Want to clean up Congress? Make it more responsive? Reduce the influence of special interests?

Two very simple measures would do it, as well as ending at least some of the most appalling government waste, cut spending, raise public trust in government and increase approval ratings of Congress.

And any credible candidates running for Congress could do wonders to advance their candidacy by embracing these two simple ideas. The candidate’s party would make no difference, nor would it matter whether the candidate was running for the House or the Senate, an incumbent or a challenger.

All would benefit in the same way and to the same degree. At a time when voter distrust of elected representatives may be at justifiably record levels, with voters increasingly feeling Congress is out of touch, representing the interests of government itself and of those able to hire professional lobbyists instead of the interests of average voters, there are two simple moves which could restore faith in the system, and bring true change.

Though both are somewhat high tech, they are entirely feasible, and easy to understand, both in their technology, and in the way they would likely fundamentally transform Congress.

Live Streaming Video – Reality TV
Two political buzzwords of the last few years are “transparency” and “accountability,” but little has been done to actually produce either, even though any member of Congress, or candidate for Congress (or any office), could easily become truly transparency simply by wearing a small camera and microphone at all times. And only with transparency will there ever be any accountability – so long as voters do not know who did what or why, it is hard for them to hold anyone accountable.

C-SPAN may broadcast action on the floor of the House or the Senate, or certain committee hearings, but that is seldom where members of either chamber of Congress actually decide how to vote, or hear or see what influences that decision. Nor can C-SPAN allow voters to tell whether a member of Congress has ever read a piece of legislation before voting on it, or even reviewed any summary of a bill.

But if a member of Congress wore a small camera and microphone at all times, streaming live video of his or her activities, voters could tell. They could see when or even if a bill was read, and voters could tell if the member of Congress had any real idea what was being voted on before voting; voters could also see what interest groups or individuals made appeals to influence the vote on a proposal.

This form of transparency, creating strong pressure for members of Congress to actually read legislation before voting on it would do a great deal to curb the expansion of government, because Congress would almost certainly pass less legislation if members tried to read and know what they were voting on. Allowing voters to see the efforts to influence a member of Congress would also create true transparency regarding lobbyists and special interests.

In other words, the actions of members of Congress could become truly transparent…. which may be why many members of Congress will likely strongly resist the idea.

The candidate or member of Congress would effectively become his or her own reality TV program, transmitting live over the internet. (Think of the Jim Carrey movie The Truman Show, with candidate or member of Congress as Truman, only at all times entirely aware of the “show.” There are now several applications available which would allow this.) For times when the candidate or office holder would take part in political strategy sessions, or receive a legitimately confidential briefing, there might be some explained delay of some, or even all, of a transmission until any time sensitive reason for confidentiality had passed, but such needs would be relatively few and far between.

This would not only end many concerns voters have of candidates or members of Congress essentially for sale to the highest bidder, or secretly currying favor with special interests, or voting on lengthy and complex measures without reading them (or even reading legislative summaries), it would generally end those things actually happening – because the public would effectively able to look over the shoulder of a candidate or member of Congress at all times.

Louis Brandies famously wrote in 1913 that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And he was right.

If the actions and conduct of Congress members were exposed to continual sunlight, not only would people be less likely to believe that the system is corrupt, but it would in fact be less corrupt.

Voters would be less likely to believe that Congressional votes are effectively bought and sold to various interest groups, or traded and dealt between members of Congress, not for the benefit of the home districts, but to help vague, nefarious “special interests” who persuade members of Congress to support, advance and vote for measures harmful to the nation as a whole. And voters would be less likely to believe it because the true transparency of members of Congress being subject to continual public scrutiny would disinfect the system just surely as sunlight.

(Some might argue the system is not corrupt, or that making candidates or office-holders the subject of streaming live video over the internet would not really address any problems that do exist. But whether there is any reality to the impression is not the point. Even though public opinion is not reality, in elective politics, public opinion often must be dealt with as if it were reality.)

Though personal life needs for privacy and shutting down the camera and microphone would exist, serious efforts to minimize such periods would be advisable, even to the point of changing sleeping habits (such as wearing nightclothes to bed), minimizing any blackouts, since such periods would be inherently suspect. (Because the camera would be from the subject’s point of view as opposed to showing the world a view of the subject, the need for actual personal privacy blackouts would likely be far less than might initially be thought. In the early 1970′s a short-lived TV series called “Search” was built around this “body-cam” premise. The idea is not new, though the fact that technology would now allow it is.)

This would both instantly create a “buzz” for a campaign, guaranteeing considerable news coverage, and create an emotional investment for those viewing “the show,” increasing the likelihood they would turn out and vote on election day for the candidate they had been watching. It would allow for the creation of a digital library of speaking events or interviews, or even simply addressing issues directly to the camera. Those digital recordings would lend themself to being further fleshed out with various links to either transcripts of the recordings in the digital library, or to written expansion of positions, or links to what others have written. (With the continuing improvement of voice recognition software, the idea of posting nearly instant transcripts without the time or expense of using a transcription service is a real possibility.)

Just as news broadcasts now often report on a popular viral video in part because such stories help fill newscasts without the time or expense of sending crew into the field, the reality TV approach would likely increase news coverage of a candidate or office holder at various events, because local newsrooms could pick a 20 second clip of something said without a news crew ever setting foot outside the newsroom.

Because continual streaming would amount to total and true transparency, it would result in considerable trust in anyone using this approach. Even when voters disagreed with a position, or disagree with multiple positions someone using this approach, voters are far more likely to support candidates they trust than, but disagree with, than they are to support those they agree with completely, but do not trust.

(It is also important that candidates or office holders realize that the trust would result not because anyone did actually watch all the time, or even watched at all — it would result from voters knowing they could watch at any time if they wanted.)

At a time when voter sentiment may be more anti-incumbent than any time in memory, continual streaming of every meeting with every lobbyist, every constituent, and every staffer, and of all reviews of legislation coming up for a vote, would go far to innoculate such incumbents from what many see as the disease of incumbency.

Another benefit of the Reality TV approach is that beyond the direct interactive feedback it would stimulate, website tracking could allow a candidate to very quickly tell what messages and ideas were playing well, and what ones needed further work or explanation, or which needed to be scrapped.

