The most sensible thing I've read about the financial crisis so far

Is this: http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9660

Also, I'm sick of hearing "the financial crisis was caused by X" (where X varies depending on one's political leanings). There is no single cause. There are many complex causes and contributing factors which added up to create a crisis. Some point directly at government policies, and others point at the market. But understanding all of them is difficult, and people want a simple answer that supports their political preconceptions, so they tend to single out one or two of these factors.

This Wikipedia article provides a good overview of most of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis#Causes_of_crisis

One of the root causes which I think has not received enough attention is the fact that we have fiat money. If our money was based on something like gold, which has real value and the supply of which cannot be arbitrarily increased by government, we would not have the kind of bubble/bust cycle that got us into this mess. I support Ron Paul's effort to abolish the Fed, and to restore the use of gold as a form of legal tender, which would restrain the federal government from inflating the money supply and manipulating interest rates, and would help to keep us out of these sorts of predicaments in the future.

Airport security.... keeping us safe from drawings of dangerous things

Stop the presses! This just in: not only are actual guns forbidden on airplanes.... now it is forbidden to fly with a cartoon drawing of a gun! I could not make this up.

http://www.theedgeofmadness.com/index.php?title=no_t_shirt_no_flight

This makes me want to scream! (Farmers Market accident lawsuits settled)

“Santa Monica Farmers Market crash payouts reach $21 million”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-market22-2008may22,0,5516449.story

“The city of Santa Monica and other defendants will pay $6 million to settle two lawsuits stemming from a vehicle crash at the Farmers Market that left 10 people dead, bringing the total of payouts to plaintiffs in the case to $21 million. …”

So some old guy loses it and taxpayers get screwed out of $21 million!!! WTF?!?! This money does not just magically appear in the City’s bank accounts – it is stolen from hardworking taxpayers. You cannot expect the government (taxpayers) to protect you from every random freak accident. Shit happens. Should we demand that the government build a meteor-proof roof over the city to protect us from meteor strikes? Should we demand free bullet-proof vests for everyone to protect us all from crazy gang bangers? Maybe we should just bubble-wrap everyone!

The plaintiffs argument was that the wooden barricades blocking off the street were insufficient to stop a car. COME ON!!!! Do we have to hold every public event inside Fort Knox from now on? Thousands of farmers markets and other public events have been held in streets all across the country for hundreds of years, with just wooden barricades blocking the traffic. So because of this one freak accident and a bunch of greedy lawyers and their whiny, unreasonable plaintiffs, I suppose a lot of cities are going to have to either close down their farmers markets or spend a lot of money installing expensive steel barricades in the street. A lot of taxpayers are going to get screwed into paying more taxes to support higher insurance rates and the expensive new barriers. Farmers whose markets are shut down will lose money also.

I think we really need some tort reform here. For one thing, pain and suffering and emotional distress damages should be eliminated. They do nothing but encourage people to be whiny and greedy and encourage the victim mentality. Secondly, government entities should never be forced into paying punitive damages, since they only punish the taxpayer and not the people who did something wrong. Third, economic and other damages should be capped.

And another thing: why can’t the taxpayers counter sue these bastard lawyers for ripping us off?

Why gas isn't too expensive

I came across a great article that explains why gas really isn’t that expensive: http://mises.org/story/2940

I think gas is far too cheap. It’s one of the cheapest liquids you can buy. Cheaper than milk. Cheaper than bottled water. If you think about what it takes to get from oil in the ground to gas in your tank, it’s remarkable how cheap it is.

America has some of the cheapest gas in the world. Europeans pay $7-9 per gallon. In Asia it’s $5-6 per gallon. Even poor Brazilians pay far more than we do.

The rising price of gas causes us so much pain because we are spoiled. We are used to driving gas guzzling vehicles and driving long distances to and from work. We do not have to live this way. Our habits must change.

I think that the rising price of gas is a good thing, and will benefit us in the long run. It will give people a real incentive to buy smaller, more efficient cars. It will give people a real incentive to live closer to work and spend less time on the road. Pollution and traffic will be reduced. Public transportation will get a boost. Perhaps more importantly, alternative energy sources are becoming cost competitive, which is spurring development of electric, hybrid, and alternative fuel vehicles. In the long run, rising gas prices will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help the environment.

