Saturday, November 14, 2015

Racism from Missouri Student VP?

Many people have posted about the Missouri Student VP who stated that she is "tired of hearing that first amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment." See video below.

Now while most people are rightly pointing out the dangerous concept of villainizing first amendment freedoms, there was actually another quote of hers that stood out to me.

Too often we go time and time again without having professors, mental health staff, different staff members who look like us sitting on our campus. (emphasis mine)
So my question is, how is that not racist?

In a situation in which the entire conflict arose from supposed lack of racial sensitivity on the part of university administrators, is this kind of statement not incredibly hypocritical? This indicates that these students are not comfortable with faculty and staff of other races, but instead want ones that match their own race. I cannot think of another term for that mentality besides racism.

For contrast, imagine George Wallace on the schoolhouse steps in 1963 saying something like:

"We need our children to be able to go to school and have faculty, staff and administrators that look like them."

Such a statement would have, rightly, been condemned as one of the most racist sentiments by a public official since Reconstruction. Yet from a young woman representing an entire population of, supposedly, very racially sensitive young people, such a statement is (I guess) considered perfectly acceptable.

I recognize that people may be more comfortable relating or interacting with people that have similar backgrounds and cultures. But I thought the whole point of diversity was to break such enclavism and promote greater racial understanding by encouraging inter-racial interactions. As such, her concept seems to fly in the face of the diversity movement itself.

Now I'll admit I'm not fully knowledgeable on the ins-and-outs of racial matters. So I'm open to any explanations of how her sentiment is NOT basically racist and anti-diversity.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

A Christian's Argument for Separation of Church and State

When I was younger, I criticized the concept of the separation of church and state. I recited the same arguments most of you have heard - that it was about the establishment of religion, not simply the practice thereof in public; that how it's being used now isn't at all how it was intended when it was stated, etc.

However, over the last several years I have watched the behavior in our country and I have now become and advocate for separation of church and state - as a Christian. It's created tension with family members when I have mentioned my changing views on the separation of church and state. I hope this article will help explain why I believe that we all, even faithful Christians, should urge that there be a complete separation between religion and the use of the state.

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

Climate Change Checklist

Climate change, or more specifically catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), seems to continue to pop its head up from time to time. Labels of "alarmists" and "deniers" are thrown around. Now I am a hardcore advocate of liberty and freedom. I will start any conversation that advocates the necessity of massive govt intervention with skepticism. This is not an anti-science position, this is a pro-freedom position. Now, I may be able to be convinced, but to do so there are a series of things that must be demonstrated as fact to my satisfaction in order for me to even consider supporting the types of "solutions" currently being proposed.

Process Improvements

First, some changes need to be made regarding some process/method issues:

  1. Full audit of surface temperature stations and remediation
    1. Inspections of over 80% of surface stations in the US show that over 70% have a likelihood of over 2ºC of error. That's in the US - how does the rest of the world look?
    2. The adjustment process that supposedly "cleans" this data is not sufficient.
    3. We spend billions of dollars a year on climate research. We can spend a couple million to refactor the vast majority of these stations.
  2. Both raw and adjusted temperature data (with adjustment process) must be available, transparent, and open.
    1. It invites skepticism when the advocates of global warming take raw numbers, adjust them in various ways, release only the end adjustments and leave it at that. 
  3. Scientific studies, papers, models, etc that are published must be reproducible and methods must be made available to the public. 
    1. If we are to have faith in the scientific process on a topic that many advocate for significant changes to our economic system, data, methods, algorithms, etc cannot continue to remain secret and proprietary.
I'm not saying these affect every study or all data but they are prevalent enough to invite skepticism.

