An Example of Skepticism of Science

I'm skeptical by nature. Many often call me cynical. Sometimes I come across an article, a study or something that, while supposedly a proper example of science, sends off all sorts of red flags for me. I recently came across an article in the Guardian that highlights a recent Yale University study that sought to find the biases that may lead young black students to be suspended/expelled at higher rates than whites. (And I use that phrase intentionally: "sought to find". But we'll get to that momentarily.) The article's content concerned me enough that I decided to look at this study a little more and found some interesting things.

First and foremost, I don't like the "science" of starting with a preconceived conclusion and then crafting a study to find evidence to support that conclusion. While this can be ok in hard sciences which focus so exclusively on physical processes and quantitative outcomes, in social sciences, where qualitative or behavioral actions are what is being analyzed, it can be extremely dangerous. This is almost explicitly research confirmation bias and makes the study start off highly questionable in my view - this kind of bias can affect everything from design to interpretation. But let's move on.

From the article:

The teachers were told the following: ... Your job is to press the enter key on the external keypad every time you see a behavior that could become a potential challenge.

Since I didn't capitalize and put flashing gifs around those words, let me emphasize, they were specifically told to signal on anything that "could become" a "potential" challenge. So the instructions are essentially telling teachers to be hypersensitive for any behavior whatsoever that might possibly become a potential challenge. Not telling them to indicate when a behavioral challenge occurs. Not to indicate the moment they believe a behavioral challenge is starting. But to point out anything whatsoever that could somehow, at some point in the future, turn toward into a potential challenge.

How vague and open-ended is this?

Child picks up scissors - "could possibly become a potential challenge"
Child starts to speak loudly - "could possibly become a potential challenge"
Child starts swinging pencil around -  "could possibly become a potential challenge"
Child vehemently disagrees with fellow student - "could possibly become a potential challenge"
Child stands up -  "could possibly become a potential challenge"
Child disagrees with conclusion of a Yale study - "could possibly become a potential challenge" (and is possibly racist)

You get the idea. Obviously the question relies on an incredibly subjective measure. I've seen certain kids (#notall) where rocking in a chair is a "tell" - a precursor - to a wild moment of explosive energy - where the kids suddenly has a compulsion to get out of their chair and vent some of their energy - sometimes (though rarely) with damaging or harmful results to themselves and others.

Let's also keep in mind that it's probably fair to assume that most teachers are going to wish to err on the side of caution when it comes to such instructions. Better to appear overly cautious than to appear to disregard or miss the signs leading up to a problem.

Then after quoting what teachers were instructed to do, the Guardian moves the goalposts in the very following line:

While the teachers were asked to detect “challenging behavior”, no such behavior existed in any of the videos.

Wait, wait, wait. They were NOT told to detect challenging behavior. They were asked to indicate any "behavior that could become a potential challenging behavior." So a teacher that has seen and dealt with the rocking-in-their-chair situations in the past, and is then told to look for "potential challenging behavior" may signal on a rocking child that, in this case, never leads to challenging behavior.

To me, if you want to understand why black students are being suspended, THEN LOOK AT THE SUSPENSION CASES!!  I think going to the source of the information would be relevant here. Are the suspensions dubious? Are they credible? Isn't that pertinent here?

Look at that data and determine if the cases justified suspension or not. If they did NOT, then you can certainly make the case that perhaps there was discrimination at play. But to give people prompts which are overly vague and then deduce from their hypersensitivity that they must be racist is not impartial science.

Looking at Oregon in a different skin - Race has nothing to do with it

I'm not going to go into the details of the situation in Oregon. Anyone reading this is likely already familiar with it. For those that may not, here are a couple sources on the subject.

My general stance on the situation is that I sympathize and support the Hammond family where I feel it's a pretty clear case of govt abuse of power. However, I am on the fence regarding the protesters/militia. I like that they are supporting the Hammonds and agree with their general animosity of govt overreach. It also feels like the militia protest was largely a publicity stunt to raise awareness of the treatment of the Hammond family. If so, then I'd call it a success (notwithstanding the horrendous misreporting of the situation). However, due to the weapons involved and almost invitation for direct physical conflict, it goes beyond the standard peaceful "sit-in" type of awareness protest or even civil disobedience. I guess my views will become more clarified as we see what they do, what govt does, and how each reacts to the other.

