Month: October 2013

Liberty Movement Cannot Just Rely on the Right

Wood Liberty

In order for the liberty movement to make things work, they need to do a little bit of the left and right at both times. For every “liberal” government program they cut, they have to cut a “conservative” government program. For every right-wing cause they champion, they must champion a left-wing one. The severity of this problem really sunk in when I noticed how much the Koch brothers had co-opted the Liberty Movement. If libertarians do not stress their common ground with liberals, they are going to be screwed. Sure, it is important to take over the Republican Party, but at the same time, they have to appeal to a significant portion of liberals and Democrats.

I’ve been to many events that I suspect were likely funded by the Kochs, to one degree or another. Although I support the economic ideas promoted, they speak half-truths and promote half-ideas. They use silence to omit half of the core libertarian message. They use the word “liberty” over and over again, until the word loses meaning. They are obsessed with “taking over the Republican Party”, and marginalize all those who support the Libertarian third party. They talk about repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes, loosening regulations, and cutting welfare, but that is about it. Koch-sponsored events barely scratch the surface on the following topics: the drug war, the police state, the neoconservative Middle Eastern foreign policy, the growth of the defense department, corporate bailouts, corporate subsidies, private prisons, CIA-backed dictatorships overseas, or any of the social issues linked to the Christian Right.

I have become incredibly jaded and exhausted with the talk about “appeasing to the Republican base”. There is no longer any reason to care what pro-lifers and evangelicals say, or cater to their opinions. No one need care what some old, chubby, white haired, closet racist, small town gladhanders have to say. They are old, and will be dead or retired by the end of the decade. Their opinion should be irrelevant. It is time to pick the battles. The old Republicans are stupid, senile, and reactionary, and are completely incapable of challenging political enemies on a modern stage. Meanwhile, liberal Democrats have brainwashed the whole younger generation, and are on the verge of causing us economic collapse (not entirely their fault – ie. Bush). And all the Republicans can come up with is to scream the same reactionary, obstructionist things instead of coming up with new ideas. Here is a link to an article discussing the demographic reality.

Hosting forums on fighting Obamacare, heavy-handed regulations, gun control, and high taxes is all well and good. When taken out of context from the rest of the libertarian message though, it makes libertarianism repulsive to the left. It looks like a bunch of straight white males wearing bowties, complaining about welfare and taxes. We all know what reaction this triggers from liberals. The paragraphs below contain are the message that libertarians actually say. The highlighted bracketed sections are what liberals hear them say, at least when Koch Industries controls the message.

“Poor people are arrested for drugs and other embellished charges because of the police state, and are sent to private prisons, and leave their families behind, and when they get off they have no choice but welfare. We need to stop the police state that ruins the lives of the poor, and then {cut the welfare that the poor have become dependent on} as they no longer will need it.”

or

“{We need to loosen regulations on American companies and remove mandatory union laws}, because corporate robber barons will go overseas to countries with CIA-backed dictatorships and exploit poor people in the third world, causing blue-collar Americans to lose their jobs and get on welfare. When the jobs return to America, {we should cut welfare}.”

Taken out of context, the libertarian looks exactly like the stereotype that statist liberals want to play up. The statist liberals are viciously dedicated to ruining the libertarian image in front of anti-war, pro-civil liberties liberals who should join the cause. And with their four-fifths of the media, Obama’s Hollywood friends, and poorly informed immature university students trying to rage out against their parents’ corny world, they have far more campaign power than any conservative or libertarian.

That brings us to Rand Paul, and his modus operandi for 2016. The word on the street is that Rand is a libertarian like his father, pretending his best to be an “establishment Republican”. As a result, he is incredibly careful about the libertarian things he says. Or is he? Despite the fact that Roe vs. Wade is upheld by the Supreme Court, that no one will ever overturn, he’s still wasting his time trying to appeal to the pro-life evangelical crowd. Supporting pro-life legislation does more harm than good in today’s climate, especially with the venomous reaction it causes from four-fifths of the media and the young activists. It is not a battle worth fighting.

Here is what Rand Paul has going for him.

