Comments on Building

I was watching Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) speech at the Republican National Convention on YouTube yesterday.  At 23 minutes or so, he mentioned President Obama's "you didn't build that" speech. I had heard about the speech in Virginia in July, but I hadn't watched it.  So I took a peek at the short version linked above to see what the big deal was. I'm going to share a few quotes from the small part of the speech I watched, relay what I think President Obama is saying, and then where I agree and disagree with him.

"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own." That is the first glaring comment by the President.  He continues on to suggest that one's success is not due to one's intelligence or hard work; there are plenty of smart, hard-working people out there [implying not all of them are "successful"]. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help." A great teacher, someone who helped to create the American system that allows us to thrive. "...somebody who invested in roads, bridges, if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." President Obama summarizes the above with, "...when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." He then continues to provide examples of how the Government does everything that's worthwhile, implying Government is the only way to work together.

Alright, now we get to me interpreting what I think President Obama is saying with this speech. President Obama believes that because any one person is not completely, 100% self-sufficient from birth, one person cannot be responsible for their life (success or failure). The now-famous "you didn't build that" wasn't directly referring to the business; instead it was directly referring to the roads and bridges. Indirectly, he means the business owner couldn't have built the business if the government hadn't built the road to it. Since the business owner didn't personally construct the building, lay the road, and build the power grid he cannot claim full ownership of his business, let alone his life. He OWES part of his existence (if not all of it) to "other people."

I agree with President Obama that one man cannot do everything for himself. I agree that working together is a good thing; we're all better off working together. I disagree with why we work together and the level of indebtedness we incur by working together. In a free society, voluntary exchange rules the interactions between free persons. In a voluntary exchange, each party provides something of value to the other party. By its very nature, a voluntary exchange benefits both parties; a free person would not execute an exchange voluntarily if there was no benefit. Because the parties exchanged value for value, no further debt is owed after the exchange is complete. An employee like a teacher exchanges his labor for a paycheck. Farmers exchange their produce for the market value in US dollars. A business owner exchanges taxes for the construction and maintenance of roads and infrastructure. Beyond these voluntary exchanges, nothing is owed. [OK, taxes are less voluntary, but you get the idea.] In short, people work together because it's mutually beneficial and there is no lingering debt owed to "other people" once we've worked together (completed a voluntary exchange).

Comments on The Basics

I made two changes to my lifestyle about a year and a half ago. In some ways they're not major, in others they are life-changing. The first was starting (and continuing) the Paleo Diet and the second was slowly converting to minimalist shoes. They don't sound so important, do they? He started a new diet and bought some new shoes. While on the surface these two changes seem minor, they are the impetus of the philosophy I've started to think of as "getting back to The Basics."

My roommates got this crazy idea in the spring of 2011 that the Paleo Diet would help them look, feel, and perform better. We cook and eat together, so I read the book The Paleo Diet, by Robb Wolf (one of many on the subject). This is not a temporary diet, as the word is mostly used today, but a lifestyle change. The basic idea of the Paleo movement is that the introduction of agriculture changed the diet of most humans from that which we're adapted to a diet that is not as nutritious for us. Gluten, a protein in wheat, barley, and some other grains, is a major contributor. It interacts with the wall of the small intestine, causing inflammation and allowing molecules that shouldn't pass into the bloodstream to do so. Similar proteins are present in all bean, legume, and cereal crops. Additionally, predominance of cereal crops and beans in our diet causes us to consume far more carbohydrates which are easily broken down into simple sugars and mess with our blood sugar regulations system ( insulin and glucagon and a bunch of other stuff) and our blood cholesterol. There are other finer points, like types of fats we should be eating and exercise, but you get the idea.

