Doesn't Matter Who

Just like that, I've found a financial giant worthy of being ignored- right after I punch his nose.

He isn't this era's answer to JP Morgan in terms of the sheer awe that man inspired, but Warren Buffet has more hundred dollar bills to rub together than your average millionaire has pennies, so people tend to dote on his every word. However, he just gave me all the reason in the world to ignore his political and economic views. He spoke out against the Bush tax cut.

I don't think that the Bush tax cut is the best thing in the world. It could have been bigger, for instance, and it could have cut rates on much more than dividends. But the fact is, any elected official who offers to return taxpayer dollars to the taxpayers is moving policy in the right direction. I'll support the tiniest tax cut, if it's the only cut being proposed, and I don't care if it's Bush, or Democrats Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon, or Indy Mayor Bart Peterson doing the cutting.

Of course, Buffett did fail to mention one important fact. His Berkshire Hathaway shares don't pay dividends.

Hmm? Could it be that Mr. Buffett is afraid that if the tax cut on dividends passes, stocks that do pay dividends will become more valuable for producing tax-free income? Could it be that Mr. Buffett would rather not have to feel pressure to start paying a dividend?

J.P. Morgan would have kept his mouth shut.

Wither Morgan?

The referee's arm goes up in the air over this blogging activity. It violates JP Morgan's very wise credo, as contained in a wonderful little book of collected insights called Wisdom from the Robber Barons:

"Think a lot. Say little. Write nothing."

When I run for office, I'll have to scramble like hell to purge the net of these musings. I'll rue the day I ignored a financial giant.

Supply and Demand Remains, Even in Utopian Societies

A lot of my friends, especially the non-libertarian ones, like to ask me if I'll be moving to Idaho, Wyoming, or New Hampshire soon. At first, the question vexed me. After living in the Cleveland area since the age of three, I relocated with Ame to Indianapolis some nine months ago. It's not like I'll need to be here for 31 more years before considering the next move, but nor will it be happening next year.

Next year, some 20,000 libertarians may be faced with moving to one of those three states mentioned before as part of the Free State Project.

With my first complete reading of Atlas Shrugged, I began to occasionally indulge in the delicious daydream of a Galt's Gulch- a utopia devoid of compulsion, loaded with choices and freedom, and sole responsibilty for the exercise thereof. To be the builder of a city was a particularly fond daydream. Jason Sorens shares my reading list, and apparently, my daydreams, though not my taste in music.

The idea is that 20,000 libertarians will move en masse to one of the aforementioned states and rapidly transform the selected state's policies to libertarian policies.

On the surface, it's rather a tempting proposition... except that the chosen states all *suck*. These are underpopulated states for a reason. Remember reason? This all smacks of a Galt's Gulch Lite, without the oath that unlocks the door to the power plant, and yet with all the rest of the residents that resent you for being a carpetbagger.

Going to a population that is just sitting there, minding its own business, and imposing your political will over it en mass is the kind of thing I expect of US foreign policy in, well, name your country. Just like so many of our foreign adventures, I expect some current residents to wave the Free State flag and throw flowers, and others to hold up signs saying, 'libertarian go home', and rolling hand grenades under their tents.

I expect believers in utopia to gloss over that. Utopians don't want to hear about being outnumbered 20 to 1 as a negative. Those are odds they'll take! What I do not expect libertarian utopians to get glassy-eyed about is the consideration of supply and demand. That, after all, is the kind of hard-boiled reality that they do like to know about.

Remember that? Supply and demand? It is the stark fist of reality in the same was as gravity is to other dreamers. Oh, gravity can be overcome- in the same way as supply and demand: at great cost.

Take land that is cheap by virtue of the lack of a population. Now add 20,000 people that must have land now. We call the sum a boom town. Everywhere in this country's history, we have seen boom towns spring up, with land prices going from pennies per acre to Park Place and Boardwalk overnight... and often back to nothing, from Dodge City to Carson City to Silver City, Idaho. Better buy up that land now, while the getting's good.

While you're at it, set up a grocery store before the Sons of Sam Walton can. All commodities will be exorbitantly priced until real competition can move in. In the meantime, the naturally occurring monopoly stores will have a field day seperating utopians from greenbacks, long before the laws imposing taxes on food can be vanquished. After all, 20,000 of you will arrive on Monday, and by Thursday, there will be six cans of creamed corn and a bottle of Diet Vernors to go around.

