The Desert of the Real

In the words of Detective Spooner, “Somehow, I told you so just doesn’t quite cut it.”

The police decided that wearing a rain jacket, carrying a rucksack with a laptop inside, looking down at the steps while going into a tube station and checking your phone for messages just ticked too many boxes on their checklist and makes you a terrorist suspect.

I’m sure it’s around their headquarters somewhere. It’s probably sequestered with their brains and commitment to liberty. Try looking in the trash.

If you’re not already aware, there is a bill being discussed in the house right now to protect the gun industry from frivilous and reckless lawsuits designed solely to attempt to advance the anti-gun agenda through the courts, since they have been unscuccessful in the voting booth. There are two versions, a house version, that is pretty good, and a senate version, which Senator Frist (great conservative that he is) allowed to be added to the bill. One which requires manadatory trigger locks be sold with any gun, and one which adds a mandatory 15yr prison sentance for any crime committed while in possession of armor piercing bullets.

As many of you are likely aware, Texas is one of the states that has deregulated its electrical supply services. Approximately six months ago, I signed a contract with a new provider named Stream Energy. They offered a cheaper rate, in exchange for lock-in to the contract. The reasoning being that when you signed up, they would be prepurchasing the electricity in bulk and thus gaining a better rate themselves. Thus, they have to have a contract to sell it.

I agreed to this, as it seems reasonable to me, and signed the contract. Now, today, I received a letter from them, advising me that due to rising prices, they are unable to meet their contractual obligations (I guess they lied regarding the advance purchase) and thus will be raising my rate a full four cents per kWh.

I’m thinking…uh…no. Of course, now I have to dig the contract out from wherever I buried it. When you sign a contract, both parties are bound by it, and I fully expect to hold them to the terms of their contract. The whole reason for accepting their barely lower rate was to escape the fluctuation (generally increasing) in electricity rates. So now that it could really kick in and make me see the value of my decision they want me to let them out of their part of the deal, and pay a higher rate. I say: Nay! Nay!

Honestly, does nobody really understand what a “contract” is anymore? If I had called them and said hey, I really can’t do this anymore, I want out of my contract, do you think they would’ve let me out w/out paying the fine? I think not. Of course, at the end of the letter they advise that if we call and talk to them that they’ll be willing to be gracious enough to let us out of our contract. Sheyah. If you break contract I am no longer governed by it either!

So, this should be fun. Guess we’ll find out how well contract law still holds up in court.

Later Friday, “Entertainment Tonight” said a joint statement from the couple said “the miscommunication of the objective of their marriage at the start is the only reason for this annulment.

Only in hollywood can one get married not understanding “the objective of…marriage”.

A friend of mine recently posted a link to an article on his blog, and asked me what I thought about the article. Having read it, I thought it’d be a good thing to post here (since there’s such a dearth of content here these days) rather than just posting a comment. It provides one good point, and some good opportunities for discussion.

First off, he readiliy admits he is from England. This is something we will have to keep in mind throughout his article, as it affects the way he sees things, and how he thinks. We’ll be coming back to that. He opens with this paragraph:

Right away we have some issues. He may say 300, but to find the source of this “relative peace and freedom” we must go back 820 years to 1215. Why? Because in 1215 they singed a “super-document” meant to bind the king and curb his abuses. Mr Cooling may disagree with me, but I think history speaks pretty clearly that the Magna Carta was a turning point in freedom for the people of Great Britian.
(more…)

A reply to this post. (Blogger for some absurd reason requires that one sign up just to submit a comment. It’s not worth the headache when I can just post my reply here.)

An interesting thought. One which, in today’s marketplace, at least on the surface, seems to be a very vivid concern. However, remember that today’s marketplace has been produced by the interference of the state.

Regulation of industry, price fixing, etc all have a profound effect on the way people do business. Artificial monopolies created by government policy likewise have a drastic effect on the market.

In our current situation, large companies can practically monopolize an industry, and prevent (through legal or other means) a smaller company from getting a hold on the market. This limits the ability of the market to self-correct to deal with the issues you raise.

We are also not comparing apples and oranges here. The state has the ability to compel you to such things much more than the market does. When the state says you will pay X dollars per year in taxes, and wreaks havoc in the market our choices are limited. If we are to live, we have to do what is required to make that happen. The government has the might of the army to back it up, and there’s little any one person can do to stand up to it.

However, if a big corporation wants you and your wife to work, or tries to get you to buy into the “dream” of a two-income family, or incite in you a lust for money…your response is your responsibility. The corporation can’t come and take your children away if you don’t. They can’t come and arrest you and throw you in jail for not serving mammon.

This is not to say that libertarian thought in any way prevents this from happening. I’m sure as a libertarian country we’d still have two-income familes of people who just plain love money. We live in a sinful world, and libertarianism works because it takes people’s selfishness and sinful nature into account. (Though they may not always name it such). The point is that the reason they do so is by choice, not by force.