The Truth Emerges…

What are the lessons from the recent IRS scandal surrounding the targeting of conservatively named groups for heightened levels of tax status scrutiny? Is it that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country and this is just the tip of the iceberg? Is it that Obama is the fiendish mastermind behind these directives? Although neither is impossible, the likelihood of either scenario is dubious at best. Conspiracy theories that involve the government are a peculiar sort. They are often germinated by those who assert on one hand that government is as effective in its stated goals as a flopping fish but then on the other hand claim that when it comes to the conspiratorial acts it possess the organizational acumen of a stealthy ninja.

This scandal demonstrates not the intent of a scheming mind but rather is a mockery of the hubris of those who believe “we” or anyone can “control” an entity as large as government. From the complexity of such large entities there emerges certain properties that are neither predictable nor directed (in biology known as “emergent properties”). The emergent property we are seeing here is “selective enforcement.” We tend to think of government as this monolithic entity acting with a singular will. This interpretation turns a blind eye to the obvious truth that “government” is composed of freely acting individuals who can, and often do, whatever they wish. They act with impunity, reaching out from behind the collective government shield that protects them. Occasionally the shield is pierced, as with the IRS scandal, and we are allowed for a brief moment to bear full witness to the results of granting our agent (government) absolute autonomy over ourselves.

The fact that the outrage around this scandal is so misdirected is a testament to how inured we have become to government intrusions. The scandal should not be that these rules were selectively enforced but rather that such rules exist at all! Abstractly the scandal can be as summarized as follows: the rules say everybody that wants a cupcake must have their knees smashed with a baseball bat. But that takes too much time and energy, so they just started smashing in the knees of people they didn’t particularly like. Then people got upset because it was unfair they weren’t bashing in everybody’s knees. We’ve been beaten down so long it seems almost “crazy” for someone to suggest perhaps the beatings should stop (yes – I mean this metaphorically people.)

But, what can we expect when we have granted fallible, petty, capricious human beings nearly unlimited power over other fallible, petty, capricious human beings. How does slapping the label “government” on one group magically change their nature? It doesn’t, and that’s the problem.

 

 

 

Unwise Actions

This week I am setting aside the usual politically inspired thoughts. Frankly my heart just isn’t in it. My wife and I (along with thousands of others) have been vicarious witnesses to every parent’s worst nightmare: the death of a child. A close friend, teammate and classmate of our son’s took his own life last week. There were no warning signs. To say we are all shocked would be a gross understatement. This tragedy has reminded us all how quickly that which we take for granted can vanish in an instant. The pain and anguish we have experienced have been but mere shadows of what his family has endured. I am humbled by their strength of character for I doubt I could muster the strength to get out of bed. Many ask “why” in these situations but it may be the most pointless question of all. There is no answer that could ever be given that would make any sense or console anyone. We hope an answer might help us prevent others from doing the same. But every situation is unique. Following our hindsight leaves us blind to what is before us. The challenge is not in addressing every potential scenario that might lead a teen down this path but rather in making sure they understand there does not exist even the possibility that any event or situation in their life could ever justify such a course of action.

As parents we face a real challenge. We wish to set standards while simultaneously not undermining those standards through the moral hazard of our love. I think we are all often guilty (myself included) of saying “Do this, don’t do that” and leaving the “but if you fail it’s ok, we’ll still love you” as an unspoken sentiment. We know we’ll love them no matter what but we have to be mindful of how when we were teens we felt like our parent’s love (respect, approval, etc.) for us was conditional upon our meeting their standards. As a parent don’t assume anything – tell your kids you set standards because you love them but if they fail it will not affect your feelings in any way. Tell them that you don’t expect perfection, that none of us are perfect least of all ourselves. Children instinctively place their parents on a pedestal as paragons of perfection. It’s ok to let them know that is not the case, that we are human and make mistakes just like they do. I think taking ourselves down a notch in their eyes may often help to lift them up a notch so that in their eyes the gap between us is much smaller – perhaps small enough to maintain communication (a real challenge in the teen years).

