tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63953362977130047432024-02-20T06:27:48.219-08:00Dan FernandesIssues and Opinions - Libertarian Dan FernandesDan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-19352249089963149682012-10-23T07:48:00.000-07:002012-10-23T07:49:31.690-07:00No on Prop 37 - Mandatory Food Labeling<br />
Prop 37 would require mandatory labeling to show the percent content of food products grown from genetically modified (GM) seeds. Specifically, Prop 37 targets the modern biotech process of precise gene splicing, rather than the earlier and more haphazard method of gene modification, the crossbreeding of hybrids.<br />
<br />
Proponents want us to vote yes on 37 because (quote) - "We have a right to know what is in our food". I have some problems with that feel-good campaign slogan. First, the desire for information is definitely not a "right", because no one has a legitimate right to force other people to do anything for them. Second, the use of the term "our food" is deceptive because the mandatory labeling applies to the food while it still belongs to the food companies. They may choose to sell us food if profitable, but they are under no obligation to feed anyone. <br />
<br />
So a more honest version of the pro-37 campaign slogan would be: We have a desire to force food companies to tell us how their food was grown, to help us decide if we want to buy it. That's better, but I still have a problem with the use of the word "we"? To whom does that refer? It certainly is not millions of consumers, because if they really were demanding GM labeling, natural market forces of profit and competition would have supplied it to them without the need for a law. Rather, it is the special interest groups supporting Prop 37 who want consumers to be aware of, and be alarmed about, GM content.<br />
<br />
Who are these GM alarmist proponents and what are their motivations? They are: organic food companies, litigation attorneys, and environmental organizations. For organic food companies, they stand to possibly double their market share if they can get more people to fear and avoid GM food, since organic food is labeled GM-free. For litigation attorneys, they expect a bonanza of lucrative shake-down lawsuits by attacking food companies for alleged non-compliance with the new labeling law. Higher food prices will result.<br />
<br />
As for environmental organizations, they routinely make horrendous unfounded claims about GM food and many other chemicals in order to boost their fear-driven funding stream. Their ultimate goal is nothing less than a world-wide forced ban of GM seeds, just like they have promoted needless and harmful bans of numerous other chemicals and technologies. Their antics will result in less food, more expensive food, more hunger for the world's poor, and ultimately fewer people on planet earth. That fits environmentalist long term goals perfectly.<br />
<br />
GM seeds are a free-market development, not a government secret birth-control plot, as some claim. GM food, currently estimated at 70% of all groceries, has benefitted us with more food at lower cost, using less land, fewer herbicides, and reduced pesticides,. GM food has been consumed by millions of people over the last two decades without harm, environmentalist lies to the contrary. Ironically, GM technology is actually more safe and far better for the environment than all earlier methods, including organic. Please don't assist Big Green in its selfish effort to ban this great new technology; vote no on Prop 37.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-50175623324712759822012-06-15T00:15:00.002-07:002012-06-15T00:15:56.116-07:00A Skeptical View of the 9/11 Truth Movement<br />
The 9/11 Truth Movement claims to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that destruction of the New York World Trade Center Twin Tower Buildings on 9/11/2001 was perpetrated by unknown elements inside our government, a so-called "inside job". Their main argument is that the Twin Towers did not fall from the impact of airplanes alone, but were helped along by explosive charges placed in the buildings by government agents, days or weeks before the 9/11/2001 event. They have lined up more than a thousand building experts to sign a statement saying the cause of the collapse is problematic and requires further investigation.<br />
<br />
When 9/11 truthers watch the video of the collapse of the Twin Towers, they see apparent evidence of explosives too numerous to mention here. However, none of that evidence holds up to reasonable scrutiny. They would have us believe that an invisible, inaudible, ripple of remotely detonated charges, obscured by the descending cloud of debris, leads each building down, starting at the point of aircraft damage.<br />
<br />
In addition to the lack of valid evidence, here are three reasons why the explosive charge theory is not a reasonable one.<br />
<br />
(1) Planting the explosives would require the action of a dozen or so building demolition experts, working in an occupied building, yet undetected by anyone, knowing that they were a part of a plot to kill thousands of innocent people, and knowing that they themselves would likely have to be assassinated to maintain their silence.<br />
<br />
(2) It is quite reasonable that the buildings fell solely from aircraft impact, because the buildings were never designed to withstand an impact by such large aircraft at such high speed with so much fuel aboard (contrary to truther claims). Fire from aircraft fuel was so intense that liquid aircraft aluminum can be seen flowing out of windows! Structural steel has only a fraction of its strength at those temperatures.<br />
<br />
(3) Most importantly, consider the likely thought process of the 9/11 attackers in the planning stage. In order for the 9/11 event to qualify as a truly outrageous atrocity, it is not necessary that the buildings actually fall down the same day they are attacked. The buildings are ruined anyway, and enough people are killed by the aircraft strikes alone to call it a success. The 9/11 attackers would never have bothered with explosives because they would have incurred a far greater risk of their plot being discovered, for very little added "bang". Besides, they had a reasonable expectation that the buildings would fall from aircraft impact alone.<br />
<br />
Be aware, I am not saying that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. It may well have been. I am saying there is yet no valid evidence. Truthers remind me of the people back in the 1980's who believed all the moon landings were faked, because they have much apparent evidence to support their theory, but they fail to examine that evidence critically for alternative explanations.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-81037262070151711792012-04-21T00:18:00.000-07:002012-06-15T00:19:45.981-07:00The Environmentalist’s Favorite Energy SourceNext time your environmentalist friend tells you we need to stop using fossil fuels to save the planet, ask him or her - What is your favorite energy source?<br />
<br />
How would a true environmentalist answer that question? It is puzzling, because environmentalists have actively campaigned against almost every energy source out there. They complain that nuclear power is too dangerous and has a waste disposal problem, that wind power has whirling blades that kill birds, that sun power uses acres of unsightly mirrors in the desert, and that geothermal energy sites are mostly in ecologically protected areas. Hydro power is in such disfavor they even want to demolish existing dams!
