With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. Voting Yes on I-1185 was easy; I-1240 is more difficult.
I-1240, Charter Schools
The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.
My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.
My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:
1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)
2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)
3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)
Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:
1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)
2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)
3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The
difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out
thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)
4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)
I will be voting YES on I-1240.
Showing posts with label govt monopoly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label govt monopoly. Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2012
Monday, June 4, 2012
Recent Reasons for Optimism Reloaded
I know "Reloaded" was the second movie, and this is my third Recent Reasons for Optimism entry, but... yeah, I don't have a good reason, so on to the optimism! Space news dominated the week, but there are also reasons to be optimistic about agriculture, health and the economy.
1. For starters, Joshua at PostLibertarian has his own list of reasons for optimism, including SpaceX's success with the Falcon 9, Cubify's new 3D printer and the lowering of legal hurdles for driverless cars. Also check out his previous reasons for optimism, including lower child mortality and improving technologies, among others.
2 Speaking of space, SpaceX has also just signed their first commercial contract for the Falcon Heavy rocket. The Falcon Heavy is basically three Falcon 9's strapped together. When completed, it will be able to take 58.5 tons into orbit, more than double the shuttle's 26.8 tons at less than a quarter of the cost.
3. SpaceX isn't the only good news in space. A company in the UK has announced plans (ht One Per Cent) to launch nanosatellites that, once in orbit, can dock with each other in novel configurations. One of the benefits would be easier in-orbit upgrades to satellites equipped with the technology. In a perfect example of the Matt Ridley quote in the sidebar here, the nanosatellites would use Kinect cameras to sense each other and make docking possible. "The more we invent, the more inventions become possible."
4. Just one more about space: Virgin Galactic has been granted an FAA permit for the first rocket-powered tests of SpaceShipTwo, which will eventually carry tourists into space. They plan to begin those tests this year, with an eye to actual tourist flights starting in 2013-2014.
5. The Free Exchange blog at The Economist reviews two recent books, one painting a picture of an America in decline, the other the opposite. In blogger R.A.'s words, "To spin a story of decline, one has to demonstrate that policies are considerably worse than they used to be, and that they're unlikely to improve. It's actually quite difficult to do this." While there are looming problems, R.A. says, "these issues, and other worries as well, are not being ignored or greeted with complacency," and "American innovation is proving as impressive as ever."
6. Two studies covered at World Climate Report (ht @mattwridley) portend good news for crop yields. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide helps rice out-compete weeds and encourages more photosynthesis in wheat. Higher temperatures also improve wheat water use efficiency. The scientists predicted that by 2050, global warming would raise wheat yields by about 5.8% in lower altitudes and more than 10% in higher altitudes.
7. A ten-year-old girl, Sammie Hicks, was until recently only able to hear with a hearing aid. In April, she was given a cochlear implant and recorded for Youtube the moment it was finally turned on in May. She jumps as the sounds come in, and adjusts to hearing herself breathe for the first time. In the video, she starts crying, and later said, "It was overwhelming. But the reason I really cried? I couldn’t believe all the stuff I was missing." In a later video, she talks about hearing pencils writing at school, and the wind on her way home.
8. Paralyzed rats with "severe spinal injuries" were effectively cured of their paralysis, regaining the ability to walk after 2-3 weeks and achieving "100% recuperation" after 5-6 weeks of treatment, including a special stimulating device and the ratty equivalent of physical therapy. A similar treatment for humans could be available within just a year or two.
9. The plural of anecdotes is not data. However, anecdotally, in my little corner of the world, the economy seems to be improving. People I know who have been unemployed, some for a very long time, over the last few weeks have been finding jobs. Walking down the street this past week, I've seen "Now Hiring" signs in the windows of local businesses. There are fresh faces working at businesses I frequent, and even the local mall is expanding.
10. With Friday's disappointing employment numbers from the establishment survey, you'd be forgiven for thinking the economic data is all doom and gloom. However, the household survey told a different story. While the establishment survey measured only 69k new jobs, the more-accurate household survey picked up 422k. Even the establishment survey looks better when you look at the private sector, which is where we want the growth to happen anyway. And while the unemployment rate ticked up from 8.1% to 8.2%, this was because the labor force grew by 642k as the long-term non-employed start looking for work again. That's not a bad thing!
