A new name on my reading-list?

When I see a piece of text like this, I cannot help but to add to my bookmarks-list in my browser:

McKitrick has effectively laid down the gauntlet for both skeptics and alarmists by offering them a public policy proposal they both should be able to endorse, since both are convinced it will go their way. Only those of us who have independent moral and practical reasons for opposing any form of tax or subsidy whatsoever should have a good reason for not accepting the challenge.

My new bookmark? ClimateAudit.org An article to be read in my nearest future? Call their tax My favorite non-personal blog? The Mises Institute's one It's blog post behind this post? The T3 Tax: Laying Down the Gauntlet

Is Democracy a friend or a foe?

The introduction to the Cato Institute´s latest Policy Analysis - "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" - includes the following words:

Economic policy is the primary activity of the modern state. And if there is one thing that the public deeply misunderstands, it is economics. People do not grasp the "invisible hand" of the market, with its ability to harmonize private greed and the public interest. I call this anti-market bias. They underestimate the benefits of interaction with foreigners. I call this anti-foreign bias. They equate prosperity not with production, but with employment. I call this make-work bias. Finally, they are overly prone to think that economic conditions are bad and getting worse. I call this pessimistic bias.

I must say this is a good start, and I will have read the whole analysis soon.

But why this criticism of the holy grail, Democracy? Isn't there a "consensus" among all free people to hail democracy as the final solution to wars, suffering and poverty? Isn't democracy the solution to the problems of corruption and State oppression? Perhaps not.

I am a little surprised that the Cato Institute releases an open criticism of democracy. I am used to such criticism from the camp of Anti-Statists, for example the Mises Institute, especially Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed. Democracy is in many ways not any "better" or "worse" than any other statist tool to use the State to favor some at the expense of another. It is better than many tools because it includes the public to some extent to its own oppression, but worse in the way it makes people believe that someone else is doing all the paying and doing.

Cato's analysis will soon enough be read by me. Perhaps others who read this will do the same.

What do we know about climate changes?

The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions [for global warming] are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!

I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train, by David Evans.

The Lesson is: Abolish State subsidies!

When I read a story like this I can't help thinking: Thank god my attitude is towards freedom, and not towards statism.

Whatever is necessary

The environmentalists and their stooges in the media were not, and are not, concerned with logical consistency. That requires holding the context and making distinctions between different contexts. What they are concerned with is whatever can be used to strike fear in people: warming, freezing; flood, drought; it’s all the same. If it provokes fear, their tactic is to use it and play on it.

Quoted from Environmentalist Bugaboo Loses Support, by George Reisman.

Very few, if any, cut so easily through the environmentalist inconsistent incoherent apocalypse-propaganda and statist agenda than does George Reisman. The Right should give him some kind of reward for his non-stop battle against the ever-growing power of Green Socialism. Read this for example - very inspiring!

Is Global Warming a Religion?

Unlike most traditional religions that have historically been content to function without the strong arm of the state behind them, the global warmingists want to turn theirs into a state religion. In the very nature of human beings as producers of carbon dioxide, they have found an “original sin” to be eradicated. [...] I suspect that their version of the “Ten Commandments” greatly exceeds that number. - The Global Warming Jihad

Does this not make perfect sense? Those who cast doubt on the "human induced global warming" meet intense criticism, much more intense and widespread than those who promote the agenda of man-made Apocalypse. Those who call for the destruction of human life and well-being are tolerated, even respected, and their word gets the positive attention of many.

Or so i see it.

Not to say that criticism is a bad thing. In fact, in the field of science it is a crucial thing. As a rule of thumb, as soon as anything reaches a "consensus" (like the propaganda/religion of human-induced global warming has via the IPCC and others), it is not very unlikely that it is further from the truth than anything under dispute. Newton was superseded by Einstein, who again is being challenged with new theories. Darwin's theory of evolution enjoys great popularity, but his theory of evolution remains just that - a theory. The same can be said about the human-induced global warming theory.

Nevertheless I tend to lean towards the attitude of Mr. Reisman an others and say that if and even though mankind is having a significant impact on Earth's climate, then this is not a reason to fear, because CO2 is a byproduct of capitalism and industrialisation, just like wealth and welfare of mankind. So what if Siberia grows a littler warmer and Sahara a little dryer? As long as mankind benefits, this is a small price to pay.

