Author: Brandon Christensen

Adam Smith, Or: The More Things Change…

Brandon Christensen Economics, History , ,

…the more they stay the same.

I have moved on from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations in my Honors course on Western thought (it is being taught by a professor who is part of this blogging consortium, in case you are curious; it is part of my daily reading).

Many, many things have stood out to me so far, but I would like to share two of them here. The first thing has to do with the back of the book (I am reading the cheap paperback published by Bantam and edited by Edwin Cannan). The back of the book plainly states:

He argues passionately in favor of free trade, yet stood up for the little guy [emphasis mine – BC].

This mischaracterization of classical liberalism (libertarianism) is not limited to the publishers of Adam Smith’s most popular work, and it frustrates me to no end that free trade and classical liberalism are somehow treated as arguments in favor of a privileged class.  The entire idea that drives classical liberalism is one that is rooted in the dignity of the individual and of the common man.  This is one fight that the libertarian should easily be winning, yet he is not.

The second passage that I would like to share is one that most of us are extremely familiar with, and can perhaps provide a chuckle rather than frustration (I know I laughed):

The annual produce of the land and labour of England […] is certainly much greater than it was, a little more than a century ago […] Though, at present, few people, I believe, doubt of this, yet during this period, five years have seldom passed away in which some book or pamphlet has not been published, written too with such abilities as to gain some authority with the public, and pretending to demonstrate that the wealth of the nation was fast declining, that the country was depopulated, agriculture neglected, manufactures decaying, and trade undone.  Nor have these publications all been party pamphlets, the wretched offspring of falsehood and venality.  Many of them have been written by very candid and very intelligent people; who wrote nothing but what they believed, and for no other reason but because they believed it.

Does this not sound awfully familiar? I could produce a number of links to a number of books and pamphlets on just this topic, but I am sure that readers had their own memories jarred when reading Smith’s keen observation. It looks as if we still have a lot of work to do.

Foreign Policy and Human Ignorance: The Attack on Non-Intervention

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , , , , , , , , ,

I have recently been having more than a few back-and-forth debates with my old sparring partner Jacques Delacroix concerning matters of foreign policy.  The most recent debate has produced a number of great insights and opportunities to further enhance an understanding of foreign affairs.

Against the backdrop of this lively and hopefully continuing debate is the recognition that both of us are extremely ignorant human beings, and that we know far too little about anything to be in a position to command or direct institutions that are not based upon mutual consent and agreement.  The one institution – government – that is widely regarded to be necessary for the use of coercion should have its monopoly on force widely distributed throughout various avenues of power and severely restricted by the use of legal precedent.  This small paragraph essentially sums up the foundation of both libertarian and conservative thought in the United States, and as you read through this essay (or any other writings believed to expound upon conservative or libertarian ideals) I would highly recommend remembering this small but important fact.

Indeed, if I had to pinpoint the exact locus of difference between a Leftist and a conservative/libertarian, it would be this fundamentally opposite view of man that each camp harbors.  Seldom have I met a Leftist  Continue reading →

Great News!

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, Links , , ,

Co-Editor Fred Foldvary has been invited to be a contributor to a blogging symposium about “Libertarianism and Land” put on by the Bleeding Heart Libertarians consortium.  Here are the details:

I’m very pleased to announce that from April 23-27 of 2012, the Bleeding Heart Libertarian blog will be hosting a virtual symposium on the topic of “Libertarianism and Land!”

The five day event will explore different libertarian perspectives on questions pertaining to the moral justification of and limits on property rights in land. Each day will feature a keynote post from one of our main participants. The other main participants will have the opportunity to respond with posts of their own, and the general public is welcome to participate in the comments thread.

We’ve lined up some terrific people for this event. Our main participants will be:

  • Eric Mack – Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University
  • Hillel Steiner – Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Manchster
  • Fred Foldvary – Lecturer in Economics at Santa Clara University
  • Kevin Carson – Blogger and author
  • David Schmidtz – Professor of Philosophy and Economics at the University of Arizona

More information to follow as the date draws nearer. I hope you’ll join us for what I think will be a fascinating discussion!

