AuthenticAuthor Regular member Location: Canutillo, TX Last login: 03/10/10 RSS feed
Where to begin? I was born in El Paso, then moved around many states until I eventually moved back here, where I graduated from UTEP with a B.A. in Criminal Justice.
During my studies, and being seriously interested in issues of Justice, I was greatly influenced by Ron Paul's campaign and eventually decided to do more research into Economics on my own free time. I'm a science-fiction writer, a computer nerd and am somewhat of an introvert.
Please bare with me. The title says it all, and I had to get this off my chest.
Recently, I attended one of my local churches in my area to see a public meeting between members of a particular religious political organization (let's call it B.I.), which is formed from representatives from multiple religions across our state, and candidates for various government offices. At first, I was hopeful and a little excited; I had been looking forward to hearing what the candidates had to say, and to hopefully pose questions of my own. Even though at heart I knew I wouldn't touch any of the candidates with a ten foot pole, and already was disappointed at how a church was hosting the event, I at least felt that this was an opportunity to learn from and perhaps share in a gauntlet of sorts for "public service". After all, B.I. wanted these candidates to be "committed" to issues of Justice.
A few minutes later, and I found that the gauntlet was really a publicity stunt for B.I. and the candidates themselves. No questions were allowed from the audience whatsoever. Instead, the candidates were previously given a handful of questions a week ago by a committee of sorts (made of persons whom I never met) from B.I., and were expected to give their answers in this public forum. Correction, public stage, because in a theater the audience is not allowed to interject and the script has already been formed, correct?
To add insult to injury, most of the questions were about whether any of the candidates would push for more funding toward B.I.'s primary initiatives, be it more money for public schooling or guaranteed loans for prospective college students. Now that I recall, it was the same case the LAST time such a meeting took place! Of course, all of the candidates, with one exception, voiced their support. And why not? There were 300+ people in the church at the time, each individually a potential vote in the pocket along with far more potential votes when those said people share their experiences with friends, family, etc.
On the other hand, I did agree with B.I.'s position against immigration laws and emphasis on local pollution, since both issues had to do with the spirit of private property in Libertarianism. Not that the same reason was shared by everyone else of course.
In fact, Liberty and Property Rights were far from the real motivations behind this sham. It was about who would sucker to B.I.'s points while the Church officials remained "neutral" with respect to each candidate. In the end, everyone knew which candidates were being pushed for and that, come the next day or week, B.I. will emphasize the same points of that meeting through their religious leaders and let church goers line the dots.
Needless to say, I am angry. Not only angry at the two-faced agenda of B.I. to protect locals from government while milking neighbors outside the community through government (and they wonder why immigrants are unfairly connected with freeloader welfare programs!), but also furious at the incredible hypocrisy there apparently exists between most Churches' doctrines and their politics. In between calls to halt needless death and theft, there will be calls to continue both in one form or another, implicitly or explicitly. Abortion is evil but war is good. Theft is evil but taxation is the law. I could go on.
It doesn't help that when it comes to issues of Economics, the consequences of state intervention are not even brought up. It also doesn't help when the tax-excempt status of most churches incentivises them to shut up when it comes to pointing out the obvious about a candidate, policy or official of any sort, and to play nice to them in order to get free money in the future. That one really gets to me.
Mind you, I'm not trying to bash religion in general. I'm a Catholic after all, and there are many things about my religion that I am proud of, such as charity events, mass, and its theology. But these things make me proud because they emphasize love and respect between me, God, and my fellow man; in short they are consistent with my morals. The same could be said about Libertarianism (which, by the way, also appeals to people outside my religion), which is why I see nothing holy when there are conditions set forth by the State that make the relationship between power and religion a cozy one.
Neither do I find holy when members of religion make offerings to the State. It is nihilist at best.
According to the Constitution, the government had no business in religion. The government cannot choose what religion you should be. The church and the state has no need for each other. Religion is a individual thing, not the government.
Just recently, the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset versus the RIAA has taken a turn for the worse; a retrial of her position has resulted in the jury members favoring the plaintiff, and fining her $80,000 per distributed song. Since she was sued for infringing upon the copyrights of 24 songs, that is a total of $1,920,000.
