What Is Wrong with Social Security?

Column for week of June 15, 2015

     Most people seem to have at least an inkling that all is
not well with Social Security.  Many if not most believe that
we should do something to fix Social Security.  A tweak here,
a tuck there, a bit more tax, a slight increase in the retirement
age, and all will be well.

     It won't be that simple.  The Social Security system is
so flawed that it is unfixable.  The US economy is in a death
spiral.  The one single event that started the plunge and put the
USA on the downward course was the creation of Social
Security.  How does it work?

     Our great productivity is built on investment.  Instead of
putting all of our efforts into making things for immediate
consumption, we put part of our efforts into research,
development, factories, office buildings, mines, etc. that will
produce consumer goods in the future.

     Our investment in these production facilities increases
the productivity of workers.  This investment doesn't merely
defer consumption.  It increases total production allowing us to
consume more in the future.  This is how we raise our standard
of living.

     Thus, people who save and invest for retirement
increase our productivity.  This makes it easier for those still
working to produce for the retired.  The retired sell off their
investments and buy what they consume.

     The retired aren't a burden on the producing generation. 
The producing generation saving for its retirement buys up the
investment.  They may add to that investment providing for a
better retirement and further increasing productivity.

     When the  producing generation buys the investment of
the retired, the producers are merely repaying the retired for the
aid the retired gave the producers by investing and increasing
the workers' ability to produce.  Everyone benefits.

     With Social Security there are no savings and no
investments.  All Social Security taxes are spent immediately
by the government, either to pay benefits, or for general fund
spending.  The so-called Social Security Trust Fund is a myth. 
It is merely a collection of government IOUs for consumed
wealth.  The only way to pay those IOUs is to take wealth
from someone.

     Social Security doesn't provide one dime of investment
or even one widget of increased productivity.  It also
discourages workers from saving for retirement and investing
the savings.

     All Social Security payments are taken from the
producing generation and transferred to the retired generation. 
This is totally a burden born by the producers.  The producers
have less to spend on food, clothing, education, medical care,
and everything else in order to provide more for the retired.

     As the ratio of retirees to workers increases the burden
on the producers grows.  In the beginning many workers
supported one retiree on Social Security.  We are fast
approaching the point where there will be one retiree for each
worker.  Each worker will be supporting one retired person.

     The effect of Medicare is the same as that of Social
Security.  Presently Social Security and Medicare payments per
retiree are more than $25,000 per year.  Even with no increase
in payments, each worker will have to pay at least $25,000 per
year to support a retiree.  How are these burdened workers
going to save anything to invest in increasing, or even
sustaining, productivity?

     We have two choices.  We can get rid of Social
Security and Medicare replacing them with savings based
retirement.  The alternative is to continue riding the dying
Social Security horse until it collapses.  Either way Social
Security and Medicare will end sooner or later.

     If we stay on the present course our economy will die
with those worn out horses.  We can act now to keep the
Social Security bus from running off the cliff.  Or, we can
relax and enjoy the ride.  Those of us who see what is coming
are not likely to greatly enjoy the ride.  Perhaps ignorance is
bliss, for a while.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Who Should Define Marriage?

Column for week of June 8, 2015

     One of the hottest of the hot button issues of recent
years has been same sex marriage.  There is plenty that should
be considered about government involvement in marriage.  The
same sex marriage issue does more to obscure the basic issues
than to move toward any solution.

     The traditional definition of marriage is a relationship
between members of opposite sexes.  The number of each may
vary.  Even in a polygamist marriage the wives aren't
considered married to each other.  To call same sex relations
marriage corrupts the English language and reduces the
usefulness of the word marriage for purposes of
communication.  "Marriage" must now be accompanied by a
modifier if it is to express what "marriage" used to mean.

     Marriage is a partnership between individuals.  The big
question isn't about the names we use to describe those
partnerships.  The big issue is, Who will define those
partnerships?  Presently marriage is defined by government. 
Anyone desiring to participate in a government marriage must
jump through the government hoops and accept a relationship
governed by government rules.

     Individuals may, and do, form partnerships not
sanctioned by government.  Some of those partnerships are
expressly forbidden by government.  Others, government courts
merely refuse to recognize and enforce.

     Why are some individuals so determined to have their

partnerships recognized as government marriages?  

Government grants many privileges and benefits to 

participants in a government marriage.  If a partnership isn't 

recognized as a government marriage, those privileges and 

benefits don't apply.

     Making partnerships work and endure isn't easy.  Half
or so of government marriages end up on the rocks.  Having
the terms of the partnership dictated by government doesn't
increase the odds that the partners can make it work.

     There is no good reason why government should be in
the marriage business.  There are a number of reasons why it
shouldn't be.  Individuals should be free to negotiate such
peaceful uncoerced partnerships as they choose.  The number
and gender of the individuals should be for them to choose.

     Government should also refrain from granting special
privileges to any partnership.  Individuals would be free to
refuse to be part of any partnership of which they don't
approve.  They could also try to persuade others not to join
some or all such partnerships.

     Government should allow all partners equal access to
government courts to resolve disputes in voluntary, peaceful
partnerships.  Encouraging and discouraging partnerships
should be left to individuals and voluntary associations of
individuals.  The most that government can add to partnerships
called marriage or by any other name is "Do it my way or I
will hurt you" rules.

     "Reason" magazine published an article by an attorney
who represents individuals forming non traditional partnerships. 
These partnerships may involve two, three or four individuals. 
Obviously when three or more are involved, some must be of
the same gender.

     I don't buy the garbage about everyone being free to
invent their own gender.  Like it or not individuals are stuck
with the gender they are assigned biologically.  An individual
can mutilate its body to obscure its gender.  So far that doesn't
change the chromosomes.

     Some people are going to pursue such partnerships
whether or not government, or anyone else approves.  What is
to be gained by forcing such individuals to form their
partnerships in a legal twilight zone where disputes can be
resolved and agreements enforced only with underworld style
tactics?

     Peaceful partnerships should be forged to fit the needs
and desires of the partners, not to please government
busybodies.  Only partnerships for non peaceful purposes
should be discouraged with force.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Free Trade or Forced Trade?

Column for week of May 25, 2015

     We all trade.  Mostly we produce things we don't want
and trade them for what we want.  Typically we exchange what
we produce for money.  We then exchange the money for what
we want.  When we spend the money we are really spending
what we traded away to get the money.

     In theory an individual might survive by consuming
only what he produces himself or finds in nature.  The only
tools and equipment the self sufficient individual would have
would be those he produced himself.  If everyone were self
sufficient, no one would have much.  Even the most primitive
of people to some extent trade with each other.

     We trade because we gain by specializing and trading.
Without trade humans couldn't rise beyond being
hunter-gatherers practicing very primitive agriculture.  The
question isn't, Will we trade?  The question is, How will we
trade?

     Individuals could steal from others rather than trade. 
Stealing is really the ultimate forced trade.  The victim
exchanges something for nothing.

     When individuals voluntarily trade, each expects to
benefit from the exchange.  If any party to the trade didn't
expect to benefit, he wouldn't participate.  The trade wouldn't
happen.

     When an individual will not trade unless forced, he
believes the trade is not beneficial to him.  Something is stolen
from him.  Forcing that individual to trade is involuntary
servitude, sometimes called slavery.

     Individuals seek different things in different ways. 
Everyone's ultimate goal is to maximize his  satisfaction.  No
individual is capable of getting inside the head of another and
discovering what will satisfy that individual.  Anyone forced to
trade is a victim forced into involuntary servitude.

     Still many people have bought the idea that businesses
should be forced to serve anyone who walks in the door.  Keep
in mind that businesses are just people producing and offering
to trade their products to others.  A business may be one
person or thousands.  Any service provided by the business is
provided by one or more individuals.

     Some may argue that the individuals can avoid the
involuntary servitude by not going into business.  The only
way to avoid the involuntary servitude is to refrain from
offering to trade with others.   In other words, the only escape
from involuntary servitude is into the world of self sufficiency
and the poverty that is inevitable in that world.

     Individuals who work in businesses earn their livelihood
by serving and pleasing customers.  Businesses that turn away
many paying customers don't thrive.  They may not even
survive.  If businesses are so eager to turn away customers,
Why did government and organizations such as the Ku Klux
Klan deem it necessary to threaten business people with
imprisonment and even death to stop the businesses from
serving black customers?

     A key business strategy is to seek to serve customers
that are unserved or under served.  Someone will be seeking to
serve rejected customers.   There is no compelling reason why
everyone has to be able to demand service from every business. 
Customers aren't forced to patronize most businesses.  Why
should individuals in businesses be forced to involuntarily serve
customers?

     The latest epidemic of involuntary servitude involves
providing services for "gay weddings."  Part of the tragedy here
is that the wannabe customers aren't even wannabe customers. 
They aren't really seeking to be served.   They seek to find
businesses who will refuse service.  Then they have the
business persecuted for the welcome refusal.  I have yet to hear
of even one instance where any same sex couple had to go
without a wedding cake because no one would bake it.

