Is Figure Skating a Sport? –Matt

Every 4 years my t.v. gets hijacked.  Not by extremist, but by my wife.  A sort of feminine jihad, if you will.  The item that prompts this coup is the winter Olympics, but more specifically ice skating.  She watches with amazement as sequined performers fly effortlessly through the air, landing on a narrow blade of steel upon ice.  No doubt the display is amazing.

The Olympics are perhaps the greatest display of sporting events in the history of mankind, bringing athletes from every corner of the globe to compete in sports that often do not get main stream coverage.  And probably the most watched competition is figure skating.  But is figure skating a sport?

It is important to note the difference between a sport and a competition.  While all sports are competitions, not all competitions are sports.  On the most fundamental level to be a sport there must be direct competition between two players or teams, the ability to score, the ability to defend and a non-disputed winner.

Baseball has two teams on the field at one time, trying to score runs against each other.  Football has two teams that try to advance the ball against each other.  Tennis has two players or teams that try to get the ball past the other player.  The list can go on and on.

On the other hand a competition could have one or more participants that may or may not compete at the same time.  Their performance is graded or judge and a winner crowned by the determination of who has the greatest number of points.  Figure skating falls within this category.  Darts, most skiing events, gymnastics are all examples of competitions rather than sports.

One interesting hybrid is boxing, where it is both a sport and a competition at the same time.  The goal of boxing is to get the opponent to surrender through physical force.  If this fails over a certain period of time, then judges will crown a victor.  

So, while figure skating may have merit and is entertaining to watch, it is not a sport.

What is a Fair Tax System? -Matt

Trick question; there is no fair tax system. 

But what if we accept the notion that the government needs funding, what kind of funding they should receive and what should it look like?

The founders struggled with the question and developed a notion of a direct tax and an indirect tax.  A direct tax would be something inescapable while an indirect tax would be avoidable.  In modern parlance a tax like the income tax would be seen as a direct tax while something like sales tax would be seen as an indirect tax.  The founders decided that in a truly free society, if man was really his own keeper, than an indirect tax should be the only form of taxation; which is why we see the use of stamp taxes as a method of taxing consumption.  If you don’t like the tax, don’t buy the product. 

Interesting side note: The Boston tea party was such a revolt because the consumption of tea was seen as unavoidable and was considered a direct tax. 

It wasn’t until 1913 when we see the 16^th amendment to the constitution to overturn the thinking of the founders.  Now a direct tax on income was the norm and all men work for the government, with or without consent.  When implemented the typical tax rate was 3%.  Now it is not uncommon for tax rates to be north of 30% and when you tack on sales and other taxes 50% of income can go to the government.

This isn’t fair (no matter how you define the word).  But what would be?

To be fair, a tax to me must be nominal, uniform, and simple.

Since the government can only consume (and not produce) any and all money directed to it is unrecoverable.  It does not add value to anything.  For this reason money going to it, being directed away from something else profitable, must be kept to a minimum.  If there is an aspect of government that can be done by the private sector it must be done in the private sector.  For this reason money going to the government must be kept to a minimum.  If this is done the burden on the private sector to support the public is a minor burden.  This is akin to my argument against a balanced budget amendment.  Of course we can balance the budget, it only takes money!  More money!

Uniformity is another aspect of a fair tax.  If all men are created equal and all have equal standing in our courts then the application of a tax should be uniform.  When a government operates at its most basic function then the consumption of services between individuals is the same.  A rich person and a poor person use the same amount of government and should be taxed the same.  If we removed the direct tax of income tax and only use a consumption based tax then we’ll see the rich paying more in taxes as a result of greater consumption. 

Since the onus to pay a tax is on the individual then the system in place should be so basic even the most uneducated citizen can understand the burden.  Our tax code is 73,954 pages large.  Even the most intelligent people in the country would be hard pressed to follow every rule.  If a tax system is to be fair, it must be understood by all.  For example, a 4% sales tax on any purchase is easy to follow and account for.

By nature, taxes are not fair as they constitute unwilling confiscation of wealth from the individual to the government.  But, there are clearly ways where the collection of such taxes could be done more fair.

Should College Football Players get paid? –Matt

Much commotion has been made recently regarding if college football players (or student athletes in general) should be compensated for their play since their sports generate substantial revenue for the Universities.  There is a lot of merit in this reasoning.  Especially when you consider the health risk associated with playing sports.  One wrong move and the player could be paralyzed or killed. 

On the other hand they are given an opportunity for an education and room and board for free if they play a sport at a high level.

It’s a cost benefit decision for the athlete and their families.  Is free education worth the risk of playing a certain sport?