A great many incumbents in 2012, whether good or bad, face the prospect of being swept up with true “bums” voters will “throw out.” The “Reality TV” approach would play on the underlying doubts the public holds toward all politicians, and erase those doubts for those using the approach, while underscoring those doubts against opponents who would not.

This would in part be accomplished by promising to continue “Reality TV” after being elected and taking office, and also promising to try to get Congress to allow true district-based representation, to assure the members of Congress actually represented their Districts as the founders originally envisioned.

(It should be noted that the suggestion here is not that anyone be required to offer streaming live video of every minute of their lives when campaigning, or even when in office, or even that they be required to do so during all but the truly personal and appropriately private moments of their lives, or that anyone be required to do this at all. The point is merely that it can be done fairly easily, and that a candidate or office-holder adopting the approach would have a tremendous credibility advantage over any opponent because it would create real transparency, allowing real accountability, not just lip-service to popular ideas.)

District Based Representation fn1
The House of Representatives was intended to represent voters by district, with Representatives coming from those represented, and for the first several terms of Congress, Representatives spent far more time at home, in their Districts, than they did in the nation’s capital. Often they spent much of the year actually working the jobs they held before going to Congress.

But as legislative sessions have lengthened, and Congress has seen fit to legislate everything under the sun, Representatives have come to spend ever more time in Washington, DC, where they are isolated from daily contact with those actually living in their districts. They are instead are in daily contact with other lawmakers, federal employees and Washington-based lobbyists. The interests of the former, those in the home districts, are prone to differ widely from the interests of the latter, those in Washington.

It can be very difficult to accurately represent the interests of those who are not seen and directly heard from on a daily basis, particularly when those interests are at odds with the interests of those who are seen and heard from ever day.

It need not be this way. Teleconferencing is no longer the stuff of futuristic movies. Teleconferencing is here and it is now. Many people use it on a daily basis. Applications such as iMeet are advertised in heavy rotation on TV, with viewers “seeing” Brutus, Cassius and Trebonius plot the murder of Caesar as they are depicted meeting in a teleconference, or “seeing” Franklin, Jefferson, et al meeting in a teleconference to discuss the writing of the Declaration of independence.

The public understands this, and to many it would seem quite natural for members of Congress to actually live in their home Districts instead of Washington, conducting legislative hearings and nearly all other business by teleconference, including voting electronically (particularly since all recorded votes are already electronic, and nothing would prevent converting voice votes to quick electronic votes, which would further increase transparency for Congress, creating records for all votes).

While there would certainly be some expense for the needed software, the hardware for any representative could quite literally be any decent laptop computer, costing less than a single round trip flight between the home District and Washington for most members of Congress.

It should actually save money almost immediately, not just in the very obvious reduction of travel expenses, but also by reducing the susceptibility of Congress to Washington lobbyists and interests groups urging ever more federal spending… and the susceptibility of Congress to the siren song of the federal government itself urging ever more expansive government.

Members of Congress would also be able to dramatically reduce travel time between home Districts and Washington, giving them more productive time to do their jobs or to spend time with family.

Members of Congress uncomfortable with teleconferencing and remote electronic voting (as opposed to the electronic voting from the floor of the House) could certainly remain in Washington, DC, instead of working from their home districts, but doing so would likely create problems with voters. As soon as teleconferencing was allowed as an option, the pressure to use it would likely become considerable.

This would bring a fundamental transformation of the relationship between members of the House and those they represent. (Because district-based representation would also likely make it more difficult for professional lobbyists to maintain their current level of access to members of Congress, it should also seriously reduce the degree to which Congress is seen as a route for business to get preferential treatment from the Federal government, and hopefully would in fact result in less preferential treatment, particularly from members also using the Reality TV proposal.)

Though each proposal is completely independent of the other, they are extremely complementary, and in the minds of most voters would likely be thought of together. Both would also play well with the anti-incumbent mood in general.

Jes Beard
jesbeard@usa.net

fn1 I made this same suggestion in 1994 to a challenge candidate who won election, but who did not use the idea, and even then the idea did not originate with me – it was one I had seen in an op-ed piece in USA Today at the time. I refer to it as “district based representation,” because it would allow members of Congress to do the vast bulk of their work while in the districts from which they were elected, and not in Washington, D.C. With a minor rule change, voting, legislative or investigative hearings, and virtually any other official functions performed by Congress could be done from offices in their home districts instead of in the Capitol Building in the District of Columbia.

Remember how Global Warming was going to cause the sea levels to rise and wipe out coastal communities all over the world?

Remember how Obama on locking up the Democratic nomination announced in a speech on June 3, 2008, that in the future:

we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

Remember that? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912VD200&show_article=1

Well, even thought he hasn’t ended any war, increased our involvement in Afghanistan and got us involved in an entirely new war in Libya, and even though you would be hard pressed to find anyone thinking there have been “good jobs (provided) to the jobless,” and only Obama supporters believe ObamaCare will “provide care for the sick,” it appears that his most audacious claim (slowing the rise of the oceans) may actually have happened.

Actually better than just slowing it. The sea levels have been FALLING about 5 MM a year for the last couple of years. An observation beginning within months of Obama taking office. http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/sea-level-continues-historic-decline http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/weather-cycles-cause-a-drop-in-global-sea-level-scientists-find/2011/08/25/gIQA6IeaeJ_story.html (The man really is a miracle worker.)

But what does this say about Global Warming?

Remember that the seas were going to rise because the planet was warming, and would continue rising until all of the ice melted as a result of the warming. And that is one of the reasons we all have to give the federal government more more to control our lives, limit our freedoms, and take control of big chunks of the economy….

Only…. if the oceans are not rising…. wouldn’t that also mean that the globe is not warming… or that the entire global warming BS is…. well, BS?

And wouldn’t that mean the justification for expanding government power over the economy and our lives in order to prevent Global Warming is no longer there? No Global Warming == no justification to expand government power to deal with Global Warming (and of course even if there WERE Global Warming, that would not necessarily justify expanding government power, but that’s a different discussion).

So perhaps those of us who support limited government should actually applaud Obama for keeping his pledge about the rising oceans, and his further weakening the house of cards argument the Global Warmists have offered to expand government.

Three cheers for Obama!!!!

Hip, Hip Hooray!!!

1JesBeardPraxisAprilScoreReport Praxis test results from April 30, 2011, on World and U.S. history Content Knowledge, and from March 12, 2011, on English Language, Literature, Composition Content Knowledge and also the results on Writing.