One reason our gas is so cheap is because of all the tax breaks and indirect subsidies (think defense budget) we give to the oil companies. We should eliminate these. We should also consider shifting a portion of the overall tax burden from income tax to oil & gas taxes, which would leave the same amount of money in your pocket at the end of the day, but realign incentives to discourage bad things (consuming oil) and encourage good things (hard work and productivity).

I often hear people talk about how we should drive more efficient cars and commute less out of some notion of benevolence or altruism. This is nonsense. You should buy a more efficient car because it benefits you, and specifically, your bank account. Conservation should be motivated by financial reward or other direct, tangible benefit to the conserver. If there is insufficient financial motive to conserve, then perhaps the system should be adjusted so as to provide a greater incentive (through internalization of externalities or adjusting taxes for example). But we should not expect people to change their behavior on a large scale out of vague notion of helping the environment. That will not work.

Podcasts I've been enjoying lately

Here are the podcasts I’ve been enjoying lately. I tend to like short (5-20 min) to-the-point discussions of interesting political or philosophical topics, or readings of fiction. Good for listening to on the way to and from work. All of them can be found in iTunes.

Cato Daily Podcast – Short and insightful political opinions from the nation’s leading Libertarian think tank
http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php

Cory Doctorow’s Craphound – Readings by one of my favorite sci fi authors and digital rights activists
http://www.craphound.com/index.php?cat=6

Liberty Radio Underground – Discussion of Libertarian principles
http://libertyradiounderground.com/

Skeptoid - Critical analysis of pop phenomena, debunking pseudoscience with actual science
http://skeptoid.com/subscribe.php

The Ethicist – short discussions of ethical dilemmas
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/multimedia/podcasts.html

Radio Free Liberty – More libertarian propaganda
http://www.radiofreeliberty.com/

Slate Explainer – Short explanations of topics in the news
http://www.slate.com/id/2119317/

IT Conversations – Hardcore geek stuff
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/channelFeeds.html

Who cares about performance enhancing drugs?

I am so sick of hearing about the performance-enhancing drugs scandals in major league sports, I don’t dare turn on the TV for fear I might vomit. Who @$#% cares??? Why does the United States Congress waste time with hearings about something like this when we have war going on, and so many other issues that are FAR more important? It’s insane, just like the country’s morbid fixation on the plight of Britney Spears.

As technology advances, there will be more and more ways to enhance or improve our bodies. I admit that it’s unfair for those who use technology to enhance their performance to compete with those who do not. But lets embrace technology. Let’s have two leagues: one for “enhanced” athletes, and one for “naturals.”

Personally, I think the enhanced league will be much more interesting to watch.

Voters just proved themselves dumber that I ever imagined

...and I always thought they were pretty dumb!

California’s Proposition 91 was qualified for this election in 2006, but shortly thereafter another measure was enacted which rendered Prop 91 obsolete. There was no way to get it off the ballot, so the original proponents published the following as the argument IN FAVOR of this proposition in the voter’s guide.

“VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91. IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED.

As the official proponents of this measure, we are encouraging you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91….”

And so on, explaining why it’s obsolete but stuck on the ballot and should not be supported.

See http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu_rebut/argu_rebutt91.html

No argument against it was published, since presumably none was needed. There was no advertising on either side, and the major newspapers and other publications who make recommendations recommended voting against prop 91, since that’s the only sensible thing to do.

And what happened? 42% voted in favor of prop 91!!!! What a bunch of pathetic morons! Ok, 58% voted no, but that should have been 100%. What a bunch of retarded, uninformed, random-voting losers!! Do you seriously want these people, who obviously have not even bothered to look at the voter’s guide that was mailed to them, to run your government? This explain so much about why California is in such a mess – it’s because so many important issues are decided by dumbass voters who throw darts at their ballot. Seriously, unless people are willing to spend some time studying each issue they should keep their lazy asses home and NOT VOTE.

Another example: Los Angeles’ Proposition S was a trick – it authorizes a tax on cell phones, but used deceptive wording to sell itself as a tax reduction. It passed by a wide margin. I suspect that most people who voted for it thought they were voting to decrease taxes, not raise them. Suckers!!

I think it should be harder to vote. I don’t know how, but somehow we should discourage people from making uninformed decisions that affect everyone.

Liberals and conservatives are two different species?

Well, not quite… but the cover story of this week’s issue of New Scientist brings up an issue I’ve been kicking around in the back of my mind for a couple of years. It’s the idea that our political persuasions are linked to our personality types which are largely determined by our genes.

