Should Counties Die?

Column for week of December 30, 2013                          

     The headline for an Associated Press article proclaimed
"Census estimates show 1 in 4 US counties are dying."  Nothing
new about headlines that scream disaster.  Also, nothing new
about the article under the headline not living up to the hype.

     Why did the writer conclude that the counties were
dying?  The counties recorded more deaths than births.  Does
this mean we should prepare to eliminate such counties from the
map?  The so called dying counties aren't even necessarily
experiencing a decline in population.

     I suspect that many retirement counties across the south
record more deaths than births.  Does that spell doom for the
counties?  So long as people can afford to retire, the retirement
counties will likely find people to fill the empty houses and
patronize the local stores.

     Birth rates don't measure the vigor of a county.  A
county may have a high birth rate and still have shrinking
population because people leave.

     Even shrinking population doesn't mean a county is
dying.  The population of many farming counties shrunk during
the past century.  Many of those counties now produce more
farm products than ever before.  The counties may have fewer
people while those people still there prosper.  The counties aren't
dead.  They downsized.

     The article laments that the federal government isn't
doing more to help those dying counties.  It is that kind of silly
thinking that is drowning this country in a sea of red ink.

     Some of the examples of dying counties were ones where
coal mines had closed.  If the main reason for living in a county
is to mine coal, people should leave when the mines close. 
Trying to keep people there with nothing to do is foolish. 
Trying to create an artificial economy and artificial jobs is even
worse.

     Government should butt out.  If there are sound economic
reasons for engaging in new production in the counties,
entrepreneurs and investors will find and develop them.  All that
government can do is subsidize inefficient, wasteful production.

     After the lumber boom, the population of towns and
counties in northern Michigan shriveled.  There was nothing for
the no longer needed lumber workers to do.  Some tried farming
for a while.  The soil was too poor in most of northern Michigan
to make farming work.  Eventually tourism restored some life to
northern Michigan.

     As technology changes old production will often cease or
move to a more economic location.  When that happens the
people should move too.  If a community's reason for existence
ceases, the community must find a new reason, or go away.

     This is part of a natural process.  Lamenting that
communities die is harmless.  Putting those communities without
any reason to exist on life support is wasteful and dangerous. 
The dying communities can suck the life out of areas that would
otherwise prosper.  Then the communities can all die together.

     Let businesses and people locate wherever they find that
it makes sense for them to locate.  Interfering with this
spontaneous order is costly and destructive.  It also creates strife
between those who are subsidized and those who pay the bills.

     If government butts out and allows people to freely and
peacefully interact, we can build a peaceful stable nation.  If we
continue down the road of propping up every special interest
with a strong lobby; waste, strife and a shrinking economy is all
we have to look forward too.

     There will be one bonus.  Shallow minded reporters will
find many dying counties to write about.  Will anyone be able to
afford to pay for those articles?

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

Santa's Bad Day

Column for week of December 23, 2013             

     The recent mini fire storm over Santa Claus's complexion
raises a question.   Is anything too trivial to create a brouhaha?

     Perhaps I should provide a little background for anyone
so fortunate as to have missed the controversy.  A columnist
wrote a lighthearted article suggesting that Santa should be a
penguin to appeal to different races.  I don't know if she would
have the penguin Santa wear a red belt and a yellow headband.

     A television personality responded that of course Santa
was white.  A school teacher took it to the next level by telling a
nonwhite boy he had no right to wear a Santa costume because
Santa was white.  She was suspended as the plot continued to
thicken.

     The Santas I have seen were predominately white.  So
what?  Does this mean a Smurf couldn't be Santa?  How about a
green or purple Santa?

     People who don't see Santa as blue, green or purple can
claim that the rainbow of Santas aren't real.  They will be right
too.  Maybe some lost sight of one minor fact.  None of the
Santas are real.  Santa exists only in myths.

     Must everyone share the same Santa myth?  Should all
Easter bunnies and tooth fairies be the same color?  If
uniformity of color is vital, What about size and shape?  Why
not a short, skinny Santa who must look up to his elves?

     I probably shouldn't have mentioned elves.  Someone will
start writing uniform specifications for elves.  This might lead to
an entire book on distinguishing between elves and Leprechauns. 
Dare I ask, Must all Leprechaun be green?   Yes, I dare, but
perhaps I shouldn't have.  Where may it lead?

