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.

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.

Following Earth Day last month, we were reminded of some of the outrageous predictions of the environmental crowd back in the late 1960s. I wrote about some of them here. Walter Williams’ article in The Charlotte Observer Saturday, False Prophets of Doom, points out a few more. For example, Paul Ehrlich, hero and mentor of none other than Al Gore, apparently said that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ouch!

Professor Williams provides some much needed perspective on the global warming issue, with a few simple facts. It’s too bad that our main stream media can’t use these facts to apply a little critical thinking to the more ridiculous claims of the alarmists.

1. “Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere.”

So at most, CO2 emissions make up less than 5% of greenhouse gases (and in fact, a lot less).

2. “Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.”

We were told in the 1970s that an 11 degree temperature reduction would bring on another Ice Age. Mankind could survive another Ice Age, but at zero degrees, Earth would be just another lifeless planet orbiting the sun.

3. “Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output.”

And how exactly do we propose to control the Earth’s orbit or the sun’s output?

4. “And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.”

Not to mention a good volcanic eruption, which probably dwarfs all human sources within its first few minutes.

In summary, we humans have developed a highly inflated opinion of our own importance on this planet. We live in big cities, so we assume the whole earth is crowded. Yes, we can damage our environment, but on balance, we do more good than harm. The “pristine environment” of our dreams never actually existed, Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. So the next time you hear predictions of impending doom, ask yourself this. Are these predictions any different than those of Paul Ehrlich in 1968, or Thomas Malthus in 1799? And are politicians today so much smarter that we should actually listen to them? The answer should be obvious.

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.