"Are political leanings all in the genes?" http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19726411.800-are-political-leanings-all-in-the-genes.html

There is a substantial and growing amount of evidence that conservatism and liberalism are strongly correlated with personality traits such as openness, extroversion, and conscientiousness. Liberals are more open, tolerant, and more extroverted; conservatives are more honest, dutiful, and conscientious (organized, self-disciplined, and responsible). Xenophobia and stronger fear of death are also correlated with conservatism. Liberals are less troubled by conflicting sources of information, and tend to be more open to new ideas. All of this data comes from psychological testing and studies involving heredity, including identical twin studies (as well as common sense).

I suspect that there are other genetically determined factors at play. I think that libertarians value their personal freedom above all else, and are more likely to recoil from someone else telling them what to do. They are independent, risk takers, and they value freedom and possibilities more than equality and safety. Liberals and socialists are more risk-averse and don’t mind someone else being in charge of their lives, as long as they are taken care of and don’t have to worry about the future. They value equality more than freedom and opportunity for growth. These characteristics are probably genetically linked as well.

What is the implication of this? The best political/economic system is the one under which people are happiest. But if people are fundamentally different in what makes them happy, then there may not be any single best political or economic system. Perhaps there should be different systems that people can choose from, either by moving or by opting into our out of certain programs. This also supports the idea of federalism: that the states should be free to control their own policies and politics, and should only be loosely bound together by the federal government, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all top-down system which the US has been moving toward for the last several decades. But perhaps we can go even farther – perhaps we can find a way to accommodate both types within the same system by giving people options, so that they can live together in peace.

The closing paragraph of the New Scientist article reads:

So the guy at the bar may never agree with you, but perhaps realising that can be liberating. "We spend a lot of energy getting upset with the other side," says Alford. We often think our opponents are misinformed or stubborn. Accepting that people are born with some of their views changes that, Alford points out. Come to terms with these differences, and you can spend the energy now wasted on persuasion on figuring out ways of accommodating both points of view.

Lets amend the constitution

In the last several decades, Congress seems to have gotten all kinds of crazy ideas about what the federal government should and is permitted by the Constitution to do. The Constitution doesn't say anything about education, health care, housing, energy, drugs, or agriculture. I suspect that the founding fathers intended those to be left to the states. So just to clarify things, I propose an amendment to the Constitution. It can be short and simple. Here is my proposed wording:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Think it will pass?

An alternative to welfare

I often rant about how it’s wrong for the government (or anyone) to use force to take money from one person and give it to another. One of my biggest gripes against the democrats (and sometimes republicans too) is that it seems like their solution to every problem is to increase taxes and spending, and increase the power and use of force by government to intrude into people’s lives, and I am fundamentally opposed to that. Yet I realize that there is a need to do something to help those at the bottom of the ladder, who for whatever reason can’t seem to make it on their own. What can we do?

In the long run, I think that the adoption of libertarian social and economic policies will lead toward a more prosperous society with fewer poor people. But we still have a problem today. And even in my libertarian utopia, there may still be a few who just can’t make it. How can we deal with that?

Many people who don’t know me well probably think that I’m a cold heartless bastard because I oppose government social programs. Again, it’s not that I am against helping the poor; it’s that I am against the initiation of force (including taxation) to achieve social or political goals. Use of force creates resentment. If people are unwilling to help the poor, I think the proper solution is to find a way to change their will, rather than to force them. Use a carrot, rather than a stick. Use shame or guilt or compassion to get people to act, but don’t use a gun.

So here’s my idea: pair up the wealthiest and the poorest, one by one. Pick a person or family in the top 1% by income or wealth and a person or family in the bottom 1% and tell the rich guy “this is your poor person, please help him out.” Do the same for the people in the 2^nd and 98^th percentile, 3^rd and 97^th percentile, etc. Ideally they should live near each other and should be encouraged to meet periodically. Details of the poor person’s life, a sort of biography explaining his history and why he’s poor, should be provided to the rich person. Neither one should be obligated or compelled to do anything.

Here’s why I think it would work:

1. People feel a much greater sense of compassion toward an individual who they know than toward a statistic. “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic” Stalin said, and I think that applies to poverty and other problems as well. If you meet someone, get to know them, learn their story, and know that they have only you to help them out, you will be much more inclined to help them out.