<br />
<br />
Environmentalists do tend to favor ethanol and hydrogen, but neither of these are viable energy sources. Ethanol from corn is not energy positive and will never survive without endless government subsidies. Hydrogen is not an energy source but is merely an inefficient way to store energy from other sources.
<br />
<br />
No, environmentalists have no favored and viable alternative to fossil fuels. Their intent is apparently to starve the world economy of its needed energy by government action. That is a formula for poverty and possible de-population. As for me, I love petroleum, people, and prosperity.
<br />
<br />Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-37486686119510390192011-12-11T16:29:00.000-08:002011-12-11T16:30:49.494-08:00Stop Trying to Create Jobs!<div>I know this heading sounds crazy. After all, everyone wants more jobs. All of the presidential hopefuls have their own jobs plan, and President Obama even created a new “Jobs Czar” position in his cabinet and appointed General Electric's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, to the post.</div><div><br /></div><div>But is job creation really a proper government policy goal? To answer this question, we need to ask what we want the economy to do for us. How about this: The economy should create as much wealth as possible with as little human effort as necessary. </div><div><br /></div><div>Really, isn’t this just good common sense? Why would you want to expend any more human effort than necessary to create the products and services that people want and need? Obviously, labor-saving devices and increased worker productivity are good things, yet you might think they are bad things if you are too focused on jobs. </div><div><br /></div><div>Too bad so many people in government make exactly that mistake. They are so motivated to protect existing jobs that they do so at the expense of job creation and wealth creation. It causes them to pursue such wrong-headed policies as import barriers, export subsidies, government make-work projects, a large standing army, a complex tax code, and burdensome regulations that divert valuable resources.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is not to say that government is helpless to cure unemployment. It can do so by ending government policies which make it less profitable to hire workers; policies like minimum wage laws, the payroll tax, and laws making it difficult to dismiss workers or easy to be sued by workers. Also, a lower corporate tax rate would help. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lately we have had some severe job-killing new policies, specifically, the threat of Obama-Care, restrictions on domestic energy production, impending EPA greenhouse gas regulations, the re-regulation of business accounting guidelines (Sarbanes-Oxley), and the reform of financial practices (Dodd-Frank). Maybe that’s why companies have become reluctant to hire (well duh). </div><div><br /></div><div>According to the insight of von Mises, a free economy naturally produces low unemployment because human capital is the scarcest of all resources. That’s why excessive unemployment is always a government failure, never a market failure. Remember that next time someone complains that the economy isn’t producing enough jobs.</div><div><br /></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-56474224243203059802011-04-13T23:29:00.000-07:002011-04-13T23:31:50.338-07:00Murray Rothbard's CONSPIRACY THEORY OF HISTORY<div>Murray Rothbard's CONSPIRACY THEORY OF HISTORY – by Dan Fernandes</div><div><br /></div><div>(From a talk by Alan Pyeatt at the Libertarian Party of East San Gabriel Valley Dinner Club in February of 2011)</div><div><br /></div><div>How do you react when someone tells you that an event in history was the result of a conspiracy? Do you lean toward immediate doubt, thinking conspiracies are rare and unlikely? That reaction may be common, but according to Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), it is not justified. In Rothbard's view of history, a conspiracy by the parasitical ruling class perpetually exists to maintain and extend power over the majority productive class. </div><div><br /></div><div>The conspiratorial ruling class inside government receives help from many co-conspirators outside government, people Rothbard refers to as “Court Intellectuals”. In the past, it was the clergy who filled this role. In modern times, people like college professors, media commentators, and business leaders are the co-conspirators. </div><div> </div><div>A perpetual conspiracy by these advocates of big government is absolutely necessary because the people must be persuaded, against their own best interests, to donate wealth, and to eschew liberty, in order to support an intrusive, burdensome, and ever-expanding government. The conspirators do this by continuously conjuring up new “threats” to society, both real and imagined, that only the government can theoretically resolve. These perceived threats include foreign enemies, market failures, cultural failings, and most recently, environmental concerns. The conspirators also must conspire to cover up government failures, so that the people do not lose faith in their big government. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is important to point out that a conspiratorial view of history provided much of the impetus for the natural rights theory found in the Cato Letters, which sparked the American Revolution. So it is likely that our country's founders would have agreed with Murray Rothbard's conspiratorial views. By conspiracy, we don't mean that a large number of people necessarily get together in the same room and agree to conspire. Rather, we mean all conspirators are aware that they themselves are falsifying or suppressing information and that many other like-minded people are doing the same, for some common purpose which would be considered evil by the people being deceived. </div><div><br /></div><div>How can you tell if any specific conspiracy theory is true? Rothbard suggests that you strongly consider motives. That includes the power motives of the ruling class and their advisors, the power and economic motives of people such as bureaucrats and business leaders, and the ideological motives of people such as academic intellectuals and the news media. When motives to conspire are strong, a conspiracy is the most likely explanation of human action. </div><div><br /></div><div>The proof of any theory is in how well it explains the real world. According to Rothbard, his conspiracy theory of history explains many historic events. For example, it explains how participants were drawn into World Wars I and II, and how U.S. foreign policy during that period was transformed from one of benign neutrality to one of becoming world policeman. I would add that it certainly explains climate change alarmism.