Parsing the Constitution

Thanks to Jory Harris for clarifying what 14A means, as Harris sees it.

It appears that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is superfluous, by Harris's reading. 14A reads the same with or without the clause using Harris's take. It's certainly a valid take.

However, I suggest that illegals are persona non grata as far as the law is concerned. They are not "subject" to anything unless they are apprehended. Citizens and resident aliens, on the other hand, are subject to many things...taxes, social security, etc.

14A wasn't written for children born in the US of illegal aliens. It was in response to the scourge of slavery on American history.

Still, Harris may be correct that a constitutional amendment is in order to really clarify this constitutional wrinkle.

-Robert Capozzi

Bolivian Nightmare?

You don’t have to be Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be concerned over the recent election of yet another Latin American leftist in the person of Evo Morales of Bolivia. Fred Foldvary, for one, has expressed his belief that the Morales Administration will be an unmitigated disaster for his nation and I’d tend to agree on economic grounds. Morales has already vowed to nationalize his nation’s natural gas supply and as a disciple of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, his economic policies are likely to follow the same failed path as Venezuela and Cuba.

The more interesting issue, and one on which I disagree with Fred, is the coca issue. Foldvary appears resigned to the U.S. sponsored drug war and simply states that Morales – who in the past has spoken favorably of liberalizing his nation’s coca industry – should “cooperate” with U.S. policies. As an economist, Foldvary should know better than that.

The drug war being fought by the U.S. is doomed to failure. As long as two willing parties want to engage in economic activity, there is nothing a government can do to stop them. The U.S. can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, how do our leaders expect to keep drugs out of the country?

For too long, though, politicians in Latin America have been willing to do whatever the “yanquis” told them to do when it came to fighting drugs. The U.S. has been fighting in Colombia since the Clinton Administration to little effect and we have been defoliating vast tracts of Amazon Rainforest despite unknown health and environmental impacts.

These policies have only deepened our unpopularity and mistrust in the region. Morales simply rode the wave to victory. It will be interesting to see how firm he stands up to the U.S. on the coca issue and what the reaction in Washington will be if Bolivia legalizes coca farming and kicks U.S. agents out of the region. I wouldn’t be surprised that if Morales does what he says he plans to do that the U.S. doesn’t accuse him of terrorism-related crimes and attempt to invade. We’ll just have to wait and see though.

--Paul Gessing

Birthright?

Thanks to Jory Harris for this letter. As Paul Gessing notes, there is a lot of “nativism” in the public square these days. Behind some of the calls for immigration reform there seems to be some anti-immigrant motivation.

Still, Harris claims that Dr. Paul’s “eliminate birthright citizenship” is somehow unconstitutional. Here I’m not so sure. Harris quotes 14A’s passage, “all persons born or naturalized into the United States.” However, the full quote is:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

If a woman enters the US illegally and then gives birth here, the question is: Is her child “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? My non-lawyer’s take is: Maybe yes, maybe no. It seems very defensible to say “No” under the Constituton, as the child was not “subject to US jurisdiction.”

I’m for liberal immigration policies, but it seems reasonable to have some restrictions on who enters the US, if only for reasons of defense. We don’t, for instance, want people moving here who are ill with communicable diseases. We don’t want al Qaeda members coming here, either.

-Robert Capozzi

Trees and Sound

Kevin Rollins's blog reminds me that words are malleable, contextual things. That’s why the old koan, “If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?” is such a mind bender.

The best answer I’ve seen is, “No, it generates sound waves.” Only if a person hears it and recognizes the thud as a tree falling do we have any agreement on what that sound is, and what it means.

Ideas always have consequences on the thinker. If the ideas are hateful and angry, that’s the emotional state the thinker will have. If kind and empathetic, that will be the thinker’s experience.

Weaver’s “Ideas have consequences,” then, is important counsel. Not only will they rule your mind, but if they are projected out into the world, others may react in a number of ways. When we share our ideas, we shouldn’t be surprised if hate is met with hate.