What clouds this simple decision is life after college.  Student athletes in the big 3 sports (Football, Basketball and Baseball) all are playing in college for the chance to play professional.  Everyone is gunning to be in the 2% that make the jump from college to professional.  Considering base pay in the NFL is over $300,000 per year it would make sense to strive to play at that level.  If you are really good coming out of college isn’t not uncommon to have a multi million dollar contract waiting.  The exposure generated by playing at the collegiate level often dictates the amount of the professional contract.  The risk of playing college ball is worth it for many student athletes. 

However, for the rest of the 98%, playing at the collegiate level represents the end of the road.  There is no big payout, no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  It would make complete sense to draw the conclusion that these players, where this is the end of their sporting lives, should be compensated for their play, especially considering the amount of money they generated for the University.

Suppose for a moment there were no professional sports, that the highest level was played on the college level.  There was no big payout waiting for the select few players and everyone played for the love of the game and free tuition.  If this was the case I doubt we would hear a cry for player compensation.  The deal would be simple; play for Whatsamatta U and get a free education.  If you don’t want to risk your safety you simple don’t play.  There are no hedging bets; it is all very cut and dry.  But when you add the lottery of a professional contract to the equation many cost/benefit decisions are skewed. 

In essence the Universities are capitalizing on this skewed decision.  They are getting a very high level of play based on the hope of some 3^rd party contract.  They are simply in the right place at the right time.  It is easy to argue that the College’s are taking advantage of the student, but that isn’t entirely fair.  College’s are holding up their end of the agreement by providing access to educational opportunities (if the player is on a scholarship) in exchange for performance on the field.  They are also indirectly (or directly) providing the players with the exposure to maximize their potential at no cost to the student-athlete. 

Based on this student athletes (regardless of the sport) should not be paid as their contract is an ‘in kind’ contract and not a financial one.  However, I think Universities should be held to a much higher standard when it comes to the academics of the athletes.  Putting a much greater emphasis on academics and ensuring that athlete meet or exceed normal standards should be the norm.  In theory, athletes should be the best performing students as the college has much more invested in them than fee paying students.

Does Fiction Writing Have Value? –Matt

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say.  They, who say this, are probably ugly.  The reason they say this is to explain that intangible ideas, like beauty, are subjective, not objective.  There is no standardizing measuring stick for beauty.  Some find beauty in a swamp, other on a mountain peak.  They are both right. They are both wrong.  And that is ok.

If you told me fiction writing was beautiful I would say, ‘ok’ and move on with life.  How do you argue with that?  But the question here is if fiction writing has value.  Value is tangible, measurable, and objective.  For something to have value it must have a use and that use must be desirable.  A banana slicer has a use, but it is not seen as desirable.  Its value is minimal if any.

Fiction writing deals in the make believe.  It is a construct of the author and based wholly in their imagination.  The characters have never lived; the places have never existed; the story is a complete fabrication.  It may be a permutation of real life, drawing on real world context, or it may not be based on anything that has ever existed.  But the characters have never dwelt outside the pages of the book.

I recently discovered that there have been enough Lego’s made that everyone on the planet could have 62 pieces.  That is 434 billion Lego’s!  It is funny to picture everyone on earth holding a little bag full of 62 Lego’s.  Imagine now that we had a contest to see who could build the most wonderful creation using those 62 Lego’s.   No doubt that someone would construct a replica of the Eiffel Tower and that many, many more would have an exact replica of 62 Lego’s piled together.  This is what fiction writing is.

We all have stories, we all have imaginations.  No doubt some are better constructed than others, but we all have a bag of 62 Lego’s.  How I arrange my pieces is simple a function of my subjective view of what they should be.  My assemblage has no more value than anyone else who arranges their pieces. 

Value is something that has a desirable useful function.  A house, a car, real money has value.  Given that 7 billion people have imaginations (or 62 Lego’s) I fail to see how one person’s imagination is more useful than someone else’s. 

Fiction writing may be enjoyable to read, it may be an escape from reality, but really it is just the preference of one assemblage over another.  If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then there is no ugly and there is no beauty.  There just is.  Fiction writing just is.  It has no value.  But it may not need to.  Value may not be the point.

What is Liberty? -Matt

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Liberty is the freedom from any non-natural forces which may hinder my ability to seek my own good, whatever that may be, as I determine it (natural forces are concepts such as  gravity, weather, and disease which my limit freedom but do not interfere with my liberty).

The concept is simple; I am my own man, free to make my own decisions.  Since I am my own man, as in no one owns me, I am free to be my own man and pursue my own desires as I see fit. 

