Unintended Consequences Part 7201

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/us_dept_of_transportation_data.html

U.S. Dept. of Transportation data show drop in flight delays, rise in canceled flights

Published: Monday, March 07, 2011, 7:00 AM Updated: Monday, March 07, 2011, 9:35 AM

By all accounts, the Federal Aviation Administration’s "tarmac rule" has dramatically reduced the number of passengers who are stuck inside an aircraft on the ground for three hours or more.

Violations of the rule, which went into effect last April, can cost airlines $27,500 per passenger, or $2.75 million for a planeload of 100 people going nowhere fast. In fact, there were just three cases nationwide of three-hour tarmac delays in December — compared with 34 the previous December, according to the federal Department of Transportation, the FAA’s parent agency.

But critics say an unintended consequence of the rule is becoming apparent and spoiling travel plans for a far greater number of would-be fliers.

Economists of the Austrian-Chicago schools (Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, etc.) would absolutely refer to this as unintended consequences.

No, the other Hayek.

To put it simply, the airline is impaled on the horns of a dilemma. Which do they do: risk $27,500 in fines per passenger at a cost of $2,750,000? Or lose $500 of business per passenger at a cost of $50,000 (minus the expenses in fuel and some labor hours on the flight as well)?

This is the result of a limited part of "passenger's bill of rights" - a somewhat statist concept that rights spring from the government anyway, but I digress... With bad weather last December at many airports, the regular delays and cancellations were magnified. But this isn't because of December, and this isn't the first time it's been noticed. Not by a long shot.

If the airlines were doing something illegal when airline customers were stuck on planes for 3 hours (arguably this could be the case), a simple prosecution and use of criminal courts would've sufficed.

If airlines were violating their contract with their passengers when they left people stuck on the tarmac for 3 hours, civil courts between the passengers and the airline would've sufficed - a class action lawsuit would result in the passengers getting that $27,500 per person, not the government getting it. Which is a better compensation for the injured party? To get $27,500 for the 4 hours you spent on the tarmac, your flight delayed, unable to get to your important meeting and to see grandma, getting cramped, listening to cranky kids and generally enduring unpleasantness, or would you rather the $27,500 go to a government agency? Assuming you had three delayed flights a year and were given that $27,500 as compensation, you could do pretty well for yourself just through compensation from the airlines. I'd sit on a plane for 4 hours on the tarmac to get a significant part of a house payment or a Mustang.

With the use of what amounts to a new taxation system, a cost-benefit framework is now established for the airlines. Now the airlines are forced by state coercion of extreme fines and thus the laws of economics to abandon flights as soon as the risk of fines come up, which screws passengers further. Imagine sitting for 2 hours and 45 minutes waiting to takeoff and then being kicked back into the terminal and your flight being cancelled.

It's like having your schedule stuck between two warm pillows.

To give a comparison on well-meaning government, consider red light cameras. They were intended to catch people who run red lights. What happens is they scare people on the penalty of a ticket - financial loss - into slamming on their brakes. This results in higher levels of rear-end collisions, increasing the numbers of accidents in one manner.

Red light cameras are frequently used as a revenue stream, and at least in Chicago, are used in poor black neighborhoods (as folks there are less likely to have lawyers or know the Mayor). In Britain, speed cameras known as "Gatsos" are frequently used as a revenue stream via creation of automated speed traps. Speed limits are recorded as being cut as much from 70 mph to 40 mph. The subject (not citizen over there) is inconvenienced, taxed, and all for "their own good"... or fines.

They are not well loved. The British solution is to toss a tyre round the beastly thing and set it alight.

This brings up a cynical question: are the fines intended to actually help airline customers - since a cancellation can be a lot more hassle than a long tarmac wait - or are the fines intended as a revenue stream, with the added bonus for politicians of demonizing airlines for cheap popularity?

The Road To Serfdom Excerpts I

Friedrich A. Hayek wrote a rather well-known book on economics and the human condition called "The Road To Serfdom" back in the early 1940s. Hayek was an Austrian economist and one of the major contributors to the "Austrian School" of economics. The intro to the edition I'm reading is rather long and any summary of the factors that led to the book would be insufficient in comparison.

He also rather famously remarked: "Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves," being critical of American conservatism that doesn't embrace and conserve its libertarian/classic liberal ideals. Note that our motto at The Patriot Perspective has always been the same.

He also won the Nobel Prize for Economics, but won it at the same time as a scandinavian leftist, cuz... y'know... politics.

