Sharon Presley’s Newest Projects

So, I have been begging Dr. Sharon Presley to blog with us here at NotesOnLiberty for about a year now, and largely for one big reason:

She is a rock star within the libertarian movement. She has been an anarchist and an individualist feminist since before I was born, and she has always pointed out to a largely male-dominated quadrant of American politics (the libertarian one) that the movement has been shooting itself in the foot by not being more inclusive to women. She’s right, of course. Most of the women that I talk to about politics (which is a small sample, I usually try to stay on target) think libertarianism is bad ass once it has been explained to them in a coherent, progressive manner (like we do here at NotesOnLiberty).

Since she has been an activist for so long, she has a long CV filled with top-notch editorials and journal articles, as well as a number of books (which you can find to the right of this post).

She also has a different academic background than most libertarians, which is something I can appreciate as an anthropology major. A psychologist by training, Dr. Presley, has spent a lifetime helping people free themselves from various types of control.

Right now she is currently the managing editor of Free Voices: A Magazine of Anarchist Thought, the executive director (and co-founder) of the Association of Libertarian Feminists, and has recently launched another magazine project called The Free Woman Magazine. Needless to say, she is a very busy woman and I certainly understand if she doesn’t have the time for our humble blog, but it would be awesome if/when she join(s) us! In the meantime, do be sure to check out her other projects, as they are vital to maintaining the spontaneous and decentralized nature of the libertarian movement.

PS: here is a great article that she recently linked to on her Facebook page.

What I Did Not Write About Enough in 2012

Climate change

Nothing new there. Alarmists keep lying, making up data, cherry-picking data, exaggerating grossly the consequences of what does happen on the climate front. Not really worth dealing with. Instead, go to the “What’s Up With That” blog every so often. There is a direct link to it on the front of this blog and here also, is the link: Masters, McKibben and Droughting Thomases.

It’s not exactly a dead horse though; it’s a new religion that will find its place among others and perhaps, next to the “Maya Calendar End of the World” cult. Or, maybe not, or maybe, it’s a little more: It looks like one of those widespread but lightly held beliefs. It may become soon like the rule that you don’t walk under a ladder. It might influence legislation yet, but, I think not in a major way. I believe we got off easy.

Belief in global warming plays an important role in my life though. It helps me separate in seconds those who are real skeptics, like me, from those who merely play at pretending to be skeptics in order to glean the social benefits of such skepticism.

And, in case you are wondering, here is my current understanding: There is no warming that is global, and of significant duration, and that’s man-made, and that constitutes an emergency for humankind. Continue reading

Petaluma

Here is a poem I like:

No asphalt here, all concrete streets,
cracked, torn and rattled,
above centuries of adobe mud.

I’m from Petaluma and I never know
How to handle being home. Continue reading

Around the Web: Leftist Edition

1. Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit. David Graeber takes a swipe at the discipline of economics. Does he have any valid arguments, or is it all hearsay?

2. The Red and the Black. This is an insightful essay by a doctoral candidate in history over at Cornell. His thesis: profit is the motor of capitalism. What would it be under socialism?

3. What happens when a right-libertarian takes a gander at left-libertarianism? An insightful essay, that’s what. Among the gems:

Now, a note: there are two kinds of things that don’t make sense:

1. pure crap
2. things that make sense but use a framework that’s a bit more nuanced than the one you’re used to.

 

4. Its Time for Gulf Colonialism. No summary of Leftist contributions would be complete without an ode to anti-imperialism. This one is short, sweet and to the point.

From the Comments: Red State Blue State Edition

Now that I have a trusty laptop again, I can answer questions and discuss comments a bit more efficiently. Hank Moore asked the following question in response to a link I provided on Left-wing secessionist sentiment:

That California piece was good. What’s your take on the whole red states mooching off the blue states thing? I keep hearing this whenever the secession question comes up. Those few libs who don’t want to confiscate Texas from the Texans say “good riddance, you’re a tax burden anyways!”

It doesn’t quite fit into my version of the conventional wisdom for some reason. [1] Are the blue states paying more than their “fair share” simply because they are underrepresented and thus the fault is the constitution, or [2] is it because they already have large populations they naturally attract big businesses in spite of the fact they aren’t as friendly to free enterprise, and because of this there is more tax revenue to be collected? [3] And then there’s the fact that some red states may in fact still be feeling the effects of being on the losing side of the Civil War (scorched earth warfare, unconditional surrender, reconstruction). These are the three possible explanations that fit with my way of thinking. Maybe its just that I’m cherry-picking “evidence” for a conclusion I’ve already arrived at.

Any thoughts?

All three of Hank’s reasons are good, but I’d like to zoom in on the last one about the Civil War. I think has the gist of why many red states are poorer than blue states, but with a couple of tweaks. Continue reading

Santa Brought Me A Laptop

…so expect more posts from yours truly this year. In case you guys didn’t know, I was robbed over the summer while living on the streets and attending summer school. It was a tough situation, but I’m on track to graduate debt-free from school, so boo-freaking-hoo for me.