And to any teen or young person reading this, please understand there is NOTHING that you could do or experience that would warrant taking your own life. Grades, relationships, drugs, life goals – problems in these areas are nothing more than pebbles underfoot on the journey of a thousand miles that will be your life experience. Don’t let a few pebbles stop you now. If you feel you can’t talk to your parents then talk to anybody, a friend, a teacher, a stranger, anybody. And if that doesn’t help, just wait 24 hours before doing anything you can’t undo. Emotions are fleeting and mercurial; it is unwise to act based on your emotional weather vane. Whatever pain or fear you are experiencing will be magnified a billion fold in the family and friends you leave behind.

 

if you would like to learn more about the events that inspired this column, please see this page here.

Perverse Incentives Promote Disasters

In the wake of any industrial accident there follows a predictable chorus of pundits lamenting “market failure” in order to justify further interference of the state into every facet of business function. On the surface this might sound plausible, surely we need Big Brother looking over our employer’s shoulder to make sure everything is safe, right? The only problem with this narrative is that the pundits tend to conveniently omit the crucial fact that such disasters happened on the watch of government. There is no place in the world immune to at least some level of government oversight related to safety. Even in Bangladesh where there has been a recent spate of factory fires and building collapses they at least had building codes even if they weren’t followed. And there in lies the rub. The people entrust their government with the task of ensuring their safety (a dubious decision at best) but when that same government fails to adequately carry out that mandate and such failure is the proximate cause of some disaster oddly blame is 100% shouldered by the regulated entity rather than the regulator. If you had a jail in your community that routinely had prisoners escaping and killing people it seems like at some point the people running the prison should share in the culpability.

So whether it is financial misdeeds on Wallstreet, a factory explosion in West Texas, or a building collapse in Bangladesh, we see the same failure of the state regulators to do their job. But the regulators are just employees, they can’t be held personally liable. And their employer is the state, and the state can’t be held liable. So where does that leave us? No one is responsible. What is the solution? Rub some bacon on it – err I mean throw some more money at it.

If regulators fail, then they just get more money and scribble down yet more regulations based on their clairvoyant 20/20 hindsight; more words on paper that will be ignored by more regulators in the future. The perverse incentive of this system should be obvious and yet it continues. The perverse incentive is that (a) failure is rewarded with (b) more resources; therefore failure is what is incentivized. Now that is not to say that all the regulators individually are these evil monsters failing on purpose in hopes of one day obtaining a raise. But what it does mean is that the system itself cannot cure itself. A market system is self-regulating in that failing firms (assuming they are not bailed out by the government) disappear into the graveyard of failed businesses. In a market based regulatory system failure means you lose all your money and go out of business. Success means you make money and you stay in business. Competition among the successful firms drives further improvements. There is no competition in the monopolistic government run regulatory system; Soviet style stagnation reigns supreme. A successful private regulator (e.g. Underwriter’s Laboratories, Consumer Reports, etc) prevents harm and is rewarded for successfully doing so. Government can’t go “out of business” and so the same old failing system stays in place, at least until we vote in illusory “change” only to discover nothing has changed at all.

Bangladesh Robber Baron fallacy

Just read this article about the Bangladesh factory disaster this morning. Truly terrible what happened, however the usual progressive/statist smugness comes to the surface pretty quick in the comments “oh see what the free market causes, we need government to save us from these evil people.” Here’s my response on the board to that sentiment (longer article coming this weekend):

Except that the “Robber Barons” is a progressive statist myth. Please see Tom Woods on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbIIPtLEVbA

Basically those that compare working conditions of the late 19th and early 20th century or those in emerging 3rd world countries to those today in the US are guilty of a “ceteris paribus” fallacy, that is, you are making a comparison and drawing a conclusion that is flawed because not all of variables are held constant, namely the variables wealth and technology in a given society. Do people value safety? Sure, but value is subjective and we arrange things on our value scale ordinally (we rank them in order of preference). Do we value safety MORE than we value not starving to death? I think not. So if our choice is a) not starving to death or b)comfortable/100% certainty of safe working conditions we will choose (a) every time. We will work so that we can buy food and not starve to death and we will do so in an environment that while not ideal is the only option available and in fact is the better of all other options available.

Now I’m not excusing the owners of that building/business for building an unsafe building, but consider the alternative proposed by progressives. Government mandating to the nth degree every aspect of building design. It would cost so much to build that building there that they simply would never have built it, and thus there would have be NO jobs for anyone and they would have been left to scratching in the dirt to make a living. Is the current outcome good? No, but it is still BETTER than the alternative, where instead of 1000 people dying and 2000 surviving maybe 2500 die of starvation and 500 live through subsitence farming.