As I've been reading it, some passages are jumping out at me. Here, Hayek points out a major problem with central planning and socialism. It must control everything to create its utopia. And it invariably fails, as everything in existence must then be prioritized by government - not by individuals who govern their own affairs, and whose best interests may even change day to day. Here, he makes the point that there can be no such government because there exists no such set of prioritizing values.

Not only do we not possess such an all-inclusive scale of values: it would be impossible for any mind to comprehend the infinite variety of different needs of different people which compete for the available resources and to attach a definite weight to each. For our problem it is of minor importance whether the ends for which any person cares comprehend only his own individual needs, or whether they include the needs of his closer or even those of his more distant fellows-that is, whether he is egotistic or altruistic in the ordinary sense of these words. The point which is so important is the basic fact that it is impossible for any man to survey more than a limited field, to be aware of the urgency of more than a limited number of needs. Whether his interests center round his own physical needs, or whether he takes a warm interest in the welfare of every human being he knows, the ends about which he can be concerned will always be only an infinitesimal fraction of the needs of all men.

This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish or ought to be. It merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of the whole society...

- Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road To Serfdom (pg 102)

--

How badass is the Austrian School of Economics? Salma is the THIRD Hayek to come up when you type "Hayek" into Google.

What We Believe Part V: Gun Rights

Bill Whittle's Part V of the explanation of Tea Party/conservative beliefs:



We see natural law revisited here. If it's yours, it's yours - and your property is your right - and your right to defend. No legitimate government can take away the right to property. Indeed, original phrase used by the founders was "life, liberty and pursuit of property". If it's yours, it's yours - be it your home, your house, your car, your labor, your wealth or your body.

Photo by Oleg Volk.

Just today, I stumbled across this essay: Violence Is Golden. It's a very direct assessment of how society works, and how violence works. It's a more elaborate version of Robert Heinlein's explanation in Starship Troopers via Sgt Zim of the application of force.

Photo by Oleg Volk.

It's something that, like Whittle says, most conservative/Tea Party/traditionalist types instinctively understand. It's not something that needs to be elaborated on to be understood - but it's worth it to examine beliefs anyway. For most folks, Oleg Volk's posters are simply direct, visual statements of common sense. Through examining these beliefs, it makes it easier to convey them to those who don't understand - those who fear firearms and place their blind trust unwisely in the monopoly of force that the state controls.

Again, by Oleg Volk.

But for people who live in a bubble, it is not easy to understand. For rich city people who believe that the police are there in an instant, perhaps banning guns makes sense. They don't have to experience violence in their lives. They are never threatened by crime, animals, nor do they feel the boot of oppressive government - the police are invariably subservient, because the super-rich are connected to the county/city/state/federal government.

For the not-super-rich city dweller, the modest suburbanite, or the rural resident of whatever means, physical security is a real concern - even against tyrannical government.

For people who've been victimized on a massive scale - they know what gun control really means firsthand. It isn't a myth, it isn't a "can't happen here", and no amount of "we live in a good neighborhood" or "we have laws against that" means a damn thing. They know that violence exists - sometimes in the form of common thugs, but more often in the form of tyranny.

Volk's work again.

And that line of defense is just part of beauty of the Second Amendment. The Founders knew a way to prevent tyranny, oppression, and crime (which is just tyranny or oppression on the personal scale). And they knew that the more of it we exercise, the fewer rights we have trampled - the freer we are, and the safer we are. The greater that defense, the greater the deterrence against oppressors.

No freeman should ever be disbarred the use of arms.

- Thomas Jefferson

An armed society is a polite society.

- Robert Heinlein

For those unconvinced, I suggest exploring Oleg Volk's site: A Human Right. It's also a good site to explore your own opinions on the Second Amendment, as well as something to show to others who may not have the frame of reference to understand.

Also, since it's fun and informative and persuasive, check out Penn & Teller skewering Gun Control.

She can resist tyranny, oppression, and crime. Sunburn, not so much.

And Oleg Volk has an awesome job.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose III

Milton Friedman on the Economy in 1980 talking with Phil Donahue, followed by more proof government is going the wrong way, and the free market is the greatest cause of happiness in the world.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


The solutions that work remain the same then as now. Reduce spending, lower taxes, reduce regulation, let people be free.


---
And again, that's enough of Donahue's hair. Palate cleanser:

Manbearpig Terrorists

Via Pajamas Media:
Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

Says Calzada:

Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.

Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.

The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:

This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.

Dr. Calzada added:

[The terrorism expert] told me that this was a warning.

--
For those who think of Spain as a land of bullfighters and beaches at Ibiza, remember they were a fascist dictatorship for decades under Franco, and have their own home-grown terrorists with which to contend. So Spain knows a thing or two about terrorism and tyranny. The security expert consulted was one who fought against the ETA.