  • He opposed the Syrian War

  • He’s opposing mandatory minimums for drugs

  • He’s opposed NSA espionage

  • He said GOP needs to “agree to disagree” on gay marriage

  • He filibustered drones

  • He supported an end to foreign aid (specifically to countries who persecute Christians)

  • He has pledged to filibuster Janet Yellen’s taking office of the Fed until it is audited. (Of course, given that most people know nothing about the Fed, the media outlets will likely portray this as Rand “being sexist and opposing a woman taking an key position”)

Of course, many Obama supporters will stick their head in the send and ignore all of these things. In terms of Syria, NSA, and drones, all liberal Democrats have to say is, “OF COURSE HE’S OPPOSING THE WAR BECAUSE HE’S JUST OBSTRUCTING OBAMA!!!!! IF BUSH WAS PRESIDENT, ALL THOSE STUPID FUCKING REPUBLICANS LOVE WAR AND WOULD BE SUPPORTING IT!!!!!!” Statements like the above were floating all over the media and internet during Rand’s filibuster.

Rand Paul is obviously not afraid of stating his opinion on the Civil Rights Act, which is that although he believes any discrimination enforced by law is utmost unconstitutional, and should be overturned, he believes that a privately-owned establishment has the right to refuse service to whomever for whatever reason. (To put this in context, private establishments in Southern states before 1964 had to comply with Jim Crow regulations enforced by the state government. The greater blame falls on state politicians, as opposed to private business owners.) Like Barry Goldwater in 1964, Rand Paul believes that the free market would end private discrimination.

If Rand Paul is willing to come out and state this rigid extreme libertarian opinion, then why the hell is he so afraid of promoting libertarian ideas about drug wars, foreign policy, the military-industrial complex, and the prison-industrial complex. Let everyone be warned, if Rand runs in 2016, his Goldwaterite opinion on the Civil Rights Act is the only thing Democrats will talk about it. They will repeat this over and over again, making it the headline every time Rand’s name is mentioned on the news.

I just trust that with every move Rand Paul makes, he is listening to his father on how to go about it. It is just time for Rand to come out as a libertarian on more issues than the typical Tea Party ideas. I am not sure why so many libertarians want to kiss the tushes of “establishment Republicans”, as Republicans are statistically and numerically doomed, by demographics and age. There are characters all over the media who will do whatever it takes to see Rand destroyed. The time to think ahead is now.  It is equally important to garner the support of common ground liberals and progressives as it is to take over the Republican Party. Anyone who does not see this is a fool.

Investment & Prudence

Tibor Machan Philosophy , , , , , ,

To be prudent amounts to making sure that one takes good care of oneself in all important areas of one’s life. Health, wealth, family, friendship, understanding, etc. are all in need of good care so that one will achieve and sustain one’s development as a human individual. It all begins with following the edict: “Know thyself!”

All those folks who make an effort to keep fit and to eat properly are embarking on elements of a prudent life. Unfortunately, the virtue of prudence has been undermined by the idea that everyone automatically or instinctively pursues his or her self-interest.

We all know the rhetorical question, “Isn’t everyone selfish?” Because of certain philosophical and related doctrines, the answer has been mainly that everyone is. In the discipline of economics, especially, scholars nearly uniformly hold the view that we all do whatever we do so as to please ourselves, to feel good. No room exists there for pure generosity or charity, for altruism, because in the final analysis everyone is driven to act to further his or her own wellbeing, or for carelessness, recklessness. If people do not achieve the goal of self-enhancement, it is primarily out of ignorance – they just don’t know what is in their best interest but they all intend to achieve it and even when they appear to be acting generously, charitably, helpfully and so on, in the end they do so because it gives them satisfaction, fulfills their own desires and serves their idea of what is best for them.

This is not prudence but what some have dubbed animal spirit. People are simply driven or motivated to be this way, instinctively, if you will. The virtue of prudence would operate quite differently.

One who practices it would be expected to make a choice to pursue what is in one’s best interest and one could fail also to do so. Practicing prudence is optional, not innately produced. Like other moral virtues, prudence requires choice. It is not automatic by any means. The reason it is thought to be so, however, has to do with the intellectual-philosophical belief that human conduct is exactly like the behavior of non-human beings, driven by the laws of motion!

Once this idea assumes prominence, there is no concern about people having to be prudent. They will always be, as a matter of their innate nature. What may indeed be needed is the opposite, social and peer pressure to be benevolent or kind, to adhere to the dictates of altruism, something that requires discipline and education and does not come naturally to people.

