EVERY DAY, we hear that oil is scarce and becoming scarcer, that there is a need to find other sources of energy for heat and light and transportation and communication. Strange to relate, all the proposals we hear involve spending money . . . that is, the taxpayers spending money.

I beg to differ. It would seem to be more sensible to stop wasting gasoline - and, of course, diesel. There could be an end to STOP signs and NO TURN ON RED signs. The stop-on-red signals could be redefined to mean go-on-green, and the yellow lights could be made to show in all directions at once. Double yellow lines could be painted properly, so that the center lane[s] can be used in both directions (except on gradients or turns.) And in the long term, there could be an end to building highways where the several lanes are dedicated to traffic in only one direction, instead of the traffic spreading itself out evenly.

Why, we may very well ask, are today's highways so wasteful? The answer should be obvious; because motor vehicle fuel is taxed, governments are eager to see more fuel burned. (The taxes are not used to repair wear and tear on the pavements, which would be the only justification for a fuel tax.) But the governments are, as usual, wrong. The tax fails to perform the basic function of a price, which is to bring supply and demand into balance. Tolls, in contrast, could be varied from hour to hour and day to day, so that there would be a strong incentive to travel when traffic is light.

Certainly tolls also are wasteful: the only way the tolls can be collected without stopping the traffic is by giving the vehicles electronic responders, which means investing more capital in equipment that is used for perhaps only a few seconds each day. But what you see with great regularity is that there are striking differences between county, state, U.S. and Interstate highways; the traffic tends to become more and more congested as the highway becomes more nearly national (federal, if you wish.) And the reason why is blazingly obvious; more often than not, license plates are good on any highway at any time, people get on the Interstate just to go downtown. A reform that would cost little or nothing would be to sell plates that are good only on local and state highways, and/or only at off-peak hours. If there were a severe difference in cost, then we might very well find that when we are driving across the continent, we would not have to slow to a crawl whenever we are in a metropolitan area. Usually I am an extreme federalist - using the word in the opposite sense to that of Alexander Hamilton - but I find myself dreaming of Congress prescribing that red plates would never be allowed on any U. S. highway, white plates would be allowed only outside peak hours, and blue plates would have the universal access ordinary plates have today. (I imagine that drivers who have paid for the expensive plates would hoot disapprovingly at any vehicle which did not have them.)

Taxes and congestion are by no means the only problems. There is an acute, urgent need to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency and all traces thereof. The E.P.A. is regularly, consistently, limiting the choice of fuels available to the operators: it was the doing of the E.P.A. that rendered obsolete literally millions of high-efficiency engines burning leaded gasoline. Similarly, the highly efficient diesel engines of the twentieth century are no longer available, as a result of the E.P.A. demanding cleaner exhausts. But I have never heard of the E.P.A. setting up test stations in Bar Harbor, Maine, Brownsville, Texas, Anchorage, Alaska, and Honolulu, Hawaii, and testing whether the pollution is indeed the same at even those few places.

I would make a guess that, if there is any such thing as pollution, it spreads from West to East, just like the weather. If so, then if Oregon and Nevada find themselves getting polluted, they can sue California - and, of course, California can assert that Oregon and Nevada caused the alleged pollution. Plausibly, there might be some States that would restrict the use of leaded gasoline, or of high-sulfur diesel, but we can be fairly confident that there will be others that do not. And then citizens will be able to settle where they find conditions hospitable.

VOICE OF REASON

OUR OLD FAMILIAR FRIEND Al Gore has written a new book, The Assault on Reason (I had supposed I had already written the book on that subject, my Firm League of Friendship – see my website, firmleague.com). [[www.firmleague.com]] But Gore, as usual, has something new and different to say.

The book starts off with all the stuff we heard during the twentieth century, that broadcasting would change or had changed everything; individuals are always hearing but seldom heard. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin . . . and of course the arch-Republican Nixon, who changed the course of history by slamming the gold window. If there was any reference to the predominance of public (subsidized) schooling, I failed to recognize it.

