LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE DR. REX CURRY & THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
& The Orlando Sentinel Newspaper

Pledge of Allegiance in frightening images & articles at http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html For fascinating information about symbolism see http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html  Hear audio on worldwide radio at http://rexcurry.net/audio-rex-curry-podcast-radio.html

The Orlando Sentinel Newspaper was defeated in debate via another grand victory (by default) for the Libertarians. It all began when the newspaper mailed a “Florida Water Survey” to all candidates in recent elections.  Libertarian candidates received the survey (below), and the survey questions showed a clear statist/socialist bias from the Orlando Sentinel.  Libertarians candidates answered the survey with unique libertarian answers (below) along with lengthy articles to further explain free-market environmentalism.  Well, guess what? The Orlando Sentinel suddenly delayed the announced date for printing the survey's results.  That is probably because the large number of libertarian candidate responses caused the survey to reveal the complete opposite of the statist/socialist results that the Orlando Sentinel wanted.  Inquiries were made about the apparent intellectual dishonesty from the Orlando Sentinel and the response from their writer Debbie Salamone was that everything had been put off to a later date.  Then the next response below was sent to the Orlando Sentinel, challenging everyone at the paper, and everyone involved in the survey to debate the issues.  The Orlando Sentinel was defeated in the debate via another grand victory (by default) for the libertarians. The survey delay has continued to lengthen and the Orlando Sentinel has never printed ANY survey results or the comments from Libertarians (even though the paper's website still maintains a special "water crisis" section where the survey was intended to appear).

*************************
Dear Orlando Sentinel,
    I hope you will discuss the libertarian issues that were raised about the water survey in your upcoming article.  Some libertarians already suspected that your paper was displaying deliberate intellectual dishonesty by not having printed the article already.  Unfortunately, your email is only going to confirm that in the minds of some people.  Your email will justifiably cause libertarians to believe that your paper is hoping to skew/misrepresent the survey results and to ignore the libertarian answers on the issues.  
    As far as I am concerned, your statist bias and intellectual dishonesty glared just from your survey questions.   Therefore, based soley on the survey questions and the "new" developments mentioned in your email, I extend a debate challenge to you, your editorial board and every Orlando Sentinel person involved in the water survey, to publicly debate the Libertarian Party.  Feel free to mention this debate challenge in your article. Feel free to print this letter. You can also announce the date and time that would be convenient for the debate(s).  
    The debates will inform the public about which Orlando Sentinel personnel defend freedom and which members espouse simplistic, environmentally disastrous socialism.  I don't think that the latter group will have the guts to defend their absurd ideas in a debate.  The debates would be a great public service and it would help promote intellectual honesty.
    I hope you can prove me wrong about the apparent bias, the apparent shenanigans and the apparent intellectual dishonesty in the chain of events at your paper.

Rex Curry
*******************************
Dear Orlando Sentinel,
    As a Libertarian Party candidate for The State House of Representatives, I want to thank you for sending the “Florida Water Supply Survey” and my answers are below with many more comments.
    I am a sixth generation Floridian, and a lifelong resident and an attorney.  My predecessors were some of the first settlers in Key West, and they were some of the early residents of Ybor City, when they followed the cigar trade to Ybor City.  In a way, I feel that I have a special connection to Florida, and a keen interest in its environmental quality.  That is why I am a capitalist and a libertarian.  The color of a healthy environment and the color of money are the same.  Capitalists are the true greens.  Mother Nature is a capitalist.
    Government is the greatest polluter and the greatest cause of pollution.  Socialism is environmentally disastrous.
    
Florida Water Supply Survey from the Orlando Sentinel.

1. Which statement most closely reflects your opinion about Florida's
long-term water supply? Please circle the corresponding letter.
       A. Long-term water supply issues are critical and immediate action is
needed to avert a serious shortage.
       B. Long-term water supply issues are important and current long-term
planning is appropriate.
       C. Florida has plenty of water, and this is not a major issue.
***** D. The so-called water crisis is exaggerated by the media,
environmentalists and/or water management districts.

2. Please rank the following methods of dealing with long-term scarcity in
order of importance. Please write your rankings in the space provided, using
the numbers 1 through 3, with number 1 being most important.
       _2___ A. Encouraging conservation and reuse of water
       _3___ B. Slowing growth
       _1___ C. Tapping new water sources, such as desalination
       Please feel free to write in other
suggestions: Remove government from water, privatize water resources.  The government’s present involvement in water is creating all the problems in the same way that the same involvement by government would be equally disastrous if, in addition to socializing water, the government also socialized food, clothing, shelter, oil, phosphate, phone calls, electricity, lumber, land, milk, natural gas, gypsum, gasoline, football, coal, concrete, chalk, cement, computers, crops, cable TV, toilet paper (abbreviated sometimes hereafter as FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP) or any other goods and services.   Florida is fortunate that the government is not similarly involved in FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP or other goods and services or we would receive “Florida [fill in the blank] Supply Surveys” about food, clothing, shelter, oil, phosphate, phone calls, electricity, lumber, land, milk, natural gas, gypsum, gasoline, football, coal, concrete, chalk, cement, computers, crops, cable TV, toilet paper and asking the same wrong-headed questions about FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP and all other goods and services and using EXACTLY the same illogic in every regard.  

