Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , ,

Brandon: I am glad we agree on the US intervention in Afghanistan based on the fact that the Taliban hosted and refused to deliver the terrorist Al Qaida.

The “some press reports” statement regarding the Taliban blinding of little girls with acid shows what might be deliberate ignorance. The assertion was made by several responsible neutral sources, including National Geographic, not exactly a hawkish extremist publication. I suspect the Libertarian pacifist stance cannot be maintained without a broad practice of tactical ignorance such as you just demonstrated: Iran’s nuclear weapons? No problem.

Your disquisition on the French Revolution simply ignores my question: Is the American revolution any the less valid because ti was helped by the intervention of a foreign power, France? When you seem to relate the Terror to this intervention, you are going out on a very thin limb. There is a conventional belief that the French intervention hastened the revolution in France by aggravating the public debt. It’s not much and isn’t there a chance it’s a little out of your area of expertise? All the same, I admire your gumption! Next thing you know, you are going to offer to continue this discussion in French and you will correct my grammar in that language! (OK, that last statement wasn’t fair. I couldn’t resist. I am deeply ashamed!)

Reply Part II: You sidestepped my main question by taking advantage of my advanced age to distract me with ancillary issues:

If your negative feelings, your apprehensions about the Arab Spring were all well-founded (were) should we then, as a country, continue to favor tyranny in those countries as we did for thirty years?

Same question: How about individually, as human beings?

Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism

Brandon Christensen Liberty

All reasonable except for what’s not covered in your program:

  1. When an existing state protects actively terrorists on its soil that it could stop and those terrorists kill Americans, are we supposed to say, “Win some, lose some?”
  2. Should the United States be returned to British rule because it gained its freedom through foreign intervention?

And I know you have already answered the question below; I just want confirmation, to make sure I don’t misunderstand you.

When someone is burning little girls’ faces with acid next door do you really believe it’s best to do nothing?

When Egypt and/or Libya turn out to do real well in two years, will you think of sending and “Ooops” message? I ask, because, as you well know, your fellow isolationists who are on the Left, never do.

Haha! You never cease to amaze me Dr Delacroix…

1. When an existing state protects actively terrorists on its soil that it could stop and those terrorists kill Americans, are we supposed to say, “Win some, lose some?”

No, if a state is sponsoring terrorism against the republic or against our allies then we should go to war with the sponsoring state. After the fall of communism state-sponsored terror essentially ceased, though, because despots like Ghaddafi realized that they couldn’t play the superpowers off on each other.

It is trickier when there are terrorist organizations that are not connected to states. Luckily we have all the resources needed to maintain a leaner, meaner military and clandestine force to combat such organizations. Additionally, removing our government-sponsored military from places where they are not welcome would also decrease the likelihood of being targeted by terrorist organizations.

Unfortunately, bringing our troops home and modernizing our military and clandestine apparatuses don’t seem to be high on Washington’s priority list.

2. Should the United States be returned to British rule because it gained its freedom through foreign intervention?

I think you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. We should not be focused on the two factions who fought what was essentially a civil war, but rather on the foreign influence that intervened in the war on behalf of one side. What happened to France politically, economically, and socially after the Anglo-American War?

I don’t think that our society is going to descend into something resembling the Terror anytime soon, but the political, economic, and social constraints placed on our society by Washington’s interventions – both foreign and domestic – are all very visible today.

When someone is burning little girls’ faces with acid next door do you really believe it’s best to do nothing?

This practice is horrible, and of course I condemn it. However, bombing, invading, and occupying a foreign state because of some news reports documenting the throwing of acid into little girls’ eyes is just a little bit ridiculous.

Do you think it would be fair to say that the Soviet Union would have been justified in bombing the United States from Cuba because of the Jim Crow laws? The logic in this last point suggests that they would have been.

We should publicly condemn this practice, and even publicly support (but not fund) rebellion in despotic states, but ultimately this despicable practice needs to be stopped by those whom it affects. The men in Afghanistan need to grow a pair.

If Egypt and Libya turn out to be fine and dandy in two years time, I will be ecstatic and relieved. And of course I will send you a letter of apology. I’m just hoping you’ll do the same if you’re wrong. However, based on your bleeding heart arguments for fighting other states because little girls sometimes have acid thrown in their eyes, I won’t hold my breath expecting one [Editor’s note: I have yet to receive a letter of apology, but technically Dr Delacroix has a few months left…].

