agrippa1

I know there's not much interest in the specific how of government funding, but it seems to me that contingent contributions might have some potential.

The idea is that contributions are pledged for a specific purpose with a specific price tag, on the condition that the contribution is made only if enough is pledged to cover the cost.

This would give donations a multiplying effect of sorts, by spurring others to reach the goal in order to gain benefit from the already (and to-be) pledged contributions of others.
If the goal is not reached, the contingent contributions are null, and no benefit is gained by anyone.

The other side to this is that the government would then be forced to justify any expenses in order to garner the needed cost of the project or agency. If they fail, it's back to the back room.

The details of contributions might be left to the elected officials, who could bring to Washington the pot of money contributed by their constituents, and contribute it on their behalf to the programs that benefit the state or district of that representative. In that way, the federal government would compete with localities for funding and contributions would run uphill from local to national, rather than the other way around, which currently serves to strengthen the state and weaken the individual.

I'm not so sure this is donations/private industry solutions issue. If I were an aspiring climatological engineer, and got the donations to build, say, a high-altitude sulfur ion dispensing rocket (one solution already proposed, to spur cloud formation and thus increase albedo), would you be okay with me firin' that sucker up, and tryin' her out?

What if I sent it up and somehow managed to create a superstorm that swept into Southern Cal and killed 100,000 people? (Okay, maybe a bad example)

I think an argument exists to regulate any attempts to affect weather until simulations can be run, and small scale experiments set up. The introduction of controlled inputs to the Earth's atmosphere would take our climate models out of the reactive phase, and into the proactive. This implies a gov't role, and properly so, since destructive weather, although unintentional, must be regarded as a use of force against fellow citizens without their consent.

But, yes, I agree that man is the proper solvent for such a problem.

The question is an interesting one, because it leads us naturally to the more general question: If warming was shown be as serious a threat as Algore claims in his schlockumockery, should we only act if it's found that man caused it? Are we willing to see Northern Europe and most of North America glaciate for the sake of preserving Mother Nature's will?

The Algores of the world seem to be saying that if it's man's fault, we should place our minds on the sacrificial altar, rather than address the problem rationally. But, if it's nature's fault, then that's just hunky-dory, and we all just have to live with it.

I reject both propositions, and, if GW turns out to be a serious threat, regardless of its cause, I see this as a tremendous opportunity to finally tame one of the most unpredictable forces of nature using our rational minds. The knowledge gained would likely lead to innumerable new opportunities to expand the creative and productive potential of man.

The hope that Justice [sic] Roberts ruling of the Mandate as a tax will allow a simple majority repeal, is a false one. He states explicitly that the "tax" definition is for purposes of Constitutionality only, and that for legal purposes, including application of the Anti-Injunction Act, and presumably for application of Congressional procedures, the Mandate is what Congress defined it to be in the legislation, i.e., a penalty. Roberts has ruled that A both is and is not A.

There's no silver lining here. SCOTUS has affirmed the authority of the federal gov't to lay and collect taxes, regardless of the application towards the enumerated powers. Having specifically rejected the only justification, in terms of those powers, Roberts allows a violation of the 10th Amendment and leaves no interpretation open that limits the authority of the gov't to wield taxes as a weapon against Liberty. Congress could pass a tax on Buddhists, that SCOTUS might find unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, but upon wider consideration uphold it as within Congress' unlimited power to lay and collect taxes.

There is no limit. This is total tyranny, proposed, decided and sanctioned by one man.

The argument that we are not officially at war is moot. Being officially at war requires us to declare war on a nation, not a combative force which operates within one or more nations. Paul's argument is irrational. It boils down to the assertion that if a person acquired U.S. citizenship prior to engaging war against the U.S., he is not subject to acts of war in defense of his aggression. If that premise is followed, then Al Qaeda or the Taliban, or any other non-state force could simply enlist naturalized U.S. citizens, or have a number of its members become naturalized under false pretenses (reference Faizal Shahzad's explanation for attacking the nation that granted him citizenship on the basis of his proclaimed loyalty - "You're the enemy. I lied!"). Under those conditions, our armed services would find themselves engaged in daily combat with a force that might contain U.S. citizens. The prohibition against taking direct offensive action against U.S. citizens would mean what? They could only defend themselves? They would be forced to lay down their weapons and go home?

As long as the gov't provides a clear, objective definition of "enemy combatant," it matters not whether that combatant happened to have been naturalized by the U.S. In fact, the argument could be made that we have more jurisdiction to kill naturalized Americans operating as terrorists in foreign land than we do to target foreign citizens who at least may be defending their land, in their own minds.

They have it exactly backwards. Leaving the gold standard caused the Great Depression, acknowledging the reality that we had left the gold standard and subsequently devaluing the currency forced prices up to fall in line with debt and allowed for rational trading and lending to resume.

The U.S. effectively left the gold standard in 1917 when it began the issuance of over $20B in Liberty Bonds, convertible to gold at maturity, to fund our participation in WWI. These represented 50% of the pre-war GDP and over four times the previous gold obligation of the U.S., an amount that the U.S. could never (and would never) pay off. Those bonds were converted to fixed-rate T-Bills over the course of the next decade in a scheme involving the Fed and Treasury that essentially allowed banks to buy T-Bills on credit at about 2%, sell them immediately to the public at slightly below par, and earn interest on the proceeds at 4-5% until the gov't asked for the money to pay operating costs. The T-Bills rates were fixed at greater than market interest to ensure that all treasuries offered would sell, and the effect was that banks were guaranteed to sell all the T-Bills they purchased to secondary the market. In early 1929, the gov't announced that it would no longer issue T-Bills at fixed rate, but would auction them off, as they still do today. This would cut off a huge source of profit to the banks, and by the time the first auction occurred, in November 1929, the market had already crashed. It was the public's realization that the government had left the gold standard (i.e., could not honor its convertibility obligation), and the banks' unwillingness to play along any longer, that precipitated the crash, and it was the gov't acknowledgment of reality almost five years later that led to a short-lived recovery starting in 1934.