     For the record, I am willing to let everyone design their
own mythical characters.  If you prefer a unicorn with six legs,
go for it.

     The Santa myth has untapped room for variety.  Let us
consider some of the options.  My Santa's sleigh is pulled by
four buffaloes.  Why buffaloes?  Reindeer are ill suited to pull a
sleigh, or anything else, through the sky.  Reindeer don't have
wings.  Buffaloes do.  Otherwise, where do buffalo wings come
from?  Buffaloes are bigger, so four buffaloes can pull as much
as eight reindeer.

     Someone else can decide what to do with the out of work
reindeer.  How big a deal is it to lose a one night a year part
time job?

     And, what about that silly sleigh?  What is the point of
runners in the sky?  Give Santa a glider.  So, you aren't warming
up to my skinny Santa and his outfit.  It is my myth and I don't
care.  If you have a better myth, better for you that is, you are
welcome to it.  Just don't try to mess with my myth.  The world
is big enough for everyone's personal myths, so long as no one
tries to impose their myths on others.  It will also help if people
don't confuse their myths with reality.

     Even with fantasies one size doesn't fit all.  It is
important to allow everyone the freedom to chose their own
fantasies.  Trying to control the fantasies of others can only lead
to needless animosity and strife.

     Trying to control real world choices of others causes even
more strife.  Most of that strife is also needless.  When
conditions don't dictate that everyone must abide by the same
choice, there is usually no good reason to try and force our
choices on to others.  In addition to being free to chose the
complexion of their Santas, everyone should be free to chose
their soft drinks, food, medical insurance, schools, vehicles,
fuels, door latches, etc.  We should also be free to chose who
will provide them.

     Interfering with the choices of others invariably creates
animosity, strife and destruction.  The greater the meddling, the
worse it gets.  Delegating the meddling to government only
makes matters worse.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

What Should Be Illegal?

Column for week of December 16, 2013                              

     The federal government has enacted about 200,000 pages
of statutes and regulations.  State and local governments have
thousands of more pages of laws for you to obey.   You will be
in trouble if you are caught violating any of those laws.

     What is the justification for all of these laws?  The laws
exist because people with power want them to exist.  Should this
be the end of the discussion?  Should powerful people be able to
prohibit or mandate any action they want to?  Should we blindly
do whatever government orders? Is there a standard by which we
should judge all laws?

     If an action is immoral and wrong, Should we do it
simply because government so orders?  If an action isn't
immoral and wrong, Is it wrong to do it simply because
government says, If you do it, I will hurt you?  Was it wrong to
help fugitive slaves escape to Canada?

     If we have no standard for judging the law, might makes
right.  We must unquestioningly do whatever the powerful in
government order.  If the law says, Kill your neighbor for
spiting on the sidewalk, you can be punished for not killing your
neighbor.

     If you accept that there is or can be even one law that
should be disobeyed, you have accepted the principal that we
have the right, and even the obligation, to refuse to obey some
laws.  The remaining question is, What standard should we use
to judge the laws?

     Every society has its rules of conduct, whether is has a
government or not.  Stable human interaction would be
impossible without rules.  How would you like to live in a
society where there was no common understanding that random
nose punching wasn't acceptable.

     Anytime people have continuing interactions with each
other rules of conduct evolve.  When most people recognize the
value of following a rule, the rule needs little enforcement.  Peer
pressure will back the rule when enforcement is needed.  If
government enacts a law reinforcing a desirable rule, few will
object or disobey the law.  Such laws will have popular support
and not be divisive.

     Government can, and does, enact laws contrary to popular
practices.  Such laws are enacted for the benefit of the powerful
people who support the laws.  Usually such laws exploit others. 
Thus, they aren't prime candidates for popular support.

     Government is few.  The people are many.  No
government can long survive without having at least general
acceptance.  Thus, government likes to instill the idea that it is
immoral to disobey any law, even if the law is immoral.

     Unless the people recognize the pitfalls of blindly
following the law, government will run muck.  Before we can
judge the law we must have a standard by which to judge.  I
fear that as a nation we are straying from any common standard. 
If we don't soon find a common morality, the future will be
bleak.

     It is beyond the scope of this column to even contemplate
a moral standard.  It does matter what standard people chose.  
A counter productive moral standard can be worse than none. 
The standard we seem to be migrating toward today is based on
do unto others before they do unto you.