Про некоторые стереотипы мышления

Evgenii Grigorev Liberty ,

Всем привет. Давно я тут ничего не писал: новая работа и тотальная нехватка времени даже на некоторые домашние дела оставила проект NOL далеко позади,в  самом хвосте моего списка дел. Но вот, наконец, я слегка разгрузил свое расписание, и вновь готовь писать свои мысли и наблюдения о жизни России и всех сопутствующих проблемах.

Сегодня речь пойдет о стереотипах мышления и “врожденной злости” некоторых категорий граждан по отношению к различным национальностям и меньшинствам, проживающих на территории нашей необъятной страны. Вот сколько лет живу – до сих пор не могу понять этих стереотипов. Одно дело, когда заходит речь о “гостях из дружественных республик”, которые порой не умеют вести себя в чужой стране и вообще всячески пытаются насадить нам свой образ жизни. Здесь, в общем, уместна если не ненависть, злоба и агрессия – то по крайней мере “усталость и раздражение”. Однако большинство тех, кто открыто выступает против приезжих – сами вечером идут на рынок и покупают у них овощи и фрукты, нанимают их для выполнения ремонта в квартире. Кто мешает бойкотировать? Правильно, у них дешевле. А желание сэкономить в нашей крови.

Другой разговор – всякие меньшинства, которые и так постоянно в обиде. Несколько дней назад у меня состоялся весьма долгий и интересный разговор с незнакомцем в интернете, который, несмотря на возраст и в общем-то грамотную речь и определенный кругозор, свято верил, что, например, гомосексуализм можно “вылечить”.  Из разговора я понял, что у некоторых людей нетерпимость базируется исключительно на каких-то дремучих пещерных предрассудках и банальном незнании теории. Как и полагается любой настоящей тайне, предрассудки сами себя отлично охраняют, блокируя всю новую и важную информацию, и полагаясь на фразу “мне бабушка сказала, что геев можно вылечить”.

Говорят, что “в России две беды: дураки и дороги”. Но я хочу слегка преобразовать эту поговорку: “в России две беды. Дураки – и предрассудки”. Интересен факт, что чем больше человек активно во что-то верит, тем больше у них шансов обратить в свою веру остальное адекватное население. Так, любая глупость, сказанная по телевизору, воспринимается как истина.

Мне вот интересно, как борются с предрассудками среди населения в других странах?

Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism

Brandon Christensen Liberty , , , , ,

Brandon: I share many of your suspicions and even your fears though not especially about Libya, I think it’s going to be OK. But supposing you turn out to be completely right elsewhere. What’s the implication for action? Leave butchers in peace? Hope their victims don’t succeed in overthrowing them? Forever?

No, I think that the people who live under dictatorships should overthrow their overlords, if they can. This doesn’t mean I support the U.S. government helping them out. Too many questions arise out of such policies. It’s easier to blame a foreign influence for troubles in our society than it is to blame ourselves.

My quick policy proposal for foreign relations:

  1. stop hurting people through economic sanctions. Those only hurt the people we are trying to help and help the people we are trying to hurt.
  2. stop supporting regimes for strategic purposes. Doing so often causes us to turn a blind eye towards the some of the worst aspects of these strategic partners.
  3. stop condemning states for doing things that we do ourselves. It’s hard to condemn the prison states of China and Cuba when we have the highest rate of incarceration in the Western world, for example.

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!

The Islamist parties in Tunisia, by the way, don’t have the same “anti-imperialist” sentiments as the Islamists in Egypt and Libya do. I wonder why…

Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism

Brandon Christensen Liberty , , , ,

Ghaddafi is dead. Hooray.

Now on to the part where we actually have to think about the consequences of our actions. Why don’t we take a look at the region of the Middle East that has actually held elections without being occupied by a foreign power: the Palestinian territories.

Would you like to Google ‘Fatah’ and ‘Hamas’, or shall I?

It’s great that Ghaddafi is dead, and it would be nice if our actions in helping to bring him down were celebrated throughout the Muslim world. I won’t hold my breath though. After bombing the Serbians to help out Muslim Bosniaks the U.S. was thanked with a couple of airplanes being flown into our commercial buildings (it also refroze relations with Russia that still haven’t thawed).