To take a slightly unpopular position, the United States was wrong in tracking down and executing Osama bin Laden in his home in Pakistan.

Nearly ten years after he is believed to have directed the September 11, 2001, attacks by a cadre of suicide-terrorists who ended up killing roughly 3,000 U.S. citizens, in what appeared to have been an attack on the United States and it’s symbols of economic, military and political power, Osama bin Laden was tracked down and executed.

He is now gone, and the world is a better place for his absence.

Most Americans are going to be in complete agreement on that.

Now to the unpopular part.

We should not have set out to kill him, or at least not to kill him where we found him.

I am going to ignore the issues of international law, questions of violating the air space of Pakistan, or violating their sovereignty by sending troops into their nation without their consent or even knowledge.  I am also going to ignore issues related to the Fifth Amendment and the fact that it serves as a limit on the actions of our government even when the government is dealing with a non-citizen and even when the action is not on U.S. soil, and that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the government executing a person does is not suspended during time of war, or the issue of whether the Congressional authorization to use force (without a declaration of war) was in fact a declaration of war, or whether if it were a declaration of war it was a declaration allowing what amounts to an eternal war without any prospect of an end and, allowing the “war” to continue years after anything resembling regular “hostilities” with the target organization (Al Queda) involved in that “war” (hostilities have continued with other groups, but not with Al Queda).

I also am going to ignore the questions of whether executing bin Laden, without any effort to question him, was a wise decision, or whether the manner of his execution might actually make him more of a martyr to radical Moslems who seems to love martyrs and whether the manner of bin Laden’s execution might increase the number of terrorists targeting the U.S.

All of those are other issues.

I simply want to focus on what the reports from the White House indicate U.S. troops did, on the express direction of the President, and to look at how it would have compared to comparable conduct in other settings.

Let’s look at what the United States would have done, would have been excepted to have done, and what would have been accepted, or found unacceptable, during WWII, using WWII because it allows creating a hypothetical in which there is no question whatsoever about whether there is a real war, and whether someone was the enemy and was still fighting.

Let’s imagine, just for the sake of argument, that a U.S. infantry unit approaching the front line in France in August of 1944, only two months after D-Day, at time when combat operations were still unquestionably going on, stumbled on a half dozen German soldiers who appear to have been lost and who have stopped at a stream to cool off and bath.  The Nazi soldiers lay down their weapons, undress and wade into the water.  The U.S. infantry unit has 15 men, all armed, two of them with fully automatic Thompson sub-machine guns (the “Tommy gun”).

And for the sake of illustration, let’s also have the infantry unit aware that heavy Allied reinforcements are only minutes behind them and are heading to the same stream crossing, but are then far enough away, and large enough in size, that as the reinforcements approached, the German’s in the stream would certainly hear the reinforcements and get out of the water and conceal themselves.

The U.S. infantry unit sees that the German soldiers are far enough away from their weapons that none could reach the weapons before the U.S. infantry unit reaches the German weapons and collects them, it is absolutely clear that none of the stripped down German soldiers in water up to their waists or higher has anything resembling a weapon, and the U.S. infantry unit could very easily and safely take the German soldiers captive,

The U.S. infantry unit at that point is convinced they can safely do any of the following:

1) Capture the Germans and turn them over to the large unit of Allied reinforcements following down the road.

2) Leave the six Germans in the water alone.

3) Shoot them dead.

Before responding, flip the scenario around, so that it is a group of six U.S. soldiers in the water, and a unit of 15 well-armed German soldiers who come upon them, with a large unit of German reinforcements only a few minutes behind them.

Now let’s change it slightly again, so that instead of WWII France, it is July 26th, 1863, three days after the Battle of Manassas Gap, the last battle in the Gettysburg campaign, and the troops in the creek are a handful of confederate soldiers who have gotten lost from the main units of confederate troops retreating to Virginia, the the Union troops are approaching…. or vice versa.

In any of these circumstances, would it have been acceptable to gun down the unarmed troops in the stream?

Would that action have been anything less than murder?

Would it make any difference if it were a single unarmed solder in the creek instead of six?

Would it have become less than murder if the President had ordered it?  Was the execution of Jews at Auschwitz during WWII anything less than murder because Germany’s equivalent of the President ordered it?

Osama bin Laden was by all accounts a contemptible soul who truly deserved to die and the world is a better place in his absence.  Does any of that change the nature of the action which caused his death?

If Charles Manson were killed in his sleep by a prison guard who felt Manson should have been executed instead of sentenced to life in prison, would that by anything less than a murder?

The official reports from the White House are now that U.S. troops killed bin Laden when he was unarmed, when he was not making any effort to reach for a weapon, that there was no indication that he had fired at the U.S. troops or even held a weapon, and any forcible resistance to the U.S. raid had already been resolved by killing those firing on or resisting the U.S. troops.  The U.S. troops also carried off bin Laden’s body after his death, carrying the same weight he would have been if he had been rendered unconscious or physically incapacitated in any of the many means available to the kind of elite quasi-intelligence military unit sent in to kill bin Laden.

But the reports from the White House include no mention or suggestion of any effort to capture bin Laden to bring him back to the United States for prosecution or to interrogate him.  It is clear the order was to kill him, regardless whether he was armed or unarmed, whether he could have been safely captured or not.

During the period in the late 1800′s and the first half of the 1900′s, it reportedly was not uncommon in the South for local government officials to work hand in hand with the Ku Klux Klan “vigilantes” to “expedite” justice when a black man was accused of a serious offense (and sometimes when the only offense was to upset the wrong white person), and then to either allow a lynching, or to even direct a lynching, all without anything faintly resembling a trial.

Doubtless some of those lynchings were for criminal conduct which even carried the death penalty under state law, and which could have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt… if anyone had ever bothered with a jury or a trial.

And doubtless (if everything the government has told us about Osama bin Laden for the last 20 years is true) the government could have tried and convicted Osama bin Laden, and sentenced him to death after the convictions… if anyone had ever bothered with a jury or a trial.

As it is, without a death sentence ordered by a court, or without a trial, we have had the people of the United States overwhelmingly applaud what amounted to a lynching ordered by the President.