They likely built it this way because of crooked govt, paying off inspectors, and never thinking they could get in trouble. In a free market there is no one to pay off. They would have built it better knowing 100% with certainty they would go to jail were it built shoddily

The Fallacy of Prevention

Gun Control Advocate: “We need more/better gun laws to eliminate gun violence.”

Gun Rights Advocate: “Gun laws do not decrease gun violence because criminals do not follow the law.”

Gun Control Advocate: “So we should just get rid of all laws because they fail to stop all crime?”

And that’s where this little exchange usually ends. The gun right’s advocate typically stutters through some non-sequitur argument that doesn’t at all address the apparent “gotcha” from the now smug gun control advocate. Sadly courses on logic are no longer taught in our schools, because if they were, we would easily spot logical fallacies such as this one. This is an example of a false analogy or comparison, that is, assuming two things are equivalent and inferring they must share the same properties. Not all laws are the same.

Laws against violations of person or property (murder, rape, theft, etc.) are primary laws. Their sole function is punitive. They prescribe the consequences for violation of the law. If the consequences are severe enough there may be a small preventive tendency but overall people breaking these laws really aren’t concerned with the fact that somewhere there are words on a piece of paper saying they shouldn’t do such and such. In short, these laws can only affect criminals (i.e. those who broke the law).

Laws like gun control (i.e. interventionary laws) are secondary laws. They attempt to prevent the violation of a primary law through interventionist procedural means. Whereas primary laws affect only their violators, secondary laws affect only non-violators of the related primary law. Prospective violators of a primary law simply ignore the demands of the related secondary law. Because there is no way to know who these potential violators might be, secondary laws must by necessity cast a wide net and attempt to inconvenience everyone. Sadly they fail in their attempt, they catch all the fish you don’t want and allow all others to escape. In short, these laws can only affect non-criminals.

And so the fallacy is exposed. Abstractly it is implied that gun laws (“B”) are beneficial because: eliminating primary laws (“Not-A”) is “bad”, therefore “A” is “good”, and because “A” is assumed to equal “B”, it follows that “Not-B” is likewise “bad”, and so “B” must be “good”. As I’ve shown above A does not equal B, and without that the argument fails.

Laws against murder ARE anti-gun laws. They are also anti-knife, anti-bomb, anti-poison, anti-anything that could be used to kill someone. Laws against specific types of weapons are a fear driven whack-a-mole style attempt to prevent future violence. The futility of this preventive approach is clearly seen in our nation’s prisons. In the most highly controlled, rights restricted environment one can imagine there are still drugs, there is still violence, and there is still murder. If preventive efforts fail in prison, how could they possible be expected to work in a free society? Some often cite Australia’s stringent gun controls laws of 1996 as proof that tight restrictions can “work” by pointing to the drop in gun violence since enactment. While such violence has dropped, what they conveniently leave out is that the statistics clearly show the rate of gun violence was already on a decades long decline prior to and after the 1996 laws. In fact armed robberies had a dramatic increase shortly following the new gun restrictions. I don’t suppose that had anything to do with the fact that criminals opted not to follow the law and instead kept their guns?

Smokers in California escape their fair share

I heard a story on NPR this morning about how California is doing something about that evil Obamacare rule that allows insurers to “discriminate” against the most unfortunate of those among us – smokers. Obamacare actually (gasp) allows insurers to charge up to 50% more on premiums to smokers! How unfair, doesn’t Obama understand that these poor smokers have no choice, they are poor helpless victims of the big evil tobacco companies! Apparently smoking is much more prevalent of a lifestyle choice among the “poor” – so where Obamacare provides the “poor” with “affordable” health insurance, the smoking allowance allows insurers to basically add back all the “savings” – yes, that is the world’s smallest violin you hear in the background.

