Oil and Refined Gas: Interesting yet Appropo of Nothing

I was reading an article on the CATO website today, and a particular paragraph caught my eye:

The "make a wish" aspect of the congressman's bill is also truly amazing. America consumes about 20 million barrels of petroleum products every day (mbd). We produce about 5 mbd of crude and we import about 10 mbd a day of crude. Through the miracle of modern technology, our refineries produce about 17 mbd of products (refineries actually produce more output volume than they use as input), and we import another 3.5 mbd. Now, if you believe that mandating flex-fuel automotive capability and providing fatter subsidies for hybrids will allow us to eliminate 13.5 mbd of crude and refined imports in nine years as well as allow for economic growth, then you're probably the kind of person who is busily working with Nigerians on get-rich-quick schemes over the Internet.

Interesting, and I probably don't have to say why (but you know I will anyway).

It occurs to me that most peak oil theory supporters assume two things in their arguments. One is that technology for obtaining and refining oil will never improve or get better at what it does, and two that it is possible to estimate how much oil there is in the world that has yet to be discovered.

I throw the second point in there because I heard it at a CATO luncheon I went to a month or two ago, and it makes perfect sense - it's impossible to say exactly or with any degree of accuracy how much oil there is left to be discovered in the world because it's yet to be discovered. It seems pretty obvious to most of us, but I actually had a peak oil theory supporter actually argue vehemently that it was absolutely possible to state with authority exactly how much undiscovered oil there was left in the world.

The first point, however, is also as fallacious and obviously wrong, as Moore's Law and Kurzweil's Law of Accellerating Returns proves to us. Technology begets technology. I think the fact that we're able to take a barrell of oil and turn it into a barrell and a half of gas or oil byproduct is compelling support for that case (not to mention the inescapable fact that regardless of what you'd like to happen, technology marches on).

/rizzn

CyberWar Update: The Next Generation

Why is it that everyone who is an 'expert' on China thinks they have some mystical abilities on the computer? There was an interview with an author on the blog Human Events Online that caught my attention this morning. I've seen this type of author before, and I'm rapidly becoming familiar with the type: they are convinced that there's an upcoming war with China, and that they have all these awesome abilities to take us out and we're not gonna see it coming.

Read the excerpt:

In Showdown, you raise the possibility of the Chinese’ waging cyberwar against the U.S., and Japan. What’s exactly would that mean?

China—as we illustrate in the last fictional scenario in Showdown—is rapidly building the most advanced offensive computer war capability in the world. If they decided to use it, they could—unless we counter it with our own massive buildup of defensive and offensive cyberwar capability—conquer America without firing a shot. They could do everything from disabling satellite networks to taking down the stock market and banking networks. America could be reduced to a 1940s existence in a matter of minutes. I don’t believe they have the ability to do this yet, but they will very soon.

[via Human Events Online]

See, I used to sortof be in the camp that thought that China might be a threat. The problem is that every time I read something said by these authors, they always talk about "CyberWar" like it's something that could actually happen. CyberWar is somewhat tricky and deceptive term for online warfare. One imagines a keyboard of big red buttons that you can push to take out servers and transfer rich people's money into other bank accounts. That simply is not the case, although it makes for rich, imaginative storylines that I'm sure everyone in Hollywood loves (ahem... Swordfish).

Smite buttons aside, CyberWar is a nuanced and very situational thing. Take for instance the real cyberwar taking place right now between spammers and anti-spammers. This week, the warm-conflict between the two groups escelated to what could actually be called a war. It's been an ebb and flow back and forth between the seedy underbelly of the net where the spammers will develop new techniques to defeat filtering techniques, and the anti-spammers will develop better techniques.

Last week, as many of you probably read, anti-spam company Blue Security shut its doors in response to escalated targeted attacks by spammers at the company.

If you happened to have been away from the internet for the first week of May, you missed the story about how a spammer figured out Blue Security's "opt-out" list by seeing who it clear out of his own list, and then proceeded to bombard them with even more spam. Immediately after this, a fairly massive denial of service attack was directed at Blue Security's servers, which ended up taking out many other sites, including major blog provider Six Apart (which hosted a Blue Security blog). The decision to shut the company down appears to have been based on threats that another such attack was pending -- and Blue Security's belief that it wasn't fair to take out other sites again. As skeptical as we were over Blue Security's original model, and the risks it entailed, this still seems like bad news. It certainly will embolden spam attackers to hit hard at anyone who takes them on. In the end, perhaps that was the worst legacy of Blue Security's system: it simply escalated the war with spammers to new, unfortunate, levels.

