Uncategorized

Yesterday at work, we had a conversation on the costs of the GWOT. It seems that the US government blew through $8 trillion in the action, by the time costs of veteran’s benefits and claims are factored in. All of this could have been done for a fraction of the cost, and it would still have used a constitutional provision that many are not even aware of.

The US Constitution grants Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. These basically allow the Congress to contract out military actions, to outfit privateers and mercenaries. This would have been a simple feat: Issue bounties on terrorists. Osame bin Laden had a price on his head, but at $75 million, it was far too low to do any good.

Here is my proposal:

A letter of marque could be issued to all individuals, corporations, or foreign countries, that would pay amounts as listed below to any entity or groups that could verify the death or capture and surrender to US authorities of any terrorist on the list. In addition, American Citizens would be permitted to outfit themselves as needed to carry out this assignment without regard to the NFA or export controls. Need an armed Blackhawk? No problem, just pay for it. Need some missiles? Sold. We even have some warships we are willing to part with, say some older OHP class frigates, or even some old jet fighters that we have just lying around.

Then you issue a list of terrorists, and the bounties to be paid, beginning with bin Laden at $50 billion, and going down to the lower terrorists. you make the amounts large enough that it is worth the money for countries and large corporations to go after him. He would not be able to trust anyone.

This would have saved us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

In a recent post, I stated that a corporation was the essence of government intrusion, and that it is hypocritical to claim that you do not want the government intruding in the affairs of your business when you founded the entire business on government intrusion by forming a corporation. A person responded by stating that a corporation is just a contract. This is a mistaken understanding of the law.

The word corporation comes from the latin word corpus, literally meaning “body.” To incorporate means to create a body.

A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members. A corporation can own property, it can be sued, and despite not being a natural person, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons (“people”).

Although corporate law varies in different jurisdictions, there are four core characteristics of the business corporation:

* Legal personality
* Limited liability
* Transferable shares
* Centralized management

Legal personality is the characteristic of a non-human entity regarded by law to have the status of a person. The concept of a legal person is a fundamental legal fiction. (A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way.)

Limited liability is a concept whereby a person’s financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person’s investment in a company or partnership with limited liability. In other words, if a company with limited liability is sued, then the plaintiffs are suing the company, not its owners or investors. In this way, the investors hide behind the legal person that is the corporation, and are shielded from liability for the actions taken on their behalf. In other words, they use the government as a shield.

A joint stock company divides its capital into units of equal denomination. Each unit is called a share. These units are offered for sale to raise capital. This is termed as issuing shares. A person who buys share/shares of the company is called a shareholder, and by acquiring share or shares in the company becomes one of the owners of the company, and is thus insulated from liability by the corporate person through the concept of limited liability.

So claiming that you do not want the government to interfere in your property rights and control your business has no traction with me when you are supporting the very essence of government interference, the corporation.

Firefighting used to be a private for-profit industry. In the 1800’s, the early days of urbanization, in cities like New York and Baltimore, there were private companies who were in charge of putting out fires. The way it functioned was the first company at the scene got money from the insurance company to put out the fire. So, they had an incentive to get there fast. They also had an incentive to sabotage competition. They also often ended up getting into fist fights over territory and many times buildings would burn down while firefighters were busy punching each other in front of it.

Firefighters were hired, not for their prowess in putting out fires, but for their ability to brawl. One tactic that used to be employed was the “plug guard.” These were people hired to race to the scene of a fire, place a barrel over the fire plug, and sit on it, thereby securing the water source for his employer’s exclusive use.

Rivalry among the volunteers was the cause for the establishment of the country’s first paid fire department in Cincinnati in 1853. In 1851, two of the city’s volunteer fire companies crossed paths on the way to a fire, and before the fight was over, ten companies were involved. Help was sent from Covington, Kentucky, across the river-not help to put out the fire, but to assist one of the companies in the fist fight. The building burned to the ground.

So then the model changed to a subscription service. Fire companies would contract with insurance companies to provide fire protection to the properties insured by those insurers. Fire companies would mark their territory with “fire brands” so arriving fire companies would know who had the contract for that particular building.

It wasn’t long before insurance companies began taking the position that firefighting was a community responsibility, and stopped paying the fire companies. Coupled with the loss of buildings due to the  aforementioned brawling and the reputation that these departments earned due to those fights, private fire protection in America was doomed.

There are only a few ways to fund a fire department, and we can look at them here:

1. Through user fees. A fee is charged for putting out fires. The problem here is that fire departments get few fires. The department that I work for responds to less than 300 fires a year, yet has a $20 million budget. Except for large commercial buildings, the fees required to make this profitable would be more than the value of the building. A homeowner would probably refuse to pay a $600,000 fee to save a $200,000 house. What if the fire spreads to more than one house? Does each homeowner have to agree to pay before the fire department can act? Or only one? If only one, do they all have to pay a share of the bill, or does the homeowner who made the decision pay the costs of putting out all of the houses?

2. Through membership fees. Charge a small fee for fire departments to respond to members’ homes. Anyone who isn’t a member, too bad for you. Of course, there will be those who take their chances, and some of them will lose. See here for an example of this plan.

3. Through taxes.

and before you mention volunteers, remember that diesel fuel is $3-4 a gallon, fire engines, hose, protective gear, and all of the other equipment needed costs money. That money still must be provided from somewhere.

Other discussions on other blogs and on various forums around the internet frequently center on people who talk about how the government and others should not be allowed to infringe on their property rights. They go on and on about how they have a right to do whatever they wish with their property, and no one should be able to say otherwise. Those topics include:

1. anti-discrimination laws
2. fire codes
3. The Americans with Disabilities Act
4. Guns in parking lots laws, and CCW in business establishments, etc.
5. pick another law that controls the behavior of businesses

Overwhelmingly, these people complain that the government has no business interfering with what they consider to be the free enjoyment of their property. Of course, those same business owners have no problem with forming a corporation to run the business and therefore use the government to interfere with their exposure to liability, because the government interfering in the business transaction is fine with them, as long as the interference is to their benefit.

They likewise would have no problem inviting police to arrest shoplifters, thieves, bad check writers, and other people that the business finds objectionable, but they don’t want the government interfering. No sir. They want those government funded roads to transport customers to their business, they want the fire department to put out the fire that is burning down the building, and they probably don’t have a problem with the banking regulations that control the bank where they store the day’s proceeds.

To them, what is really important is that no one can tell them that they can’t chain the fire exits shut, or that they must have a fire alarm, or that they can tell their employees that they cannot have weapons on property. This isn’t a principled stand on property rights. It is an attempt to game the system in your own favor, yet another manifestation of the NIMBY philosophy. I want the government to help me, but I want them to stay out of my way instead of helping that other guy.

Until the “property rights” crowd tells me that they are against ALL government intrusion, I just can’t take them seriously.