Net Neutrality is a Trojan Horse

After watching the FCC begin to assert its newfound authority over the internet in the wake of the net neutrality ruling, I think we are going to regret this decision. We’ve been lied to by big internet companies like Google, Facebook and Netflix.

They presented net neutrality as something that would protect startups and small businesses from market manipulation by larger players, but in reality they were fighting against having to pay a fair market price for their own usage.

Smaller players and consumers will eventually have to foot more of the bill for infrastructure and technology improvements by ISPs.

Even worse, net neutrality brings an end to the era of laissez faire internet policy by opening the doors to regulation by the FCC.

Big business and the FCC presented net neutrality as freedom for the internet, but the reality is that’s what we had before. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler now insists that “it makes sense to have somebody watching over their [internet companies] shoulders and ready to jump in if necessary.”

“Their mistake came when they accepted the Trojan Horse of net neutrality, not expecting that the first regulations would carry the banner of internet freedom.”

This could be a huge mistake. The unregulated internet allowed amazing things and what we’ve done is allow the government to come in and suppress innovation.

Government regulation of the internet was always inevitable, but the internet’s freedom fighters had done a remarkable job of keeping it at bay. Their mistake came when they accepted the Trojan Horse of net neutrality, not expecting that the first regulations would carry the banner of internet freedom.

Raisins: A Tale of American Agricultural Policy

Americans have deep roots in agricultural life, and great respect for the farmers that put food on their tables. Thomas Jefferson called farmers the most valuable, virtuous citizens. Popular media still glorifies and romanticizes farm life today. But America’s farm policy is a relic from an era when central planning was seen as a solution for the troubles caused by what most modern economists see as necessary adjustments in the economy. As mechanized agriculture began to be used on a large scale at the turn of the 20^th century, smaller farmers began struggling to support themselves. American public policy, driven by the radical agrarian populist movement, stepped in to protect the industry rural communities relied on for employment. What many fail to realize, however, is that the situation has changed since the early 1900s. American society is no longer dependent on agriculture for employment. Farm supports aren’t for the family farm anymore, but big agribusiness continues to rely on these government programs to maximize profits. These policies are driving up food prices, costing taxpayers money, and hurting public health. As the Economist put it “Given a blank slate, nobody with an interest in either alleviating poverty or improving farming would [construct the United States’ current agricultural policy].” Indeed, the country’s farm policy—a complicated array of expensive subsidies, price controls and cartels—is terrible. To understand just how awful it is, it might be helpful to look at the quintessential example of American agricultural programs: the National Raisin Reserve.

“…the act began the bizarre but troublingly enduring idea of spending taxpayer money to deliberately make food less affordable.”

The agriculture industry is unique because crops are essential to life. Unlike televisions, automobiles and many other products, food is an example of price in-elasticity. If a product is price elastic, lowering the price will result in enough additional demand to increase revenue despite the drop in price (Investopedia). When a product is price inelastic, on the other hand, demand doesn’t drop much when prices increase, so revenue is higher when prices are higher and vice versa. Since demand for most crops is fairly constant regardless of supply, a price reduction doesn’t result in enough additional demand to keep revenue from falling. For this reason, the best crop years often result in less money for many farmers. As mechanized agriculture rapidly increased crop yields in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, farms, particularly small family ones, saw their revenue fall. This phenomenon led to the creation of programs designed to reduce crop production. One of the first pieces of legislation President Roosevelt signed after being sworn into office was the Agricultural Adjustment Act (Ganzel). “For the first time, Congress declared that it was ‘the policy of Congress’ to balance supply and demand for farm commodities so that prices would support a decent purchasing power for farmers. This concept, outlined in the AAA, was known as ‘parity.’” Although it has since been repealed, the act began the bizarre but troublingly enduring idea of spending taxpayer money to deliberately make food less affordable. Naturally, after World War II when raisin prices began falling, Congress couldn’t just let the market adjust free of interference the way it’s supposed to, so they passed Marketing Order 989 which created the National Raisin Reserve and the Raisin Marketing Order (Farenthold). The purpose of the National Raisin Reserve was to prop up raisin prices by allowing the federal government to seize a portion of raisin harvests. The government waits nine months for farmers to grow their grapes and two to three weeks of them drying in the sun before seizing a portion of them. Once seized, the raisins are often sold to foreign countries or fed to school children and cows. In theory, farmers are supposed to be compensated for the seizure of raisins. Often, though, the Raisin Reserve spends all the money, leaving nothing for farmers. In 2002, this situation led Marvin Horne, a 65 year old California raisin farmer, to refuse to hand over the required 47% of his raisin crop, citing the Fifth Amendment protection against the seizure of private property without just compensation. The National Raisin Reserve rejected that argument and fined Mr. Horne $700,000. What makes the National Raisin Reserve especially unreasonable is that it requires farmers to do something that would normally be illegal: form a cartel to manipulate prices. Newsweek put it this way:

“Collusion like this usually takes place in a smoke-filled backroom, away from the prying eyes of the SEC or the Federal Trade Commission. If any other business colluded like the RAC, they would be prosecuted for blatant violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Yet, on Wednesday, the government stood before the Supreme Court and defended the RAC because it works for the benefit of the farmers. That is, of course, the point of a cartel—to benefit the colluders and hurt consumers.”

As of 2014, Mr. Horne’s case, Marvin D. Horne, Et Al., Petitioners v. United States Department of Agriculture is still winding its way through the court system. In a recent Supreme Court hearing, both liberal and conservative justices expressed skepticism for the government’s case. Justice Kagan remarked that they might be defending “the world’s most outdated law (Liptak).” “What it does is it takes raisins that we grow [and] in effect, throws them in the river,” Justice Breyer said at one point (Farenthold). He later wondered why Congress would want taxpayers to pay for a program that would increase the price they pay for raisins. At several points the Court seemed unable hide its scorn for the law even as they sought to objectively assess the case. “It doesn’t help your case that it’s ridiculous, (Liptak)” Justice Scalia said, “your raisins or your life, right?” The government argues that since no one is forcing farmers to grow raisins, their Fifth Amendment right is not being infringed (Brief). This argument is problematic since the Fifth Amendment includes no such conditions. Furthermore, such logic renders the Amendment entirely meaningless: the federal government could confiscate any given item since a person could have instead chosen to own another item. As for Mr. Horne, he understandably has strong feelings about the case: “It’s like being a serf,” he told the Washington post, but he has faith in the United States’ system of checks and balances: “I believe in America. And I believe in our Constitution. And I believe that eventually we will be proved right. They took our raisins and didn’t pay us for them (Farenthold).”

The case looks fairly clear-cut. Mr. Horne is in fact justified in refusing to give up his private property according to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But one of the most important considerations to take away from this case is just how defensive agricultural interests are of these programs. The National Raisin Reserve may in fact benefit farmers, although there are valid arguments that it does not, so it’s not surprising that many raisin farmers are not happy with Mr. Horne. Eddie Wayne Albrecht, a raisin grower in Del Rey, California is one such person. As far as he is concerned “the criminal,” Mr. Horne in his mind, “is winning right now (Farenthold).” Some growers even went as far as hiring a private investigator to spy on Mr. Horne when he announced he would not be giving up his crop.

Although the Supreme Court appears skeptical of the government’s position in the raisin case, many other programs will likely remain for years to come. Although the RAC might be one of the most egregious agricultural programs, there are others that do far more farm. The largest examples include highly subsidized crop insurance, direct subsidies for corn and soybeans (two of the crops most to blame for America’s health problems), and, although not a subsidy per se, the renewable fuel standard. Other smaller programs include price fixing schemes and cartels similar to the RAC. Together, these programs form America’s terrible agricultural policy which shifts our diets towards unhealthy, homogeneous diets, costs taxpayers money, and contributes to hunger and poverty by driving up food costs. It is unfortunate failure of government legislation that the RAC is an example of typical farm policy in the United States.