</div><div><br /></div><div>How can we best defend ourselves from conspiracies to expand government power? According to Rothbard, our best defense is the ideological ammunition supplied by people he calls radicals, or opposition intellectuals. And one of their best tools is to expose government conspiracies, not only in the present, but also through revisionist accounts of history. Rothbard himself was one such radical. Of course, an important element of pro-government propaganda is to discredit conspiracy theories, and to marginalize people who espouse them. </div><div><br /></div><div>So the next time someone offers you a conspiracy theory, keep an open mind. Certainly, there are some unlikely conspiracy theories, but then again, many conspiracies have actually occurred. Truth is not so easy to determine, and there is no substitute for good judgment.</div><div><br /></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-46779202873535084812011-02-16T07:16:00.000-08:002011-02-16T07:18:48.498-08:00It’s Illegal Not to Do ThatWith the recent passage into law of the National Healthcare Reform Act contemptuously referred to as ObamaCare, people have been expressing their outrage over one particularly offensive feature know as mandatory insurance. This would make it punishable by fine for individuals not having employer-provided coverage to not buy health insurance. A dozen state legislatures have even passed resolutions attempting to nullify this law in their state, claiming it is unconstitutional and unprecedented. But is it really, or are there other existing crimes of inaction (other than the payment of taxes) which could serve as precedents for the ObamaCare individual mandate?<br /><br />When considering possible crimes of inaction, here are some that come to mind: compulsory school attendance for children; the requirement to serve in the military when the draft is activated; the requirement to report child abuse when observed; the requirement to verify employee legal status when hiring a worker; firearm registration; the requirement to serve on a jury when called; the requirement to purchase automobile liability insurance and to wear a seat belt or a helmet; food nutritional labeling; and coming to your city soon – mandatory recycling! I suspect we could come up with thousands of other examples if we pored through all the federal regulations.<br /><br />I must regrettably conclude that crimes of inaction have long been with us, although there are no such laws that I would support. Our government apparently has the power to tell us what <span><i><b>to</b></i><b><span style="font-style:italic;"></span></b></span> do as well as what <i><b>not</b></i> to do. To my way of thinking, the power to command behavior is the power to enslave. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment that says something like this: Congress shall make no law mandating any action other than the payment of taxes. What a huge roll-back of the regulatory state, and a tremendous defense for our liberties, that would be! But first, please ask yourself - which of your favorite laws would be nullified, and could you live without them?<br /><br />As for the constitutionality of ObamaCare, don’t be silly. Where is it stated in the constitution that the federal government shall regulate health care? (Answer: no place.) Lack of constitutionality hasn’t stopped our federal government for decades now, and in spite of recent lower court rulings, I expect that at least five Supreme Court justices will find some lame excuse to justify ObamaCare.Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-86024127919719622822010-08-26T12:00:00.000-07:002010-08-27T07:14:23.312-07:00It’s Good to Make a ProfitI attended a recent gathering where someone made the unchallenged remark that corporations were profiting at our expense. That got me to thinking – if Microsoft makes big profit, is there some group of exploited people who are poorer by that same amount? I suspect many people think so. People in Congress may think so too, because they are considering legalizing something called a “B” Corporation, which could legally pursue so-called “social responsibility” in place of profit. <br /><br />Apparently this cultural bias against profit has been around for a long time, going back even to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and is related to a similar bias against productive work. (See <a href="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/are-profits-fit-only-for-serfs-and-slaves/">article</a> by Richard W. Fulmer in “The Freeman”, July/August 2010.) According to this view, productive work is fitting only for serfs and slaves; honorable men gain wealth through battle and conquest (Wow!). <br /><br />In spite of popular beliefs, profit is created wealth, not transferred wealth. To understand why, observe that profit is the difference of sales minus expenses. Sales are a measure of the value to the economy that has been created. Expenses are a measure of the resources of the economy that have been consumed. Thus, profit is the excess of value created over resources consumed and represents wealth that did not previously exist. <br /><br />So, to answer my own question, - no one is exploited because Microsoft has a profit. That profit is wealth that would not exist, had Microsoft not been so successful. Of course, Microsoft’s competitors got hurt, but it was the competition from Microsoft that hurt them, not the profit. <br /><br />I can hear the profit bashers now, claiming that Microsoft should have reduced its profits by lowering prices even more. But lowering prices doesn’t always reduce profits any more than raising prices can erase losses. And lowering prices too much could (or did) get Microsoft accused of unfair competition. <br /><br />Another important benefit from the pursuit of profit is that resources of society are allocated most efficiently when profit is maximized, which is beneficial to everyone in the long run. That’s why economist Milton Freeman so famously said that corporations have only one social responsibility, which is to increase their profits. <br /><br />We should also inform the profit basher that he himself makes a profit in his job, assuming his pay exceeds his job-related expenses. Who has he exploited? That should make it very clear that it is good to make a profit.Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-78754744598851010842010-04-25T15:36:00.000-07:002010-04-25T15:37:55.025-07:00Gay Marriage<div>I am dismayed that so many Republican candidates believe it is the duty of government to deny gays the right to marry. They call it “defending” marriage, as if gay marriage were somehow a threat to anyone. Are they afraid we are all going to turn gay? Or maybe it is just mean-spirited; they wish to make gays as miserable as possible.