     "Solutions" forced by government commonly do more
harm than good.  The cure is worse than the disease.  In this
case there isn't any disease to cure.  The more we turn from
free trade to forced trade, the sicker our nation becomes.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

It Bugs Me

Column for week of May 18, 2015

     The best our esteemed legislators could do for fixing the
roads was to offer a plan so gruesome that four out of five
voters rejected it.  This was a historic smack down.  No other
proposed amendment to the present Michigan constitution was
so thoroughly drubbed.  Until now I suspected that it might be
impossible for the legislators to come up with something that
voters would so soundly reject.

     Now that the sales tax increase and all of its baggage
are road kill in the rear view mirror the legislators can get on
with important matters.  One of those pending matters is a bill
to designate an official state insect.  The current nominee is the
ladybug.

     There are supposedly over 5,000 types of ladybugs.  I
don't know if there are as many types of gentlemen bugs.  Do I
see a hint of gender discrimination?  The proposed law doesn't
specify which of the ladybugs is to be honored.  Perhaps each
will get a turn.  We could have a different state insect each day
for more than 13 years.  I'm so excited I can barely type. That
is no big deal.  I can barely type when I'm not excited.

     Perhaps we should limit the honor to ladybugs that live
in Michigan.  Naturally this will require appointment of a
subcommittee to study and identify the ladybugs living in
Michigan.  This could take years.  Don't even ask what it will
cost.

     The bigger question is, How much longer can we
survive without an official state insect?  The legislators have
been fumbling the ball on this one for longer than they have
been tripping over pot holes.

     Speaking of potholes, Why not have the legislators take
time off from choosing bugs and go fill some pot holes?  For
what we are paying them, we ought to get a bit of useful work
out of them.

     In recent years four bills have been offered to designate
the monarch butterfly as the official state insect.  What chance
do ladybugs have in a contest where the mighty and colorful
monarch failed four times?  Is it possible that there are
unenlightened heathens who don't recognize our dire need for
an official state insect?

     The nomination of the green darner dragonfly also
failed to gain ratification as the official state bug.  It appears to
be more difficult to get an official state bug confirmed in
Michigan than to get a Supreme Court justice confirmed in D.
C.

     Is it possible that the legislature will choose the brown
Japanese ladybugs?  They are the ones that congregate on the
south side of my house every October and then attempt to
sneak inside for the winter?  Even I might be ever so slightly
offended if they chose those pests.  Besides, wouldn't it be
unpatriotic to designate a recently arrived foreigner as the
official state bug?  At least it wouldn't be quite as bad as
choosing the Japanese betels that eat my raspberries.

     The last time I checked Michigan had an official state
bird.  I believe that at the time someone was campaigning to
replace it.  I don't know who won.  What would happen if the
official state bird ate the official state insect?  Perhaps the
result could be designated the official state indigestion.

     Other matters the legislators have pondered include
designation of an official state poem and official state cookie. 
How about considering a return to a part time legislature?  A
legislature that has time to worry about an official state insect
and state cookie has far too much time on its hands.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Tax Dollars at Work

Column for week of May 11, 2015

     The headline was an eye catcher -- "Ohio killer caught
after more than 50 years on the run."  Just seeing the headline
will likely make some people feel safer.  What is more
dangerous and threatening than a killer on the loose?

     Headlines are written to attract attention to the articles,
not to accurately describe them.  This headline was up to its
job.  On the other hand, the article was worth reading.  The
real message of the story wasn't that anyone was safer because
a killer had been removed from circulation.

     The killer was convicted of manslaughter for running
into and killing a pedestrian in 1957.  His sentence was one to
20 years in prison.  This sentence was suspended by the judge
who placed the killer on probation.  Apparently even then the
judge didn't believe the defendant was public enemy number
one.

     The defendant was eventually sent to prison for
violating probation by getting a drivers license.  "Man
apprehended for getting a drivers license 56 years ago" might
not be an exciting headline.  It would be far more accurate
though.  The man escaped from a prison camp in 1959.

     The killer was caught once before in West Virginia in
1975.  The governor of West Virginia refused to grant
extradition to Ohio.  After that the man was released and
moved on.  Apparently he still hadn't been promoted to public
enemy number one.

     Even based on what we have seen so far, Why was
Ohio spending time and tax dollars to find this man who was
now almost 80 years old?  Ohio must be a really safe place if
it faces no greater threats to public safety.

     Law enforcement and imprisonment should be about
making the world a safer place, not about some detective
scoring a headline grabbing catch.  How much better off is
anyone in Ohio for having the privilege of paying to catch and
imprison this 79 years old convicted of manslaughter?  Of
course, the Ohio taxpayers might get a break.  Perhaps the
governor of Florida will follow the example set by the
governor of West Virginia and refuse to grant extradition.

     This is a reoccurring story.  Individuals who have
escaped the grip of government get caught after decades of
living a clean life.  What are the benefits of spending a small
fortune to then send them to prison?

     Such imprisonments are merely blind allegiance to
arbitrary rules.  Anytime people blindly enforce rules without
any understanding of, or regard for, the purpose of the rule,
foolishness happens.  Such foolishness is merely an example of
zero tolerance run amok.

     Rules serve one legitimate purpose.  That is to be
guides to harmonious, peaceful living.  Any rule enforced
without regard for its purpose is a trap waiting to spring on
someone.  Rules that become ends in themselves are disasters
waiting to happen.

     Bureaucrats usually lose sight of the purpose for the
rules.  Even if they recognize the purpose of the rule, they are
commonly discouraged from considering the purpose when
enforcing the rule.  This is one of the big reasons why
government is so ham handed and counter productive.

     There is an interesting sidelight to the story of the day. 
The killer was convicted for being a bad and dangerous driver. 
For years after that the man worked as a truck driver.  During
this time apparently he never did anything worthy of legal
attention.

     Perhaps some still believe the man has not been
adequately punished for getting a drivers license in the 1950s. 
Might having to live on the run for 56 years be almost enough
punishment?

     These "justice delayed" stories sometimes end with a
different twist.  I recently read of a man who turned himself in
after years on the run.  It wasn't a matter of conscience of
tiring of life on the run.  It was his way of seeking medical
treatment he couldn't afford.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

It Is All About Individuals

Column for week of May 4, 2015

     Some people, especially politicians, wax elegant about
the need for individuals to sacrifice for the good of society, or
the common good.  They are either liars or ignoramuses, or at
least twisting words.

     Only individuals enjoy satisfaction and suffer
dissatisfaction.  Whenever any individual sacrifices his
satisfaction, the sacrifice either benefits other individuals, or no
one.  Those who claim individuals should sacrifice for the
common good in reality advocate that some should, at their
own expense, serve others.

     In addition, only individuals can act.  Everything we
have is either the product of nature or of the efforts of one or
more individuals.  Most of what we have is the fruits of nature
greatly enhanced by the efforts of individuals.  The sum of the
fruits of individual actions equal everything we have.  Some of
those individual actions are negative.  Such actions make us
poorer rather than richer.

     Those negative acts include theft, destruction, and
interfering with the productivity of others.  It might be argued
that individuals sacrificing for society only means that
individuals should sacrifice their negative actions.  That is,
individuals should quit stealing, destroying and interfering.

     It doesn't take much thought to see that this in not the
sacrifice that politicians demand.  Most of the negative actions
are perpetrated, or at least sanctioned, by government.  Anyone
in favor of reducing negative actions would be for shrinking
government by eliminating its actions that have negative
impacts on the productivity and satisfaction of individuals.

     That which is negative to one may be positive to
another.  Certainly the thief may gain satisfaction from his loot. 
When government takes from some to give to others it follows
the game plan of the common thief.  When government keeps
part of the loot, usually most of it, government employees and
other accomplices benefit from the sacrifice they impose on the
victims.

     Some claim that government must take from some to
help the poor and needy.  Considering how little of the loot
trickles through to the poor, I defy anyone to make an honest
and convincing argument that the poor are better off relying on
government rather than private, voluntary charity.

     The case grows far weaker for corporate welfare to
Hollywood, sports stadiums, banks, manufacturers, etc.  The
claim that such welfare is essential to create jobs is bogus. 
Most of the jobs promised to result from corporate welfare
never materialize.

     The few jobs created are insignificant compared to the
millions of new jobs created every year by the private sector. 
It takes millions of new jobs every year just to replace the jobs
lost in the changing economy.

     Government is run by an elite, and usually exploitive,
ruling class.  The members pursue their satisfaction, not yours. 
Government is so vast and so opaque that voters have almost
no impact on it beyond a few hot button issues.  How can any
voter possibly keep track of the tens of thousands of
government actions?

     If the voters simply demand that the politicians shrink
government, the ruling class's response is predictable.  They
will, with straight faces and voices dripping with sincerity, say
that the only thing they can cut is whatever the voters want the
most.

     For so long as voters can be conned into sacrificing for
the wealthy ruling class, be sure that the ruling class will
demand and accept the sacrifice.  False gods always demand
sacrifices.