     In seeking a useful national moral standard we should
keep two points in mind.  That which is immoral when done by
private individuals is still immoral when done by government.  If
an action is moral it isn't rendered immoral by government
forbidding the act.

     Most laws today don't reflect an accepted standard of
morality.  The main reason for obeying these laws is government
will hurt you if you don't.  As one nearly insignificant example,
Who believes it is immoral to put two flowers in a vase and sell
them in Louisiana without the difficult to obtain permission of
the state?  Why obey such a law, other than to avoid being hurt
by government?

aldmccallum@gmail.com

                       * * * * *
                        * * * *
                         * * *
                          * *
                           *

Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

What Will Be Next to Go?

     Barely a day passes that the Internet doesn't report that
government nannies have relieved us of the need, and
opportunity, to make some choice.  The latest addition to the list
isn't quite of the magnitude of eliminating the right to choose the
medical insurance we prefer.  Still, it is one more step down the
road to total domination by government.

     Strip away the smoke and mirrors and you will find
government has only one function.  Government limits our
choices.  Government has only one way of limiting our choices. 
It says "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."  Sure, government
can offer bribes.  To get the wealth to offer the bribes,
government threatens to hurt someone.

     So far as I know Vancouver, British Columbia broke new
ground when it banned doorknobs.  At least it is reported to be
the first city in Canada to do so.   Chances are that if I dug deep
enough I'd find that some place beat Vancouver to the punch. 
On the other hand, someone had to be first.

     Why ban doorknobs?  Vancouver claims that some
people have trouble turning doorknobs.  On that Vancouver is
probably right.  When my hands are covered with oil, or some
other slippery substance, I find it difficult to turn the small brass
knob on my back door.

     It is my doorknob.  If I want to I can replace the knob
with a bigger or rougher one.  Also, I could replace it with a
lever.  So far I have dealt with the problem by carrying a paper
towel in my pocket when I expect to get oil on my hands.  If
Vancouver has its way the only choice I would have left would
be to get rid of the doorknob.

     I must admit Vancouver is more imaginative than I am. 
It never crossed my mind that the solution to my doorknob
problem was to threaten to hurt anyone who chose doorknobs.  I
do suspect that banning doorknobs would take a lot more effort
than does grabbing a paper towel.

     So far Vancouver has only banned knobs in new
construction.  That is how it starts.  Next, ban knobs in all rental
housing.  Then require that in any remodeling all knobs be
removed.  In the end the only remaining knobs will be in
museums and, of course, in government buildings which will
likely be exempt from the ban.

     Loss of choices has been sweeping through the nation,
and most of the world, since long before my time.  Whenever
anyone says "There ought to be a law" they are advocating
hurting people for making "wrong" choices.  Obama care
threatens to hurt anyone who doesn't buy the kind of medical
insurance prescribed by a band of politicians and bureaucrats.

     Every law threatens, directly or indirectly, to hurt people
for making forbidden choices.  There are people who believe
that we shouldn't threaten peaceful individuals to stop them from
making any particular choice.  Threats of force should only be
used to discourage individuals from choosing to commit acts of
aggression.

     These people who oppose threatening peaceful people are
called libertarians.  Many people believe libertarians simply want
to be left alone.  If this is true, almost everyone is a libertarian. 
How many people do you know who want to be coerced into
giving up a choice they want to make?

     Being a libertarian takes far more than merely wanting to
be left alone.  Libertarians are defined by their willingness to
leave other people alone, and free to choose for themselves. 
Libertarians do demand that those choices be peaceful.

     A libertarian tolerates the peaceful choices of others, even
if the libertarian strongly disapproves of the choices. 
Libertarians do reserve the right to voice disapproval of peaceful
choices.  Also, libertarians feel free to refuse to associate with
others because of the choices they make.  Libertarians won't ban
the use of doorknobs, except for using the knobs in acts of
aggression.

aldmccallum@gmail.com

                       * * * * *
                        * * * *
                         * * *
                          * *
                           *

Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

How Warm Is It?

Column for week of December 2, 2013

THOUGHTS, RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS

by

Albert D. McCallum

How Warm Is It?

      The man made global warming enthusiasts live in difficult times. Real temperatures refuse to cooperate with the predictions made with computer models. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Computer models are, and always will be, useless for proving any theory.