True enough it likely was the lynching of a very bad man, who richly deserved to be killed. But we are supposedly a nation of laws, not of men, with laws constraining government to assure that the passions of men, even when reasonable and understandable passions which lead to the exact same outcome which would be reached by the operation of law, do not act with the blessing of government to deliberately and with malice kill a person.

And while the people of the United States should be ashamed, we instead applaud.

An argument I have heard more times than I could count in the last 30 years is over whether the United States was founded as a “Christian nation” or on “Christian principles.”

I have always contended that it was not, but those who aggressively push Christianity insist otherwise, claiming the Founders were Christian, and that the intent was to create a Christian nation, and that we have only strayed from that concept in the last 50 years or so and the “straying” is the source of all sorts of evil and immorality.

I just ran across the Treaty of Tripoli, signed between the United States and Tripoli, in 1796, less than 10 years after the United States was founded, negotiated at the direction of President Washington, and ratified by the United States Senate, which presumably had more than one or two of the Founders in it (even if those members of the Senate who ratified it had not been among those drafting the Constitution, they certainly would have taken part in the ratification debates and would have in a very real sense been among the Founders).

The treaty is really pretty short, only 12 paragraphs long, with none of the paragraphs reaching even 150 words.

Paragraph #11 is the interesting one regarding any discussion about whether the United States was founded on “Christian principles” or as a “Christian nation.”  the paragraphs are each referred to as “Articles.”  The full text of Article 11 (paragraph 11) is as follows:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html

That would seem to end the question.

Debtor’s Prison –
The Poor Person’s Best Friend
by Jes Beard

Years ago, this country did away with debtors prisons. The nation in general, and poor people in particular, would be well served to bring them back. The harm to business from unpaid debt, and the reduced productivity and even business failure unpaid debt can bring, is obvious. Businesses or individuals who are not repaid the money they loaned or who are not paid for the goods or services they produced and sold on credit are prevented from accumulating needed and even expected capital for expansion, and they are frequently thrown into serious financial constraints making it hard to pay their own creditors and employees. This not only can theoretically choke the gross national product, many recessions and even the Great Depression have been in fact brought on at least partly by unpaid debt.

But debt relief measures, either in the form of actual debt forgiveness or in the form of relaxed procedures to collect debt (including the abolition of debtors prisons), are generally thought to help the poor. The idea that once again forcing poor people into involuntary servitude to pay for meager food and shelter is certainly a tough sell. But here goes.

A return to debtors prisons would help poor people in at least five ways: 1) increasing workforce participation; 2) increasing personal responsibility; 3) making it easier for the poor to climb the economic ladder through entrepreneurship; 4) reintroduction of the virtues which have proven the only reliable way of the poor to leave poverty; 5) making credit more readily available.

1) increasing workforce participation: It is almost axiomatic that if faced with the prospect of debtors prison, more debtors would either find jobs or find second jobs (or work more hours in their first job) instead of relying upon whatever assistance might be available to allow them to continue a hand to mount existence without working and paying their bills. And it is simply beyond argument that a person’s opportunity to ever get a good paying job is improved by taking a job in the first place.
Even for those who would refuse to voluntarily get jobs to pay their bills, debtors prisons could introduce them to work.
After building a track record of showing up for work on a regular basis, or after acquiring a skill, even if acquired working inside a debtors prison, it would also be easier to find meaningful employment at an attractive wage.

So long as society gives to the non-productive some type of minimal handout, whether through well-meaning charity or through the governmental social welfare programs intended to redistribute wealth in a manner to buy votes for legislators, many people will be content to live at the subsistence level, without ever personally experiencing the benefits work might offer them. These people are precisely the ones most likely to benefit from being required to work when they otherwise are unable to pay their debts. The compulsory work for many would be their first true exposure to the work-a-day world.

2) increasing personal responsibility: For those who believe that poverty is the result of random chance, or is the result of the immutable condition of the individual, and that the individual bears no or at least very limited responsibility for their financial status, it may be incomprehensible that a person should actually be compelled to pay their own debts, even if the full force of the state is required to bring this about. But for those who recognize poverty is to a very large degree the result of willfully chosen behavior (fn1), it should be apparent that actually requiring a person to pay his or her debts, even if it means forcing the person to get a job that allows wage garnishment, or putting the debtor in a debtors prison to work off the debt, the idea should not be shocking.

By forcing debtors to become fully responsible for their debts, and by not allowing them to avoid payment of a debt by remaining idle or remaining poor, we would very likely bring more responsible behavior to other areas of their lives.
Because responsible behavior in inextricably linked to personal success, productivity, and both wealth creation and wealth accumulation, increasing the personal responsibility of an individual is likely to be to their benefit, regardless how much they might grouse about it in the short run.

3) making it easier for the poor to climb the economic ladder through entrepreneurship: Poor people who become entrepreneurs are most likely to do business with other poor or poor businesses. The poor woman who scrimps on her food budget to buy a sewing machine to make clothes of her own design in her home is most likely to begin selling them to her neighbors, not initially to Ivanna Trump. The same is true of the person who buys a machine to shampoo carpets, or who begins a small neighborhood grocery. The poor person who struggles to reach the first rung of the economic ladder by starting a business seldom does business with those so much higher on the ladder that debt collection is fairly certain, they instead are most likely to do business with those who have not even reached the first rung of the ladder.

If such struggling business people are unable to effectively collect outstanding debts owed by those with whom they do business, they are likely to be limited to doing a cash only business and as a result to grow far more slowly than if they extended credit, or they are likely to end up with tremendous cash-flow problems coming from debts that can not be collected from able-bodied people willing to live in a manner effectively making them judgement-proof.

Debtors prisons would allow the poor person beginning a business to have a better chance of success.

4) reintroduction of the virtues which have proven the only reliable way for the poor to leave poverty. As author David Frum eloquently pointed out in his excellent 1994 book Dead Right, we simply can not expect a continuation of the virtues which developed as a result of the hard-felt realities of life when we remove or ease the pressures which produced the virtues.

People who have to pay their bills are more likely to find jobs and to keep them. They are more likely to maintain sobriety and to come home to go to sleep before 4am so they can get up in the morning to keep that job.

People who have to pay their bills are more likely to practice thrift and more likely to invest their scarce dollars into increasing their productivity and earnings to make it easier to pay the bills.
People who have to pay their bills are more likely to remain in the same place and develop some degree of stability instead of renting a home they never intend to pay for and then moving out once they get behind in the rent, knowing the landlord can never collect anything from them.