I hope you guys stick around for another year. We launched this consortium just under a year ago and we’re excited and proud of what has become of it so far.

Take a look at the recommendations page, as it just received (another) overhaul. Also be on the lookout for more bloggers this year. We’ve got a bunch of academic economists, a historian, a law professor and an academic psychologist-turned-anarcho-feminist who have expressed interest in our humble project.

The most popular blogger (at least in terms of views) was Dr. Delacroix. Here are three of our readerships favorites (again, at least according to views):

  1. Guns and Truth
  2. Pure Racism and Chinese Dining
  3. Karl Marx Was Right (Pretty Much)

Rounding out the Top 5 Most-Read Blog Posts were “Celebrating Chevron’s Profits” by Dr. Gibson and “Colonialism: Myths and Realities” by yours truly.

I’d also like to extend my sincere gratitude to Hank Moore for helping the consortium to launch its Facebook page. Without his support we wouldn’t be where we are today.

I’d like to thank everybody who has chimed in and added his or her own two cents as well. I know you certainly help me flesh out my thoughts on everything. Here’s to an amazing 2012 and a rollicking 2013.

America and Firearms (Explained to Overseas Readers)

The other day, I am watching the news on TV5, the international French language network. I am doing this to get away from the spectacle of the impending economic disaster in the US where I live. This is shortly after the massacre of school children in Connecticut. One item draws my attention: The cute, airhead French female announcer (or “anchorette”) states that last year about 28,000 people in the US lost their lives to guns.

Here we go again, I think. More half-assed information that is worse than no information at all. I have witnessed European media disseminating misleading information about the US for more than forty years. This time again, I have to intervene to help overseas of observers of the international scene who want to know about reality and who might happen to read this blog.

I can’t tell you how often I have witnessed the following: European commentators making sarcastic, superior comments about some American event or custom, or some American way of doing things and then, their society adopting uncritically the same American event, or custom, or way of doing things ten years later, or even later. Right now, for example, I would bet you anything that one of the novelties on French radio is 1990s American popular music. That would be especially true on the channel that calls itself without batting an eye-lash, “France culture.”

The tendency of Europeans to copycat the United States is so pronounced that it even affects social pathologies, the last thing you should want to imitate. Accordingly, it seems that the French expression for “serial killer” is: “serial killer.” N.S. ! (Would I make this up?) Continue reading

What is a Fair Share of Taxes?

What is fair is different from what is just. What is just is determined by the ethic of natural moral law as expressed by the universal ethic. The universal ethic prescribes that all acts, and only those acts, that coercively harm others, are evil. Justice is the implementation of the universal ethic in law. Justice is applied by prohibiting and penalizing evil acts, and by keeping all other acts free of restrictions or imposed costs.

The premises from which natural moral law derive are the biological independence of thinking and feeling, and the equal moral worth of all human beings. Thus a foundation of justice is equality before the law. People with equal conditions should be treated the same.

Equality implies that all persons are equal self-owners. If one person imposes his will on another, the victim becomes a slave, and the tyrant becomes a master, in violation of equality. Self-ownership implies that one fully owns one’s labor, and therefore any tax on wages or the products of labor, or the spending of wages, violates self-ownership, and is unjust.  Continue reading

The Mystique of Hedge Funds

Hedge funds are controversial these days. Though it’s unlikely that the average citizen or the average congressman could say just what hedge funds do, many are certain they must be reined in by additional regulation because they can—and do—cause widespread damage to our financial system. Almost everyone takes it for granted that regulation of some sort is the solution, ignoring the possibility that at least some of the problems are actually caused by regulation.

What is a hedge fund? The name implies hedging, a strategy that reduces risk. If you bet on several horses in a race, you are hedging your bets—spreading your risk. You can buy gold to hedge against inflation. You can sell interest-rate futures to hedge the risk that rising interest rates would pose to your bond portfolio.

The first hedge fund was created in 1949 by Alfred Jones. He believed he could pick stocks that would outperform and those that would underperform the overall market. But Jones didn’t know where the overall market was going, so he would buy his expected outperformers and sell short the expected underperformers. He thereby insulated his portfolio from general market moves, which would affect about half his holding positively and half negatively.

Most present-day hedge funds don’t do much hedging, but the name persists. Instead, they engage in a bewildering variety of trading methods, including buying on margin (using borrowed funds) and selling short (selling borrowed assets so as to profit from a price drop). They trade stocks, bonds, options, currencies, commodity futures, and sophisticated derivatives thereof. Some try to anticipate global political or economic events, while others seek opportunities in specific industries or companies. Continue reading

Forward to the Failed Past

Some politicians like to use the slogan, “forward.” Sometimes it is more emphatic: forward!

But one may well ask, forward to what? Time and the current of events are always moving us forward already, so evidently the forward-seekers want to change the existing flow sideways. The slogan “forward” has often been used by those who seek greater state-imposed collectivism. As propaganda, “forward!” sounds better than “leftward!” or “towards ever greater statism!”