     Our only way out is to recognize and defend the rights
of individuals to live their lives free from the "Sacrifice to us,
or we will hurt you" demands of the ruling class.  The only
greater enemies we face are those among us who are blind to
the reality that government is controlled by a deeply and firmly
entrenched ruling class.  The quarrels between Republicans and
Democrats are nothing more than family squabbles.  Neither
has any intention of saving us from the other.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Are You Ready for Extortion?

 Column for week of April 27, 2015

     On May 5 Michigan voters will be asked to approve a
$2 billion tax increase.  Of course, the $2 billion is only a
starter.  With time and inflation the tax increase will grow. 
The $2 billion tax increase is the price our "public servants"
demand before they will do anything to fix the roads.

     The legislature says only 65 percent of the tax increase
will be spent on transportation.  Transportation is loosely
defined to include mass transit and recreational grants.  The
remaining 35 percent is the price our "public servants" demand
in exchange for their tossing a few of our dollars at pot holes.  
They say "Give us an extra $700 million dollars to squander as
we see fit or we won't allow the roads to be fixed." This is
extortion.

     Will voters grovel and lick the politicians' boots while
expressing gratitude for the crumbs?   Or, will the voters stand,
scream "No way," and boot out the extorting politicians at the
next election?

     Those politicians who can't find money to fix the roads
are spending hundreds of millions on corporate welfare,
including millions for "impoverished" Hollywood movie
makers.  The claim is that those gifts create jobs.

     The number of jobs promised is insignificant.  The
number delivered is even smaller.  Also, they fail to deduct the
jobs that would have been created by taxpayers spending their
own money.

     In addition substantial amounts of highway tax revenue
are now diverted to non road uses such as city buses.  The only
justification for the high tax on motor fuel is that it serves as a
toll where by road users pay for the roads they use.  Diversion
to any other purpose, worthy or not, is the kind of breach of
trust we have grown too accustomed to.

     Some legislators claim there is no other plan to fix the
roads.  They want us to believe it is either submit to extortion,
or potholes forever.  An alternate plan was introduced in the
legislature in December 2014.  It included a way to provide
money for roads without raising taxes.  I don't recall the details
of the plan.  The important point is that its existence proves
that those saying there is no alternative are either liars or suffer
from severe amnesia.  Either way they don't belong in the
legislature.

     If the legislature's great plan didn't include a sales tax
increase it wouldn't require voter approval.  There is no reason
why sales tax should be involved in road work.  Use road tax
money and only road tax money for the roads.  And, spend
road tax money only on roads.

     The politicians included more money for schools in
their package.  Every scam must include "Do it for the
children."  No matter how much money we pour down the rat
hole of failed schools, many voters still fall for the claim more
money will fix the schools.  Never mind that the worst schools
are already getting the most money.  Failed schools, like any
other failed enterprises, need to be junked and replaced.  There
is ample evidence that fixes don't work.

     There is another neat feature to the tax package. 
Vehicle registration charges used to be based on vehicle
weight.  This made sense.  Weight bears some relation to how
much vehicles damage the roads.

     Then the politicians changed the formula and charged
based on price of the vehicle.  Price has nothing to do with
road damage.  At least they let the registration charges decrease
as the vehicle aged.  The May 5 tax package eliminates that
decrease.  If you drive a worn down old car you will pay an
annual fee based on what it cost new.  When you are on a roll,
Why not rip off the low income people too?

     I'm voting NO on the May 5 sales tax increase and all
its baggage.  A NO vote will also be a stick in the eye for the
conniving politicians trying to ram the garbage down the
taxpayers' throats.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Is It Happening Again?

Column for week of April 20, 2015

     A news item at Bloomberg News reports that the gulf
stream in the North Atlantic is slowing down for the first time
since 900.  The gulf stream caries warm water north from the
tropics warming the North Atlantic and surrounding area,
including Europe.  Slowing of the gulf stream could cause
cooler, dryer weather in the North Atlantic region.

     Supposedly the cause of the slowing is melting ice
diluting the salt water in the ocean.  So far this all sounds
reasonable.  The force that drives the gulf stream is the
difference in pressure between the cold, dense North Atlantic
and the warmer, lighter tropical water to the south.  The light
water is forced up by the heavier water from the north.  This
creates a hill in the tropical ocean.  Water flows endlessly north
being replaced by cold northern water.  The cold water warms
and then flows north too.

     Fresh water from melting ice is less dense than salt
water.  Thus, it reduces the pressure that drives the  gulf stream. 
For this to continue there must be an endless supply of fresh
water.  Otherwise, the fresh water soon mixes with the salt
water.  Then the gulf stream returns to its faster flow. 

     So far we are talking science.  Then the article jumps the
fence into politics.  It claims the recent slowing of the gulf
stream is caused by man made global warming.  Few, if any,
people would even dare to claim that the slowdown in 900 was
caused by humans.  Why aren't they considering that the current
slowdown may be caused by the same natural forces that caused
the one in 900?

     The year 900 was during the Medieval Warm Period that
peaked around 1100.  Then the world slid into the Little Ice Age
that held on until the mid nineteenth century.  For 150 years or
so the world has slowly and intermittently warmed a degree or
so from the Little Ice Age.  There is no reason to believe that
the world is as warm today as in 1100.  Likewise there is no
reason to believe the present warming has different causes than
the warming during the Medieval Warm Period.

     If the slowing of the gulf stream cools and drys the air
over the North Atlantic, it will slow the ice melt.  This will
restore the density of the North Atlantic.  This in turn will
restore the speed of the flow in the gulf stream.  As is so often
the case, nature will have restored its own equilibrium.

     Of course saying that the current slowing of the gulf
stream is merely repetition of a age-old phenomenon is barely
news worthy.  For anyone who isn't a gulf stream fanatic, it
would be a yawner.

     The fashion of the day is to blame every ripple in our
ever changing weather and oceans on man made global warning,
sometimes called anthropogenic (Can you believe I spelled that
right on my first try?) warming.  Scare mongers like big scary
sounding words.

     Human activity may be causing some warming.  It is well
established that building and paving a major city creates an
urban heat island.  The effect of this on average world
temperature is incredibly small.

     The "proof" of carbon dioxide caused warming is almost
all based on computer models that exaggerate warming and
completely missed the current pause in warming.  We should
back off on draconian actions to prevent man made global
warming, at least until we find data that show dangerous
warming is actually occurring.

     So far we have had three warming periods of 20 years or
so since 1860.  The warming periods were separated by cool
periods of 30 or so years each.  Most of the warming was prior
to 1940.  Most of the carbon dioxide was produced after 1940.

     The warming periods simply don't match the carbon
dioxide emissions.   Those who claim that the carbon dioxide
caused the warming have a lot of 'splanin' to do.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

How Infantile Are They?

Column for week of April 13, 2015

     Some people are different, really different.  They do
unbelievable things.  I have grown accustomed to this.  When I
hear of someone doing something I would never even imagine
doing, I don't usually jump to the conclusion that it can't
possibly be true.

     A recent article from Reason.com strained my limits.  If
it had been April first I might not have believed it.  The article
was about safe space on college campuses.  There is nothing
wrong with safe space.  The world would be a better place if
all space was safe from violence.  The space in question wasn't
designed to protect against violence.  It was a place to flee
from frightening ideas.

     The Reason article quotes Judith Shulevitz as follows
regarding safe space at Brown University: "The safe space, Ms.
Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find
comments 'troubling' or 'triggering,' a place to recuperate.  The
room was equipped with cookies, coloring books,
bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a
video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and
staff members trained to deal with trauma.  Emma Hall, a
junior, rape survivor and 'sexual assault peer educator' who
helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate,
estimates that a couple of dozen people used it.  At one point
she went to the lecture hall -- it was packed --  but after a
while, she had to return to the safe space. 'I was feeling
bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my
dearly and closely held beliefs,' Ms. Hall said."

     My first thought is, Why would someone terrified by
new ideas even set foot in a university?  Next thought, Why
would a real university cater to such a phobia, rather than
seeking to cure it?  One more thought, How has our society
reared children with infantile minds to physical adulthood?

     I see two threads that may help sew this together.  One
is the obsession with self esteem.  Earned self esteem is a good
thing.  Unwarranted self esteem can be a killer.

     Imagine a falling down drunk who feels good about
himself.  Why should he change if he is pleased with himself?
Giving everyone a trophy doesn't encourage effort and self
improvement.

     The second thread is the claim that all beliefs are
equally good.  We must not criticize anyone's beliefs and make
them feel bad.  Why would a college student break down into a
babbling blob merely because her beliefs were challenged? 
Most likely because those beliefs were never challenged before
and she has no idea how to defend them.

     In all probability those beliefs were passed on to her by
others who merely said "believe me."  They provided no
foundation or reasons why the beliefs were valid.

