My Home School Legal Defense Association membership renewal card arrived in the mail today. As I put the card in my wallet, I acknowledged the expense associated with the card and membership, an expense realized for the sole purpose of protecting my homeschooling family from government.

As I put my ever-lighter wallet in my pocket, I wondered how many other negative externalities are the result of the supposed public goods provided by the state, externalities so common place they are not recognized even as they occur.

note: HSLDA provides legal assistance to homeschooling families that offend the sensibilities of neighbors (qua local government officials) acting as the nanny do-gooders of the collective.

The market is amazing. New items continually appear unnoticed, without Apple mania, so to speak. Consider spinach, Popeye’s power pill.

Forty years ago – for those living in the northern states, anyway – spinach was either canned or frozen, and always absent from the produce section. At home, frozen was the choice. I remember seeing the cube of greens dropped in a boiling pot of water and salt – for me, the more salt, the better.

I had no idea what the fresh leaves of a spinach looked like; its leaves were always wilted in a frozen or boiled mash.

While eating dinner this evening, I placed a few leaves of fresh spinach on my hamburger, and then I paused: when did we start eating fresh spinach, in midwinter, nonetheless?

I went to the refrigerator and removed the remnants of the bag of spinach. I pulled out a few leaves and stems, taking my first cognizant look at spinach.[1] The leaves and stems were long and crisp, with not a wilt to be found. Amazing.

So, when did this revolution occur? When did I go from wilted frozen to crispy fresh?

Sure, new technology hits the market with glamorous fanfare. But the market also revolutionizes in ways that are never news, with improvements appearing both unnoticed and appreciated.

Note: [1] My knowledge of spinach moved from information-knowledge to action-knowledge, in a Kirznerian manner, so to speak.

My son was upset when he returned home from his minimum wage job at a local grocery store. Seems he was confronted with, “The assistant manager is hopping mad about something you did,” as soon as he entered the door. His mind raced. What had he done? He took a breath, composed himself, and headed toward her office.

And she was mad. Turns out my son — who is new to the job — had taken only a 15-minute break instead of the state-mandated 30-minute break on three separate occasions — an offense the assistant manager said could cost the store $10,000 per occurrence, $30,000 in all.

He said he wasn’t aware of the break rule. Regardless, the manager added three minor violations to his personnel file.

At home, my son couldn’t understand what happened. He hadn’t cheated anyone or stolen anything. He had simply punched back in after only 15 minutes in the break room.

“Son,” I said, “Welcome to the surreal world of fascialism.”

In his book, Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, Günter Reimann details life under the German version of fascism. We live under the Progressive version, aptly named fascialism — a little softer, but just as evil and nonsensical.

You know, you can tell a teenager about the ills of government interventions and think you are hitting home. But a real example — in the face of an angry assistant manager — is much more effective.

Liberty won one more this evening.

Blogger Waldo Jaquith discovers that the isolated man — a nontrading man — cannot make a cheeseburger, even after years of effort. Sadly, the Scientific American writer dismisses the market due to his Malthusian nightmare.

Krugman thinks Misesians suffer delusions. To prove his point, he retells a fantasy as reality. Hmmm. And here I thought the story of the baby sitting co-op was an allegory of the horrors of the state intervening in the market — the state fixing the value of its fiat currency against other goods and services.

According to Krugman, “I know that a lot of people refuse to accept the possibility of such things, and nothing will convince them that a monetary expansion can ever do real good. But they’re mistaking their own confusion for profound insight.”

Now, doesn’t that sound like delusion masquerading as insight?

Because my home PC keeps getting filled with downloads from iTunes – a byproduct of teenagers, I frequently have to purge unneeded files in order to free memory. So it is with my gray matter – occasionally things have to go.

But what to purge? Something that is unneeded and of little use. Hmmm.

So, to free space for ideas and thoughts that matter, I am purging from memory the list of US presidents – the list considered essential to my public education.

Why am I purging the list of presidents? Well, it’s either that or the list of Tour de France winners. And I hold Tour winners in higher esteem – even those who doped or otherwise cheated.

In my opinion, it is time to drop the worship of presidents, past and present. Allocating scarce memory to these folks is of little use – other than supporting the belief that the regime is to be glorified.

So, if you ask me for the names of the last 25 presidents, I’ll ask you for the names of the last 25 Tour winners.