</div><div><br /></div><div>The fact is that gays are going to continue to marry each other and live together, with or without state approval. Laws like California Proposition 8, to “define” marriage as between a man and a woman, do not affect the actual practice of gay marriage, but they do allow the state to discriminate against gays in the area of marital privilege, through laws governing such things as inheritance, divorce, community property, child custody, visitation rights, taxes, and benefits. </div><div><br /></div><div>It is interesting that currently over sixty percent of major corporations provide employee benefits to same-sex partners, yet only five states plus D.C. recognize gay marriage. This is a disgrace, but it is not surprising. Government has a long history of discriminating against its own people. There was a time, for example, when 38 states banned inter-racial marriage. </div><div><br /></div><div>Government has the obligation to treat all people equally. That comes from the 14th Amendment of the federal constitution, which says states may not deny any person the equal protection of the law. Perhaps a future Supreme Court ruling will strike down state laws which currently discriminate against gays. </div><div><br /></div><div>Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else, including the right to form a legal contract commonly known as marriage. Moralists who believe they must defend the institution of marriage by discriminating against gays have their morals on backwards.</div><div><br /></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-18638089970012071382010-04-05T14:58:00.000-07:002010-04-05T15:01:36.848-07:00Legalize Marijuana<div>I have never used marijuana and don’t even know anyone who does. So how can I be so sure it is safe to make marijuana legal? The answer is simple. Legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with how safe or how harmful it may be. Lots of substances are harmful (like cyanide, and arsenic), yet BATF and DEA SWAT teams are not breaking down doors in the night looking for them.</div><div><br /></div><div>If we are concerned that people may harm themselves with marijuana, why are we harming them even more with prison. We have over half a million people in prison for violating non-violent drug laws. Prison is more harmful than marijuana. </div><div><br /></div><div>Is the threat of prison supposed to prevent drug use? If so, it is not working. We have about 40 million people in the U. S. who are occasional users of illegal drugs. That is more people than when President Nixon launched the federal war on drugs in 1972. Our last two presidents admit to trying marijuana. Do we really want all these people in prison? The U. S. already leads the world in incarceration rate. </div><div><br /></div><div>If marijuana were legal, would it be more of a problem? Well, alcohol was more of a problem during prohibition than it ever has been since, so it seems logical that drugs would be less of a problem if they were legal. For one thing, we would not have pushers on campus like we do now. For another, terrorists would not be funding their activities with illegal drug money like they do now. For another, we would not have so much crime and gang violence like we do now.</div><div><br /></div><div>Do we need drug laws to protect our children? Actually, teens report that marijuana is more accessible than alcohol and cigarettes. The reason is simple: pushers don’t ask for ID. It seems reasonable that if we treat marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana will be less accessible to teens. </div><div><br /></div><div>Do we need drug laws because marijuana is immoral? It seems dangerous to me to let the government decide morality, because there is no end to it. Gambling, pornography, homosexuality, being absent from church on Sunday – all these things have been illegal in the past because of government’s moral judgment. Here is my moral judgment: leave your neighbor alone as long as he is not hurting anybody but himself. </div><div><br /></div><div>So why do we have drug laws anyway? One reason comes to mind: the ever-expanding power and authority of the federal government. It is seen in the merciless pursuit of sick and dieing medical marijuana patients in California by the federal DEA, even after our state legalized medical marijuana. It is seen in the asset forfeiture laws which allow the government to confiscate your property without due process of law. It is seen in the ban on growing hemp. The war on drugs has become an excuse to expand government power. </div><div><br /></div><div>Most of the points I have made here would apply not just to marijuana but to all illegal drugs. However, the voting public is not ready to consider legalizing all drugs. So let’s take them one at a time. Marijuana, being the least harmful and the most medically useful, is the logical place to start. </div><div><br /></div><div>Recommended reading: “Why our Drug Laws Have Failed and what we can do about it”, book by Judge James P. Gray.</div><div><br /></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-30159655168725780962010-04-05T14:54:00.000-07:002010-04-05T14:57:10.785-07:00What Part of “Infringe” Don’t You Understand?<div>The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down the Washington D.C. total gun ban, unfortunately left the window open for President Obama to declare that he supports what he calls “common sense” gun laws. My question is – Will common sense be applied to determine if any of the proposed gun laws are actually constitutional?</div><div><br /></div><div>The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. The dictionary defines “to infringe” as “to act in violation of, or to transgress”. Assuming that “arms” mean fire arms, that is, guns not too large for one man to carry, I arrive at the common sense conclusion that most (maybe all) of the current gun laws are unconstitutional, let alone the ones being proposed. </div><div><br /></div><div>And what is being proposed? The proposal that frightens me the most is called “national gun registration”. This may seem harmless at first, but in fact is very dangerous, because registration is a logical precondition to confiscation. (And confiscation is a logical precondition to genocide, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Gun registration is unconstitutional for the same reason that concealed carry permits are unconstitutional. These laws convert a right into a privilege, to be granted or denied at the whim of the state. </div><div><br /></div><div>The constitution does not say that the privilege of the people to keep and bare arms shall be regulated for the purpose of public safety. Gun control advocates and Supreme Court justices should stop pretending that it does. </div><div><br /></div><div>And what kind of society would we have if we declared all of our gun laws unconstitutional. I think we would have a safer society, from criminals as well as from government tyranny. It works for Switzerland. </div><div><br /></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-51203333579421855762010-04-05T14:46:00.000-07:002010-04-05T14:52:30.308-07:00What to Say to a Global Warming Alarmist<div>Global warming true believers claim that humans, by using carbon-based fuels such as coal and oil, are degrading the earth’s climate. Their solution is to have a government policy which will restrict the use of these fuels, world-wide. They favor international multi-lateral agreements to accomplish their goal, coupled with economic sanctions to force compliance. They see the United Nations playing a key roll, perhaps evolving into a form of world government. They claim to have a scientific consensus on their side, and they are willing to marginalize anyone who disagrees with them, with charges of being anti-science and anti-environment. </div><div><br /></div><div>What do you say to such people? Here are a few of their most frequent claims, followed by my thoughtful response. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>“Humans have been polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide by burning coal since the industrial revolution, and that has raised the earth’s temperature, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.” </i></div><div>First, it is wrong to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a vital component of the atmosphere and is absolutely necessary for all life on earth. Second, the total accumulated amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide contributed by humans is estimated to be only 100 parts per million, or one hundredth of one percent! This is about 150 times smaller than the average concentration of the main greenhouse gas, which is water vapor. The carbon is theoretically warming, but you will never see it in real world measurements. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>“But the earth has warmed in the last 100 years!”</i> That’s right, and the observed warming, decade by decade, correlates quite well with measured solar activity, and not with carbon dioxide content. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>“You will be sorry when Greenland melts and floods the everglades, and when polar bears and penguins go extinct.” </i> Greenland was green when first discovered one thousand years ago, yet the everglades have been around for at least ten times that long. Polar bear populations have more than doubled in the last 30 years. Penguins suffer from over-fishing of their feeding areas, not from an un-noticeable amount of extra carbon dioxide. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>“The debate is over, the science is settled, and a consensus has been reached.” </i> Yes, a consensus exists among climatologists corrupted by an obscene amount of government funding. The rest of the scientific community disagrees. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>“We have a moral imperative to save the earth.”</i> No, we have a moral imperative to preserve human liberty; it is never moral to expand government.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>“You global warming deniers are no better than holocaust deniers.”</i> The similarity between global warming alarmism and the holocaust is that both are the result of too many people accepting uncritically what their government is saying. In the case of the holocaust, it was the idea that the Jews were responsible for all of Germany’s misfortunes. In the case of global warming, it is the belief that carbon fuel is responsible for everything that can go wrong with weather and climate. Both belief systems are false.</div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-66076562560205330072010-04-04T14:47:00.000-07:002010-04-05T14:46:08.110-07:00Stop Bashing Immigrants<div><div>Conservative talk radio and political campaign ads are full of concern these days about how immigrants are taking our jobs, burdening our welfare state, and increasing crime. Employers of illegal workers are vilified. There are even plans for building a fence at the Mexican border. </div><div><br /></div><div>Fortunately, none of the complaints against immigrants are valid. Here are some arguments to counter the immigrant bashers. </div><div><br /></div><div>Immigrants cause unemployment? No, because workers are also consumers, so population expansion can never create unemployment. Furthermore, Cato has shown that cities with the most immigrants have the lowest unemployment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Immigrants send money out of country? Yes, but all that money eventually comes back. A dollar is a claim against the U.S. economy, and it would be foolish to forfeit that claim.</div><div><br /></div><div>Immigrants are over-represented in the prison population? Not when you adjust for age, and subtract those detained for simply being illegal. </div><div><br /></div><div>Immigrants burden the welfare state? Well, everyone does, but immigrants less so because they tend to be younger and require less healthcare. And don’t forget, immigrants pay taxes too.</div><div><br /></div><div>“My ancestors came here legally!” Yes, that’s because there were no quota limits before 1924.</div><div><br /></div><div>“Immigrants don’t assimilate!” I’ll bet they were saying that about your ancestors one hundred or more years ago. </div><div><br /></div><div>Having countered some of the negative claims about immigration, what about the benefits? The primary benefit is that immigration creates wealth in the same way that free trade creates wealth. Immigration is a form of international trade in labor. The single best thing America can do for other countries is not foreign aid; it is to allow free trade in goods and services, labor and capital. </div><div><br /></div><div>In addition to economic arguments, there are human arguments as well. People have a right to migrate; it is called freedom of movement. Think of the Berlin Wall and the people in the captive countries of Eastern Europe. Migration is an important check on tyranny. Why is keeping people out any different from keeping people in?</div><div><br /></div><div>Our immigration laws are a bungling attempt at economic and cultural central planning. Current law, existing since 1968, places an annual ceiling on legal immigrant visas of 20,000 per country of origin. What arrogance that our lawmakers would think they know how many immigrants our country would need, even into the future!</div><div><br /></div><div>What to do about illegal immigration? I suggest we simply repeal the visa limits. That is the situation we had before 1924, when America stood for freedom. Illegal immigration will dry up as legal immigration expands. Total immigration might increase, but that might be a good thing. Bad law has been the problem all along, and once again, freedom is the answer. </div><div><br /></div></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-9451648696271316722010-03-31T17:09:00.000-07:002010-03-31T17:10:20.711-07:00Dumping On the Tea Party Movement<div>The tea party movement seems to be a spontaneous and leaderless grass roots response to the outrageous way our federal government has been behaving lately. Thousands of people showed up in public photo-op demonstrations around the country, and in D.C., to protest the economic stimulus package, the bank bailouts, the auto company bailouts, socialized healthcare, the Federal Reserve, unfunded entitlements, and the explosion in federal debt. They thump the constitution and claim to value liberty. But do they really?</div><div><br /></div><div>Who are these people? Apparently they are a coalition of disgruntled Republicans and independents, perhaps boosted by some spin-off from the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution”. There was even a Nashville convention, with Sarah Palin as a speaker. Will there soon be a “Tea Party Party”?