Funny, somehow the “poor” can afford to buy cigarettes (anywhere from $300-$3000/year depending on where they live and how much they smoke), yet they can’t afford the additional premium on their insurance policy attributable solely to something they choose to do. “Affordability” is one of those words thrown around a lot without any thought to what it actually means. Affordable simply means that one prioritizes the expense. Affordability all depends on how you order those things in your life that you value. One could claim a private school education for their child is unaffordable – and that would be true if they choose to spend their money first on a larger fancier house, on fancier cars, on cable TV, on high speed internet, on new clothes every month, then yes, not much is left for a private school education. But, one could pay for the education first, and then with what is left over structure their life around that so that they live in a smaller house, drive older cars and then at that point they would find cable TV and high speed internet become the “unaffordable” goods. To claim that health insurance or any other good is “unaffordable” is to simply be proclaiming it is not the thing you most highly value. Now one might argue that a $10 million mansion is unaffordable to nearly everyone and no amount of prioritization will make it so, true enough. But we are talking about affordability within the context of normal consumer goods and services, not about super luxury goods and services for which their lacking in the market is a concern to anyone. No one is crying about the “unaffordabiilty” of 50 foot yachts among the general public.

Not that I agree with the mandates Obamacare makes upon insurers in terms of what they can charge and how they can determine what they charge but at least I can understand why those who support Obamacare don’t want insurers to discriminate based on characteristics we can not control (i.e. gender, age, health status) – you are who are and there is no choice in the matter. Of course this “equality” mentality just means those who cost insurers less must pay more to subsidize the more costly demographics (witness France, where female drivers must now pay MORE for their auto insurance because in the name of equality it was deemed unfair that safer, more prudent female drivers be charged less than their male counterparts). But come on, cigarettes? Please, this is ENTIRELY the choice of the smoker. Are they addictive? Sure, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE to quit, plenty of people do it all the time. They are treating smokers like they are helpless victims who have no control over themselves. Please, give me a break.

This story highlights all that is wrong with socialized medicine. Those who willfully engage in bad behavior that affects their health must not be made to bear any of the cost of associated with their behavior – that is the job for the rest of society.

War Against the Constitution

In the wake of the Boston bombing many of those who claim a deep and abiding respect for the Constitution show a curious tendency to ignore those parts of the Constitution that tend to interfere with their desire for instantaneous revenge (i.e. 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments). The desire for revenge is understandable. Those desires exist today just as they did 200 or 2000 years ago. However, human passions, being irrational as they are, must be put in check so that human reason may triumph in our collective attempt to mete out justice. Fortunately for us, the founding fathers of this country realized that perhaps there was a more ethical manner to ensure justice than relying on a pitchfork-wielding mob. Thus was born the 4th-6th Amendments.

Ensuring that everyone accused of a crime, no matter how heinous, is afforded their full Constitutional rights does not protect the guilty – it protects the innocent. It protects you. It ensures that if YOU are wrongly accused YOU have the right to demonstrate how your accuser’s evidence is flawed. The greater the heinousness of the crime one is accused of does not increase the likelihood of one’s guilt. If the accused is truly guilty, then evidence of that guilt should not be terribly hard to uncover.  A guilty verdict will be assured and the validity of that verdict made public. It is curious how the more sure people are of an accused’s guilt the more annoyed they get with the idea of “wasting time” on a trial. If you are that certain of the guilt then what could possibly be lost by burying the accused in a mountain of evidence at trial? To suggest trials are not needed because no one would ever be accused of a crime without evidence is to accept man as an infallible being.

Although some people have often desired to dispense with trials involving particularly gruesome crimes they had resigned themselves to the fact that the Constitution said they had to follow these rules so they just put up with it. But now the war on “terror” has given these types a novel avenue by which they can circumvent the restraints of the Constitution. It’s the same old ruse all totalitarian governments play: foment fear over an imagined or provoked enemy. In their fear the people will do anything the government tells them if they believe it will ensure their safety. But tangible enemies come and go. The ideal enemy for the state would be one that could never disappear. An incorporeal enemy such as the concept of “terror” is just such an enemy. But people aren’t quite that stupid, they need to see a real human face for their enemy. Simple enough – label anyone you believe to be on the wrong side of this war as an “enemy combatant” and “poof” their rights are gone, because the rules in war are different after all. This is not to suggest such “combatants” have done nothing wrong, rather that all should be allowed to prove as much.