In a broader scope, however, I've seen many who appear antagonistic to this group of protesters and the Hammonds largely due to their race and politics. I've heard people decrying how the reaction and the types of support would be completely different if it was black people or Muslims who had taken over this glorified campgrounds.

So I started thinking ...

Say there was a [Muslim] family - the [Mohammeds]. They have been harassed by govt for years. They get pulled over constantly. The city continues to try to force them to sell their house. They have their taxes audited every year. Prohibited from buying guns. They are placed on and off of the no-fly list. All without any evidence of any real wrongdoing. Then, say the patriarch gets distracted and hits a mailbox with his car. A few years later, his son swerves and runs over a post-office box. They are arrested, charged with "terrorism" (destruction of govt property) and found guilty. Suddenly a large group of [Muslims] comes and sets up in a public parking lot next to the family's home and occupy a pay-for-parking booth. This group is armed and is protesting for the release of the [Mohammed] men and to raise awareness of the govt abuse and harassment of this family. They claim they will resist any attempts to remove them.

While I know this is not an exact parallel to the situation in Oregon, it's fairly close. In such a situation, I, as a libertarian, would feel pretty much exactly the same way about this hypothetical as I do the actual situation. I would sympathize and support the family. I would be on the fence with regard to the protesters.

Now, replace [Muslim] with [black] and [Mohammeds] with [Jacksons] - and I'd again have the same view.

This, at least for me, has absolutely nothing to do with race. I don't care whether the family and the protesters involved are white, brown, black, or any other race. The issue is the abuse of govt power and bringing the attention to govt harassment.

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.

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.

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.

Taxation in Spoonerville

[Scene: Man and Woman walking down the street together when they are met by a group of Thugs]

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 Thugs]

[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 ... condition. And with the recession and everything, we must provide the local economy with much needed stimulus [gestures toward a pub/bar behind them]. Plus, the services that we provide to residents such as yourselves do cost money.

Mark: What services?

Thug #1: Well good sir, we have provided you with protection from criminals and, should you or your property catch fire, we would also help extinguish it. Plus, should you become hurt, we would provide you with medical aid and transportation to the nearest hospital. Oh, and Joe here is also in charge of garbage collection in our wonderful community. Since we have made these services available to you, it's only fair that you pay the tax.

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.

Mark: 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.

Mark: Now wait a minute...

Thug #1: [ignoring Mark] 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 like the results and don't want to pay your fair share!

Mark: [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.

Mark: 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.

Mark: I don't have two hundred dollars with me.

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: [incredulously] 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.

Mark: 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]

END

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.

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, 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 dirt. 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 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 dominant 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?

What would your 5 Point Plan be?

We (appear to) sit at the precipice of a large economic chasm. Something needs to be done and that something cannot be tweaking at the margins.

Obama seems to suggest more of the same. But Mitt Romney has come out with his 5 point plan (note his 5 points are buried in a single paragraph halfway down that article). I personally do not feel it focuses on the right things nor is bold enough.

We all obviously have dozens of policy differences with our conservative/liberal counterparts and I recognize that many reject the entire edifice of govt and others advocate a complete govt takeover. But from a pragmatic viewpoint, if you were limited to just 5 specific issues to address with the knowledge that we may hit a huge economic crisis during the administration of the winner of this election, which 5 would you advocate to voters, which 5 do you believe are most important to accomplish to avoid an economic collapse and set things on track for improvement?

