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.

Happy 100th Birthday to Milton Friedman

I realize that Friedman is not an Austrian economist, but his rebuttal to Donahue's assertions and assumptions are timeless.

Rebuttal to Massimo's Libertarian Contradiction

This is a direct rebuttal to Massimo Pigliucci's post about the apparent contradictions of Libertarianism. To read - http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/07/fundamental-contradiction-of.html

  One of the problems with M's post is he is attacking the Libertarian Straw man to begin with. There are different forms of Libertarianism and Massimo has apparently picked a form called "bleeding heart Libertarianism". I will retort by answering from a pure Libertarian perspective and hopefully explain what that means.

Massimo starts right out by saying "as is well known, the core idea of Libertarian philosophy is the preservation of the maximum amount of freedom"

 I am arguing from what I believe to be the pure form of Libertarianism. That is Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian. For detail on pure Libertarian system beliefs read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. This book explains true Libertarianism that is consistent throughout. http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

So, no, Massimo, freedom is not what is at the core. It is only partly. The core starts with the Libertarian Axiom - The Non aggression axiom -It states, simply, "that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another." (for more detail on this see - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html). The other core aspect of Libertarianism is property rights. That is you own your body and all its production. You and you alone, no exceptions! These two principles combined are the core of Libertarian philosophy.

  It is important to understand why the non-aggression axiom and property rights are the core beliefs of Libertarianism. The reason is the understanding that all disputes and conflicts in the world comes from scarcity. This is an important concept to understand so I will explain Hoppes method. Lets pretend that you and one other man lived in the garden of Eden.

  If we lived in the garden of Eden, that is, where all goods were superabundant the same way air is, there is no reason or means for dispute or conflict. If any good imaginable was available in unlimited quantity (superabundant) there could then, arise no conflict.

 The above statement is true except for two things that would not and could not be superabundant, that is your body and the exact spot you are standing on. These two items could still be disputed over. Your friend might want to stand exactly where you are standing, or vice versa. Or your friend may want to do something to your body or vice versa. Besides these two items (because they cannot be superabundant logically) there can not arise any other disputes or arguments over anything.

  This is important, because it allows you to see the fact that it is scarcity that drives all conflict between people. Were goods not scarce there could not be conflict.

   So with this understanding of what causes all conflict between humans preventing peace and the fact we do live in a world of scarcity, we must have rules that will help avoid conflict. This is why the Libertarian believes in property rights and Non-aggression axiom. In a world of scarcity, there must be some way to assign ownership of the scarce goods and one's body so that we can avoid dispute.

  If you say, "Well, no one owns the goods (private property) and their body," then this obviously does nothing to prevent conflict and will obviously lead to massive conflict and disagreement.

  If you say everyone owns everything equally, well, that does not seem to be a way to prevent dispute, but only a way to increase it. Some simple thought experiments should easily show you this system of equal ownership will cause massive conflict and disputes.

 But if you say everyone owns their own body and all that it produces, then this is a way to avoid conflict and dispute.

 This is why many call this "Natural Law". It seems obvious A priori. We know from a very young age that it makes sense for items to belong to people. For our bodies to belong to ourselves. And this reasoning is why Libertarians hold property rights and the Non-Aggression axiom as the core of our ideology. It is the only system that has a logical foundation that limits dispute and conflict to the absolute minimum. It is not perfect. There are gray areas when it comes to what non-aggression and property rights will mean, (if I set up a windmill on my property and it makes vibration on your property, etc. etc.) but it is still an excellent starting point. And logically the only starting point.

  What does Massimo think of property rights? I have no idea. My guess is it is some quasi-socialists view of property rights, but rather than attack a straw man, I hope he will answer that question.

  So back to Massimo's, article. He calls the inescapable contradiction of libertarianism the fact that you cannot have freedom without limiting freedom. This so called inescapable contradiction comes from Massimo not really understanding Libertarianism and using "Freedom" as the core belief. So he goes on to attack a straw man. Unfortunately in the comments to follow by some supposed Libertarians, they repeat his assertion that Libertarianism is about maximum amount of freedom. Freedom is important, but it is part of the non-aggression axiom, and if you understand the non-aggression axiom and property rights, you have totally debunked Massimo's so called contradiction. In fact, the contradictions will be completely owned by Massimo, once he confesses what he thinks should be in place of property rights (I do hope he will answer this question).

  Then Massimo goes on to say libertarians are not anarchists. Yes Massimo, that is exactly what we are! It is the only way to be consistent. In his very next straw man statement he goes on to say how we (Libertarians) understand freedom is only maximized by government regulating the rules of engagement between people.

  No Massimo, I don't believe for an instant that we need government to do this, that is what you believe. I believe that the market can provide protection services infinitely better than the state can (and it often does where the state allows it to). I don't believe giving a group of people a monopoly on police service is the best way to regulate peoples engagement. For some reason the Liberal hates monopolies, but thinks when a monopoly is owned by the state, it's wonderful (apparently bureaucrats given monopoly rights become altruistic). This is one of M's contradictions, but I'll let him answer to it.