11. Finally, a note on optimism itself. The CultureLab blog at New Scientist interviews Elaine Fox, author of the book Rainy Brain, Sunny Brain. Fox believes that we can retrain our brains to become more optimistic. She also cites research on the benefits of optimism, saying, "The research shows that, as long as they are realists too, people who have an optimistic mindset and feel like they are able to cope when things do go wrong benefit in all sorts of ways. The evidence is also quite strong now that an optimistic mindset is beneficial for our health. People with optimistic mindsets are also more successful in business, and seem to live longer."
1. For starters, Joshua at PostLibertarian has his own list of reasons for optimism, including SpaceX's success with the Falcon 9, Cubify's new 3D printer and the lowering of legal hurdles for driverless cars. Also check out his previous reasons for optimism, including lower child mortality and improving technologies, among others.
2 Speaking of space, SpaceX has also just signed their first commercial contract for the Falcon Heavy rocket. The Falcon Heavy is basically three Falcon 9's strapped together. When completed, it will be able to take 58.5 tons into orbit, more than double the shuttle's 26.8 tons at less than a quarter of the cost.
3. SpaceX isn't the only good news in space. A company in the UK has announced plans (ht One Per Cent) to launch nanosatellites that, once in orbit, can dock with each other in novel configurations. One of the benefits would be easier in-orbit upgrades to satellites equipped with the technology. In a perfect example of the Matt Ridley quote in the sidebar here, the nanosatellites would use Kinect cameras to sense each other and make docking possible. "The more we invent, the more inventions become possible."
4. Just one more about space: Virgin Galactic has been granted an FAA permit for the first rocket-powered tests of SpaceShipTwo, which will eventually carry tourists into space. They plan to begin those tests this year, with an eye to actual tourist flights starting in 2013-2014.
5. The Free Exchange blog at The Economist reviews two recent books, one painting a picture of an America in decline, the other the opposite. In blogger R.A.'s words, "To spin a story of decline, one has to demonstrate that policies are considerably worse than they used to be, and that they're unlikely to improve. It's actually quite difficult to do this." While there are looming problems, R.A. says, "these issues, and other worries as well, are not being ignored or greeted with complacency," and "American innovation is proving as impressive as ever."
6. Two studies covered at World Climate Report (ht @mattwridley) portend good news for crop yields. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide helps rice out-compete weeds and encourages more photosynthesis in wheat. Higher temperatures also improve wheat water use efficiency. The scientists predicted that by 2050, global warming would raise wheat yields by about 5.8% in lower altitudes and more than 10% in higher altitudes.
7. A ten-year-old girl, Sammie Hicks, was until recently only able to hear with a hearing aid. In April, she was given a cochlear implant and recorded for Youtube the moment it was finally turned on in May. She jumps as the sounds come in, and adjusts to hearing herself breathe for the first time. In the video, she starts crying, and later said, "It was overwhelming. But the reason I really cried? I couldn’t believe all the stuff I was missing." In a later video, she talks about hearing pencils writing at school, and the wind on her way home.
8. Paralyzed rats with "severe spinal injuries" were effectively cured of their paralysis, regaining the ability to walk after 2-3 weeks and achieving "100% recuperation" after 5-6 weeks of treatment, including a special stimulating device and the ratty equivalent of physical therapy. A similar treatment for humans could be available within just a year or two.
9. The plural of anecdotes is not data. However, anecdotally, in my little corner of the world, the economy seems to be improving. People I know who have been unemployed, some for a very long time, over the last few weeks have been finding jobs. Walking down the street this past week, I've seen "Now Hiring" signs in the windows of local businesses. There are fresh faces working at businesses I frequent, and even the local mall is expanding.
10. With Friday's disappointing employment numbers from the establishment survey, you'd be forgiven for thinking the economic data is all doom and gloom. However, the household survey told a different story. While the establishment survey measured only 69k new jobs, the more-accurate household survey picked up 422k. Even the establishment survey looks better when you look at the private sector, which is where we want the growth to happen anyway. And while the unemployment rate ticked up from 8.1% to 8.2%, this was because the labor force grew by 642k as the long-term non-employed start looking for work again. That's not a bad thing!