Ideas themselves don’t leave their source, the mind. Weaver’s overstatement about consequences, however, helps us remember how vitally important it is to have “good” ideas. Sharing ideas is our opportunity to join with others about how our collective experience can be better in some way, IMO.

-Robert Capozzi

Sen. William Proxmire, the Original Free Liberal?

To simply quote from this article on the recent passing of Senator William Proxmire. "He was a philosophical anomaly, voting like a Kennedy on civil rights, the Vietnam War, the environment and the death penalty, but often expressing skepticism about federal programs." Sounds like a close approximation of the Free Liberal philosophy to me. He could also teach today's Republicans and Democrats a few lessons about freedom and fiscal responsibility.

-- Paul Gessing

If a Tree Falls in the Woods…

…and nobody sees or hears it, an environmentalist still sheds a tear.

Bob Capozzi wrote several weeks ago about Richard Weaver’s old adage, “Ideas have consequences.” Bob objects to the importance of this statement, arguing that without being “true, well articulated, developed, and then put into action,” ideas aren’t likely to have much consequence.

However, the phrase itself embodies a consequential idea. Weaver is reminding us to be careful of the ideas that we promote, because they are dangerous weapons. He is saying that we cannot be concerned only with intent, but that the content of ideas is also important. For example, when we realize that communism, fully-implemented, leads to the death of millions of innocents, we are less prone to speak gleefully about it. And our own ideas must be solid to successfully repel the bad ones.

Consider the exact opposite, “Ideas do not have consequences.” What would happen if most people adopted it as a guiding truism? Individuals would have no ability to successfully navigate through life – they would constantly be denying the possibility that recognition, classification, decision-making, or planning could make a difference to them. These are ideas and therefore, as ideas, they couldn’t effect change. The juror could flip a coin on whether to convict a murder defendant, and it would make no difference in honesty, as evidence, motive, and opportunity become mere diversions, and life and death are as indistinguishable as Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.

Logically, another possibility is available – “Some ideas have consequences.” I think this is closer to the truth, but I think it misses an important point – ideas “happen” in the mind, an event just like a tree falling in the real world. It may not seem to have tremendous or relevant effects upon our lives, but it happened – it had physical, chemical, and biological effects on the surrounding area. In a small way it contributed to the balance of the ecosystem and the health of every living thing on Earth. Similarly, even those ideas which are later discarded, must have some effect on our own minds, even if they never leave the space between our ears. Just as the eco-system as a whole is important, the sum total of our ideas matter for our own lives.

So, perhaps the most accurate statement would be, “Ideas have consequences; some ideas have greater consequence than others.” The ones which are “true, well articulated, developed, and then put into action” will likely be ones of greater consequence. Richard Weaver’s idea is one of these ideas that have great effect, because it meets these very criteria. Its lasting appeal is demonstrated its use by persons such as Nobel laureate James Buchanan and we should be thankful for its longevity. Rarely is so much said with so few words.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

The Other Side

What might become NSA-Gate seems to’ve gotten people’s attention. IMO, too much of the issue has become wrapped up in purely partisan considerations. W and his defenders point out that there was enabling statutes on the books; that other POTUSes (including Donkeys) have used that statute; and that certain members of Congress were in the loop.

Fair enough.

One conservative pundit/lawyer let slip another argument that underpins both their statutory and constitutional case.

4A says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) could be viewed as legislation that enables the Commander in Chief to conduct reasonable searches and seizures, under certain conditions. These conditions are reviewed ex post by FISA courts as to their “reasonableness.”

We the people can’t know whether any of this is reasonable or unreasonable, given that the facts are cloaked by national security. However, there does seem to be a plausible defense here for W.

The existence of FISA seems to be the root of the matter. Were it up to me, I’d seriously consider ending this Constitutional end run. Even if Compound W has used the law with strict integrity, the notion of warrantless searches of American citizens is too high a price to pay. Can we not imagine that future presidents won’t be as scrupulous as W claims to’ve been?