It would seem, however, that this idea that we are automatically selfish or self-interested or prudent doesn’t square with experience. Consider just how much self-destructiveness there is in the human world, how many projects end up hurting the very people who embark upon them. Can all that be explained by ignorance and error?

Or could it be, rather, that many, many human beings do not set out to benefit themselves, to pursue their self-interest? Could it be that human beings need to learn that they ought to serve their own wellbeing and that their conduct is often haphazard, unfocused, even outright self-destructive (as, for example, in the case of hard drug consumers, gamblers, romantic dreamers, fantasizers and the lazy)?

It seems that this latter is a distinct possibility if not outright probability. It is a matter of choice whether one is or is not going to be prudent, in other words. And once again, ordinary observation confirms this.

One can witness numerous human beings across the ages and the globe choosing to work to benefit themselves, as when they watch their diets or work out or obtain an education, and many others who do not and, instead, neglect their own best interest. Or, alternatively, they often act mindlessly, thoughtlessly, recklessly, etc.

The contention that they are really trying to advance their self-interest, to benefit themselves, seems to be one that stems from generalizing a prior conviction that everything in nature moves so as to advance forward. This is the idea that came from the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who learned it from Galileo who took it from classical physics.

Accordingly, acting prudently, in order to advance one’s wellbeing, could be a virtue just as the ancient philosopher Aristotle believed it to be. And when one deals with financial matters, careful investing would qualify as prudence, just as is working out at a gym, watching one’s diet, driving carefully, etc.

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , , , , , , , ,
  1. A university in Malaysia has awarded an economics doctorate to North Korea’s communist dictator
  2. Ian Bremmer asks, in the pages of the National Interest, if China is in the middle of a big bubble
  3. The Diffusion of Responsibility: a short piece on government employees, the rest of us, and some implications of the drug war
  4. How laissez-faire made Sweden rich by Johan Norberg
  5. Why do banks keep going bankrupt? Kirby Cundiff answers this question in the pages of the Freeman
  6. Mud People and Super Farmers: Creatively adapting to the lack of land rights in Africa

Civilization: A Praxeology

L. A. Repucci Liberty , , , , , , , , , ,
…and they say praxeology is flawed…

A thought-game by L.A. Repucci

Okay; suppose civilization collapses.  Positing the end of our current human paradigm — the sum of our economic, governmental and technological works subtracted — is a non-partisan exercise.  Both ends the ideological spectrum are ever doomsday prophets, decrying an immanent collapse, undone either by means of our State or our Liberty.

‘Resources are held in Common!’ cries the socialist.  ‘Property is product of my Life and Liberty’ cries the anarchist…both claim we are robbing ourselves blind.  Let’s skip  the part of the process where the libertarians and collectivists argue about roads and markets, and just imagine the ‘end’ is behind us all, and we (any two or more parties) survived, and are left to re-establish civilization.  This proposition is essentially a ‘dropped on a deserted island’ scenario — an exercise in pure a priori, inductive inquiry.

We are left to our own devices; a natural state with no default preset values, no existing law or paper contracts, no social institution, normative or common tradition.

It’s just you, me, and the pile of radioactive rubble that previously was a long-defunct post office.

How to proceed?  What rules shall we make for ourselves, and how should we best go about the process of survival?

Please, feel free to take your turn by leaving a comment — this is an open-ended invitation to engage in the process of civilization. In the interest of intellectual honesty, I would offer that it is entirely my intention to pursue a libertarian outcome, to our mutual benefit.

Game On. =)

Related articles

“Could we build a bridge between Austrian Economics and New Institutional Economics? – A Pre-History of Soft Budget Constraint”

Brandon Christensen Economics , , , ,

This is the title of a paper by Claudio Shikida. Here’s the abstract:

The concept of soft budget constraint is recent in economic analysis. It has become increasingly important in economic theory, for its role as a system of incentives. However, soft budget constraint plays also an important role in the history of economic thought, where it can be traced back until Mises’s writings on economic calculation and property rights, both derived from the debate of the economic calculation in socialist regimes. In this sense, soft budget constraint can be viewed as a bridge between Austrian Economics and New Institutional Economics. Since Mises, like other Austrian economists, is virtually ignored in Brazilian courses of Economic Thought, this article intends to show his importance as a forerunner of the concept of soft budget constraint, and will try to link these two theoretical views of economic systems.