Did it work? I would say yes.  I started out the Paleo Diet at 195 pounds.  After the first week, I had lost 10 lbs.  Over the rest of the first month I lost 10 more pounds.  Now I stay somewhere in between 170 and 175 lbs. So, I look better. Aside from being a bit lighter and my clothing fitting better, I don't really feel any different. My cholesterol has always been low. Some people say their stomachs/GI tract feel better, but I haven't noticed anything like that. My roommate that had high cholesterol (despite eating a fairly low-fat diet and getting a reasonable amount of exercise) reduced his cholesterol from dangerous to normal.  All three of us lost 20 lbs or more. Newsflash: we never starved, we just changed the way we ate. No grains (that's the hard part. NONE.), no dairy, no beans, no PROCESSED FOOD. Eat more vegetables, fruits, and (surprise!) meat! Mmmmm.... meat. We got back to the basics of food. We freed ourselves (kind of) from the modern food production machine and the diet paradigm everyone thought was best for you.

The second change I've done on my own.  I don't know how I got it into my head, but at about the same time as the Paleo diet adventure I thought it would be a good idea to join the minimalist shoe/barefoot running movement. I had talked about it with my roommates enough that they bought me a pair of Vibram FiveFingers for my birthday in 2011. The emphasis of the minimalist shoe movement is that modern shoes (running and otherwise) are constraining, deforming, and weakening our feet.  Our feet were made to support our bodies on all surfaces and at all (human) speeds; we just had to LET them. So I did.  I eased into it over the course of a month or so in the springtime (my normal easing into running after winter time anyhow). Once I got over the calf and foot muscle soreness (you use them A LOT more when running "barefoot") I was hooked and on my way.  With only a 4-6mm layer of rubber separating my feet from the ground, I could FEEL where I was going.  I hit the ground softer while enjoying being able to feel the ground.

A year and a half later, I'm still running only with minimalist shoes.  I've not injured myself nor do I feel like my joints are taking more of a pounding. I've not had shin splints once since converting. I'm running the way people were designed to run. I don't have to worry about my shoes being "worn out" (besides holes) because MY FEET do the cushioning and shock absorbing. Once again, I was getting back to the basics of running, breaking from a modern fad that our feet are weak and need to be supported and pampered if they are to last a lifetime. Now I'm even in the process of replacing my casual and dress shoes with appropriate minimalist shoes. Strong feet for life!

To bring it all home, these two fairly minor changes in my life made me think about what else are we over-thinking. After a bit of pondering, I decided that almost all of the beliefs I had cultivated over the last several years come down to the same premise: get back to basics. Liberty says each man controls his own destiny and doesn't require a complex, expensive, unsustainable governmental structure to maintain. Hard currency (or at least a free market in money) and full-reserve banking don't require some overarching authority to control the amount of money in existence in hopes that authority knows or can determine the right answer. There are other specific points that I've been reading and thinking about, but they all boil down to freedom. And there's freedom in simplicity. There's bondage in over-complicating life, because then you must (or are often compelled to) turn over that part of your life to "the experts."

Now that I've laid out for you how I got here, next time I'll get more in depth on how I believe there's freedom in simplicity.

Comments on the Oil Boom

I've lived near the North Dakota border, so I've kept an eye on the Oil boom in the western part of that state.  I recently read this article describing the hardships of having too much economic activity and too many jobs.  There aren't enough workers, so the wages are high to attract them.  Housing and groceries and services are more scarce, relative to the number of people, so their prices are also up.  Trucks and heavy equipment have severely damaged the roads.  There are not enough classrooms for the expected new students in the public schools.  The volunteer ambulance system is overwhelmed.  All the while, the money from the state government, in the form of oil royalties, is not flowing fast enough.  Local officials' solution to this problem is to get money from the oil royalties from the state government moving faster.


Let's think about this situation like an economist might before we go on.  In any economy, prices are not just what something costs, they are also signals.  High prices both signal consumers to buy less of a product and producers to produce more of it.  They also encourage new producers to enter the market for that product.  Low prices signal consumers to buy more of a product and force marginal producers (those who produce least efficiently) out of a market.  For most of the problems above, there is no direct pricing mechanism to coordinate the markets.  Anyone can drive on the public roads, everyone must be able to enroll in the public schools, and the ambulance service is at least partially subsidized by government.  There are indirect prices of these services in the form of gas and property taxes, but their collection and distribution are complicated at best.  The article plainly states that local government feels the formula to distribute the oil revenues needs to be re-evaluated.

