False Assumption of Libertarians

The whole Libertarian movement is based on a false assumption that the market place will pick the best solution. Some of this is based on Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's economic work. Taking his work and applying it to the real world is making the false assumption that there is a true free market anywhere in the real world. It is human nature for people to gain an advantage over others. This alone will break the free market model.

People will use all available methods to game the system. Personal ethics may make some method unavailable to some people but this is unreliable at preventing them being used. People will use information not widely available, bribes, deceit, misinformation, and any number of other methods to tip the supposed free market favorably to their advantage. This part of human nature causes the free market model many issues in real life.

The best that can be hoped for is a mostly free market. That is where government regulations can help. They are not a perfect answer but in real life there rarely is. Those regulations will place rules with penalties on certain methods and tactics that one can use to leverage a market in favor of some at the detriment of others. This is the dreaded regulations. In the real world only a well regulated market is going to behave close to the theoretical free market.

As we have seen since the 1980's deregulation initially has benefits because for a short time the parties involved continue to follow the previous rules. Once they understand the new marketplace then they start using unfair methods and tactics that were previously prohibited for their personal gain at the expense of others. The longer the restrictions are missing the more the market deviates from a free market. Eventually the market has become so unbalanced that you start have wild fluctuations. The housing market price bubble of the early 2000's and its plummet in 2008 is a good example. Other outcomes in markets without proper regulation is persons or corporations taking on unreasonable risks due to the potential profits. The problem is that if those risky decisions go bad there is a fatal collapse. This happened to the "Savings and Loan" industry in the 1995 and the banking industry in 2008 where the institutions took on unsustainable levels of risk leading to a major government action to prevent an economic collapse.

It is often stated that government regulations stifle growth. While that is partially true the point is to make sure that the growth is only coming about through sustainable and equatable means. In the US one of the major battles between the two major parties has been over the amount and type regulations and not only the ones related to finance. Since the 1980's the GOP has been reducing regulations many of which were imposed after the market collapse that lead to the Great Depression and the Democratic Party has been either unwilling or unable to stem this tide. This has led to things like the Arthur Anderson facilitating the Enron bankruptcy and the need for the auto industry and banking bailouts.

We need to reinstate checks and balances on the markets. Not necessarily the exact ones removed but at least ones that will stabilize the marketplaces as well as the old ones did. This is the antithesis of the Libertarian agenda but is the only way to achieve a market which will perform closer to the theoretical free market of the economic models.

Why Does the Vatican Ban Catholics Joining the Masons?

Being a Mason and not a Catholic* I am confused by the ban on membership by the Vatican. The Masonic Order being an organization that promotes tolerance I find the ban by the Church strange. As a non-catholic it seems to me that Masonic teachings of morality, virtue, and charity are exactly the same as the Church.

While Masons are not required to believe in any particular religious dogma we are required to believe in a supreme being. If that takes the form of the Holy Trinity, no problem. The Masonic teachings and rituals do not try to supplant anyone's religious beliefs. We refer to the supreme being as the Grand Architect of the Universe which fits in with our use of the tools of the stone builders trade to teach moral values. As an architect is the overall guide to the construction of buildings, so is the Grand Architect of the Universe is our guide to building ourselves into better men.

Our oaths and obligations are worded to put the duty to family, religion, and country before any duty to the Masonic Order or our fraternal brothers. I would think that these declarations would not put us in conflict with any religion. Well at least any religion that allows for human free will and it is my belief that Catholics allow free will. Our secrets, there really are very few, are only related to keeping our meetings private, only allowing in those who have taken our oaths.

There are two topics forbidden in Masonic meetings, religion and politics. Religion because that is an individual choice and not to be scrutinized or criticized by anyone. Politics because not only is it a personal choice, it is a topic that inherently divides people. Our order strives for harmony and the discord that can be generated by talk of politics is the antithesis of that. Again this is not inherently against the Catholic teachings.

As an organization the Masons are about charity to others. We are about helping fellow Masons, their widows and orphans, and any less fortunate than ourselves. Some of the appendant bodies have more specific charities, for the Scottish Rite it is dyslexia, for the Shrine it is the hospitals for children. Again I don't see what issue the Vatican has against the Masons.

I am still left with the question why does the Vatican still feel that the Masons are a group that Catholics should not belong to?

