With the election of the current Socialist-in-Chief the latest form of protest is a rash of petitions on whitehouse.gov for states to "peacefully" secede from the United States. So I thought I'd weigh in on this subject...
First is the question of whether or not it is Constitutional. The argument against it is a Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White 1868, that ruled it unconstitutional and, of course, the Civil War that put secession down by force. In argument for its Constitutionality is the simple fact that the surrender of the South was force, not law. There is no actual law stating that it is illegal/unconstitutional. True the Court did rule, but as we see now with Obamacare, the Court can make a mistake and rule in the wrong direction.
Also, how can the Court rule on the Constitutionality of an issue that is not discussed in the Constitution? The document makes no statement about secession, one way or another. In this case I would refer to the Constitution's preference for the States over the Federal Gov't. The 10th Amendment gives all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Govt, and not prohibited to the States, to the States themselves or the People. I would say the the ability of a State to secede would fall into that category.
Also, I would submit that the Constitution is not a despotic document. It was adopted in each state only after a consensual vote of its citizens. It did not force anyone to vote for it. If it was not adopted against any one's will, why should we interpret it to keep a state in that manner?
That being said, I think these petitions are a stupid idea!
First, they carry no weight. People are not proposing legislation. The Federal Govt has no obligation to even read them. What it does do is put every one's name, who is unhappy and angry at Obama and his administration, on easy to read lists that also have other information such as IP addresses. All you are doing is saving Obama the time of weeding out dissenters.
Actual secession can only be declared formally by the Legislature of each individual state. And such an action should not be taken lightly nor without fully understanding the consequences. If there is anything that history tells us it is that nothing less than civil war will achieve secession. Just like the previous attempt, the Federal Govt will bring the full weight and force of its resources to bear on the state in question. The only difference is that this time, a civil war would be much much worse. In the 1800's the Federal Govt was fighting to preserve the Union. This time, the Govt would be fighting to suppress the condemnation of this budding Socialist "utopia" that such an action would represent. Also, they would see it as taking resources from their already hemorrhaging social welfare programs.
If any state declares secession, the Govt will swoop down swiftly and mercilessly to crush them.
Showing posts with label small government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label small government. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Obamacare
So, SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. At first I was quite pissed about this. Obamacare is, and remains, a horrible piece of legislation that is unconstitutional. However, upon reading exerts from Chief Justice Roberts opinion, I have to admit there may be a silver lining to this cloud. Now it could be that Roberts totally abandoned conservatives and changed his views, or it could be a shrewd political move meant to out-flank Obama and his socialist cadres. Or maybe I am just grasping at straws...
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Conservatism: Back to Basics-Introduction
One of the people that responded to my "contest" brought up a really good point. It is actually a topic that I have considered before and just never committed to it since what is needed to cover the subject is quite an involved undertaking. However, since it has been brought to my attention again, I will take it as a sign that it is time.
My thanks to Ambient Malice for bringing up a valid point. It is a problem that underpins most of our problems today. It is a problem of understanding, of terminology and definition. For decades Conservatives on the national stage have failed to defend conservatism against its opponents. The thinking, I'm sure, was that to dignify the arguement wit ha response was to give them a measure validation. So conservatives have ignored liberals when they accuse them of things like racism. Well, taking the intellectual high road is all well and good but it has had a disastrous consequence. We have let liberals define what conservativism is.
We have let them saddle us with the label of "racist" when time and again it is liberal democrats that have earned that moniker with Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, segregation, the founding of the KKK, etc. It has been conservative republicans that advocated abolition of slavery and Civil Rights. Republicans founded the first black colleges and affirmative action. Freed slaves voted for years in the South after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, until the democrats took over again.
Liberals have defined conservatism as harmful to the elderly when it is liberals who are trying to keep Social Security which is projected to become insolvent within the next 15 years and gives a worse return on investment than a private retirement. They also advocate taking out Medicare Advantage, a free market approach to healthcare passed by republicans that gave seniors more choices, which is the most popular medicare program. Conservatives want to transition from Social Security, which costs the federal government more than $500 billion a year, to a private investment system which will provide a 17% increase in returns over Social Security and also more security since Congress is not actually obligated to pay anything and can change the legislation at anytime.
