I went to my local electronics store today to buy an SD card for my wife's camera. After browsing around, I ended up buying a 4-gigabyte card for about eight bucks. That works out to 0.2 cents per megabyte of storage. I thought about the memory card that I bought back in 2000. We were about to leave on a cruise to Alaska, and I had just bought my first digital camera. I wanted a memory card that would hold all the photos I would take for the entire trip, so I bought the biggest one that the camera store offered. It held 192 megabytes.
The list price of the card was $500. Because I bought the camera from them, they gave me a 10% discount. I just worked out the cost-per-megabyte for that card...$2.34. So in less than ten years, the cost of memory cards for cameras has come down by a factor of 1170...more than three orders of magnitude.
I could give you a similar story for home computer memory. The hard disk for my first PC cost about $500. The capacity was 20 megabytes. That was about twenty-five years ago. Today, you can buy a 1-terabtye drive for around $200, a cost reduction factor of over 100,000...five orders of magnitude!
Anybody who has lived through most of the twentieth century has seen incredible technological advances. My mother was born in 1898 and died in 1990. When she was born, the automobile had just been invented. The airplane was still six years in the future, and those early flying contraptions looked more like untethered box kites than airplanes as we know them today.
By the time my mother was thirty, Henry Ford and many other entrepreneurs were pumping out cars for the masses, and aircraft had proven themselves as formidable war machines in WWI. Commercial airlines had been flying people and delivering mail on regularly scheduled flights for some time. The first one was in 1914, the St. Petersburg-Tampa Air Line. On New Years Day in that year, pilot Tony Jannus flew the first airline passenger across Tampa Bay in a Benoist Type XIV flying boat. Historical records do not include the name of that first passenger, nor the menu and drink choices offered on the flight. It's not clear whether a seatbelt was required, but a leather helmet and goggles were probably mandatory.
The explosion of aircraft technology that followed almost defies belief. The dominance of air power in WWII transformed how wars were fought. Foot soldiers are still required, but nobody wins a war without dominance of the skies. Terrorism has changed the equation, but terrorists don't win wars. They just bring chaos to the world.
Commercial air travel has become one of the biggest businesses in the world, and is the driving force for the huge business of international tourism. For many third-world nations, especially in Africa, tourism is their biggest business.
Meanwhile, automobile technology continued to advance, but its progress was much less spectacular than aircraft or computers. The earliest cars were powered by internal combustion engines that used gasoline for fuel. They ran on inflated rubber tires, used a friction device for braking, and had a complex (for the time) drive train to get the power from the engine crankshaft to the wheels.
Although there have been many improvements in engine power and efficiency, handling, brakes, passenger comfort, etc., the basic automotive package designed over a hundred years ago is conceptually unchanged. Compare that to early aircraft or computers, and it is clear that there is a huge difference in the advance of the respective technologies. Why such a difference?
There are probably many reasons, but the question is moot. Today, we are faced with a national and worldwide crisis. Despite the naysayers, we are running out of fossil fuels to power our cars and planes, and the rest of our lavish lifestyle. You can argue about when we will run out, but not whether we will.
We have an incredibly energy-intensive way of life here in the U S A. Other countries may be somewhat more energy-efficient, but rising living standards...and appetite for fossil fuels...is increasing worldwide demand for those irreplaceable fossil resources that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. They will be gone soon. How will we replace them?
A better question is...what energy source will replace fossil fuels? We must find a replacement, or reduce our gargantuan appetite for them...or maybe a combination of both.
It seems clear that we need a major breakthrough in energy technology, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is the only viable long-term solution. People who say that there is still plenty of oil and natural gas are taking a short-term view. Plenty for how long? Twenty years? Fifty? Even a hundred? Certainly no longer than that, and even if we could find deposits to last that long, as we approach the end of the supply, prices will rocket upward. We have seen enough evidence of the disastrous effects of sudden spikes in energy prices. Nobody should need to be convinced that we can't tolerate conditions like those that we experienced last year on a regular basis. And that is without considering the effects on the environment from continued burning of hydrocarbon fuels, or the geopolitical consequences of enriching our enemies by buying those fuels from them.