On a recent trip to Krakow, Poland, I had the opportunity to spend a week (inter alia) walking the Old Town and observing a very fascinating aspect of the market in action – or inaction, as it appeared at times. On my strolls through this historic district, I focused my economic eye on the street mimes – performers who provided me with entertainment and a muse to ponder the market.

Now this was not the first time I witnessed street mimes in action. But it was the first time I saw so many in such a relatively small area. For those unaware, a street mime dresses in an exaggerated costume and remains motionless, approximating a statue, until someone drops a coin1 in the box situated at his feet. Triggered by the clang of the coin, the mime begins moving in hyperbolic motions. He reaches down and picks up the coin, looks at it, and then deposits it in his pocket. Finally, the mime quickly readjusts his costume and returns to his statue-like position, remaining motionless until the next coin is dropped.

The first time I saw a mime, I was pleasantly surprised – a statue that came to life before my eyes. Soon, however, as I noticed more mimes, my surprise diminished. Nevertheless, the details unique to each mime continued to draw my attention and subtle amazement.

Free riding through Krakow

During my visit to Krakow, there were a large number of mimes working the Old Town, each homesteading his own little area. And being that the streets and sidewalks of the Old Town are the public commons, so to speak, homesteading occurred anew, every morning.

Daily, the Old Town filled with tourists. While each mime staked his claim, the area around him remained open for all. So his performance could be observed by those whose view was not blocked by others – exclusion from the mime’s standpoint was impossible. Every so often, someone would drop a coin and the mime would entertain all who could see. In essence, there were 25 or so free riders for every coin dropper. Yes, I dropped some coins in boxes, but I was entertained for free many more times than I paid. And from my accounting, most observers never dropped even one coin. Still, the market worked – and it worked without government intervention, despite the supposed free rider problem.

An equilibrium

Just like all aspects of the greater market, I assume the market for mimes tends toward equilibrium. Tourist resources are limited, so there are only so many coins falling into boxes on any given day. And each mime is subject to the realities of alternate costs, since each forgoes some other source of income in order to stand motionless in the (during my trip, anyway) hot sun.

Each additional mime staking a morning claim reduces the amount of take-home coins for the returning mimes (for some mimes, anyway). As these new mimes, looking for an income better than their next best alternative, enter the market, other mimes exit the market in order to seek their best alternate income.

This healthy competition improves the quality of mimes in any given area. The best – as defined by the market – survive. And this is important: the best from the standpoint of the market survive, given alternate costs, etc. Not the best from my point of view, but the best from the view of the market in general.

I note this because some of the mimes I thought were not even worth a grosz were receiving more zlotys than those I rated much higher. Of course, I voted my groszy and zlotys based on my preferences, just like everyone else. And then the market decides who returns to the Old Town the following morning and who seeks alternate employment.

Creative destruction

Overtime, as more tourists experience street mimes, and as more mimes enter the market, the entertainment value of street mimes in general is reduced. In addition, a mime only owns his unique delivery since every other aspect of his performance – costume, movements, etc. – can be copied. Because of this, each mime is pressured to improve or innovate in order to continue attracting tourist dollars. And if the mime does not react to the market, in a manner that pleases the market, the process of creative destruction forces him to seek an income elsewhere.

A bad dream, or a regulatory nightmare

For some mimes, this pressure to improve and innovate must be a burden. And the vagaries of the market must add additional stress. If only the market could be controlled and the wants of the individual tourists trumped, then the life of mimes would improve. Or so the thought goes.

I can easily imagine a group of mimes seeking government regulations in order to obtain government protection – government protection from the consumer. The mimes may ask, “Should anyone be allowed to become a mime? Is that really best for the community – for the Old Town?” With a little effort and some elbow bending, a sympathetic government official might be found. And this man could initiate the process to hamper the market – all in the name of the greater good.

The government official would think, “Who better to assist with the regulations than those closest to the profession?” So the current mimes would have a seat at the table and would grant themselves carve-outs and grandfathered exemptions, all with the implicit goal of discouraging new mimes from entering the market.

Of course, those who gained entry would be afforded government protection because they are now “qualified.” But never confuse “qualified” as defined by the government with quality as defined by consumers acting to satisfy their individual wants in the market. These two are worlds apart.

Sadly, the tourists, unable to know the potential entertainment value lost to regulations, may even come to accept the hampered market as best, viewing the supposed public good of government control as being beneficial to the market in general.

The market is still relatively free

Of course, my preceding vision is not reality – for the market of mimes, anyway. Instead, this market mixes scarce labor and resources in a manner that produces value. But that conclusion is simply a tautology.