Facts Needed

Now, some actual facts that I need demonstrated to me clearly:
  1. The Earth is continually getting warmer
    1. There is currently some question of this due to a plateau over the last 15-17 years.
  2. This warming is NOT simply the continuation of warming that has been happening for the last 400+ years.
  3. The primary driver of the new warming is CO2
    1. Since all the proposed solutions are focused on CO2, then that HAS to be the predominant driver.
  4. The primary driver of the new warming is HUMAN ADDED CO2
    1. Since all the proposed solutions are focused on reducing HUMAN added CO2, then it must be shown that HUMAN caused CO2 is the predominant factor and driver of heat gain.
    2. Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that man has NO impact on the climate. Clearly we do. The critical question is whether the anthropogenic CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of climate change.
  5. The result of continued warming will be significantly net negative
    1. Since most proposed solutions advocate significant economic costs, we must be positive that the result from warming will be not just somewhat inconvenient, but significantly bad. 
    2. While a lot of research has gone into the negative consequences of continued warming, I've not seen much of any research into what positives may take place. I am extremely hesitant to believe that there would not be new farming land or expanded migratory patterns in a slightly warmer climate - yet the amount of research into such positives and how they balance out against negatives seems limited.
    3. In addition, a lot of the "negatives" seem ... a little strained. For every story of rising sea levels, there are others that simply allude to the greater proclivity of athlete's foot, jock itch and poison ivy. 
  6. The planet and people cannot adapt to the changes 
    1. I'm hesitant to support massive global economic intervention if it turns out that the changes will take place gradually over hundreds of years. Consider where we were 100 years ago with limited air conditioning, refrigeration, health care, construction practices, access to travel and communication, etc. Now if we are not going to see more than a 1-2ºC increase or most of the significant warming consequences for 100-200 years, then I'm not convinced that we cannot adapt to these changes as they come. 
  7. A free market approach is not viable (i.e. Only potentially viable option is massive govt intervention)
    1. Before we start pushing for coercive govt intervention, I need to be convinced that the free market cannot satisfactorily adjust and mitigate the causes and problems from this process. As the potential consequences become apparent, the money to be made from mitigating them becomes significant.
    2. And I don't accept the explanation that says "We need govt because ... externalities [or tragedy of the commons]." and simply stop. The concept and definition of externalities is insufficient to dismiss the viability of a non-coercive approach to mitigation.
    3. What if someone finds a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere? What if someone genetically develops a tree that extracts/stores 20 times the standard amount of CO2? 
  8. Massive govt intervention will stop warming
    1. It also needs to be demonstrated that the proposed solutions would actually work. Most of the studies I've seen on the various proposals show virtually no difference in temperature increase over the next 100 years. That's not acceptable.
This last point is key. If the scientific community fixes the process issues I described above and the first 7 facts on this list are demonstrated to me, then I would be convinced that consequences will be dire unless govt intervenes. But if govt is going to intervene, then it better do whatever is necessary to actually effect change. I do not want a significant new tax or a complicated emission trading scheme that places a significant burden on the economy, yet only reduces the rate of warming by 3%. I don't want to advocate for the implementation of a system that will undoubtedly encourage corruption and manipulation if the end result in 100 years is warming only 0.1ºC less severe than had we done nothing. If we believe the consequences are going to be dire if we fail to act, then we need to act in a way that will effect significant change. If the only option is that we all go back to an agrarian society or most of the population will die, then I don't want that reality sugar coated. I don't want to be advocating for some approach that may significantly curb economic growth and prosperity for 100 years but won't actually mitigate the consequences of the warming.

Why skepticism?

Some people ask why we can be skeptical in the face of overwhelming evidence. Well firstly, as I said, I am a hardcore advocate for liberty, so I am going to be hesitant of any call for govt coercion to be expanded. So whereas those that believe that we need to limit growth or think consumerism is bad or that corporations just plain make too much money, who may already advocate for govt intervention for other causes, may need little convincing to get on board with an approach that even may only possibly avoid some calamitous outcome. I and those like me will likely need much, much more convincing because you are asking us to support a policy that directly contradicts our principles.

I'm not going to go into the science debate between the standard CAGW theory and the contrarian views. It would create a huge back and forth dialogue that already exists out there. I will only point out two things: Firstly, there are scientists who perform research that either disproves, questions, or challenges the standard CAGW theory. Some of their research is significant, some of it less so. But the dismissal and "paid by the oil companies" type demonization discredits the opposition to these contrarians. And secondly, the predictive models on CAGW are consistently revealing themselves to be inaccurate - sometimes minorly, sometimes wildly. But the point that skeptics make is not that we know everything about the climate and have proven global warming wrong, but that humanity doesn't know as much about the climate as it thinks it does and the inaccurate models demonstrate that. So before we start putting draconian economic restrictions in place, perhaps we should take off the alarmist hat and gather more data.