The main objection to such an unrestricted view of liberty is that if it is let to play out it would result in anarchy and chaos.  That people would go around murdering each other, taking whatever they wanted and cats would be sleeping with dogs.  This line of thinking would be valid except that everyone it entitled to the same liberty.  As Thomas Jefferson said, ‘Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.’  It may seem strange to have the word ‘liberty’ and ‘limits’ within the same sentence since on the surface they oppose each other.  But this dynamic is the critical aspect of true liberty. 

If we were to think of liberty as spheres around us, each man in a hamster wheel of freedom, what we would see is many bubbles walking around, bumping into each other.  Every time two bubbles bump into each other rights are exercised.   This is what Jefferson referred to as the limits drawn by equal rights.  Since you have the liberty of life, I do not have the right to take that life.  Since you have the liberty to own property, I do not have the right to take that property.The list can go on and on.

If we were to let the exercise of rights happen naturally we would run into a ‘might makes right’ situation.  Those less physically able may not be able to defend against those who are physically fit.  This is where the government comes into play.  As a people, we have decided that the government’s job is to protect the rights of the individual and keep liberty within the sphere of the individual. We have given it the authority to strip liberty from an individual who interferes with the liberty of another under the arm of justice. This is really the only legit function of government.

Unfortunately, what we see today is that the biggest interloper in our liberty is the government we implemented to protect it.  Isn't it ironic, don't you think? Direct taxes, welfare, unwarranted surveillance, the drug wars, conscription, marriage, abortion, gun control, and many more go directly against my individual liberty. 

If we were to some how return to a government which protected liberty instead of taking it away we would see a return to personal responsibility, which to many is frightening.  I would own myself and because of that I would be responsible for myself.  Safety nets like government welfare and mandatory Social Security benefits would be abolished.  The drug laws would be repealed and individuals would be free from any government overreach such as oversight of marriage and gun control.  Property rights would be restored and property taxes would be abolished and I could drink milk straight from the cow.  That is real Liberty!

Is Instant Replay Good for Baseball? -Matt

Imagine for a moment you were a lucky kid. Lucky enough that you happen to be in Kansas City for a baseball game and one of the world’s greatest athletes, Bo Jackson, came up to bat and drilled a one-hop liner to the Third Baseman, who fielded the ball right over the bag.  He turned and fired to first and in what looked like a close play, Bo was ruled safe by the First Base Umpire.

When you break it down you can see that the close play at first was really, really close.  Running down the first base line, Bo would have traveled 28.12 feet per second.  His last stretch to the bag would cover more than 7’ and take less than .25 seconds.  The throw from 3^rd would have traveled 117’ feet per second and traveled 30’ (or 24% of the distance from 3^rd to 1^st) in the same .25 seconds.  The umpire would be unable to watch the ball and the runner’s foot at the same time, so instead he would listen for the sound of the ball hitting the 1^st baseman’s mit and watch the runner’s foot touch the base.  The difference between calling the play ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ would be determined in a millisecond, if that.

Most of the time Umpires get this and other calls right.  In fact 99.5% of the time they are correct .   We could say, in Baseball parlance, umpires put up ‘hall of fame numbers’ day in and day out.

However, 0.5% of the time the umpires are wrong.  Ask any baseball fan and he can tell you the exact moment this rang true for his team.

For some this error rate is unacceptable.  In fact all of the MLB’s team recently voted to expand instant replay to catch these missed calls.  There is far too much money on the line for seasons to be cut short due to a missed call.

For others the human error factor only adds to the magic of baseball.  I am in this category.  Baseball is a game of legends and lore.  Seasons played 50 years ago are just as remembered as a season played last year.  Human error is as much of the story as human triumph.  In baseball milieu Roger Maris is as famous as Bill Buckner.

There is little doubt that we could achieve near perfection in the calling of a game if we employ many technical advances.  We could even remove the umpires altogether and replace them will well positioned cameras.  But is this a worthwhile goal?  Perhaps in looking for perfection we’ll lose what makes baseball great: the humanity.

Regardless of my feelings, the trend in baseball is moving towards the goal of removing umpire error.  Starting this season there will be a number of plays that are eligible for review by instant replay.  A good number of the reviewable plays deal with stadium design.  Homeruns, ground rule doubles, foul balls, fan interference are all issues related to stadium design.  All of these are ‘fixable’.  For example we can change the rule so that any ball that leaves the field of play in the air, within the foul poles, is a home run.  This would remove the arbitrary painted line in many stadiums demarking what is or is not a homerun and return it to the true intent of the rule.  There would be no question as to what a home run is.  

We could solve a good portion of the problems if we just take a more simplistic approach to the solution.

After all, “Baseball is a simple game.  You throw the ball.  You hit the ball.  You catch the ball.” 

