Give Me Liberty

Here’s a simple quiz that might be a real eye-opener for those of us who don’t often consider the question.

1. Do you believe that education is extremely important, both for our children and for “society”?

I certainly do (and in the interest of full disclosure, I attended government schools exclusively, including several state universities).

2. Do you believe that socialism/communism/facism offers a viable economic system for any society?

Some folks apparently do, although the 20th century (or as I like to call it, the Century of Socialism) certainly saw such systems fail categorically, across cultures, nationalities and socio-economic circumstances. And that’s not to mention the over 100 million souls murdered for the “greater good”.

3. Finally, based on your answers to 1. and 2. above, please explain (in 2 words or less) how it is that the largest and most successful economy in the world, based on free market capitalism, insists on educating its children in schools owned by the government (pure socialism), funded on the basis of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (pure communism), and enforced by compulsory attendance (pure facism).

I can’t.

Dennis Byrne had a column in the Chicago Tribune this morning entitled “Keep Kids in School”. (Read it here) He was challenging the protest being waged by Rev. James Meeks against supposed disparities in the funding between Chicago Public Schools and suburban school districts. While I agree with Mr. Byrne that the protest is ill conceived, I don’t even come close to agreeing with his proposed solution, that “truant officers ought to round them up and take them back to school where they belong”. Since when did the government become the owner of our children? Unfortunately Mr. Byrne appears to be just another compliant, brain-washed product of our socialist “public” school system. He automatically accepts that our children “belong” in public schools, no matter how dysfunctional, ineffective and crime-ridden those schools might be.

If polled, I think that the vast majority of Americans would say that socialism is a failed economic system, with no hope of ever succeeding. Yet asked if children should be sent to “public” schools, a similar majority would probably say “yes”. Why the disconnect? Our public school system is completely socialist, pure and simple. As such, it cannot possibly succeed in providing a quality education to our children. Yet like Mr. Byrne, we are almost all products of that system, which has been with us so long that we no longer question it.

The answer is not protesting the higher amounts spent on students in suburban schools. Quite frankly, the lower amount spent in the city schools is still substantially higher than the cost at which private schools could provide a much higher quality of education. I don’t claim to know how to run a school, but then I’m not a central planner, so I don’t need to. Like Mr. Byrne, I am a firm believer in the value of education. But I have complete confidence that private schools, competing for our tuition dollars in a free market, could quickly replace our current socialist system with far better schooling at much lower cost.

This is not a book review, because I wouldn’t want to spoil the ending. Michael Crichton is, after all, a master story teller (The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, etc.), and this one is just as exciting. But it’s the factual background research worked into the story that makes this one an absolute “must read” for anyone who has ever heard the term “global warming”. Without detracting from the excitement of the story, Mr. Crichton conveys more factual information on the subject than you’ll ever see in the main stream media, and puts it into a much more realistic perspective.

He also makes some useful observations about the state of the debate, a couple of which I’ll repeat here:

* We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

* I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.

You can find other interesting insights from Mr. Crichton on his website. In particular, check out his comments on complexity theory, which inspired State of Fear.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
-1st line of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

“Religious beliefs and practices must be respected, but only so far as they abide by state and federal laws.”
-The Washington Post, June 6, 2008

If you can reconcile these two statements, you’re cleverer than I. The Washington Post made this statement at the end of an editorial (here) defending the seizure of 468 children by Texas law enforcement officials in April. The state purportedly acted on a single tip from a 16 year old girl, a tip that ultimately proved to be bogus. Thankfully, it didn’t turn out like Waco this time, but 468 children? The Post is certainly correct in stating that had they not acted, the officials would have faced harsh criticism. But overreaction also deserves harsh criticism.

Only in a fascist state could mass kidnapping be equated with “protecting the children”. I am no fan of religious cults, but judging from the muted response by the main stream media, including editorials like this one, who are we? When I went to law school, the Constitution trumped state and federal laws. According to The Washington Post, that is no longer the case.

In an excellent column on global warming, Charles Krauthammer puts the “cap and trade” debate into much better perspective than we usually get from the mainstream media. Environmental activists would have us accept that “the debate is over”, but as Krauthammer points out, Newton’s Laws of Motion stood up for over 200 years, until they were proven wrong by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. And climate is far more complex and less understood than Newton’s Laws. So before we destroy our own economy, and trap billions of third world citizens in continuing poverty, let’s make sure there will be a corresponding benefit. Cap and trade has been a complete failure in Europe, and the environmentalists’s own studies show only a minimal reduction in global temperatures even if carbon emissions were reduced to ZERO! And remember that scientists were still warning us of the coming Ice Age in 1977, 8 years after temperatures bottomed (in 1969) and reversed their 35 year cooling trend. We’re now 10 years past the warming peak in 1998, so it’s about time we reconize the hoax for what it is.

Yesterday Robert Crandall, former chairman of American Airlines, appeared on CNBC (see it here) to advocate federal regulation of the airline industry. He also wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times on the subject. Mr. Crandall is old enough to remember when airlines were regulated before, and despite his own successes under deregulation, he obviously remembers them as the good old days.