3. Would you support or oppose water concurrency -- the idea that growth
should be restricted until sufficient water supply for anticipated growth is
identified and planned for, and financial commitments for getting the
additional water are made? Please circle the appropriate letter.
       A. Strongly support
       B. Support
       C. Neutral
       D. Oppose
***** E. Strongly oppose
       F. Undecided/don't know

4. Water managers maintain that ensuring adequate water availability will
cost money for alternative sources and other methods. Who do you think should
bear the highest burden of paying for this? Please circle the letter next to
your choice.
*****A. Customers through higher water bills
       B. Developers through higher impact fees (this means customers through higher bills).
       C. State, local or water management districts budgets supported by
property and sales taxes. (this means customers through higher bills).
       D. Other (Please specify): The “burden of paying” (as you put it) would occur naturally in a free market economy in the same manner that the “burden of paying” occurs naturally for food, clothing, shelter, oil, phosphate, phone calls, electricity, lumber, land, milk, natural gas, gypsum, gasoline, football, coal, concrete, chalk, cement, computers, crops, cable TV, toilet paper (abbreviated sometimes hereafter as FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP) or any other goods and services.    The government’s present involvement in water is creating all the “burden of payment” problems in the same way that the same involvement by government would create “burden of payment” problems if, in addition to socializing water, the government also socialized FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP or any other goods and services.   Our country is fortunate that the government is not involved in FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP or other goods and services or we would receive “[fill in the blank] Supply Surveys” about food, clothing, shelter, oil, phosphate, phone calls, electricity, lumber, land, milk, natural gas, gypsum, gasoline, football, coal, concrete, chalk, cement, computers, crops, cable TV, toilet paper and asking the same wrong-headed questions about FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP and all other goods and services and using EXACTLY the same illogic in every regard.  


5. Would you support or oppose permanent statewide watering restrictions for
lawn and landscape irrigation that would limit sprinkling to two days a week?
       A. Strongly support
       B. Support
       C. Neutral
       D. Oppose
***** E. Strongly oppose
       F. Undecided/don't know

6. Would you support or oppose landscape ordinances and other rules that
would limit the percentage of a developed area that requires high irrigation,
such as turf grass?
       A. Strongly support
       B. Support
       C. Neutral
       D. Oppose
***** E. Strongly oppose
       F. Undecided/don't know

7. Experts say there could be many consequences of long-term shortage. Please
rank the following list by order of importance using the numbers 1 through 4,
with number 1 being the consequence of most concern to you and number 4 being
the consequence of least concern.
       _1___ A. Growth would be slowed, resulting in economic hardship.
       _4___ B. Harmful environmental consequences to springs, lakes and
wetlands.
       _2___ C. Increasing water prices for consumers.
       _3___ D. Water wars among governments and utilities that could result
in expensive litigation.
       Please feel free to write in other suggestions:
Government involvement in water is environmentally disastrous to springs, lakes and wetlands and everything, and the problems caused by government are used by the government as further excuses for yet more government-created problems via growth controls, economic hardship, increased water prices for consumers, and water wars among governments and utilities with expensive litigation.   Florida is fortunate that the government is not similarly involved in FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP or other goods and services or we would receive “Florida [fill in the blank] Supply Surveys” describing the same “shortage” problems in regard to  food, clothing, shelter, oil, phosphate, phone calls, electricity, lumber, land, milk, natural gas, gypsum, gasoline, football, coal, concrete, chalk, cement, computers, crops, cable TV, toilet paper and asking the same wrong-headed questions about FCSOPHPHELLMNGGGFCCCCCCCTVTP and all other goods and services and using EXACTLY the same illogic in every regard.  

8. Should Florida permit water to be moved around the state, in aqueducts for
example, from rural areas where water is plentiful and population is smaller,
to more populated urban areas where water is in shorter supply?
*****A. Strongly support
       B. Support
       C. Neutral
       D. Oppose
       E. Strongly oppose
       F. Undecided/don't know

9. Do you support or oppose the notion that agricultural interests should be
made to increasingly use reclaimed water and surface water so that Florida's
pristine groundwater can be used for people?
       A. Strongly support
       B. Support
       C. Neutral
       D. Oppose
***** E. Strongly oppose
       F. Undecided/don't know

10. Which statement most closely reflects your opinion about how Florida's
water is regulated? Please circle the corresponding letter.
       A. Florida needs a powerful new statewide water board to plan,
regulate and enforce decisions about water supply
       B. The current system managed by five water management districts and
the state Department of Environmental Protection is about right
*****C. The current system managed by five water management districts and
the state Department of Environmental Protection is already too restrictive

11. Would you support or oppose increased funding for the following.....?
       1. Florida Department of Environmental Protection for water programs
such as water quality monitoring, replacing old, leaking gas tanks, etc.?
              A. Strongly support
              B. Support
              C. Neutral
              D. Oppose
******  E. Strongly oppose
              F. Undecided/don't know
       2. State land-buying programs to protect water sources?
              A. Strongly support
              B. Support
              C. Neutral
              D. Oppose
******  E. Strongly oppose
              F. Undecided/don't know

12. We would like to receive additional comments you might have pertaining to
water. If you would like to give us your input, please use the space below
and/or attach additional sheet.  (ALSO SEE ATTACHED SHEETS)


Your name: (please print) Rex Curry  
for more ideas on liberty
http://rexcurry.net/
And
http://rexcurry.net

rexy@ij.net
rexatious@hotmail.com
ecurry@interaccess.net
http://rexcurry.net/
http://rexcurry.net
Additional Comments: SEE BELOW AND ATTACHED

Thank you for your participation.  return your survey or mail it to:
ATTN: Debbie Salamone MP 218, Florida Water Survey, 633 N. Orange Ave.,
Orlando, FL 32801
....................................
These are additional comments that I have written over the years on the issue of Florida’s water supply and not specifically in response to the Florida Water Supply Survey, though most of the points apply in the same fashion.