Greed is good

"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for a lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its forms. Greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked an upward surge of mankind, and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
- Gordon Gekko, in the movie Wall Street

Gordon Gekko is surely one of my all time favorite movie characters. He hits the spot with his greed-speech, in a way that is hard to deny (giving a certain ability to think rationally).

It seems strange to make a movie character speak with such economic wisdom, clarity and rationality in one scene, and then say some complete nonsense a little later in the movie, like his following words about the capitalist free-market: "Its a zero sum game. Somebody wins, somebody looses." Here he says something that couldn't be further from the truth! The free market is not a zero sum game, not by a long-shot! It's the very opposite. It's the expansion of the cake, not the division of it. Politics is the division of the cake. Perhaps Oliver Stone got confused?

Nevertheless, I strongly recommend that everyone watch Gordon Gekko's speech about greed and get inspired!

Lets do nothing

I am not the biggest fan of weather forecasts. I will observe them from day to day to see if I should wear my big winter jacket or my small summer jacket the following day, but that's about it. But I will quote those who say that doing "something" about the weather is a hopeless quest:

It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, especially on winter's coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed. ... However, actually 'doing something' about warming is a daunting endeavor. The journal Geophysical Research Letters estimated in 1997 that if every nation on Earth lived up to the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, it would prevent no more than 0.126 degrees F of warming every 50 years. Global temperature varies by more than that from year to year, so that's not even enough to measure. Climatically, Kyoto would do nothing. (#)

So what if humans are having an impact on global climate? So are animals that die and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So are volcanoes that erupt. So is the sun that varies in energy release all the time. Humans need energy to continue raising their standard of living. If this need for energy changes the climate, so be it! I am anti-green because I am pro-human. That pretty much sums it up for me, and no fooling around with temperature records will change that.

Insightful thinking

Often the most insightful thinking can be found in the most secret and hidden of places. Not so say that anything is being hidden on purpose, but rather that something can be found only after doing a little digging.

An example is found here, in a comment to an entry on the Mises Economics Blog:

The turning point in the global warming debate will come in about 10-20 years when the weather is observed to be the same as it is today for all practical purposes. Then we will stop worrying about actively doing anything to stop CO2 increase. In the interim, we will actually do nothing about it. How do I know we will do nothing? I only have to observe how angry people get about high gasoline prices.

Oh so true! People, who during their daytime job (as Leftist public opinion analyzers) complain about gasoline prices, write articles and reports every day, saying that man should reduce its energy consumption for the sake of reducing energy generation. Is that not some kind kind of hypocrisy? I can't see how not.

Another comment on the same post is a long speech about the great wonders of nanotechnology and its ability to greatly increase energy generation using solar power (vastly superior to the modern day, space demanding solar panels).

We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells.

If these words are correct, this will mean one thing, and one thing only: Entrepreneurs will pump money into this new, superior way of generating energy, and eliminate all competition from companies who depend on expensive and risky oil-drilling methods, at best an extension of a principle of putting a hollow metal object in the ground where oil is located. The market will soon put the these words to the test. No other action is needed, let alone government action!

Magnificent speech!

I must encourage everyone to see (and hear) this speech! It is truly an inspiration to anyone who believes in liberty and opposes State coercion and violence! Full text here. Enjoy! I know you will!

"The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan!"

Why the hide and seek?

Those who strain themselves to give taxation a moral character are under obligation to explain the state's preoccupation with hiding taxes in the price of goods. (#)

Yes, indeed they are! But they won't. They won't try to justify taxes on goods, because people assume goods are taxed. Once you don't have to justify why you are beating the person, because the person has gotten used to the beating, you won't!