He spoke lucidly, showing no signs of senility, but his logic left me puzzled to say the least. He first pointed out that the airlines had difficulty making money when oil was $10/barrel, and still have difficulty when it is $117/barrel, so that wasn’t his reason. He pointed out that the air traffic control system is seriously inadequate, using outdated technology, and Congress was unable to agree on how to fund improvements. He then expanded his scope by pointing out that our highway infrastructure is a disaster, bridges are falling down, and we don’t have a rail system worthy of the name. His solution? The federal government needs to step up and do some serious “planning”.

Never mind that central planning worked so exquisitely well for the Soviet Union, let me see if I can unravel his logic. The air traffic control system (still run by the federal government) has major problems. The highway system (socialized for at least as long as Mr. Crandall can remember) is crumbling. And the ineffective rail system, called Amtrak, has been subsidized by the federal government for years. Obviously, therefore, if it’s hard for the airlines to make a profit in a “free” market, that same federal government should take over!

At least Mr. Crandall’s memory is not faulty. In his “good old days” of airline regulation, they did make a profit. Fares were outrageous, service was atrocious, and unprofitable routes were heavily subsidized, but airline managers could be fat, dumb, and happy and still make a profit. What Mr. Crandall is asking for is known as “rent-seeking”. Just like the electric utilities 100 years ago, Mr. Crandall has realized that competition is tough. Corporate welfare and protectionist legislation make life much easier - at least for industry fat cats. But as a passenger, I’d much rather let the airlines compete for my business.

As for the rest of our transportation woes, why don’t we fire the failures, instead of raising taxes and throwing good money after bad? Privatize air traffic control, airport operations, and especially that abominable TSA. Sell off the highway system - privatized toll roads are showing great promise. Finally, quit propping up Amtrak, and let the industry figure out how to run a railroad.

Some interesting points came out of the Clintons’ recently released tax returns. For example, they deducted over $10 million in charitable contributions. Sounds philanthropic, except that most of the money went to the Clinton Family Foundation. The Foundation has apparently disbursed only half of the money, and some of that appears to have been targeted to support Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Do you know what else would be interesting? How much of her campaign money has been paid to herself, Bill, or Chelsea, for campaigning? We already know that Bill is worth about $250,000 per appearance. The rich get richer by working hard and investing. Politicians get rich by talking about it.

Dennis Byrne’s column in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune (Feeling the Heat, Todd?) raised an interesting opportunity. Legally, it is possible for Illinois townships to secede from their counties, and given the shenanigans in Cook County government, I’m sure the idea might appeal to a number of townships there. The problem under current law is that voters across the entire county would have to approve the secession, and why would they vote to let others escape the misery that they cannot?

A bill in the legislature would allow the township to decide for itself on secession, without requiring the rest of the county to approve. Unfortunately, without strong citizen support, the bill is likely to die in committee. I think that many of us have a somewhat negative reaction to the idea of “secession”. We tend to think that the French Canadians in Quebec would be crazy to secede from Canada. And of course our own Abraham Lincoln took a dim view of the secession movement that led to the Civil War.

But let’s go back a little further in our history, to 1776. Our own Declaration of Independence was the ultimate secession document ever written, and probably marked the apex of freedom for all of humankind. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did not consult with the voters of England before declaring their independence from King George, so why should the voters of Palatine need to persuade the rest of Cook County before freeing themselves from His Majesty Todd Stroger?

The Revolutionary War should have established once and for all time the right of any people, aggrieved by their government, to secede and establish their independence. Even if we are quite content with our situations in Lake County, or DuPage County, or any other county, it’s our freedom too. If we don’t support the principle for our unfortunate brethren in Cook County, we are forsaking our own birthright as well. It would be hard to read the Declaration of Independence again and reach any other conclusion.

Just as the great global warming hoax appears to be unraveling (and I watch the snow piling up outside on the second day of Spring), the business community decides to jump on the bandwagon. Did you read about the Wall Street Journal conference last week? From what I’ve read, it sounded like hundreds of environmentalists and big business types getting together to figure out how to use big government to milk this fraud for all it’s worth.

The mainstream business community almost certainly realizes that the facts do not justify the catastrophic economic consequences being proposed. Yet some of them are all too willing to exploit the situation, in hopes of profiting from gullible politicians and government mismanagement. I spent thirty years in corporate America, fighting government regulation and taxation. Yes, government regulations do benefit some companies some of the time, but in the big picture, all companies, with the possible exception of defense contractors, are net losers to government regulation, as are we all as individuals, and the economy as a whole. The time for business to stand up to government, instead of getting in bed with it, is long overdue.

How much does it bother you that some State Department contract employees went snooping through Barack Obama’s passport file (and apparently Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s as well)? The news media are making a big deal about the potential for political “dirty tricks”. But it doesn’t seem to bother anybody that the State Department keeps such files on every private citizen with a passport! In the ’60’s, my generation took to the streets to protest FBI files kept on private citizens. Where is that indignation now? Why is Big Brother tracking our every move? Granted, they might need to keep a list of the passports they’ve issued, but every time you cross a border?! All they need is the civilian equivalent of “name, rank and serial number”, not a detailed history of our travels. My own file must be enormous, as I’ve filled over 200 passport pages with business travel. I wouldn’t care if it were published in the New York Times, but that’s not the point. The issue is not why somebody went snooping in Obama’s passport file; it’s why that file contained information making it interesting to do so.

Generally I am encouraged by our younger generation, especially when I see some of them distributing Ron Paul brochures outside Union Station. But when an outrage like the State Department keeping files on private citizens passes without comment, I am most disappointed.