     A computer models tells the programmer exactly what he tells it to tell. The basic rule is still “Garbage in, garbage out.” Program the computer to find that your birthday is on Christmas one year and the Fourth of July the next. That is the answer it will give you every time.

     Program the computer to predict temperatures based on increased carbon dioxide causing global warming. The computer will dutifully predict increased temperatures based on the size of the increase in carbon dioxide. Of course, the computer has no more control over real temperatures than it does over the date of your birthday.

     Some of the attempts to explain why temperatures aren't obeying the predictions are humorous. One claim is that the world is rapidly warming. The problem is that it is warming only in those places where there are no thermometers. Does this mean we can prevent global warming by putting thermometers everywhere?

     We are at the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle. To the surprise of some, sunspot activity is the lowest it has been at the peak of a cycle in one hundred years.

     This isn't a surprise to everyone. Five years or so ago I read a prediction that we were headed into a 30 years period of low sunspot activity. The scientist who made the prediction had studied hundreds of years of sunspot data. He had also discovered that world temperatures follow the sunspots. Lower sunspot activity is accompanied by lower temperatures. Based on this he also predicted that the 30 years of low sunspot activity would be cooler.

     None of this is enough to prove that sunspots control the temperature of the world. The odds are great that sunspots are more likely to influence temperatures than are computer models. The fact that the computer models have been consistently and substantially wrong gives more reasons to put your money on the sunspots.

     The so-called scientists who scream about global warming seem to be part of the same crowd that warned that we were experiencing soon to be disastrous global cooling during the 1970s. Having twice tripped on their own predictions, they now prefer to warn about climate change.

      It is all but certain they are riding a winner this time. The one thing certain about climate is that it has endlessly changed for so long as we have any records of climate. Cores from glaciers and from ocean sediments show thousands of years of change. What are the chances that the climate will suddenly stop changing?

      Past changes have gone back and forth, hot and cold, wet and dry. Today's climate change mongers want us to believe that the changes will all be endlessly for the worse. How would they scare anyone into providing endless grants for research by admitting that climate change might be a good thing? The even bigger scare game is to frighten people into accepting draconian government control of their lives in the name of saving us from the climate change bogeyman.

      I don't have space to cover the details of temperature change for the 150 years since temperatures began recovering from the Little Ice Age. Check the record and you will find three periods of warming, all followed by cooling. Also, there is no correlation between warming and increased carbon dioxide. Most of the warming occurred before there was a major increase in carbon dioxide.

      We should look to real climate scientists, not to politicians and talking heads with agendas, for the truth about climate. The people who have so far been nothing but wrong aren't good candidates to be our guides to the future. For information on climate, checkout climatedepot.com

aldmccallum@gmail.com

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2013

Albert D. McCallum

The Dominant Weapon

Column for week of November 25, 2013

THOUGHTS, RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS

by

Albert D. McCallum

       Someone noted “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.” Those who passionately demand the elimination of firearms should take heed.

      What might a world without firearms be like? Firearms weren't invented until a few hundred years ago. In terms of human existence that is day before yesterday. History might offer a few clues about what life without firearms would be like.

      Before firearms the dominant weapon was the sword. Skilled swordsmen trained and practiced for years. They had to endlessly polish their skills to stay at the top of their game. Clubs also served as weapons.

      In the world of muscle powered weapons, physical strength dominated. It was the world of the thug. Physically weaker people had to rely on the strong for safety and survival. Many lived in the confinement of walled cities and castles.

      Firearms weren't just another new weapon. They were a new kind of weapon. Firearms harnessed the power of chemical reactions to replace muscle power. Early firearms were cumbersome and required some strength to use. Lighter, simpler firearms followed.

      In the world of firearms anyone who who can lift the weapon and pull the trigger commands as much defensive power as the strongest thug. A 90 pound old woman can bring down a 250 pound muscled thug.

      There is a reason why firearms are called “equalizers.” Firearms are perhaps the most egalitarian invention in the history of the human race.

      The leveling effect of firearms, and the gunpowder that powered them, may well have been indispensable to creating the environment that made the industrial revolution possible. A few powerful men in castles could no longer dominate. The security of the castle was destroyed.

      We can't shape the world to fit any fantasy we might dream. We must accept one of the available options dictated by reality.