</div><div><br /></div><div>I certainly agree with the alarm that the tea party goers have over the current state of affairs, but my question to them is – Where have you people been!? Why weren’t you protesting when George W Bush was trampling civil liberties, inventing foreign wars, and expanding the national debt? Where were you when George W Bush, in his final year, signed off on the initial stimulus package and bank bailouts?</div><div><br /></div><div>Here are some more questions for the tea party people:</div><div><br /></div><div>You say healthcare should be provided by the market, not by government? Fine. Does that mean you are now ready to repeal Medicare? And why is government-run healthcare so different from government-run education. Under the ethical principles of socialism, you should accept both; under the ethical principles of liberty, you should accept neither. </div><div><br /></div><div>You say you don’t want cap-and-trade, and you don’t want the EPA to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide. Fine. Does that mean you are now ready to abolish the EPA? The EPA has been trampling private property rights from it’s very inception, with such weapons as the Endangered Species Act and the Wetlands Preservation Act. The EPA is not compatible with liberty, nor is it even constitutional. </div><div>The questions could go on, but my point is - I suspect the tea party goers approve of big government, just not “bigger” government. If the tea party goers truly loved liberty as they claim, they would be supporting the Libertarian Party, not spawning a new movement. </div><div><br /></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-459422414187525342004-10-29T11:00:00.000-07:002010-02-12T11:53:31.042-08:00Basic Market Ethics<div>People need a set of guiding principles to help them decide difficult political questions. My guiding principles have to do with market ethics. If some action would violate basic market ethics, then I can be sure it is the wrong action.</div><div><br /></div><div>For thousands of years man has been improving his well-being through the action of the marketplace. All great cities developed to promote trade. The rules of trade are what I call the ethics of the marketplace. The rules are few and simple. Here they are.</div><div><br /></div><div>Buyers and sellers come together in the marketplace of their own free will, motivated only by self-interest. Buyers and sellers decide on price, which may change with time and place. No force, coercion, or intimidation is allowed in the marketplace. No one must buy or sell anything they don’t want to, for any reason. Everyone is free to come and go from the marketplace at any time. When a transaction occurs, it is because both buyer and seller believe it is to their own advantage.</div><div><br /></div><div>The two groups of people who do use force in the marketplace are robbers and government. It is the government’s job to remove robbers from the marketplace, using force if necessary. On that we can all agree. It is when government uses force on the peaceful buyers and sellers in the marketplace that the controversy begins.</div><div><br /></div><div>Today our government uses a lot of force on the peaceful buyers and sellers in the marketplace. For example, it uses force to set prices (minimum wage and rent control). It coerces some buyers to buy (mandated insurance like social security and workers’ comp). It coerces some sellers to sell (civil rights ban on discrimination). It prevents some transactions from taking place (insider trading and child labor laws). </div><div><br /></div><div>If you carefully examine each case where government uses force in the marketplace, you will find that government force is not beneficial to society. In each case, market ethics are a reliable guide to proper action. That is why Adam Smith recommended in 1776 that government adapt a policy of laissez-faire. What to do about the marketplace: leave it alone.</div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-29627794817866198062004-09-15T11:00:00.000-07:002010-02-12T11:52:17.972-08:00Abolish Minimum Wage Laws<div>Put yourself in the place of union leaders who have managed to increase wages of union workers to artificially high levels. What is to prevent jobs from going to non-union contractors? Answer: minimum wage and prevailing wage laws.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps you thought unions just want to give poor people a raise. No, what they really want to do is keep poor people unemployed, reserving more jobs for themselves. Of course unions would never admit to such a thing; political agendas are always advanced for noble reasons.</div><div><br /></div><div>But once in a while someone blurts the truth. That was the case when Dick Gephardt revealed the true agenda behind his support for minimum wages during his 2004 presidential campaign. He told Teamsters Local 238 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that he favors an international minimum wage -- one that he says is high enough so that American workers are not competing with slave, sweat-shop and child labor around the world. Apparently candidate Gephardt would like to un-employ all the world’s poor, not just the poor in his country.</div><div><br /></div><div>Minimum wage is just one example of how government meddling into the marketplace hurts the very people they claim to be helping. Rent control is another. Both have to do with dictating price, which always upsets the balance of supply and demand. When you dictate a minimum price for labor, it causes the supply of jobs to be reduced. This is just basic economics that no economist would dispute. Isn’t it ironic that the same politicians who support minimum wage are the ones boasting how they are going to create jobs! Go figure.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now suppose you are working at minimum wage. Would you be in favor of the minimum wage being raised? Maybe so, because you might get a raise. On the other hand, your employer might respond by laying you off. Do you want to risk it? If so, you don’t need a law. You can set your own minimum wage. Go to your employer and demand a higher wage now. Tell him you refuse to work for less. If he thinks you are worth it, he will give you what you demand. If not, he will dismiss you.</div><div><br /></div><div>But wait a minute! If you have set your own minimum wage and it is refused, you can negotiate a lower wage if you want to. But if you let the government set your minimum wage for you, you are out of a job – period; the government has taken away your freedom to negotiate.</div><div><br /></div><div>If minimum wage is not the answer to increasing wages, what is? Wages are governed by worker productivity, because employers will hire workers only if their productivity is enough to show a profit after wages are paid. Productivity is improved by innovation and capital investment; government has no part in the process except to get out of the way. Again, no economist would disagree, yet this is an answer politicians can’t live with because it doesn’t make them appear important.