One Law

Re-thinking governance. We only need one law - the Non-Aggression Principle - the foundation of libertarianism - to maximize justice, peace, and prosperity.

  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
  • Pages & Categories
  • Contact

December 26, 2016 by SC Striebeck

Utilities Strip Consumers’ Control Over Energy Bills – Episode 36 of Local Energy Rules Podcast | John Farrell | Pulse | LinkedIn

Source: Utilities Strip Consumers’ Control Over Energy Bills – Episode 36 of Local Energy Rules Podcast | John Farrell | Pulse | LinkedIn

Mr. Farrell, one my favorite renewable experts, quotes Rick Gilliam who says:

“[Solar is] the antithesis of the utility business model and it allows customers to really take control over their own energy future, which is something the utility doesn’t like,” said Rick Gilliam, program director for DG regulatory policy at California-based nonprofit Vote Solar. “It’s a monopoly and it wants to maintain its position as the sole provider of service.”

In response, given the circumstances, I would expect this resistance by utilities (their management and partners in government) on human nature alone.  Where an uncertain change in the status quo can negatively affect the livelihood of the primary benefactors of such monopolies  and their associates, there is absolutely no basic economic incentive to advance change — in this case, more energy choices such as solar. The rules are inherently stacked against disruption for more choice.

So, the solution isn’t just voting for more solar and trying to compete with utilities within their own operational framework. The real solution lays in changing the artificially imposed structure and liaison with government which controls much of the generation and distribution of energy — no small task I admit — but that is the job at hand.

Unlike participants in freer markets, where government intervenes less, where no governmental regulation ensures monopoly, where there is every incentive to please the customer — lest your doors close — utilities are just the opposite. Given these advantages, combined with the fundamental necessity of energy, there is a huge incentive not to change or improve services that would otherwise derail the gravy train. Thus, structural change in the energy market must be demanded by more persons with continued pressure supplied by distributed renewable energy technology — sort of a force-multiplier effect.

Many argue that renewables are absolutely necessary to prevent anthropogenic global warming.  Even if you trust the proponents of this brand of climate change, this is still not the primary benefit of renewable energy, only a spinoff.  The real benefit is that distributed renewables provide the greatest degree of freedom for individuals to potentially provide, maintain and exchange, the most basic component of living and improving one’s well-being: energy.

When you realize that literally everything that most of us do throughout the day requires energy, then you can begin to fathom the liberating effects of individuals creating clean distributed energy, not to mention less geopolitical stress and often war in securing and protecting sources of energy. On an economic level, individual energy independence and diversity are synonymous with all forms of personal liberty and accountability.

These organizational structures, whether it is utilities, or any other governmentally owned or dominated industry will neither produce the best that can be had nor the best value propositions (diversity in choice) for whatever product or service. There is simply not the ever-constant accountability, which imbues free markets (optimally governed by one rule of law applicable to all), to adequately incentivize and distinguish the most creative, efficient, sensitive and best products and services from what can otherwise be developed.

Where the disconnect occurs is that many people feel that there are exceptions for making certain products and services, and that these inconsistencies with fundamental economic rules can be ignored — in this case, personal incentive and responsibility — and yet, they still expect to be provided with ample choice and the best value. Sorry, but sustainably, that’s impossible.

By analogy, it is no different from fixing broken windows and crooked walls in a home with a failing foundation. It makes little sense to replace the windows and cosmetically fix the walls, without curing the real problem — the failed foundation — only to endure the visible symptoms once again.  The same approach must be used in sustainably solving any other problem — which includes modern governance.

However, for the near term, the greater problem is retraining ourselves how to un-learn many of the fictions and half-truths that are perpetuated by either those who don’t know any better, or those with a vested interest in the “status quo” — both are dangerous.

And for that matter, our re-education applies to more than energy, but there is no better place to start , because with energy, it is literally the foundation of everything.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source: Utilities Strip Consumers’ Control Over Energy Bills – Episode 36 of Local Energy Rules Podcast | John Farrell | Pulse | LinkedIn
Media source:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/utilities-strip-consumers-control-over-energy-bills-episode-farrell

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Accountability, Action, Choice, Decentralization, Distributed Energy, Education, Energy, Entrepreneurialism, Government, Human Nature, Sustainability, Utilities

December 24, 2016 by SC Striebeck

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

Between 1950 and 2009, American public schools experienced a 96 percent increase in student population. During that time, the number of administrators and other staff increased by over seven times the increase in students. This staffing surge still exists today, but the promised benefits are nowhere to be seen.

Source: The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

 

The source article is a great piece from Daniel J. Mitchell because it succinctly and effectively sums up what is wrong with public education; however, it ends there.