People who have to pay their bills are more likely to delay their urges for consumption until they can afford satisfying their tastes.

Other than by winning the lottery, sacrifice and investment and other virtues are the only way the poor leave poverty. And the prospect of debtors prison would do wonders to reimpose those hard-felt realities of life which once produced the virtues society so sorely misses.

5) making credit more readily available. If creditors know they have a good prospect of getting repaid, and if there is less risk of debtors being allowed to thumb their noses at their creditors by dropping out of the workforce, creditors are going to be far more willing to extend credit. (fn2) This will make credit available to many now considered uncreditworthy, and will reduce interest rates on credit offered to the rest of us, for the simple reason that creditors will know they are likely to be fully paid. (fn3)

Easy credit and low interest rates on credit are generally more important to the poor than to the wealthy. A poor person lacks the resources needed to pay cash for anything but the smallest of purchases, will end up paying a higher percentage of disposable income in interest if interest rates are high, and will generally be unable to take advantage of distress discounts or other bargains often available on big ticket merchandise. The wealthy will be able to pay cash for such items, or can secure credit, but the poor person is seldom able to either gather the cash or secure the credit to take advantage of a temporary low price.

Apart from the benefit debtors prisons would have on making it easier for the poor to succeed in business by allowing them to collect from their debtors, more readily available credit would also make it easier for the poor to start businesses or to otherwise make meaningful investments. Starting a business is generally capital intensive. Before a business ever opens its doors, money is needed to buy supplies and market the product or service and to pay for whatever equipment that might be required, and then for several months if not years more capital is needed to pay rent and salaries and for further supplies needed to keep the doors open before profitability is reached.

If credit is available to them, the poor can create their own jobs and their own wealth by starting their own business. If credit is unavailable business and investment opportunities are available only to the wealthy.

Coming from a libertarian, the idea of debtors prisons or involuntary servitude for deadbeat debtors might seem anomalous. But the idea of maximizing personal liberty and limiting government is still perfectly consistent with rigid and aggressive enforcement of private contractual obligations. The fact that it would both help the economy generally and the poor in particular is merely a desirable side-effect.

The truth is that a return to debtors prisons should not be undertaken for the social engineering reasons set forth above. No true libertarian would support forcing anyone to do anything in order to help the object of force. (fn4)

We should instead revive debtors prisons merely as a means of getting those who have incurred debts to pay their bills. (fn5) A person who contracts to sell their goods or services should be entitled to a reasonable certainty that their bill for the goods or services is paid.

*****************************************
Footnote 1: This is not to say that the poor consciously decide they want to have no money, but merely that they freely make decisions which relegate themselves to poverty, or at least that they fail to make decisions and take the measures needed to remove themselves from poverty. We largely control or own destinies, and a failure to invest in our own future often assures we will have a very short future with a decidedly unpleasant end.
What you can earn at any given time depends heavily on what you have invested in yourself in the form of education and/or training and/or job experience. “Help” to the poor in the form of debt relief, instead of forcing them to work, even at a menial or low-paying a job, means many of those taking the “help” instead of taking a job will never have job options markedly more attractive than the minimal value of the debt relief.

Footnote 2: This is not simply abstract economic theory, my own experience practicing law, frequently has me dealing with poor people who desire a service — legal representation — for which they have a great need, but for which they are unable to pay at the time they want it. As with any businessman, I must evaluate each person’s creditworthiness, and determine whether to provide my services in exchange for the promise of payment later. Because I am painfully aware of the limitations presently available for collecting a judgement debt from a poor person, this often means those who need representation are simply unable to get it. In many cases this leaves the poor person unable to afford legal representation needed to deal in court with well financed businesses. It is interesting that the main justification liberals offer for government funding of the Legal Services Corporation — the need to make lawyers available to poor people in court conflicts with business — exists to a large extent because liberals have restricted collection measures available to collect judgement debts. If my prospective clients faced the prospect of debtors prison if they refused to pay their bill, I would seldom refuse clients simply because they were unable to pay my bill when they walked in the door.

Footnote 3: This is the real reason loan sharks are often willing to extend credit to those legitimate businesses will not touch. The loan shark’s “collection procedures” of broken bones and bodily injury assure repayment even from debtors who would never pay a legitimate creditor. As a result, those needing money they can not find from anyone listed in the phone book, can often get it from a loan shark. And anyone thinking they are “helping” a person by forcing them to turn to a loan shark simply is not thinking. Debtors prisons would put an end to loan sharks.

Footnote 4: Barry Goldwater forcefully advanced this idea in addressing the debate over civil rights legislation, saying “social and cultural change, however desirable, should not be effected by the engines of social power.” Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, Regenery Gateway, 1990, p31.

Footnote 5: One might ask what could be done with the corporate debtor. After all, a corporation is a legal fiction and could not be put in a debtors prison. This is largely a fool’s argument because a corporation’s creditors can forcibly liquidate corporate assets, but for those concerned about the “equity” of allowing the poor individual to be put in debtors prison while not allowing the same for a corporation, there is no reason a corporate executive could not be subject to the same prospect of debtors prison for failing to pay debts. For those concerned that such a prospect would force corporations to become so cautious as to restrain economic growth and a desirable level of risk-taking, a primer on the infinite flexibility of contracts might be in order: a corporation could by contract limit the liability its corporate executives might face and thereby avoid the prospect of debtors prison. Individual debtors, including poor debtors, could also do the same.

(This essay was originally written in roughly 1998)

(Reprinted with the express permission of the author.  His website is at http://americanlyyours.com/2011/04/14/the-non-aggression-principle/)

The Non-Aggression Principle

April 14, 2011 By: Phred Barnet

If you aren’t a libertarian, chances are that you have never heard of the non-aggression principle (also referred to as the non-aggression axiom).  Most libertarians base their views about morality and the role of government around the non-aggression principle.

The non-aggression principle is the idea that no matter how disgusting, immoral, or improper you believe an act to be, you have no right to use force to stop someone from committing that act, unless that act itself involves the initiation of force against another person (or person’s property).

The principle is simple and straight forward; it is wrong to initiate force against another person or group of people. This is by no means a passive or pacifist doctrine; it is absolutely permissible to use force in response to force, in order to protect or defend one’s person or property, to enforce a contract, or punish someone for failure to adhere to the terms of a contract.