      Part of that reality is that some people, probably many, are willing and eager to use force to exploit and abuse others. Such individuals will use any available means to injure and kill those who stand in their way. They will use the most effective weapons available. Likewise the victims will use the most effective weapons available for defense.

      When the Japanese made possession of a sword too dangerous to risk, the disarmed people invented marshal arts to defend themselves with hands, feet and common tools. There will always be a superior weapon. The only question is, What will it be?

      Another lesson from the Japanese is that the oppressors who banned others from having swords kept their own swords. Force and violence are the tools of oppressors. History tells us, if we listen, that those who dominate in the realm of force and violence always end up being oppressors, no matter how they started. This is the lesson of George Orwell's “Animal Farm.”

      History is a bit sneaky. It only whispers its lessons until it runs out of patience. Then it swings the club. Those who weren't listening to the whispers are always surprised and shocked, and often dead.

Fantasizing about a world without firearms is a fool's dream. Those who ban an effective weapon always keep that weapon for themselves. While ranting about gun control, nonmilitary agencies of the US government are stockpiling ammunition.

      Let's assume for a moment that firearms can be eliminated. What would life be like in that world for the weak and down trodden? Will the victims of thuggery be better off facing the thugs sword to sword, or knife to knife than gun to gun? Could it be that equalizers aren't such a bad thing?

aldmccallum@gmail.com

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *

Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum

It Isn't Insurance

THOUGHTS, RAMBLINGS and OBSERVATIONS

by

Albert D. McCallum

    Calling a dog a cat doesn't change the dog. Calling a wealth redistribution scheme insurance doesn't change the scheme one bit. Calling the foundation of Obama care “insurance exchanges” doesn't convert the product they are selling into insurance. The only exchange is exchanging what is left of real medical insurance for a government wealth redistribution scheme,

    Real insurance is a device for the sharing of risks. Suppose that statistics show that 10 people in a group of 1,000 will die within one year. No one knows which 10. If each of the 1,000 pays $100 into a pool, the beneficiaries designated by each of the 10 deceased can receive $10,000.

    If it was known in advance which ones would die insurance would be impossible. Only the ones who were going to die would buy the insurance.

    The essence of Obama care is to coerce young, healthy people to pay far more than real insurance would cost in a free market. That money will be used to pay overhead and medical benefit to the unhealthy, mostly older, individuals. This is just one more scheme to force young workers trying to raise families to give money to the oldest, and wealthiest, generation.

    Forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions isn't insurance either. There isn't an unknown risk to spread among people who will never suffer the loss.

    How would fire insurance work if the owner could wait until the fire started to buy insurance? It is impossible to insure against a 100 percent certain risk. Obama care doesn't provide insurance for preexisting conditions. It forces someone else to pay for the conditions.

    Another scam is forcing every policy to cover what the politicians want covered instead of what the insured wants covered. Forcing the insured to have unwanted coverage also forces the insured to pay for the coverage. The added bells and whistles may cost so much that seeker of insurance won't be able to buy any “insurance.”

    The political success of Obama care depends on convincing the majority of voters that someone else is paying for the coverage. Then it doesn't matter how mad those forced to pay may be.

    If young, healthy people refuse to sign up, Obama care will crash and burn with a deficit that will make the city of Detroit and the US Postal Service look prosperous.

    I suspect that Obama care was designed to fail. Then blame private insurance for the government's failure. Politicians will play this into an excuse for forcing everyone into a government run and rationed system where individuals have no voice in the treatment they receive. This is what government has wanted from day one.

    Remember the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules, even if he stole the gold. The rationing that has already begun will grow slowly at first each time the government starts running out of other people's money.

    Based on what is happening now, both here and in other countries, smokers, obese and the elderly will be among the first to be told to go home, suffer and die. It is impossible to provide all the medical treatment and tests that individuals would demand if they didn't have to pay anything.

    Thus, rationing is inevitable. As the waste and inefficiency inevitably grows, so will the rationing. Obama care isn't about providing affordable medical insurance. It is about ending medical insurance and individual choice in medical treatment.

    The politicians and bureaucrats want to control every dollar and every aspect of everyone's life. For them Obama care is a dream come true. Obama care is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In other words, Obama ripped a page out of Karl Marx's play book.

aldmccallum@gmail.com

* * * * *

* * * *

* * *

* *

*

Copyright 2013

Albert D. McCallum