The politically challenged employee

Why does the federal government so consistently fail to carry out even its most basic and necessary functions? Why is it that Wal-Mart can get supplies to Katrina victims days ahead of FEMA? Why do private veterans hospitals provide top-notch care, while government run facilities like Walter Reed fester? Simple. They have better administrators. Why are their administrators and managers better? Because they aren't hamstrung by politics, and constantly changing priorities. Think about how difficult it must be to be a government bureaucrat. For four years, you're told to do things one way, then four years later, you must do things entirely differently. Your priorities, goals, and methods are always in flux. Is it any wonder why bureaucrats get such a bad name? (#)

This is a point that is never made too often. It is not just that public officials, contrast to private employers and employees, are protected from competition and sheltered behind a thick wall of regulations and laws. It is also their great curse to have shifting managers that have to dance the political dance to get themselves anywhere in their job. Imagine a company that one day decides to follow some kind of Lean-method, and changes the whole structure of the company to meet its principles. Imagine that the next day, Lean is no longer the goal, but some entirely different approach. How will this company succeed? How will it satisfy its clients? It won't. It will waste resources and time and slip into bankruptcy. Why this hasn't happened to any public agency is no mystery. Taxes and regulations sustain the unsustainable. This is why a private company will always outperform the public, political one.

The Filthy Environmentalist?

A friend of mine, a single young male living alone, once told me that sometimes he didn't bother to do the dishes. He could usually find a plate and a glass that were "clean enough" to eat of and drink out of. He wasn't making any special point by telling me this. I too am a single young male living alone and I know this approach to dirty dishes and glasses all too well.

However, there could perhaps be a message in all of this. What do we need to wash our plates and glasses? We need running water, soap, a plastic brush, and access to a sewer. The water comes from the ground (in our case), the soap comes from a chemical factory, the plastic brush is made up of oil and usually some colur-chemical, and the sewer leads to the ocean where it dispense of all the soap and the food-leftovers from the dish.

In other words; washing the dishes and glasses is very "bad" for the environment.

Then would not a Leftist-Green person celebrate the filthy lifestyles of me and my friend? Would they not compliment us for using less resources and pumping fewer chemicals into the ocean? He should, compared to his general philosophy of life. He should compliment people who don't wash their clothes, don't shower, don't do the dishes and don't buy chemicals and plastic brushes.

The fact is, of course, that Leftist-environmentalism is a philosophy of filth and human misery. It damns all which uses natural resources and leads to disposal of foreign agents into the nature. It celebrates that which preserves nature in its current state. It attacks the lifestyles of the clean and celebrates the lifestyles of the filthy.

I guess that is why many people who say they are Leftist-Green ignore themselves so much harder when they travel the world in private planes, wearing clean cotton shirts, silk ties and shiny leather shoes, just after eating of clean dishes and drinking from sparkling glasses.

The Libertarian Persuasion Problem

The persuasion problem of the libertarian, free-market, anti-state cause is an interesting one. The libertarian is usually forced to argue for something that is not the present state of things today. The libertarian must persuade his opponent that the State should liberalise, privatize, lower taxes and de-regulate. The opponent is usually supportive of the status quo, and will demand that he is convinced of changing his mind, and focuses much less on argumenting for the the status quo. Who, for example, has heard good, general arguments for State-run police, other than that it must be State-run or no police will exist at all? My guess is very few, and for good reason, because no good logic exists!

This means that the libertarian is forced to sit in the chair of the prophet - the oracle - who tells the future and how things will become. This is troublesome. What will happen if the State abolishes State-run police or education? Will children become educated? Will private property owners get protection from thieves and other criminals? This is an argumenting problem that very difficult to solve. No-one can really tell the future. This, however, is what is demanded of those who promote free markets and a smaller State.

Of course, one could turn to history and describe the function of previous market-solutions to nowadays-State run "problems", or find mini-examples of a private enterprise that simulates some of the functions of the State today. Although I see the light in this kind of argumentation, I don't find it very convincing. The average person will tend to see the good sides of the status quo - the situation as it is today and just needs minor corrections to become perfect - rather than thinking in terms of sound logic and reason. No-one can tell the future, so why risk dramatic change?

The Libertarian Persuasion Problem is not an easy one to crack. It seems it has to be solved in small steps, like a finite element problem, where each connection is explained in simple language, and then applied to the big problem. To explain the total function of a completely free society is not a practical method in the general discussion, although useful in internal discussion between libertarians and in discussion with those who are beginning to see the big picture, but haven't made it all the way.

My kind of Just-in-case!

Whether global warming comes or not, it is certain that nature itself will sooner or later produce major changes in the climate. To deal with those changes and virtually all other changes arising from whatever cause, man absolutely requires individual freedom, science, and technology. In a word, he requires the industrial civilization constituted by capitalism.