However, it is not permissible to use force to attack your neighbor, steal another person’s property, or stop someone from using their justly acquired property in a manner that does not aggress upon another individual.

The non-aggression principle has been stated and restated from ancient times to John Locke ["Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions"] to Ben Harper ["My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you. Your choice is who you choose to be and if you're causing no harm, then you're all right with me"].

By applying the non-aggression principle to all aspects of life, a just and coherent philosophy of non-interventionism becomes clear: if no one is being harmed besides those people voluntarily engaged in the act, leave it alone. It is that simple. You don’t have to like or respect or engage in prostitution, homosexual relations, religion, or the use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc, but you do not have the right to stop any adult from engaging in any of these acts.

The non-aggression principle is a very important part of the natural rights philosophy.

Every person is the owner of their own body and has the right to do with their body as the see fit.  People can also acquire property by using one of three different methods: homesteading, voluntary exchange, and theft.  Homesteading involves taking unowned resources and improving them, while voluntary exchange involves the unforced transfer of resources from a person (or persons) to another person (or persons).  Both of these two methods are fully consistent with the non-aggression principle – by definition, neither homesteading or voluntary exchange involves the initiation of force.

When the non-aggression principle is violated, property is acquired in the third method: theft. Physical acts of violence or threats of violence against others are violations of a person’s right to self ownership.

Even if one rejects the doctrine of natural rights in favor of a utilitarian (ie, the common good) view, the non-aggression principle is still important.

Man is a social animal. For the most part, we seek to engage in activities which promote the social benefit. Activities which violate the non-aggression principle tend to disrupt the peace by inviting violent retaliation. For example, if I kill or harm a member of your family (or attempt to do so), you are likely to respond by seeking revenge on me. These types of feuds can spiral out of control and disrupt the peaceful cooperation on which society depends. The best way to keep the peace that is essential to the existence of society, is to adhere to the non-aggression principle.

Thus, whether you subscribe to natural rights theories or whether you support some sort of utilitarian view, it is in the best interests of both individuals and society that people adhere to the non-aggression principle.

As we have seen, violations of the non-aggression principle which are committed by individuals can disrupt the peace. However, violations of the non-aggression principle committed by the government are infinitely more egregious. This is because the government grants itself the power to do things that no individual could ever be permitted to do.

Only the government (or those under the protection of the government) can confiscate money from people without their permission and give it to other people and call it “public policy.” Government redistribution of wealth and granting of special privileges is aggression because it prevents people from using their own property in a peaceful manner of their choosing.

Only the government can commit mass murder against civilians and call it a “defensive war.” A bombing campaign in a densely populated civilian area which results in civilian deaths is murder; it doesn’t matter if the bombing was done by a rogue terrorist or by an Air Force member acting under order from the President. Murder is murder. It doesn’t matter who does it.

Only the government can throw human beings in cages which are kept in horrible conditions for the “crime” of recreationally smoking a plant in their own home. Smoking marijuana on your couch does not violate the non-aggression principle; raiding someone’s house and confiscating their marijuana does.

[Four paragraphs here deleted by Jes Beard, but included at the bottom.]

This concept is remarkably simple: do not initiate the use of force against another person. Respect their right to engage in peaceful activities on their own property in any manner that they see fit.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

******************************************************************************

The deleted paragraphs Phred Barnet wrote are included below in the order in which he wrote them.  Aside from those four paragraphs, what he had written reflect my sentiment and belief precisely.  The four paragraphs which follow do not reflect my sentiment or belief at all.  Because of that, I edited them out of what I post here on my website.  But because they are a part of what Phred Barnet wrote, they are included below to allow a full evaluation of his ideas and avoid any distortion by deletion.  Jes Beard.

*****************************************************************************

resumption of Phred Barnet’s writing –

It is essentially impossible for government to act without violating the non-aggression principle. This is because mandatory taxation is coercion, theft, and extortion. All of these acts violate the non-aggression principle. Taking people’s money without their permission is theft. Any business regulation, permit requirement, governmental zoning restriction, anti-drug law, restriction of consensual acts deemed to be “immoral,” etc. are violations of the non-aggression principle because they prevent people from using their justly acquired resources in a peaceful manner of their choosing.

Every government act involves a violation of the non-aggression principle. For, even when government is acting to stop one person from aggressing against another, it is doing so using resources that have been obtained via theft. When you violate the non-aggression principle, your actions may be devastating and cause harm, but they are limited by the amount of damage that one person can cause with whatever resources that you have available to use. However, when the government violates the non-aggression principle, it does so with other people’s money subject only to how much damage it can inflict before enough people get angry enough to either withdraw support or threaten revolution. It also does so under the guise of legality. But intelligent people know that an unjust law is no law at all.

Thus, the only way for government to act without aggressing on the rights of its citizens by violating the non-aggression principle would be for the government to set the exact policies that each individual would choose on their own and rely on truly voluntary donations to do so. In other words, the government’s best option is to do nothing at all.

In the words of the French economist, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot:

“The policy to pursue, therefore, is to follow the course of nature, without pretending to direct it. For, in order to direct trade and commerce it would be necessary to be able to have knowledge of all of the variations of needs, interests, and human industry in such detail as is physically impossible to obtain even by the most able, active, and circumstantial government. And even if a government did possess such a multitude of detailed knowledge, the result would be to let things go precisely as they do of themselves, by the sole action of the interests of men prompted by free competition.”

This isn’t just the stuff of libertarian philosophers. The rapper Lil’ Jon famously uttered the phrase “Don’t start no shit, it won’t be no shit!”

Those wanting to challenge President Obama’s qualification to be president now, just 19 and a half months before he faces re-election, often seem so rabid in their opposition to Obama, and all things Obama, and their insistence that Congress remove him, or he be exposed as a fraud or that the courts remove him, that they do not appear to have bothered to think anything thru to its conclusion.

Let’s try.

If an investigation were announced today, and subpoenas were sent out and Congresional staff began aggressively taking witness statements, hearings could not realistically begin for at least two weeks.  That would put the start in early May, and that is a schedule which would be incredibly optimistic.  But let’s say it was met, with no real difficulty in getting records (and we know there would actually be lengthy legal challenges in getting some of those records), and let’s also imagine that the investigating Congressional did the impossible and there was no showboat for the cameras and the hearings took only two days, and the report was then produced two days later.  (And it is important to remember that a schedule like this is utterly impossible.)