     Individuals who feel good about their beliefs and have
never faced challenges to those beliefs are in beyond their
depth when they venture beyond the intellectual wading pool. 
They certainly aren't ready for a real college.  And, a college
that isn't willing, and even eager, to challenge students isn't
ready for real students.

     Pretending to make the world idiot proof retards
development.  People need to take responsibility for their own
lives, including their safety.  Encouraging people to believe
everything is safe to buy and use only discourages them from
developing beyond infancy.  It also makes them less safe by
lulling them into believing their world is far safer than it is.

     As someone observed, attempts to make the world idiot
proof only produce more idiots.  I believe "idiot" is the wrong
word though.  "Fool" fits better.  Very bright people can still
do very foolish things.

     All of the above and more converge to assure adult
bodies are occupied and controlled by infantile minds.  This
shreds the fabric of civilization.  We stagger toward the point
of no return.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Are There Reasons for Hope?

Column for week of April 6, 2015

     A look back over the years can be quite depressing. 
Liberty has been trampled as long as I can remember.  Even a
cursory glance at history reveals the stomping was in full swing
before I arrived.  People in the USA are far less free than when
I was born.

     Liberty has gained ground in a few small corners.  It is
no longer illegal to sell yellow margarine, or to sell milk in
gallon jugs.  On the other hand, it is now illegal to sell raw
milk in any container.

     The law making it illegal to own gold fell by the
wayside.  That repeal came at a high price.  Our money is no
longer backed by gold.  It is merely ink splashed on paper by
the government.  That is why a dollar is now worth about what
a nickel was worth when I was born.

     Before World War II about 5 percent of workers needed
government permission to pursue their work.  Now 30 percent
have to jump through government hoops and get licenses to
work.  This has little to do with health and safety, and
everything to do with protecting established service providers
from competition.  How many people have died from bad
interior design, poorly arranged flowers, or bad hair braiding?

     Government controls the size, shape, color and location
of your house, as well as how far your cupboards are above the
floor.  It also controls what you plant or don't plant in your
yard.  A Michigan man was jailed for not planting grass.  An
elderly woman was cited for planting herbs instead of grass.

     I have watched government ride roughshod over us for
decades.  When I spoke out most people's eyes glazed over.  If
it didn't affect them personally, they didn't care.  If it did affect
then, they learned to live with it.  I doubted that the sheep
would wake up until they were in the slaughterhouse.

     I now see some signs of people rattling their chains. 
Civil asset forfeiture went big time in the 1960s.  A cop or
prosecutor would claim property was somehow involved in a
crime.  Government seized the money, house, car, whatever
without warning, or any kind of court hearing.

     The cops keep the property, unless the owner proves the
property innocent.  Sometimes the owner has to post bond for
the privilege of trying to reclaim his property.  Try posting
bond or hiring an attorney when everything you own has been
taken from you.  This is nothing more than legal theft.  In 80
percent of the cases the owner isn't even charged with a crime.

     Finally civil asset forfeiture is on the radar.  Politicians
are talking about the abuse.  Two states outlawed it.  Even the
national government has tweaked it down a bit.  Politicians are
followers, not leaders.  If they see votes to be had by reining in
civil asset forfeiture they will do it.

     Government kills people wholesale by denying them
access to medical treatment that hasn't endured years,
commonly a decade or more, of testing.  This wanton killing is
outrageous.  Until recently few seemed to care.  Some states
are now considering laws to restore some of the right for
individuals to have the treatment they chose.  There is a bill in
Congress to back down national restrictions on the access to
new treatments.

     Even those who hate marijuana should be thrilled that
marijuana prohibition is staggering on its last legs.  We all pay
the price of prohibition with little or no benefit.  Drug use rolls
on.  Criminals grow rich.  The police are distracted and
corrupted.  Perfectly good employees are fired and perhaps sent
to jail.  Families are broken and welfare rolls expanded.  Those
who profit from the war on drugs would block the ending of
prohibition if it weren't for the ever growing pressure from the
people.

     Perhaps people are finally fed up enough to stand up for
the liberty to control their own lives.  Perhaps there is some
reason for hope.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Who Is In Charge?

Column for week of March 30, 2015

     Many people are certain that every venture must have a
big boss at the top calling the shots.  Otherwise, everyone
would head off in different directions.  Nothing could be
accomplished in such confusion.

     To publish a world class encyclopedia the big boss
would direct the planning and hiring for the entire project. 
This would include hiring experts to write about every field,
editors, fact checkers, personnel managers, etc.  The big boss
would be responsible for approving the rules that would keep
everyone on track.  That is roughly the way Britannica did it.

     The enablers of Wikipedia had different ideas.  They
provided some on-line memory and a format for an
encyclopedia.  Then they said to the world, write an
encyclopedia.  The world responded.

     Individuals wrote about anything and everything.  They
checked each other's facts and edited the writing.  Anyone
connected to the Internet could participate, or not.  No one was
anybody's boss.

     Rather than chaos and confusion the strategy produced a
world class encyclopedia with accuracy that rivals
Encyclopedia Britannica.  When errors are posted someone
corrects them, usually within hours.

     Many people are shocked that the Wikipedia approach
worked at all, leave alone spectacularly.  Students of
spontaneous order aren't surprised.  Spontaneous order isn't a
new idea, only a neglected one.  Adam Smith published "An
Inquire Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"
in 1776.  He concluded that the nation whose government
interfered the least with the economy became the wealthiest. 
In other words, spontaneous order where free people organized
themselves in voluntary cooperation with each other, out
performed command and control by a big boss.  Spontaneous
order is Smith's famous "invisible hand" that guides production.

     For a short, simple illustration of spontaneous order see
"I Pencil" written by Leonard Read over half a century ago. 
The booklet is the autobiography of a lead pencil.  In the
beginning Read asserts that no one knows how to make a
pencil, yet pencils are made.

     Read proceeded to prove his point.  He considers the
vast array of tools, equipment and materials required to make a
pencil.  A few of the included items are chain saws,
locomotives, mining equipment, paint, graphite, and metal.  
These resources come from all over the world and use
technology developed over generations.

     The people involved for the most part don't even know
each other.  Some may hate some of the others.  Still, they
cooperate to make pencils.  They may not even know their
efforts are part of making pencils.  Some of them don't want
pencils and may never have seen one.

     Small parts of pencil production are organized and
managed by bosses.  There is no big boss over the entire
operation.  Each one in the chain of production seeks only to
earn a living by selling his efforts for the best price he can get. 
Through spontaneous, voluntary cooperation the fruits of their
labor flow to the pencil factory where they are used to make
pencils.

     The equipment used in producing pencils is far more
complex than the pencil.  Still, it can be efficiently produced
through spontaneous order.  The driving force that motivates
the production of pencils is consumers' desire to have pencils
and their willingness to pay for pencils.

     All production is for consumers.  With freedom and
spontaneous order the consumers are kings.  If producers don't
produce what consumers want, the consumers fire the failing
producers.  With top down command and control the wasteful
and incompetent get away with ignoring consumers' desires and
sticking it to consumers and taxpayers.

     "I Pencil" can be download free from FEE.org (PDF,
HTML or audio).  It is about 30 pages and well worth the read. 
If nothing else, you will never look at a pencil quite the same
again.  For more about spontaneous order, look it up in
Wikipedia and perhaps jot down some notes with a pencil.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Two Kinds of Profits

Column for week of March 16, 2015

     Many people vilify profits.  I endlessly read of those
who claim nobody should profit from providing education. 
Then many of those same people demand higher pay for
teachers.  Can you spell hypocrite?  What is evil about profits? 
The first step to understanding profits is to recognize there are
two kinds of profits.  One kind is truly evil.

     When the highwayman robs his victim, the victim
receives no benefit.  The highwayman's profit is the unwilling
victim's loss.  All profits extracted from unwilling victims are
illegitimate and evil.  Fortunately there is another way to gain
profits.

     Consider a shirt maker who makes a shirt for $15.  He
sells the shirt to a willing customer for $20.  It would have
cost the customer $30 to make his own shirt.  Is the customer a
victim because the shirt maker's efforts gained him a $5 profit? 
Or, is the shirt maker a victim because the customer gained
twice as much as did the shirt maker?

     For both the sale was voluntary.  Each expected to
benefit.  If either hadn't expected to benefit, he wouldn't have
made the exchange.  Why make or buy a shirt if you gain
nothing by doing it?  In all voluntarily, free market transactions
each party expects to gain.

     The future is never 100 percent predictable.  Thus,
sometimes the traders don't get the expected benefits.  People
learn from their errors and try to do better next time. 

     Suppose the shirt maker sells a million shirts and earns
$5 million of profits.  Are his profits ill gotten simply because
he repeated the same act a million times?   How many shirts
did he have to sell before his profits became ill gotten gain? 
Should he have stopped at 100, 1,000 or perhaps 10,000? 
Would any of the million shirt buyers have benefited more if
the shirt maker had decreased his profits by selling fewer
shirts?

     Profits earned through free market transactions are
rewards for serving others.  The greater the rewards for serving
customers, the harder producers try to serve.