In addition, part of the reason that many people are skeptical of CAGW is that it seems very politically driven. Scientists and advocates have been calling on govt to massively intervene in the economy for 60 years for various reasons. Hole in the ozone, rainforests, global cooling, energy crisis, etc. Plus, there is a significant overlap between those that advocate economic intervention for the purpose of social justice or anti-capitalism/anti-consumerism and those that advocate economic intervention in the name of dealing with global warming. It often looks more like a power grab for those in power and a desire to restrain capitalism by others than it does an honest attempt to mitigate a potential problem. 

Also, massive amounts of money are being offered, and as such an entire market has been created, to study the negative consequences of global warming. So we are neither surprised nor convinced that virtually every study finds some bad thing that can be connected, however tangentially, to potentially higher temperatures. Plus, when scientists that question or challenge even some of the most extreme of the global warming claims are shunned, fired or forced to resign from their positions, it creates the impression not of an open arena of debate, but of a closed, self-reinforcing echo chamber. 

Lastly, the advocacy to deal with CAGW often invites skepticism itself. It seems contradictory at times: We have extremely hot/dry summer - it's global warming. We have extremely cold/snowy winters - that's just episodic/localized weather.  A study shows that global warming causes avalanches to increase in one place, but another study shows them to decrease in another. Renaming "global warming" to "climate change" seems strained so that it includes even events that don't have anything to do with warmer temperatures. Plus, some of it is ... well, "alarmist". Countdowns, timers, and counters like the one on the right all come across as over-the-top. I remember reading about how the Green Bay Packers football team, who has a notoriously cold/snowy field through the winter, were going to lose their home-field advantage if global warming continued, and so we must push Congress to act. When advocates stretch to find some connection (or even just some potential connection) to global warming, it starts to seem desperate and lacking credulity. 

Summary and Final Question

So when you put it altogether, you have many advocates of liberty whose default position is skepticism toward calls to support policies that directly contradicts their views. Then, when making the case, there are some scientific processes that have some issues and facts that aren't sufficiently demonstrated. There are also contrarian scientists that challenge or flat-out reject the standard CAGW and issues with models that have struggled with accuracy. Plus you have what seems like a lot of politically driven advocacy and money that may influence scientific work. In addition, you have what appears to be a closed-shop mentality that discourages dissent. And finally, you have a lot of advocacy that seems contradictory or overblown and based on extremely tenuous connections to changes in the weather. No single element may be sufficient to create the skepticism that many feel, but altogether these types of issues cause a lot of the science and advocacy to actually create more skepticism than they allay.

Finally, taking the opposing position, let me also ask you: What is the falsifiability of CAGW? If we see 20 years with continually escalating CO2 levels but no appreciable warming increases, would that, if not prove CAGW wrong, demonstrate that there's something wrong in the models, feedback weights, variables, calculations and in general our understanding of how climate works?

That's really where I feel most skeptics are: Something's not right here and I can't get behind draconian economic measures until it is.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Taxation in Spoonerville

Thug #1: Excuse me sir, but it appears that you haven't paid your taxes.

Man: I'm sorry, you're mistaken. I actually have paid my taxes.

Thug #1: [nodding to Thug #2] Our Treasurer here has no record of you having paid.

Thug #2: [taking out a notebook and flipping through it] What's your name?

Man: [cautiously laughing] Mark.

Thug #2: [Before Mark has finished saying his name] Nope, no record.[quickly closes notebook]

Thug #1: So you see, you need to pay your taxes. Cash only I'm afraid.