Does Our Penal System Administer Justice? -Matt

The simple answer to this question is yes.  I say simple because the penal system in our context is the administration arm of the judicial system.  If a person commits a crime, and is caught, he appears before a court and is judged.  From there the imposed punishment is administered by our prison system. 

Done; end of story.  The penal system administers justice.  Next question?

Wait.

The more nuanced answer is no.  The reason why this is more nuanced is that one needs to look at what is justice to understand if the penal system is administering this justice.  On the most basic level justice is fairness (in both the context of punishment or reward).  It is the desire or ability to reward good behavior or to correct bad behavior, and like in the case of money, it is to be a method to expunge the debt.  In the case of the penal system the operational sphere is with regard to justice is punishment for a crime.

For the sake of this argument I think it is important to look at what is considered a crime.  I, in my infinite wisdom, would define a crime as simply any act that interferes with the Rights of another person.  And that the government, which is a social contract that imbues authority, is the entity responsible for enforcing personal rights.  Our particular brand of government goes further to state that individuals are equal in standing and that there is no privileged class of people (regardless of race, gender or creed).  The protection of rights is the foundational principle for government and really it’s only authority.  Going further, a crime has two parties (while each party may consist of many people); the perpetrator (interferor) and the victim (interferee).  These are two separate parties and in no case can a crime be committed within one party.  I am unable to interfere in my own rights. 

Over 50% of the prison population (i.e. those tried in a court and had a sentence imposed and is currently being administered by the penal system) are classified as non-violent drug offenders.  What this means is that these persons were caught using or had drugs on their person and that they have no record of any violent act on a person or property.  A disproportionate number of these inmates are classified as minorities.  

Why is this important to note?

First, there is no evidence that drug use is greater or more frequent in minority populations as opposed to any other demographic.  So, if justice were blind to race and creed the demographic make up of the prison population for drug related offenses should be proportional.

Second, non-violent drug convections are victimless.  Remember, to be a crime there must be a victim and a perpetrator.  Who is the victim if I were to use drugs?  No doubt I may impact loved ones around me, but that does not constitute a violation of their rights. 

These two reasons (among many more I did not address) illustrate that the penal system does not administer justice (the key word being justice).  It does administer punishment for the court system, but this is not justice. 

What is Money? -Matt

Unless you are Les Stroud or Chuck Norris, no man is an Island.  And because we are not islands it is necessary to exchange goods and services with other to assemble the provisions needed to live.  On the most basic level this could be achieved with a barter type method.  I’ll give you two chickens for a gallon of milk.  While this may work in a simple exchange scenario it is less than desirable when used in barters of substantial value.  How many eggs does it take to trade for a car?  Even if I were able to assemble that many eggs, would the person with the car even want or need that many?  The impracticality of trying to find common value in uncommon items necessitates the creation of a standardized method of exchange.  This is what money is. 

Rothbard stated it best in Supply of Money when he said that “money is the general medium of exchange, the thing that all other goods or services are traded for, the final payment for such goods and services on the market.” 

The notion that money is the medium of exchange is what I hinted at earlier.  It is the standardized conduit of value.  A car may not be worth a million eggs, but a car may be worth 20,000 dollars and a million eggs might be worth 20,000 dollars.  The commonality is the medium of exchange.  Money is the link between these two items.  When compared against each other they may not be equal in value, but when money is inserted into the transaction common value may be determined.  How this determination is established is the most important aspect of money.

Money is the final payment for the exchange of goods and services.  Money has imbued value that is able to act as a full exchange of value for a good or service.  Money is not simply the facilitator of a transaction, it expunges the debt wholly.  It is the end of the transaction, not simply the facilitator of exchange.  This is why debt (credit cards, IOU’s, traveler’s checks) is not money.  Debt is unable to be the final payment of exchange.

Because money is the final method of payment, it must have inherent value.  In order to have value it must be both desirable and finite (or constrained).  Something that is not desired has no value and something that has no limits has no value.  This desire and restraint is the difference between diamonds and sand, between gold and quartz, between a Ferrari and a Corolla.  It is because of this we must be wary of fiat currency as it has no characteristics of true money.  Its value comes from government decree not out of desirability or constraint.  It, in the truest sense is not money.

Lastly, money must be able to be a diversified storage of wealth (wealth = potential buying power).  This harkens back to the notion that money must be desirable, but expanding on desirable it must be timeless.  Cellular phones, when they first came out, would have met the criteria for money (desirable and finite), but they quickly became obsolete and worth less.  How many bag phones sit idle on the shelf of thrift stores?  A silo full of bag phones may have looked like a good investment in 1989, but they lacked the timeless qualities that make money a storage vessel of wealth. 

True money must be desirable, finite, able to expunge debt wholly, be versatile and have the ability to be standardized.  It is because of this items like gold and silver act as good money.