The Toxicity of Environmentalism is truly an inspiring piece of writing. The above statement says it all, and serves as a useful reply to the Leftist-greenie "we should abandon the modern society for the sake of possible human-induced global warming" with a more appealing way of thinking, namely:

Just in case global warming (or cooling, or whatever) is on the way, we should endorse free markets, liberty and economic growth, because rich people can better adjust to changes in the state of nature.

So, for the case of argument, we assume that drastic changes in the climate are around the corner (be it natural or not), and realize that the best way to tackle those changes is to become wealthier and healthier and better prepared for whatever is at hand!

Just in case what?

Now that science, reason and logic has left the climate change debate, one thing stands behind: The Just In Case (JIC) argument. Its core and soul is that mankind must cut his use of carbon based fuel drastically down. If that isn't done, men will "tip the ice" of drastic human-induced climate change that will lead to famine, droughts, floods, freezing, drying, rising ocean levels, more hurricanes and what else there is that is bad and can be blamed on mankind.

This is just about the only "climate science" left in the debate. The numbers show nothing of interest: A slow and steady increase in temperature, measured in points of degrees for each decade. A swinging number of hurricanes, falling nicely into a pattern of at least 50 years of varying hurricane-frequency. Ever-shifting ice on the poles, where ice is somewhere on the run and somewhere gaining ground. Shifting solar spot activity, often matching a change in temperature but sometimes not. The examples are endless and conclude nothing, which would in any case not make any difference, because hundreds of millions of people rising out of poverty is far more important than hundreds of millions being kept there, and rich people can adapt to anything much more easily than poor people.

So we have the JIC-argument standing alone behind as a useful tool to influence the way people think about the climate and its ever-changing nature. The JIC-argument is the core feature of the recent Oscar-winning propaganda-film, "An Inconvenient Truth", and of the famous report sponsored by the climate-alarmist Tony Blair's government, "The Stern Report" (as it is known as). Thousands of reports and pamphlets are published to promote the JIC scenario, and more or less have one thing in common: The message that men must cut down on carbon based fuel consumption, or else!

Of course there are ways to do that, and the fact of the matter is that for the last decades, energy consumption of any kind has been on the run because of better technology and alternative sources of cheaper energy (nuclear, hydro power and so on). This trend will continue on the free market because fuel is expensive, and less use of it is cheaper than more! But this is neatly ignored, because action is needed "now" according to the JIC-alarmists, not in 10 years or 20 years.

So how to tackle this debate? An analogy comes to mind. How was the nature of Communism exposed to the public? Communists could for some years claim that communism is some kind of science - that Karl Marx and his followers had somehow managed to create a system of thought that was consistent with reality and could be implemented in a human society. This myth was exposed, but it took time and energy. Decades went between the earliest predictions of the Soviet collapse (such as these), until the collapse finally took place. By then, everyone knew what communism really stood for. Will it take decades to expose the JIC-alarmists, and will we have suffered greatly in material well-being and standards of living by then, while hundreds of millions of people still live in desperate poverty?

I truly hope that now when the science is out of the debate, and alone stands the weak argument of JIC, we will slowly but surely be able to stall all expansion of State-control and green taxing as much as possible, and hope that the coming of the next Ice Age will cool the global warming debate down (as it happens, the alarmists shift between the coming of the next global warming and global cooling period, thereby resetting the debate every 20 years or so). Is it enough to stall the statism of green State-expansion? Perhaps not. But for now, it seems to be the most practical thing to do in terms of effort and results.

Just in case?

A forgotten truth: "Real scientists understand uncertainty. Real science deals with uncertainty through relentless, skeptical inquiry. Real science resolves arguments not with consensus, but with data." (#)

This simple truth is forgotten today. Today we are either yes-sayers og no-sayers when it comes to many complicated, uncertain, evolving science, most notable the science of climate change (be it natural or man-induced, short-term or long-term).

Anti-state, pro-market and the world will make sense!

Being an anti-state, pro-market believer is a beautiful thing indeed. I'm not a "believer" in the sense that I accept religious sense philosophy - I didn't just read a book by some clever man who wrote a whole lot of "I think the State should.." or "I feel we should do this and that..", but a believer in the sense that I accept the existence of logic and reason (man), and hence the preachings of men like Ludwing von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block and the like. In other words: The message of the Mises Institute and the likes (for most part).