The point I make here is not that all Muslims should be lumped together, but rather than our foreign policy establishment DOES lump all Muslims together. They never take into account all of the intricacies involving the political processes taking place in this part of the world. The effort in Serbia was a calculated response by the Clinton administration to win over the hearts and minds of the whole Muslim world, but what we got instead was soured relations with Russia and a nod of approval from the monarchies of the Gulf states, Turkey, and the autocratic regimes of Jordan and Egypt. One enemy (though certainly not the only one) of the Gulf state monarchies – al-Qaeda – had a different opinion on the matter.

Al-Qaeda looked the other way and saw military troops protecting the monarchies of the Gulf states.

Does anybody here seriously think that helping to dislodge a brutal dictator from power in the Muslim world is going to earn us the approval of the same Muslim world? In fact, what happens if – miraculously – a liberal, secular regime is voted into office in Libya? What do think will be the claims of the rival parties (especially the Islamist ones): that the elections were held fair and square, or that the new liberal regime is a mere puppet of the West?

Bottom line: unless there is a direct threat to the U.S. republic, we shouldn’t be playing that Old World game of Realpolitik. All that leads to is intrigue, speculation, and entangling alliances. Sure, some dictators have died because of our efforts. Then again, some have also benefited. Everybody is a hypocrite of course, but the more we can avoid being so, the better. 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.

The Ghaddafi regime undertook policies that were hostile to the West. His regime sponsored terrorism against innocent people in the West. I am glad he is dead. I am glad that his own people shot him in the streets. But I think one of the major complaints that Libyan elites had for his policies was not that he sponsored these acts, but rather that he sponsored them under the guise of anti-colonialism rather than for Islam.

A couple of thought exercises: what happens if the Libyan electorate chooses to entrust an Islamist political party hostile to the West with running the state? Does the United States accept the outcome, or do we take the same route we did when Hamas was elected in the Gaza Strip?

How would the U.S. be perceived by the Muslim world if our role there was limited to one of trading, and not one of policing?

Has anybody here thought about the possibility of a prolonged civil war in Libya due to regional rivalries that have been suppressed by a strong-arm dictatorship for the last 40 years? After all, the main reasons given for NATO’s operation in Libya was twofold: 1) to keep Libya from disintegrating into a civil war that would send thousands of refugees to Europe’s decadent shores and 2) to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

Can we be confident that these goals have been accomplished, or are we merely stabbing at shadows in the dark in the name of democracy?

What I’ve Been Thinking All Along

henrymoore Current Events, Law , , , , , , , ,

And never had the patience to say until now.

These are my thoughts and observations on the Zimmerman case. I did follow the news and commentary when the shooting happened, and in the following weeks. But trials bore me to tears, so I didn’t really pay much attention (I wasn’t the only one) to it. In fact, other than the verdict, this is what I knew about the trial and its periphery, commentary throughout:

– Zimmerman was charged with manslaughter as well as second degree murder. I don’t know if these were leveled against him at the same time or if they dropped one to pursue the other. I could probably easily find out but I’m feeling lazy.

– The prosecution had a really lousy case against Zimmerman. Much of what they did helped the defense. The prosecution’s witness’s own statements indicated that Zimmerman had a right to be where he was (for the record, I’ll take an impetuous neighborhood watch volunteer over the well-trained police, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday), and that he was the one being attacked. Any provocation, short of a threat or assault, may have been stupid, but it was hardly criminal. So you have the testimony of witnesses who didn’t even see all that went down. From the start it was pretty obvious that the prosecution didn’t have much more than this. Maybe Zimmerman did throw the first punch. Who knows? But it has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It seemed pretty obvious from the facts the public was made privy to well before the trial that the prosecution would never be able to do this.

– Certain groups wanted a guilty verdict, no matter what. Some of them for their own sincere reasons, but many simply because they have an agenda. Few if any of them, from what I could tell going all the way back to when the shooting happened, even had the capacity to empathize with George Zimmerman. This is fine, but when it becomes a racially motivated witch hunt with a presumption of guilt, and then the media gets a hold of it, and the outcome of the trial begins to take on consequences that could have repercussions throughout the nation, we have a major problem on our hands.