Pictured: Ibiza's beautiful beaches and an inhabitant.
Not pictured: Global warming zealot terrorists.

--
From Expansion.com:
Un colaborador de EXPANSIÓN, amenazado por sus artículos sobre la energía solar
Gabriel Calzada, colaborador habitual de EXPANSIÓN, recibió una bomba simulada, enviada por una empresa fotovoltaica que pretendía así intimidarle por sus artículos críticos sobre la energía solar.
...
El agente de seguridad privada recomendó no abrirlo tras comprobar que se trataba de dos objetos metálicos difíciles de interpretar. Pidió ayuda a una persona con más experiencia quien tras un breve visionado de la pantalla del escáner creyó saber de qué se trataba y procedió a abrirlo con cuidado ante la atenta mirada del guarda de seguridad, Lorenzo Ramírez (antiguo redactor de Expansión) y el propio Gabriel Calzada. De la caja salieron un filtro de gasoil y una pieza con rosca que podía adaptarse al filtro.
--
For those who don't read Spanish, it's pretty much what PJ media relates to us.
The title is "A Contributor of Expansion was Threatened for his Articles on Solar Energy". You can go use babelfish for a robot translation that isn't perfect.

...an employee of the company immediately knew about what package she treated and she answered without doubting a second that " it is our answer to articles on energy of Mr. Calzada in Expansión".
(via babelfish)

De la caja salieron un filtro de gasoil y una pieza con rosca que podía adaptarse al filtro.
"In the box was left a diesel filter and a piece with a spiral that could adapt to the filter."
(with help from babelfish)

"Ten cuidado Gabriel, esta vez lo mandan como aviso, la próxima vez te puedes encontrar con un paquete que estalle al abrirlo".
Be careful, Gabriel. This time it came as a warning, the next time it could explode when you open it.
(via ShortTimer & my Langenscheidt English-Spanish dictionary)

Bad things going on in Spain.
--

But Spain has some nice things going on at the World Cup.

Global warming zealot terrorists have probably gone there to protest the carbon footprint of futbol stadiums and acquire vuvuzelas as WMDs.

Free Speech on Draw Mo Day - 5/20

There's an issue that a lot of folks aren't willing to tackle. Many folks are willing to bury their heads in sand. A lot of folks want to address it.

It started over on Facebook, apparently, with the idea of a "Draw Mohammed Day" to stand up for free speech. Since I'm a dinosaur and not adept at Facespace or Mybook, I've mostly been kept abreast of it by The Jawa Report. (I highly recommend visiting the site - they have much more info and several links.)

Apparently, though, there's been some typical muslim intolerance of free speech.

Call them the religion of peace. Or they'll kill you.
(Also big thanks to Jawa Report.)

So insulting Mohammed = Death? Again?


Y'know what, islamic community? You don't want to be portrayed like your prophet, who spread his religion by the sword, forced conversions, and murder?

Y'know, like Mohammed, pictured here in my artist's rendering:

Free speech & the 1st Amendment. Got a problem with it? Tough.
Want to change my mind? That's up to your behavior.

(For those of you paying attention, Mohammed was portrayed as a kind superhero on South Park. The above image is my creation, using a South Park character generator.)

Then stop threatening people with death for joking about your religion, or your founder (who raped a 9-year old girl). Jews can take a joke about Moses, Christians can sure take a joke about Jesus, Buddhists can take a joke about buddha, animists can take a joke about anything. Hell, even snotty atheists can take a joke... about nothing.

While you're at it, stop murdering gay people for being gay, and stop punishing rape victims for being victims of rape.

Now, in the unlikely event that actual moderate muslims like Irshad Manji, Wafa Sultan, Ozma, Marwan or his sisters, or Tony (our 'terp) ever read the site, no true disrespect is intended towards you, and I'm sure you can stomach the insult to the prophet you believe in in order to have the barbarians in your midst shown for who they are by their foaming-at-the-mouth response, and for those who do have some capacity for tolerance to be able to develop it. You may scowl in distaste, but no harm is done, and a positive reaction from you enhances your image and character, and ultimately simple mockery of Mohammed without any depth to the discussion will go away. We'll all be able to recognize you as civilized people capable of reasoned discourse - again, it's testament to your character as individuals.

Those who would be offended are free to make pictures of whatever religious or secular figure they like. Enjoy. Be advised, we've already had our tax dollars pay for a crucifix in urine and a Virgin Mary made of elephant shit, so you'll probably be unable to offend us any moreso than our own domestic iconoclasts. BTW, they're cowards who wouldn't dare put Mohammed in the same "art".