     The only way businesses earn profits in free markets is
by producing value.  Our shirt maker bought supplies and labor
worth $15 and produced a shirt that was worth $30 to the
buyer.  The shirt maker got $5 of that added value as profit. 
This was a good deal for everyone involved, including the
suppliers who sold the means for making the shirt.

     Before judging the merits of profits we must determine
whether the profits were gained by the way of the highwayman
or the way of the shirt maker.   Were the profits earned in a
voluntary transaction, or was someone coerced into paying the
profits?  Profits through coercion are a form of theft.  The
person paying the profits is coerced to pay the profiteer.

     Our economy is so severely regulated by government
coercion that it is all but impossible to separate good profits
from evil ones.  The morass of laws all but eliminates
completely voluntary transactions.  Even if government
coercion doesn't dominate the chain of production, it at least
infects it.  Few business profits are paid on a 100 percent
voluntary basis.

     Confiscating all profits to eliminate illegitimate ones
would be a cure worse than the disease.  It would kill much of
the incentive for businesses in the legal economy to serve
customers.  Black markets would flourish.  I hope no one
believes that is a good solution.

     The only sane solution is to eliminate the laws
restricting freedom in the marketplace.  Producers will then be
unable to extract illegitimate profits from customers.  Then we
will have no reason to worry about illegitimate profits.

     Competition in the marketplace eats profits like foxes
eat rabbits.  The only way for free market businesses to sustain
profits is to innovate.  Without new products and better ways
to produce existing products, competition grinds profits down
to zero.  That is why established businesses endlessly turn to
government for the imposition of restrictions on competition.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Zero Tolerance -- The New Frontier

Column for week of March 9, 2015

     For some time I have worried that the masters of zero
tolerance in schools were approaching the limits of creativity. 
How could they possibly come up with new and more
ridiculous reasons for suspending students?  A recent news
article suggests the answer.

     "A fourth grade boy in Odessa, Texas has been
suspended from school for making a terroristic threat.  He told
another boy that he had a magic ring and could make him
disappear."  That is a bit creative.  It doesn't plow new ground
though.  Another school previously suspended a boy for writing
about shooting an imaginary dinosaur with an imaginary gun.

     The suspended boy's father didn't appear to take the
"terroristic threat" quite as seriously as did the school principal. 
The father told the principal "his son lacked the magical
powers necessary to threaten his friend's existence, but even if
he had those powers, he's sure his son would bring his friend
right back."

     The principal's rational was "threats to another child's
safety would not be tolerated - whether they are magical or
not."  Perhaps the principal should be transferred to a drug free
school zone.  It sounds like she may have already ingested a
few too many magic mushrooms.  I wonder what will happen
if a student threatens to turn the principal into a toad. 

     Naturally there is more to the story.  The boy was a
chronic offender with two previous suspensions in a mere six
months.

     His first offense was calling an African-America
"black."  If the African-America was from Egypt, Algeria or
Morocco, this was probably wrong (wrong like in mistake).  If
mistakes are grounds for suspension, schools will be rather
empty, especially principals' offices.

     I am a bit puzzled by the second suspension.  The boy
brought "his favorite book to school, called 'The Big Book of
Knowledge.'  The popular children's encyclopedia had a section
on pregnancy with a pregnant woman in an illustration."  Why
this offended the principal is truly mystifying.  Considering
schools enthusiasm for sex education, Why didn't the boy get
bonus points instead of a suspension?

     None of these suspensions strain the envelope of what
schools have already done.  Obviously the principal is looking
to the future.  Why not?  The future is the only thing we have
ahead of us.  When all silly suspensions become so common
place that no one, even me, will write about them, Do you
expect school administrators to quietly fade into the
background and out of the spotlight?

     This pioneering principal has pointed the way to a new
frontier.  Principals can now focus on creating the most bizarre
and longest combinations of the old, boring suspensions.  How
about extra points for those who complete the assignment in
the shortest time?

     I have long been puzzled by schools' enthusiasm for
suspensions.  Schools send out truant officers to drag in
"students" who don't show up for school.  Sometimes the
parents of the truants are threatened with arrest.  Why then
does the school suspend the students it already has captured?

     I may have a creative solution.  Redefine truancy as self
suspension.  A student who doesn't believe he belongs in
school could suspend himself, just like an administrator with
the same belief could.  The student is a truant no more.  He is
merely serving a suspension.  Of course, students should be
entitled to as much creativity as principals when imposing
suspensions.

     The hardcore egalitarians should love this.  Students and
principals could be equal.  Notice, I only said "could be."   I
don't want to be sued for defamation by the students.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Enforcing All the Laws

Column for week of March 2, 2015

     A number of Republicans and some Democrats
complained when the Obama administration failed to fully
enforce national marijuana laws in Colorado.  This was nothing
compared to the fire storm when the Obama administration
announced that it wouldn't enforce immigration laws against
some illegal immigrants.  How dare the president refuse to
enforce the law of the land?  How did he dare flout the law
and fail to carry out his constitutional duties?

     One could as fairly ask, How dare congress ask the
president to enforce more laws than anyone, even with all the
resources of the nation at his disposal, could begin to enforce? 
The laws enacted by congress and regulations adopted pursuant
to those laws add up to 200,000 or so pages.  It would be a
safe bet that no one has come close to even reading all of
them.

     If every law were fully enforced, everyone would be in
jail for life.  The last one convicted would have to lock his
own cell.  Someone has to decide which laws to enforce and
who to enforce them against.

     Prosecutors' discretion is nothing new.  It has been
around as long as prosecutors.

     I attended high school about 15 miles from Grand
Rapids.  Everyone in school seemed to know where the
brothels were in Grand Rapids.  They were on C Street.  I'm
not quite sure where that was.  I never doubted that if I had
asked I would have found out.  Some students admitted to
(bragged about?) being there.

     Don't even ask me to believe that the police and
prosecutors didn't know about the illegal prostitution.  I don't
know if they were compensated for their blindness.  For
whatever reason they chose not to enforce the law.  This is but
one small illustration of the ancient tradition of prosecutors'
discretion.

     We wouldn't have 11 million illegal aliens in this
country if many someones hadn't elected not to pursue them. 
When they decide not to pursue some, they also decide which
ones to pursue.

     The congress critters who are complaining about the
president haven't appropriated enough money for the president
to attempt to deport all illegal aliens.  Neither did they pass a
law telling him which ones to deport first.

     All Obama did was change how prosecutors' discretion
will be exercised.  It isn't amnesty.  Congress, or a future
president, can change the priority to whatever they wish.  All
Obama did was say to some illegal aliens, you don't have to
worry about being deported right now.

     Most of them won't ever be deported.  Sending them all
home at once would so disrupt some businesses that it would
cause a recession.  If the unemployed in this country wanted
the jobs the illegals have, they could have had them.

     The US immigration law is an unworkable mess.  Both
congress and the presidents, past and present, bear part of the
blame.  The president and congress critters are all far more
interested  in scoring points pandering to certain votes than in
enacting sensible, workable immigration laws.

     The last time congress faced up to the immigration law
problem it granted amnesty and kicked the can down the road
by continuing unrealistic, unworkable immigration laws.  Well,
we have caught up with the can.  It is time for congress and
the president to give it another kick and see how long it takes
to catch up with it again.

     Having foreign workers here legally and above ground
would, at a minimum, be far less of a problem than building an
underground culture of illegals.  Building a fence to keep them
out won't work.  For one thing, a third or so of illegals enter
legally and merely fail to leave.   The fence also works as a
check valve.  Instead of working and going home, foreigners
are more likely to stay.

     One thing is certain.  As long as voters demand
unworkable immigration laws, politicians will deliver them.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Why Are Wages Stagnant?

Column for week of February 23, 2015

     Several recent articles lamented that wages aren't
increasing.  The authors were sure that wages needed to
increase for prosperity to return.  None of the writers showed
that they had a clue about why wages were stagnant.

     The clearest way to illustrate many economic principles
is by considering a simple barter economy.  There instead of
using money, all producers trade what they produce for what
they want.

     Money is a very useful tool for making trading easier. 
Still, money is only a tool.  The real substance of buying and
selling is that one individual trades what he produces for what
others produce.  A worker at a wheel factory trades the wheels
he makes for money.  When he spends money at the grocery
store he trades wheels for food.

     To discover where wage increases come from, consider
a wheat farmer in a barter economy.  He produces wheat and
trades it for things produced by others.

     The farmer grows 1,000 bushels of wheat.  First he
must pay for the materials, tools, land rent, etc. used to grow
the wheat.   This takes 800 bushels of wheat.  The 200
remaining bushels are the farmer's wages for growing the
wheat.

     The only way the farmer can increase his wages is to
have more wheat left after he pays his cost of production.  The
farmer could rent more land and work more hours to produce
more wheat.  This would increase his income.  It wouldn't
increase his wage rate any more than an employee working
more hours at the same pay per hour increases his wage rate.