Aint America wonderful?
Putting aside questions of whether she actually did do something illegal, is distributing a song really the same as stealing $80,000? The argument for an "intellectual property right" either assumes that ideas are scarce commodities and/or that the authors of such things have a right to be rewarded whenever someone shares them. The former clearly does not make much sense since the things in question multiply rather than diminish when shared; "stealing" by definition means that someone must have lost something to someone else. One could point out that copying debases the market value of certain information, yet no one has a right to a certain market value of their product anyway. By that argument, distributing seeds to your fellow farmers would wrong their competitors, even though it strengthens the production and trade of wheat for all.
Whereas the former assumption is nonsensical, the latter infringes upon the property rights of everyone else. Contrary to what others may think, computers don't "download" information the same way you transfer liquid from one bottle to another. Instead, their hardware at a literal atomic level (electronic level to be precise) is aligned in such as way as to match whatever input it receives from a source. Thus, digital sharing is a lot like letting someone take a picture of something of yours. That is the beauty of the digital realm; no one can lose what they share. Very few things are "original", if any exist at all that is. Sadly, proponents of copywrite laws do not seem to understand or admit the blatant infringement of property rights that their position necessarily requires. Whenever someone declares that a certain peaceful use of your property is punishable with a fine, It is an act of extortion.
Under Federal law, a defendant could be fined up to $150,000 per infringement under the Copyright Act. In the first trial, Jammie got off lucky with a $222,000 fine, so she could had settled then. Of course, that would had meant facing a crippling punishment anyway. No one could rationally fault her for fighting on, yet there are those who do so nonetheless. One has to admit at least that the Act is excessive, if not unconstitutional. What about the right against cruel and unusual punishment? If you ask me, it's an insult after injury no matter how you look at it.
Fear mongering is very profitable, and easy. All you have to do is demonstrate that:
A) Something is very dangerous to people.
B) You are relevant and can help prevent that something from happening.
C) You are worth the cost, specifically tax payer money.
After that, your business is assured as long as you recycle the process when public interest in you dies down. This principle applies to virtually every government agency totally dependent on taxes, from the Pentagon to the Drug Enforcement Agency, even the Center for Disease Control. And the C.D.C.'s newest and engrossing performance is the focus of this article. The Swine Flu is promised to be a showstopper.
It's Just A Cough!
So, is the swine flu as dangerous as what the C.D.C. makes it out to be? Let's check it out from their official website:
How serious is swine flu infection? Like seasonal flu, swine flu in humans can vary in severity from mild to severe. Between 2005 until January 2009, 12 human cases of swine flu were detected in the U.S. with no deaths occurring. However, swine flu infection can be serious. In September 1988, a previously healthy 32-year-old pregnant woman in Wisconsin was hospitalized for pneumonia after being infected with swine flu and died 8 days later. A swine flu outbreak in Fort Dix, New Jersey occurred in 1976 that caused more than 200 cases with serious illness in several people and one death.
Putting my great knowledge of Math to work, the death rate of the New Jersey case was at best 1/201. So, in a current population of 300,000,000 people in the U.S. as a whole, this new case could, theoretically, amount to 1,492,538 casualties (rounded upward), assuming everyone lived in something like New Jersey and all got sick. Scared yet? Of course, that death toll, based on the N.J. case, would be about .005% of the entire affected population. So we can be assured that humanity, on the basis of that case alone, would live on. And yes, on that case alone, you would most likely survive.
But wait! This is supposed to be a serious epidemic right? Perhaps this strain is deadlier than ever before! Let's check the C.D.C. again for the latest case numbers to date:
U.S. Human Cases of Swine Flu Infection (As of April 27, 2009 1:00 PM ET) State # of laboratory confirmed cases:
California 7 cases Kansas 2 cases New York City 28 cases Ohio 1 case Texas 2 cases
Hmmm, this ain't no Black Plague, which is historically known to have reduced roughly a third of Europe to body-piles, or even the Spanish Flu, which apparently had a much better mortality rate than this doom-bringer wannabe. Notice how we have no deaths in the U.S. (at least not yet!). Something tells me that I should fear Turburculosis or Malaria more so than the Swine Flu.