It's a no-brainer, right? But what has all this got to do with scientific and technological progress?
At the moment, renewable energy is expensive, compared to energy we derive from those wonderful fossil fuels. It is almost miraculous when you think about it. You can fill your tank with ten or fifteen gallons of gasoline, and if your car is reasonably efficient, you can drive 300 miles or more before you need to refill, and even at last year's prices, that tank only costs thirty or forty bucks. That's an incredible bargain. Enough energy to haul a ton-and-a-half vehicle, plus its occupants in air conditioned comfort more than 1% of the circumference of the earth for less than the price of a meal in a good restaurant for two people.
Just think what people did to travel that far a few hundred years ago. A horseback rider was lucky to cover 30 miles a day. It would take him ten days to cover the three hundred miles that you could drive in your car in a few hours. On foot, it might take twice that long or more.
The energy density of fossil fuels is enormous. Where can we find a comparable source that is renewable?
There is only one place, and it is the same place that the energy in those fossil fuels came from: The sun. Whether it is by photovoltaic, solar-thermal, wind or tidal, it all originates with the sun. Only geothermal energy...harvesting the internal heat of our planet...is not solar in origin...and it is not really renewable.
Electric cars are the answer. They have many advantages over internal-combustion powered vehicles. They are immensely simpler. The rotor in an electric motor is its only moving part. The inherent torque curve of electric motors makes the driveline simpler. The whole mechanism is simple, lightweight, reliable and durable. Service life and maintenance costs are far lower than a gasoline...or diesel...powered car.
There is only one drawback: How is the energy stored?
Let's ignore the hybrid options for a moment and consider a pure electric vehicle. Electric energy must be stored in a battery. That battery must have enough capacity to provide reasonable range and recharge or replacement cost.
So far, nobody has come up with a satisfactory battery. Without going into the technical details, it can be boiled down to the fact that current batteries are too expensive, with insufficient capacity per unit weight, and the best ones use materials that are in limited supply, so they are not a practical solution for worldwide use in mass-produced vehicles.
When I think back over the incredible, miraculous breakthroughs that led to cheap, reliable personal computers and digital cameras, and transformed that first powered box kite into a 747 or even an Apollo module that went to the moon...when I think of all that, I can't help but wonder why a simple little thing like a battery...or the lack of it...can threaten our whole way of life.
C'mon, somebody. Solve this problem. Give us a cheap, lightweight, durable storage battery for electric vehicles. I guarantee you that you will be rewarded with fame and riches beyond your wildest dreams.
Oh...and while you're at it...an order of magnitude improvement in cost/performance of PV solar cells would be nice. So that we can charge all those batteries with cheap, renewable power.
Just do it...so that we can get on with our lives.


Comments: 51
(There I go with my pessimism again. Somebody just shoot me, please.)
It's true that technology doesn't advance evenly, but I wonder how much money has been spent on battery development vs. microelectronics or aeronautical engineering...or WAR MACHINES!!!
If we established a national goal to have that battery in three or five years, and spent the money to really go after it, I wonder what would happen.
The priority has never been there before, and we have a lot of entrenched interests in fossil fuel energy and the machines that use it. They may not dare oppose such a program openly, but I bet there would be a lot of carping about "we can't afford it."
Hey...guess what...we have that now...opposition to Obama's renewable energy initiative.
Chemisty for a sustainable world
Sustainability Group
Solar Power
Continuing with your theme, high capacity memory cards now go up to 32 GB (at least) and are 6X faster than SD cards- a big plus for those of us who shoot photos in RAW format (large, uncompressed files with far more data than jpegs; you'll never go back once you start, though my PentaxK10D DSLR takes JPEG and RAW files simultaneously if you want, which is very convenient). See Pentax Digital SLR Cameras.
First I don't believe cars need all that horsepower and an odometer that reaches 200 mph.