11. Finally, a note on optimism itself. The CultureLab blog at New Scientist interviews Elaine Fox, author of the book Rainy Brain, Sunny Brain. Fox believes that we can retrain our brains to become more optimistic. She also cites research on the benefits of optimism, saying, "The research shows that, as long as they are realists too, people who have an optimistic mindset and feel like they are able to cope when things do go wrong benefit in all sorts of ways. The evidence is also quite strong now that an optimistic mindset is beneficial for our health. People with optimistic mindsets are also more successful in business, and seem to live longer."
Thursday, May 31, 2012
If I Were the King of the World
Last Friday, Kevin Grier (Angus) at Kids Prefer Cheese listed the 5 things he would do as Supreme Ruler of the United States. Grover Cleveland at Pileus (ht Cafe Hayek) and later Brandon Christensen at The Republic of Liberty made their own lists. All three lists have some good ideas, and this sounds like fun, so I made my own.
I've tried to focus on more radical and interesting structural ideas, instead of more common policy ideas like tax reform or cutting sugar subsidies. That means I'm not so much convinced that these are actually good ideas. At present, I think on balance they probably might be mostly good (is that enough qualifiers?), but the academic's motto of "more study is needed" definitely applies to all five. So without further ado, here they are, in approximate descending order of probability (or ascending order of ridiculousness, if you prefer):
1. Submit Supreme Court Justices to Re-election
The entire Obamacare fiasco has underscored just how ridiculous the Supreme Court system is. By most accounts, whether or not we keep one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the last few decades will be decided by just one man-- the unelected, unaccountable Anthony Kennedy. The Constitutional idea of checks and balances was supposed to prevent exactly that.
My proposal is simple. Supreme Court Justices will continue to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, but they will also be subject, on a rotating basis, to re-election. Every two years, put one Justice up for re-election on a straight yes-or-no vote. If the result is yes, they stay in office, but if the result is no, they step down and a new one is appointed. Re-elections would rotate so that we always vote on the Justice that has gone longest without being re-elected. Without retirements, this means Justices would face re-election every 18 years; with retirements, it would usually happen faster. Hopefully, that's long enough that purely political motives will still be discouraged, but short enough to introduce at least some measure of accountability.
2. Create a Fourth Branch of Government - The Delegislature
As it stands, two of the three branches of government are entirely focused on creating new laws and new regulations. The judiciary is the only branch that regularly considers whether old laws should be eliminated, but they can only eliminate a law for being unconstitutional. The problem is that there are many bad laws and bad regulations that are perfectly constitutional, including many that once were good laws but no longer are.
The fourth branch of government, the Delegislature, would have as its sole power the ability to strike down bad laws and regulations. In a way, it would be like a Supreme Court that could focus on whether a law was actually good or bad, not just whether it was constitutional. It would also, of course, be elected in a similar manner to the Congress, and would be able to take on any existing law rather than be limited to court cases like the Supreme Court is. Politicians seeking re-election to the Delegislature would have to campaign on how many bad laws they've overturned. Hopefully, the underlying question of political discourse would eventually shift from "How should we control people?" to "How should we free people?"
3. Turn the Presidency into an Issue-Based Triumvirate
Just as concentrated power is bad at the Supreme Court, the same goes for the Presidency. At the same time, the nature of political discourse means that government's focus seems to grow without end. Rather than asking government to make us better off in general, we should seek a government that fulfills only those social functions that we need it to fulfill.
With an issues-based triumvirate, we would have three Presidents at once. We could stagger their elections; maybe they would serve six-year terms, with a new one being elected every two years. But once elected, each President would not have carte blanche to set policy in every area he can imagine. The three Presidential offices would each set policy on certain predefined issues. Very broadly, I'm thinking maybe they would be foreign policy, economic policy and social policy, although there are probably better ways to split up the issues. Obviously, there are some overlapping areas, so conflicts would be settled by a vote between the three. Hopefully, each election would focus more on the issues, and even if they didn't, the ongoing mission creep of the federal government would at least be slowed down.
