brandonrobison.net

I am working on a research paper for my Environmental Economics course. The process for setting rates is rather straightforward, albeit somewhat strange. Here’s (basically) how it works:

1. The Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) performs environmental and economics studies, compares it to past data, as well as past goals, and then sets new goals based on the research.
2. They form a citizen-committee and present their findings to this committee. The information presented is downright apocalyptic. Every presenter and slide is about how “If we don’t act now, we are all going to die.” This isn’t completely unfounded, as the valley is legitimately in a water crisis. But still…
3. After 2-3 months of meeting, the committee makes recommendations on how to change rates, if that’s what they want to do at all (they can vote to do absolutely nothing). Of course, after several months of being hammered with end-of-the-world scenarios, it’s no surprise that they will recommend to increase rates.

I’m not completely against this process, but as an outsider, it almost seems as though the water district makes the process this way because they have low self-esteem and want to be able to say to the public-at-large, “Don’t be mad at us! Your neighbors were the ones who voted to do it!” when the rate hikes take effect.

By the way, as I read and learn more about it all, I’m actually of the opinion that rates should be increased way more than the committee voted for (which is a 50% increase, to take effect (I think) next year)…

But you can read more about that in a week or so when I post my full report here.

Steven Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University, posted an interesting blog comparing the “liberal” global-warming-freaks to the “conservative” let’s-go-kill-all-the-terrorists-freaks. The post is relatively short, and I recommend you go here to read it, but the main point, I think, is this:

More generally I would ask several questions of people critical of the War in Iraq but gung-ho about a War on Global Warming. Should we not be asking the same deep, critical questions about what we do and do not know about climate change and environmental issues more broadly, and how we acquired that information, as we should have asked about Iraqi WMDs before we go rushing to “war” on global warming? Though the earth has been warming, it is not at all clear that the consensus on the causes and consequences of said warming is as widely shared among scientists as Al Gore and others would like us to believe. Should we not also be asking the same questions about the effects that such a war will have on innocents in the third world as dissenters did with respect to Iraq? After all, the environmentalism-driven rush to biofuels appears to be a significant contributing factor to the run-up in world food prices, which is causing great harm to the poorest folks on the planet. And shouldn’t we be asking what the consequences of this “war” will be on our own freedoms and our own standard of living, just as critics of the War in Iraq have rightly drawn attention to those same issues in the context of that war? Finally, is it really all that much more imperialistic to try to create democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq than it is to tell the Third World that they must abide by high Western standards of environmental regulation in the name of a war on global warming and environmental destruction, when the consequences of doing so are sure to prolong their poverty?

I have frequently thought the same link also lies between conservatives who recognize that welfare programs only keep people dependent on the system, yet think staying in Iraq indefinitely will help out the Iraqis. Obviously it’s not the same situation, but there are enough similarities to reach the conclusion that people just don’t think about things logically.

I remember back in 2003, I witnessed a police officer commit some traffic violations. Nothing big — stuff we all do every day (eg. speeding, changing lanes without using a turn signal, etc.)

When I pulled this particular cop over (yes, I pulled a cop over), it didn’t turn out so well for me. He ended up turning the tables and writing me a ticket for over $1,400 in trumped up charges. Because it was a totally concocted falsehood, the charges all got dropped when it went to court. But the storm trooper who issued the citations was never brought to any sort of justice.

Anyone who knows me well knows I am not a fan of the police. I truly and deeply believe they are the unholy executors of laws biased against the poorer classes (ie. anyone who isn’t incredibly rich or anyone who isn’t politically connected). Note: I eventually want to develop that into an extensive research paper, possibly even a book. But for now I’ll just leave it as is: law enforcement is a plague.

So when I see or hear stories like the following, I can’t help but rejoice, and dream that some day it could be me in Eric Bryant’s shoes.

Read: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=753233&category=22101

I Google “star wars” and get this. WTF?

