Archive for June, 2008

The Fallacy of the Broken Window

Posted in Pseudo-Science, Rule of Unreason on June 28, 2008 by ragnard

Students of economics have been debunking the fallacy that breaking a window causes economic “growth” for many decades.  And yet, it lingers and ofen dominates political discussions.

Wired blogged about California’s unprecedented new attack on businesses and individuals, with its cap and trade system and other measures designed to forcible suppress energy consumption in the state.  California is breaking a lot of windows, and claims this will promote growth.

John Doerr, the green VC, said before the bill passed that it would spark entrepreneurs to “go out and compete and innovate to bring enormous solutions to the market.”

Uh, Mr. Doerr?  There is a big difference between looting and creating wealth.  I have no doubt that your firm stands to cash in on this new eco-religion sweeping the state and the nation.  But let’s be honest where the money will come from.  These “solutions” will be solutions to problems caused by government.  Entrepeneurs will be going out there and competing to fix broken window.

California seems more and more finished to me.

Abstract Principle –> Real Consequences

Posted in Fighting Against Jihad, Hate America First, Short Comments on June 28, 2008 by ragnard

How many innocent people did this terrorist kill?  Let’s call this the “moonbat toll”, the people killed due to the real consequences of their sick ideas.

Fascism by Any Other Name…

Posted in Rule of Unreason on June 27, 2008 by ragnard

Here is a perfectly fascist proposal.  In fascism, nominal private ownership is tolerated.  But it is subjected to coercive controls from government.  Robert Zubrin makes the case that it is economical to burn methanol, so therefore car makers have to be threated by the force of a gun into making cars capable of burning methanol.

I guess he thinks that free people in a free market end up with poorly conceived products that force them into bankruptcy.  Good thing Good Government is here to force producers to make what they would otherwise not, and save the day!

Wait a second, Mr. Zubrin.  Look past your contempt for the average car buyer for a moment.  Are you saying that people are so stupid as to forego a $100 investment that wil save them thousands of dollars per year?!?

I guess they’re smart enough to vote for your proposal, eh?

As I said a few minutes ago, the solution is simple.  Take back the oil from the islamists who stole it from us.  And de-regulate energy domestic production including nuclear.  Problem solved.  But that wouldn’t be as much fun as coercing the population, would it Mr.Zubrin?

Alternative Energy

Posted in Rule of Unreason on June 27, 2008 by ragnard

Jammiewearingfool writes today about envirowackos’ latest efforts to block development of solar energy.

No one has offered a definition of “alternative”.  Let me try.  Alternative means “unfeasible”.  Alternative energy is any source of energy that is too costly, low-powered, non-portable, or otherwise not feasible or effective.

Nuclear power is out.  Hydroelectric dams are out.  Now is solar next?

For the record, I think we have two good solutions to the problem that most oil production today is controlled by murderous thugs:

1) Take our oil back.  They stole it from us by force when they “nationalized” it in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  Let’s take it back.

2) Develop our own.  Repeal all of the laws and regulations preventing companies from producing oil in Alaska.  And the great lakes.  And the oil shale out west.  And the Gulf.  And the Pacific and Atlantic shelves.  And California, and other places wherever oil companies can find it.

The current path is suicide.

Morality as Prerequisite for Prosperity

Posted in Getting it Right on June 27, 2008 by ragnard

Instapundit writes on the topic of whether morality is a “luxury good”.  I can’t tell from his brief post whether he agrees with this premise.

This is what I think we need to take America Back from!  This notion that being amoral, immoral, evil, or vicious is practical.  This claim that the way to make it out of poverty is to rape, lie, cheat, steal, pillage, burn, and murder.  And that only us fortunate enough to live in wealthy comfort can afford morality.

That it’s OK for people to live in brutality and terror in Africa, because they haven’t developed the wealth necessary to afford the luxury of moral principles.  It’s not only NOT OK, but without moral principles they will never ever rise out of brutality.

Most people believe:

morality = altruism = self-sacrafice

Obviously, only rich people have sufficient wealth to sacrafice some.

But a proper morality isn’t self-sacrafice.  It is the basis for relating fact to value, is to ought, a guide to success in life.

Until Americans learn this fundamental truth, they will thow the word “selfish” as if this is the most mortal insult conceivable.  I have even heard people call suicide bombers “selfish”.  This is because they want to call them “evil”, but lack the proper understanding of what evil is.  Evil is looking after one’s interests, right?  Like Big Oil, Big Fast Food, and Big Software?

Until Americans learn to distinguish between a thug who kills someone for a dollar and a businessman who produces and sells a product for a dollar, we’re stuck condemning the best and brightest.  We’re stuck unable to condemn our enemy (who is much more selfLESS than any American).  We’re stuck enacting horrible laws to loot successful people and businesses, and to prevent them from being able to produce in the first place.

Morality belongs up there along with the other “luxuries” like air, water, food, shelter, clothing, and sleep.

Suntan Lotion for Today’s “Stronger” Sun

Posted in Pseudo-Science on June 25, 2008 by ragnard

Is this global warmenism taken to the next level, or ozonihology moving from the Antarctic to the Norther Hemisphere?

Either way, there is now an ad for a sunblock product that strongly implies that the sun is stronger now.  Given the 20-something actress presenting this line, that would mean that this has happened in the past 5-10 years.

Quick, someone tell Al Gore!  I feel another Nobel Prize coming on!

That Sight-Challenged Pachyderm Again

Posted in Blind Elephants vs Donkeys, Pseudo-Science on June 25, 2008 by ragnard

Roy Spencer has a book debunking the pseudo-science underlying the global warming claims.

What’s noteworthy is the contrast between how he handles the scientific and social aspects of the hoax.  First, the scientific, in the author’s own words:

“I wanted it [Climate Confusion] to be an entertaining and easily understood primer on how weather and climate works, showing why manmade global warming is unlikely to be a serious problem for humanity. … helping the reader to better appreciate why scientific research in this area has become tainted and untrustworthy.

Now the social, again, in the author’s words:

“I wanted to counter currently proposed policy “solutions” to global warming that will have devastating effects on the world’s poor.

First, he deals with the facts.  Global warming is not going to hurt us, and the research has become tainted.  There is no room to argue with him, except on the merits of his claims (good luck with that).

Second, he deals with values.  The harm of policy proposals will be to “the world’s” poor.  I doubt he means that poor people are the property of some personified “world”.  I think he means poor people outside he US (presumably poor people in the US are too rich to be included in this argument).  And any consideration of middle-class people in the US or–god forbid–rich people is Right Out!

This blind elephant can handle facts.  Generally, I’ve observed that when addressing global warmenism, those grey four-ton beasts do a proper job.  This is why I think that the game will soon be up for hypesters of global warmenism.

But when it comes to values, the elephants fail miserably.  There is a better case against the policies proposed for the hoax of climate change.  These policies are vicious.  They hurt everyone.  And they do so by looting private companies and individuals, forcing people not to produce oil, and forcing people not to burn it.  By what right can government do this?  Blank out.

Frankly, Mr. Spencer, the “world’s” poor have been supressing themselves for generations.  It was in the late 1950’s (if I recall correctly) that Ayn Rand noted that it’s incorrect to call them “developing” nations.  She said they are not developed, not developing, and never-to-be-developed.  With few exceptions, the list of “developing” nations is the same today, 50 years later.

It is not for their sake that we should oppose government action in the name of this Big Lie.  It is for our sake.