* Just for full disclosure I have never been a christian. I am current either a deist or an agnostic though I was raised to believe in a specific religion. Growing up and living as a non-christian in a country where the majority is christian has given me a different perspective on things. The founding fathers of the United States were very careful not to promote any religion over any other, even though a majority were christian. This fact is lost on many people today.

A Solution for the Dying Bookstore?

Nothing in the electronic universe we have created beat the experience of walking into a bookshop. The cover art, the interaction with other readers, and for the nostalgic the smell of books. With the dwindling number of brick and mortar book shops this experience is getting harder achieve. Their stores cannot compete with the massive online retailers and electronic book outlets. The need another revenue stream to stay in business.

When selecting a new book by an author known to the reader or looking at a potential new author is when the cover art and back cover verbiage come most into play.  The online experience cannot match the physical browsing experience.

Many of the online retailers have tried to recreate the experience in one form or another with varying results. Other retailers have tried to map the reader's preferences and present books that the reader should also be interested in again with limited success.

I would suggest that the merger of the two experiences is the future. If a reader could browse in a store and make their selection. Then decide whether they want the physical book right now (at a premium), receive it later by post (at a lower price), or the book in electronic format to their reader of choice (at the lowest price). Finally checking out with whatever payment method they wish; cash, credit, or debit. This way the bookstore could receive a portion of the sale no matter how the reader is going to read the book. This extra revenue stream will help the store front retailers in business.

Not knowing the business from the inside I'm not sure how one can keep the online prices for the physical book and ebooks the same as an in-store purchase. That will be essential for this model to work. 

I'm using my personal experience as anecdotal evidence that this could work. For example I was browsing my favorite section in a book store. Saw an interesting cover that someone at the store decided to face out among the hundreds of spines. Picking it up and reading the back I found the premise interesting I thought of buying it. But having just received an ebook reader I wanted to see if it was available on that first. It was and that is how I purchased it. No money went to the store even though it was the real sales route. Since then I have been think how that store lost business it created. The book was one of a series and I have purchased all of them in electronic format. 

Currently I am purchasing books almost exclusively in electronic format. I have even gone as far when rereading books I own seeing if they are available in electronic format at a reasonable price. If they are I have bought them. Regrettably I have been finding that the price of older titles in electronic format is even higher than the street price of paperbacks. More shocking is that some that were available in electronic format compatible with my reader have been withdrawn from the market place I need to use due to my ebook reader's manufacturer.

What I see as the possible future for store front book sellers in a combined model where a browsing reader contributes to the store's bottom line no matter how they select to get the book.

In a Democracy a Quality Rounded Education is a Right!

I will start this by quoting the USA founding father Thomas Jefferson,  "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people." I would also state that without an education people can not make informed decision no matter how many facts they are given. A quality public education should be a right in this country not a privilege granted to only those children in localities that can afford it. A quality education is vital these days since we have data bombarding us from all directions. Without the skills to filter the false data from facts no matter how the false data is delivered, a person will not make the choice that provides the results they want.  

We are now trying to undercut education by giving a false choice of vouchers that allow schools to cherry pick students while others cherry pick curriculum leaving out facts and science they don't agree with. Over the last three decades the participation in school funding by the states has dramatically dropped leaving the poor localities with an even larger gap in the ability to provide a quality education. Giving choice to parents that for one reason or another do not themselves have a quality education is no choice at all. Giving choice to parents that have beliefs that deny scientific facts and have philosophies that are incompatible with a diverse society is perpetuating discrimination. Giving tax money to schools that do not have to accept and educate all applicants is taking money away from those institutions that have to. 

A large portion of a public school budget is allocated to the compensation of teachers. This is seen by many as over compensation but why isn't the education of children, our future leaders, more important than the compensation of the lawmakers of today? Teachers have in the passed selected benefits over salary in many cases. At the same time companies have chosen to restrict benefits and salaries of most workers while dramatically increasing upper management compensation. These factors results in teachers having a much better compensation package excluding salary than the average worker. Now self proclaimed conservative lawmakers are trying to reduce teacher's compensation package  by using the comparison against them. Many people are asking why teachers have it so good without realizing that as little as thirty years ago most people with healthcare benefits had as good a package. That the salaries of teachers are significantly lower that corporate trainers of the same education level, even after allowing for the summer vacation time off.