4. Eliminate Elections in Favor of Democracy Markets
We see this time and again-- a politician is elected on promises of governing from the center, and then once in office immediately pushes through the most extreme parts of his agenda. Closer to the next election, he shifts back to the center enough to get re-elected, and the cycle starts over again. This works so often because voter memory is significantly shorter than terms of office. What if there was a way for voters to express their discontent and keep politicians in line all the time?
Enter what I call democracy markets-- think of a stock market, where the "stock" you own reflects which politician you support. You would get one vote per office, and at any time you could transfer that vote to anyone who had registered as a candidate. The system doesn't have to be any more complex than automated online or phone banking, and there's no reason it can't be just as secure. There's no need to wait 2, 4 or 6 years to have your voice heard, because you could change your vote at any time. No need to wonder if your ballot was actually counted, because you could check your current vote as easily as you can now check your bank balance. And most importantly, politicians would get active, real-time feedback. Hopefully, they would be forced to do what the people actually wanted.
5. Decouple Governance from Geography
For as long as there have been governments, they have been linked to and identified by geography. For most of human history, this was just a necessity, for reasons of defense if nothing else. But governments in general, and defense in particular, have changed a lot over the last century or so. Many, if not most, of the things governments now do have no direct relation to actual geography.
If I want to buy insurance, or save for retirement, or invest in an exciting startup, I don't have to be in a particular geographic area to do so, government restrictions aside. Living in a particular geographic area should not mean I have to join a particular government service provider either. If I don't like Washington state's laws, I have the right to move away. But why should I have to uproot my life, give up my home, my job, my friends in the area because I don't like what some doofus in Olympia is doing? Obviously there are some government services necessarily tied to geography, so leave those be. But for everything else goverunment does, we should encourage some healthy competition. Ideally, we should be able to switch governments as easily as we switch grocery stores. Hopefully, this would encourage existing governments to become more responsive to what people actually want, and maybe it would even allow new, more efficient, more competitive governments to sprout up wherever there was demand for them.
Your Turn
What do you think? Would you support any of these ideas? Do you see any problems with them? What five things would you do if you were the Supreme Ruler?
I've tried to focus on more radical and interesting structural ideas, instead of more common policy ideas like tax reform or cutting sugar subsidies. That means I'm not so much convinced that these are actually good ideas. At present, I think on balance they probably might be mostly good (is that enough qualifiers?), but the academic's motto of "more study is needed" definitely applies to all five. So without further ado, here they are, in approximate descending order of probability (or ascending order of ridiculousness, if you prefer):
1. Submit Supreme Court Justices to Re-election
The entire Obamacare fiasco has underscored just how ridiculous the Supreme Court system is. By most accounts, whether or not we keep one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the last few decades will be decided by just one man-- the unelected, unaccountable Anthony Kennedy. The Constitutional idea of checks and balances was supposed to prevent exactly that.
My proposal is simple. Supreme Court Justices will continue to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, but they will also be subject, on a rotating basis, to re-election. Every two years, put one Justice up for re-election on a straight yes-or-no vote. If the result is yes, they stay in office, but if the result is no, they step down and a new one is appointed. Re-elections would rotate so that we always vote on the Justice that has gone longest without being re-elected. Without retirements, this means Justices would face re-election every 18 years; with retirements, it would usually happen faster. Hopefully, that's long enough that purely political motives will still be discouraged, but short enough to introduce at least some measure of accountability.
2. Create a Fourth Branch of Government - The Delegislature
As it stands, two of the three branches of government are entirely focused on creating new laws and new regulations. The judiciary is the only branch that regularly considers whether old laws should be eliminated, but they can only eliminate a law for being unconstitutional. The problem is that there are many bad laws and bad regulations that are perfectly constitutional, including many that once were good laws but no longer are.
The fourth branch of government, the Delegislature, would have as its sole power the ability to strike down bad laws and regulations. In a way, it would be like a Supreme Court that could focus on whether a law was actually good or bad, not just whether it was constitutional. It would also, of course, be elected in a similar manner to the Congress, and would be able to take on any existing law rather than be limited to court cases like the Supreme Court is. Politicians seeking re-election to the Delegislature would have to campaign on how many bad laws they've overturned. Hopefully, the underlying question of political discourse would eventually shift from "How should we control people?" to "How should we free people?"