-Robert Capozzi

Life After the Oil Crash 4

Continuing my review of lifeaftertheoilcrash.net from December 11.

Unlike the old eco schools which pushed conservation, efficiency, and/or alternative energy, Mr. Savinar manages to cast a pall of doom over every possible alternative.

Consider Canadian tar sands: he points out that the energy return on investment is a mere 1.5 to 1. That is, for every 1.5 unit of energy extracted, 1 unit is consumed. This is certainly bad for the environment, and not as good for the economy as conventional oil, but it does not spell the end of industrial civilization. (And I will discuss ways around this problem in a future entry.) He then cites forecasts of a mere 2.2 million barrels/day for 2015 or 4 million barrels/day by 2020. However, I see no indication in these forecasts that the forecasters are taking into account the dramatic drop in conventional oil that Mr. Savinar forecasts. If conventional oil drops suddenly and prices rise dramatically, there will be a black gold rush into Canada to increase oil production from tar sands.

The same holds for oil shale in the U.S. We have lots of it, but it is expensive and environmentally damaging to extract. But if the drop in conventional oil threatens civilization, the economics of oil shale will change dramatically. Just because previous attempts to make money extracting oil from shale have failed, it doesn’t mean future attempts will fail. A more relevant question is: what is the net energy gained from oil shale harvesting? If negative, then the oil shale is indeed worthless. Somehow I doubt the pessimists. Given enough incentive, someone will figure out how to get net energy from oil shale unless another energy source surfaces first.

Mr. Savinar makes several tremendous errors, all of which stem from not understanding the role of price in the economy.

First, he looks at the huge increases needed for various alternative technologies to make a dent in overall energy production. For example, he cites David Goodstein who estimates that it would take 220,000 square kilometers of solar panels to replace our current fossil fuel use. Currently, we have a mere 10 square kilometers. This is certainly a huge factor, 22,000, but so what? Today, solar cells are several times more expensive than hooking into the conventional grid. Today’s solar cells are just for hobbyists and remote locations. Should the cost of electricity from fossil fuels double or more, then the economics completely changes. We will not be looking at 10%/year growth; we will be looking at over 100%/year.

This has happened in the past. Look at car production before the Model T came out. The idea of commoners owning automobiles was science fiction. Ditto for the idea of home computers in the 1960s. And unlike the 1960s for computers, we already know how to make solar cells that aren’t that far off from being competitive. Without any true breakthroughs in technology, solar cells become competitive should fossil fuels go up enough in price. And there are some interesting new technologies still in prototype stage.

Later, he “debunks” some of the more advanced technologies, sometimes correctly. Mixed in this debunking is some of the silliest logic yet. When he looks at “thermal depolymerization,” a technology for converting organic garbage into oil, he correctly notes that we cannot run civilization off of garbage. It takes energy to create garbage in the first place. Then he gets silly. He says it costs $80 to produce a barrel of oil using this technology. Meanwhile the Saudis pump oil for $2.50/barrel and the Iraqis for $1.00/barrel. A barrel of oil would have to sell for $1,600-$4000 to have a comparable rate of return for thermal depolymerization.

SO WHAT!! So garbage men won’t be driving around in Rolls Royces like rich Arabs do today. Most businesses function quite well on much lower rates of return. Should oil stabilize at $100/barrel, then this technology becomes quite profitable. Actually, less may do the trick since disposing of garbage is also an economic benefit.

This logic applies to all alternative technologies. Once they are as cheap as fossil oil, then investment will increase suddenly. What is a hobby today becomes tomorrow’s necessity.

Finally, Mr. Savinar uses some strange reasoning to claim that conservation and efficiency will make our problem worse. He cites Jevon’s Paradox which states that energy efficiency increases energy use. This paradox is true – when energy prices are held relatively constant. When computerized fuel injection made gasoline engines more efficient, many people bought more powerful cars. Others went from cars to SUVs. When computers went from room sized energy hogs to small home appliances, total energy used for powering computers went up, because more people compute. (This example comes from the other side of the Peak Oil debate, actually, from Huber and Mills’ The Bottomless Well.)