I don't believe cars need to be as big and as heavy (and as ugly for that matter. I drive a toyota Matrix). Imagine if if some genie and techie at General Motors and Ford put their heads to gether and came up with the right battery and the right size vehicle that didn't need as much power, something bump resistant and small enough to turn in and out of a parking space. Maybe it could keep those companies from going under and give the taxpayer a bit more for his money.
How much room in a car do most of us need? Enough to take a second person, and a place to bring home some groceries. Think of the lives that could be saved by cutting the speed limit to 30 or 40 mph. A person might feel safe enough at that speed to look around and enjoy the trip.
I don't know the cost of electric trains, but they could be the answer to commutes and inner city trips.
Great article, Bert.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:XjT2lOMDBAMJ:https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/04_96.2.pdf+new+battery+design&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Car - 1000 units (chart made with this as a reference point)
Bus - 240 units
Disney monorail - 225 units
Standard Light Rail - 70 units
(my advocacy) Steel wheeled, overhead supported light rail (monorail) - 70 units
Subway - Not supplied
James...This is off-the-topic here, but I wanted to respond quickly to your comments on digital image file formats. I have a Canon EOS 20D that I bought several years ago. It also has the option of storing both RAW and JPEG files for each image. I am a Photoshop jockey, and have played with RAW quite extensively. In detailed comparison tests, I have processed both file types from the same image to the best of my abilities. For me, it isn't worth the extra processing time and effort to deal with RAW. I guess I am just not that much of a perfectionist.
Wilhelmine...Reducing the speed limit to 30 or 40 mph would create a horrendous mess in cities like LA that depend on freeways as their primary transportation means. Just imagine if every driver took 50% longer to get to and from work every day. Congestion on all roads would be even worse than it is, and think of the wasted time! Time that workers con't spend with their families, or just enjoying doing what they like?
Charles...yes, wouldn't it be nice if we could buy a car with a couple ounces of heavy water that would provide all the energy needed for the life of the car? Do you remember the hoax perpetrated by a couple of scientists up in...Idaho or Utah I think...who claimed they had discovered "cold fusion?" After I read their claims, I was completely sucked in. I thought the end of the petroleum age was at hand.
In such environments, the automobile will still be the primary transportation method for commuting to work, local shopping, etc.
On the other hand, while many things we could never have dreamed of have come true, many that we have dreamed of hasn't. I think the lesson in that is that it's impossible to predict what technology will or will not emerge in anything but the shortest of terms. (Which is why we should support research in all areas.)
I don't need a car to bring home groceries, but I do need to fit in more than one additional person. I've found this need relatively common among people my age, to be quite honest... (No, I don't own an SUV, never have, and don't intend to.)
(And I agree with Bert about the consequences of speed limit reduction. 30-40 is appropriate on city roads, but on freeways it would be rather surreal.)
Once that is solved, there is enough heavy water in the oceans to provide us all the fuel we will need for thousands of years.
I am puzzled by your last statement...I guess you mean that the electricity produced by fusion powered generators could be used to electrolyze water, and that is certainly true.
All it takes is lots of energy to get hydrogen from water. But then, the problem is storing and handling the stuff. Either in gaseous form at VERY high pressure, or in liquid form. Either one has its problems. It takes a significant portion of the energy in the hydrogen just to compress it or cool it to virtually absolute zero.
Hydrogen will undoubtedly be used as a fuel, preferably in fuel cells, but it is not nearly as efficient as just using the electricity directly to drive a motor. There are a LOT more conversion losses.
While you are certainly correct that technological advance is an erratic and uneven process, it is also influenced by priorities. Surely, the atom bomb would have been developed much later if it had not become an urgent priority during WWII.
So...if an energy storage device is needed for automobiles...URGENTLY NEEDED...we need to assign it a national priority, and fund it accordingly. I don't think that has been done, and I think, as Jim G says, that part of the reason for that is opposition from entrenched interests.