That would put us into about May 10th before there could possibly be a report concluding Obama was not eligible to hold the office.

Now, since Congress does not have the power to decide such things, the best that could do would be to stimulate the Supreme Court to somehow revive any of the current court challenges to Obama, and then order an expedited discovery and trial schedule, something which could not possibly be done in less than two months (realistically 10), then there would be an appeal, whichever side one, and the Supreme Court would have the procedural authority to take the case directly on appeal, without requiring a trip thu the Court of Appeals (which in reality would almost certainly happen and add at least 10 more months to the process, but we are looking at all of this in fantasy-land, so we will ignore that).  That would put the matter before the Supreme Court in about three months.

Now, still in the land of fantasy schedules and utterly expedited procedures where everyone is wanting a quick resolution and no one is introducing any delay, that would put it before the Court for oral argument in mid-September at the earliest (and we are ignoring the fact that the Court recesses at the end of June and does not resume until the first Monday in October…. after all, we are dealing with fantasy schedules, and in the factasy the Supreme Court could agree to give up its recess break, or at least to cut it short).

So the Supreme Court, in the fantasy, hears oral argument in mid September, and again on a fantasy schedule, announces its decision just two weeks later.

Now, that decision will address all of the factual issues, and also all of the legal issues, including what is actually meant by the phrase “natural born citizen,” and, in the fantasy, the Court concludes Obama does not meet the constitutional requirement on multiple grounds — that he was not born in the United States, that he never even got ordinary citizenship by birth because he was not born in the US and his mother had not been in the US long enough after her 15th birthday to allow her child to have citizenship at birth (an old requirement which is no longer the law), and also because he was adopted in Indonesia and that as an adult he effectively renounced his citizenship by enrolling at Occidental College as a foreign student and accepting financial aid available only to foreign students, and also by seeking and obtaining and using an Indonesian passport to travel to Afghanistan in 1981 (now I think I have hit on the high points of birther lore, and we are, of course, ignoring the fact that these claims are almost certainly all factually wrong, but also that even if the alleged or assumed facts were true, most of them make no difference because the law is not as assumed — repudiation of citizenship is not easy, and being adopted in another country would not end his citizenship in the US — but we are setting all of that aside for our trip to fantasy land).

And the decision the Supreme Court announces in fantasy land goes on to say that since Obama was never constitutionally qualified to hold the office, and therefore could not hold the office, he never did hold it, and therefore would not at that time hold the office.

The Court would next have to address the issue of the legality of any actions taken under his administration.  And at that time folks would notice that two of the nine members of the Supreme Court, the two Obama appointees, would not be sitting at the bench when the decision was being read.  That would be because no action Obama had taken, would have been a legitimate action.

Those appointees would be gone.  ObamaCare would be gone.  Every appointee of President Obama would need to pack up his things and go.  No legislation or executive order he signed would be law.  And any military measures he would have authorized, in a process giving considerable immunity to our troops for any of the actions they take pursuant to orders, would also instantly become military measures taken without and presidential authorization.  So any soldiers who caused any property damage or loss of life in Afghanistan or Pakistan…. they would need to get ready to be sued for it, lose the lawsuits, and possibly be criminally prosecuted for it, since ALL of it would have been in the absence of authorization.

Any money printed by the government since Obama took office?  Probably not valid currency.   Any contract the federal government entered into?  Probably void.  Any expenditures made?  Likely need to try to recover those funds.

Internationally…. we would become a laughingstock.

Domestically…. utter chaos.  The racial divisions would deeply intensify.  The stock market would see a tremendous decline as a result of the uncertainty.  And the economy would suffer contortions far worse than anything we have seen in our lives.

Then we would get Joe Biden as President.

Is this REALLY a cliff folks want to demand the nation jump off?

Seriously folks, is it?  The fantasy land schedule I have set out is the absolute fastest any of it could happen, and more realistically nothing could happen before the 2012 election, which would leave that election as something of a referendum on the meaning of “natural born citizen,” pushing to the side issues like deficit spending, the border, three wars, the economy, the extend to which we want to allow the federal government over our private lives and over the economy.

Those are issues Obama can not win on.

Who knows whether he can win on the “natural born citizen” argument.  And if he ever actually produces the long form birth certificate records, supported by the hosoital records, and perhaps a couple of affidavits, and of course also by his Kenyan grandmother saying that some folks who have listed to the partial recordings of her phone interview thru a translator got things wrong and she never said that Obama was born in Kenay…. the vast middle of this country will accept it… and the rabid birthers will then change their challenge to a challenge of the Vattel “natural born citizen” issue and contend that Obama still doesn’t qualify.

At that point the vast middle of the nation, the folks who tend to actually decide national elections, will recoil in disgust because they will conclude (rightly or wrongly) that Obama’s defenders have been right, that his critics will never be satisfied, that they will always keep moving the goal line and that the reason for this is that they are racist.

The next they they will do is to decide to support and vote for Obama, to show that THEY are not racist and to avoid associating with those seen as racist.

In other words, the only way Obama can win the election in 2012, is if folks continue harping on the birth certificate issue.

Considering the fact that we are in three wars, that the economy is abysmal, and that the deficit is out of control, there really is no other way he can win.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story

chicagotribune.com

Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home

To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn’t allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren’t fans of the policy

By Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters

3:42 AM CDT, April 11, 2011

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

As Presidents have urged at least since Jimmy Carter, President Obama in this year’s State of the Union Address called on Congress to fund a move from national reliance on fossil fuel (oil and coal) and to extensive use of “clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.”

And yet at least 34 years after President Carter called for exactly the same thing, alternative energy today is not much farther along than it was in 1977.   Without question our consumption of oil is greater and our reliance as a nation on foreign oil is greater.

Some have speculated that this is because of a lack of collective national will, or because the nation ignores problems until their urgency is absolutely unavoidable, or because government has not demonstrated the kind of financial commitment required, or because the nation has never had an Obi-Wan Kenobi with charisma to lead us to the light.

All are wrong.

The reality is that the very calls for government investment likely scare away private investment, or at least seriously reduce it.

Imagine for a moment that you are a multi-billionaire concerned about the environment, and you believe the nation (or the world), for a variety of reasons, needs to turn to alternative energy sources, renewable energy.  And you are willing, and in fact eager, to invest your money, even every last dollar of it, into research and development to help bring that move to alternative energy.