    So long as government owns and controls the water supply, excluding free enterprise, then the plans to provide water in the future will be nothing but more tired socialist schemes.  As part of your paper's efforts to solve water shortage problems, you should advocate the privatization of water sources and of all water distribution systems.
    Articles regarding solutions to local water shortages are always simplistic. The inane reasoning is made clear if applied to other subterranean resources.  Try writing articles advocating the hackneyed "public resource" management concepts for oil, coal, natural gas, and phosphate.  It will be a sad day at the birth of a "West Coast Regional Water, Oil, Coal, Natural Gas and Phosphate Supply."
    Bureaucratic efforts to encourage greater water conservation and regulation will achieve the opposite of that intended. Altruistic water conservation in a non-market system helps wasteful people evade the true cost of wastefulness and it discourages use and development of alternatives, which would eventually reduce the price of water.  Perpetuating the present non-market approaches will cause greater shortages and higher water prices.
    Florida's water bureaucracies produce water shortages in the same way the former Soviet Union produced food shortages.  How fortunate that Florida's food supply has been a relatively free market compared to water, or the Soviets could have broadcast pictures of Floridians standing in line for food.  Instead, the Soviets could have shown local water rationing and conservation programs, and private lakes being drained by government bureaucracies.
    Watering restrictions are another regulatory response to overuse of water caused by the government's own bureaucratic water fees, which are not market prices (that would rise during shortages or drought, based on supply and demand). People who support watering restrictions are patsies who promote waste by naively propping up the government's pricing system, helping wasteful individuals evade the true cost of wastefulness, which would otherwise be levied in market prices among private firms just like other goods. Soviet-style rationing of water simply leaves extra water for the most wasteful uses, and for new construction of additional wasteful uses, while defeating profit incentives for developing other sources of water.
    One of the biggest, most economical water systems evolved from a company founded in 1782 by the Perrier brothers that supplied piped water in Paris.  Steven Hanke, a former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisors, who has made a study of private water systems, states, "The success of the Parisian system can be laid squarely at the feet of private ownership and regulation through competition, rather than public regulatory bodies."
    Capitalism provides the means to build cisterns, drip irrigation systems, better commodes and shower heads, automatic faucets  and other solutions.  Capitalism's desalinization technology and waste-water recycling technology will eventually circumvent the problems caused by government ownership and control of water.  Meanwhile environmentalists lengthen shortages and delay innovation by using conservation to hide the true cost of water and by diverting time and money to government and self-defeating programs.  As Libertarians and Objectivists say: Water is too precious to have the government involved.
................................
    Water surrounds Florida and covers most of the earth.  Of all the states, Florida has one of the highest in rainfall, has the largest sources of underground water in the aquifers, and Florida has rivers dumping millions of gallons of water into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Florida's water shortage is another example of government gaining regulatory power as a result of its own shortcomings.  Florida suffers not from a shortage of water, but from an oversupply of bureaucrats, who are incompetent to provide water.  They defeat the only process that can increase the supply of cheap, clean, plentiful water: Capitalism and its technology.
    Government has monopolized our water systems and destroyed free enterprise along with the natural conservation and recycling fostered by market pricing.  Government has subverted the profit incentive that produces new technologies for cleaning and supplying more water at lower prices.  Instead, government produces a flood of bureaucratic rationing, regulation, taxation, and comprehensive "planning,"  -compounding the problem it tries to solve.
    Florida's soggy socialism produces water shortages in the same way the former Soviet Union produced food shortages.  How fortunate that Florida's food supply is still a comparatively free market, or the Soviets would have been broadcasting pictures of us standing in line for food or only visiting government-run grocery stores on designated days of the week.  Instead, the Soviets could have shown our water rationing system.
    Water is too precious to have the government involved.
.........................................
    Here is an educational diversion for your readers: When reading any of the never-ending articles on the government “water wars” imagine that the article is not about how water should be “managed,” but about farmland and crops, and how they should be “managed.”   The officials and elected representatives in the articles may not seem like  “statesmen and public servants,” but like soviet-style bureaucrats and rank socialists who would be doing similar things if they “managed” farmland and crops instead of water.  Their hostility toward, or ignorance of, private property concepts and free market economics is amazing, especially when compared to the infinite examples everywhere, including farmland and crops.   Of course, the danger with this diversion is that some socialistic readers may be inspired to lobby for all farmland and crops to be socialized and added to the duties of the “water management personnel.”   Thinking can be risky.
.....................................
    The attempt by local officials to micro-control water use is absurd.  Media coverage of the issue is as mindless as media coverage of "price gouging."  People should not altruistically conserve water, and the media should not encourage the practice.  
    People who altruistically conserve water and who support watering restrictions are rubes and patsies who promote waste by naively propping up the government's pricing system, helping wasteful individuals evade the true cost of wastefulness, which would otherwise be levied in market prices among private firms just like other goods.  Watering restrictions are another regulatory response to overuse of water caused by the government's own bureaucratic water fees, which are not market prices (that would rise during shortages or drought, based on supply and demand).  The present  Soviet-style rationing of water simply leaves extra water for the most wasteful uses, and for new construction of additional wasteful uses, while defeating profit incentives for developing other sources of water.
    So long as government owns and controls the water supply, excluding free enterprise, then the plans to provide water in the future will be nothing but more tired socialist schemes.  To solve water shortage problems, the media should advocate the privatization of water sources and of all water distribution systems.
    Media comments regarding solutions to water shortages are always simplistic. The inane reasoning is made clear if applied to other subterranean resources.  Imagine the absurdity of the media using the hackneyed "public resource" management concepts for oil, coal, natural gas, and phosphate.  It will be a sad day at the birth of a "West Coast Regional Water, Oil, Coal, Natural Gas and Phosphate Supply."  And it will be an even sadder day at the birth of a "West Coast Regional Food, Clothing and Shelter Supply."
    Bureaucratic efforts to encourage greater water conservation and regulation will achieve the opposite of that intended.  Altruistic water conservation in a non-market system helps wasteful people evade the true cost of wastefulness and it discourages use and development of alternatives, which would eventually reduce the price of water.  Perpetuating the present non-market approaches will cause greater shortages and higher water prices.
    Florida's water bureaucracies produce water shortages in the same way the former Soviet Union produced food shortages.  It is fortunate that Florida's food supply has been a relatively free market compared to water, or the Soviets could have broadcast pictures of Floridians standing in line for food.  Instead, the Soviets could have shown local water rationing and conservation programs, and private lakes being drained by government bureaucracies.
    One of the biggest, most economical water systems evolved from a company founded in 1782 by the Perrier brothers that supplied piped water in Paris.  Steven Hanke, a former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisors, who has made a study of private water systems, states, "The success of the Parisian system can be laid squarely at the feet of private ownership and regulation through competition, rather than public regulatory bodies."
    Capitalism provides the means to build cisterns, drip irrigation systems, better commodes and shower heads, automatic faucets  and other solutions.  Capitalism's desalinization technology and waste-water recycling technology will eventually circumvent the problems caused by government ownership and control of water.  Meanwhile environmentalists lengthen shortages and delay innovation by using conservation to hide the true cost of water and by diverting time and money to government and self-defeating programs.  As Libertarians and Objectivists say: Water is too precious to have the government involved.
Yours in Liberty,
------------------------
 Concepts of property rights.
Many statists will unconsciously use a quasi-property rights argument to support restrictions on one state or country pumping and taking water from Florida.  Many statists will unconsciously use a quasi-property rights argument to support restrictions on one region or district of Florida (e.g. North Florida) pumping and taking water from another region of Florida (e.g. Southwest Florida).  Many statists will unconsciously use a quasi-property rights argument to support restrictions on one county of Florida (e.g. Pinellas) pumping and taking water from another county of Florida (e.g. Pasco).  Yet when a conscious argument is made for property rights to be explicitly recognized in individuals for a free market water system, the same statists howl that property rights can not work or be permitted in “precious water,” as water suddenly “belongs to everyone.”  It is a position that is contradictory to their other views, where they hold that water does not “belong to everyone” and where they embrace socialism as a means of letting government dictate who will have access to water and on what terms.