3. Turn the Presidency into an Issue-Based Triumvirate
Just as concentrated power is bad at the Supreme Court, the same goes for the Presidency. At the same time, the nature of political discourse means that government's focus seems to grow without end. Rather than asking government to make us better off in general, we should seek a government that fulfills only those social functions that we need it to fulfill.
With an issues-based triumvirate, we would have three Presidents at once. We could stagger their elections; maybe they would serve six-year terms, with a new one being elected every two years. But once elected, each President would not have carte blanche to set policy in every area he can imagine. The three Presidential offices would each set policy on certain predefined issues. Very broadly, I'm thinking maybe they would be foreign policy, economic policy and social policy, although there are probably better ways to split up the issues. Obviously, there are some overlapping areas, so conflicts would be settled by a vote between the three. Hopefully, each election would focus more on the issues, and even if they didn't, the ongoing mission creep of the federal government would at least be slowed down.
4. Eliminate Elections in Favor of Democracy Markets
We see this time and again-- a politician is elected on promises of governing from the center, and then once in office immediately pushes through the most extreme parts of his agenda. Closer to the next election, he shifts back to the center enough to get re-elected, and the cycle starts over again. This works so often because voter memory is significantly shorter than terms of office. What if there was a way for voters to express their discontent and keep politicians in line all the time?
Enter what I call democracy markets-- think of a stock market, where the "stock" you own reflects which politician you support. You would get one vote per office, and at any time you could transfer that vote to anyone who had registered as a candidate. The system doesn't have to be any more complex than automated online or phone banking, and there's no reason it can't be just as secure. There's no need to wait 2, 4 or 6 years to have your voice heard, because you could change your vote at any time. No need to wonder if your ballot was actually counted, because you could check your current vote as easily as you can now check your bank balance. And most importantly, politicians would get active, real-time feedback. Hopefully, they would be forced to do what the people actually wanted.
5. Decouple Governance from Geography
For as long as there have been governments, they have been linked to and identified by geography. For most of human history, this was just a necessity, for reasons of defense if nothing else. But governments in general, and defense in particular, have changed a lot over the last century or so. Many, if not most, of the things governments now do have no direct relation to actual geography.
If I want to buy insurance, or save for retirement, or invest in an exciting startup, I don't have to be in a particular geographic area to do so, government restrictions aside. Living in a particular geographic area should not mean I have to join a particular government service provider either. If I don't like Washington state's laws, I have the right to move away. But why should I have to uproot my life, give up my home, my job, my friends in the area because I don't like what some doofus in Olympia is doing? Obviously there are some government services necessarily tied to geography, so leave those be. But for everything else goverunment does, we should encourage some healthy competition. Ideally, we should be able to switch governments as easily as we switch grocery stores. Hopefully, this would encourage existing governments to become more responsive to what people actually want, and maybe it would even allow new, more efficient, more competitive governments to sprout up wherever there was demand for them.
Your Turn
What do you think? Would you support any of these ideas? Do you see any problems with them? What five things would you do if you were the Supreme Ruler?
Friday, May 18, 2012
The SpaceX Launch
Tomorrow, the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, better known as SpaceX, will, if all goes well, launch the first private cargo ship to the International Space Station. Many, including me, are hailing the upcoming launch as a triumph for the private space industry. To be fair, however, it's not exactly an entirely private enterprise. SpaceX has, to date, received $381 million in taxpayer money from NASA. Success tomorrow means another $15 million from NASA in their current contract, as well as another contract worth about $1,600 million to deliver future NASA payloads to the ISS.
Given the costs involved, and the public-private nature of what SpaceX is doing, some on the right have begun to criticize the company and even the NASA program under which they're operating. The Republican-led US House Appropriations Committee recently released a report comparing SpaceX and other NASA-funded private space companies to Solyndra, the failed, government-backed solar power company.
As someone who leans libertarian yet also supports the NASA-SpaceX partnership, I think it's important to confront this criticism. While SpaceX is, effectively, a government-sponsored enterprise, it's important to remember the direction of movement here. Compare space exploration to other government-dominated industries, and you'll see what I mean.
Solar
Prior to government spending on renewable energy in the past few years, solar power got some government help in the form of individual tax credits, but it was primarily a private industry. In the last few years, solar production has been growing exponentially, driven almost entirely by government subsidies. Solyndra was just one example of a general move from a small, private industry to a large, government-supported industry.