Of course, you would also hope to make a buck in the process.  And while making a great profit really is not your goal, you also do not want to throw your money down a rathole.

So you talk with your experts and you plan and decide just what to do… and all the while you hear more and more about how the government is going to invest in alternative energy.

You hear things such as President Obama saying in his State of the Union Address that, “Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy…. (W)e’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.”

And you think that’s nice, but you really don’t want to deal with grant applications or federal bureaucrats overseeing your efforts, or the kind of delay or lack of complete control and flexibility that would be involved, so you continue moving forward.  And you hope you are successful before they are, because if they beat you, your alternative fuel may never be bought by anyone.

Then you hear a bit more of what the President said in his State of the Union Address, that “At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars.  At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”

And you start to think no matter how much of your money you invest, or how many other investors you attract, you can’t use anything like the supercomputer available at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or get the help of the combined academic prowess of the entire faculty and student body of the California Institute of Technology, and you start to second-guess the approach you were pursuing.  But then you remember you have an excellent team and a good idea, and you are going to press ahead.

Then you hear a bit more of what the President said in his State of the Union Address, that “We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.”

And at that point you start to think there is simply no way your efforts are ever going to match up against the combined limitless pool of funds the government has available to fund the approaches it picks, the power to punish through taxes the approaches or activities it no longer likes, all of the existing intellectual firepower it can harness from the nation’s top universities, and the head-start any government effort will enjoy from also relying on existing government research operations like that Oak Ridge National Laboratory with all of their smart guys and their supercomputer.

You realize however, that you are pursuing a really new approach, and, besides, the government has had all of those advantages ever since Carter started talking about alternative energy more than 30 years ago, and government approaches still haven’t gotten anywhere.  So you still decide to continue forward…. until you hear that President Obama also continued forward in his State of the Union Address, saying, “Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.”

And at that point it dawns on you that if the approach the government invests in and which it picks as a winner needs financial help to be competitive, the President just assured “there will be a market for what they’re selling.” And you know that as with most solar panels and ethanol, government subsidies and tax incentives can make choices financially attractive to consumers, even when the choices make no economic sense whatsoever in a free market.

That’s when it hits you that being politically well-connected is likely to be every bit as important as making economic sense.  And from the President’s promise that he will have the government fund and pursue “wind and solar…. nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas,” you realize that the federal government my undermine your efforts regardless what investment you make in energy….

And you know that despite all of your billions, you can’t compete with the federal government. You know that even if the path your take will work and could be profitable, if the federal government picks a different approach and gets things to market more quickly because it can throw 50 times as much money into research and development…. you are going to end up with nothing. You will be beaten to the punch and you will have thrown your money down a rathole.

And if you beat the government to the punch but the folks politically well-connected enough to persuade government to give them billions for research are also politically connected enough, your money will have been wasted just the same.  No matter how nimble, talented and quick your team might be in getting your approach to the consumers, if the federal government decides to favor some other approach over yours, giving tax credits or subsidies to do so or using regulations to do so, any market advantage your approach has could end up completely eliminated.

So what do you do? With reluctance, you give up your idea on investing in alternative energy.

It is impossible to believe that precise scenario has not taken place several times over the last 34 years.  And every time national politicians, whether presidents giving State of the Union Addresses, or presidential candidates giving campaign speeches, or simply some Congressional “leader” spouting to a camera, about investing in alternative energy, or taxing “windfall” or “excessive” profits during times when the oil industry earns more profit than someone feels is reasonable… the discussion and the threat of such plans being implemented scares away the entrepreneurs who are far more likely to bring productive results.

Once more, when government promises it is going to “hep” us, it does exactly the opposite.

The best thing government can do regarding energy and energy prices is to first get out of the way of efforts to bring it to the marketplace — actually allowing drilling and refining and other oil industry efforts.  The next thing to do would be NOTHING.

Instead allow the marketplace to make investment decisions without worrying about government policy yo-yo moves first creating some incentive and then creating some tax to encourage or discourage one type of production or another.

Every time politicians urge taxes, incentives, regulations or bans, for social reasons or to satisfy voting blocks or to punish success or to pick technological winners in a “shift to environmentally friendly energy,” it scares investors away.

If you have either the money, or the ability to raise the money, needed to conduct the research and development for some alternative fuel, or for a new battery to allow practical battery-powered cars, or for some means to economically extract and use oil shale or even to more efficiently refine oil, what you know is that at any point along the way, Congress may decide to impose taxes which will eliminate the benefit of your investment (or at least shift the risk/reward ratio enough the investment becomes foolish).  Or Congress may invest in some “alternative” approach of a politically well-connected company, allowing use of government money for research and development, or Congress may give them a subsidy or tax benefit making that alternative more attractive to consumers than yours.

Although the government is almost certainly able to spend more on research and development than any individual private effort, and can provide additional regulatory favoritism to make it more attractive to consumers or industry than anything private investment might produce, it is exceedingly unlikely that the total amount government will spend on research and development would come close to what the market would invest in order to make a profit if investors were not concerned about competing with government investment in bringing something to market and then concerned about regulatory bias favoring some other option government liked (perhaps the option the government had invested in) once the private investment efforts reached the market; this could put the private investment efforts at a serious competitive disadvantage in the market.

As a result, while some supporting government investment in research and development may simply and sincerely want to stimulate research and development and help the marketplace begin to provide alternative energy more quickly and less expensively than the marketplace would (though most of the politicians promoting such ideas know the inherent limits of such an approach and simply are promoting government “investment” as a means of rewarding patrons or winning the support of ill-informed voters), the reality is that whether government either simply talks about funding research or actually funds it the aggregate investment in research and development (the combined total of government and private investor spending) is almost certainly going to be less than it would have been had government spent nothing on research or development, and no leading politicians had made calls for government to spend on research and development.

In other words, not only is the government spending on research and development far less likely per dollar spent to produce anything of value, it is likely to reduce the aggregate amount society will spend on research and development.

The uncertainty created by those in government trying to “do something” regarding energy is one reason we have not seen more research and development of alternative energy, and that foolish sentiment has been pervasive in Washington for decades now.

As voters we need to punish at the polls anyone who even proposes such nonsense, keeping out of office those who propose it in a bid to get elected, and voting out of office anyone who proposes it once they are there.