You can read the whole thing here. Any thoughts?

What is Reality?

Fred Foldvary Philosophy ,

by Fred Foldvary

Reality is what actually exists. The philosophical question is how can we know reality. Idealists say that all we can do is perceive, and we cannot prove that objects exist in the way we perceive them, and so there is no objective reality. Some idealists go further and claim that all knowledge is based on language. In contrast, realists claim that there is indeed an objective reality apart from our perceptions.

In my judgment, the two methods that best justify a view of reality are foundationalism and coherentism. In foundationalism, truth is founded on a foundation of premises from which a structure of proposition is constructed or derived using on logic and evidence. In coherentism, truth is based on the logical consistency of observations. Coherentism has to have a foundation in order to judge consistency, so the two methods are perfect and necessary complements.

The outcome of coherent foundationalism is what philosopher Edward Pols calls “radical realism.” As I analyze it, the proposition of radical realism is that there is an objective reality apart from any perceptions. However, all that human and other living beings can know is logical propositions and observations. The problem with observations is that they can be false, and that facts are necessarily interpreted.

Reality is derived from observations that are filtered by logical consistency. A person can judge the consistency of objects over time. If I wake up and see a picture, and it is also there the next day, and every day, then this consistency leads me to believe that the picture is actually there. Consistency also involves agreement by a group of persons that their observations are the same. If I see a cat, maybe I imagined it, but if you see it also, and so do many others, then the conclusion that the cat is there is warranted by consistency across persons.

An idealist will reply that even if many people agree about some object, and it is observed consistently over time, it could be a continuing mass illusion. It is still no more than an observation. Radical realism does not deny that what is observed – seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled – are sensations in the brain. What makes this realism radical, going to the roots of the issue, is the proposition that this is what reality is. Radical realism is the proposition that empirical reality consists of consistent observations and their logical deductions.

Radical realism differs from merely empirical realism in claiming that the observed objects actually exist, so that perceptions are not merely accepted as being useful. Idealists say that when an ordinary person accepts observations as real, this, what is called “direct knowing,” is “native realism” or “vulgar realism” because one cannot logically derive from observations the objective reality of the objects. But radical realism does not blindly accept the reality of observations. It sieves the observations through a filter of logic. It then proclaims that the results of consistent observation is reality, because reality cannot be anything better. We could call it “coherent reality.”

Radical realism also recognizes that facts are always interpretive. Facts are theory-laden. If I see a man wearing blue clothing and a badge, I interpret this as not just a man, but a police officer. But interpretations are also subject to logical consistency. The man might be going to a costume party. But if the actions of the man are consistent with that of a police officer, such as citing people for infractions, we can conclude that the interpretation is reality. Contrary to idealism, reality is not created by thoughts, but rather, reality consists of conclusions from consistent mind observations filtered through logic.

Radical reality recognizes that what we perceive as solid objects are actually made up of molecules, atoms, and other particles we cannot directly observe. But the existence of atoms derived from the observed tracking of the their effects, hence from consistent observation.

The foundation of radical realism is the acceptance of cause and effect, of inductive and deductive reasoning, and the criterion of consistency. If all human beings are somehow fooled into thinking that water exists even when it does not, the consistent perception of water and conclusions from its consequences become the coherent reality.

Radical realism is radical in going to the roots of how we can know reality. This grounding saves it from being merely vulgar or naive. There is much more that we can analyze regarding idealism and realism. Two good books on this topic are The Slightest Philosophy by Quee Nelson, available at Google Books, and Radical Realism by Edward Pols. Most folks handle their daily activities with naive realism, but they fall victim to perverse ideologies ultimately derived from idealism. Thus is it good philosophy to question your beliefs with the Socratic questions, “What do you mean?” and “How do you know?”

Freedom of Speech? No Such Thing!