The preceding analysis can be applied to fish, wildlife and many other things for which statists embrace socialism.  For example:  Many statists will unconsciously use a quasi-property rights argument to support restrictions on one state or country engaging in commercial fishing in Florida (or any other state or country).  Yet when a conscious argument is made for property rights to be explicitly recognized in individuals for a free market water system, including waterways for fishing, the same statists howl that property rights can not work or be permitted in “precious water,” as water suddenly “belongs to everyone.”  It is a position that is contradictory to their other views, where they hold that water does not “belong to everyone” and where they embrace socialism as a means of letting government dictate who will have access to water and on what terms.

The preceding analysis can be applied to commercial farming and commercial hunting for food and many other things for which statists embrace socialism, especially in areas that actually have not even developed to the point of recognizing private property rights in land.  For example:  Many statists will unconsciously use a quasi-property rights argument to support restrictions on one country or region engaging in commercial farming or hunting in another country or region.  Yet when a conscious argument is made for property rights to be explicitly recognized in individuals and land for a free market system, including land for farming and hunting, the same statists howl that property rights can not work or be permitted in “precious land,” as land suddenly “belongs to everyone.”  It is a position that is contradictory to their other views, where they hold that land does not “belong to everyone” and where they embrace socialism as a means of letting government dictate who will have access to land and on what terms.
...........................................
"SOGGY SOCIALISM" (note that the following ideas can be applied to coral reefs, live rock, shell fish, shipwreck salvaging and other undersea items in addition to sponges).