Cars will always be heavy energy users because they run on rubber tires, even if the energy type changes form.
You mean if they manage to develop your dream battery. I'm betting that fusion comes first, but either would make me happy. Both would make me happier.
Albert Einstein is reputed to have said, "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness with which we created them." In my estimation, all of the sources of energy currently on the table will be hard on the environment and not sustainable. We have to invent something totally new.
Last Saturday, my 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid got 51.4 mpg on a round trip distance of about 80 miles from my home to Bong Recreation Area in Kansasville, WI.
They are not mutually exclusive...nor do they even address the same problems.
I too hope that we get them both.
Kudos for you and your Civic Hybrid! Have you heard that the Civic Hybrid has been significantly improved, and that a new Honda Insight will be out soon?
I agree with you that all the current energy sources involve some cost to the environment, but some are worse than others. Fossil fuels are clearly the worst for a host of reasons that I do not need to list. Solar PV or thermal infringe on sunny desert landscapes, but on rooftops, they only cost us visually...a small price to pay, I would venture.
Wind and tidal both seem on their surface to be non-degrading, but when examined, they each exact their price...to bird life or coastal estuaries.
I would like a completely new energy source that was "free" of envirinmental costs, but I fear that no such thing exists. Certainly none of the known sources can pass that test. So, I fear that, at least for the foreseeable future, we are stuck with picking the best of a bad lot, and hoping that no "unintended consequences" arise.
Automobiles, obviously, reside at the center of all discussions.
As oil become more of a supply issue, fortunes lay in waiting for
those who can deliver it. This presents an irresistible temptation.
At the same time, foreign competitors who plan for that day
steadily add another edge to already substantial advantages
granted by wage and "regulation" differentials. How are they
increasing that edge? By investing in renewable energy. This
is real. On the bright side, solar energy in the United States
is rapidly growing. Americans are still mired in superstition
about nuclear, most of that created by oil interests. At one
hundred dollars a barrel oil, nuclear translates into an
effective fuel cost of three cents a barrel, though operating
costs can be high.
What I have been thinking about lately is the "filling station."
The notion is in our genes. For instance, wouldn't it make
sense to connect to an electrified track for a few miles, a
device that would recharge the batteries while going down
the road? Not to say that is the answer. My point is, why are
we locked into this idea of a station? (Station = stationary.)
Again, the mind set. Why do we feel we must carry the
propulsion medium with us in the car, be it batteries, petrol,
or a big flywheel? Electrified rail has a different idea. And,
we are not necessarily talking millions of miles of electrified
rail to realize huge savings. It is estimated that every day,
during the commuter rush, in the Denver, Colorado, area,
over a million gallons of fuel are wasted by cars sitting in
traffic, stopped. I'll be your Orange County commuter rush
allows similar inefficiency.
Finally, yes, the time is right for a Manhattan Project on
car batteries. No matter what scheme we wind up with,
the cars will need self propulsion for that "last mile."
Actually...I didn't write much of it...Thomas Edison did, and I just quoted him. His comments on energy that he made almost a hundred years ago were truly visionary, and very much relevant to our current problems. Here is a link to that article.
Edison on Renewables
idea. Thanks for linking to the article.
Now, Edison preceded the Atomic Age, didn't he? I hope he lived to see it.
But, how insightful and passionate! What a metaphor, man as sub-human.
We were talking about Howard Hughes the other day. Now, there was a man
who would no more sell out his soul, or his patents, to some faceless monopoly,
or would be-monopoly, than to think he could fly.
Too bad...I would like to have heard his reaction to the idea of nuclear power.
I worked for W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. a few years back, and remember the annual presentations which included an update on the Automotive division. They were in the process of developing "membrane electrode assemblies that form the heart of the fuel cells. " We were all very excited to hear about their work, but they were a very small part of our company - and I believe dependent for the most part on money earned by other divisions for funding.