This brings me to summer vacation and the length of the school day. Summer vacation was originally set up to allow children to help out on the farm. Now that most people are not farmers hasn't outlived it usefulness? It has been proven that the extended time off causes students to regress educationally. The first part of the year is spent getting them back on track. Recognizing that children need a brake from school just as adults need a vacation, a solution that would more meet the current reality would be several shorter breaks throughout the year. This means that parents could match their time off to the school schedule and not be forced to take time off in the summer to do things with their children. It would even relieve the crowding at tourist attractions. The school day reflects a time when things were different, the curriculum was less complex and most households had a full time caregiver at home. With a society where most household have both parents working full-time this leaves the children without supervision at some point in the day or parent spending a significant portion of their salary on child daycare. Extending the school day would allow teachers more time to spend on teaching and reduce the need of parents for daycare. In the fifties we had one of the longest school days is the industrialized world. It has not changed and it is now one of the shortest.

What we need are higher standards for our public school teachers and compensation that meets the same training jobs in industry with those same requirements. Currently a trainer in business makes more than a school teacher with an equal education, this is unacceptable. Given the past history on principals and superintendents being arbitrary and playing favorites in evaluations a nonpartisan method of evaluating the performance of teachers should be use. Average test standard scores over several years is one method that comes to mind. It could also be used to give rewards to better performing teachers. Some school districts have teacher protected by tenure and by collective bargaining. They should only have one or the other but not both. Unions must not protect under performing teachers. They should be facilitating their improvement. 

A year round school schedule that minimizes the vacation loss that our kids experience. With higher standards and compensation needs to come on going education and evaluation. With the fast moving society we are in what a teacher learned in school may be outdated. Having just a few one day teacher institutes a year is not enough. With a year round school year a majority of the student breaks would be used for the teachers to attend events to keep them up to date. The requirement for spending time in a formal fashion to update would also remove the argument of detractors that teachers have a shorter work year.

We must make sure our children get the fundamentals of arithmetic, phonics, spelling, and grammar while not forgetting to provide the modern skills of keyboarding and computer use. Over the years the other subjects that have proven to be of great benefit to the overall education of students have been disappearing. Art and music have suffered the most. While studies have show children with music education as part of their studies do better in especial in math. Other studies show that art education improves overall test score. History and civics are critically important to making informed decisions at the polls. Recently even history education has suffered by being reduced and by having facts changed to meet the current political climate. Eliminating from the curriculum or remodeling the view of those events they can't eliminate those events that don't promote the current agendas of the self proclaimed conservatives. While all histories tend to be bias to some point they have been heavy handed and revisionist. Even science facts have been challenged leading to a far inferior education.

If we are to remain a free society in fact rather than free only in rhetoric alone we must promote education back to a high priority and spend our money accordingly. View our educators and valued assets of the community rather than money leeches. Add back into schools attention to the required fundamentals, the arts and music for a well rounded education and keep politics out of the curriculum as much as possible. A longer school day, shorter school breaks, requiring better educated teachers, improved teacher compensation, fair teacher evaluation, and a well grounded historical view will make better citizens. A citizenry that can do what it takes to keep this country a free society.

The So Called Evils of Undocumented Workers and the Real Evil of the H1B visa program

The current congressional debate on foreign workers is discussing the wrong problem. The right is focusing on preventing, through a wall, people from crossing the Mexican border. This focus certainly appears to be racist to Latin Americans. It will do noting to stem the tide of illegal immigration from eastern Europe and other depressed areas around the world. The real solution would be setting reasonable requirements and streamlining the legal worker immigration, even temporary, process for all. The solution should include a method to grant documentation to the seasonal and manual labor force in a method similar to but more equitably written toward the workers than the H1B visa program. These workers are currently being exploited by companies, whose penalties for employing them are minimal and benefits are great in labor cost savings. When they can't be threatened with being turned over to ICE they too will ask for a living wage.

On the other hand a significant but ignored by the right is the legal workers being brought in under the H1B visa program. This statue does more harm than the Latin American undocumented workers. Do not confuse my dislike of the H1B visa program with discrimination toward any nationality. The H1B program is just as unfair to the visa holders as it is to the current american workers that are having their salaries reduce because of or by being replaced by these people. Someone on an H1B is a wage slave. If their employer terminates them or just fails to renew the sponsorship of their visa they have 30 days to find a new sponsor or they must leave the country. It leaves them unable to stand up against many forms of coercion or unfair practices. They end up working at under market rates and with minimal benefits. Their oppression depresses the market for all.