     The farmer has two other options.   He might improve
his efficiency so that his cost of production is only 700 bushels
of wheat.  That would increase his wages by 100 bushels.

     The other option is to use the same resources but
change his method of production so that his yield increases to
1,100 bushels.  This also will give the farmer a 100 bushels
wage increase.

     The same principles apply to wage increases in our
money economy.  The only way to increase wage rates is for
workers to be more productive.  Without increased production
the wage pie remains the same size.  If some workers get
bigger pieces, others must settle for smaller ones.

     Believing that we need wage increases to increase
prosperity puts the cart before the horse.  We need increased
prosperity in the form of increased productivity to increase
wages.  The question we should ask is, Why isn't productivity
increasing?

     The avalanche of new government rules and regulations
increases the cost of production.  Far worse the threat of more
new laws and regulations discourages businesses from investing
in new more productive facilities.  Factories, mines,
warehouses, refineries, etc. don't pay for themselves until many
years in the future.  Businesses fearing that government may
pull the rug out from underneath are afraid to invest in new,
more efficient facilities.

     Much of the investment made in recent years has been
in wasteful, inefficient facilities subsidized by government,
such as ethanol, wind power, and electric vehicles.  Such
investments increase the cost of production.  Because of the
increased cost of production some workers are forced to settle
for lower wages.  The convoluted financing of such facilities
with subsidies, mandates, etc. makes it difficult to know which
workers are taking the hit.

     We may see a brief surge in wages due to the drop in
oil prices.  Don't mistake this for a return to prosperity.  It will
be at most a temporary blip.

     It will likely do more harm than good by distracting
attention from the real problem, government meddling with the
economy.  Until businesses are allowed to freely pursue
increased productivity and the profits that reward increased
productivity, wages will continue to stagnate.  And, millions
will scratch their heads and wonder why.  Meanwhile
government that caused the stagnation of wages will hurl
flaming darts at the businesses that government has denied the
means of raising wages.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Pulling Their Triggers

Column for week of February 16, 2015

     "What is the world coming to?"  Who hasn't heard this
lament?  I find few things surprising, leave alone shocking.  
They may be disgusting, but not surprising.  The folly of our
fellow humans is, unfortunately, to be expected.

     A couple of recent news items did surprise me.  I hope
they are anomalies, rather than the beginning of a trend.

     When I attended law school at the University of
Michigan, it seemed to be an assumption that law students
should be emotionally tough.  If they couldn't handle the stress
from taking a class for a year and having their entire grade
hang on one four-hour examination, How could they stand the
stress of handling cases with lives and fortunes hanging in the
balance?

     Stress in law school was part of a lawyer's training. 
Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who becomes
non functional under stress?  Such a lawyer would be about as
helpful as an umbrella that folds when hit by a drop of rain.

     One news item reported that law students have
requested that their examinations be postponed because they
were too stressed out to take them.  What horrible personal
trauma did they experience?  Well, actually none.   The cause
of the alleged stress was hearing news from far away about
events that had no direct impact on the students.

     The traumatic events were that two grand juries didn't
indite police officers for killing unarmed black men.  The
purpose of this column isn't to dissect and judge the actions of
the grand juries.  Plenty of other writers have been more than
willing to do that.

     My concern is the catering to the whims of people who
program their emotions to detonate at the pull of a hair trigger. 
At a minimum, for their own benefits and the benefit of others,
they should be discouraged from practicing law.  By the way,
at least one law school granted the request.  Perhaps before
hiring a lawyer you should give him an emotional trigger test. 
See if a few well chosen words cause him to melt down into a
quivering blob.

     If someone has a weak leg, it isn't particularly helpful
to aid them in avoiding using the leg and learning to live with
the weakness.   The individual would benefit far more from
encouragement to use and strengthen the leg.  The emotionally
fragile need the same kind of help.

     I did mention that there were two articles.  The second
is perhaps worse than the first.  Law students are objecting to
professors teaching about the law of rape.   Certain "trigger"
words may be disturbing to some students.  One trigger word
mentioned by a professor was "violate" as in  "Does this
conduct violate the law?"

     If law schools can't teach the law of rape, Should courts
be allowed to try rape cases?  If no one is allowed to teach
about the law of rape, Will there be any lawyers and judges
qualified to handle such cases?

     Are there any words that can't pull someone's trigger?  I
have previously written about the man who became so upset
about the possibility of his girl friend saying "New Jersey" to
him that he pulled a real trigger on her three times.  She
survived to testify against him.  Other horrible words, including
"snickers" and "Wisconsin" also could pull his trigger.

     The one way saying New Jersey might pull my trigger
is someone saying "You have to move to New Jersey."  That
would be something to get upset about.  Still, even that might
not justify shooting someone three times.  Would once be too
many?

     Instead of catering to and encouraging infantile
behavior, we should condemn such behavior and encourage
those with a trigger problem to quit blaming others and fix
their own triggers.  The last thing we should do is make it
easier for those emotional china dolls to become fragile
lawyers.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Zero Tolerance for What?

Column for week of February 9, 2015

     Reason.com published its list of the top 10 worst
incidents of zero tolerance in schools during 2014.  Needless to
say (but I'm saying it anyway) some very worthy candidates
didn't make the cut.  Certainly there are enough left to make up
a very competitive second team.

     One incident did deserve points for creativity.  The zero
toleration for weapons, pictures of weapons, gestures with
fingers, and thoughts about imaginary weapons are growing
dull and tiresome.  A school in Minnesota spiced things up a
bit with a new wrinkle.  It tried to freeze a nearly naked, wet
student to death, all in accordance with the holy writ of policy.

     When the fire alarm rang a 14 years old girl was in the
swimming pool.  She ended up outdoors wearing only a wet
swimsuit.  There she remained for 15 minutes.  Did I forget to
mention that the temperature was minus 5 degrees?

     So, what does this have to do with policy?  The
teachers had cars parked in the area.  They could have let the
freezing, wet girl get in a car.  Unfortunately the school policy
had zero tolerance for students in teachers' cars.  Still, I'll give
someone half a point.  After 15 minutes the wet girl was
allowed to get in a car, after she got frostbitten feet.

     It is impossible to cover zero tolerance without circling
back to weapons, real or imagined.  A teacher was suspended
for demonstrating shop tools that, horror of all horrors,
included the dreaded killer screwdriver.  Of course,
screwdrivers can be used as weapons.  The more relevant
question is, What can't be used as a weapon?

     Years ago I represented a client serving 15 to 30 years
for armed robbery.  His weapon was a chair thoughtfully
provided by the bar he robbed.  Do schools have zero tolerance
for chairs?

     What about belts, scarves and just about any article of
clothing?  Can you name any article of clothing that couldn't
be used to beat, choke, strangle or smother someone?  Those
computers many schools now provide could be used to beat
someone to death.

     The zero tolerance for weapons problem came up years
ago at insane asylums.  They addressed the problem by
confining individual inmates naked in padded cells.  Even this
extreme had its flaws.

     As martial arts enthusiasts well know, hands, feet and
other body parts can be used as weapons.  I read of a woman
who allegedly used her boobs to smother her boy friend to
death.  The article was a bit unclear as to weather the
smothering was an accident.   Weapons are still weapons even
if used accidentally.  A gun doesn't cease to be a weapon when
fired accidentally.

     The asylums refined their solution by adding
straitjackets.  The jackets didn't take away the weapons. 
They did render those weapons less effective.

     If schools are truly serious about banning all weapons
they have only one option, confine each student and each
teacher naked in individual padded cells.  I'll leave it up to the
schools to figure out how to deal with the keys to the cells.

     Would anyone be so rash as to call the collection of
cells and inmates a school?  Alas, there is the answer.  School
administrators have been plunging down the wrong road. 
There is more than one way to forever achieve zero weapons in
schools.  The simplest and only way to have zero weapons in
schools is to eliminate schools.

     Some will complain about undesirable side effects.  If
the most important thing is to achieve zero tolerance for
weapons, every side effect is less important.  So, forget about
them.

     If schools should focus on quality education rather than
obsessing about weapons, real or imagined, then fire the
administrators that are chasing the wrong goal.  The first step
toward quality education is to bury blind obsessions and go in
the right direction.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Secure Borders?

Column for week of February 2, 2015

     Many people are concerned the U.S. borders are not
secure.  Some demand that the borders be secure before even
considering reform of immigration laws.  What is a secure
border?  How can a border be secured?

     Is a border secure only if it can't be crossed?  Does
secure only mean that people and goods must have permission
to cross?  Perhaps secure means something else.

     The biggest concerns about border crossings seem to be
terrorists, certain mind altering substances, general immigration,
and foreign made goods.  Most probably agree that keeping out
terrorists is a good idea.  Not many are likely to be too upset
about keeping out various mind altering substances.

     Opinions differ widely on immigrants and importing of
goods.  Some want to keep them all out,  Others would let
them all in.  What people want and what they can do are often
two different things.