Several publications of socialist parties during the 1800’s were titled “Forward.” Lenin continued this tradition when he founded the Bolshevik newspaper “Vpered” (or “Vperyod”), which is “forward” in Russian. German socialists had already published the periodical “Vorwärts,” and the German national socialists continued the use of the slogan. Several communist and socialist parties still use “Forward” as the title of their publications. Continue reading

The Pigou Club

Professor N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University initiated and hosts “The Pigou Club” of economists, journalists, and politicians who have favorably written about pollution levies as an efficient way to reduce emissions. Arthur Cecil Pigou was the economist who was the first to deeply analyze externalities (uncompensated effects on others) in his 1920 book The Economics of Welfare.

Pigou proposed a levy on negative external effects equal to the social cost, so that buyers and users pay the full social cost of products. The most common applications are tolls to prevent traffic congestion, parking meters that vary by time of day, and pollution levies.

The policy of charging those who create negative externalities is named Pigouvian, or Pigovian. Mankiw advocates higher gasoline taxes, but that would also tax those car owners with cars that run quite cleanly and are driven in roads that are not congested. The best Pigovian policy is to focus the charge on the negative element such as harmful emissions.  Continue reading

Around the Web

  1. The Case to Keep Dividing Africa
  2. The Cato Institute recently held its 30th annual monetary conference, and the Economist reports
  3. Gun Control’s Racist Origins
  4. The Past is Gone: Why Liberals Should Rethink States’ Rights
  5. Republicans Must Get Real on Foreign Policy

Leaving the Left: Three Dangerous Features I Left Behind

The blatant hypocrisy, the obstinate ignorance and the penchant for authoritarianism within the American Left today are the three reasons why I left the Left in the first place. Riffing off of my recent post on Leftist thought and its major deficiencies, I thought I’d point out a few more recent examples.

Remember, Leftists by and large don’t realize that what they are doing is a) hypocritical, b) ignorant, and c) authoritarian. It is, as Brian Gothberg pointed out, more of a cognitive block than anything. However, there is really no excuse for this cognitive dissonance once it has been explained. Perhaps I need to work on doing a better job of this, but I suspect, as does Dr. Delacroix, that most of it is simply obstinate ignorance and a failure by Leftists to actually read what their opponents are writing.

Writing over at EconLog, David Henderson points out the blatant hypocrisy of the Left in regards to freedom of speech. He draws readers to the attention of calls for solidarity by Leftist academics blogging at Crooked Timber (it’s to the right, on our blog roll, and has been for quite some time) for one of their own after he was targeted by Right-wing groups for his vile thoughts on the NRA’s CEO (a Mr. Wayne LaPierre). Henderson writes: Continue reading

No Upticks in Mass Shootings…

…so, what is to be done?

Brad Plumer of the Washington Post has a graph up on mass shootings:

Mass Shootings in the US 1980-2010

Plumer explains:

Mother Jones found that 24 of the last 62 worst mass shootings have taken place in the past seven years alone. That seemed like a clear increase.

But is this the right way of looking at things? Over at Reason, Jesse Walker criticizes my post and points to data from James Allan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern, who has found that there’s been no discernible increase in mass shootings since 1980 […]

Why the difference? Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that’s the standard FBI definition. Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence. They were trying to focus on spree killings that were similar in style to Virginia Tech or Aurora or Newtown. The definitions make a big difference: On Fox’s criteria, there’s no uptick. On Mother Jones’, there’s a clear increase […]

So, duly noted. One final point, though: Even if mass shootings are simply staying constant, and not actually increasing, that might still be of interest given that the overall rate of gun violence and homicide in the United States appears to be on the downswing.

So, not only have mass shootings not increased, but violence overall in the US is decreasing as well.

Every time something horrific happens, be it mass shootings, a collapse of the financial sector, a terrorist attack, whatever, there are calls from the people for the government to “do something.” These calls do not emanate from the Left alone.

The Austrian (and Austrian School) economist Ludwig von Mises recognized this nearly a century ago. I understand why there are calls from people for their government to “do something” after something awful happens. I understand why politicians respond to such calls. I always feel awful when I read about things like some psychopath gunning down little children at school or people losing their homes in an economic downturn.

Also, I always feel a little bit awkward standing athwart these calls waiving cold, hard evidence around that states disasters are extremely rare, and that passionate calls for more government intervention in our lives when there is absolutely no need for it is an invitation for more trouble, not less.

(h/t Tyler Cowen)

On another note, Pierre Lemieux and Jacques Delacroix have comments on guns and psychopaths. Both are worth reading.

Around the Web

  1. Seven Sins of our Forced Education

  2. Growth: Markets Broad and Deep
  3. Going Off the Rawls. A philosophical conversation with David Gordon.
  4. Learning to Love Volatility

  5. Schools for Slavery