[via TechDirt]

The fact is that the internet is driven by commerce. Us old early adopters may not always like that, but it's the fact of life. CyberWars like this tend to be driven by monetary interests. China has no vested economic interest in taking down our information infrastructure. Not only would it seriously inhibit their economic interaction with the United States, it's also likely to be just as damaging to the rest of the world, as most of the world either does a large amount of business with us, or relies on American technology to survive. I'm a simple blogger in the boonies of East Texas and I see that, I can't imagine that there are cyber-Hawks in the Chinese military who don't.

/rizzn

Quick Tuesday Update

I'm still out in Dallas... I should be back this evening. Just a quick note to let everyone know this, and that I still hate banks a lot. More on this later.

/rizzn

55 Words For Friday Evening

His stressful week over and done with, our hero pauses to evaluate his weekend options. He's interested in unwinding and blowing off some steam, and doing so in the company of friends.

With all the irony inherent in this dry county's favorite pasttime apparent, he exclaims: "I shall go a' drinkin'!"

Hilarity and hijinks ensue.

Don't Kill Yourself, Kill Other People

This morning has been hellacious... but FourSquare was fun last night. After the bulk of the people left, Laney brought up a two-foot kickball. Long story short, interesting new spin on the game but I'm SORE AS HECK!

This morning started way to early for me. I was attempting to sleep off the soreness when Andy called me and told me he had a client breathing down his neck about the polling not working well for him. I've been working ever since about 9AM on that. As a result I'm way behind on my other projects, but I suppose I'll survive.

What's on Deck?
I've been pretty stressed these last couple weeks. Most of you know why I was stressed for part of it, and only those of you who've been in direct contact with me know why I was stressed for the other part.

Allow me to illuminate.

After my contract with 5Tribe, due to some prolonged contract negotiations with them, there has been about a three month period I've been without a paying gig. Fortunately, just as the ant stores food for the winter, I was no grasshopper, and had savings to hold me over until my retainer fees started kicking in. During that time, I busied myself making deals and starting the next round of new projects that would be my focus for 2006 (I've discussed most of them here, but not really rounded them up in one spot. I'll have to do that some time soon.).

I also spent that time looking for new ways to drum up business, and was on the whole pretty successful at it. Unfortunately, when one is drumming up new business, it takes a while for the pay to kick in (especially with contract work), and as a result, I've been stretching my dollars pretty thin.

But when it rains, it pours - this week all but one of my clients sent in their first payments, and I'm back on top. Look forward to a happier, more productive Rizzn for the forseeable future. Bills are paid again, and I have money left over. It always makes one a bit more at ease when he knows where the next meal is coming from.

Just to brief you on the next few paid projects I'm putting together:

1) The Apostle's Gospel - This is an organisation out of South Florida that puts together study materials on the Bible. The man who heads this organisation goes by the name John Hoskins, and is a very charismatic and knowlegable Bible scholar. His current internet presence could best be described as a static wiki. We are updating his interface to be more blog based, and adding podcasting and vodcasting functionality.

As part of the contract, Darrell and I are headed down to Florida to set up a production studio for him. This means for all my Florida peeps, we have a scheduled visit to Florida in the early part of June. I'm lookin' forward to it!

2) Comic Book Auction - we don't have an official title for this project yet, but I have a new client who has contracted me to put together an auction site specifically for comics. It promises to be a fun and exciting project. More on this as it develops.

3) General Computing - Red Springs, a municipality outside of Tyler, has contracted us to take care of their computing and networking needs. Not exciting, but decent money.

4) 5Tribe - 5Tribe keeps us on retainer to take care of new web-design contracting and bugfixes to the DMS Polling system. A pain in the rear sometimes, but still some fun projects come along periodically. Right now, the biggest one on my plate (besides the DMS) is a Landsman utility for automatically generating contracts and lawyer letters.

That's all I got for now, I need to get back to work, but I'll update you on the venture projects (hopefully) tomorrow.

/rizzn

Quote of the Entry:
"I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
- Pablo Picasso

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration

[Rizzn's Note: There is some sort of petition going around (as well as several motions in front of Congress on the topic) trying to make it harder on immigrants and illegals. As stated before, I'm of the opinion that we should de-criminalize the illegals and look at open borders. I originally gave a piss-poor explanation of my position. Harry Binswager gave recently a much more eloquent explanation. I invite you to read and discuss.]

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration
by Harry Binswanger (Capitalism Magazine, April 2, 2006)

This is a defense of phasing-in open immigration into the United States. Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases. (And note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship).

An end to immigration quotas is demanded by the principle of individual rights. Every individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of
being an American, but by virtue of being human.

One doesn't have to be a resident of any particular country to have a moral entitlement to be secure from governmental coercion against one's life, liberty, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted "to secure these rights"--to protect them against their violation by force or fraud.