What many people don't realize is that when new technology is being developed based on the earnings of other areas of a company - there can be complications. Especially when profits dwindle and need to be spread further amongst existing divisions. It takes a great deal of foresight and faith in a project to continue that funding when there's a strong argument to reinvest in R&D for tried and true income sources.
Gore is now the chief supplier of membrane electrode assemblies in nearly every hybrid vehicle manufactured throughout the world. I'm so glad they didn't give up!
I think one of the most powerful things consumers can do is to keep our voices raised with requests for innovations - such as the batteries you've cited here. We need to keep the momentum going in the years ahead - and not fall into a complacent state just because of new funding that's become available.
The point you make about industry-funded research tending toward immediate payoff is well made. This is the kind of situation where government must step in, I think. Government CAN take a longer view, and fund the basic research that will encourage businesses to take it from there and do the applied research.
YOu made an important distinction between the transportation related energy requirements and the other, such as electricity production. Also there was a hint at another important distinction within automotive requirements: local versus long distance.
You and I have both written about the growing use of battery powered golf carts for around town transportation (space for another person & some groceries). These are readily accepted in retirement communities all over Arizona, even in their current, low comfort level forms. Very little improvement would be required (and none of it technological) to make them acceptable in other, less benign climates. Just make them more comfortable with enclosed bodies and softer seats; more safe, with roll bars. With relatively minor improvements, these cheap vehicles would gain huge acceptance.
If it is something that many people will deem a valuable and worthwhile, then rest assured that there are enterprising individuals out there who will put forth the effort to answer the call of the market.
All that's needed is to get the strangling, suffocating tentacles of the state out of the way.
Read my response to Gisela above.
the tapping the geothermal in Yellowstone Park could fill all energy needs
in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah. It has been reported the geothermal
activity under China Lake Military Reservation, east of Los Angeles, is gigantic,
one of the world's largest. With LA right there, wouldn't you think?
I could go on. Japanese electrical giant, Matsushita, and Bechtel, offered
The City of Las Vegas a free monorail system, state of the art, high speed
mag-lev. Sounded good. The catch was they would allow construction of
a high speed train to Los Angeles, where many gamblers come from. They
wouldn't have to drive or fly, then. That's when the city council put the
nix to it. And you thought the business of the Las Vegas city council
was tourism and gambling, didn't you?
Do you think politicians and bureaucrats are wiser or more prescient than those of us who don't presume to hold a monopoly on coercion?
What do you think the energy companies will do when (if) it becomes evident that the supply of fossil fuels is dwindling? Do you think they'll just throw in the towel?
Even if they did, do you not think that there are people out there who will recognize that new sources of energy are needed, and answer the call of the market?
I suspect that there has already been discoveries and inventions made that would preclude the necessity to rely on fossil fuels, but the established, politically-connected and -protected energy industry firms have applied to the power of the state to stifle or preclude any potential competition to threaten their dominance from arising on the free market.
Entrust a group of human beings to exercise arbitrary power over others, and this is the sort of thing you can always expect.
What are planes going to run on when petroleum sources dry up? We need another Einstein or Edison to come forth with a whole new source of energy. Maybe those nanotechnology scientists will come up with something, or maybe we can catch one of those alien space ships and see how they do it.
Or there are still horses. We can ride or drive horses and turn the mountains of manure into electricity to power trolley cars and trains. Or not.
We are re-visiting well-trodden ground. You think "the market" and its forces will solve all problems, and government should get out of the way...or, better yet, disappear.
I think that government CAN solve some of society's problems, even though often it is influenced by "market forces" (big corporations and their money) to do things NOT in the public interest. I agree with you that it is possible that viable solutions to the energy problem are already available, and are being stifled by vested interests in the status quo.
What I think the enefgy companies will do as the supply of oil dwindles is exactly what they are doing now. Jacking up the prices and making obscene profits, while they collect depletion allowances from the government that they control with their bribes...er sorry, campaign contributions.
It is not a matter of prescience. Nobody needs a crystal ball to see what is needed. But the energy industry has no interest in investing in a competitor for their product...not yet, anyway. Not until they have extracted the last barrel of oil from the planet.
