers and uncontrollable instances of parent or authority figure coercion for children, it is still a violation of their personal freedoms to deny them the ability to control the government of which has immeasurable effects on them. I realize the realities of letting a child vote are real and not something of opposing speculation and this is why I accept the current situation as currently the best of all possible solutions.

• Minimum Wage Laws -This is a more complex situation to explain in text form so let me try and sum it up by saying that Minimum wages prevent those who are willing to work for a certain amount of money (which the government feels is too little) getting placed in the positions that fit their abilities and simultaneously prevent employers from finding workers at the most efficient hourly compensation rate. In the spectrum of price and compensation there is a gap from 0 to currently 5.15 dollars per hour for compensation. The concept is equally as unnerving as the government mandating that dime store candy be sold for no less than 5 dollars because it is unnatural to pay that little for candy. While the argument is that if we do not pay them a minimum they will be living in substandard and poverty stricken environments. To a certain degree one in favor of removing the minimum wage could argue that the drop in the minimum wage would also lower the prices of all related goods because now goods could be made for less money making them cheaper and therefore raising real incomes of everyone. Obviously there is a degree to how much this will actually benefit the workers but in the end it also helps decrease unemployment. The point is that perhaps the status quo is not the right or the best solution, but it is a case where the people who are making minimum wage will have a vested interest in making sure legislation goes through that will never lower their wages. It is a similar dilemma that is faced within free trade negotiations.

• Public Housing and general Concept of Wealth Distribution - The bottom line here is that if left unchecked the people who care about helping those less fortunate will operate in private markets untouched by the government and redistribute the wealth to those who they see fit. Once again this is the use of voluntary means to achieve an end which a certain number of people value. The sad truth is that people freeride. People know that there are other people who care enough to cover their tab o to speak. These "freeriders" are the reason that government intervention is needed. Because people may infact care about the concept of helping those living in poverty, but still feel as though they can freeride and that others will help the poverty stricken people without them laying out a dime. This necessitates collection of taxes to be used to pay towards those who are in need ( a subjective term it may be). This outcome is obviously not preferred by the person who abhors mandatory behavior like redistribution of one's own money against his or her will.
  

This goes back to Joel's post about what is right and what is best which is mostly the spawn of a conversation that the three of us had one night. I have now taken it upon myself to perpetually entertain the ideas which hold the foundations of freedom in the highest priority even if for no other reason than I feel it should be looked at as an alternative in every situation. I think I have illustrated here with these examples exactly why choices which exert only free choice will never be the sole functioning ideals of a society. I am sure someone somewhere has said something along these lines, but it should be said nevertheless. One should hold freedom high but accept the reality that sometimes for the sake of many piece of freedom must be sacrificed to achieve this...this person however should never let that piece go before identifying alternatives and exhausting all options...and whenever this is the case that freedom is relinquished that person should always be aware of what he or she has lost and question those constantly who are responsible for making "better" use of it.

If there is any arena in which we should be equal it is the arena of personal freedoms. But, hey...then again, I am an Idealist.


Joel's note: The problem with being a proponent of such ideals, particularly the first two, is that everything would have to work perfectly, including everyone holding the same ideals. To ask "what does economic theory state should happen if we remove the minimum wage/remove all rent controls/remove all mandatory taxes" is the fallacy of economics because economic theory is created in a fictionalized perfect world. Also, giving complete freedom to people is one step from anarchy. The government would get very little revenue and would no longer have the power to police. Soon, there would be no government at all.

Political Coherence

Political hypocrisy doesn't seem like a new term. Politicians and lawyers are well known for being two faced and hypocritical. However, there may be more hypocrisy in politics than we think. But let me use a different term: Political Coherence. Simply put, political coherence is making political beliefs logical and cohesive. Two different issues should, according to political coherence, support each other.

My first example is abortion and the death penalty. The death of a human being. Does a person who is pro-life have to be against the death penalty? Sure, the person sentenced to death has committed a crime, but there is so much that person can still do for society. Are pro-choice people also pro-death penalty? It's the life of a child; it's not the same thing. Perhaps.