Notes:
1. Technically, these are tokens.

Intellectual property is a concept that is inherently flawed. In particular, missing is the absolutism that is central to the ownership of property. And this flaw caused me to drop intellectual property as a requisite attribute of liberty.

The visit

A few weekends ago, my father-in-law came over for a visit. While we sat outside after dinner, he noted an issue he was having with a software package on his computer. He is technical, but not Google. Being from the era when answers were found in the manual or from support staff, he checked the manual and then called the software company’s helpdesk, all without result. He was rightly frustrated. I asked him to explain the problem. I took mental notes of relevant terms and told him I would have an answer in five minutes. A quick Google and a couple of clicks later and I found a message board with the solution. Problem solved.

Pet rocks

My three-year old collects rocks. Nothing special, just any rock he finds interesting. My four-year old occasionally raids the rock bucket, with the expected conflict soon following. My wife and I intervene and once again explain the house rules with respect to property. Theft is theft, regardless of the value of the item stolen.

Ownership of property is absolute. The market value, or any physical attribute (size, shape, beauty, etc), of the item is not a consideration. That is why we enforce the right to property under all circumstances.

The connection

When I discuss property with various folks, no one questions our house rule. Property is property, so to speak. However, when the discussion moves to intellectual property, the absolutism of property rights breaks down. Sure, the pharmaceutical company owns its patent. But the solution to the irritating computer problem that brightened my father-in-law’s evening is too small, too insignificant, to be owned by anyone. Government grants the pharmaceutical company a monopoly while the clever man posting on the message board is out of luck.

So we have a mishmash of laws that protect some forms of intellectual property and ignore of others. And the same person who says that all ideas have an owner has no expectation of owning the idea thus stated. It is crazy.

It is emotional

I understand the desire for a system of IP laws when considered from an emotional point of view. Yes, it seems right that an idea should belong to its owner, especially when the supposed owner is an entity that created a drug to cure a serious illness or a starving writer who devoted his life to the thoughts on the page. However, even sincere emotional arguments do not necessarily lead to valid conclusions.

Reductio ad absurdum

Physical property suffers the reductio ad absurdum challenge without fail – if you can homestead it or trade for it, no matter how small or insignificant the item, you can own it. Even subatomic particles are homesteaded and considered property. This is not to say our legal system adheres to the absolutism of physical property. But that is a flaw in our legal system; a our legal system based on utilitarian ethics and not grounded in the ethics of liberty. However, since defining an ethical system of property rights is our challenge, we do not need to justify the current instantiation of flawed positive rights, etc.

A system of property rights that protects my son’s rocks is valid and ethical. And by adopting it, liberty is enhanced, not harmed. The same cannot be said for intellectual property. A de minimis is implicitly assumed – a threshold that divides ideas that can be owned from those that cannot be owned.

A survey of IP laws shows thresholds that are various and arbitrary, with each area of IP law having its own threshold, or thresholds, for that matter. And these thresholds are, of course, matters of political action. And political action is always an unjustifiable force antithetical to liberty.

Conclusion

Liberty is the area falling outside the realm of political action. Therefore, IP laws, as a product of political action, and political action alone, do not enhance liberty. They harm it

Turns out a group of 500 terrorists stormed a food depot and transportation center in Washington state, held six guards hostage, and the police did nothing. Nothing!

Oh, wait. They are not terrorist, just an assembly of union workers. And the police may actually arrest a few, but only if they can identify the protesters. (Hey, why not start with the thug in the photo?)

Two lesson worth repeating: the police only protect property when it benefits the state and its sycophants; and, unions are nothing less than legalized force.

Here is another example of why I take my David Gordon with a warm cup of coffee and a quiet place. There is no better way to muse and contemplate the logic of liberty — truly.

So 2000 villagers in Huaxi, China are profiting by exploiting the labor of 3000. And this is communism? Did the villagers just stand Marx’s theory on its head? Actually, everything about this story seems off. And it is certainly no example of perfecting communism through prosperity.

According to the Buckeye Institute, the highest paid Ohio Turnpike toll collector received $103,150.00 in gross wages during 2010 (including $24,437.22 in overtime).

I wonder: How is the discounted marginal value product calculated for these toll collectors?

Oh, wait. They serve the state and thus provide an essential public good. So maybe they are being exploited by the state, even at $100K.

But it just seems like the exploited are those who pay the toll. Hmmm.

Why not just add phosphates? It’s simplier than heating vinegar.