So in other words, you agree that this would have been a non-issue if we had a free market.
As long as we have that established.
I would point out a couple of things, though --
Price gouging is the result of cartelization. The government grants special privileges to a few politically-connected firms; free enterprise is stifled or abolished.
When markets are free, entrepreneurs bring supply and demand into equilibrium.
You yourself alluded to this fact -- though failing to openly recognize it -- in this very article, when you referenced the five-order magnitude reduction in the price of memory cards. This happens because of the alleviation of scarcity that occurs when markets are (at least relatively) free.
You probably never stop to take note of the miraculous fact that you have a computer sitting in front of you right now. Think of all the cooperation that went into bringing you that computer. All the thousands -- tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands -- of people who had a hand in bringing the final product to your desk; from the people who extracted the oil that produced the plastics, to the geniuses who devised the electronics, to the wage-laborers who soldered the circuits, etc. etc.; these thousands and thousands of people whom you've never met, and vast majority of whom have never met each other, yet they all cooperated to bring you your computer -- and all that cooperation took place without some central-planning bureaucrat directing everyone's activities from a political ivory tower; indeed, if that were established for the process, it would never have been able to come about to the degree and quality that it has.
None of those thousands of people who cooperated with one another to produce and distribute the computer you are sitting at now, did so because they were "wise or prescient," they were not philanthropists, who care so much about whther or not people have computers that they agree to produce them -- they all did so in the course of acting in their own best interest, producing something that is highly demanded by the public, for the purpose of indirect exchange; and in the course of doing so, they serve the interests of the public, by allocating scarce available resources to those areas where they are most urgently needed or demanded by the public.
And just because I am more keenly aware of this stuff than most, doesn't mean I think "the market will solve all problems." That's a hyperbolic statement meant to belittle me, to dress me up as a naive utopian.
I don't think anything will "solve all problems."
However, I believe that free, voluntary mutual cooperation (i.e., the market) can certainly solve alot more problems than violence can.
I don't think initiatory coercion is well suited to solve any problems at all; although it is certainly well-suited to cause a great deal of problems, where otherwise there might have been none, or at least fewer and less exacerbated.
Cartelization has already happened in the energy business, both here and abroad. Left to their own devices, I think the oil companies would rip us off at least as much as they are now. Probably the same, because they have control of our government on energy issues and they get exactly what they want. Supply and demand works when there are a large number of suppliers, none of whom can control the market. Surely, you don't think that is the case in the international energy markets today.
Yes, the computer business has stayed relatively free of cartelization.
I did not mean to belittle you at all. I respect you and your opinions. I actually did think that you thought free markets and a total lack of governments would solve the world's problems. You have hinted at that in past posts, even called yourself an anarchist, as I recall...but maybe that was in jest.
is functioning primarily as an protection and enforcement device for those
who have the means and inclination to buy the influence of people in
control of it, then we are close to agreeing, also, that the government
is quite close to having taken on an identity as the very power that it
was originally elected to protect the people from.
I recognize that cartelization has already happened in the energy industry; thats my point. That's why the few oil corporations and related energy-industry firms get away with price gouging, to the extent that they do; because the government has abolished free enterprise in their field of industry.
Much the same has happened virtually throughout the entire economy; we're steadily approaching a point not unlike National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union, where people are required to ask permission from a state agency (and of course pay for permission, should it be granted) in order to earn a living in any given trade or industry.
It simply follows from the nature of such a social arrangement (considering human nature, which pertains just as much to politicians and bureaucrats as it does to anyone else), that the conditions related to what has been termed "regulatory capture" are practically an inevitable eventuality. (And even if this were not the case, it is still a blatant violation of rightful liberty, for any group to use violence and the threat thereof to preclude the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods and services amongst individuals).
" Left to their own devices, I think the oil companies would rip us off at least as much as they are now."
In an environment of free enterprise and unfettered competition, oil companies would be at the mercy of market forces; in other words, at the mercy of the sovereign consumer.