A foreigner has rights just as much as an American. To be a foreigner is not to be a criminal. Yet our government treats as criminals those foreigners not lucky enough to win the green-card lottery.

Seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act. It coerces no one and violates no one's rights (there is no "right" to be exempt from competition in the labor market, or in any other market).

It is not a criminal act to buy or rent a home here in which to reside. Paying for housing is not a coercive act--whether the buyer is an American or a foreigner. No one's rights are violated when a Mexican, or Canadian, or Senegalese rents an apartment from an American owner and moves into the housing he is paying for. And what about the rights of those American citizens who want to sell or rent their property to the highest bidders? Or the American businesses that want to hire the lowest cost workers? It is morally indefensible for our government to violate their right to do so, just because the person is a foreigner.

Immigration quotas forcibly exclude foreigners who want not to seize but to purchase housing here, who want not to rob Americans but to engage in productive work, raising our standard of living. To forcibly exclude those who seek peacefully to trade value for value with us is a violation of the rights of both parties to such a trade: the rights of the American seller or employer and the rights of the foreign buyer or employee.

Thus, immigration quotas treat both Americans and foreigners as if they were criminals, as if the peaceful exchange of values to mutual benefit were an act of destruction.

To take an actual example, if I want to invite my Norwegian friend Klaus to live in my home, either as a guest or as a paying tenant, what right does our government have to stop Klaus and me? To be a Norwegian is not to be a criminal. And if some American business wants to hire Klaus, what right does our government have to interfere?

The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.

American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.

Our constitutional republic respects minority rights. 60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%. Nor can a majority dictate to the owners of private property. Nor can a majority dictate on whom private employers spend their money. Not morally, not in a free society. In a free society, the rights of the individual are held sacrosanct, above any claim of even an overwhelming majority.

The rights of one man end where the rights of his neighbor begin. Only within the limits of his rights is a man free to act on his own judgment. The criminal is the man who deliberately steps outside his rights-protected domain and invades the domain of another, depriving his victim of his exclusive control over his property, or liberty, or life. The criminal, by his own choice, has rejected rights in favor of brute violence. Thus, an immigration policy that excludes criminals is proper.

Likewise, a person with an infectious disease, such as smallpox, threatens with serious physical harm those with whom he comes into proximity. Unlike the criminal, he may not intend to do damage, but the threat of physical harm is clear, present, and objectively demonstrable. To protect the lives of Americans, he may be kept out or quarantined until he is no longer a threat.

But what about the millions of Mexicans, South Americans, Chinese, Canadians, etc. seeking entry who are not criminal and not bearing infectious diseases? By what moral principle can they be excluded? Not on the grounds of majority vote, not on the grounds of protecting any American's rights, not on the grounds of any legitimate authority of the state.


THE MORAL AND THE PRACTICAL
That's the moral case for phasing out limits on immigration. But some ask: "Is it practical? Wouldn't unlimited immigration--even if phased in over a decade--be disastrous to our economic well-being and create overcrowding? Are we being told to just grit our teeth and surrender our interests in the name of morality?"

This question is invalid on its face. It shows a failure to understand the nature of rights, and of moral principles generally. Rational moral principles reflect a recognition of the basic nature
of man, his nature as a specific kind of living organism, having a specific means of survival. Questions of what is practical, what is to one's self-interest, can be answered only in that context. It is neither practical nor to one's interest to attempt to live and act in defiance of one's nature as a human being.

Yet that is the meaning of the moral-practical dichotomy. When one claims, "It is immoral but practical," one is maintaining, "It cripples my nature as a human being, but it is beneficial to me"--which is a contradiction.

Rights, in particular, are not something pulled from the sky or decreed by societal whim. Rights are moral principles, established by reference to the needs inherent in man's nature qua man. "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." (Ayn Rand)

Every organism has a basic means of survival; for man, that means is: reason. Man is the rational animal, homo sapiens. Rights are moral principles that spell out the terms of social interaction required for a rational being to survive and flourish. Since the reasoning
mind cannot function under physical coercion, the basic social requirement of man's survival is: freedom. Rights prescribe freedom by proscribing coercion.

"If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work." (Ayn Rand)

Rights reflect the fundamental alternative of voluntary consent or brute force. The reign of force is in no one's interest; the system of voluntary cooperation by mutual consent is the precondition of anyone achieving his actual interests.

To ignore the principle of rights means jettisoning the principled, moral resolution of conflicts, and substituting mere numbers (majority vote). That is not to anyone's interest. Tyranny is not to anyone's self-interest.

Rights establish the necessary framework within which one defines his legitimate self-interest. One cannot hold that one's self-interest requires that he be "free" to deprive others of their freedom, treating their interests as morally irrelevant. One cannot hold that recognizing the rights of others is moral but "impractical."