What is the anti-state, pro-market attitude? It is a one of reason and logic, that of acknowledging the self-ownership of individuals and hence their private property rigths, automatically meaning the denial of "public" ownership over individuals and their property.

How does this attitude simplify the world? First of all, it divides men into two types: Anti-state (anarcho-capitalist libertarians) and Statists (pro-State libertarians, anti-State socialists, and everything in between). A great majority of people fill the second group, and they waste their time discussing the pros and cons of different State-actions (wars, welfare-subsidies, taxation and so on). The exception is perhaps the anarchist Socialist, who does not approve of the State-apparatus, but denies human logic and reason. All others are stuck in a huge confusion of self-contradicting endless discussions about the acceptable role of the State.

What Statists fail to see that if a State is created, and it is allowed to perform actions while banning others from the same actions (taxation, monopoly of law-enforcement and dispute-solving), they have given up their self-ownership and private property rights. If you accept "some" loss of self-ownership, you have created a monster that will, if it can, swallow up the rest of it. Constraints are made on the State in most places (constitutions being the most popular one), but even though you chain down the dragon, the risk always exists that it will find the key to the lock or break free from it, and eventually fly over your village and burn it down.

Anti-state, pro-market attitude is a beautiful thing. Of course it creates a lot of irritation in a world of Statists, but contradictions and confusion is eliminated.

Do two individuals gain or loose rights by forming or living under the rule of a State?

I bumped into an interesting article the other day, on an Icelandic website called Vefritid.is (the humble name "The Web-magazine" in loose translation). The article is called "The rights of individuals and libertarianism" and discusses a seemingly obscure book-review by Thomas Nagel, who seems to be a philosopher who sometimes dips into the political debate. The book under review is the famous but fuzzy "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick.

According to the Icelandic article, Nagel's critic on Nozick attacks Nozick's claim that individuals have rights and those rights cannot be violated. Nagel's stand (according to the article, I repeat) is the following: "The fact that the rights of governments (!) are derived from the rights of individuals does not imply that we can find out about the rights of individuals without considering the State; this can be seen by the fact that since the properties of molecules rest on the properties of atoms does not mean that we can find out about the properties of atoms without studying molecules."

Amazing statement, but the argument doesn't end here. It goes into a Rawlsian mode where individuals don't have rights of their own, but rights derived from the kind of society we would "like" it to look like. In other words, rights of individuals derive from the rights of groups of individuals who in one way or another live under the rule of the State.

Of course it is always tempting to imagine how society "should" look like, for example by writing a book about some non-existing think-tank of human ghosts who own nothing (not even a body of their own) but have some kind of knowledge in economics and other science. But how does this shake the libertarian theory? It doesn't. It might make a dent in Robert Nozick's complicated, self-contradicting fuzzy-logic about the minimal state, but casts no shadow on a more robust and radical libertarian theory.

You are an individual who chose to read these few words without asking permission. You thereby took charge over your own body, and by doing so, and not physically subjecting other individuals to the same task, admitted your self-ownership of it. No smart philosopher can write you out of that stone-cold fact.

Doomsday, again?

Yesterday, the IPCC released its "[s]ummary for Policymakers of the first volume of “Climate Change 2007”, also known as the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)". Once again, doomsday is at hand, and once again, its because of actions of man.

The media will cover this well. Already, as a response to the (politically polluted) summary of the IPCC-report, big headlines in many newspapers have stated that man is destroying the climate of Earth with his fossil-burning activities. People get scared, understandably, and demand action from politicians. Politicians respond with increased State-control, more regulations and higher taxes. They grasp every opportunity they get to do that, and having the public on-board is certainly not making it harder.

Thankfully, there is a weak sound of logic and reason in the debate, although not as readily heard as the doomsday-stories. In that respect I must give a great applause for the work of the Cato institute. Two articles have already appeared on its website, New Climate for Global Energy Policy, and Live with Climate Change. They are a must read for the calm-headed, and I will do my best to spread them to those I think still have the ability to think sceptically about the coming of Doomsday.

Not to say that I am fully convinced that forecasting the weather for the next 100 years is anywhere near of being called a robust science, personally leaning towards attitudes like these, but any protest against the political correctness of the public climate change debate is better than none.