    Socialism is as environmentally disastrous underwater as it has been on land.  Florida waters, like those everywhere, lack private property rights and thereby suffer great damage.  Overharvesting, which results from soggy socialism's "tragedy of the commons" is particularly pronounced in sponging.
    There are few things besides natural sponges that are harvested at one-fifth of their pre-World War II level.  Machinery improvements and better farming techniques result in higher productions of most commodities, but not natural sponges.  "Public" (state) ownership of submerged lands has long defeated sponge aquaculture and other undersea farming along with its abundant ecology.
    For example, when a hook is used to tear a sponge from the bottom, some material is left attached to the bottom to grow back.  This occurs about one-third of the time.  If a sponge is cut from the bottom instead of torn, it has been discovered that a sponge will grow back two-thirds of the time.  The lack of ownership in sponge beds means spongers have reduced opportunities to make such discoveries, and equally slight incentive to exert effort implementing them.  Public officials and other experts have even less incentive.  Under soggy socialism, success is measured by how quickly a sponger can find and raid dwindling sponge beds, not by one's success at increasing sponge size or reproduction.
    As is often the case, capitalism has provided an answer to the environmental destruction caused by central planning.  Socialism's ruiness effect on natural sponges was the catalyst for market substitutes: artificial sponges.  Due to collectivism, natural sponges are now oddities, and artificial sponges are better, commonplace, cheap and come in greater varieties and sizes than Mother Nature can produce.  Thanks to capitalism, the demand for natural sponges is now slight where socialism caused, and still causes, overharvesting.
    Imagine if defenders of "common ownership" of water and natural sponges applied their logic consistently to achieve common ownership of artificial sponges.  The same disaster would result.  Everyone would grab as many of the publicly owned artificial sponges as possible.   Owners of artificial sponge material and equipment would stop making sponges and find other work, while jobs in the industry would end just as jobs in natural sponging disappeared.  Actual violence would break out in efforts to control the artificial sponge market, just as violence ruled the "commonly owned" natural sponge beds of the Keys and Tarpon Springs, as dramatized in the movie "The Twelve Mile Reef."
    As shortages of artificial sponges grew, public officials would pass more and more regulations and controls such as they have in banning sponge diving in the Florida keys and phasing out harvesting in Biscayne Bay.
    Of course, officials would never comprehend that they bankrupted the artificial sponge industry, just as no socialist government has ever conceded causing shortages of natural sponges, nor food, clothing, housing or anything.  Proponents of such policies will not publicly debate them with advocates of free market economics and private property rights.
    The environment will be made safer by reducing government until undersea socialism ends.  As Libertarians and Objectivists say, there is no reason why free enterprise and private property rights should stop at the water's edge.  The color of a healthy environment and the color of money are the same.  Capitalists are the true "greens" of the environmental movement, and only private property rights can give natural sponging a chance to survive and thrive.
..................................
Editorial Board:
    The ban on net fishing will harm the environment. Government efforts at "protecting" fisheries has not worked. Government does not prevent overharvesting of fish, it causes overharvesting. Overharvesting results from soggy socialism's "tragedy of the commons" in fishing because of the lack of private property rights in water.
    Under soggy socialism, success is measured by how quickly fishing crews can find and raid dwindling fish populations, not by one's success at increasing fish size or reproduction. Controlled breeding, scientifically assisted reproduction, domestication techniques, machinery improvements and better farming methods result in higher productions of all meats, but not wild fish.  "Public" (state) ownership of large bodies of water has long defeated fish aquaculture and other undersea farming along with its abundant ecology.  Socialism has been as environmentally disastrous underwater as it has been on land.
    Fisherman are capitalists except on the issue of water bureaucracies, where they swallow underwater socialism hook, line and sinker. Government's historical response to the overharvesting it causes to fish has been bureaucratic regulation: restrict netting, limit the harvest size, limit boat size, limit fishing seasons, and other attempts at soviet-style rationing.  All of these simplistic rules are then circumvented by smarter entrepreneurs through more sophisticated fishing, different and better equipment and techniques, and the inability of government to enforce the endless rules.  Regulations that reduce domestic fishing are circumvented by the growth of foreign fish markets and imports.
    Regulatory failure is forcing bureaucrats to adopt capitalism by establishing property rights with "Individual Transferable Quotas" (ITQ's).  Through ITQ's each fisherman owns a property right in a fixed proportion of the total allowable catch each year.  Government has been slow to adopt the ITQ system of free enterprise and deregulation.  It's time for bureaucrats to fish or cut bait.
     As usual, socialism's ruinous effect has been a catalyst for capitalist solutions: farmed fish.  Due to collectivism, wild fish are overharvested, while farmed fish are better, commonplace, cheap and come in more consistent sizes and qualities than Mother Nature can produce.  Thanks to capitalism, farmed fish are saving wild fish from the socialism that caused, and still causes, overharvesting.
    Entrepreneurs create their own water rights by turning terra firma into fish farms, and also create property rights by "fencing" sections of open water with enclosed netting underneath barges.  Floating fish farms let individuals establish property rights in the same way cattle ranchers did with barbed wire fencing. Capitalism's high technology is also providing satellite methods for pinpointing locations anywhere on earth, including defining and locating property boundaries on the high seas.  As libertarians and objectivists say, there is no reason why private property rights should end where the turf meets the surf.
Yours in Liberty,
.....................................
    It is amazing how fishing enthusiasts are usually capitalists, except when the line is in the water.  They wheel and deal to buy and sell rods, reels, boats, trailers, and trucks, and they'd laugh at the argument that all those goods and the resources used to manufacture them were "publicly owned resources" that needed to be rationed.  Yet, once the fishermen reach the water's edge, suddenly they tout "public resource regulations" to save fisheries and they toss overboard all free market economics and private property rights.
    Imagine if fishing fans applied public resource regulations to all food, clothing, shelter and fishing gear -the result would be the same shortages that plague fisheries.   Chicken, cattle, cotton, concrete - everything would be "overharvested," underproduced and in constant threat of shortage if fishing fans were able to apply their system, subvert private property rights, and regulate all goods with harvest controls.  Why is it so hard to see the similarity between the domestic approach to fisheries and soviet-style regulation?       
    The bureaucratic, regulatory approach to "protecting" fisheries does not work. Government does not prevent overharvesting of fish, it causes overharvesting. Overharvesting results from soggy socialism's "tragedy of the commons" - the race to overuse any resource that is not protected by private property rights.  Under socialism, success is measured by how quickly fishing crews can find and raid dwindling fish populations, not by one's success at increasing fish size or reproduction. Controlled breeding, scientifically assisted reproduction, domestication techniques, machinery improvements and better farming methods result in higher productions of all meats, but not wild fish.  "Public" (state) ownership of large bodies of water has long defeated fish aquaculture and other undersea farming along with its abundant ecology.  Socialism has been as environmentally disastrous underwater as it has been on land.