Mark: [irritated] Ok, that's enough. [moves to escort wife around men]

[Thug #3, a large man, steps in front of the couple, blocking their way]

Thug #1: I'm sorry, we cannot let you leave until you have paid your taxes. That money is needed. Stan here [gestures at Thug #4] was recently laid off and so needs his unemployment insurance. And Joe's [gestures at Thug #5] kid needs some medicine for his ... acne. Plus, with the recession and everything, we must provide the local economy with much needed stimulus [gestures toward a pub/bar behind them].

Woman: This is ridiculous! This isn't a tax, it's stealing!!

Thug #1: Not at all ma'am. We represent the government of Spoonerville.

Mark: What? This is Chicago.

Thug #1: Well, I'll admit that our jurisdiction is a tiny little spit, but it's as legitimately elected as any other.

Man: Hmpf. Hardly. I've never even heard of it, let alone voted for it.

Thug #1: Because you chose not to vote doesn't mean you're not subject to the laws of its government.

But because we never wish to appear unfair, I move that we hold a special election. All in favor?

All Thugs: Aye!

Thug #1: Opposed?

[Shot of couple standing there confused]

Thug #1: The motion carries, a special election shall commence at once.

Man: Now wait a minuite...

Thug #1: [ignoring man] Now, those in favor of continuing the charter of Spoonerville and the authority of its current government, say Aye.

All Thugs: Aye!

Thug #1: Those opposed?

Mark: [quickly catching on] Nay!

Woman: No, not at all!!

Thug #1: [smiling] The aye's have it. The government of Spoonerville is once again received it's authority through the consent of the people.

Woman: But that's not fair! This is immoral!

Thug #1: [getting angry] Don't you dare question the sanctity of democracy in our fair hamlet. In fairness to you, we held a special election - in which you participated voluntarily I might add - and in which you lost fair and square, 5 to 2. You can't turn around and complain about fairness and morality just because you don't want to pay your fair share.

Man: [trying to calm things and find a way out] Ok, ok. Calm down. How much is the tax?

Thug #1: Well, we here in Spoonerville operate under a flat tax system. It'll be one hundred dollars.

Woman: One hundred dollars!

Thug #1: [Smiling] Each.

Man: And if we refuse.

Thug #3: [Pulls out a gun] We have to deal with those that break the law.

Woman: [starting to cry] Please ... Just let us go.

Thug #1: I'm sorry ma'am. We cannot simply ignore the law. There'd be anarchy.

Besides, if you don't like the laws of Spoonerville, you can always just leave .... once you have paid your taxes and we say you may leave.

Man: I don't have two hundred dollars though.

Thug #1: Well, don't let it be said that we aren't flexible and willing to adjust to the needs of taxpayers. To cover the difference, we will graciously accept your watch and the jewelry that the young lady has on. It's the least we can do.

[With thug #4 holding the gun, the couple start to hand over their jewelry]

Thug #1: We appreciate you voluntarily paying your taxes.

Woman: Voluntarily!?

Thug #1: Yes, voluntarily. Nobody has laid a hand on you physically or even touched you. And we so appreciate your voluntary participation. It avoids things becoming ... unfortunate.

Man: Can we go now?

Thug #1: Absolutely. After all, this is a free country and you are free to travel as you wish. We hope you have enjoyed your visit to Spoonerville. Please come again.

[Couple walks past the thugs and down the street swiftly]


Friday, August 02, 2013

Eliminate "Gov-co"

Why doesn't McDonald's charge $40 for a cheeseburger? After all it'd more profitable. Why does Wal-Mart or the Dollar General or 5andDimes or Goodwill even exist if name-brand stores can charge as high as "the wealthy" can pay? Most people seem to inherently understand the cause-and-effect of prices and competition in the retail market. But is that only because we see it everyday in our current lives?

Consider an alternative history where during the Great Depression, advocates for the poor pressured the govt to pass a bill that created "Gov-co" retail stores. Gov-co stores are a nation-wide chain that provide cheap, generic food and goods for the poor at massively discounted prices (subsidized by taxes). Adjusted for inflation, they had prices like $1 for a new pair of tennis shoes or a button up shirt or $10 for new car tires or $20 for a new dishwasher because the rest of the cost of the goods is subsidized with taxes. At such discounted prices, no private company can compete and so not only have Gov-co stores became a national chain in virtually every town, but now the only alternative to those Gov-co stores are high-end, brand name stores selling high-end goods that cost top dollar and are only affordable to the middle class and above. At this point, very few really remember what it was like before Gov-co existed. People only recognize that only "the rich" can afford the brand name goods. But that only reinforces the need for a Gov-co to provide affordable goods for the poor.

