- The Case to Keep Dividing Africa
- The Cato Institute recently held its 30th annual monetary conference, and the Economist reports
- Gun Control’s Racist Origins
- The Past is Gone: Why Liberals Should Rethink States’ Rights
- Republicans Must Get Real on Foreign Policy
Current Events
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:
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.
On another note, Pierre Lemieux and Jacques Delacroix have comments on guns and psychopaths. Both are worth reading.
The Fiscal Cliff
The “fiscal cliff” is the economic plunge that will occur in the U.S.A. if Congress does not change the big tax hikes and spending reductions that will otherwise start on January 1, 2013. The income tax rate cuts enacted at the beginning of the ozo years (2000 to 2009), as well as the payroll tax cuts that followed the Crash of 2008, were temporary and are scheduled to expire at the close of 2012.
Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 to require “sequestration” – automatic sharp spending reductions in 2013 – unless it enacted the recommendations of a “supercommittee,” which then failed to achieve a consensus on raising revenues and cutting spending.
Now in mid November 2012 the economy is a train heading towards the cliff, and if Congress does not lay down a track to make the train veer off to the side, the economic train will plunge into another depression. Continue reading
Guns and Debate: An Issue Within An Issue?
I’ve been making the rounds on Facebook in regards to the inevitable catcalls for more gun control. Two things have jumped out at me.
1) The people who are calling for more gun control (whatever that means) are not very good with numbers. I suspect this ignorance is of the obstinate kind.
For example, when I politely pointed out to a friend-of-a-friend that, statistically-speaking, gun-related violence amounts to almost nothing, he responded with a half-assed blog post by a DC policy wonk with a title that read something like “9 Things You Need to Know About Gun Control.” There were at least 12 things on the list. Continue reading
End Prohibition on Self-Defense in Schools
Of all the reactions to the horrible shooting at Stony Ridge Sandy Hook, this one from the Libertarian Party is the most sensible thus far. It focuses on the federal Gun Free School Zone Act which prohibits firearms in schools. It goes on to cite incidents where armed citizens have been able to stop or cut short these sorts of shootings. Hat tip: Jeff Hummel.
No, Thanks.
I am not much on my blog these days because I am still trying to recover from the defeat. It’s not going well. As you can imagine, mine is not a case of doomed man-love for Gov. Romney. I am not Chris Matthew with the thing, the tingle, going up his leg when he thinks of Barack Obama, and the Governor is not Mr Obama.
I am musing about re-emigration. It’s ridiculous at my age, as well as impractical. Still, there is the strangest turnabout since the Soviet Union took Pres. Reagan’s invitation to get lost: Canada is doing better than the US economically as well as according to several of my values. I am remembering that treaty that put and end to the French and Indian Wars. I think it left the back door open for speakers of French.
And then, if I am going to live under statism why not do it under those who have much practice at it, and who also cook much better than Mexicans? (I am referring here to American restaurants here, obviously) I wonder if the French would take me back? Perhaps, if I promised to keep my mouth shut about the quality of French popular music? Some of you have noticed that I keep up with my French, just in case. That’s my Vichy side. (Look it up.)
This immigrant does not find much to be thankful for this year, for the first time ever. I think an economic disaster is coming to the USA. I hope I am simply wrong. By the way, where are my liberal critics who are always so eager to prove to me how completely and utterly wrong I am when I need them?
The Israeli-Palestinian Mess: Some Historical Context
I just finished up an anthropology course on the Middle East as a culture area, and for reasons beyond my explanatory power, I got to look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a bit more in depth. A brief narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict follows.
The historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can best be understood by breaking it up into three separate but interrelated segments: the collapse of cosmopolitan empires, the emergence of nation-states, and seismic shifts in demography that accompanied collapse and rebirth.
The post-World War I era can be defined largely in terms of the collapse of the cosmopolitan Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. The spectacular collapse of these centuries-old empires has been attributed to the policies of democrats in western Europe and the President of the United States at the time, Woodrow Wilson, by a number of historians. The underlying idea being promoted by Western elites for central and eastern Europe was that of national self-determination, a belief that each ethnic and linguistic group should have the right to govern itself within a free and democratic state. The movement was intended to break the back of “despotism” in eastern and central Europe (as well as the Near East), but the policies unleashed instead a hotheaded nationalism amidst pockets of power vacuums prevalent throughout the now-dead empires. Continue reading
The Disaster: A Teenage Victory
Last Tuesday (11/6/2012) there was a vote about the future and the teenagers won. They now have the keys to the family car.
I have never in my life so wanted to be wrong in my judgment. Here it is: President Obama’s re-election is an even worse disaster than his election was. Do I think that many of the people who voted for him gave serious thought to the giant national debt, to the impending entitlement implosion, to the tepid economic growth, or even to the unusually high rate of unemployment? No. Do I think a sizable percentage did? No. Do I think a few did consider all or any of this? I am not sure.
President Obama won re-election decisively. His margin in the popular vote was nearly three million votes. Apparently* there were none of the gangsterish electoral tactics that marred his 2008 election. This makes the results worse as far as I am concerned.
President Obama is still not a monster. It’s possible that he is manipulated by a brand of leftists we thought had disappeared long ago. It’s also possible that someone like me will nurture in his brain paranoid notions at a time of major anxiety, such as now. Continue reading
From the Comments: Foreign Policy and the Rule of Law
This excerpt comes from a debate I had with Dr. Delacroix on his main blog awhile back. It pretty much made me a star within Santa Cruz libertarian circles (i.e. four people now know my name). Behold:
The idea – nay wish! – that the newly liberated people of the Arab world will somehow elect secular, Western-friendly governments after 50 years of oppression by regimes that were perceived by the Muslim public to be secular and Western-friendly belongs to be filed under the category of ‘fantasy’, not foreign policy.
and this:
I think Egypt and Libya are going to be just as bad as they have been, if not worse. Only Tunisia, which did not rely on foreign support AND recently elected Islamist parties to their new government, will come out of this for the better. I hope I’m wrong, of course, but libertarians rarely are!
and finally this:
The idea that Paul knows everything about anything is one that sure does look a lot like dogmatism at first glance. But Ron Paul will be the first to claim that he does not know everything. That’s why he insists that everything go through the Constitutional process – including overseas activities. That is to say, Ron Paul’s idea of dogmatism is to adhere to The Rule of Law. Imagine that!