Since rights are based on the requirements of man's life as a rational being, there can be no conflict between the moral and the practical here: if respecting individual rights requires it, your
interest requires it.

Freedom or force, reason or compulsion--that is the basic social alternative. Immigrants recognize the value of freedom--that's why they seek to come here.

The American Founders defined and implemented a system of rights because they recognized that man, as a rational being, must be free to act on his own judgment and to keep the products of his own effort. They did not intend to establish a system in which those who happen to be born here could use force to "protect" themselves from the peaceful competition of others.


ECONOMICS
One major fear of open immigration is economic: the fear of losing one's job to immigrants. It is asked: "Won't the immigrants take our jobs?" The answer is: "Yes, so we can go on to better, higher-paying jobs."

The fallacy in this protectionist objection lies in the idea that there is only a finite amount of work to be done. The unstated assumption is: "If Americans don't get to do that work, if foreigners do it instead, we Americans will have nothing to do."

But work is the creation of wealth. A job is a role in the production of goods and services--the production of food, of cars, computers, the providing of internet content--all the items that go to make up our standard of living. A country cannot have too much wealth. The need for wealth is limitless, and the work that is to be done is limitless.

From a grand, historical perspective, we are only at the beginning of the wealth-creating age. The wealth Americans produce today is as nothing compared to what we'll have two hundred years from now--just as the standard of living 200 years in the past, in 1806, was as nothing compared to ours today.

Unemployment is not caused by an absence of avenues for the creation of wealth. Unemployment is caused by government interference in the labor market. Even with that interference, the number of jobs goes relentlessly upward, decade after decade. This bears witness to the fact that there's no end to the creation of wealth and thus no end to the useful employment of human intelligence and the physical effort directed by that intelligence. There is always more productive work to be done. If you can give your job to an immigrant, you can get a
more valuable job.

What is the effect of a bigger labor pool on wage rates? If the money supply is constant, nominal wage rates fall. But real wage rates rise, because total output has gone up. Economists have demonstrated that real wages have to rise as long as the immigrants are self-supporting. If immigrants earn their keep, if they don't consume more than they produce, then they add to total output, which means that prices fall (if the money supply is constant).

And, in fact, rising real wages was the history of our country in the nineteenth century. Before the 1920s, there were no limits on immigration, yet our standard of living rocketed upward. Self-supporting immigrants were an economic benefit not an injury.

The protectionist objection that immigrants take away jobs and harm our standard of living is a solid economic fallacy.


WELFARE
A popular misconception is that immigrants come here to get welfare. To the extent that is true, immigrants do constitute a burden. But this issue is mooted by the passage, under the Clinton
Administration, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which makes legal permanent residents ineligible for most forms of welfare for 5 years. I support this kind of legislation.

Further, if the fear is of non-working immigrants, why is the pending legislation aimed at employers of immigrants?


OVERCROWDING
America is a vastly underpopulated country. Our population density is less than one-third of France's.

Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population-- from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. That would make America almost as "densely" populated as today's England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these
calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.

Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a "doll hospital"--a store specializing in the repair of children's dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a "Secret Shopper" (two jobs actually listed on Craig's List). Not in Paducah.

People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England's population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high?


THE VALUE OF IMMIGRANTS
Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children.

The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world's people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people America needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude thatmade America.

Here is a short list of some great immigrants: Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, most of the top scientists of the Manhattan Project, Igor Sikorsky (the inventor of the helicopter), Ayn Rand.

Open immigration: the benefits are great. The right is unquestionable. So let them come.

Foursquare - be present or be a quadrilateral.

This foursquare thing is getting big, folks. I know a lot of you Rizznites aren't in Tyler, but for those of you who are, you should come out tonight. Last week saw over 40 people show up to 4square. It was amazing.

This week, we expect even more.

What is foursquare?
Four square is a sport usually played by children, but is sometimes played by youth and college students. It is popular in many countries including Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Kuwait, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. It is also widely known as Box Ball.

Apart from the players, the game only requires a ball and a set of four squares. With such little required equipment, almost no setup and short rounds of play that can be ended at any time, it is a popular playground game.

The wiki entry contains more information than you'd ever want to know about it.

At the moment, our league, such that it is, plays simple rules, but if we can get more involvement, we're toying with the idea of cranking it up with some advanced rules. We'll see. We'll probably be spinning off Foursquare into it's own website soon.

In other news...
I've got a lot to talk about, and no time to do it with. I'll try to update tomorrow if I have some time. Lots of movement on the projects recently, and I've got a crapload of new clients to deal with (hence the lack of time).

/rizzn