Here are my 5:

• Monetary Policy - I believe we cannot continue with our current monetary policy and it must be decoupled from the current monopoly cartel. The most politically viable, in my opinion, as well as probably the smoothest transition would be to legalize competing currencies in concurrence with a full audit of the Federal Reserve. I only hope it would be sufficiently effective in time.
• Foreign Non-Interventionism - I believe that we waste enormous resources, life, and liberty with our current approach. All while inciting the type of animosity that requires more "security", more resources, more loss of life and liberty to deal with. This cycle must stop.
  • While this may not have the direct economic impact of some of the other issues, I believe it is critically important to a free society.
• Corporate Protectionism - There is a great deal of agreement, on both sides of the aisle, that corporations do not need the level of govt protection, guarantees, promises and bailouts. Without govt to "socialize losses", corporations would have to be more conscious of risk.
• Taxation - Taxation in general is not only overly complex, but, in my opinion, the worst part is how unseen it is. So many hidden "sin" taxes, excise taxes, fee taxes, etc. The income tax (as hidden as it is since it's taken out before you ever get the money) is still one of the most visible and certainly most talked about. Taxes need to be simplified and reduced.
  • Govt spending is the other side of this coin, and while I obviously believe we need massive curtailments to spending, I think that putting a check against profligate abuse of our monetary policy may actually help in this regard (plus ending foreign interventionism and corporate protectionism will reduce spending a fair amount).
• Regulatory Reform - Regulations hamper virtually every industry now. What's worse is that the vast majority of these regulations are written by unelected bureaucrats. While I obviously think a free market (without govt bailouts/guarantees/protections) is the ideal, I think the most politically viable would be something like Write the Bills Act. Requiring all regulations be written and voted on by Congress itself would, I think, go a long way to reduce regulatory red tape (or at the very least, to put a speed limit on its growth).
  • Whenever one considers reducing regulations, concerns about protecting consumers arises. So part of regulatory reform should also look at strengthening private property protections for individuals.

Honorable Mentions:

• Ending Drug War - While I feel this is important for a free society, it didn't make my list because I am not educated about the economic impact of doing this.
• Ending Patents - This I cannot determine exactly how impactful this would be to the economy. While I think it is important, again, I cannot justify adding it to my top 5 without more knowledge of the impact.
• Ending minimum wage - Encouraging additional hiring as well as providing additional work experience for many low skilled workers.
• One Subject at a Time Act - just necessary for a responsible representative govt.
• Entitlement reform - Though this seems to be more of a mid/long term problem, I feel that putting this on a path to better sustainability could go a long way toward improving market confidence, currency stability and credit prospect.
• [others I'm sure I forgot]
So what would your 5 be?

Obama the fiscal miser

This image has been circulating the net as "proof" of Obama not being a big spender. 

Obama is downright stingy

Looking at actual spending numbers (as % of GDP) seems to actually support their case:

2009 - 42.63
2010 - 40.75
2011 - 40.09
2012 - 40.27 (projected)
2013 - 39.22 (projected)

Even looks like a downward trend until you take them in greater context:

2004 - 34.86
2005 - 34.83 (-0.03)
2006 - 35.12 (+0.29)
2007 - 35.09 (-0.03)
2008 - 37.14 (+2.05)
2009 - 42.63 (+5.49)
2010 - 40.75 (-1.88)
2011 - 40.09 (-0.66)
2012 - 40.27 (+0.18) (projected)
2013 - 39.22 (-1.05) (projected)

When you look at it in graph form you can see the misleading nature of this. Yes, they skyrocketed spending in 2008-2009 (Bush and Obama were both involved in that). But then, Obama basically maintains that high level of spending. Add in a slight reduction from the 2009 peak and, statistically, it appears that Obama is downright stingy.

It's interesting that when global warming skeptics were pointing at the % temp change over the last decade to 15 years by starting with 1998, the warming advocates were chastising them for "playing statistics" because 1998 was a spiked record high year. Now that people do basically the same thing with spending growth by starting with that spiked record year of 2009, it's lauded as "proof" of Obama being a responsible steward of taxpayer money.

Even if you look at absolute spending you can see where the spike of 2008-2009 and then the slight reduction after that would statistically make the spending growth seem small even though spending itself matches the 2000-2007 trend almost perfectly. 

