More Government Fraud In Green Ocean Energy?

For years I have wondered why we have not harnessed the energy in the oceans via their currents. Everybody knows that the potential energy in water far exceeds anything wind has to offer. Surely technology could advance in such a way that we could build some kind of turbine or perhaps something we have not even thought of as yet. Well, apparently, such technology has been advanced. Being a member of a utility company, I was given this article today. Read here for the full article.

In June, Ocean Power Technologies said it had successfully tested elements of its utility-scale PowerBuoy system in anticipation of bringing the initial phase of the project online later this year.

As envisioned, 10 buoys would be anchored to the ocean floor at depths of 204 to 225 feet. They would convert the movement of waves into electrical energy.

Now I was initially impressed. Using some kind of technology to convert motion into useable electrical energy, but then I read this.

“The 35-year term of the license demonstrates the commercial potential of wave power, and this will support initiatives to secure financing for the project,” he said in a statement.

Now the red flags go up. Secure financing for a project in the last century of great innovations & inventions would have meant private investments and risk from private citizens and companies. Not anymore. In today's "too big to fail" "no risk" mentality, this could only mean one source, and if it is from the government, then this technology is no better than wind. If you read this article, my suspicions have been half way vindicated.

This is one of the largest wave-energy projects announced to date, and leverages a grant from the Commonwealth of Australia.

Well, just read a few paragraphs more of the original article and see this.

The project will cost about $3.5 million a year to run, and produce about 4,140 megawatt-hours, enough for 375 homes, according to the company.

Now you may be thinking, "Wow! That's a lot of Mega-watts." But simply do the math that is not provided. The cost would be over $9,000 per year per household. Unless the average house they are speaking of is similar to Al Gore's...well...my electric bill may be high, but it is not that high. In fact, that would nearly quadruple my electric bill. Then again, for some people in New England or California, this may be the norm. But we live in an age of technology. Things should be getting cheaper, not more expensive.

To be fair, this is a short article and perhaps there is more information that is not stated. But just as burning corn is killing us in every way, and just as wind energy is a fraud, just as both are being subsidized, so this sounds like pure fraud. How else would this be affordable?

Well if you read this editorial, it turns out my red flags were spot on.

The regulatory process was only one hurdle. The development of wave power has been subsidized heavily by the state and federal governments. The company hopes that a utility eventually will finance or purchase the Reedsport project, but for now it remains an unproven technology.

Ta Da! "Subsidized heavily." Need I say more, but I will. The editorial goes on to say,

The project’s total capacity of 1.5 megawatts is relatively small — the Eugene Water & Electric Board’s Carmen-­Smith hydroelectric plant generates 72 times as much power — but the developer envisions expansion to 50 megawatts. If wave power proves commercially viable, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates wave sites have a total capacity of 2 trillion watts, or double the current world demand for electricity.

Wave power has significant advantages. The fuel is free, and it can be used to generate electricity with no carbon dioxide emissions. Wind power shares those advantages, but wind is more intermittent.

So my instincts were right. It is like wind. It produces nothing that we need, and the fuel is NOT FREE! like the bone head author thinks it is. This is yet another example of government fraud and corruption in which corporations rip off the tax-payer. True innovations come from the free-markets, not government frauds.

Freedom To Associate & Autonomous Freedom

I wanted to add a few thoughts to my brother's recent post concerning the "freedom of association".

We live in a day where we assume that the "state" must exist and must do so in the fashion of coercion. In other words, we simply assume that if we didn't have the state government that forces all people to accept its authority by aggression and threat of violence, then people would never get along.

But is it really the case that if it were not for coercion we would all splinter into chaos? I would beg to differ. I would like to use an example of Protestant churches. So many see Protestant denominationalism as chaotic. But is it really? Is this not merely the exercise of the freedom to associate? What if a local church changes it core beliefs over time and the problem goes beyond restoration to its original beliefs? What if several members of this local church decided to break fellowship and start a new church that is consistent with the original beliefs? Is this really so bad? If you disagree, how do you plan to keep those disaffected members? Do you plan to use coercion by force? A Centralized power, think the medieval church, would by necessity use coercion by threat of violence and would do so via government officials while standing by innocently.

Perhaps another example might be better. I am a member of a local hockey association. We have voluntarily joined a multi-state hockey association which is also a part of national hockey association. What if we decided as a local association to leave the multi-state association? Perhaps the national hockey association may put pressure on other local associations to not play hockey with us. Or perhaps they may try to use free-market principles to bring us back into their larger association by providing a better product?