Social Security and the Selective Service? Some are proponents of allowing people to invest their money in stocks as a way to relieve Social Security. It's the person's life savings; shouldn't we be able to decide how we spend the end of our lives? I was required to sign up for the selective service at 18 in case of war. Conscription is our duty as Americans to defend Freedom and Liberty. Shouldn't we die for what we believe in, or shouldn't we be able to decide how we spend the end of our lives?

Obviously there are many more, and I won't burden you with reading them. But shouldn't our beliefs, perhaps even our policies, reflect a coherent set of doctrines? Is it wrong to be Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty, and Anti-flag burning?

I honestly don't know. I ponder my own belief structure and wonder if I'm being hypocritical for being anti-censorship and pro-gun control. Can I support protecting against drilling in the Alaskan Arctic but also anti-tariff?

I suppose the bigger question worth asking is whether we are obligated to make our beliefs coherent.

That's not your job Jeb.

Probe Sought in Terri Schiavo 911 Call - Yahoo! News

I cannot for the life of me figure out why Jeb thinks this is his responsibility.

The apparent movement is now towards starting an investigative probe into the records as to what may have caused an alleged time lapse between when Terri Schiavo collapsed and when her husband phoned the hospital. This just seems like an elaborate effort to make Jeb feel justified after his loss for the family of Terri Schiavo. He says they deserve to know what happened those 15 odd years ago...which is probably true, but not through gubernatorial string pulling.

This is not one of those posts where I figure something out; this is the post that is supposed to make you stop and wonder," Wtf is his problem?"

If you disagree...don't brood...post a comment.

So When Will That Be?

Though I do not want mine, Joel's nor anyone else who writes on this blog's job to become bickering pundits, I feel that in this one instance it might be fun and invigorating to disagree with Joel.

First, on the topic of Oil Production and the evils of OPEC. I am all for the outright disbanding of any cartel which seeks to exert any form of monopoly power over its consumers but in this case these OPEC guys will feel the burn of their evil ways. It is for this reason why I believe they are acting forthrightly. Increasing oil production by 500,000 barrels a day and not seeing any drastic change in the price of oil should be a sign to the consumers of the world that perhaps this isn't OPEC's responsibility. Joel said that we are consuming "too much" oil and while I agree with him on the environmental aspect of his point the truth is that we are not consuming too much oil, we are consuming to much oil for the refineries to keep up with. If we should be upset with any big entity in the oil supply line it should be the refineries for not keeping up with times and updating their output capabilities.

For the sake of interpretation, let's use an analogy. If I were a steel producer and you were a person buying a car and you felt that car prices were just out of control and so as a service to the greater good I say," I will double my output of steel to help lower car prices." Excited about my sudden burst of goodwill you go out and look at buying a car only to find the prices have not dropped as much as you were expecting. Why is this? Well it could be a number of things but the most relevant explanation would be that car manufacturers were the bottle neck in this equation. By bottlekneck I mean that the reason the prices did not fall as expected was due to some reason inherent to the industry not to the input of materials. This could be any number of things, for example, using antiquated tools would keep the production levels relatively near where they were before the influx of steel. Though not revolutionary the point of the analogy is to make it clear that there are other reasons our oil is so expensive.

Second, in regards to the concept of Hydrogen cars. I find this suggestion to be a very good idea and generally inline with where I like to see peoples preferences heading. Joel is right we will never really feel the end of oil in as far as cars are concerned. Demand will rise so high that prices will be pushed dramatically up as the rest of the world starts buying their own vehicles. After that the relatively meager interest in alternative fuels will accelerate dramatically as well. So Joel you say you will buy a hydrogen car when you are able to, but it is only when the hydrogen car becomes cost efficient and affordable through innovation efforts made because of the rising cost of the status quo, will that ever happen. So our booming demand for fuel is more than just for our economies it will ultimately be the fuel which fans the fires of innovation in alternative fuels to roaring levels. Even more, is that you will not have to motivate people to do the same because the natural course of events and the resulting costs will be all the motivation those people need to make that decision for themselves.

Now, it is important for me to say that I too share Joel's sentiment and if I could I would but since I can't I don't. I believe in his other suggestion of trying to convince others that if they are able to and care about it they too should make the switch. It could be dangerous however to coerce those people instead of convince them because if the demand for gas falls artificially low due to federal mandates to use hydrogen in lieu of gas then we will forever be teetering back and forth in the transitional phase never having a technological advantage in one or the other.