T.

The 97% Statistic on Climate Change

If you aren’t reacting like this to climate reports, are you even woke?

I always hear the alleged statistic that 97% of scientists believe in man made global warming– which is now “climate change” because the experts couldn’t predict the temperature trends, the financial crisis, Hillary’s defeat…. Anyways, I am summarizing the problems with that statistic for my own future reference, and for yours. You’re welcome.

I will quote from John Kerry, as he summarizes the claim succinctly: “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible… they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know if will change– and it will change dramatically for the worse.”

The 97% statistic originally came from a 2013 study led by John Cook.

First of all, as Alex Epstein clearly explains in his book the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (highly recommended), there is so often a bait and switch going on in discussions regarding the 97%. Regardless of the actual number (which we will get to), Cook’s study said absolutely nothing about going down the current path, the world as we know it changing, and, especially, the world changing for the worse. That’s just typical fear mongering: taking a single statistic and exaggerating and broadening its application for political gain.

Now, here is how Cook got to the 97%. He first surveyed 11,944 abstracts– just the abstracts, not the papers themselves (much less getting a statement from the authors)– from papers that had to do with global warming, based on a simple search for the matched topics “global warming” or “global climate change.” 

The results of the abstracts (got this from here):

Then he took categories 1 and 2 (those who had a strong opinion that man is causing global warming) and compared it to categories 6 and 7 (those who had a strong opinion against the claim that man is causing global warming). The ratio here is 986 papers vs. 24; or 97%. 

Okay… so does this mean 97% of climate scientists agree?; that is, there is a solid consensus? Sure, if you leave out the fact that there are about 8,000 (!!) without an opinion/uncertain. If you account for them (and why shouldn’t we?), the new percentage comes in closer too… 10%. Hard to get the crowds going with that.

And of course, to be more than fair, if you could also stretch the thesis by looking at the ratio of categories 1-3 compared to those 4-7, which is around 33%. Still, not worth bragging about that’s for sure.

There’s also some other highly relevant bits of information. First, as Neil Frank mentions here, the reason why there were only 24 papers published by those who strongly disagree with the “consensus” (lol) in the first place was because literally thousands of papers were denied entry into the very database of papers that Cook et al were searching! Frank refers both to this book of published emails relating to this academic scandal and one Kenneth Richard who documented many papers over 2014-2016 that “challenge[d] the hypothesis that CO2 has been the primary driver of recent global warming.”

However, you don’t have believe there was a cover up (I do, for the record), to realize that regardless, there were 1000’s of papers that did not enter into Cook’s math at all, all of which were likely in categories 6 and 7.

Thus, it is profoundly unscientific to state “97% of climate scientists agree that….” It is more honest and accurate to say “97% of 1,010 papers, taken from a set of 11,944, which was a politically limited set to begin with, agree or mostly agree with the “consensus.” In which case, “consensus” here is like saying there is a consensus that John Mcafee should be elected President. 

Thus, here’s how to respond to Barack Obama (btw, has Russell Moore criticized him for this lie yet?)’s following Tweet.

Besides the above refutation of the 97%, “scientists” is the broadest description of the authors of these papers anyways. Think of all the science professionals who research outside the bounds of climate-related science. The 97% is a completely made up number. And, most importantly, zero percent (ZERO!!!) of the paper abstracts were considered in terms of their “danger” or threat to human life, civilization, or the economy. 

Lies! Anyways, here’s a dog picture with a clever caption.

A Suggested HuffPo article: “How to talk to your puppy about climate catastrophe.”
T.

The Nature of Thought Control in the 21st Century

When we think of the most gruesome totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, we think of actual gulags, imprisonments, and mass slaughter. The nature of totalitarianism in our time will not look like that. It will rather be a soft authoritarianism– it will take two primary forms.

First is what Michael Malice refers to: the highly publicized skewering of a single person (or handful of people) to make an example out of him. They loudly proclaim this “enemy of society” as a proponent of “hate” and as a bigot and they produce a sort of circus trial with cameras and news segments and protestors to be streamed to our devices. That way the rest of us “get the point.” We will behave because we can’t afford to get skewered. We will live in constant fear of saying the wrong thing, having the wrong opinion, criticizing the wrong politically protected group.