Within a month of returning to America nearly two years ago, I bought a car… and a radar detector. I actually call it a “storm trooper detector” because it detects storm troopers. Yes, that’s a Star Wars reference. And yes, I call police storm troopers.

In the past 23 months, I have been pulled over three times:

1. For running a red light on the Las Vegas Strip ($150 or so ticket).
2. For changing lanes on the freeway without using a signal (no ticket, just a “warning”).
3. I’m about to explain.

Last night, while driving home from Ashley’s house, I got on US-95 at Tropicana going north. For those familiar with this location, you know that between the onramp for Tropicana and the upcoming offramp for Flamingo are the same lane, and there’s only about a half mile between them. When I got on the freeway last night, there were a couple of large trucks (you know… 18-wheelers) in the far right lane, essentially blocking my entrance to the freeway. My choices were to slow down dramatically and get behind them, or speed up and get in front of them. The best option seems obvious.

Though I sped up, I didn’t have much distance before I either had to get into the right lane or be forced back off the freeway at Flamingo. In fact… I almost didn’t make it. I ended up driving in the shoulder for about 100ft before getting in front of the trucks, and at this point, I was probably going 75-80mph (in a 65mph zone).

It was about this time that my storm trooper detector went berserk. I slammed on my brakes, but it was too late: sirens and blinding lights came on behind me, and I quickly made my way back to the shoulder, coming to a stop.

I got cited for going 70 in a 65 zone, and for “failure to obey traffic signals,” ie. waiting too long to get over, and driving in the shoulder.

I’m not sure how much the ticket will be worth… I’m guessing not a whole lot (relatively speaking), but still. I didn’t let it bother me too much last night as I drove the rest of the way home, but tonight on my way home form Ashley’s I noticed I was incredibly paranoid as I cruised down the freeway. I wasn’t driving any slower or less erratically (moving around between cars, trying to get home as fast as possible). In driving school many years ago I remember them saying you should pay attention to what’s going on at least twenty seconds in front of where you’re at. Now I was paying attention to the twenty seconds in front and the twenty seconds behind me. I normally check out the rear view mirrors frequently, but this was ridiculous. I was practically looking behind me more than I was looking ahead of me.

Any reasonable person can realize that can’t be safe.

So I’m going to blame the cops with making me a less safe driver.

But additionally, and more importantly, I’d like to rant about the absurdity of getting fines for breaking traffic laws.

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when I hear people relate their traffic-ticket-woes, they, or someone else who was with them, will say “… but I guess I/they deserved it.” I’d like to try to correct this incorrect way of thinking.

The proper purpose of law is an oft debated topic, but I would submit that it is “…in order to…establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These are the words of the Preamble to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Many have restated it even more simply: the purpose of law is to insure an individual’s rights of life, liberty, and property.

If I am speeding down the road, am I infringing upon anyone’s rights to life, liberty, or property?

• Liberty – This is the easiest to answer. My driving fast is in no way inhibiting someone else’s freedom.
• Property – Should my fast driving cause me to ram into someone else’s car, home, or any other property, I will be trespassing their right to property.
• Life – This is usually the one people will say I am harming. By driving fast, I am putting others at risk of bodily harm. However, just as with property, I am not actually harming them UNTIL the point of impact.

Imagine I am playing a home-run derby with my friends at a park which is located in a densely populated residential area. The point of our game is to slam baseballs as hard and far as we can. Near many homes, this game is inherently risky. Any one of the balls could go crashing into a car, home, or a passerby. Yet no one would say “they deserved it” if a storm trooper came by and gave them a ticket for hitting baseballs too hard. Besides, there aren’t any storm troopers that hang around parks giving out tickets… why? Well, I don’t really know, but my guess is that it has something to do with it not being very lucrative.

The real reason why we have traffic laws isn’t to protect people, but to have yet another form of taxation on the populace. And just as taxes are evil, so are traffic laws.