Those who would make death threats or worse yet, commit acts of violence based on PICTURES or WORDS are dangerous psychotics. A scathing criticism of Theo van Gogh or Trey Parker & Matt Stone would be a lot more effective critique than proving their mockery entirely justified. Note that every act of violence solidifies islam as a religion that is by its very nature violent, no matter how much anyone says "religion of peace." 15312 terrorist acts in the name of islam since 9/11/2001 (as of this writing) already has made it pretty solid.

Multiculturalism! Diversity! Tolerance!

Oh, and for those cowards who won't stand for free speech, like Comedy Central, and the numerous newspapers who refused to reprint the Mohammed cartoons out of fear - either stand up for your rights or get used to kneeling. Every acquiescence you make to terrorists validates terrorism as a tool to force your compliance. You have no standing as a critic of any religion or anything if you bow to islam's threats. You fucking cowards.

Also, to those muslims without tolerance and who wish to make threats and terrorist attacks, perhaps you need to be reminded of what backs up the 1st Amendment in the United States.

2nd Amendment. Protecting its loudmouth little brother the 1st Amendment since 1791.

It's War, not a Crime Spree

It's War, not a Crime Spree

Read it, folks.

Jihad is war, jihad is real.

Sand isn't there for you to stick your head in it. It's there for you to draw a line in it.

World's Smallest Political Alignment Quiz

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

I've taken this quiz before, but now having seen the effects of the liberal fascist/statist mode of govt, it appears I've gotten way more hardcore in support of liberty.

My only non-100% libertarian question is one that basically consists of "how the hell you gonna do it?"

There is a problem with the quiz and its results. Statist and liberal are the same thing, as the fundamental basis of modern liberalism is that they have no beliefs beyond pandering to emotion.

Jonah Goldberg rather eloquently illustrates this by pointing out that the basis of modern liberalism begins in the 19-teens with Woodrow Wilson and his cadre, who all believed they knew what was best. HG Wells coined the term "Liberal Fascism" to describe the progressives of the era - and meant it in glowing terms. The left was enamored with fascism and the trappings of ultimate power and still is - as evidenced by the bow to the Saudi king, the hug with Hugo Chavez, etc.

Thus, the modern liberal is a statist, and vice versa, though he'll call himself a progressive or whatever lie he needs to in order to get by. Van Jones was a communist who proclaimed himself a liberal and progressive - but all are the same thing - people who crave power over others and are those who should NEVER have it.

The liberalism of the founding fathers was libertarianism coupled with some degrees of conservatism based on traditional Christian values. It was liberal in opposition to monarchy and despotism - it was revolutionary in contrast to that. It was vehemently not the "revolutionary" of tyrannical dictators like Hugo Chavez or the mass murdering coward Che Guevara or of even greater mass murderer Lenin. That's simply one more tyrannical despot replacing a weaker government.

Nor does any "liberal" policy in the quiz follow true liberal principles - which are libertarian principles, or conservative principles - as conservatives are seeking to CONSERVE the liberties and virtues derived from them that they see as most beneficial to the survival of the American people.

It's flawed on the whole statist dictatorial side. No true liberal should be taking from one group to give to another, as welfare does. That's theft - it starts with money and ends with prima nocta.

Nor does a traditional conservative - based on conserving the principles that made the country great - demand that government interfere in people's home lives.

I suppose the conclusion is that, given liberal-statists identical status and thought, and the opinions of an American conservative versus an American traditionalist (who doesn't adhere to the Constitution so much as their cultural opinions - which may not be a bad thing for culture, but perhaps shouldn't interfere in government and laws) - the test is invalid.

Diatribe over - but consider it no matter your result. Classic liberalism, American conservatism, or just libertarianism, call it what you will - it all adds up to this:

And this:


Liberty looks pretty damn good to me.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Milton Friedman on the Economy in 1979 talking with Phil Donahue, followed by more proof government is going the wrong way, and the free market is the greatest cause of happiness in the world.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


During part 4, at around the minute and a half mark, Friedman discusses Exxon, and mentions that the government could tell them to not make any money.

Friedman: "Look, if you say to Exxon, one thing we're going to do is to make it impossible for you to make any money producing oil -"

Donahue interrupts, rejecting the idea that the government would destroy an energy company as absurd: "You're going to have a hard time getting the American people to agree with that type of thing."

Oh really?


Part 5 even has a mention about health care... in the exact same way we're facing problems now.

---
Okay, enough of Donahue's big hair - time for a palate cleanser:

A hot chick on a Dodge Challenger RT. And it's all brought to you by the free market, not government.