The fact is, it is really no one’s business besides the accused, the victim’s family, the lawyers, the witnesses, and the local courts and police. Not even really the community’s beyond the general task of stamping out crime. Some would argue that this trial has major consequences, and so we must pay attention to it. They are right, but it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Making a big deal is what makes it a big deal. The only reason it has any consequences for anyone other than those involved or anywhere besides where it actually occurred is because we have been paying far more attention to it than it ever merited. And the reason for this is a collectivist mentality, where all formerly and currently oppressed folk must band together to defend their own even though they might just be in the wrong.

How could a case like this possibly have an impact on trials or laws or liberties or race-relations or childrearing or property rights in other states without the media and special interest groups hyping it beyond its actual scale and scope?

I certainly don’t want to sweep injustice (if there even was any besides the presumption of guilt placed upon George Zimmerman) under the rug, but it is illogical to think that widening the circles of those who think they have a say in this matter will lead to a preferential outcome. For all the clamor and hyperbole this case was still decided in the courts by an impartial jury of Zimmerman’s peers (well, sort of). The way certain people on the television, on the radio, on the web, in print comported themselves could have had little other effect than to pressure the jurors to follow the guidance, not of their own conscience, but of a bloodthirsty lynch mob. Even if they happened to hand down the correct verdict under these circumstances, and Zimmerman got what he “deserved” (whether exoneration or incarceration), they could in no way claim that they served the cause of justice. Neither the mob nor the jurors.

America is a nation full of self-serving big-mouthed know-it-alls, not that this is news or we need a reminder. Unsurprisingly then, the cause of justice was the last thing on these peoples’ minds. I place most of the blame on Trayvon’s (most vocal) sympathizers as it looks like Zimmerman’s were mostly reacting to the trend of busy-bodies, community organizers, and race-baiters who ran with this non-story to further an agenda: gun control, person control, race control, but not self-control.

But guess what? The real haters lost. So it was all one big distraction. A waste of everyone’s time. It was fascinating and all, but can we talk about something important (in its own right) now?

Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , , , , , , , ,

[Editor’s Note: I had an extremely enlightening dialogue with Dr Delacroix in October of 2011 over the various merits and pitfalls of American imperialism. The dialogue was so interesting that I thought I’d break it up into installments – but still keep it in the exact order that it appeared – over the next little while. I hope you find it as informative as I have, and don’t hesitate to throw your own two cents into the ring, either]

Well Done Mr Obama!

I don’t argue with success. President Obama initiated and led a successful operation to get rid of another tyrant who also had American blood on his hands. He did it without losing a single American life. Whatever the cost in treasury was small in the broader scheme of things. It was a good investment. I think it’s fine to borrow a little money to deal with a rabid dog, however small the dog. Incidentally, my guess would be that the cost was less than 1/1000 of 1% of GDP. Want to bet?

I wonder what Libertarian pacifists have to say about the whole thing. I am going to ask them. One of the things they will probably argue (just guessing) is that there are many rabid dogs in the world, too many for us to deal with. Yes, I don’t mind borrowing money to deter all of them if need be. Tranquility is priceless.

There are several benefits to the Libyan/NATO victory for this country. (That’s Libyan blood and courage and NATO arms, including our own.)

First, rogues and political murderers everywhere are given a chance to suppose that if you kill Americans, we will get you afterwards, even if it takes twenty years.

Two, Arabs and oppressed people everywhere are figuring that we mean it when we say we like democracy for everyone. We did not always mean it. We do now that communism look like an antique instead of a superpower with the largest army and the most tanks in the world.

Three, this Obama international victory will cost him dearly in the next election. A fraction – I don’t know how large – of the people who voted for him the first time around oppose all American military interventions. For years, they have explicitly preferred a native butcher to an American liberator. Given how tight the election is likely to be, his victory in Libya might be the cause of President Obama’s fall.

If I were he, I would consider resigning this morning, like leaving the ocean after a really good wave.

The Zimmerman Verdict, Racism and Trial by Jury

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

First of all, I have to admit up front that I had not been following the Zimmerman trial at all until the Not Guilty verdict flooded my Twitter feed and Facebook page. The case was just too common, too parochial and had attracted the type of Americans who normally don’t read the more cerebral musings found on this blog (if you get my drift).

I knew it was racially-charged, and that it was taking place in the South, but other than that I had really been in the dark about the relevant details. Nevertheless, you’re gonna get my two cents.

Here are the details that I have found relevant. Some of them may not, at first glance, seem relevant because they don’t even pertain to the Zimmerman-Martin case at all, but stay with me:

  1. George Zimmerman identifies as a Hispanic, not a white person, and is a registered, tried-and-true member of the Democratic Party. I bring this up first and foremost because race in this country has become an odd thing, to say the least. Perhaps it always has been. See Dr Delacroix’s ethnographic musings on race in America here for more on race in the US.
  2. In Jacksonville (also in Florida), a black woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a judge (not a jury) for firing warning shots at her estranged (and black) husband. It is unclear if the woman had a prior criminal record.* She was seeking a restraining order against the man and her defense team used the same “Stand Your Ground” laws used by Zimmerman’s team.** The trial was taking place at the same time as the Zimmerman one.
  3. In Miller Place, an affluent, predominantly white hamlet of Long Island in New York City, a black man was convicted by a jury of killing an unarmed white teenager who showed up at the black man’s house in the early hours of the morning and was threatening to assault the man’s son. The white teenager, now dead, had been friends with the black man’s teenage son.

All three of the verdicts were handed down over the weekend. I take away a couple of things about American society from these three cases. Firstly, the only white person involved in any of these cases directly was an unarmed teenager who got shot in the face. Secondly, America still has a long way to go before racism becomes more irrelevant than relevant. Jim Crow ended in the late 1960s, but its legacy of state-sponsored racism lives on in a number of ways that I don’t want to list here (feel free to do so in the ‘comments’ section).

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, I think that, were the woman from Jacksonville to have received a trial by jury (and it is still unclear to me why she did not get this constitutional right), she would have been found Not Guilty. Given this speculation, and given the large amount of ignorance about each of these cases on my part, I still have to conclude that the juries made the right decision.

Tocqueville once wrote about the unique trial by jury system found in the United States and argued that it was the jury itself which guaranteed liberty and freedom in the United States. Were this unique system ever to be removed from the legal system, Tocqueville mused, it would signify the beginning of the end of the American experiment in self-government. The right to be judged by one’s peers, instead of by a member of the court, is a right too few Americans appreciate enough. The trial by jury is not perfect, not by a long shot, but it is also no accident that liberty, tranquility and prosperity reign prominently in the few societies where it has been implemented.

*[Update: the woman had no prior criminal record]

**[Update: the Zimmerman team did not use the “Stand Your Ground” law of Florida]

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links
  1. The Origins of War in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I didn’t agree with everything in this very long piece, but it’s definitely worth your time.
  2. Confronting Anti-Black Racism in the Arab World. The logic behind this piece is atrocious, but at least the problem is beginning to be acknowledged.
  3. Science Debunks Date Rape Epidemic, Cites Binge Drinking Instead.
  4. Photos of Ramadan in 2013. From the Atlantic.
  5. China needs a new ‘national story’ because playing the victim card gets old real fast. Especially in foreign affairs.

From the Comments: Non-Interventionism Versus Isolationism

Brandon Christensen History , , , ,

Does isolationism really mean “peace at all costs” as the title implies? Even though isolationism was the term applied to the late Sen. Robert Taft, whose run for President in 1952 marked the end of the Old Right “isolationist” movement, the term is now so ambiguous and misleading as to be useless. Non-interventionism, as advocated by Ron Paul, is a much better term. It means strong defense and retaliation in response to genuine threats while staying out of disputes that pose no such direct threats. It also means free trade with all except those with whom we are at war.

The alternative is continued meddling all over the globe. Surely it’s clear to all by now where that path leads — making new enemies who further erode our security, bankruptcy, and a police state at home. And yes, incentives for Europeans and others to rely on Uncle Sam rather than standing up for themselves.

This comes from Dr Gibson (see his archives here) and is in response to this piece by Dr Delacroix. From July of 2012.

Would A Libertarian Military Be More Lethal?