All this is true, if energy prices are stable. If oil production drops off steeply enough, then prices will go up unless alternatives fill in the demand. In this case, price will balance efficiency making oil consumption go down, regardless of efficiency. Increased efficiency serves to allow maintaining a quality lifestyle while oil consumption goes down.

Mr. Savinar gives a particularly contradictory example of Jevon’s Paradox. He describes a business owner who saves $500/month through energy conservation and efficiency. This money goes into the bank, where it gets reinvested, thereby boosting the economy, and thus energy use. There is a false assumption here: that dollars/BTU of energy must be constant. That savings could end up being invested in alternative energy or energy conservation. Earlier on the site Mr. Savinar complains about the capital cost of switching energy technologies.

Let us even suppose that energy extraction is a fixed fraction of the economy. Even if the economy grows, energy extraction could be stable or even go down. It depends on the price of the energy. If energy doubles in price and efficiency doubles then the economy could be exactly where it was in both real and dollar terms.

OK, I am tired of beating up on this site. There are other fallacious arguments, but this is too much like shooting fish in a barrel. What I have not fully covered is where Mr. Savinar is right. There is good information mixed in with the junk. I agree with him that biodiesel from vegetable oils and ethanol from corn are questionable replacements for gasoline. I think using hydrogen as a motor fuel is ludicrous given the current state of technology. Even if a cheap fuel cell is developed, we still have serious problems in distribution and replacement of infrastructure.

Many of the proposed replacements for fossil fuels floating around are questionable. Given this, it is forgivable for those who have limited faith in the market to panic. And I want to repeat that not all peak oil manifestos are as bad as this site. Richard Heinberg’s book, The Party's Over is much better, but even he is blinded by his ideology and makes some ridiculous predictions near the end.

In future posts I will show why there is no need to panic. There are reasonable technologies already available, and simple government actions that could be used to smooth the transition.

“Hell of a Threat”

From Reuters:

[Vice President Dick] Cheney, speaking to reporters during an overseas trip, defended the eavesdropping program as necessary to combat "a hell of a threat."
"And I don't think that there is anything improper or inappropriate in that and my guess is that the vast majority of the American people support that," he said.

I guess that this is where it all goes: “Trust us, we’re from the government.”

Cheney keeps fear mongering about the unspecified “threat.” While I had many quibbles with him, FDR had it right when he said: “There’s nothing to fear, except fear itself.”

Cheney speculates that the “majority” favor what can best be called “extraConstitutional,” warrantless searches of American citizens. (Aside: The word "warrantless" can, and possibly should, be read both ways. This is, after all, the very point of 4A.)

In a state of fear, if this unproven majority supports such things, it’s OK. This proves absolutely nothing. Majorities once favored slavery, too, was that OK? Were the Salem Witch Trials OK, too? Cheney may think his continually playing the fear card is his only option.

I find this all quite shameless and craven.

The other tack that Compound W and its apologists are putting out there is that previous presidents, including Democrats, have used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) similarly, i.e. to spy on US citizens. Is this not most transparent? Is this not a classic case of when you are losing, change the subject? That Clinton and Carter used FISA may have some relevance in a partisan context, but it has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth. Employing a longstanding violation of 4A perhaps mitigates a bit, but one must employ some profound denial to suggest that 4A allows for warrantless wiretaps. 4A’s language is unqualified.

Our nation does have a challenge from al Qaeda. Whether it's a "hell of a" challenge seems overstated, but it does seem real enough. Let's address the challenge appropriately, within the bounds of the very freedoms we're seeking to defend.

-Robert Capozzi

The “Neocon” Case

An old friend and colleague in the free-market cause has become – let’s say “influenced” – by the Neocons and their crusade against what they call “Islamofascism.” OK, I say, what’s the case? (My friend is far more learned than I, so when he speaks, I generally listen.)

They write scads and scads of stuff pointing out all the heinous things that have been done by Al Qaeda over the past 20 years. Horrible, horrible things, culminating in 9/11.