Do be sure to tune in to Bleeding Heart Libertarians all that week.  I am sure that many good things will come of this, especially since Fred Foldvary was one of the few people in the world to accurately predict the housing bubble collapse based upon his knowledge and understand of land and its connection to the economy.

Rebellion in Homs

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , , , , , , , ,

As we speak, the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad is slaughtering his people.  Assad is the son of one of the most notorious dictators of the modern Middle East, Hafez al-Assad, and, like his father, is a member of the socialist Ba’ath Party.  It worth mentioning that Saddam Hussein’s ruling party was also a socialist Ba’ath Party, though I don’t know how closely connected the Iraqi and Syrian parties were.  I just know both parties are Arab nationalist and socialist in nature.

One of our co-bloggers, Jacques Delacroix, has been an outspoken proponent of bombing the Assad regime in the name of democracy lately, and he has not shied away from proclaiming the Iraq War a success, or condemning libertarians (you read that right) to hypocrisy for U.S. refusal to bomb Rwanda during the 1990’s.  He is also a proud supporter of the military occupation of the Balkans by NATO troops and the subsequent partition of Serbia into a plethora of different narco-states, and has not hesitated to heap praise upon President Obama for the recent bombing campaign that led to the removal of Muammar Ghaddafi from power in Libya.

I have addressed Professor Delacroix’s arguments for Libyan intervention here (there is a long dialogue between he and I in the ‘comments’ section).  I have addressed his arguments for bombing Rwanda and occupying the Balkans here (again, there is another long dialogue in the ‘comments’ section).  I have addressed his claims of Iraqi democracy here (it’s in the middle of the dialogue) and recent events in Iraq have, of course, borne out my argument.

I would like to draw attention now to his most recent idea for helping out the rebellion in Syria, and specifically in the city of Homs, close to where Bashar’s father murdered 20,000 in 1982 in the city of Hamah.  This is not embarrass Delacroix or to start a fight, but rather to initiate a dialogue and see where it takes us.  I had to ask him what his plans for Syria would be, since interventionists are infamous for being beholden to their hearts rather than their heads.  From his other blog: Continue reading →

Links From Around the Consortium

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, History, Links , , , , , , , , , ,

Brian Gothberg’s piece on whaling and property rights deserves another look, as he channels Nobel laureate Ronald Coase:

According to a simple version of the Coase (1960) theorem, if the costs of transacting were very low, it would not much matter for the allocation of resources how stock rights were initially assigned. Trading ensures that rights would be put to their highest-valued uses, whatever they might be. If particular whales have more value as a source of pizza toppings than as the subject of a tourist?s photo session, whale-watching companies would be encouraged to sell any rights that they might have to whalers. If, on the other hand, particular whales have great value simply as magnificent creatures whose existence is to be nurtured and cherished, conservation groups would tend to end up with the rights to those whales.

Reality is not always simple, however. Transaction costs are sometimes high. In particular, there is a free-rider problem […]

Co-editor Fred Foldvary opines on how deregulation hurts the economy.  This is perhaps the best piece I have found on regulation and its effects on the economy at large.

I found this piece by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel on President Martin van Buren, whom he calls the ‘American Gladstone’.  If you’re itching for some historical information on one of the American republic’s little known presidents, I recommend you grab a cup of coffee and enjoy.

And, not to be outdone, Jacques Delacroix asks if the French have it better.  He is specifically referring to the debt-to-GDP ratios of France and the U.S.  The whole thing is good throughout, more so because Delacroix professes to hate the French.

Montesquieu Is Back!

Brandon Christensen History , ,

I just finished up Montesquieu for a class on political theory. I know economists will probably roll their eyes, but I liked the readings on the whole. From yet another passage in his magisterial work The Spirit of the Laws:

It is the triumph of liberty when criminal laws draw each penalty from the particular nature of the crime.

If one were to take a step back and examine the laws of the United States today, would one find Montesquieu’s liberty? I am thinking specifically of the drug war, and how there is almost nothing so cruel and opposed to liberty than Washington’s stance on drug use (and abuse).

In another section the book, I found this to be the most compelling summation of classical liberal thought I have ever read (no really):

There are two sorts of poor peoples: some are made so by the harshness of the government, and these people are capable of almost no virtue because their poverty is part of their servitude; the others are poor only because they have disdained or because they did not know the comforts of life, and these last can do great things because this poverty is a part of their liberty.