I highly, highly recommend reading through the whole exchange (it starts after a few other comments in the thread; just scroll down, you won’t regret it, and don’t forget the popcorn!).
How I Know What I Know. How Do You Know What You Know?
Everyday life requires me to make decisions about many topics. In most cases, I have either a superficial understanding of the issue or no understanding at all. Yet, I manage and I have always managed, somehow.
The problem of my ignorance becomes even more acute when it comes to making the simplest of political decisions such as choosing to support a candidate against all other choices. To decide who I want to be President of the United States, I would have to know a great deal about arcane details of the political process, macro-economics, foreign policy, and the conditions in a dozen countries, at least.
Even today, when the Internet has made much knowledge enormously more accessible than it was only a few short years ago, those tasks are daunting. For one thing, there is the issue of specialized language, jargon one must tackle in every field of knowledge. Why, I don’t even know the language of the insurance companies on which my safety and my health rely! Continue reading
The UN vote on Palestinian Question: Some Comments
Recently the UN voted to make the Palestinian territories as a “non-member observer state,” rather than a “non-member observer entity.” The vote was 73% to 5% with 22% abstaining.
As I’ve previously noted, I think the UN is a now-worthless organization, and CNN gives a good interpretation of the facts on the ground here if you’re interested.
My own take on this vote is scrambled, so bear with me as I lay it out here.
The Israelis have objected to this vote because they argue that the Palestinians are trying to forego direct negotiations with the Israelis. This is a fair objection.
However, the Israelis often argue that their state was legitimized when the UN voted in favor of a 1947 partition plan (the vote was 72% to 13% with 15% abstaining). That is to say, there were no direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians when the partition of Palestine was being drafted by the UN.
Much of the property owned by Jews in Israel today was acquired legally.
I think that the UN move by the Palestinians is a good one for two reasons:
- It gave the Israelis a taste of their own medicine by applying their own legal logic against them.
- It follows an ingenious tactic that the Israelis recently unveiled with the inclusion of expelled Jews from Arab states during the wars in the middle of last century.
To conclude, I favor a one state solution. I don’t like the idea of defining states in terms of religious or ethnic denominations, but I think the two-state solution is a good one to pursue for the time being. Both sides are guilty of practicing diplomacy in bad faith, but I have to hand it to the Palestinians on this one. It’s a stroke of genius.
Secession within the EU?
While I’m on the topic of secession, I thought I’d point readers to the upcoming vote in Catalonia to see if they want to secede from Spain. Central to my arguments for secession is the role that new states would have within a broader free trade zone (like the U.S. or the E.U.). For Catalonia, the British paper Telegraph reports:
Catalonia wants to collect its own taxes, to control how they are spent and it seems prepared to break away from Spain to do so.
But with a clear road map yet to be outlined the process of separating from Spain promises to be burdened with hurdles.
While Catalans prize their role as citizens of Europe, EU officials have warned that membership of the union won’t be automatic. Instead Catalonia would have to gain admission, joining the queue of a list of new European nations seeking membership, and the process would likely be blocked by a vengeful Spain.
This is key to not only Catalonia’s success, but also the success of secessionist movements everywhere. If regions within current states want independence, they have to be sure to not confuse political independence with economic independence. The latter will only lead to poverty. I highlight this point because new states formed during the beginning of the post-colonial revolution of the 60’s and 70s thought that economic independence was the key to liberty. How wrong they were. Continue reading
The Case for More States in Africa? Anarchy, State or Utopia?
Yes please! There is an old article in the Atlantic arguing that more states are just what Africa needs, and I’d like to highlight why I think more states are a good thing, and at the same time pick up Dr. Delacroix’s argument on states and libertarianism from a little while back and explain why I think that more states are a good thing and why Dr. Delacroix doesn’t really understand libertarian thought.
Now, I know more states seems at first glance to be a counterintuitive position for a libertarian to take, but upon second glance I hope to show you why this isn’t true.
First up, from the Atlantic‘s article:
The idea that Africa suffers from too few secessionist campaigns, too few attempts to carve a few large nations into many smaller ones, flies in the face of conventional wisdom. One of the truisms of African politics is that traditional borders, even when bequeathed by colonizers without the least sympathy for African political justice, ought to be respected. The cult of colonial borders has been a cornerstone not only of diplomacy between African nations but of the assistance programs of foreign governments and multinational non-governmental organizations.
I’ve pointed this out from a number of different angles previously here on the blog, so I don’t want to delve too deeply into this, but the article, written by a professor of journalism at Arizona State, has more: Continue reading
Around the Web: “I’m Stuffed” Edition
I’m so full from food and dessert it’s not even funny. I’m back home in NorCal, too. I hope your holiday has been everything that mine has and more.
- Immigration: Giant low-hanging fruit.
- Have you ever heard of Opera, the browser? I have, and I tried it out at one point, but Google’s Chrome is where its at. Anyway, Opera is the most used browser in Belarus…and no where else. Find out why, in the Atlantic.
- Some literary history. From FEE.
- China in Revolt.
- Contra #4, Hayek in China.
Happy holidays to you all, and tell your moms I said ‘hi’!