As for the gold standard, there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here. All the gov't needs to do to establish a gold standard is pass a law declaring gold convertibility of U.S. currency at a given rate. That rate would be an exact number = (currency in circulation)/(gold reserves). That number can be as high as it needs to be to provide 100% convertibility. That's the definition of a full reserve gold standard. A fractional reserve gold standard means that the government print more money (or other obligations) than can be redeemed for gold... until the people catch wind.

Fractional reserve banking is a completely different concept. It involves adding other assets as backers of money (M1, M2, M3), so that the monetary base of gold-backed currency can be expanded into monetary aggregates of both currency and asset-backed deposits. A bank that maintains a reserve of currency for day-day transactions and backs its deposits with assets with values considerably larger than the amount of their loans, can operate safely and generate an expanded monetary supply far greater than what could be provided with just gold as a backer of money. This means that the limitations on gold supply act as a regulator but not a hard limit to money supply, even in a full reserve gold standard.

It is when banks fail to maintain adequate reserves that they risk a liquidity run, and it is when they fail to adequately evaluate collateral that they face a solvency crisis. It was the mis-evaluation of house values based on mark-to-market in a bubble that caused banks to back their deposits and MBS's with insufficient salable collateral that caused the mortgage meltdown.

I've been to Australia, and I claim that it's full of intelligent people, but I have not brought back any samples, even though my equipment is intact. Therefore there are no intelligent people in Australia. Certainly no evidence here to dispute that conclusion!

I've been to Australia, and I claim that it's full of intelligent people, but I have not brought back any samples, even though my equipment is intact. Therefore there are no intelligent people in Australia. Certainly no evidence here to dispute that conclusion!

A rational society would rightfully outlaw the propagation of speech which is a threat to the Constitutional principles of that society.

An Objectivist society would outlaw political speech espousing socialism, just as it would outlaw political speech espousing the killing and eating of 49% of the population by the majority 51%. Free speech rights are not absolute, for the reason that some speech constitutes the initiation of force against individuals. (Yelling fire, and inciting riots are two easy examples)

A rational society would rightfully outlaw the propagation of speech which is a threat to the Constitutional principles of that society.

An Objectivist society would outlaw political speech espousing socialism, just as it would outlaw political speech espousing the killing and eating of 49% of the population by the majority 51%. Free speech rights are not absolute, for the reason that some speech constitutes the initiation of force against individuals. (Yelling fire, and inciting riots are two easy examples)

Argument from authority.

There is a contradiction here. Rand required the oath for entry into Galt's Gulch for a reason that should be obvious to the simplest of minds. What do you think would have been the penalty for apostasy in Galt's Gulch? Think about that, in the context of the story, and imagine what options the Gulchers would have had in such a case.

A nation that allows any sort of political expression clearly does not require such an oath. A moment's consideration, using Galt's Gulch as analogy for a free state, leads to the conclusion that such a nation cannot survive in freedom for more than a few generations.

Freedom and rights do not include the right to infringe on others' rights. Does freedom of speech allow one to advocate violation of others' rights?

Argument from authority.

There is a contradiction here. Rand required the oath for entry into Galt's Gulch for a reason that should be obvious to the simplest of minds. What do you think would have been the penalty for apostasy in Galt's Gulch? Think about that, in the context of the story, and imagine what options the Gulchers would have had in such a case.

A nation that allows any sort of political expression clearly does not require such an oath. A moment's consideration, using Galt's Gulch as analogy for a free state, leads to the conclusion that such a nation cannot survive in freedom for more than a few generations.

Freedom and rights do not include the right to infringe on others' rights. Does freedom of speech allow one to advocate violation of others' rights?

A rational society would rightfully outlaw the propagation of speech which is a threat to the Constitutional principles of that society.

An Objectivist society would outlaw political speech espousing socialism, just as it would outlaw political speech espousing the killing and eating of 49% of the population by the majority 51%. Free speech rights are not absolute, for the reason that some speech constitutes the initiation of force against individuals. (Yelling fire, and inciting riots are two easy examples)

Argument from authority.

There is a contradiction here. Rand required the oath for entry into Galt's Gulch for a reason that should be obvious to the simplest of minds. What do you think would have been the penalty for apostasy in Galt's Gulch? Think about that, in the context of the story, and imagine what options the Gulchers would have had in such a case.

A nation that allows any sort of political expression clearly does not require such an oath. A moment's consideration, using Galt's Gulch as analogy for a free state, leads to the conclusion that such a nation cannot survive in freedom for more than a few generations.

Freedom and rights do not include the right to infringe on others' rights. Does freedom of speech allow one to advocate violation of others' rights?

Yeah, I was going to hypothesize about the possible meaning of "Greenspan," but then I remembered that he's not fictional.

Galt/Gault is a proper noun for an archaeological clay layer in England, derived from Norw. "gald" meaning "hard ground."

But this is much better.

And thanks for "The Driver." I got an email from Mises.org a few months ago asking "Who is Garet Garrett?" I had no idea, and I never had a chance to read the piece. BTW, the novel is available on mises.org in pdf format here.