Yellowstone, Fires, & The Free Market

In the early 20th century Yellowstone park had a problem with with wildfires. The thinking at the time was that the fires were bad and had to be stopped as soon as possible. It made people feel good, disasters were averted, only small portions of the forest burned. However, this policy led to the accumulation of fuel: fallen trees, pine needles, dead grass, and leaves. Due to this excess fuel, fires became more dangerous and harder to stop. After a few of these fires, when the forest was thought destroyed to never return to its former glory, something peculiar happened; new trees began to grow and thrive in the ash. What was discovered was that the pine cones from the long pole pines which make up most of the forest won't open and seed until they are heated by fire. It was the very act of destruction which caused growth and lessened the fuel available for new fires, making them less dangerous. Taking this into consideration, the forest service started doing "controlled burns", trying to take this force of fire and make it bend to their will, which although leading to less fires it doesn't always (or usually) work the way they think it will.

Keynesian economics has been very popular for almost a century now; an economic school that advocates government intervention in the market to stop recessions from being as deep as they would naturally be. A competing school in economics is the Austrian/Chicago school which advocates for just the opposite; contending that government intervention may (although probably not) lesson the depth of one recession, but creates a bubble with cheap money and leads to another recession. The Austrian school says if a business is going to fail let it fail don't prop it up, where as the Keynesians are the ones who came up with "too big to fail".

Keynesian economics is like the early 20th century fire control in Yellowstone and the controlled burns of today; people trying to impose themselves onto a natural cycle they don't fully understand, leading to devastating consequences and disrupting the natural cycles.

When the market drops, we need to let it burn, clean out all the dead wood and make room for new growth. If we do that, disasters will be less frequent and smaller in scale. It may seem counterintuitive to let fires burn, but sometimes it needs to happen.

And now a treat for reading this much:

The Commerce Clause and Twisted Logic

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

This is the clause of the US Constitution which the Federal Government uses to justify just about everything it does in respect to the economy; saying it gives them the authority to make laws about everything that affects commerce among the states. Such laws include gun laws, EPA restrictions, and agriculture laws; just to name a few. They contend this clause gives them the power to regulate even things which stay within a certain state if anything used for that product comes from out of state (i.e. a screw or paint).

However, by that logic, then the Federal Government would have the power to extend these types of laws to foreign Nations. Seeing as they do not have that power and never did or will, how can different logic be applied to a another clause of the same sentence?

The Supreme Court has 40 some case decisions on The Commerce Clause, and I am not familiar with all of them, but I don't see how this twisted logic can stand. The Federal Government can not logically have more power to regulate commerce among the states than it does with foreign nations.

Maybe if the courts actually read the Constitution and not case law this fallacy can be reversed, but I don't hold out hope.

Dominique Dorsey IV

Dominique Dorsey has signed with the team he first played with in the CFL, the Saskatchewan Roughriders. I hope he has a good season.

I still would like to see him get his shot in the NFL, but after not impressing the Redskins last year and getting up there in age for a running back (he'll be 27 this year) I'm not sure if we'll get to see that. But at least he is getting to play somewhere, too bad CFL games don't air here.

Government Revenue Structure

One hurtle which needs to be jumped in order to get the US government under control is to change the revenue structure. Right now,the money flows down; individuals pay the federal government and then they give the money to the states. That needs to be reversed in order to control spending and regulation. The states need to pay the federal government, and then the states will control the federal government instead of the backwards way it is now.

And likewise the states should be funded by the counties so the counties can control the states. If each individual county were responsible for funding the state they would be more active in policing the state budget. And this would give the local people more control on how funding is appropriated.

If a county with a large city wanted to have all kinds of social programs they could tax themselves to raise the money, and those areas that decide they don't want those programs wouldn't have to fund them.

The more localized the revenue structure the better it will fit the individuals and the more control it will give them.

One to upset communists

Drum-roll please......communism is a form of capitalsim! How can this be you ask? Well, lets look at capitalism in it's rawest form; capital is simply something one can trade, capitalism is where that capital is traded in return for something wanted by the person trading the capital. In communism the capital is a person's willingness to comply, which is traded for the things the government provides them. If someone were to not comply, the trade is cancelled and the person doesn't get what they want out of the trade. So, in a raw sense, communism is a form of capitalism. It may not matter, because communism is a horrid form of government no matter. But I just wanted to point this out so communists can be irritated with rationality and reality.

Healthcare Is Not A Right

Rights are those things that are naturally born to an individual (property rights), or in some cases to protect those natural rights from being usurped unjustly (right to a fair trial). All natural rigths extend from the right of property, the ability to own one's own body and by extention those things created by or earned in trade from the use of that body. Without the right to own one's body, there is no right to free speech or free thought, because those are things derived from the body. The right to gun ownership extends from the right to collect more property through trade of either effort or property and to protect that property. And so on.

Other things which are not natural to the human condition, may be essential, but are not rights. This includes such things as food, healthcare, and even guns, yes you have the right to trade for these things, but not have them provided. The government cannot create rights, only protect those which are natural to the human condition.

Addendum: Some "rights" in the Bill of Rights extend from the fact that we the governed created the government and impose restrictions on it to secure our natural rights, this is the case with jury trials and the right to a lawyer. Healthcare does not fall into this either.

What to say?

I simply don't know what to say anymore. This past year has been like a political nightmare. Now the President vows to make me an outlaw by the end of the month, with the signing of this health care thing, not reform, not fix, just a thing.

You see, I am one of the thousands of uninsured in the country, because I want to be. If I have medical difficulties I pay for them myself. But, this government is going to make me an outlaw if I don't buy what they want me to.

This is just getting to be too much, very overwhelming. I am not usually a man of so few words on this page, but I guess I have too much to say without knowing how to say it, so for now I will bite my tongue for the most part, but when this writers block ends, there will a tongue lashing I will most certainly deliver.