This paper was originally written in April 2015. Since then, the Supreme Court has ruled in Mr. Horne’s favor stating that the seizure of raisins by the RAC is an unconstitutional taking: Property owners prevail in raisin takings case

Works Cited

Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to John Jay. 23 Aug. 1785. MS. Paris, n.p.

“A Trillion in the Trough.” The Economist. N.p., 08 Feb. 2014. Web. 03 May 2015.

“Price Elasticity Of Demand Definition | Investopedia.” Investopedia. N.p., 26 Nov. 2003. Web.

     03 May 2015.

“American Farm Bureau.” Opensecrets.org. The Center for Responsive Politics, 2015. Web. 24 Apr.

     2015.

“Farm Bill Ends Direct Payment Subsidies.” Newsroom. United States Senate Committee on Agriculture,

     Nutrition and Forestry, 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Fahrenthold, David A. “One Grower’s Grapes of Wrath.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 7 July

2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Burrus, Trevor. “Raisin a Laugh at the Supreme Court.” Newsweek, 24 Apr. 2015. Web. 01 May

     2015.

Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Raisin Case.” The New York Times. The New

     York Times, 22 Apr. 2015. Web. 01 May 2015.

“Marvin D. Horne, Et Al., Petitioners v. United States Department of Agriculture. Brief for the

     Respondent.” N.p., n.d. Web.

Ganzel, Bill. “AAA, the Agricultural Adjustment Act & Administration.” AAA, the Agricultural

     Adjustment Act & Administration. Living History Farm, 2003. Web. 04 May 2015.

United States Constitution. Amendment V.

 

Storm Photos

 

All images copyright 2015 Stephen Reed. All rights reserved. Using, storing or distributing these images without prior written authorization is prohibited.

The Raven

Sam Houston is well-known today primarily for his military victory during the Texas Revolution and his stewardship of the new republic after the war. There is another side to Sam Houston, however, that is often overlooked: he was a champion for the rights of the Cherokee people and American Indians in general. Throughout his political and military career, Houston tried to balance the needs of his people with the rights of the Indians. These goals were often in conflict and his success was arguably very limited, but his admirable effort to ensure equitable treatment for the Cherokee nation in particular, was well demonstrated on multiple occasions. Houston became a man of two peoples, and this influenced his life and political career, leading him to advocate for the rights of Indian tribes even as he led his own nation, the Republic of Texas.

Houston’s familiarity with, and respect for, Indians probably began as a young man when he spent time living among the Cherokees in East Tennessee (Companion). His father died when he was 13 years old. At the age of 16, he ran away and was adopted by Chief Ooleteka who gave Houston his own Cherokee name, “Coloneh” or, “The Raven.” Houston, using the customary third person form of writing often used by American Indians, later described this portion of his life, saying, “Houston has seen nearly all in life there is to live for and yet he has been heard to say that when he looks back over the waste…there’s nothing half so sweet to remember as this sojourn he made among the untutored children of the forest (Gauntt).” Houston’s fondness for the Cherokees didn’t end once he became an adult. After Houston divorced his first wife, he was adopted by an Indian chief and given Cherokee citizenship. He soon married a Cherokee woman named Tiana Rodgers (Museum). Although Sam Houston was certainly a white man who identified with Texas and the United States, he was also very much a Cherokee, and this fact shaped his policy goals once he began his political career.