2. The givers will have an incentive to take a personal interest in the receiver’s life, in order to understand the cause of poverty and what can be done about it. They may give advice, provide education or training, take an interest in “fixing the system”, or whatever else it takes to solve the problem. They may go far beyond what the welfare system does to help people, because they will have a personal incentive to get this person back on his feet (so they can stop supporting him). And successful people know what it takes to be successful, so they are in an ideal position to pass on this knowledge to others.

3. The recipients will be more thankful for the help, since it is given to them voluntarily by someone they know, rather than taken as an entitlement from a big faceless system. They will appreciate it, rather than expecting it and taking it for granted.

4. I think a lot of wealthy people resent the fact that so much of their money is taken by government to feed the system, and they figure that since they have paid their taxes they have no further obligation to help the poor. They may even resent the poor who are perceived (often rightfully so) as taking advantage of the system and leaching off of it. If taxes were reduced and social programs eliminated in favor of this system, that source of resentment would no longer exist.

5. Eliminating a large beaurocracy which is rife with waste and fraud would save lots of money.

If a giver is truly heartless and refuses to help, his name should be published in the newspaper and on a web site. If a receiver is truly a lazy leach and tries to take advantage of the giver, his name should be published as well. People should be accountable for their actions, and shame and social pressure can be incredibly powerful forces. Perhaps both givers and receivers should have an opportunity to post comments or reviews of each other on a public web site.

Clearly this doesn’t solve every problem. Severely disabled people, for example, may always need support. But I think this would be a far better system than the one we have today. I think it would motivate those in power to find real solutions that work, rather than simply raising taxes and wasting more money. Obviously I don’t have all the details worked out, but my point is to show that there are more creative alternative solutions to many of our problems which do not involve the use of force by government. What else can we apply this sort of thinking to?

What do you think?

Yay for free trade

I came across this nifty analysis paper today.

"Trading Up: How Expanding Trade Has Delivered Better Jobs and Higher Living Standards for American Workers"
http://freetrade.org/node/782

The author does a nice job of analyzing how middle class income has changed over the last 40 years or so, and what impact trade has had on both employment and wages. It fairly well demolishes the standard protectionist arguments that free trade is hurting our manufacturing sector, taking our jobs, and lowering our wages.

Key points:

• The manufacturing sector is actually doing very well, with record revenue and record profits. It employs fewer people because of efficiency gains through technology.
  
• Trade has had no discernible, negative effect on the number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Our economy today is at full employment, with 16.5 million more people working than a decade ago.
• Trade accounts for only about 3 percent of dislocated workers.Technology and other domestic factors displace far more workers than does trade.
• Average real compensation per hour paid to American workers, which includes benefits as well as wages, has increased by 22 percent in the past decade.
• Median household income in the United States is 6 percent higher in real dollars than it was a decade ago at a comparable point in the previous business cycle. Middle-class households have been moving up the income ladder, not down.
• The net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade has been overwhelmed by a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in sectors where the average wage is higher than in manufacturing. Two-thirds of the net new jobs created since 1997 are in sectors where workers earn more than in manufacturing.
• The median net worth of U.S. households jumped by almost one-third between 1995 and 2004, from $70,800 to $93,100.
• The large majority of Americans, including the typical middle-class family, is measurably better off today after a decade of healthy trade expansion.

A boring proposal (for congressional election reform)

People often wonder why we can’t seem to clean up Washington politics. Term limits, campaign finance reform, and lobbying rules have failed to significantly reduce the effects of corruption, greed, and special interests in our capitol. In large part, the problem is that our method of selecting and electing our representatives in Congress creates a set of perverse incentives. In order to win a seat in the senate or the house, our legislators must pimp themselves out in order to raise enough cash to run a successful campaign. Then once in office, their greatest incentive is the desire to stay in office, and to do so they must continue the pimping. By accepting large donations from special interests, they become beholden to these minority groups. An enormous amount of their time is spent on fundraising and campaigning to stay in office, which is time not spent doing their real jobs. And far too often, they promote and support positions that they think are popular, regardless of whether they think they are right, because they don’t want to be accused of being “soft on drugs” or “weak on defense”, for example, even when they may privately believe that the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are headed the wrong way.