BONUS: An even scarier trendline. 

Ron Paul Next Steps

With Santorum having dropped out, many are concluding that Romney has virtually won the nomination. Ron Paul, however, is not dropping out and will continue to try to push his delegate strategy. However, in my opinion, with the vacuum of good news about the primary, I'd like to see Paul do something bold to get the attention of people and let them know that not only is this thing not over, but he is a viable (and better) alternative to Romney.

Why I don't think Gingrich is a true, limited govt conservative

Newt Gingrich is toward the top of the pack again. I believe this is because Romney is really looking too moderate for many conservatives to swallow, so they are looking for someone that is a true conservative. They are willing to overlook his past indiscretions because they feel that Newt is not only a real conservative, but that his debating skills make him a perfect match against Obama (the real goal of many Republicans: Anyone, anything but Obama).

The problem is that his record and many of his statements in the past don't reflect a true, limited govt conservative. Though I don't blame conservatives for being misled, Gingrich knows exactly what conservatism is and how to sell it. So with this upswing in support for Newt, I wanted to put together my thoughts on him at the moment and why I think conservatives need to be real careful about what they think they will get in Newt.

Few thoughts on Election Reform

The last several elections have focused on "change". The people are unhappy with their leaders. Congress currently has about a 10% approval rating. Many have concentrated on trying to get better candidates elected into office. The hope being that these politicians will reform the system and make it better. However, the fact that polls show (page 19) that about 1/5th of voters would support a candidate, even if that candidate was not a Democrat or Republican, demonstrates that there is a significant percentage of Americans that are unhappy with both of the two major parties. According to other polls, a full 40% of voters do not view themselves as members of either major party. If nearly half of voters do not associate with one of the two major parties, why are there no 3rd parties rising to prominence? Many believe this problem comes from the nature of the way we vote.

I think the US needs to have a discussion about reforming our elections in order to provide a more representative govt and avoid having half of the population feeling disaffected by the two parties (not to mention those that don't even vote due to feeling that their vote doesn't matter). So in this article I talk about some of those approaches.

Foreign Policy vs National Security - Being Clear on Both

National security is a high priority on most people's list. Not all agree on how best to provide it, but most agree it's important - especially Republicans.

When Republicans are faced with a candidate (example, Romney) that they think has decent economic policies, tolerable fiscal policies, adequate social policies, and good security policies vs a guy (RP) that has good economic policies, great fiscal policies, tolerable social policies but HORRIBLE SCARY BAD security policies, it makes the first guy seem preferable.

This is why I keep saying, Ron Paul's campaign and supporters HAVE GOT to figure out how to get both his foreign policy and more importantly his national security policies accurately described to Republicans.

To me, foreign policy and national security are two different policies. There is a lot of overlap, but they are distinct. Most people understand his foreign policy, even if they disagree and believe that it would put us more at risk. I believe that Ron Paul's campaign and supporters need to do a better job of making the case for non-interventionism.

However, even more urgently, most Republicans do NOT understand Ron Paul's national security policies - that is, what would Ron Paul do in the event of a credible threat against the US? What would he do if intelligence learns of an eminent attack against the US? He has not made these points clear to Republicans and he needs to do a better job of it if he wishes to win the nomination.

Pro-[Choice/Life] isn't Anti-Freedom

I frequently see people on both sides of the abortion debate that point to the other side and accuse the other position of being "anti-freedom" or "incompatible with freedom". Problem is, as I see it, neither side can make that claim.

It seems to me that at some point, the right of the child to live overrides the right of the mother to choose to kill it. Most reasonable people will concede that this point is some time before it's actually born. Thus we are really just debating what that point should be.

For people like Ron Paul, his view is that the freedom to live is more important than the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. That's his view, but he recognizes that not all share it. In addition to that, he has said that Constitutionally, he would not allow a federal level mandate one way or another.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer politically that will satisfy everyone.

This is because, more generically, the problem is that abortion creates a paradox for individualism because you have two people occupying the same space at the same time and the exercise of rights by one is an infringement on the rights of the other.