    Government's historical response to the overharvesting it causes to fish has been bureaucratic regulation: limit the harvest size, limit boat size, limit fishing seasons, restrict netting, and other attempts at soviet-style rationing.  All of these simplistic rules are then circumvented by smarter entrepreneurs through more sophisticated fishing, different and better equipment and techniques, and the inability of government to enforce the endless rules.  Regulations that reduce domestic fishing are circumvented by the growth of foreign fish markets and imports.
    Regulatory failure is forcing bureaucrats to adopt capitalism by establishing property rights with "Individual Transferable Quotas" (ITQ's).  Through ITQ's each fisherman owns a property right in a fixed proportion of the total allowable catch each year.  Government has been slow to adopt the ITQ system of free enterprise and deregulation.  It's time for bureaucrats to fish or cut bait.
     As usual, socialism's ruinous effect has been a catalyst for capitalist solutions: farmed fish.  Due to collectivism, wild fish are overharvested, while farmed fish are better, commonplace, cheap and come in more consistent sizes and qualities than Mother Nature can produce.  Thanks to capitalism, farmed fish are saving wild fish from the socialism that caused, and still causes, overharvesting.  Yet fishing fans purchase farmed fish, beef, poultry and produce and never see any hypocrisy between their daily economic decisions and their attitude toward wild fish. Fishermen swallow underwater socialism hook, line and sinker.
    The confined stream of capitalism forms new channels. Entrepreneurs create their own water rights by turning terra firma into fish farms, and by  "fencing" sections of open water with enclosed netting underneath barges. Fish farms let individuals establish property rights in the same way cattle ranchers did with barbed wire fencing.
    Capitalism's high technology is also providing satellite methods for pinpointing locations anywhere on earth, including defining and locating property boundaries on the high seas. Yet fishing fans ignore the idea of private property rights in water.  If the first cattle farmers had consulted modern fishermen, they would have been advised that private property in land would not work and that fencing land was a wacky idea.  Fishing is trapped in modern feudalism.
    Objections to property rights in water are equally silly if applied to property in land.  Imagine if property in land was opposed with the argument that, "No one will be able to go anywhere because landowners won't let others go across their land." Or, "If landowners erect barriers surrounding their land, or corral animals, society will not function."  Imagine if the explanation that paths would be established so people could cross land, was met with the blank look that follows when the same explanation is offered for travel around private property in water?
    Water provides more avenues than land for going around private property.  In water, travel is made on the surface, above the surface and below the surface. On land, travel below the surface is only possible through permanent tunnels.           
    The typical fishing commentary in television, radio or print is a constant whine, "if only there were more regulations,"  "if only there were more law enforcement officers."  It is such a gestapo drone it is a comedy, made funnier by the complete blindness to the only meaningful alternative: private property rights and free market economics.  Fishing fans know a lot about the act of catching a fish, but they don't know much about fishing.  There is no reason why private property rights should end at the water's edge.
..................................
    Misguided people often ask government for more regulations to protect Florida's coral reefs.  Government does not prevent destruction of coral reefs, it aids destruction. Abuse results from soggy socialism's "tragedy of the commons" - the neglect that results to any resource that is not protected by private property rights.  "Public" (state) ownership of large bodies of water has long defeated reef aquaculture and other undersea farming along with its abundant ecology.  Socialism has been as environmentally disastrous underwater as it has been on land.
    The only way to correct the mess is with property rights.  Private property rights would encourage reef owners to increase reef size and reproduction through aquaculture and scientifically assisted reproduction and growth.  Private property rights in water will create profit incentives for construction of better reefs for commercial scuba diving and to improve commercial fishing and paid recreational fishing.
    Contrary to environmentalist hysteria, it is easy to make frames to cultivate man-made reefs that grow faster and live better than natural reefs. Sophisticated structures for artificial reefs have been built at Eilat, Israel.  Even near Key Largo, reefs have been built the old-fashioned way - by sinking obsolete ships.
    Government ownership of saltwater floors does not allow commercial reef construction. Even if it was allowed, there would be no profit incentive for doing so, so long as government owned the area.
    Environmentalists ignore the idea of private property rights in reefs.  If the first agricultural farmers had consulted modern reef experts, they would have been advised that private property in land would not work. Self-proclaimed environmentalists purchase farmed fish and other farmed food and never see any hypocrisy between their daily economic decisions and their attitude toward reef areas.  Environmentalists swallow underwater socialism hook, line and sinker.
    Most editorials are hardly any better, as they parrot the typical marine commentary in television, radio or print.  It is a constant whine, "if only there were more regulations,"  "if only there were more law enforcement officers."  It is such a gestapo drone it is a comedy, made funnier by the complete blindness to the only meaningful alternative: private property rights and free market economics.
    The duty of government is to recognize and protect property rights in all things, wet or dry.  Littoral and riparian rights, ancient laws recognizing property rights in oceans and rivers, have never waded far from shore.  Water rights are old enough to dive deep, if the law does not drown them.  There is no reason why private property rights should end at the water's edge.
Rex Curry
..................................
    News about the artificial reef near the city of Hudson, Florida proves the need to privatize the oceans and all waters, and remove the government.
    Government is often seen as the protector of coral reefs even though it harms them. Abuse results from soggy socialism's "tragedy of the commons" - the neglect that results to any resource that is not protected by private property rights.  "Public" (state) ownership of water has long defeated the creation of artificial reefs, reef aquaculture and other undersea farming along with its abundant ecology.  Socialism has been as environmentally disastrous underwater as it has been on land.
    On the other hand, it is easy to make frames to cultivate man-made reefs that grow faster and live better than natural reefs. Sophisticated structures for artificial reefs have been built at Eilat, Israel.  Pasco has four artificial reefs. Reef Site 1, about nine miles west of the Gulf Harbors subdivision, has piles of concrete rubble, three scuttled barges and steel cylinder, dory, tugboat and shrimp boat.
    Environmentalists argue against private property rights in reefs and water.  If the first agricultural farmers had consulted modern environmentalists, the same arguments would have been made against private property in land.
    As Libertarians say, the duty of government is to recognize and protect property rights in all things, wet or dry.  Littoral and riparian rights, ancient laws recognizing property rights in oceans and rivers, have never waded far from shore.  Water rights are old enough to dive deep, if the law does not drown them.  There is no reason why private property rights should end at the water's edge.