However, we soon go beyond platitudes to subjects where an ex-senator and ex-president-of-the-Senate should be well informed. “Should” is the operative word. What we are given – I should say, sold – is a protracted diatribe against Bush 43 and all his works (of course, whoever was president on 9/11 is fairly easy game; I remember hearing it said, “Thank God we didn’t elect Gore!”) Bush is ridiculed for the excited protest when the Chinese shattered one of their satellites in orbit, instead of vaporizing it into ashes on re-entry: however, Gore does not find himself reminded that when he was v-p, there was widespread dismay at the revelation that China had emulated the latest U.S. strategic missile technology.

One might think that ignorance such as this is only to be expected of a Democrat. However, Gore is ignorant also where a Democrat should be well informed. He appears to believe that all the Blacks in the southern States were slaves (the ordinary school-books say that even as early as George Washington’s day, slaves were being emancipated.) He also thinks that the War Between the States was over slavery, rather than “Protection for American Industry” (the Republican platform.)

Finally, Gore returns to the theme of the individual having no voice. “The majority are not silent; the government is deaf.” Curiouser and curiouser, Gore never even hints that, just possibly, the citizens could speak to the elected representatives in their States, the State legislatures should speak to their representatives in the Senate, and the senators should advise the president (and not be content merely to consent.) This would be what the intellectuals (as opposed to the demagogs) call DEMOCRACY.

The Scandalous Attorneys
THE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS of the States are professing themselves shocked, shocked, at the replacement of a handful of U.S. attorneys in several States. However, they are straining at the gnat after swallowing the camel.

Presidents graciously extend “senatorial courtesy” to senators of their own party, giving them a veto on appointments within their own State. But how, and why, does the president have power to appoint any officer to any one, or any part, of the States? The officers he is allowed to appoint are ambassadors and consuls – both of whom, plainly, act equally for all of the States. The only crimes Congress is authorized to prosecute are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting the current coin – “current” meaning, obviously, circulating in all the States. And Congress is required to try the case in the State where the crime was committed – again obviously, meaning that the trial is to be in a State court. The United States are united, as far as Congress and the president are concerned; any and every officer must act for all or for none of the States. (Unless the legislature, or in its absence the governor, of a State ask for U. S. troops to put down domestic violence: so far, domestic violence has usually been occasioned by the enforcement of crimes-without-victims by unelected officers.)

This should have been obvious from day one. But if not, it should have been made obvious by the flagrant lawlessness of the U.S. attorneys and district courts, which delight in accusing and trying citizens of the States. Everyone knows that one can be convicted of a crime only if the case is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, to twelve of your equals. If the prosecutor has a case that is good beyond a reasonable doubt after the defense has had an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and call its own witnesses, then it must sound good beyond any doubt whatsoever to the grand jury, who do not hear the defense at all, Why, then, should the U. S. grand juries have more than twelve members? The U. S. attorneys are deliberately indicting citizens whom they CANNOT prove guilty!

Why? Because the U. S. sets out to attack any citizen who is successful. The U.S. prosecutes, for instance, the Aluminum Company of America; only two centuries ago, Napoleon III was proud to have an aluminum dinner service ¬– now, we throw away aluminum cans. The U.S. prosecutes General Electric, the most efficient engineering company in the world; I.B.M., which brought us into the era of electric charges in place of paper and cards; Microsoft, which produces valuable, indeed indispensable, goods without consuming any raw materials at all; Michael Milken of Drexel, Burnham, Lambert (not one of whose bond issues ever failed!) Any other nation would make heroes, instead of rogues, out of figures such as these.

Fraternité

WHY did I name my blog “Fraternité”? Because the usual American prescription, “liberty and justice,” is necessary but not sufficient: it does not tell us HOW liberty and justice are to be safeguarded. Possibly, every citizen is a Minuteman, sleeping with his weapon by his side; but he still needs a Paul Revere to stay awake all night. Who is it who keeps the vigil? The watchman cannot be the Big Man, because all men are equal; however, he can be the servant of all the others, if one is willing to accept that status.