Liberals have labeled conservatives as being mean to the poor, disadvantaged, and the middle class. However, their "solution" is an ever increasing system of hand-outs and free rides that give the poor and disadvantage no incentive to get out of poverty, keeps them dependent on the government, and continuously decreases their marketable skills the longer they are on the programs. And it is the liberal addiction to over regulation and taxes that is destroying the economy and killing jobs, i.e. the middle class. Conservatism also wants to help the poor, but we do not want to make it easy to stay poor. We want to help the poor while giving them every incentive to get out of poverty and teh drive to do it. And it is the conservative policy of deregulation and lower taxes that, time and again, has proven to grow both the economy and the middle class through job growth and wealth creation.
Are you getting the picture? Everytime liberalism is implimented it has the exact opposite of its stated intent and hurt the country and the people. Everytime they blame conservatives and our silence, our taking the high road, lets them get away with it. Consider the past 3 and a half years. For the first two years of his presidency Barack Obama has had a super majority in both houses of Congress. Republicans did not even have the ability to delay legislation let alone block it. He had the ability to pass anything he wanted, and did. He got his trillion dollar stimulus, Obamacare, and a host of other bills including the expansion of the Patriot Act to give the president control of resources in a crisis, which he defines, and teh ability to arrest and detain citizens without trial.
What has the result been? The economy is in the tank. The housing market is still decimated, homes have not regained their value, tens of millions of jobs lost, unemployment is above 8%, and really more like 12% if you count those who are no longer receiveing benefits and those that are underemployed, which the government doesn't, and the explosion of the welfare state and increase of people on food stamps. And for all of this, Obama is still blaming Bush, and conservatives in Congress. At the same time he and his administration is using media gimicks such as low-balling unemployment and over-estimating economic numbers one week and tehn revising them up and down, respectively, the next week once they served their purpose.
No more! This time is different. This time conservatives are fighting back. We are not remaining silent so that the "status quo" can be maintained. We are getting down in the trenches and mixing it up intellectually. With or with out the "Party's" consent or participation.
But here we come to the crux of the matter: the problem of terminology. Because of the liberal educational system's deliberate failure to teach things like history and civics, a large portion of americans have no idea what we conservatives are talking about. They were never taught the history of our founding. I could write endlessly about conservatism vs. liberalism/socialism, but it won't matter if people we are trying to reach do not know what conservatism is, or that liberalism really is re-labeled socialism. It could preach that this or that law or bill is unconstitutional, but what good is that if someone doesn't know the Constitution?
There are many people that have taken on the task of educating people, see Bill Whittle's channel on youtube, also LearnLiberty.org, and others.
To do my little part, I am going to start a continuous series on this blog that I call "Back to Basics." I will attempt to cover things from the history of why the Founding Fathers opposed England and found it so abhorrent to live under crown law to the very Constitution itself, article by article.
So, stay tuned...
But, first, how about a participation question...What does Conservatism mean to you? You may simply consider this question personally or, if you feel brave, post your thoughts in the comments below.
My thanks to Ambient Malice for bringing up a valid point. It is a problem that underpins most of our problems today. It is a problem of understanding, of terminology and definition. For decades Conservatives on the national stage have failed to defend conservatism against its opponents. The thinking, I'm sure, was that to dignify the arguement wit ha response was to give them a measure validation. So conservatives have ignored liberals when they accuse them of things like racism. Well, taking the intellectual high road is all well and good but it has had a disastrous consequence. We have let liberals define what conservativism is.
We have let them saddle us with the label of "racist" when time and again it is liberal democrats that have earned that moniker with Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, segregation, the founding of the KKK, etc. It has been conservative republicans that advocated abolition of slavery and Civil Rights. Republicans founded the first black colleges and affirmative action. Freed slaves voted for years in the South after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, until the democrats took over again.