Unfortunately, people have recognized that while the prices of Gov-co goods have remained stable (only raising with inflation), the quality of the goods has not. In addition, the quality and price of goods in the south is slightly different than the price and quality in the northeast as well as differences between urban, suburban and rural communities. Meanwhile, brand name goods continue to improve and increase in quality, though prices still cannot compete with Gov-co.

People are decrying the further and further separation between what the poor can afford vs what the rich can afford. In fact, they point out that the rich are able to afford goods that make them more productive and able to make more money compared to the poor. Something must be done. Many advocate to increase tax spending on Gov-co products to help increase the quality while keeping the prices low. Others advocate setting mandated regulations - maybe even establishing a federal agency to oversee and inspect manufacturers to ensure sufficient and consistent quality products. Tweaks to the system are constantly introduced, customer feedback mechanisms, product quality control tests are standardized, but nothing appears to really be improving the situation. (Not to strain the analogy, but imagine if IN ADDITION to everything else, if you did choose to shop at Gov-co instead of the brand name stores, you could only shop at your local Gov-co nearest your home.)

In such a situation, if someone advocated simply and completely eliminating Gov-co and allowing the free market to work in the retail space, I think few would dispute that there would be large numbers of people pointing at those high-end stores that cater to the more well-off and decry "What about the poor?" and lament that the poor would go hungry and naked because they couldn't afford to buy from those high-end stores. They'd claim that those private stores would just continue to charge high prices because people have to have food and clothing and stuff, right? The suggestion to completely eliminate Gov-co would be treated as nonsense - of being harsh, unsympathetic, and cruel. Accusations would abound that advocates are only concerned for the rich or are "in the pocket of big business".

But in reality, we know that without a Gov-co, we actually have a vibrant retail market with an enormous segment dedicated specifically to low-income consumers. Stores like mentioned above: Wal-Mart, Dollar General, 5andDimes, Goodwill, etc. all directly aim to serve low-income consumers. Critics of eliminating Gov-co overlook that the poor are a market in and of themselves and that many companies would move into that market to serve them - providing cheaper goods for lower prices and that competition in that market would help improve quality while keeping prices low.

Now this understanding that free market competition DOES encourage businesses to keep prices low and to increase the quality to attract customers is pretty common. We seem to inherently understand this about retail goods because we see it in action everyday. But many seem to have a problem with the idea that the same effects and incentives apply to education as to retail goods - I would argue, because we're only familiar with the current setup where only "the rich" can afford private schools.

Those who suggest simply eliminating public education are dismissed as naive. They are told, often even by other advocates of limited-govt, that without public education, the poor wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school, only continuing the generational poverty and further widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Perhaps another look at the nature of competition in a free market, only in a different market, may help them see that we cannot simply assume that the current structure of "only the rich can afford private education" would continue if we eliminated public education. In fact, based on looking at other markets like retail, there is significant evidence to conclude that education providers would likely actively focus and pursue low-income customers.

Eliminating public education and allowing free market competition into the market for education couldn't be a whole lot worse than modern public education in many places, and it has the potential to be much, much better.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Conversation with a Conservative: A compromise between a Conservative and a Libertarian on Immigration

I had a conversation about immigration with a ardent die-hard conservative Republican recently. I feel the discussion was valuable. I got a better sense of their concerns on the issue and it's more than just "foreigners are bad" or "they took our jobs" or "terrorists!!" like many seem to caricature them to be and in addition to educating them on the libertarian perspective, got their thoughts on that perspective.

For background, I guess I would call myself a voluntarist as I often make the argument for no govt though I'm not willing to say I'm completely convinced that everything would work out perfectly in an ancap society (I simply haven't looked at every issue or challenge, so don't feel educated enough to make that declaration). So my ideal immigration policy is no policy - open borders, no govt required registration. Nobody is directly being harmed by people simply crossing a political line in the sand.