  The two fundamental rights of life and property do not require government regulation. Massimo again states the straw man argument that these happen to be the only two rights in which we believe. Since this again comes from Massimo's lack of understanding of true Libertarianism, I won't hound on this straw man point. If you understand the actual foundational axiom of libertarianism, it will make more sense when it comes to freedom of speech, gay rights, etc...

  Next we turn to his argument of the government vs employers infringing on our rights. In order for this argument to work, Massimo must set up the employer to be an entity similar to the state. It must have some power of coercion over you as the state does. So is this true? Do employers have the power of coercion of its employees?

   So first he (or the article he is quoting) sets up the idea that workers are not really free to quit our jobs. And if I think I am free to quit my job, then I believe "such a preposterous myth that its a wonder how intelligent adults entertain it".

   I find this an odd thing to say, since I personally have quit my job 7 times in my short 41 years. Each time it was due to getting a job which gave me higher subjective utility. This is the case for the average American who works in the Market economy. Most Americans change jobs multiple times in their lives, and most of those changes are by their choice, not the employer. If I had to bet, I am willing to bet Massimo has changed jobs multiple times in his life by his own choice and not his employer. I work for a wonderful bio-tech company, yet people quit here every day to increase their utility. The fact is, that the number one reason people quit their jobs is because of their immediate boss. It is not that they are being made to keep their babies and not have abortions, nor that they are being forced to urinate for drug tests daily. It is just because they do not like the way they are treated by their direct boss. Most people when interviewed, say it was not the company that was the problem, but the way their direct boss treated them.

   So by Massimo's logic that this relationship between market companies and their employees is one of coercion? Is that the truth? It is complete bunk. Massimo's own life is proof of it.

M says we grant business the freedom to do all sorts of crazy things like invade our privacy and so on, but object to the state intervention to protect workers rights. He completely misses the point that the workers rights are in tact even if a business wont grant them, because our association with business is truly voluntary. This desperate attempt to show that we are not in a voluntary arrangement with our employer goes against simple logic. We choose said employer because it was the best of all options. This can make it difficult to leave a job at an instant because our standard of living is usually more important to us than a particular right at a given time, but that is still a choice we make, not our employer.

"It is often not the case that an equivalent or near equivalent employment can be found elsewhere"

 This is absurd for a couple of reasons, mainly because you are not entitled to any employment, none. For most of human history, we lived at bare substance levels where man hunted for each meal or grew each meal, lived in a shelter he constructed with the materials from that spot. It was the market economy that lifted man from this state (not government). A person always takes the best job available to them, this is the only reason it may be difficult to find equivalent employment. Once a better job opens, we quit the one we have and take the better job. So by this logic, once an employer offers a person the job that is better than all others for him, he has now engaged in a coercive relationship with that person. This, according to Massimo, puts the employee at a disadvantage to the employer. I hope I have made apparent the absurdity of this logic. Each one of us has many options for employment. We all work in what we believe is the best of those options. It does not mean that the one who is providing that best option is coercive. If they infringed on anything that was important to us, we wouldn't have chosen them in the first place, remember, we went there because we liked it better than everything else.

   It is the lack of analyzing a market economy that could make someone think like this. All of us always take the best job open to us. The one that increases our utility the most. If there were other jobs that had higher utility, we would (and I have 7 times) taken it, but by Massimo's logic, because the employer has increased our utility over other employers, we are now in a coercive relationship. Its just like being a slave. Shame on the employer for giving you a job that is better than all your other jobs available to you! Now your being coerced because you don't want the 2nd best job available to you.

In a true free market economy, you are always free to compete with your employer as well. Yes this is very difficult to do today, but that is because the hurdles the state has put in the way. Imagine trying to start a company? This is next to impossible because of the state. Large business lobby the state to install massive regulations which they are in the position to adhere to, but make upstarts extremely difficult. Remove the state massive amount of regulation and hurdles and taxes. Upstarts would be rather simple, and that would be another option for the worker, to become the entrepreneur and compete against your employer.

  Then he goes on to say it is this type of asymmetry that made possible child labour and working weekends during the Robber Baron era. This actually gave me a chuckle, because it was followed by the usual myth that unions and government regulations took us from this this time period. During this period early in the 20th century, Unions accounted for on average, 3% of total private work force. Child labor fell drastically before the child labour laws were in place.

  But just to entertain M's logic here. Lets assume that 3% of the workforce which was unionized led us out of working weekends. Lets assume that government laws led us from child labour.

   If you are a family with 2 children ages 11 and 13 and both are working. Why are your children working? Is it because you are an evil parent? Or does this offer your family the best possible standard of living? Lets assume for a minute that the parents just happen to want what is best for their children (I realize the truth must be the state knows and wants what is better for the children more than the parents but entertain me here), let's just assume the parents do indeed love their children and want whats best for them. If  both children are working, is this the best of all possibilities for the family? Economics says it is! It says the parents do want what's best for the family, and if they are working, it is likely making their lives better than if they were not. It is likely because if they do not work, the whole family is worse off. So if the government makes a law "No children can work", are the children better off or worse off? (again assume the family's first choice, which is its current arrangement, is the best, as an economist or a Praxeologist, you must assume this). So by definition, any child labour law only has the ability to make life of said child worse be removing the families first choice. Simple economics 101 says that you can never make someone's life better by removing their first choice.