Rex Curry
Attorney at Law
....................................
    The state of Alabama has laws permitting artificial reef creation. These reefs create habitat that helps fish flourish, including fish like red snapper. That is a reason why Alabama has one of the smallest coastlines of all of the states that border the Gulf of Mexico, yet it accounts for one third of the recreational red snapper sport fishery in the Gulf.  
    People who create reefs in Alabama are the only ones who know where they are (within a limited area), and that provides a form of proprietary ownership over the individual reefs. That property right has distinguished Alabama from other Gulf states.  The worldwide trend toward privatization should encourage Alabama (and other states) to formally recognize that ownership and enlarge it, creating even greater incentives to conserve and enhance underwater resources.  
There could be remarkable results.
    In Japan, fishery cooperatives own reef areas.  As a result, Japanese cooperatives create artificial reefs to increase their catches and to provide reef locations that can be defended against development and pollution.  
    Greater property rights in artificial reefs or areas would allow people to benefit directly from improving underwater real estate, whether for better recreational fishing, better dive sites, scientific research, commercial fish nurseries, or other goals. Artificial reefs are supported by sports fishermen, SCUBA divers, and environmental groups, all of whom have demonstrated a willingness to pay for artificial reefs.  
......................................
    Your front page photo showed how Greenpeace hurts the environment by opposing the sinking of an old oil platform.   The platform would make a great artificial reef for marine life.  The non-thinking Greenpeacniks will oppose an artificial reef in the morning and then demand goverment "save" a natural reef in the afternoon.  Green peace is a danger to the environment.
    Green peace's opposition to property rights in water causes environmental harm. Harm results from soggy socialism's "tragedy of the commons" - the neglect that results to any resource unprotected by private property rights.  "Public" (state) ownership of large bodies of water has long defeated reef aquaculture and other undersea farming along with its abundant ecology.  Socialism has been as environmentally disastrous underwater as it has been on land.
    The only way to correct the mess is with property rights.  Private property rights would encourage reef owners to increase reef size and reproduction through aquaculture and scientifically aided reproduction and growth.  Private property rights in water will create profit incentives for construction of better reefs for commercial scuba diving and to improve commercial fishing and paid recreational fishing.
    Contrary to environmentalist hysteria, it is easy to make manmade reefs that grow faster and live better than natural reefs. Sophisticated structures for artificial reefs are easy to create and install, as has been proved in Eilat, Israel.  Even near Key Largo, old-fashioned reef building has occurred by sinking obsolete ships.
    Government ownership of saltwater floors does not allow commercial reef construction. Even if it was allowed, there would be no profit incentive for doing so, while government owned the area.
    Environmentalists ignore the idea of private property rights in reefs.  If the first agricultural farmers had consulted modern reef experts, they would have been advised that private property in land would not work. Self-proclaimed environmentalists purchase farmed fish and other farmed food and never see any hypocrisy between their daily economic decisions and their attitude toward reef areas.  Environmentalists swallow underwater socialism hook, line and sinker.
    Greenpeace's attitude is no better.  It is a constant whine, "if only there were more regulations,"  "if only there were more law enforcement officers."  It is such a gestapo drone it is a comedy, made funnier by the complete blindness to the only meaningful alternative: private property rights and free market economics.
    The duty of government is to recognize and protect property rights in all things, wet or dry.  Littoral and riparian rights, ancient laws recognizing property rights in oceans and rivers, have never waded far from shore.  Water rights are old enough to dive deep, if the law does not drown them.  There is no reason private property rights should end at the water's edge.
Rex Curry
.....................................
    The use of the old stadium as a manmade reef is a good idea that would be even better if the reef, and all reefs were privatized.  
    Opposition to property rights in water causes environmental harm. Harm results from soggy socialism's "tragedy of the commons" - the neglect that results to any resource unprotected by private property rights.  "Public" (state) ownership of large bodies of water has long defeated reef aquaculture and other undersea farming along with its abundant ecology.  Socialism has been as environmentally disastrous underwater as it has been on land.
    The only way to correct the mess is with property rights.  Private property rights would encourage reef owners to increase reef size and reproduction through aquaculture and scientifically aided reproduction and growth.  Private property rights in water will create profit incentives for construction of better reefs for commercial scuba diving and to improve commercial fishing and paid recreational fishing.
    Contrary to environmentalist hysteria, it is easy to make manmade reefs that grow faster and live better than natural reefs. Sophisticated structures for artificial reefs are easy to create and install, as has been proved in Eilat, Israel.  Even near Key Largo, old-fashioned reef building has occurred by sinking obsolete ships.
    There are already plans to create an artificial reef at the Old Gandy Bridge. Some officials were counting on debris from the old Gandy to build a new reef at Egmont Key.  The reef that will be constructed at the Gandy Bridge will be one more site in addition to the EPC's eight other reef sites to which rubble is hauled by barge.   The EPC's artificial reef program has been faced with dwindling funds.  The program should be closed and the reef areas sold. If any artificial reef is created at the old Gandy Bridge it should be privatized along with the bridge.  All artificial and natural reef sites should be privatized not only as debris disposal businesses but for the commercial and recreational fishing businesses that reefs provide.
    Present government ownership of saltwater floors does not allow commercial reef construction.  Even if it was allowed, there would be no profit incentive for doing so, while government owned the area.
    Environmentalists are ignorant of the idea of private property rights in reefs.  If the first agricultural farmers had consulted modern reef experts, they would have been advised that private property in land would not work. Self-proclaimed environmentalists purchase farmed fish and other farmed food and never see any hypocrisy between their daily economic decisions and their attitude toward reef areas.  The sophistries of underwater socialism are swallowed hook, line and sinker.
    It is a completely statist attitude.  It is a constant whine, "if only there was more government and regulation,"  "if only there were more law enforcement officers."   Many will oppose an artificial reef in the morning and then demand that government "save" a natural reef in the afternoon.  Environmentalists are a danger to the environment.  It is such a gestapo drone it is a comedy, made funnier by the complete blindness to the only meaningful alternative: private property rights and free market economics.
    The duty of government is to recognize and protect property rights in all things, wet or dry.  Littoral and riparian rights, ancient laws recognizing property rights in oceans and rivers, have never waded far from shore.  Water rights are old enough to dive deep, if the law does not drown them.  There is no reason private property rights should end at the water's edge.