Liberals have defined conservatism as harmful to the elderly when it is liberals who are trying to keep Social Security which is projected to become insolvent within the next 15 years and gives a worse return on investment than a private retirement. They also advocate taking out Medicare Advantage, a free market approach to healthcare passed by republicans that gave seniors more choices, which is the most popular medicare program. Conservatives want to transition from Social Security, which costs the federal government more than $500 billion a year, to a private investment system which will provide a 17% increase in returns over Social Security and also more security since Congress is not actually obligated to pay anything and can change the legislation at anytime.
Liberals have labeled conservatives as being mean to the poor, disadvantaged, and the middle class. However, their "solution" is an ever increasing system of hand-outs and free rides that give the poor and disadvantage no incentive to get out of poverty, keeps them dependent on the government, and continuously decreases their marketable skills the longer they are on the programs. And it is the liberal addiction to over regulation and taxes that is destroying the economy and killing jobs, i.e. the middle class. Conservatism also wants to help the poor, but we do not want to make it easy to stay poor. We want to help the poor while giving them every incentive to get out of poverty and teh drive to do it. And it is the conservative policy of deregulation and lower taxes that, time and again, has proven to grow both the economy and the middle class through job growth and wealth creation.
Are you getting the picture? Everytime liberalism is implimented it has the exact opposite of its stated intent and hurt the country and the people. Everytime they blame conservatives and our silence, our taking the high road, lets them get away with it. Consider the past 3 and a half years. For the first two years of his presidency Barack Obama has had a super majority in both houses of Congress. Republicans did not even have the ability to delay legislation let alone block it. He had the ability to pass anything he wanted, and did. He got his trillion dollar stimulus, Obamacare, and a host of other bills including the expansion of the Patriot Act to give the president control of resources in a crisis, which he defines, and teh ability to arrest and detain citizens without trial.
What has the result been? The economy is in the tank. The housing market is still decimated, homes have not regained their value, tens of millions of jobs lost, unemployment is above 8%, and really more like 12% if you count those who are no longer receiveing benefits and those that are underemployed, which the government doesn't, and the explosion of the welfare state and increase of people on food stamps. And for all of this, Obama is still blaming Bush, and conservatives in Congress. At the same time he and his administration is using media gimicks such as low-balling unemployment and over-estimating economic numbers one week and tehn revising them up and down, respectively, the next week once they served their purpose.
No more! This time is different. This time conservatives are fighting back. We are not remaining silent so that the "status quo" can be maintained. We are getting down in the trenches and mixing it up intellectually. With or with out the "Party's" consent or participation.
But here we come to the crux of the matter: the problem of terminology. Because of the liberal educational system's deliberate failure to teach things like history and civics, a large portion of americans have no idea what we conservatives are talking about. They were never taught the history of our founding. I could write endlessly about conservatism vs. liberalism/socialism, but it won't matter if people we are trying to reach do not know what conservatism is, or that liberalism really is re-labeled socialism. It could preach that this or that law or bill is unconstitutional, but what good is that if someone doesn't know the Constitution?
There are many people that have taken on the task of educating people, see Bill Whittle's channel on youtube, also LearnLiberty.org, and others.
To do my little part, I am going to start a continuous series on this blog that I call "Back to Basics." I will attempt to cover things from the history of why the Founding Fathers opposed England and found it so abhorrent to live under crown law to the very Constitution itself, article by article.
So, stay tuned...
But, first, how about a participation question...What does Conservatism mean to you? You may simply consider this question personally or, if you feel brave, post your thoughts in the comments below.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Free Market works!! Just ask the Aero-space industry
What we are seeing lately in this country is a war. A war of ideology. The Liberal Left has backed the failed policies of Socialism and Marxism in direct opposition to the Conservative Right and its support of the tried and true ideals of Small Government and Free Markets. In other words Capitalism.
There many ways that one can compare and contrast each of these drastically different world views. But the most glaring difference, especially lately with all the rhetoric against corporations, Wall Street, and the "1%," is the economy.
Socialism proposes a top-down approach where the large central government keeps the Market in the iron grip of a mountain of regulation and red tape. The Left believes that they can dictate fairness and appropriate behavior and order people to conform to their subjective definitions. This never leads to prosperity because as soon as an individual or entity wants to something that is against the small ruling elite, they bring the force of government to bare and make that person or company do what they don't wnat to do, consequences be damned. If government will still is not obeyed, they heap even more regulation on the pile until you submit.