</div><div><br /></div><div>Libertarians oppose minimum wage on moral principles; it is wrong to use force in the marketplace to dictate prices to buyers and sellers. Interesting how good moral principles turn out to be best for everyone in a practical sense as well.</div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-19966749559250343762004-09-07T11:00:00.000-07:002010-02-12T11:50:24.108-08:00Americans with Disabilities Act<div>The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, passed during the first Bush administration, is intended to eliminate, or at least minimize, discrimination against the disabled. Trumpeted as equal rights for the disabled, it gives people the right to sue if they can show that someone has discriminated against them because of their disability, in the areas of employment and in access to facilities.</div><div><br /></div><div>Supporters of the ADA claim that it is a violation of a person’s civil rights to be discriminated against. I disagree. My view is that discrimination is a violation of civil rights only when government is doing the discriminating. However, an individual or a business has the right to discriminate, because freedom of association is a basic human right, whereas freedom from discrimination is not.</div><div><br /></div><div>I concede that discrimination against the disabled can be senseless and bigoted. But a government social engineering program based on coercion is not the answer. Not only does it expand government authority in a dangerous way, but it is actually making the situation worse. For example, the ADA has hurt employment of the disabled by increasing litigation risk associated with hiring the disabled.</div><div><br /></div><div>The proper way to reduce discrimination against the disabled is through education, persuasion, and social pressure. We will always have some discrimination, which is quite appropriate; after all, blind people can’t be airline pilots. The real question is – who should decide when discrimination is or is not appropriate? Should it be a free people, or should it be the government?</div><div><br /></div><div>Government must grant equal rights to all, but special privilege to none. When ADA is used to give the disabled access to government services, it is defending their right to equal protection under the law. However, when ADA is directed against the private sector, it being used to grant special privilege.</div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-15063660298740593622004-09-02T11:00:00.000-07:002010-02-12T11:48:13.127-08:00Child Labor Laws<div>No doubt you learned from your government school text book that unions pushed to pass labor laws in the early twentieth century to stop the exploitation of children by greedy industrialists, who paid children low wages to work long hours in unsafe sweatshops. These laws made it illegal to employ pre-teens and young teens is factories.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now think for a minute. Surely you suspected something wrong with the story you were being told. If conditions were so harsh, why couldn’t these young people just quit their jobs. Who was forcing those poor hapless children to slave in these sweat shops? Was it their parents? If so, then are we to believe that union leaders care more about children than parents do? And how can you help young workers by taking away their jobs?</div><div><br /></div><div>See what I mean? Something is wrong with this government school text book story.</div><div><br /></div><div>The real story is quite different. Children originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. Since child labor competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive younger workers of the right to work. Union workers wanted those factory jobs for themselves. </div><div><br /></div><div>As a side note, union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun in America. The reason for the decline was that capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements meant that more people were lifted from poverty and could afford to keep their children at home and in school. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the Third World today, where poverty is still the norm, the alternative to "child labor" is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation. Today’s Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.</div><div><br /></div><div>It often happens that social legislation inadvertently harms the very people it claims to help. In the case of child labor laws, the harm was (and is) intentional.</div><div><br /></div><div>-------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>Portions taken from related article “Markets, Not Unions, Gave us Leisure” By Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 8/24/04, at <a href="http://www.mises.org/">http://www.mises.org/</a></div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-42629908184834956062004-08-28T12:00:00.000-07:002010-02-12T12:13:39.580-08:00Outsourcing Jobs<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; "><p>We are hearing lately about job loss due to "greedy" U.S. corporations contracting for IT services with workers in India at low wage rates. John Kerry has stated "… I want to repeal every tax break and loophole that rewards any Benedict Arnold CEO .. for shipping American jobs overseas". However, Bush chief economist Gregory Mankiw calls outsourcing "… probably a plus for the economy."</p><p>California joint legislative hearings in early 2004 reviewed possible options for dealing with this latest perceived crisis. One action considered was to deny state contracts to those companies which outsource jobs to foreign lands. It is clear that the California Legislature holds the interests of California taxpayers in very low priority.</p><p>The two questions I first would ask are, - Is this a real problem? If so, what did government do to cause the problem? My answer to both questions is - it is only a problem to the extent that government is causing the problem.</p><p>In my view, market trends based on freedom of choice and self interest are never a problem. Cheap foreign labor boosts American prosperity, whether the labor comes here (immigration), or whether the jobs go there (outsourcing). Free trade benefits both us and our foreign partners, whether the trade is in goods, services, labor, or capital.</p><p>Expect the outcry about outsourcing to evaporate once job creation recovers. Meanwhile, state government could (but won't) help, by ending some of the policies that reduce the competitive advantage of our California workforce; policies such as - minimum wage laws, payroll taxes, worker's comp, mandated unemployment insurance, work practice regulations, environmental regulations, and healthcare coverage mandates.</p><p>Technology and capital spending have made U.S. workers among the most productive, and therefore the best paid, workers in the world; misguided government attempts to forcibly "help" workers serves only to create unemployment and to drive jobs abroad.