At some point, we need to realize not only that a problem exists, not only that it is severe, but that it cannot in anyway be corrected by or from within the very structure of human organization which allowed it to evolve and survive in a deficient state – in this case, that organizational structure is government – ever subject to the whims of political successors.

No disrespect to the Cato Institute; it produces some fantastic analyses on a broad range of topics. But like most other political think tanks, it fails when the author or another subject offers a non-solution such as:

“Juan concludes his column with a plea for diversity, innovation, and competition… …He’s right, but he should focus his ire on his leftist friends and colleagues. They’re the ones (including the NAACP!) standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door and blocking the right kind of education reform.”

The conclusion is correct in that education would improve from greater diversity, innovation and competition. But then, logic, sound economics and reality were abandoned.  The author then adds where Juan’s focus should be – on the left side of the political spectrum.

Given that public education has been under the direction of both ends of the political spectrum, and in reality usually the combination thereof, this clearly isn’t a solution.

The real problem is government itself – not the people, the structure. As a form of human organization, it cannot systematically and sustainably cleanse itself of virtually any ill whether it waste, inefficiency, or graft. Just look at the 40-year trend in the above graph in cost versus performance versus the number of employees.

It is not a right or left problem. It is a structural problem; one that cannot be resolved by politics – ever. Only the free market under one rule of law positively applied to all persons can provide diversity, innovation and competition in education. If you understand the fundamentals of business, and in particular entrepreneurialism; and then centralizing forces of government, you known that this not opinion – it is fact. More choice is always more power. Government cannot provide real choice.

If you really want broad-based educational improvement, then cut to the chase: get government out of education, and do it now.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source:  Daniel J. Mitchell from his blog originally published on fee.org. The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education
Media source:  www.fee.org

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Accountability, Action, Choice, Decentralization, Diversification, Education, Entrepreneurialism, Evolution, Free market, Government, Public Education, Sustainability

March 6, 2016 by SC Striebeck

Is This the Best We Can Do?

From-Aristocracy-to-Monarchy-to-Democracy1000pxI suspect that most democratically-minded people have never stopped to think that democracy may not be what it’s cracked up to be. Perhaps, it too is a historical stepping stone to something better?

After all, at least in the United States, we’re brought up, educated and then repetitively reinforced through a myriad of media types and sources that representative democracy is the epitome of all available systems of governance. So good in fact, that we’re somehow morally justified in forcing it on others.

However, if it hadn’t occurred to some before, then after watching the last several months of the U.S. presidential electoral process, I also suspect that more folks may now be wondering just what the hell has happened to this country and perhaps with the democratic model as a whole.

So, looking under the hood:  is representative democracy the best we can do?

And if not, what would we trade it for?  Right?  Because if we’re going to complain, then we better have a solution …and in the case of social re-organization, a damn good one for sure!

For many of the politically and non-politically minded, that may sound like a non-issue (probably mostly for the reasons above).  For others, struggling for something deeper – whatever that may mean individually – and willing to think outside of the current political box (for you Constitutionalists, see the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence – you have the right and arguably the obligation to test fundamentals) that question can really inspire some passionate discussion; the type that could well overtake and ruin a good Thanksgiving dinner!

Nonetheless, at some point, like daily! …we need to continually recognize and remember that social organization has been in constant evolution since time immemorial and with the decentralization in informational resources, communications; and soon, energy and money, then this evolution will most certainly quicken to a pace unknown in human history.

And, as disruptive is that process has tended to be, in the long run it has proven better for the greater mass of humanity than not, but there is still obviously much room for improvement.

This social and political evolution …and a suggested solution (a likely inevitable one)… is very nicely illustrated and supported in the succinct and very readable:

From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy — A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist theorist/philosopher, Professor Emeritus of Economics at UNLV, Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute, founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society.

It’s a fantastic little book! If you are not familiar with Mr. Hoppe and you are open-minded and desirous of moving toward a social organization which far better supports the free and peaceful movement of people, ideas, services and goods of all types, with greater responsibility and security that can be provided by any centralized form of governance, then he and a host of others at Mises Institute offer the most realistic way forward.  Give it a read.  See if it resonates.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual source:  Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Media source:  Mises.org

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Accountability, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-libertarianism, Austrian economics, Decentralization, Declaration of Independence, Democracy, Elections, Energy, Government, Power

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Recent Posts

  • The Internet, AI, You and a Lot More Lawyers
  • Entrepreneurs Can Break The Vicious Cycle in Healthcare
  • Is More Regulation Over Employee Salaries Good for Employees?
  • The Truth About Society & Fueling the Polarization of Culture?
  • So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk
  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
  • Pages & Categories
  • Contact

Copyright © 2025 · Generate Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d