However, there are challenges to that view right now due to the policies of our current govt. For example, we currently face a threat from terrorism that our foreign policy exacerbates and invites. If you also have a non-interventionist foreign policy, I believe your risk from the threat of terrorism is significantly less and thus the need (or perceived need) to comb over every person that gets in an airplane or visits from another country is drastically reduced.

At the same time, however, I am a strong pragmatist and feel that libertarians are not going to get anywhere close to a free society by just declaring the govt is immoral and demanding that everyone stop using it. So I am often more willing to compromise on issues than I feel many libertarians are.

After a nearly 2 hour discussion with my conservative friend, we were able to reach an agreed-upon compromise for immigration reform:

Application process is a background check
A single, simple form (in English - govt should not add the complexity, expense, and likelihood for confusion involved with trying to maintain and accept forms in 57 different languages) to apply for immigration. This form should only require the basic information to identify the person and will be used to perform a background check. The only purpose of the entire application process is to determine if you are a threat to others - i.e. if you have a violent criminal history, ties to terrorists, etc. If you do not, you're free to enter the country at your earliest convenience. No multi-month/year long process of various approvals for different types of immigration.

This should change the legal immigration process from taking months or even years to a couple weeks. By making the process significantly more simple as well as shorter, I feel it will make legal immigration much more attractive compared to the risk and disadvantages of illegal immigration. In addition, with a drastically smaller number of illegal immigrants I think illegal immigration itself will be easier to deal with and certainly less of a problem.

A one-time fee
Applying for legal immigration will require a flat fee that simply pays for the cost of performing the paperwork and background check - no more, no less.

No fines or back taxes
There's little value beyond retribution in trying to excise fines or figure and collect back taxes on illegal immigrants already here. Besides, it would likely cost more in trying to audit and calculate those taxes on individuals who likely earned little income and have no record of it than the tax itself would amount to.

No English fluency/literacy requirements or tests
This is simply unnecessary. Plus, allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows of illegality would likely lead to them being more likely to assimilate and learn the common national language.

No expiration on legal immigration
There's nothing immoral and nobody is directly harmed by someone remaining here after govt has told them that they have stayed here long enough. If they are not a direct physical threat to anyone, there's no reason to put a time limit on their stay here.

Eliminate the dozen+ types of immigration statuses
A single status, either legal or not. Whether you're coming here for a single business meeting, a week long trip, a summer tour, or to live here for years doesn't matter. As long as you are not a threat to anyone, govt shouldn't care.

Secure the border
If you're going to have any immigration policy and any restrictions or controls on those who come in, it makes little sense if people can bypass and disregard the law and the process anyway. Frankly, however, I believe that the rest of the policies in this compromise would drastically reduce the demand for illegal immigration and thus reduce the need to aggressively patrol and defend the border as we do currently. I'm not sure how effective any attempt at securing the border would be or the costs involved, but I'm fine with enacting it as part of a bill.

No Federal Welfare
One of the concerns of many conservatives are those unskilled immigrants that come here and directly latch onto the govt dole. As a compromise between no restrictions whatsoever and no welfare whatsoever, we agreed that legal immigrants should be able to take advantage of as many state and local govt assistance programs as they are eligible for, but they should not be eligible for federal govt welfare programs. This is a basic decentralization/"laboratories of democracy" position (I hold the same pragmatic position on all welfare programs). Get the national govt out of it and let the states and localities decide how and to what extent to provide assistance to people - in this case immigrants.

Eligible for citizenship after a period
An immigrant can apply for naturalized citizenship after 10 years from the point they were approved for legal immigrant status. Time period is debatable, 10 years was just what we came up with, but some period of time from the point they received approval should be required before they can apply for full citizenship.

I just barely touched on these items to convey the basic premise. But it seemed like a good compromise that deals with both the concerns of conservatives while making the system and process more simple and open.

So what do you think? What does this overlook? What problems (besides political) might this create?