     At the moment focus is on the border with Mexico. 
That is only a small part of the U.S. border.  There are also the
borders with Canada, two oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico. 
These make thousands of miles of borders to secure.  Decades
of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars spent have failed
to secure these borders sufficiency to create a shortage of
imported illegal drugs in this country.

     Also, there are supposedly  million foreigners in this
country illegally.  I find it interesting that the branch of
government that counts them can find them but the branch that
deports them can't.

     Supposedly one third of those illegal immigrants came
in with permission but "forgot" to go home.  Securing the
borders won't stop that.  Should we ban everyone to keep out
those who won't voluntarily go home?  Should we build and
maintain a concrete wall on the entire border to keep out the
rest?

     Should we also ban swimming and boating off the
coast?  Foreigners might mix in and come ashore.  I suppose
we could build that wall along the shore and require swimmers
and boaters to show their passports when coming ashore.

     That security will need to apply to the Great Lakes too. 
I have some experience with that one.  My first illegal border
crossing was into Canada by canoe.  My second was when I
paddled back.

     Using border security to keep out terrorists is a lost
cause.  Anyone with some resources and determination has a
good shot at making it in, even with a wall.  Forged and stolen
documents still work.  Catching 50 percent would only increase
the cost of terrorism.  Determined terrorists will spend
whatever it takes.

     Current border security is less than a bad joke.  A man
in Maine regularly went to Sunday mass in Canada.  The U.S.
then "closed" the border crossing on weekends.  The man drove
around the gate, went to mass, and drove around the gate on
his way home.  He was arrested the next day for the illegal
entry.  If he had been a terrorist, What are the chances anyone
could have found him to arrest him the next day?

     Getting even close to controlling all border crossings is
as much a fantasy as eradication of cold viruses and
mosquitoes.  Rather than throwing resources at the impossible
dream, we will be far better off if we use those resources
wisely in a realistic way.

     If we allow people who want to come and work to do
it, we would have more resources left to spend solving real
problems.  This could also eliminate another serious problem,
the creation of a gray zone culture of illegal immigrants.  We
already have those 11 million illegal immigrants.  The political
and economic realities are that most of them aren't going back,
no matter how much some may wish.

     Immigrants who work also consume.  They don't reduce
the number of jobs available for citizens.  Someone has to
produce what immigrants consume.  Government, not
immigrants, reduces the number of productive jobs.  That is
one thing government is good at.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

Where Does Wealth Come From?

Column for week of January 26, 2015

     President Obama wants to take one-third of a trillion or
so dollars from the wealthy and spend it.  This may be good
politics even if it is bad economics.  Many voters believe that
wealthy people have too much wealth.  Taking wealth from the
wealthy can win votes.

     Before jumping on the "tax the rich" bandwagon we
should consider, What is wealth?  Where does wealth come
from?  What do the wealthy do with their wealth?

     Wealth includes everything that anyone finds useful in
the pursuit of satisfaction.  Even the poorest have some wealth. 
They would soon die without it.  Among other things, food is
wealth.

     There are two sources of wealth -- natural resources and
human effort.  Some wealth literally grows on trees -- apples
for example.  Most of our wealth is produced with human
effort.  Even apples do better when humans give nature a
boost.  That is why we have apple orchards instead of relying
on wild apples.  Even wild apples are useless unless someone
picks them and transports them to where people want to use
them.

     The availability of human effort limits our ability to
produce wealth.  There are only two ways to increase the
production of wealth -- use more effort, or use our efforts more
efficiently.

     For most of history humans were very slow to increase
the efficiency of the use of human effort.  Thus, for generation
after generation workers produced little more than their
ancestors had.  Each generation inherited the jobs and the
lifestyles of the previous generation.  The standard of living
didn't increase much.  Sometimes it decreased.

     Only 300 or so years ago that all started to change. 
Productivity started rapidly increasing in some parts of the
world.  We call it the Industrial Revolution.  Productivity didn't
increase itself.  It wasn't magic, or an accident.

     Humans discovered new, more efficient ways to make
things.  They also discovered new things to make.  This
enabled individual workers to produce more with the same, or
even less, effort.  The "secret" to this increased productivity
was more and better tools and equipment.

     Some workers had to take time out from producing their
immediate needs of food, clothing and shelter to make the tools
and equipment.  Poor people living hand to mouth existences
couldn't do that, unless someone else fed them.

     People with surplus wealth fueled the Industrial
Revolution.  Among other things, the wealthy hired workers to
make tools and equipment.  Even before the new tools and
equipment were ready to use the wealthy provided productive,
paying jobs.

     The wealthy put wings on the Industrial Revolution
rather than leaving it to at best crawl.  Without the
accumulated wealth of the wealthy, the Industrial Revolution
might still be science fiction, if even that.

     I'm not saying that much of the wealth accumulated by
the rich prior to the Industrial Revolution wasn't ill gotten gain. 
It probably was.  Neither am I saying that the investment by
the wealthy didn't earn them even greater wealth.  Obviously it
did.  In the process that investment so increased the
productivity of workers that it created the middle class and
lifted the poor.  No one in the U.S. today is poor as poor was
defined prior to the Industrial Revolution.

     Maintaining and increasing our investment in tools,
equipment, etc. from generation to generation is the only way
to sustain and increase our standard of living.  Taxing away
and spending the investment capital of anyone, whether we call
them rich or some other name, can only make everyone,
including the poor, poorer.  Just like stealing farmers' seed
corn, it starves everyone.

     We all benefit from wise investments, regardless of who
makes those investments.  Free people investing their own
wealth almost always make wiser investments than do
politicians spending other people's money.  Those private
investors have skin in the game.  When they make bad choices
they lose.  Politicians pass the losses on to taxpayers.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

The Horrors of Thigh Gap

Column for week of January 19, 2015

     I didn't mean to do it.  Perhaps I was distracted. 
Nevertheless, I did it again.  I neglected the British.  So, it
must be my fault that they had to throw another tantrum to get
my attention.  I don't know why my attention is so important to
them.

     It isn't like I totally ignore the Brits.  I covered their
requiring small chested police women to wear fluorescent vests. 
Their requiring a business owner to hire an industrial waste
hauler to dispose of the sandwich wrap from his lunch was
dully honored in this space.  I devoted an entire column to the
law requiring British farmers to provide toys for their pigs.  I
also noted their making it a crime to sell anything by the pound
or ounce.  Imagine that.  The English system of measures
banned in the land of its birth.

     Still, I can't justify ignoring the thigh gap tantrum.  The
Brits have an agency devoted to reviewing advertising.   All
improper adds must be banned.  I'm not sure how they decide
what is improper.  I'm not about to ask.

     Whatever the standard, thigh gaps violate it.   For the
unenlightened on this side of the pond,  perhaps I should
explain "thigh gap" the best I can.

     The ever diligent nannies who devote their lives to
scanning adds for crimes against humanity discovered the
horrible photo of an underwear model with too much space
between her thighs.  No one has explained to me how much is
too much, or who decides.  Maybe it is another one of those "I
know it when I see it" things.

     Actually, I don't believe the thigh gap was the real
problem.  It was only a proxy for the real problem.  The
model's thighs weren't big enough.  Those who haven't borne
the affliction of living with undersized thighs probably won't
appreciate the seriousness of the problem.  Fortunately the
censors were on the job to nip the problem in the bud before it
spread across the land.

     The photo could have destroyed the health of an entire
generation.  Young women seeing the thigh gap photo would
have instantly concluded that a large thigh gap was an essential
part of an ideal figure.  They would have destroyed their health
in pursuit of that glamorous and elusive thigh gap.  I'm sure
every woman who ever sought to shrink her thighs can testify
to how difficult it is to stop before those thighs vanish.

     No one mentioned that the model was also afflicted
with knee gap.  The photo didn't show her lower legs.   This
leaves open the possibility that her real affliction was bow legs.

     Fortunately the USA took action to protect underwear
models suffering from thigh gap.  In fact we are so far ahead
of the Brits that we banned discrimination against those
afflicted with thigh gap long before the first case was
diagnosed.  All we need now is a few more rules to cover the
details.  I'm sure Barack can handle that between holes on the
golf course.

     The British have already shown that thigh gap is a
disability.  Thus, our laws that ban discrimination against the
disabled will kick in.  No one will dare discriminate against
models suffering with the dreaded thigh gap.

     Statisticians will quickly calculate the percent of models
who suffer from thigh gap.  Let us assume that number turns to
be 10 percent.  Any employer who can't prove that at least 10
percent of its models are afflicted with thigh gap will be
presumed guilty of discrimination.

     All thigh gap sufferers will bring a class action lawsuit
and be awarded millions of dollars in compensation that will
make their lawyers very rich.  The suffering models will each
get a coupon for a 10 percent discount on a set of thigh pads. 
All is well that ends well.  Thank you Brits.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

What Big Government Has to Offer

Column for week of January 12, 2015

     This column is the final installment of a 13-part series. 
Last time we considered that in freedom we must serve others
to gain satisfaction for ourselves.  The better an individual
serves others, the more those others will give in return for the
service.