Obviously, Persons In Government Service will always dislike being mere servants and aspire to be equal to their employers; we can see that they will start by “assisting” the weakest (the babies and the aged) and gradually, gradually adopt a pretence of knowing what to do without being told. Gradually, gradually it will come to pass that the rather few P.I.G.S., who regularly work together and know one another, will come to believe that they together know better than the more numerous, but less organized, citizens. “P.I.G.S. are more equal!”

How, then, can they be kept in their rightful place? Only if the citizens practice fraternité, solidarity, “collective security.” Only if an attack on any one citizen is resisted by all the citizens!

Is this hopelessly idealistic, wholly beyond achievement? It is not ¬– this is the explanation of the common-law principle that it is a crime not to pay a tax; the tax is, supposedly, devoted to defending the lives, the liberty and the property of the citizens. The legislature gives the money to the executive for just such purposes; everyone prefers to know that no-one else is engaged in piracy, in counterfeiting the current coin, or in assisting a foreign enemy.

Only last year, a philosopher at Oxford (you must know Oxford University, it is where Bill Clinton studied?) named Richard Dawkins wrote a book, “The God Delusion,” asserting, among other things, that the queen of England had no right to compel him to take part in the defense of the realm because he – being, unlike the queen, an atheist – did not believe in defending her realm. But one does not have to believe in the divine right of queens, or of kings, to know what is right and what is wrong. It is not religion, but simple logic, that if A and B are fighting, the one who does not want you to assist him is the aggressor, the one who does is the victim: the draft board is entitled to say to Dawkins, “you are taking the side of the enemy, you will be interned.” If, instead, it allows him to remain at liberty as a conscientious objector, it is doing him a favor.

The common law developed, of course, in the days before firearms, when only those who could make good use of a sword or a bow or a lance were equal, and thus women were normally not persons legally. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the common law is, therefore, valueless in a time of semi-automatic pistols and fully-automatic carbines. There is good evidence to the contrary. Three common-law nations, these United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, are always head and shoulders above all other countries in highway safety – despite the facts that we drive heavy vehicles from one STOP sign to the next on straight roads with hard shoulders, and the Brits drive small vehicles from one circle to the next on winding roads with high, sharp curbs.

Fraternité in America

Where do we find fraternité in the Constitution? What IS the Union for, why was it constituted? “Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”
It is amusing to notice that the Convention recognized that the first threat to liberty would be, not foreign nations, but unelected P.I.G.S! Seemingly, no State has called upon the U.S. for such protection.

Nowadays self-styled “conservatives” claim that individuals are “invading” the States; but we know that is not the meaning of the word, because the Constitution uses words distinctly and precisely different: “Art. I, Sec. 9: The Migration or Importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress . . . .” The power that Congress in fact has is the power to naturalize the immigrants, after one or another State has admitted them.

Noteworthy is it also that, while the Congress has the sole power to coin money – a meaningful word, COIN! – the States reserved the power to choose, from gold and silver coin, their own legal tenders: if the “staple” States, which traded with Britain, had chosen gold, and the “navigating” States, which traded with the Far East, had chosen silver, there would have been very little risk of inflation occurring – as a result of gold or silver being discovered in great quantities – but not being discerned. (In fact, just three States, Colorado. Missouri, and Nevada, have chosen coins, but all of them allow the citizens to use whichever metal they like!)

Scrutiny will show that the Constitution is also strictly democratic, in the sense that the many (State) officers always have the first word, if not the last word also. State officers “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper . . .”: treaties and appointments are made “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” (which cannot mean “subject to the approbation or rejection of the Senate,” because that wording was proposed, in only the lesser matter of appointments, by the avowed aristocrat Hamilton, and rejected.)

