History

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 →

Some Possible Consequences of a U.S. Government Default

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel Economics, History, Politics , ,

My Econ Journal Watch article on Treasury default is now available online. It appears in a special issue that is devoted to various articles with differing perspectives on the probability and consequences of a U.S. government default.

America’s War of 1812

foldvary History , , , ,

I am anti-war, but if war there must be, then the people should be honest about its financing, and pay for the war while it goes on rather than pushing the finance to future generations.  The War in Iraq was fiscally dishonest in that the costs were not in the official federal budget, and it was paid for by borrowing.  The World Wars and Civil War were also paid for in large part by with war bonds and money creation.  As this year is its bicentennial, it is worth looking at how the War of 1812 was financed.

At first, Congress doubled the tariff to pay for the war, but since trade shrunk during the war, tariff revenue shrank rather than grew.  The US Constitution empowers Congress to levy a direct tax if it is apportioned by state population.  So Congress levied a direct tax on property, mostly on real estate.  The states could take a 15 percent discount if they collected the taxes themselves and transferred the revenues to the federal government.  Most states took advantage of this, which spared the federal government the expense of assessing the real estate and taxing the landowners.  Another federal tax was levied in 1815 to pay for the war of 1812, and then the federal property tax terminated.

Adam Smith wrote that wars should be paid for by taxes rather than borrowing, so that the people would not favor a war unless it was needed such as to defend against foreign aggression.  If the War in Iraq had been finance by taxes, it would most likely not have started!

The use of real estate taxes for the War of 1812 is a lesson for public finance.  If taxes there must be, then instead of a national sales tax or flat-rate income tax, the federal government could tax the states rather than the people.  Let the states pay, at their option, their share of the budget based on their share of population.  This works best if there is a federal tax on land value rather than on income or goods.  If all states did this, there would not have to be any federal tax bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, as Hegel observed, people and governments do not learn the right lessons from history.  At least libertarian candidates should learn from the War of 1812.  Two hundred years ago, the federal government was able to pay for national defense without an intrusive income tax.  We don’t need stinking taxes on wages and goods.  Let the states finance the federal government.  Let the states then have whatever public finance system they want. Political power would then flow back from the federal to the state level, and this decentralization would be good for liberty.  Remember the War of 1812!

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!

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!

Austrian Economics and the Left

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

Matt Yglesias has a post up over at Slate.com on Ron Paul and Austrian Economics.  I won’t get into the details of what he got right and wrong about his largely honest attempt to explain the Austrian School to Leftists (the word “crank” was only used once!  A new high for the Left).  Instead, what I’d like to do is hone in on this whopper:

Many of the original Austrians found their business cycle ideas discredited by the Great Depression, in which the bust was clearly not self-correcting […]

Has Yglesias conveniently forgotten about Hoover’s attempts to prop up wages and his signing of the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff?

Why don’t Hoover’s policies get more attention by economists and journalists trying to understand and explain the Great Depression, or am I missing something?