What’s the solution? To fix the problem, we need to realign our representatives' incentives. I think one large and necessary step in the right direction is to change the way some of them are elected. Here is my proposal:

1. We would start the reform with just one half of Congress, most likely the House of Representatives. Or we could experiment with this in state legislatures before attempting reform at the Federal level.
2. Rather than electing a specific candidate to a seat in the House, we would elect an elector. The electors would campaign and be chosen in much the same way as a representative is today, based on their values and ideologies.
3. The winning elector would select a pool of the most qualified candidates which represent the values and ideologies upon which he was elected. The pool would contain something like 10 - 20 candidates.
4. One of these candidates is selected at random as the “winner.”
5. At the next election, we go through the same process. The incumbent may be chosen by an elector as a candidate in the next selection pool, or may run as an elector himself, but cannot be directly re-elected to the same office.
6. The legislators should be well paid, with salaries comparable to what they can or have earned in the private sector.

The advantages of this system are:

1. Because we are not voting for an individual, and the ultimate winner is selected at random from a pool, it is pointless for the candidates to campaign. No campaigning means no fundraising, no pimping, and lobbyists have no power over them.
2. We still get to vote for a set of values and ideologies that we support, even if we are not voting for an individual.
3. Because they are not constantly living in fear of the next election, legislators will be freer to make “politically dangerous” decisions, such as ending the drug war.
4. Quite often, the people who want to be politicians are not the people who are the most qualified and can make the best decisions. Under this system, we might actually get smarter politicians who can make better decisions. If I were an elector in this system, I would select CEOs and economists to fill my pool of candidates, because they have the best understanding of how to manage large organizations and how political decisions impact our economy. However, CEOs and economists rarely run for office, probably because they can make more money elsewhere and are repelled by Washington politics.
5. Because they are well paid in office, they will be more immune to corruption; they will not be so tempted to seek donations/bribes from lobbyists for personal expenses, and will not be so reluctant to leave their often lucrative private sector jobs to enter the legislature.

The problems I see with this plan are:

1. Since representatives cannot be directly re-elected, there will be a high turnover rate, and few or no people with long-term experience in office. However, I am only suggesting that we apply this to one-half of Congress, so hopefully the other half can continue to benefit (or suffer) from whatever wisdom and connections career politicians tend to accumulate.
2. Since there is an element of randomness, we can never be sure exactly who we’re electing. However, I don’t think that it will really be any worse than what we have today, which is politicians who regularly change their minds and renege on campaign pledges.
3. Electors might tend to select "cronies" to fill the candidate pool rather than those who are most qualified. A possible solution to this is to prohibit them from selecting relatives and those with whom they have business relationships.

What do you think? I’d love to get some feedback.

I wish Apple would design gas pumps

As a close observer and student of user interface design, I am nearly overcome by rage and revulsion every time I have to buy gas. Not because of the price (I think gas is too cheap), but by the pump. It's as though the pumps were designed in the 1960s Soviet Union by retarded sadists. No though whatsoever is given to user-friendliness, only to crude functionality.

First, I stick my credit card in the slot, usually the wrong way. There are four possible ways to put the card in, and it's not obvious which is the correct way. If the slot were horizontal instead of vertical, most people would assume that you put the card in face up, which reduces the number of possibilities to two. Putting a read head on both sides of the slot would allow it to read the card either way.

Next, I have to select credit or debit. I hunt around the keypad for the right button. They keypad is cluttered with useless and redundant buttons such as "Yes" and "Ok" and "Enter", or "No" and "Cancel", often leaving me guessing as to which one to use. Some buttons are different colors, but the color coding is only more confusing, not helpful.

Now the machine starts making horrible screeching sounds, presumably because it wants my attention. It's got it already. The shrieks are not helpful. It wants me to enter my zip code on that horrible membrane keypad. There is no tactile feedback, and sometimes you have to press each button fairly hard. It's not immediately obvious when the button press has registered, since there is a slight lag between pressing the button and the number appearing on the screen. Sometimes it makes a horrible shriek after each button press, but there's a lag with that too so the feedback only confuses and irritates me rather than helping me. After entering my zip code, I have to press enter. This is an unnecessary step. The machine knows that your zip code is 5 digits, so it should proceed after the 5th digit.

The screen is usually small, dim, and difficult to read. It refreshes slowly, so visual feedback is not instantaneous. This leaves you wondering if it's doing the right thing for a moment every time you push a button.

Next I have to select the type of gas. The gas selector buttons are in different places on different pumps, and often they are easily confused with stickers indicating the octane rating, so I often end up pressing the wrong sticker or else pressing everthing in sight. Often, there is no tactile feedback from this button either, and the ear-piercing shriek which acknowledges my selection does not come for a second or so, leaving me wondering if I did the right thing.