Warren Gibson Culture, Current Events, Liberty , , , , , , ,

I get lots of solicitations for libertarian groups and I’m very pleased that there are so many of them these days. I can’t possibly support them all but I recently ponied up for an organization called F.I.R.E. (Freedom for Individual Rights in Education). Their focus is on fighting suppression of free speech on college campuses. Thus, for example, FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for October 2013:

Salem State University in Massachusetts prohibits “cultural intolerance” in its residence halls—a broad ban that threatens debate on controversial issues in a place where students often speak the most freely. Making matters worse, the policy applies not only to “actions” but also to “omissions,” broadening its scope to include not only speech but also a student’s personal decision not to speak.

It burns me up to see self-appointed fascist administrators launching attacks on individuals who dare to speak their minds in unpopular ways. And yet, there is a problem, centered on the distinction between public and private institutions. Suppose a small Baptist college decided that students would not be allowed to mock Christianity or promote Islam on campus. Could there be any objection to such a policy? Now suppose that same college decided it would not admit black students. Any thoughtful libertarian would have to defend this policy, distasteful though it may be, on grounds of freedom of association. The bottom line is clear: owners of private colleges have every right to determine whom they will admit as students or hire as faculty and how they are required to act on campus.

Now what about state colleges such as Salem State? Such institutions are “public property,” an oxymoron if we think about it. “Property” denotes the right to use or dispose of some valuable asset, implying an exclusion of non-owners or others who have not been invited to use the property. On the other hand “public” means, if anything, that anybody is allowed to use the asset and nobody is excluded. Who owns San Jose State University where I teach? The California State University Board of Trustees is the most likely candidate, but the faculty has a lot of control through the faculty unions and faculty senates. The Governor and the legislators wield a lot of influence too. The citizens own the place in theory but the connection between SJSU and the citizenry is so remote that it might as well be non-existent. The lack of clarity about who owns the place is the source of most of the idiotic, wasteful, and sometimes downright offensive policies that we see at SJSU and all other government agencies.

So what sort of speech is to be allowed at SJSU? I would say anything goes except shouting down lecturers. Objectionable behavior such as name-calling should be met with ostracism and boycotting or perhaps tit-for-tat. No need for prohibitions. But the people who have power over these matters no doubt see it differently.

Thinking about it more, there really isn’t any such thing as freedom of speech. Speech is not carried out in a vacuum (literally: there can be no sound waves!). If you’re speaking you are standing on someone’s property; if writing you’re using pen and paper or a computer. Land, pen, paper and computers are all resources whose owners have the right to determine who uses them and how. I have no right to invade your house and deliver a speech in your living room nor to grab your computer and compose a blog. Freedom of speech can only mean freedom to use one’s property, or the property of another who has given consent, for speaking purposes. (This, by the way, solves the fire-in-a-crowded-theater conundrum. Prohibitions on yelling “fire” are not a diminution of freedom of speech but rather a recognition of a theater owner’s right to control behavior on his property. See Rothbard’s excellent Ethics of Liberty p. 114.)

In the end, as Rothbard points out, there is no dichotomy between property rights and “civil” rights. There are only property rights, recognizing one’s own body as one’s primary form of property.

Shopping in communism versus capitalism

Tibor Machan Books, History, Liberty , , , , ,

In a narrative portion of his latest (and characteristically riveting) novel the author has written the following sentence that prompts me to wag my finger at him a bit. “Now it was a Western-style shopping mall stuffed with all the useless trinkets capitalism had to offer…” Daniel Silva, The English Girl (2013). The sentence reveals something very important about capitalism as well as Silva’s apparent failure to understand it.

Silva was contrasting the Soviet style, drab, grey shopping center with the more recent type that have been springing up in Russia and the former Soviet bloc. Yet instead of showing appreciation for the mall with its great variety of trinkets, which include both what he can consider useless and the useful kind, he appears to show disdain for it.

It is precisely the fact that such malls include thousands of trinkets, some useful to some, some not, that makes capitalism so benevolent. Unlike the Soviet Union and its satellites, where only what the leadership deemed to be useful got featured in shopping malls (such as they were), in Western-style malls millions of different individual and family preferences are on display and for sale, aiming to satisfy the huge variety of tastes and preferences.

I recall many moons ago there was a fuss about the popularity of the Pet Rock! It was — may still be — a trinket sold as a novelty item. I remember defending it from its disdainful, snooty critics, arguing that there may well be a few people for whom it would be suitable gift.