  If you say the government law prohibiting the children from working actually makes their lives better, then you are saying that the family actually has a better option, they were just too stupid to take it. And this new law will make them more prosperous. It must have been right there all the time. Mom and dad were just too stupid to see it.

  What removes child labour is progress in the market, not government. The market increases the family's wealth to the point where the family no longer needs the additional income to eat, pay rent etc... Just simple economics 101 tells you that government regulation cannot increase a family's utility. In fact if you prohibit a family that's first choice of having their children work, from having their children to work, you have decreased the children's standard of living. You have just removed the families first choice, and they are now forced to move to another choice that doesn't involve the children working. You must assume their first choice gave them  the best standard of living. So what does government laws prohibiting child labour actually do?
  Thankfully, in the United states, these laws were not made until the child labour had already all but disappeared. Had they done it before, they would have destroyed children's lives.

  In other countries where they have made this mistake, they have increased child prostitution and forced families into "other choices that are not their first choice". Thank God for the state who knows better than the family does what's best for them, huh?

  Economics as a science is value free. It must be if you are to understand what actually happens. Praxeology is value free.

As far us Unions and their 3% removing us from weekend work? Hopefully I don't have to explain why it would be impossible for 3% of the work force over the other 97% into not working weekends. It was actually again market forces and competition for labour that removed us from weekend work, not unions. In principle, I have no problem with unions, so long as it doesn't violate property rights and the nonaggression axiom. Unions naturally die off in a free market because they tend to artificially increase the rate of compensation. The business must take these additional costs from somewhere. Most people think the big evil employers can just take it from their massive profits, but they must compete with another company with non-union labor making less. So in the free market Unions die out usually within a few generations. The only way they survive long term is when the state channels money from the tax payer to the unionized company.

Those evil Robber barons took oil from well over 30 cents a gallon down to pennies which made a whole nation more wealthy, but that's a topic for a separate post.
  
  Massimos next point, why do us kooky Libertarians not apply the "you can always go somewhere else" argument to the state? The state is not a voluntary arrangement. It is strictly coercion. As I hope I have shown, his arrangement with any business is 100% voluntary. You can leave it and still keep the home you own. The land you own. It is yours. No employer infringes on your property rights. The state steals from you at gunpoint! It doesn't own my land, yet it says I must pay them for the honor of owning it. This is exactly the same as the mafia. What is the logical difference between the state and the mafia? That I can vote for who will steal from me? They literally force me by gunpoint to pay them money. Don't think so? Stop paying your taxes! Tell them you're no longer paying them! Men with guns will come to your home and take you to jail. What gives the government this right? Because a bunch of people vote. I didn't vote for anyone to steal from me? I don't want anything from the state!

   And you can spare me there wouldn't be roads, schools, and all the other bunk. Simple rule of economics, if there is a demand, the market can and will fill the demand. You cannot logically distinguish demand for education from demand for shoes when it comes to economics. You just assume because the state currently provides things like roads and schools and police, that it must or they won't be there. It's a logical fallacy that has been dis proven.

One other point I would like to make because you quoted it. The Hobbesian theory that we are all wolves of each other is bunk. Read http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

An American experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism, The Not so Wild West. This paper shows some proof of the spontaneous organization of markets and life in anarchy. There are very limited real life examples of anarchy, people always confuse anarchy with chaos and Hobbesian philosophy, but evidence says otherwise. It is the state that always causes war. Once men are given monopoly power of coercion (real coercion, not made up employer coercion) they cannot live in peace.

The Affordable Transmission Care Act

While my fried was driving through Illinois and very far from home, his car broke down. It turned out that his transmission broke and his car was towed to the Aamco. As it turned out, the local Aamco was the only place he could get his transmission fixed. The cost to fix his car was far more than he could afford, and he had to call friends and relatives and credit card companies in order to get enough money together to fix his car.

This was a clear example that transmissions do not fall under free-market principles. It was completely unfair that his transmission broke during a time in his life when he couldn't afford it. There were no competitors to take his car. The Aamco was able to charge him a couple of thousand dollars for something that was a need, not a want.

It seems obvious to me that everyone, whether they own a car or not, should be forced to purchase Transmission Insurance. In fact, perhaps we should simply go to a single payer system that the Federal Government controls. The IRS should be able to fine/tax/confiscate private property, imprison and be empowered to kill anyone that tried to avoid paying into such a system.

You may think this is a joke, but the argument is exactly the same for health care. If health care is a right based upon some kind of radical egalitarian false premise, then the same false premise must be applied to transmission care. Of course the Political Left will balk at such an argument, but inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. But then again, perhaps they would agree and desire government control that too!