Sam Houston’s political career began in 1816 when he was made an Indian sub-agent in Tennessee. Two years later in 1818, he led a delegation of Cherokees to Washington D.C. to meet with President Monroe and Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, who criticized Houston for wearing Indian dress (Museum). Even once Houston began serving in Congress in 1832, he was still an outspoken advocate for the Cherokees and American Indians in general. When a Senator claimed that Indian nations could not be civilized and therefore should be driven out, Houston responded eloquently in their defense:

“…the Cherokees never have been idolaters, neither have the Creeks, nor the Choctaws, nor the Chickasaws. They believe in one Great Spirit – in God – the white man’s God. They believe in his Son Jesus Christ, and his atonement, and propitiation for the sins of men. They believe in the sanctifying efficacy of the Holy Ghost. They bow at the Christian altar, and they believe the Sacred Volume. Sir, you may drive these people away, and give their lands to the white man, but let it not be done upon the justification of the Scriptures. They have well-organized societies, they have villages and towns, they have their state-houses and their capitols, they have females and men who would grace the drawing-rooms or saloons of Washington, they have a well-organized judiciary, a trial by jury, and the writ of habeas corpus. These are the people for whom I demand justice in the organization of these territories… But even if they were wild Indians, untutored, when you deprive them of what would give them knowledge, and discourage them from making an effort to become civilized and social beings, how can you expect them to be otherwise than savage? (Helicon)”

Although Houston’s primary interests may have shifted toward white society in 1832 when his application for a land grant in Texas was approved by Stephen F. Austin (Museum), he did not allow this to compromise his belief that the Indians should be treated fairly. As he became more powerful in Texas, he was forced to acknowledge political realities, but he was still among the most powerful friends of Indian interests in the Texas government.

Sam Houston had proven his loyalty and friendship to the Cherokees long before he proved his leadership abilities to the Texans at San Jacinto, but this friendship would be a valuable asset during the Texas Revolution. In fact it was Houston who convinced the Texas Indian tribes to remain neutral during the war (Gauntt). It is possible that the Texas tribes entering the war on the Mexican side could have altered its outcome.

Once Houston was back in a position of political authority after the war, he pursued peaceful resolution of land disputes between Texas settlers and native tribes. During his first term President of the Republic of Texas, Houston succeeded in getting a treaty with the Texas Indian tribes. Although later administrations reneged on the promises made in the treaty, the landmark achievement of getting both sides to agree to its terms reflected Houston’s high standing among both peoples. The treaty declared that “there [would] be a firm and lasting peace forever, and that a friendly intercourse [would] be preserved, by the people belonging to both parties.” Further, the treaty established representatives who would speak for all of the tribes in Texas during negotiations with the Texas government. This was significant because it represented an acknowledgement of the right of the tribes to have a voice. They would no longer be viewed as savages to be fought with, but as a civilized nation with which Texas could engage in discourse. The treaty also established land rights for the tribes and means by which these rights could be secured against trespassing settlers. The government of Texas was obligated to uphold these rights by “prevent[ing] in future all persons from intruding within the said bounds.” Perhaps the most significant aspect of the treaty was that it allowed the tribes some measure of sovereignty. Although the tribes not given individual land grants with separate boundaries, the treaty did state that within their own territory, tribe members would be subject to their own laws and regulations provided they were not contrary to the laws of Texas (Portal). This was in contrast to early treaties with the United States which typically stated that Indians would be subject solely to the U.S. government. The legal precedent established by these treaties was used by President Andrew Jackson to justify the systematic removal of Indian tribes under the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Historian). Thus although the tribes were not given independence from Texas, they were similar in authority to each state within the U.S. prior to the reduction in state sovereignty during and after reconstruction. For example, although much regulatory and lawmaking authority was reserved to the tribes, the treaty did grant Texas authority to regulate trade much as the U.S. federal government possesses this authority over the states. Unlike the U.S. federal government, however, Texas was not given the authority to tax the tribes; in fact taxation of the tribes was explicitly prohibited by the treaty (Portal). The treaty represented a major step forward in Indian-Texas relations, and demonstrated Sam Houston’s continued commitment to fair treatment of American Indian tribes.