It’s too difficult and expensive and time consuming to put all dissenters into prison camps– and it goes against the creepy and Orwellian narrative of “love” as the single motivating factor of all socio-political action. The Regime doesn’t need to send all dissenters to Prison in order to dominate– it just needs to leave a few heads on spikes so that people understand the message.

But second, as we move into a world of increased digital socialization– where our very lives and identities are found online– there is also another means of authoritarian control that is equally as concerning: the complete removal of one’s presence from the internet for saying the wrong thing. If anyone has seen Black Mirror, the episode on social credit comes to mind. One can imagine a scenario where your credit worthiness or your “background checks” for jobs, education, and social groups are considered via your history of expressed approved opinion– in China they are already doing this and vocal disagreement with the regime constitutes damage to your social credit.

In the west, the “regime” also includes various politically protected and especially coddled classes of people (classes that are created and defined by the government of course) that might include non-white groups, LGBT members, immigrants in general, or loudly expressed dissent of government policy and trends.

In this case, the major tech corporations are the gatekeepers to acceptable society and their discretion reigns supreme– at their whim and prerogative, they have the ability to make one’s entire life disappear. And if in the future the “real” is the “digital,” if one’s social identity is defined by his online presence and expression of thought, then to be removed from The Platform is to be, for all intents and purposes, removed from society. The ultimate ostracism.

This sound dystopian, but is it really all that different to what is currently happening to the many YouTubers, Twitter users, Patreon users, and so forth who wake up to an email indicating that their entire library of work (which they have depended on for income) has been deleted from the internet? Tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of supporters and followers and audience bases; gone. Content, gone. All that hard work? Forever forgotten. Their own digital libraries of thoughts, social contributions, input, reflections on current events? Lost, not to history, but to the Internet’s Thought Controllers.

I know some of these people. They are good people– but they said the wrong thing in the wrong way and The Great Algorithm has brought them down.

This cannot be reversed except by the gatekeepers. Some of these people have everything they’ve ever done on these platforms– they are defined by it and consider it their contribution to society and their means of making a living.

Gone. Down the deep dark hole of the internet, never to return.

This is a staggering thought.

This second means of thought control via making people disappear is a remarkable prospect. If society itself exists online in a meaningful way that replicates or replaces the physical world of the pre-internet age (and we are certainly in this transition– many people born before 1985 or so don’t truly understand this), then to be removed from your platform is to exist without permission to participate in the New Society.

What do you tell a potential boss, a social group, a creditor, or some other entity, when they inquire as to your non-existence? Or perhaps, when they investigate to put together their reports, it comes up as “suspended for hate speech.”

Hate speech as a legal category has always been a means of stifling dissent by first loudly going after the groups of people no one cares about anyways, but then using that as a means to control those whose speech can be redefined to fit the whims of the controllers.

But now the logic of this dubious phrase is reaching its fruition as the narrative of “oppressed vs. oppressor” reaches new heights of hysteria. People’s lives are being ruined, not by people who refuse to endorse traditionally deranged behavior, but by the teaming up of the alleged victims and the techno-state masters who cling to the victims as a launch pad toward Total Power.

M.

Mises on the Anti-Capitalist Bias

From Planned Chaos, which itself is an excerpt of Mises’s Socialism treatise.

Nothing is more unpopular today than the free market economy, i.e., capitalism. Everything that is considered unsatisfactory in present-day conditions is charged to capitalism.

The atheists make capitalism responsible for the survival of Christianity. But the papal encyclicals blame capitalism for the spread of irreligion and the sins of our contemporaries, and the Protestant churches and sects are no less vigorous in their indictment of capitalist greed. Friends of peace consider our wars as an offshoot of capitalist imperialism. But the adamant nationalist warmongers of Germany and Italy indicted capitalism for its “bourgeois” pacifism, contrary to human nature and to the inescapable laws of history. Sermonizers accuse capitalism of disrupting the family and fostering licentiousness. But the “progressives” blame capitalism for the preservation of allegedly outdated rules of sexual restraint.