Today, it appears that the United States is “democratic” in the very most deplorable manner, in that the several States treat as precedents the decisions of a court that acts by mere majority. True it is that Nevada, for one, has commanded its judges to follow U.S. precedents: but the Constitution meant where the U.S. has jurisdiction: by the time Nevada was constituted, the Eleventh Amendment had deprived the U.S. of jurisdiction of a case brought by a citizen against a State.

There are two other defects in the present understanding. One is, that the judges of the U.S. have never been authorized to decide a case by majority; there are only three instances where the Constitution does not specify the majority needed to proceed, i.e. for the jury in the trial of “all crimes,” for the States in convention, and for the judges – but we all know how the criminal jury proceeds, and we know that the Convention acted “by the Unanimous Consent of the States present.” The other glaring defect is, that the entire concept of separation of powers is founded on the understanding that the courts proceed by the common-law method of reconciling the precedents – the U.S. judges are merely to follow the CORPUS JURIS of the several States – rather than snatching the "law" out of empty space.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY is supposed to be the elite of the States, and therefore of the globe; they are the ones who have devoted their lives to study and to duty, they and only they consider the Long Run, they can balance the budget, can insist on free trade and free travel, can demand that army and navy be manned with volunteers, can nominate high-minded jurists to judicial appointments, can scorn the oft-fatal lure of popularity – they concentrate on making the people better off absolutely, not merely some relative to others.
Except that, when the party sends forth its ten champions to lead the battle against the populists and panderers, we find that all except three are still defending the theory that evolution explains the origin of species.
This theory has the appealing feature that it can be taught in the public schools by even the least sophisticated teachers; we all know that siblings, even twins, can be distinctly different, so that over many generations these differences can accumulate – those that promote survival persist and vice versa, you can usually guess whether someone comes from the arctic or the tropics.
It is possible that the school-teachers actually believe that these random mutations have slowly, slowly, slowly created distinct species, such as forest elephants, bush elephants, and Indian elephants, but the scholars do not; they see in the fossil record species remaining unchanged over protracted periods – the esoteric term is “punctuated equilibrium” – and across widely different environments. After all, it is quite some time since homo sapiens emerged from the shallow seas, but babies can still swim at one day old.
Worse still, the philosophers are heard to object that the theory of evolution is not science; science is pursued because it excludes many possibilities – ideally, all except one – and therefore allows one to predict how some desired outcome (perhaps, to travel to the Moon and back) can be achieved. Scientific theories typically have short lives before being refuted; Newton’s theory of gravitation has been superceded by Einstein’s relativity, elements that used to be recognized by their chemical properties are now identified by their atomic masses. If the theory of evolution excludes no form of life, then it cannot be disproved and is intellectually discredited.
Unbeknownst to the Republican candidates, however, the twenty-first century has brought enlightenment. Andrew Parker, a British fossil expert, has shown that the faculty of vision – which Darwin himself recognized as an extremely improbable development – actually appeared in six phyla [a phylum is a division of a kingdom] concurrently (i.e. In the Blink of an Eye on the geological scale of time.) This plainly non-random outcome can be explained on the theory of intelligent design: when the Designer had brought vision to pass in one phylum, by trial-and-error over many, many, many generations, then He (or She) could reproduce it in other phyla in only a few generations.
Certainly, presidential candidates are not running for a school board, they do not need to be familiar with the latest academic literature. However, the theory of evolution (as an explanation of the origin, as well as the preservation, of species) has been around for literally centuries, and has been exposed as non-science for decades – at the least, since Karl Popper demonstrated that science comprises falsifiable (i.e. universal, “every swan is . . . “) propositions in the mid-twentieth century. One had supposed that it was because Americans are well able to follow a train of logical reasoning, and to devise hypotheses to accord with the data, that we win all – or at least most – of the Nobel prizes. It would be encouraging if more than a minority of important public figures showed some evidence of, at the very least, reading contemporary literature.