I would suggest that this situation requires a bit more free market, a little less bureaucracy, and local government.  Make the pricing mechanism work for you.  If roads are being destroyed by increased truck traffic, charge tonnage tolls on those trucks to repair the road.  Those tolls could also be used to build more safety into the roads.  These tolls would need to be collected and used locally.  This way the people (or corporations, which are collections of people) pay for the government (roads) they use.  Break the monopoly public schools have on customers.  Offer a voucher to each student which they can use to attend either the public school or a private school.  You can bet private schools would crop up to vie for those dollars.  And the new schools as well as the public schools will have incentive to provide services the most efficiently. 

For the rest of the problems, let the pricing mechanism work.  With high housing prices, more landlords and developers will want to provide housing because they will expect a larger and more sure profit.  This profit motive will increase the number of housing units and eventually rents will come back down as supply increases.  If price controls are attempted, then there's no incentive for housing to be built in this area over another area.  Instead of temporary high prices and temporary scarcity, you'll have permanent low prices and permanent scarcity.  The same goes for grocery stores and restaurants.  The promise of higher profits will bring in more supply and bring prices back down.  It's how the pricing mechanism works.

To close, I'll admit that I can't immediately formulate what to do about the ambulance service.  I'll suggest a private enterprise on principle, but I haven't read enough about it to say exactly how that would go.  Especially with health care insurance as it is today, it's tough to say how ambulance services get paid and where all those payments come from.

Comments on Contraception

You've heard the news.  First, the Department of Health and Human Services said, "Thou shalt provide abortion and contraception for all!  Without a copay or deductible!"  Religions institutions, which generally frown upon the taking of what they consider innocent lives, found this to infringe on their religious liberties.  There was outcry by Catholic bishops and Republican candidates for President.  Then the Obama Administration pretended to back off on the regulation by requiring that health insurance companies that supply religious institutions' employees with health care insurance provide the products and services, free of charge.  Victory for religious liberty AND women without contraception everywhere!

But wait, are we overlooking something? Yes.  Several things.  We'll start with the most obvious and work our way toward the more obscure.  First, the rule change is semantic.  Second,  declaring that a service shall be provided free of charge does not materialize condoms and birth control pills in the medicine cabinets of women everywhere.  Third, is this really insurance? Lastly, the use of force is antithetical to liberty.

It's fairly obvious to the casual observer that requiring, by law, a business entity (insurance company) to provide products and services outside the bounds of its contract with a customer (religious institution) implicitly includes said products and services in the contract.  I may have said it fancier, but you know you were thinking it.  Alright, some of you are thinking, "but it's a separate agreement with the final consumer."  But that's where the magic materializing condoms and birth control pills come in... or rather don't.  Insurance companies get their operating funds from (you guessed it) premiums paid by customers like the religious institutions.  They use those funds to pay for (you guessed it again) products and services like condoms and birth control pills.  Since the final consumer of the products and services pays nothing for them (by law), the religious institutions will foot the bill, in practice if not in the contract.  Reality says religious liberty is compromised.

The casual observer may not, at this point, even think about an even further underlying question: is this even insurance?  Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss from one entity to another in exchange for payment.  The word risk implies future uncertainty; the event could happen, but might not.  Contraception must be used before or during sex to be effective.  This means one must procure contraception before the actual sex, and then use it consciously.  If you know you're going to need a product or service, buying some sort of policy to provide for it is not insurance, it's a pre-paid service.


Alright, America has beat the religious liberty argument to death on this whole abortion/contraception coverage mandate.  It's a debate worth having, but like most debates today it skirts around the edges of the real issue.  Yes, we like religious liberty, but the core issue is not just religious liberty, instead it is all liberty.    Under liberty, the purchase of health insurance is a voluntary transaction between two free parties.  Voluntary transactions, by definition, preclude the use of force.  At it's core, a mandate is the use of force; it compels a free person (or group of free persons) to take part in a transaction they may not have otherwise.  It follows that mandates, like the "free" coverage of contraception, are antithetical to liberty.