Captilism, on the other hand, demands that a small de-centralized government enact as little regulation as possible and get out of the way of the Market. A Free Market works with human nature, competition and self interest, to good of all involved. This leads to the betterment of all because the Market can not force anyone to buy a product or service. It has to convince the consumer through better quality, cheaper prices, better service, etc. Also, as an added bonus of having multiple companies compete for your business, a Free Market produces diversity in product.
This contrast can be seen all through the long history of not just Aero-space but of manned flight itself...
In 1898 the War Department of the US government gave a federal grant to Samuel P. Langley to develop heavier-than-air flight. After 5 years, $70,000, and his only successes being an unmanned flight of a model aircraft, Langley gave up in 1903. The publicgrant was given to Langley regardless of results so he had no incentive for innovation or experimentation especially because it was not his money financing the project.
It was the Wright Brothers who would go down in the history books as the pioneers in aviation. Two independent businessmen free from government regulation who saw a profit in developing this field and so were willing to invest their own capital (money). Because it was their personal wealth and reputation on the line they had an incentive to make the best product they could for the lowest cost possible and to do it as quickly as possible to get a return on their investment. And in just 4 years, 1899-1903, a year shorter than Langley, the Wright Brothers made three successful full-size glider models and culminated in the world's first manned, powered, heavier-than-air craft, the Wright Flyer I, in 1903. In just two more years they improved their design through two more models, Flyer II and III, and went from a flight time and distance of 12 sec/120 ft. to 38 min 3 sec/24.5 miles with the Flyer III
So, as we can see, because of Free Market principals of investment of private capital, no regulation, and individual innovation two bicycle mechanics were able to, in a shorter time frame, far outshine a government-backed physicist.
In 1915, ten years after the Wright Brothers flew the Flyer III, the US government formed the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. True, this was a government agency and subject to government regulation. However, there was minimal regulation and NACA encouraged the participation of commercial and private clients in both research and facility usage. They even encouraged governemnt employees to explore "bootleg" projects of their own on the side. As a result, from 1915-1958 NACA took manned flight from the basic fliers of the Wright Brothers to the X-1 supersonic flights (the NACA XS-1) in 1946.
In 1958 Congress signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA. In the beginning, NASA carried on the tradition of private sector participation in the research and development of its missions and technology. They even enlisted the help of American universities. This resulted in the first Apollo moon landing just 11 years later in July of 1969.
However, as the government beauracracy increased within the ageny the private sector participation has been de-emphasized. Over the next 40 years, as the central federal government edged out independent free market interests, far from exceeding that pinnacle accomplishment, NASA has not even come close, settling for regular orbital missions.
Fast forward to the present. Government beauracracy is more than ten times what it was in the 60's and NASA is no different. The shuttle age is over and there no realistic plans to go back into space. After $10 billion the Shuttle Replacement Program has been scrapped with nothing to show for it except one unmanned orbital test and a capsule with no delivery system. In fact, the only space commitment we have is to the International Space Station and we can't even get our own astronauts there. They have to beg rides from the Russians.
In recent years, to help spread out the costs, NASA has, actually, started to again involve the private sector, contracting out to companies like Boeing and Lockheed/Martin. The problem here is that government does not know how to participate in the Market. NASA operates on a "cost-plus" system. This means they simply re-imburse the contractors for whatever costs in time, labor and materials they incur and add a fixed profit. Just like what happened with Langley at the turn of the century, there is no incentive to produce a viable product on time and every advantage to dragging your feet to run up the cost.
Enter the Free Market.
Just because a government agency, NASA, is grounded from a government inability to be fiscally responsible doesn't mean that America is. Yet again, private capital, talent and innovation have come together where there is a profit to be made. Right now, and for several years now, the beginnings of a Free Market, private sector Aero-space industry have been taking shape. Since 2004, a handful of independent aero-space firms and companies have taken the initiative not to wait for the federal government to get its house in order.