Sadly these circumventions of the Constitution will become permanent, just as this state of war is now permanent – how would one sign a treaty with “terror” after all? These circumventions of the Constitution will take place on US soil because naturally “terror” can exist anywhere in the world. We can bomb our enemies abroad, but here at home, that would be too messy. At home we simply declare an emergency and invoke “temporary” martial law. Boston was sadly our first taste of what that martial law may look like: a band of heavily armed Gestapo barks orders at you at gunpoint to your face to vacate your house and then searches it to their heart’s content, without a warrant, all in the name of “law and order”.

The application of the label “enemy combatant” means one has no right to confront their accusers, to see the evidence against them or to even attempt to provide evidence showing their innocence. Better hope you don’t have a similar name or appearance to an accused “enemy combatant” or were in the wrong place at the wrong time – because you have no right to demonstrate that you aren’t the person they think you are. We should be wary of our clever traps, as we ourselves may become ensnared in them.

The Triumph of Spontaneous Good

What are the lessons from the recent Boston Marathon bombing? That evil does exist. But, also that good vastly outnumbers evil. The moment the bombs exploded the world witnessed evil engulfed by good as people ran toward the source of the blasts. Not just police or emergency medical personnel, but ordinary people who just happened to be there. Following the orchestrated disorder of sick and twisted minds came a response of spontaneous order to cure as quickly as possible the destruction that was wrought. Everyone helped as they were able, the strong carried the injured, the knowledgeable provided first aid, and runners, who had just finished a 26 mile marathon, ran further to local hospitals to give blood. Individuals came together spontaneously and voluntarily to fix what had been destroyed. These self-less acts only serve to undermine the narrative of the statist who believes mankind is fundamentally incorrigible and only through compulsive state coercion can any true good come about in society.

Now some might argue “first responders” who are supported through taxation played an essential role. You’ll get no argument from me on that, they did indeed play a vital role. However to imply, as David Sirota of Salon did, that such first responder would not even exist in society absent taxation is to reveal oneself to posses an extraordinarily limited imagination (“they should remind a tax-hostile country of the value of public investment — in this case, in first responders who miraculously limited the casualties” http://goo.gl/pPpaj). To question how such and such could exist absent the state is to join the intellectual ranks of those in the 19th century who would question the abolition of slavery (a government supported institution in society by the way) with their queries of: “but who will pick the cotton?”

Some might then argue how would we have caught the suspects absent the state providing an overwhelming police/FBI (military?) presence. Yes, indeed, how would we pick the cotton?  Of course with one suspect dead and another on life support through the process of capture it would seem the tool of the state is perhaps not the sharpest one in the shed. As they say “your tax dollars at work” – thanks, but I’d like a refund please as I didn’t get what I paid for. Those in charge of capture always try to take all the credit in these types of cases (publicized manhunt) but more often than not (as in this case) it is a tip off from that disorganized, decentralized mass we call “the people” that provides them with the “who” and “where” in order to make such arrests. Once again, spontaneous order of the good attacks and flushes out the cancer in our midst.

The tragic events in Boston only reinforce the idea that We the People are in fact fundamentally good and can take care of ourselves.

Communal children?

One of the most oft-cited justifications for the state is the “what of the children!” plea. It employs what I call “the fallacy of the isolated example” and it goes something like this: parents are humans, humans are imperfect, therefore at any given time there will exist some set of human parents making imperfect choices, sometimes those choices will negatively impact their children, ipso facto these negative impacts can only be prevented by compelling the enlistment of others via that entity which possesses the exclusive legal right to engage in unilateral violence within a defined geographical region: the state. No other possible remedy is considered. Further, the state must intervene on behalf of ALL children, as we certainly can’t predict who might be harmed. This argument is fallacious because there always exists isolated negative cases in any system. In order to justify any action simply find a singular example you believe your “solution” will remedy.