Almost all men agree that poverty is an outcome of capitalism. On the other hand many deplore the fact that capitalism, in catering lavishly to the wishes of people intent upon getting more amenities and a better living, promotes a crass materialism. These contradictory accusations of capitalism cancel one another. But the fact remains that there are few people left who would not condemn capitalism altogether.

The characteristic mark of this age of dictators, wars and revolutions is its anti-capitalistic bias. Most governments and political parties are eager to restrict the sphere of private initiative and free enterprise. It is an almost unchallenged dogma that capitalism is done for and that the coming of all-round regimentation of economic activities is both inescapable and highly desirable.

None the less capitalism is still very vigorous in the Western Hemisphere. Capitalist production has made very remarkable progress even in these last years. Methods of production were greatly improved. Consumers have been supplied with better and cheaper goods and with many new articles unheard of a short time ago. Many countries have expanded the size and improved the quality of their manufacturing. In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is in many countries still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.

It is certainly not a merit of governments, politicians and labour union officers that the standard of living is improving in the countries committed to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motor car and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of business men who enlarged the size of their factories or built new ones.

One must stress this point because our contemporaries are inclined to ignore it. Entangled in the superstitions of statism and government omnipotence, they are exclusively preoccupied with governmental measures. They expect everything from authoritarian action and very little from the initiative of enterprising citizens. Yet, the only means to increase well-being is to increase the quantity of products. This is what business aims at.

The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain.

History will call our age the age of the dictators and tyrants. We have witnessed in the last years the fall of two of these inflated supermen. But the spirit which raised these knaves to autocratic power survives. It permeates textbooks and periodicals, it speaks through the mouths of teachers and politicians, it manifests itself in party programmes and in plays and novels. As long as this spirit prevails there cannot be any hope of durable peace,… of the preservation of freedom or of a steady improvement in the nation’s economic well-being.

T.

Taking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Seriously

Jesse Kelly at The Federalist wrote an article called “Why the Right Should Start Taking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Seriously.” He initiates the article with reference to the “mind-numbingly stupid” tweet Ocasio-Cortez put out this week. She’s had plenty of educated responses so I don’t need to do that.

However, I did Tweet out the following:

It’s easy to focus on the dumbness of these politicians, but it’s also important to remember that perhaps the most educated President in American history, Woodrow Wilson, was arguably the worst. While Wilson was not a Marxist, he was a left-interventionist, the point here is that even the most brilliant of people cannot make socialism— or statism in general— into a workable framework for managing society.

But at the Federalist, Kelly makes a very important observation: namely, that Ocasio-Cortez seems to be the future— she’s “relatable,” she’s hip, she’s fun and comfortable with social media, and so on. This is very dangerous because she can use this to accumulate popular following and push forward the very agendas that are destructive both to liberty, and also therefore to prosperity.

And now is the age of social media. This is the age where a tidal wave of support can and does come from anywhere. Social media allows candidates for office to let the public see them with their blemishes. With a push of a button, you can watch Ocasio-Cortez make instant mac and cheese like a college freshman. She’s pretty. She’s young enough to understand and take advantage of this current political world. Most importantly, her naiveté about the things of government make her more appealing to the common man, not less.

So go ahead laugh at Ocasio-Cortez. That’s fine. Sit in your Foggy Bottom townhouse and mock the dullard from the Bronx as she eats the food of the unwashed masses. Squeal with delight every time she fails basic civics. After all, this freshman congresswoman, her peasant food, and her Boston University degree wouldn’t even be allowed in the front door of your tennis club.

But know this; the people who decide the next election like easy mac and cheese, and they’ll never step foot in a tennis club.

In other words, much to the frustration of my own personality, tightly reasoned essays and actual, demonstrable proofs of the ethics and economics of capitalism, do not make movements in the short run. The movement Ocasio-Cortez leads cannot be overcome simply by intellectual refutation; again, in the short run. I do believe that ideas are the long run solution.