So often I am told that if it were not for the monopoly of government we would not have roads or bridges, etc. The real argument is against "brute individualism". We just can't exist on our own. My response to this canard is simple. There is no such thing as autonomous individualism. We all exist within some kind of system to which we are bound in some way. So Libertarianism doesn't mean some kind of chaotic free-for-all. One of the facets of Libertarianism is that we are free to associate and disassociate and all the consequences that follow.

Let me offer another example. Say I live on top of a Mountain. In order to get supplies I have to pass over a grouchy old man's private property. Let's say the grouchy old man never lets anyone pass over his private property, at least not for a ridiculous fee. Therefore, I would not be autonomously free. I would have to make some kind of agreement with the grouchy old man. But what if the grouchy old man doesn't make any agreement? To assume that I may use government's threat of violence would violate the very freedom I claim to believe. It would be a self-contradiction. The grouchy old man morally does not have to agree with some government official telling him I must have freedom to travel over his land.

Now you may be wondering, did I change the subject? No. My point is simple. We have freedom, but those freedoms are based in a world that the Creator made, not in some chaotic autonomous world in which I live by myself. The old man has the right to his private property. He has the right to associate with whom he chooses. A monopolistic government clearly violates his fundamental right to secede or associate. Now this may not seem "fair" to some of you, but we are talking about reality, not some government mandated dream.

In the end, in order for the grouchy old man to succeed in life, he must provide something for his neighbors and his neighbors, including me, must do likewise. This is all part of the freedom of association.

Freedom of Association or Compulsory Servitude

States by their very nature are perpetually at war, not always against foreign foes of course, but always against their own subjects.

What is the state's most fundamental purpose? The activity that without, it can not even exist, is extortion!
The state gains its very sustenance from the proceeds of its extortion, which it pretties up by giving it a different name, called taxation, and by driving to sanctify its Intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary. State propaganda, statish ideologies, and long established routines combine to convince people that they have a legitimate obligation, even a moral duty to pay taxes to the state that rules their society.

They fall into such erroneous moral reasoning because they are told incessantly that the tribute they fork over is actually a kind of price paid for essential services rendered and that in case of certain services, such as protection from foreign and domestic, aggressors against their right to life, liberty and property, only the government can provide this service effectively.
They are not permitted to test this claim by resorting to competing suppliers of law, order and security, however, because the government enforces a monopoly over the production and distribution over its alleged services and brings violence to bear over its would be competitors. In so doing it reveals the fraud over its impudent claims and gives proof that it is not your genuine protector, but a mere protection racket!

All governments are, as they must be, Oligarchies! Where a relatively small number of people have discretion over how it's power will be brought to bear.

The free market however, is the opposite of a state. It is the system where the masses control all resources. Where the few entrepreneurs and capital holders must listen to the masses and figure out how to best serve them or they fail and disappear. It is a system where the men with means and ideas must serve mankind better than others. Constantly competing to serve others better, cheaper and more innovative and provide the best service, for if they don't, others will. They battle to bring you more for less. They battle to innovate at their own risk to serve you, to try and get your constantly wavering vote (your purchases) less they will loose their own money.

Which system do you want to live under?

The state?

Or the Free Market?

-- By Jim Fisher

Feel Better, But Not Really

So here is one of the new commercials against Mitt Romney. To be honest, I couldn't care less about Big Right-Wing Government Mitt Romney, but I think this ad is a great teachable moment. One of the first claims is that while we peons are srcummaging around looking for pennies on the floor just so we can eat, the rich are living life high on the hog. Therefore the rich are evil. Why? What is the logical correlation. Well, it's the same old haves verses have nots argument. It totally plays on the emotions without a single shred of rational thought.

If we squeezed every penny from the rich and gave it away, would that solve our economic problems? Nope, but you are made to think so.

So the next quick argument is the tax rate. The evil Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than you do. The ad is so insidious, you are made to feel you actually pay more real taxes than he does, which is absurd. Just look at the number they offer on the screen with rational thinking and you will see Mitt pays millions of dollars in taxes more than the average shlub (all the while Harry Reid says he didn't pay any taxes, which is it?).

Then we are told the rich are going to get even more money from the government because they will pay less in taxes while we pay more. But let's get to the crux of this commercial.

The entire point of the commercial is simple. Hate the rich and tax them more. By doing this, we will all feel better about ourselves. So go ahead. Vote for Obama. Feel better about giving government the power to steal private property from someone else. You'll feel better. But I ask you, will it really make you feel better? Will it really solve those grocery bills? Will your life magically get better because someone else got screwed?

When in your life did allowing someone else to get screwed ever really help you? Unless of course you really believe the government's debt will really get paid down while they transfer the wealth of the rich into your pocket? Living in a dream world will sooner or later come to an end. It did for the Soviets. If we continue to follow this path, it will for us too.