Living not too far from the Pentagon, and hailing from NY, 9/11 hits home, in the gut. At the end of the day, however, what was 9/11? Was it the opening salvo in a “war” that threatens our very way of life? Or was it a stunt by a relatively few, insane zealots, bent on mayhem for mayhem’s sake?

Not to diminish the 3,000+ who died, I have to come down on the latter. If Al Qaeda had millions of zealots poised on the Canadian border, I’d be concerned. Very concerned. But they don’t. We’re not threatened in that way. No one sees that, not even the neocons.

That’s why W’s publicity tour has no traction. Of course there’s a threat, Mr. President, and it’s somewhere North of the Manson family. But the barbarians are not at the gates. Not even close.

We don’t need to throw out the Constitution due to imminent threats. Maybe that’d be appropriate in a full-scale war. But if you live in virtually every place in the US, who believes that? No one. What they do know is that 2000+ Americans have died in Iraq, two thirds as many as died on 9/11.

The dissonance of that fact hits the gut, too.

Perhaps there’s a season for all things, including full-out war footing. Claiming that this is the season, however, rings most hollow.

That’s why today, amongst several Republicans, they were literally laughing at W during his press conference. Laughing at him. To paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks POTUS doth protest too much. These Republicans could see right through W is my observation, like the kid who says he didn’t eat the cookies, with crumbs around his mouth, his hand poised to take another.

-Robert Capozzi

“Hello, Judge…

…sorry to wake you, but we need you to authorize an eavesdrop of suspected Al Qaeda operatives in the US.”

Judge: “My fax is 202-555-1212. Request approved.”

Our President actually wants us to believe that his approval of eavesdropping of US citizens was “consistent with US law and the Constitution.”

Yet, how difficult would it have been to get a court order for a wiretap? 30 seconds, perhaps.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) had the best reaction that I’ve seen: "The president believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works," Feingold said. "He is a president, not a king.”

Neil Young once sang: “Even Richard Nixon has got soul.” So does W. One tries to give him the benefit of the doubt, but – my goodness – this one tests my patience.

Is this Watergate for Bush? Perhaps. I thankfully didn’t go to law school, but such a blatant disregard for 4A seems way over the line.

And Compound W’s disarray continues. Cheney’s been phoning it in. Rove is on the ropes and playing defense. Rummy’s credibility is pretty well shot.

If you liked Watergate and the Lewinsky Affair, NSA-Gate could be a humdinger. Bush is already wrapping himself in the mantle of “national security,” but will not just about everyone see through this one?

Of course, some good will come of even this. The Patriot Act’s renewal seems in jeopardy. The police-state elements of that law seem especially destined for the dustbin of history.

And, unless the Elephants regroup in a big way, brace yourself for saying the words: Speaker Pelosi.

-Robert Capozzi

Feelings

Yesterday, a caller to Rush Limbaugh made – to him – the unforgivable faux pas of stating that it was her “feeling” that protecting the environment was a good thing, and that we should be biased against pollution.

Limbaugh derided the caller. Your “feelings,” he mocked, don’t square with the “facts.” While he didn’t totally dismiss her main point, he did “dis” how she arrived at her views, which were not, in Limbaugh world, “excellence.”

This is a nation built on feelings before facts. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident…” seems far more feelings-based than fact-based. Natural-law theory may well entail scrupulous philosophical inquiry, but, in the end, it’s a feeling, a sense, a belief. It’s not a scientific “fact.”

I buy U2 CDs, not country-and western, not because of facts, but feelings. Markets are made up of subjective demands aggregated, not facts about “needs.”

Facts may help us form feelings, but feelings are what make us go. Facts are marshaled by advocates to fit their feelings, for we all have biases that frame our worldview. Newton’s straight line was a “fact” until Einstein came along.

Limbaugh makes a good point. “Feelings” can be dangerous things when they are based on poor information and non-rigorous inquiry. But there’s no escaping the feeling factor in pretty much everything.