Given the prevalence of this child-based state apologia it should come as no surprise that Melissa Harris-Perry (of MSNBC fame) last week uttered these words in an MSNBC promo: “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility… then we start making better investments”

Setting aside for the moment the bizarre notion that “communities” somehow have a non voluntary obligation in children within that community (most likely in order to establish a basis for that same community extracting its “fair share” of their earnings in the future) the listener is left to wonder exactly what dream world does Harris-Perry live in? She says, “we have never invested as much in public education as we should have…” As the kids say today “Are you serious?!?” We spend three-times the inflation adjusted amount on K-12 public education today as we did in 1970 with ZERO change in reading, math or science scores. If you pump air in a tire and the pressure does not increase, the problem isn’t the pump. Time to look elsewhere. She then says, “Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the households…” Alas, it is already everyone’s responsibility. That’s what the “public” in “public education” means. Our collective (everybody’s) taxes pay for public education. Public education means it is incumbent upon the community to pay for the education of all the children, or more to the point, it is incumbent upon some people to pay the (inflated) educational costs of other people’s children, particularly the children of those who exercise no reproductive restraint as those parents bear little of the actual cost in raising them – that’s society’s job after all.

In a follow up statement over her original comments she says “This is about whether we as a society…have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good.” On this she is correct – that is exactly the question we should be asking, because the answer to that question is a resounding NO. “No” must be the answer not merely for utilitarian reasons (i.e. competition would more effectively solve problems than a monopolistic government) but also for ethical reasons (a society that justifies theft because it might increase the “common good” is a fundamentally unjust and morally bankrupt society).

So as shocking as her comments were, they were merely a bolder rewording of our current public educational system, a system, I might add, both the left and right strongly support. If you took issue with the sentiments she expressed, then to be intellectually honest you must begin to question the legitimacy of any government having any hand in education at all. If you would like to take the next step on that journey I invite you to read Rothbard’s “Education: Free and Compulsory”.

Monsanto Protection Act

Whether you are anti-GMO, pro-GMO, or couldn’t-care-less-about-GMO you should be angered and frightened not only by the content of what lawmakers slipped into the unremarkably named “H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013” last week, but the manner in which they did so.

Why should you care? The inserted language sets a dangerous precedent. It does so by carving out an exception in which a regulatory agency (the USDA in this case) may become answerable to no one. Traditionally such agencies fall under the purview of judicial review, meaning their practices, policies, or actions may be halted either temporarily or permanently upon a judge or judges finding issue with their actions. The judiciary in this case acts as the only mechanism the people have to prevent such agencies simply doing whatsoever their heart desires. This bill inserts language that allows the USDA to simply ignore judicial opinion and proceed under their own unbound and unchecked authority. Even laws passed by Congress may be nullified by judicial review, but no such limitation would exist for certain decisions of the USDA.

What exactly is being permitted? For the full gory details please see Title VII, Section 735. In layman’s terms it says this: if a decision of the USDA is found to be invalid (by a court) with respect to USDA’s approval of a particular plant cultivation, then if a farmer, grower, farm operator or producer requests a “temporary” (“temporary” being defined no where in the statute) permit to cultivate said plant anyway then the Secretary of Agriculture is empowered to grant such a permit, i.e. completely ignoring any court finding to the contrary. Since this language was specifically inserted with the knowledge of the very real prospect of a court eventually overturning USDA’s approval of certain GMO-seeds (principally produced by Monsanto) it has been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act”. Monsanto need no longer worry about some meddlesome activist judge interfering with USDA approval of the planting of their seeds. This is just another example of crony capitalism at its most blatant. Big business helps lawmakers get elected and they in turn pass laws that benefit those same big businesses. I will pause for a moment while the irony that President Obama actually signed this piece of legislation into law sinks in. To those that believed Obama was all about the “little guy” and was going to stick to “big business” – I rest my case.

How did this even happen? The truly scary part is that this not at all unusual. These types of unrelated “riders” are routinely inserted into bills (recall the “rum rebates” in the fiscal cliff bill earlier this year?). In this case, perhaps anticipating the firestorm that would erupt, it was inserted anonymously. That’s right, our wonderful system of governance allows random bits of text to mysteriously appear in bills without any accountability. Even better they show up at the last minute so no one even knows they are in there (so I guess Nancy Pelosi was right after all, we really do have to pass a bill to find out what’s in it).

Some may say this was just an unfortunate breakdown of the “system” and is simply a sign that we have gotten “off track” and must “reform” or otherwise “fix” the system. That is a fool’s errand. The system does not, has not, and can never work. As long as a handful of people have the legal authority to hand out lucrative favors that everyone else must pay for or comply with then the whole system is doomed to go over a much larger cliff.