In either case, you are infringing on someone's rights. Either you protect the right of the baby to live and infringe on the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body, or you choose to protect the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body and infringe on the right of the child to live.
So, agree or disagree with him about the point at which he feels we should recognize and protect a life, but it's not anti-liberty or anti-freedom.

In fact, Paul's actual policy prescription is a good compromise. Instead of a federal, top-down mandate that states that abortions are either all legal or all illegal, he allows the people of each state to decide. This will create a diverse environment that allows different views to be respected.

For example, while some states ban abortions, and some states permit even late-term abortions, perhaps a few other states would pass a law that legalizes abortion up to the 8th month, but that all abortions after the first 10 weeks must be done painlessly such as with lethal injection or an anesthetic that puts the baby to sleep first. This should satisfy most all pro-choice individuals since their ability to get an abortion isn't infringed. This could satisfy many pro-life individuals since the baby itself would not suffer or feel any pain. Reasonable compromise? I don't know.

Through this method of allowing multiple, different approaches that Paul is advocating, I think a more acceptable common ground can be reached.

RP Supporters: How to handle a Talk Show Interview

Say that a Ron Paul supporter calls into and gets on a radio show. If the caller isn't already upset/angry, then often the host asks some loaded questions, interrupts when the caller tries to set the record straight, and at that point the caller starts to get flustered. Once a Ron Paul supporter, who is generally calling to try to set the media's misinformation straight, gets flustered by that very media, things go downhill and in the end, Dr Paul's supporters, (and by association, as is the intention, the good Dr himself), end up looking "crazy" and irrational.

So how can you carry yourself well and help the good Dr Paul instead of hurt him? Here's a few thoughts.

Might conservatives see foreign policy how liberals see the economy?

Conservatives (and libertarians) recognize that liberals have an incomplete, inaccurate view of a market economy. They see risk and thus want govt to mitigate that risk, but they don't look far enough to see cause and effect. We recognize that when govt intervenes in the market, negative unintended consequences occur and that when govt intercedes to fix a problem, it often creates more problems that are often worse than the original. We understand, as counterintuitive as it might seem, that by neither having govt regulating every risk nor bailing out and aiding specific companies, the market can actually be a more safe and productive entity.

So I have to ask, is it possible, just possible, that conservatives might suffer from the same incomplete, inaccurate view when it comes to foreign policy? Could it perhaps be that conservatives don't clearly see the cause and effect? Is it so impossible that conservatives are the ones overlooking the negative unintended consequences created by govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries? Is it unreasonable to think that when govt intercedes in countries around the world to solve problems, that new problems are created (often worse than the original) caused by our very intercession? Just consider, could it be, as Ron Paul declares, that as counterintuitive as it might seem to some, that by removing our military presence and interventions (both public and covert) from around the world, that we could actually be more safe?

Challenging the assertion that only Romney can beat Obama and that Ron Paul is "unelectable"

See Update at bottom.

This one frustrates the hell out of me. I hate the label of "unelectable" or the consensus that "only Romney can beat Obama". Just ruffles my feathers.

However, recently, PPP released a poll that pitted Romney against Obama that intrigued me. What was interesting about it was that in this one, unlike other's I've seen, they included 3rd party candidates (which is a more realistic representation of what the general election will look like). The results were fascinating.

Initially, in a plain head-to-head, Romney (47%) actually beats Obama (45%) whereas Paul  (41%) loses to Obama (46%).

However, once you introduce the 3rd party candidates, everything blows up. Romney loses significant portions of voters to 3rd party candidates - and much more than Obama and Romney loses in virtually every scenario. Paul and Trump actually take nearly 20% of the vote and the lionshare of that comes out of  Romney's numbers. More analysis here with more numbers, but I encourage you to take a look at the poll itself.