**********************************

LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE DR. REX CURRY

The incumbent Democrat and her Libertarian challenger have very different views on government's role.

Libertarian candidate Rex Curry and Democrat Arthenia L. Joyner agree the residents of state House District 59, one of the poorest districts in Florida, need help. They agree on nothing else.

Curry, a sixth-generation Floridian, said that the unchecked growth of government has actually harmed its citizens.

"Poor people hurt the most from taxes on goods and services, and from the loss of jobs when businesses are taxed and cannot grow," said Curry, a Tampa lawyer.

Joyner, a lawyer in Tampa since 1969, has dedicated much of her life to boards and agencies that serve the once vital and now blighted inner
city. In a district that is nearly 60 percent black and 59 percent female, Joyner was elected in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote.

She focused on economic development issues, which she sees as central to revitalizing the depressed east Tampa community.

Curry lives in the district, but his recipe for improving the plight of its needy residents is to shrink government. The state's population has doubled during the last quarter-century, he said, but the budget has increased more than 1,000 percent during the same period.

So why aren't people better off, he asked.

"In a healthy society, the need for government should constantly decrease as we solve our problems," Curry said. "The marketplace is how you make intelligent decisions. People spending their own money."

Joyner said the Legislature faces a budget crisis this coming year as it struggles to "fund recurring programs with nonrecurring funds." New taxes are already being discussed, she said, though it would be preferable to handle shortfalls with belt-tightening.

Curry proposes strangulation rather than belt-tightening.

"I encourage people to remove their children from government schools," he said. "My goal is to get them their money back."

District 59 State House
published October 31, 2002

NEWS OF THE WORLD http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg NEWS FOR ORLANDO SENTINEL NEWSPAPER

NEWS MEDIA COVER-UP http://rexcurry.net/edward%20bellamy.jpg NEWS BIAS

Lies are a government's most essential resource. Government relies on the media to repeat its lies to everyone.

SWASTIKA http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg NEWS FOR ORLANDO SENTINEL NEWSPAPER

SWASTIKA SOCIALISM http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg NEWS FOR ORLANDO SENTINEL NEWSPAPER


SITEMETER