John Carmack, programmer of Doom and Quake, has taken his fortune to form Armadillo Aero-space. Bigelow Aero-space was started by hotelier Robert Bigelow. Other firms include Mastin Space Systems, Excor Aero-space, Scaled Composites, and Spacex. All of these companies are working independently to explore and develop Outer Space. And, because of the Free Market, keeping an eye on cost, quality and service, and because of the competition of Capitalism, they can all do it for a fraction of the cost. Sure, NASA is still involved, it would be foolish to ignore 60 years of research and development. But now instead of a "cost-plus" contract, they have a "fixed-price" contract which gives a desire to complete a project on time and under budget.
The result? For $300 billion of NASA funds, 1/30th of the cost of a typical "cost-plus" contract, Spacex produced, from scratch, two separate and functional launch vehicles, a new generation of engines and a 7-passenger, pressurized capsule that had a flawless maiden flight, though unmanned.
From just this handful of private companies have already come two different designs for a vertical take off and landing systems, one of which can even shut down mid-flight, restart and immediately return to stability, a developing orbital hotel, and the latest generation of rocket engines that are safer and more efficient than anything NASA has. In addition, Scaled Composites performed the first commercial manned space flight and did it, not in a shuttle strapped to a giant rocket, but in an innovative one-man pod.
So, to sum up, the Free Market championed by Capitalism has done in 8 years what it took the governments of the US, China, Russia, and the EU more than 60 years to accomplish. And they are not stopping there. They are going further.
Right now you can by tickets on Scaled Composites orbital shuttle, Spacex is in the midst of planning the first manned flight of their dragon rocket and capsule, with a few more years development of the vertical take off engines space flight will never again be dependent on a three-stage delivery system, and right now these companies are preparing for the first commercial landing on the moon.
Command, Socialist governments can't even come close to this.
There many ways that one can compare and contrast each of these drastically different world views. But the most glaring difference, especially lately with all the rhetoric against corporations, Wall Street, and the "1%," is the economy.
Socialism proposes a top-down approach where the large central government keeps the Market in the iron grip of a mountain of regulation and red tape. The Left believes that they can dictate fairness and appropriate behavior and order people to conform to their subjective definitions. This never leads to prosperity because as soon as an individual or entity wants to something that is against the small ruling elite, they bring the force of government to bare and make that person or company do what they don't wnat to do, consequences be damned. If government will still is not obeyed, they heap even more regulation on the pile until you submit.
Captilism, on the other hand, demands that a small de-centralized government enact as little regulation as possible and get out of the way of the Market. A Free Market works with human nature, competition and self interest, to good of all involved. This leads to the betterment of all because the Market can not force anyone to buy a product or service. It has to convince the consumer through better quality, cheaper prices, better service, etc. Also, as an added bonus of having multiple companies compete for your business, a Free Market produces diversity in product.
This contrast can be seen all through the long history of not just Aero-space but of manned flight itself...
In 1898 the War Department of the US government gave a federal grant to Samuel P. Langley to develop heavier-than-air flight. After 5 years, $70,000, and his only successes being an unmanned flight of a model aircraft, Langley gave up in 1903. The publicgrant was given to Langley regardless of results so he had no incentive for innovation or experimentation especially because it was not his money financing the project.
It was the Wright Brothers who would go down in the history books as the pioneers in aviation. Two independent businessmen free from government regulation who saw a profit in developing this field and so were willing to invest their own capital (money). Because it was their personal wealth and reputation on the line they had an incentive to make the best product they could for the lowest cost possible and to do it as quickly as possible to get a return on their investment. And in just 4 years, 1899-1903, a year shorter than Langley, the Wright Brothers made three successful full-size glider models and culminated in the world's first manned, powered, heavier-than-air craft, the Wright Flyer I, in 1903. In just two more years they improved their design through two more models, Flyer II and III, and went from a flight time and distance of 12 sec/120 ft. to 38 min 3 sec/24.5 miles with the Flyer III
So, as we can see, because of Free Market principals of investment of private capital, no regulation, and individual innovation two bicycle mechanics were able to, in a shorter time frame, far outshine a government-backed physicist.