Cartel arrangements require government intervention to succeed. there has never, in recorded history, been a monopoly or cartel arrangement that has arisen and been sustained by the market -- every instance of sustained monopoly or cartelization has been a product of statism, not of the free market.
Without government intervention to prop up, sustain, and insure the continued benefit to each individual firm comprising a proposed cartel, very few firms would agree to it, and fewer still would agree to stick with it after new entries into the field began cutting into profit margins.
"Probably the same, because they have control of our government on energy issues and they get exactly what they want."
But what you don't seem to be taking account of, is that much of what is included in "everything they want," which they receive by way of government capture, are things that they can only get through government capture.
They lobby for special privileges and advantages from the state, because they seek to avoid free-market forces.
And for as long as the general public continues to assent to arbitrary government control over the economic lives of the people, we will have to deal with the consequences of cartelization and regressive wealth redistribution.
". I actually did think that you thought free markets and a total lack of governments would solve the world's problems."
I believe that free markets and an absence of monopolist government would be exponentially better than servitude and oppression of statism; but that doesn't mean I think permanent rainbows and unicorns would suddenly appear.
I'm not a utopian; I'm a realist.
I recognize the inherent flaws in human nature. I just see those flaws as a good reason not to entrust a group of human beings with a monopoly on organized coercion, much less with the authority to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on the whole of society.
I think it's just another protectionist racket. I think a bunch of congressmen in 1890 passed it because they wanted to make political hay in their home districts. I think that most of the problems it purported to address, were themselves consequences of government intervention -- as is the long-standing custom, instead of government admitting its responsibility for undesirable consequences of its policies, and repealing them, they instead blame the conditions on some imaginary flaw inherent in free enterprise, and add on new interventionist measures to deal with the ill effects of previous interventionist measures, and which themselves will inevitably spawn newer and more eaxcerbated problems down the road, problems which government will again blame on free enterprise and presume to address with still more interventionist measures, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, so long as the majority of the citizenry persists in remaining in a state of economic ignorance, and thus passively or actively assents to their own gradual enslavement.
I'd like to know what you think after reading these:
Anti-trust policy (Jeffrey A. Miron, Ph.D economics, Harvard U.)
Do Anti-trust Laws Preserve Competition? (Sylvester Petro, Foundation for Economic Education)
Anti-trust: The Case for Repeal (Dominick T. Armentano)
Anti-trust (Fred McChesney, Library of Economics & Liberty)
Now, I realize that you're reflexive reaction may be to dismiss out-of-hand everything linked above as just so much business-biased propoganda against the interests of the public, and in your certainty of the correctness of your own bias decide that you don't even need to read them to know this.
All I'm saying is that if you at least try to keep an open mind, consider the possibility that your own biases may have been influenced by popular error and/or interested sophistry (I had to do this to get to where I am now, so I know it can be difficult; it was a humbling experience for me, believe it); and just take a few minutes out of your day to at least give them a once-over, you might find that things aren't always quite what they might appear on the superficial surface, or what other interested parties might be happy to have you believe.
Do you?
I'm sort of in a unique position. I once held much the same worldview as you; from what I can tell, anyhow. I was very much biased toward statism; I viewed anything that I deemed "right of center" with a heavy dose of suspicion.
A very wise friend of mine from thuis forum once told me that "everyone comes to liberty from a different path" (his way of telling me that I should be more patient, or rather less abrasive, with people); and I know he's right. The path I took began from a place quite similiar to where you stand.
It took a while for me to fully come around to finally letting go of my old, deeply-ingrained biases and prejudices; but I eventually came to the understanding that statism has always, and always will, be a system exploitation of man by man -- because that's exactly what it is, and always has been, designed to be.
Probably the reason why I took me a while to fully come to grips with this, is because I held so tightly to so many popular fallacies.