Say your grandfather worked in a mine or quarry and now on his 80th birthday you want to get him something not quite useful but meaningful! He has everything useful already, so you pick the Pet Rock for him. It would make a nifty memento! Might even bring tears to his eyes.

For millions of others it would indeed be a “useless trinket” but not for old granddad. And for every other item that author Silva may consider useless, there will be someone who finds it touching!

That is precisely what individualism implies. Something Marxists cannot appreciate since for them only what advances the revolution counts as useful. Individuals as such, with their idiosyncrasies, do not count for anything! And capitalism rejects this misanthropic doctrine, which is why the enormous variety of goods and services is part of it while under socialism and communism only what is proper for the revolution makes sense to produce!

I wish Mr. Silva had indicated some of this as he derided those Western-style shopping malls. Even if he cannot find something useful for himself in them, he can at least appreciate them as contemporary museums of possibilities.

L’Espionnage américain en France.

Jacques Delacroix Current Events , , , , , , , , ,

C’est l’administration Obama qui est chargée de tout. Un mot du président et l’espionnage des alliés cessait. Complètement, sur les chapeaux de roue.

Ne me blâmez pas. Je vous avait prévenu avant même qu’il soit élu, alors que vous l’acclamiez bêtement: Barack (“la chance”) Obama n’est pas le gentil “Black” (en Français dans le texte) de vos rêves plus ou moins cinétiques. Nous somme nombreux ici à penser qu’il est simplement en train de saccager, de détruire la belle et forte Amérique de l’après deuxième guerre mondiale avec ses conneries sur tous les plans.

Les avis sont partagés cependant sur un point important. Certains opinent que c’est un malveillant gauchiste àl’ancienne mode. D’autre, dont moi, penchent plutôt vers l’idée que c’est un beau parleur fondamentalement incapable. Avant d’être élu à un poste ou un autre, il n’avait d’ailleurs jamais eu de vrai emploi de sa vie.

Thank You for Your Patience

Jacques Delacroix Books, Current Events

I am sorry that I am mostly absent from this blog these days. There are several jobs I want to do in connection with a number of important events in the world and of  ignorant comments on his blog.

I am not doing what needs to be done because putting the finishing touches to my manuscript, crossing the Ts, dotting the Ts, eliminating baroque hyphens is unbelievably time consuming.  I have done it before but I had forgotten.

It’s called : I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography

There are unpolished, faulty excerpts of this near-book on this blog.

I still don’t have a publisher. (I have not looked for one.) I listen to advice.

Thanks for your patience.

From the Comments: The four broad pillars of the market-based economy

Brandon Christensen Comments , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NEO’s response to my musings on decentralization in Africa is worth highlighting:

It strikes me , Brandon, that one of the impediments here, there may be others, I’m no expert, is that the nascent US was composed mostly of literate folks with a (at least somewhat) common outlook that specified above all honesty and a “government of laws, not men”. I would also state that this is a good bit of our problem now.

This is a great observation. An anthropologist by the name of Maya Mikdashi recently wrote an article on the effects of market-based reforms in the Middle East. She essentially argued that the market-based reforms assume that only a certain type of individual can successfully participate in the market economy (stay with me here): the rational, autonomous, freedom-seeking, and legally-protected-as-an-individual type. Over the past two decades, as more states have moved towards a market-based economy, we have seen the institutional and cultural rewards being reaped from this process. Instead of people who have known only poverty and want, the market-based economy has pushed individuals to seek to become more rational, autonomous, freedom-seeking, and legally protected as an individual.

Now, stay with me. The market-based economy, capitalism, has four broad institutional pillars that it needs to thrive: private property, individualism, the rule of law, and an internationalist spirit. From these pillars come the fountains of progress that the West has come to enjoy over the past 300 years. While I doubt she realizes it, Mikdashi is simply echoing the writings of the great classical liberal theorists of the past three centuries: institutions matter, and they matter a lot. A big point both Dr. Ayittey and myself have been trying to make is that the institutions necessary for progress and capitalism are already in place in the post-colonial world; when I was in Ghana doing research one of the things I always asked farmers is where they got their property titles and they answered “the chief.” I asked them why they didn’t go through more official routes to obtain their property titles (i.e. through the state), and I’m sure you can finish the Ghanaian farmer’s answer for him.