At least, that’s how I feel about it. That’s a fact, Jack.

-Robert Capozzi

Life After the Oil Crash 3

Continuing my review of lifeaftertheoilcrash.net from December 4.

Mr. Savinar then moves on to some serious fear-mongering. He cites something called the Olduvai Gorge theory, which purports to prove that industrial civilization is going to start on a downward cliff in 2012 and be down to 1930s per capital energy consumption by 2030. Going to the cited web site, I found a graph showing predicted world oil production. The author then equates this with a serious decline in electricity production.

Dumb!! Electricity is primarily from coal, not oil. Yes, some heavy fractions of oil are used for electricity, and some waste heat from refineries is used for electricity, but the major source is coal, and there is a lot of coal left in the ground. There is also quite a bit of potential for expanding nuclear capacity.

Easy political prediction: breeder reactors will be made legal and even subsidized should electricity become scarce. If you don’t like nuclear power, get cracking on affordable solar power, because the median voter will risk nuclear proliferation well before voting to go back to the stone age.

The author does have something resembling a point when he says that the use of natural gas to make electricity cannot go on. However, it doesn’t have to. As soon as natural gas goes up in price, there will be a call for building power plants using some other form of energy. Don’t panic over brain dead extrapolations.

Now for Mr. Savinar’s next argument:

"Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just drive less. Why should I give a damn?"


Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, "Eating Fossil Fuels," approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.

This argument has some merit, but Mr. Savinar exaggerates it tremendously. It is certainly true that a 10% drop in oil will likely need more than a 10% drop in automotive travel. Higher priority uses of petroleum like petrochemicals and agriculture will take precedence. However consider these arguments:

1. Pesticides are made from oil;

They don’t have to be. But they probably will be, since the amount of oil needed to produce pesticides is small compared to current use.

2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years after oil peaks;

They don’t have to be made from natural gas. A quick googling of “Haber Process” reveals that we need heat and hydrogen to make ammonia for fertilizer. We can get these from nuclear, solar, wind, coal, oil shale or biomass.

3. With … farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
constructed and powered using oil;

And these uses will get dibs on scarce oil if no substitute is available. But do not that the technology to convert coal or biomass into diesel fuel goes back to World War II.

4. [paraphrase] Food storage systems require fossil fuels. But most of the fuels are used in the form of electricity. We have a longer lead time before we run out of coal, and there are other alternatives.
5. [paraphrase] on average, food is transported almost 1500 miles before it gets to the consumer.

This is trivial to fix. Agriculture is currently optimized to minimize labor costs. Should energy costs go up, this will change dramatically. For example, where I went to high school in rural eastern Virginia, there used to be large tomato fields. These are all gone in favor of basic grains, because the canning industry centralized. This process is completely reversible. Similarly, because of pollution, the Chesapeake Bay is oyster yields have dropped dramatically. Rather than close the oyster shucking houses, oysters are hauled from the Gulf Coast to be shucked by these skilled laborers. Should fuel become more expensive than training oyster shuckers, this will change. No exotic technology is needed whatsoever.

Mr. Savinar then goes on to state how a number of other industries rely on fossil fuels. Here, he is extremely sloppy in differentiating which require portable liquid fuels and which require electricity. Some of these uses do require liquid fuels, but peak oil theory does not prove that these fuels will disappear in the near future, only that production will drop significantly. High priority uses will continue! Low priority uses of oil, such as using a giant SUV to carry a single commuter, will decline unless a reasonably priced alternative is found.

And yes, there are alternatives. I will get to them in future entries, but I still have more bad arguments to refute first. Stay tuned.

Conspiracy Theory Conspiracies

Morton Keller, a Professor of History Emeritus at Brandeis, writes over on the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, that:

“…in modern America, the path to war is beset with actions that rest on uncertain or arguable justification. The political/ideological fringes will craft theories of conspiracy with scant regard for fact or probability. And the opposition will make what it can of this material, within the limits of political prudence.”