     Today we will consider the alternative to freedom --
coercion.  When individuals aren't free to act peaceably in
whatever manner they choose, they are subject to the force,
violence and threats of others.  Those who resort to force,
violence and threats can gain satisfaction from others without
giving satisfaction to others.  Thus, the only options we have
are freedom and exploitation.

     Whether we live in an environment of freedom or one
of exploitation, all individuals have the same goal -- increase
their satisfaction.  The two environments provide entirely
different motivations about how to seek satisfaction.

     A person with the power to take and exploit can seek
satisfaction by threatening and intimidating others.  The others
are compelled to give up their satisfaction and serve the
exploiter.  Outright slavery is an example of exploitation.  Such
slavery is far from being the only way to exploit.  If the
exploitation of slavery is destructive and evil, How can diluted
forms of exploitation be good and beneficial?

     The only institution we have that is legally authorized to
use force, violence and threats to gain advantage over others is
government.  Government has one big advantage.  It writes and
enforces the rules.  Government often uses its force, violence
and threats on behalf of private special interests.  In return
politicians receive votes and expand their power to use force,
violence and threats.

     Only those in government and those empowered by
government can lawfully pursue their satisfaction at the
expense of others, rather than by better serving others.  Those
in government are as motivated as anyone else to seek their
own satisfaction.  They seek to gain, not to serve.  Unlike free
people they can gain without serving their victims.

     Even those in government must serve those who keep
them in power.  Thus, government will always serve the
powerful special interests at the expense of everyone else.   To
call those in the one and only branch of society that can legally
exploit for their own satisfaction "public servants" is a travesty.

     Government can, and to some extent does, provide a
valuable service in attempting to limit the private use of
aggressive force, violence and threats.  Once government steps
beyond this limited role, it becomes the exploiter.  It becomes
the problem, not the solution.

     A government with the power to protect will have the
power to exploit.  People being what they are, it is inevitable
that some in government will turn to the use of force, violence
and threats to increase their own satisfaction.

     If the exploiters prosper, many more will seek to join
them.  Government will grow to be one vast exploitive
enterprise.  Government exploitation by so called "public
servants" has been prospering and growing since long before
any of us were born.  It is our way of life.  Unfortunately most
people have failed to recognize and oppose the destructive
exploitation by government.

     Now we face national bankruptcy and destruction of our
productive economy, all as a result of allowing legions of
"public servants" to take rather than serve.  As freedom totters
on its dying legs, we face the loss of everything.  I don't know
if it is too late to save freedom.  If we don't at least try, all we
have to look forward to it strife, destruction, misery and death.

     If we fail to contain and roll back government we can
only look forward to returning to the Hobbesian world where
the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Why Serve Others?

Column for week of January 5, 2015

     We have considered how everyone endlessly seeks to
increase their satisfaction.  There is no such thing as altruism,
selflessness or self sacrifice.  People do have radically different
views about what will satisfy them.  Some gain satisfaction
saving lives, others from killing.  Some gain more satisfaction
from giving than from taking.

     None will ever choose the less satisfying of two
choices.  Some may choose less satisfaction now to gain more
satisfaction later.

     The environment in which an individual lives will
greatly affect what he finds to be satisfying.  In cold climates
building houses and storing food is important for satisfaction.  
In warm climates such endeavors are less satisfying.

     We need material things to satisfy us.  The conduct of
others also affects our satisfaction.  Some don't like to hear
loud music and see pink houses with purple polka dots.  To
increase our satisfaction, we seek to gain things from others
and to change their conduct.

     People seek to increase satisfaction by giving up lesser
satisfactions to gain greater ones.  Thus, we all seek to give up
as little satisfaction as possible to gain the greatest satisfaction
possible.  The environment in which we live and act greatly
affects the methods we use to gain satisfaction.

     In freedom we find only one way to gain satisfaction
from others.  We must peaceably influence them to act in ways
that will satisfy us.  People who have the option of using force,
violence and threats can pursue satisfaction by coercing and
intimidating others.  In freedom we are limited to persuasion
and rewards to motivate others to provide us satisfaction.

     In the short term at least coercion can be the easier road
to satisfaction for those whose consciences don't punish them
for exploiting others.  Thus, there are many people who will
eagerly resort to use of force and threats, if they expect they
can get away with it.

     In an environment of true freedom those who resort to
use of force and intimidation, other than for defense, face
punishment.  This can greatly discourage the initiation of force. 
We all must pursue satisfaction by working, producing, and
persuading others.

     With freedom, and the free markets that are the product
of freedom, we pursue satisfaction by producing and trading
with others.  The better our productive efforts serve others, the
better others will serve us.  The more value we produce for
them, the more value they will give us in exchange.

     In freedom the customer is king.  Everyone seeks to
gain more for themselves by providing more for others.  We all
have customers.  Employers are the customers for workers time
and efforts.  Those employees are the customers for the
employer's products.  This gives us an endless circle of people
all seeking to better serve both their customers and their
suppliers.

     The employer must serve his employees by providing
them more satisfaction that other employers do.  Merchants and
customers must serve each other.  All of our voluntary
relationships, from dating to banking, are based on each party
to the relationship providing value to the other.  Much of that
value may be intangible.

     When a relationship ceases to be beneficial for one of
the participants, he ends the relationship in favor of another. 
Everyone is endlessly motivated to serve all of those with
whom they have relationships.  This pushes us endlessly
toward more production and more satisfaction for everyone. 
Each individual has the final say in what he believes will
satisfy him.

     We don't need legions of professional enforcers to
assure that we produce for the satisfaction of others.  King
consumer provides the enforcement.  Everyone is a consumer. 
The consumer enforcers are on the job 24/7/365.  None of us
can escape those consumer enforcers.  We all must act for the
satisfaction of others if we are to gain satisfaction for
ourselves.

     Next time: The alternative to freedom.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

What Should Be the Role of Government?

Column for week of December 29, 2014

     In this series of columns I haven't attempted to define
the legitimate role of government.  I mentioned a few of the
dangers from government.  Government is force.  All
government can add to any circumstance is "Do it my way, or I
will hurt you."

     Anything that can be done through voluntary
cooperation doesn't need government.  There are few, if any,
things people can't do through voluntary cooperation, if they
want to.  Therein lies the reason so many turn to government
to pursue their pet agendas.  Others aren't enthusiastic about
pursuing those agendas.

     People whose ideas aren't popular turn to government to
force others to cooperate.  People turn to government because
they are too lazy, or in too much of a hurry to work to sell
their ideas.  Often the ideas are so bad they can't gain much
support.  Government is the last resort for bad ideas and the
graveyard for good ideas.

     For starters we should apply a test to every idea before
turning to "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."  Ask  four
questions:  1) Is solving the problem of vital importance?  2) 
Is it impossible, or at least very unlikely, that free people
acting in voluntary cooperation can solve the problem?  3) Is
the use of force vital to solving the problem?  4) Are there
reasonable grounds for believing the proposed government
solution will work?  If the answer to any one question is "No,"
don't turn to "Do it my way, or I will hurt you" government for
the solution.

     Freedom is impossible without the suppression of
aggression.  It is legitimate to use the force of government to
suppress murders, robbers, slave masters, arsonists, etc.  We
can, and do use private voluntary efforts to achieve the same
ends.  In the US we spend more on private security than on
government police.

     Still, it is legitimate to use the force of government to
protect persons and property from domestic and foreign
plunderers.  We should first consider private, voluntary actions
even for defense against aggression.

     There are two big problems with empowering
government as a protector.  First, history documents how the
same power government needs to protect is also used to
exploit.  I don't know of one government in the history of the
world that hasn't used its power as a predator.

     I can't point to even one government that hasn't become
more a predator than a protector.  Hiring government for
protection usually turns out like employing wolves to protect
the sheep from coyotes.  Government in the US, at all levels,
isn't an exception.

     No one has found a way to keep the government that is
powerful enough to protect from using its powers to exploit. 
People in government, like everyone else, first seek to gain
satisfaction.  Most people with the power to exploit don't resist
the temptation to exploit.  Many don't even try to resist.  One
of the big attractions to government is the power to exploit. 
Exploiters are drawn to government.

     Many people in businesses like to exploit too.  Unless
government empowers the private exploiters, or at least looks
the other way, businesses can't exploit.  Exploitation always
involves aggression.  If government does the job of preventing
aggression, there will be no exploitation.

     We can't eliminate government, no mater how much
some would like too.  Even if we did eliminate government, it
would quickly come back.  The most we can do is try to keep
government weak enough that it doesn't destroy us through
exploitation.  Asking for bigger government is at best like
playing Russian Roulette.  Sooner or later you are going to
lose.

     Freedom isn't just one way, or merely the best way, to
peace and prosperity.  Freedom and its byproduct, free markets,
are the only road to peace and prosperity.  If we are to survive
in peace and prosperity, we must get back on freedom's road. 
"Do it my way, or I will hurt you" is that famous road
sometimes paved with good intentions.

     Next time: Service to others.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum