LIBERTY, JUSTICE,
PROSPERITY FOR ALL
PROSPERITY FOR ALL
ANARCHY DELUXE
What are Our Principles of Liberty?
With the arrival of the Tea Party movement and the growing discontent over big-government, statist solutions to societal and economic problems, people have at least begun to ask the right questions about the proper role of government in society. The problem is that many of these same people took, and still take, the question for granted. When I was what one might term a "conservative," I also took the issue as a given, which was a grave mistake. I assumed that my positions were pro-liberty and the left's views mainly anti-liberty. When I observed the practical results of my opinions, I noticed that mine were generally more correct, but I had nothing with which to compare them except the left's worldview. Many of my assumptions stemmed purely from my team spirit - if my team is team A, then team B must always be bad, even when they make better arguments in certain situations. What I mean by that is as a conservative, I rejected some very real concerns of leftists simply based on the fact that they were leftist, and this was a logical error (though it's a good starting position). It led me into confusion over why the left supports the things it often does. "How can they be so wrong and illogical all the time? Why can't they see my side at all? Are their intentions really that evil?" I used to ponder. It wasn't until I began to scrutinize my own positions that I realized many of my sacrosanct positions were also untenable.
Like many on the conservative side of the aisle, I got a lot of my information from blogs and talk radio, which often skew history and facts, not as much as the left, but still so. The problem for me as an intellectual came when conservatives during the George W. Bush administration began to close their eyes to some very hypocritical behavior. And for what? For a little more power? I will admit that many conservatives rejected his positions, but only some. When Mark Levin - to whom I still love to listen - began to try to solidify the conservative movement with principled positions, I listened. He talked about authors such as Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and even the founders of our nation, and I became intrigued. I began to read their works. I admired his attempt to ground conservatism in an intellectual light with a profound reverence for history and liberty-minded individuals. What I found, though, shook my foundations to the core. Their positions tore many tenets of conservatism to shreds, which meant they broke my positions down as well. My reading and understanding of these truly great authors only led me to other great authors, such as Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Robert Nozick, all of which I had never heard before and were radical advocates for liberty. All of these authors' arguments and reasoning were much more persuasive and morally grounded than anything I could find in conservatism, for they were grounded in economic principles and natural rights.
I will use the recent "Mount Vernon Statement" as an illustration.
Principle 1: "It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal."
Now, everything about this statement sounds legitimate, but there is nothing here that leftists would disagree with. This would better read, "We think our vision of the rule of law should be superior to that of the left's." Considering conservatism's own record of deviating from the rule of law and limited government when power permitted (TARP, expanding the size and scope of government under Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, massive military spending, prescription benefits, etc.), this statement sounds weak. It really amounts to our version of big government versus yours. To a leftist, limited government sounds highly hypocritical and comical when one takes into account social conservatism, which, even the most ardent advocate must admit, is anything but limited. It intrudes into the lives of individual citizens and imposes a moral order on society based on a one-sided vision of what morals should be, which is no different from what the left tries to accomplish with its agenda. It's even difficult to square this position with the Establishment Clause or the founders' positions on religion and governance, which were anything but uniform (Christians, Deists, Atheists, etc.). A more principled position would be to reject moral big government and leave this function in society to its proper place, the family, religion, and culture.
Principle 2: "It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life."
Once again, this statement is about as bland as it can get. No leftist would disagree with it. However, realizing the left's rejection of this principle in practice, I also question the conservative's commitment to it. Is the Patriot Act an example of liberty being the central place? No, it clearly places communal values above those of individual liberty. Was TARP an example of this? No, it placed society's interests above that of the individual business owner's and the taxpayer's. Is social conservatism based on the commitment to individual liberty? No, it's highly intrusive of individual's personal choices. All of these examples undermine the conservative's claim to individual liberty. It would better read, "We support individual liberty most of the time, except when we don't." Also see the War on Drugs. A more principled position would be to regard individual liberty as uncompromisable. There is simply no substitute for liberty.
Principle 3: "It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions."
I will give conservatives credit here. They at least are much more free market than liberals, who mostly reject free markets as something sinister based on greed and profiteering, all highly emotive concepts, for their welfare state couldn't succeed without private entrepreneurship. However, we must test the principle once again. Should we continue to support unsustainable programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and massive military spending? Should we keep the FDA, EPA, the FED, the SEC, or any other government body that interferes with the free market, including the DEA, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies who carry out regulation of the market? Should we continue the War on Drugs, which violates all principles of economics? Should we support farm and steel subsidies which steal from one sector of the economy for the benefit of another more politically connected? Should we support public education which violates consumer freedom? If your answer is "yes" or "but" to all of these questions, then your positions are very weak, to say the least, and not all that different from the liberal's positions. It thus ends up that conservatives mainly support the free market, but only when it's convenient to them. They drop the principle in a heartbeat for one taste of political power or to force social conservatism on society, all justified by some arbitrary concepts of communal values. This weakens their positions drastically and opens them up to the left's often correct criticism of hypocrisy. It is impossible to salvage the left's views on the free market, so there's no need to go into that. A more principled position here would be keeping government out of the free market at all times. Once you accept the principle that government can regulate it sometimes, then it is impossible to defend your position against the leftist who will find ample reasons to regulate it. Whose regulation is more legitimate?
Principle 4: "It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end."
This principle is in direct conflict with and a violation of principles 1 and 3. In order to advance freedom and oppose tyranny around the world, we must necessarily take military action. To accomplish this, we must have a massive military. This means that conservatives do not reject massive government spending and limited government when it comes to the military. Of course, the left finds the same exception in social spending. It's hard to determine which is more legitimate. Second, nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of enforcing world freedom. At most, one could say that the founders were concerned with making America as free as possible, which is a much more consistent view. There is simply no principled way to accomplish this principle, either. Are we obligated to do this only in our own interests or in other people's as well? Why Iraq and not Sudan? Why Afghanistan and not Pakistan? Third, we must necessarily intervene in the free market to accomplish these aims. We are subsidizing a massive war machine at the expense of others' individual businesses through taxes.
Don't get me wrong. If someone attacks us, then, by all means, we have a right to defend ourselves, but that is not what this principle concerns. Second, it's not clear that advancing freedom around the world is in America's interests. It could be the case that advancing capitalism at home is a much worthier product and makes us much safer, which is close to Ron Paul's position. Conservatives attack him for isolationism, but his positions, if taken broadly, simply recognize that wars are a distraction from the real war, stopping the left's advancement towards statism at home. One of the most effective criticism's against neoconservatism is that it will gladly sacrifice individual liberty and small government for a massive military machine. We know this because many of them would take John McCain, a statist, over Ron Paul, a libertarian, any day. Why? Because it seems they don't recognize the battle at home. I am no apologist for Ron Paul, but his position is much more principled in this case. The enemy of freedom is the state, and capitalism is the enemy of war.
Principle 5: "It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith."
I have no argument against such a statement, provided that the government stays out of these affairs. If you accept the proposition that government can regulate these things, then you have to accept it when you lose elections when the left regulates in the opposite direction. A better position would be to keep the government out of these issues. In that way, each of them could be better protected against arbitrary state intervention.
It is not my object to bash conservative positions. I simply want to address some of the things that led me away from conservatism toward libertarianism, which is also far from perfect. In the spirit of the times, I find it highly useful to not only reevaluate our own views of liberty, but also to read what the classical writers had to say about it. If we are serious about the words we use, then it shouldn't hurt us to delve deeper into the issues. If we find contradictions in our own thinking, it shouldn't discourage us. Rather, it should encourage us to find more principled positions and to think.
Like many on the conservative side of the aisle, I got a lot of my information from blogs and talk radio, which often skew history and facts, not as much as the left, but still so. The problem for me as an intellectual came when conservatives during the George W. Bush administration began to close their eyes to some very hypocritical behavior. And for what? For a little more power? I will admit that many conservatives rejected his positions, but only some. When Mark Levin - to whom I still love to listen - began to try to solidify the conservative movement with principled positions, I listened. He talked about authors such as Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and even the founders of our nation, and I became intrigued. I began to read their works. I admired his attempt to ground conservatism in an intellectual light with a profound reverence for history and liberty-minded individuals. What I found, though, shook my foundations to the core. Their positions tore many tenets of conservatism to shreds, which meant they broke my positions down as well. My reading and understanding of these truly great authors only led me to other great authors, such as Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Robert Nozick, all of which I had never heard before and were radical advocates for liberty. All of these authors' arguments and reasoning were much more persuasive and morally grounded than anything I could find in conservatism, for they were grounded in economic principles and natural rights.
I will use the recent "Mount Vernon Statement" as an illustration.
Principle 1: "It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal."
Now, everything about this statement sounds legitimate, but there is nothing here that leftists would disagree with. This would better read, "We think our vision of the rule of law should be superior to that of the left's." Considering conservatism's own record of deviating from the rule of law and limited government when power permitted (TARP, expanding the size and scope of government under Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, massive military spending, prescription benefits, etc.), this statement sounds weak. It really amounts to our version of big government versus yours. To a leftist, limited government sounds highly hypocritical and comical when one takes into account social conservatism, which, even the most ardent advocate must admit, is anything but limited. It intrudes into the lives of individual citizens and imposes a moral order on society based on a one-sided vision of what morals should be, which is no different from what the left tries to accomplish with its agenda. It's even difficult to square this position with the Establishment Clause or the founders' positions on religion and governance, which were anything but uniform (Christians, Deists, Atheists, etc.). A more principled position would be to reject moral big government and leave this function in society to its proper place, the family, religion, and culture.
Principle 2: "It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life."
Once again, this statement is about as bland as it can get. No leftist would disagree with it. However, realizing the left's rejection of this principle in practice, I also question the conservative's commitment to it. Is the Patriot Act an example of liberty being the central place? No, it clearly places communal values above those of individual liberty. Was TARP an example of this? No, it placed society's interests above that of the individual business owner's and the taxpayer's. Is social conservatism based on the commitment to individual liberty? No, it's highly intrusive of individual's personal choices. All of these examples undermine the conservative's claim to individual liberty. It would better read, "We support individual liberty most of the time, except when we don't." Also see the War on Drugs. A more principled position would be to regard individual liberty as uncompromisable. There is simply no substitute for liberty.
Principle 3: "It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions."
I will give conservatives credit here. They at least are much more free market than liberals, who mostly reject free markets as something sinister based on greed and profiteering, all highly emotive concepts, for their welfare state couldn't succeed without private entrepreneurship. However, we must test the principle once again. Should we continue to support unsustainable programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and massive military spending? Should we keep the FDA, EPA, the FED, the SEC, or any other government body that interferes with the free market, including the DEA, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies who carry out regulation of the market? Should we continue the War on Drugs, which violates all principles of economics? Should we support farm and steel subsidies which steal from one sector of the economy for the benefit of another more politically connected? Should we support public education which violates consumer freedom? If your answer is "yes" or "but" to all of these questions, then your positions are very weak, to say the least, and not all that different from the liberal's positions. It thus ends up that conservatives mainly support the free market, but only when it's convenient to them. They drop the principle in a heartbeat for one taste of political power or to force social conservatism on society, all justified by some arbitrary concepts of communal values. This weakens their positions drastically and opens them up to the left's often correct criticism of hypocrisy. It is impossible to salvage the left's views on the free market, so there's no need to go into that. A more principled position here would be keeping government out of the free market at all times. Once you accept the principle that government can regulate it sometimes, then it is impossible to defend your position against the leftist who will find ample reasons to regulate it. Whose regulation is more legitimate?
Principle 4: "It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end."
This principle is in direct conflict with and a violation of principles 1 and 3. In order to advance freedom and oppose tyranny around the world, we must necessarily take military action. To accomplish this, we must have a massive military. This means that conservatives do not reject massive government spending and limited government when it comes to the military. Of course, the left finds the same exception in social spending. It's hard to determine which is more legitimate. Second, nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of enforcing world freedom. At most, one could say that the founders were concerned with making America as free as possible, which is a much more consistent view. There is simply no principled way to accomplish this principle, either. Are we obligated to do this only in our own interests or in other people's as well? Why Iraq and not Sudan? Why Afghanistan and not Pakistan? Third, we must necessarily intervene in the free market to accomplish these aims. We are subsidizing a massive war machine at the expense of others' individual businesses through taxes.
Don't get me wrong. If someone attacks us, then, by all means, we have a right to defend ourselves, but that is not what this principle concerns. Second, it's not clear that advancing freedom around the world is in America's interests. It could be the case that advancing capitalism at home is a much worthier product and makes us much safer, which is close to Ron Paul's position. Conservatives attack him for isolationism, but his positions, if taken broadly, simply recognize that wars are a distraction from the real war, stopping the left's advancement towards statism at home. One of the most effective criticism's against neoconservatism is that it will gladly sacrifice individual liberty and small government for a massive military machine. We know this because many of them would take John McCain, a statist, over Ron Paul, a libertarian, any day. Why? Because it seems they don't recognize the battle at home. I am no apologist for Ron Paul, but his position is much more principled in this case. The enemy of freedom is the state, and capitalism is the enemy of war.
Principle 5: "It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith."
I have no argument against such a statement, provided that the government stays out of these affairs. If you accept the proposition that government can regulate these things, then you have to accept it when you lose elections when the left regulates in the opposite direction. A better position would be to keep the government out of these issues. In that way, each of them could be better protected against arbitrary state intervention.
It is not my object to bash conservative positions. I simply want to address some of the things that led me away from conservatism toward libertarianism, which is also far from perfect. In the spirit of the times, I find it highly useful to not only reevaluate our own views of liberty, but also to read what the classical writers had to say about it. If we are serious about the words we use, then it shouldn't hurt us to delve deeper into the issues. If we find contradictions in our own thinking, it shouldn't discourage us. Rather, it should encourage us to find more principled positions and to think.
"I'm a criminal; my word don't mean dick!"
Aus dem unvergesslichen Film „Things to do in Denver when
you’re dead“ stammt folgender Wortwechsel:
Jimmy 'The Saint' Tosnia: “You gave me your word!”
The Man With The Plan: “I'm a criminal; my word don't mean dick!”
Viele Liberale sind entsetzt über das Vorgehen der Bundesregierung, illegal erworbene Daten zu erwerben und auf diese Weise „staatliche Ansprüche“ gegen „Steuerhinterzieher“ oder gar „Steuerkriminelle“ durchzusetzen. Der Staat breche sein eigenes Versprechen, auch zu „legitimen“ Zwecken ein solches Mittel nicht einzusetzen und verstoße damit gegen die Prinzipien des Rechtsstaats. Das ist wahr, aber nur ein Teil der Wahrheit.
Das Konzept der Steuer an sich als Zwangsabgabe stellen sie nämlich nicht in Frage. Man könne ja schließlich wählen gehen. Was aber, wenn 90 % Steuern erhoben würden? Ein 10-facher Millionär hätte doch dann immer noch „zuviel“, nicht wahr? So jedenfalls geht die Logik des deutschen Pöbels.
Davor sagen sie, sei Gottseidank die Verfassung. Aber was ist damit eigentlich gemeint? Das Grundgesetz ist nichts anderes als ein behaupteter Gesellschaftsvertrag, demzufolge alle Bürger dem Bundestag in einem bestimmten Umfang Vertretungmacht eingeräumt haben. (Vgl. das Wort vom „Volksvertreter“, das gemessen an der Realität schon zynisch klingt.)
Dieser Umfang soll durch die Grundrechte begrenzt sein, hier das auf Eigentum. Aber welcher Mensch würde einem anderen solche Vertretungsmacht einräumen, über die Hälfte der Früchte seiner Arbeit zu verfügen?
„Wer vom Tage nicht zwei Drittel für sich hat, ist ein Sklave, sei er übrigens, wer er wolle: Staatsmann, Kaufmann, Beamter, Gelehrter.“ (Nietzsche)
Und was ist mit denen, die aus guten Gründen überhaupt niemandem solche Vertretungsmacht erteilen würden? Spätestens ihnen gegenüber entpuppt sich die Behauptung, sie hätten sich zu solcher Leistung mittels wirksamer Stellvertetung verpflichtet, als dreiste Lüge, mit der der Staat den Raub an ihrem Eigentum vergeblich zu legitimieren sucht. Dieses Verbrechen wird auch dadurch nicht besser, daß es angeblich nur zum Besten der Opfer begangen wird.
Steuern sind der kriminelle Akt am Ausgangspunkt der aktuellen und traurigen Debatte, und an der fehlenden Einsicht in diese Wahrheit krankt die ganze Argumentation der liberalen „Datenkauf“- Gegner.
Aus unserer Sicht gleichen sie dem, der sich auf das Versprechen eines Kriminellen einlässt, und der sich dann empört, wenn dieses gebrochen wird. Und sie geben dabei eine noch jämmerlichere Figur ab als der arme Gangster Jimmy „the Saint“ im Streit mit seinem ehemaligen Boss.
Jimmy 'The Saint' Tosnia: “You gave me your word!”
The Man With The Plan: “I'm a criminal; my word don't mean dick!”
Viele Liberale sind entsetzt über das Vorgehen der Bundesregierung, illegal erworbene Daten zu erwerben und auf diese Weise „staatliche Ansprüche“ gegen „Steuerhinterzieher“ oder gar „Steuerkriminelle“ durchzusetzen. Der Staat breche sein eigenes Versprechen, auch zu „legitimen“ Zwecken ein solches Mittel nicht einzusetzen und verstoße damit gegen die Prinzipien des Rechtsstaats. Das ist wahr, aber nur ein Teil der Wahrheit.
Das Konzept der Steuer an sich als Zwangsabgabe stellen sie nämlich nicht in Frage. Man könne ja schließlich wählen gehen. Was aber, wenn 90 % Steuern erhoben würden? Ein 10-facher Millionär hätte doch dann immer noch „zuviel“, nicht wahr? So jedenfalls geht die Logik des deutschen Pöbels.
Davor sagen sie, sei Gottseidank die Verfassung. Aber was ist damit eigentlich gemeint? Das Grundgesetz ist nichts anderes als ein behaupteter Gesellschaftsvertrag, demzufolge alle Bürger dem Bundestag in einem bestimmten Umfang Vertretungmacht eingeräumt haben. (Vgl. das Wort vom „Volksvertreter“, das gemessen an der Realität schon zynisch klingt.)
Dieser Umfang soll durch die Grundrechte begrenzt sein, hier das auf Eigentum. Aber welcher Mensch würde einem anderen solche Vertretungsmacht einräumen, über die Hälfte der Früchte seiner Arbeit zu verfügen?
„Wer vom Tage nicht zwei Drittel für sich hat, ist ein Sklave, sei er übrigens, wer er wolle: Staatsmann, Kaufmann, Beamter, Gelehrter.“ (Nietzsche)
Und was ist mit denen, die aus guten Gründen überhaupt niemandem solche Vertretungsmacht erteilen würden? Spätestens ihnen gegenüber entpuppt sich die Behauptung, sie hätten sich zu solcher Leistung mittels wirksamer Stellvertetung verpflichtet, als dreiste Lüge, mit der der Staat den Raub an ihrem Eigentum vergeblich zu legitimieren sucht. Dieses Verbrechen wird auch dadurch nicht besser, daß es angeblich nur zum Besten der Opfer begangen wird.
Steuern sind der kriminelle Akt am Ausgangspunkt der aktuellen und traurigen Debatte, und an der fehlenden Einsicht in diese Wahrheit krankt die ganze Argumentation der liberalen „Datenkauf“- Gegner.
Aus unserer Sicht gleichen sie dem, der sich auf das Versprechen eines Kriminellen einlässt, und der sich dann empört, wenn dieses gebrochen wird. Und sie geben dabei eine noch jämmerlichere Figur ab als der arme Gangster Jimmy „the Saint“ im Streit mit seinem ehemaligen Boss.
Obesity and the Fallacy of the "Common Good" Argument
Somehow we as citizens get used to hearing the word "crisis," and, naturally, we feel that something should be done about whatever it is this time that is causing the next in the long line of so-called crises. However, why is the assumption that government should be the solution? Why are other solutions not sought after? Take John Stossel's recent show on obesity (two clips):
1. Meme Roth tells us why it is in all of our interests to regulate "the obesity epidemic" (codeword for crisis):
2. Nick Gillespie from Reason TV effectively argues for why this is not something government should regulate even if it were a crisis:
As one can see, Meme Roth uses all of the standard demagogic arguments for government action. Our kids are our most precious asset and parents are just too stupid to take care of them. Second, because this is happening in a public sphere, it should be regulated. There are all kinds of problems with such arguments, and Nick Gillespie simply didn't have enough air time to get to the core of the idiocy, although he certainly did a good job of showing the authoritarian nature of her arguments.
Problems:
1) Sure, kids are a precious asset, but they don't belong to a collective or the nation. In other words, they are not a "common good." Each kid has his own set of parents, and only they can and should be the first source of information about the world. There is simply no justification, especially when it comes to diet, for the government to raise kids in place of the parents. Government has enough problems keeping its own house in order. Why on earth should we trust it to take care of kids?
2) Like most statist arguments, the beginning and end of the argument goes something like this: "You're an idiot, and only I know what's best for you." Put simply, it takes a massive amount of arrogance for someone in a bureaucratic position to believe that he or she has all of the information necessary to decide what is better for other people's children. Meme Roth's whole justification for regulation is that she somehow knows how other people's children should live their lives.
3) The biggest fallacy in this sort of argument concerns the so-called public sphere. First, we don't have any choice over where our kids go to school. Government demands that they be schooled, and if we can't afford a private school, well, we have to send our kids to the nearest rundown, incompetent public school. So, here's the logic: "Because you have no choice about going to school and we sure as hell won't privatize schools, if you go to one of our schools that we choose for you, we get to regulate your kid's life." This translates as: "We tell you where to go and what to do." Government forces us into the public sphere and then tells us that we have to listen to it because, voila, we are in the public sphere. Second, as Nick Gillespie pointed out, if the justification for regulation is the "common good" or "public sphere," then the answer is simple: either remove schools from the public sphere or don't regulate health care.
Common good arguments are always based on these fallacies, and behind them there is usually a common thread. There is always someone who wants to use the force of government to impose his or her authoritarian view of how society should be on the rest of us. As C.S. Lewis said long ago, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Unfortunately for us, it doesn't look like the tyranny of good intentions will be ending anytime soon.
1. Meme Roth tells us why it is in all of our interests to regulate "the obesity epidemic" (codeword for crisis):
2. Nick Gillespie from Reason TV effectively argues for why this is not something government should regulate even if it were a crisis:
As one can see, Meme Roth uses all of the standard demagogic arguments for government action. Our kids are our most precious asset and parents are just too stupid to take care of them. Second, because this is happening in a public sphere, it should be regulated. There are all kinds of problems with such arguments, and Nick Gillespie simply didn't have enough air time to get to the core of the idiocy, although he certainly did a good job of showing the authoritarian nature of her arguments.
Problems:
1) Sure, kids are a precious asset, but they don't belong to a collective or the nation. In other words, they are not a "common good." Each kid has his own set of parents, and only they can and should be the first source of information about the world. There is simply no justification, especially when it comes to diet, for the government to raise kids in place of the parents. Government has enough problems keeping its own house in order. Why on earth should we trust it to take care of kids?
2) Like most statist arguments, the beginning and end of the argument goes something like this: "You're an idiot, and only I know what's best for you." Put simply, it takes a massive amount of arrogance for someone in a bureaucratic position to believe that he or she has all of the information necessary to decide what is better for other people's children. Meme Roth's whole justification for regulation is that she somehow knows how other people's children should live their lives.
3) The biggest fallacy in this sort of argument concerns the so-called public sphere. First, we don't have any choice over where our kids go to school. Government demands that they be schooled, and if we can't afford a private school, well, we have to send our kids to the nearest rundown, incompetent public school. So, here's the logic: "Because you have no choice about going to school and we sure as hell won't privatize schools, if you go to one of our schools that we choose for you, we get to regulate your kid's life." This translates as: "We tell you where to go and what to do." Government forces us into the public sphere and then tells us that we have to listen to it because, voila, we are in the public sphere. Second, as Nick Gillespie pointed out, if the justification for regulation is the "common good" or "public sphere," then the answer is simple: either remove schools from the public sphere or don't regulate health care.
Common good arguments are always based on these fallacies, and behind them there is usually a common thread. There is always someone who wants to use the force of government to impose his or her authoritarian view of how society should be on the rest of us. As C.S. Lewis said long ago, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Unfortunately for us, it doesn't look like the tyranny of good intentions will be ending anytime soon.
Can 'We the People' be Intellectuals?
How many times have I as a libertarian-minded advocate for individual liberty and free markets been in an argument with liberals, progressives, statists, whatever you choose to name them, and heard that my ideology is too simplistic, too impractical, etc.? Of course, these are the nice versions of what usually comes out of their collective mouths: idiot, fascist, racist, hick, redneck, and the glorious list of intellectual vocabulary marches on and on into pure brilliance. Oftentimes the liberal progressive breaks out into über-intellectual speak as illustrated in the following clip:
I doubt I am the only one to experience such slights from the high-minded, high-browed intellectuals of our day. So, when David Brooks defines the people who attend tea parties as being against the educated class, what he really means is "you're an idiot if you support limited, constitutional government and free markets." He's just trying to state it nicely, perhaps even surreptitiously. After all, we probably don't even understand that he is insulting us, because, well, we're not educated enough.
In fact, he defines being educated as follows:
I doubt I am the only one to experience such slights from the high-minded, high-browed intellectuals of our day. So, when David Brooks defines the people who attend tea parties as being against the educated class, what he really means is "you're an idiot if you support limited, constitutional government and free markets." He's just trying to state it nicely, perhaps even surreptitiously. After all, we probably don't even understand that he is insulting us, because, well, we're not educated enough.
In fact, he defines being educated as follows:
The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.
So, if you disagree with the supreme intellectual that David Brooks so obviously is, automatically you are not educated. That means that people such as the founding fathers, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and all those who stood against tyranny were all uneducated. Why? Because they weren't moderate enough for David Brooks's bleeding soul. Imagine if the founding fathers had been moderate. We wouldn't have even had our limited experience with liberty and capitalism.
David Brooks seems to be on the eternal quest for approval and acceptance into a group of people self-defined as intellectuals. As moderate as he thinks he is, even he stands on the outside of this group. What is this group? When one thinks about why academics, journalists, etc. support big government and statist policies, it is no doubt clear: self-interest. If an intellectual accepts free markets and individual liberty, then what role does he or she have to play in society? Where does his prestige come from? One look around college campuses or major media outlets or even government bureaus will be enough to discourage the free in mind and prove this point. There might as well be a sign hanging over college campuses, "No Free Markets or Free Minds Allowed." On the other hand, if an intellectual supports state solutions, people listen to him. His influence grows and grows. He receives research grants, job opportunities with the government, government contracts, and, God forbid, he even becomes a politician. If he chooses to recant his positions, his influence falls in direct proportion. One of the greatest examples of this is John Stossel, who won 19 Emmy's while taking up pro-regulation stances but suddenly became the bane of journalism when he figured out that free markets and competition take care of these problems much more efficiently and justly:
Flight 253 Terrorist Fail More Proof Big Government Doesn't Work
One would have thought historical experience had made it crystal clear that free markets are superior to government planning. However, the last two presidents, a Republican, George Bush, and a Democrat, Barack Obama, have both massively expanded the size of government more than any president preceding them. In response to 9/11, Bush introduced a massive new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, to help combat terrorism. Both Obama and Bush intervened in the free market with bailouts, new burdensome regulations (as if regulation didn't help cause the current crisis), and stimulus packages that have failed beyond a reasonable doubt. Why have they failed? For the same reason government planning has failed everywhere else it has been tried. There is no one person or bureaucracy that can predict all the billions and billions of both rational and irrational decisions within in a free market or society every day. And that is exactly what would have to happen in order to regulate the system at all. As far as I know, there has been no such human yet, well, save Al Gore, the omniscient demigod (insert sarcasm).
The most frustrating thing for free market libertarians is that neither liberals nor conservatives seem to understand that they advocate the same exact thing, big government. Of course, the two sides differ in their approaches. Liberals refuse to trust individuals with their private property and wealth. Consequently, they burden society with more and more planning and regulation, all of which fails and hampers the economy. Conservatives call liberals socialists for their destructive and outrageously expensive planning. Conservatives, on the other hand, push for the growth of intelligence organizations and the military and seem to have no problem with a sort of moral big government. Liberals blast conservatives for this and call them fascists. So, who's right and who's wrong? Perhaps, they are both right. The point is that neither liberals nor conservatives have any problem with big government. They just disagree over what kind.
My question for my conservative brethren is do you support the free market and individual liberty or not? The Flight 253 failed terrorist attempt proves that big government planning in intelligence and counterterrorism is also a failure, just as much so as economic planning. All the expensive and burdensome bureaucratic planning in the world was inferior to one heroic man taking individual initiative, and this is unsurprising, for it has always been the case that individuals acting in their own self-interest work better than when their lives are planned for them.
I'd like to walk through some of the conservative reactions to the failed plot to demonstrate why increased government is no substitute for free markets and individual liberty.
1. Many sites have been quick to point out that former Gitmo detainees might have been behind the plot. Let's assume this is true. What is the conclusion? Of course, one could blame the ACLU, Obama, and anyone else for this failure. Even if they are to blame, this does not prove that more government would have solved this issue. It only proves that we cannot trust government with all of its self-interested politicians and bureaucrats to keep us safe.
2. Others have pointed to the incompetence and hypocrisy of Napolitano, who claimed that the system did work and then that it didn't within a mere 24-hour span:
Again, what does this hypocrisy prove? That we need a better king? No, it proves that government is too incompetent to stop rogue terrorists. It is not a problem of data; it is a problem of who collects the data.
3. Many have also focused their attention on the fact that the terrorist's father warned the State Department of his son's turn to radical Islam. Yes, this shows that our bureaucrats are incompetent, but is this a surprise?
4. How on God's green earth did the guy get onto a plane with bomb material? I don't think it's necessary to repeat that this was also due to incompetence somewhere down the line.
An argument for the free market:
What if we lived in a world where airlines had to be responsible for their own security? Would this have happened then? My guess would be that the terrorist-wanna-be never would've made it onto the plane, and here's why. Suppose all plane companies were private and responsible for screening passengers on their own. Would it be in the company's interest to allow terrorists on the plane? Imagine the loss in business if American Airlines allowed such a passenger on-board and then the plane exploded, killing hundreds of customers. Without government bailouts the company would go under, as it should, or at least lose enough business to realize that it should improve its security measures. With such a disastrous outcome in mind, airlines would be much more likely to keep the airways secure, and at a much lower cost than government. Now, however, we have the opposite situation. We have expensive, burdensome government intrusion into the market. The worst thing is that it relieves the private airlines of their duty to screen. They are more lax. And as we know, governments are bad at planning anything. So, we have the worst-case scenario, airlines depending on government for our security. As Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
What if we had a terrorist futures market? People could bet on the next attack. Yeah, it sounds implausible, and it mostly is, because governments would never allow it. But look how well it works for weather and politics.
An even crazier idea: allow private citizens to carry firearms on-board.
What conservatives should avoid:
The reflex that a lot of conservatives will have (I used to be one) is that they will want to believe that if we just had Republicans in power, this wouldn't have happened. What I am trying to do is show that this type of thinking is fallacious. As Samizdata points out:
The point is that bureaucracies are bad at exactly what we expect of them, to gather the right intelligence and put it in the right order. So, why not turn to the free market, which works so well in all other facets of our lives and streamlines intelligence in a much more cost-efficient and effective manner? I know it is a difficult concept to imagine. I'm just asking for a little consistency. If you want free markets, smaller government, more individual liberty, and lower taxes, then it is time to end our obsession with big government, even if it's politically advantageous.
The most frustrating thing for free market libertarians is that neither liberals nor conservatives seem to understand that they advocate the same exact thing, big government. Of course, the two sides differ in their approaches. Liberals refuse to trust individuals with their private property and wealth. Consequently, they burden society with more and more planning and regulation, all of which fails and hampers the economy. Conservatives call liberals socialists for their destructive and outrageously expensive planning. Conservatives, on the other hand, push for the growth of intelligence organizations and the military and seem to have no problem with a sort of moral big government. Liberals blast conservatives for this and call them fascists. So, who's right and who's wrong? Perhaps, they are both right. The point is that neither liberals nor conservatives have any problem with big government. They just disagree over what kind.
My question for my conservative brethren is do you support the free market and individual liberty or not? The Flight 253 failed terrorist attempt proves that big government planning in intelligence and counterterrorism is also a failure, just as much so as economic planning. All the expensive and burdensome bureaucratic planning in the world was inferior to one heroic man taking individual initiative, and this is unsurprising, for it has always been the case that individuals acting in their own self-interest work better than when their lives are planned for them.
I'd like to walk through some of the conservative reactions to the failed plot to demonstrate why increased government is no substitute for free markets and individual liberty.
1. Many sites have been quick to point out that former Gitmo detainees might have been behind the plot. Let's assume this is true. What is the conclusion? Of course, one could blame the ACLU, Obama, and anyone else for this failure. Even if they are to blame, this does not prove that more government would have solved this issue. It only proves that we cannot trust government with all of its self-interested politicians and bureaucrats to keep us safe.
2. Others have pointed to the incompetence and hypocrisy of Napolitano, who claimed that the system did work and then that it didn't within a mere 24-hour span:
Again, what does this hypocrisy prove? That we need a better king? No, it proves that government is too incompetent to stop rogue terrorists. It is not a problem of data; it is a problem of who collects the data.
3. Many have also focused their attention on the fact that the terrorist's father warned the State Department of his son's turn to radical Islam. Yes, this shows that our bureaucrats are incompetent, but is this a surprise?
4. How on God's green earth did the guy get onto a plane with bomb material? I don't think it's necessary to repeat that this was also due to incompetence somewhere down the line.
An argument for the free market:
What if we lived in a world where airlines had to be responsible for their own security? Would this have happened then? My guess would be that the terrorist-wanna-be never would've made it onto the plane, and here's why. Suppose all plane companies were private and responsible for screening passengers on their own. Would it be in the company's interest to allow terrorists on the plane? Imagine the loss in business if American Airlines allowed such a passenger on-board and then the plane exploded, killing hundreds of customers. Without government bailouts the company would go under, as it should, or at least lose enough business to realize that it should improve its security measures. With such a disastrous outcome in mind, airlines would be much more likely to keep the airways secure, and at a much lower cost than government. Now, however, we have the opposite situation. We have expensive, burdensome government intrusion into the market. The worst thing is that it relieves the private airlines of their duty to screen. They are more lax. And as we know, governments are bad at planning anything. So, we have the worst-case scenario, airlines depending on government for our security. As Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
What if we had a terrorist futures market? People could bet on the next attack. Yeah, it sounds implausible, and it mostly is, because governments would never allow it. But look how well it works for weather and politics.
An even crazier idea: allow private citizens to carry firearms on-board.
What conservatives should avoid:
The reflex that a lot of conservatives will have (I used to be one) is that they will want to believe that if we just had Republicans in power, this wouldn't have happened. What I am trying to do is show that this type of thinking is fallacious. As Samizdata points out:
This is the same problem that presents itself over and over in bureaucratic decision-making, especially in intelligence/antiterrorism efforts. Muhammad and Malvo's "snipermobile," the modified Chevy Caprice, was spotted and even apprehended at the scene of several shootings before authorities put two and two together. They received tips from thousands of disparate sources. Our intelligence agencies receive a ton of information, chatter, noise, whatever you want to call it, from sources all over the globe. The challenge for police and intelligence agencies is to refine that desultory information into a meaningful conclusion.
The point is that bureaucracies are bad at exactly what we expect of them, to gather the right intelligence and put it in the right order. So, why not turn to the free market, which works so well in all other facets of our lives and streamlines intelligence in a much more cost-efficient and effective manner? I know it is a difficult concept to imagine. I'm just asking for a little consistency. If you want free markets, smaller government, more individual liberty, and lower taxes, then it is time to end our obsession with big government, even if it's politically advantageous.
Pädagogisch wertvolle Weihnachten
Vor der Besinnlichkeit, die ja das Weihnachtsfest ausmachen soll, steht für die meisten jetzt erstmal der Einkaufsstreß. Wir wollen anregen, beides zu verbinden, und sich bei der Wahl der Geschenke von der guten alten Zeit inspirieren zu lassen. Dennis Leary über pädagogisch wertvolles Spielzeug in unserem Sinne:
Twilight Capitalism: American Turns Socialist; Russia, China . . . ?
Growing up in the United States, I was incessantly bombarded by propaganda about the Reds, namely, Russia and China. They were the enemies of freedom, prosperity, progress, and capitalism. We, on the other hand, were the champions of liberty and free markets. Of course, there was more than a little bit of truth behind the propaganda. With mass-murdering leaders such as Stalin and Mao, Russia and China caused the deaths of tens of millions of innocent victims with 5-year plans and Great Leaps Forward, and those numbers are probably way too generous. There is no way to tell how many people truly suffered and continue to suffer under the iron fist of planned economies and politburos. The effects are still being felt today, because once a bureaucrat, truly the lowliest of creatures, puts his greedy hands on the free market, it is impossible to know the ripple effects his regulation will cause. But that was then.
And now? Did we learn at all from the lessons of history? Apparently not. In fact, quite the opposite. America, having just recovered from a quasi Republican president who claimed that the only way to save the free market was by abandoning free market principles and expanding government more than any president since Lyndon Johnson, now has a president who is all too happy to abandon free market principles without any prodding and is on the march towards global warming legislation (cap and trade), universal health care (though an epic fail so far), regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (beyond absurd), and redistributing wealth. In the 2008 Election we witnessed two economically illiterate candidates both bash the free market and constantly label free marketeers as greedy and unethical, all the while failing to mention government's own role in the crisis and acting as if politicians have no self-interests and are models of ethics.
Adding to this world-turned-upside-down are very ironic occurrences in contemporary politics. We have China pursuing its national self-interests, as it should, and America pushing for global utopianism and heavy-handed global regulation in Copenhagen. Widely seen as authoritarian, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, had the following advice for Obama:
Is America on the road to serfdom? Who knows, but I think it is certain that we are no longer on the road to liberty. Dropping our ridiculous admiration for philosopher kings would help, but that's not all. Businesses are the first enemies of free markets. This is not capitalism. This is socialism, corporatism, or whatever you want to call it. It is the ultimate form of selfishness and greed to demand legislation to line your own pockets, and that applies equally to the welfare recipient and the corporate fatcat who leans on his cronies in Washington to abuse taxpayers' dollars. Deregulation would end the plundering of the masses by political hacks and cronies. Until we gain trust again in the free market principles that made America the strongest, freest country on the face of the planet, we will continue to suffer at the hands of demagogues and false leaders.
And now? Did we learn at all from the lessons of history? Apparently not. In fact, quite the opposite. America, having just recovered from a quasi Republican president who claimed that the only way to save the free market was by abandoning free market principles and expanding government more than any president since Lyndon Johnson, now has a president who is all too happy to abandon free market principles without any prodding and is on the march towards global warming legislation (cap and trade), universal health care (though an epic fail so far), regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (beyond absurd), and redistributing wealth. In the 2008 Election we witnessed two economically illiterate candidates both bash the free market and constantly label free marketeers as greedy and unethical, all the while failing to mention government's own role in the crisis and acting as if politicians have no self-interests and are models of ethics.
Adding to this world-turned-upside-down are very ironic occurrences in contemporary politics. We have China pursuing its national self-interests, as it should, and America pushing for global utopianism and heavy-handed global regulation in Copenhagen. Widely seen as authoritarian, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, had the following advice for Obama:
In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute . . . In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated . . . Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of freeenterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility ofbusiness people, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, isbeing eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe thatwe can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto thestate . . . we must assess the real situation and write off all hopeless debtsand ‘bad’ assets. True, this will be an extremely painful andunpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such measures, fearingfor their capitalization, bonuses, or reputation. However, we would‘conserve’ and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balancesheets . . . The time for enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and withoutgloating, assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek intothe future.Unfortunately, the time for enlightenment has come and gone. One would have thought the lessons of planned economies were clear. However, Americans still suffer from the "better king syndrome". Instead of giving liberty back to the people, people often look for a stronger leader who can make things right again. We see it in every election with journalists fawning over the personal characteristics of the supposed leader, as if this one will be different than the last one somehow. We see cults of personality formed around each president. The only problem is that there is no king that can rule the free market, because it is not designed by humans, which is why it works, unlike anything else two humans try to agree upon. Modern intellectuals, blind and arrogant, often assume that they could plan society better than the last generation of intellectually dishonest and corrupt intellectuals. So, inevitably, we end up with a new program to fix the program that was put into place to repair the old program that didn't work. This longing for a leader and the vicious cycle that ensues are depicted brilliantly in Friedrich von Hayek's short cartoon film, "The Road to Serfdom":
Is America on the road to serfdom? Who knows, but I think it is certain that we are no longer on the road to liberty. Dropping our ridiculous admiration for philosopher kings would help, but that's not all. Businesses are the first enemies of free markets. This is not capitalism. This is socialism, corporatism, or whatever you want to call it. It is the ultimate form of selfishness and greed to demand legislation to line your own pockets, and that applies equally to the welfare recipient and the corporate fatcat who leans on his cronies in Washington to abuse taxpayers' dollars. Deregulation would end the plundering of the masses by political hacks and cronies. Until we gain trust again in the free market principles that made America the strongest, freest country on the face of the planet, we will continue to suffer at the hands of demagogues and false leaders.
“How I am strong is to know what makes me weak”
...lautet die erste Zeile aus dem Gospel-Song „I want to be ready“ von Ben Harper (leider gibt es von dem angesprochenen Song kein Video), und es steckt viel wahres darin.
Früher, als die Welt noch einfach war und die Menschen in kleinen und überschaubaren sozialen Einheiten lebten, mag es genügt haben, von guten Absichten erfüllt gewesen zu sein.
In der heutigen komplexen Welt, in der jede Maßnahme Fern-und Nebenwirkungen nach sich zieht, muss zu der guten Absicht das kompetente Urteil hinzutreten; das Gegenteil von Gut ist bekanntlich gut gemeint. Besonders in ökonomischen Dingen verlässt uns die Intuition oft, und noch öfter führt sie uns in die Irre. Hier gilt es, kühl zu bleiben und dem verführerischen Bauchgefühl zu widerstehen, das meist daher rührt, daß wir zunächst nur den unmittelbar einsichtigen Teil des Bildes sehen, und erst nach gründlichem Nachdenken das ganze erfassen, oder vorsichtiger: mehr vom ganzen.
Das ganze Bild zu sehen, ist die eine Lektion, deren Verinnerlichung den Unterschied zwischen einem guten Ökonomen und all den schwadronierenden Scharlatanen ausmacht, die so zahlreich Unternehmen, Universitäten, Nachrichten und Fernsehen bevölkern; und sie ist bitter nötig, denn die Natur hat uns in der ihr eigenen Sparsamkeit mit einem Bauchgefühl für den Dschungel, aber nicht für moderne Volkswirtschaften ausgestattet.
Eine eindrucksvolle Gelegenheit, das Bewußtsein dafür zuschärfen, wie leicht wir unserem Verstand die Gefolgschaft versagen, wenn unsere Intuition gegen ihn spricht, bietet dieses Rätsel.
Is Ron Paul a Conservative Republican or is Opposition to the Fed Something Else?
As a former conservative turned free-market libertarian, I have always been intrigued by Ron Paul's strong advocacy for the free market. After all, conservatives claim to stand on the same principles. So, I found it quite odd during the Republican presidential debates of 2008 when all of the other candidates actually had answers for how they would better "run" the economy. Having lived in Russia, China, and Europe, each candidate's answer scared me to death. Had they somehow missed the memo about how planning economies doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work? Cold War, anybody? The proper answer should have been that no president can or should try to "run" the economy, which Paul thankfully pointed out. It was at that moment, combined with hearing a Republican presidential candidate bash the free market and greed on Wall Street (failing to mention, of course, the government's own role in that) and watching George W. Bush abandon any pretense of a free market ideology, that I had a revelation about the modern Republican Party. Paul was the only true free-market representative on the Republican stage, and other Republicans viewed him as a threat. Fox News certainly treated him like a joke. But why? And what happened to the Republican Party, the natural home of free-market principles?
The answer seems to lie in Paul's foreign policy. I think most conservatives appreciate his free-market policies, especially today when both parties have run us into a planning nightmare of epic proportions. Even while listening to Mark Levin almost every night, coincidentally a quite libertarian economic mind, he often finds time to praise Paul for such staunch support of the free market. What conservatives vehemently disagree with are his constant and very sharp criticisms of US foreign policy, specifically the War on Terror and the Iraq War. When I first encountered Paul, I had a similar reaction. He seemed to be one of those "blame-the-US-first" types. In fact, this is where I find the most disagreement with Paul. In reality, almost every single global diplomatic problem stems from the simple fact that all countries pursue their own self-interests. This means that the US does both good and bad things just like any other country on the planet. To pretend otherwise is mere naivete. Paul, however, differs from the anti-war liberal, who, in my opinion, attributes all world problems to the US and capitalist imperialism, which is quite the oxymoron. He opposes wars for the exact opposite reasons: war is the enemy of capitalism, war is expensive, war hurts the US economy, war depletes resources better spent on defense. The US didn't become the strongest nation on the earth as a result of constant warfare; it became the leader of the free world owing almost entirely to capitalism, its strong free-market economy, its relatively isolated geographical location, and the fact that the rest of the world was constantly embroiled in war after war. So, one has to wonder: Why is there no room in the Republican Party for one who thinks that the strongest possible America is a capitalist America? Are conservatives really willing to sacrifice capitalism and the free market for hawkish RINOs? We've seen what this has done to the GOP. It now finds itself out of power.
It is in that same capitalist spirit that Paul opposes the Federal Reserve System, which he explains in the video below:
A former Fed governor, Frederic Mishkin, calls Paul's legislative proposal to audit the Fed "incredibly dangerous". To whom? Politicians? Bankers? Mishkin goes on to claim that such a move would be very dangerous because it would promote inflation. His justification? Politicians would use the audit to promote their own interests. Now, that gives one moment for pause. Is he talking about the same Fed most of us are thinking about? You know, the Fed that is marred in political corruption or the one that is entirely too dependent or the one that promotes a boom-and-bust economy with its outrageously idiotic monetary policies and Soviet-style planning or the one that has already set us on the road towards Zimbabwe-style inflation? It seems that Mishkin is thinking of the fictious, theoretical Fed. One that is independent of government, run by economic geniuses, and promotes a sound monetary policy. Such thoughts must fit well with his cozy Columbia Professorship. The unfortunate thing, however, is that it fails at each stage of its goals, which the recent run of easy money and the economic crisis that ensued should have made painfully clear. The worst result of all is that "we the people" suffer at the hands of these busybody planners and it seems that neither party is concerned about stopping it. As Tom DiLorenzo at the Mises Institute points out, "So-called 'scientific socialism' may have been the most absurd and destructive idea of the twentieth century, but it is nevertheless the guiding ideology of central banking."
The only remaining question is whether free-market conservatives will join Paul in his quest to bring down the Fed or will they continue to prop up the antiquated system of economic planning?
The answer seems to lie in Paul's foreign policy. I think most conservatives appreciate his free-market policies, especially today when both parties have run us into a planning nightmare of epic proportions. Even while listening to Mark Levin almost every night, coincidentally a quite libertarian economic mind, he often finds time to praise Paul for such staunch support of the free market. What conservatives vehemently disagree with are his constant and very sharp criticisms of US foreign policy, specifically the War on Terror and the Iraq War. When I first encountered Paul, I had a similar reaction. He seemed to be one of those "blame-the-US-first" types. In fact, this is where I find the most disagreement with Paul. In reality, almost every single global diplomatic problem stems from the simple fact that all countries pursue their own self-interests. This means that the US does both good and bad things just like any other country on the planet. To pretend otherwise is mere naivete. Paul, however, differs from the anti-war liberal, who, in my opinion, attributes all world problems to the US and capitalist imperialism, which is quite the oxymoron. He opposes wars for the exact opposite reasons: war is the enemy of capitalism, war is expensive, war hurts the US economy, war depletes resources better spent on defense. The US didn't become the strongest nation on the earth as a result of constant warfare; it became the leader of the free world owing almost entirely to capitalism, its strong free-market economy, its relatively isolated geographical location, and the fact that the rest of the world was constantly embroiled in war after war. So, one has to wonder: Why is there no room in the Republican Party for one who thinks that the strongest possible America is a capitalist America? Are conservatives really willing to sacrifice capitalism and the free market for hawkish RINOs? We've seen what this has done to the GOP. It now finds itself out of power.
It is in that same capitalist spirit that Paul opposes the Federal Reserve System, which he explains in the video below:
A former Fed governor, Frederic Mishkin, calls Paul's legislative proposal to audit the Fed "incredibly dangerous". To whom? Politicians? Bankers? Mishkin goes on to claim that such a move would be very dangerous because it would promote inflation. His justification? Politicians would use the audit to promote their own interests. Now, that gives one moment for pause. Is he talking about the same Fed most of us are thinking about? You know, the Fed that is marred in political corruption or the one that is entirely too dependent or the one that promotes a boom-and-bust economy with its outrageously idiotic monetary policies and Soviet-style planning or the one that has already set us on the road towards Zimbabwe-style inflation? It seems that Mishkin is thinking of the fictious, theoretical Fed. One that is independent of government, run by economic geniuses, and promotes a sound monetary policy. Such thoughts must fit well with his cozy Columbia Professorship. The unfortunate thing, however, is that it fails at each stage of its goals, which the recent run of easy money and the economic crisis that ensued should have made painfully clear. The worst result of all is that "we the people" suffer at the hands of these busybody planners and it seems that neither party is concerned about stopping it. As Tom DiLorenzo at the Mises Institute points out, "So-called 'scientific socialism' may have been the most absurd and destructive idea of the twentieth century, but it is nevertheless the guiding ideology of central banking."
The only remaining question is whether free-market conservatives will join Paul in his quest to bring down the Fed or will they continue to prop up the antiquated system of economic planning?
Swiss Minaret Ban Anti-Libertarian
The WSJ calls the Swiss Minaret ban stupid, but, in my opinion, that doesn't go far enough. The ban is not only stupid; it is anti-libertarian.
It is a commonly known fact that Europe is struggling with its Muslim immigrants, many of whom come from Muslim countries. These Muslim immigrants have incredible difficulties integrating into society. In Germany, Turkish immigrants still don't speak German by the third generation. Many Germans will tell you in private conversations that foreigners refuse to adapt to the European way of life and many Germans associate this refusal with Islam itself. Such expressions of opinion are normally private, because politicians would be crucified by the gods of political correctness in the media. A couple of extreme examples: Britain banned Geerd Wilders, the Dutch politician who has anti-Islamic stances and who is famous for his video against radical Islam "Fitna", from entering the country. Britain also tried to bar Michael Savage, the conservative talk-radio host, from entering the country for supposedly "promoting hate", though the government could not cite specific examples.
Of course, one cannot look at the issue squarely without taking the extreme intolerance of radical Islam into account, either. As mentioned above, many Muslim immigrants simply do not integrate. They often turn to radical ideologies inside their communities. Europe has seen their intolerance on many occasions: the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the fatwah on Salman Rushdie, the outrage at the Muhammad cartoon. As Foreign Affairs points out, jihadist networks are spreading all across Europe among the immigrant populations. So, when Swiss voters voted to approve the ban, it is certain that they had the same fears as many across Europe; that the spread of radical Islam must be curtailed.
However, this is a catch 22 for Europe and the world. If the government allows the spread of radical Islam, it risks more terrorist attacks and more problems with integration. It is relatively well known that Europe is an aging continent and needs immigrant workers just to stay afloat, especially when one considers its massive welfare states. On the other hand, if Europe bans minarets and religious expression, it risks succumbing to the same intolerance it is trying to forbid. In short, it will abandon its free society in the interest of preserving some quasi collective European identity. As the WSJ article points out, this will only harden and create more ofthe very radical ideologies Europe is trying to prevent fromspreading.
The thing people often forget about government power is that once a government has the power to grant rights, it has the power to take them away. Many people advocate positions that seem logical and advantageous to them at the moment in the name of security or some ill-defined "greater good", even if they would normally oppose it, especially if it were aimed against themselves. But later these same people come to regret having given the state the power to do something it never should have had the power to do when that very same government turns around and uses the exact same policy against them. A good example of this is that the states in the United States have traditionally regulated marriage under the Tenth Amendment. The justification for such regulation is always the same, protecting the sanctity of marriage and promoting stronger families. However, nowadays every state is struggling with the issue of gay marriage, something probably unforeseen by those who originally advocated for state regulation of marriage. What people fail to realize is that if the government had never regulated marriage in the first place, this would not even be an issue. People would be free to come to their own moral conclusions and draw up private agreements. It would also protect the positions of Churches now under threat from regulation, the sanctity of marriage, and the promotion of families. Now, though, the very rights being promoted are under threat from the same government. Irony much? No, just a typical outcome of politics.
So, when we look at the ban on the minaret, the same logic applies. If we ban one religious practice, - this is not about architectural style, though I would oppose that regulation, too - the government will then have the power and precedent to ban other religious practices it sees as a threat to the "greater good", which is always the justification of the tyrant. In such a way, the government and people have accepted religious intolerance as a right, which is completely antithetical to a free society and the free expression of religion. Europeans should realize that this is a very slippery slope. In the future, it could be used to ban all expressions of religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. It could also be used to ban any other ideologies deemed a threat to the mythical common welfare of the state.
This is once again an issue of group thinking. If societies would finally learn to focus on individual rights, this would be such a simpler issue. Every which way one turns his head today, politicians and interests groups are casting some burning topic as a collective issue, which almost inevitably undermines our individual rights. Until we stop thinking in such a way, these hot button issues will always threaten our liberties. And the worst thing of all is that none of this does anything to combat the issue of radical Islam. If anything, it will only increase the paranoia of those radical members and conspiracy theorists of society, and everyone knows that forbidden fruit is the sweetest.
If you've never seen the video below, it is worth a watch. It is a video demonstrating the battle of our times, collectivism versus individualism:
It is a commonly known fact that Europe is struggling with its Muslim immigrants, many of whom come from Muslim countries. These Muslim immigrants have incredible difficulties integrating into society. In Germany, Turkish immigrants still don't speak German by the third generation. Many Germans will tell you in private conversations that foreigners refuse to adapt to the European way of life and many Germans associate this refusal with Islam itself. Such expressions of opinion are normally private, because politicians would be crucified by the gods of political correctness in the media. A couple of extreme examples: Britain banned Geerd Wilders, the Dutch politician who has anti-Islamic stances and who is famous for his video against radical Islam "Fitna", from entering the country. Britain also tried to bar Michael Savage, the conservative talk-radio host, from entering the country for supposedly "promoting hate", though the government could not cite specific examples.
Of course, one cannot look at the issue squarely without taking the extreme intolerance of radical Islam into account, either. As mentioned above, many Muslim immigrants simply do not integrate. They often turn to radical ideologies inside their communities. Europe has seen their intolerance on many occasions: the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the fatwah on Salman Rushdie, the outrage at the Muhammad cartoon. As Foreign Affairs points out, jihadist networks are spreading all across Europe among the immigrant populations. So, when Swiss voters voted to approve the ban, it is certain that they had the same fears as many across Europe; that the spread of radical Islam must be curtailed.
However, this is a catch 22 for Europe and the world. If the government allows the spread of radical Islam, it risks more terrorist attacks and more problems with integration. It is relatively well known that Europe is an aging continent and needs immigrant workers just to stay afloat, especially when one considers its massive welfare states. On the other hand, if Europe bans minarets and religious expression, it risks succumbing to the same intolerance it is trying to forbid. In short, it will abandon its free society in the interest of preserving some quasi collective European identity. As the WSJ article points out, this will only harden and create more ofthe very radical ideologies Europe is trying to prevent fromspreading.
The thing people often forget about government power is that once a government has the power to grant rights, it has the power to take them away. Many people advocate positions that seem logical and advantageous to them at the moment in the name of security or some ill-defined "greater good", even if they would normally oppose it, especially if it were aimed against themselves. But later these same people come to regret having given the state the power to do something it never should have had the power to do when that very same government turns around and uses the exact same policy against them. A good example of this is that the states in the United States have traditionally regulated marriage under the Tenth Amendment. The justification for such regulation is always the same, protecting the sanctity of marriage and promoting stronger families. However, nowadays every state is struggling with the issue of gay marriage, something probably unforeseen by those who originally advocated for state regulation of marriage. What people fail to realize is that if the government had never regulated marriage in the first place, this would not even be an issue. People would be free to come to their own moral conclusions and draw up private agreements. It would also protect the positions of Churches now under threat from regulation, the sanctity of marriage, and the promotion of families. Now, though, the very rights being promoted are under threat from the same government. Irony much? No, just a typical outcome of politics.
So, when we look at the ban on the minaret, the same logic applies. If we ban one religious practice, - this is not about architectural style, though I would oppose that regulation, too - the government will then have the power and precedent to ban other religious practices it sees as a threat to the "greater good", which is always the justification of the tyrant. In such a way, the government and people have accepted religious intolerance as a right, which is completely antithetical to a free society and the free expression of religion. Europeans should realize that this is a very slippery slope. In the future, it could be used to ban all expressions of religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. It could also be used to ban any other ideologies deemed a threat to the mythical common welfare of the state.
This is once again an issue of group thinking. If societies would finally learn to focus on individual rights, this would be such a simpler issue. Every which way one turns his head today, politicians and interests groups are casting some burning topic as a collective issue, which almost inevitably undermines our individual rights. Until we stop thinking in such a way, these hot button issues will always threaten our liberties. And the worst thing of all is that none of this does anything to combat the issue of radical Islam. If anything, it will only increase the paranoia of those radical members and conspiracy theorists of society, and everyone knows that forbidden fruit is the sweetest.
If you've never seen the video below, it is worth a watch. It is a video demonstrating the battle of our times, collectivism versus individualism:
