A Warm Welcome

Brandon Christensen Current Events

Hello readers. I’d like to welcome Adam Magoon to consortium:

Adam is an on-again, off-again student focusing on history and economics.  First introduced to libertarianism in 2009, he quickly became fascinated with libertarian history stretching from Ron Paul today to the individualists of antiquity.  His own history has been wrought by individualist personalities and due to his blue-collar heritage one of his passions is destroying the myth that capitalism is harmful to the working class.  Other pursuits include amateur astronomy, cooking, writing short stories, and exploring the beautiful scenery of upstate New York.

You can find his posts here. I look forward to reading what he comes up with.

Around the Web: US-Iranian “Peace Accords” Edition

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , , , , ,
  1. Ezra Klein in the Washington Post
  2. Ed Krayewski in Reason
  3. John Allen Gay writing in the National Interest
  4. Daniel Larison in the American Conservative
  5. Stephen Walt has a great piece in Foreign Policy
  6. Angelo Codevilla on the Liberty Law blog

My own reaction is “great!”

This is fantastic news for everybody, including the Israelis. If the Israelis were smart, they’d jump on the opportunity and start forging ties with the Iranians again. Saudi Arabia, the state Israel is nudging closer and closer to, is the real terrorist factory in the Middle East and I don’t see how Israeli long-term interests would benefit from an alliance with the most vicious regime in the Arab world.

With that being said, I don’t know too many details about the deal. I know Tehran promised not to build a bomb (yeah right), but will sanctions end? If so, how soon?

To me sanctions are the most important issue here. Tehran getting a nuclear bomb is understandable given her neighborhood, so it’s not really a big deal when it gets the bomb. However, if sanctions are still around when Iran gets the bomb then you can bet Tehran is going to be much more bellicose than it is, and the people of Iran will give the regime the legitimacy it needs to wield its newfound power.

IP Anyone?

Tibor Machan Current Events, Law , , , , , ,

There is a debate afoot now about whether one ever owns the likes of a novel, poem, computer game, song, arrangement or similar “intellectual” items. Some argue, to quote the skeptic, Professor Tom Bell of Chapman University’s School of Law, “Copyrights and patents function as a federal welfare program of sorts of creators,” while others, such as James V. DeLong of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, hold that “It is difficult to see why intellectual property should be regarded as fundamentally different from physical property.” I want to suggest a way to come to terms with this dispute in this brief essay and offer a possible resolution.

A major issue that faces one who wishes to reach a sensible understanding of intellectual property is just what “intellectual” serves to distinguish among what surrounds us in the world and how that contrasts with other kinds and types of possible property. What quality does “intellectual” point to about something? In my list, above, I am assuming that whatever is an invention or creation of the human mind amounts to potential IP, while others would argue that nothing intellectual in fact can constitute property, let alone private property. But this is merely to start things off, in need of clarification and analysis.

Some have proposed that the major element distinguishing intellectual from other property is that it is supposed to be intangible. So, for example, home or car or land parcels are tangible, capable of being brought into contact with our senses. However, a musical score or arrangement or a romance novel is supposed to be intangible – such a thing cannot be touched, felt or otherwise brought into contact with our sensory organs. Yet an immediate problem this attempt to distinguish intellectual property is that there are tangible aspects to inventions, and there are intangible aspects to these other items that are supposedly all tangible. A home is not just some raw stuff but a building that is the result of a combination of ideas, some of them inventions. Even land isn’t own exactly as it occurs in the wild but is configured by the more or less elaborate design work of landscapers. The same with whatever so called tangible items that function is property. A watch is not just some metal, mineral, glass and such assembled randomly but some assembly of such materials designed to show time and otherwise be appealing as well. In turn, a novel, song or computer game is also a combination of tangible and intangible stuff – the paper, typewriter or pen and the lead or ink with which the novel is written – only the author, and only for a little while, encounters the novel in intangible form after which the novel becomes an often very tangible manuscript.

The tangible/intangible distinction is not a good one for what can and cannot be owned and, thus, treated as distinctive enough to be related to owners. Indeed, the distinction seems to derive from a more fundamental one, in the realm of philosophy and its basic branch, metaphysics. In a dualist world reality would come in either a material or a spiritual rendition. Our bodies, for example, are material objects, whereas our minds or souls are spiritual or at least immaterial ones.

This goes back to Plato’s division of reality into the two realms, actual and ideal, although in Plato particular instances of poems or novels belong to the actual realm. A less sophisticated version of dualism, however, suggests the kind of division that’s hinted at through the tangible-intangible distinction. In nature we may have physical things as well as stuff that lacks any physical component, say our minds or ideas. Yet much that isn’t strictly and simply physical is intimately connected with what is, such as our minds (to our brains) and ideas (to the medium in which they are expressed).

So, the tangible versus intangible distinction does not seem to enable us to capture the distinguishing aspect of intellectual property. What other candidates might there be?

One candidate is that unless government or some other force bearing agency bans the supply of some item of intellectual property, there is never any scarcity in that supply.

There is certainly something at least initially plausible about this view. What is tangible is more subject to delimitation and capable of being controlled by an owner than something that is intangible. A car or dresser is such a tangible item of property, whereas a novel or musical composition tends to be fuzzy or less than distinct. One cannot grab a hold of a portion of a novel, such as one of its characters, as one can of a portion of a house, say a dresser.

Yet intellectual property isn’t entirely intangible, either. Consider that a musical composition, on its face, fits the bill of being intangible, yet as it appears, mainly in a performance or on a recording, it takes on tangible form. Consider, also, a design, say of a Fossil watch. It is manifest as the watch’s shape, color, and so on. Or, again, how about a poem or musical arrangement? Both usually make their appearance in tangible form, such as the marks in a book or the distinctive style of the sounds made by a band. These may be different from a rock, dresser, top soil or building but they aren’t exactly ghosts or spirits, either.

It might also appear that the theological division between the natural and supernatural mirrors the tangible-intangible division but that, too, is misleading since no one who embraces that division would classify a poem or novel as supernatural. Thus it seems that there isn’t much hope in the distinction some critics of intellectual property invoke. The tangible-intangible distinction seems to be independent of the usual types of ontological dualism and so the case against intellectual property, then, seems unfounded. If there is such a distinction, between ordinary and intellectual property, it would need to be made in terms of distinctions that occur in nature, without recourse to anything like the supernatural realm. Supposedly, then, in nature itself there are two fundamentally different types of beings, tangible and intangible ones. Is this right?

Again, it may seem at first inspection that it is. We have, say, a brick, on the one hand, and a poem, on the other. But we also have something very unlike a brick, for example, smoke or vapor or clouds. In either case it’s not a problem to identify and control the former, while the latter tend to be diffused and allusive. We also have liquids, which are not so easy to identify and control as bricks but more so than gases. Indeed, it seems that there is a continuum of kinds of beings, from the very dense ones to the more and more diffused ones, leading all the way to what appear to be pure ideas, such as poems or theater set designs.

So, when we consider the matter apart from some alleged basic distinction between tangible and intangible stuff, one that seems to rest on certain problematic philosophical theories, there does not appear to be any good reason to divide the world into tangible versus intangible things. Differentiation seems to be possible in numerous ways, on a continuum, not into two exclusive categories. Nor, again, does it seem to be the case that there is anything particularly intellectual about, say, cigarette smoke or pollutants, albeit they are very difficult to identify and control. They are, in other words, not intellectual beings, whatever those may be, yet neither are they straightforwardly tangible.

I would like to explore the possibility of a very different distinction, namely, one between what is untouched by human meaning and whatever is subject to it. For example, there would be no poems without intentions, decisions, deliberations and so forth. There would, however, be trees, rocks, fish or lakes. Is it the point of those who deny that intellectual property is possible that when people produce their intentional or deliberate objects, such as poems, novels, names, screenplays, designs, compositions, or arrangements, these things cannot be owned? But this is quite paradoxical.

The very idea of the right to private property is tied, in at least the classical liberal tradition – starting with William of Ockham, to John Locke and Ayn Rand – to human intention. It is the decision to mix one’s labor with nature that serves for Locke as the basis for just acquisition. In the case of such current champions of this basic individual right, such as James Sadowsky and Israel Kirzner, it is the first judgment made by someone to invest something with value that serves to make something an item of private property.

However all of this comes out in the end, one thing is certain: the status of something as property appears to hinge on it’s being in significant measure an intentional object. But then it would seem that so called intellectual stuff is a far better candidate for qualifying as private property than is, say, a tree or mountain. Both of the latter are only remotely related to human intentions, whereas a poem or novel cannot have their essential identity without having been intended (mentally created) by human beings.

Of course, in becoming owned, a tree and mountain does become subject to intentionality, as when someone decides to make use of such a thing for his or her purposes. And, conversely, even in the case of a poem, there are words that are as it were pre-existing and only their particular concatenation is a matter of intention.

I am not certain what the outcome should be from these and related reflections. They do suggest something that is part of both the ordinary and the so called “intellectual” property traditions, namely, that when human beings are agents of creation, when they make something on their own initiative – when they invest the world with their distinctive effort, they gain just possession of what they have produced. And if there is anything that they produce more completely than such items as poems or computer games, I do not know what it might be.

For me, then, the issue is this: When one designs and produces something novel that one has thought up, some gadget or machine or such, does one then own this design/product? And if someone else copies it, did they take something from the former against his or her will? If the answer is yes to the former, then I think the answer must be yes to the latter.

Whether the protection of one’s property occurs via this or that legal device — patent, contract, trademark, what have you — seems a secondary issue and detail. The first is ownership. Also, what one’s owning something one conceives and makes may mean for others who may be thinking up the same thing later is irrelevant, no less so than if one finds a piece of land and appropriates it and then later others, too, find it and would like to appropriate it but now may not.

Those, by the way, who complain that governments enforce patents and copyright laws, should realize that governments also enforce property rights in societies with governments. Governments in such societies are akin to body or security guards. Certainly, taxing others for this enforcement is unjust but that isn’t the essential idea behind the enforcement, not if one understands that copyright and patents could be protected without government, as well, just as other private property can be protected without government. But until it is government that protects — not establishes but protects — rights, it will also protect the right to intellectual property, if there be such a distinct thing in the first place. Taxation for such protection is irrelevant since taxation for the protection of other types of property is also beside the point.

Finally, that patents run out may be compared to the fact that ownership can cease with death, too. Of course, patents or trademarks or copyrights could all be reassigned from one to another owner, just as property in anything can be reassigned upon voluntary exchange or transfer. There is nothing necessarily odd about this, simply because the matter hasn’t developed very smoothly and consistently.

Debunking the Wage Slavery Myth

Adam Magoon Economics, Liberty, Philosophy , , , , ,

By Adam Magoon

It is often stated by those who are ignorant of economics that work is not a voluntary endeavor even when a wage is agreed upon voluntarily by both parties.  The rationale behind this claim is that a human being must eat, drink, and have shelter and therefore the employer has this leverage to use in order to strangle wealth from the poor worker.  In order to examine this erroneous belief we must start as we do with all economic examination with the Robinson Crusoe scenario.

Assume a shipwrecked sailor (Tobias) on an island with no resources but his own two hands and his ingenuity.  To survive he has a number of options:  He can gather fruit/berries for a return of 3 pounds of berries per day, he can fish in the shallows(without tools) for a return of 2 pounds of fish per day, or he can hunt wildlife(without tools) for a return of 3 pounds of meat per day.

wageslavery1

Tobias requires 2 pounds of consumer goods per day to survive.  On this island consumer goods are either Berries, Meat, or Fish and given Tobias’ productive capacity of either 2 pounds of berries or 3 pounds of the other two consumer goods any intake of resources allows him to maintain his existence (subsistence).  It is at this point we must examine whether Tobias’ work is slave labor.

The definition [1] of a slave is:

1.

 a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property

2.

 a person who is forced to work for another against his will

In our scenario is Tobias the property of anyone other than himself?  The answer is clearly “no” since Tobias is quite literally the only person on this island.  While he is “forced” to work due to his innate need for sustenance it would be counter-factual to claim he is somehow a slave to himself since the definitions of slave-master and slave are incompatible with another [2].  It is also absurd to say that because they provide his method of survival that Tobias is somehow slave to the ocean or the land [3].  So as we can see; when Tobias is alone on the island working to survive he is a slave to no one.

To this point we have been dealing with Tobias merely using his nature given resources to obtain and consume consumer goods.  However by collecting berries or hunting for two days (6pounds collected – 4 pounds consumed) he obtains 2 pounds of excess goods he can save.  Through this method of saving and then consuming the saved goods on the third day he can then use that time to create capital goods.  This means that on the third day, instead of hunting he can fashion himself a spear from collected wood.  The spear allows him to take on larger game and thus increases his collection of meat to 6 pounds per day.

 wageslavery2

At this point we need to examine two things.  First, at this point it would be foolish for Tobias to do anything other than hunt.  He has a decisive gain in resources due to his construction of the Spear and can use the vast amount of saved food to create even more goods (extra spears, traps, shelter, etc…).  As foolish as it may be objectively that diagnosis ignores his subjective valuations; perhaps he finds it distasteful to kill animals even in his situation, or simply prefers to pick berries due to the relative safety.  The reasons are irrelevant, just keep in mind that despite the obvious advantage of hunting in this scenario he can always choose not to.

The second thing we need to examine is whether Tobias is now a slave.  All of the evidence from the previous examination applies; he is still not a slave to himself.  The only thing that has changed is the creation of a spear from the saving of consumer goods.  It is clear that Tobias cannot be a slave to either the spear or his own saved consumer goods, again due to their nature as objects.  So we have seen that a worker working, both with and without capital goods, is a slave to no one.

Now here is where the hypothesis comes into question.  Let us assume a second person becomes stranded on the island; except this person (let’s call him Andrew) has been able to scavenge from his wrecked ship a small life boat and netting that is suitable for fishing.  Using his tools while alone Andrew can Hunt for 1 pound of meat, gather 1 pound of berries, or gain 10 pounds of fish.

 wageslavery3

In this economy Tobias will gain the most by hunting and Andrew will gain the most by fishing and they both are likely to pursue those activities [4].  Now we must again identify if this change in circumstance has resulted in slavery.  Tobias’ situation has not changed at all, so he is not a slave to anyone.  Andrew is not interacting with Tobias in any way, he cannot be a slave to his boat, his net, the ocean, or himself so he is also obviously a slave to no one either.

However Andrew soon comes to believe that if he had someone to operate the net while he piloted the boat he could obtain 20 pounds of fish per day, this may be an erroneous prediction but that is the entrepreneurial risk Andrew must take to earn a profit.  For the sake of this examination we will assume that Andrew is an amazing entrepreneur and his prediction is exactly right; but to obtain the 20 pounds of fish Andrew needs an employee.

Here we reach the concept of wages.  In the economy where both Andrew and Tobias work alone they obtain 10 pounds and  6 pounds of consumer goods respectively for a total of 16 pounds.  Andrew, as an entrepreneur, sees that if he employed Tobias they would obtain 20 pounds of total consumer goods which is an increase in the size of their economy by 4 pounds of consumer goods.    At this point Andrew needs to hire Tobias.

If you remember; the subsistence level for Tobias is 2 pounds of consumer goods per day; so any attempt to hire Tobias for less than that will be ignored since he could not survive at that wage.  Currently though Tobias is producing 6 pounds of meat using just his own intelligence and skill so any attempt to hire Tobias below that rate will also be denied.

Andrew would obtain 10 pounds of goods without Tobias’ help so he would be amiss in paying Tobias more than that since then Andrew would then be taking a loss.  Using our final profit of 20 pounds if Tobias agrees to work for Andrew the wage rate must be between 6 and 10 pounds of goods per day.

In this scenario let’s assume Andrew offers to pay Tobias 7 pounds of goods in exchange for his work operating the net [5].   Tobias would then be gaining 1 pound of goods over his efforts if he worked alone.  Andrew would be gaining 3 pounds of goods compared to his work alone.  Tobias agrees to this arrangement and both parties are better off.  Here is where the proponent of wage slavery points to the fact that Tobias is seemingly generating 10 pounds of goods but only obtaining 7 pounds and thus he is being exploited by the capitalist-pig Andrew but let’s examine whether there is a master-slave arrangement here.

Andrew has freely chosen to hire Tobias at the cost of 7 pounds of consumer goods with the expectation of gaining 13 pounds for his own use.  He is free to terminate this agreement at any time.   Tobias is in a voluntary agreement to help Andrew obtain a total of 20 pounds of consumer goods in exchange for a payment of 7 pounds of goods.  He is free to leave at any time if the agreement becomes unsatisfactory and hunt for himself, though he would suffer a net loss of 1 pound of consumer goods to do so.

There is nothing here that fits the definition of slavery, Tobias is not forced to work against his will and Andrew is not forced to hire him.  Both parties own their own property and neither owns the other in part or in whole.  Even though Tobias would be taking a loss by leaving Andrew’s employment the loss to Andrew would be even greater!  Andrew would be losing 3 pounds of profit and Tobias would only be losing 1 pound.  Therefore despite Tobias’ innate need to work this does not cause a master-slave arrangement or “exploitation”.  It is true Tobias has to work to survive but he does not need to work for Andrew; but he voluntarily will continue to do so as long as it benefits him.

Finally, what of the “missing” 3 pounds of goods that Tobias is somehow losing?  The answer is obvious; it is the price put on Tobias’ use of Andrew’s capital goods which in this scenario are his boat and net.  Without these capital goods Tobias would not be able to generate 10 pounds of consumer goods and therefore there is a premium placed upon them by Andrew; after all they are his property and he must maintain them.  If Andrew’s boat was to spring a leak or his net tear Tobias would not have any responsibility to fix them and could happily take his 1 pound loss and go back to hunting while Andrew (if he had not achieved some profit) would suffer the far greater loss of both his 3 pounds of goods and the destruction of his capital goods.

It is worthwhile to note how this scenario compares to the classic opinion that people born into wealth have somehow acquired it illegitimately.  In our scenario Andrew did not need to save consumer goods like Tobias did in order to obtain capital goods, he simply has them due to luck, or fate, or what-have-you.  This does not change the fact that he does indeed own them and can utilize them how he wishes and that utilization is totally legitimate.  Would anyone scoff if Tobias handed down the hunting spear to a future son for his protection and livelihood?  To remain consistent we cannot then harry Andrew for passing down his fishing equipment for the sole reason that it would give his own heirs an “unfair competitive advantage”.

It is evident by now that the entire concept of wage slavery is simply a misunderstanding of economic principles.  Even the myth that somehow the wage earner does not get “his fair share” has been debunked.  The simple reason why so many find these concepts hard to extrapolate in the real world is due to the hundreds of years of savings, production of capital goods, and the highly specialized division of labor that has made worker productivity increase to such an extent that the fall to subsistence seems unfathomable.

The productivity of the workers in the industrialized world has become so great that any work outside of this world, such as gathering berries or fishing to feed an entire family, would require a massive drop in quality of life.  This is somehow turned around to be a slight on employers when they are the ones who have made this increase in the quality of life possible.

If we had replaced Andrew’s life boat in our scenario with a commercial fishing trawler that allowed Tobias to obtain 500 pounds of fish per day would we then say he is Andrew’s slave because he would be “forced” to return to hunting only 6 pounds of meat per day should he choose to leave?  Would Andrew be a villain for hiring Tobias and paying him such a vast increase over the wage he could obtain by working alone?  No! Of course not! It doesn’t logically follow!  Yet that is the accusation from the proponents of wage-slavery and it is clearly absurd.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave?s=t

[2]  It is true that a slave could himself be the master of a third slave, but a slave master logically cannot be a slave to his own slave since either one slave or the other would end his own involuntary servitude.

[3] By their nature as objects they cannot own other objects.

[4] Whether they actually trade goods at this point is irrelevant because both parties are satisfying their base needs through their own effort.

[5] We are also assuming that the number of hours worked are the same and subjective preferences of hunting over fishing or vice versa are non-existent.

Bad News Bears: Ukraine, Russia and the West

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

No, I’m not talking about the Bruins choking in Pasadena earlier tonight. I’m talking about the Ukrainian government’s decision to balk at the latest Western offer for integration.

Well, at least I think it’s bad. The New York Times has all the relevant information on what happened between Kiev and the West. According to the Grey Lady, Kiev either balked at an IMF offer or had its arm twisted by Moscow. Both scenarios seem plausible, but I’d like to dig a bit deeper.

Ukrainians have been hit hard by this global recession, and last year they elected a government that is much more pro-Russia than it is pro-West. Unfortunately, I think the economy is only a small fragment of what ails the people in the post-colonial, post-socialist state of Ukraine (some people have started labeling “post-” states as “developmentalist” states; I like it but I’m not sure readers would). First of all, here are some relevant maps:

Ethno-linguistic map of Ukraine
2012 presidential election results in Ukraine
Map of per capita income in Ukraine

Notice a pattern? Yeah, me too. Basically, Ukraine is split along ethnic lines between Russians and Ukrainians and instead of recognizing this fact and focusing on property rights reforms first and foremost, the Ukrainians have decided to try their hand at democracy (on the inability of democracy to solve political problems in multi-ethnic states, see Ludwig von Mises’s Nation, State and Economy 72-84).

The conflation of democracy with property rights as freedom has been the single biggest mistake of all societies in the post-war world. From Ghana to Indonesia to Iraq to India to Ukraine, elites have focused their efforts on implementing democracy rather than property rights, and the inevitable, unfortunate results (“dictatorship and poverty”) continue to frustrate me. I’m sure the people who actually have to live under these conditions don’t like it much either.

Wouldn’t it be better if the current Ukrainian state  split into (at least) two independent states? I ask because it seems to me that having (at least) two different states will cut the number of losers in half (losers of elections in “post-” societies truly are losers; it’s nothing like having to “live under” Obama or Bush) and make the new, smaller governments more accountable and more accessible to the people.

The other aspect of Kiev’s rejection of Western integration that troubles my mind is that of the attitudes towards liberalization of Ukrainian society that many people obviously harbor.

For example:

  • Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians overwhelmingly support more integration with the West. There are demonstrations (and I use this term loosely; riots may soon start) against the government’s decision to balk at the West going on right now.
  • And Russian-speaking Ukrainians (being Ukrainian can be either an ethnic thing or political thing [“citizenship”], which just goes to show you how stupid anything other than individualism is, but I digress) overwhelmingly support Moscow.

Yet it seems to me that both sides take the “pro-” and “anti-” stances that they do more out of spite for the other side than out of an understanding of what liberalization actually entails (I base this hunch on my watching of the recent elections here in the US). It’s also not clear to me that a pro-Western tilt would actually lead to more liberalization.

It may be easy for the Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians to integrate and work with the West, but I think the Russian-speaking Ukrainians have good cause to look upon pro-Western deals with suspicion. After all, the Russian speakers are the richest faction in Ukraine, and freer trade with the West  would seriously undermine their political power (why do you think Russian-speaking Ukrainians have all the good jobs?).

Perhaps Evgeniy can enlighten us on the Russian perspective.

If Evgeniy doesn’t have the time you could just read Daniel Larison’s thoughts on the matter (Dr Larison is a historian with a PhD from the University of Chicago who specializes in the Slavic world).

New Mexico’s Police Breaking Badly

Fred Foldvary Current Events, Liberty , , , , ,

by Fred Foldvary

The AMC television channel recently concluded the drama “Breaking Bad.” The series was about a high-school chemistry teacher who has terminal cancer and “breaks bad” by making methamphetamine to get money for his treatments and for his family. The episodes take place in New Mexico, and some of the scenes occur in the desert.

Now the state government of New Mexico is breaking into real-life evil. Its police are stopping drivers and forcing them to submit to intrusive body searches and medical tests for drugs, including X-rays and colonoscopies. The hospitals then bill the victims for the involuntary procedures.

The State of New Mexico is establishing the principle that the state may force people to undergo medical procedures that they then must pay for. The worst aspect of governmental medical provision is that the health of individuals becomes a governmental matter, and therefore the state takes control over medical decisions. The federal and state governments may, in the future, force people to adopt preventive measures and periodic tests. The government will not only force citizens to have medical insurance, but also force people to submit to procedures such as anti-smoking treatments and colonoscopies.

One of the victims of medical coercion is suing the City of Deming in a U.S. District Court for being forced to submit to X-rays, enemas, and a colonoscopy. The police and doctors did not find any drugs in his body. As justification, the police claim that the driver was clenching his buttocks after being stopped for a traffic violation and ordered out of his car.

After that lawsuit was registered, it was reported that another man was probed for drugs in a New Mexico hospital after his car was stopped by police for failure to signal. The news media are now reporting that other drivers in New Mexico are being searched after getting stopped for alleged traffic violations. The police suspect the drivers of drug violations due to their appearance or due to dog sniffing, often with untrained dogs, and obtain warrants for the intrusive drug tests and body searches. In the case of the driver suing the state, the warrant was not even valid for the county and the time in which the colonoscopy took place.

The police in other states have been doing similar things. In Tennessee, the police took a man cited for an expired car licence to a hospital for drug tests, after a sniffing by a drug dog. A woman in Texas was strip-searched and double-probed by the police and by doctors.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Unfortunately it is easy for the police to evade the Fourth Amendment because they can claim that their searches and seizures are reasonable. and some judges will routinely issue warrants if a dog, even if untrained, growls or points at the victim, or perhaps if the victim seems nervous.

Long ago, and still in some countries, highways were dangerous because robbers would halt a carriage or train and steal from the riders. Now, in the USA, the highwaymen are the police who are not content to merely issue citations, but use traffic violations as an excuse to enforce the drug laws. Driving in New Mexico is now dangerous because of the police predators.

Ecology is the relationship of living beings to one another and the environment. Evolution seems to generate predator-prey ecologies. Now that large predators such as lions and wolves have been eradicated from human habitat, ecology has generated human predators such as hijackers. Government is supposed to protect the public from such predators, but the drug laws have turned the police into yet another set of predators.

The German philosopher Nietzsche wrote that the “will to power” is the strongest human motivator. Individuals who seek the thrill of exerting power now become traffic officers, because they can stop any driver and have power over and into his body. This police predation is legalized rape.

From the Comments: Federalism, Small States and Central Banks

Brandon Christensen History, Politics , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Searle asks the following question after reading my argument with George Ayittey on secession in Africa:

Brandon, how do you respond to the geopolitical and macro-economic arguments in favor of strong federalism rather than small-state nationalism? The experience of Central Europe after the First World War seems to offer a telling example of what happens when you break-up multi-national states along ethnic lines. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire created a power vacuum which Hitler and Stalin were only too glad to fill. All of the thriving national states you have named exist under the implied or real security guarantee of the US.

Secondly, whatever the attraction of economic integration without political integration seems to be coming apart at the seams with the example of the European Union as we speak.

Breaking up Africa’s multi-ethnic states- unless they were replaced with a robust form of federalism- would, thus, seem to condemn that continent to perpetual interference by the big powers, and economic weakness.

Rick,

Thanks for chiming in. Your question and comments are very good ones.

how do you respond to the geopolitical and macro-economic arguments in favor of strong federalism rather than small-state nationalism?

As far as strong federalism goes, it is actually my preferred system of governance for the withering away of the state. Unfortunately, strong federal republics are few and far between in history. There are very hard to maintain and even harder to govern effectively. The best way to achieve a strong federal state is to start small and work your way up to a confederation, and if all sides want more political integration, then it would be wise to start putting together a federal state.

As far as small-state nationalism goes, I don’t want that. At all. What I am in favor of is smaller states without the nationalism. Remember, of all the small states I’ve listed most are fairly multi-ethnic. Denmark isn’t (I blame the crappy weather), but is still very open to immigration and international firms, while South Korea is currently trying to push an immigration reform bill through its parliament. Small states are good, nationalism is bad. More on this just below, but first:

The experience of Central Europe after the First World War seems to offer a telling example of what happens when you break-up multi-national states along ethnic lines. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire created a power vacuum which Hitler and Stalin were only too glad to fill.

Ah, great example Rick. Just to be clear: I don’t want to go around breaking states up. That would be both pompous and disastrous. Playing god is something only Leftists do! All I am saying is this: if a region within a state wants to secede from another state, then the international community should recognize this secession. There are a couple of caveats, of course. Doing this in China or Russia’s backyard would be a bad idea, but in the post-colonial world I think this is something that we should be looking at as a policy option to stunt the violence and poverty in these areas.

Recognizing the legitimacy of the secession would have three effects that would stop the violence for a time: 1) it would require that the new states prove their worth in the international community in the form of not persecuting minorities in their new state, 2) it would deter the state that just lost the region to secession from attacking another sovereign state for fear of reprisals and 3) the recognition of independence would inevitably lead to talks by both sides. Perhaps they could figure out a way to re-federate a few years on down the line, or perhaps they could come to some sort of agreement on trade. Whatever they do, they would at least be talking instead of fighting.

Failure to build an international consensus to recognize the independence of regions seeking independence will lead to more of the wars we have seen in much of the post-colonial world, as well as in the Caucasus and the Balkans.

Back to the nationalism you brought up earlier. A lot of states that try to secede are actually very multi-ethnic. Azawad, in Mali, for example, is a good example of a multi-ethnic region trying to break free from Bamako’s inept rule. With the advent of the market economy throughout the world (see my reply to NEO above), nationalism will continue to decline in prominence, and the areas of the world where nationalism is prevalent will be the hottest ones on the planet. States that thrive on nationalism are going to have to struggle to assert their authority over their people, and where there is nationalist promotion in government, there we will see most of the violence. I am thinking of China, Russia, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, and India-Pakistan.

In other cases, secession has taken place within a state that is largely homogenous ethnically. Somaliland, a democratic, relatively prosperous, but unrecognized state in the north of Somalia is a case in point. They want out of Somalia until all the violence and competition for the center of power dies down. They are open to re-federating, but in the meantime…

All of the thriving national states you have named exist under the implied or real security guarantee of the US.

Yes, but isn’t this in itself a form of confederation, or loose federalism? I’m all for more integration between the US and other societies, by the way. If we could get these states to integrate further economically, and could make our political borders largely irrelevant within the confederation: then security costs would largely be paid for. My co-blogger Jacques Delacroix has actually written one of the most stimulating papers on the subject of integration between states: “If Mexicans and Americans Could Cross the Border Freely.” I highly recommend it. Remember, one of the pillars of individualism is internationalism. Hayek, among others, lamented that we had lost this fight to the Marxists in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Secondly, whatever the attraction of economic integration without political integration seems to be coming apart at the seams with the example of the European Union as we speak.

Ah, but the problems of the EU don’t stem from economic integration, they stem from more political integration. The European Central Bank – a political creation if I’ve ever seen one – and proposed measures for a European parliament with more delegated powers is what has caused the strife in the Eurozone, not the ability of Greeks to work and vote in France, and vice versa.

Breaking up Africa’s multi-ethnic states- unless they were replaced with a robust form of federalism- would, thus, seem to condemn that continent to perpetual interference by the big powers, and economic weakness.

Agreed! But again, I don’t want to go around breaking up states. One big hole I see in my support for secession theory so far is the question of what if: what if the new state’s neighbors don’t play ball economically? Won’t that new state be isolated? Co-blogger Fred Foldvary actually wrote an article on this subject using Turkey’s rejection from the EU as an example: “Let Turkey Join NAFTA.” Another highly recommended piece!

Whew. Thanks again for contributing to the conversation, Rick, and don’t be bashful in throwing more fastballs my way. It helps me learn and clarify my thoughts!

Refugies dans l’ irrealite?

Jacques Delacroix Comments, Politics , , ,

Pour des raisons techniques mysterieuse, je n’ai pas reussi a afficher une reponse au commentaire sur mon essai du 16 Novembre, “Une culture politique du n’importe quoi.” envoye par celui que j’ai nomme “Le Chouan.” J’en ai fait un essai a la place que voici:

Le chouan:

Bien sur, je suis tributaire de l’etroit menu en Francais disponible ici. Ce n’est pas grand-chose. D’ailleurs, j’interroge plus que j’affirme quand il s’agit de la France. J’aime bien “On N’est pas couche” pour une raison: Cette emission interroge en profondeur les homme politiques de maniere que je n’ai jamais vue ici, aux E.U. Et son presentateur me semble bien faire son boulot, quoique ce soit qui fasse flotter son bateau. (Traduction de l’Anglais.)

Le pessimisme de ton analyse force a se poser cette question: Comment est-ce qu’un pays de 60 millions, dont peu d’analphabetes, jouissant d’un plein acces a l’Internet, en est arrive a dependre d’un classe politique aussi nulle? S’agit-il d’une consequence d’une culture francaise plus ou moins constante ou plutot d’un deraillement. Dans le second cas, le deraillement daterait de quand?

Ou alors, assistons- nous a la gueule de bois qui suivrait trente annes de grandes vacances bien arrosees? Est-ce que la structure meme de la societe francaise rendrait l’acte de gouverner tres difficile?(Je mets en cause l’etat-nounou, bien sur, et le tout-subventionne.)

Voici une observation qui est peut-etre (peut-etre) liee a mon interrogation: Je suis en rapport avec un blog de lyceen parisiens intelligents. Ils s’expriment pourtant comme des militants communistes de 1953. On dirait qu’ils vivent dans une film, dans un mauvais film.

La societe francaise me donne d’ailleurs souvent l’impression d’etre une sorte de feuilleton. Je suis tous les jours absaourdi, par exemple, de constater les emprunts a la langue anglaises par des gens qui ne connaissent pas l’Anglais et qui possedent d’ailleurs une langue parfaitement viable. J’ai entendu avec mes propres oreilles un Francais plutot creatif utiliser le mot “gun.” dans une phrase en Francais. Cela m’etonne, bien sur, la langue francaise ne manque pas de vocable pour dire “arme a feu.” On dirait que beaucoup de Francais trouvent leur propre realite irreelle, qu’ils essaient de se refugier dans le monde des ecrans etrangers a leur proproe culture. Et ou les idees, exprimees dans une langue peu ou mal connue, sont mal saisies parceque elles sont rendues par la-meme insaisissables.

Je dis ca, moi, c’est pour causer.

What I learned in Community College

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

A salvo:  As a returning student in my thirties, I must admit I am thoroughly enjoying the community college experience — it blows my mind that I have the freedom to return to the academic environment and pursue my education in a convenient and cost-effective manner.  Surely this is a testament to the community college system, and for that, I am grateful.

Now that I’ve established my gratitude, I’d like to outline briefly what I’ve learned in my first semester back in school, and solicit the well-educated community that is notesonliberty.com for a bit of guidance.  Hopefully, you fine lot will provide me with some direction and perspective.  I intend to apply to a California school upon completion of my transfer program at the end of the 2014 academic year.

Here is what I’ve learned in a semester at Cabrillo college in Aptos, CA:

GEOG 3, Physical Geography:  Anthropogenic climate change is a fact.  Humanity is a juggernaut exhausting the planet’s resources, polluting, heating and overpopulating the environment.  The planet’s ability to support us is quickly and undoubtedly reaching the breaking point, and the solution is radical and immediate de-industrialization and depopulation.  The fact that industrialized nations and economic development provide innovations that result in efficiency and sustainability, as well as a negative replacement population rate matter not.  Humans must cease to eat anything but primary energy producers (plants), and ‘enact policy’ to curtail fertility by all and any means necessary to save the planet.

CG 65, Leadership:  Democracy is fair and effective.  It is just and fair to allow the tyranny of the majority to compel by force the theft of property from individuals in the form of taxation for the ‘common good’.  The importance of understanding the electorate’s will is secondary at best to mastering the process by which I as an individual can gain power and privilege through the exploitation of the democratic process.  Open manipulation of the will of the masses is the only just means to gain dominance over my neighbors and co-opt their liberty and resources.  Individual ability is meaningless, and it is unethical to use superior individual ability, labor and intellect to succeed, because that would be unfair to the dull-witted and lazy.  Those who have no power or ability have been exploited by individuals with power and ability, which is unethical.  The ethical way to exploit the public is as a group.  Everyone has equal value and ability, and it is wrong to favor individual performance based upon merit.  An individual’s worth is based on their ability to consent to the democratic process, and there are no natural leaders — leadership is a learned skill.

ACCT 151a, Financial Accounting:  All systems of accounting exist solely for the expressed purpose of paying the state.  I am compelled to violate my own right against self-incrimination by ‘voluntarily’ providing the state with a detailed log of all of my economic activity, so that I can ‘voluntarily’ send them a portion of that which I have earned by way of participation in commerce.  I must use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and keep meticulous records, based on a system codified by a medieval Jesuit named Fra. Lucca Paccioli, which he derived from ancient Sumerian systems of accounting and transcribed in the margins of a bible.  Should I participate in commerce in any other manner, or fail to disclose exactly what I’ve done with every dime that passes through my hands, I will be fined or imprisoned.  Corporations (that is, ideas drawn on paper) are people who never die and have rights that supersede the rights of natural people.  This system exists for my benefit…somehow.

SOC 2, Introduction to Sociology:  The ‘sociological imagination’ is a process by which unique individuals are grouped and classified as either privileged or victimized.  Race does not exist biologically, and gender has nothing to do with sex — paradoxically, people of western European ancestry with testicles are inherently evil, unless they are homosexual and socialist.  The laws of the natural, biological world are immoral when applied to society, even though Sociology as a field proposed the theory of Social Darwinism.  Central planning is needed to control the actions of individuals, and a free society is inherently unjust.  Though the ‘sociological imagination’ has given birth to the greatest evils of human society — Totalitarianism, Eugenics, and Human Bondage, sociology is somehow the salvation of human civilization.  The ‘great sociologists’ include Marx, Sanger and Mao — three people responsible for the death of millions.  Enlightenment thinkers and individual liberty is wrong, and Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves somehow invalidates the merit of any concepts he wrote on human liberty.

With all of that being stated — I pose a question to you, the great minds of notesonliberty.com:  To which schools within California shall I apply?  To which programs?  Is there any merit to a college education that has a legitimate basis in Art and Science, or is education within the college system simply a continued exercise in political indoctrination?  I write this in earnest — my thoughts aren’t in the least tongue-in-cheek.  Please, please, please, guide me to quality schools and baccalaureate programs for a libertarian thinker, so that I may not abandon my quest for a degree.

Help me, Obi-wan Kenobi.  You are my only hope.

At “Somewhat Reasonable”: Laws versus Regulations

Tibor Machan Law, Links

Laws versus Regulations

Obama’s Utilitarian Foibles

Tibor Machan Law, Liberty, Philosophy , , , , , , ,

The utilitarian insists that the morally right way to act is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number (of people but perhaps of all sentient beings). This goes for public policy as well! The goal overrides any individual rights, so if to secure it some people’s rights to life, liberty and/or property need to be violated, so be it!

For example, if to provide health insurance for elderly folks it is necessary to coerce young people to purchase health insurance, then coerce them! Never mind their right to liberty and property. Those are irrelevant, even though they are supposed to be unalienable rights no one may violate, not in the American political tradition.

Here, then, is a clear example of how the Obama regime departs significantly, in its political philosophy and program, from the uniquely American framework. This framework supports securing the protection of individual rights as the primary job of government. Read the Declaration of Independence and see for yourself. That is indeed the central feature of the American Revolution, with its Bill of Rights and its Constitution.

Not only does that render the country one that’s free – under which all citizens may live as they choose provided they do not violate anyone’s rights – but is responsible for the great prosperity of the country, its freedom from arbitrary government intervention in people’s lives. Even the public good or interest does not permit it. While this may appear to be a restriction that stops the country from achieving utilitarian objectives, the very opposite is the result! That’s because free men and women make the most productive use of their liberty.

The idea is that human beings are by their very nature proactive. They think of ideas that they will implement and these are usually good ideas, ideas their fellows can make good use of. This is the essence of entrepreneurship. They don’t just daydream but think purposefully, which is to say their ideas can be marketed to others. Out of this process arises the bustling economy of a country and, indeed, of the world.

So long as men and women are free to think creatively and productively, they will make sure their work will have payoffs, either economic or personal or even charitable. This is how a free society works, creates products and services, and leads to high employment to boot.

But the likes of Obama & Co. want to step in and regiment how free men and women act and they believe or pretend to know what others should do to be productive. And that means, usually, that they misguide the economy. (The most notorious recent example of this was all those five-year plans Stalin and his gang unleashed upon Russia and its satellite states, which brought the Soviet Socialist system to its knees!)

But Mr. Obama & Co. fail or refuse to grasp any of this. Shame on them!

Gun control: Centralized vs. Dispersed

Rick Weber Law, Politics , , , , , , ,

Hayek made the point that the debate of whether to have central planning was not over whether or not there would be planning, but over who would plan for whom. This point has an analog in the debate over gun control. The option is not between reason and chaos, but between centralized (and therefore bureaucratic) control and decentralized control.

Just because you (i.e. your ideals as embodied in the Democratic National Convention) aren’t in control, doesn’t mean that nobody is. A decentralized gun control regime is one where individual gun owners are responsible for securing their weapons and criminals are responsible for crimes they commit. Will mistakes be made? In the imperfect world we live in that’s almost a certainty. Will the results be worse than one with government gun control? That’s an empirical question. Political gun control will raise the cost of getting guns, but it will also raise the relative criminal effectiveness of guns. It will save some lives but will also cost some. There will probably be fewer accidental deaths and suicides, maybe fewer crime-of-passion murders, but likely more “kill the witness” murders. If the penalty for using a gun in a crime is high, then the relative cost of killing a witness is low (for example, adding a life sentence for murder on top of a 30 year sentence for armed robbery is like getting a 30-year off coupon on that life sentence).

With 3D printed guns on the horizon (to say nothing of the “dangerous” lack of regulation of machining tools!) an effective political gun control regime would have to expand to all manner of regulation. This regulation would cost a lot! But, one might object, mere money is not worth as much as the lives that might be saved. But it’s not embossed portraits of dead white men that’s at stake. I don’t think we should let economists play God, but I think there is something to economists’ activity of considering what we might be willing to give up for a life.

Money is a medium of exchange; it’s not the end, just a tool we use to make life easier. The cost of regulation is real human well-being, time, and effort foregone. Taking someone’s money prevents them from spending it on what they otherwise would have. It also discourages them from investing further effort into producing something valued by others. Regulation also takes people’s (irreplaceable!) time; saving someone’s (irreplaceable) life provides some moral justification for this, but the cost must be acknowledged.

If (if!) there is a benefit to political gun control (that is if we judge the lives lost under a decentralized regime as morally superior to those lost under a political regime), then we should still consider the cost. In any case, we should all stop using the term “gun control” when we mean “political gun control.” A problem defined is a problem half solved, and the blanket term “gun control” mis-defines the problem.

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , ,
  1. John Locke, President Bush and the Jesus Pushers
  2. (More) on the legality of the latest ObamaCare fix
  3. Israel is wigging out; One of the fairest assessments of Israeli foreign policy I’ve seen since my own musings!
  4. Has Barack Obama told the biggest (dumbest) lie ever?
  5. Are real rates of return negative? Is the “natural” real rate of return negative?

The French revolution

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, Politics , ,

The French are rebelling in large numbers. They wear red wool hats as a signal of rebellion (elegant, this!) and to rally one another. I am told by French connections I trust much of the time that the rebellion is not along political lines, that it includes left, right and center.

There seems to be two main targets. First, on the surface, it began as a manifestation of opposition against an “ecotax,” a tax on big trucks intended to fight global warming. (Good for the French! See my many essays on this blog on the myth of global warming. More coming.)

Second, but this is an interpretation, there seems to be a widespread feeling that the French nanny state is finally coming to an inglorious end. This is an interpretation because the French media do not articulate clearly this link:

generous free social services→ high taxes→ stagnant economic life, high unemployment, poor everything, sense of doom, low fertility, etc.

Many ordinary French people are simply disgusted with the poor quality of everyday life in their country, and, especially, with low employment with no end in sight. Many envision no future for their children. Many of their children say they want to emigrate, leave France for good.

It does not mean that the French are poor, overall. They are much richer than say, Mexicans. Yet, impressionistically, subjectively, urban Mexicans are much merrier than urban French people. It seems to me that it’s because the ones, living with reasonable economic growth, have hope, while the others, living at a higher level but with no growth, despair.

You can’t fool all the people all the time. And the people can’t even fool themselves forever, not the French, not anyone!

Une culture politique du n’importe quoi.

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

L’autre soir, j’ai capté brièvement “On n’est pas couché”, une émission télévisée que j’aime assez bien. J’ai eu juste le temps d’entendre un des hommes les plus durables de la vie politique francaise de gauche dire à peu près ceci:

Le “big business” américain c’est arrangé pour désindustrialiser l’Amérique.

L’auteur de cette déclaration péremptoire: Jean-Pierre Chevènement, un socialiste qui n’a pas la réputation d’un extrémiste, il me semble.

Deux gros problèmes en une seule petite phrase:

1 On ne voit pas très bien comment cette abstraction; “big business américain” se serait arrangé pour effectuer quoi que ce soit de cette manière volontariste. Comment s’y prennent-ils au juste? Ils tiennent des réunions dans une arrière-salle de café en pendant un écriteau à la porte:

“Big Business Only – No Admittance for Medimum-Size and Small Businesses” ? Et si ce n’est pas la cas, le big business n’aurait -il pas été surpris en flagrant délit de désindustrialisation criminelle? Les syndicats n’auraient-ils pas gueulécomme des putois; personne ne se serait plaint? Et ce projet obscène auraitéchappé à la censure des élections? (Ou bien, les élections americaines sont-elles toutes plus ou moins truquées?)

Le propos de Monsieur Chevènement ne veut litéralement rien dire. Ou plutôt si, il signifie quelquechose au second degré. C’est le genre de conte de monstres dont on se servait jadis pour forcer les enfants à rester dans leurs lits: “La-bas, plus loin, dans les collines, y’a le Grand Méchant Loup. Restez bien au chaud les petits.”

2 Ce n’est pas vrai. L’Amérique n’est pas désindustrialisée du tout. En fait, la production manufacturière américaine a atteind son niveau le plus haut l’année dernière (ou l’année d’avant, peu importe). C’est vrai qu’on fabrique ici moins de crayons et moins de pièges à rat qu’il y a quinze ans. Quel malheur! C’est un autre sujet, il vaut d’en parler. Il vaut plus qu’un phrase simpliste jettée à la sauvette.

Les Français sont soumis par leur gauche politique à un régime constant de bêtises sans liens avec la réalité, un réalité aujourd’hui pourtant facilement vérifiable grâce à l’Internet. M. Chevènement, par exemple, continue à dire n’importe quoi, comme si les faits n’étaient pas devenus beaucoup plus accessibles qu’au temps de sa jeunesse militante. Je me demande pourquoi les grandes publications francaise, à commencer par Le Monde, ne mettent que si rarement la pendule a l’heure. J’ai souvent l’impression, de loin, que les Français se soucient peu de la réalité.