It was either stubbornness or vanity. Or a little of both. Regardless, for the past year or so, I found reading to be more trouble than it was worth. Why? After only a few lines of text, my eyes would wander across the page looking for anything in focus.

It was obvious I needed reading glasses. But I refused the obvious. I was tired, the lighting dim, all explained my struggle to read – a struggle that ended this week.

On Monday, I stopped at my favorite drug mart on the way home from work. Besides stubbornness and vanity, I also have a virulent streak of cheapness. So it was a pleasant surprise to find inexpensive reading glasses available without prescription. In fact, I purchased a set of three pair for $10. That means I can keep one pair at home, one at work and the third in reserve.

This a certainly a fruit of a mostly-free market for eye glasses.

It makes me wonder about the fruits a completely free market in health care would provide.

According to The Columbus Dispatch, “The lack of supply stems from the economic downturn. Automakers sold fewer new cars, which means that fewer recent models are out there to be traded in.”

The article fails to mention the Cash for Clunkers program and its desired result of a reduced supply of used cars.

According to the chart (right) in the paper, used car prices rebounded before the program began. But some of the later rise has to be attributed to 650,000 less used cars on the market due to the 2009 program, regardless the paper’s silence on the matter.

Turns out there is a second minimum wage — a minimum wage for the disabled (currently, the minimum is effectively zero). And for supposedly moral reasons (reckoned in the absence of the morality of labor itself), some so-called advocates for the disabled are tirelessly working to price them out of the labor market.

This interesting article (the first in a series) in The Columbus Dispatch reviews the issues around wages and the disabled, with views of those interviewed running the gamut from Marxian exploitation theory to free market.

The debate comes down to this: Critics say low wages show that disabled workers are being exploited, but supporters say the pay rates reflect opportunities – that even the most disabled Ohioans are being given a chance to pursue work and build full lives.

I’m with the supporters. And it’s too bad some of those currently unemployed are barred from pursuing work and building full lives due to the belief held by many that to work is to be exploited.

Aggregates mean nothing to me, an acting man — an individual.

Regardless of what the politicized aggregates say, my market basket tells my story — a story of inflation.

In the past month: gas at my favored station is up 12%, with my desired in-store candy bar up 13%; milk at the convenient corner drugmart is up 16%; and my self-proclaimed fiscally conservative neighbors voted to raise my property taxes 20%.

That’s my market basket.

And I do not need to look at the official numbers to know that I must rearrange my future purchases to align with my evolving reality.

According to Mises, “A judicious housewife knows much more about price changes as far as they affect her own household than the statistical averages can tell.”

That’s the truth. And it is as true for us men as well.

Ohio is suffering a dental health gap. And the usual suspects are at it again.

Of course, none of this is free market, it’s all interventionism. But the arguments are telling of the problem in general.

Unbeknownst to me, Ohio has 59 federally designated dental-shortage areas. That the federal government designates such a status is the first hint that something is wrong. Regardless, as any statist knows, gaps in dental care must be addressed — and addressed by state action.

So the Universal Health Care Action Network of Ohio, whose mission is “is to achieve (attain) high quality, accessible, affordable health care for all Ohioans” through the coercive power of the state, proposes legislation allowing dental therapists to provide dental care for those without access to licensed dentists.

Of course, “the Ohio Dental Association opposes the idea.” No stretch here.

Now, I have no issue with dental therapist providing dental care. Just like I have no issue with my neighbor doing the same. It’s the politics — interventions on top of interventions — that is my concern.

The battle is political, with the state deciding winners and losers.

But doesn’t it just seem — like it always seems — that it is the consumer who will lose in the end?

Nicholas D. Kristof wants to improve our lot by attracting top talent to public education. And he has the proof that an excellent teacher will result in students earning an additional $500 per year. But his proof only works because he ignores the potential productivity lost when talent is drawn from other fields by his proposed $65,000 starting salary. Kristoff would do well by skimming Economics in One Lesson.

In order to alert its readers before they make changes to their (nominal) property, my local paper devoted an article in today’s edition to the morass that is the building code.

It turns out that within the city limits of Columbus, Ohio, you must have a building permit to change a light switch, drywall a basement, or install a water heater. But, according to the paper, you are free to install a swing set, replace a gas appliance, or change a light bulb.

Change a light bulb?!? That’s an odd callout. Isn’t it?

Not really. Since government claims first right to our property and our lives, and based on the existing codes and other interventions, the light bulb callout answers an all-to-real concern.