Houston’s unique position as a man of two peoples allowed him to be a champion for peaceful solutions to disputes between the United States—as well as Texas—and the Indians. At a time when popular opinion saw natives as “savages” unworthy of sovereignty, Houston saw them as civilized people who should be respected and treated fairly. Throughout his life, he fought not just for the liberty of white Americans, but also for the liberty of American Indian tribes. Through this fight, he proved himself not only a hero of the Texas Revolution but also a friend to Texas’ native peoples.

---

 Works Cited

“Houston, Sam” The Reader’s Companion to American History. 1991. 

     History Study Center. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Gauntt, Jennifer. “Sam Houston Biography.” Shsu.com. Sam Houston State University, n.d.

     Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“Chronology of Sam Houston’s Life.” Sam Houston Memorial Museum, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

“Sam Houston on the Dangers of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.” Inside American History.

     Abingdon/Cambridge: Helicon, 2007. History Study Center. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

“Documents Relating to the Texas Cherokees.” The Portal to Texas History.

     University of North Texas Libraries, n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

“Milestones: Indian Treaties and the Removal Act of 1830.” U.S. Department of State.

     Office of the Historian, n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

Liftoff

This paper was originally written for English class in February, 2015. It is slightly dramatized but mostly accurate. It ends fairly abruptly because I was in a hurry to complete it before the deadline. Aircraft registration numbers have been changed for privacy.

I had been playing an old flight simulator on my computer off and on for years. The first time I played I was so young that I ran around the room crying and screaming, completely terrified that my aircraft had spun out of control. I knew that within seconds the passengers aboard the aircraft would all die in a fiery crash. But nearly a decade later I still found myself picking up the completely obsolete “Flight Simulator 2000” from time to time. I was never very good. But that the game kept drawing me back reflected my innate interest in aviation. I always enjoyed watching airplanes at the local airport where my stepfather ran an aviation maintenance shop, and my dad worked in aviation too. He had met my mother when they were both working for ExpressJet Airlines, which was a contractor for Continental at the time. I suppose we were an aviation family in a way. And yet, for the most part I wasn’t very involved in aviation. Despite my stepfather being a licensed private pilot and flying almost daily, I had never flown even as a passenger in anything smaller than a commercial airliner. But when my stepfather asked me one day if I would like to learn to fly, I didn’t have to think it over before I said “yes.” My second yes, when he asked if I would like to earn my license, was even more enthusiastic. I couldn’t believe that I had the opportunity to become a pilot. It was one of those things that I had always thought I’d like to do but never expected to accomplish.

Several years later though, I had nearly given up. Not because I found flying too difficult, but because I had still not had the opportunity to fly. There was a problem interfering with my stepfather’s plans to teach me to fly: He no longer owned an airplane. Furthermore, he didn’t have the certification required to teach me. One day though, my family and I drove to the local airport, supposedly on the way to take a walk in the park, and 15 minutes later we were sitting on the ramp with the propeller of my stepfather’s newly acquired Cessna 182 Skylane spinning in a way that was reassuring and nerve-tracking at the same time.

It was a beautiful day for flying, so the airport was busy. We spent nearly 20 minutes waiting in line for clearance to take off. Because of the huge regulatory burden that the Federal Aviation Administration places on the aviation industry, an air conditioner that might cost a few hundred dollars for a car costs thousands when you try to put it in an airplane, so very few general aviation aircraft are air-conditioned. As you can imagine, sitting for 20 minutes in an un-air-conditioned cockpit during summer in Texas is rather unpleasant. Finally though, we got clearance: “Skylane one-two-one Lima Charlie, you are clear for take-off runway three-five right, right turn to the west approved” I heard over the radio. “Clear for take-off runway three-five right, two-one Lima,” replied my stepfather.