I know libertarians know supply and demand. You can't read as much Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams as the average lib does and not pick up at least a little of it. And yet, I hear astonishingly little about provisions like, 'take all the provisions you can haul, including a whole lot of cash 'coz we're going to make the cost of living double or triple for a while'.

I wish these believers in the destinational approach well. I hope they prove me wrong. If they do, they will have to clear out a lot of space in their bookshelves.

Planning and Reading.

So, where's the honeymoon? It's in Banff, Alberta!

That's in Canada. It's amazing how many people you have to explain that to. I've heard, 'That's in Europe, right?' Also, Africa. I've also heard that Alberta is one of the Canadian *States*. Here's how I was taught to remember that Canada has Provinces: think of the put-down 'provincial', and you can't fail to think of Canada. It was reinforced by a gag in an early South Park episode with Terrance and Philip where Toronto was labeled 'Downtown Canada'. Or was that in the movie?

Anyhow, I've been reading up on wilderness backpacking and camping, since Ame and I will be doing plenty in serious backcountry. My book of choice is The Backpacker's Field Manual, by Princeton's Rick Curtis. He is very big on 'leave no trace' methods, and I like reading up on it. I want to do what I can to keep that area as pristine as possible.

I'm sure that some readers would find Curtis an overbearing tree hugger, but what the hell? I'm going for the pristine nature of the areas surrounding Banff, Jasper, and Lake Louise and I want to find it pristine, and they guy after me will want to find it the same way, so I read. However, I found one sensible passage that was too rich in irony for me to pass up:

"Resist the temptation to feed animals, even leaving bread crumbs or seeds for birds or squirrels. Feeding wildlife can upset the natural balance of their food chain, or make them dependent on human food."

The Sierra Club types all say this about feeding animals. The feeder creates the dependency of the fed. How is it that they routinely miss the logic as applied to humans?

There was one double standard that left me a little perplexed. Some who practice 'leave no trace methods' rail against emptying the ol' dump truck in the woods, recommending carrying your feces out with you. I have to think back to the days of yore when I would ask my old co-worker Jerry if he'd like to break for lunch. He'd reply, "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

And so a bear does. The bear does not bring a double lined ammo box. Nor does he use a Glad bag as a glove so that he may retrieve his solids. He just lets it fly any ol' place. Sometimes it hit vegetation. Rarely to bears group up and dig field latrine pits. Sometimes, the bear even unloads the truck less than 200 feet (or about 70 human steps) away from water. I dare say that on some odd Tuesdays, the bear lets it go in the stream itself, just as some men are reputed to let fly in the shower. The human gets nothing but grief.

Truly, humans are held to a higher standard.

Wedding Planning.

I was discussing the particulars with Greg, my only other Groomsman besides Steve, my Best Man. Greg observed that one guy gets to be the Best Man, but the others are just Groomsmen. Greg knows Steve, and kiddingly suggested that he (Greg) should be called the Next Best Man. Big mistake. It has devolved, and has made me want to add Groomsmen, just so I can list the Pretty Good Man, The Not So Good Man, my Relatively Tolerable Man, my Nearly Worthless Man, and my Worst Man.

Greg says he wants me to surprise him with his title. I have until early June, when the programs are printed, to figure out this most vexing item.


Ame cheated: she has two Maids of Honor!

My flag.
I really dig the Culpepper Minutement / Gadsden 'Don't Tread On Me' flag. I was checking out Al Barger's blog, and there it was at the top. It got me to thinking about all of that Pledge of Allegiance noise that followed the court decision calling it unconstitutional. I chased down the original text, not really all that interested in the god flap. If there was a god, he wouldn't need to be lumped in with '& Country' to boost his ego. I was recalling a different beginning to the pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag..." More history.

I like that. My flag.

The Stars & Stripes are nice, but it's just a great, big generality anymore. 50 states. So what? Look who can wrap themselves in it. You can get boxer shorts in the Stars & Stripes. There's something for the flag burners. The '76' flags are nice, too. They point to the Revolution, but don't really convey the emotional power of 'LIBERTY OR DEATH'. Now that's the no-screwing-around real deal!

That's my flag.

Blame Al-

It's his fault. He made it too easy for me not to start a blog. That rascal, Al.

That's all I have to say for now. Everyone tries to be profound with a first post, but the fact is, it ends up on the bottom of the pile.

Malkovich?

Malkovich?