Now, those of us that are supporting Ron Paul recognize why this is. Many of us would rather remain consistent to our principles and vote for the person that best represents us over Romney, even if that means that the dreaded Democrat [scary voice] were to win. However, if Ron Paul won the nomination, not only would most of the right/Republicans support him (especially if their primary desire is just to beat Obama), but so would his ardent base of libertarians, as well as many Independents and a large number of democrats. Plus, it is possible (or even very likely, depending on the source) that if Ron Paul were to get the nomination, that the likely Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson would bow out and endorse Paul.

In my opinion, because of the realities of 3rd party candidates, Ron Paul has a better chance of beating Barack Obama than Mitt Romney.

So, what I would like to do is to commission another, similar poll to be done. This time, let's see the effect of 3rd party candidates when Ron Paul is the Republican candidate. If this poll were to come back and show that Ron Paul loses fewer voters to 3rd party candidates than Romney, it could go a long way to demonstrate Ron Paul's electability. And not just that, but showing that it would be better than Romney's.

Imagine what that could do to the race and how it might shift some voters over - especially when, according to exit polls, nearly half of Romney's supporters are voting for him because of his electability and ability to "beat Obama".

So either encourage the Ron Paul campaign to commission such a poll, or recommend it to the PPP (or other pollsters) themselves.


Update 1/25: On Jan 17th, Public Policy Polling released another poll that shows that even when including Gary Johnson as Libertarian candidate, Romney loses significantly to Obama (7pts).

How Ron Paul should respond to accusations about his record

In the debates over the weekend, Rick Santorum accused Ron Paul of being "on the margins". Santorum implies that Paul would be an ineffectual President stating (paraphrased) "Out of over 600 bills, you've only had 4 come up for a vote and only 1 that has passed."

I guess in Santorum's worldview, since the same Congress that has continually concentrated control in Washington over the decades doesn't want to hear measures that would relinquish that power, Paul isn't doing things right. Here's how I'd love to hear Ron Paul respond:

Wait a minute, are you saying that because we have a Congress that has passed such bills as the National Defense Authorization Act, the bailouts and stimulus, and Obamacare, a Congress that will stuff multiple unrelated measures into a single bill that gets both sides something they want and a plausible excuse to give their base as to why they voted for it, a Congress that will use trickery, loopholes, and bribes to pass unpopular bills (and then congratulates themselves on legislative creativity), a Congress that frequently does not read the bills they are voting on, a Congress that throws taxpayers money around at endeavors like a bridge to nowhere (that my opponent here voted for), ethanol subsidies, and Solyndra, a Congress that continues to raise the debt ceiling while it has not had a balanced budget in virtually my entire tenure and hasn't passed a budget at all in the last 3 years, a Congress that cozies up to special interests and lobbyists and who often outsources the writing of complex bills to corporate insiders, a Congress with an 8% approval rating, because *that* Congress refuses to even debate my bills, are you saying that reflects negatively on me?

[optional]

I'm more concerned with finding common areas of agreement and forming coalitions for freedom. I've been accused by my opponents of working with Democrats and leftists like Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich - and this is true. But because I can agree with Frank on the need to get the federal govt out of trying to restrict medical marijuana doesn't mean I agree with him on his banking regulations. Because I can find common ground with Sanders regarding the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean I agree with him on his economic views. Because I can work with Kucinich to try to change our interventionist foreign policy doesn't mean I agree with his views on govt funded health care. Working with people with whom you disagree 95% of the time to get things in that 5% accomplished doesn't make you a sellout, it's how you build coalitions to fight a battle for liberty without losing your principles.

[/optional]

No, this accusation reveals the mentality of Washington insiders: that "getting things done" is more important than what is actually done. That has to stop. 

Another Look at this Ron Paul Racism thing

Ron Paul's rise in the polls brings with it increased scrutiny. One of the few "sideshow" issues (there aren't many) that the media is trying to raise is regarding supposedly racist newsletters that he supposedly wrote.


Let's look at those claims a little more in detail. If you are think this country is on the wrong track and that freedom is under assault, please ensure that you are making an informed decision instead of relying on "edited reality". Please read on as well as the links referenced to get a better understanding of this controversy.