Which is most important? Individual, community, or capital?

The answer is none of the above. Without individuals there are no communities. Without communities, individuals cannot thrive. Without individuals and communities, there is no capital. Without capital, individuals and communities cannot increase their material and social wealth.

I was inspired to write this blog after listening to Catherine Austin Fitts on "The Dismal Science" January 30, 2009 podcast of "To the Best of Our Knowledge" from Wisconsin Public Radio.

She spoke about the "Popsicle Index" as a better measure of the financial health of a community than any other measure. That is, how willing are parents in a community to let children go off by themselves to get a Popsicle or other treat?

She also spoke about capitalism versus communities. Think about BigBox coming into a community. BigBox promises jobs to induce the community to allow BigBox to have its way. But BigBox builds out in the middle of nowhere so that people must drive to shop rather than walk. The community is also required to build new water mains, sewer lines, roads, and other amenities. Then BigBox decides that it didn't make enough profit from the store and leaves town.

But capitalism is also members of the community pooling their resources to build a business, say a tomato canning plant. Maybe the local plant doesn't have all the whizbang efficiencies that a BigFoods plant has, but the plant will be controlled by members of the community, not by some overpaid executive forty floors above the streets of a city a thousand miles away.

Communities can be overbearing, enforcing codes of conduct that have no relation to the welfare of the community. An overbearing community can stifle innovation and creativity. Think of all the people who went to the "big city" to get away from a real or imagined controlling environment.

Individuals can be cantankerous and dangerous. Some take individual freedom to ridiculous lengths, taking freedom from others. Think of speeders. They rush down the highway, damning anyone who dares to go the speed limit. In fact, our culture tends to reward the speeders by claiming those who obey the law are holding up traffic. Aren't the speeders pushing traffic?

Unfortunately, neither "major" party seems to understand the need for balance among these three "interests". Both favor certain categories of individuals to the detriment of other categories of individuals; both favor certain corporations over others; and both favor communities only when it serves their parties' agenda.

When, oh when, will those who understand the need for this balance bolt the "major' parties and form a long overdue "third" party with wide support?

Time for Republicans of integrity to bolt the party

I've long been disenchanted with both "major parties" and been unhappy that the election process locks in the choice between "excessive government" and "excessive individualism (except for what they don't like)".

Six Republican Minnesota legislatures supported an override of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a transportation bill. For this "breaking of party discipline" the minority leader has stripped them of their committee positions. Very strange considering that Republicans pride themselves on being for individual choice and responsibility.

I think this may be an excellent opportunity for these legislatures to bolt their party, especially considering that they represent districts that are voting more Democratic. However, the Democrats are not really the answer for these legislatures. Rather, I think they should either start a new moderate party or join an existing moderate party.

A new moderate party would have a relatively simple principle: the need for a balance between individual choice and the common good. Anything more could lock the party into positions that would be irrelevant or counterproductive in the future.

An existing moderate party is the Independence Party of Minnesota. You can find its principles at http://www.mnip.org/principles.shtml. This page has links to the party's platform and other information. Personally, I find the platform has too many details.

If you think that a vote for the Independence Party will be a "wasted vote", remember that third-party gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura, last in the polls, was elected governor in 1998. And if you keep voting for either the left or the right, you might be left right out of a bright future.

See also "Voting is not a horse race".

Motorcycle helmets save more than lives

Many people believe that motorcycle riders shouldn't be required to wear helmets because they will only be hurting themselves. One of the latest to state this is Charles Wheelan, The Naked Economist, in "Street Smarts: Economists Take on Traffic Safety" posted on Yahoo Finance on Jan. 8, 2008.

He wrote that "motorcyclists are most likely to harm themselves" and "that helmets save lives doesn't necessarily justify laws that motorcyclists wear them." Unfortunately, the harm of a motorcycle accident isn't limited to the riders.

First, emergency responders have to come to the scene. The greater the severity of the accident, the more time they have to spend at the scene. This could mean that the responders would not be available for other emergencies. In the case of volunteer responders, they could be called from their beds in the middle of the night.

Second, any accident can cause traffic delays. The longer the responders are at the scene, the longer traffic is delayed. In many cases, this could mean less productivity for those making deliveries, an economic by-product, aka externality.

Third, the care of a severely traumatized rider costs money. This will be coming from insurance and taxes. The care for a preventable injury is also limiting the care for others.

If motorcycle riders are truly harming only themselves, should we let their injured bodies lie by the side of the road? I wouldn't want our society to be like that.