I used to place much more emphasis on educating future voters/citizens than current voting efforts— and I still think voting itself is a lousy strategy. But the immediate way out, I realize increasingly, is decentralization of both mind and body. The future mob led by the popular appeal of hip politicians like Ocasio-Cortez are led by their whims and passions, not by reason.

And as Scott Adams says, those who did not reason themselves into a position cannot be reasoned out of their position. The future of Washington will continue to spiral toward TV-show level non-intelligence and cheap entertainment. To battle this, we must nullify and secede.

S.

Standing up to Obama?

I was reading Jacobin Mag this morning and came upon this paragraph about Obama and was wondering if Rachel Held Evans, Russell Moore, or Thabiti Anyabwile have mentioned any of these things.

Obama’s America still separated immigrant families, locked up kids in cages, and used tear gas on migrants; it still coddled and cozied up to blood-soaked tyrants; it still incinerated wedding parties and hospitals; it still brutalized environmental protesters and forced people to beg for money to cover their medical bills; it still let Wall Street write economic policy and stood by as black wealth was eviscerated in a cavalcade of fraud and other criminality.

Imagine if this paragraph were written about Trump. They’d be all over it.

T.

The Socialists Have the Upper Hand

As recently stated, I’ve upped my reading of Jacobin Magazine. I’m at a point in my self-educational journey where I am more selective about what I read from amongst the broader Austrian and libertarian outlets– I read most of Mises.org, LRC, FEE once in a while, George Reisman every time he has a new essay… and then whenever I see a headline that catches my eye.

But I want to also expand my horizons a bit, keep an eye on the various enemies so to speak. Jacobin Magazine is top notch representative of the far socialist left. The quality of the content is world class, it is stimulating intellectually, and there is a great sense of self-awareness. They do a good job, despite their being 100% the exact opposite, reciprocal of the Christian Austro-Libertarian in so many ways.

In any case, the point of this post is that the more of that magazine I read, the more I realize that they have so much going for them– we live in a world of economic interventionism, wherein the state suspends, in so many places, the right of the private property owner to make decisions over the use of his property. In this way, we live in a profoundly non-capitalist world. And yet, all this is done under the banner and label of capitalism. This makes sense. The 20th century western world would never have accepted state control under the banner of socialism. Instead, they accept state control under the banner of capitalism.

Since everyone thinks we have capitalism, and since the state operates on an interventionist model (not a traditional socialist one), the socialist has an easy time of pointing out the failures of interventionism, but blaming capitalism. And since no one has ever heard of interventionism, socialism is swiftly becoming a legitimate alternative in the minds of so many.

In other words, the state has monopolized, on behalf of the banking industry, the money, banking, and credit industry– everyone calls it capitalism and when it inevitably causes ruin (as true capitalistic free marketers warned), we all point the finger at the label we’ve been taught describes us: capitalism.

Thus, Jacobin so often expresses educated outrage at the excesses of capitalism, which reached its peak in 2008 as the lives of an entire generation of retirees and near-retirees were ruined. Is this really humane, they ask? Is capitalism really all its cracked up to be?

Unfortunately for us, this narrative is much easier to sell than the more nuanced explanations required of the laissez-fairist private property proponents. Central banking, we can point out until we are blue in the face, is a product of a mighty and capitalism-denying state! Capitalism is the antidote, not the way things are!

But who is listening? The answer is becoming more obvious: few at the national level, but far more at the local level. Thus, as I have echoed time and again, nullification, dissent, secession, and decentralization (which occur first in the mind and then in society) constitute the way out of this mess. I don’t think we will be able to defeat the socialists in Washington– we are both fighting interventionists who use capitalistic language and phraseology.

B.

Best Takes on Bush’s Death

Bush was not a model President, but he may at one point have been a presidential model.

The internet will fill our weekend timelines with praises and eulogies for Bush Sr. So this post will be updated over the week with what I consider to be more sane and rational reflections on the legacy of Bush, who was an establishment man to the core– dangerous to the freedoms of the American people and, due to the US’ empire status, to the freedoms of the world. Check back in as I add more to the list.