The fact that most, if not all, citizens of the new republic desired the rule of law is one that cannot be stressed enough, and it is definitely one of the reasons why we have grown so prosperous, and answers why we are in trouble today. However: Africans don’t desire the rule of law?

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , , ,
  1. The Decline and Fall of France
  2. Rooked: The evolution of cheating in chess
  3. The decline of Europe’s military might
  4. Bodies in the desert
  5. Is antisemitism back in Europe? Did it really ever leave?
  6. The superiority of democracy over dictatorship is no reason to ignore the problem of political ignorance
  7. Why did men stop wearing high heels?

YAL member speaks at County Cannabis Regulatory Hearing

Video L. A. Repucci Liberty , , , , , , ,

On October 22, 2013, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors convened to vote on re-regulating medical cannabis cultivation and distribution via local grow operations and a local dispensary. Unfortunately, while the public applauded my comments regarding the issue, the County Board were not swayed from moving forward a “regulatory scheme” as Board member John Leopold commented after the 3-2 vote to further restrict the liberty of free people.

From the Comments: Liberalization is about much more than just the economy

Brandon Christensen Comments, Liberty, Religion , , , , , , , ,

Andrew is skeptical of NAFTA’s achievements:

NAFTA isn’t the only major factor at play, although you’re right that it has provided Mexico with some huge economic benefits. This is especially true in the factory towns along the US border, which are able to absorb a much larger absolute amount of surplus labor from poorer, less developed parts of the country today than they could a generation ago. That said, I’m still ambivalent about NAFTA on account of the severe short-term economic and social dislocation it caused, e.g. to US factory workers who were undercut by Mexican competitors and to small Mexican farmers who were undercut by major US agribusinesses. It strikes me as a hastily and abruptly implemented policy change that caused a lot of needless collateral damage in the short term. Whether this damage was worthwhile in the long term depends a lot on one’s role in the North American economy at the time. On the whole, I’d say NAFTA has been a mixed bag.

This, I think, is in response to the 2003 academic paper (published by three economists) that I cited in defense of NAFTA’s success. It is a paper that only focuses on economic indicators (such as per capita income or total factor productivity). Here is what it found: NAFTA has not had a discernible effect on the US or Mexican economies. The displacement of US factory workers and Mexican farmers that Andrew mentions had been going on long before the implementation of NAFTA. Basically, NAFTA merely reduced the amount of paperwork associated with the changes in both economies. It has not hastened the changes.

Similarly, it appears that the growth of Mexican and American purchasing power parity are simply part of a hemisphere-wide trend that has also been going on for decades. In short, economists have found the economic effects of NAFTA to be negligible. So why do they continue to overwhelmingly support it?

My answer to this question can be found, I think, in Andrew’s keen perception of the changes in Mexican society:

Over the same time that NAFTA has been in place, Mexico has also become much more Protestant and nondenominational in religious affiliation, better educated, and, as I understand it, somewhat better governed and administered. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I have no reason to suspect that the religious shift had anything in particular to do with Mexico’s improving economy or trade liberalization. “Church-planting” missionaries of the sort that have evangelized Latin America don’t look for a particular economic or policy profile in a country before imposing themselves on it, although they do generally appreciate a certain amount of poverty and dysfunction, as long as they’re reasonably reasonably safe in country, since people in economically healthy, well-governed countries are less receptive to their pitches. This is a very cynical analysis, but the cravenness in “mission field” circles can be mindblowing.

What’s happened in much of Latin America in the last decade or so is that these evangelism programs have hit critical mass. They’re now self-sustaining operations being run mainly by Latin American evangelists pestering their own countrymen, or sometimes people in nearby countries. Gringo missionaries are still working in Latin America, but they’re no longer critical to the growth of evangelical churches there. (Besides, there’s much more street cred to be had in evangelizing a recently restive Muslim village in Northern Ghana, or, as my relatives and everybody at their church called it, Africa. I bless the rains….)

Liberalization is about much, much more than economic growth. The decline of Catholicism in Mexico, for example, is an incredibly good trend. This is not because Catholics suck, but because Mexican society is becoming more diverse. Liberalization means opening a state’s political, economic and social institutions to the world.