He lays out the history of recent wars and a few of the conspiracy theories about those wars. This as an attempt, apparently, to counter the “Bush lied” position among the anti-Iraq-II set, of which I count myself. But I don’t necessarily use the word “lie” to describe what Bush did. Manipulate, perhaps. Shade the facts to make his case. “Lie” is a strong word, and requires the ability to read another’s mind. Sadly, that’s a skill few have developed.

Some “freedomistas” like to engage in such conspiracy theorizing. The “State,” they say, is our enemy, and pretty much anything “they” do is inherently a lie and mal-motivated.

To me, this sort of thinking is self-defeating. To Joe Six Pack (and to me), it sounds paranoid. If there’s a secret cabal of “statists,” who are these people? Do they have a secret handshake?

The point is: Governments do a lot of things that infringe on our liberties. Sometimes the motive seems benign. Sometimes its actions are outright duplicitous. Sometimes – often! mostly! – the government acts based solely on momentum, justifying previous actions that were themselves poor decisions initially.

So, Keller’s piece helps us to see a few things. First, that motivation for wars are sometimes trumped up, or at least questionable. Second, that the opposition is sometimes prone to overstatement in pressing its case, too. If the opposition presses its case too hard, they come off like zealots. Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” was a great example. He overreached, and in so doing, he solidified his base, but alienated the middle.

When it comes to war, it strikes me that we should recognize that the “cover story” is often just that, a cover. Almost always, war advocates – often motivated by the desire to exact vengeance – press for immediate action. But history tells us that, perhaps, the more prudent approach is always maintain a bias for inaction, especially when lives are on the line. The “clear and present danger” test seems to capture this notion quite well.

Bush never, IMO, made the case for a clear and present danger, except with WDM, perhaps. That proved to be incorrect. It’s interesting to know that some in his Administration were apparently itching to “go after” Saddam pre-9/11.

To call him a “liar,” however, does very little to advance the cause of peace. No one disputes that Saddam had WDM, and its whereabouts are still in question. The “lie” charge may galvanize the opposition, but the real question is: Does that work?

I see no evidence of that.

What Keller seems to miss, however, is that war is itself “fringe.” Killing people for where they live, what they believe, how they worship, etc., is now, and has always been, most marginal of thinking, IMO.

-Robert Capozzi

Do Ideas Really Have Consequences?

I happened upon Cato's new "Unbound" webzine, and an article by Nobel-winning economist James Buchanan.

He repeated a line that I've heard so many times, and each time I hear or read it, I shrug.

"Ideas have consequences."

Well, now, perhaps that's so, on some metaphysical, "think good thoughts" sort of level. On a more worldly plane, however, that "truism" makes no sense. Ideas surely CAN have consequences. I'm pleased, for instance, that some of my worst ideas had no consequence, except perhaps on me! Some of my BEST ideas also are of no consequence.

I don't believe it's a stretch to say that this applies to everyone.

It seems far more important that ideas be true, well articulated, developed, and then put into action. Otherwise, they remain -- for the most part -- inconsequential.

-Robert Capozzi

The Heart of the Matter

Leave it to the late, brilliant, free thinking, iconoclastic economist Murray Rothbard to ask, perhaps, the pivotal question on just about anything. Except, perhaps, on this one.

When giving us his take on the Civil War and whether the States had the implicit right to secede, he once wrote this:

"And . . . does anyone seriously believe for one minute that any of the 13 states would have ratified the Constitution had they believed that it was a perpetual one-way Venus fly trap -- a one-way ticket to sovereign suicide?"

Interesting question. The most bullet-proof answer is: “We don’t know, and we can’t know.” Speculation about such things is just that, speculation.

No scientist I, but I understand that quantum physicists have made a fascinating discovery: The very act of observing matter affects it. Unobserved matter behaves one way, observed matter another.