Updated as of 7:30pm Eastern

B.

Bush 1: Last of the Yankees

George H.W. Bush has died. Provides an opportunity to mention a few things regarding Bush in regards to the power politics dynamic that exists in Washington– a topic Murray Rothbard was brilliant on. This is a quick sweep through, not very developed in a formal sense, just a summary of how I understand these things.

The two leading groups of politically well connected and unimaginably wealthy “families,” by the turn of the century were the Morgans and the Rockefellers– this is what we now call “Old Money” in America. These two groups were fiercely competitive with each other, especially in the banking and finance world. In fact, many of the early 20th century political battles can be seen as reflective of the great wars between these two economic powerhouses. 

It was the signing of the Federal Reserve Act which caused the “House of Morgan” and the Rockefeller empire to no longer be required to compete in the world of banking. It was a union between the two most powerful and political influential economic groups in banking and credit.

While united on the banking front due to the Federal Reserve’s establishment in 1913, they still competed for dominance in other industries, including oil and manufacturing. But World War II solved this problem. It was the seal that tied them closely together. FDR and his decision to enter into the WWII was their connecting point. Rothbard explains helpfully:

During the 1930s, the Rockefellers pushed hard for war against Japan, which they saw as competing with them vigorously for oil and rubber resources in Southeast Asia and as endangering the Rockefellers’ cherished dreams of a mass “China market” for petroleum products. On the other hand, the Rockefellers took a non-interventionist position in Europe, where they had close financial ties with German firms such as I. G. Farben and Co., and very few close relations with Britain and France. The Morgans, in contrast, as usual deeply committed to their financial ties with Britain and France, once again plumped early for war with Germany, while their interest in the Far East had become minimal. Indeed, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew, former Morgan partner, was one of the few officials in the Roosevelt administration genuinely interested in peace with Japan.

World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia. Such disgruntled Morgan men as Lewis W. Douglas and Dean G. Acheson (a protégé of Henry Stimson), who had left the early Roosevelt administration in disgust at its soft money policies and economic nationalism, came happily roaring back into government service with the advent of World War II. Nelson A. Rockefeller, for his part, became head of Latin American activities during World War II, and thereby acquired his taste for government service.

After World War II, the united Rockefeller-Morgan-Kuhn, Loeb Eastern Establishment was not allowed to enjoy its financial and political supremacy unchallenged for long. “Cowboy” Sun Belt firms, maverick oil men and construction men from Texas, Florida, and southern California, began to challenge the Eastern Establishment “Yankees” for political power. While both groups favor the Cold War, the Cowboys are more nationalistic, more hawkish, and less inclined to worry about what our European allies are thinking. They are also much less inclined to bail out the now Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and other Wall Street banks that loaned recklessly to Third World and Communist countries and expect the U.S. taxpayer—through outright taxes or the printing of U.S. dollars—to pick up the tab.

Rothbard, Murray N. Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy (LvMI) (Kindle Locations 827-843).

The Eastern Establishment after this was suddenly in deep competition from the Sunbelt “conservatives,” who had CIA, construction, and American oil (as opposed to the Eastern Establishment, whose oil interested were in the middle east) connections and domination. Remember, both the Republican and Democratic establishment before the rise of the Sunbelt Cowboys were all Eastern establishmentarians, who might also be called the “Yankees” in the “Yankee and Cowboy War,” a book written by Carl Oglesby back in the 1970’s. It is Oglesby who first really articulated this paradigm between the Eastern Powers and the new Sunbelt (CA and TX) powers. And even as the Sunbelt Cowboys came roaring into power, their influence too stretched across both parties; LBJ was a Democrat and Nixon was a Republican.

After Gerald Ford, a Yankee Eastern Establishment type, came to power after the Establishment got Nixon, he was a breath of fresh air to Yankees, but unfortunately for them, the populace was growing annoyed as establishment “Rockefeller Republican” centrism. And so the popular movement arose which was a quasi revolt against Eastern Establishment and Reagan was voted in under the assumption that he would make good on his promise to clear house of the Trilateral Commission— which was basically the 80s version of the “draining the swamp” populist appeal.