I can’t think of a better defense of individual liberty than this.  Perhaps I am being too nuanced in my reading of this passage, but it struck a chord with me.  I’d like to hear what sort of passages you have heard in regards to liberty over the years that have a profound impact upon the way you think about the world!

Talking to the Left: the Sword and the Shield

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History , , , ,

I regularly read the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog, and today’s post has not disappointed, as Matt Zwolinski points his readers in the direction of James Peron’s blog.  In a piece entitled “Why Libertarians Need to Talk to the Left and How to Do It,” Peron has to remind libertarians that they are neither of the Left or the Right:

Classical liberals found much to agree with socialists on and worked with them. There are risks in alliances, one of which is that you may be tempted to compromise principles to appease partners. Classical liberals started doing just that. Instead of liberalizing socialism, the alliance resulted in pushing liberalism in a socialist direction.

This alliance remained in place until the early 1900s. During this time, classical liberalism waned, losing its intellectual power and appeal. In the end, the progressives not only destroyed liberalism but made off with its name as well.

Just as classical liberalism ended up being corrupted by the Left, the modern libertarian movement has Continue reading →

Notes From Libya

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History, Liberty , , , ,

Daniel Larison and Jason Sorens have alerted me to the most recent updates on Libya’s situation.  In case you are wondering, it is not good.  In fact, things look a lot worse than they did under Ghaddafi.  From the BBC:

UN human rights chief Navi Pillay meanwhile raised concerns about detainees being held by revolutionary forces, saying there were some 8,500 prisoners in about 60 centres.

“The majority of detainees are accused of being Gaddafi loyalists and include a large number of sub-saharan, African nationals,” she said.

“The lack of oversight by the central authority creates an environment conducive to torture and ill treatment.”

No good can come from this.  Libya is an artificial state created by European colonialists, and the Libyan factions that managed to dupe the West into doing their dirty work for them will now be competing for the power structure left by the Ghaddafi regime.

Indeed, not to brag or boast or anything, but in a dialogue with co-blogger Jacques Delacroix I correctly predicted what would happen in post-Ghaddafi Libya:

I still think we’ll see bloodbaths because most naive factions see centralized power as THE way to achieve stability. The not-so-naive factions also see centralized power as an attractive option. As long as everyone is competing for power at the center of these states, we’ll continue to see bloodshed and instability. I have yet to see anything, unfortunately, to suggest otherwise. The mass graves may stop for a time, but without a game plan that involves smaller states and more trade/less aid, they’ll be back. No matter how many times we bomb a dictator from his palace.

Instead of trying to rebuild the Libyan state, as the UN human rights chief suggests (why am I not surprised?), the West should try to work with Russia and China and other North African polities to try and carve Libya up into smaller states that are loosely affiliated politically but tightly connected economically.

Now, being right all the time is one thing, but getting people to think more clearly is quite another.

Secular Theocracy Part 2

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History, Links , , , , , ,

One of our co-bloggers, Jacques Delacroix, has suggested that I pass the following argument along.  It has been written by the founder and president of the Independent Institute, a highly respected think tank in Oakland, California.  From Delacroix’s blog:

Below is the link to the second part of an article by David Theroux I posted a couple of weeks ago. David Theroux is the founder of the Independent Institute and its current president. I have major differences with the Institute about American foreign policy but Theroux is well worth reading anyway.

The second link below is to the whole article with footnotes.
Part 2:
http://blog.independent.org/2012/01/12/secular-theocracy-the-foundations-and-folly-of-modern-tyranny-part-2/

The full article with footnotes is here:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3206

I remember browsing through Part 1 of Mr. Theroux’s essay (thanks to Delacroix’s heads-up), but I will have to read them both when school lets up.  If you have any thoughts on the argument, feel free to post away in the ‘comments’ section!

Rainy Day

Brandon Christensen Links , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a quick list of links around the web from our bloggers at the consortium:

Fred Foldvary weighs in on the 2011 Nobel Prize winners in Economics

Some Possible Consequences of a U.S. Government Default by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

One of Jacques Delacroix’s famous short stories (and this co-editor’s personal favorite)

Brian Gothberg introduced me to Colossus: The Forbin Project at a summer seminar in 2009

I hope everybody stays dry out there!