Now it beeps a few more times, and tells me to start pumping. But it's just teasing, really, because when I pull the trigger nothing happens. I have to wait another 5 seconds or so before it's really ready to start.

Most irritating of all are the new pumps which have video screens that blast advertising at me while I'm pumping my gas. I don't want to be assaulted with this crap! Where's the off button?


Here's how Apple's gas pump would work:

The large, bright touchscreen prompts you to swipe your credit card by showing a graphic of a card going into the horizontal slot, and pointing to the slot, which is right below the screen. It doesn't matter which way you put the card in, because it can read it both ways.

After the card is read, the screen instantly displays large "credit" and "debit" buttons. Since it's a touchscreen, you just touch the correct button. Feedback is instantaneous; there is no perceptible lag between touching and the screen changing. When you touch the screen, you hear a friendly, happy sounding bleep which gives you audible feedback. Again, this feeback is instantaneous - you hear the sound before your finger leaves the screen.

You enter your zip code, again using the touch screen. After the 5th digit, the screen instantly changes, and prompts you to select the type of gas to pump. Again, it's a touchscreen so you just touch the right button on the screen. You dont even have to press hard. While you select the type of gas, it's authorizing your credit card in the background, so you don't have to wait for it.

Now it's time to pump. Ideally, the pump should start up instantly. If there is some good reason why this is impossible, then the screen should show a countdown clock counting down the seconds until the gas is ready to flow. You are never in doubt about what the machine is doing or how long it will take.

While it is pumping, there may be a button on the screen that you can touch to turn on the audiovisual advertising/entertainment assult, just in case you are a desperately bored loser with ADD.

When the pump stops, you are prompted with a cheerful sound, and if you want a receipt you can touch a button on the screen to print one out.


I recently encountered a self-service ordering kiosk at a Carl's Jr. It worked much like the Apple gas pump I just described. Fast, friendly, and intuitive, it was a joy to use. Now why can't gas stations do the same thing? It seems to me like friendly gas pumps would be a competitive advantage.

What the republicans don’t get.

As promised, my rant on republicans. (Disclaimer: I am a libertarian)

1. The middle-eastern terrorists hate us because of what we do, not because of who we are.

It seems that a majority of republicans believe that the terrorists hate us because we are a wealthy, (relatively) free society, and that our existence is offensive to fundamentalist Islamists, who therefore want to destroy us. This is nonsense. Certainly, Islamic fundamentalists have pointed to our liberalism and used it to fan the flames of rage against us, but the root cause of that rage is the fact that the US has been meddling in the politics middle east for decades.

We have overthrown governments, installed and supported brutal dictators, sold weapons, financed rebellions, and installed military bases since the 1950s. In the process, we have managed to piss off nearly every country, tribe, and leader in the region. If they were doing it to us, we would be outraged, and we would fight back. Why shouldn’t they?

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate who gets this. Even the leading democrats don’t come out and say it very clearly.

2. We will never stop terrorism with aggression and force.

Aggression and military occupation of Islamic countries will only provoke more terrorist actions.

The only way to stop terrorism is to withdraw completely from the middle east. Close the military bases, stop all military aid and weapons sales, and stop supporting Israel. Leave them all alone, and they will leave us alone.

3. Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither, and shall lose both.

Ben Franklin said that, or something like it. By giving up our civil liberties in the war on terrorism, we are giving up who we are, and we are losing the war.

The democrats have a problem with this one as well, but in their case they wish to trade economic liberty for economic security. The result is often just as bad.

4. Keep your religious views out of government

Abortion, the right to die, stem cell research… all of these issues hinge on your view of what life is and what life means. Many people’s understanding of these issues comes from their religious background and teachings. Therefore, government should stay out of these issues and let people decide for themselves what life means to them. To do otherwise is to impose your religious beliefs on others, which is wrong.

Personally, I do no think that an unconscious lump of cells is deserving of any rights. The greater consciousness/sentience/awareness a being has, the more rights and respect it deserves. I think it hypocritical to eat cows and then condemn people for aborting one month old fetuses.

Additionally, each individual must have complete autonomy over his own life. If someone makes a carefully considered, informed and deliberate decision to end his life, nobody else has a right to object or to prevent him from ending it.