But that too was an understanding that I eventually came to; that those fallacies are promulgated, indoctrinated into society, because they serve a definite purpose. It's called "engineering consent." The beneficiaries of statism (the exploiters) have gone to much trouble to insure that the general public bias toward statism, and against liberty, has become somewhat of an institution; so that the exploited do not even really have to be "handled" so much anymore; we actively assent to our own servitude.
Before our chains can be broken, we must first break the chains in our minds. At a time when so many people vociferously argue in favor of their own bondage, an advocate for liberty really has their work cut out for them.
I think it was Goethe who said "None are so hopelessly enslaved, then those who falsely believe they are free." As someone who once held that false belief, and has come to understand the truth, I can attest to the truth of it.
Organized society requires rules because not everybody is a perfect person, willing to abide by the ancient nonreligious principle of the Golden Rule. So if you do away with most government functions, these rules will be developed and enforced by groups of (?) size. (I believe that is what you have suggested in past comments, but I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I am wrong.) Each person will try to bend those rules to his own advantage. That rule bending is called "politics," and when those rules are written down, and enforced, then you have 'statism' and rule of law and you are right back where you started.
Oh, one more thing: Those groups will not stay small. There are lots of reasons why human societies evolved from small family-sized hunter-gatherer groups to tribes, to villages, to towns and cities, and finally to nation-states.
If we started over with only local jurisdictions, I am convinced that before long we would be right back where we are now. I'm not saying that is a good thing. It just seems to be a human trait...like the need for belief in a supernatural power. Not everybody has to believe in those things for them to dominate the developement of society, though.
Maybe I am an idiot, too old and set in my ways to understand what you are proposing or see how it would work. Maybe your ideas are nonsense. Maybe both or neither of the above are true.
Whatever, I am quite sure you will not see your ideas put into practice in your lifetime. As you say, statism is ingrained, part of our culture. We have been over all these arguments a number of times now, and we are both repeating ourselves.
There is no need for rules to be "developed," so to speak. I think Thomas Jefferson and
Thomas Paine had the right idea; law and justice derive solely from the equal, intrinsic, inalienable rights of individuals, and rights are not something that are man-made; they are not "developed" and bequeathed by men upon other men.
The idea is a society of laws, not of men (can't remember which of the "founders" said that; but I like the quote). Our duty to protect and uphold order in society should not be to "make" laws; since that implies that we are "making" each others rights; rather our duty should be to find the law in how it applies to each given case in front of us, in our roles as jurors or judges.
And the "rule of law" is really simple and basic: No individual may aggress against the person or property of another. That's it.
I'm not even against organized bodies of people, combining their individual right of lawful defense to provide for the constant common defense, and appointing certain among them to oversee this function, etc; and calling themselves "government" if they wish.
All I'm against, is those people then insisting that everyone within a codified geographical area must be a part of their organization, support it and fund it under compulsion, and obey whatever arbitrary decrees are issued forth therefrom.
I don't want to be a part of the American state. I don't appreciate the crimes against humanity they commit, with the money they take from me involuntarily, I don't appreciate that they put me in a gambit to where I am literally forced to have my kids injected with all sorts of mercury and other garbage they call "vaccines," or else self-righteous nanny-state agents will come with armed goons behind them to take my children away from me.
I don't appreciate that they presume to monopolize their fields by coercion; so that I cannot go elsewhere to purchase those services, since I've decided that I'd no longer like to do business with the people who call themselves "the federal government" and "the State of Delaware."
I don't want to obey their arbitrary commands. If I infringe against the person or property of someone else, then I would have no problem with being made to answer for it; as I would have forfetied any right of my own to defend my own person or property, to the extent that just restitution had to be extracted from me for having done so anyhow.
But it wouldn't require a monopoly on coercion for such an arrangement to exist in society. Monopolies are never good; not for anything, especially if they presume to effect compulsory transactions upon everyone to support themselves.
You may be right, that we will not see liberty in my lifetime. You may be wrong, though, also.
Tom Paine didn't think the colonists would be ready to sever themselves from the British monopolist-state, when he sat down to pen "Common Sense," either. You never can tell.