Mortgages
Housing finance through mortgages was a private industry from America's founding until the New Deal created Fannie Mae in 1938. Freddie Mac came along later in 1970, and both remained government-backed privately-owned companies until the 2008 financial crisis. The current federal government conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie completes a decades-long move from a wholly private to a government-run mortgage industry.
Autos
Despite licensing requirements and safety regulations, auto companies have been wholly private enterprises for many decades. That came to an end with the 2008 financial crisis and the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, in which the US and Canadian governments became minority stockholders of both companies. Since there have been efforts to back these governments out of ownership roles since then, and since Ford and indeed the Asian auto companies never went bankrupt in the first place, this is hopefully not part of a general movement from private to public. However, it is at least a temporarily public ownership of a typically private industry.
Space
In contrast to the solar, mortgage and auto industries, space has never been a private industry. The first launch into space was done by the Soviet government. Until 2004, every human being who had ever gone to space had been sent by one government or another. Far from taking over a previously private industry, NASA's partnership with SpaceX is part of a general move from public to private.
While conservatives and libertarians are right to criticize the movements from private to public in the solar, mortgage and auto industries, it's a mistake to lump in with those the space industry's movement from public to private. It's true that the space industry continues to be almost entirely public, and it will be years or possibly even decades before private sources of revenue outpace public sources in space. However, the NASA-SpaceX partnership is the next, necessary step down the road to an independently profitable private space industry. It is in this context that we should view SpaceX-- not as a private contractor feasting on government largesse, or a crony capitalist waste of taxpayer dollars, but as a necessary step in the privatization of space.
EDIT: I just came across this quote from Phil McAlister, NASA Commercial Spaceflight Development Director, that I think is appropriate to add: "Once we get the private sector out there, there will be no turning back. [Spaceflight] will no longer be subject to the prevailing political winds. It will just push further and further out, no more looking backwards, only looking forwards."
Given the costs involved, and the public-private nature of what SpaceX is doing, some on the right have begun to criticize the company and even the NASA program under which they're operating. The Republican-led US House Appropriations Committee recently released a report comparing SpaceX and other NASA-funded private space companies to Solyndra, the failed, government-backed solar power company.
As someone who leans libertarian yet also supports the NASA-SpaceX partnership, I think it's important to confront this criticism. While SpaceX is, effectively, a government-sponsored enterprise, it's important to remember the direction of movement here. Compare space exploration to other government-dominated industries, and you'll see what I mean.
Solar
Prior to government spending on renewable energy in the past few years, solar power got some government help in the form of individual tax credits, but it was primarily a private industry. In the last few years, solar production has been growing exponentially, driven almost entirely by government subsidies. Solyndra was just one example of a general move from a small, private industry to a large, government-supported industry.
Mortgages
Housing finance through mortgages was a private industry from America's founding until the New Deal created Fannie Mae in 1938. Freddie Mac came along later in 1970, and both remained government-backed privately-owned companies until the 2008 financial crisis. The current federal government conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie completes a decades-long move from a wholly private to a government-run mortgage industry.
Autos
Despite licensing requirements and safety regulations, auto companies have been wholly private enterprises for many decades. That came to an end with the 2008 financial crisis and the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, in which the US and Canadian governments became minority stockholders of both companies. Since there have been efforts to back these governments out of ownership roles since then, and since Ford and indeed the Asian auto companies never went bankrupt in the first place, this is hopefully not part of a general movement from private to public. However, it is at least a temporarily public ownership of a typically private industry.
Space
In contrast to the solar, mortgage and auto industries, space has never been a private industry. The first launch into space was done by the Soviet government. Until 2004, every human being who had ever gone to space had been sent by one government or another. Far from taking over a previously private industry, NASA's partnership with SpaceX is part of a general move from public to private.
While conservatives and libertarians are right to criticize the movements from private to public in the solar, mortgage and auto industries, it's a mistake to lump in with those the space industry's movement from public to private. It's true that the space industry continues to be almost entirely public, and it will be years or possibly even decades before private sources of revenue outpace public sources in space. However, the NASA-SpaceX partnership is the next, necessary step down the road to an independently profitable private space industry. It is in this context that we should view SpaceX-- not as a private contractor feasting on government largesse, or a crony capitalist waste of taxpayer dollars, but as a necessary step in the privatization of space.