But, I'm going to be fair here. The World Health Organization claims that in Mexico's capital, 854 cases of "influenza-like" illnesses were reported with 59 of those sick now dead. In San Luis Potosi, 24 I.L.L. were reported sick with 3 dead. Now it gets interesting, for it begs the question, "Why such a huge death rate in Mexico, if these were indeed Swine Flu cases?".
This is only speculation, but I'd venture to guess that other more important factors played a role in those illnesses. Last year, Mexico City was dubbed Forbes's 5th dirtiest city in the world. San Luis Potosi, I suspect, probably has its share of pollution too. And this is beside the other factors concerning health care availability and poverty. Needless to say, Americans are better off in both arenas than Mexicans.
Did I mention these were classified as "influenza-like" illnesses?
The Greatest Disease, And It's Not Swine Flu
The C.D.C., once again, has failed to convince me that there is a genuine threat to the nation other than itself. And once again, my corruption-senses are tingling. Major pharmacutical interests are at stake here in the newest microbial craze. The C.D.C. recommends, yet claims it isn't "endorsing", Tamiflu and Relenza for purposes of combating this invisible critter. You can bet that company investors will be absolutely bonkers over this news, and indeed they are. You can also bet that soviet-style flight restrictions and vaccinations will be suggested, if not mandated.
But is this all for the public good, right? Vaccines and medicines provided by the government have always been beneficial...right?
Well, it turns out that from many sources that it's not always the case. In 2003 United Press International reporter Mark Benjamin reported how C.D.C. recommended vaccines can sometimes have adverse effects, and may contribute to long-term debilitations. Such stories have already led to an increasingly growing amount of distrust over the C.D.C.'s apparent conflicts of interest, as presented in an article by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos of FOX News in 2006. Chances are that today the C.D.C. is actively planning to avoid any mention of those past faux pas in pursuit of more grandiose operations.
Is there an alternative to the C.D.C.? Of course there is. It's Liberty. People can take care of themselves and others without centralized planning. Take a read of Robert P. Murphy's How The Free Market Would Handle Quarantines or Timothy D. Terrell's A Pox On Government Vaccines! for starters. The truth is that free markets provide all sorts of services and products to the average sick consumer, from ultra air-filters to alcohol gels to allergy medication. At the same time, property rights allow individuals to manage the contacts they have within their own establishment, and manage how their property comes in contact with others. Compared to this, the C.D.C. is like a dog barking at nothing and yet everything, always ready to grab attention whenever its owners wonder why they kept it in the first place.
Better yet, it's like a noisy swine feeding upon the public trough. If we would just let it die by its own natural disease, we would all be better off.
About the Author: I am a graduate from the University of Texas at El Paso majoring in Criminal Justice, a student of Economics, a Libertarian, a member of the Campaign for Liberty, and a science fiction writer. I can be emailed at dbwcrimjust@yahoo.com.
I'm not yet convinced this is the next "big one", but who knows. Interesting side note, Obama was in Mexico Saturday. Check out my blog from almost 2 months ago about vaccines being used as biological weapons if you want.
A recent article from the Associated Press denotes Obama's reluctance to loosen government restrictions on antitrust laws across the U.S.. Of course, the the President is not Congress, but oh well! To the public, when it comes to government a greater concentration of power is good. Yet when it comes to free enterprise, greater mutual cooperation between businesses is bad. Hmmm.
Newspapers, however rare and financially weak, can adapt and ultimately conquer the threat posed by the Internet, the Justice Department's Carl Shapiro told a House panel.
"We do not believe any new exemptions for newspapers are necessary," said Shapiro, an assistant attorney general for economics.
Continued later...
Still, Shapiro said Tuesday that any new antitrust exemptions for newspapers were "not the way to go." The Justice Department, he said, will weigh each merger proposal individually to determine if it would substantially harm competition and consumers.