In 1915, ten years after the Wright Brothers flew the Flyer III, the US government formed the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. True, this was a government agency and subject to government regulation. However, there was minimal regulation and NACA encouraged the participation of commercial and private clients in both research and facility usage. They even encouraged governemnt employees to explore "bootleg" projects of their own on the side. As a result, from 1915-1958 NACA took manned flight from the basic fliers of the Wright Brothers to the X-1 supersonic flights (the NACA XS-1) in 1946.
In 1958 Congress signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA. In the beginning, NASA carried on the tradition of private sector participation in the research and development of its missions and technology. They even enlisted the help of American universities. This resulted in the first Apollo moon landing just 11 years later in July of 1969.
However, as the government beauracracy increased within the ageny the private sector participation has been de-emphasized. Over the next 40 years, as the central federal government edged out independent free market interests, far from exceeding that pinnacle accomplishment, NASA has not even come close, settling for regular orbital missions.
Fast forward to the present. Government beauracracy is more than ten times what it was in the 60's and NASA is no different. The shuttle age is over and there no realistic plans to go back into space. After $10 billion the Shuttle Replacement Program has been scrapped with nothing to show for it except one unmanned orbital test and a capsule with no delivery system. In fact, the only space commitment we have is to the International Space Station and we can't even get our own astronauts there. They have to beg rides from the Russians.
In recent years, to help spread out the costs, NASA has, actually, started to again involve the private sector, contracting out to companies like Boeing and Lockheed/Martin. The problem here is that government does not know how to participate in the Market. NASA operates on a "cost-plus" system. This means they simply re-imburse the contractors for whatever costs in time, labor and materials they incur and add a fixed profit. Just like what happened with Langley at the turn of the century, there is no incentive to produce a viable product on time and every advantage to dragging your feet to run up the cost.
Enter the Free Market.
Just because a government agency, NASA, is grounded from a government inability to be fiscally responsible doesn't mean that America is. Yet again, private capital, talent and innovation have come together where there is a profit to be made. Right now, and for several years now, the beginnings of a Free Market, private sector Aero-space industry have been taking shape. Since 2004, a handful of independent aero-space firms and companies have taken the initiative not to wait for the federal government to get its house in order.
John Carmack, programmer of Doom and Quake, has taken his fortune to form Armadillo Aero-space. Bigelow Aero-space was started by hotelier Robert Bigelow. Other firms include Mastin Space Systems, Excor Aero-space, Scaled Composites, and Spacex. All of these companies are working independently to explore and develop Outer Space. And, because of the Free Market, keeping an eye on cost, quality and service, and because of the competition of Capitalism, they can all do it for a fraction of the cost. Sure, NASA is still involved, it would be foolish to ignore 60 years of research and development. But now instead of a "cost-plus" contract, they have a "fixed-price" contract which gives a desire to complete a project on time and under budget.
The result? For $300 billion of NASA funds, 1/30th of the cost of a typical "cost-plus" contract, Spacex produced, from scratch, two separate and functional launch vehicles, a new generation of engines and a 7-passenger, pressurized capsule that had a flawless maiden flight, though unmanned.
From just this handful of private companies have already come two different designs for a vertical take off and landing systems, one of which can even shut down mid-flight, restart and immediately return to stability, a developing orbital hotel, and the latest generation of rocket engines that are safer and more efficient than anything NASA has. In addition, Scaled Composites performed the first commercial manned space flight and did it, not in a shuttle strapped to a giant rocket, but in an innovative one-man pod.
So, to sum up, the Free Market championed by Capitalism has done in 8 years what it took the governments of the US, China, Russia, and the EU more than 60 years to accomplish. And they are not stopping there. They are going further.
Right now you can by tickets on Scaled Composites orbital shuttle, Spacex is in the midst of planning the first manned flight of their dragon rocket and capsule, with a few more years development of the vertical take off engines space flight will never again be dependent on a three-stage delivery system, and right now these companies are preparing for the first commercial landing on the moon.
Command, Socialist governments can't even come close to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)