EDIT: I just came across this quote from Phil McAlister, NASA Commercial Spaceflight Development Director, that I think is appropriate to add: "Once we get the private sector out there, there will be no turning back. [Spaceflight] will no longer be subject to the prevailing political winds. It will just push further and further out, no more looking backwards, only looking forwards."
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Follow the Money, Alcohol Edition
Both 24 Hours and The Province published stories yesterday about the rise of alcohol-related deaths caused by private liquor stores. The Centre for Addictions Research of B.C. has released a study which links the two. In particular, they find "a 27.5 per cent increase in alcohol-related deaths for every extra private liquor store per 1,000 British Columbians."
The Province has some concrete numbers for us (emphasis mine):
According to the paper's abstract, the authors reached their conclusions by studying BC's 89 local health areas. To be fair, there could be an effect at the local level. But when the overall death rate is going down, what made the authors think such a study would be necessary?
It helps to ask who exactly the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C. is. According to their website, they were started in 2003 as a joint venture between the B.C. Addiction Foundation and the University of Victoria. In turn, the Addiction Foundation was founded in 2001 by the Provincial Government.
Why is this relevant? In a nutshell, we have an organization established by an arm of the Provincial Government, funded in large part by that Provincial Government, performing research into ways to raise more revenue for that Provincial Government. Does anyone else see a possible conflict of interest?
The BC Provincial Government is facing a $1.7 billion deficit (PDF) this year, and the BC Liquor Distribution Branch is estimated to bring in about $1 billion per year. With almost five times as many private liquor stores as government-run stores in 2008, taking over a sizable chunk of those private stores would go a long way towards eliminating the deficit. All they need is a plausible-sounding reason (private stores are killing people!), supported by "independent" researchers. Coincidence?
The Province has some concrete numbers for us (emphasis mine):
The number of government stores dropped from 222 in 2003 to 199 in 2008 while the number of private stores increased from 727 in 2003 to 977 in 2008. Restaurants (3,849 in 2003 to 4,163 in 2008) and bars (1,833 in 2003 to 1,812 in 2008) remained relatively stable.But those numbers don't account for population growth. In 2003, the population of BC was 4,122,396; it grew steadily to 4,383,860 in 2008. That's a 6.3% increase, meaning deaths per capita actually fell over these five years. So the number of private liquor stores per capita rose, the number of alcohol deaths per capita fell, and the study concludes that more private liquor stores leads to more alcohol deaths? What's going on here?
Meanwhile, the number of alcohol-related deaths rose. There were 1,937 in 2003; 1,983 in 2004; 2,016 in 2005; 2,086 in 2006; 2,074 in 2007; and 2,011 in 2008.
| Year | Population | Private stores per 100k | Deaths per 100k |
| 2003 | 4,122,396 | 17.64 | 46.99 |
| 2008 | 4,383,860 | 22.29 | 45.87 |
| Change | 6.3% | 26.4% | -2.4% |
According to the paper's abstract, the authors reached their conclusions by studying BC's 89 local health areas. To be fair, there could be an effect at the local level. But when the overall death rate is going down, what made the authors think such a study would be necessary?
It helps to ask who exactly the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C. is. According to their website, they were started in 2003 as a joint venture between the B.C. Addiction Foundation and the University of Victoria. In turn, the Addiction Foundation was founded in 2001 by the Provincial Government.
Why is this relevant? In a nutshell, we have an organization established by an arm of the Provincial Government, funded in large part by that Provincial Government, performing research into ways to raise more revenue for that Provincial Government. Does anyone else see a possible conflict of interest?
The BC Provincial Government is facing a $1.7 billion deficit (PDF) this year, and the BC Liquor Distribution Branch is estimated to bring in about $1 billion per year. With almost five times as many private liquor stores as government-run stores in 2008, taking over a sizable chunk of those private stores would go a long way towards eliminating the deficit. All they need is a plausible-sounding reason (private stores are killing people!), supported by "independent" researchers. Coincidence?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