Personally, I find this mindblowing. It certainly seems to apply in Rothbard’s hypothetical thought experiment. He’s no longer with us, but I’d turn the question back on him: Had the Framers been asked that question in 1787, it seems abundantly reasonable that they would have addressed the question of secession in the document, yes? The Constitution is mostly a practical, procedural document, and it seems far-fetched that they would have let the issue lay. We’d at minimum have a record of debate on the matter at the Constitutional Convention.

The Framers may well have laid out the how any secession might be conducted – who is authorized and recognized to call for secession; who ratifies the secession; how jointly held property is divvied up; etc.

Rothbard said that the Constitution is like a contract. I agree. It’s like a marriage contract. When people divorce, jointly held property is equitably split. Running off with the joint bank account is essentially what the Confederacy did.

Is that any way to do a divorce?

-Robert Capozzi

Life After the Oil Crash 2

Continuing my review of lifeaftertheoilcrash.net began November 26.

Let us suppose that the basic prediction of the peak oil theorists is correct. Let us suppose that we are near the peak of oil production. From now on out, conventional oil production is going on a downhill slide. Does this mean the end of industrial civilization? Should we panic? Should we have a crash program to send people back to the villages?

Such are the prescriptions of various peak oil theory promoters. Before you follow their advice, keep in mind the degree of economic ignorance some of these people have. lifeaftertheoilcrash.net is particularly bad. Consider these quotes:

"In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him."

This is a really bad analogy. A better analogy would be that of a 300 pound glutton who has to go from a 4000 calorie diet to a 2000 calorie diet. The result might be painful, but not life-threatening. Or we can consider water itself. Suppose your water supply was cut in half: would you die of thirst? No!! You would simply have to bathe less, wash your clothes less, use a water conserving flap in your toilet, and/or stop watering your lawn. If the problem persisted, you might install an "alternative water" system; i.e., a cistern fed by your gutters.

Or how about this quote:

"A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty."

Piffle! Even if supply has a hard limit, demand is a curve. At a high enough price, demand matches supply. And we know quite well that an industrial economy can survive a shortage of cheap oil. The Europeans have been living with expensive oil for years due to their fuel taxes. Nazi Germany survived an oil shortfall by converting coal into diesel fuel. South Africa did likewise.

Or how about:

"The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%. "

Semi bad examples. In both cases there were price freezes by the government. In the 1970s, owners of old wells in the U.S. could not raise their prices to the world level. There was no incentive to increase output. Taking inflation into account, oil prices were being forced down at the wellhead in the U.S. In California, consumer prices were held fixed, and utilities were not allowed to by futures contracts. This was an artificial situation. Had consumers experienced a price rise by far less than 400%, demand would have subsided.

I say these are semi bad examples. It is possible for the government to go on a witchhunt accusing oil companies of "price gouging" or "windfall profits." If these idiocies lead to price controls, then we will have a true energy crisis. Congress has the power to turn peak oil into a full-fledged disaster.

To be continued...

What Great Insight Dr. Paul! Now Rub It in His Face!

I call him "Doctor Paul" because to me at least, it’s a more praiseworthy honorific than " Representative" Paul which merely denotes that he is an elected member of the US Congress. A Congress Critter in other words.

I remember blogging about this very hearing Dr. Paul describes in this article. I was watching it on C-Span so I only have my hastily scribbled notes to refer to (hence no hyperlink) so it stood out in my mind when Dr. Benjamin Bernanke said inflation wasn’t a problem for the US economy at the present time. Dr. Paul then pointed out to the apparatchik economist that the purchasing power and real wages paid (in constant dollars) is 37% less than it was in 1990. And so if that is not inflation, Mr. Fed Chairman Nominee, then what is it then?

Bernanke just looked flustered, rolled his eyes, and hemmed & hawed until the committee Chairman’s gavel came down on Dr. Paul’s question time. Another non-answer using the Greenspan method of filibustering the questioner with economist's jargon, fedspeak, and long, drawn out verbosity and bloviating until time is called. Ho-hum. Just another day at the office for an extremely powerful and yet wholly unaccountable federal bureaucrat, eh Mr. Bernanke? And you know it too, eh dude?