Ron Paul’s Power Problem

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Liberty , , , , , , , ,

I first came across libertarianism through the 2008 presidential campaign of Ron Paul.  Prior to his campaign, I considered myself a left-wing, conspiratorial anarchist of sorts.  Over the years I have tried to steep myself in a better understanding of what it means to be free.  In 2009, I attended summer seminars put on by three different classical liberal think tanks: the Independent Institute (where I came across both Fred’s and Brian’s arguments), the Foundation for Economic Education, and the Institute for Humane Studies.

The past four years have also led me to distance myself from some of Dr. Paul’s policy prescriptions, including his views on border security, international trade agreements, and amending the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship.  None of these policies are persistent with the liberty movement’s arguments for individualism, internationalism, and private property.

Nevertheless, I think that Jon Fasman’s (somewhat) recent post on the Labor Day forum held by the American Principles Project and hosted by Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Steve King, and conservative/libertarian pundit Robert A. George highlights why I still respect Ron Paul immensely and why I am a libertarian: Continue reading →

Libertarianism and Republican Virtue

Brandon Christensen History, Liberty , , , , , ,

I am short on time and effort these days, so I apologize for bringing up my school readings on the blog. I have moved on from Locke’s Two Treatises to Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws.  This passage in particular has stood out to me so far:

When Sulla wanted to return liberty to Rome, it could no longer be accepted; Rome had but a weak remnant of virtue, and as it had ever less, instead of reawakening after Caesar, Tiberius […] Nero, and Domitian, it became ever more enslaved; all the blows were struck against tyrants, none against tyranny (pg. 22).

The decay of the American republic has been a worry of learned men since the agreement first took place.  My big question here is not so much about decay or liberty, but rather what virtue is.  I have some conception of it, but any sort of clarification would be great.

Montesquieu treats the desires and defenses of manufacturing, commerce, wealth, finance and luxury as the end of virtue and the beginnings of ambition, which leads to despotism and tyranny.

Given that most libertarians are also republicans (small “r”), how do we go about explaining that the freedom to pursue material goods is what is actually compatible with democratic government?  Was Montesquieu attacking a straw man?

Reading John Locke

Brandon Christensen Books, History

My MLK Day will be spent finishing up an assigned reading project for a political theory course: John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.  Most of the arguments seem pretty self-evident to me, a testament to the soundness of his writings.

But I know that there is much more to Locke than meets the undergraduate’s eye.  Does anybody out there have any thoughts (or tips on what to keep an eye out for) about John Locke’s musings on private property?  Are there any closet monarchists out there who believe that Locke was wrong about the beginnings of political society?

Happy MLK Day folks!

Laundry Day!

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , , , , , , , ,

Links from around the web by the consortium.

Brian Gothberg wants to save the whales.

In an oldie but goodie, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel writes about Federal Reserve accounting and insolvency.

Jacques Delacroix feels remorse for singing the praises of Newt Gingrich.

And Fred Foldvary gives his take on the Israel-Palestine mess.

Happy Friday, and enjoy your weekends!

What exactly IS socialism anyway?

Brandon Christensen Liberty , , ,

“The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”  – From the tatters of an ancient Greek poem

I recently had an ugly exchange on Facebook with some acquaintances that started out being political in nature before descending into the gutter.

Two young graduate students pursuing studies that have nothing to do with political economy and who, unsurprisingly, consider themselves to be socialists simply turned what could have been a great teaching moment for a large number of people into an affair that was more deserving of spot on the Jerry Springer Show than in public, polite discourse.

Now, it must be noted that I am to blame for how the debate turned out, as I took the bait set for me that would lead the discussion from the intellectual arena and into the garbage.  You win some, you lose some, and I am quite certain that my vituperative attacks on socialism will cause them to think twice about posting such dim-witted, reactionary posts to their Facebook walls in the future.

I initiated the venomous exchange after my acquaintance posted this link written by a British aristocrat calling on socialists everywhere to simply begin ignoring capitalism as a way to further its (quite hideous and inhumane) demise and become replaced by a benevolent and voluntary form of socialism.

Here is what I said: Continue reading →