Undertaking liberalization thus exposes a society to changes. Sometimes societies may have a tough time with changes, especially if there are deeply entrenched political structures in place. Most often, though, these changes tend towards more political liberty (see “1994 Mexican Elections: Manifestation of a Divided Society?” and “Institutionalizing Mexico’s New Democracy,” both by Joseph Klesner, and be sure to read between the lines), more social diversity and, yes, more economic growth.

Of course, with new and overall positive changes come new challenges. The differences between the old challenges and the new, however, are cavernous. Politically, gridlock supplants revolution. Socially, vice replaces desperation. And economically, policy replaces cronyism.

Now, this is a broad view, but I think it is a concrete one nonetheless. There are two major objections to liberalization that I would like to briefly discuss.

The first is my assumption that diversity is, in and of itself, a good thing. Some people simply cannot stand diversity, whether it be of the ethnic and linguistic variety or of the intellectual variety. The former form of intolerance is often to be found among conservatives; the latter in Leftist circles. However, the fact that people I don’t like disapprove of diversity is not a good excuse for being a proponent of diversity.

So what follows is my concise defense of diversity. Diversity opens individuals up to higher degrees of tolerance. It gives individuals more choices. Its very nature makes people smarter by exposing them to more points of view. Added together, these benefits are a recipe for wealth and stability and peace.

There is a tendency, however, for diverse organizations (including societies) to have more conflict. It is this conflict that conservatives and Leftists alike point to as proof that diversity is an undesirable plague. Yet, under the right framework, conflict from diversity produces immeasurable amounts of wealth (see also this paper by economists Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor). This framework revolves largely around well-protected property rights and the protection of a handful of other rights (free speech, free press, etc.).

It is this framework that, conveniently enough, allows me to segue into the next most common objection to liberalization: that it doesn’t work and often makes things worse for a society. The data in this regard is not much clearer than the data on NAFTA’s effects on Mexico. That is to say, there is not enough evidence to prove conclusively that trade liberalization leads to economic growth. However, data over the past 30 years or so does suggest that states which undergo liberalization efforts tend to have economies that grow steadier, polities that oppress less and societies that adapt to cultural change more easily. If you can find evidence that you think may refute my argument (“that the rough overall trend of liberalization is beneficial to mankind”), you know where the ‘comments’ section is.

What Ails You, Economy?

henrymoore Economics , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Keynesian is ever mistaking economic activity for economic growth, credit expansion for wealth creation, profligacy for progress. Growth, wealth, progress. He uses his own definitions of each to reinforce his definitions of the others. And they are all fallacious.

When the Austrian tells the Keynesian that the printing and spending of mere pieces of paper cannot lead to more wealth in society, the Keynesian retorts that it is undeniable that credit expansion and stimulus lead to more economic activity. In this he is technically correct. Printing more dollars and handing them out to those who would consume and invest them, does indeed lead to “activity,” even more perhaps than there otherwise would have been.

But our Keynesian assumes, or assumes that his audience will assume, that mere economic activity is growth, is wealth, is progress. Presumably this includes even that activity which our Austrian rightly considers overinvestment (more properly, malinvestment), overconsumption, and/or the proverbial breaking of windows, each of these a common side-effect of the Keynesian witchdoctor’s remedies (often intended to cure ailments caused by earlier interventions, some Keynesian, some not).

If the Keynesian’s definition of economic activity doesn’t (oh, but it does!) include these things then the burden of proof is on him to show that his prescriptions lead to more real growth than would their absence on an unhampered market. And that his incantations lead, on the whole, to economic health rather than disease. A free market is largely unencumbered by the ailments mentioned above so in order to do this it would need to be shown that the sicknesses that do affect it are somehow worse than those caused by intervention.

And to be sure, pure economic freedom isn’t perfect. It has its own share of maladies. But these are all coughs and sneezes by comparison. Cures, if they are needed at all, come from the market itself. The economic meddlers and potion peddlers only serve to make things worse.

We must admit that not even on the most unfettered of markets does all economic activity lead to growth. For human actors err, and the market punishes their errors. How much more is all this the case under a centrally-planned expansionary-monetary/stimulatory-fiscal regime? And how much more severe will be the punishment?