Just who is Carl Shapiro, besides being the Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division in the U.S. Department of Justice? From what I can tell by his speech on “Antitrust in Network Industries” he is a man of contradictions, especially considering that it was spoken before the American Bar Association! You can just imagine a muffled trumpet playing in the background at this bizarre situation.
But let's move on. What can we learn from Shapiro's speech? He firmly believes that government intervention can tweak the economy to get the best of both competition and innovation. That sounds like a very noble pursuit but the problem with Shapiro's logic lies in his conclusion that there are times and industries where this is both necessary and justified. In truth, however, it's never necessary or justified.
As I hope to make clear today, the mere fact that many of these industries are highly dynamic, and are experiencing rapid technological change, hardly implies that antitrust enforcers should sit on the sidelines, watching firms engage in technology and standards battles. To the contrary, our job is to ensure that incumbent firms do not use their power to block technological progress. At the same time, we must be careful not to impose any drag on the healthy competitive dynamic that prevails in many network industries. -Shapiro
What power was Carl talking about? Gee, what possible threat could this power present? Well, it turns out it's the sort of evil that can be best understood in his “Parable” of the imaginary ZipGrapher program, which seems rather silly in light of the fact that every clever, reasonable and voluntary act he describes makes business growth possible and beneficial to society as a whole:
So, even while you work tirelessly to improve your product, in no small part to drive upgrade sales, the very tactics that worried you when you were first getting started now begin to seem rather appealing. You are tempted to warn consumers of the dangers of switching to the new, incompatible HyperGrapher program. You are tempted to transform your intellectual property into a strategic advantage by blocking HyperGrapher from achieving full compatibility with ZipGrapher. You are tempted to tell consumers in advance when you are getting ready to introduce a new version of ZipGrapher. You are tempted to launch a "Come Back Home" campaign offering the latest version of ZipGrapher at rock-bottom prices to users who have recently tried HyperGrapher.- Shapiro
Nowhere does this story include complaints from consumers about all this, who he admits would win from innovation and marketing. Oh yes, “tempted” indeed! How evil of successful entrepreneurs to outdo their competitors, and provide consumers with cheaper products in which they can use their savings for more productive purposes later! The irony is that the real powers of businesses are limited to their own property, whereas the power that Shapiro holds is over everyone else's.
Shapiro argues that trusts reduce competition and degrade the quality of their products and services, whereas antitrust law serves to do the opposite:
Most on point was Carl Shapiro, a deputy assistant attorney general comprising a panel of one. Acknowledging that newspapers are facing "significant pressures," Shapiro noted that antitrust enforcement exists to promote competition and innovation -- which, indeed, is now occurring within the newspaper industry, "with different participants adopting different strategies for survival and success.”
If competition and innovation are so good (and they are), I would think we wouldn't be punishing companies for being successful. What kind of message does that send to competitors who wish to grow so that they may compete more effectively? What does it say to those who wish to improve upon their methods of production, to be more efficient, so that they me one day be big? What does it mean for the company that was broken up over an arbitrary definition of size and scope? Finally, what does it mean to anyone who gives a damn about property rights? The answer to all four questions is this: “It's better to be a thief than an entrepreneur.”
So, what does this have to do with newspapers anyway? If newspapers seek to join forces in order to provide more marketable products to attract customers away from the internet, what is the big deal? Sounds to me like it's competition and innovation being reshaped and reborn under necessary circumstances. It's really nothing, unless the arm of the law gets involved. In fact, the law shouldn't be involved, period! And the same goes toward every other peaceful business agreement.
To those who fear free market mergers, I would suggest reading Sudha Shenoy's “The Sources of Monopoly” and Hans Sennholz's “The Phantom Called Monopoly”. Both authors effectively dismantle the standard objections to the freedom to grow big. I especially recommend them to Carl Shapiro, who of all people should fear Government instead of voluntary exchange.
About the Author: I am a graduate from the University of Texas at El Paso majoring in Criminal Justice, a student of Economics, a Libertarian, a member of the Campaign for Liberty, and a science-fiction writer. I can be e-mailed at dbwcrimjust@yahoo.com.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