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Politics , ,

This is the question that military attorney David French asks and answers over at National Review:

I’m noticing military libertarianism increasing, not decreasing, among the more politically aware and engaged officers and enlisted […]

Frustration with bureaucracy and deep skepticism of nation-building and foreign entanglements should not be confused with weakness or wishful thinking […] Military libertarians tend to know how savage our enemy is. Moreover, they have no hesitancy to use overwhelming force in defense of the nation. After all, national defense is a core function of government even in a more libertarian state. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, thoughtful military libertarians tend to advocate something we haven’t really tried in our more than decade-long fight against Islamic jihad — the relatively brief application of truly overwhelming destructive force against identified enemies.

That’s why I wonder if a libertarian military might be more lethal, even on smaller budgets. A trimmed-down bureaucracy, an increased emphasis on the destructive rather than nation-building capabilities of the force under arms, and doctrines designed to inflict maximum (non-nuclear) destruction on enemy forces rather than transforming and democratizing communities — all of this could add up to a more lethal (yet smaller) military.

Indeed. What do you think? I know I’ve made this argument plenty of times before, and it has basically been the standard minarchist line on foreign policy since the Enlightenment, yet somehow this seems to be a new concept for not only libertarians but others as well?

I don’t get it. How have we not been able to communicate this idea more effectively over the years?

I understand that rent seeking plays an important role in our failure, as does the fact that our arguments must compete with demagogues, but I don’t fully see why the libertarian foreign policy argument isn’t more understandable.

One thing that French forgets to mention is that the threat of facing an American military that no longer cares about winning the hearts and minds of its enemies will also contribute to a decline in wars. The inability to connect this implication – that of a more peaceful world – with a leaner, meaner American military force also baffles me.

Here is the relevant reddit thread on the link in question.

Update: Over the next month or so, I’m going to disaggregate a dialogue about foreign policy that I had with Dr Delacroix in 2011. It is different from the earlier dialogue on foreign policy that we held.

Congratulations to Hank!

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History , , , ,

Hey readers,

I’m proud to announce that Hank’s recent work on some history of political thought earned the accolades of FEE, the US’s oldest libertarian-leaning think tank, by taking the runner’s up spot in an essay competition that they hold every month. From Karl Borden, a professor of finance at the University of Nebraska:

This month brought us a number of blogs worthy of consideration. Particularly of note and honorable mention were two runner-up entries:  Henry Moore, commenting on Ross Emmett’s  article “What’s Right About Malthus,” first infers two themes embedded in Emmett’s commentary: that great theorists “illuminate the path” and that “human institutions can mitigate human (nature).” Moore then extends Emmett’s observations concerning “what’s right” about Malthus to salvage portions of both Herbert Spencer’s and  Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s thinking. Moore’s blog effectively reminds us that just because they didn’t get it all right doesn’t mean they got it all wrong.

Indeed. Absolutely fantastic work Hank. For those keeping track, Notes On Liberty also won last month’s competition (making us two for two in the competition), so as an editor here I am especially proud of Hank’s work. I just hope he continues to stick around and write for us!

You can find the winning piece here. There was another runner up as well, and you can find that piece here. Be sure to check out Hank’s work at NOL here. He has his own blog, too.

Subsidy and accreditation

Rick Weber Current Events, Economics , , , ,

I’m working on a paper on subsidy and accreditation of post-secondary schooling and the Chronicle of Higher Ed, conveniently, posted an article on the City College of San Francisco’s upcoming loss of accreditation. This article highlights a few key thoughts from my paper. But let me start with a general statement of my argument, and the key insight driving that argument.

In my paper (Accreditation: Introspection Turned to Incapacitation), I argue that call for college subsidies overlook important costs that reduce the educational effectiveness of those subsidies. This is because public discourse confuses the distinct concepts of “education” and “schooling”. A school is an organization with certain features that we hope will advance the education of students. Education is a nebulous concept, a sort of general intellectual improvement and growth, that is inherently unmeasurable and comes from many sources besides schooling. For this reason, I refuse to use the term “higher education”, instead opting for “post secondary schooling” (PSS).