Taking off for the first time in a small airplane is an unforgettable experience, even as a passenger. The engine roars to life as the pilot taxis onto the runway, and the aircraft accelerates quickly as the pilot firmly opens the throttle. The nose gently lifts a few inches off the ground, the rear gear rumble and a few seconds later the ground falls away beneath and you are flying through the air. Some days the air is bumpy, which can cause the air worthiness of the aircraft to seem uncertain to someone not used to the feeling. On other days—my favorites—the air is perfectly smooth and the aircraft cuts through the air without the slightest tremble. Those are the days when I like to picture the function of the airfoil and experiment with how the slightest displacement of the control surfaces cause the aircraft to respond by altering its flight path.

The day of my first flight was slightly rough, and even as I was relishing the experience of being airborne for the first time, I was uncomfortable in this new environment with only 1/1000 of an inch of aluminum keeping us in the air.

After taking off and flying out of the busy airspace surrounding the airport, I started to get a bad feeling: I didn’t want to fly. No mention had been made that day of me flying, but I knew enough about pilots to know that given a passenger even remotely interested in aviation, a pilot will almost always “coerce” said passenger into taking the controls. I knew that unless I wanted to give up the chance to later learn to fly, I would have to say yes, but at that time I really didn’t want to. Sure enough, as we made a right turn over the football stadium about 30 miles down the road from the airport, it happened: “Ok, put your feet on the rudder pedals and grab the control wheel.” I still wasn’t sure I wanted to, but I was getting more comfortable by that time and I couldn’t pass up what might be my only opportunity to fly if I said no. I did as he told me and without much instruction, I was flying straight and level.

Over the next ten minutes or so I experienced a few of the most basic parts of flying: How to coordinate control inputs to the rudders and control wheel, how to slow the airplane down and how to descend. A few minutes in, I was thoroughly enjoying myself. As we headed back to the airport, I was already looking forward to the next time I would take the controls.

As it would happen, my stepfather decided against getting his certified flight instructor certificate. I flew with him a few more times, learning how to trim the aircraft and line up with the runway, but I couldn’t log the time, which is what I would have to do to earn my license. Besides, the Cessna 182 Skylane he owned was going to be too expensive to fly on a regular basis. Aviation gasoline, or avgas, often cost $6 a gallon or more at that time, and the 182 burns around 12 gallons per hour. Earning my license in that aircraft could have easily cost over $5,000 in fuel alone, not to mention maintenance costs.

It took a little longer—though it seemed like ages at the time—but finally my stepfather found a solution: I would learn to fly with a friend of his who was a flight instructor in his spare time. He owned a Beechcraft BE-A23 Musketeer. The Musketeer differs from the Skylane in a few key ways: First, the 182 is a high wing aircraft, meaning the wings attach to the fuselage at the top of the aircraft. When entering the cabin, the pilot and passengers walk under the wing, which is slightly above head height for most people, but I have to duck slightly to get in. The Musketeer on the other hand is a low wing aircraft. To get in, one must climb on top of the wing. Another major difference is the performance levels of the two aircraft. The Musketeer has a 165 horsepower engine whereas the 182 has over 200 horsepower. When I later learned to fly the 182 I had to adjust to the higher performance. It was as if the airplane didn’t want to land, and I couldn’t get the aircraft moving slowly enough without a lot of work. Finally, the Musketeer is a simpler aircraft. The flaps are controlled with a mechanical lever instead of an electronic selector, and the propeller is fixed pitch. In the 182, the pitch of the propeller can be adjusted for optimum performance at various flight attitudes.

This is the aircraft that I would spend over 90 hours in and land more than 300 times before I earned my license. It would take a lot of work, both in the air practicing my skills, and on the ground studying the rules of the sky and the science of flight. There would be some nerve-wracking moments, such as when I flew alone for the first time after only a few lessons. There would be some bad landings, including one that could have ended badly were my instructor not there. But I loved every moment of it. The rainy days I used to love became something I dreaded: How could I wait another few days to fly? In the end every bit of work I put in, and all the waiting, was worth it when my flight examiner reached over from the right seat and shook my hand. “Congratulations” he said, “You are now Hooks Airport’s newest private pilot.”