A common way that a employer exploits the H1B visa program is to post a job with a great number of detailed requirements but with an under market salary. Then they find few applicants if any for the position. Any applicants will be accepting a lower salary than their skills and experience warrant. They then are able to look outside the country for workers with the skills they want but at the lower salary they want to pay. In the most severe cases they will be less stringent on meeting the technical requirement than they were when reviewing domestic candidates thereby unfairly reducing wages for skilled workers across an industry.

Members of Congress seemed to be focused on where people come from and how things effect the corporations and not on the immigrants, their welfare, and providing them a living wage. They need to stop focusing on profits for corporations and the racial phobias of the constituents but on wages for workers skilled and unskilled, new immigrant workers and currently legal workers, from all areas of the world in all future immigration legislation.

Secrecy and Privacy Should be a Two Way Street

Nowhere in the US constitution is the federal government granted the right to privacy but there is the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. One argument that some use when the government over reaches is "If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide." Those who believe that should extent that same logic to the government and all federal documents should be made public immediately. Not doing so is the government admitting it has taken illegal actions it has to hide.

Of course this is unreasonable domestically there are presidential movements, law enforcement investigations, weapon designs, and other sensitive topics that are sensitive and need to be protected. Internationally there are diplomatic exchanges the would be best kept secret. What is needed is the realization that individuals do, say, and go places with a degree of privacy. The National Security Agency (NSA) getting every telephone call record for the cell carriers steps well beyond reasonable search and seizure. Getting records for a set of towers or a list of cell numbers with a public court order would be reasonable. The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) is not a public court. I'm not sure anything done in that court is constitutional since none of it is public record not even the judges but that is not the topic of this post. There is a reasonable expectation that your movements and who you converse with is private. Unfettered access to cell phone records give the government both. 

If the government is allow free and unfettered access to this information then they have no place to complain or prosecute anyone for leaking secret documents for the first amendment protects the press and freedom of speech which the person leaking information is exercising. I have already granted that the government needs to keep secrets but this doesn't extend to covering up it violating the law or the constitution. Both are examples where someone leaking information is doing the citizens of the US a service. That should be the first determination in any case accusing someone violating the Espionage Act of 1917 or other federal secrecy statutes. If the information is exposing the government violating the law or the constitution then the prosecution should not continue. 

If there is truly a reason for this grand data acquisition by the NSA a closed hearing with a reasonable organization representing the privacy right of the US citizens presenting opposing arguments should be held. If this needs to be secret and the records sequestered for a time so be it. In the FISA court no one was arguing against the NSA nor to my knowledge was specific evidence of the need for such wide data collection presented. 

It is a matter of fact that both the government and law abiding citizen have information they consider private and do not wish exposed. There are rules and laws that should be followed. In the case of the cell phone records given to the NSA they have been broken.
.

eBook Pricing Stinks

This is a little less political than my other post but I am just frustrated as heel over the book publishers gouging people buying books in any electronic format, commonly known as eBooks.

When purchasing an eBook from Amazon or Barnes and Noble the price is set by the publisher. Currently the trend in pricing is to match the paperback book price. This adds a huge amount to the publisher's profit. None of the extra profit is shared with the authors.

With an eBook they do not have to print, warehouse, ship, or buy back unsold books. Their only new expense is an additional proofread for each electronic format. It is understood that newly published books will be at a premium but the eBook should never be the same price as a physical book. Even is the eBook was one dollar less than the physical book it would at least acknowledge the publisher's savings.

Some would argue that the price needs to be higher because of the loss of revenue from piracy. Those people have not learned the lesson of the music industry and iTunes. That lesson was that the lower the price of legitimate sources the lower the piracy rate. With the current high price they are encouraging piracy because there is a greater financial intensive to get a book from an illicit source. Most readers want to support the authors and understand piracy hurts them but they also understand that the inflated prices currently charged for eBooks does not help them either.

I have noticed that even as a published book gets older they do not have any method in place to reduce the price to put it more inline with the shrinking physical book price.

One publisher O'Rielly, a publisher of computer technical books does have a pricing model that sells  eBooks significantly lower price. Their target audience is the most capable pirating the eBook of any group. O'Rielly has realized that having a price that reflects the savings on eBooks these folks are not likely to search for an illicit source.

The book publishing industry needs to review their pricing structure in regards to eBooks and stop the greed.