Accreditation of some form or another is inescapable as long as there is subsidy. A subsidy for schools requires a definition of what a school is, and the voluntary accreditation system that already existed in the U.S. was designed to do just that. The original accreditation agencies (now the Big 6 regional accreditors) arose to define what exactly PSS was, how it related to secondary schooling, and set general guidelines defining what sort of schools could be accredited members of these organizations. This created some standardization as well as minimal quality assurances that helped students to understand what to expect from these schools. This standardization and quality assurance prompted the commissioner of education to leave eligibility for federal aid up to the Big 6 when the second GI Bill was instituted in 1952. This was considered necessary when the first GI Bill (of 1944) lead to a proliferation of low quality schools intent on profiting from the sudden availability of free money.

The current accreditation standards set requirements such as including certain types of courses in the curriculum, academic standards (to be evaluated by the institution in question!), and availability of certain resources to students (such as a professionally staffed library). For the most part, there is a focus on inputs rather than outputs. And as the CCSF incident makes clear, “institutions must meet standards in areas that include financial solvency, and that student achievement alone is not a sufficient means of retaining accreditation.” It’s rare for a school to lose accreditation, but when it happens it’s usually for financial reasons rather than quality or standards. Obviously this leads schools to be more conservative and less entrepreneurial than they might otherwise have been. Schools can only change as the accrediting standards change. That is, innovation must beat the system level for any schools intent on maintaining access to subsidies that make up around half of the industry.

There’s a lot to talk about here so I’ll leave the rest for another post.

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , , , , , , ,
  1. The Egyptian Coup and Political Islam: Daniel Larison takes neoconservative David Brooks to task for supporting the coup and explains why the coup will only empower Islamism. Highly recommended.
  2. In which countries is ‘crude libertarianism’ most and least true? Tyler Cowen dared to ask the question, but it is his ‘comments’ section (which I am extremely jealous of) that is truly worth reading through. Grab a cup of coffee.
  3. This is why I love Murray Rothbard.
  4. Lies, Slander and Corey Robin. Philosopher Kevin Vallier explains, in depth, the Leftist penchant for dishonesty. Imagine if an associate professor (a young professor without tenure) with a libertarian or a conservative bent wrote something about Rawls or Keynes that was as fact-free and fallacious as the piece Robin wrote about Hayek. Don’t condemn. Don’t get angry. Just imagine.
  5. I’ve been listening to a lot of Sonic Youth lately (you can Google ’em yourself!).

Another Housing Bubble?

Warren Gibson Current Events, Economics, Liberty , , , , ,

Last year I wandered down the street to an open house for sale. Even though I announced myself as a looky-loo, the agent welcomed me. We sat around talking and eating cookies for an hour; no prospects showed up.

It was a nice day today and I decided to walk to another open house thinking I’d again look around and chat with the agent. Hardly – the place was mobbed! It looks great in this picture but the reality is it’s stuck way up on a hill with a steep driveway and no garage. It’s 80 years old and although it’s been fixed up cosmetically it’s nothing to write home about; not in my book anyway. Nevertheless, I’m betting they’ll have multiple offers before this first day on the market is over.

This is the San Francisco Peninsula which is by no means representative of the whole country but I hear that Las Vegas has turned around too, as have tony places in New York. Why? Although I can’t prove it, I believe a good part the gusher of money that the Fed has been printing is now making its way into housing. The stock market has stalled, the bond market is in retreat, gold has plummeted, and that pretty much leaves housing.

So although the basic premise of monetary stimulus is plausible, it just doesn’t work. The new money seems to go careening around the economy in search of the Next Big Thing. Bubbles form and collapse, malinvestments are revealed and the cycle starts anew. What’s different this time is that it’s been such a short time since the collapse of the previous housing bubble to what looks like the start of another.

If these wasteful cycles of boom and bust are to end, the Fed must cease its stimulus programs. But it can’t. When the Fed dropped just a hint last week that it might start “tapering” off its bond-buying (money-printing) program, the bond market panicked. Why should we care about the bond market? For one thing, the average maturity of the federal debt is just a couple of years. Maturing debt must be rolled over into new debt, and if the new debt carries higher interest rate, the total annual interest payment could quickly swell from a “mere” $345 billion for the current fiscal year toward a trillion dollars per year, swamping any efforts to contain spending, like the $80 billion sequester that just took effect. We could end up needing a bailout from China.

The Fed will very likely continue or even accelerate its bond buying, depending on who occupies Bernanke’s seat come January. We should expect continuing cycles of bubbles and busts and the real possibility of some very nasty fiscal consequences.