5. The war on drugs is a disaster and should be stopped immediately.

The drug war does more harm than good. It costs a fortune, and fills up our prisons. People have the right to make informed decisions about what to put into their own bodies.

We should legalize marijuana completely, legalize possession of all substances, and legalize sale of substances with some sort of regulation, perhaps a prescription system to ensure that users are making careful, informed decisions and are not becoming addicted and suffering adverse consequences.

What the democrats don't get

I just watched another democratic presidential candidate debate, and again found myself shouting at the TV in frustration and disgust. I don't like any of them. (Disclaimer: I am a libertarian. I have just as many rants about the republicans, and I will write about them later.)

1. Incentives matter.

If you want to change people's behavior, the most effective way to do that is with financial reward/punishment. Appealing to their conscience/guilt/higher self is ineffective. If you want blue apples, you can pass a law that mandates blue apples, but that won't get you any blue apples. You can tell people that blue apples are good for you and red apples cause cancer, but you still won't get any. However, if you put a $5 tax on non-blue apples, or a $5 subsidy on blue apples, you will soon have blue apples coming out of your ears.

Many democrats seem to think that people will conserve energy for the good of the environment, for the good of the country, etc. But that's ridiculous. People will conserve energy if it pays for them to, and right now energy is so cheap that there is often little incentive to conserve it. Mandating more fuel efficient cars, mandating electric cars, and forcing other conservation measures down peoples throats is absolutely the wrong approach. Taxing carbon emissions to raise the price of pollution and raise the price of oil will be far more effective.

2. Business don't pay taxes.

Most democrats seem to think that they can stick it to businesses without hurting the little guy. But guess what. Businesses will directly pass on any taxes to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services. So taxing businesses only increases costs for consumers and makes our businesses less competitive with foreign ones.

3. The federal government should not be involved in either education or health care.

The constitution clearly delineates what the federal government is responsible for, and leaves the rest to the states. Education and health care are clearly, clearly state matters. If you want to change that, amend the constitution.

5. Competition is essential to efficiency and innovation.

Democrats frequently seem to have tremendous faith in government, and believe that it can be efficient and innovative. It cannot, because it has no competition. The private sector can do almost anything better, cheaper, and more creatively than government. Government will invariably be bloated, beaurocratic, costly, and ineffective, because it has no incentive to be otherwise. Therefore, it's better to leave as much as possible to the private sector. Defense is an obvious exception.

Just one example: the state of California spends about $11,000 per student per year for primary education, while private schools provide equal or better education for about $4500 per year. Public education costs nearly 3 times as much because most of the money goes to the massive beaurocracy. Private schools, by necessity, are leaner and more efficient, but are just as effective.

6. The wealthy already pay most of the taxes, and the middle class pay almost none.

Democrats always, always, always insinuate that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes, that they get unfair tax cuts, and that the middle class shoulder the burden. This table shows that that is simply not true. Study it for a minute and you will be shocked and amazed, as I first was.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html (Table 1)

The top 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes! The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes!! The bottom 50% pay only 3%!!!

The wealthy pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. This is not what the democrats want you to believe! Any tax cut will, by definition, go to the people who are paying the taxes, which are the wealthy. You cannot give tax cuts to the poor, because they do not pay any significant amount of taxes.

You can argue about whether this is as it should be or not, and you can argue that raising or lowering taxes on the wealthy is good or bad, but you cannot argue that the wealthy do not already pay the majority of taxes.

7. Spending more money (and raising taxes) is not the solution to every problem.

Tax and spend... how unimaginative. Hillary has said she has a million good ideas but America cannot afford them all. That's for damn sure! Spending money is fun and easy, and makes you popular. But with a little more effort and creativity, we can often find better ways to solve our problems. Typically, this means allowing or incentivising the private sector to solve them for us. Working smarter, not harder. Removing barriers and beaurocracy, not creating more.

8. The law of unintended consequences.

Lawmakers with the best intentions often try to regulate this or legislate that, but every government action has unintended consequences which are often worse than the problem they were trying to solve. Very often, it is better to let the market solve a problem than to try to legislate a solution which may not work as intended.

Case in point: corn ethanol subsidies slow the development of better, more efficient biofuels, and raise the cost of food. Rent control results in higher rents, not lower. Federal aid for college students raises the cost of tuition. Raising minimum wage increases unemployment. Urban planning results in increased traffic and congestion.

Government can often serve us best by leaving us alone.