Unfortunately, Reagan didn’t do very well in clearing out the Establishment. This part is important. The reason that Reagan only partially succeeded was his VP George H.W. Bush, whose family history and “Old Money” connections reach back to his father who was a key member of the banking world (Yankee) and yet who had done well in reaching out to the Texas oil world and thus making friends in the Cowboy empire as well. On top of this, Bush was a long time CIA man and even its director. Bush Sr.’s influence in the Reagan administration cannot be overstated. People like to think of George Bush Jr. as a Texas neocon. But it is more accurate to see him originally as an Old Money yankee, who made a fortune making friends in the Sunbelt industries, and was heavily influence by his neoconservative advisors, who ran his foreign policy because he was quite weak in that area (much to his father’s disappointment).

In other words, Reagan’s mistake is that he cleared out some of the Establishment, but left a considerable block of them, led by Bush I himself. But into the vacuum he created, the neocons crawled their way in and thus created the dynamic that would last until Trump: the neocon (which had subsumed the cowboy faction) vs. Establishment Yankee battle. Reagan, while perhaps meaning well in his war on the Yankees, also opened the neocon can of worms. While they wouldn’t find true and world-changing power until Bush II and 9/11, the neocons largely grabbed their footing, found their positions during the Reagan years– and they worked quietly under Clinton and made their splash under Bush II.

Bush I’s disappointment in his son’s foreign policy lies in the fact that Jr’s foreign policy was run by neocon Wilsonians– global crusaders on behalf of democracy. This should be compared to the Yankee’s preference for a so-called “Realist” foreign policy wherein the world is a chess board that should carefully considered. A realist foreign policy was what Bush 2 ran his campaign on, which makes sense, since his familial background belongs to the realist tradition. 9/11 was the death blow to realism. The neocons fully and unfortunately took everything over from there. And the GOP has since then been very neocon.

Bush I was not a neocon. He was a tried and true man of the 20th century centrist Establishment. He predates the neocons. He was one of the last remaining true blood yankees. Of course, not being a neocon does not itself win you points– we are talking power politics here, the internal battles for control over resources and power within the state. The Eastern Establishment set the stage for 20th century policy, foreign and domestic, just as the Neocons largely set the stage for the first quarter of the 21st century policy.

For more on Bush I’s world and connections, I recommend Rothbard’s monograph Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy.

F.

Food is Not a Right

It is precisely because over the last 300 years food has not been treated as a right (which would obligate the government to provide it or force some to give food to others), that we don’t need to speak of it in terms of rights. The market has done more to feed the western world and bring people out of hunger than any other institution in history. In fact now we are concerned with obesity problems!

The majority of people swoon when they hear someone deny that food is a right, but they do not realize that it does not need to be a right in order for it to be produced in historically unprecedented quantities such that the global population can be sustained at levels unimaginable several centuries ago.

P.

Profit, Loss, and Proportionality of Reward

The nature of the market system, and more specifically the profit and loss system, is such that it rewards those who contribute in a positive way, and penalizes those who do not contribute positively.

Entrepreneurs act in the immediate term, in hopes of profiting in the medium or longer term. The future is uncertain. There is no guarantee of a profit.

The entrepreneur either makes a profit, or experiences a loss. If he makes a profit, it is a sign that he has benefitted those who bought his product or service. He is rewarded for employing scarce resources wisely.

If he experiences a loss, it is a sign that he has wasted resources, employed them in a way that did not benefit the individuals in society. He is penalized for wasting resources.

The greater the benefit provided, the greater the profit— and a sign to other entrepreneurs that there is great need in this area.

While the leftists, socialists, politicians, economically ignorant commentators lambaste the profit maker, he is the employer of resources that deserves praise; for he is the very decision maker benefitting the world around him! They ought to express frustration at those experiencing losses— for they are unwisely employing resources. But thankfully, they are given just penalty to the very extent of their monetary loss.

The price system has just rewards and penalties built in— no politicians necessary.