</p></span>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-77217282908114056662004-08-16T12:00:00.000-07:002010-02-14T13:22:05.596-08:00EducationPublic school costs per student are now about twice that of private schools. Charter schools help supply needed competition, but true reform will begin when students pay some tuition directly to the public school of their choice. I do not support vouchers, tax credits, or expanded school funding. I do support charter schools, and I also advocate significant reforms to introduce competition and other market forces, as the only way to make the system responsive to customer needs. Specific steps in that path are:<br /><br />(1) Repeal compulsory education laws; children are not the property of the state.<br /><br />(2) Allow students to choose any public school.<br /><br />(3) Allow schools to reject or expel any student for any reason;<br /><br />(4) Allow schools to charge student tuition, in amount to be determined by each school in accordance with entrance demand, with the resulting funds to go directly to that school.<br /><br />I also advocate reforms that require breaking the grip of the teacher unions. They are:<br /><br />(5) Eliminate teacher tenure regulations and credential requirements, but simply require schools to publish teacher qualifications.<br /><br />(6) Empower principals to hire and fire teachers at will, and to determine teacher pay based on such things as merit, workload, and supply/demand considerations.<br /><br />With regard to the tendency toward legislative micromanagement, I would<br /><br />(7) eliminate all legislative control of curriculum and methodology.<br /><br />In summary, I would give educators the freedom to educate, and I would give them market-based incentives to be rewarded for success, punished for failure.Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-71588695467793687702004-08-16T11:00:00.002-07:002010-02-12T11:57:46.074-08:00Social Security has Always been Bankrupt – Morally!<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; "><p>Consider the problem: some people retire in poverty, either because they don’t save enough for their retirement, or because their private pension plan fails. FDR’s 1935 New Deal solution was to force everyone into an Old-Age Survivor Disability Insurance (OASDI) plan, commonly called Social Security. Thank goodness we have a Constitution to limit such arbitrary authority of government - or so we thought. While much of the early New Deal legislation was declared unconstitutional, by 1937 the Supreme Court was so corrupted by progressive socialist ideology that it allowed Social Security to stand.</p><p>Even though people were being forced to pay for this “insurance”, many people loved the new system. Why? For two reasons. 1) Payout was based on your pay history, not your contributions, so older workers got something for nothing. 2 ) Half the contributions were taken from a person’s employer, so younger workers thought they were getting something for nothing too. Of course, employers would respond by paying people that much less, but few people were (and are) that economically aware.</p><p>Politicians love Social Security most of all, because it allows them to conceal deficit spending. Here is how it works. OASDI taxes generate more tax revenue each year than the system pays out, and Congress mandates that the extra money be used to purchase government bonds at a special low interest rate. Congress then spends the money, but the money is called tax revenue, not borrowing, for purposes of computing the deficit. (OASDI is a tax – get it?) This funny accounting means that our national debt is actually about $12 trillion larger than claimed (according to Forbes, October 1995). Alas, this party will be over starting in about 2016, when annual Social Security payout will first exceed annual OASDI tax revenues, at current tax rates.</p><p>Even assuming Congress can repay all of its borrowings, the system still becomes insolvent in about 2042, because of the ever-growing liabilities of an aging population. To solve this problem, politicians would love to keep raising the combined OASDI tax rate, which started at 2% of pay in 1935, and is now over 14%. That is the way the socialist countries of Europe do it too, but because they started ahead of us, their combined payroll tax rate is now approaching 50% (in France and Italy), with no end in sight. Such a high tax on employment is a real job killer, and it partially explains why socialist countries have such chronic high unemployment rates.</p><p>If Social Security is so great, why must workers be forced to participate? Furthermore, how can the government claim greater wisdom than the individual for deciding when and how much to save for retirement? Many young households carry debt on their house, car, and credit cards, ranging in interest rate from 6% to 15%. Does it make sense for these households to be investing money for retirement at 2%? Clearly, they would be better off paying down their debt first, and saving for retirement later. So much for the wisdom of government.</p><p>It has been proposed to allow workers to put part of their OASDI tax in a private account, protected from political whim, to possibly grow by investment. This would alleviate the problem of stealth deficit spending, and it might improve the rate of return for some workers. But it still does not address the basic moral problem - that Social Security is a socialist program founded on force and plunder. Instead of being fixed, the program should be ended.</p><p>Because two-thirds of people polled now say they expect nothing from Social Security, it may be politically feasible to end the program. This can be done as follows. 1) No new participants added to the system. 2) Pre-retirement participants allowed to opt out. 3) Means testing for all current and future retirees. 4) Funding shortfall paid from the general fund. The time to do this is now, before the baby boom generation retires.</p></span>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6395336297713004743.post-69385919383760099582004-08-16T11:00:00.000-07:002010-02-12T11:55:22.738-08:00Healthcare Welfare<div>Regarding the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002 passed by our Republican congress and signed by President Bush; I do not support expansion of the welfare state into the area of prescription drug insurance. Consider these points.</div><div> </div><div>1. Seniors are the second most affluent segment of society, but even if they were not, it is not right to single out any one group to receive special favors at the expense of others. </div><div> </div><div>2. The plan separates payer from recipient, which will cause an increase in the cost of drugs for everyone, by adding demand that is insulated from cost. </div><div> </div><div>3. The plan adds another $50 billion a year in entitlement costs, at a time when our profligate congress is running half-trillion dollar annual budget deficits. </div><div> </div><div>4. It is unconstitutional (but dare I even mention this, since all of Medicare and most of what the federal government spends money on these days is not included in it's enumerated powers). </div>Dan Fernandeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00183797024207193021noreply@blogger.com0